advice on hard drive set up for 2005 sql server 64 bit

Hi
I built a server and I need some advice on reconfiguring the hard drives for
better sql server performance. Here are my current specs
2 Xeon 5160 Dual Core Hypertheaded Processors
8 gig of fd ram
Windows 2003 Server 64 bit
Sql Server 2005 64 bit
2 500 gig Sata II hard drives set up as Raid 1 at the hard ware level. They
are partitioned as 15 gig for the OS and the rest for my development
environment.
In my development testing I am working with databases starting at 30 gig and
can run upwards of 100 gig. After initial set up and the first round of
testing I quickly learned that I needed to move my tempDB onto the larger
partition. I also learned that I should move it on to a fast disk that isn't
part of the raid because it isn't necessary to backup. Additionally I read
that there is no need to put the system swap file on the raid and for better
performance it should be on a separate faster disk.
This is how I am thinking of reconfiguring the system
2 36 gig 10,000 rpm SATA I drives mirrored under raid 1 used solely for the
OS
1 174 gig 10,000 rpm SATA I drive used for the tempDB & system swap space
and the remaining 2 500 gig drives again set up on raid 1 for my development
database & environments.
does that sound better than my original set up ? if not I am open to
suggestions.
Also if I did move my OS to the new 36 gig would I need to do a complete
reinstall or could I do a back up and restore? I think it would be possible
using partition magic or a similiar tool.
thanks alot
Sounds improved. You may also want to put tempdb on two filegroups, one on
36GB and one on 174GB drives. I think the optimum for 2005 is 1 FG per CPU
(not counting hyperthreads)
TheSQLGuru
President
Indicium Resources, Inc.
"Coaster" <Coaster@.Coaster.net> wrote in message
news:OKqVNMxpHHA.960@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> I built a server and I need some advice on reconfiguring the hard drives
> for better sql server performance. Here are my current specs
> 2 Xeon 5160 Dual Core Hypertheaded Processors
> 8 gig of fd ram
> Windows 2003 Server 64 bit
> Sql Server 2005 64 bit
> 2 500 gig Sata II hard drives set up as Raid 1 at the hard ware level.
> They are partitioned as 15 gig for the OS and the rest for my development
> environment.
> In my development testing I am working with databases starting at 30 gig
> and can run upwards of 100 gig. After initial set up and the first round
> of testing I quickly learned that I needed to move my tempDB onto the
> larger partition. I also learned that I should move it on to a fast disk
> that isn't part of the raid because it isn't necessary to backup.
> Additionally I read that there is no need to put the system swap file on
> the raid and for better performance it should be on a separate faster
> disk.
> This is how I am thinking of reconfiguring the system
> 2 36 gig 10,000 rpm SATA I drives mirrored under raid 1 used solely for
> the OS
> 1 174 gig 10,000 rpm SATA I drive used for the tempDB & system swap space
> and the remaining 2 500 gig drives again set up on raid 1 for my
> development database & environments.
> does that sound better than my original set up ? if not I am open to
> suggestions.
> Also if I did move my OS to the new 36 gig would I need to do a complete
> reinstall or could I do a back up and restore? I think it would be
> possible using partition magic or a similiar tool.
> thanks alot
>
|||I can guess that would be true, each cpu having it's own tempdb space to
use.
Thanks I'll do that
"TheSQLGuru" <kgboles@.earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:uC3biexpHHA.1144@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Sounds improved. You may also want to put tempdb on two filegroups, one
> on 36GB and one on 174GB drives. I think the optimum for 2005 is 1 FG per
> CPU (not counting hyperthreads)
> --
> TheSQLGuru
> President
> Indicium Resources, Inc.
> "Coaster" <Coaster@.Coaster.net> wrote in message
> news:OKqVNMxpHHA.960@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>

