Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > General Discussions > Tech Talk
Reload this Page >

question for win 2003 server DB/server gurus

Tech Talk Discuss PC Hardware, Software, Internet and Other Technology

question for win 2003 server DB/server gurus

Old 08-11-06, 10:31 AM
  #1  
Mod Emeritus
Thread Starter
 
Gallant Pig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 15,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
question for win 2003 server DB/server gurus

I am running a mysql database accessed by php on a win 2003 server. I recently upgraded my dedicated server to a Xeon 3.0 quad processor server with a 100SATA drive, and 1GB of ram. However the disk is spiking a lot on the performance monitor.

Is this slowing things down a lot and why would this be happening? How can I fix this? I'm going to be going to 2GB of ram shortly, and a 100MBit port (currently 10MBit). Not sure if that will alleviate anything...

Here's a sceenshot.



Thanks..
Old 08-11-06, 10:35 AM
  #2  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Region 1
Posts: 16,291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
How big is your pagefile?
What is the total commited memory now?
What is the peak commited memory?
How much available physical memory is left?
Old 08-11-06, 10:54 AM
  #3  
Mod Emeritus
Thread Starter
 
Gallant Pig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 15,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Old 08-11-06, 10:59 AM
  #4  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Region 1
Posts: 16,291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Those last 3 questions can be found in Task Manager, Performance tab.

As for the pagefile, I suggest setting it to 2000 for minimum and maximum.
Old 08-11-06, 11:16 AM
  #5  
Mod Emeritus
Thread Starter
 
Gallant Pig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 15,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Old 08-11-06, 11:16 AM
  #6  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: in da cloud
Posts: 26,196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
the rule for databases is at the minimum put the DB file on a different drive than your OS and pagefile. If you have a large database than split it up among different files and put them on different disks and the transaction log on different disks.

if you need RAID then use RAID1 instead of RAID5. very possible that you are getting a lot of read and writes at the same time and this is causing your disk to spin like crazy while it does everything. i would buy more disks before buying RAM.

I'm doing testing with SQL2005 now and have seen performance improvements on 1/2 the CPU and 1/8 the RAM test hardware just because I was able to split the DB amount more disks than we have in production.
Old 08-11-06, 11:31 AM
  #7  
Mod Emeritus
Thread Starter
 
Gallant Pig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 15,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by al_bundy
the rule for databases is at the minimum put the DB file on a different drive than your OS and pagefile. If you have a large database than split it up among different files and put them on different disks and the transaction log on different disks.

if you need RAID then use RAID1 instead of RAID5. very possible that you are getting a lot of read and writes at the same time and this is causing your disk to spin like crazy while it does everything. i would buy more disks before buying RAM.

I'm doing testing with SQL2005 now and have seen performance improvements on 1/2 the CPU and 1/8 the RAM test hardware just because I was able to split the DB amount more disks than we have in production.

Do recommend going to 2 HDs and putting the DB on the non-OS HD, or going to RAID1?
Old 08-11-06, 11:37 AM
  #8  
Mod Emeritus
Thread Starter
 
Gallant Pig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 15,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by zuffy
Those last 3 questions can be found in Task Manager, Performance tab.

As for the pagefile, I suggest setting it to 2000 for minimum and maximum.

Hey Zuff: even if I'm now at 2GB of RAM versus 1GB of RAM?

Also check this out when I tried to make that change:

Old 08-11-06, 11:45 AM
  #9  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Region 1
Posts: 16,291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Set the pagefile to 2047 for minimum and maximum if you enabled the full memory dump. This is will reduce the pagingfile from expanding if you need more virtual memory.

As Al Bundy suggested, separating the OS and DB in physical hard drives is the best way to go. This way, the OS and DB are not contending for the same I/O.
Old 08-11-06, 12:14 PM
  #10  
Mod Emeritus
Thread Starter
 
Gallant Pig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 15,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
How do I know if I enabled the full memory dump?

THANKS
Old 08-11-06, 12:21 PM
  #11  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Region 1
Posts: 16,291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Under the Advanced tab --> Startup and Recovery --> Settings --> Write debugging information.

I always turn it off, just keep it at the default Small memory dump. I and no one around knows how to debug the dump anyway. It never got severe enough for Microsoft to ask for the dump either when I call for tech support.
Old 08-11-06, 12:26 PM
  #12  
Mod Emeritus
Thread Starter
 
Gallant Pig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 15,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
ok cool i made the 2000/2000 change without any alerts

I just ordered a 2nd SATA drive that I will put the database on.
Old 08-11-06, 01:15 PM
  #13  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: in da cloud
Posts: 26,196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Gallant Pig
Do recommend going to 2 HDs and putting the DB on the non-OS HD, or going to RAID1?
If you need RAID1 for redundancy then use a separate RAID1 array for each Db file. if you don't need RAID1 then just separate the files on separate HD's.

with databases optimizing the I/O is more important than CPU or RAM in a lot of cases since they are doing a lot of reading and writing. One other thing you can do is when you create new files is make them large at the start so that they don't get fragmented later on
Old 08-11-06, 03:16 PM
  #14  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: US
Posts: 9,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Am I reading this correctly, you have a 4 way xeon server, but with only 1gb of ram, a single sata drive and a 10mb network?
Old 08-11-06, 03:27 PM
  #15  
Mod Emeritus
Thread Starter
 
Gallant Pig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 15,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Dave99
Am I reading this correctly, you have a 4 way xeon server, but with only 1gb of ram, a single sata drive and a 10mb network?


I just made it 2GB of RAM, 100MB network, and about to get another SATA drive added shortly (whenever they do it, request in).
Old 08-11-06, 03:38 PM
  #16  
DVD Talk God
 
twikoff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Right Behind You!!!
Posts: 79,497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Dave99
Am I reading this correctly, you have a 4 way xeon server, but with only 1gb of ram, a single sata drive and a 10mb network?


i didnt want to point out the obvious
Old 08-11-06, 03:49 PM
  #17  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: US
Posts: 9,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
did this thing 'fall off a truck' or something? You have 20k worth of mobo & cpu, and $109 worth of ram & disk? I can't fathom how you could justify or order a server with that kind of setup, even including the upgrades you just made. Not trying to kick you in the nuts here, but if you paid real money for this box...well....
Originally Posted by Gallant Pig
I just made it 2GB of RAM, 100MB network, and about to get another SATA drive added shortly (whenever they do it, request in).
Old 08-11-06, 03:57 PM
  #18  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: in da cloud
Posts: 26,196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
i've seen people who order only based on the CPU/RAM specs rather than taking into account what the server is running and if I/O is important. i've seen people who want to spend thousands of $$$ buying faster CPU/RAM when better I/O will work wonders
Old 08-11-06, 04:21 PM
  #19  
Mod Emeritus
Thread Starter
 
Gallant Pig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 15,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Dave99
did this thing 'fall off a truck' or something? You have 20k worth of mobo & cpu, and $109 worth of ram & disk? I can't fathom how you could justify or order a server with that kind of setup, even including the upgrades you just made. Not trying to kick you in the nuts here, but if you paid real money for this box...well....
No, it's a dedicated hosting server, I ordered it without all the options hoping it would run perfect and scale to more if needed.
Old 08-11-06, 04:33 PM
  #20  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Region 1
Posts: 16,291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by al_bundy
use a separate RAID1 array for each Db file.
That's too extreme. I don't know of anyone who would do that. You'd be better off storing all the DBs in a SAN via fibre.
Old 08-11-06, 05:25 PM
  #21  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: US
Posts: 9,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If whatever DB you are hosting needs anywhere near that kind of CPU horsepower (now or in the future), then you needed a lot more spindles in your disk setup, preferably with 15k rpm scsi drives.

Originally Posted by Gallant Pig
No, it's a dedicated hosting server, I ordered it without all the options hoping it would run perfect and scale to more if needed.
Old 08-11-06, 06:11 PM
  #22  
X
Administrator
 
X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1987
Location: AA-
Posts: 10,764
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 3 Posts
Yes, I can't understand SATA drives on a DB server at all. Expecially when it's showing as disk-bound.
Old 08-11-06, 06:50 PM
  #23  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: in da cloud
Posts: 26,196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by zuffy
That's too extreme. I don't know of anyone who would do that. You'd be better off storing all the DBs in a SAN via fibre.

HP disks are pretty cheap these days to do it if you need the performance
Old 08-11-06, 08:28 PM
  #24  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Region 1
Posts: 16,291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
HP SCSI/SAS disks are not that cheap. Also, if you're talking about the Proliant servers, only the DL380 and the ML series has enough drive cage for you do something like that. Kind of a waste of rack space imo. Further more, you will want another RAID controller or one with mutliple channels to separate the RAIDs. Life would be so much simpler and have higher performance if you just dump to a SAN, assuming a SAN exist in the evironment.
Old 08-11-06, 09:00 PM
  #25  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: in da cloud
Posts: 26,196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
300GB for $629 is not that bad

you can buy a DL360 and use the drive cage thingie that holds 14 or 15 drives and still get good performance without shelling out the money for a SAN, switches, HBA's and other costs.

Problem with a SAN is that when you start to virtually assigning volumes you can have one drive hold data for more than one volume and this can cause latency. i have configured test servers that gave us better performance with local storage vs a 5 year old EMC Symettrix

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.