August 1, 2008 at 8:28 am
Having gone form working with a team of SQL support staff to striking out on my own I am lacking people to bounce ideas off. As such I would appreciate any advice/comments on what I'm looking to do.
Situation;
1 old IBM server (2x2 core 2.8Ghz Xeons with 4GB RAM) with 25 databases (21 migrating) running SQL 2000, migrating to 1 big HP server (2x4 core 3GHz Xeons with 12GB RAM) with default SQL 2005 instance already holding 13 databases.
Both servers happy with buffer cache hit ratios at > 95% and the new server will have the Disk IO system expanded with one RAID 5 (data) and one RAID 0 (tempdb)
My idea;
Move all low use databases currently hosted on SQL 2000 to existing instance
Install two new instances of SQL 2005 on the HP box;
One to handle the 4 big app databases (MS CRM 4) that are moving over.
One to act as a report server instance with no application databases.
Stick more RAM in and then allow all instances to dynamically manage their memory allocations.
My main aim is to just try and keep things a little more tidy as we consolidate all of the low use databases and make keeping an eye on the main app databases easier.
Does this sound sane or am I just barking? Cheers in advance
August 1, 2008 at 8:38 am
Two quick comments. Raid 10 if possible for logs and data. If not possible for both then is recommended for logs.
With multiple instances it is not a good idea to let them all dynamically manage memory. It leads to random low memory, poor performance issues. SQL doesn't like to give up memory once it has, so it's possible that two or three of the instances could take all the memory and leave the last one starved.
Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability
August 1, 2008 at 8:43 am
I'm not suer what you really gain by adding SQL Server 2005 instances as Gail has said you really can't let them all dynamically manage memory which means you have to set the MAX for each instance, thus limiting the memory available to be used by the db's with a heavier load.
Jack Corbett
Consultant - Straight Path Solutions
Check out these links on how to get faster and more accurate answers:
Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
Need an Answer? Actually, No ... You Need a Question
August 1, 2008 at 10:16 am
Many thanks for the replys.
I'll bear the RAID suggestion in mind.
I can see what you mean that the instances could end up taking memory from each other. Perhaps it would be better to just limit it to two. One for the the CRM installation with reporting services installed here, and the default to handle the low end databases.
The seperate instances are mainly so that I can allow the CRM admnistrator to deal with the CRM databases while keeping the other databases hidden away. Also I want to try and keep things a little cleaner rather than having 30+ databases all cluttering up one instance.
Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply