Many databases on one or multiple SQL2000 servers

Hi there. We currently have an application which requires separate database
s
for each "project" we work on. We are in the process of replacing our 2 SQL
2000 servers and are unsure whether to purchase 1 or 2 servers. Previously,
we implemented with 2 servers due to performance reasons. That was back on
SQL 7 though.
We have approximately 400 databases which range in size from .5GB to about
3GB. These cannot be collapsed into fewer databases. SQL2005 is not an
option at this time (gotta love software companies that don't keep up with
the times!
So, do I get 2 servers or a single (larger in processor and memory) server?
--John J. Berlo
Lend Lease Corportation
Collaboration TechnologiesHi John,
I have found that there are more variables involved in a decision such as
this. How many users, the number of concurrent queries, the design of the
queries, etc., all play a big factor in how much processing power will be
required.
The number of databases is higher than normal, but not unheard of. Our
accounting system currently requires us to operate a server with over 900
databases. I am running this on a single server without issue. The
databases, though numerous, are well designed and support our 200 users with
an acceptable level of performance. The hardware is a 4-way server with 6GB
of RAM and SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition. The disk array is an IBM SAN via 2G
B
fiber.
My guess would be that disk and RAM could be your biggest true enemy in such
an implementation. If you can buy a decent server with 6GB or so of RAM and
a good disk array with quite a few spindles, say 20, you should be able to
support up to 200 - 300 users fairly well.
Hope this helps... also remember, there are a lot of variables and this is
just my "professional" opinion based on the limited information you gave us.
Bryan
"John J. Berlo" wrote:

> Hi there. We currently have an application which requires separate databa
ses
> for each "project" we work on. We are in the process of replacing our 2 S
QL
> 2000 servers and are unsure whether to purchase 1 or 2 servers. Previousl
y,
> we implemented with 2 servers due to performance reasons. That was back o
n
> SQL 7 though.
> We have approximately 400 databases which range in size from .5GB to about
> 3GB. These cannot be collapsed into fewer databases. SQL2005 is not an
> option at this time (gotta love software companies that don't keep up with
> the times!
> So, do I get 2 servers or a single (larger in processor and memory) server
?
> --John J. Berlo
> Lend Lease Corportation
> Collaboration Technologies|||Brian,
Thanks for the information. On our current servers, we are seeing
approximately 650 concurrent users. Not an enourmous amount, but one that
concerns us whether a single server is the best way to go.
If money was no object, I would do a 2-server active-active cluster, but SQL
Enterprise is a large jump in price than standard. So, the situation as I
see it leaves us with 2 choices:
1) Move to a single 2003 Server Enterprise server with 6-8GB RAM and 2-dual
core processors
-or-
2) Stay on 2 2003 Server standard servers with 4GB RAM and a single
dual-core processor
(both with SQL standard licenses and hooked to a very robust SAN).
Thoughts?
--John J. Berlo
Lend Lease Corportation
Collaboration Technologies
"Bryan Ivie" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi John,
> I have found that there are more variables involved in a decision such as
> this. How many users, the number of concurrent queries, the design of the
> queries, etc., all play a big factor in how much processing power will be
> required.
> The number of databases is higher than normal, but not unheard of. Our
> accounting system currently requires us to operate a server with over 900
> databases. I am running this on a single server without issue. The
> databases, though numerous, are well designed and support our 200 users wi
th
> an acceptable level of performance. The hardware is a 4-way server with 6
GB
> of RAM and SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition. The disk array is an IBM SAN via
2GB
> fiber.
> My guess would be that disk and RAM could be your biggest true enemy in su
ch
> an implementation. If you can buy a decent server with 6GB or so of RAM a
nd
> a good disk array with quite a few spindles, say 20, you should be able to
> support up to 200 - 300 users fairly well.
> Hope this helps... also remember, there are a lot of variables and this i
s
> just my "professional" opinion based on the limited information you gave u
s.
> Bryan
>
> "John J. Berlo" wrote:
>