LebGeeks

duke-of-bytes

Member

pc for small database

hello awesome people
i'm looking to build 2 machines to hold a small db on sql 2008r2 and windows 7 64bit ( meaning i'm forced to use 6th gen intel or some AMD )
i am looking for i7 6th gen ...16 GB of rams and fast but reliable ssd and good cpu cooling
the thing is i am not finding any 6th gen cpus in lebanon ..
any advice ?! maybe a cheap good build ?1

nuclearcat

Member

Re: pc for small database

Maybe better AMD, as Spectre/Meltdown impact on DBA workload is significant for Intel.

duke-of-bytes

Member

Re: pc for small database

Maybe better AMD, as Spectre/Meltdown impact on DBA workload is significant for Intel.

Even if not updated ?

nuclearcat

Member

Re: pc for small database

Maybe better AMD, as Spectre/Meltdown impact on DBA workload is significant for Intel.

Even if not updated ?

If you can avoid this patches - then Intel is fine, but keep in mind there is also microcode updates, and except spectre&meltdown - there is countless related bugs, L1TF, MDS, spec store bypass and others.
And price/performance ratio after Ryzen... AMD beating Intel in all matters, even if we ignore Spectre/Meltdown degradation.

duke-of-bytes

Member

Re: pc for small database

Maybe better AMD, as Spectre/Meltdown impact on DBA workload is significant for Intel.

Even if not updated ?

If you can avoid this patches - then Intel is fine, but keep in mind there is also microcode updates, and except spectre&meltdown - there is countless related bugs, L1TF, MDS, spec store bypass and others.
And price/performance ratio after Ryzen... AMD beating Intel in all matters, even if we ignore Spectre/Meltdown degradation.

It is a closed system with no internet so i can stay away from the patches for a while..i wws thinking about AMD but has no clue about pricing.. compatibility or availability (i can always order it online though)

RandomMemory

Member

Re: pc for small database

I recommend you go with ryzen as well if you are looking for something for the long run or if you might take it online later. Intel has too many vulnerabilities and most the patches that came out impacted performance a lot. As for pricing, I got the 3700x from pcandparts for around 430$ 2 weeks ago. and you can run all the chips on B450 motherboards if you aren't looking to pay 200$ for an x570 motherboard. And I'm pretty sure you don't even need the 3700x, you can maybe get a second gen ryzen which still performs great. It all depends on the workload that machine is gonna be doing.

Last edited by RandomMemory (September 8 2019)

Tech Guru

Member

Re: pc for small database

Maybe better AMD, as Spectre/Meltdown impact on DBA workload is significant for Intel.

Even if not updated ?

If you can avoid this patches - then Intel is fine, but keep in mind there is also microcode updates, and except spectre&meltdown - there is countless related bugs, L1TF, MDS, spec store bypass and others.
And price/performance ratio after Ryzen... AMD beating Intel in all matters, even if we ignore Spectre/Meltdown degradation.

Nope

This issue is resolved long time.

I have two systems

Zen 2 R9 3900x +  Gigabyte Aorus Xtreme x570 +  3600Mhz Rams CL16 (4 by 8GB) +  970 Evo Nvme 1TB for the OS  ...etc

I9 9900k +  Asus Maximus Extreme XI Z390 +  3600Mhz Rams CL16 (4 by 8GB) +  970 Evo Nvme 1TB for the OS ...etc

The 3900x Costs more yet it got beaten by the i9 9900k in Lightly and Tighthly Threaded Applications due to:

Higher Boost Clocks

More Headover to OC and increase the Vcore to have a stable 5.1-5.2 Ghz on all 8 cores with AVX Negative Offset Set to 0

Intel Ring Architecture (Back to Skylake Days and now more refined)  have proven to be successful. It implements a synchronous, high-bandwidth, and scalable 2-dimensional array of half rings. The communication between the cores is very efficient with minimal lag.

What is weired from AMD side that they shifted to a 7nm Lithography with a 25 % IPC boost yet they

Lowered their Boost Clocks

Struggling to reach their advertised boost clocks

Pushing the cores to their max performance out of the box ,  very minimal headroom to OC.

Shouldn't a die shrink means much higher efficient

25 % IPC Boost + Easy 5Ghz Per Core

AMD is still struggling to compete with a 14nm ++++ (Coffelake Refresher) more Intel Gen are Coming ( Comet Lake and Rocket Lake) still based on 14nm. I wounder what will happen when Intel Releases their IceLake 10nm ?

Last edited by Tech Guru (September 8 2019)

VincentKeyboard

Member

Re: pc for small database

Maybe better AMD, as Spectre/Meltdown impact on DBA workload is significant for Intel.

Even if not updated ?

If you can avoid this patches - then Intel is fine, but keep in mind there is also microcode updates, and except spectre&meltdown - there is countless related bugs, L1TF, MDS, spec store bypass and others.
And price/performance ratio after Ryzen... AMD beating Intel in all matters, even if we ignore Spectre/Meltdown degradation.

Speaking of microcode updates, I was using the intframfs microcode image when I was using Linux. I found the spectre/meltdown mitigations to be literally crippling on consecutive I/O operations. And I did the mistake of actually updating the bios as well (to an April 2019 release) when I installed Windows 10. It's a 6th gen (Skylake CPU).
If I go back to Linux, and disable mitigation through kernel parameters, will I also suffer degradation due to having upgraded the bios?

nuclearcat

Member

Re: pc for small database

First. Topic starter said: DBA. This means no OC bullshit.
nm, ring and other buzzwords also is more fanboys stuff, than something that matters.

This pic says all:

The 3900x Costs more yet it got beaten by the i9 9900k in Lightly and Tighthly Threaded Applications due to:

First thing i learned in Lebanon - words cost nothing. Proof cost everything.
So, beaten in tightly threaded applications? Really? Where? Calculator?

Yes, per core AMD 3900X lose a little to i7-9900k, but there is difference, AMD have much more cores. And SQL is stuff where you need cores.

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/am … ,6225.html

On the productivity side of things, AMD and the 3900X really show their strengths. From web to MS Office, the 3900x beats even the 5 GHz i9-9900K in much of our testing. Only in the video conferencing, photo editing, and spreadsheet work does the Intel CPU take the lead.

Without a doubt, anywhere the Ryzen 9 3900X can use its cores and threads fully, it’s the better productivity based CPU. If the applications used are not heavily threaded, the i9-9900K shows off its prowess. As time goes on we should see an increase in core use by software, so the AMD CPU should have a longer lifespan in particular with multi-threaded applications.

Last edited by nuclearcat (September 8 2019)

nuclearcat

Member

Re: pc for small database

Speaking of microcode updates, I was using the intframfs microcode image when I was using Linux. I found the spectre/meltdown mitigations to be literally crippling on consecutive I/O operations. And I did the mistake of actually updating the bios as well (to an April 2019 release) when I installed Windows 10. It's a 6th gen (Skylake CPU).
If I go back to Linux, and disable mitigation through kernel parameters, will I also suffer degradation due to having upgraded the bios?

As i see on benchmarks - microcode updates are more about availability of new MSR and new(more expected, predictable) behaviour of some instructions that is used in mitigations, such as LFENCE.
on Linux there is almost no performance penalty if mitigations=off with new microcode. On Windows - no idea.

Last edited by nuclearcat (September 8 2019)

Tech Guru

Member

Re: pc for small database

First. Topic starter said: DBA. This means no OC bullshit.
nm, ring and other buzzwords also is more fanboys stuff, than something that matters.

This pic says all:
https://i.ibb.co/rcL4JcT/prices.png

The 3900x Costs more yet it got beaten by the i9 9900k in Lightly and Tighthly Threaded Applications due to:

First thing i learned in Lebanon - words cost nothing. Proof cost everything.
So, beaten in tightly threaded applications? Really? Where? Calculator?

Yes, per core AMD 3900X lose a little to i7-9900k, but there is difference, AMD have much more cores. And SQL is stuff where you need cores.

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/am … ,6225.html

On the productivity side of things, AMD and the 3900X really show their strengths. From web to MS Office, the 3900x beats even the 5 GHz i9-9900K in much of our testing. Only in the video conferencing, photo editing, and spreadsheet work does the Intel CPU take the lead.

Without a doubt, anywhere the Ryzen 9 3900X can use its cores and threads fully, it’s the better productivity based CPU. If the applications used are not heavily threaded, the i9-9900K shows off its prowess. As time goes on we should see an increase in core use by software, so the AMD CPU should have a longer lifespan in particular with multi-threaded applications.

Donot be driven by cyber marketing slides here and there mate.

Bring both systems and you know what I mean. No hate for either AMD or Intel ,  I am a perfromance oriented person regardless A or B , X or Y .As  such,  I have both top dogs from Intel and AMD. I get my hands dirty in a praticle sense in all areas as a hardware enthusiast. Streaming ,  mutitasking , and  rendering (3ds Max, Maya and Revit, Vray , Cinema 4D, Blender etc..) are a blast on the i9 9900k.

Main disgrace about AMD is they are on 7nm and failing to beat an aging based 14nm Skylake architecture. Shouldnot they went 25%  IPC +  Easy 5Ghz not 25%  IPC with low boost clock and they are lower as you go down in the cores hierarchy count.

