server load question
From: JI (anonymous_at_discussions.microsoft.com)
Date: 04/01/04
- Next message: JI: "Licensing Question"
- Previous message: JI: "SQL Server 2000 STD vs RAID performance"
- In reply to: bryan: "server load question"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 11:56:33 -0800
That is not very high but you are killing the ability of
the drives by having the log files (sequential read and
writes) on the same RAID array. Read the following chapter
out of the SQL 2k Operations Guide.
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2000/maint
ain/sqlops6.mspx
JI
>-----Original Message-----
>I have a sql2000 on win2k with:
>IBM 345
>I am not very experienced with SQL, I am helping trouble
shoot a
>possible performance problem.
>
>hardware
>2 - 2.4GHz Xenon processors
>2.6 Gb memory
>hardware RAID 5 across 5 10K SCSI internal disks
>OS, SQLserver, Logs, and Database files all on the raid 5
array
>
>It is running 34 relativly small databases of various
sizes and loads
>
>It sometimes has a peak load of up to 455
transactions/second total
>across all the databases. Is this considered high? I
have been told
>it is "very high". That doesn't seem like a heavy
transaction load for
>this hardware to me. What is a high transaction/second
load for
>hardware like this?
>
>We are getting some peaks with up to 1700 memory
pages/sec which seems
>to me to be the problem. CPU load is fine and disk queue
length is
>fine too.
>
> I think we may need more memory or memory tuning, not a
whole new
>box.
>
>thanks for your opinions
>.
>
- Next message: JI: "Licensing Question"
- Previous message: JI: "SQL Server 2000 STD vs RAID performance"
- In reply to: bryan: "server load question"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|