Performance in Cube generation

during the cube generation, I saw the disk utilization in C drive is 100%.
How can I change the temporary drive for the cubes generation?
or
can I share the work load on others drives? nHow?There are lots of tips and tricks mentioned in the AS Operations and
Preformance Guides.
Pointers to them are at:
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/evalua.../bianalysis.asp
1) changing the temp folder -- yes. In Analysis Manager, right-click on the
server and select Properties...
2) different folders -- no. Everything in Analysis Services sits under the
same data folder.
You can modify where that is located, but everything sits under that single
folder.
--
Dave Wickert [MSFT]
dwickert@.online.microsoft.com
Program Manager
BI SystemsTeam
SQL BI Product Unit (Analysis Services)
--
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Kam" <Kam@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:613802AE-92ED-4B83-9C5D-0DAB5576B781@.microsoft.com...
> during the cube generation, I saw the disk utilization in C drive is 100%.
> How can I change the temporary drive for the cubes generation?
> or
> can I share the work load on others drives? nHow?

Performance

One of our system engineers seems to believe that MSSQLServer's performance will be the same if SQLServer was installed on the same drive as the OS. He believes that the entire OS is loaded in memory (lets say 6 gig physical memory) and SQLServer will ut
ilize the entire the drive. BTW: The OS drive is also the location of the Virtual Memory.
Has anyone tested the performance when SQLServer is installed on the OS Drive compared to that if it installed on its own drive.
It will make no difference; the executable itself will be loaded into
memory. What WILL make a difference is placement of data and log files on
different devices. Please refer to "Inside SQL Server" for a good
discussion of this topic.
"molonede" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:102A14DC-430C-4C7C-A3EC-2FC874DF0FF9@.microsoft.com...
> One of our system engineers seems to believe that MSSQLServer's
performance will be the same if SQLServer was installed on the same drive as
the OS. He believes that the entire OS is loaded in memory (lets say 6 gig
physical memory) and SQLServer will utilize the entire the drive. BTW: The
OS drive is also the location of the Virtual Memory.
> Has anyone tested the performance when SQLServer is installed on the OS
Drive compared to that if it installed on its own drive.
|||Where would I find this reference material?
-- Adam Machanic wrote: --
It will make no difference; the executable itself will be loaded into
memory. What WILL make a difference is placement of data and log files on
different devices. Please refer to "Inside SQL Server" for a good
discussion of this topic.
"molonede" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:102A14DC-430C-4C7C-A3EC-2FC874DF0FF9@.microsoft.com...
> One of our system engineers seems to believe that MSSQLServer's
performance will be the same if SQLServer was installed on the same drive as
the OS. He believes that the entire OS is loaded in memory (lets say 6 gig
physical memory) and SQLServer will utilize the entire the drive. BTW: The
OS drive is also the location of the Virtual Memory.[vbcol=seagreen]
Drive compared to that if it installed on its own drive.
|||It's a book, written by Kalen Delaney. So any good bookstore. I apologize
for not being more specific in my original post.
"molonede" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B8166487-ED70-47FA-A3F3-D1A50ECB014D@.microsoft.com...
> Where would I find this reference material?
> -- Adam Machanic wrote: --
> It will make no difference; the executable itself will be loaded into
> memory. What WILL make a difference is placement of data and log
files on
> different devices. Please refer to "Inside SQL Server" for a good
> discussion of this topic.
>
> "molonede" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:102A14DC-430C-4C7C-A3EC-2FC874DF0FF9@.microsoft.com...
> performance will be the same if SQLServer was installed on the same
drive as
> the OS. He believes that the entire OS is loaded in memory (lets say
6 gig
> physical memory) and SQLServer will utilize the entire the drive.
BTW: The[vbcol=seagreen]
> OS drive is also the location of the Virtual Memory.
the OS
> Drive compared to that if it installed on its own drive.
>
>
|||There's a book called Inside SQL Server 2000, so I imagine that's what's
being referred to here.
This is a little bit out of date since it was written for SQL 7 instead of
SQL 2000, but this is one of the better articles on sql perf that I've found
on the web:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...l7perftune.asp
- Dave
"molonede" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B8166487-ED70-47FA-A3F3-D1A50ECB014D@.microsoft.com...
> Where would I find this reference material?
> -- Adam Machanic wrote: --
> It will make no difference; the executable itself will be loaded into
> memory. What WILL make a difference is placement of data and log
files on
> different devices. Please refer to "Inside SQL Server" for a good
> discussion of this topic.
>
> "molonede" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:102A14DC-430C-4C7C-A3EC-2FC874DF0FF9@.microsoft.com...
> performance will be the same if SQLServer was installed on the same
drive as
> the OS. He believes that the entire OS is loaded in memory (lets say
6 gig
> physical memory) and SQLServer will utilize the entire the drive.
BTW: The[vbcol=seagreen]
> OS drive is also the location of the Virtual Memory.
the OS
> Drive compared to that if it installed on its own drive.
>
>

Performance

One of our system engineers seems to believe that MSSQLServer's performance
will be the same if SQLServer was installed on the same drive as the OS. He
believes that the entire OS is loaded in memory (lets say 6 gig physical me
mory) and SQLServer will ut
ilize the entire the drive. BTW: The OS drive is also the location of the V
irtual Memory.
Has anyone tested the performance when SQLServer is installed on the OS Driv
e compared to that if it installed on its own drive.It will make no difference; the executable itself will be loaded into
memory. What WILL make a difference is placement of data and log files on
different devices. Please refer to "Inside SQL Server" for a good
discussion of this topic.
"molonede" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:102A14DC-430C-4C7C-A3EC-2FC874DF0FF9@.microsoft.com...
> One of our system engineers seems to believe that MSSQLServer's
performance will be the same if SQLServer was installed on the same drive as
the OS. He believes that the entire OS is loaded in memory (lets say 6 gig
physical memory) and SQLServer will utilize the entire the drive. BTW: The
OS drive is also the location of the Virtual Memory.
> Has anyone tested the performance when SQLServer is installed on the OS
Drive compared to that if it installed on its own drive.|||Where would I find this reference material?
-- Adam Machanic wrote: --
It will make no difference; the executable itself will be loaded into
memory. What WILL make a difference is placement of data and log files on
different devices. Please refer to "Inside SQL Server" for a good
discussion of this topic.
"molonede" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:102A14DC-430C-4C7C-A3EC-2FC874DF0FF9@.microsoft.com...
> One of our system engineers seems to believe that MSSQLServer's
performance will be the same if SQLServer was installed on the same drive as
the OS. He believes that the entire OS is loaded in memory (lets say 6 gig
physical memory) and SQLServer will utilize the entire the drive. BTW: The
OS drive is also the location of the Virtual Memory.[vbcol=seagreen]
Drive compared to that if it installed on its own drive.|||It's a book, written by Kalen Delaney. So any good bookstore. I apologize
for not being more specific in my original post.
"molonede" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B8166487-ED70-47FA-A3F3-D1A50ECB014D@.microsoft.com...
> Where would I find this reference material?
> -- Adam Machanic wrote: --
> It will make no difference; the executable itself will be loaded into
> memory. What WILL make a difference is placement of data and log
files on
> different devices. Please refer to "Inside SQL Server" for a good
> discussion of this topic.
>
> "molonede" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:102A14DC-430C-4C7C-A3EC-2FC874DF0FF9@.microsoft.com...
> performance will be the same if SQLServer was installed on the same
drive as
> the OS. He believes that the entire OS is loaded in memory (lets say
6 gig
> physical memory) and SQLServer will utilize the entire the drive.
BTW: The
> OS drive is also the location of the Virtual Memory.
the OS[vbcol=seagreen]
> Drive compared to that if it installed on its own drive.
>
>|||There's a book called Inside SQL Server 2000, so I imagine that's what's
being referred to here.
This is a little bit out of date since it was written for SQL 7 instead of
SQL 2000, but this is one of the better articles on sql perf that I've found
on the web:
sql7perftune.asp" target="_blank">http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d...ql7perftune.asp
- Dave
"molonede" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B8166487-ED70-47FA-A3F3-D1A50ECB014D@.microsoft.com...
> Where would I find this reference material?
> -- Adam Machanic wrote: --
> It will make no difference; the executable itself will be loaded into
> memory. What WILL make a difference is placement of data and log
files on
> different devices. Please refer to "Inside SQL Server" for a good
> discussion of this topic.
>
> "molonede" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:102A14DC-430C-4C7C-A3EC-2FC874DF0FF9@.microsoft.com...
> performance will be the same if SQLServer was installed on the same
drive as
> the OS. He believes that the entire OS is loaded in memory (lets say
6 gig
> physical memory) and SQLServer will utilize the entire the drive.
BTW: The
> OS drive is also the location of the Virtual Memory.
the OS[vbcol=seagreen]
> Drive compared to that if it installed on its own drive.
>
>