I think that RAID5 is still sort of the default for the main database
for average conditions, because it is more efficient in the use of
disk, when you get up to four or more drives, and it may be better for
reads, and average tables in average databases do 99% reads.
But, most apps may have a few more actively written tables, which
might be best on a filegroup and/or database on a RAID10 drive
instead.
I'm having my conscious raised on a number of hardware and
configurations issues these days myself.
Josh
On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 09:05:52 +0100, sp <kofa@.noemail.noemail> wrote:
>sp napisa?(a):
>
>what do you think about this configuration?
Hello KoFa,
The default Stripe Element Size for your hardware configuration is
recommanded. For example, in the Dell EMC white paper, it recommanded to
use the default size 128 blocks or 64 KB
Here are some article for you to refer:
http://www.dell.com/downloads/global/solutions/dell_emc_sap_bestpractice.pdf
http://forums.dantz.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Number=93175&page=0
Sincerely,
Wei Lu
Microsoft Online Community Support
==================================================
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
==================================================
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
|||Hi ,
How is everything going? Please feel free to let me know if you need any
assistance.
Sincerely,
Wei Lu
Microsoft Online Community Support
==================================================
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
==================================================
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Showing posts with label disk. Show all posts
Showing posts with label disk. Show all posts
Monday, March 12, 2012
Optimal disk configuration for SQL
Optimal disk configuration for SQL
I think it is:
For datafiles (RAID10)
Stripe Element Size 8KB â' because page has 8 KB
Read Policy: No read Ahead (there is a choose beetwen read ahead i
adaptive read ahead)
Write Policy: Write Back (there is a choose beetwen Write Through i
Force Write Back)
For log files as above but RAID1sp napisaÅ?(a):
> Optimal disk configuration for SQL
> I think it is:
> For datafiles (RAID10)
> Stripe Element Size 8KB â' because page has 8 KB
> Read Policy: No read Ahead (there is a choose beetwen read ahead i
> adaptive read ahead)
> Write Policy: Write Back (there is a choose beetwen Write Through i
> Force Write Back)
>
> For log files as above but RAID1
what do you think about this configuration?|||I think that RAID5 is still sort of the default for the main database
for average conditions, because it is more efficient in the use of
disk, when you get up to four or more drives, and it may be better for
reads, and average tables in average databases do 99% reads.
But, most apps may have a few more actively written tables, which
might be best on a filegroup and/or database on a RAID10 drive
instead.
I'm having my conscious raised on a number of hardware and
configurations issues these days myself.
Josh
On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 09:05:52 +0100, sp <kofa@.noemail.noemail> wrote:
>sp napisa?(a):
>> Optimal disk configuration for SQL
>> I think it is:
>> For datafiles (RAID10)
>> Stripe Element Size 8KB ? because page has 8 KB
>> Read Policy: No read Ahead (there is a choose beetwen read ahead i
>> adaptive read ahead)
>> Write Policy: Write Back (there is a choose beetwen Write Through i
>> Force Write Back)
>>
>> For log files as above but RAID1
>
>what do you think about this configuration?|||What is about Stripe Element Size in RAID 10 or 5 '
JXStern napisaÅ?(a):
> I think that RAID5 is still sort of the default for the main database
> for average conditions, because it is more efficient in the use of
> disk, when you get up to four or more drives, and it may be better for
> reads, and average tables in average databases do 99% reads.
> But, most apps may have a few more actively written tables, which
> might be best on a filegroup and/or database on a RAID10 drive
> instead.
> I'm having my conscious raised on a number of hardware and
> configurations issues these days myself.
> Josh
>
> On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 09:05:52 +0100, sp <kofa@.noemail.noemail> wrote:
>> sp napisa?(a):
>> Optimal disk configuration for SQL
>> I think it is:
>> For datafiles (RAID10)
>> Stripe Element Size 8KB â' because page has 8 KB
>> Read Policy: No read Ahead (there is a choose beetwen read ahead i
>> adaptive read ahead)
>> Write Policy: Write Back (there is a choose beetwen Write Through i
>> Force Write Back)
>>
>> For log files as above but RAID1
>> what do you think about this configuration?
