New Server - Core Components?

[Yamahahahahaha]

Thanks for attempting to have a go, your contribution is valued.
1) I have read the PDF. Why do you say I haven't?
2) I have understood it. Why do you say I haven't?

This is for a DB server, SQL, yes.

If you look at Database OLTP you're looking at 5,000 IOPS for SSD vs. ~200 for HD. Rubbish huh?

SQL logs are more about sequential transfer speed.
Also given how large the logs can get, you'd want them on something larger than a 50GB drive if it's costing £800 a drive...

I would personally go with a RAID1 setup, since it would be ridiculous to have a server out of action for the failure of one drive.

Also Exchange 2010 (2007 also?) uses a larger transaction size, reducing the need to have lots of fast tiny disks. They don't specify which version they used for these tests.

 

[iaind]

I very much doubt there'll be a lot of OLTP going on here

SSDs do very well in desktops, which is why the citrix servers I'm building are going to have 2 SSDs in them each, but I wouldnt waste my time with them for this application.

As I said above, he's highly unlikely to "max out" 15k SAS drives, so the money will be wasted on SSDs

 

[daz]

I very much doubt there'll be a lot of OLTP going on here

SSDs do very well in desktops, which is why the citrix servers I'm building are going to have 2 SSDs in them each, but I wouldnt waste my time with them for this application.

As I said above, he's highly unlikely to "max out" 15k SAS drives, so the money will be wasted on SSDs

SSDs are superb for servers, particularly database servers. My point was that two 15K SAS disks are pretty much the price of a single good quality SLC SSD, so you're not wasting money, but you are getting great performance, as well as lower power usage if that floats your boat. Replacing two 15K disks with an SSD is likely to save something like 0.1-0.15A which in most datacenters might be £10 per month per 0.1A.