Re: Transition from Stand-ALone SQL Server to Cluster
From: Tom Moreau (tom_at_dont.spam.me.cips.ca)
Date: 01/23/05
- Next message: dark_15: "Re: Transition from Stand-ALone SQL Server to Cluster"
- Previous message: Mike Epprecht \(SQL MVP\): "Re: Transition from Stand-ALone SQL Server to Cluster"
- In reply to: Mike Epprecht \(SQL MVP\): "Re: Transition from Stand-ALone SQL Server to Cluster"
- Next in thread: dark_15: "Re: Transition from Stand-ALone SQL Server to Cluster"
- Reply: dark_15: "Re: Transition from Stand-ALone SQL Server to Cluster"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 18:27:53 -0500
I couldn't agree more. If your middle tier is slow, then throwing more
servers at it will help. However, there is only one database server and it
should be capable of handling just the database loads you put on it. As
Rodney said, give it the disk and RAM resources it needs to do the job.
-- Tom ---------------------------------------------------- Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA SQL Server MVP Columnist, SQL Server Professional Toronto, ON Canada www.pinnaclepublishing.com . "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@epprecht.net> wrote in message news:OR$tnIZAFHA.3016@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... Hi What about separating the application from the DB? Running an application server and DB on the same machine does not help performance as both processes contend for the same resources. Turning your infrastructure into true multi-tier might help. If your application has to run on the DB server, you have a bad application and slap your vendor. Regards -------------------------------- Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP Zurich, Switzerland IM: mike@epprecht.net MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/ "dark_15" <dark15@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:4B604AFF-9459-4C61-BD9D-0E6A797E19AC@microsoft.com... > We do need more space. A LOT more space, which was the reason for possibly > purchasing the SAN kit. And I was thinking that a seperate server will help > minimize any conflicts between the two databases. > > Our current server has a huge pagefile (plus a severe performance drop) and > very little physical memory (only a few megabytes) available when both > programs are run simultaneously. When only the first database and app is > run, we have plenty of physical memory (about 1 GB free) and the pagefile use > drops dramatically. So then I concluded that the second database/app is the > culprit for drop in performance and we need a heftier server for that > database/app. > > > Thanks for the help! > > And BBQ ribs are good... ;-)
- Next message: dark_15: "Re: Transition from Stand-ALone SQL Server to Cluster"
- Previous message: Mike Epprecht \(SQL MVP\): "Re: Transition from Stand-ALone SQL Server to Cluster"
- In reply to: Mike Epprecht \(SQL MVP\): "Re: Transition from Stand-ALone SQL Server to Cluster"
- Next in thread: dark_15: "Re: Transition from Stand-ALone SQL Server to Cluster"
- Reply: dark_15: "Re: Transition from Stand-ALone SQL Server to Cluster"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|