Small business server - ECC Memory... really?

By Jim_Lafleur
in Microsoft (Windows)

 Share

Recommended Posts

Neowinian

Jim_Lafleur

Posted
Posted
Hi,
 
We need a server for a small businesse with less than 10 client workstations. It runs a database for trucking dispatch (Axon). We plan to install a Windows 8.1 Pro machine to act as the server. Do we really need ECC memory for this? Are the chances to get errors caused by memory so low that we shouldn't worry about this?
 
I mean even Synology, a well reputable manufacturer, don't use ECC memory in their "Small and medium business" line... https://www.synology.com/en-us/products/ If you look at the specs, they only do use ECC in their "Large Scale Business" line. So what? Small and medium businesses don't care about their data? Or is it that Synology considers that correctable memory errors don't happen to/affect small/medium businesses?
 
According to the following study, "About a third of machines and over 8% of DIMMs in our fleet saw at least one correctable error per year." 
 
Grand Master

Praetor

Posted
Posted

for 10 workstations do you really need to bother with a Server? Can you run that DB in Azure or other Cloud?

 

if you really need to use a Server don't use a Consumer OS (Windows 8.x) but a Server OS (Windows Server).

Grand Master

n_K

Posted
Posted

The real question is will your server be mission critical? What happens if the server was to go down?

If it's mission critical then ECC is a must, if it's not and you have spare RAM or can get spare RAM or do without some slots or even work for a few days until it's fixed then ECC probably isn't worth getting.

  • President Devil and goretsky
  • Like 2
Grand Master

fusi0n

Posted
Posted

Windows 8.1 isn't tuned and geared to run a database server..Yeah, IT'LL WORK, but it isn't recommended. If you are using a DATABASE Server then ECC will help with data corruption. For a company of 10, this should be cloud based with internet failover. 

Neowinian

Jim_Lafleur

Posted
  • Author
Posted

To specify: We want to use Windows 8.1 Pro cause it can handle 20 users logged in, with a maximum of 16384 open files per session. We have less then 10 users so it should work OK right? Also the dispatch server software uses it's own database system. So we don't need SQL or anything.

Neowinian

Jim_Lafleur

Posted
  • Author
Posted
  On 21/05/2015 at 16:52, Praetor said:

Can you run that DB in Azure or other Cloud?

I've just checked Azure. It looks like pricey no? 1 Windows virtual machine with 4 cores, 7 GB RAM : 2640$ US per year. And there's maybe other charges I didn't forsee.

Grand Master

Aergan

Posted
Posted
  On 21/05/2015 at 17:42, Jim_Lafleur said:

I've just checked Azure. It looks like pricey no? 1 Windows virtual machine with 4 cores, 7 GB RAM : 2640$ US per year. And there's maybe other charges I didn't forsee.

 

Their VPN isn't exactly cheap either.

Grand Master

+InsaneNutter MVC

Posted
  • MVC
Posted
  On 21/05/2015 at 17:42, Jim_Lafleur said:

I've just checked Azure. It looks like pricey no? 1 Windows virtual machine with 4 cores, 7 GB RAM : 2640$ US per year. And there's maybe other charges I didn't forsee.

 

Depending on what you require you could pay as little as $15 a month for a database up to 250gb in size: Azure SQL Databases

Grand Master

+LogicalApex MVC

Posted
  • MVC
Posted

ECC is going to protect you from corrupt memory issues. Is the applications running on this box mission critical? For instance, is this storing accounting information for the whole business and a corrupt memory address flipping a dollar value something that could be disastrous for the business? The problem with memory corruption is that it doesn't always lead to a machine crash. It could just silently pollute data. Obviously, this isn't a major issue on consumer systems where they are rarely on long enough or storing mission critical data in an authoritative fashion.

 

  On 21/05/2015 at 16:52, Praetor said:

for 10 workstations do you really need to bother with a Server? Can you run that DB in Azure or other Cloud?

 

if you really need to use a Server don't use a Consumer OS (Windows 8.x) but a Server OS (Windows Server).

Azure is a better choice for this size workload!? Azure is going to cost them more in 3 months than it would cost them to put this on prem for the better part of 3 years, at least. Not including the additional complexity of the setup increasing their support costs as well.

 

On Prem is the best option here...

Grand Master

neufuse Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
  On 21/05/2015 at 17:59, InsaneNutter said:

Depending on what you require you could pay as little as $15 a month for a database up to 250gb in size: Azure SQL Databases

I haven't looked at their requirements but does that database size only include MDF / NDF's (the actual data) or is that also including the log files? because if its also the logs then that could get expensive fast... depending on how much you use it... It's not an option for me with multiple terabyte data stores with confidential and regulation protected data that isn't allowed "in the cloud" so I never looked at it :rofl:

Neowinian

Jim_Lafleur

Posted
  • Author
Posted
  On 21/05/2015 at 18:13, Obry said:

This sounds like a disaster waiting to happen before it's even been fully conceptualized. Like others have mentioned, look at Azure instead. It will work much better and most likely cost less in the long run...

Would you please explain to me how it would cost less? I don't understand. Would you please give me an estimate on how it would cost approximately? Remember, it's not an SQL database. They have their own proprietary database system.

Grand Master

goretsky Supervisor

Posted
  • Supervisor
Posted

Hello,

 

In addition to looking at this from a technical side, what about a financial one?

 

How much extra does the cost of ECC RAM add to the server build?

 

How much would it cost the business to without the database for a half-day?  What about a full-day? 

 

For that matter, can the business be run without access to the database for that long, or is having it down a major impact on revenue generation?

 

Regards,

 

Aryeh Goretsky

Grand Master

Praetor

Posted
Posted
  On 21/05/2015 at 18:01, LogicalApex said:

Azure is a better choice for this size workload!? Azure is going to cost them more in 3 months than it would cost them to put this on prem for the better part of 3 years, at least. Not including the additional complexity of the setup increasing their support costs as well.

 

On Prem is the best option here...

 

i don't know the size workload, do you? :)

 

I have costumers that went into a Cloud provider here in Portugal for their DB because in the long run it was cheaper; since those costumers had less then 10 employees the expenses for running a BD in the cloud were less then buying hardware/software, maintenance, backups, redundancy and upgrades. And it works great, till this day (22/05/2015).

 

On premisses is the best of course, but then again one has to calculate the expenses (hardware/software, maintenance, backups, redundancy and upgrades) and see if it pays for small business with only 10 employees; sometimes it doesn't.

 

OP: if the DB is propertary you can still use a cloud provider, only not Azure.

Proficient

Obry

Posted
Posted
  On 22/05/2015 at 01:01, Jim_Lafleur said:

Would you please explain to me how it would cost less? I don't understand. Would you please give me an estimate on how it would cost approximately? Remember, it's not an SQL database. They have their own proprietary database system.

 

You can get 2 core, 3.5GHz VM from Azure for $110/month. You will be guaranteed it won't go down unless for maintenance which they generally give you plenty of advance notice with exact dates and times when the data center(s) where your VM's are hosted will be performing maintenance.

 

My reasoning is that if this database is critical to their business and will be costly if the in-house server crashes then the monthly hosting fees will outweigh the cost of not being able to do business while your server is down.

 

If none of that is important (uptime, etc) then in my experience the RAM you put in the machine will have very little effect if it runs fine when you start it up.

Neowinian

LightDragon

Posted
Posted

Data corruption happens all the time. Like others before me said, data corruption only sometimes means system crash.

Mostly it corrupts data which you will not even notice for years.

 

The only question is, is your buisness data more worth than the few bucks you need to invest more for ecc memory ?

 

I mean really, in Germany, there is no big difference between ecc and non ecc memory anymore.

And even some of the low cost celeron and pentium processors have ecc support.

You only have to look at the intel ark to see which ones has it and which one not. The celeron g1820 for example has it and only cost 40 euro over here.

 

The only noticeable price difference is the mainboard.

While non ecc boards cost about 50-100 an ecc enabled supermicro server board will cost up to 200 euro.

Grand Master

Praetor

Posted
Posted
  On 22/05/2015 at 14:37, Holger Altenbach said:

Data corruption happens all the time. Like others before me said, data corruption only sometimes means system crash.

Mostly it corrupts data which you will not even notice for years.

 

The only question is, is your buisness data more worth than the few bucks you need to invest more for ecc memory ?

 

I mean really, in Germany, there is no big difference between ecc and non ecc memory anymore.

And even some of the low cost celeron and pentium processors have ecc support.

You only have to look at the intel ark to see which ones has it and which one not. The celeron g1820 for example has it and only cost 40 euro over here.

 

The only noticeable price difference is the mainboard.

While non ecc boards cost about 50-100 an ecc enabled supermicro server board will cost up to 200 euro.

 

wow first post and registered in 2011? :D

  • 4 weeks later...
Grand Master

PGHammer

Posted
Posted
  On 21/05/2015 at 17:35, Jim_Lafleur said:

To specify: We want to use Windows 8.1 Pro cause it can handle 20 users logged in, with a maximum of 16384 open files per session. We have less then 10 users so it should work OK right? Also the dispatch server software uses it's own database system. So we don't need SQL or anything.

The better choice would be Server 2012R2 (or even Server 2012).  The requirements for the OS itself are no different than that of Windows 8.1 (or 8), you STILL won't need ECC, you still have Hyper-V support (but, unlike 8.x or 10, you don't need SLAT support) and the cost curve is not THAT high.  You would need five additional client access licenses (the server OS itself includes 5) - however, that cost is not that high.  If the issue is the UI/UX, add Desktop Experience to the server loadout via Server Manager

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing