What hardware specifications are better to choose for ms sql server 2014?

Question

Iron

Good afternoon, it is planned to purchase a ms sql 2014 server, a 50 gigabyte base, about 8 thousand rows are added per day, in addition to selections and updates, 50 users work per day, the application architecture is a thick server thin client. what hardware would you recommend? I want to focus on RAM and processor, take a 120 gig ssd. for the server and base and terabyte hard to save information. I'll get by with a discrete video card, because it does not participate in the calculations.
approximately I get the following -
processor Intel Core i5-7600K 3800MHz
motherboard ASUS TUF Z270 MARK 2, Intel Z270
cooling Thermalright Macho 120 SBM
RAM 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR4 2133Mhz Kingston HyperX FURY
power supply Corsair RM750x 750W
hard for system and base 128GB SSD Samsung 850 PRO
hard for backups 1TB HDD Western Digital Blue
Will this configuration work? Or something extra or something to get? I listen to your reasoned proposals. the assembly price is not more than 90 thousand rubles. (manual no longer gives)

Answer 1

16G of RAM is your emphasis on RAM? Yes, now children have more memory for tanks in their computers.
Take enough memory so that the database completely fits into the cache, while it has not grown too much for you - at least 64 GB.
120G HDD is not enough for a base. If you only have 50G of data and have a log that can grow much faster and take up much more space (if you don't do anything). Moreover, the system on the same screw will bite off 30-40 GB. In any case, in 1-2 years your 120G will run out and you will need to upgrade. Collect the config so that for at least 5 years you don’t touch the iron.
Prots is better than i7 - it has more cache.
You can not take an SSD if the budget is limited, because. High-capacity SSDs are not yet sane money. Take a raid controller and 4-6 HDDs in RAID10. Maybe more money will be spent, but there will be no problems with disk space for some time.
And by the way, in your case, there is no point in keeping the system on an SSD (unless you plan to use this server somehow).
With a normal amount of RAM and such a HDD configuration, the performance will not be bad at all and there will be enough space for both the system and the base.
For backups, you can take disks in a simpler way and not drive them into raid10.
Are you building a server, but not server hardware?

Answer 2

I'm sorry, but the announced budget does not pull on the server at all. Only on "server type". Even a more or less decent laptop for development turns out to be more expensive ...
Management should ask the question of what idle intervals are acceptable for it. And how much does an hour/day of downtime cost. Then explain the difference between a "server" and a server.
First of all, I would focus on the constructive possibility of redundant nodes. Two power supplies, RAID, sometimes even memory banks + the ability to "replace on the fly." Secondly, on the brand service. If we exclude incidents, then the minimum level of support looks like a message about the upcoming problem and delivery within a day or two replacement. But in a generalized self-assembly - "bring it yourself for examination, in two weeks or a warranty repair up to 45 days or a denial of warranty"
Well, in general, for SQL - more cores / processors and more memory +, of course, a fast disk subsystem. Backups - store at least not on the server, but on a separate device (possibly geographically remote).