Search Results

Search found 3 results on 1 pages for 'wikser'.

Page 1/1 | 1 

• Server nearly unusable when doing disk writes

  - by Wikser

  My question closely relates to my last question here on serverfault. I was copying about 5GB from a 10 year old desktop computer to the server. The copy was done in Windows Explorer. In this situation I would assume the server to be bored by the dataflow. But as usual with this server, it really slowed down. At least I could work with the remote session, even there was some serious latency. The copy took its time (20min?). In this time I went to a colleague and he tried to log in in the same server via remote desktop (for some other reason). It took about a minute to get to the login screen, a minute to open the control panel, a minute to open the performance monitor, ... Icons were loading maybe one per second. We saw the following (from memory): CPU: 2% Avg. Queue Length: 50 Pages/sec: 115 (?) There was no other considerable activity on the server. The server seldom serves some ASP.NET pages, which became also very slow in this time. The relevant configuration is as follows: Windows 2003 SEAGATE ST3500631NS (7200 rpm, 500 GB) LSI MegaRAID based RAID 5 4 disks, 1 hot spare Write Through No read-ahead Direct Cache Mode Harddisk-Cache-Mode: off Is this normal behaviour for such a configuration? What measurements could give further clues? Is it reasonable to reduce the priority of such copy I/O and favour other processes like the remote desktop? How would you do that? Many thanks!

  Read the article

• SQL Server Replication Agent priority

  - by Wikser

  Every hour a server replicates SQL server data with some external web server. During this time, which takes about 2-5minutes, the database seriously slows down. Colleagues, which work with the front end applications of that on another terminal server, even regularly start complaining. The databases are also synchroniously mirrored (via SQLServer mirroring, no replication) to a third server. Note that 99% of the data is replicated outgoing, so the server should rarely need to update its data. As the (merge and transactional) replication tasks are not time-critical, I would like to reduce their priority or somehow slow them down, so they don't affect the database performance that much. How would you implement that?

  Read the article

• Benefits of a RAID BBU in addition to a double UPS + PS system

  - by Wikser

  Today I roughly measured the benefits of enabling write-back on the RAID controller on a server at work. It got no RAID battery-backup-unit (BBU) so the write-cache is currently disabled. As the server is not used to capacity (by far), the results in most test were spectacular, e.g.: Database CRUD: before 35s, after 4s Saving a 1MB Excel file: before: 20s (!), after: 0.5s Of course having a BBU is always recommended, but what are the main benefits of installing a BBU to a system, which got redundant power supplies and is attached to UPSs? Does this depend on the type of the system (database, file, terminal)? What is a realistic fail scenario which could be prevented by a BBU? Thanks in advance!

  Read the article

1