I'm currently planning disk layouts and use for a new version of our
database. The current version has all data and indexes in the default
filegroup, placed on one big raid-5 array(6 drives) along with the
transaction log. Performance is not the best, as you may imagine...
Next week we will add another 14 drives and organize them in different
combos of raid-10 and raid-1, and then create several filegroups and
place tables and index data on separate physical drives.
Most of the database will be placed on a raid-10 array, and some parts
(tables/indexes/translog) will have their own raid-1 drives.
I've been playing with the rather incorrect idea of using raid-0 instead
of raid-1 on one or two of the new disk arrays we're adding and then
place (some) indexes on those drives.
The theory is that even if one drive fails, the db will stay up and it
will be easy to recreate the indexes when the disk has been replaced.
(We will have one hot spare available)
Does anyone know how well sqlserver 2005 handles disk loss in such a
configuration?
I am configuring a new database server, without SAN access, and want to know what is the best practice for SCSI RAID configuration. Do most folks prefer RAID 5 or RAID 10 configurations where their databases will reside?
I have always used RAID 5 for my database apps. I am wondering though is this the best solution. I am purchasing a new server and deciding whether to go with RAID 1 or RAID 5. This server will support all our .NET Apps, SQL Server 2005, Reporting Services, and Integration Services.
RAID 5 beats RAID 10Can I get some feedback on these results? We were having some seriousIO issues according to PerfMon so I really pushed for RAID 10. Theresults are not what I expected.I have 2 identical servers.Hardware:PowerEdge 28502 dual core dual core Xeon 2800 MHz4GB RAMController Cards: Perc4/DC (2 arrays), Perc4e/Di (1 array)PowerVault 220SEach Array consisted of 6-300 GB drives.Server 1 = Raid 103, 6-disk arraysServer 2 = Raid 5 (~838 GB each)3, 6-disk arrays (~1360 GB each)TestWinner% FasterSQL Server - UpdateRAID 513Heavy ETLRAID 516SQLIO - Rand WriteRAID 1040SQLIO - Rand ReadRAID 1030SQLIO - Seq WriteRAID 515SQLIO - Seq ReadRAID 5MixedDisktt - Seq WriteRAID 518Disktt - Seq ReadRAID 52000Disktt - Rand ReadRAID 562Pass Mark - mixedRAID 10VariesPass Mark -Simulate SQL ServerRAID 51%I have much more detail than this if anyone is interested.
I am trying to 'load' a copy of a SQLServer 2000 database to SQLServer 2005 Express (on another host). The copy was provided by someone else - it came to me as a MDF file only, no LDF file.
I have tried to Attach the database and it fails with a failure to load the LDF. Is there any way to bypass this issue without the LDF or do I have to have that?
The provider of the database says I can create a new database and just point to the MDF as the data source but I can't seem to find a way to do that? I am using SQL Server Management Studio Express.
I have an app that uses a sqlserver 2000 jdbc driver to connect to a sqlserver 2000.
Is it possible to do a direct replacement of sqlserver 2000 with sqlserver 2005 express just by reconfiguring the app to point to the express? The app would still be using the sqlserver 2000 jdbc driver to try and make the connection.
If that is a possibility, what can be some differences in the configuration? Previously with 2000 the config information I entered is:
server name: "machinename"( or ip). I've also tried "machiname/SQLEXPRESS"
DB name: name of db instance
port: 1433(default)
user and pass.
My attempts so far results in
"java.sql.SQLException: [Microsoft][SQLServer 2000 Driver for JDBC]Error establishing socket."
and
"java.sql.SQLException: [Microsoft][SQLServer 2000 Driver for JDBC]Unable to connect. Invalid URL."
I have an SQLServer Mobile database, and I would like to know if there is a way to upgrade it to SQLServer 2005 (.mdf) database. My database has no records in it, just the structure (tables etc). What I am actually asking is if I can create automatically a new SQLServer 2005 Database with the same structure as my existin SQLSErver Mobile database
I am in the process of planning a server upgrade to sql2005 x64.
I created 2 linked servers: one to a SQL2000 sp4 server and one to a SQL7.0 SP3.
I have the following error when I query the linked servers. OLE DB provider "SQLNCLI" for linked server "IVDM2K" returned message "Unspecified error". OLE DB provider "SQLNCLI" for linked server "IVDM2K" returned message "The stored procedure required to complete this operation could not be found on the server. Please contact your system administrator.". Msg 7311, Level 16, State 2, Line 1 Cannot obtain the schema rowset "DBSCHEMA_TABLES_INFO" for OLE DB provider "SQLNCLI" for linked server "IVDM2K". The provider supports the interface, but returns a failure code when it is used.
I am aware of KB 906954. http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;906954
I applied the instcat.sql on the SQL2000SP4 server and my linked server issues for that one are gone.
However, I ran the instcat.sql script on the SQL7.0 sp3 server and the linked server is still giving me an issue.
I have SQLServer 2005 runs well for months and stop working after install SqlServer2005 SP1. I try to reinstall the SQLServer 2005 but I have problem when install work station component on my and the error is "There is a problem with this Windows Installer package. A program run as part of the setup did not finish as expected. Contact your support personnel or package vendor". Please help me to fix this bug. I do not want to reformat my machine.
Hi, I'm currently migrating to Sql 2005 from 2000 and have a quick question about indexes. In 2000 i used to click on Table > All Tasks > Manage Indexes... to view and create all my table indexes. There doesn't seem to be anything similar in 2005 Management Studio. I thought it was under Table > Modify but there's nothing there for indexes. I've had to create all my indexes manually through t-sql but this doesn't help when needing to view and manage current indexes. Can anyone help me on this?
I currently have SQL Server Management Studio Express 2005 and would like to upgrade my machine to SQL Developer 2005 as easily as possible. Keeping my databases and such.
Any recommendations on the best way to do this would be greatly appreciated.
Hello Im pretty new to development so..... be nice guys. I have VS2005 pro and SQL Server 2005 developer edition installed. When I open VS, in the server explorer i can connet to databases located on the SQL directory (SQL Server runs perfectly) But when i try to add an sql server to my project( add new item --> SQL database) it gives me an error saying "Connection to SQL server files (*.mdf) require SQL Server Express 2005 to function properly. Please verify the installation of the component......" HELP! donno what VS wants!
I'm working to improve performance on a database I've inherited, and there are several thousand indexes. I've got a list of ones which should definitely exist within the database, and I'm looking to strip out all the others and start fresh, though this list is still quite large (1000 or so).
Is there a way I can remove all the indexes that are not in my list without too much trouble? I.e. without having to manually go through them all individually. The list is currently in a csv file.
I'm looking to either automate the removal of indexes not in the list, or possibly to generate the Create statements for the indexes on the list and simply remove all indexes and then run these statements.
As an aside, when trying to list all indexes in the database, I've found various scripts to do this, but found they all seem to produce differing results. What is the best script to list all indexes?
Recently, I upgraded one of our database servers from SQL 2000 to SQL 2005. At the moment, all the databases are in 80 compatibility mode. I upgraded them based on the false pretenses that I could perform online reindexing right off the bat. Apparently, that isn't the case, and it requires switching to 90 compatibility. My question is if I switch to 90, will all indexes be invalidated/unusable? Or will I be able to switch to 90 and perform the online reindexing right away with no downtime?
We have a few 24/7 production VLDB's in the mix (one of which is on this newly upgraded server), and only reasonable downtime is possible. The largest window of downtime I have is about 10 PM - 5 AM with prior notice.
The upgrade was performed using SAN-based LUN's with a detach/reattach.
In 2000 i could import and select all objects and get the indexes as well but with 2005 i dont seem to be able to find any such option. how do i import data and get the indexes as well?
Recently moved a couple of dbs from SQL 2000 -> SQL 2005 (different machine). Just restored the dbs on the new server from a full backup of the old one. Everything is fine but...
Some queries are returning out-of-order results (for records added since the migration). I tracked this down to the indexes. I completely rebuilt and reorganized the indexes (online) through the manager interface. This helped provide correct ordering for existing records, but new records added since the re index are still out-of-order.
Looking for a way to permanently fix the indexes so I don't have to constantly rebuild them.
My SQL 7 is on RAID 5. Sometimes on non-peak hours, on RAID disks first two lights ( from left ) are constantly on for hours. NT Task manager, nothing unusual, SQL current activity - no running user processes. Isn't second light on RAID comes on if any disk activity ( Read/Write ).
I`ve tried implementing NT Software Raid / Stripping with Parity and am unable to stripe disc that are more than 2g and use SQL. I have not found any info in technet. Any ideas! Thanks.
Hi,I was going to buy a server with Raid 1 as I thought that it meant that ifone of the two mirrored drives fail, you simply take it out and put a newone in. At which point presumably the hardware takes over and copies theother drive over to mirror it again.However, my sql server admin book, says raid 1 is bad, as it means you havelots of downtime, when recovering from a broken drive.Can anyone give me some advice on this? What is the best Raid to use whenyou are running SQL server on the server.ThanksJJ
Im setting up a hardware raid 5 solution for one of our db servers. The data files will reside on the stripe. We dont realy want to raid more drives for the Transaction log if its not nessesary. If the drive with the log crashes is the data file for the database useless ?
Hello, I run a small homw office. I am planning to purchase a dell powerdge 1750 server to install SQL server on that. I am confused here about which RAID should I install on this server RAID 1 or RAID 5. The dell customer rep could not tell me the advantages of installing only RAID 1 or only RAID 5 or installing both RAID 1 and RAID 5
I am recommending that we change our Raid Configuration on some of ourServers from Raid 5 to Raid 0+1; we are experiencing severe IObottlenecks.Our hardware guys are pushing back a bit. They claim that Dell has aweird implementation of 0+1 and told me something about one drivefilling up before it begins to write to the next. They claimed thatthis gets rid of most of the benefits of 0+1.I know that 0+1 is not as good as 10 for availability, fault tolerance,and rebuilding, but shouldn't the write throughput be about the same?Setup:Poweredge 2850Powervault 220SPerc 4/DC Controller 1Perc 4e/DI Controller 0
Server: Msg 3132, Level 16, State 1, Line 1 The RAID set for database 'xxxxx' is missing member number 2
This happens when I try to run a restore?? is it because my server is not set up as RAID 5, I had took a dump from one server and try to apply it to another? Suggestion please.
