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

I am a bit concerned I am not doing everything I can with regards to
security on my SQL2000 server. My current setup is as follows:
SQL server in LAN, Firewall between outside world and the LAN using port
forwarding to pass the SQL Server comms to the server. Server comms is all
password protected, with only read/write/update/insert access granted to any
user outside of the LAN.
What I want to know is, is there anything else I could be doing. For
instance I currently have a separate webserver in a DMZ, should I pass all
SQL comms to the webserver first then use somekind of port forwarding to
pass it on to the LAN?
Thanks for any suggestions anybody might have.What do you mean by 'server comms'?
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
"JosephByrns" <josephbyrns@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:OyzcrpktGHA.2088@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>I am a bit concerned I am not doing everything I can with regards to
>security on my SQL2000 server. My current setup is as follows:
> SQL server in LAN, Firewall between outside world and the LAN using port
> forwarding to pass the SQL Server comms to the server. Server comms is
> all password protected, with only read/write/update/insert access granted
> to any user outside of the LAN.
> What I want to know is, is there anything else I could be doing. For
> instance I currently have a separate webserver in a DMZ, should I pass all
> SQL comms to the webserver first then use somekind of port forwarding to
> pass it on to the LAN?
> Thanks for any suggestions anybody might have.
>|||I mean that all SQL Server requests (i.e. requests for data) from outside of
the LAN are being forwarded to the SQL Server using port forwarding.
"Arnie Rowland" <arnie@.1568.com> wrote in message
news:eDd2C9ltGHA.1508@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> What do you mean by 'server comms'?
> --
> Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
> Westwood Consulting, Inc
> Most good judgment comes from experience.
> Most experience comes from bad judgment.
> - Anonymous
>
> "JosephByrns" <josephbyrns@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:OyzcrpktGHA.2088@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>

ADO Using ODBC vs. OLEDB

I am working on a large ASP application(s) which uses SQL Server 2K on the back end, ADO 2.7 for Data Access. The current connection strings are setup to use older ODBC drivers. I wanted to change them to OLEDB for performance gains and better support in the future.

The problem encountered is that once the driver is changed the pages become riddled with errors. There are many piece of ADO code that are supported using the new driver. Many are cursor issues or code dealing with identity columns.

Has anyone else gone through this process?

Is there a comprehensive listing of those methods that are not compliant between these two drivers?

Any input would be appreciated...ThanksCan you post the error message you got?|||Is this an asp or asp.net application ? Yes and please post the errors and the code it is failing on.|||It definitely sounds like all your back-end code sits on the front-end, right? You would save a lot of time if instead of cleaning it up try to move to where it belongs, - back-end.|||Thanks for responding to my post.

I am using standard ASP pages not ASP.NET.

The applications I am working with are comprised of roughly 10K pages altogether. There are many errors that occur and I am able to address them as they arise. It really has to do with a lack of support from one driver to another through ADO.

I really was looking for some resources on this topic not solutions to specific code errors.

If I listed each error and code sample here it could take a long time.

Thanks|||One place you might find useful is the recordset.supports method, it will tell you if a particular method is supported by the recordset or not.

You will find differences with transaction handling too I expect.

The dynamic recordset & connection properties change too.

You could get a copy of Adoanywher browser, it displays the supported functionality of your recordsets and allows you to open multiple connections with multiple recordsets. Full support for transactions. It displays all available recordset and connection properties.

I basically use it to compare drivers just as you are attempting to do.

The browser is currently free if you register quickly at the forum :

http://www.adoanywhere.com/forum

Mike.

ADO Connection port with clustered servers

I am using ADO to connect to clustered SQL Servers, how do I know which port to use?
My current connection string format is:
Provider=sqloledb;Network Library=DBMSSOCN;Data Source=<server ip>,<server port>;Initial Catalog=<my catalog>;/<user>/<pass>
But with clustered servers this will not work as ports are assigned dynamically.
Thanks
If the client machine is using MDAC 2.6 or greater it will figure out the
port number.
MDAC sends a UDP packet to the server to gather this information before
sending the login packet.
Thanks,
Kevin McDonnell
Microsoft Corporation
This posting is provided AS IS with no warranties, and confers no rights.
|||So should I just not include the port number in the connection string?
"Kevin McDonnell [MSFT]" wrote:

> If the client machine is using MDAC 2.6 or greater it will figure out the
> port number.
> MDAC sends a UDP packet to the server to gather this information before
> sending the login packet.
>
> Thanks,
> Kevin McDonnell
> Microsoft Corporation
> This posting is provided AS IS with no warranties, and confers no rights.
>
>

ADO Connection port with clustered servers

I am using ADO to connect to clustered SQL Servers, how do I know which port
to use?
My current connection string format is:
Provider=sqloledb;Network Library=DBMSSOCN;Data Source=<server ip>,<server p
ort>;Initial Catalog=<my catalog>;/<user>/<pass>
But with clustered servers this will not work as ports are assigned dynamica
lly.
ThanksIf the client machine is using MDAC 2.6 or greater it will figure out the
port number.
MDAC sends a UDP packet to the server to gather this information before
sending the login packet.
Thanks,
Kevin McDonnell
Microsoft Corporation
This posting is provided AS IS with no warranties, and confers no rights.|||So should I just not include the port number in the connection string?
"Kevin McDonnell [MSFT]" wrote:

> If the client machine is using MDAC 2.6 or greater it will figure out the
> port number.
> MDAC sends a UDP packet to the server to gather this information before
> sending the login packet.
>
> Thanks,
> Kevin McDonnell
> Microsoft Corporation
> This posting is provided AS IS with no warranties, and confers no rights.
>
>