I have an MS SQL 2000 server running on a Proliat with two CPUs and 2GB RAM (the process actually uses 1.6GB).
For some reason, the same queries (which return the same data) run sometimes very fast and sometimes very slow.
I used the performance counter to find out that when the queries run fast there is little disk i/o and when they run slowly there is a lot of i/o.
I thought it happens because the DB keeps swapping tables in and out of RAM. The problem is that these things happen in periods. I can have a few hours of slow access and then a few hours of fast access. This makes me believe that it doesn't actually put the table in the cache untill it is requested enough times. Very weird.
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.
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.
I just inherited a dev box, and need to do some performance analyzing on a 40 gig db for a client. Time is of the essence!
My question is that this dev box only has one disk partition (c: drive). Is it a huge deal that I don't have the db system files on one drive, with the data files on another, and tempdb on another,etc.....
I want to move 2 databases to another physical disk. They are both single file databases. It looks like a fairly straigtforward attach and detach procedure, but I have a couple of questions:
The log files (.ldf) currently reside on a separate physical disk from the data files, if I attach and reattach the data files will the logs remain where they are by default or do I have to re specify there location?
Is there any advantage to running the update statistics portion of the sp_detach_db?
Due to running out of disk space and reducing I/O contention, I plan to seperate data files and log files to different disk arrays.
My plan is to - detach all databases - copy log files to another disk - attach all databases
The total size of log files is about 60GB. It becomes a problem becasue it spend too much time passing files. To reduce down time, is there any way I can do?
Can I just create new log files and remove the current files by using sql management studio?
Does anyone have any recommendation on whether it's better to monitor the average queue lenght for physical or logical drives? What about for a RAID set?
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!
I am running an SAP installation on clustered DELL poweredge 1850's with a shared scsi disk system. I am running Windows 2000 sp4 with sql 2000 sp4. I am trying to restore a database from a .bak file on a clustered disk. When I attempt to access the disk through enterprise manager it is not there. I only get access to the E: drive (which is clustered as well)
I've recently started working with a public sector organisation who have 4 clustered sql instances that has 80% of it's db mirrored.
Looking at the transaction log - it seems that a transaction log backup is a good idea as the log is 4x larger than the data file.But I'm not allowed access to the physical server to check onto which drive I can create the trn. No RDP, no vmware - let's be honest I'm not even allowed to launch cmd line Also the Server Manager informs me "We will need to carefully look at database backups if you guys want to start doing these backups on box, as that will break our off box backup routine (it will screw the transaction chain)."
I don't understand how backing up the transaction log could break the "transaction chain"?
-- 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
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.
hi, I am new to this technology. can anyone pls help me.can anybody tell me what is physiacl file and source physiacl file wat are the attributes of physical file and source physical file.and how do we identify the uniqueness of a job.
Can anyone inform me how I would go about merging or combining 2 or more physical database files into 1. For example, suppose you have the following files out on your server:
Hi! I have an SQL server installation with a 6.5GB database online at a particular location. I need to move the Database to another location which is a 1000 Miles away.
I have an additional physical Server at the other location which I can use to Sync the database from the original location. Can anyone please guide me to the best strategy to sync the database from the original location to the new location with minimum downtime??
Can anyone explain to me how a column defined with a "bit null" datatype is physically stored in MSSQL? Is it stored like a "tinyint null" physically? In other words, how many bytes on the row on the page does a "bit null" datatype consume (assuming a non-null value 0, or 1 is the current value).
Is there any good documentation about the physical storage layout for a data page?
I have a new server where 32GB of RAM is installed and I have user databases on this server.I am using SQL server 2000 Enterprise edition and Platform is Windows 2003 adv server, which supports upto 128GB of memory.
sp_configure 'awe enabled' is set to 1 and at OS level, AWE is enabled as well.
max server memory (MB) is 2147483647
I was doing some stress test on this server but memory usage doesn't go beyond 180MB....can someone suggest a test for physical RAM ?
How can I make sure that application will make full use of available physical memory?
I may be put on a project involving the migration of a SQL Server 2000 database from one physical location to another. I've never done something like this so any guidance would be appreciated.
My plan is to: 1. Backup the live database. 2. Do a restoration at the new location. 3. Set up transactional replication between the two databases. 4. Update records to point to the new db.
Are there any problems with doing it this way? Is there a better solution? I am trying to do this without any downtime, or as little as possible.
Is there an alert for physical memory in SQL2K5? My requirement is - I should get an alert when the free space on a particular drive comes below a threshhold.
------------------------ I think, therefore I am - Rene Descartes
My server has 16GB RM but it is using only 3GB. And I see my server is using 3GB of Virtual Memory, too. Why my physical memory is not being utilized? How can I increase Physical Memory usage and decrease VM usage?
Hello all,We are in the process of upgrading our SQL physical server (with SS2k). Inthe process we will change the OS form NT4 to W2K. What is the best way tocopy all my databases and SQL logins, roles, jobs, alerts, etc. from myactual (old) SQL Server to my new one?Thanks for your time.Yannick
I need to bulk insert very large amount of data into several MSSQLtables.The first Data model definition used identities to mantain relationshipbetween those tables but we found that natural keys (compound) arebetter forbulk insert (there is no need to obtain the identity first)My question is, changing the identities to natural keys (in some tablesinorder of 4, 5 attributes) will enlarge my database storage?I think MSSQL implements relationships with pointers (or hashcodes), sothestorage size will be similar, right?Regards,
I got a server that has a RAID-5 array partitioned into C: and D:drives (OS Win2K Adv. Server installed on C:). The server also has amapping to a NAS device using the latest protocols that trick thesystem into thinking the map is actually a local SCSII drive. That'sdrive X:.This server is used only for SQL, and contains an OLTP database thatsees a lot of use and is pretty heavily indexed.I am toying with the idea of centralizing my data storage on the NAS(data center network segment is 1-gigabit ethernet). So I wasthinking about putting my primary data file on the NAS (drive X:) andkeeping all tables there, creating a secondary data file on localRAID-5 (drive D:) and putting all non-clustered indexes there, as wellas keeping the tempdb there and specifying the sort in tempdb option.Log files would also remain on D:.If anyone can suggest a better scenario given the above setup - I'dlove to hear it. Much appreciated.Alexey Aksyonenko
Are there any problems or issues with backing up a transaction log to a physical file with the ".bak" extension? We are having some trouble with are hourly trans log backups and I was wondering if this could be part of the problem. Tom.
We have a sql 2005 server with 8GB of RAM. Task Manager shows that it only has 198,250k (about 200 MB) of Physical Memory available. I wonder if that number should be higher.
What can I check (Perfmon counters? Which ones?) to indicate it that's too little RAM, the right amount, or too much.
I usually crate relation with database but not use physical relation * My question is if crate physical relation is best way or not and what advantage and disadvantage of physical relation and if it the best way to make relation
hi we are in the process of developing a project and we r at the initial phase i.e. at the analysis phase and we have been discusssing on what is physical and logical database design. can any body send any links or articals on this will be hightly appreciated.
Hi, i'm trying to interface a c# application with an sql database created with Visual Web Developer Express. I have published the site (and the db) on iis 5 (xp pro). Everithing goes fine on accessing the database from internet,but when i try to connect the db while it's opened with my c# program i keep an error in the sqlconnection open command: Unable to open the physical file "C:myApp_Datamydb.mdf". Operating system error 32: "32(The file is in use by another process.)". My connection string from webconfig: <add name="MYDBCS" connectionString="Data Source=.SQLEXPRESS;Database="C:myApp_Datamydb.mdf;Integrated Security=True;Connect Timeout=30;User Instance=True" providerName="System.Data.SqlClient" /> .....and the connection string for the c# program: "Data Source=.\SQLEXPRESS;Database=c:myapp_datamydb.mdf;Integrated Security=False;Connect Timeout=30;User ID=abc;Password=abc;Trusted_Connection=False;"; I have used a user to connect the database because there was a conflict trying to open the db with Integrated Security=True.
Does anyone have an idea where is the error? Many thanks Max
Any help appreciated! Is there any performance enhancements to be gained by storing frequently 'trigger-written-to' databases on a seperate disk to the source database? In particular, we keep a 'history' database of all inserts/updates/deletes against records, activated by triggers, and I was wondering if I would gain performance enhancement by locating the two databases on different disks? Thanks in advance
