ALZDBA (6/25/2013)
6 spindles:4x136GB -> 2 RAID1 volumes -> C-drive and D-drive
2x300GB -> 1 RAID1 volume -> E-drive
I hope they upgraded all hardware drivers before they made it available because that was one of the first things we always needed to perform after having received a new HP server.
I would have expected better performance.
Regular query performance currently seems to meet application needs.
It's just these flushcache messages that keep me puzzeled with regards to the future, when this server will get hammered by queries from all over the globe.
You expect a pair of 1-rotating-spindle volumes to serve up "... hammered by queries from all over the globe"?? Sorry, but that is pure delusion. :blink:
I have seen this many times - too few spindles carved up into RAID1s. You are CREATING bottlenecks this way. Once ANY ONE of those RAID1 sets gets saturated - you can literally kill the entire database application. 2-disk RAID1/4-disk RAID10 or even 6-disk RAID10 would have been the way I went with that, to get at least SOME measure of spindle aggregation. I have had net wins at every client I have done recommended that. I acknowledge there is the possibility that you START slowing down sooner with this type of arrangement (and I would like to see something like 12 or 14+ disks to work with here), but you keep away from the "exponential breakover" point where disk performance just falls through the floor and the system becomes essentially unusable.
Best of luck with it - you are going to need it I think! 😎
Best,
Kevin G. Boles
SQL Server Consultant
SQL MVP 2007-2012
TheSQLGuru on googles mail service