Re: SQL Server 2000 Performance - 10K vs. 15K
- From: "John Bell" <jbellnewsposts@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 20:11:20 +0100
Hi
Having 15K disks will help, but it sounds as if it may not be the main
reason why the system is slow.
Without knowing more details about the system it is hard to comment on
anything specific.
You may want to run SQL profiler to pinpoint anywhere that runs slowly, you
may also want to look at when lock escalations or blocking occurs. If this
is a general slowness it might be that you are not using stored procedures
or that the code could be re-written to more efficient, for instance if one
particular table is causing a bottleneck.
John
"randy" <rhenson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1126967769.711673.44190@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 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
>
.
- References:
- SQL Server 2000 Performance - 10K vs. 15K
- From: randy
- SQL Server 2000 Performance - 10K vs. 15K
- Prev by Date: Re: Book recommendations
- Next by Date: Re: SQL 2000 setup problem
- Previous by thread: SQL Server 2000 Performance - 10K vs. 15K
- Next by thread: Re: SQL Server 2000 Performance - 10K vs. 15K
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
