SQL Server 2000 Performance - 10K vs. 15K
- From: "randy" <rhenson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 17 Sep 2005 07:36:09 -0700
Hi SQL Gurus, I've got a scenario that I need some help with.
I recently upgraded our company's erp system from the old foxpro
version, to the latest sql version. I'm seeing a couple of performance
issues. It doesn't matter which workstation config. I've got some with
2.8GB processor and 2GB of RAM, still have the same problem. I can run
the client on the server, and still have to same issue.
It's like the reads are OK, but the writes seem slower than on the
foxpro version. Not a lot slower, but still slower -- and you know
how users can be!!
My server config is just as the software company recommends. Dell
PowerEdge 2850, Dual 3GB processors, 6GB RAM with sql tuned to use 5gb.
.. RAID controller is PERC4e/DI, with 2X4 backplane. SQL Server 2000
Enterprise with AWE enabled. Log files and data files on separate raid
arrays on different channels. OS and Log array is RAID 1 on channel 0,
Data array is RAID10 on channel 1. RAID Policy is set to write-back.
My database is about 10GB.
I said all that to ask this question, all of my drives are 140GB 10K,
would the performance increase be significant enough to spend the money
if I upgraded the 4 hard drives on the RAID-10 Data drive to 140GB and
15K?? I've got the budget to do it, but if it's not a big difference,
I won't bother spending the money.
I appreciate any guidance you will be able give me on this.
Randy
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: SQL Server 2000 Performance - 10K vs. 15K
- From: Brett Wickard
- Re: SQL Server 2000 Performance - 10K vs. 15K
- From: Hank Arnold
- Re: SQL Server 2000 Performance - 10K vs. 15K
- From: Andrew J. Kelly
- Re: SQL Server 2000 Performance - 10K vs. 15K
- From: John Bell
- Re: SQL Server 2000 Performance - 10K vs. 15K
- Prev by Date: requests/sec
- Next by Date: Re: Book recommendations
- Previous by thread: requests/sec
- Next by thread: Re: SQL Server 2000 Performance - 10K vs. 15K
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|