Handle Error: disks

Showing posts with label disks. Show all posts

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Having fun with moint points

To keep the number of driveletters to a minimum, have
the same directory structure on the instances and do
something with disks and performance I tried this:
MSSQL$I1\Data
\Data1 <- mount point
\Tlog
\Backup
\Backup1 <- mount point
MSSQL$I2\Data
\Data1 <- mount point
\Tlog
\Backup
\Backup1
MSSQL$I3\Data
\Data1
\Tlog
\Backup
\Backup1
And ran into the SQL Setup does not support mount points
bug or feature. So I added driveletter to the mounted disk.
I am still thinking off using the mount points next to the drive
letters. Are the any other issues or disadvantages I should be
aware off?
Hans
Hi
Have you looked at http://support.microsoft.com/kb/819546/en-us "SQL Server
2000 support for mounted volumes"?
On non-clustered systems, the base drive needs a drive letter.
Regards
Mike
"Hans de Bruin" wrote:

> To keep the number of driveletters to a minimum, have
> the same directory structure on the instances and do
> something with disks and performance I tried this:
> MSSQL$I1\Data
> \Data1 <- mount point
> \Tlog
> \Backup
> \Backup1 <- mount point
> MSSQL$I2\Data
> \Data1 <- mount point
> \Tlog
> \Backup
> \Backup1
> MSSQL$I3\Data
> \Data1
> \Tlog
> \Backup
> \Backup1
> And ran into the SQL Setup does not support mount points
> bug or feature. So I added driveletter to the mounted disk.
> I am still thinking off using the mount points next to the drive
> letters. Are the any other issues or disadvantages I should be
> aware off?
> --
> Hans
>

Monday, March 19, 2012

Hardware/RAID Optimum Setup

I need some help with configuring SQL2K on a brand new machine.
The machine has 6 disks. RAIDx is required (I know more or less nothing
about RAID). My database has one table in particular which is hammered
non-stop.
So, I put the table that is used incessantly on one disk, the transaction
log on another and the data file on another. Does this make sense and what
options would that give me for RAID ?
Thanks
FrankNormally I would give a detailed answer to this but home
time here and I give a life to somebody.
Email me on peternolan67REMOVETHIS@.hotmail.com, nd I wil
go through all the options, rather than the best, its more
a case of the best for your circumstances.
Peter
MCDBA
"A politician needs the ability to foretell what is going
to happen tomorrow, next week, next month, and next year.
And to have the ability afterwards to explain why it
didn't happen."
Winston Churchill
>--Original Message--
>I need some help with configuring SQL2K on a brand new
machine.
>The machine has 6 disks. RAIDx is required (I know more
or less nothing
>about RAID). My database has one table in particular
which is hammered
>non-stop.
>So, I put the table that is used incessantly on one disk,
the transaction
>log on another and the data file on another. Does this
make sense and what
>options would that give me for RAID ?
>Thanks
>Frank
>
>.
>|||Hi Frank
Is your database and OLTP or an OLAP system?
The strategy for RAID is highly dependent on you query types.
Yours sincerely
Thomas Kejser
M.Sc, MCDBA
"Frank Ashley" <aa@.aa.com> wrote in message
news:O9woh4y9EHA.3260@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>I need some help with configuring SQL2K on a brand new machine.
> The machine has 6 disks. RAIDx is required (I know more or less nothing
> about RAID). My database has one table in particular which is hammered
> non-stop.
> So, I put the table that is used incessantly on one disk, the transaction
> log on another and the data file on another. Does this make sense and what
> options would that give me for RAID ?
> Thanks
> Frank
>|||Its OLTP
Thanks
Frank
"Thomas Kejser" <thomas@.kejser.org> wrote in message
news:OhLA5I09EHA.3236@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Hi Frank
> Is your database and OLTP or an OLAP system?
> The strategy for RAID is highly dependent on you query types.
>
> --
> Yours sincerely
> Thomas Kejser
> M.Sc, MCDBA
>
> "Frank Ashley" <aa@.aa.com> wrote in message
> news:O9woh4y9EHA.3260@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>>I need some help with configuring SQL2K on a brand new machine.
>> The machine has 6 disks. RAIDx is required (I know more or less nothing
>> about RAID). My database has one table in particular which is hammered
>> non-stop.
>> So, I put the table that is used incessantly on one disk, the transaction
>> log on another and the data file on another. Does this make sense and
>> what options would that give me for RAID ?
>> Thanks
>> Frank
>>
>|||"Frank Ashley" <aa@.aa.com> wrote in message
news:O9woh4y9EHA.3260@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>I need some help with configuring SQL2K on a brand new machine.
> The machine has 6 disks. RAIDx is required (I know more or less nothing
> about RAID). My database has one table in particular which is hammered
> non-stop.
> So, I put the table that is used incessantly on one disk, the transaction
> log on another and the data file on another. Does this make sense and what
> options would that give me for RAID ?
> Thanks
> Frank
>
A quick search through the NG will give you this answer. Here it is again
however...
RAID Levels and SQL Server:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/optimsql/odp_tun_1_87jm.asp
Comparing Different Implementations of RAID Levels:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/optimsql/odp_tun_1_79pv.asp
Rick Sawtell
MCT, MCSD, MCDBA

Friday, March 9, 2012

Hardware Configuration - Need Advice

We have a web app currently being hosted on a RAID 5 with four disks, 2 GB
RAM, Xenon 3.2 processor. Also running Windows 2003 Server Standard Ed. and
SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition. Our database is about 4GB and at most we
have 10 concurrent users hitting our server, with a mix of read and write
operations. Both the OS and our DB are on the same machine. I am aware that
having both IIS and SQL Server on the same box is not the ideal
configuration, but it has suited our needs given the load.
We are looking to private license our software to one other company, which
would entail the licensee having their own seperate db, but running in the
same instance of SQL Server. At a minimum, I'm thinking we would move SQL
Server onto its own dedicated machine, keeping the current RAID 5 config.
Perhaps this would not be sufficient?
What I'm looking for is some indication as to whether or not the proposed
platform could handle an increased user load, say 20 times what is now (200
concurrent users). This is primarily an OLTP db used for ACH processing,
with several reporting features. I'm fully aware that the application design
itself, along with query tuning, indexing, etc is equally important as the
hardware, but need some guidance on the hardware itself.
What I'm looking for are some general guidelines to follow given this
scenario. Thanks in advance.
Eric there is no way to answer that without knowing a lot more of what your
current system is doing and how the hardware is holding up now. Do you do 1
transaction per second or 1 thousand? What are the disk Queues, processor
queues etc. like now?
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Eric" <Eric@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3C2BC87F-5505-4DD6-9E79-A053B86527BA@.microsoft.com...
> We have a web app currently being hosted on a RAID 5 with four disks, 2 GB
> RAM, Xenon 3.2 processor. Also running Windows 2003 Server Standard Ed.
> and
> SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition. Our database is about 4GB and at most
> we
> have 10 concurrent users hitting our server, with a mix of read and write
> operations. Both the OS and our DB are on the same machine. I am aware
> that
> having both IIS and SQL Server on the same box is not the ideal
> configuration, but it has suited our needs given the load.
> We are looking to private license our software to one other company, which
> would entail the licensee having their own seperate db, but running in the
> same instance of SQL Server. At a minimum, I'm thinking we would move SQL
> Server onto its own dedicated machine, keeping the current RAID 5 config.
> Perhaps this would not be sufficient?
> What I'm looking for is some indication as to whether or not the proposed
> platform could handle an increased user load, say 20 times what is now
> (200
> concurrent users). This is primarily an OLTP db used for ACH processing,
> with several reporting features. I'm fully aware that the application
> design
> itself, along with query tuning, indexing, etc is equally important as the
> hardware, but need some guidance on the hardware itself.
> What I'm looking for are some general guidelines to follow given this
> scenario. Thanks in advance.

Hardware Configuration - Need Advice

We have a web app currently being hosted on a RAID 5 with four disks, 2 GB
RAM, Xenon 3.2 processor. Also running Windows 2003 Server Standard Ed. and
SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition. Our database is about 4GB and at most we
have 10 concurrent users hitting our server, with a mix of read and write
operations. Both the OS and our DB are on the same machine. I am aware that
having both IIS and SQL Server on the same box is not the ideal
configuration, but it has suited our needs given the load.
We are looking to private license our software to one other company, which
would entail the licensee having their own seperate db, but running in the
same instance of SQL Server. At a minimum, I'm thinking we would move SQL
Server onto its own dedicated machine, keeping the current RAID 5 config.
Perhaps this would not be sufficient?
What I'm looking for is some indication as to whether or not the proposed
platform could handle an increased user load, say 20 times what is now (200
concurrent users). This is primarily an OLTP db used for ACH processing,
with several reporting features. I'm fully aware that the application design
itself, along with query tuning, indexing, etc is equally important as the
hardware, but need some guidance on the hardware itself.
What I'm looking for are some general guidelines to follow given this
scenario. Thanks in advance.Eric there is no way to answer that without knowing a lot more of what your
current system is doing and how the hardware is holding up now. Do you do 1
transaction per second or 1 thousand? What are the disk Queues, processor
queues etc. like now?
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Eric" <Eric@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3C2BC87F-5505-4DD6-9E79-A053B86527BA@.microsoft.com...
> We have a web app currently being hosted on a RAID 5 with four disks, 2 GB
> RAM, Xenon 3.2 processor. Also running Windows 2003 Server Standard Ed.
> and
> SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition. Our database is about 4GB and at most
> we
> have 10 concurrent users hitting our server, with a mix of read and write
> operations. Both the OS and our DB are on the same machine. I am aware
> that
> having both IIS and SQL Server on the same box is not the ideal
> configuration, but it has suited our needs given the load.
> We are looking to private license our software to one other company, which
> would entail the licensee having their own seperate db, but running in the
> same instance of SQL Server. At a minimum, I'm thinking we would move SQL
> Server onto its own dedicated machine, keeping the current RAID 5 config.
> Perhaps this would not be sufficient?
> What I'm looking for is some indication as to whether or not the proposed
> platform could handle an increased user load, say 20 times what is now
> (200
> concurrent users). This is primarily an OLTP db used for ACH processing,
> with several reporting features. I'm fully aware that the application
> design
> itself, along with query tuning, indexing, etc is equally important as the
> hardware, but need some guidance on the hardware itself.
> What I'm looking for are some general guidelines to follow given this
> scenario. Thanks in advance.

Hardware Configuration - Need Advice

We have a web app currently being hosted on a RAID 5 with four disks, 2 GB
RAM, Xenon 3.2 processor. Also running Windows 2003 Server Standard Ed. and
SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition. Our database is about 4GB and at most we
have 10 concurrent users hitting our server, with a mix of read and write
operations. Both the OS and our DB are on the same machine. I am aware tha
t
having both IIS and SQL Server on the same box is not the ideal
configuration, but it has suited our needs given the load.
We are looking to private license our software to one other company, which
would entail the licensee having their own seperate db, but running in the
same instance of SQL Server. At a minimum, I'm thinking we would move SQL
Server onto its own dedicated machine, keeping the current RAID 5 config.
Perhaps this would not be sufficient?
What I'm looking for is some indication as to whether or not the proposed
platform could handle an increased user load, say 20 times what is now (200
concurrent users). This is primarily an OLTP db used for ACH processing,
with several reporting features. I'm fully aware that the application desig
n
itself, along with query tuning, indexing, etc is equally important as the
hardware, but need some guidance on the hardware itself.
What I'm looking for are some general guidelines to follow given this
scenario. Thanks in advance.Eric there is no way to answer that without knowing a lot more of what your
current system is doing and how the hardware is holding up now. Do you do 1
transaction per second or 1 thousand? What are the disk Queues, processor
queues etc. like now?
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Eric" <Eric@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3C2BC87F-5505-4DD6-9E79-A053B86527BA@.microsoft.com...
> We have a web app currently being hosted on a RAID 5 with four disks, 2 GB
> RAM, Xenon 3.2 processor. Also running Windows 2003 Server Standard Ed.
> and
> SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition. Our database is about 4GB and at most
> we
> have 10 concurrent users hitting our server, with a mix of read and write
> operations. Both the OS and our DB are on the same machine. I am aware
> that
> having both IIS and SQL Server on the same box is not the ideal
> configuration, but it has suited our needs given the load.
> We are looking to private license our software to one other company, which
> would entail the licensee having their own seperate db, but running in the
> same instance of SQL Server. At a minimum, I'm thinking we would move SQL
> Server onto its own dedicated machine, keeping the current RAID 5 config.
> Perhaps this would not be sufficient?
> What I'm looking for is some indication as to whether or not the proposed
> platform could handle an increased user load, say 20 times what is now
> (200
> concurrent users). This is primarily an OLTP db used for ACH processing,
> with several reporting features. I'm fully aware that the application
> design
> itself, along with query tuning, indexing, etc is equally important as the
> hardware, but need some guidance on the hardware itself.
> What I'm looking for are some general guidelines to follow given this
> scenario. Thanks in advance.

Hardware configuration

Hi i'm doing mirroring on 2 servers

each has 6 disks.

what is the recommended configuration for each server?

Option 1: 2 disks (mirror) for OS and 4 disks (RAID5) for SQL

Option 2: 2 disks (mirror) for OS, 2 disks (mirror) for SQL & Data, 2 disks (mirror) for SQL Logs.

or maybe other suggestion ? maybe some logical partitions ... (TempDB ...)

thanks,

I'd say definitely option 2

every article I read suggests log/temp db on separate physical DRIVE (not partition) than data

|||

It is recommended that you separate log from data and other activities.

It all depends upon the throughput of your disks and the response requirements of your application.

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Having fun with moint points

Monday, March 19, 2012

Hardware/RAID Optimum Setup

Hardware/RAID Optimum Setup

Hardware/RAID Optimum Setup

Friday, March 9, 2012

Hardware Configuration - Need Advice

Hardware Configuration - Need Advice

Hardware Configuration - Need Advice

Hardware configuration

Handle Error

Blog Archive

About Me