New Server Requirements

[brilong]

Hello, I just got caught up on the Server Problems thread and I was wondering if there is a documented list of items the project requires hardware-wise. I have ECC RAM, 2.5" SAS and a few enterprise SSD's I could donate to the cause if Madpoo or others would be willing to install, configure, etc.

What are the specs on the existing server with 2GB RAM? Could we temporarily reduce memory pressure by getting it up to 4GB or 8GB RAM? Even with the 32-bit limit, MSSQL could get 3+GB for itself.

What are the specs on the new server and could it use more parts before being put into production? I'd be happy to help out where possible.

[Prime95]

Thanks for the offfer.

From our "server upgrade plan" doc:

Server specs:
Old server: HP Proliant DL360p G4, 2x72GB Ultra 320, 2GB RAM
    Could add additional RAM to current server for temporary remediation of
    symptoms.  Windows 2000 may not be able to use extra RAM. 
New server: HP Proliant DL360 G5, 6x72GB SAS 15K drives (4 in a RAID 5 for
    OS/data, 2 in a RAID 1 for Log/TempDB), 32GB RAM
		i.  Hot swappable spare drive?

The new server specs aren't final yet, it depends on the available machines that are being retired. There's a chance it will be a G6. As I understand it the G5 as spec'd is pretty much maxed out. Madpoo can comment more intelligently.

[Mark Rose]

The old DL360 G4p should support 12GB of RAM if both processors are installed, using PAE. It's DDR2 though, which is $$$ today. Only W2k Advanced Server or Datacenter Server will see more than 4 GB though. I would say it's better to spend the time/money on the new server.

[brilong]

Originally Posted by Prime95

Thanks for the offfer.

From our "server upgrade plan" doc:

Server specs:
Old server: HP Proliant DL360p G4, 2x72GB Ultra 320, 2GB RAM
    Could add additional RAM to current server for temporary remediation of
    symptoms.  Windows 2000 may not be able to use extra RAM. 
New server: HP Proliant DL360 G5, 6x72GB SAS 15K drives (4 in a RAID 5 for
    OS/data, 2 in a RAID 1 for Log/TempDB), 32GB RAM
		i.  Hot swappable spare drive?

The new server specs aren't final yet, it depends on the available machines that are being retired. There's a chance it will be a G6. As I understand it the G5 as spec'd is pretty much maxed out. Madpoo can comment more intelligently.

If someone could PM me when you're closer to knowing the final product, that would be great.

[Gordon]

Originally Posted by Prime95

[snip]

The new server specs aren't final yet, it depends on the available machines that are being retired.

[snip]

I've got to ask the obvious question, why are we even considering migrating to hardware that's years out of date?

Hardware isn't that expensive nowadays. There already offers of cash, I'll chip some in. Between us we should be able to afford it.

What happened to the EFF prize money? (or wherever it came from)

Get a decent spec motherboard, drop in 64gig ram and run this "large" (still find it funny anyone thinks 25gig is large nowadays) dataset entirely in ram.

Chuck in a few SSD's in raid config...

...or host it somewhere as has been suggested several times

[Prime95]

The outdated hardware should be ample enough.

After it is set up, we can embark on the longer term questions: Does GIMPS even want to own hardware? Should we migrate to a Linux solution? etc.

[TheMawn]

Originally Posted by Prime95

The outdated hardware should be ample enough.

After it is set up, we can embark on the longer term questions: Does GIMPS even want to own hardware? Should we migrate to a Linux solution? etc.

I like the sound of not rushing into things, too. We should focus on stopping the bleeding short term and wait for the server to be rock solid before considering a longer-term solution such as owning the hardware.

To be honest, the fact that this isn't a computationally heavy server handling a particularly large amount of data points to a lower-end server anyway.

I'm more into desktops than servers but the analogy I like to make is a gaming system. You could by a $3,000 one every four years or a $1,500 every two. In two years, the $1,500 system will likely overpower today's $3K system. Same amount of money; better experience overall. That doesn't even count the hardware you can re-use.

When and if the discussion moves to hardware we can actually customize, I will be here ready to chip in for the SSD or the 64 GB RAM upgrade.

[Mark Rose]

If not paying for the power, using old hardware with enough capacity is fine.

[Madpoo]

Originally Posted by Mark Rose

The old DL360 G4p should support 12GB of RAM if both processors are installed, using PAE. It's DDR2 though, which is $$$ today. Only W2k Advanced Server or Datacenter Server will see more than 4 GB though. I would say it's better to spend the time/money on the new server.

The problem with the old server wasn't so much how much memory *could* be installed, but that it was 32-bit Windows and SQL. Otherwise, I've got oodles and oodles of DDR2 server memory lying around. Mostly 1GB modules but a few 2 and 4 GB sticks.

If anyone needs some DDR2 1GB registered modules, let me know. :)

[Madpoo]

Originally Posted by Gordon

I've got to ask the obvious question, why are we even considering migrating to hardware that's years out of date?

Hardware isn't that expensive nowadays. There already offers of cash, I'll chip some in. Between us we should be able to afford it....

It mostly comes down to what the server itself is doing. It's a large database, sure, but it doesn't necessarily need enough RAM to cache the entire dataset, or fast SSDs. The old server definitely wasn't cutting it any more with only 2 GB of RAM being the biggest problem. Even the slower drives on there wouldn't have been as big an issue if it weren't paging so much.

The new virtual machine we just switched to while the physical replacement gets prepped and sent out should give us an idea of how well a "mere" hardware upgrade is doing, but so far it's like night and day.

[retina]

Originally Posted by Madpoo

... it doesn't necessarily need ... fast SSDs.

Indeed. I've never understood why so many people get hadrons (sp?) about SSDs. They have smaller storage, higher cost, limited lives (by design) and are a security risk.