Advice on SQL 2005 Install

Hello,
I am looking for some advice on installing SQL 2005 x64 Standard on a
new Windows 2003 x64 Standard Dell 2950 Box. We have a Quad 2.6 GHz
with 16 GBs Memory, 5x 73 GB 15k RPM Hard drives.
A couple things we are looking into is the best way to partition the
Raid 5, what we have come up with so far is to create an OS partition,
Backup Partition, Temp DB partition, and Everything else Partition.
We would like to stay with raid 5.
Next is there any to make Windows 2003 STD work better for SQL on a
fresh install?
SQL tips, We have read up on a few such as dedicating processor to the
Temp DB. We use our DB for an in-house sales package (software
designer included), Great Plains, and a CRM program.
Thanks for any help.
Don Graham
Why do you want to partition the drives? That does absolutely nothing for
performance since they are all on the same physical array. By partitioning
the array you now run into a situation where one or more of the partitions
may be too small down the road. And why do you want to stay with Raid 5?
Is 5 disks the max you can have in the box? I don't know who large your dbs
will be or how you will use them but if performance is a goal placing
everything on a single Raid 5 may not be the best option in the long run.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Donnie3iii" <donnie3iii@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1184020787.195967.302410@.e16g2000pri.googlegr oups.com...
> Hello,
> I am looking for some advice on installing SQL 2005 x64 Standard on a
> new Windows 2003 x64 Standard Dell 2950 Box. We have a Quad 2.6 GHz
> with 16 GBs Memory, 5x 73 GB 15k RPM Hard drives.
> A couple things we are looking into is the best way to partition the
> Raid 5, what we have come up with so far is to create an OS partition,
> Backup Partition, Temp DB partition, and Everything else Partition.
> We would like to stay with raid 5.
> Next is there any to make Windows 2003 STD work better for SQL on a
> fresh install?
> SQL tips, We have read up on a few such as dedicating processor to the
> Temp DB. We use our DB for an in-house sales package (software
> designer included), Great Plains, and a CRM program.
> Thanks for any help.
> Don Graham
>
|||On Jul 9, 3:59 pm, "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooos...@.shadhawk.com>
wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> Why do you want to partition the drives? That does absolutely nothing for
> performance since they are all on the same physical array. By partitioning
> the array you now run into a situation where one or more of the partitions
> may be too small down the road. And why do you want to stay with Raid 5?
> Is 5 disks the max you can have in the box? I don't know who large your dbs
> will be or how you will use them but if performance is a goal placing
> everything on a single Raid 5 may not be the best option in the long run.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> "Donnie3iii" <donnie3...@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1184020787.195967.302410@.e16g2000pri.googlegr oups.com...
>
>
>
>
The database size will total around 20-25GB (for now, they grow at a
rate of 7 GBs a year), as for Raid 5 we were going to go with Raid 10
but we went with the 15k drives instead. Our programmer/dbo swears by
Raid 5. We can have up to 8 drives in the box but cost was a
consideration here.
|||Well without knowing more about how you will actually use this server I
can't say whether you will have issues with the Raid 5 or not. But if your
programmer swears by them who am I to say .
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Donnie3iii" <donnie3iii@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1184022630.326849.120520@.j4g2000prf.googlegro ups.com...
> On Jul 9, 3:59 pm, "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooos...@.shadhawk.com>
> wrote:
> The database size will total around 20-25GB (for now, they grow at a
> rate of 7 GBs a year), as for Raid 5 we were going to go with Raid 10
> but we went with the 15k drives instead. Our programmer/dbo swears by
> Raid 5. We can have up to 8 drives in the box but cost was a
> consideration here.
>
|||On Jul 9, 8:04 pm, "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooos...@.shadhawk.com>
wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> Well without knowing more about how you will actually use this server I
> can't say whether you will have issues with the Raid 5 or not. But if your
> programmer swears by them who am I to say .
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> "Donnie3iii" <donnie3...@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1184022630.326849.120520@.j4g2000prf.googlegro ups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
"But if your programmer swears by them who am I to say"
That was my thought as well but the more I look into it the more I
start to disagree. I may go for a raid 1 (OS), Raid 1 (Trans log or
TempDB), and I am not sure for the DB drive. Raid 10 is a little to
expensive.
Overall we have about 25-30 users, it looks like a lot of database
operations for the program are done with stored procedures.
|||You have plenty of cache so hopefully you won't need to do as much I/O on
the data drives. So if you separate the Tran logs fromt he data files you
will have a good start. By the way if price is an issue I would look at
placing the Log files on the same Raid 1 as the OS. As long as you don't
have other apps using the OS drive there isn't much activity and most small
to medium size apps do fine with sharing the logs and OS. That will give you
more drives for the data array.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Donnie3iii" <donnie3iii@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1184081530.969779.121120@.i13g2000prf.googlegr oups.com...
> On Jul 9, 8:04 pm, "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooos...@.shadhawk.com>
> wrote:
> "But if your programmer swears by them who am I to say"
> That was my thought as well but the more I look into it the more I
> start to disagree. I may go for a raid 1 (OS), Raid 1 (Trans log or
> TempDB), and I am not sure for the DB drive. Raid 10 is a little to
> expensive.
> Overall we have about 25-30 users, it looks like a lot of database
> operations for the program are done with stored procedures.
>
|||On Jul 11, 5:38 am, "Rasmus Glibstrup" <ras...@.it-
craft.THIS.REMOVE.dk> wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> I would go fo a tripple RAID 1, one for OS, one for Log and One for DB
> files.
> To begin with I would place the TempDB as any other database, unless your
> applications require much use of TempDB.
> But generally my experience is never to use RAID 5 unless you have a very
> large percentage of reads as opposed to writes on your database. And even
> then I would go for RAID 10.
> Maybe you want to take a look at point 2,3 and 5 in this from MS:http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/bestpractice/storage...
> --
> Rasmus Glibstrup
> MCDBA,MCITP (dba,dev,bi)
> "Donnie3iii" <donnie3...@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1184081530.969779.121120@.i13g2000prf.googlegr oups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Thank you all for the suggestions, I am planning on reconfiguring the
raid and going with either 2 or 3 depending on how much money I can
squeeze out. Thanks!
Don

Advice on SQL 2005 Install

Hello,
I am looking for some advice on installing SQL 2005 x64 Standard on a
new Windows 2003 x64 Standard Dell 2950 Box. We have a Quad 2.6 GHz
with 16 GBs Memory, 5x 73 GB 15k RPM Hard drives.
A couple things we are looking into is the best way to partition the
Raid 5, what we have come up with so far is to create an OS partition,
Backup Partition, Temp DB partition, and Everything else Partition.
We would like to stay with raid 5.
Next is there any to make Windows 2003 STD work better for SQL on a
fresh install?
SQL tips, We have read up on a few such as dedicating processor to the
Temp DB. We use our DB for an in-house sales package (software
designer included), Great Plains, and a CRM program.
Thanks for any help.
Don GrahamWhy do you want to partition the drives? That does absolutely nothing for
performance since they are all on the same physical array. By partitioning
the array you now run into a situation where one or more of the partitions
may be too small down the road. And why do you want to stay with Raid 5?
Is 5 disks the max you can have in the box? I don't know who large your dbs
will be or how you will use them but if performance is a goal placing
everything on a single Raid 5 may not be the best option in the long run.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Donnie3iii" <donnie3iii@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1184020787.195967.302410@.e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> Hello,
> I am looking for some advice on installing SQL 2005 x64 Standard on a
> new Windows 2003 x64 Standard Dell 2950 Box. We have a Quad 2.6 GHz
> with 16 GBs Memory, 5x 73 GB 15k RPM Hard drives.
> A couple things we are looking into is the best way to partition the
> Raid 5, what we have come up with so far is to create an OS partition,
> Backup Partition, Temp DB partition, and Everything else Partition.
> We would like to stay with raid 5.
> Next is there any to make Windows 2003 STD work better for SQL on a
> fresh install?
> SQL tips, We have read up on a few such as dedicating processor to the
> Temp DB. We use our DB for an in-house sales package (software
> designer included), Great Plains, and a CRM program.
> Thanks for any help.
> Don Graham
>|||On Jul 9, 3:59 pm, "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooos...@.shadhawk.com>
wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> Why do you want to partition the drives? That does absolutely nothing for
> performance since they are all on the same physical array. By partitioning
> the array you now run into a situation where one or more of the partitions
> may be too small down the road. And why do you want to stay with Raid 5?
> Is 5 disks the max you can have in the box? I don't know who large your db
s
> will be or how you will use them but if performance is a goal placing
> everything on a single Raid 5 may not be the best option in the long run.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> "Donnie3iii" <donnie3...@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1184020787.195967.302410@.e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
The database size will total around 20-25GB (for now, they grow at a
rate of 7 GBs a year), as for Raid 5 we were going to go with Raid 10
but we went with the 15k drives instead. Our programmer/dbo swears by
Raid 5. We can have up to 8 drives in the box but cost was a
consideration here.|||Well without knowing more about how you will actually use this server I
can't say whether you will have issues with the Raid 5 or not. But if your
programmer swears by them who am I to say .
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Donnie3iii" <donnie3iii@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1184022630.326849.120520@.j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 9, 3:59 pm, "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooos...@.shadhawk.com>
> wrote:
> The database size will total around 20-25GB (for now, they grow at a
> rate of 7 GBs a year), as for Raid 5 we were going to go with Raid 10
> but we went with the 15k drives instead. Our programmer/dbo swears by
> Raid 5. We can have up to 8 drives in the box but cost was a
> consideration here.
>|||On Jul 9, 8:04 pm, "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooos...@.shadhawk.com>
wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> Well without knowing more about how you will actually use this server I
> can't say whether you will have issues with the Raid 5 or not. But if you
r
> programmer swears by them who am I to say .
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> "Donnie3iii" <donnie3...@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1184022630.326849.120520@.j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
"But if your programmer swears by them who am I to say"
That was my thought as well but the more I look into it the more I
start to disagree. I may go for a raid 1 (OS), Raid 1 (Trans log or
TempDB), and I am not sure for the DB drive. Raid 10 is a little to
expensive.
Overall we have about 25-30 users, it looks like a lot of database
operations for the program are done with stored procedures.|||You have plenty of cache so hopefully you won't need to do as much I/O on
the data drives. So if you separate the Tran logs fromt he data files you
will have a good start. By the way if price is an issue I would look at
placing the Log files on the same Raid 1 as the OS. As long as you don't
have other apps using the OS drive there isn't much activity and most small
to medium size apps do fine with sharing the logs and OS. That will give you
more drives for the data array.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Donnie3iii" <donnie3iii@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1184081530.969779.121120@.i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 9, 8:04 pm, "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooos...@.shadhawk.com>
> wrote:
> "But if your programmer swears by them who am I to say"
> That was my thought as well but the more I look into it the more I
> start to disagree. I may go for a raid 1 (OS), Raid 1 (Trans log or
> TempDB), and I am not sure for the DB drive. Raid 10 is a little to
> expensive.
> Overall we have about 25-30 users, it looks like a lot of database
> operations for the program are done with stored procedures.
>|||I would go fo a tripple RAID 1, one for OS, one for Log and One for DB
files.
To begin with I would place the TempDB as any other database, unless your
applications require much use of TempDB.
But generally my experience is never to use RAID 5 unless you have a very
large percentage of reads as opposed to writes on your database. And even
then I would go for RAID 10.
Maybe you want to take a look at point 2,3 and 5 in this from MS:
[url]http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/bestpractice/storage-top-10.mspx[
/url]
Rasmus Glibstrup
MCDBA,MCITP (dba,dev,bi)
"Donnie3iii" <donnie3iii@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1184081530.969779.121120@.i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 9, 8:04 pm, "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooos...@.shadhawk.com>
> wrote:
> "But if your programmer swears by them who am I to say"
> That was my thought as well but the more I look into it the more I
> start to disagree. I may go for a raid 1 (OS), Raid 1 (Trans log or
> TempDB), and I am not sure for the DB drive. Raid 10 is a little to
> expensive.
> Overall we have about 25-30 users, it looks like a lot of database
> operations for the program are done with stored procedures.
>|||On Jul 11, 5:38 am, "Rasmus Glibstrup" <ras...@.it-
craft.THIS.REMOVE.dk> wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> I would go fo a tripple RAID 1, one for OS, one for Log and One for DB
> files.
> To begin with I would place the TempDB as any other database, unless your
> applications require much use of TempDB.
> But generally my experience is never to use RAID 5 unless you have a very
> large percentage of reads as opposed to writes on your database. And even
> then I would go for RAID 10.
> Maybe you want to take a look at point 2,3 and 5 in this from MS:http://www.micr
osoft.com/te...tice/storage...
> --
> Rasmus Glibstrup
> MCDBA,MCITP (dba,dev,bi)
> "Donnie3iii" <donnie3...@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1184081530.969779.121120@.i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Thank you all for the suggestions, I am planning on reconfiguring the
raid and going with either 2 or 3 depending on how much money I can
squeeze out. Thanks!
Don

Advice on SQL 2005 Install

Hello,
I am looking for some advice on installing SQL 2005 x64 Standard on a
new Windows 2003 x64 Standard Dell 2950 Box. We have a Quad 2.6 GHz
with 16 GBs Memory, 5x 73 GB 15k RPM Hard drives.
A couple things we are looking into is the best way to partition the
Raid 5, what we have come up with so far is to create an OS partition,
Backup Partition, Temp DB partition, and Everything else Partition.
We would like to stay with raid 5.
Next is there any to make Windows 2003 STD work better for SQL on a
fresh install?
SQL tips, We have read up on a few such as dedicating processor to the
Temp DB. We use our DB for an in-house sales package (software
designer included), Great Plains, and a CRM program.
Thanks for any help.
Don GrahamWhy do you want to partition the drives? That does absolutely nothing for
performance since they are all on the same physical array. By partitioning
the array you now run into a situation where one or more of the partitions
may be too small down the road. And why do you want to stay with Raid 5?
Is 5 disks the max you can have in the box? I don't know who large your dbs
will be or how you will use them but if performance is a goal placing
everything on a single Raid 5 may not be the best option in the long run.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Donnie3iii" <donnie3iii@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1184020787.195967.302410@.e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> Hello,
> I am looking for some advice on installing SQL 2005 x64 Standard on a
> new Windows 2003 x64 Standard Dell 2950 Box. We have a Quad 2.6 GHz
> with 16 GBs Memory, 5x 73 GB 15k RPM Hard drives.
> A couple things we are looking into is the best way to partition the
> Raid 5, what we have come up with so far is to create an OS partition,
> Backup Partition, Temp DB partition, and Everything else Partition.
> We would like to stay with raid 5.
> Next is there any to make Windows 2003 STD work better for SQL on a
> fresh install?
> SQL tips, We have read up on a few such as dedicating processor to the
> Temp DB. We use our DB for an in-house sales package (software
> designer included), Great Plains, and a CRM program.
> Thanks for any help.
> Don Graham
>|||On Jul 9, 3:59 pm, "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooos...@.shadhawk.com>
wrote:
> Why do you want to partition the drives? That does absolutely nothing for
> performance since they are all on the same physical array. By partitioning
> the array you now run into a situation where one or more of the partitions
> may be too small down the road. And why do you want to stay with Raid 5?
> Is 5 disks the max you can have in the box? I don't know who large your dbs
> will be or how you will use them but if performance is a goal placing
> everything on a single Raid 5 may not be the best option in the long run.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> "Donnie3iii" <donnie3...@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1184020787.195967.302410@.e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> > Hello,
> > I am looking for some advice on installing SQL 2005 x64 Standard on a
> > new Windows 2003 x64 Standard Dell 2950 Box. We have a Quad 2.6 GHz
> > with 16 GBs Memory, 5x 73 GB 15k RPM Hard drives.
> > A couple things we are looking into is the best way to partition the
> > Raid 5, what we have come up with so far is to create an OS partition,
> > Backup Partition, Temp DB partition, and Everything else Partition.
> > We would like to stay with raid 5.
> > Next is there any to make Windows 2003 STD work better for SQL on a
> > fresh install?
> > SQL tips, We have read up on a few such as dedicating processor to the
> > Temp DB. We use our DB for an in-house sales package (software
> > designer included), Great Plains, and a CRM program.
> > Thanks for any help.
> > Don Graham
The database size will total around 20-25GB (for now, they grow at a
rate of 7 GBs a year), as for Raid 5 we were going to go with Raid 10
but we went with the 15k drives instead. Our programmer/dbo swears by
Raid 5. We can have up to 8 drives in the box but cost was a
consideration here.|||Well without knowing more about how you will actually use this server I
can't say whether you will have issues with the Raid 5 or not. But if your
programmer swears by them who am I to say :).
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Donnie3iii" <donnie3iii@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1184022630.326849.120520@.j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 9, 3:59 pm, "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooos...@.shadhawk.com>
> wrote:
>> Why do you want to partition the drives? That does absolutely nothing
>> for
>> performance since they are all on the same physical array. By
>> partitioning
>> the array you now run into a situation where one or more of the
>> partitions
>> may be too small down the road. And why do you want to stay with Raid 5?
>> Is 5 disks the max you can have in the box? I don't know who large your
>> dbs
>> will be or how you will use them but if performance is a goal placing
>> everything on a single Raid 5 may not be the best option in the long run.
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>> "Donnie3iii" <donnie3...@.gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1184020787.195967.302410@.e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>> > Hello,
>> > I am looking for some advice on installing SQL 2005 x64 Standard on a
>> > new Windows 2003 x64 Standard Dell 2950 Box. We have a Quad 2.6 GHz
>> > with 16 GBs Memory, 5x 73 GB 15k RPM Hard drives.
>> > A couple things we are looking into is the best way to partition the
>> > Raid 5, what we have come up with so far is to create an OS partition,
>> > Backup Partition, Temp DB partition, and Everything else Partition.
>> > We would like to stay with raid 5.
>> > Next is there any to make Windows 2003 STD work better for SQL on a
>> > fresh install?
>> > SQL tips, We have read up on a few such as dedicating processor to the
>> > Temp DB. We use our DB for an in-house sales package (software
>> > designer included), Great Plains, and a CRM program.
>> > Thanks for any help.
>> > Don Graham
> The database size will total around 20-25GB (for now, they grow at a
> rate of 7 GBs a year), as for Raid 5 we were going to go with Raid 10
> but we went with the 15k drives instead. Our programmer/dbo swears by
> Raid 5. We can have up to 8 drives in the box but cost was a
> consideration here.
>|||On Jul 9, 8:04 pm, "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooos...@.shadhawk.com>
wrote:
> Well without knowing more about how you will actually use this server I
> can't say whether you will have issues with the Raid 5 or not. But if your
> programmer swears by them who am I to say :).
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> "Donnie3iii" <donnie3...@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1184022630.326849.120520@.j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> > On Jul 9, 3:59 pm, "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooos...@.shadhawk.com>
