January 9, 2003 at 3:02 pm
My company is doing research to transition Peoplesoft/oracle to Peoplesoft/Sqlserver. Anyone out there running peoplesoft on sqlserver with a large database(25 gig or more)?
January 13, 2003 at 8:00 am
This was removed by the editor as SPAM
January 13, 2003 at 10:01 am
I have SAP databases on SQL2K.
It is working fine and fast.
1200+ users, 100GB+ databases
Bye
Gabor
January 13, 2003 at 10:53 am
that is one impressive database, I don't hava that db but I am curious of your hardware setup, for us on a smaller system wich averages about 30+users and about 5gigs for databases many reports and things run slow, but that may just be because of the way the server is set up... and the number of times the cache needs to be loaded ie, hits to the disk..etc...
dual xeon 800
1 gig ram
100gig Raid 5 disk setup
partitioned C: 5gig and the rest to a data directory
-Francisco
-Francisco
January 13, 2003 at 11:52 am
fhtapia,
How many physical disks do you have in the server?
Configure one Raid 5 and place everything into it is definitely not good. Few suggestions here.
Mirror two disks for your OS and application executable.
Separate database transaction log file from database files.
If possible, place tempdb on its on disks.
January 13, 2003 at 11:54 am
The best thing to do is to check with Peoplesoft on the required specs. Usually they will be glad to demo and give you comparisons on each. Also, ask if they have any end users who are willing to share their experience. That is how we deal with vendors and I know they did this when we first purchased Peoplesoft.
January 13, 2003 at 11:57 am
We have tried to get the information from peoplesoft but they are being very tight-lipped. Are you running peoplesoft on oracle or sql server?
January 13, 2003 at 12:24 pm
Unfortunately Oracle so I can't be of help. I do recall coming across someone using it on SQL but as for where I don't remember.
You might check around in these as they seem to be the most possible objective in regards specifically to PeopleSoft.
January 13, 2003 at 3:30 pm
That PeopleSoft is being tight lipped should probably be a sign to you that you want to tread very carefully. There are all sorts of issues that will have a big financial impact that they do not advertise at all when doing the conversion.
I don't have experience making the converion on a DB quite that big so I will limit my comments, but keep in mind that if you want to take advantage of more than 2 GB of Ram you are going to need SQL Server enterprise edition and unless the number of users is very low then you will spend $20k on licensing per processor.
January 14, 2003 at 2:56 am
Francisco,
as an info for you our db server for the SAP database server running SQL2K Ent Ed. is
4 X XEON 700 CPU
4 GB RAM
Compaq MA8000 disk subsystem
system, log, temp, data on separate RAID
Avg SAP response time: < 500ms
Thumper,
I would only recommend using the processor based licensing if you do not have a lot of SQLServers. Otherwise the single server licences + CALs are cheaper.
Bye
Gabor
January 14, 2003 at 11:09 am
Thanks for replying with your system set up. I was just curios, you see our System Admin is the one who set up the box and has been fighting upgrading to raid 1+0 for the log files.
I do wish I could turn this system around but our IS guy claims that it would be thousands of dollars to move over something in the realm of 30k... but I disagree,
adding a controller for the OS so that the disk is mirrored, keeping the data in the raid 5 and adding a controller for the log files to reside on a raid 1+0 system would be ideal I think, but I digress from your question ... thank you for providing some feedback I really do appreciate it.
-Francisco
-Francisco
January 15, 2003 at 1:50 am
My opinion is (that may be wrong) that for the log you should not necessairly have RAID 1+0 because the log is mainly write only.
Which is not the case for the other functions (tempdb, data...)
The best performance is given by the RAID 1+0 but this is the most expensive.
RAID5 for the data is fair enough.
If you have lot of physical disks then you can separate the most havyly used tables on different RAIDs (different physical disks) i.e. different filegroups.
Bye
Gabor
January 15, 2003 at 4:38 am
Actually just to throw in on that. RAID10's strong point in writes in comparison to RAID5. The reason is the number of reads and writes that occurr. With a log write on RAID10 you have 2 writes. With RAID5 you have a write/read/calc parity/write and maybe a bit more so a lot more work is being done. However, that is still not all that bad unless you have a high transaction requirement. Sorry I forget what threshold per drive type and speed.
January 16, 2003 at 10:18 am
I would highly recommend that you test your setup. We migrated our PeopleSoft from DB2 to Oracle and PeopleSoft was also very tight lipped. And we ran into huge problems, mainly because we had over customized the system. Setup an entirely isolated system on a seperate network if possible and do the migration. Good luck
January 21, 2003 at 8:05 am
I've been dealing with PeopleSoft for the past six years and have found them to be extremely sparse in giving out information. One of the reasons for that is that they want you to purchase their consulting arm for assistance in migrations and upgrades. Going through our account rep has produced results before, that may be an avenue for you to try.
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 16 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply