Local vs. network QuickBooks database speed??? 1

[wahnula]

Hello,

I hope this post is in an appropriate place, I live in forum602 and this looks like a good a place as any. I posted in SBS2003 forum but no real help there.

I have a small (10-user) SBS network. Thanks to Intuit's brilliant marketing department, our QuickBooks Premier Contractor's Edition 2004 will no longer work for payroll after June 1st. Good job guys.

Right now, our bookkeeper is running QB 2004 on her local machine, a P4 2.4 running Win2K SP4, I recently put in a new ATA 100 IDE HDD, wired gigabit LAN and increased the RAM to 1GB. It's a peppy machine for its purposes. We back up the QB data to the server both manually plus automatically every night (can anyone recognize anal retentive disorder?.

Upon reviewing my options for QB Premier 2007 install one of the options is to place the database (which I have been told is a SQL database, but nowhere on Intuit's site is that mentioned) on the SBS2003SP2 Premium server and point the bookkeeper's machine to the database. SBS will not run the app, just host the DB. The server database array has 3 SATA 10K Raptors in RAID 5 for data and is powered by (2) 1.6GHz Opterons + gigabit LAN. I am currently running Sharepoint as an SQL instance, Exchange Server and files.

We might be going to multi-user in the future as part of our inventory/POS overhaul, so I want to do the server install, but my user is a real whiner and I'd like to save time and just do it once.

Can anyone give me an idea of the speed difference between local ATA 100 IDE database residence vs. network LAN transfer from 10K Raptor RAID5 over GBe? Right now I am leaning towards simply upgrading the local machine's QB and leaving the DB on it also. As always all input is welcomed.

Tony

 

[jrbarnett]

I'd guess that gigabit ethernet would be faster, provided that the switch was up to running the data at gigabit from client PC to server.

Other advantages of running it on the server:
* SQL can have maintenance plans set to run on a scheduled basis; they won't run when desktop PC's are switched off.
* Typically it will be a local backup from the server to external media (tapes) for offsite copy.
* If the current data are stored on the workstation and the HDD fails part way through a day, you either have only the last nights backup to restore - or a very expensive system involving workstation hard disks and recovery software.
A hardware RAID 5 install will be more resilient than a local single hard disk (useful if this is critical data for your organisation).

John

 

[wahnula]

John,

Thanks for the helpful info. I did find this link:

http://www.qodbc.com/qodbc.htm

that explains the DB more thoroughly.

I'd guess that gigabit ethernet would be faster, provided that the switch was up to running the data at gigabit from client PC to server.

Well I have never done a true speed test (I am also the co.'s leading revenue producer and short on time) but both client & server plug into the same D-Link GbE switch, NICs register 1.0Gbps on both ends, 60 feet total CAT6e cable run.

Tony

 

[jrbarnett]

OK my mistake - it doesn't use SQL Server or MSDE for hosting the DB, it works as a flat file (so you can forget the first point of mine, it doesn't apply here).

You've confirmed though that they both connect at gigabit speeds, so the performance should fly in this configuration (eg if you run 1Gb at one end but only 100Mbit at the other end, then the whole connection is limited to 100Mbit, but that is not the case here).

John

 

[wahnula]

No, my mistake. I should have found that info for the first post. There's too many pluses to the server install to ignore. Thanks again for helping me with my decision.

Tony