Will The Use Of Disk Partitions Track-Aligned Benifit SQL Cluster Implementations?
Jan 10, 2008
Hello All,
I recently learned of the DiskPart.exe tool that is used to improved the performance of Exchange 2003 cluster implementations. The articles I read alluded to the fact that improperly align disks could ruin the phisical devices themselves due to stress.
So my question is:
How come the MS documentation does not suggest using "Disk Partitions Track-Aligned" methods to improve SQL?
Is there some big difference in the way these two server suites managed I/O reads/writes?
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 am trying to cluster two sql node server on hyper-v both virtual and my situation is below :
two hyper-v host connected to vnxe storage two hyper-v are mapped to 3 LUN ( SQL Data , SQL logs , Quorurm) connectivity between hyper-v and storage direct fiber three LUN are mapped to the virtual SQL01 and SQL02 as VHDX and configure it on virtual machine as IDE below is the picture
LUNs are presented to the guest SQL01 and SQL02 and visible through disk management
When create the fail over cluster i am not getting the disk to add them to cluster
Getting the below error when validate the storage :
No Disks suitable for cluster disks were found, For diagnostic information about disks available run the Validate config wizard’..
Also , regarding this LUN how i can make them shared on the host side ?
Is there a way for multiple SQL 2005 instances in a cluster to share drives for user databases.
Once we install our instances in the cluster using seperate disk resources. Can we then have multiple instances share the same physical disk for user databases only. This is for a test environment.
I have a 2-node cluster environment & I am planning to replace it with new hardware. Currently I am using MSA1000 Disk arrays. Now I would like to move my storage to SAN.
What are the necessary pre-requisite and actions to do this. Any particular thing, I must take care in planning.
Hi, Does anybody know any web based application or site which has been implemented on SQl Server 2000. I need some examples of up and running applications so that i recommend this product to my client. Thanx, Vinod Kumar DBA (Prodapt Solutions)
I've noticed that the /rep option of dtexec allows me to specify that dataflow events are outputted to the console during execution. Here's an example of a dataflow event:
Code SnippetDataFlow: 2008-05-25 22:27:52.08 Source: DFT My dataflow Component "Union All" (18) will receive 1807 rows on input "Union All Input 1 " (19) End DataFlow
However, I can't find a method on IDtsEvents that enables me to capture dataflow events such as the one above and that seems a bit strange to me.
So, question is... Is there a way of capturing dataflow events in an IDtsEvents implementation and if not, why not?
there are one table with a column with 16 varchar, eg. ________1245678( _stands for space.).the database size is 15 MB.when using bcp,right-aligned data will be display.Can i change it to left-aligned, eg. 12345678________?i have use the store procedure with "ltrim" to cut off the spacing, Can i useanother methods to change it??Thx
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 having some teething problems while installing SQL on a 3 node cluster. Within the Cluster configuration I have 3 Cluster Groups with each of them having their associated disk resources. All these disk resources physically exist on a SAN.
The actual cluster is running absolutely fine and I can access all the disks from their respective owner node. The problem only starts when I start installing SQL Server 2005 on this cluster. I specify the Cluster group from the Cluster Group Selection and choose the desired partition and then the error message pops up
"There is not enough diskspace on the destination disk for the current SQL Server data files. To proceed, free up disk space to make room for data files, or install the data files to a different drive"
But the disk I am trying to install it on is 264Gb and none of it is used. I have also tried to change it to a different disk within the same Cluster group but to no avail. I have even tried to install it in a different cluster group all together but I get the same error message.
I have googled around havent found anything so far. The disks have got full permissions for the account I am installing SQL with.
In the manual I find the following comment for creating indexes.
"If partition_scheme_name or filegroup is not specified and the table is partitioned, the index is placed in the same partition scheme, using the same partitioning column, as the underlying table."
We are creating some dimensional models in SQL Server with about 100M rows in the largest fact tables.
What I have created are base tables which were on 'primary' and then created a clustered index over a partitioning scheme. I did this as I figured the data will go into the clustered index in any case.
However, when I then create indexes on these tables they do not look like they are petitioned....at least not as far as I can tell.
Q1. Is there some way to tell if the index was partitioned properly?
Q2. If the index is not partitioned is there any simply way to alter the table to the partitioning scheme? My reading of the manual tells me I have to unload, truncate, alter and then reload the table. Is there a better way?
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.
-- 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 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 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.
Does anyone have any statistics on the performance gains one can get using raw partitions. The database in question is very IO intensive and performs about 1,000,000 inserts/updates per select.
I have a server that has SQL Server installed on both C and D drives. The SQL Server software is currently running from the C drive and the live databases and backups are stored on the D drive.
I need to have everything on the D drive. Is there an easy way to make the registry point to the D drive without reinstalling SQL Server? The software will needs to run from the D drive because the C drive is running out of disk space. I will also need to delete the whole C:mssql directory.
assuming that you have two databases, the OLTP db and the OLAP db (take not that both have the same structure -- archiving purposes)... using table partitioning, is there a way where we can move 1 partition from the OLTP db to the OLAP db???
i'm actually trying to use this example with both tables in the DB.. I tried to modify to use two databases but sql server is unable to move the partition...
ALTER TABLE [Production].[TransactionHistory] SWITCH PARTITION 1 TO [Production].[TransactionHistoryArchive] PARTITION 2;
In SQL Server 2005 database we have partitioned a very big table into 30 partitions each holding few million of records.
Im just curious to know whether there are some configuration related to processors or system hardware in order to benefit from partitioning ? (Ex : If we have multiple processors Whether they need be configured to do a parallel processing ? )
Any real time experience (other than referring links) would be really helpful for me.
I have a quick question regarding merging cube partitions. If I create partitions sliced by date (let's assume we have year level partitions like 2006,2007,2008...) Later, if I want to merge selected partition to another partition , for example I have history partition and 2006 partition and I want to merge 2006 to history partition then I can simply merge them using ' merge partition' through Management Studio.
My question is that in script, History partition has condition which is where clause and restricted by year level (i.g. WHERE date < '01-01-2006' ) ; however after merging , script won't change like WHERE date <'01-01-2007').
If so, whenever I merge partitions then I have to alter the script as well based on selected merge partion? I need to refresh history partition once a month;however even if I merge 2006 partition , once I reprocess history partition then it only process what it was wrote in script. So, after reprocessing 2006 data won't appear in this history partition. So, wondering it's mentatory to alter the script once partition is merged. Please give me some comments on this issue. Thanks in advance.
During the installation of Adding node to a SQL Server failover cluster(On passive node) getting error like.. The MOF compiler could not connect with the WMI server. This is either because of a semantic error such as an incompatibility with the existing WMI repository or an actual error such as the failure of the WMI server to start.We run the below commands but didn’t get any resolution & got the same above error .
1<sup>st</sup> Method…
1. Open console command (Run->CMD with administrator privileges).
2. net stop winmgmt
3. Rename folder %windir%System32WbemRepository to other one, for backup purposes (for example _Repository).
I am in the process of moving databases from a SQL 2005 Standard version to a 2-node 2014 cluster.All of my 2005 databases back up successfully.They all restore without issue except for one database that has a full text catalog. I get this message
Msg 7610, Level 16, State 1, Line 2 Access is denied to "fileStoragedataMSSQLSERVERFullTextCatalog", or the path is invalid. Msg 3156, Level 16, State 50, Line 2 File 'sysft_FTCatalog' cannot be restored to 'fileStoragedataMSSQLSERVERFullTextCatalog'. Use WITH MOVE to identify a valid location for the file. Msg 3119, Level 16, State 1, Line 2 Problems were identified while planning for the RESTORE statement. Previous messages provide details. Msg 3013, Level 16, State 1, Line 2 RESTORE DATABASE is terminating abnormally.
[code]....
I went as far as giving the folder full access to everyone temporarily and received the same error.
Can I build a cluster by adding the cluster service, then the SQL instances, then add the other nodes and their passive SQL instances?I would lean to building the cluster first, the add the SQL instances.
I am testing horizontal partitions to see whether it is a feasible option for a project. IF I have a composite Primary Key and the constraint column (a part of the Primary Key) that helps the partitioned view is defined with DateTime Data Type, select on a restricted set of data through a partitioned view still tries to access all the tables instead of just one table that contains the data. Is this the case or am I missing something ?
CREATE TABLE [dbo].[tst01] ( [Dt] datetime NOT NULL , [TID] int NOT NULL , [Nm] [char] (10) COLLATE SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS NOT NULL ) ON [PRIMARY] GO
CREATE TABLE [dbo].[tst02] ( [Dt] datetime NOT NULL , [TID] int NOT NULL, [Nm] [char] (10) COLLATE SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS NOT NULL ) ON [PRIMARY] GO
ALTER TABLE [dbo].[tst01] ADD CONSTRAINT [PK_tst01] PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED ( [Dt], [TID] ) ON [PRIMARY] GO
ALTER TABLE [dbo].[tst02] ADD CONSTRAINT [PK_tst02] PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED ( [Dt], [TID] ) ON [PRIMARY] GO
ALTER TABLE [dbo].[tst01] ADD CONSTRAINT [CK_tst01] CHECK (Dt between '11/1/2002' and '11/30/2002') GO
ALTER TABLE [dbo].[tst02] ADD CONSTRAINT [CK_tst02] CHECK (Dt between '12/1/2002' and '12/31/2002') GO
insert into tst01 values('11/1/2002', 1, 'SS') insert into tst01 values('11/2/2002', 2, 'KK') insert into tst01 values('11/3/2002', 3, 'DD') Go
insert into tst02 values('12/1/2002', 1, 'LL') insert into tst02 values('12/2/2002', 2, 'MM') insert into tst02 values('12/3/2002', 3, 'GG') Go
CREATE VIEW vtst AS SELECT * FROM tst01 UNION ALL SELECT * FROM tst02 Go
I'm considering using horizontal partitions to separate my data by year. For example, SomeTable_2004, SomeTable_2003, etc. This works well for backups, maintenance, etc. because I'm working with 150+ GB of data. I'll be a partitioned view for queries.
However, I'm new at this and have a few questions. I would also like to do partitioned updates or inserts. But I need to make sure that the tables don't use similar primary keys. Does that make sense? I need to make sure that the primary keys from the first table are not used again in the second table.
SomeTable_2003 primary keys: 1,5,8,9,15
SomeTable_2004 primary keys: 2,3,4,10
I don't really care what keys are used on what table, as long as they are different. I have apps that already use this data, and I don't want to change the application logic.
how to set up the partitions.I have a transaction table with 50 million records that's very hard to query. it holds data for the last 4 years but the application only ever looks at the last 6 months so i believe this is and ideal candidate for partitioning.
Would it be better to
1) create a partition based on each year for all data so would have a 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012? 2) create 1 partition based on month for this years data then 3 based on year so would have jan,feb,march,april,may..., 2014, 2013, 2012
For 1) would you have to perform some maintenance at the turn of each year for accommodating the next years data. For 2) although this would give better performance as query's are mostly in the last 6 months wouldn't this have more maintenance to move month data to year partitions come the turn of the year and then create the next years months partitions.
We have a huge table with around 250 million records and have implemented SQL server 2005's new table partitioning feature. Now the data seems to be evenly spread across 20 different filegroups ( each 5 GB approx ) for the same table that was occupying 100 GB itself in the PRIMARY filegroup earlier.
Still the query response times have not come down drastically but we could see a good improvement in the execution plans now.
WE ARE USING RAID 5 IN OUR PRODUCTION ENVIRONMENT. ANY IDEA / THOUGHT ON HOW TO PLACE THE PARTITIONED FILEGROUPS AND THE LOG FILES IN THE RAID 5 (BTW , I'm very new to RAID concepts , any detailed instruction would be helpful ).
I have a requirement that I need to reload the last seven days worth of data each night to ensure that we pick up late arriving and updated records. To avoid having to do updates we delete the last seven days data and reload.
I was wondering if it is possible to set up the table as a partition, paritioned on a value (OLD, NEW) or similar.
The job would set the last day in the NEW partition to be old, the theory being that this would cause the rows to move to the OLD parition, and then truncate the new partion rather than deleting. The last seven days data could then be inserted into the empty new partition.
My questions is 1. Is my theory about the data moving from one partition to another correct. 2. Can I actually truncate and individual parition, 3. Do you think it will perform any quicker. We would expect data in the range of 100K to 500K rows in the seven days and will store up to 4 years of historical data.
For my work I am now learning Sql server 2005 and I have been given a database that has been set up by someone else to work with. It is my job to get the database ready for use in reports.
My problem is that the current database has one huge table with almost 8GB of data. The table contains data from 2004 to present (and growing) from 14 different countries. The reports we use are mostly per country, but we also want to compare the 14 countries to eachother for say, whole 2006. At the moment the table is stored in one single file instead of using partitions.
I believe partitions can give a good performance boost when running the queries. But how do I do this? Currently the country codes are just plain text, can they be used for partitions?
