Re: MSCS Questions
From: Andrew J. Kelly (sqlmvpnooospam_at_shadhawk.com)
Date: 02/19/05
- Next message: Andrew J. Kelly: "Re: Clustered Indexes"
- Previous message: Andrew J. Kelly: "Re: MSCS Questions"
- In reply to: Michael C#: "Re: MSCS Questions"
- Next in thread: Michael C#: "Re: MSCS Questions"
- Reply: Michael C#: "Re: MSCS Questions"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 16:27:42 -0500
One other note. If you are getting excessive blocking then adding more
hardware won't necessarily speed things up. Have you tried running sp_who2
to see if anyone is being blocked on a regular basis?
-- Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP "Michael C#" <xyz@abcdef.com> wrote in message news:asKRd.1224$9e6.957@fe12.lga... > Well - the database is as optimized as we can make it (AFAIK), and we just > re-wrote some portions of the .NET code we're using to populate it to > increase performance. In theory, we're dealing with a much higher-powered > server solution than we had, including more memory and faster processors. > > I understand that clustering isn't a performance benefit, but was > wondering if it might potentially be hurting performance if the > configuration is not 'tweaked' in some fashion. > > Thx > > "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@shadhawk.com> wrote in message > news:uXrWlfpFFHA.2676@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl... >> If you don't have bottlenecks in the counters it may simply be that the >> code itself is not as efficient as it might be. If you were not pushing >> the hardware before to the point that you had bottlenecks there is no >> reason to assume it will be faster elsewhere. Clustering does nothing >> for performance it is a hardware failover solution only. The SAN will >> only help with performance if you have I/O issues before. >> >> -- >> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP >> >> >> "Michael C#" <xyz@abcdef.com> wrote in message >> news:nxzRd.106$5c6.70@fe12.lga... >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I've just completed setting up two Win 2003 Servers w/ SQL Server 2K >>> (SP3a) in an MSCS Cluster. Everything is working, but the performance >>> is not as good as I thought it would be. Here's a quick summary: >>> >>> -Each server has 4 GB of RAM, gigabit ethernet and plenty of RAID 1 >>> storage both locally and on the SAN. >>> -I've run System Monitor and found no bottlenecks in the system (Hard >>> Drive, Network, Memory, or CPU). >>> -I've set up separate filegroups for data and non-clustered indexes on >>> different drives and put the transaction logs on their own drive. >>> -I've run SQL Best Practices Analyzer and received rave reviews for the >>> configuration. >>> -I've optimized the database as much as possible, but the performance >>> seems to be roughly equivalent to the performance on an old testing >>> server we had been using up to this point. >>> -I added the /3GB switch and set SQL to dynamically use up to a maximum >>> of 3,072 MB. >>> >>> I was just wondering if there are some configuration tweaks I'm missing >>> that can be made to SQL Server 2K on the Cluster to enhance performance? >>> >>> TIA >>> >> >> > >
- Next message: Andrew J. Kelly: "Re: Clustered Indexes"
- Previous message: Andrew J. Kelly: "Re: MSCS Questions"
- In reply to: Michael C#: "Re: MSCS Questions"
- Next in thread: Michael C#: "Re: MSCS Questions"
- Reply: Michael C#: "Re: MSCS Questions"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