> > wrote:
> >> Why do you want to partition the drives? That does absolutely nothing
> >> for
> >> performance since they are all on the same physical array. By
> >> partitioning
> >> the array you now run into a situation where one or more of the
> >> partitions
> >> may be too small down the road. And why do you want to stay with Raid 5?
> >> Is 5 disks the max you can have in the box? I don't know who large your
> >> dbs
> >> will be or how you will use them but if performance is a goal placing
> >> everything on a single Raid 5 may not be the best option in the long run.
> >> --
> >> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> >> "Donnie3iii" <donnie3...@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>news:1184020787.195967.302410@.e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> >> > Hello,
> >> > I am looking for some advice on installing SQL 2005 x64 Standard on a
> >> > new Windows 2003 x64 Standard Dell 2950 Box. We have a Quad 2.6 GHz
> >> > with 16 GBs Memory, 5x 73 GB 15k RPM Hard drives.
> >> > A couple things we are looking into is the best way to partition the
> >> > Raid 5, what we have come up with so far is to create an OS partition,
> >> > Backup Partition, Temp DB partition, and Everything else Partition.
> >> > We would like to stay with raid 5.
> >> > Next is there any to make Windows 2003 STD work better for SQL on a
> >> > fresh install?
> >> > SQL tips, We have read up on a few such as dedicating processor to the
> >> > Temp DB. We use our DB for an in-house sales package (software
> >> > designer included), Great Plains, and a CRM program.
> >> > Thanks for any help.
> >> > Don Graham
> > The database size will total around 20-25GB (for now, they grow at a
> > rate of 7 GBs a year), as for Raid 5 we were going to go with Raid 10
> > but we went with the 15k drives instead. Our programmer/dbo swears by
> > Raid 5. We can have up to 8 drives in the box but cost was a
> > consideration here.
"But if your programmer swears by them who am I to say"
That was my thought as well but the more I look into it the more I
start to disagree. I may go for a raid 1 (OS), Raid 1 (Trans log or
TempDB), and I am not sure for the DB drive. Raid 10 is a little to
expensive.
Overall we have about 25-30 users, it looks like a lot of database
operations for the program are done with stored procedures.|||You have plenty of cache so hopefully you won't need to do as much I/O on
the data drives. So if you separate the Tran logs fromt he data files you
will have a good start. By the way if price is an issue I would look at
placing the Log files on the same Raid 1 as the OS. As long as you don't
have other apps using the OS drive there isn't much activity and most small
to medium size apps do fine with sharing the logs and OS. That will give you
more drives for the data array.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Donnie3iii" <donnie3iii@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1184081530.969779.121120@.i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 9, 8:04 pm, "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooos...@.shadhawk.com>
> wrote:
>> Well without knowing more about how you will actually use this server I
>> can't say whether you will have issues with the Raid 5 or not. But if
>> your
>> programmer swears by them who am I to say :).
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>> "Donnie3iii" <donnie3...@.gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1184022630.326849.120520@.j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> > On Jul 9, 3:59 pm, "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooos...@.shadhawk.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >> Why do you want to partition the drives? That does absolutely nothing
>> >> for
>> >> performance since they are all on the same physical array. By
>> >> partitioning
>> >> the array you now run into a situation where one or more of the
>> >> partitions
>> >> may be too small down the road. And why do you want to stay with Raid
>> >> 5?
>> >> Is 5 disks the max you can have in the box? I don't know who large
>> >> your
>> >> dbs
>> >> will be or how you will use them but if performance is a goal placing
>> >> everything on a single Raid 5 may not be the best option in the long
>> >> run.
>> >> --
>> >> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>> >> "Donnie3iii" <donnie3...@.gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >>news:1184020787.195967.302410@.e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>> >> > Hello,
>> >> > I am looking for some advice on installing SQL 2005 x64 Standard on
>> >> > a
>> >> > new Windows 2003 x64 Standard Dell 2950 Box. We have a Quad 2.6 GHz
>> >> > with 16 GBs Memory, 5x 73 GB 15k RPM Hard drives.
>> >> > A couple things we are looking into is the best way to partition the
>> >> > Raid 5, what we have come up with so far is to create an OS
>> >> > partition,
>> >> > Backup Partition, Temp DB partition, and Everything else Partition.
>> >> > We would like to stay with raid 5.
>> >> > Next is there any to make Windows 2003 STD work better for SQL on a
>> >> > fresh install?
>> >> > SQL tips, We have read up on a few such as dedicating processor to
>> >> > the
>> >> > Temp DB. We use our DB for an in-house sales package (software
>> >> > designer included), Great Plains, and a CRM program.
>> >> > Thanks for any help.
>> >> > Don Graham
>> > The database size will total around 20-25GB (for now, they grow at a
>> > rate of 7 GBs a year), as for Raid 5 we were going to go with Raid 10
>> > but we went with the 15k drives instead. Our programmer/dbo swears by
>> > Raid 5. We can have up to 8 drives in the box but cost was a
>> > consideration here.
> "But if your programmer swears by them who am I to say"
> That was my thought as well but the more I look into it the more I
> start to disagree. I may go for a raid 1 (OS), Raid 1 (Trans log or
> TempDB), and I am not sure for the DB drive. Raid 10 is a little to
> expensive.
> Overall we have about 25-30 users, it looks like a lot of database
> operations for the program are done with stored procedures.
>|||I would go fo a tripple RAID 1, one for OS, one for Log and One for DB
files.
To begin with I would place the TempDB as any other database, unless your
applications require much use of TempDB.
But generally my experience is never to use RAID 5 unless you have a very
large percentage of reads as opposed to writes on your database. And even
then I would go for RAID 10.
Maybe you want to take a look at point 2,3 and 5 in this from MS:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/bestpractice/storage-top-10.mspx
--
Rasmus Glibstrup
MCDBA,MCITP (dba,dev,bi)
"Donnie3iii" <donnie3iii@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1184081530.969779.121120@.i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 9, 8:04 pm, "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooos...@.shadhawk.com>
> wrote:
>> Well without knowing more about how you will actually use this server I
>> can't say whether you will have issues with the Raid 5 or not. But if
>> your
>> programmer swears by them who am I to say :).
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>> "Donnie3iii" <donnie3...@.gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1184022630.326849.120520@.j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> > On Jul 9, 3:59 pm, "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooos...@.shadhawk.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >> Why do you want to partition the drives? That does absolutely nothing
>> >> for
>> >> performance since they are all on the same physical array. By
>> >> partitioning
>> >> the array you now run into a situation where one or more of the
>> >> partitions
>> >> may be too small down the road. And why do you want to stay with Raid
>> >> 5?
>> >> Is 5 disks the max you can have in the box? I don't know who large
>> >> your
>> >> dbs
>> >> will be or how you will use them but if performance is a goal placing
>> >> everything on a single Raid 5 may not be the best option in the long
>> >> run.
>> >> --
>> >> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>> >> "Donnie3iii" <donnie3...@.gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >>news:1184020787.195967.302410@.e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>> >> > Hello,
>> >> > I am looking for some advice on installing SQL 2005 x64 Standard on
>> >> > a
>> >> > new Windows 2003 x64 Standard Dell 2950 Box. We have a Quad 2.6 GHz
>> >> > with 16 GBs Memory, 5x 73 GB 15k RPM Hard drives.
>> >> > A couple things we are looking into is the best way to partition the
>> >> > Raid 5, what we have come up with so far is to create an OS
>> >> > partition,
>> >> > Backup Partition, Temp DB partition, and Everything else Partition.
>> >> > We would like to stay with raid 5.
>> >> > Next is there any to make Windows 2003 STD work better for SQL on a
>> >> > fresh install?
>> >> > SQL tips, We have read up on a few such as dedicating processor to
>> >> > the
>> >> > Temp DB. We use our DB for an in-house sales package (software
>> >> > designer included), Great Plains, and a CRM program.
>> >> > Thanks for any help.
>> >> > Don Graham
>> > The database size will total around 20-25GB (for now, they grow at a
>> > rate of 7 GBs a year), as for Raid 5 we were going to go with Raid 10
>> > but we went with the 15k drives instead. Our programmer/dbo swears by
>> > Raid 5. We can have up to 8 drives in the box but cost was a
>> > consideration here.
> "But if your programmer swears by them who am I to say"
> That was my thought as well but the more I look into it the more I
> start to disagree. I may go for a raid 1 (OS), Raid 1 (Trans log or
> TempDB), and I am not sure for the DB drive. Raid 10 is a little to
> expensive.
> Overall we have about 25-30 users, it looks like a lot of database
> operations for the program are done with stored procedures.
>|||On Jul 11, 5:38 am, "Rasmus Glibstrup" <ras...@.it-
craft.THIS.REMOVE.dk> wrote:
> I would go fo a tripple RAID 1, one for OS, one for Log and One for DB
> files.
> To begin with I would place the TempDB as any other database, unless your
> applications require much use of TempDB.
> But generally my experience is never to use RAID 5 unless you have a very
> large percentage of reads as opposed to writes on your database. And even
> then I would go for RAID 10.
> Maybe you want to take a look at point 2,3 and 5 in this from MS:http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/bestpractice/storage...
> --
> Rasmus Glibstrup
> MCDBA,MCITP (dba,dev,bi)
> "Donnie3iii" <donnie3...@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1184081530.969779.121120@.i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> > On Jul 9, 8:04 pm, "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooos...@.shadhawk.com>
> > wrote:
> >> Well without knowing more about how you will actually use this server I
> >> can't say whether you will have issues with the Raid 5 or not. But if
> >> your
> >> programmer swears by them who am I to say :).
> >> --
> >> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> >> "Donnie3iii" <donnie3...@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>news:1184022630.326849.120520@.j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> >> > On Jul 9, 3:59 pm, "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooos...@.shadhawk.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> Why do you want to partition the drives? That does absolutely nothing
> >> >> for
> >> >> performance since they are all on the same physical array. By
> >> >> partitioning
> >> >> the array you now run into a situation where one or more of the
> >> >> partitions
> >> >> may be too small down the road. And why do you want to stay with Raid
> >> >> 5?
> >> >> Is 5 disks the max you can have in the box? I don't know who large
> >> >> your
> >> >> dbs
> >> >> will be or how you will use them but if performance is a goal placing
> >> >> everything on a single Raid 5 may not be the best option in the long
> >> >> run.
> >> >> --
> >> >> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> >> >> "Donnie3iii" <donnie3...@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >>news:1184020787.195967.302410@.e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> >> >> > Hello,
> >> >> > I am looking for some advice on installing SQL 2005 x64 Standard on
> >> >> > a
> >> >> > new Windows 2003 x64 Standard Dell 2950 Box. We have a Quad 2.6 GHz
> >> >> > with 16 GBs Memory, 5x 73 GB 15k RPM Hard drives.
> >> >> > A couple things we are looking into is the best way to partition the
> >> >> > Raid 5, what we have come up with so far is to create an OS
> >> >> > partition,
> >> >> > Backup Partition, Temp DB partition, and Everything else Partition.
> >> >> > We would like to stay with raid 5.
> >> >> > Next is there any to make Windows 2003 STD work better for SQL on a
> >> >> > fresh install?
> >> >> > SQL tips, We have read up on a few such as dedicating processor to
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > Temp DB. We use our DB for an in-house sales package (software
> >> >> > designer included), Great Plains, and a CRM program.
> >> >> > Thanks for any help.
> >> >> > Don Graham
> >> > The database size will total around 20-25GB (for now, they grow at a
> >> > rate of 7 GBs a year), as for Raid 5 we were going to go with Raid 10
> >> > but we went with the 15k drives instead. Our programmer/dbo swears by
> >> > Raid 5. We can have up to 8 drives in the box but cost was a
> >> > consideration here.
> > "But if your programmer swears by them who am I to say"
> > That was my thought as well but the more I look into it the more I
> > start to disagree. I may go for a raid 1 (OS), Raid 1 (Trans log or
> > TempDB), and I am not sure for the DB drive. Raid 10 is a little to
> > expensive.
> > Overall we have about 25-30 users, it looks like a lot of database
> > operations for the program are done with stored procedures.
Thank you all for the suggestions, I am planning on reconfiguring the
raid and going with either 2 or 3 depending on how much money I can
squeeze out. Thanks!
Don

