|
|
|
SSC-Enthusiastic
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 1:08 PM
Points: 175,
Visits: 719
|
|
|
|
|
|
SSC-Enthusiastic
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 1:08 PM
Points: 175,
Visits: 719
|
|
Please add your feedback below about the SSC server configuration. SQL Monitor on the two clustered nodes has been upgraded to Version 2.2, the latest release of SQL Monitor.
Brad M. McGehee Microsoft SQL Server MVP Director of DBA Education, Red Gate Software www.bradmcgehee.com
|
|
|
|
|
SSC-Dedicated
           
Group: Administrators
Last Login: Today @ 4:46 PM
Points: 31,433,
Visits: 13,745
|
|
|
|
|
|
SSC Journeyman
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, March 22, 2013 9:43 AM
Points: 75,
Visits: 150
|
|
| several of your databases are set to auto grow the data file in increments of 1mb. I wouldn't use that setting for any database, i prefer to use percentages, usually 10%. It really doesn't make sense though for the SQLServerCentral database, due to its larger size.
|
|
|
|
|
SSC-Enthusiastic
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 1:08 PM
Points: 175,
Visits: 719
|
|
Chris Golla (3/7/2011) several of your databases are set to auto grow the data file in increments of 1mb. I wouldn't use that setting for any database, i prefer to use percentages, usually 10%. It really doesn't make sense though for the SQLServerCentral database, due to its larger size.
I agree that the default value of 1MB autogrowth is a poor choice, but I prefer to use a larger fixed amount rather than a percentage, as percentages don't always act as you expect. For example, if I set a percentage of 10%, 10% of 1GB is a lot different of 10% of 1TB. Thus, I prefer to pick a fixed amount that makes sense for the existing size of the database. Ideally though, I prefer to proactively manage the size my MDFs and LDFs so that autogrowth doesn't have to kick in at all. I prefer to use autogrowth only to cover unexpected growth spurts I had not planned on.
Brad M. McGehee Microsoft SQL Server MVP Director of DBA Education, Red Gate Software www.bradmcgehee.com
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Newbie
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, December 28, 2012 1:20 PM
Points: 5,
Visits: 43
|
|
The main interesting thing I saw is that you are on Build 2714, which is fairly old (SP1 CU2). I would want to get SP2 CU2, Build 4272 installed. If you could run my full set of diagnostic queries, I would know a lot more...
Do you have "Optimize for ad-hoc workloads" enabled for the instance?
|
|
|
|
|
SSC-Enthusiastic
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 1:08 PM
Points: 175,
Visits: 719
|
|
GlennBerry (3/7/2011) The main interesting thing I saw is that you are on Build 2714, which is fairly old (SP1 CU2). I would want to get SP2 CU2, Build 4272 installed. If you could run my full set of diagnostic queries, I would know a lot more...
Do you have "Optimize for ad-hoc workloads" enabled for the instance?
In this installement, we are only focusing on the properties revealed by SQL Monitor. I think running your diagnostic queries would work great for another part of this article series. I'll get back with you when we are ready to do this.
Brad M. McGehee Microsoft SQL Server MVP Director of DBA Education, Red Gate Software www.bradmcgehee.com
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Newbie
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, December 28, 2012 1:20 PM
Points: 5,
Visits: 43
|
|
It seems like you are getting regular CPU spikes to 100% every night at about midnight. Is that when your full backups occur? Are you using 3rd party backup compression that has an adjustable compression ratio?
It seems like your page splits are a little high at the instance level.
|
|
|
|
|
SSCommitted
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 1:32 PM
Points: 1,820,
Visits: 1,899
|
|
| Besides the obvious filegrowth setting issues mentioned previously, one thing I found was there was not much use of filegroups. One of the things I like to do is have all of my nonclustered indexes on a separate filegroup that is located on a different I/O path.
|
|
|
|
|
SSC-Enthusiastic
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 1:08 PM
Points: 175,
Visits: 719
|
|
tgarland (3/7/2011) Besides the obvious filegrowth setting issues mentioned previously, one thing I found was there was not much use of filegroups. One of the things I like to do is have all of my nonclustered indexes on a separate filegroup that is located on a different I/O path.
Good point. This option wasn't chosen for two reasons. First, the servers are hosted, and our I/O options weren't wide. Second, the activity on the server is not really that great, relatively speaking, necessitating the need for such tweaking. Of course, there are other performance issues, but separating the nonclustered indexes wouldn't have helped much to alleviate them. We will talk about what is causing the performance problems in a later article.
Brad M. McGehee Microsoft SQL Server MVP Director of DBA Education, Red Gate Software www.bradmcgehee.com
|
|
|
|