Re: sql transactions per second
From: Andre (Andre_at_discussions.microsoft.com)
Date: 08/26/04
- Next message: Bart Duncan [MSFT]: "RE: Collation"
- Previous message: Tibor Karaszi: "Re: Changing machine name"
- In reply to: Geoff N. Hiten: "Re: sql transactions per second"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 09:43:27 -0700
Thanks to all. Once again, I agree with all of what has been said here. I am
a 15-year DBA going back to v4.21a. As DBAs, we are all conditioned to answer
"It depends" to general questions, which is always true, as the correct
answer is dependent on so many factors: hardware, network, apps,
normalization, OLTP or DW, joins, indexing, fragmentation, etc.
However I have a planning meeting with VC for a $multimillion investment
tomorrow and I don't have time to build and run a test. At this point I am
just projecting out, e.g. if we have 2 million concurrent users I have a very
good sense of app server and web server hit counts and capacity needs, and
I'm just trying to translate that into a very rough estimate of resultant SQL
transactions per second, rounded to the closest 10k.
So I was just looking for someone who is pushing their (properly configured)
SQL Server to the max, and what their SQL transaction per second count is.
Just so I have a number, of potentially how many users our single clustered
SQL Server could handle. (Yes, SQL Server is likely the last bottleneck
before all other hardware constrains growth).
I have definitely run web sites/app services that push SQL Server and its
hardware to consistent 60-75% or more CPU util, but I never recorded the SQL
tran count. And in that case, we did have to run SQL Server on multiple
parallel servers, which of course multiplies the license fees.
We are also planning to implement geographical load balancing, using log
shipping to keep the secondary data centers as close to up-to-date as
possible. Should be fun.
Andre
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
> I know from direct experience that a well-designed SQL infrastructure can
> support a very large web site. A properly designed e-commerce site with
> over 100 web servers and millions of users per month is not out of scope for
> SQL. There are a lot of 'it depends' that go into exactly how much a system
> can handle, especially when you want to scale to a very large system.
> Looking that far out from nothing is very problematic, but I can assure you
> that you will run out of other resources before SQL capacity becomes an
> unsolvable bottleneck. Be prepared to hire a really good DBA who knows how
> to build and run a large-scale SQL system. Then listen to them and do as
> they recommend. A good DBA can tell you how much growth capacity is left in
> your system and what your next step should be. A really good DBA can tell
> you this a lot sooner than a sort-of good DBA.
>
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Senior Database Administrator
> Careerbuilder.com
>
> I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
> www.sqlpass.org
>
> "Andre" <Andre@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:F3F62074-D04B-4516-ADCD-885A35EF8C95@microsoft.com...
> > i agree with all of you, i'm looking for a theoretical number, ostensibly
> to
> > provide for VCs. so i'm looking for DBA experience, not what our current
> > hardware can handle.
> >
> > to put the question a different way, assuming best hardware you can buy,
> but
> > running 32-bit sql server, what has been your experience?
> >
> > i'm just looking for a very rough thumbnail. 10k? 50k? 100k?
> >
> > andre
> >
> > "Jaxon" wrote:
> >
> > > agreed.
> > >
> > >
> > > Greg Jackson
> > > PDX, Oregon
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
>
- Next message: Bart Duncan [MSFT]: "RE: Collation"
- Previous message: Tibor Karaszi: "Re: Changing machine name"
- In reply to: Geoff N. Hiten: "Re: sql transactions per second"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
