August 19, 2003 at 2:34 am
Hello,
I have just finished upgrading our SQL server (HP-DL760G2, 8x Xeon2GHz, Hyperthread, 12GB RAM, 2.5TB EVA SAN) to Windows 2003 server from 2000 to utilise all of our hardware. The restore of our 1.7TB database normally takes 6hrs but has now been running for over 13? I have also upgraded from SP3 to SP3a, set AWE to use fixed 11GB. Any ideas on tuning or why things actually seem slower? thanks,
August 19, 2003 at 4:48 pm
Sure you're getting the same kind of disk performance you had before?
Have you contacted Litespeed? They have been first class to deal with, they might have an idea.
Andy
August 20, 2003 at 12:30 am
Hi,
I have seen no major differences in restore times between LiteSpeed and Native restores. My experience with restores (LiteSpeed or Native), is that there are two major factors which will cause varying results in restore times:
1-Restoring on a system where the database and log devices do not already exist will generally be twice as long or longer than on a system where the devices do exist.
2-If there are large transactions contained in the end of the full backup they may take a long time to roll forward, this will extend restore times as well
August 20, 2003 at 1:03 am
As you say, LiteSpeed have been fantastic after I logged a call, they have a similar case in relating to a backup taken using SP3 then restoring onto a new SP3a SQL server. I have sent them the output from a SQLDiag.exe and will backup and restore the system at the weekend using 3a to test the theory. LiteSpeed restores are far quicker when dealing with VLDBs. I'll let you know, thank-you for your responses.
August 20, 2003 at 5:18 am
quote:
LiteSpeed restores are far quicker when dealing with VLDBs.
ev4nsj,
Out of curiosity, how large is your VLDB? When I evaluated the product a few months ago with a >50 GB database, I came to the same conclusion as declanm--i.e., the LiteSpeed restore times were quite similar to native restore times. For that reason, I chose not to persue the purchase of the product. (However, the LiteSpeed backups themselves were indeed faster than native backups.)
Jon
Edited by - shew01 on 08/20/2003 05:18:32 AM
August 20, 2003 at 6:22 am
Hi Jon,
DB Size is 1.7TB of MIS Data from our OS390, largest table 10019893 rows. We've been working with the UK and US SQL product teams throughout the project. It's been quite an experience! I can safely say with the right H/W spec SQL server is well up to the job.
John.
August 20, 2003 at 6:53 am
John,
(Maybe I should start a separate thread.) I'm still looking a product to improve SQL Server backup/restore times. Do you have any performance stats for LiteSpeed that you could post? Do you know of any other competing products that perform well on large databases? Can you shed any light on how other shops backup/restore large databases?
Jon
Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply