Hardware Recommendations for SharePoint v3/2007

I have come across companies that wonder what is a valid hardware requirement for a successful SharePoint deployment. These companies had anywhere from 10 to 4,000 users that were required to access a SharePoint site. In addition, the users were in remote offices (local to the United States) and abroad. With many of these companies, different issues were of critical importance. Here is a list of some of the top issues.

• I have a WAN, how do I increase response times?
• I have a LAN, how many servers do I need to install and configure WSS v3/MOSS 2007?
• I have a WAN that is local to the U.S., how many servers do I need to install and configure WSS v3/MOSS 2007 and run it efficiently?
• I have a WAN that is global, how many servers do I need to install and configure WSS v3/MOSS 2007?
• How much disk space do I need to estimate for my database server?
• How much memory do I need to estimate for the web server?

It is difficult to provide a one-size fits all solution for these companies, but I have found a number of ways to help the customer resolve the sizing problem. From experience, I have found that the best thing to do is size out the servers based on technical articles created by Microsoft and available on TechNet. These articles help the IT administrator or manager determine disk space, processor, and memory requirements based on utilization. The links below provides not only best practices for providing specifications for server hardware and disk space, but it also helps one plan for a proper deployment. Below are the links:

• Windows SharePoint Services collaboration environments
• Planning and architecture for Office SharePoint Server 2007

General Hardware Recommendation

Most companies have 10 to 100 users with access to a SharePoint site. These companies typically have minimal failover needs. It is for these companies that I would recommend one web front-end server and one database server. This is in keeping with best practice. Certainly, they can get away with one heavy-duty server that will be a database and web server, but this is not recommended because of the competition of RAM space from Windows, IIS, and SQL Server. It is for these kinds of deployments that the higher the RAM, processor, drive RPM, and RAID the better the performance on a single server. In addition, I have found that if the server is a 64-bit web and database server with about 8 GB of RAM on both, that the server could easily handle 1000 to 3000 users effectively.

Recommendation for the database server

Disk Drive

Usually, I recommend that the client have at least one web front-end server and one standalone database server. The database server should have at the very least a RAID 5 configuration for data redundancy. This configuration will provide the most disk space for the server whenever there are hardware budget constraints. For the companies that are on a WAN and where the SharePoint web and database servers are in a central location (such as a data center). I would recommend that the database server have a RAID 10 configuration. This provides for increased data recovery, should one or more hard drives fail. If the company is a large enterprise, and has a SAN that is available for the web front-end and database servers, then I would not worry about configuration because of the technology backbone of a SAN and its means of handling data redundancy.

SharePoint and best version of SQL Server to use

I recommend that the client utilize SQL Server 2005 over SQL Server 2000 for their SharePoint 2003 and 2007 deployments. Currently WSS v3 and MOSS 2007 can be deployed on a SQL Server 2000 database engine. The reason why I recommend SQL Server 2005 over SQL Server 2000 is for the increased performance in requests per second. There is an article released by Microsoft that displays the results of a stress test of SharePoint Portal 2003 against SQL Server that displays dramatic results when using SQL Server 2005 over 2000. Click here to view a PDF document that displays the results of a test with SharePoint 2003 and SQL Server 2000/2005 on a 64-bit processor. I would also recommend moving your servers from 32-bit to 64-bit computing for increased performance.

Memory on the database server

SQL Server utilizes as much RAM as allocated to it to expedite responses. Currently, the 64-bit platform (processor and operating system) supports 8 GB to 1 TB of RAM, whereas the 32-bit operating system supports only up to 4 GB as indicated in the bullet below. I recommend that clients invest in increasing the RAM on the database server where it applies to medium and large farm deployments of SharePoint.

• Memory addressability - A 32-bit system can directly address only a 4-GB address space. Windows Server 2003 SP1 running on a 64-bit system architecture supports up to 1,024 gigabytes of both physical and addressable memory.
• Larger numbers of processors and more linear scalability per processor  -  Improvements in parallel processing and bus architectures enable 64-bit platforms to support larger numbers of processors (up to 64) while providing close to linear scalability with each additional processor. Server platforms that offer more than 32 CPUs are available exclusively on 64-bit architecture.
• Enhanced bus architecture - The bus architecture on current 64-bit chipsets is faster and wider than earlier generations. More data is passed to the cache and processor; this is somewhat analogous to the improvement that broadband connections offer over dial-up connections.

Speeding up SharePoint performance across the WAN

There is a company that I like to recommend that increase the performance of SharePoint responses. That company is Certeon. Bob German of Microsoft and Matt Bilotti of Certeon created a presentation that depicts how the use of the Certeon S-Series appliance accelerates SharePoint response times. Certeon worked with Microsoft to obtain a blueprint of SharePoint. The blueprints along with their patented object differencing technology together are used to dramatically increase response times. Click here to download two PowerPoint decks, along with PDF documents, that depict the Certeon solution and how they used it for Energizer across a global WAN and in over thirteen countries.

These are some of my recommendations. Certainly, this is not all-inclusive and is subject to change based on individual client requirements. There are a number of ways to deploy SharePoint in a company. The hardware recommendation and performance will usually depend on Capital Expense budgets, existing infrastructure, and disaster recovery/availability requirements.

Comments

[Dunham]

We are trying to size a SQL Server 2005 in a clustered environment using Sharepoint server 2007 and Project Server 2007 at a local university. It will be used for faculty and student sites (1000 approx). Do you have any recommendations for the database size? 200 gig? more.

Thanks for your help.

[Abshir Hassan]

I realy got good advantage on this recommendation but I couldn't understand some of the explanations and recommendations like one web front end server?

[jecoso]

Thanks for your recommendations ^_^

How about a client's PC minimum software requirement,such as the IE Version,Office Version and OS Version of the client's PC to access a Sharepoint site and work normally ?

I always can not clear descript the client's PC minimum software requirement to my clients,as sometimes IE6 + OFFICE2003 works OK,but sometimes it needs a SP1 or higher patch for OFFICE2003 to work normally in Sharepoint sites.I have search by google but get nothing...so ,can you help me? Any recommendation will be appreciated.

Thank you ^_^,and say sorry for any wrong English from my poor English.

[Marsh]

Your article doesn't speak to processor speeds ... I have notice that MOSS 2007 system requirements has changed a couple of times since its release. Currently they are saying 2.5 ghz dual processor. When it was released it was less than 2.0 ghz. Could you share your experience based on number of users what minimum might be and what full blown WAN environment might require. Also, they reference dual core processors... what about quad core processors? Does a quad core Xeon 2.5 ghz system perform better than a 3.0 ghz dual core processor?