Scoping Hardware for New Servers

[amigo]

So, IT want to play hardball and do not want to give us "like-for-like" whilst we move from 9.5.2 to 10.2.2.

We currently have 2 servers:

Server 1 - read/write server with TM1 and WEB with 4 cores, 65Gb RAM and 250Gb HDD
Server 2 - read only server with TM1 with 2 cores, 30Gb RAM and 250Gb HDD

so, they want us to prove that we need more power... I can create new cubes and beef the memory usage up so not a problem. However, I want to show the processors working more hence wanted more cores to assist with.

What is the best way to do this - or is there a sizing / scoping guide from IBM)

Thanks,

AMIGO

[jim wood]

I would look in to the new features you getting and which you are likely to use. Generally when they add anything in to TM1 it always takes more memory. I don't know if anybody has done analysis of the difference in memory usage between these 2 versions but if you do a search you'll find plenty of posts highlighting increased memory usage,

Jim.

[lotsaram]

So, IT want to play hardball and do not want to give us "like-for-like" whilst we move from 9.5.2 to 10.2.2.

We currently have 2 servers:

Server 1 - read/write server with TM1 and WEB with 4 cores, 65Gb RAM and 250Gb HDD
Server 2 - read only server with TM1 with 2 cores, 30Gb RAM and 250Gb HDD

so, they want us to prove that we need more power... I can create new cubes and beef the memory usage up so not a problem. However, I want to show the processors working more hence wanted more cores to assist with.

What is the best way to do this - or is there a sizing / scoping guide from IBM)

Thanks,

AMIGO

Well Amigo much of what you can do with respect to hardware or server power is going to depend on your software license conditions. Ever since IBM acquired Cognos the TM1 server component has been licensed based on PVUs (Processor Value Unit). In other words the more powerful your hardware (faster CPUs, more CPUs) the more you pay for your software. Check this first before proceeding any further! Otherwise by adding more CPUs you may find yourself in a breach of compliance that is very expensive to buy your way out of.

Since quite recently IBM have also been offering a simplified licensing structure called "PM Advanced" which is end user count denominated, irrespective of PVU, number of TM1 instances and admin users. It's a blast of common sense but it does come at a price premium. If you change to this licensing structure then you are free to go for whatever server configuration you choose.

To take advantage of the new features that allow for faster performance through better utilisation or CPUs like MTQ and parallel loading or data you are going to need more cores, simple as that. Without more cores you can't take advantage of such features. But it also depends on your model, do you have currently identified bottle-necks? Do you know what's causing them? If number of concurrent users is low and the data model simple then adding resources might not do much.

[amigo]

Licensed based on PVUs

We have just under 1000 PVU's

Issues whereby when we re-re-start server, our cubes take 25 mins to load with 2 cores maxing out - i was wondering if having more cores would load the cubes any faster.. We have approx 60 users accross the world, 40 of which are in the UK.

[lotsaram]

We have just under 1000 PVU's

"Just under" 1000 PVUs sounds like your IT hardware team are ripping you off as you are paying for 1000 PVU but with 6 CPU probably only consuming between 500 - 700 depending on the spec of the processors. Paying for something you're not receiving I do not think makes sense to anyone. Especially with computing power being a relatively cheap resource compared to TM1 licenses.

Do more cores lead to quicker server startup? Almost certainly. Bus there are cases in rule intensive models where a higher MaximumCubeLoadThreads can actually have a longer startup time, but that is more of an exception. If MTQ is configured with 10.2.2 will this reduce user queries for view constructs? Yes in a fairly linear fashion as per number of CPUs available. Can load times be reduced with parallel processing? Yes but it does take some reprogramming in order to reconfigure jobs to use TM1RunTI, i.e. not without some effort (how much depends on skill and whether you have done it before.)

[amigo]

Is there any official documentation from IBM with sizing specs?

[rmackenzie]

So, IT want to play hardball and do not want to give us "like-for-like" whilst we move from 9.5.2 to 10.2.2.

We currently have 2 servers:

Server 1 - read/write server with TM1 and WEB with 4 cores, 65Gb RAM and 250Gb HDD
Server 2 - read only server with TM1 with 2 cores, 30Gb RAM and 250Gb HDD

You have to allow for processor capacity for Windows/ Apache/ IIS/ what-have-you. If you're running Cognos BI runtime or Framework Manager or some other applications then already you've got an argument that 4 cores ought to be a minimum and that's a starting point for arguing for at least 6 cores. If I recall correctly, then some AMD set-ups will allow 6, but Intel comes in 2, 4, 8 etc. If your servers are virtualised then you can request lower spec'd cores to maximise the number of cores you can get per your PVU licensing (e.g. Opteron is lower spec'd than Xeon). You might find that for your set-up having 8 lower spec cores gives you better performance than 4 high-end ones especially if you're going to 10.2.2 and want to use MTQ. You've really got to try and re-frame the parameters of the challenge they're presenting you with.

Is there any official documentation from IBM with sizing specs?

Not that I've seen. I assume they don't produce this because such advice could be weaponised against them in the event of severe performance issues. Really it's totally dependent on how your servers/ models are used and especially what peak usage looks like. Based on a conversation I had recently the entry level cloud offer comes with 8 cores and 64Gb memory so perhaps this is a indication of what IBM view as a 'basic' server nowadays (for 10.2.2).

[jim wood]

BTW I have seen official guides for specing servers but it was many versions ago and it was only released to partners. (Again as far as I'm aware) If you're dealing with an IBM partner I would ask them to see what they can get hold of.

[declanr]

I had recently the entry level cloud offer comes with 8 cores and 64Gb memory so perhaps this is a indication of what IBM view as a 'basic' server nowadays (for 10.2.2).

Off topic but I have been informed that "basic" setup was for a "shared" server (with no detail of how many other customer you will be sharing with) and you have to pay for the somewhat "more premium" setup if you want your own beast.

[rmackenzie]

If you're dealing with an IBM partner I would ask them to see what they can get hold of.

Good advice - a decent partner would very likely have come across a site with a similar set-up to you, and therefore be able to give you real-life feedback to help you make your choice.

[amigo]

Thanks for all the response..... Much appreciated... I will let you know when I win my battles.

[tstroumbos]

I just found this info, not sure if it's still helpful or not....

http://www-01.ibm.com/software/passport ... omers.html