Re: MSDE and IIS - Web Hosting
From: Jacco Schalkwijk (jacco.please.reply_at_to.newsgroups.mvps.org.invalid)
Date: 06/29/04
- Next message: Ken: "Re: Monitoring Active Connections"
- Previous message: Vikram Jayaram [MS]: "RE: MSDE - moving a copy of a database and reloading onto another PC"
- In reply to: valkev: "Re: MSDE and IIS - Web Hosting"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 10:52:28 +0100
Don't assume you can't afford SQL Server over MySQL. MySQL is Open Source,
but it is not free, an entry level tech support contract is ?1500/year, the
most expensive support contract with MySQL is ?48,000 per year. Compare that
with SQL Server licenses.
-- Jacco Schalkwijk SQL Server MVP "valkev" <nospam@4me.com> wrote in message news:0V4Ec.9708$9w2.1928@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com... > Thanks Jacco. > Yeah it's kind of funny. Under Access and IIS4 running on NT, we had some > sites getting over 3M hits per month and MOST of those hits were on > db-driven pages! The Access db itself might get as big as say 10MB in size. > And we had NO problems. > > Then, when going to Windows 2003 Server and running very SMALL sites using > Access, we immediately ran into this Jet OLEDB hang problem and basically > nothing runs under Access on a new latest-greatest server. Submitte a > ticket, got a little response and a dll thrown at me which didn't help any, > and haven't heard since. > > So, any db needs I have for sites on this particular server we're just > coding for MSDE instead of Access because it's really our only option. > > I have PHP and MySQL installed on the server, and really want to jump into > mySQL to see how it compares to Access and MSDE and SQL Server but just > haven't had the time. I suspect it will perform somewhat like MSDE, faster > because of the governors, but not as well as SQL Server who knows. My > experience is Windows, SQL Server, SQL Enterprise, stored procedures, et al > so not sure how much I'll end up doing in mySQL UNLESS I foresee getting so > many new db-driven sites that we can't afford to move to SQL Server over > MSDE and so would need to go the mySQL route. > > Decision decisions. > > Thanks, > Kevin > > > "Jacco Schalkwijk" <jacco.please.reply@to.newsgroups.mvps.org.invalid> wrote > in message news:uaN2pGQXEHA.1036@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... > > Hi Kevin, > > > > The Workload Governor on MSDE is somewhat more serious than a matter of > > milliseconds. Basically it is supposed to give MSDE approximately the same > > performance characteristics as Access, i.e. 20 concurrent users is about > the > > most you will get. Of course how this will work in your specific situation > > you have to test yourself. > > > > But as you are moving from Access to MSDE, MSDE should perform > sufficiently > > ok. If you already had performance problems on Access, MSDE probably won't > > solve these though. > > > > -- > > Jacco Schalkwijk > > SQL Server MVP > > > > > > "valkev" <nospam@4me.com> wrote in message > > news:euLDc.9211$%l7.3730@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com... > > > "Andrea Montanari" <andrea.sqlDMO@virgilio.it> wrote in message > > > news:2k8s2kF17hgbiU1@uni-berlin.de... > > > > hi Kevin, > > > > "valkev" <nospam@4me.com> ha scritto nel messaggio > > > > news:0bCDc.9073$Ey3.2483@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com... > > > > > .... > > > > > My question is: what are the memory and/or performance issues when > > MSDE > > > is > > > > > installed on a web server providing db services to multiple sites? > I > > > > mean, > > > > > is it just one instance of MSDE running and providing all db > services, > > > or > > > > is > > > > > it doing anything less efficient other than the limiters it has in > > > place? > > > > > > > > > > > > > running a database server on the same machine of a web server always > > hits > > > > some penalty.... > > > > the Workload Query Governor will hit when more then 8 concurrent > batches > > > are > > > > run on the very same time, slowing down all active workloads, > reverting > > to > > > > normal behaviour when the concurrent batches gets again under 8 > batches, > > > but > > > > this is not regarding memory usage... > > > > SQL Server/MSDE is very hungry, regarding memory... > > > > memory usage is database and application dependent, but usage and > > > workloads > > > > dependent too... > > > > as you know, in few words, SQL Server organize it's memory allocation > in > > > two > > > > distinct regions, the "buffer pool" (BPool) and the "memory to leave" > > > > (MemToLeave) regions. (I'm excluding use of AWE in order to provide > easy > > > > understanding) > > > > so... the BPool is the primary region SQL Server uses for it's > internal > > > > matter, while MemToLeave consists of the virtual memory space within > the > > > 1gb > > > > user mode address space and the memory not used by the BPool. > > > > > > > > when SQL Server starts, it begins calculating the upper limit the > BPool > > > can > > > > reach... if no MaxMemory is set, this value will be set to the amount > of > > > the > > > > physical memory or the size of the user mode address space (1gb) , > minus > > > the > > > > size of the MemToLeave, whichever is less.. > > > > > > > > by default, MemToLeave is set to 384mb, 128mb of them are for worker > > > thread > > > > stacks and 256mb for allocation outside the BPool, such as memory for > > > OLE-DB > > > > providers, in process COM objects space and memory requirements and so > > > on.. > > > > when MaxMemory value is explicitally set, this upper limit will only > > > address > > > > BPool region needs... > > > > so only the address space of BPool pages is limited by this > > configuration > > > > value, while SQL Server memory requirememts outside BPool allocation > are > > > not > > > > limited this way... > > > > > > > > but you are not limiting the resource, so SQL Server can reclaim that > > > memory > > > > (up to 1 gb, in our example) for it's uses, and it will perhaps > release > > it > > > > only under pressure by the OS claiming for additional memory, if it's > > the > > > > case, else it will maintain that memory in order to cache pages and > > > > execution plans... > > > > under OS pressure, SQL Server will try having the Lazy Writer releases > > > > resources, but you are not granted that this will occur, even if SQL > > > Server > > > > will always try to leave some memory for other OS needs, usually > between > > 4 > > > > and 10mb of RAM... so, on SQL Server dedicated servers, you usually > see > > > > memory usage climbing to the top and stayng there for long time, > becouse > > > of > > > > SQL Server tends to keep pages read from disk in memory to increase > > > further > > > > and successive access to those pages, as long as query plans and so > > on... > > > on > > > > a heavy loaded server, if you add web server duty, you will have > > resource > > > > contentions for sure... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How many instances of sqlservr.exe processes should I see - just one > > > > right? > > > > > > > > as many as you installed and started... > > > > -- > > > > Andrea Montanari (Microsoft MVP - SQL Server) > > > > http://www.asql.biz/DbaMgr.shtm http://italy.mvps.org > > > > DbaMgr2k ver 0.8.0 - DbaMgr ver 0.54.0 > > > > (my vb6+sql-dmo little try to provide MS MSDE 1.0 and MSDE 2000 a > visual > > > > interface) > > > > --------- remove DMO to reply > > > > > > > > > > Andrea, > > > Thanks for the great info. Your explanation is consistent with what I'm > > > seeing. > > > > > > So, the only real performance difference seen going from MSDE to SQL > > Server > > > is that the Workload Query Governor will not be kicking in and slowing > > > things down on active installations correct? Isn't this governor on the > > > order of milliseconds? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Kevin > > > > > > > > > > > >
- Next message: Ken: "Re: Monitoring Active Connections"
- Previous message: Vikram Jayaram [MS]: "RE: MSDE - moving a copy of a database and reloading onto another PC"
- In reply to: valkev: "Re: MSDE and IIS - Web Hosting"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