>|||Hello KoFa,
The default Stripe Element Size for your hardware configuration is
recommanded. For example, in the Dell EMC white paper, it recommanded to
use the default size 128 blocks or 64 KB
Here are some article for you to refer:
http://www.dell.com/downloads/global/solutions/dell_emc_sap_bestpractice.pdf
http://forums.dantz.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Number=93175&page=0
Sincerely,
Wei Lu
Microsoft Online Community Support
==================================================
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
==================================================This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.|||Hi ,
How is everything going? Please feel free to let me know if you need any
assistance.
Sincerely,
Wei Lu
Microsoft Online Community Support
==================================================
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
==================================================This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
I think it is:
For datafiles (RAID10)
Stripe Element Size 8KB â' because page has 8 KB
Read Policy: No read Ahead (there is a choose beetwen read ahead i
adaptive read ahead)
Write Policy: Write Back (there is a choose beetwen Write Through i
Force Write Back)
For log files as above but RAID1sp napisaÅ?(a):
> Optimal disk configuration for SQL
> I think it is:
> For datafiles (RAID10)
> Stripe Element Size 8KB â' because page has 8 KB
> Read Policy: No read Ahead (there is a choose beetwen read ahead i
> adaptive read ahead)
> Write Policy: Write Back (there is a choose beetwen Write Through i
> Force Write Back)
>
> For log files as above but RAID1
what do you think about this configuration?|||I think that RAID5 is still sort of the default for the main database
for average conditions, because it is more efficient in the use of
disk, when you get up to four or more drives, and it may be better for
reads, and average tables in average databases do 99% reads.
But, most apps may have a few more actively written tables, which
might be best on a filegroup and/or database on a RAID10 drive
instead.
I'm having my conscious raised on a number of hardware and
configurations issues these days myself.
Josh
On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 09:05:52 +0100, sp <kofa@.noemail.noemail> wrote:
>sp napisa?(a):
>> Optimal disk configuration for SQL
>> I think it is:
>> For datafiles (RAID10)
>> Stripe Element Size 8KB ? because page has 8 KB
>> Read Policy: No read Ahead (there is a choose beetwen read ahead i
>> adaptive read ahead)
>> Write Policy: Write Back (there is a choose beetwen Write Through i
>> Force Write Back)
>>
>> For log files as above but RAID1
>
>what do you think about this configuration?|||What is about Stripe Element Size in RAID 10 or 5 '
JXStern napisaÅ?(a):
> I think that RAID5 is still sort of the default for the main database
> for average conditions, because it is more efficient in the use of
> disk, when you get up to four or more drives, and it may be better for
> reads, and average tables in average databases do 99% reads.
> But, most apps may have a few more actively written tables, which
> might be best on a filegroup and/or database on a RAID10 drive
> instead.
> I'm having my conscious raised on a number of hardware and
> configurations issues these days myself.
> Josh
>
> On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 09:05:52 +0100, sp <kofa@.noemail.noemail> wrote:
>> sp napisa?(a):
>> Optimal disk configuration for SQL
>> I think it is:
>> For datafiles (RAID10)
>> Stripe Element Size 8KB â' because page has 8 KB
>> Read Policy: No read Ahead (there is a choose beetwen read ahead i
>> adaptive read ahead)
>> Write Policy: Write Back (there is a choose beetwen Write Through i
>> Force Write Back)
>>
>> For log files as above but RAID1
>> what do you think about this configuration?
>|||Hello KoFa,
The default Stripe Element Size for your hardware configuration is
recommanded. For example, in the Dell EMC white paper, it recommanded to
use the default size 128 blocks or 64 KB
Here are some article for you to refer:
http://www.dell.com/downloads/global/solutions/dell_emc_sap_bestpractice.pdf
http://forums.dantz.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Number=93175&page=0
Sincerely,
Wei Lu
Microsoft Online Community Support
==================================================
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
==================================================This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.|||Hi ,
How is everything going? Please feel free to let me know if you need any
assistance.
Sincerely,
Wei Lu
Microsoft Online Community Support
==================================================
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
==================================================This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Optimal disk configuration for SQL
Optimal disk configuration for SQL
I think it is:
For datafiles (RAID10)
Stripe Element Size 8KB – because page has 8 KB
Read Policy: No read Ahead (there is a choose beetwen read ahead i
adaptive read ahead)
Write Policy: Write Back (there is a choose beetwen Write Through i
Force Write Back)
For log files as above but RAID1sp napisa?(a):
> Optimal disk configuration for SQL
> I think it is:
> For datafiles (RAID10)
> Stripe Element Size 8KB – because page has 8 KB
> Read Policy: No read Ahead (there is a choose beetwen read ahead i
> adaptive read ahead)
> Write Policy: Write Back (there is a choose beetwen Write Through i
> Force Write Back)
>
> For log files as above but RAID1
what do you think about this configuration?|||I think that RAID5 is still sort of the default for the main database
for average conditions, because it is more efficient in the use of
disk, when you get up to four or more drives, and it may be better for
reads, and average tables in average databases do 99% reads.
But, most apps may have a few more actively written tables, which
might be best on a filegroup and/or database on a RAID10 drive
instead.
I'm having my conscious raised on a number of hardware and
configurations issues these days myself.
Josh
On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 09:05:52 +0100, sp <kofa@.noemail.noemail> wrote:
>sp napisa?(a):
>
>what do you think about this configuration?|||What is about Stripe Element Size in RAID 10 or 5 '
JXStern napisa?(a):
> I think that RAID5 is still sort of the default for the main database
> for average conditions, because it is more efficient in the use of
> disk, when you get up to four or more drives, and it may be better for
> reads, and average tables in average databases do 99% reads.
> But, most apps may have a few more actively written tables, which
> might be best on a filegroup and/or database on a RAID10 drive
> instead.
> I'm having my conscious raised on a number of hardware and
> configurations issues these days myself.
> Josh
>
> On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 09:05:52 +0100, sp <kofa@.noemail.noemail> wrote:
>
>|||Hello KoFa,
The default Stripe Element Size for your hardware configuration is
recommanded. For example, in the Dell EMC white paper, it recommanded to
use the default size 128 blocks or 64 KB
Here are some article for you to refer:
http://www.dell.com/downloads/globa...estpractice.pdf
http://forums.dantz.com/ubbthreads/...er=93175&page=0
Sincerely,
Wei Lu
Microsoft Online Community Support
========================================
==========
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
========================================
==========
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.|||Hi ,
How is everything going? Please feel free to let me know if you need any
assistance.
Sincerely,
Wei Lu
Microsoft Online Community Support
========================================
==========
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
========================================
==========
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
I think it is:
For datafiles (RAID10)
Stripe Element Size 8KB – because page has 8 KB
Read Policy: No read Ahead (there is a choose beetwen read ahead i
adaptive read ahead)
Write Policy: Write Back (there is a choose beetwen Write Through i
Force Write Back)
For log files as above but RAID1sp napisa?(a):
> Optimal disk configuration for SQL
> I think it is:
> For datafiles (RAID10)
> Stripe Element Size 8KB – because page has 8 KB
> Read Policy: No read Ahead (there is a choose beetwen read ahead i
> adaptive read ahead)
> Write Policy: Write Back (there is a choose beetwen Write Through i
> Force Write Back)
>
> For log files as above but RAID1
what do you think about this configuration?|||I think that RAID5 is still sort of the default for the main database
for average conditions, because it is more efficient in the use of
disk, when you get up to four or more drives, and it may be better for
reads, and average tables in average databases do 99% reads.
But, most apps may have a few more actively written tables, which
might be best on a filegroup and/or database on a RAID10 drive
instead.
I'm having my conscious raised on a number of hardware and
configurations issues these days myself.
Josh
On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 09:05:52 +0100, sp <kofa@.noemail.noemail> wrote:
>sp napisa?(a):
>
>what do you think about this configuration?|||What is about Stripe Element Size in RAID 10 or 5 '
JXStern napisa?(a):
> I think that RAID5 is still sort of the default for the main database
> for average conditions, because it is more efficient in the use of
> disk, when you get up to four or more drives, and it may be better for
> reads, and average tables in average databases do 99% reads.
> But, most apps may have a few more actively written tables, which
> might be best on a filegroup and/or database on a RAID10 drive
> instead.
> I'm having my conscious raised on a number of hardware and
> configurations issues these days myself.
> Josh
>
> On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 09:05:52 +0100, sp <kofa@.noemail.noemail> wrote:
>
>|||Hello KoFa,
The default Stripe Element Size for your hardware configuration is
recommanded. For example, in the Dell EMC white paper, it recommanded to
use the default size 128 blocks or 64 KB
Here are some article for you to refer:
http://www.dell.com/downloads/globa...estpractice.pdf
http://forums.dantz.com/ubbthreads/...er=93175&page=0
Sincerely,
Wei Lu
Microsoft Online Community Support
========================================
==========
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
========================================
==========
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.|||Hi ,
How is everything going? Please feel free to let me know if you need any
assistance.
Sincerely,
Wei Lu
Microsoft Online Community Support
========================================
==========
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
========================================
==========
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Operating system error 112(There is not enough space on the disk.).
Hi!
While backing a SQL database onto another system after mapping the drive I get this error saying "Operating system error 112(There is not enough space on the disk.)..". There's a lot of space on the Destination server.
But when I back it up onto the same machine the backup's successfull.
I'm not even able to copy and paste the backed up file onto another machine. can someone help me out on this
The size of the DB is 5GB. Is it the problem with the size??
Thankyou For answering Satya and Loach...
I'm logged in with Sa user on the server and also logged on in administrative mode on both the machines (source and destination servers)
I think I've not communicated clearly I'll try and put in my query more eloborately.
1. We have a server which hosts the SQL server and the Database X installed on it. The size of the database when backedup is around 5 GB.
2. We have a backup server which has all the backed up files.
3. I've scheduled the backup using the SQL server agent (Scheduled in Sa user mode).
4. I've created a folder by name DB backup on the backup server and I've assigned access rights to it for administrator user.
5. I've mapped the DB backup folder as a network drive to the Server.
6. Now since DB backup folder acts as a drive in the actual server I scheduled the backup into that folder.
This Process worked successfully earlier, but then the size of the database was relatively smaller actually very small. That's one of the reason why I asked you earlier whether it was a problem with the size.
One thing is for sure In this process which I'm following I've logged on everywhere with administrative privilages.
Thanks for your co-operation once again.What account is used for SQL Server services (MSSQLSErver & SQLAgent)?
Use Domain account with ADMIN Privileges and try backup.|||Satya is correct.
Make sure the account has admin privelges on your SQL Server and the permissions necessary to write to the destination folder. It is not necessary, however, for the account to be a domain admin.|||You may also want to make sure there is no Quotas set up across your network or on the machine you are trying to access. Your Network Admin may be blocking your transfer just because of the size. If Windows is set yo stop the transfer over a certain size or bandwidth then SQL Server will report out of space even when you aren't
While backing a SQL database onto another system after mapping the drive I get this error saying "Operating system error 112(There is not enough space on the disk.)..". There's a lot of space on the Destination server.
But when I back it up onto the same machine the backup's successfull.
I'm not even able to copy and paste the backed up file onto another machine. can someone help me out on this
The size of the DB is 5GB. Is it the problem with the size??
Thankyou For answering Satya and Loach...
I'm logged in with Sa user on the server and also logged on in administrative mode on both the machines (source and destination servers)
I think I've not communicated clearly I'll try and put in my query more eloborately.
1. We have a server which hosts the SQL server and the Database X installed on it. The size of the database when backedup is around 5 GB.
2. We have a backup server which has all the backed up files.
3. I've scheduled the backup using the SQL server agent (Scheduled in Sa user mode).
4. I've created a folder by name DB backup on the backup server and I've assigned access rights to it for administrator user.
5. I've mapped the DB backup folder as a network drive to the Server.
6. Now since DB backup folder acts as a drive in the actual server I scheduled the backup into that folder.
This Process worked successfully earlier, but then the size of the database was relatively smaller actually very small. That's one of the reason why I asked you earlier whether it was a problem with the size.
One thing is for sure In this process which I'm following I've logged on everywhere with administrative privilages.
Thanks for your co-operation once again.What account is used for SQL Server services (MSSQLSErver & SQLAgent)?
Use Domain account with ADMIN Privileges and try backup.|||Satya is correct.
Make sure the account has admin privelges on your SQL Server and the permissions necessary to write to the destination folder. It is not necessary, however, for the account to be a domain admin.|||You may also want to make sure there is no Quotas set up across your network or on the machine you are trying to access. Your Network Admin may be blocking your transfer just because of the size. If Windows is set yo stop the transfer over a certain size or bandwidth then SQL Server will report out of space even when you aren't
Operating system and SQL server application on same disk set?
Dear all,
Can anyone please tell me what the advantages are when placing the operating
system and SQL server application on different disk sets? Or are the
differences minimal when doing this?
Thanks in advance,
--
Best Regards,
DennisI don't think there are any advantages in doing this. If the box is only
running SQL Server there should not be much I/O going taking place on the OS
volume.
There are advantages in separating tempdb, the data files, and the log files
onto different volumes.
Keith Kratochvil
"Dennis" <Dennis@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:BE15F7F7-A507-4C86-9352-B7B6FE7BE956@.microsoft.com...
> Dear all,
> Can anyone please tell me what the advantages are when placing the
> operating
> system and SQL server application on different disk sets? Or are the
> differences minimal when doing this?
> Thanks in advance,
> --
> Best Regards,
> Dennis|||Dennis wrote:
> Dear all,
> Can anyone please tell me what the advantages are when placing the operati
ng
> system and SQL server application on different disk sets? Or are the
> differences minimal when doing this?
> Thanks in advance,
There really is no benefit to placing the executables on different
volumes. Database files and transaction log files are a different
matter entirely.
Tracy McKibben
MCDBA
http://www.realsqlguy.com
Can anyone please tell me what the advantages are when placing the operating
system and SQL server application on different disk sets? Or are the
differences minimal when doing this?
Thanks in advance,
--
Best Regards,
DennisI don't think there are any advantages in doing this. If the box is only
running SQL Server there should not be much I/O going taking place on the OS
volume.
There are advantages in separating tempdb, the data files, and the log files
onto different volumes.
Keith Kratochvil
"Dennis" <Dennis@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:BE15F7F7-A507-4C86-9352-B7B6FE7BE956@.microsoft.com...
> Dear all,
> Can anyone please tell me what the advantages are when placing the
> operating
> system and SQL server application on different disk sets? Or are the
> differences minimal when doing this?
> Thanks in advance,
> --
> Best Regards,
> Dennis|||Dennis wrote:
> Dear all,
> Can anyone please tell me what the advantages are when placing the operati
ng
> system and SQL server application on different disk sets? Or are the
> differences minimal when doing this?
> Thanks in advance,
There really is no benefit to placing the executables on different
volumes. Database files and transaction log files are a different
matter entirely.
Tracy McKibben
MCDBA
http://www.realsqlguy.com
Operating system and SQL server application on same disk set?
Dear all,
Can anyone please tell me what the advantages are when placing the operating
system and SQL server application on different disk sets? Or are the
differences minimal when doing this?
Thanks in advance,
--
Best Regards,
DennisI don't think there are any advantages in doing this. If the box is only
running SQL Server there should not be much I/O going taking place on the OS
volume.
There are advantages in separating tempdb, the data files, and the log files
onto different volumes.
--
Keith Kratochvil
"Dennis" <Dennis@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:BE15F7F7-A507-4C86-9352-B7B6FE7BE956@.microsoft.com...
> Dear all,
> Can anyone please tell me what the advantages are when placing the
> operating
> system and SQL server application on different disk sets? Or are the
> differences minimal when doing this?
> Thanks in advance,
> --
> Best Regards,
> Dennis|||Dennis wrote:
> Dear all,
> Can anyone please tell me what the advantages are when placing the operating
> system and SQL server application on different disk sets? Or are the
> differences minimal when doing this?
> Thanks in advance,
There really is no benefit to placing the executables on different
volumes. Database files and transaction log files are a different
matter entirely.
Tracy McKibben
MCDBA
http://www.realsqlguy.com
Can anyone please tell me what the advantages are when placing the operating
system and SQL server application on different disk sets? Or are the
differences minimal when doing this?
Thanks in advance,
--
Best Regards,
DennisI don't think there are any advantages in doing this. If the box is only
running SQL Server there should not be much I/O going taking place on the OS
volume.
There are advantages in separating tempdb, the data files, and the log files
onto different volumes.
--
Keith Kratochvil
"Dennis" <Dennis@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:BE15F7F7-A507-4C86-9352-B7B6FE7BE956@.microsoft.com...
> Dear all,
> Can anyone please tell me what the advantages are when placing the
> operating
> system and SQL server application on different disk sets? Or are the
> differences minimal when doing this?
> Thanks in advance,
> --
> Best Regards,
> Dennis|||Dennis wrote:
> Dear all,
> Can anyone please tell me what the advantages are when placing the operating
> system and SQL server application on different disk sets? Or are the
> differences minimal when doing this?
> Thanks in advance,
There really is no benefit to placing the executables on different
volumes. Database files and transaction log files are a different
matter entirely.
Tracy McKibben
MCDBA
http://www.realsqlguy.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)