Hello everybody !
I have dedicated server for database (ms-sql) with configuration"
- 8xCPU (Xeon MP)
- 8GB RAM
- 3 RAID 10 partitions for database, log and other files
- Windows 2003 Enterprise OS
So, How to set memory & CPUs in Enterprise Manager ?
Fixed size memory i.e. 7GB for SQL and the rest for system or should I use
"Dynamically configure SQL server memory" option ?
Is it necessary to use "Reserve physicial memory for SQL server" option ?
Is it good idea to use all of 8 CPUS for SQL ?
If anybody knows help me to do that...
Thanks in advance.Hi
"Greg" wrote:
> Hello everybody !
> I have dedicated server for database (ms-sql) with configuration"
> - 8xCPU (Xeon MP)
> - 8GB RAM
> - 3 RAID 10 partitions for database, log and other files
> - Windows 2003 Enterprise OS
> So, How to set memory & CPUs in Enterprise Manager ?
> Fixed size memory i.e. 7GB for SQL and the rest for system or should I use
> "Dynamically configure SQL server memory" option ?
> Is it necessary to use "Reserve physicial memory for SQL server" option ?
> Is it good idea to use all of 8 CPUS for SQL ?
> If anybody knows help me to do that...
> Thanks in advance.
If this box is dedicated to SQL Server then you should not need to set the
min/max memory values and all CPUs could be allocated to SQL Server. If you
are using the server for other processes (such as DTS packages) then you may
want to change the configuration, but you may want to monitor the system
performance first to find out if this is an issue.
You should make sure that you AWE configured correctly.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/274750 Also make sure that you have service
packed the system to SP4 then you have also applied the post SP4 hot fixes
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899761
John
Showing posts with label dedicated. Show all posts
Showing posts with label dedicated. Show all posts
Friday, March 30, 2012
ms-sql 2000 configuration
Hello everybody !
I have dedicated server for database (ms-sql) with configuration"
- 8xCPU (Xeon MP)
- 8GB RAM
- 3 RAID 10 partitions for database, log and other files
- Windows 2003 Enterprise OS
So, How to set memory & CPUs in Enterprise Manager ?
Fixed size memory i.e. 7GB for SQL and the rest for system or should I use
"Dynamically configure SQL server memory" option ?
Is it necessary to use "Reserve physicial memory for SQL server" option ?
Is it good idea to use all of 8 CPUS for SQL ?
If anybody knows help me to do that...
Thanks in advance.Hi
"Greg" wrote:
> Hello everybody !
> I have dedicated server for database (ms-sql) with configuration"
> - 8xCPU (Xeon MP)
> - 8GB RAM
> - 3 RAID 10 partitions for database, log and other files
> - Windows 2003 Enterprise OS
> So, How to set memory & CPUs in Enterprise Manager ?
> Fixed size memory i.e. 7GB for SQL and the rest for system or should I us
e
> "Dynamically configure SQL server memory" option ?
> Is it necessary to use "Reserve physicial memory for SQL server" option ?
> Is it good idea to use all of 8 CPUS for SQL ?
> If anybody knows help me to do that...
> Thanks in advance.
If this box is dedicated to SQL Server then you should not need to set the
min/max memory values and all CPUs could be allocated to SQL Server. If you
are using the server for other processes (such as DTS packages) then you may
want to change the configuration, but you may want to monitor the system
performance first to find out if this is an issue.
You should make sure that you AWE configured correctly.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/274750 Also make sure that you have service
packed the system to SP4 then you have also applied the post SP4 hot fixes
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899761
John
I have dedicated server for database (ms-sql) with configuration"
- 8xCPU (Xeon MP)
- 8GB RAM
- 3 RAID 10 partitions for database, log and other files
- Windows 2003 Enterprise OS
So, How to set memory & CPUs in Enterprise Manager ?
Fixed size memory i.e. 7GB for SQL and the rest for system or should I use
"Dynamically configure SQL server memory" option ?
Is it necessary to use "Reserve physicial memory for SQL server" option ?
Is it good idea to use all of 8 CPUS for SQL ?
If anybody knows help me to do that...
Thanks in advance.Hi
"Greg" wrote:
> Hello everybody !
> I have dedicated server for database (ms-sql) with configuration"
> - 8xCPU (Xeon MP)
> - 8GB RAM
> - 3 RAID 10 partitions for database, log and other files
> - Windows 2003 Enterprise OS
> So, How to set memory & CPUs in Enterprise Manager ?
> Fixed size memory i.e. 7GB for SQL and the rest for system or should I us
e
> "Dynamically configure SQL server memory" option ?
> Is it necessary to use "Reserve physicial memory for SQL server" option ?
> Is it good idea to use all of 8 CPUS for SQL ?
> If anybody knows help me to do that...
> Thanks in advance.
If this box is dedicated to SQL Server then you should not need to set the
min/max memory values and all CPUs could be allocated to SQL Server. If you
are using the server for other processes (such as DTS packages) then you may
want to change the configuration, but you may want to monitor the system
performance first to find out if this is an issue.
You should make sure that you AWE configured correctly.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/274750 Also make sure that you have service
packed the system to SP4 then you have also applied the post SP4 hot fixes
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899761
John
Monday, February 20, 2012
MSDTC - Give it a dedicated group or use Cluster Group?
Hello group,
I have been testing out SQL 2005 clusters. I noticed that putting the
"Distributed Transaction Coordinator" resource (i.e., MSDTC) in either
its own cluster resource group or in the default Cluster Group with
the quorum works. The latter would be my preference because it saves
an IP address and a disk.
Which way -- dedicated group or shared cluster group -- is the
generally accepted best practice, though?
Thank you in advance,
J Wolfgang Goerlich
Related Links:
Microsoft Article 301600, How to configure Microsoft Distributed
Transaction Coordinator on a Windows Server 2003 cluster
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;301600
The only reason to give it its own group is performance.
If you have a high load/use for MSDTC, you should configure it in its own
group, however this will impact available drive letters, as the dedicated
group needs a disk (and IP and net-name). If you decide to give MSDTC its
own group, you must carefully design the rest of your cluster in regards to
the available drive letters.
Most applications do not have a high load on MSDTC, and therefore there is
not need for a seperate group. It is very common to place the MSDTC resource
in the Cluster Group, using the Quorum disk.
rgds,
Edwin.
<jwgoerlich@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1173815091.825202.19210@.j27g2000cwj.googlegro ups.com...
> Hello group,
> I have been testing out SQL 2005 clusters. I noticed that putting the
> "Distributed Transaction Coordinator" resource (i.e., MSDTC) in either
> its own cluster resource group or in the default Cluster Group with
> the quorum works. The latter would be my preference because it saves
> an IP address and a disk.
> Which way -- dedicated group or shared cluster group -- is the
> generally accepted best practice, though?
> Thank you in advance,
> J Wolfgang Goerlich
>
> Related Links:
> Microsoft Article 301600, How to configure Microsoft Distributed
> Transaction Coordinator on a Windows Server 2003 cluster
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;301600
>
|||Much obliged. What's a good rule of thumb to determine a high load?
Tens of transactions per second? Hundreds or more tps?
On Mar 14, 4:54 am, "Edwin vMierlo"
<EdwinvMie...@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
> The only reason to give it its own group is performance.
> If you have a high load/use for MSDTC, you should configure it in its own
> group, however this will impact available drive letters, as the dedicated
> group needs a disk (and IP and net-name). If you decide to give MSDTC its
> own group, you must carefully design the rest of your cluster in regards to
> the available drive letters.
> Most applications do not have a high load on MSDTC, and therefore there is
> not need for a seperate group. It is very common to place the MSDTC resource
> in the Cluster Group, using the Quorum disk.
> rgds,
> Edwin.
|||A simple test:
Put MSDTC in the quorum group. Establish a distributed transaction with SQL
Server, even with itself using a linked server to itself. Now move the
quorum group to passive node. Try to establish another distributed
transaction.
The result is that you cannot. The reason is that when the quorum goes
offline, the SQL Server DTC handle is destroyed.
The only way to alleviate this is to give the DTC its own dedicated cluster
group.
If you only plan on running a single instance of SQL Server, and this is the
only service you will be establishing distributed transactions with, then
put the MS DTC resource inside the SQL Server group, not the quorum.
The Microsoft articles have been updated to reflect this recommendation.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
<jwgoerlich@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1173870206.954497.204520@.e1g2000hsg.googlegro ups.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Much obliged. What's a good rule of thumb to determine a high load?
> Tens of transactions per second? Hundreds or more tps?
> On Mar 14, 4:54 am, "Edwin vMierlo"
> <EdwinvMie...@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
own[vbcol=seagreen]
dedicated[vbcol=seagreen]
its[vbcol=seagreen]
to[vbcol=seagreen]
is[vbcol=seagreen]
resource
>
|||Alright, I think I am following your explanation. If the MSDTC is in
the quorum resource group (e.g., the Cluster Group) and that group
goes offline then any DTC transactions will fail.
Now, how would this change if the MSDTC were in its own group (e.g.,
MSDTC Resource)? When the MSDTC Resource goes offline, any
distributed transactions will also fail. I am probably missing
something here. What would this dedicated group gain us, then?
J Wolfgang Goerlich
On Mar 16, 10:39 pm, "Anthony Thomas" <ALTho...@.kc.rr.com> wrote:
> A simple test:
> Put MSDTC in the quorum group. Establish a distributed transaction with SQL
> Server, even with itself using a linked server to itself. Now move the
> quorum group to passive node. Try to establish another distributed
> transaction.
> The result is that you cannot. The reason is that when the quorum goes
> offline, the SQL Server DTC handle is destroyed.
> The only way to alleviate this is to give the DTC its own dedicated cluster
> group.
> If you only plan on running a single instance of SQL Server, and this is the
> only service you will be establishing distributed transactions with, then
> put the MS DTC resource inside the SQL Server group, not the quorum.
> The Microsoft articles have been updated to reflect this recommendation.
> Sincerely,
> Anthony Thomas
I have been testing out SQL 2005 clusters. I noticed that putting the
"Distributed Transaction Coordinator" resource (i.e., MSDTC) in either
its own cluster resource group or in the default Cluster Group with
the quorum works. The latter would be my preference because it saves
an IP address and a disk.
Which way -- dedicated group or shared cluster group -- is the
generally accepted best practice, though?
Thank you in advance,
J Wolfgang Goerlich
Related Links:
Microsoft Article 301600, How to configure Microsoft Distributed
Transaction Coordinator on a Windows Server 2003 cluster
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;301600
The only reason to give it its own group is performance.
If you have a high load/use for MSDTC, you should configure it in its own
group, however this will impact available drive letters, as the dedicated
group needs a disk (and IP and net-name). If you decide to give MSDTC its
own group, you must carefully design the rest of your cluster in regards to
the available drive letters.
Most applications do not have a high load on MSDTC, and therefore there is
not need for a seperate group. It is very common to place the MSDTC resource
in the Cluster Group, using the Quorum disk.
rgds,
Edwin.
<jwgoerlich@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1173815091.825202.19210@.j27g2000cwj.googlegro ups.com...
> Hello group,
> I have been testing out SQL 2005 clusters. I noticed that putting the
> "Distributed Transaction Coordinator" resource (i.e., MSDTC) in either
> its own cluster resource group or in the default Cluster Group with
> the quorum works. The latter would be my preference because it saves
> an IP address and a disk.
> Which way -- dedicated group or shared cluster group -- is the
> generally accepted best practice, though?
> Thank you in advance,
> J Wolfgang Goerlich
>
> Related Links:
> Microsoft Article 301600, How to configure Microsoft Distributed
> Transaction Coordinator on a Windows Server 2003 cluster
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;301600
>
|||Much obliged. What's a good rule of thumb to determine a high load?
Tens of transactions per second? Hundreds or more tps?
On Mar 14, 4:54 am, "Edwin vMierlo"
<EdwinvMie...@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
> The only reason to give it its own group is performance.
> If you have a high load/use for MSDTC, you should configure it in its own
> group, however this will impact available drive letters, as the dedicated
> group needs a disk (and IP and net-name). If you decide to give MSDTC its
> own group, you must carefully design the rest of your cluster in regards to
> the available drive letters.
> Most applications do not have a high load on MSDTC, and therefore there is
> not need for a seperate group. It is very common to place the MSDTC resource
> in the Cluster Group, using the Quorum disk.
> rgds,
> Edwin.
|||A simple test:
Put MSDTC in the quorum group. Establish a distributed transaction with SQL
Server, even with itself using a linked server to itself. Now move the
quorum group to passive node. Try to establish another distributed
transaction.
The result is that you cannot. The reason is that when the quorum goes
offline, the SQL Server DTC handle is destroyed.
The only way to alleviate this is to give the DTC its own dedicated cluster
group.
If you only plan on running a single instance of SQL Server, and this is the
only service you will be establishing distributed transactions with, then
put the MS DTC resource inside the SQL Server group, not the quorum.
The Microsoft articles have been updated to reflect this recommendation.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
<jwgoerlich@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1173870206.954497.204520@.e1g2000hsg.googlegro ups.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Much obliged. What's a good rule of thumb to determine a high load?
> Tens of transactions per second? Hundreds or more tps?
> On Mar 14, 4:54 am, "Edwin vMierlo"
> <EdwinvMie...@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
own[vbcol=seagreen]
dedicated[vbcol=seagreen]
its[vbcol=seagreen]
to[vbcol=seagreen]
is[vbcol=seagreen]
resource
>
|||Alright, I think I am following your explanation. If the MSDTC is in
the quorum resource group (e.g., the Cluster Group) and that group
goes offline then any DTC transactions will fail.
Now, how would this change if the MSDTC were in its own group (e.g.,
MSDTC Resource)? When the MSDTC Resource goes offline, any
distributed transactions will also fail. I am probably missing
something here. What would this dedicated group gain us, then?
J Wolfgang Goerlich
On Mar 16, 10:39 pm, "Anthony Thomas" <ALTho...@.kc.rr.com> wrote:
> A simple test:
> Put MSDTC in the quorum group. Establish a distributed transaction with SQL
> Server, even with itself using a linked server to itself. Now move the
> quorum group to passive node. Try to establish another distributed
> transaction.
> The result is that you cannot. The reason is that when the quorum goes
> offline, the SQL Server DTC handle is destroyed.
> The only way to alleviate this is to give the DTC its own dedicated cluster
> group.
> If you only plan on running a single instance of SQL Server, and this is the
> only service you will be establishing distributed transactions with, then
> put the MS DTC resource inside the SQL Server group, not the quorum.
> The Microsoft articles have been updated to reflect this recommendation.
> Sincerely,
> Anthony Thomas
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)