Advice on sizing a server for 25 users - dental office

[MichaelD]

Thanks for posting those graphs, RazorsEdge. They are a small, but helpful indication of what you've got going on, load-wise at your office. While it's true that any new real server you buy is overkill for your needs, truth of the matter is that you NEED A REAL server, not a PC (even though it's been doing the job, this is critical data we're dealing with). You NEED redundant PSUs, memory segregated into banks, disk storage with failure tolerance and a hot spare...and a real UPS. And let's not forget about the service contract. Yeah, they are expensive but they are tax-deductible as a business expense. HDs are the most likely component to fail. I'd buy a spare or two up front just to have on hand.

There have been many great suggestions in this thread. Pick either Dell or HP and talk to a sales rep and tell him/her what you need. Good luck.

 

[RazorsEdge]

There have been many great suggestions in this thread. Pick either Dell or HP and talk to a sales rep and tell him/her what you need. Good luck.

Yeah, I talked to Dell's sales rep and the 2 processor quote was what I got, so that's why I turned to you guys, because it just didn't seem right. Believe me, I know we need a real server, that part isn't up for debate. I'm just trying to figure out if a single processor setup would manage our load, as well as what type of disk sub-system to get to deliver what I need around the office. I don't want to have to do this again for a couple of years at least. I just want something stable and fast enough for our needs.

 

[MichaelD]

My opinion here:

Get a server that has a dual-socket MB, but just get one quad-core processor now. You can always add one later. Depending on how the MB is setup (dual channel memory most probably) get at least 8GB of memory. You can add more later. Two drives for RAID1 for the OS. At least 3 drives for RAID5 for your database AND one drive to be configured as a universal hot spare for either array. The more drives you add to that RAID5, the faster it will be (more IO per second). You really don't need anything beyond what I just configured...right now at least.

The main advantage to buying a real server is that a few years from now you can add that second CPU or make a bigger DB array. Don't forget the UPS!

 

[mfenn]

Yeah, I talked to Dell's sales rep and the 2 processor quote was what I got, so that's why I turned to you guys, because it just didn't seem right. Believe me, I know we need a real server, that part isn't up for debate. I'm just trying to figure out if a single processor setup would manage our load, as well as what type of disk sub-system to get to deliver what I need around the office. I don't want to have to do this again for a couple of years at least. I just want something stable and fast enough for our needs.

It really depends on what your purchasing flexibility is like. There is a substantial cost just to "get in the door" on a real server. The incremental cost of going from a 1P box with 8GB of memory and 3 drives to a 2P box with 16GB of memory any 5 drives is really quite small (I'm going to guess 25&#37.

In a large organization it makes sense to overbuy a bit because it can be hard (read takes a long time) to get an incremental upgrade budgeted. Since you're a small business, you might more willing to take the lower up front cost and deal with any upgrades later. It really depends on how you want to do it. If you're going to be depreciating over X years anyway, it honestly probably doesn't matter which way you go.

EDIT: I realize that that's a lame non-answer, but this is really a financial decision instead of a technology one. In this case, your CAPEX and "risk of needing to upgrade" are inversely proportional.

 

[RazorsEdge]

Just to make sure I'm interpreting my data correctly, did my disk peak at about 6 megs/sec? I should be able to get that kind of throughput on just about anything, right? That was the total read/write on the disk with the database

 

[Mark R]

Just to make sure I'm interpreting my data correctly, did my disk peak at about 6 megs/sec? I should be able to get that kind of throughput on just about anything, right? That was the total read/write on the disk with the database

That's right. However, no, not just anything can achieve that. If it was lots of small requests (as is typical for databases) then that can be the limit of what a single drive can achieve - because the drive spends considerable time searching for the data mechanically, which is extremely slow compared to actual data reading/writing.

RAID arrays improve performance because they distribute reads over multiple drives, so each drive performs fewer seeks. Similarly, 10k rpm and 15k rpm drives reduce seek times, because the disks spin faster, so there is less rotational delay, and because the drives are equipped with faster seek mechanisms.

