Re: SQL Cluster Hardware Compatibility Requirements

I agree with Geoff here on this. It's unlikely that the servers themselves
are the cause of the performance issues. As such buying a new set will
probably not solve anything. Until you know for sure what the issues are you
will most likely be throwing good money for a cure that may not actually fix
the problem.

--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP


"Geoff N. Hiten" <SRDBA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:uj%23geTR$FHA.1288@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> First, you need to do a performance profile of your system. If you don't
> know what resource is limiting your performance, you will spend money
> badly. SQL servers are generally constrained on memory, CPU, or IO
> capability, although sometimes lack of one will really show up as lack of
> another. For example, lack of enough memory for data cache will also
> strain the IO system since it has to keep reloading data that should have
> been in cache. Of course, you also have to do an application tuning pass
> to identify and tune resource hogs, unless you are stuck with a canned
> app.
>
> As for your specific ideas:
>
> Dual vs. Quad. If you are CPU bound, this should help. If not, then you
> are wasting money.
>
> x64 Switch. You will need SQL 2005 to take advantage of this. SQL 2000
> runs in WOW mode only on an x64 Operating System. SQL 2005 runs native on
> x64.
>
> SQL 2000 to SQL 2005. This may be the key that enables a lot of your
> other improvements. Notice that you get two-node clustering, four
> processors, and unlimited physical memory support in SQL 2005 STANDARD
> Edition. Your license savings on a quad processor box may pay for the
> hardware upgrade. Throw in dual core licensing policy (a dual-core counts
> as one processor) and you make out like a bandit with an upgrade.
>
> SQL loves memory. Check your Page Life Expectency performance counter to
> get an idea of memory pressure in a large memory system. Read-ahead
> messes up the cache hit ratio numbers, making them unreliable for
> diagnostics.
>
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>
>
>
>
> "Brad Baker" <brad@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:%23rE2e9Q$FHA.984@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Geoff -
>>
>> Thanks for replying. I think the HCL is now the windows catalog. (Unless
>> you're saying the name has changed again.)
>>
>> Now that you mention it, I do remember that there is a special cluster
>> specific section of the catalog. I peaked at that and I could only find
>> Dell servers in conjunction with the EMC CX300. I may try a few different
>> search parameters though and see if there is something I am missing.
>> Thanks for the suggestion.
>>
>> By the way, the HP rep I spoke with mentioned the DL385 but really wasn't
>> pushing it. I just gave that a second look on the HP website and it
>> really does sound like it might be a good option.
>>
>> What we have now is just not working as well as we would like, so we are
>> evaluating what changes we can make. Along with switching server venders
>> we are also considering:
>>
>> 1) Switching from dual processor systems to quad processor systems.
>> 2) Switching from Win2003 x86 to Windows 2003 Server x64
>> 3) Switching from SQL 2000 x86 to either SQL 2000 Enterprise x64 or SQL
>> 2005 Enterprise x64
>> (2005 might be a little too bleeding edge though)
>> 4) Increasing the memory in the system (currently we are using 8GB per
>> server)
>>
>> Any opinions on which of the above changes would produce the biggest
>> improvement in performance?
>>
>> Warm Regards,
>> Brad Baker
>>
>>
>>
>> "Geoff N. Hiten" <SRDBA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:%23Ej2brQ$FHA.3308@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>I think you are missing a key concept about the HCL. Not only does the
>>>gear have to be on the HCL (which was recently renamed to something
>>>else), but it must be certified as a clustered solution by the vendor.
>>>Whichever vendor you choose should recertify the cluster, including your
>>>legacy components, as a certified cluster solution. Any competent VAR
>>>should be able to handle that, especially with EMC gear in the middle.
>>>If they cannot offer recertification for gear that is on the list then I
>>>would keep looking.
>>>
>>> Personally, I would look hard at the HP DL385 line, especially if you
>>> are thinking about SQL Server 2005 anytime in the near future. The
>>> Dual-Core 64-bit give a lot of bang for the buck when you factor in SQL
>>> licensing costs.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Geoff N. Hiten
>>> Senior Database Administrator
>>> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Brad Baker" <brad@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>> news:uohqMVQ$FHA.3568@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> (I'm posting this here as I am uncertain what other category it
>>>> belongs. If there is a more appropriate newsgroup, please let me know.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We currently have an EMC CX300 SAN with Qlogic 5200 switches and Dell
>>>> PowerEdge Servers. As best we can tell this combination fits
>>>> Microsoft's Hardware Compatibility List however we have been somewhat
>>>> dissatisfied with the performance of the Dell Servers.
>>>>
>>>> We would like to pull them out and replace them with some more powerful
>>>> systems. We are thinking of: Sun Sunfire X4200, IBM Xseries 346, or HP
>>>> DL380 Servers. However we are uncertain if any of the above servers in
>>>> conjunction with our current SAN and SAN Switches would still meet
>>>> Microsoft's Hardware compatibility requirements for support.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I've looked through the Microsoft Windows Server Catalog/HCL but
>>>> frankly it was about as productive as looking for a needle in a
>>>> haystack. It seems you either get pages and pages of results or no
>>>> results at all. And as far as I can tell there are individual
>>>> components certified and then groups of components certified together.
>>>> Do all of the components need to be listed together on the HCL to be
>>>> considered fully supportably by Microsoft? Can the components be listed
>>>> individually?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We want to be certain that what we are doing would be considered fully
>>>> supportably by Microsoft in the event we needed to contact PSS. Any
>>>> guidance or recommendations would be appreciated.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Brad Baker
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Performance problems -- need guidance on scaling
    ... Thanks for the update on the FT Catalog corruption, ... will use, up to a max of 512Mb, if this memory is available. ... a server with 512 MB of RAM and a resource_usage value of 5 ... the data, you could, detach your SQL 2000 mdf & ldf files ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.fulltext)
  • Re: Memory Issues
    ... Exchange and SQL Server. ... you identified memory problems and large amounts of paging. ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.setup)
  • Re: Memory issues with 64-bit SQL Server 2005 on 64-bit Win 2003 Clust
    ... The Paging File usage is due to how the large memory allocation APIs work. ... Swap files for SQL do not need to be more than about 2-4 GB regardless of physical memory on the box. ... If you use Performance Monitor to track actual paging activity, you will see very little on a properly tuned SQL Server. ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.clustering)
  • Re: Allocating more memory to sql server
    ... Are you sure you have Windows 2000 Advanced Server and not just Server? ... SQL Server. ... memory used by SQL Server that will give a better idea of the actual usage. ... You also need to restart SQL Server after enabling AWE for it to take ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.setup)
  • Re: Memory issues with 64-bit SQL Server 2005 on 64-bit Win 2003 C
    ... Manager nusance has been around, and yet they somehow could never find time ... counter Total Server Mmeory shows 18GB. ... due to how the large memory allocation APIs work. ... Swap files for SQL do not need to be more than about 2-4 GB ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.clustering)