database file locations: upgrade

Showing posts with label upgrade. Show all posts

Monday, March 19, 2012

New Server for Yukon and W2K3

Dear All,
We are looking for new server acting as our main DC as
well as SQL Server 2K. In the future, maybe year or two
later, we'll upgrade to W2K3 and Yukon. Do you have any
spec info for Yukon? I could find nothing on MSDN.com.
or Do you have any recommendation for this new server? We
are going to pick up one from Dell.
Thanks for your help!!
HarrisonThere is some information for Yukon on http://www.microsoft.com/sql/
For a server, you need to tell us what it is used for, how many users, how
many databases, database size etc to be able to give you a rough idea of
what you need.
Cheers
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Epprecht Consulting (PTY) LTD
Johannesburg, South Africa
Mobile: +27-82-552-0268
IM: mike@.NOSPAMepprecht.net
Specialist SQL Server Solutions and Consulting
"Harrison" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0da501c3dacb$fc1840d0$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
> Dear All,
> We are looking for new server acting as our main DC as
> well as SQL Server 2K. In the future, maybe year or two
> later, we'll upgrade to W2K3 and Yukon. Do you have any
> spec info for Yukon? I could find nothing on MSDN.com.
> or Do you have any recommendation for this new server? We
> are going to pick up one from Dell.
> Thanks for your help!!
> Harrison
>|||> Do you have any recommendation for this new server?
If you mean hardware, that's like me asking you what kind of car or house I
should buy. A lot of factors, aren't there?
--
Aaron Bertrand
SQL Server MVP
http://www.aspfaq.com/|||There are about 100 end-users and current SQL 2000 will be
transfer into it. It includes 19 DBs and about 16G in
total. 25G Program Files, 8G User Folders. It will at
least good for 3 years and will upgrade to W2k3 and Yukon
on next year.
Harrison
>--Original Message--
>There is some information for Yukon on
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/
>For a server, you need to tell us what it is used for,
how many users, how
>many databases, database size etc to be able to give you
a rough idea of
>what you need.
>Cheers
>--
>Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>Epprecht Consulting (PTY) LTD
>Johannesburg, South Africa
>Mobile: +27-82-552-0268
>IM: mike@.NOSPAMepprecht.net
>Specialist SQL Server Solutions and Consulting
>"Harrison" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message
>news:0da501c3dacb$fc1840d0$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
>> Dear All,
>> We are looking for new server acting as our main DC as
>> well as SQL Server 2K. In the future, maybe year or two
>> later, we'll upgrade to W2K3 and Yukon. Do you have any
>> spec info for Yukon? I could find nothing on MSDN.com.
>> or Do you have any recommendation for this new server?
We
>> are going to pick up one from Dell.
>> Thanks for your help!!
>> Harrison
>
>.
>

New Server for Yukon and W2K3

quote:

> Dear All,
> We are looking for new server acting as our main DC as
> well as SQL Server 2K. In the future, maybe year or two
> later, we'll upgrade to W2K3 and Yukon. Do you have any
> spec info for Yukon? I could find nothing on MSDN.com.
> or Do you have any recommendation for this new server? We
> are going to pick up one from Dell.
> Thanks for your help!!
> Harrison
>

|||> Do you have any recommendation for this new server?
If you mean hardware, that's like me asking you what kind of car or house I
should buy. A lot of factors, aren't there?
Aaron Bertrand
SQL Server MVP
http://www.aspfaq.com/|||There are about 100 end-users and current SQL 2000 will be
transfer into it. It includes 19 DBs and about 16G in
total. 25G Program Files, 8G User Folders. It will at
least good for 3 years and will upgrade to W2k3 and Yukon
on next year.
Harrison

quote:

>--Original Message--
>There is some information for Yukon on

http://www.microsoft.com/sql/

quote:

>For a server, you need to tell us what it is used for,

how many users, how

quote:

>many databases, database size etc to be able to give you

a rough idea of

quote:

>what you need.
>Cheers
>--
>Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>Epprecht Consulting (PTY) LTD
>Johannesburg, South Africa
>Mobile: +27-82-552-0268
>IM: mike@.NOSPAMepprecht.net
>Specialist SQL Server Solutions and Consulting
>"Harrison" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in

message

quote:

>news:0da501c3dacb$fc1840d0$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
We[QUOTE]
>
>.
>

Monday, March 12, 2012

New Processes after upgrade

Hi There

After upgrading to Sql Server 2005 Enterprise Edition , SP1.

if i run the following query:

select * from sysprocesses where waittime <> 0 order by waittime desc

I get the following result:

spid waittime lastwaittype status

10 4480 0 0x007E 78424187 ONDEMAND_TASK_QUEUE background
4 5620 0 0x009D 78418906 KSOURCE_WAKEUP background
16 4512 0 0x00A9 78418890 BROKER_TRANSMITTER background
17 4516 0 0x00A9 78418875 BROKER_TRANSMITTER background
12 5056 0 0x00AD 78418796 BROKER_EVENTHANDLER background
11 5728 0 0x0081 179140 CHECKPOINT_QUEUE background

Basscially the waittime just keeps going up infinitely for these processes, is this normal, should i be worried ?

Thanx

Have same issue with BROKER_EVENTHANDLER and BROKER_TRANSMITTER.

Normal behavior?

|||

This link from microsoft describes the various Wait Types (of which there a lot more in SQL Server 2005):

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms179984.aspx

Here is some information from it about your specific items.

ONDEMAND_TASK_QUEUE waits for high priority requests (and high wait times simply indicates there have been none of these.)

KSOURCE_WAKEUP waits for requests from the Service Control Manager and long waits are to be expected (pause then unpause the SQL Server service to cause this to reset).

CHECKPOINT_QUEUE - This is the Checkpoint task waiting for the next checkpoint request (few checkpoints = large wait - and that's only 3 minutes).

BROKER_* - These are associated with the service broker and whilst it does not specifically say, I suspect if you do not have service broker servicing requests then these just wait and wait.

If you are interested in monitoring blocking then you might like to read this knowledge base article:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/271509 - (LiveID required)

This describes sp_blocker_pss80 - a stored procedure to monitor blocked processes in SQL server 2000 up (it does however still produce these system processes in it's list).

New or upgrade

We are planning to move to SQL Server 2005 and we do have A/A cluster .
Which is the most efficient way to move from SQL Server 2000 A/A to SQL
Server 2005 A/A cluster.
1) Upgrade from SQL Server 2000 to SQL Server 2005
2) Install a new installion of SQL Server 2005 cluster and attach the 2000
databases.
I would do the second (install and migrate) the potential for nplanned
downtime is lower with that technique.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"IT" <IT@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:64232C5C-4D57-484F-BA5F-4621102121F4@.microsoft.com...
> We are planning to move to SQL Server 2005 and we do have A/A cluster .
> Which is the most efficient way to move from SQL Server 2000 A/A to SQL
> Server 2005 A/A cluster.
> 1) Upgrade from SQL Server 2000 to SQL Server 2005
> 2) Install a new installion of SQL Server 2005 cluster and attach the 2000
> databases.
>
|||My experiences indicate that a parallel (new and migrate) will most often be
the least fraught with 'unexpected' consequences.
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
You can't help someone get up a hill without getting a little closer to the
top yourself.
- H. Norman Schwarzkopf
"IT" <IT@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:64232C5C-4D57-484F-BA5F-4621102121F4@.microsoft.com...
> We are planning to move to SQL Server 2005 and we do have A/A cluster .
> Which is the most efficient way to move from SQL Server 2000 A/A to SQL
> Server 2005 A/A cluster.
> 1) Upgrade from SQL Server 2000 to SQL Server 2005
> 2) Install a new installion of SQL Server 2005 cluster and attach the 2000
> databases.
>

Wednesday, March 7, 2012

New installation https issue

Hello,

I had some problems with an upgrade that added in RS to a default upgrade of sql2k to sql2k5. I then went into RS configuration and recreated everything. I am now able to get onto the site with no problems except when I have it checked to require ssl connections. I get the follow message when I have ssl checked using any of the three options "The request failed with HTTP status 401: Unauthorized." The certificate matches the url I am trying to goto: reports.domain.net. If in iis on the default website I force a redirect to https://reports.domain.net /reports it works fine, but it's not enforceing ssl if a user just types in the url http://reports.domain.net.reports. How can I get it to enforce ssl throughout via the RS configuration? Thanks.

John

John,

We are having the exact same issue. Did you ever resolve this?

Tom

New installation https issue

Hello,

John

John,

We are having the exact same issue. Did you ever resolve this?

Tom

Monday, February 20, 2012

New Database Server Advice

We are looking to upgrade our database server to gain additional speed.
I've come up with an idea of what we should get but wanted to get advice
from some experts to make sure my assumptions are accurate. Basically I
don't want to spend a bunch of my boss's money and not see any results. :-)
We are using MS SQL 2K on Window Server 2003
Our current server is a Zeon 3Ghz with 4G RAM
We have two main databases each about 25Gigs
The OS runs on one partition and the entire database runs on a single
partition (part of a Serial ATA RAID)
From my research mostly using perfmon, the bottle neck is always the disk,
we commonly have items queued and when the queue increases performance is
noticeably down. CPU speed has never been an issue. Therefore in a new
server I believe we should:
1. Use the maximum amount of RAM the server supports
2. Partition the databases by putting larger more active tables on they're
own physical drive as well as a sperate drive for SQL logs.
If this seems reasonable, I have a couple questions:
1. Is there a large performance difference between a SCSI RAID and Serial
ATA raid?
2. To evaluate disk systems should I look at drive RPM's, seek time, and
transfer rates? Am I missing something with this?
3. In addition to using separate drives when partitioning the database,
should I try to have separate interfaces to the motherboard. i.e. would it
make more sense to have two SCSI interfaces each with two drives instead of
one SCSI interface with four drives (from a performance standpoint) (Does
this logic apply to SATA systems?)
As a side note: I use the profiler tool with the SQLProfilerTuning Template,
then the index tuning wizard with default settings to generate our indexes.
If there is more I should be doing here, please let me know.
Any advice on any part of this is appreciated!1) Performace of disks has many factors, including the type of PCI bus the
card sits on, drive rpm, drive cache, I/O card cache, etc.
2) See 1 above. Get the maximum I/O card cache the card can have.
3) More interfaces is better up to the point where they exist on the same
PCI bus and saturate it.
4) More spindles is almost always better.
5) Go for at least 2 cores, preferably 4 or more. Do NOT enable
hyperthreading if you get CPUs that have it.
6) Avoid RAID 5 if possible for anything that has high writes, which always
includes tempdb and all transaction logs.
7) I avoid ITW. Have seen too many bad things come out of it.
--
Kevin G. Boles
TheSQLGuru
Indicium Resources, Inc.
"Bishop" <nospam@.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Ogk%235o1NIHA.3516@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> We are looking to upgrade our database server to gain additional speed.
> I've come up with an idea of what we should get but wanted to get advice
> from some experts to make sure my assumptions are accurate. Basically I
> don't want to spend a bunch of my boss's money and not see any results.
> :-)
> We are using MS SQL 2K on Window Server 2003
> Our current server is a Zeon 3Ghz with 4G RAM
> We have two main databases each about 25Gigs
> The OS runs on one partition and the entire database runs on a single
> partition (part of a Serial ATA RAID)
> From my research mostly using perfmon, the bottle neck is always the disk,
> we commonly have items queued and when the queue increases performance is
> noticeably down. CPU speed has never been an issue. Therefore in a new
> server I believe we should:
> 1. Use the maximum amount of RAM the server supports
> 2. Partition the databases by putting larger more active tables on they're
> own physical drive as well as a sperate drive for SQL logs.
> If this seems reasonable, I have a couple questions:
> 1. Is there a large performance difference between a SCSI RAID and Serial
> ATA raid?
> 2. To evaluate disk systems should I look at drive RPM's, seek time, and
> transfer rates? Am I missing something with this?
> 3. In addition to using separate drives when partitioning the database,
> should I try to have separate interfaces to the motherboard. i.e. would
> it make more sense to have two SCSI interfaces each with two drives
> instead of one SCSI interface with four drives (from a performance
> standpoint) (Does this logic apply to SATA systems?)
> As a side note: I use the profiler tool with the SQLProfilerTuning
> Template, then the index tuning wizard with default settings to generate
> our indexes. If there is more I should be doing here, please let me know.
> Any advice on any part of this is appreciated!
>|||Thank You, this will give me plenty to look into!
Any thoughts on if ECC memory is really worth the money. I have several
servers that don't use ECC memory that get hit hard and never have problems?
"TheSQLGuru" <kgboles@.earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:13ldpj8nb3i5nf0@.corp.supernews.com...
> 1) Performace of disks has many factors, including the type of PCI bus the
> card sits on, drive rpm, drive cache, I/O card cache, etc.
> 2) See 1 above. Get the maximum I/O card cache the card can have.
> 3) More interfaces is better up to the point where they exist on the same
> PCI bus and saturate it.
> 4) More spindles is almost always better.
> 5) Go for at least 2 cores, preferably 4 or more. Do NOT enable
> hyperthreading if you get CPUs that have it.
> 6) Avoid RAID 5 if possible for anything that has high writes, which
> always includes tempdb and all transaction logs.
> 7) I avoid ITW. Have seen too many bad things come out of it.
> --
> Kevin G. Boles
> TheSQLGuru
> Indicium Resources, Inc.
>
> "Bishop" <nospam@.nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:Ogk%235o1NIHA.3516@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> We are looking to upgrade our database server to gain additional speed.
>> I've come up with an idea of what we should get but wanted to get advice
>> from some experts to make sure my assumptions are accurate. Basically I
>> don't want to spend a bunch of my boss's money and not see any results.
>> :-)
>> We are using MS SQL 2K on Window Server 2003
>> Our current server is a Zeon 3Ghz with 4G RAM
>> We have two main databases each about 25Gigs
>> The OS runs on one partition and the entire database runs on a single
>> partition (part of a Serial ATA RAID)
>> From my research mostly using perfmon, the bottle neck is always the
>> disk, we commonly have items queued and when the queue increases
>> performance is noticeably down. CPU speed has never been an issue.
>> Therefore in a new server I believe we should:
>> 1. Use the maximum amount of RAM the server supports
>> 2. Partition the databases by putting larger more active tables on
>> they're own physical drive as well as a sperate drive for SQL logs.
>> If this seems reasonable, I have a couple questions:
>> 1. Is there a large performance difference between a SCSI RAID and Serial
>> ATA raid?
>> 2. To evaluate disk systems should I look at drive RPM's, seek time, and
>> transfer rates? Am I missing something with this?
>> 3. In addition to using separate drives when partitioning the database,
>> should I try to have separate interfaces to the motherboard. i.e. would
>> it make more sense to have two SCSI interfaces each with two drives
>> instead of one SCSI interface with four drives (from a performance
>> standpoint) (Does this logic apply to SATA systems?)
>> As a side note: I use the profiler tool with the SQLProfilerTuning
>> Template, then the index tuning wizard with default settings to generate
>> our indexes. If there is more I should be doing here, please let me know.
>> Any advice on any part of this is appreciated!
>|||I think ECC memory is more about keeping your data integrity. If you
consider that important it is indeed worth the money. :-)
--
Kevin G. Boles
TheSQLGuru
Indicium Resources, Inc.
"Bishop" <nospam@.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:uWbQ%23H4NIHA.4656@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Thank You, this will give me plenty to look into!
> Any thoughts on if ECC memory is really worth the money. I have several
> servers that don't use ECC memory that get hit hard and never have
> problems?
> "TheSQLGuru" <kgboles@.earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:13ldpj8nb3i5nf0@.corp.supernews.com...
>> 1) Performace of disks has many factors, including the type of PCI bus
>> the card sits on, drive rpm, drive cache, I/O card cache, etc.
>> 2) See 1 above. Get the maximum I/O card cache the card can have.
>> 3) More interfaces is better up to the point where they exist on the same
>> PCI bus and saturate it.
>> 4) More spindles is almost always better.
>> 5) Go for at least 2 cores, preferably 4 or more. Do NOT enable
>> hyperthreading if you get CPUs that have it.
>> 6) Avoid RAID 5 if possible for anything that has high writes, which
>> always includes tempdb and all transaction logs.
>> 7) I avoid ITW. Have seen too many bad things come out of it.
>> --
>> Kevin G. Boles
>> TheSQLGuru
>> Indicium Resources, Inc.
>>
>> "Bishop" <nospam@.nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:Ogk%235o1NIHA.3516@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> We are looking to upgrade our database server to gain additional speed.
>> I've come up with an idea of what we should get but wanted to get advice
>> from some experts to make sure my assumptions are accurate. Basically I
>> don't want to spend a bunch of my boss's money and not see any results.
>> :-)
>> We are using MS SQL 2K on Window Server 2003
>> Our current server is a Zeon 3Ghz with 4G RAM
>> We have two main databases each about 25Gigs
>> The OS runs on one partition and the entire database runs on a single
>> partition (part of a Serial ATA RAID)
>> From my research mostly using perfmon, the bottle neck is always the
>> disk, we commonly have items queued and when the queue increases
>> performance is noticeably down. CPU speed has never been an issue.
>> Therefore in a new server I believe we should:
>> 1. Use the maximum amount of RAM the server supports
>> 2. Partition the databases by putting larger more active tables on
>> they're own physical drive as well as a sperate drive for SQL logs.
>> If this seems reasonable, I have a couple questions:
>> 1. Is there a large performance difference between a SCSI RAID and
>> Serial ATA raid?
>> 2. To evaluate disk systems should I look at drive RPM's, seek time, and
>> transfer rates? Am I missing something with this?
>> 3. In addition to using separate drives when partitioning the database,
>> should I try to have separate interfaces to the motherboard. i.e. would
>> it make more sense to have two SCSI interfaces each with two drives
>> instead of one SCSI interface with four drives (from a performance
>> standpoint) (Does this logic apply to SATA systems?)
>> As a side note: I use the profiler tool with the SQLProfilerTuning
>> Template, then the index tuning wizard with default settings to generate
>> our indexes. If there is more I should be doing here, please let me
>> know.
>> Any advice on any part of this is appreciated!
>>
>

Monday, March 19, 2012

New Server for Yukon and W2K3

New Server for Yukon and W2K3

Monday, March 12, 2012

New Processes after upgrade

New or upgrade

Wednesday, March 7, 2012

New installation https issue

New installation https issue

Monday, February 20, 2012

New Database Server Advice

New Database Server Advice

New Database Server Advice

database file locations

Blog Archive

About Me