0

Curious to get feedback on a server selection. the system will run mysql server, with roughly 80 machines accessing the server at all times (except night)

> PowerEdge R610 Chassis for Up to Six 2.5-Inch Hard Drives
> Primary Processor Intel® Xeon® E5620 2.4Ghz, 12M Cache,Turbo, HT, 1066MHz Max Mem
> Second Processor Intel® Xeon® E5620 2.4Ghz, 12M Cache,Turbo, HT, 1066MHz Max Mem
> 24GB Memory (6x4GB), 1333MHz Dual Ranked LV RDIMMs for 2 Procs, Optimized 
> Operating System Windows Server® 2008 R2
> RAID 1/RAID 10 for H700 or PERC 6/i Controllers
> PERC H700 Integrated RAID Controller, 512MB Cache
> 73GB 15K RPM Serial-Attach SCSI 6Gbps 2.5in Hotplug Hard Drive x 2 RAID 1
> 146GB 15K RPM Serial-Attach SCSI 6Gbps 2.5in Hotplug Hard Drive x 4 RAID 10
> Energy Smart Power Supply, Redundant, 502W
> Broadcom 5709 Dual Port 1GbE NIC w/TOE iSCSI, PCIe-4

What do you guys think. Should I add / remove anything. I want to have a redundant, reliable, well optimized system.

thanks

Jeff
  • 1,089
  • 5
  • 26
  • 46

3 Answers3

2

Without knowing your MySQL usage pattern, I'd say that it's a good choice. When choosing a server for MySQL, it's very important to choose a RAID Controller with battery and a good cache as it will help avoid some data corruption scenarios in case of a bad crash. Here are some good slides about HW Optimizations for MySQL.

Hope this helps!

Community
  • 1
Marco Ramos
  • 3,120
  • 23
  • 25
  • hi, thanks for the feedback. I have the raid controller with the 512MB cache/ i beleive that is battery cache (i'll have to verify upon ordering). the usage is high. it is a POS database - customer information, crm, inventory and so on. it his hit i would estimate somewhere in the area of 5k + times aday – Jeff Apr 20 '11 at 16:03
  • @Jeff: if you've the budget for it, i'd consider at least two servers to provide redundancy. – Marco Ramos Apr 20 '11 at 16:05
  • Don't have the budget for that, wish I did but dont have that option – Jeff Apr 20 '11 at 16:15
  • the one im looking at now is runnings 6grand +, and we just got 2 other servers for 2.5 and 4.2 not to long ago. running into the end of the budget – Jeff Apr 20 '11 at 16:15
  • how difficult is it to setup the replication between the two servers. the owner has a bit of an interest in it - but i have never configured something like this before and am unsure of the process – Jeff Apr 21 '11 at 19:10
2

If all of your 80 clients going to actively read/write database and you expect grow in future, I would consider increase RAM up to 32GB to be able have large InnoDB cache. Bigger cache - less disk usage. 16GB sounds too small for modern prod db server - memory is relatively cheap.

Ruslan
  • 349
  • 1
  • 4
2

I'm no fan of the E5606, E5607 and E5609 as they don't have HyperThreading or TurboBoost - it's really worth going the extra yard for the E5620's, basically you're doubling your capability for less than double the price. In fact I'd rather have one E5620's than two E5606's if that helps.

You're also losing a lot of performance by going for 4 x 4GB, those CPUs are triple channel, not double, this means you should load them out in threes. For this scenario I'd their go for 6 x 4GB (3 modules per CPU) or 6/12 x 2GB (3 or 6 modules per CPU), going with the old 2/4/8/16 method means you're losing a third of your memory performance ok.

You don't mention the quantity of disks you've bought but I imagine you've gone for a R1 pair of the 73GB's for OS and four 146GB's in a R10 - if that's the case then this will be fine. Let me know if it's anything else.

Other than those things I'm sure it'll be fine, don't forget about the rails and bezel too :)

Chopper3
  • 101,299
  • 9
  • 108
  • 239
  • thanks , i have the rails and bezel added just didnt list them. yes , the 73gbs are system raid1. 4 145gb raid10 for data/trans logs. i will check into the processor and memory upgrades – Jeff Apr 20 '11 at 16:25
  • 1
    24GB Memory (6x4GB), 1333MHz Dual Ranked LV RDIMMs for 2 Procs, Optimized – Jeff Apr 20 '11 at 16:30
  • That is low end. If that is for databases, this server would need 20+ discs in most scenarios to even start scratching on the cpu side. – TomTom Apr 20 '11 at 16:31
  • 1
    Intel® Xeon® E5620 2.4Ghz, 12M Cache,Turbo, HT, 1066MHz Max Mem X 2 – Jeff Apr 20 '11 at 16:31
  • tomtom what do you mean? – Jeff Apr 20 '11 at 16:32
  • Basically just 4 disks in a R10 is fine for an SQL box but if money/space etc. wasn't an issue then you'd probably go for more disks - just to get the spindle-count up and reduce latency. But presumably money/space etc. is an issue in which case you'll be just fine, save up your money and maybe add more disks later :) – Chopper3 Apr 20 '11 at 17:02
  • @Chopper3 well - the chassis only support up to 6 disks. im at 6.5k now - i dont know how much higher i would be able to go – Jeff Apr 20 '11 at 17:08
  • I guess I mean using an external DAS box or similar - to be honest I know HP kit much better than Dell but I'm sure they do something similar. – Chopper3 Apr 20 '11 at 17:10
  • O i c what you mean - sorry my fault. I'll check into it at a later time - but i know i can't currently go much higher – Jeff Apr 20 '11 at 17:14