September 23, 2010 at 2:37 am
I read an article regarding huge performance increases using Quickshift SQL Accelerator. This sounds great but quickshift.com no longer exists and I can not find anything about this software - it seems it has been discontinued (and Quickshift Inc seems to have disappeared)
I have many old under performing SQL 2000 servers which would greatly benefit if these claims are true. Does anyone know where I can get this software and/or if there is anything else providing the same function??
(http://www.sql-server-performance.com/software/review/quickshift_sql_server_p1.aspx)
September 23, 2010 at 7:29 am
Did you ever stop to consider that if a product couldn't make it in the marketplace that maybe all the great performance increases you read about were just hype? Or is this yet another slice of spam (vaguely disguised as an innocent question) suggesting to people that they should go looking for this product?
__________________________________________________
Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain. -- Friedrich Schiller
Stop, children, what's that sound? Everybody look what's going down. -- Stephen Stills
September 23, 2010 at 7:37 am
I heard magic fairies were very good at boosting server performance by 100% - 200% each time... :hehe:
September 23, 2010 at 8:09 am
Thanks for the helpful replies. If you bothered to check out the link i sent you may see that the author of this article is quite reputable...
September 23, 2010 at 8:38 am
I didn't bother, and I'm not going to.
__________________________________________________
Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain. -- Friedrich Schiller
Stop, children, what's that sound? Everybody look what's going down. -- Stephen Stills
September 23, 2010 at 2:08 pm
Robert Hankin (9/23/2010)
Thanks for the helpful replies. If you bothered to check out the link i sent you may see that the author of this article is quite reputable...
Note that the original article was written over 5 years ago, so I suspect the application didn't quite work out, and newer versions of SQL and the Windows OS are doing the same thing and getting the same level of performance.
If you have porly performing SQL 2000 servers I strongly recommend you upgrade. SQL 2000 is no longer supported by MS, and SQL 2005 and 2008 perform better than 2000. The upgrade process is not too painful if you plan and test and use tools like the upgrade advisor to look ofr depricated features or coding changes.
I would be weary of a quick fix product like this, even given the person who wrote the article.
TINSTAFL
Cheers
Leo
Leo
Nothing in life is ever so complicated that with a little work it can't be made more complicated.
September 23, 2010 at 9:23 pm
Sounds a bit like Nitrosphere. Check that out.
Jack Corbett
Consultant - Straight Path Solutions
Check out these links on how to get faster and more accurate answers:
Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
Need an Answer? Actually, No ... You Need a Question
September 24, 2010 at 7:28 am
Robert, I am posting this as a public apology. Because the title of your post struck me as an advertisement, I jumped on it and that was rude. In the past I have seen posts like yours which were thinly veiled advertisements, but that was no reason to assume your insincerity.
I have to echo the opinion that you need to get off SQL 2000 as soon as possible. You don't want to live on unsupported software, and 2008 has a lot of good things going for it.
Now, I have recanted and looked at the article I said I wouldn't look at. In that it purports to operate below the OS level, the product looks like something that Microsoft rolled out last year. This was a combined hardware/software solution called Fast Track. However, it appeared to be aimed at large data warehousing operations.
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2009/feb09/02-23SQLFastTrackPR.mspx
__________________________________________________
Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain. -- Friedrich Schiller
Stop, children, what's that sound? Everybody look what's going down. -- Stephen Stills
September 27, 2010 at 5:43 am
Thank you for your replies they are very helpful. I agree that the best way to go forward will be SQL 2005 with a compaitibility mode. The only reason for looking for SQL 2000 performance improvements is that my current ERP version does not support 2005. I will need to upgrade that also and that needs a lot more time.
I have seen many times that SQL is not utilizing the hardware very effectively with long running queries seemingly not using much CPU and not troubling the disks or controllers.
Looks like I need to plan an upgrade.
Thanks again
September 27, 2010 at 5:46 am
Before you throw hardware at that issue , make sure the queries are tuned correctly and you are using indexes etc...
September 27, 2010 at 8:23 am
I have done all i can with indexing and tuning. I have even offloaded the reporting to another instance and other servers to keep the hardware priority with the ERP instance.
My belief is that the software itself is inefficient with it's data access (Not much I can do regarding indexing here as it is coded to use "WITH INDEX")
2005 will give me one big benefit of being able to use mirroring and snapshots to fully offload reporting without an overhead of SQL 2000 DTS packages having to move the data on a timed basis
September 27, 2010 at 12:48 pm
Robert, I am saying this seriously and not sarcastically. I question some of your assumptions about SQL if you think that high CPU cycles are a good thing on a server. As a general rule, I view consistently high CPU utilization as evidence that something is wrong.
My belief is that the software itself is inefficient with it's data access (Not much I can do regarding indexing here as it is coded to use "WITH INDEX")
Are you talking about the SQL database itself or some application software running over it?
__________________________________________________
Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain. -- Friedrich Schiller
Stop, children, what's that sound? Everybody look what's going down. -- Stephen Stills
September 28, 2010 at 3:20 am
Hi, I appreciate the comment - I am not saying that i want high CPU all of the time but my issue is that I never see any period of more than a second or two where the CPU usage even goes over 50%. I believe that I/O could be a factor here but the statistics on the controller is telling me that there are no problems with queueing etc.
The WITH INDEX problems I have are hardcoded in the ERP software. There is nothing I can do to change this - even the newer versions have the same problem. I actually run the newest version of the ERP software on SQL 2005 in another country and although the performance is better here I still have the same "WITH INDEX" problem meaning any new indexes I create are ignored and use the standard system indexes (And if I change them it generally causes crashes so i don't!!)
September 28, 2010 at 5:06 am
Robert Hankin (9/27/2010)
2005 will give me one big benefit of being able to use mirroring and snapshots to fully offload reporting without an overhead of SQL 2000 DTS packages having to move the data on a timed basis
Would replication work for you ? We used it on our 2000 servers to push data to a reporting server.
September 28, 2010 at 5:45 am
Again a good suggestion and again (unfortunately) a limit of my ERP Software. The table constraints are all based on unique indexes (on all 6000 tables) without a single primary key. I can not change this if i still want a support contract so I can not have any replication - only log shipping. Of course I can report off the log shipped restored database but i need a high frequency of copy/loads to maintain DR and up to date data and have far too many users reporting to make this viable.
It seems that every possible performance improvement that is suggesting i have to answer "but the ERP Software does not allow this......" Maybe my biggest problem is the ERP Software!!!!
Thanks for all of the suggestions though - it's greatly appreciated! Any more are still very welcome!
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 19 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply