Need your expertise in SQL Server and Windows Server 2003

**gabe101** · Jul 23 '05, 09:30 AM

Re: Need your expertise in SQL Server and Windows Server 2003

Hi Ryan.

I won't be any help with the networking issues and my only opinion on
the dual OS would be to set up a RAID-1, but I wanted to just give you
a referrence point on the SQL server requirements concern. I'm the
database tech in an office with 9 clients on the network. Our server
is the only server and it handles all the network needs (except FAX).
Obviously, with only 9 clients and myself (using the server as a
workstation :-/ ), we have very little email/web/miscellaneous activity
on the network. Our server is running SQL Server Enterprise Edition in
a Windows Server 2003 Small Business environment. It has 2 Xeon 3.0
processors and a 90 GB RAID-5 setup with 4 GB of RAM.

Obviously when I use a SQL query through Query Analyzer, I get results
in milli-seconds. When I query a 2000 customer dbase through our
software application, called Enspire, the results take 2 or 3 seconds.
However, if I use a basic SELECT-FROM command in the Query Analyzer, I
don't have my finger off of the F5 key before the results are
displayed. Also note that we have a full Gigabit LAN (including switch
and network cards) and at any given time there may be 3 or 4 people
querying the dbase at once (lol, huge numbers isn't it?). If I look at
the Task Manager in Windows, a quick glance shows that 3 major
processes for sqlservr are running and taking 1.5 GB of RAM. That's
just the processes that I can identify by the name 'sqlservr'.

I'm sure this response won't help you come to a conclusion alone, but
hopefully if others respond, you and your boss will be able to weigh
out your options. If you need more detailed input, feel free to email
me.

Gabe Lawrence
gabe101@gmail.c om

**Erland Sommarskog** · Jul 23 '05, 09:30 AM

Re: Need your expertise in SQL Server and Windows Server 2003

heyitsme_ryan (UseLinkToEmail @dbForumz.com) writes:[color=blue]
> First is for windows 2003 server:
> We have a windows 2003 server that is a Logon Server and we have at
> least 90 workstation here in our office to manage. The problem is when
> we connect to this logon server. It takes 15 to 20 minutes to connect
> the workstation to the server. My guess is the specs of the logon
> server. This is the Specs: An IBM computer with a pentium IV 3.0GHz
> processor, 512MB memory and a 40Gig Harddisk. Well, is that enough to
> be a logon server? What is the minimum requirements?[/color]

General Windows servers is not my speciality, but this should really
be enough, even if the amount of memory might be a tad small. The
reason for logons taking as ridiculously long time as 15-20 minutes
should be sought elsewhere.
[color=blue]
> Second, SQL Server:
> My boss wants me to setup a SQL Server in a Dell computer with 2.8GHz,
> a 512mb of memory and a 80Gig Harddisk. My question is also the same,
> Is it enough requirement?[/color]

This depende largely on the application you intended to run. But it will
have to be a small database for 512 MB to be really sufficient. SQL Server
likes to keep as much data in cache as possible for good performance.
If you only can afford one more 5182 MB board, it's better to put it
in the SQL Server and not the logon server.
[color=blue]
> And another thing, my boss wants me to install a SQL Server right?
> Well he said that I should install it in the two partition, thats
> Partition C: and D: (of course this is a dual OS of both Server 2003),
> so that's two SQL server in one harddisk. His Strategy is to backup
> the database from C to D and if in case the server in C: went down
> then the other SQL (which is in D: drive) will start its operation.
> Is this the right thing to do for SQL server, I mean is this the
> proper way of doing things in SQL Server Administration? Is there any
> complications on this?[/color]

This does not really make much sense to me. The two OSs cannot be active
at the same time, so if one SQL Server goes down, there is no other to
jump in.

If you had different harddisks, it could make a little more sense, since
if one disk died, you could get an SQL Server running on the second
disk after some downtime.

If you need real redudancy with a fallback server coming on the point,
then you need a cluster. But the price tag for that hardware is somewhat
hefiter for what you have now.

--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@sommarsk og.se

Books Online for SQL Server SP3 at

Microsoft SQL Server

http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techinfo/productdoc/2000/books.asp

Get the flexibility you need to use integrated solutions, apps, and innovations in technology with your data, wherever it lives—in the cloud, on-premises, or at the edge.

Need your expertise in SQL Server and Windows Server 2003

Need your expertise in SQL Server and Windows Server 2003

Comment

Comment