Is this new server setup really needed?
We currently have Epicor 10, running on a single server.
We want to upgrade to Kinetic 2023.
We have 30 users.
1. Dual Processor :
Processor Intel® Xeon® Silver 4314 2.4G, 16C/32T, 10.4GT/s, 24M Cache, Turbo, HT (135W) DDR4-2666 with Additional Processor
Intel® Xeon® Silver 4314 2.4G, 16C/32T, 10.4GT/s, 24M Cache, Turbo, HT (135W) DDR4-2666
2. RAM: 128 GB
3. RAID Configuration C7, Unconfigured RAID for HDDs or SSDs (Mixed Drive Types Allowed) - We can configure anything RAID1 or RAID5.
4. Hard Drives:960GB SSD SATA Mix Use 6Gbps 512 2.5in Hot-plug AG Drive, 3 DWPD: 4 QTY
5. Boot Optimized Storage Cards BOSS controller card + with 2 M.2 Sticks 240G (RAID 1) - this is required for the Server ESXi Host OS.
Currently, We have only 1 Epicor Server VM for Application and Database (Which is not recommended).
Upon getting a new server, we will set up a two-tier architecture consisting of two separate VMs (one for the Application and another for the Database) to maintain performance and security.
Epicor has published a “Kinetic Hardware Sizing and Configuration Guide” on EpicWeb for prior versions. We’re not on-prem anymore but I’d be surprised if they don’t have one for 2024.x published. From memory, that config looks about right but I’d verify with the published sizing guide as we had way more users.
I’ll let @EarlGrei chime in on our setup, but that sounds like overkill. I wouldn’t split the AppServer and SQL server up for that many users either. That performs better at scale, but worse in a small environment. I would recommend instead a single DB with multiple appservers for production on a single VM and a duplicate VM for all your Dev, Pilot, etc applications.
From a hardware perspective if this is planned to be purely the PRODUCTION stand alone server environment then I have a few comments yes.
Our production server users the EXACT same CPU. However only 1 CPU and it is still a shared HyperV host. So Dual CPU is probably overkill.
RAM: Again if this is only going to to your Production Epicor then Okay. Otherwise this might be a little low if you ended up wanting to do a full secondary Development environment as well.
The Drive configuration isnt ideal but it is not terrible either. There are better ways to do this but if you are already calling this expensive then we’ll say, OK to this.
The fact that they said ESXi is worrisome since ESXi as a free product has been discontinued by VMWare and is no longer a supported platform. UNLESS you plan on paying for the licensing for VMWare which is CRAZY expensive now.
I will echo @jgiese.wci 's statements and say that splitting out your Database and your App Servers for ‘performance and security’ is questionable at best for a team your size. Its more management overhead that is not really something you need to mess with.
Agreed, unless you are having other performance issues this isn’t necessary for your size. And you get overhead “free” network transport from (local) in SQL which shaves off a few performance bits from latency and not having to stand up the local network stack.
One reason for splitting appserver and SQL Server with VMs is that it saves on per core licensing cost: If you have have one server with 8 cores running SQL and Epicor, then you have to pay for 8 SQL cores. 1x4 core server for Application and 1x4 core for SQL means you have only 4 SQL cores to pay for. Of course if you are doing CAL licensing this isn’t a factor - but I can never understand what a CAL is. Sql is in the ballpark of $1k per core so that is a factor in costs. Running the application and SQL on the same server will pretty much always be faster - as Jose says - you get shared memory access to SQL rather than having to go through the TCP stack on split VMs.
From experience Epicor does not like to run on oversubscribed hosts. So if you have a host with 16 cores, and you have 12 VMs running on it with 4vCPUs each you’re oversubscribed. If this host is purely for your Epicor servers, your proposal is miles from this at the moment.
It also doesn’t like lower clock speeds. 2.6GHz or higher does make the difference.
But your quoted server is 32 physical cores at a recommended price from intel at $780. 2 VMs with 4 cores each (recommended for a 25 user system from recollection) is NOT going to consume anything like 32 cores, so unless you are planning to run other VMs on the host no need for the second CPU. But I would try and look for a more reasonable 16 core processor with a higher base clock speed; a single Gold 6236 has a base clock speed of 2.9GHz and 16 cores. Its recommend price is $1517 (the same as 2x Silver 4314), but I would be surprised if it isn’t significantly faster. And even with that you’d have sufficient capacity to set up a non-production application server if it was dedicated to Epicor.
Oh and avoid RAID 5 like the plague for the SQL Server. RAID10 is the one to go for.
Finally, an extra 1-2k might sound expensive on a server now - but it can quickly be eaten up in performance tuning if you are having performance issues, and is unlikely to get you the same benefit that you’d have got from buying a fast server.
We are medium sized (~80 concurrent users) and got burned by trying to split App and SQL last year when we upgraded… Going back to SQL and App on the same box gave MUCH better performance. We are in Azure (“private cloud”), and figured the performance issues were mostly about not being able to get the appserver and sql boxes “physically close enough” to each other to make the network time between the boxes small enough. We started looking at things like Azure Proximity Groups, but at that point it made more sense to just revert to a single box.
Hello,
Thank you all the the posts…
I couldn’t edit my original post so this what I just got from our Consultant… 5/30/24
Based on the standard practices for Epicor Implementations set by Epicor and my previous experience. I shared my recommendations.
It is highly recommended that separate VMs for the database and application servers in an Epicor/Kinetic 2023 deployment for 15 users be set up. This approach enhances performance, scalability, security, and manageability, ensuring a robust and efficient ERP environment.
Following the configuration guidelines can create a solid foundation for your Epicor ERP system.
As an Epicor Technical Consultant, it’s my job to give proper upgrade suggestions.
Please Note that the team receives multiple integration requests, such as HubSpot, Smartsheet, EDI integration, Solidworks, etc. I gave my recommendation after considering this and future requirements.
I would prefer mine separate for other reasons, but you’re certainly not going to get any more performance that way.
I’d pay keen attention to the experts in this thread, and also really evaluate what your chances for expansion are before you start spending money you don’t need to.
Whatever you do though, don’t under-do it, you will kick yourself hard for that, and all your users will kick you too. They might even kick your dog.
Again at scale yes but at that size it’s swatting flies with a Buick. Focus on Disk I/O speed, Epicor is super heavy in I/O lots and lots and lots of queries. Lots of RAM. Proper configuration and you’ll be golden.
Even if the company were to grow significantly over the next 3 years don’t put money into hardware today that you don’t need today, it will be outdated when you need it.
Split of DB server if your load balancing or sharing SQL with other non ERP DBs (this I do not recommend)
** As a qualifier we’ve been doing the Epicor thing now 13 years and have gone to and from split server to combined server configuration a few times. Our last transition we consolidated again. No regrets. For smaller size orgs it’s the simplest, fastest, and most cost effective way to go. Our first setup was “by the book” with two physical servers and a RAID10 drive array. Total waste.**