AdventureWorks database question

How can I install theAdventureWorks database on my box where C:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\90\Tools\Samples\ is missing? My SQL 2005 is currently without AdventureWorks OLT. I downloaded the Enterprise trial before uninstalling SQL2005Express. Please help. Thanks.

It looks like the AdventureWorks database can be downloadedhere.

HTH,
Ryan

|||

As I did the following:

exec

sp_attach_db @.dbname=N'AdventureWorks', @.filename1=N'C:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL.1\MSSQL\Data\AdventureWorks_Data.mdf', @.filename2=N'C:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL.1\MSSQL\Data\AdventureWorks_log.ldf'

Here's what came back:

Msg 1813, Level 16, State 2, Line 1

Could not open new database 'AdventureWorks'. CREATE DATABASE is aborted.

Msg 602, Level 21, State 50, Line 1

Could not find row in sysindexes for database ID 24, object ID 1, index ID 1. Run DBCC CHECKTABLE on sysindexes.

What's wrong here?

Any help is greatly appreciated.

|||

Find instawdb.sql and execute it. This will open "SQL server manegament studio. Enter localhost for servername then click connect. On the sql editor toolbar click execute. wait until get the message "database installed succesfully" in the status bar.

|||

When I do that I get the following error messages:

Microsoft SQL Server 2000 - 8.00.194 (Intel X86)

Aug 6 2000 00:57:48

Copyright (c) 1988-2000 Microsoft Corporation

Personal Edition on Windows NT 5.1 (Build 2600: Service Pack 2)

*** Dropping Database

Msg 208, Level 16, State 1, Line 2

Invalid object name 'master.sys.databases'.

*** Creating Database

Msg 208, Level 16, State 1, Line 5

Invalid object name 'master.sys.master_files'.

Msg 102, Level 15, State 6, Line 11

Incorrect syntax near 'CHECKSUM'.

Msg 911, Level 16, State 1, Line 2

Could not locate entry in sysdatabases for database 'AdventureWorksDW'. No entry found with that name. Make sure that the name is entered correctly.

*** Creating DDL Trigger for Database

Msg 170, Level 15, State 1, Line 9

Line 9: Incorrect syntax near 'max'.

Msg 156, Level 15, State 1, Procedure ddlDatabaseTriggerLog, Line 3

Incorrect syntax near the keyword 'DATABASE'.

Msg 195, Level 15, State 10, Procedure ddlDatabaseTriggerLog, Line 14

'EVENTDATA' is not a recognized function name.

Msg 170, Level 15, State 1, Procedure ddlDatabaseTriggerLog, Line 15

Line 15: Incorrect syntax near '.'.

Msg 170, Level 15, State 1, Procedure ddlDatabaseTriggerLog, Line 16

Line 16: Incorrect syntax near '.'.

Msg 170, Level 15, State 1, Procedure ddlDatabaseTriggerLog, Line 17

Line 17: Incorrect syntax near '.'.

Msg 170, Level 15, State 1, Procedure ddlDatabaseTriggerLog, Line 25

Line 25: Incorrect syntax near 'max'.

Msg 170, Level 15, State 1, Procedure ddlDatabaseTriggerLog, Line 44

Line 44: Incorrect syntax near '.'.

*** Creating Tables

Msg 2714, Level 16, State 6, Line 2

There is already an object named 'AdventureWorksDWBuildVersion' in the database.

Msg 170, Level 15, State 1, Line 80

Line 80: Incorrect syntax near 'max'.

*** Loading Data

Msg 208, Level 16, State 1, Line 6

Invalid object name 'master.sys.master_files'.

Msg 1779, Level 16, State 0, Line 2

Table 'DimAccount' already has a primary key defined on it.

Msg 1750, Level 16, State 0, Line 2

Could not create constraint. See previous errors.

Msg 1913, Level 16, State 1, Line 2

There is already an index on table 'DimAccount' named 'AK_DimAccount_AccountCodeAlternateKey'.

*** Creating Foreign Key Constraints

Msg 2714, Level 16, State 4, Line 2

There is already an object named 'FK_DimAccount_DimAccount' in the database.

Msg 1750, Level 16, State 0, Line 2

Could not create constraint. See previous errors.

*** Creating Table Views

Msg 170, Level 15, State 1, Procedure vDMPrep, Line 48

Line 48: Incorrect syntax near ';'.

Msg 170, Level 15, State 1, Procedure vTimeSeries, Line 41

Line 41: Incorrect syntax near ';'.

Msg 170, Level 15, State 1, Procedure vTargetMail, Line 62

Line 62: Incorrect syntax near ';'.

Msg 208, Level 16, State 1, Procedure vAssocSeqOrders, Line 7

Invalid object name 'dbo.vDMPrep'.

Msg 170, Level 15, State 1, Procedure vAssocSeqLineItems, Line 12

Line 12: Incorrect syntax near ';'.

*** Creating Functions

Msg 2714, Level 16, State 5, Procedure udfMinimumDate, Line 15

There is already an object named 'udfMinimumDate' in the database.

*** Disabling DDL Trigger for Database

Msg 156, Level 15, State 1, Line 2

Incorrect syntax near the keyword 'TRIGGER'.

*** Changing File Growth Values for Database

Msg 911, Level 16, State 1, Line 2

Could not locate entry in sysdatabases for database 'AdventureWorksDW'. No entry found with that name. Make sure that the name is entered correctly.

*** Shrinking Database

Msg 2520, Level 16, State 12, Line 2

Could not find database 'AdventureWorksDW'. Check sysdatabases.

DBCC execution completed. If DBCC printed error messages, contact your system administrator.

And on that download link none of those will install either, they installation stops with an error.

Advanced Search box

Hi, Using Visual Web Developer and SQL Express, (coding in Csharp) I want to add a

advanced search facility to my site. Problem is I do not know how to begin.

The website is a business directory and displays company names and services that they provide.

Here is where I am at...

So far I have made one query whichallows users to search the database by "town" such as if they enter "London" in the text box, it returns the relevant records into a gridview.

Rather than have a seperate text box for each query, I want to provide an advanced search box option so users can define their search and query the database by various criterias, such as geography, sector, name, number of employees in companies etc.

I have seen compact advanced search boxes on many sites!.

Replies greatly appreciated.

prontonet

You can use a query with multiple search criterials, and 'disable' a search criterial when the input parameter is null. For example:

USE Northwind
DECLARE @.EId int, @.CId varchar(20)
SET @.EID=6
SELECT *
FROM Orders
WHERE EmployeeID=isnull(@.EId,EmployeeID)
AND CustomerID=isnull(@.CId,CustomerID)

Here we make a trick by using ISNULL function to return the self value of a field if the parameter is null. So in your code, just pass null values to the parameters when corresponding textbox is empty.

|||

Mnay Thanks for your reply. Can you give me another example - somehow not quite

following it yet??

|||Sorry I'm not not clear. Can you explain more about the example you want?|||

easiest way to explain is to give an example of what I would like a user to be able to do

Say I have 1000 companies in my database, then I want to give the user multiple search options

to retrieve only the data they need but in a compact way - As opposed to making a seperate text box for each search criteria which takes up a lot of space on the web page.

Ideally I want the user to be able to select or tick (from a dropdown or (checkbox) which

critieria they are searching by and then enter just enter any text into single box and just hit the search button.

I have included example criterias below...

Search Criteria 1 (By town)

Search Criteria 2 (by Industry sector)

Search Criteria 3 (by number of employees in company

Search Criteria 4 (company ID)

There could be more, also Ideally I would want them also to be able to filter the search further so they can for example select - "companies in "London" with "100+ employees", and that trade in the "technology sector"

I almost understand your example put maybe if you could put it into the above context

that would help. once again I am using visual web developer and Csharp.

Thanks

|||

Im really looking forward to an answer to this. Im stuck on the same thing......

Some1 plz help !!! With an example......

|||

OK, let's look at a simple example. Suppose we have a table as following in database:

CREATE TABLE Companies(ComID int PRIMARY KEY, town nvarchar(100),
IndustrySector nvarchar(50),NumOfEmployees int)

And we have 4 TextBoxes in application used for inputting search criterials. Then we can use such code:

using (SqlConnection conn = new SqlConnection(@."Data Source=.\IORI2000;Integrated Security=SSPI;Database=tempdb"))
{
conn.Open();
SqlCommand cmd = new SqlCommand("SELECT * FROM Companies WHERE town=isnull(@.town,town)AND Industrysector=isnull(@.zInSec,Industrysector)AND NumOfEmployees>=@.NOE AND ComID=isnull(@.ComID,ComID)", conn);

cmd.Parameters.Add("@.town", SqlDbType.NVarChar, 100);
cmd.Parameters.Add("@.zInSec", SqlDbType.NVarChar, 50);
cmd.Parameters.Add("@.NOE", SqlDbType.Int);
cmd.Parameters.Add("@.ComID", SqlDbType.Int);
if (textBox1.Text.Length == 0)
cmd.Parameters["@.town"].Value = DBNull.Value;
else
cmd.Parameters["@.town"].Value = textBox1.Text;
if (textBox2.Text.Length == 0)
cmd.Parameters["@.zInSec"].Value = DBNull.Value;
else
cmd.Parameters["@.zInSec"].Value = textBox2.Text;

cmd.Parameters["@.NOE"].Value = textBox3.Text.Length == 0 ? 0 : Int32.Parse(textBox3.Text);
if (textBox4.Text.Length == 0)
cmd.Parameters["@.ComID"].Value = DBNull.Value;
else
cmd.Parameters["@.ComID"].Value = Int32.Parse(textBox4.Text);

SqlDataAdapter sda = new SqlDataAdapter(cmd);
DataTable dt = new DataTable();
sda.Fill(dt);
label1.Text= dt.Rows.Count.ToString();
}

|||Thanks so much. How can I use this same example to search more then one column based on a single textbox.|||

That's something you need to implement from your code. For example you can validate the input text of a textbox so that the search criterals are delimited by some chars (such as ';' in connection string), and then split the text into a string array. In this case I prefer dynamic SQL built from concatenated basic SELECT command and WHERE clause. Ok let's take a look at how to build dynamic SQL command:

using (SqlConnection conn= new SqlConnection(ConfigurationManager.ConnectionStrings["myConn"].ToString()))
{
conn.Open();
string qstring = "SELECT * FROM Orders WHERE";

string[] sa = TextBox2.Text.Split('#');
if (sa.Length == 0)
Response.Write("No correct search criterials!");
else
foreach (string s in sa)
qstring += s+" AND ";
qstring=qstring.Remove(qstring.Length - 4);
SqlCommand cmd = new SqlCommand(qstring, conn);

//add your code

}

But keep in mind: dynamic SQL without using Parameters may suffer from SQL Injection. We should always use parameterized query.

ADP Parameterized list box stored proecedure /function

I am trying to populate a list box (MS Access - don't ask it is what my boss wants) with a table-valued function or a stored
procedure. The list box is used to navigate among records that populate the
form, so the same query can be used for the form and the list box thereby,
theoretically, reducing calls to the DB. The records are filtered on two
fields, we'll call them type (GUID) and name (nvarchar), whereby the values
are in two different controls on the form.

The form is using a function, fActiveCompanies, and the imput parameter
propety is completed. The form is able to navigate through the records with
no problem.

I am having difficulty create a SMOOTH method of populating the list box.
currently i am using a stored procedure that is called in VB and populates
the list box with a list of values.

I would prefer to not use a list of values and set the row source type to
Table/View/Stored Procedure.

Please point me in the correct direction for populaitng hte list box not
using a list of values... thank you

Access 2003 - Access Data Projects (ADP) - ADO
SQL Server 2000 (production) SQL Server Express 2005 (devlopment)

my current code for populating the list box is below.

Dim str As String: str = ""
Dim lst As String: lst = ""

Dim rds As ADODB.Recordset
Set rds = New ADODB.Recordset

Forms!frmcompanies!lstCompanies.RowSource = lst
str = "EXEC spActiveCompanies @.pIdTypeCompany='" &
Nz(Forms!frmcompanies!cboTblTypeEntity, "%") & "', @.pNameLegal='" &
Nz(Forms!frmcompanies!txtNav, "%") & "'"

rds.Open str, CurrentProject.Connection

Do Until rds.EOF

If lst = "" Then
lst = """" & rds(0) & """;""" & rds(1) & """"
Else
lst = lst & ";""" & rds(0) & """;""" & rds(1) & """"
End If

rds.MoveNext
Loop

Forms!frmcompanies!lstCompanies.RowSource = lst
Forms!frmcompanies!lstCompanies.Requery

rds.Close: Set rds = Nothing

Forms!frmcompanies.Requery

i mis-read one document, the parameters must be the same as the controls...

field = @.ComboBoxControlName

Adobe iFilter 5 & SQL Server 2000 full text indexing of PDFs?

hi all! i'm new and hoping you might help me - have searched E V E R Y W H E R E for this answer!!

--my ASP program is running on IIS box (call it "Lucy")

--my ASP program connects to SQL Server 2000 db on another box (call it "Linus") consisting of .doc, .xls, .PDF and the like

--all's well EXCEPT when PDFs are returned! sometimes browser gives blank screen instead of PDF <?> i figure iFilter will "cure" this.

--question:
WHICH SERVER should iFilter be installed on? Lucy (where IIS is running & ASP program is) or Linus (where SQL Server does its full text indexing)?

thanks in advance for any & all help!!
geekgirlYou will have to install IFilter on the box that runs index server. I am not sure why you should be worried about SQL server when you searching documents from a folder.

Are ur documents stored in a database?|||Originally posted by vibhu
You will have to install IFilter on the box that runs index server. I am not sure why you should be worried about SQL server when you searching documents from a folder.

Are ur documents stored in a database?

sorry, YES docs are stored directly in the SQL db. iFilter says to install it "where the index server is" -- but i don't know if that means the *** IIS Index Server*** or the ***SQL Server**** which is doing the full text indexing. <??>