performance bottleneck?

how many users can a box with 8 processors and 32 GB RAM with sql
server 2000 on windows server 2003 handle effectively?
my web server with iis 6.0 on windows server 2003 has 4 processors and
8 GB RAM.
i have approx. 5000 active users - could give the connections in a few
days.
should i add more RAM/processing power on the web server to improve
performance?
or is it the bandwidth?
thanks
mdgandhi
"mdGandhi" <gandhimanisha@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1172497798.361738.245830@.z35g2000cwz.googlegr oups.com...
> how many users can a box with 8 processors and 32 GB RAM with sql
> server 2000 on windows server 2003 handle effectively?
> my web server with iis 6.0 on windows server 2003 has 4 processors and
> 8 GB RAM.
> i have approx. 5000 active users - could give the connections in a few
> days.
> should i add more RAM/processing power on the web server to improve
> performance?
> or is it the bandwidth?
> thanks
> mdgandhi
>
1 user
Or 50,0000.
Honestly, there's not enough information here to really give an answer.
For example, I had a 6 year old box (quad Xeon 700Mhz CPU) handling millions
of transactions an hour and probably could have handled another 30% in
traffic. So your box would be way overkill for that.
On the other hand I had a 4 year old box (dual Xeon CPU) handling a few
thousand transactions an hour that was overwhelmeed as it was. The
difference, the nature of the transactions.
That said, what you describe is a fairly beefy box. But it really depends
on what the users are doing.
Generally, focus on getting your queries to be effecient and to return no
more information than necessary. Then you can focus on bottlenecks after
taht.
I note for example you don't mention the disk subsystem at all. This can
have a HUGE impact on performance, especially if you're at all disk I/O
intensive.
Google around, there's a few books out there for calculating SQL Server
capacities. They may help you.
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting
sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com
|||The short answer is that there is no simple rule for determining how
many users a configuration can handle because it depends on the
specific work being performed. The best approach is to analyze the
current bottlenecks by analyzing how the machine runs now. Performance
Monitor is your friend.
Roy Harvey
Beacon Falls, CT
On 26 Feb 2007 05:49:58 -0800, "mdGandhi" <gandhimanisha@.gmail.com>
wrote:

>how many users can a box with 8 processors and 32 GB RAM with sql
>server 2000 on windows server 2003 handle effectively?
>my web server with iis 6.0 on windows server 2003 has 4 processors and
>8 GB RAM.
>i have approx. 5000 active users - could give the connections in a few
>days.
>should i add more RAM/processing power on the web server to improve
>performance?
>or is it the bandwidth?
>thanks
>mdgandhi

performance bottleneck?

how many users can a box with 8 processors and 32 GB RAM with sql
server 2000 on windows server 2003 handle effectively?
my web server with iis 6.0 on windows server 2003 has 4 processors and
8 GB RAM.
i have approx. 5000 active users - could give the connections in a few
days.
should i add more RAM/processing power on the web server to improve
performance?
or is it the bandwidth?
thanks
mdgandhi"mdGandhi" <gandhimanisha@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1172497798.361738.245830@.z35g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> how many users can a box with 8 processors and 32 GB RAM with sql
> server 2000 on windows server 2003 handle effectively?
> my web server with iis 6.0 on windows server 2003 has 4 processors and
> 8 GB RAM.
> i have approx. 5000 active users - could give the connections in a few
> days.
> should i add more RAM/processing power on the web server to improve
> performance?
> or is it the bandwidth?
> thanks
> mdgandhi
>
1 user
Or 50,0000.
Honestly, there's not enough information here to really give an answer.
For example, I had a 6 year old box (quad Xeon 700Mhz CPU) handling millions
of transactions an hour and probably could have handled another 30% in
traffic. So your box would be way overkill for that.
On the other hand I had a 4 year old box (dual Xeon CPU) handling a few
thousand transactions an hour that was overwhelmeed as it was. The
difference, the nature of the transactions.
That said, what you describe is a fairly beefy box. But it really depends
on what the users are doing.
Generally, focus on getting your queries to be effecient and to return no
more information than necessary. Then you can focus on bottlenecks after
taht.
I note for example you don't mention the disk subsystem at all. This can
have a HUGE impact on performance, especially if you're at all disk I/O
intensive.
Google around, there's a few books out there for calculating SQL Server
capacities. They may help you.
--
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting
sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com|||The short answer is that there is no simple rule for determining how
many users a configuration can handle because it depends on the
specific work being performed. The best approach is to analyze the
current bottlenecks by analyzing how the machine runs now. Performance
Monitor is your friend.
Roy Harvey
Beacon Falls, CT
On 26 Feb 2007 05:49:58 -0800, "mdGandhi" <gandhimanisha@.gmail.com>
wrote:
>how many users can a box with 8 processors and 32 GB RAM with sql
>server 2000 on windows server 2003 handle effectively?
>my web server with iis 6.0 on windows server 2003 has 4 processors and
>8 GB RAM.
>i have approx. 5000 active users - could give the connections in a few
>days.
>should i add more RAM/processing power on the web server to improve
>performance?
>or is it the bandwidth?
>thanks
>mdgandhi

performance bottleneck?

how many users can a box with 8 processors and 32 GB RAM with sql
server 2000 on windows server 2003 handle effectively?
my web server with iis 6.0 on windows server 2003 has 4 processors and
8 GB RAM.
i have approx. 5000 active users - could give the connections in a few
days.
should i add more RAM/processing power on the web server to improve
performance?
or is it the bandwidth?
thanks
mdgandhi"mdGandhi" <gandhimanisha@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1172497798.361738.245830@.z35g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> how many users can a box with 8 processors and 32 GB RAM with sql
> server 2000 on windows server 2003 handle effectively?
> my web server with iis 6.0 on windows server 2003 has 4 processors and
> 8 GB RAM.
> i have approx. 5000 active users - could give the connections in a few
> days.
> should i add more RAM/processing power on the web server to improve
> performance?
> or is it the bandwidth?
> thanks
> mdgandhi
>
1 user
Or 50,0000.
Honestly, there's not enough information here to really give an answer.
For example, I had a 6 year old box (quad Xeon 700Mhz CPU) handling millions
of transactions an hour and probably could have handled another 30% in
traffic. So your box would be way overkill for that.
On the other hand I had a 4 year old box (dual Xeon CPU) handling a few
thousand transactions an hour that was overwhelmeed as it was. The
difference, the nature of the transactions.
That said, what you describe is a fairly beefy box. But it really depends
on what the users are doing.
Generally, focus on getting your queries to be effecient and to return no
more information than necessary. Then you can focus on bottlenecks after
taht.
I note for example you don't mention the disk subsystem at all. This can
have a HUGE impact on performance, especially if you're at all disk I/O
intensive.
Google around, there's a few books out there for calculating SQL Server
capacities. They may help you.
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting
sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com|||The short answer is that there is no simple rule for determining how
many users a configuration can handle because it depends on the
specific work being performed. The best approach is to analyze the
current bottlenecks by analyzing how the machine runs now. Performance
Monitor is your friend.
Roy Harvey
Beacon Falls, CT
On 26 Feb 2007 05:49:58 -0800, "mdGandhi" <gandhimanisha@.gmail.com>
wrote:

>how many users can a box with 8 processors and 32 GB RAM with sql
>server 2000 on windows server 2003 handle effectively?
>my web server with iis 6.0 on windows server 2003 has 4 processors and
>8 GB RAM.
>i have approx. 5000 active users - could give the connections in a few
>days.
>should i add more RAM/processing power on the web server to improve
>performance?
>or is it the bandwidth?
>thanks
>mdgandhi

performance bottleneck

I am looking at the performance of one of our production servers and have
done Perfmon. I am seeing a definite bottleneck on the following drives
I, L, H and J
What do you thing and is there anything else I am missing here.
Thanks for your help.
PhysicalDisk
E
T
O
I
L
H
J
% Disk Time
0.693
56.483
1.917
379.04
326.234
470.186
149.234
Avg.Disk Queue Length
0.007
0.565
0.019
3.79
3.262
4.702
1.492
Current Disk Queue Length
0.01
0.181
0.014
27.186
2.664
3.443
2.935
Disk Writes/sec
1.234
112.324
22.064
5.734
5.535
8.989
4.184
1) how does a % Disk Time counter get to be over 100? :-)
2) I don't think we have enough information to help you. What is the
capabilities and number of spindles of each drive system? What was CPU
utilization? Memory situation and usage? Were things running 'slowly'?
TheSQLGuru
President
Indicium Resources, Inc.
<msnews.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:O83SEE6oHHA.4552@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>I am looking at the performance of one of our production servers and have
>done Perfmon. I am seeing a definite bottleneck on the following drives
> I, L, H and J
> What do you thing and is there anything else I am missing here.
> Thanks for your help.
>
> PhysicalDisk
> E
> T
> O
> I
> L
> H
> J
> % Disk Time
> 0.693
> 56.483
> 1.917
> 379.04
> 326.234
> 470.186
> 149.234
> Avg.Disk Queue Length
> 0.007
> 0.565
> 0.019
> 3.79
> 3.262
> 4.702
> 1.492
> Current Disk Queue Length
> 0.01
> 0.181
> 0.014
> 27.186
> 2.664
> 3.443
> 2.935
> Disk Writes/sec
> 1.234
> 112.324
> 22.064
> 5.734
> 5.535
> 8.989
> 4.184
>
>
|||These numbers don't seem all that out of line. The queueing on the I drive
is a little high, but without knowing how many spindles are behind the I
drive and what else those spindles are doing I can't say for sure.
What is the Avg Disk Sec/Write number for that drive?
Denny
MCSA (2003) / MCDBA (SQL 2000)
MCTS (SQL 2005 / Microsoft Windows SharePoint Services 3.0: Configuration /
Microsoft Office SharePoint Server 2007: Configuration)
MCITP (dbadmin, dbdev)
"TheSQLGuru" wrote:

> 1) how does a % Disk Time counter get to be over 100? :-)
> 2) I don't think we have enough information to help you. What is the
> capabilities and number of spindles of each drive system? What was CPU
> utilization? Memory situation and usage? Were things running 'slowly'?
> --
> TheSQLGuru
> President
> Indicium Resources, Inc.
> <msnews.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:O83SEE6oHHA.4552@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
>
|||Hi
"msnews.microsoft.com" wrote:

> I am looking at the performance of one of our production servers and have
> done Perfmon. I am seeing a definite bottleneck on the following drives
> I, L, H and J
> What do you thing and is there anything else I am missing here.
> Thanks for your help.
>
> PhysicalDisk
> E
> T
> O
> I
> L
> H
> J
> % Disk Time
> 0.693
> 56.483
> 1.917
> 379.04
> 326.234
> 470.186
> 149.234
> Avg.Disk Queue Length
> 0.007
> 0.565
> 0.019
> 3.79
> 3.262
> 4.702
> 1.492
> Current Disk Queue Length
> 0.01
> 0.181
> 0.014
> 27.186
> 2.664
> 3.443
> 2.935
> Disk Writes/sec
> 1.234
> 112.324
> 22.064
> 5.734
> 5.535
> 8.989
> 4.184
>
You may want to look at some previous posts such as
http://tinyurl.com/2ysoya which point you to resource that tell you about
what you should be monitoring and what values you can expect.
Also check out the articles such as
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/tsprfprb.mspx which
will still be relivant to SQL 2000, http://support.microsoft.com/kb/319942/
and
http://download.microsoft.com/download/4/7/a/47a548b9-249e-484c-abd7-29f31282b04d/Performance_Tuning_Waits_Queues.doc
John

performance bottleneck

I am looking at the performance of one of our production servers and have
done Perfmon. I am seeing a definite bottleneck on the following drives
I, L, H and J
What do you thing and is there anything else I am missing here.
Thanks for your help.
PhysicalDisk
E
T
O
I
L
H
J
% Disk Time
0.693
56.483
1.917
379.04
326.234
470.186
149.234
Avg.Disk Queue Length
0.007
0.565
0.019
3.79
3.262
4.702
1.492
Current Disk Queue Length
0.01
0.181
0.014
27.186
2.664
3.443
2.935
Disk Writes/sec
1.234
112.324
22.064
5.734
5.535
8.989
4.1841) how does a % Disk Time counter get to be over 100? :-)
2) I don't think we have enough information to help you. What is the
capabilities and number of spindles of each drive system? What was CPU
utilization? Memory situation and usage? Were things running 'slowly''
TheSQLGuru
President
Indicium Resources, Inc.
<msnews.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:O83SEE6oHHA.4552@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>I am looking at the performance of one of our production servers and have
>done Perfmon. I am seeing a definite bottleneck on the following drives
> I, L, H and J
> What do you thing and is there anything else I am missing here.
> Thanks for your help.
>
> PhysicalDisk
> E
> T
> O
> I
> L
> H
> J
> % Disk Time
> 0.693
> 56.483
> 1.917
> 379.04
> 326.234
> 470.186
> 149.234
> Avg.Disk Queue Length
> 0.007
> 0.565
> 0.019
> 3.79
> 3.262
> 4.702
> 1.492
> Current Disk Queue Length
> 0.01
> 0.181
> 0.014
> 27.186
> 2.664
> 3.443
> 2.935
> Disk Writes/sec
> 1.234
> 112.324
> 22.064
> 5.734
> 5.535
> 8.989
> 4.184
>
>|||These numbers don't seem all that out of line. The queueing on the I drive
is a little high, but without knowing how many spindles are behind the I
drive and what else those spindles are doing I can't say for sure.
What is the Avg Disk Sec/Write number for that drive?
--
Denny
MCSA (2003) / MCDBA (SQL 2000)
MCTS (SQL 2005 / Microsoft Windows SharePoint Services 3.0: Configuration /
Microsoft Office SharePoint Server 2007: Configuration)
MCITP (dbadmin, dbdev)
"TheSQLGuru" wrote:

> 1) how does a % Disk Time counter get to be over 100? :-)
> 2) I don't think we have enough information to help you. What is the
> capabilities and number of spindles of each drive system? What was CPU
> utilization? Memory situation and usage? Were things running 'slowly''
> --
> TheSQLGuru
> President
> Indicium Resources, Inc.
> <msnews.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:O83SEE6oHHA.4552@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
>|||Hi
"msnews.microsoft.com" wrote:

> I am looking at the performance of one of our production servers and have
> done Perfmon. I am seeing a definite bottleneck on the following drives
> I, L, H and J
> What do you thing and is there anything else I am missing here.
> Thanks for your help.
>
> PhysicalDisk
> E
> T
> O
> I
> L
> H
> J
> % Disk Time
> 0.693
> 56.483
> 1.917
> 379.04
> 326.234
> 470.186
> 149.234
> Avg.Disk Queue Length
> 0.007
> 0.565
> 0.019
> 3.79
> 3.262
> 4.702
> 1.492
> Current Disk Queue Length
> 0.01
> 0.181
> 0.014
> 27.186
> 2.664
> 3.443
> 2.935
> Disk Writes/sec
> 1.234
> 112.324
> 22.064
> 5.734
> 5.535
> 8.989
> 4.184
>
You may want to look at some previous posts such as
http://tinyurl.com/2ysoya which point you to resource that tell you about
what you should be monitoring and what values you can expect.
Also check out the articles such as
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...5/tsprfprb.mspx which
will still be relivant to SQL 2000, http://support.microsoft.com/kb/319942/
and
http://download.microsoft.com/downl...aits_Queues.doc
John

performance bottleneck

I am looking at the performance of one of our production servers and have
done Perfmon. I am seeing a definite bottleneck on the following drives
I, L, H and J
What do you thing and is there anything else I am missing here.
Thanks for your help.
PhysicalDisk
E
T
O
I
L
H
J
% Disk Time
0.693
56.483
1.917
379.04
326.234
470.186
149.234
Avg.Disk Queue Length
0.007
0.565
0.019
3.79
3.262
4.702
1.492
Current Disk Queue Length
0.01
0.181
0.014
27.186
2.664
3.443
2.935
Disk Writes/sec
1.234
112.324
22.064
5.734
5.535
8.989
4.1841) how does a % Disk Time counter get to be over 100? :-)
2) I don't think we have enough information to help you. What is the
capabilities and number of spindles of each drive system? What was CPU
utilization? Memory situation and usage? Were things running 'slowly''
--
TheSQLGuru
President
Indicium Resources, Inc.
<msnews.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:O83SEE6oHHA.4552@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>I am looking at the performance of one of our production servers and have
>done Perfmon. I am seeing a definite bottleneck on the following drives
> I, L, H and J
> What do you thing and is there anything else I am missing here.
> Thanks for your help.
>
> PhysicalDisk
> E
> T
> O
> I
> L
> H
> J
> % Disk Time
> 0.693
> 56.483
> 1.917
> 379.04
> 326.234
> 470.186
> 149.234
> Avg.Disk Queue Length
> 0.007
> 0.565
> 0.019
> 3.79
> 3.262
> 4.702
> 1.492
> Current Disk Queue Length
> 0.01
> 0.181
> 0.014
> 27.186
> 2.664
> 3.443
> 2.935
> Disk Writes/sec
> 1.234
> 112.324
> 22.064
> 5.734
> 5.535
> 8.989
> 4.184
>
>|||These numbers don't seem all that out of line. The queueing on the I drive
is a little high, but without knowing how many spindles are behind the I
drive and what else those spindles are doing I can't say for sure.
What is the Avg Disk Sec/Write number for that drive?
--
Denny
MCSA (2003) / MCDBA (SQL 2000)
MCTS (SQL 2005 / Microsoft Windows SharePoint Services 3.0: Configuration /
Microsoft Office SharePoint Server 2007: Configuration)
MCITP (dbadmin, dbdev)
"TheSQLGuru" wrote:
> 1) how does a % Disk Time counter get to be over 100? :-)
> 2) I don't think we have enough information to help you. What is the
> capabilities and number of spindles of each drive system? What was CPU
> utilization? Memory situation and usage? Were things running 'slowly''
> --
> TheSQLGuru
> President
> Indicium Resources, Inc.
> <msnews.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:O83SEE6oHHA.4552@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> >I am looking at the performance of one of our production servers and have
> >done Perfmon. I am seeing a definite bottleneck on the following drives
> >
> > I, L, H and J
> >
> > What do you thing and is there anything else I am missing here.
> >
> > Thanks for your help.
> >
> >
> >
> > PhysicalDisk
> > E
> > T
> > O
> > I
> > L
> > H
> > J
> >
> > % Disk Time
> > 0.693
> > 56.483
> > 1.917
> > 379.04
> > 326.234
> > 470.186
> > 149.234
> >
> > Avg.Disk Queue Length
> > 0.007
> > 0.565
> > 0.019
> > 3.79
> > 3.262
> > 4.702
> > 1.492
> >
> > Current Disk Queue Length
> > 0.01
> > 0.181
> > 0.014
> > 27.186
> > 2.664
> > 3.443
> > 2.935
> >
> > Disk Writes/sec
> > 1.234
> > 112.324
> > 22.064
> > 5.734
> > 5.535
> > 8.989
> > 4.184
> >
> >
> >
>
>|||Hi
"msnews.microsoft.com" wrote:
> I am looking at the performance of one of our production servers and have
> done Perfmon. I am seeing a definite bottleneck on the following drives
> I, L, H and J
> What do you thing and is there anything else I am missing here.
> Thanks for your help.
>
> PhysicalDisk
> E
> T
> O
> I
> L
> H
> J
> % Disk Time
> 0.693
> 56.483
> 1.917
> 379.04
> 326.234
> 470.186
> 149.234
> Avg.Disk Queue Length
> 0.007
> 0.565
> 0.019
> 3.79
> 3.262
> 4.702
> 1.492
> Current Disk Queue Length
> 0.01
> 0.181
> 0.014
> 27.186
> 2.664
> 3.443
> 2.935
> Disk Writes/sec
> 1.234
> 112.324
> 22.064
> 5.734
> 5.535
> 8.989
> 4.184
>
You may want to look at some previous posts such as
http://tinyurl.com/2ysoya which point you to resource that tell you about
what you should be monitoring and what values you can expect.
Also check out the articles such as
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/tsprfprb.mspx which
will still be relivant to SQL 2000, http://support.microsoft.com/kb/319942/
and
http://download.microsoft.com/download/4/7/a/47a548b9-249e-484c-abd7-29f31282b04d/Performance_Tuning_Waits_Queues.doc
John