[SOLVED] Need Monster Workstation & Server

[MrN1ce9uy]

Okay, so a customer from last year around this time that I built an i7-8700K + 32GB DDR4 3200 + GTX 1050 Ti system for who said he needed it for a workstation and to hold his database for his real estate business out in California now says he needs another workstation and a server. GPUs were very expensive last year and he wasn't sure he needed a big one. His budget is not really an issue at all.

Here's what he's said,

"I’m going to need a monster work station like before, but even better if possible. Faster, if possible, and plenty of rocket fast RAM, and a higher end video card for editing. And as stable as can be. I’m going to be pushing 2 4K monitors.

But the first build should be the server. I’m going to have a few conversations with a few network guys here soon that might give me some good pointers. But you will probably know better than me. The point of the server will NOT be handling a mass of internet traffic (although it will be taking in a constant stream of data from a internet single source). The main job of the server will be to hold the database on which the other monsters will be working. So the other PCs will run routines on the server’s database. My data divides into five types. Ultimately I would like to have 5 PCs that could simultaneously run routines on the server’s single database. The tables are distinct enough that the routines should not be stepping on each other. There should not be record conflicts."

So I'm going to build him a quad-channel workstation on either X299 or X399 (Intel or AMD). "Rocket fast RAM seems like an Intel build to me. I'd like to see what you guys come up with. I'm not really sure if the server needs to be a monster or not. What more info could I get from this customer?

 

[kanewolf]

The first question to you, is do you want to be the first call when it breaks and loses all his data? If not, then I would recommend a standard Dell or HP server and workstation.

You need to know what software this "database" uses. That will help determine your hardware requirements. You need sizing number from the client. Total amount of data, read vs write percentages, transactions per second (hour, day), etc.

 

[Ralston18]

Agree with @kanewolf.

Quantify the functional requirements and the hardware specs that you propose.

Especially with respect to (per kanewolf) the database software.

"Rocket fast RAM" is moot if the software is not up to the task.

Some "good ole CYA" is recommended across the board.

 

[MrN1ce9uy]

Okay great input. Thanks guys. So it's an SQL database and reading/writing to it will be the main workload of both workstation and server. He wants ECC RAM in the server so I'm looking at Dell for a tower server. But I still wonder what the best drive setup would be. He says he doesn't want to have to wait on one process before he can start another. Would a single 15,000RPM HDD be good, what about two in RAID O? Are SSDs in servers for storing databases a good idea? Would that be any faster than 15K RPM HDD? He says the database is only 10GB right now, and expects it to grow to maybe 50GB over 10 years.

 

[kanewolf]

Okay great input. Thanks guys. So it's an SQL database and reading/writing to it will be the main workload of both workstation and server. He wants ECC RAM in the server so I'm looking at Dell for a tower server. But I still wonder what the best drive setup would be. He says he doesn't want to have to wait on one process before he can start another. Would a single 15,000RPM HDD be good, what about two in RAID O? Are SSDs in servers for storing databases a good idea? Would that be any faster than 15K RPM HDD? He says the database is only 10GB right now, and expects it to grow to maybe 50GB over 10 years.

10 years isn't really a relevant data point. The hardware will be replaced in 5 years, most likely. A 2 year estimate is useful. For write endurance and performance, for a database of just gigabytes, the Intel Optane 900 PCIe card would be the way to go. The 480GB card has a write endurance of 8+ PB. Then get SATA 2TB SSDs for your database backups. Unless a rack mount is requested, I would look at a workstation form-factor. The Dell 5820 workstation could be used for both server and workstation. Just change the config.

 

[MrN1ce9uy]

Does Dell or HP offer that Intel Optane PCIe card or would I simply buy it and add to a server from Dell or HP?

 

[kanewolf]

Does Dell or HP offer that Intel Optane PCIe card or would I simply buy it and add to a server from Dell or HP?

I don't know. You could do either. Asking a Dell or HP sales person would be the quickest answer.

 

[MrN1ce9uy]

Alright.

Why would you use SSDs for backups?

*Edit: I suppose speed would be the obvious reason. Now I'm wondering how long it would take a 10GB or more database to backup on a HDD vs an SSD. I suppose if it would take twice as long on a HDD then the SSD would be worth it, especially if it took more than an hour or two in the night.

 

[kanewolf]

It wasn't clear that there would be an "off" time for this hardware. Databases are usually 24/7 entities. So you need to minimize the time a backup takes because that I/O takes performance away from the primary job the database is supposed to be doing. You could use a tiered storage with SATA SSD which does the primary backup then a much larger HDD that can store many versions of the backup to allow you to restore to multiple snapshots.

 

[MrN1ce9uy]

It wasn't clear that there would be an "off" time for this hardware. Databases are usually 24/7 entities. So you need to minimize the time a backup takes because that I/O takes performance away from the primary job the database is supposed to be doing. You could use a tiered storage with SATA SSD which does the primary backup then a much larger HDD that can store many versions of the backup to allow you to restore to multiple snapshots.

What do you mean by "tiered storage" and would a RAID 1 or 5 array of SSDs not be the best approach to backups?

*Edit: Okay, just did a quick search and it's is pretty self-explanatory. Direct backups to SSDs for fast backup time, then another secondary backup to a large HDD that won't takeup read/write time on the primary database drive.

I suppose with the tiered method a RAID array wouldn't be necessary, unless on the HDDs perhaps.

 

[kanewolf]

Tiered storage is a set of different performance levels. So the PCIe card is the primary storage for the database. The SATA SSD is the primary backup device, the HDD is the tertiary backup device. Three levels of performance. Each lower cost and lower performance. The lowest cost storage is used for "archival" storage. BUT you should still have an air-tight off premises backup strategy. The tiered storage in a host is no good if there is a fire, theft, or roof leak.

RAID is an OK method for backup. BUT doesn't meet the off-site requirement. Cloud backup, or multiple USB drives for off-site.

 

[MrN1ce9uy]

Excellent point. Duly noted.

 

[MrN1ce9uy]

I have another question about using a switch vs multiple NICs.

Question - Which is faster? Switch or multiple NICs

If I have a server that I want to connect 5 workstations to access a central database, would it be better to use a layer 2 switch or enough network interface cards on the server for all the workstations to connect directly to the server? The workstations probably won't be talking to each others...

forums.tomshardware.com

 

[kanewolf]

I have another question about using a switch vs multiple NICs.

Question - Which is faster? Switch or multiple NICs

If I have a server that I want to connect 5 workstations to access a central database, would it be better to use a layer 2 switch or enough network interface cards on the server for all the workstations to connect directly to the server? The workstations probably won't be talking to each others...

forums.tomshardware.com

I would recommend you start another thread, because it will be more visible, than buried at the bottom of this one. But I will also say that 10GE is the better way to go than multiple NICs today.