Sun M4000 as an Oracle server 1

[KenCunningham]

Good afternoon folks. We're considering replacing one of our aging servers with an M4000. Fair enough, but does anyone have any experience of these as an Oracle server? There appear to be a plethora of storage options, but we'll probably be looking for something like 600Gb total (inc. mirroring), so we don't want to go over the top spec-wise. Of course, we're assuming that with Oracle the more spindles the better, but that might no longer be the case with 10g?

Any experiences/recommendations gratefully received.

I want to be good, is that not enough?

 

[Annihilannic]

Of course, we're assuming that with Oracle the more spindles the better, but that might no longer be the case with 10g?

I think that will always be the case, as long as we are using disks that spin.

Roll-on solid state storage! (or will that just make programmers even lazier...?)

Annihilannic.

 

[SANEngInCO]

Do you have to have internal disks for the server or can you do with externally attached disk? For Oracle, or any database for that matter that would be my recommendation. Something like a 2540 vs. internal disks will be faster when connected via fibre channel to a pair of HBAs (load balance and failover). That being said, do you know how many CPUs you need, how fast and how much RAM will be required for this new system? Have you engaged the SUN Oracle Competency Center? They are pretty good at giving you a few options for type, speed, memory configurations based on your reponses to their questions.

Having said that, depending how large your instance will be and how hard it will be hit you can probably get a bit more bang for your buck with something like a v490. If you want to take it another step forward, the CoolThread servers with their 8 core CPUs are great for 10g since multi-threading is inherent. The T5240 has 2 8-core CPUs with up to 128 threads, 128GB RAM, 16 internal disks (if you don't want to go external) for a fraction of the cost of the M4000. Plus you get back rack space, lower energy costs and less AC to cool it. In this case, bigger is definitely not better. The M-class boxes are replacing the old 4900 and up class machines which are designed to be domained and divided into multiple boxes. But not knowing your environment, I can't give a 100% sure answer. This is just my experience with the line of SUN boxes.

Good luck.

------------------------------------------------
"640K ought to be enough for anybody."
- Bill Gates, 1981

 

[KenCunningham]

Thank you, that is exactly the kind of base info. I was after. I'm not at work right now, but I'll research the boxes you describe (I was thinking a V890 perhaps as I do prefer to have all my disks in the one 'package' if at all possible), particularly the T5240. Thanks again, I'll get back to you once I've done the research.

I want to be good, is that not enough?

 

[SANEngInCO]

SUN T5240

http://www.sun.com/servers/coolthreads/t5240/index.xml

SUN v490

http://www.sun.com/servers/midrange/v490/index.xml

SUN v890

http://www.sun.com/servers/midrange/v890/index.xml

And to throw some more fuel on the fire, take a look at the SUN Blade 6000/8000s. They can take Intel, AMD, T1 and T2 chips from 1-4 sockets up to 256GB RAM. These blade servers blow the doors off IBM, HP, Dell and any others out there in both performance and in price.

http://www.sun.com/servers/blades/6000/

http://www.sun.com/servers/blades/8000/

http://www.sun.com/servers/blades/8000pchassis/index.xml

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
Albert Einstein

 

[KenCunningham]

Right. I'm very nearly sold on the T5240. As I mentioned, we'll probably looking at a 600Gb database (inc. mirroring) with mainly OLTP activity (some batch processing overnight), no more than 100 concurrent users.

Does anyone have any experience of these boxes - my reading tells me that the earlier T1's were somewhat sluggish for batch ops?

I want to be good, is that not enough?

 

[SANEngInCO]

Yes, the T1 chips had only a single floating point processor for all 8 cores. THis caused a lot of problems for processes that needed floating point. Databases were not recommended to be put on T1's because of this as well as some other design "issues." The T2 chips have fixed these issues and is actually be touted as a "data center on a chip" due to it's 8 cores, 64 concurrent threads (per chip - 128 for the 5240/5440), 128GB or memory, lower cooling and power requirements, etc. There is now a FPP per core, 4MB L2 cache per core as well as other improvements. I've sold many of these chip-based boxes when I was an SE for a SUN VAR and people love them. It is almost like taking a 12k and shrinking it down into a 2U box.

Hope that answers your question/concerns.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
Albert Einstein

 

[KenCunningham]

Thanks again, much appreciated.

I want to be good, is that not enough?

 

[SANEngInCO]

You are more than welcome. Let me know if you have any other questions. Good luck. Cheers.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
Albert Einstein