0

We are running a dual processor server E5-2630 V3 / 64 GB RAM with Windows Server 2012 R2, this server has IIS and SQL Server 2014 installed, only one web service is running to serve a mobile application.

The server is serving almost 500,000 active users with around 500 requests per second, we are maxing out the resources of the server so we are thinking about splitting this dual processor server into 2 single processor servers, one for IIS and the other is just dedicated for SQL Server.

We already tuned our SQL server and did everything to improve performance, we are also using redis for caching to minimize hitting the database.

The first question is, is it a good idea to split the dual processor server into 2 single processor ones?

Do you recommend a specific configurations for our situation?

We are recently seeing events in the application log about SQL Server starvation for worker processes, due to all processes is being used, at peak times things are getting slow.

Any advice?

Thanks

yagmoth555
  • 16,300
  • 4
  • 26
  • 48
Ahmed Galal
  • 119
  • 1
  • 4
  • 1
    Sounds like you need more server, not to reconfigure your existing one. Not that you've given us a lot to go on or anything... – HopelessN00b Jun 02 '16 at 23:44
  • yea am thinking the same, but do you think its good for 2 single processor servers to replace one dual processor server ? – Ahmed Galal Jun 02 '16 at 23:50
  • I think providing some statistics regarding compute and IO usage would be helpful in getting you a recommendation. Without some facts what would the recommendation be addressing? – Citizen Jun 02 '16 at 23:55
  • It's generally better to have one role per server, and not have multiple roles sharing the same machine. That said, if you're already maxing out the resources, splitting your server in half is almost certainly going to make that problem worse. – HopelessN00b Jun 02 '16 at 23:55
  • 2
    Why would you use two single cpu servers instead of two dual cpu servers? you want to improve performance so you're splitting the roles but you're also reducing the amount of processing power per server/role. That doesn't make sense. It's as if you think each role by itself would be served well by a single cpu server, which is probably far from the case. I've never seen a version of SQL Server that could perform at an acceptable level with a single cpu/core. – joeqwerty Jun 03 '16 at 00:18
  • am using one dual cpu server not two, i was just thinking that devoting one single processor server to one role might be better than sharing one dual processor server to many roles. – Ahmed Galal Jun 03 '16 at 00:27
  • I understand what you're saying. I'm asking you why you would bother splitting the roles onto separate servers and then hamstringing them again by using single cpu/core servers. Splitting the roles makes sense. Reducing the number of cpu's because you've split the roles doesn't make sense. You've taken one step forwards and one step backwards. – joeqwerty Jun 03 '16 at 00:36
  • @joeqwerty because we trying to minimize the cost, sql servers and dual processor server could be costy – Ahmed Galal Jun 03 '16 at 00:40
  • 1
    @AhmedGalal Well, that's clearly not an option. Suck it up and pay the extra licensing, or rewrite your apps for a FOSS database. Only two options you really have. – HopelessN00b Jun 03 '16 at 00:57
  • @HopelessN00b yea that maybe could be our only option, thanks – Ahmed Galal Jun 03 '16 at 01:04

0 Answers0