April 4, 2012 at 1:08 pm
Also, years ago they did push RAID 5 for the data files, however, over the last 7 years or so that has changed to Raid 1 + 0 for the data files. I don't have the references, but I'm sure a search using Google or Bing would find them if interested.
April 4, 2012 at 1:08 pm
lol, we should start a thead about the HORROR's of GP!!! 😛
it is an absolute joke the way Microsoft makes use of its own technology.
i have a GL3000 table with 20 Million records in it!
Ok, so my background is more sysadmin, networking and business, but what exactly is wrong with a single table with 20million records? GL3000 is historical and short of creating separate tables for each year, what other way would you do it. GL2000 streamlines it to current year. For our sister sites that have already migrated to Oracle, they have to share tables with all the other sites. So with 40 sites, and half migrated over the past 7 years, they share a master item table that has over 1million entries on parts alone. And this, the budget was to use an EOL Sun Server that most were dumping for a few $k but they bought for $45K off the shelf half loaded and underpowered from the start. So its all relative.
April 4, 2012 at 1:12 pm
allen.mceuin (4/4/2012)
lol, we should start a thead about the HORROR's of GP!!! 😛
it is an absolute joke the way Microsoft makes use of its own technology.
i have a GL3000 table with 20 Million records in it!
Ok, so my background is more sysadmin, networking and business, but what exactly is wrong with a single table with 20million records? GL3000 is historical and short of creating separate tables for each year, what other way would you do it. GL2000 streamlines it to current year. For our sister sites that have already migrated to Oracle, they have to share tables with all the other sites. So with 40 sites, and half migrated over the past 7 years, they share a master item table that has over 1million entries on parts alone. And this, the budget was to use an EOL Sun Server that most were dumping for a few $k but they bought for $45K off the shelf half loaded and underpowered from the start. So its all relative.
Personally, nothing really. If your sister sites are going Oracle (shudder) does that mean your site will be going that direction as well?
April 4, 2012 at 1:20 pm
Lynn Pettis (4/4/2012)
Also, years ago they did push RAID 5 for the data files, however, over the last 7 years or so that has changed to Raid 1 + 0 for the data files. I don't have the references, but I'm sure a search using Google or Bing would find them if interested.
R5 has the benefit of faster reads by pulling from all disks at the same time so the more disks in the R5 set the faster the read. R1+0 provides the FT via mirroring and expanding size by striping without the write slow down of parity calculation.
All that said, the concern comes over disk usage which I have seen tank systems before. OS activity for example is small read/write transactions all over the OS logical drive "as needed". Transaction Logs are constant write transactions and if managed, in linear fashion same area of the disk considering a long writing to limited number of large files. Database activity is random burst of short or long reads where ever needed. Now, coming out of enterprise environments where money was less a concern and SANs were in use, everything was RAID 10, 15 or higher (R10/15 in one drive chasis of the SAN then mirrored in another chasis on the SAN). In that case, actual disk mirrors were only used for logical disks of the same type usage. So I might have a mirrored set in a R10 stripe but any of those mirrors were only used for R10 stripes for the same purpose such as Logs only or dbs only.
GP and this environment is different. I have 1 box with 6 disks in it and 1 array controller. I can't justify a $20K buy in for a basic SAN or its dedicated network fiber or iSCSI. So I am just trying to see what experience you all have and what difference you may have noticed. But this is definitely interesting and yes, best practices have changed over the years. I have been in IT for 17 now and much has changed, those with longer histories have seen even more change for sure.
April 4, 2012 at 1:26 pm
When setting up a previous employers secondary rack mounted servers (using DASD) I had the data drives configured raid 1+0. These servers hosted the mirror databases for our PeopleSoft Finance and HR databases that were running on Blade servers with SAN storage. The users never really noticed a difference in performance between Blade+SAN and Stand-Alone Server+DASD environments.
April 4, 2012 at 1:27 pm
Lynn Pettis (4/4/2012)
allen.mceuin (4/4/2012)
Personally, nothing really. If your sister sites are going Oracle (shudder) does that mean your site will be going that direction as well?
Unfortunately yes. Were were supposed to go last year thus I didn't upgrade to 2010 in 2011. 2013 is supposed to be out in Q4 but I expect it won't SP1 until next summer so I am going to go ahead with my upgrade to stay N-1 on versions and then a minor upgrade when 2013 SP1 hits next year if not moving on Oracle. Those boys don't even have a reporting environment yet other than what came out of the box with the basic modules that were activated. First thing I did here, ( after buying AC for the server room) was to sell a dedicated reporting environment and get off of GP 8's canned reports and SmartList dumps. I had to fix a few of them and do a bunch of excel macro stop gaps until I had my funding approved, but after that, I turned around a first class reporting environment if I don't say so myself, they will. Took work efforts from 20 to 40hrs for individual reporting tasks to less than 5 minutes login to print. The Oracle users are stuck with the 20-40 hour workloads for the same division reporting efforts. I love Crystal/Business Objects and my users love me for it 😉
Anyway, I hope to have a well polished resume before I have to deal with that other crap because I will no longer have free reign to do what is right...
April 4, 2012 at 1:31 pm
allen.mceuin (4/4/2012)
Lynn Pettis (4/4/2012)
allen.mceuin (4/4/2012)
Personally, nothing really. If your sister sites are going Oracle (shudder) does that mean your site will be going that direction as well?
Unfortunately yes. Were were supposed to go last year thus I didn't upgrade to 2010 in 2011. 2013 is supposed to be out in Q4 but I expect it won't SP1 until next summer so I am going to go ahead with my upgrade to stay N-1 on versions and then a minor upgrade when 2013 SP1 hits next year if not moving on Oracle. Those boys don't even have a reporting environment yet other than what came out of the box with the basic modules that were activated. First thing I did here, ( after buying AC for the server room) was to sell a dedicated reporting environment and get off of GP 8's canned reports and SmartList dumps. I had to fix a few of them and do a bunch of excel macro stop gaps until I had my funding approved, but after that, I turned around a first class reporting environment if I don't say so myself, they will. Took work efforts from 20 to 40hrs for individual reporting tasks to less than 5 minutes login to print. The Oracle users are stuck with the 20-40 hour workloads for the same division reporting efforts. I love Crystal/Business Objects and my users love me for it 😉
Anyway, I hope to have a well polished resume before I have to deal with that other crap because I will no longer have free reign to do what is right...
Well, if you want to stay with SQL Server it is starting to look like there are more opportunities out there. Been getting quite a few contacts since I took this new job I am in now.
April 4, 2012 at 1:32 pm
I think the point is, from my perspective, that with the usage of this server you are more likely to have a motherboard issue than a HDD error. The disks are only really used for the database as each client has to have its own software installed (unless that has changed). That really makes this, fundamentally, a database server. Compared to a web application, this database is significantly lower traffic. Sure, there are performance differences between the different arrays. My guess is that your users will never get to experience them, there just isn't enough load. We ran our GP database on a single core, 32-bit dell poweredge with 2 gb ram. SQL Server 2005. The server was purchased 5 years ago and was still going strong when I left a year ago. The company was stingy and used a RAID 0. Total disk space was 300gb, 2 logical partitions.
That being said, Unless you have a least 15-20 people accessing GP constantly and all running reports, I will not be convinced that you need to be concerned too much about performance. The load just isn't there...
Jared
CE - Microsoft
April 4, 2012 at 1:39 pm
SQLKnowItAll (4/4/2012)
I think the point is, from my perspective, that with the usage of this server you are more likely to have a motherboard issue than a HDD error. The disks are only really used for the database as each client has to have its own software installed (unless that has changed). That really makes this, fundamentally, a database server. Compared to a web application, this database is significantly lower traffic. Sure, there are performance differences between the different arrays. My guess is that your users will never get to experience them, there just isn't enough load. We ran our GP database on a single core, 32-bit dell poweredge with 2 gb ram. SQL Server 2005. The server was purchased 5 years ago and was still going strong when I left a year ago. The company was stingy and used a RAID 0. Total disk space was 300gb, 2 logical partitions.That being said, Unless you have a least 15-20 people accessing GP constantly and all running reports, I will not be convinced that you need to be concerned too much about performance. The load just isn't there...
NOTE: We did have a power switch failure (and the smart sysadmin back then did not have each power supply on a separate power array). So, not much any RAID array will do for you there. Hence, a mirrored server on a proper secondary power setup.
Jared
CE - Microsoft
April 4, 2012 at 1:44 pm
SQLKnowItAll (4/4/2012)
SQLKnowItAll (4/4/2012)
I think the point is, from my perspective, that with the usage of this server you are more likely to have a motherboard issue than a HDD error. The disks are only really used for the database as each client has to have its own software installed (unless that has changed). That really makes this, fundamentally, a database server. Compared to a web application, this database is significantly lower traffic. Sure, there are performance differences between the different arrays. My guess is that your users will never get to experience them, there just isn't enough load. We ran our GP database on a single core, 32-bit dell poweredge with 2 gb ram. SQL Server 2005. The server was purchased 5 years ago and was still going strong when I left a year ago. The company was stingy and used a RAID 0. Total disk space was 300gb, 2 logical partitions.That being said, Unless you have a least 15-20 people accessing GP constantly and all running reports, I will not be convinced that you need to be concerned too much about performance. The load just isn't there...
NOTE: We did have a power switch failure (and the smart sysadmin back then did not have each power supply on a separate power array). So, not much any RAID array will do for you there. Hence, a mirrored server on a proper secondary power setup.
How about a Network person coming in at 2:00 AM and doing unannounced network work? Very disconcerting to come in in the morning and find your HR and Finance systems running on the Mirror servers for no apparent reason.
The reason? We aren't a 24x7 shop so it shouldn't matter. Doesn't matter that there is an internet facing web-server for HR (Talent Acquisition) or that there are nightly processing running.
April 4, 2012 at 1:45 pm
SQLKnowItAll (4/4/2012)
SQLKnowItAll (4/4/2012)
I think the point is, from my perspective, that with the usage of this server you are more likely to have a motherboard issue than a HDD error. The disks are only really used for the database as each client has to have its own software installed (unless that has changed). That really makes this, fundamentally, a database server. Compared to a web application, this database is significantly lower traffic. Sure, there are performance differences between the different arrays. My guess is that your users will never get to experience them, there just isn't enough load. We ran our GP database on a single core, 32-bit dell poweredge with 2 gb ram. SQL Server 2005. The server was purchased 5 years ago and was still going strong when I left a year ago. The company was stingy and used a RAID 0. Total disk space was 300gb, 2 logical partitions.That being said, Unless you have a least 15-20 people accessing GP constantly and all running reports, I will not be convinced that you need to be concerned too much about performance. The load just isn't there...
NOTE: We did have a power switch failure (and the smart sysadmin back then did not have each power supply on a separate power array). So, not much any RAID array will do for you there. Hence, a mirrored server on a proper secondary power setup.
I'm good on power. Have plenty of backup time and split on which whip I am plugged into. Anyway, what are you using to mirror the server and how are you sharing the database between? I am running SQL Std and I thought the Enterprise Ed was required for HA.
April 4, 2012 at 1:47 pm
Lynn Pettis (4/4/2012)
How about a Network person coming in at 2:00 AM and doing unannounced network work? Very disconcerting to come in in the morning and find your HR and Finance systems running on the Mirror servers for no apparent reason.
The reason? We aren't a 24x7 shop so it shouldn't matter. Doesn't matter that there is an internet facing web-server for HR (Talent Acquisition) or that there are nightly processing running.
Ouch. Thus why I am happy to do everything and don't let any of my "division" IT folks who have 4 years of experience touch anything at my facility.... I have seen their house, it is a log compared to my splinters...
April 4, 2012 at 1:52 pm
allen.mceuin (4/4/2012)
SQLKnowItAll (4/4/2012)
SQLKnowItAll (4/4/2012)
I think the point is, from my perspective, that with the usage of this server you are more likely to have a motherboard issue than a HDD error. The disks are only really used for the database as each client has to have its own software installed (unless that has changed). That really makes this, fundamentally, a database server. Compared to a web application, this database is significantly lower traffic. Sure, there are performance differences between the different arrays. My guess is that your users will never get to experience them, there just isn't enough load. We ran our GP database on a single core, 32-bit dell poweredge with 2 gb ram. SQL Server 2005. The server was purchased 5 years ago and was still going strong when I left a year ago. The company was stingy and used a RAID 0. Total disk space was 300gb, 2 logical partitions.That being said, Unless you have a least 15-20 people accessing GP constantly and all running reports, I will not be convinced that you need to be concerned too much about performance. The load just isn't there...
NOTE: We did have a power switch failure (and the smart sysadmin back then did not have each power supply on a separate power array). So, not much any RAID array will do for you there. Hence, a mirrored server on a proper secondary power setup.
I'm good on power. Have plenty of backup time and split on which whip I am plugged into. Anyway, what are you using to mirror the server and how are you sharing the database between? I am running SQL Std and I thought the Enterprise Ed was required for HA.
SQL Server Standard Ed, Primary server had default instance, Secondary had default instance and named witness instance. I believe we used Norton to mirror the rest of the stuff. Not sure with the details on that since it fell under the System Admin at the time (I wasn't nor did we have a DBA then).
Jared
CE - Microsoft
April 4, 2012 at 2:02 pm
SQLKnowItAll (4/4/2012)
allen.mceuin (4/4/2012)
SQLKnowItAll (4/4/2012)
SQLKnowItAll (4/4/2012)
I think the point is, from my perspective, that with the usage of this server you are more likely to have a motherboard issue than a HDD error. The disks are only really used for the database as each client has to have its own software installed (unless that has changed). That really makes this, fundamentally, a database server. Compared to a web application, this database is significantly lower traffic. Sure, there are performance differences between the different arrays. My guess is that your users will never get to experience them, there just isn't enough load. We ran our GP database on a single core, 32-bit dell poweredge with 2 gb ram. SQL Server 2005. The server was purchased 5 years ago and was still going strong when I left a year ago. The company was stingy and used a RAID 0. Total disk space was 300gb, 2 logical partitions.That being said, Unless you have a least 15-20 people accessing GP constantly and all running reports, I will not be convinced that you need to be concerned too much about performance. The load just isn't there...
NOTE: We did have a power switch failure (and the smart sysadmin back then did not have each power supply on a separate power array). So, not much any RAID array will do for you there. Hence, a mirrored server on a proper secondary power setup.
I'm good on power. Have plenty of backup time and split on which whip I am plugged into. Anyway, what are you using to mirror the server and how are you sharing the database between? I am running SQL Std and I thought the Enterprise Ed was required for HA.
SQL Server Standard Ed, Primary server had default instance, Secondary had default instance and named witness instance. I believe we used Norton to mirror the rest of the stuff. Not sure with the details on that since it fell under the System Admin at the time (I wasn't nor did we have a DBA then).
You need the Enterprise Edition to do asyncronous mirroring. The High Safety and High Performance mirroring is available in Standard Edition.
April 4, 2012 at 2:05 pm
Check this out for info on mirroring: http://www.sqlmag.com/projectplans/migratingtosqlserver2008r2/detail/tabid/4568/catpath/sql-server/topic/Database-Mirroring-in-SQL-Server-2008-and-SQL-Server-2008-R2. Lynn summed it up though on what you can do in Standard for mirroring.
Jared
CE - Microsoft
Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 30 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply