December 21, 2010 at 12:37 pm
RAID 10 is fastest and safest for database.
December 21, 2010 at 1:00 pm
Going back to your real issue, that of re-initializing the subscriber, you may need to look at how you are doing this.
In SQL 2005 schema changes may be replicated to the subscriber see this article http://www.replicationanswers.com/AlterSchema2005.asp
The only real requirment is that the change be made at the publisher and new columns must be nullable.
Another option is to redesign the replication topology. If you split the replication into multiple smaller, logically related replication groups of articles, you can make changes, then only re-initialize those articles in the group that changes, instead of the whole database.
Cheers
Leo
Leo
Nothing in life is ever so complicated that with a little work it can't be made more complicated.
December 22, 2010 at 12:58 am
I would maybe look at upgrading the network to 1Gpbs throughout. 100Mbps may seem plenty fast enough, but running absolutely flat out it will take more than four hours to transfer 150Gb of data over that connection--and I bet it wouldn't ever run absolutely flat out in any real-world scenario, so a large portion of that 14-17 hour wait time is likely just data transfer!
December 22, 2010 at 9:10 am
Thanks to all, for the input. I am working towards splitting the publication out into smaller parts, and looking for more throughput on the network.
Thanks again,
DK
December 22, 2010 at 9:48 am
if both servers are running Windows 2008 and have dual gigabit NIC's teamed then you should be able to copy the files in an hour or so
running netbackup with LTO-4 tape and with dual gigabit NIC's i can backup and restore 150GB in about 35 minutes for each operation. the restore will also depend on the I/O of your server.
December 22, 2010 at 9:54 am
Sjeef (12/21/2010)
Now would be a good time to get away from Raid 5 if you can.
Hi Jeff,
Is Raid 1 more preferred for database files over Raid 5.?
I know raid 5 writes are longer but the reads should be faster no.?
And it is better protected with raid 5 then with Raid 1?
What would you suggest for a setup with 2 databases
Production database :
5Gb,
Tempdb on C:\ Raid 1 15K/rpm
Logfile On D:\ Separate spindels on Raid 1 15Krpm
Datafile on H:\ San disk on Raid 5 15K/rpm, disks also contains 'Steady' files of all sorts, Applicationsoftware, documentations,..(kinda file archive while the space is there..
Testdatabase:
Identical datacopy of production on weekly base with backup/restore
Testdatabase Logfile & Datafile on H:\ San disks Raid 5 15K/rpm
I do not have any issues with slow running queries but database (application) is now reaching a point where it grows faster and faster
before it was 3Mb/day, now its already near 30Mb/day, but that was expected as we put more and more features into action while migration from our old environment.
At top speed we wil get at the point of putting approx. 80Mb/day of data into the database
So if you would suggest a better setup, i will be pleased to here about it, cause while the database is still small it will make it easier to move 😀
Wkr,
Eddy
Geoff Albin said it correctly. Raid 10 would be better for the database and, IIRC, Raid 1/0 is better for TempDB.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
December 22, 2010 at 9:57 am
DKlein (12/21/2010)
Jeff, what would you suggest for a small company?
That, of course, depends on the budget. Raid 5 certainly helps protect the data but is a slower compared to Raid 10. If the cost of conversion is too high and you can tolerate the current speeds, then staying with Raid 5 isn't going to kill you especially if the people writing code can write code well and with performance in mind.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
Viewing 7 posts - 16 through 21 (of 21 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply