Hardware sizing: all software on 1 Server

[wadie]

Hello list,
The sales team (finally) showed me some documents that they use as guidelines to sell servers to clients when they are closing a deal. I was struck by the fact that (e.g. HP) recommends putting DB, enterprise logic & application server all on 1 big 16GB RAM server. (a smaller test/development and deployment server make up the total of 3 servers)
I thought it was not recommended to put everything on one box, yet this document states that this was created with the help of Oracle?
Is this something that can only happen on big HP machines? (I have never had the chance to experience such an installation) Can something similar be done on equally sized 'normal' windows servers?

 

[Tom_Davidson]

You can also do the same thing on an iSeries (i5,AS/400). I know of several places that do so. The only box that can not be included is the deployment server.

I do like the ES and DB on the same physical hardware as there is no config like the buss to move data quickly. Any other setup you get the buss time + the network time.

This is not to say that you necessarily WANT everything on the same box. Just that you can.

Tom

 

[wadie]

but this is not recommended for normal win servers? Since that's what I always end up with... big win servers... and not enough boxes unless I combine

 

[altquark]

You're stating that the document specifically states that the Database, Enterprise Logic and Web Logic is sized for a single box.

That is actually the way that the hardware companies attempt to get into a customer. Sell them a single monster box packed with CPU's and memory. Performance ? Solved with spending more and more money and a bigger and bigger box.

Hardware companies are trying to ream the customer. Thats the issue with having the hardware company create the technical architecture.

Having SMALLER boxes, and more of them, is FAR more cost effective than a single large box. Its also far more scalable.

Most companies that start their ERP implementation underestimate their expectations. A lot of companies map their current processing loads - and before they go live, they add additional functionality, or the company expands or they even go through take-overs of other companies. By then, their undersized hardware is looking very expensive, very dated and a lot of technical architects have specifically told the company they've gone the wrong direction. The hardware vendor points to the original sizing document, and blames the sizing on that. An en passe ensues.

To be honest, it really is the customers fault. They don't know a thing about the new ERP system, and they trust that the hardware vendor is going to make recommendations that will help the customer. Wrong. The vendor will make recommendations that will maximize the vendors profit margins.

On the other side, when a vendor admits that "smaller boxes ARE more scalable" - then suddenly they're forcing blade systems down the customers neck.

Now that Virtualization is becoming acceptable, I hate to see what the hardware vendors are going to recommend...

Moral of the story ? Get an independent specialist who has extensive experience of the software product to make the recommendation. You'll save a BUNDLE.

 

[wadie]

Thanks altquark, that's the answer I needed

Clients point to us, we go to Oracle, Oracle makes us contact hardware vendors...
Everytime we took that path, we had problems and your post really shows why

 

[brother_of_karamazov]

[ QUOTE ]
You're stating that the document specifically states that the Database, Enterprise Logic and Web Logic is sized for a single box.

That is actually the way that the hardware companies attempt to get into a customer. Sell them a single monster box packed with CPU's and memory. Performance ? Solved with spending more and more money and a bigger and bigger box.

Hardware companies are trying to ream the customer. Thats the issue with having the hardware company create the technical architecture.

Having SMALLER boxes, and more of them, is FAR more cost effective than a single large box. Its also far more scalable.

Most companies that start their ERP implementation underestimate their expectations. A lot of companies map their current processing loads - and before they go live, they add additional functionality, or the company expands or they even go through take-overs of other companies. By then, their undersized hardware is looking very expensive, very dated and a lot of technical architects have specifically told the company they've gone the wrong direction. The hardware vendor points to the original sizing document, and blames the sizing on that. An en passe ensues.

To be honest, it really is the customers fault. They don't know a thing about the new ERP system, and they trust that the hardware vendor is going to make recommendations that will help the customer. Wrong. The vendor will make recommendations that will maximize the vendors profit margins.

On the other side, when a vendor admits that "smaller boxes ARE more scalable" - then suddenly they're forcing blade systems down the customers neck.

Now that Virtualization is becoming acceptable, I hate to see what the hardware vendors are going to recommend...

Moral of the story ? Get an independent specialist who has extensive experience of the software product to make the recommendation. You'll save a BUNDLE.

[/ QUOTE ]


Jon is right, I don't know how many times I have thought: "I wish I could get in to a customer before hardware sizing is done. So many (expensive) problems could have been avoided with proper architecting."

 

[altquark]

It's good to be right occassionally.....