Search Results

Search found 6 results on 1 pages for 'blootac'.

Page 1/1 | 1 

• SQL Server 2005 standard filegroups / files for performance on SAN

  - by Blootac

  I submitted this to stack overflow (here) but realised it should really be on serverfault. so apologies for the incorrect and duplicate posting: Ok so I've just been on a SQL Server course and we discussed the usage scenarios of multiple filegroups and files when in use over local RAID and local disks but we didn't touch SAN scenarios so my question is as follows; I currently have a 250 gig database running on SQL Server 2005 where some tables have a huge number of writes and others are fairly static. The database and all objects reside in a single file group with a single data file. The log file is also on the same volume. My interpretation is that separate data files should be used across different disks to lessen disk contention and that file groups should be used for partitioning of data. However, with a SAN you obviously don't really have the same issue of disk contention that you do with a small RAID setup (or at least we don't at the moment), and standard edition doesn't support partitioning. So in order to improve parallelism what should I do? My understanding of various Microsoft publications is that if I increase the number of data files, separate threads can act across each file separately. Which leads me to the question how many files should I have. One per core? Should I be putting tables and indexes with high levels of activity in separate file groups, each with the same number of data files as we have cores? Thank you

  Read the article

• SQL Server 2005 standard filegroups / files for performance on SAN

  - by Blootac

  Ok so I've just been on a SQL Server course and we discussed the usage scenarios of multiple filegroups and files when in use over local RAID and local disks but we didn't touch SAN scenarios so my question is as follows; I currently have a 250 gig database running on SQL Server 2005 where some tables have a huge number of writes and others are fairly static. The database and all objects reside in a single file group with a single data file. The log file is also on the same volume. My interpretation is that separate data files should be used across different disks to lessen disk contention and that file groups should be used for partitioning of data. However, with a SAN you obviously don't really have the same issue of disk contention that you do with a small RAID setup (or at least we don't at the moment), and standard edition doesn't support partitioning. So in order to improve parallelism what should I do? My understanding of various Microsoft publications is that if I increase the number of data files, separate threads can act across each file separately. Which leads me to the question how many files should I have. One per core? Should I be putting tables and indexes with high levels of activity in separate file groups, each with the same number of data files as we have cores? Thank you

  Read the article

• After adding data files to a file group Is there a way to distribute the data into the new files?

  - by Blootac

  I have a database in a single file group, with a single file group. I've added 7 data files to this file group. Is there a way to rebalance the data over the 8 data files other than by telling sql server to empty the original? If this is the only way, is it possible to allow sql server to start writing to this file? MSDN says that once its empty its marked so no new data will be written to it. What I'm aiming for is 8 equally balanced data files. I'm running SQL Server 2005 standard edition. Thanks

  Read the article

• SQL Server 2005 standard filegroups / files for performance on SAN

  - by Blootac

  Ok so I've just been on a SQL Server course and we discussed the usage scenarios of multiple filegroups and files when in use over local RAID and local disks but we didn't touch SAN scenarios so my question is as follows; I currently have a 250 gig database running on SQL Server 2005 where some tables have a huge number of writes and others are fairly static. The database and all objects reside in a single file group with a single data file. The log file is also on the same volume. My interpretation is that separate data files should be used across different disks to lessen disk contention and that file groups should be used for partitioning of data. However, with a SAN you obviously don't really have the same issue of disk contention that you do with a small RAID setup (or at least we don't at the moment), and standard edition doesn't support partitioning. So in order to improve parallelism what should I do? My understanding of various Microsoft publications is that if I increase the number of data files, separate threads can act across each file separately. Which leads me to the question how many files should I have. One per core? Should I be putting tables and indexes with high levels of activity in separate file groups, each with the same number of data files as we have cores? Thank you

  Read the article

• service broker message process order

  - by Blootac

  Everywhere I read says that messages handled by the service broker are processed in the order that they arrive, and yet if you create a table, message type, contract, service etc , and on activation have a stored proc that waits for 2 seconds and inserts the msg into a table, set the max queue readers to 5 or 10, and send 20 odd messages I can see in the table that they are inserted out of order even though when I insert them into the queue and look at the contents of the queue I can see that the messages are all in the right order. Is it due to the delay waitfor waiting for the nearest second and each thread having different subsecond times and then fighting for a lock or something? The reason i've got a delay in there is to simulate delays with joins etc Thanks demo code: --create the table and service broker CREATE TABLE test ( id int identity(1,1), contents varchar(100) ) CREATE MESSAGE TYPE test CREATE CONTRACT mycontract ( test sent by initiator ) GO CREATE PROCEDURE dostuff AS BEGIN DECLARE @msg varchar(100); RECEIVE TOP (1) @msg = message_body FROM myQueue IF @msg IS NOT NULL BEGIN WAITFOR DELAY '00:00:02' INSERT INTO test(contents)values(@msg) END END GO ALTER QUEUE myQueue WITH STATUS = ON, ACTIVATION ( STATUS = ON, PROCEDURE_NAME = dostuff, MAX_QUEUE_READERS = 10, EXECUTE AS SELF ) create service senderService on queue myQueue ( mycontract ) create service receiverService on queue myQueue ( mycontract ) GO --********************************************************** --now insert lots of messages to the queue DECLARE @dialog_handle uniqueidentifier BEGIN DIALOG @dialog_handle FROM SERVICE senderService TO SERVICE 'receiverService' ON CONTRACT mycontract; SEND ON CONVERSATION @dialog_handle MESSAGE TYPE test ('<test>1</test>'); BEGIN DIALOG @dialog_handle FROM SERVICE senderService TO SERVICE 'receiverService' ON CONTRACT mycontract; SEND ON CONVERSATION @dialog_handle MESSAGE TYPE test ('<test>2</test>') BEGIN DIALOG @dialog_handle FROM SERVICE senderService TO SERVICE 'receiverService' ON CONTRACT mycontract; SEND ON CONVERSATION @dialog_handle MESSAGE TYPE test ('<test>3</test>') BEGIN DIALOG @dialog_handle FROM SERVICE senderService TO SERVICE 'receiverService' ON CONTRACT mycontract; SEND ON CONVERSATION @dialog_handle MESSAGE TYPE test ('<test>4</test>') BEGIN DIALOG @dialog_handle FROM SERVICE senderService TO SERVICE 'receiverService' ON CONTRACT mycontract; SEND ON CONVERSATION @dialog_handle MESSAGE TYPE test ('<test>5</test>') BEGIN DIALOG @dialog_handle FROM SERVICE senderService TO SERVICE 'receiverService' ON CONTRACT mycontract; SEND ON CONVERSATION @dialog_handle MESSAGE TYPE test ('<test>6</test>') BEGIN DIALOG @dialog_handle FROM SERVICE senderService TO SERVICE 'receiverService' ON CONTRACT mycontract; SEND ON CONVERSATION @dialog_handle MESSAGE TYPE test ('<test>7</test>')

  Read the article

• Stored proc executes >30 secs when called from website, but <1 sec when called from ssms

  - by Blootac

  I have a stored procedure that is called by a website to display data. Today the web page has started timing out so I got profiler going and saw the query that was taking too long. I then ran the same query in management studio, under the same user login, and it takes less than a second to return. Is there anything obvious that could be causing this? I can't think of a reason why when ASP calls the stored proc it takes 30 secs but when I call it it's fine. Thanks

  Read the article

1