SQL Server Performance

Have Hardware Config Recommendations Changed?

Discussion in 'SQL Server 2005 Performance Tuning for Hardware' started by DBADave, Sep 19, 2006.

  1. DBADave New Member

    I'm new to SQL 2005 and would like to know if the hardware configuration best practices for SQL 2000 still apply to SQL 2005.

    Thanks, Dave
  2. bradmcgehee New Member

    Yes, from a hardware perspective, the best practices for 2000 are more or less still the same for 2005.

    Brad M. McGehee, SQL Server MVP
  3. joechang New Member

    i think the only major difference is it makes sense to configure for better table scan performance
    S2K could only do 700-800MB/sec in a table scan to disk
    S2K5 can do over 12GB/sec, but 1-2GB/sec might be a reasonable goal
  4. DBADave New Member

    Hi Joe,

    Are you referring to a different stripe size or some other internal configuration change to take advantage of better table scan performance?

  5. satya Moderator

    hardware configuration best practices
    I believe these will have changes based upon the latest development of new hardware components, recently during a HP preview at our office they have suppliedhttp://h71028.www7.hp.com/ERC/downloads/4AA0-2948ENW.pdf#search="sql server hardware best practice" document link that gives more information about how HP is reacting to SQL 2005.

    Satya SKJ
    Microsoft SQL Server MVP
    Contributing Editor & Forums Moderator
    This posting is provided AS IS with no rights for the sake of knowledge sharing.
  6. bradmcgehee New Member

    Thanks for sharing that article Satya. Had not seen it.

    But I think, for your standard run of the mill SQL Server, the best practices for hardware for 2000 and 2005 are more or less the same. It is in the high end servers with very heavy loads where you may find some minor differences, as Joe and the article above suggests.

    Brad M. McGehee, SQL Server MVP
  7. joechang New Member

    dba dave, i am talking about having enough IO channels and disks to power through big queries, not config and tuning which rarely does much

    on the HP paper
    i am inclined to think that SAN storage system, EVA4000, 28FC disks & 28 FATA disks excluding the tape library probably costs $100K list

    notice with 20 disks they are getting 3000 IOPS which is 150 IOPS per disk,
    a properly configured DA storage should be doing 200-300 IOPS per disk within the 15ms latency

    look at the backup and restore rates for their FATA solution (84 & 44MB/sec)
    what kind of cr#p are they pushing?
    a proper solution should be doing 500MB/sec!

Share This Page