Please start any new threads on our new
site at https://forums.sqlteam.com. We've got lots of great SQL Server
experts to answer whatever question you can come up with.
| Author |
Topic |
|
prggr
Starting Member
4 Posts |
 Posted - 2007-04-23 : 14:01:11
|
| I've been lurking for awhile but now have my own hardware question.. Currently we have a SQL Server 2000 running under Windows 2000 Server on a Pentium D 3.2Ghz, 4GB RAM, and two RAID-1 arrays each with two 140GB SATA 10k drives. There are two databases, each around 15GB. We are currently working on changing the database structure around which should completely eliminate one of the databases and bring everything under one database at around 20GB. (Yes, lots of extraneous data in one of the databases..) This process will take many months to do as the current database design and sprocs are quite scary. I'm sure we would be able to run everything without a problem on the current hardware, but the budget is available for an upgrade now and not necessarily later once everything has been changed and we would need an upgrade down the line anyway as our DB is continually growing (probably around 1GB every month or two). So, right now DB performance isn't exactly stellar. This has a lot to do with the current design. The developers liked using a lot of cursors, huge temp tables, and quite a bit of poorly written dynamic SQL. And the DB wasn't normalized very well. Bottom line is the current DB is a mess and is causing a lot of slowdowns and deadlocks. Usage on both DBs is mainly a lot of writing (new records and updates to records) throughout the day with fewer large reads (rarely single records-- usually 1000-10000 rows at a time, but up to 350k rows in one shot). Our current config consists of the DB files on the second RAID array and the OS and log files on the first array. Full backups occur nightly and we have hourly transaction log backups. All backups are sent to a secondary computer. I'd like to make this a little better so I've been eying those MD1000 units from Dell (15 36GB drives sounds mighty nice..) We are planning on making the jump to Windows 2003 x64 and SQL Server 2005 x64 in the process. I'm hoping someone would have an idea as to what I can look for in a new server for this kind of setup.. I've been looking at the Dell 2950 with 2x dual core CPU, 8 or 16GB RAM, and as many 36GB drives as I can cram in (possibly along with a full MD1000). So, any suggestions would be great. Thanks!Edit: Ack-- just realized I posted this to the "Old Forums".. sorry about that, not sure where it should end up.. |
|
|
rmiao
Master Smack Fu Yak Hacker
7266 Posts |
Posted - 2007-04-23 : 15:27:01
|
| Sounds ok based on db size. But I'll build at least 4 disk arrays on it for os, db data files, log files, and tempdb respectively. |
 |
|
|
prggr
Starting Member
4 Posts |
Posted - 2007-04-23 : 16:29:52
|
| The drives are actually my biggest concern. I know I can fit 6 3.5 drives in the poweredge 2950, and up to 15 in an MD1000. I was thinking all the drives just need to be 36GB (or maybe 72GB?) I figure the OS and log arrays could each be 2 drives in RAID 1. Still not sure about how to setup the tempdb (also RAID 1?) and the data.. Also not sure how many arrays I can build with the perc5 RAID cards (ie, could I have 2 arrays inside with the perc5/i and 2 arrays on an MD1000 with a single perc5/e?) |
|
|
|
rmiao
Master Smack Fu Yak Hacker
7266 Posts |
Posted - 2007-04-23 : 16:52:45
|
| Not familiar with Dell's, I can build multiple arrays with HP's controller. Better to put data files and tempdb on raid5 or raid10. |
|
|
|
Kristen
Test
22859 Posts |
Posted - 2007-04-24 : 04:36:39
|
| I hate RAID5 ... might just be the Dell controller we use, but every time we have lost a drive its taken the database with it by not completing the WRITE cycle to the other drives in the array .... (i.e. Torn-page errors)Kristen |
|
|
|
prggr
Starting Member
4 Posts |
Posted - 2007-04-26 : 09:19:51
|
| Alright, so it looks like we're going with a fancy new server with 10 SAS drives (2x36GB) and 8x146GB). Since I don't have a ton of drives to work with, I was thinking I could set them up this way:OS: 2x36 RAID 1Data: 6x147 RAID 10TempDB/Backup/Logs: 2x147 RAID 1The Full backups only occur when the rest of the DB can be slower if need be, so the performance hit from being on the same array with the tempDB and logs doesn't matter. (I also don't have enough room to put it with the OS array.) Now, I _could_ fit the tempDB with the OS as I haven't seen it go over several GB. I guess I might have to test that out. Anyway, any comments on this? Thanks! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Upgrading server, some questions..