Hardware general question about sql

Dear folks,
Nowadays, we have got an Active-Active cluster for to attend our business as
usual. Each node own the following main features:
-8 processors xeon 700 Mhz
-8 Gb RAM
-RAID 5 (up to 400 gb ) 12 disks approx.
-OS 32 bit (Advanced Server)
-Sql2000k with sp3
-Quorum disk have 36,6 GB
-Our growing per w is almost 50 gb.
-Databases are forty.
The above configuration was bough five years ago, so that, which could be a
good migration of this hardware?
We are thinking over to buy Itanium but we don't know if TCO is good with
such growing of data.
Maybe a good solution will be buy 64-bit hardware and by the moment to
install our sql2000k and within six months or so (when SP1 for sql server
2005 is released) move the data to that version.
Any input will be greatly.
Regards,Enric wrote:
> Dear folks,
> Nowadays, we have got an Active-Active cluster for to attend our
> business as usual. Each node own the following main features:
> -8 processors xeon 700 Mhz
> -8 Gb RAM
> -RAID 5 (up to 400 gb ) 12 disks approx.
> -OS 32 bit (Advanced Server)
> -Sql2000k with sp3
> -Quorum disk have 36,6 GB
> -Our growing per w is almost 50 gb.
> -Databases are forty.
> The above configuration was bough five years ago, so that, which
> could be a good migration of this hardware?
> We are thinking over to buy Itanium but we don't know if TCO is good
> with such growing of data.
> Maybe a good solution will be buy 64-bit hardware and by the moment to
> install our sql2000k and within six months or so (when SP1 for sql
> server 2005 is released) move the data to that version.
> Any input will be greatly.
> Regards,
What hardware issues, if any, are you currently having? Assuming your
queries are performance tuned (which should always be the first order of
business when it comes to performance), you need to determine where the
hardware is failing you. Are you CPU bound? Disk bound? Memory bound?
50GB of growth per w is significant. Could you have meant 50MB /
w? Given that you only have 400GB of disk, 50GB / w doesn't leave
you much time.
You have a powerful, but older server. You could probably get better
performance out of a modern 4-way Xeon server. Since SQL 2005 will run
on 64-bit AMD and x86 boxes, I might consider waiting for that version
and skip Itanium.
If you determine that you are disk bound, you may want to consider using
a SAN or a different RAID implementation. It sounds like you have RAID 5
for everything (data, logs, temdb). You will normally get much better
performance using a RAID 1+0 array for data, and RAID 1+0 or RAID 1
arrays for log files and tempdb. Unless activity is low during log
backups and full backups, you may want to consider backing up to an
array that's different than the data array.
David Gugick
Quest Software
www.imceda.com
www.quest.com|||If you're not experiencing any problems with your current set-up, and the SW
side is fully optimized, then IMHO you don't really have to change anything.
ML

Hard Drive Space and Disk Caching

Dear friends
I have what may be a basic question to most folks here. Does SQL manage disk caching across partitions or hard drives for greatest efficiency
Basically I have a small C drive partition reserved for basic operating systems stuff. All program and data files, including SQL and databases are on the much larger D and E drives. Would there ever be an issue of the C drive not being large enough and causing SQL to slow down or not perform as well
Someone told me that all disk caching happens on the C drive, which doesn't make sense to me. It seems to me that SQL would be smart enough to use other physical drive resources as needed. They are encouraging us to use Partition Magic to expand the size of our C drive (which currently has about 1 Gig available, to be expanded to between 5 and 10 Gig)
Does this seem like good advice?I do not understand what they are saying - by definition caching is =holding data locally for fast access, SQL Server holds data in memory =having read it from disc. What drive letter is utterly irrelevant to it =(and from a data management perspective the whole concept of drive =letters is horrid!)
SQL Server caching is fine across any drive letter - it cares little =about such things. I have one system where C is getting really tight =(due to successive service packs and fixes) but all the SQL server =stuff, pagefile etc is elsewhere and we have noticed no performance =problems.
Mike John
"Kevin" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message =news:4376A82B-AC21-463C-BCDD-B124FE980C98@.microsoft.com...
> Dear friends,
> > I have what may be a basic question to most folks here. Does SQL =manage disk caching across partitions or hard drives for greatest =efficiency?
> > Basically I have a small C drive partition reserved for basic =operating systems stuff. All program and data files, including SQL and =databases are on the much larger D and E drives. Would there ever be an =issue of the C drive not being large enough and causing SQL to slow down =or not perform as well?
> > Someone told me that all disk caching happens on the C drive, which =doesn't make sense to me. It seems to me that SQL would be smart enough =to use other physical drive resources as needed. They are encouraging =us to use Partition Magic to expand the size of our C drive (which =currently has about 1 Gig available, to be expanded to between 5 and 10 =Gig).
> > Does this seem like good advice?|||Kevin,
First off sql servers cache is a memory based cache not a disk one. The
cache your thinking of is the OS cache or virtual memory. A properly tuned
Sql Server will not use this cache at all. And yes it is usually on the c:
drive. Second it sounds like your drives are all logical drives on the same
physical hard drive. If this is the case it doesn't matter since it is all
the same physical drive. Having multiple logical partitions is more of a
hindrance than a help in that case.
--
Andrew J. Kelly
SQL Server MVP
"Kevin" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:4376A82B-AC21-463C-BCDD-B124FE980C98@.microsoft.com...
> Dear friends,
> I have what may be a basic question to most folks here. Does SQL manage
disk caching across partitions or hard drives for greatest efficiency?
> Basically I have a small C drive partition reserved for basic operating
systems stuff. All program and data files, including SQL and databases are
on the much larger D and E drives. Would there ever be an issue of the C
drive not being large enough and causing SQL to slow down or not perform as
well?
> Someone told me that all disk caching happens on the C drive, which
doesn't make sense to me. It seems to me that SQL would be smart enough to
use other physical drive resources as needed. They are encouraging us to
use Partition Magic to expand the size of our C drive (which currently has
about 1 Gig available, to be expanded to between 5 and 10 Gig).
> Does this seem like good advice?|||Dear Andriew and Mike,
Thank you both for your responses. It seems to me, from them, that we do not have an immediate need to re-partition our hard drive.
I did wonder what you had in mind Andrew, though, when you said:
"Having multiple logical partitions is more of a hindrance than a help in that case."
Pardon my naivete. Thanks!
In Peace,
K.|||Two things that I see often. One is that by having several logical drives
it tends to give the impression there are multiple physical drives. For
someone not familiar with the hardware they may make assumptions that are
wrong based on this. The other is that by having multiple logical
partitions you effectively limit how much space you have in each. Where as
if it was all one logical partition you don't have to worry about running
out of room until you hit the disk limit, not the partition limit. Hope
that helps.
--
Andrew J. Kelly
SQL Server MVP
"Kevin" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:41D04118-B9C2-45BD-8D81-1179187976F6@.microsoft.com...
> Dear Andriew and Mike,
> Thank you both for your responses. It seems to me, from them, that we do
not have an immediate need to re-partition our hard drive.
> I did wonder what you had in mind Andrew, though, when you said:
> "Having multiple logical partitions is more of a hindrance than a help in
that case."
> Pardon my naivete. Thanks!
> In Peace,
> K.
>

Hard Drive Space and Disk Caching

Dear friends,
I have what may be a basic question to most folks here. Does SQL manage dis
k caching across partitions or hard drives for greatest efficiency?
Basically I have a small C drive partition reserved for basic operating syst
ems stuff. All program and data files, including SQL and databases are on t
he much larger D and E drives. Would there ever be an issue of the C drive
not being large enough and
causing SQL to slow down or not perform as well?
Someone told me that all disk caching happens on the C drive, which doesn't
make sense to me. It seems to me that SQL would be smart enough to use othe
r physical drive resources as needed. They are encouraging us to use Partit
ion Magic to expand the siz
e of our C drive (which currently has about 1 Gig available, to be expanded
to between 5 and 10 Gig).
Does this seem like good advice?I do not understand what they are saying - by definition caching is =
holding data locally for fast access, SQL Server holds data in memory =
having read it from disc. What drive letter is utterly irrelevant to it =
(and from a data management perspective the whole concept of drive =
letters is horrid!)=20
SQL Server caching is fine across any drive letter - it cares little =
about such things. I have one system where C is getting really tight =
(due to successive service packs and fixes) but all the SQL server =
stuff, pagefile etc is elsewhere and we have noticed no performance =
problems.
Mike John
"Kevin" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message =
news:4376A82B-AC21-463C-BCDD-B124FE980C98@.microsoft.com...
> Dear friends,
>=20
> I have what may be a basic question to most folks here. Does SQL =
manage disk caching across partitions or hard drives for greatest =
efficiency?
>=20
> Basically I have a small C drive partition reserved for basic =
operating systems stuff. All program and data files, including SQL and =
databases are on the much larger D and E drives. Would there ever be an =
issue of the C drive not being large enough and causing SQL to slow down =
or not perform as well?
>=20
> Someone told me that all disk caching happens on the C drive, which =
doesn't make sense to me. It seems to me that SQL would be smart enough =
to use other physical drive resources as needed. They are encouraging =
us to use Partition Magic to expand the size of our C drive (which =
currently has about 1 Gig available, to be expanded to between 5 and 10 =
Gig).
>=20
> Does this seem like good advice?|||Kevin,
First off sql servers cache is a memory based cache not a disk one. The
cache your thinking of is the OS cache or virtual memory. A properly tuned
Sql Server will not use this cache at all. And yes it is usually on the c:
drive. Second it sounds like your drives are all logical drives on the same
physical hard drive. If this is the case it doesn't matter since it is all
the same physical drive. Having multiple logical partitions is more of a
hindrance than a help in that case.
Andrew J. Kelly
SQL Server MVP
"Kevin" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:4376A82B-AC21-463C-BCDD-B124FE980C98@.microsoft.com...
> Dear friends,
> I have what may be a basic question to most folks here. Does SQL manage
disk caching across partitions or hard drives for greatest efficiency?
> Basically I have a small C drive partition reserved for basic operating
systems stuff. All program and data files, including SQL and databases are
on the much larger D and E drives. Would there ever be an issue of the C
drive not being large enough and causing SQL to slow down or not perform as
well?
> Someone told me that all disk caching happens on the C drive, which
doesn't make sense to me. It seems to me that SQL would be smart enough to
use other physical drive resources as needed. They are encouraging us to
use Partition Magic to expand the size of our C drive (which currently has
about 1 Gig available, to be expanded to between 5 and 10 Gig).
> Does this seem like good advice?|||Dear Andriew and Mike,
Thank you both for your responses. It seems to me, from them, that we do no
t have an immediate need to re-partition our hard drive.
I did wonder what you had in mind Andrew, though, when you said:
"Having multiple logical partitions is more of a hindrance than a help in th
at case."
Pardon my naivete. Thanks!
In Peace,
K.|||Two things that I see often. One is that by having several logical drives
it tends to give the impression there are multiple physical drives. For
someone not familiar with the hardware they may make assumptions that are
wrong based on this. The other is that by having multiple logical
partitions you effectively limit how much space you have in each. Where as
if it was all one logical partition you don't have to worry about running
out of room until you hit the disk limit, not the partition limit. Hope
that helps.
Andrew J. Kelly
SQL Server MVP
"Kevin" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:41D04118-B9C2-45BD-8D81-1179187976F6@.microsoft.com...
> Dear Andriew and Mike,
> Thank you both for your responses. It seems to me, from them, that we do
not have an immediate need to re-partition our hard drive.
> I did wonder what you had in mind Andrew, though, when you said:
> "Having multiple logical partitions is more of a hindrance than a help in
that case."
> Pardon my naivete. Thanks!
> In Peace,
> K.
>

Hackes SQL Server 2000

Hi Folks,
i got hacked and the password perhaps also the username for connecting over enterprise manager was changed. Is there a possibility to get my old stuff back or to get the changed username and password ?
Please help.

Patrick

System: windows2000Server
DB: SQL 2000Q1 Is there a possibility to get my old stuff back or to get the changed username and password ? Please help. Patrick
System: windows2000Server
DB: SQL 2000

A1 Yes. One might redo the entire server using new secure passwords(then restore each user DB from backups taken well before the incident).|||Do you have any idea on how you were hacked ? How is sql used in your environment ? Do you have web access to your sql server through an asp page (a select/update/delete queries) - if so, you may have a problem with how the programmers created it - someone might be using sql injection to change things like the sa password.|||1. If you still have BUILTIN/Administrators login, you can change your EM registration properties from sa to WinAuth.

2. LDF/MDF files can be attached to other/reinstalled server. Users lost.|||Hi guys,

i have no chance to switch to winauth, it's not working.
But i still have admin rights on the Server ??!!??
I try now to copy the ldf/mdf files to another sql server to
access them. What will happen with my DTS packages ?

Patrick|||DTS is stored in system databases, probably msdb. You can also extract login names and probably passwords from master.

One good source is
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/

There are queries how to decrypt passwords, restore system databases ...

Master database can be attached to other server as MASTER2 and you can decrypt sa password from master2.dbo.sysxlogins !!!