May 3, 2011 at 8:27 am
We are about to plan an upgrade and I am looking to move the the latest and greatest Server and SQL versions.
I think it is the OS, somthing with x64.
Test Box:
Windows Server 2008 R2 and SQL 2008 R2
DL580 G7 (4 - 8 core processor with hyper threading)
64 GB RAM.
Raid 1 + 0
I am running a query that I captures through SQL profile that our EPR runs.
Duration: 36 seconds.
Production Box:
Windows 2003 Enterprise (32) SQL 2005 Enterprise (32)
DL580 G5 (4 - 4 core processor)
64 GB RAM.
Raid 5
Running same query as above.
Duration: 2 seconds.
I have tried many different options and I even have calls into HP.
I have also taken this same DB and restored it to different servers without indexing and I am seeing better performance then 2008 R2.
I have tried the following confirgurations.
Windows 2008 with SQL 2008 (works fine)
Windows 2003 with SQL 2005 (works fine)
Windows 2003 with SQL 2008 (works fine)
Any help would be appreciated.
June 1, 2011 at 7:30 pm
Hi Jeremy
I have similar hardware specs and I have also noticed slow/sluggish performance.
Do you have any feedback from HP or got the solution to fix it?
Thanks
Brandon
June 1, 2011 at 7:31 pm
You need to probably set up your user account that you run your SQL Server with under Group Policy. See MS Support link below:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/918483
Good Luck.
June 2, 2011 at 3:57 am
There are several potential causes. I had this issue last year and found that enabling the service account to lock pages in memory and applying this hotfix resolved all issues.
June 2, 2011 at 6:05 am
other than making sure you should have the latest service packs and patches applied, moving versions never assumes better or equal performance as changes to the optimiser may alter the way a query runs. This was a major issue when moving to sql 2005 or 2008 from sql 2000.
I'm guessing you've increased the number of cores available ( you also have Hyperthreading on ) I'd suggest you try setting maxdop and turning off hyperthreading first.
I'm slightly amused the route you've taken - have you not compared the query plans to see what the difference is - because I'd be almost certain that you'd find differences?
x64 is also a whole new world , forget lock pages in memory that's a real red herring unless you run a lot of other applications/processes on your box.
I'm assuming you have set max memory on your box? Allow at least 8GB for the o/s and external processes/programs etc.
[font="Comic Sans MS"]The GrumpyOldDBA[/font]
www.grumpyolddba.co.uk
http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/grumpyolddba/
June 2, 2011 at 6:10 am
having a re-read I assume you mean you have 32 cores + HT == 64 effective cores vs your original 16 ?
Not having a go but why there is this mistaken belief that adding more and more cores makes things go faster I never know! I suspect just like a former client who tried the same ( despite my advice to the contrary ) you're probably suffering from contention due to too many threads. Do check your query plans.
[font="Comic Sans MS"]The GrumpyOldDBA[/font]
www.grumpyolddba.co.uk
http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/grumpyolddba/
June 2, 2011 at 6:11 am
Yes, we heard back from HP. There is a BIOS setting, seems this server comes shipped on economic mode.
Power Profile = High Performance.
This fixed everything, its like the server work up.
Thanks
Jeremy
June 2, 2011 at 6:14 am
what a stupid setting! But very useful to know about, thanks.
[font="Comic Sans MS"]The GrumpyOldDBA[/font]
www.grumpyolddba.co.uk
http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/grumpyolddba/
June 2, 2011 at 8:39 am
Had a similar issue with AMD cool n quiet as well. Similar issue
Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply