MS SQL Server :: Do I Have A Disk Performance Problem?

SQL Performance - Disk Queue.

Oct 25, 2007

I am running SQL server 2000 SP4 on a server with 2 Dual core 4G processors with data attached via a SAN>

I have a 70G database with 10 users that is giving attrocious performance. I have just tried to run a count(*) accross a couple of tables and am still waiting for the results 15 mins later. When I look at the disk queue it is around 50/60. I thought the target for this was around 2. I am sure that the hardware that we have in place is capable of running this db. However I`m not sure how to fully analyse what is going wrong here.

Any tips would be greatfully received.

Si

View 2 Replies View Related

Do I Have A Disk Performance Problem?

Aug 9, 2007

Hi All:

I would like help identifying if I have a disk performance issue or not. First the background: we have a j2ee application using the MS SQL 2005 JDBC driver and Hibernate on 4 application servers, and an active-passive SQL Server 2005 cluster. All of the servers reside in the same physical rack and switch.

Our application is typically bounded by CPU on the app server, or throughput from the database. Several months ago we were using SQL 2000 and would often max out the CPU on the database server before anything else, but often the database could keep up. Now we have 2005 on a much more powerful machine and more app servers, but we seem to be running up against a problem with throughput from the database.

The issue is not CPU. The total cpu average, as monitored in perfmon on 30 second intervals, stays consistently below 40%. But what concerns me is the Average Disk Queue Read Length, particularly for our E: drive. On this machine, the transaction log, the system and temp dbs, and our application's database are all on separate EMC partitions, connected via fibre chanel. The E drive houses the app data and is a 15-way meta device (fifteen 10GB logical devices striped at 960k for a 150GB device) in a RAID-S configuration.

I have read various articles online describing how to interpet the Average Disk Queue Read Length performance counter with regards to SQL Server. Some have said this should not exceed the number of physical spindles * 2. We are seeing values of 32 consistently, averaging over 60 during peak processing hours, and spiking to well over 100 on a scale of 1.0. (3-second sample interval).

So since our application servers seem to be waiting on their database calls (a lot of inserts with frequent, but small-resultset selects) and do not show I/O issues either with their local storage, memory, or network interface. The database server again has no CPU, network, or memory issues. I should add the the Average Disk Queue Write Length counter does not have any issues; its always below 1 (on a 1.0 scale). The EMC Celerra array has both read and write caching. The indexes of the application database are rebuilt weekly and defragmented every day, with stats rebuilt after the defrag.

So how can I further determine where my performance problem lies? All thoughts appreciated! Thanks!

-tuj

View 9 Replies View Related

Best Objects To Monitor In Perfmon To Judge Disk Performance

Mar 2, 2004

Have a sql 2000 db which I have no say in design, just make it run. My typical sql counters such as system queue, and buffer cache and cache hit ratio are all good. If I need to monitor disk activity (mainly how fast my data is being read, how long the user is waiting for that data for both reads and inserts), what are the best counters for this, and what value should throw up a red flag.

View 1 Replies View Related

How To Configure A JBOD Disk Array (PowerVault) For Performance

Feb 11, 2006

We have an application that is experiencing I/O contention,particularly in tempdb but also in two other databases. The data isstored on mirrored PowerVault 220's, each with 10 of 14 possible disks.The PowerVaults are JBOD devices, not true SANs. The current config hasfour separate groups of physical drives assigned to distinct logicaldrives for log files, tempdb, and the two app dbs. This means, forexample, that tempdb resides on one mirrored drive. The standard advicewhen faced with disk contention is to add spindles if possible. With 4empty slots, we would presumably assign the new physical disks to themost stressed db, e.g. tempdb.An alternative arrangement would be to combine all the physical drivesinto one logical drive, and put all the files, log and data, onto thesingle logical drive. The hope for this configuration is that thePowerVault would automagically distribute the data among the drivessuch that all drives were in use, all spindles reading and writing atmaximum capacity when necessary. It is my understanding thatfull-featured SANs, like NetApps and EMC models, do this. My questionis whether this configuration is best for the PowerVault, as well. Oris this the essential difference between JBOD and a true SAN?Has anyone tried both arrangements?Advice is much appreciated.