 

[mfenn]

That's right. However, no, not just anything can achieve that. If it was lots of small requests (as is typical for databases) then that can be the limit of what a single drive can achieve - because the drive spends considerable time searching for the data mechanically, which is extremely slow compared to actual data reading/writing.

RAID arrays improve performance because they distribute reads over multiple drives, so each drive performs fewer seeks. Similarly, 10k rpm and 15k rpm drives reduce seek times, because the disks spin faster, so there is less rotational delay, and because the drives are equipped with faster seek mechanisms.

:thumbsup: Yep. Throughput is rarely the issue with databases, the real goal is to lower access times. More RAM helps with this as well, as it lets the DBMS (I'm assuming SQL Server in this case) cache more of the DB in memory. RAID controllers with non-volatile caches help even more, because then even writes can be safely buffered until the disk has a chance to service the request.

 

[RazorsEdge]

:thumbsup: Yep. Throughput is rarely the issue with databases, the real goal is to lower access times. More RAM helps with this as well, as it lets the DBMS (I'm assuming SQL Server in this case) cache more of the DB in memory. RAID controllers with non-volatile caches help even more, because then even writes can be safely buffered until the disk has a chance to service the request.

It is actually a c-tree database, which I understand has it's own limitations and problems. I'm going to spring for 16 gb of RAM, and see what I can configure for the disk subsystem. I think I'm probably locked into the Dell 410 series anyway based on the number of disks involved, and that opens up the dual processor track for a fairly limited additional cost. The single processor 310 only holds 4 drives, and I like the idea of an OS drive mirrored and the database RAID5 with a spare. I appreciate everyone's help and input. who is coming over to help me set it up?

 

[mfenn]

It is actually a c-tree database, which I understand has it's own limitations and problems. I'm going to spring for 16 gb of RAM, and see what I can configure for the disk subsystem. I think I'm probably locked into the Dell 410 series anyway based on the number of disks involved, and that opens up the dual processor track for a fairly limited additional cost. The single processor 310 only holds 4 drives, and I like the idea of an OS drive mirrored and the database RAID5 with a spare. I appreciate everyone's help and input. who is coming over to help me set it up?

Did you mean R510? The R410 can only take 4 drives as well. A RAID1 OS + RAID5 DB requires 5 drives minimum. But yeah, a 1P or 2P R510 with 16GB of ECC memory and the HDD config you specified above sounds good. Even the cheapest E5600 will be more than enough CPU power.

 

[mvbighead]

Even the cheapest E5600 will be more than enough CPU power.

Sorry, but this part is not a good plan from a financial standpoint. If you're going to be spending close to $6k on a server, why throw a 4 core, 1.6GHz CPU in there that'll just do ok when you can throw a 2.4GHz CPU in there for an additional $250.

That's like buying a Cadillac with cloth seats and a hand crank window. If you're going to spend the money for a real server, spend enough to at least get a processor that isn't the cheapest of the cheap.

You have to select something that makes sense for the rest of the hardware you are buying. Even if you don't "need" the power, you are better off with it, and it only costs a fraction more. While I did recommend a hex core earlier, your loads likely won't require anything close... but you should not get the lowest low as it is not a good power/dollar ratio, and should you ever need the power... it's right there without requiring you to go out and spend more money.

No sense buying the second processor now though, as you may not now (or ever) need it.

 

[mfenn]

Sorry, but this part is not a good plan from a financial standpoint. If you're going to be spending close to $6k on a server, why throw a 4 core, 1.6GHz CPU in there that'll just do ok when you can throw a 2.4GHz CPU in there for an additional $250.

That's like buying a Cadillac with cloth seats and a hand crank window. If you're going to spend the money for a real server, spend enough to at least get a processor that isn't the cheapest of the cheap.

You have to select something that makes sense for the rest of the hardware you are buying. Even if you don't "need" the power, you are better off with it, and it only costs a fraction more. While I did recommend a hex core earlier, your loads likely won't require anything close... but you should not get the lowest low as it is not a good power/dollar ratio, and should you ever need the power... it's right there without requiring you to go out and spend more money.

No sense buying the second processor now though, as you may not now (or ever) need it.

I didn't mean that to come off as a recommendation that the OP buy the cheapest one, just that he could indeed do so. Oh, and the second CPU is free right now, so he might as well get it.

OP, one more piece of advice: get the iDRAC! At least the Express, but the Enterprise (full remote console) if you can swing it. Once you've used a server with one, you'll wonder how you got along without it. Actually walking to the server to do a hard reset or to install the OS is for lamers.

 

[mvbighead]

I didn't mean that to come off as a recommendation that the OP buy the cheapest one, just that he could indeed do so. Oh, and the second CPU is free right now, so he might as well get it.

OP, one more piece of advice: get the iDRAC! At least the Express, but the Enterprise (full remote console) if you can swing it. Once you've used a server with one, you'll wonder how you got along without it. Actually walking to the server to do a hard reset or to install the OS is for lamers.

Not sure what you mean by it being free... I looked and I can get $600 back by dropping the second E5620.

Personally, I would go with the E5645. It's 190 more than the 4 core 2.4GHz proc, and has 6 cores and pretty much the same remaining specs across the board. Should do wonderfully at multitasking, and leaving that second socket open leaves room for a future upgrade without having to replace the whole server.

Granted, I strongly doubt he'll need that much power, but an extra 190 bucks on a 5-6k dollar server is easily justifiable.

 

[mfenn]

OK, it looks like the second CPU is only free on certain models. At least on the SMB side, it looks to be within $50 to get two E5620's vs. one E5645. 8 cores spead over two sets of L3 cache and two memory controllers is better than 6 cores on one socket IMHO. Of course, the OP is going through his salesperson anyway, so I suppose any discounts on the web don't really matter.

 

[RazorsEdge]

closed it today, went with a dual E5620 PowerEdege 410 with raid 1 OS of 250 gb and RAID 5 x 3 500GB database, 16 gb of RAM, iDRAC 6 Express, and a PowerVault backup for right around $5k. The 410 can hold 6 drives, so I could always add another drive in the future if we need it. And yeah, the 2nd processor is basically free right now, so I figured why not, might as well do it now and be done. Should be here in about 2 weeks. As always, thanks to everyone for their input and recommendations. It's coming with 10 Optiplex 790 workstations as well, so I have a little bit of work ahead of me getting them all in and running.

Greg

 

[MichaelD]

Congrats on the new server. You really did well! Your configuration looks great; smart move on getting the second CPU now along with 16GB of RAM. You are set for the forseeable future.

 

[imagoon]

closed it today, went with a dual E5620 PowerEdege 410 with raid 1 OS of 250 gb and RAID 5 x 3 500GB database, 16 gb of RAM, iDRAC 6 Express, and a PowerVault backup for right around $5k. The 410 can hold 6 drives, so I could always add another drive in the future if we need it. And yeah, the 2nd processor is basically free right now, so I figured why not, might as well do it now and be done. Should be here in about 2 weeks. As always, thanks to everyone for their input and recommendations. It's coming with 10 Optiplex 790 workstations as well, so I have a little bit of work ahead of me getting them all in and running.

Greg

Not a bad deal, should have sprung for the full though iDRAC.

 

[mfenn]

closed it today, went with a dual E5620 PowerEdege 410 with raid 1 OS of 250 gb and RAID 5 x 3 500GB database, 16 gb of RAM, iDRAC 6 Express, and a PowerVault backup for right around $5k. The 410 can hold 6 drives, so I could always add another drive in the future if we need it. And yeah, the 2nd processor is basically free right now, so I figured why not, might as well do it now and be done. Should be here in about 2 weeks. As always, thanks to everyone for their input and recommendations. It's coming with 10 Optiplex 790 workstations as well, so I have a little bit of work ahead of me getting them all in and running.

Greg

Oooooh, you're talking about the T410, not the R410. I was getting really confused when you were saying that it could take 6 drives. They are pretty close to the same thing, just in a different form factor though.

Anyway, looks good to me. :thumbsup:

 

[lsv]

What size is your current Dentrix database if I may ask?

 

[mvbighead]

Also, did you order that puppy with redundant PSUs?

 

[RazorsEdge]

yeah, redundant psu's were included. And to LSV, the total data folder is around 45 gigs, most of which is scanned referrals and communications and health histories. Not sure exactly how much of that Dentrix is using on a regular basis. They have an application called Document Center that holds all the scanned papers to keep our charts paperless. That gets opened up on demand, not usually used on each patient unless we need to look something up.

Greg

 

[lsv]

yeah, redundant psu's were included. And to LSV, the total data folder is around 45 gigs, most of which is scanned referrals and communications and health histories. Not sure exactly how much of that Dentrix is using on a regular basis. They have an application called Document Center that holds all the scanned papers to keep our charts paperless. That gets opened up on demand, not usually used on each patient unless we need to look something up.

Greg

At 45 gigs have you ever considered using a business class SSD or a pair of them in Raid 1 with daily backups? I'd imagine a large enterprise SSD would outperform 3x drives in Raid 5...

 

[mvbighead]

At 45 gigs have you ever considered using a business class SSD or a pair of them in Raid 1 with daily backups? I'd imagine a large enterprise SSD would outperform 3x drives in Raid 5...

A business class SSD from Dell runs about $979 for a 50GB. He'd need at minimum 2 and would have 0 free space left running RAID1. By running RAID5, he'd only have 50GB of free space, not to mention about $2500 extra on the server expense.

As much as SSDs are gaining speed in the consumer market, they are not ideal for most businesses as the value simply isn't there. The guy is running a dental office... it's not an multi-million dollar business. There is simply no way to justify SSDs for what he is doing unless the costs come down significantly.

 

[lsv]

A business class SSD from Dell runs about $979 for a 50GB. He'd need at minimum 2 and would have 0 free space left running RAID1. By running RAID5, he'd only have 50GB of free space, not to mention about $2500 extra on the server expense.

As much as SSDs are gaining speed in the consumer market, they are not ideal for most businesses as the value simply isn't there. The guy is running a dental office... it's not an multi-million dollar business. There is simply no way to justify SSDs for what he is doing unless the costs come down significantly.

True, Dell will have its way with your wallet. Maybe go for a mainstream solution? I guess I'm in a heavy set SSD for database mentality.

 

[imagoon]

True, Dell will have its way with your wallet. Maybe go for a mainstream solution? I guess I'm in a heavy set SSD for database mentality.

You never ever put "home" based SSD's in a server. Unless you want it to fail. Enterprise SAS based SSD's typically still don't use the same tech because the drives wear out to fast and don't have enough slack space to live in an enterprise environment. Add on to that the warranty support issues and potential firmware to controller issues... I will happily send my money to Dell/HP/Compaq/IBM so I don't have to screw with it and potentially have days or weeks of down time.

People forget you are paying for a product that works as a complete system. You spend the same amount of money ad hocing white boxes together. You just pay in lost productivity and the time the 'IT guy' wastes building it and making it work.

 

[mvbighead]

True, Dell will have its way with your wallet. Maybe go for a mainstream solution? I guess I'm in a heavy set SSD for database mentality.

While I can understand the performance advantages of such, we aren't talking about a user base in excess of 1000 users who are all hitting the same SQL DB. It's 25 total users, where I would guess 5-10 at most are querying the DB at a time.

The OP did just fine, even with SATA drives. It'll be a good improvement over what he was previously running.