Performance Question

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • rc@die@you@!spammers.sandworm.demon.co.uk

    Performance Question

    Hi

    We have a SQL server on Win2k. the physical size of the db is about
    40G and the main table has approx 65m rows in it. At the moment the
    entire database is on one data file. The entire server including the
    OS is on a RAID 0 array with one RAID controller.

    My question is would I get any performance benefit if I was to have
    more than several data file rather than one big data file, bearing in
    mind that there is only one disk controller.

    I am mainly interested in read performance rather than write.

    I am just starting out with MS SQL

    Thanks for any info



  • Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)

    #2
    Re: Performance Question


    <rc@die@you@!sp ammers.sandworm .demon.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:3ephc0pgs6 bq4rpfrmphsi0ib ck95factj@4ax.c om...[color=blue]
    > Hi
    >
    > We have a SQL server on Win2k. the physical size of the db is about
    > 40G and the main table has approx 65m rows in it. At the moment the
    > entire database is on one data file. The entire server including the
    > OS is on a RAID 0 array with one RAID controller.
    >
    > My question is would I get any performance benefit if I was to have
    > more than several data file rather than one big data file, bearing in
    > mind that there is only one disk controller.[/color]

    My understanding is with SQL 6.0 and I think 7.0 this would make a
    difference (as SQL could have multiple file pointers).

    This is no longer the case with SQL 2000.

    Also, RAID 0 is a disaster waiting to happen.

    Remember, if you have a 2 disk RAID 0 set, you've just doubled your chances
    of a catastrophic failure.

    If you have a 3 disk set, it's 3x, etc.

    [color=blue]
    >
    > I am mainly interested in read performance rather than write.[/color]

    Well, first move to a "real" RAID solution, 1, 10, 5 or the like.

    Separate out files (say OS, data, logs) to separate PHYSICAL arrays (doesn't
    help to repartition your existing array into 3 logical disks... you don't
    get any more physical heads.)

    And make sure you have RAM. Lots of it.[color=blue]
    >
    > I am just starting out with MS SQL
    >
    > Thanks for any info
    >
    >
    >[/color]


    Comment

    • John Bell

      #3
      Re: Performance Question

      Hi

      To add to Gregs advice you may want to get yourself the following book:


      and this article and other:


      This may also help
      The page you are looking for doesn't exist or has been moved.


      John

      <rc@die@you@!sp ammers.sandworm .demon.co.uk> wrote in message
      news:3ephc0pgs6 bq4rpfrmphsi0ib ck95factj@4ax.c om...[color=blue]
      > Hi
      >
      > We have a SQL server on Win2k. the physical size of the db is about
      > 40G and the main table has approx 65m rows in it. At the moment the
      > entire database is on one data file. The entire server including the
      > OS is on a RAID 0 array with one RAID controller.
      >
      > My question is would I get any performance benefit if I was to have
      > more than several data file rather than one big data file, bearing in
      > mind that there is only one disk controller.
      >
      > I am mainly interested in read performance rather than write.
      >
      > I am just starting out with MS SQL
      >
      > Thanks for any info
      >
      >
      >[/color]


      Comment

      • rc

        #4
        Re: Performance Question

        Sorry, the server is on a RAID 0+1 array, i.e the strip is mirrored
        On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 06:16:55 GMT, "John Bell"
        <jbellnewsposts @hotmail.com> wrote:
        [color=blue]
        >Hi
        >
        >To add to Gregs advice you may want to get yourself the following book:
        >http://www.microsoft.com/mspress/books/4944.asp
        >
        >and this article and other:
        >http://www.sql-server-performance.co...e_planning.asp
        >
        >This may also help
        >http://www.acnc.com/04_01_10.html
        >
        >John
        >
        ><rc@die@you@!s pammers.sandwor m.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
        >news:3ephc0pgs 6bq4rpfrmphsi0i bck95factj@4ax. com...[color=green]
        >> Hi
        >>
        >> We have a SQL server on Win2k. the physical size of the db is about
        >> 40G and the main table has approx 65m rows in it. At the moment the
        >> entire database is on one data file. The entire server including the
        >> OS is on a RAID 0 array with one RAID controller.
        >>
        >> My question is would I get any performance benefit if I was to have
        >> more than several data file rather than one big data file, bearing in
        >> mind that there is only one disk controller.
        >>
        >> I am mainly interested in read performance rather than write.
        >>
        >> I am just starting out with MS SQL
        >>
        >> Thanks for any info
        >>
        >>
        >>[/color]
        >[/color]

        Comment

        • John Bell

          #5
          Re: Performance Question

          Hi

          If the controller has multiple channels it will help if you configure a
          different sub-systems for OS and logs using new disks. These will share
          resources on the controller so if you can add memory to it that will also
          help. Adding extra disks to the current array will help spread the disk
          usage more, but may not show as much gain as having a new sub-system there
          is an example in "Microsoft® SQL Server 2000T Performance Tuning Technical
          Reference" that shows how adding a disk to an existing array can help.

          John

          Using multiple filegroups in their own files will help backup and
          organisation.
          "rc" <rc@spam.com> wrote in message
          news:i3pic0pca4 dg6ga3cj4e1vr3a s98e558uu@4ax.c om...[color=blue]
          > Sorry, the server is on a RAID 0+1 array, i.e the strip is mirrored
          > On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 06:16:55 GMT, "John Bell"
          > <jbellnewsposts @hotmail.com> wrote:
          >[color=green]
          > >Hi
          > >
          > >To add to Gregs advice you may want to get yourself the following book:
          > >http://www.microsoft.com/mspress/books/4944.asp
          > >
          > >and this article and other:
          > >http://www.sql-server-performance.co...e_planning.asp
          > >
          > >This may also help
          > >http://www.acnc.com/04_01_10.html
          > >
          > >John
          > >
          > ><rc@die@you@!s pammers.sandwor m.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
          > >news:3ephc0pgs 6bq4rpfrmphsi0i bck95factj@4ax. com...[color=darkred]
          > >> Hi
          > >>
          > >> We have a SQL server on Win2k. the physical size of the db is about
          > >> 40G and the main table has approx 65m rows in it. At the moment the
          > >> entire database is on one data file. The entire server including the
          > >> OS is on a RAID 0 array with one RAID controller.
          > >>
          > >> My question is would I get any performance benefit if I was to have
          > >> more than several data file rather than one big data file, bearing in
          > >> mind that there is only one disk controller.
          > >>
          > >> I am mainly interested in read performance rather than write.
          > >>
          > >> I am just starting out with MS SQL
          > >>
          > >> Thanks for any info
          > >>
          > >>
          > >>[/color]
          > >[/color]
          >[/color]


          Comment

          • Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)

            #6
            Re: Performance Question


            "rc" <rc@spam.com> wrote in message
            news:i3pic0pca4 dg6ga3cj4e1vr3a s98e558uu@4ax.c om...[color=blue]
            > Sorry, the server is on a RAID 0+1 array, i.e the strip is mirrored[/color]

            Ok, that's good. :-)



            Comment

            Working...