advice on hard drive set up for 2005 sql server 64 bit

Hi
I built a server and I need some advice on reconfiguring the hard drives for
better sql server performance. Here are my current specs
2 Xeon 5160 Dual Core Hypertheaded Processors
8 gig of fd ram
Windows 2003 Server 64 bit
Sql Server 2005 64 bit
2 500 gig Sata II hard drives set up as Raid 1 at the hard ware level. They
are partitioned as 15 gig for the OS and the rest for my development
environment.
In my development testing I am working with databases starting at 30 gig and
can run upwards of 100 gig. After initial set up and the first round of
testing I quickly learned that I needed to move my tempDB onto the larger
partition. I also learned that I should move it on to a fast disk that isn't
part of the raid because it isn't necessary to backup. Additionally I read
that there is no need to put the system swap file on the raid and for better
performance it should be on a separate faster disk.
This is how I am thinking of reconfiguring the system
2 36 gig 10,000 rpm SATA I drives mirrored under raid 1 used solely for the
OS
1 174 gig 10,000 rpm SATA I drive used for the tempDB & system swap space
and the remaining 2 500 gig drives again set up on raid 1 for my development
database & environments.
does that sound better than my original set up ? if not I am open to
suggestions.
Also if I did move my OS to the new 36 gig would I need to do a complete
reinstall or could I do a back up and restore? I think it would be possible
using partition magic or a similiar tool.
thanks alotSounds improved. You may also want to put tempdb on two filegroups, one on
36GB and one on 174GB drives. I think the optimum for 2005 is 1 FG per CPU
(not counting hyperthreads)
TheSQLGuru
President
Indicium Resources, Inc.
"Coaster" <Coaster@.Coaster.net> wrote in message
news:OKqVNMxpHHA.960@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> I built a server and I need some advice on reconfiguring the hard drives
> for better sql server performance. Here are my current specs
> 2 Xeon 5160 Dual Core Hypertheaded Processors
> 8 gig of fd ram
> Windows 2003 Server 64 bit
> Sql Server 2005 64 bit
> 2 500 gig Sata II hard drives set up as Raid 1 at the hard ware level.
> They are partitioned as 15 gig for the OS and the rest for my development
> environment.
> In my development testing I am working with databases starting at 30 gig
> and can run upwards of 100 gig. After initial set up and the first round
> of testing I quickly learned that I needed to move my tempDB onto the
> larger partition. I also learned that I should move it on to a fast disk
> that isn't part of the raid because it isn't necessary to backup.
> Additionally I read that there is no need to put the system swap file on
> the raid and for better performance it should be on a separate faster
> disk.
> This is how I am thinking of reconfiguring the system
> 2 36 gig 10,000 rpm SATA I drives mirrored under raid 1 used solely for
> the OS
> 1 174 gig 10,000 rpm SATA I drive used for the tempDB & system swap space
> and the remaining 2 500 gig drives again set up on raid 1 for my
> development database & environments.
> does that sound better than my original set up ? if not I am open to
> suggestions.
> Also if I did move my OS to the new 36 gig would I need to do a complete
> reinstall or could I do a back up and restore? I think it would be
> possible using partition magic or a similiar tool.
> thanks alot
>|||I can guess that would be true, each cpu having it's own tempdb space to
use.
Thanks I'll do that
"TheSQLGuru" <kgboles@.earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:uC3biexpHHA.1144@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Sounds improved. You may also want to put tempdb on two filegroups, one
> on 36GB and one on 174GB drives. I think the optimum for 2005 is 1 FG per
> CPU (not counting hyperthreads)
> --
> TheSQLGuru
> President
> Indicium Resources, Inc.
> "Coaster" <Coaster@.Coaster.net> wrote in message
> news:OKqVNMxpHHA.960@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>sql

advice on hard drive set up for 2005 sql server 64 bit

Hi
I built a server and I need some advice on reconfiguring the hard drives for
better sql server performance. Here are my current specs
2 Xeon 5160 Dual Core Hypertheaded Processors
8 gig of fd ram
Windows 2003 Server 64 bit
Sql Server 2005 64 bit
2 500 gig Sata II hard drives set up as Raid 1 at the hard ware level. They
are partitioned as 15 gig for the OS and the rest for my development
environment.
In my development testing I am working with databases starting at 30 gig and
can run upwards of 100 gig. After initial set up and the first round of
testing I quickly learned that I needed to move my tempDB onto the larger
partition. I also learned that I should move it on to a fast disk that isn't
part of the raid because it isn't necessary to backup. Additionally I read
that there is no need to put the system swap file on the raid and for better
performance it should be on a separate faster disk.
This is how I am thinking of reconfiguring the system
2 36 gig 10,000 rpm SATA I drives mirrored under raid 1 used solely for the
OS
1 174 gig 10,000 rpm SATA I drive used for the tempDB & system swap space
and the remaining 2 500 gig drives again set up on raid 1 for my development
database & environments.
does that sound better than my original set up ? if not I am open to
suggestions.
Also if I did move my OS to the new 36 gig would I need to do a complete
reinstall or could I do a back up and restore? I think it would be possible
using partition magic or a similiar tool.
thanks alotSounds improved. You may also want to put tempdb on two filegroups, one on
36GB and one on 174GB drives. I think the optimum for 2005 is 1 FG per CPU
(not counting hyperthreads)
--
TheSQLGuru
President
Indicium Resources, Inc.
"Coaster" <Coaster@.Coaster.net> wrote in message
news:OKqVNMxpHHA.960@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> I built a server and I need some advice on reconfiguring the hard drives
> for better sql server performance. Here are my current specs
> 2 Xeon 5160 Dual Core Hypertheaded Processors
> 8 gig of fd ram
> Windows 2003 Server 64 bit
> Sql Server 2005 64 bit
> 2 500 gig Sata II hard drives set up as Raid 1 at the hard ware level.
> They are partitioned as 15 gig for the OS and the rest for my development
> environment.
> In my development testing I am working with databases starting at 30 gig
> and can run upwards of 100 gig. After initial set up and the first round
> of testing I quickly learned that I needed to move my tempDB onto the
> larger partition. I also learned that I should move it on to a fast disk
> that isn't part of the raid because it isn't necessary to backup.
> Additionally I read that there is no need to put the system swap file on
> the raid and for better performance it should be on a separate faster
> disk.
> This is how I am thinking of reconfiguring the system
> 2 36 gig 10,000 rpm SATA I drives mirrored under raid 1 used solely for
> the OS
> 1 174 gig 10,000 rpm SATA I drive used for the tempDB & system swap space
> and the remaining 2 500 gig drives again set up on raid 1 for my
> development database & environments.
> does that sound better than my original set up ? if not I am open to
> suggestions.
> Also if I did move my OS to the new 36 gig would I need to do a complete
> reinstall or could I do a back up and restore? I think it would be
> possible using partition magic or a similiar tool.
> thanks alot
>|||I can guess that would be true, each cpu having it's own tempdb space to
use.
Thanks I'll do that
"TheSQLGuru" <kgboles@.earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:uC3biexpHHA.1144@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Sounds improved. You may also want to put tempdb on two filegroups, one
> on 36GB and one on 174GB drives. I think the optimum for 2005 is 1 FG per
> CPU (not counting hyperthreads)
> --
> TheSQLGuru
> President
> Indicium Resources, Inc.
> "Coaster" <Coaster@.Coaster.net> wrote in message
> news:OKqVNMxpHHA.960@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> Hi
>> I built a server and I need some advice on reconfiguring the hard drives
>> for better sql server performance. Here are my current specs
>> 2 Xeon 5160 Dual Core Hypertheaded Processors
>> 8 gig of fd ram
>> Windows 2003 Server 64 bit
>> Sql Server 2005 64 bit
>> 2 500 gig Sata II hard drives set up as Raid 1 at the hard ware level.
>> They are partitioned as 15 gig for the OS and the rest for my development
>> environment.
>> In my development testing I am working with databases starting at 30 gig
>> and can run upwards of 100 gig. After initial set up and the first round
>> of testing I quickly learned that I needed to move my tempDB onto the
>> larger partition. I also learned that I should move it on to a fast disk
>> that isn't part of the raid because it isn't necessary to backup.
>> Additionally I read that there is no need to put the system swap file on
>> the raid and for better performance it should be on a separate faster
>> disk.
>> This is how I am thinking of reconfiguring the system
>> 2 36 gig 10,000 rpm SATA I drives mirrored under raid 1 used solely for
>> the OS
>> 1 174 gig 10,000 rpm SATA I drive used for the tempDB & system swap
>> space
>> and the remaining 2 500 gig drives again set up on raid 1 for my
>> development database & environments.
>> does that sound better than my original set up ? if not I am open to
>> suggestions.
>> Also if I did move my OS to the new 36 gig would I need to do a complete
>> reinstall or could I do a back up and restore? I think it would be
>> possible using partition magic or a similiar tool.
>> thanks alot
>