View 2 Replies View Related

SQL Server Disk Sub-system (overhaul) Performance Questions

Jul 20, 2005

I 'inherited' a group of SQL Server server class machines. They aretrue server technology but the disk sub-systems are lacking. There isone hot-swap backplane that all the drives share (with one SCSIchannel) thusly even though there are three logical drives (composedfrom 6 to 8 hard drives), they all go through one channel. This iscreating a performance issue that is noticable and can be seen invarious performance counters that Microsoft recommended one shouldmonitor in terms of disk I/O. For a cheaper 'fix', I can add aseperate two drive bay (with its own SCSI channel) with mirroreddrives. I would then mostly likely place the transaction log files onthis new channel. Or I could place the indices filegroup files onthis new channel for DBs with mainly searching going on (not muchupdating). If I went this route I would be leaning towards thetransaction log move since the second method would require me movingDBs around quite a bit. Any input on this solution (besides spendingmore money)?What I would prefer to do is get a better server class machine or addan external drive bay solution (not a SAN). I would try to get threeor four SCSI channels in the new hardware to split the differentfile/filegroups out (i.e. transaction logs files, data filegroup,indices filegroup, etc.). My only concern here is: would this moreexpensive solution be worth the money? As far as replacing servers, Ihave only two kinds of experience...replacing somewhat underpoweredservers with slightly less underpowered servers and replacing overkillservers with even more overkill servers. In both cases, the disksub-systems were fairly equivalent from the old system to the new one.Will going the three/four channel route really get data moving along?We have one server in particular that hosts a database (one of many onit) for a web application that gets decent traffic (it is a privatelogin based system for internal use and external use by our clients'agents). Periodically throughout the day, there are 2-5 minute burstswhere performance slows to a crawl. I want to spend more timeprofiling queries and such before recommending we spend more money,but the folks I am working for want quick results and there is quite abit of stored procedure logic to profile and investigate. I know thedisk sub-system is definately in need of an overhaul, but I would liketo get an idea of peformance gains from adding either one additionalchannel over the existing single channel as well as going thethree/four channel route over the existing single channel setup.Any information would be greatly appreciated.Regards,Tony

View 2 Replies View Related

Replication System Disk Performance Issue After 1 Month

May 14, 2007

Summary: Started replication April 1 of 4M xact / day publishing system to subscribing system.

Performance was good. Latency was ~ 5-7 seconds.

May 10 we noticed that the DB was behind (latency was 12 hours).

All performance counters seem good with the exception of the disk.

. Performance spikes are 8 minutes apart and last from 30 - 60 seconds.

. During this period, Disk % Busy (1 - Disk % Idle) is 100%

The publisher DB publishes about 50-52 xacts/sec.

Rate of distribution (distribution DB to Subscriber DB) is ~ 47 xacts / second, so latency is increasing (currently at 33 hours). Previously my Subscriber system's "capacity" was 150 xacts / sec.

I know this because several weeks ago, the network went down, we were 24 hours behind.

When the network came back up the replication subscriber system was able to catchup at around 150 xacts / sec, or 3X the production system rate.

What has changed between then and now? Not much. We did install Tivoli Service Manager (IBM's backup system) a couple of weeks ago. It seems to run fine on a nightly basis, but I don't see any periodic heavy Disk I/O from that. Just to be sure, I've had them shut the TSM services down just to be sure.

We've also eliminated all extraneous processes other than those I need for performance monitoring (there was a RTVscan, virus scan process).

I've eliminated Autogrowth's as an issue as I've bumped the growth so that they are very infrequent (several days at this point. When we resolve the problem, I'll dial this down to something more reasonable.

My disk configuration is not ideal I realize (single Raid-5 disk with 3 partitions), however, this has not changed in the 6 weeks.

Thanks for any help on this!

Jack Griffith

Configuration:

Subscribing System:

SQL Server: 2000, SP4 - 8.0.2039

CPU - 2.8GHZ Xeon, Quad Dual-core

Memory - 3.5GB RAM

Disk: 3 partitions on a single RAID-5 disk with 1118 GB of space:

C: 39GB System and Programs

D: 97GB Log space

E: 982 GB Data space

Replication configuration:

- nosynch, continuous Transactional Replication
- Distribution db is on Subscription system
- distribution - Publication of approx. 50 transactions / second

Subscriber DB configuration:
DB size: 64458 MB
Logging: Simple (at this point)

distribution

DB size: 3111 MB
Logging: Simple (at this point)

View 1 Replies View Related

Performance Problem, Lots Of Disk Activity, Running Out Of Memory

Jul 20, 2005

Fellas!!This is a very complicated one and it took me a few days to figure outexactly what's going on, but here's the final story:I have a production environment running on .NET with a SQL Server(2000, SP3). The SQL Server is on a dedicated Proliant computer with2GB RAM (the actual SQLServer.exe process has dynamic memoryassignment and can reach up to 1.6GB RAM). Nothing else is running onthat specific computer.Once the SQLServer is started, it hits 300MB RAM (the minimum that wasset in the configuration of the server - remember, it is dynamicallyaquired).Then there is a .NET program that requests just about all the data theSQL Server contains (apart from a single table that contains roughly1.6 million rows and another table that contains about 10000 rowswhich are all of type IMAGE).Once all the data is retrieved, the RAM is at about 400MB. From thereon, every update I make to the data on the server causes the RAM to goup by a bit (that updates are done in a Transaction which of course iscommitted at the end). It seems that BLOB updates are the majorproblem in all of this. For some reason, uploading a blob of size 9MBcauses the RAM to go up by roughly 20MB and after commit it gose down10MB (total gain of roughly 10MB RAM). Eventually the SQLServerprocess hits its upper limit (1.6GB) and at this point it startsslowing down.Some performance checks showed me the SQLServer has a lot of diskactivity, it seems it is reading and writing pages of data from/to theHD all the time (which causes the queries to be much much muchslower).We have a development environment running the exact same code (it isthe exact same in everything, except for the amount of data stored inthe DB). This does not happen there at all.I have a few questions:1. Why is the RAM going up after BLOB updates?2. Why is the RAM going up at all?3. How can I tell the DB which tables should remain in the RAM at alltime (never swapped back to the HD?) - DBCC PINTABLE does not seem todo the job.It does not seem to have anything to do with the .NET code.Thank you very much,M Yamo.

View 4 Replies View Related

Performance ? - Whether Or Not To Leverage Parallelism (cpu/disk/time Trade-offs)

May 29, 2008

Depending on the way I write a query, I come up with these 2 stats.
Is there a sure winner in this race, keeping in mind the overall health of the server?
(I'm not sure of the specs of the server, as I can't log on to it :/ but are there any sql variables that would show cpu speed and # of cpus?)

I almost am leaning towards the single cpu query because of lower resources used -
or are most of the "reads" in the parallel'd query not read directly from the HD, but using the Table Spool created internally (query plan shows it)?

CPU Reads Writes Duration
Parallel: 200k 3.2m 2400 62s
Solo: 79k 1.1m 600 79s

View 9 Replies View Related

Is It Possible To Move My Sql 2000 Database (in C Disk) To Another Disk (Disk) ?

Dec 28, 2006

hello,all
          I am new to Sql 2000,I installed sql 2000 database in C disk,but Now I found my C disk space is smaller than before,So I want to move my databse(include data and structure) from C Disk to D Disk(its space is very large) .
         is it possible to do it ?
         if its can be done ,do I need to change my asp.net program source code (exp: chaneg my crystal report connectstring ) ?
        thanks in advanced!

View 1 Replies View Related

Calculating COUNTER Physical Disk: AVG. DISK QUEUE LENGTH

Sep 10, 2007

If I return the Average, Minimum, and Maximum values for the counter Physical Disk: Avg. Disk Queue Length, and those values are 10, 0, 87 respectively, which value do I use to compute the Avg. Disk Queue Length for a 4 disk array(RAID 10): Average, Minimum, or Maximum? The disk(lun) is on a SAN.

View 1 Replies View Related

Get Total Disk Size And Free Disk Space

Nov 13, 2007

-- Initialize Control Mechanism
DECLARE@Drive TINYINT,
@SQL VARCHAR(100)

SET@Drive = 97

-- Setup Staging Area
DECLARE@Drives TABLE
(
Drive CHAR(1),
Info VARCHAR(80)
)

WHILE @Drive <= 122
BEGIN
SET@SQL = 'EXEC XP_CMDSHELL ''fsutil volume diskfree ' + CHAR(@Drive) + ':'''

INSERT@Drives
(
Info
)
EXEC(@SQL)

UPDATE@Drives
SETDrive = CHAR(@Drive)
WHEREDrive IS NULL

SET@Drive = @Drive + 1
END

-- Show the expected output
SELECTDrive,
SUM(CASE WHEN Info LIKE 'Total # of bytes : %' THEN CAST(REPLACE(SUBSTRING(Info, 32, 48), CHAR(13), '') AS BIGINT) ELSE CAST(0 AS BIGINT) END) AS TotalBytes,
SUM(CASE WHEN Info LIKE 'Total # of free bytes : %' THEN CAST(REPLACE(SUBSTRING(Info, 32, 48), CHAR(13), '') AS BIGINT) ELSE CAST(0 AS BIGINT) END) AS FreeBytes,
SUM(CASE WHEN Info LIKE 'Total # of avail free bytes : %' THEN CAST(REPLACE(SUBSTRING(Info, 32, 48), CHAR(13), '') AS BIGINT) ELSE CAST(0 AS BIGINT) END) AS AvailFreeBytes
FROM(
SELECTDrive,
Info
FROM@Drives
WHEREInfo LIKE 'Total # of %'
) AS d
GROUP BYDrive
ORDER BYDrive

E 12°55'05.25"
N 56°04'39.16"

View 16 Replies View Related

Should The Quorum Disk Be A Physical Disk Or Majority Node Set?

Nov 15, 2006

Hello,

I am trying to setup a test cluster and am having an issue. When I try to create the resource of a physical disk it takes both the drive e: and drive q: and doesn't seperate them into two physical disks as resources. This means when I try to associate the quorum disk it links the to physcial disk resource of drive e and q. Then when I try to install SQL2k5 I get the warning about installing SQL on the quorum disk. Am I missing something? Is there a way to seperate e and q onto two physical disk resources so I can specifically associate the quorum to q and the sql to e or should I be setting the quorum disk to a majority node set? Thanks in advance.

John

View 4 Replies View Related

Disk Crash Of Disk That Contains The Paging File.

Feb 20, 2001

Hello,

this is my configuration :

1) 3 disks in RAID5 that hold the SQL data
2) 1 disk in RAID0 that holds the only paging file.

What will happen to the SQL data (DB) when the disk that holds the paging file crashes?

Kindest regards,
Luc.

View 1 Replies View Related

SQL Server, Disk Arrays And Disk IO

May 7, 2004

Hi all,

Ok here goes,

I have a three tier system using SQL server 2000, we are currently experiencing IO bottle necks on our SCSI Raid 10 array, which holds the Data and the logs in separate partitions.

So my options as I understand it are:

Get Enterprise edition

or

Get another physical raid 10 array and separate the logs and data i.e. data on one array and logs on the other array.

I would like to try the latter but I am totally unsure how much difference this will make or whether it will make any difference at all.

Does anyone know how much performance increase I will get from using two arrays as opposed to one?

Any other advice on this scenario would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

View 4 Replies View Related

[Performance Discussion] To Schedule A Time For Mssql Command, Which Way Would Be Faster And Get A Better Performance?

Sep 12, 2004

1. Use mssql server agent service to take the schedule
2. Use a .NET windows service with timers to call SqlClientConnection

above, which way would be faster and get a better performance?

View 2 Replies View Related

Extremely Poor Query Performance - Identical DBs Different Performance

Jun 23, 2006

Hello Everyone,I have a very complex performance issue with our production database.Here's the scenario. We have a production webserver server and adevelopment web server. Both are running SQL Server 2000.I encounted various performance issues with the production server with aparticular query. It would take approximately 22 seconds to return 100rows, thats about 0.22 seconds per row. Note: I ran the query in singleuser mode. So I tested the query on the Development server by taking abackup (.dmp) of the database and moving it onto the dev server. I ranthe same query and found that it ran in less than a second.I took a look at the query execution plan and I found that they we'rethe exact same in both cases.Then I took a look at the various index's, and again I found nodifferences in the table indices.If both databases are identical, I'm assumeing that the issue is relatedto some external hardware issue like: disk space, memory etc. Or couldit be OS software related issues, like service packs, SQL Serverconfiguations etc.Here's what I've done to rule out some obvious hardware issues on theprod server:1. Moved all extraneous files to a secondary harddrive to free up spaceon the primary harddrive. There is 55gb's of free space on the disk.2. Applied SQL Server SP4 service packs3. Defragmented the primary harddrive4. Applied all Windows Server 2003 updatesHere is the prod servers system specs:2x Intel Xeon 2.67GHZTotal Physical Memory 2GB, Available Physical Memory 815MBWindows Server 2003 SE /w SP1Here is the dev serers system specs:2x Intel Xeon 2.80GHz2GB DDR2-SDRAMWindows Server 2003 SE /w SP1I'm not sure what else to do, the query performance is an order ofmagnitude difference and I can't explain it. To me its is a hardware oroperating system related issue.Any Ideas would help me greatly!Thanks,Brian T*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com ***

View 2 Replies View Related

Very Poor Performance - Identical DBs But Different Performance

Jun 22, 2006

Hello Everyone,I have a very complex performance issue with our production database.Here's the scenario. We have a production webserver server and adevelopment web server. Both are running SQL Server 2000.I encounted various performance issues with the production server witha particular query. It would take approximately 22 seconds to return100 rows, thats about 0.22 seconds per row. Note: I ran the query insingle user mode. So I tested the query on the Development server bytaking a backup (.dmp) of the database and moving it onto the devserver. I ran the same query and found that it ran in less than asecond.I took a look at the query execution plan and I found that they we'rethe exact same in both cases.Then I took a look at the various index's, and again I found nodifferences in the table indices.If both databases are identical, I'm assumeing that the issue isrelated to some external hardware issue like: disk space, memory etc.Or could it be OS software related issues, like service packs, SQLServer configuations etc.Here's what I've done to rule out some obvious hardware issues on theprod server:1. Moved all extraneous files to a secondary harddrive to free up spaceon the primary harddrive. There is 55gb's of free space on the disk.2. Applied SQL Server SP4 service packs3. Defragmented the primary harddrive4. Applied all Windows Server 2003 updatesHere is the prod servers system specs:2x Intel Xeon 2.67GHZTotal Physical Memory 2GB, Available Physical Memory 815MBWindows Server 2003 SE /w SP1Here is the dev serers system specs:2x Intel Xeon 2.80GHz2GB DDR2-SDRAMWindows Server 2003 SE /w SP1I'm not sure what else to do, the query performance is an order ofmagnitude difference and I can't explain it. To me its is a hardware oroperating systemrelated issue.Any Ideas would help me greatly!Thanks,Brian T

View 2 Replies View Related

Move Log To Different Disk

Oct 30, 2001

We will move t-log from one disk to another one. I tried Alter Database and found it did not work for log.

Can somebody give me a method about moving log from different disks?

Thanks.

Jean

View 2 Replies View Related

Disk Space

Nov 19, 2000

Hello
I need to setup a compaq sever with 300 MB database, and will be adding around 600 records on a daily basis. Can someone help with how much disk space i should have on sqlserver, providing i have c: and d: setup.

Thank you in advance for all the help.
Paula

View 1 Replies View Related

Disk Space

Feb 19, 2001

Hi All,

I have a server and it has C: D: F: I: Drives and all the system files are on C:Drive and and all the .MDF's and .LDF's(model,temp,master) are on the F: Drive and now I am running out of space on both(C: and F: Drives)

1. Can we add space to the C: and F: drives on the fly?.
2. Can I move the System databases ( MDF's and LDF's to some other drive)and if so, how do I do it?( Moving the databases ) and this is on the production database so when I have to do this.Will there be any impact.

Thanks in Advance,
Reddy

View 2 Replies View Related

Disk Space

Feb 21, 2003

Does anyone know how to get the free disk space for all drives in many different SQL servers.

I need to populate a report (right now output in Excel) with the free disk space of all drives on all of my SQL servers.

I found xp_fixeddrives but that is specific for the server where it is executed.

Any help or pointers to a script in the archives is much appreciated.

Thanks.

View 2 Replies View Related

Disk Fragmentation && SQL

Apr 14, 2004

One of my production servers has been determined to be 92% fragmented.

What's the proper procedure for defraging a database server?

I couldn't find anything very helpful in BOL, nor Knowledge Base.

Sidney Ives
Database Administrator
Sentara Healthcare

View 3 Replies View Related

SQL 6.5 And Disk Cloning

Mar 23, 1999

We need a drive cloning app, like Ghost, that will allow us to transfer a production image off of a HDD to other PCs. The problem with this is that
our production needs SQL in order to run and transferring the initial image to uniquely named workstations causes DB registration problems. Is there
an app that will allow us to configure this transferred image so that SQL will refer to the "new" drive instead in of the "old"?

View 2 Replies View Related

High Disk I/o

Aug 14, 2002

Hello,

We are experiencing high disk i/o on one of our RAID disk systems. Can someone tell me how I can identify the query or user or process which is causing this high disk i/o?

Thanks,
Brent.

View 1 Replies View Related

Low Disk Space On C:

Aug 2, 2004

I noticed something strange today. I was running a query using query analyzer on a large database (8.8 million records) and the disk space on the c: drive was dropping and eventually went to 0. Availalbe space on the c: drive is 10GB. The query did complete. SQL server and all the databases are on the d: drive. After closing the query results in query analyzer the disk space returned. Is this a concern and is there a way to change it to use the d: for whatever it is doing?

View 3 Replies View Related

Disk Fragmentation

Aug 9, 2004

What's the best way to find out if disk fragmentation on Windows 2000 Server is affecting SQL Server performance?

If disk fragmentation is shown to be a cause of performance problems, what are the recommendations for a disk fragmentation strategy? eg. use the win 2000 built in disk defrag utility or buy a 3rd party product like DiskKeeper? How much of an overhead is a product like DiskKeeper that defrags in the background?

Clive

View 1 Replies View Related

Disk Full.

Feb 25, 2004

Hi all,
I have a problem...
I use SQL server 2000,all the disk on computer is used to store data file and transaction log file, and now they are full so data can be insert or update because the data file and transaction log file can be add more or increase, please show me.
Best regard,

View 4 Replies View Related

No Place On Disk

May 20, 2004

I have one big db and i heve no place on disk
the log file is big too. how can i delete the log

View 7 Replies View Related

DTS Disk Space

Jun 30, 2006

This is my first attempt using SQL 2000 and DTS. I am importing an Access database using the DTS wizard. The process fails with a "Not enough space on temporary disk" error. There is definitely enough space on the physical disk. I don't have any limits on any folder sizes either. What "disk" is the error talking about, and how do I give it enough space. The database is relatively small, about 10MB. I believe the database was created using Access 97. Please help.

View 1 Replies View Related

Disk Organization

Oct 30, 2007

I understand the log files (LDF ) and data files (mdf ) should be on a different drives . I believe it leads to greater availabilty and speed . Are there any other reasons for to keep this on a separate drive.

Also what considerations I should take care while creating a database of around 100 GB . (use of filegroups , growth % etc ). Is there any connection of number of users to number of disks SQL data file to be spread to . Also do I need to take care (through hardware / software for a Quad core CPU ) to take full advanage of Quad core CPU.

View 4 Replies View Related

Normal Disk IO

Apr 15, 2008

I am wondering what normal disk I/O should be.
i know it verys depending on use but im looking for an average.

here is an idea of what we have

there is about 10 centers doing replication to our primary server.
we have about 80 users connecting directoy to our primary server using MS Dynamics through CITRIX.
we have a few other apps use the database as well however i am fairly certin its Dynamics generating our disk IO
Hardware wise we have a powerful blade connected to a raid 5 SAN with 15000 rpm disks.
normaly the disk IO stays fairly low but every so often it goes crazy and im thinking it shouldn't

Below is a sample of our disk IO from perfmon over 2 minutes or so. as you can see everything looks ok untill 04/15/2008 10:12:49.470 when the Disk I/O % goes above 100%

"04/15/2008 10:12:23.470","2.8300181121159178"
"04/15/2008 10:12:24.470","0"
"04/15/2008 10:12:25.470","3.950025280161793"
"04/15/2008 10:12:26.470","0"
"04/15/2008 10:12:27.470","0"
"04/15/2008 10:12:28.470","5.9800382722449426"
"04/15/2008 10:12:29.470","7.7400495363170325"
"04/15/2008 10:12:30.470","3.4500220801413128"
"04/15/2008 10:12:31.470","0"
"04/15/2008 10:12:32.470","4.180026752171214"
"04/15/2008 10:12:33.470","3.8600247041581071"
"04/15/2008 10:12:34.470","0"
"04/15/2008 10:12:35.470","142.71091334984544"
"04/15/2008 10:12:36.470","0"
"04/15/2008 10:12:37.470","1.1500073600471041"
"04/15/2008 10:12:38.470","0.81000518403317789"
"04/15/2008 10:12:39.470","0"
"04/15/2008 10:12:40.470","2.1400136960876548"
"04/15/2008 10:12:41.470","10.230065472419025"
"04/15/2008 10:12:42.470","4.5800293121875981"
"04/15/2008 10:12:43.470","0"
"04/15/2008 10:12:44.470","0"
"04/15/2008 10:12:45.470","14.500092800593926"
"04/15/2008 10:12:46.470","6.730043072275663"
"04/15/2008 10:12:47.470","1.6300104320667652"
"04/15/2008 10:12:48.470","7.3500470403010585"
"04/15/2008 10:12:49.470","264.66169383484055"
"04/15/2008 10:12:50.470","324.18207476527851"
"04/15/2008 10:12:51.470","536.17343150996169"
"04/15/2008 10:12:52.470","270.31172999507197"
"04/15/2008 10:12:53.470","331.97212462159757"
"04/15/2008 10:12:54.470","333.84213658967417"
"04/15/2008 10:12:55.470","435.57278766584108"
"04/15/2008 10:12:56.470","442.31283080211716"
"04/15/2008 10:12:57.470","685.92438991609549"
"04/15/2008 10:12:58.470","295.1618890360898"
"04/15/2008 10:12:59.470","61.470393410517829"
"04/15/2008 10:13:00.470","56.360360706308519"
"04/15/2008 10:13:01.470","45.260289665853861"
"04/15/2008 10:13:02.470","224.58143732119885"
"04/15/2008 10:13:03.470","1022.0365410338626"
"04/15/2008 10:13:04.470","1114.6271336136551"
"04/15/2008 10:13:05.470","241.52154573789269"
"04/15/2008 10:13:06.470","506.79324347675828"
"04/15/2008 10:13:07.470","374.88239924735518"
"04/15/2008 10:13:08.470","359.5723012627281"
"04/15/2008 10:13:09.485","427.62119831413077"
"04/15/2008 10:13:10.485","400.15256097639025"
"04/15/2008 10:13:11.485","1076.2868882360847"
"04/15/2008 10:13:12.485","325.94208602935055"
"04/15/2008 10:13:13.485","449.36287592240592"
"04/15/2008 10:13:14.485","344.28220340610181"
"04/15/2008 10:13:15.485","569.57364527132972"
"04/15/2008 10:13:16.485","775.02496015974498"
"04/15/2008 10:13:17.485","729.54466908588222"
"04/15/2008 10:13:18.485","778.70498371189581"
"04/15/2008 10:13:19.485","1080.1269128122422"
"04/15/2008 10:13:20.485","754.56482921490704"
"04/15/2008 10:13:21.485","999.11639434492372"
"04/15/2008 10:13:22.485","701.36448873272786"
"04/15/2008 10:13:23.485","276.26176807531567"
"04/15/2008 10:13:24.485","252.13161364232732"
"04/15/2008 10:13:25.485","533.27341294984296"
"04/15/2008 10:13:26.485","759.54486108711092"
"04/15/2008 10:13:27.485","817.11522953746908"
"04/15/2008 10:13:28.485","129.41082822930068"
"04/15/2008 10:13:29.485","158.94101722251023"
"04/15/2008 10:13:30.485","160.55102752657618"
"04/15/2008 10:13:31.485","655.87419759486454"
"04/15/2008 10:13:32.485","444.49284475420637"
"04/15/2008 10:13:33.485","272.47174381916045"
"04/15/2008 10:13:34.485","94.730606275880163"
"04/15/2008 10:13:35.485","355.28227380655238"
"04/15/2008 10:13:36.485","898.29574909279427"
"04/15/2008 10:13:37.485","1309.3783800216322"
"04/15/2008 10:13:38.485","88.200564483612695"
"04/15/2008 10:13:39.485","1.2300078720503811"
"04/15/2008 10:13:40.485","4.9400316162023437"
"04/15/2008 10:13:41.485","217.90139456892524"
"04/15/2008 10:13:42.485","373.26238887928884"
"04/15/2008 10:13:43.485","73.760472067021226"
"04/15/2008 10:13:44.485","1.4100090240577541"
"04/15/2008 10:13:45.485","34.960223745431975"
"04/15/2008 10:13:46.485","15.990102336654955"
"04/15/2008 10:13:47.485","63.580406914604247"
"04/15/2008 10:13:48.485","26.560169985087906"
"04/15/2008 10:13:49.485","11.150071360456707"
"04/15/2008 10:13:50.485","15.250097600624644"
"04/15/2008 10:13:51.485","17.010108864696736"
"04/15/2008 10:13:52.485","12.210078144500125"
"04/15/2008 10:13:53.485","95.650612163917842"
"04/15/2008 10:13:54.485","38.740247937586801"
"04/15/2008 10:13:55.485","5.6000358402293777"
"04/15/2008 10:13:56.485","1.6600106240679942"
"04/15/2008 10:13:57.485","19.590125376802412"
"04/15/2008 10:13:58.485","2.8100179841150981"
"04/15/2008 10:13:59.485","631.48404149786563"
"04/15/2008 10:14:00.485","579.14370651972172"
"04/15/2008 10:14:01.485","1.0600067840434177"
"04/15/2008 10:14:02.485","15.870101568650039"
"04/15/2008 10:14:03.485","112.28071859659903"
"04/15/2008 10:14:04.485","15.660100224641438"
"04/15/2008 10:14:05.485","4.9800318722039822"
"04/15/2008 10:14:06.485","25.44016281704203"
"04/15/2008 10:14:07.485","16.130103232660691"
"04/15/2008 10:14:08.485","5.9300379522428939"
"04/15/2008 10:14:09.485","4.8400309761982481"
"04/15/2008 10:14:10.485","2.6400168961081349"
"04/15/2008 10:14:11.485","19.430124352795858"
"04/15/2008 10:14:12.485","42.55027232174286"
"04/15/2008 10:14:13.485","37.550240321538055"
"04/15/2008 10:14:14.485","1.210007744049562"
"04/15/2008 10:14:15.485","15.930101952652498"
"04/15/2008 10:14:16.485","20.550131520841735"
"04/15/2008 10:14:17.485","4.0900261761675267"
"04/15/2008 10:14:18.485","8.0100512643280908"
"04/15/2008 10:14:19.485","1.6000102400655365"
"04/15/2008 10:14:20.485","2.3300149120954372"
"04/15/2008 10:14:21.485","1.6200103680663558"
"04/15/2008 10:14:22.485","10.730068672439504"
"04/15/2008 10:14:23.485","4.4600285441826832"
"04/15/2008 10:14:24.485","9.0300577923698704"
"04/15/2008 10:14:25.485","0"
"04/15/2008 10:14:26.485","15.550099520636932"
"04/15/2008 10:14:27.485","2.970019008121652"
"04/15/2008 10:14:28.485","64.580413314645213"
"04/15/2008 10:14:29.485","71.850459842942996"
"04/15/2008 10:14:30.485","53.220340610179903"
"04/15/2008 10:14:31.485","32.620208769336124"
"04/15/2008 10:14:32.485","1.0000064000409603"
"04/15/2008 10:14:33.485","4.8400309761982481"
"04/15/2008 10:14:34.485","8.2700529283387425"
"04/15/2008 10:14:35.485","11.160071424457115"

View 1 Replies View Related

Quorum Disk Again.

Jan 18, 2007

Hi,

I'm trying to install a server cluster to implement an SQL Server 2005 cluster. No other services (I think this is important).

I've a dual SCSI channel Smart Array with 4 disks configured in a 400Gb RAID 5.

I do not need to move different resource groups from one node to the other, I need only one group with all the resources IP, Network name, MSDTC, and SQL Server..., when a node fails, all services should failover to the other node.

Is it possible to have only one physical disk (RAID 5) for Quorum disk and shared disk?

It would be the following configuration:

[Groups]
Cluster Group
IP Address
Network Name
Physical disk (used for quorum and shared storage)
Distributed Transaction Coordinator
SQL Server
SQL Server Agent
Generic Service (SQL Server Fulltext)

The other option would be having a 1 physical disk Raid 0 for Quorum (146Gb wasted) and another physical disk Raid 5 (3 disk) for Shared Storage, but this schema will have a a flaw point that if Quorum disk fails, the cluster fails....

Any help would be appreciate.

Best regards.

Ilde.

View 1 Replies View Related