Last edited by Tech Guru (September 8 2019)

duke-of-bytes

Member

Re: pc for small database

My main issue is compatibility with windows 7..windows 7 would work on newer generation cpu but misses too much in terms of power and drivers.

So what would you advise .. maybe an older xeon ??

rolf

Member

Re: pc for small database

Your ideal specs will depend on the database usage - traffic (how many clients, concurrent access, etc.?) and storage needs (how much data?).
If you don't know your needs yet, start with something that is upgradeable.

duke-of-bytes

Member

Re: pc for small database

Your ideal specs will depend on the database usage - traffic (how many clients, concurrent access, etc.?) and storage needs (how much data?).
If you don't know your needs yet, start with something that is upgradeable.

Small ..2-3 usage with replication (subscriber) ..db is around 7 GB

nuclearcat

Member

Re: pc for small database

Donot be driven by cyber marketing slides here and there mate.

Bring both systems and you know what I mean. No hate for either AMD or Intel ,  I am a perfromance oriented person regardless A or B , X or Y .As  such,  I have both top dogs from Intel and AMD. I get my hands dirty in a praticle sense in all areas as a hardware enthusiast. Streaming ,  mutitasking , and  rendering (3ds Max, Maya and Revit, Vray , Cinema 4D, Blender etc..) are a blast on the i9 9900k.

Main disgrace about AMD is they are on 7nm and failing to beat an aging based 14nm Skylake architecture. Shouldnot they went 25%  IPC +  Easy 5Ghz not 25%  IPC with low boost clock and they are lower as you go down in the cores hierarchy count.

I have tons of desktop-grade cpus, servers, including for DBA, Ryzen of different generations (including ThreadRipper), funky Xeon-D, Xeon Silver, Gold, even did tests on bleeding edge ARM64 boxes, the only missing (not for long) - EPYC.
And i use all that personally and for business applications, for very different workloads, not just synthetic benchmarks.
For example recently installed Xeon Gold 6230 MSRP $1900, and it is not impressive at all.

AMD is tricky to run sometimes (i had first top ryzen, it has several bugs, quite big errata, but not surprising for totally new architecture, and sometimes not all mobo+cpu combination works), but when it runs, it beats Intel in all serious workloads.
And Intel... Intel have drawbacks on each corner, if you look little closer. For example installing 384G of RAM for beefy system with 2-way or 4-way will drop clock of it to the floor because of memory management overhead. Or AVX512 that drops CPU performance significantly as well and does opposite what it is designed for. On AMD it is much less tricky.
As usual, proof of some reputable benchmarks: https://indico.cern.ch/event/730908/con … 9/epyc.pdf

nuclearcat

Member

Re: pc for small database

Your ideal specs will depend on the database usage - traffic (how many clients, concurrent access, etc.?) and storage needs (how much data?).
If you don't know your needs yet, start with something that is upgradeable.

Small ..2-3 usage with replication (subscriber) ..db is around 7 GB

Try to put enough RAM, so your indexes can fit all in ram/cache. I'm sure you know - it is most critical in db design.

duke-of-bytes

Member

Re: pc for small database

Your ideal specs will depend on the database usage - traffic (how many clients, concurrent access, etc.?) and storage needs (how much data?).
If you don't know your needs yet, start with something that is upgradeable.

Small ..2-3 usage with replication (subscriber) ..db is around 7 GB

Try to put enough RAM, so your indexes can fit all in ram/cache. I'm sure you know - it is most critical in db design.

16 GB should be enough dont you think for a 7 GB db .. I don't have any other application running..maximum vnc or vpn

nuclearcat

Member

Re: pc for small database

Small ..2-3 usage with replication (subscriber) ..db is around 7 GB

Try to put enough RAM, so your indexes can fit all in ram/cache. I'm sure you know - it is most critical in db design.

16 GB should be enough dont you think for a 7 GB db .. I don't have any other application running..maximum vnc or vpn

Not familiar with MS SQL... on Linux i will measure first sizes of indexes.

duke-of-bytes

Member

Re: pc for small database

i still cant find any i7-6700 cpu in Lebanon .. i just found a small ho elitedesk sff with no ssd or nvme for around a 1000$

MAS

Member

Re: pc for small database

why don't you start on cloud, you can use mssql on a VM, or as a service where u don't have to handle all this hassle, check :  https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/ … erver-iaas

duke-of-bytes

Member

Re: pc for small database

why don't you start on cloud, you can use mssql on a VM, or as a service where u don't have to handle all this hassle, check :  https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/ … erver-iaas

bad internet connection .. servers will replicate with an on premise sql server in the HQ..plus i dont want to pay monthly charges