Advice on handling a client's full-text index loss

Hi,
The problem started because the client's hardware malfunctioned and he
needed to move things to a new computer. So, we installed SQL 2000 on the
new computer, ran the SP3 updates, and installed the specific initial
database using our installer.
After that, we restored the database to the data that they had backed up
a while ago. Everything looked good and they ran without full-text searches
for a while. They then decided that they were ready to do the full-text
index populations, so we ran a script designed to get that all squared away.
The problem apparently started when this script attempted to drop the
full-text indexes and relocate them in the appropriate place. I thought I
could work through this, but couldn't find appropriate information for quite
a while. Later, I decided to attempt a manual removal of the full-text
indexes from the sysfulltextindex (sp?) table. There were two rows, with
the first columns having the values of 5 and 6. I removed them, and tried
to clean things up. In that process, I disabled the full-text indexing, and
now it simply will not re-enable.
Reading this newsgroup, I noticed the existence of a script that could
possibly help by manually deleting the traces of the full-text catalogs.
My question is: What is the best next step?
1) Try to make use of the script I just mentioned.
2) Restore the database, copy in the previous full-text data files
to the appropriate directory, and then try to run our script that moves and
re-populates the catalogs?
3) Something else entirely?
Thanks for your help.
John
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.744 / Virus Database: 496 - Release Date: 8/24/2004
John,
I've emailed you charter account directly as resolving this type of a
situation is better handled via direct email. I don't publicly post these
scripts because they require SysAdmin permission level of access and modify
both Registry keys & values as well as SQL Server system tables.
Regards,
John
"John" <jsfishr@.charter.net> wrote in message
news:eMb$LO6jEHA.704@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> The problem started because the client's hardware malfunctioned and he
> needed to move things to a new computer. So, we installed SQL 2000 on the
> new computer, ran the SP3 updates, and installed the specific initial
> database using our installer.
> After that, we restored the database to the data that they had backed
up
> a while ago. Everything looked good and they ran without full-text
searches
> for a while. They then decided that they were ready to do the full-text
> index populations, so we ran a script designed to get that all squared
away.
> The problem apparently started when this script attempted to drop the
> full-text indexes and relocate them in the appropriate place. I thought I
> could work through this, but couldn't find appropriate information for
quite
> a while. Later, I decided to attempt a manual removal of the full-text
> indexes from the sysfulltextindex (sp?) table. There were two rows, with
> the first columns having the values of 5 and 6. I removed them, and
tried
> to clean things up. In that process, I disabled the full-text indexing,
and
> now it simply will not re-enable.
> Reading this newsgroup, I noticed the existence of a script that could
> possibly help by manually deleting the traces of the full-text catalogs.
> My question is: What is the best next step?
> 1) Try to make use of the script I just mentioned.
> 2) Restore the database, copy in the previous full-text data files
> to the appropriate directory, and then try to run our script that moves
and
> re-populates the catalogs?
> 3) Something else entirely?
> Thanks for your help.
> John
>
> --
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.744 / Virus Database: 496 - Release Date: 8/24/2004
>

Advice on Flat File Import

I’m looking for advice for the following scenario:

Import Source:Flat File – 2 columns (student#, lunch_bal)

Destination:SQL Table:

Trnpayuniq (PK)

Atype (all values = ‘S’)

Auniq ( from flat file – student#)

Trnamt (from flat file – lunch_bal)

Trnpayc (all values = 1)

I’ll truncate the destination table before each import.

Is the best way to create a temp table; get it populated

then update the destination table?Or

would the use of Merger (Merge Join) be the better approach.

Thanks for any direction.

Could you just added a Derived Column transform to add the constant values to your data flow?|||I'll try that. Thanks.|||

If it works, please mark the question as answered, per Phil's sticky post

Advice on Entry in to IT

Anyone Got any other advice?
http://www.dbforums.com/t993214.htmlTake a look at

http://www.sqlteam.com/store.asp

But you'll probably need a more entry level one...

I'd guess I would really start bu understanding Codds work...

It's nothing platform specific...but it is ALL about this world...

http://www.databaseanswers.com/normal_forms.htm|||I just got a job in Southern California where I don't think I would say there is no market, rather a ton of competition. One of the companies where I fell short rec'd 300+ resumes. I was one of four that got to the second interview stage. I felt that was a success in itself. I do believe it is easier to become a developer than a DBA. I don't think I have heard of anyone just going in as a DBA.

Anyway, FWIW my career path included:

1. 2 classes at Pasadena City College in basic computers in Fall 98

2. Part-time attendance (like yourself we had two kids while I attended) DeVry University from Spr 99 - Fall 02

3. In the middle of my DeVry experience I got a job as a Technical Recruiter. I did everything I could just to get close to the tech sector. In fact, I was driving a van 500 miles a day on a graveyard shift so I could only go up. I made a lot for what I did, over 65k in 2001 but couldn't stand the job or the sleaze in the industry.

4. After 911 there were layoffs all over the tech sector as you know. That included recruiters since no one was hiring anymore. I got placed at a client's IT dept luckily as a Technical Assistant to the Project Manager on a data migration project. It was only to last three weeks and my job was going to be editing Word documents for the project. 3 weeks turned into 6 months and during that time I did a lot more stuff than I was intended to.

First of all I was overqualified for the initial job. I did successfully pass the first two Oracle exams while working as a recruiter and took a bunch of database classes outside of normal school by paying for extension classes out of my own pocket. I felt the certs were important to me because I needed them to help get me a job. Otherwise I would be a person with no experience AND no ability. At least w/ the certs they established that I did know something.

When the Project Manager wanted to order a SQL Developer from my recruiting firm I hung a "How 'bout Me!!" sign over my head (figuratively speaking) to her. She hesitantly went along with it and I did ok for the three months working w/ SQL Server scrubbing data.

The Oracle certs helped me get the job then but I think it was obviously being in the right place at the right time. The contract ended in Nov of 02, one month after I graduated w/ a CIS degree.

5. I go 16 months without another tech job working as a temp at a mortgage lender. I work on two web pages for my church just to stay in tune w/ IT. I read as much as I can but can't take any more classes due to my temp salary.

6. 10-12 interviews including Mattel, Countrywide, Capitol Records and Dole Food Company but no job. Some close calls though. In each and every interview, I fall back on all that I did in terms of certs, self-study including taking those classes on my own, the fact that I focused on databases in school. In all I convey that they won't find a person w/ more desire than myself. When I went into the interviews I bring things with me like scripts, copies of my two Oracle certification exam scores and a data model I developed for my senior project at DeVry on top of my resume.

7. Finally, I land the type of job I have been longing for. Through it all there was much more rejection than I care to share. My hire was a combination of ALL things, accomplishments, attitude, desire, and integrity.

It is a tough market out there but I believe you are right. The market will get better. I think you should pursue what you really want. Otherwise you will sit there and always wonder what you could have done. Good luck.

ddave|||Thank you for sharing your story, Dave. It's very inspiring. It's great to know there are still young people like you who are willing to spend time and effort to achieve their dreams. And the fact that you never gave up and kept fighting and learning is very commendable. I used to head a department with 64 young consultants, not one of them could come close to your level.

Advice on dynamically generating RDL files

I would prefer to dynamically create my RDL files on the fly instead of
building them ahead of time. My question is this: the creation of these files
would occur on the server, but the reporting server may or may not be the
same box. Is the best way to upload the RDL file to use the web service
interface and import it, or are there other options here?
Thanks!
MichaelHi moflaherty,
You can create your RDL on the fly, the creation of the files can be
located at the client or server side, it does not matter as long you can
create the XML/RDL after that you can use the WS interface to upload them
into the server. In this example
http://www.rdlcomponents.com/ASPExamples/Default.aspx?sm=b1_a
You can see how the RDL creation process is isolated from the upload process.
Thanks
JErry
"moflaherty" wrote:
> I would prefer to dynamically create my RDL files on the fly instead of
> building them ahead of time. My question is this: the creation of these files
> would occur on the server, but the reporting server may or may not be the
> same box. Is the best way to upload the RDL file to use the web service
> interface and import it, or are there other options here?
> Thanks!
> Michael
>sql