|
|
Posted by mike on 12/08/06 15:12
Thank you Very Much Ed
Mike
"Ed Murphy" <emurphy42@socal.rr.com> wrote in message
news:XE4eh.65761$si3.7458@tornado.socal.rr.com...
> mike wrote:
>
>> I know i must work on queries and other things
>
> Do you know that it should be your first priority? Non-optimized
> queries often make a big difference.
>
>> was just wondering what a good configuration is
>> at the server level.....
>
> Second priority is RAM. More RAM = more cached data = less frequent
> disk access. (Disk access is a lot slower than RAM access.) Using
> more than 4 GB requires a bit of non-trivial configuration.
>
> Third priority is disk speed. Ideally, you want to keep data, logs,
> temp database, and operating system on separate physical drives, or
> at least separate logical ones. (Parallelism, scan patterns, and
> fragmentation.) Higher RPM = faster disk access.
>
> CPU should be adequate, but a typical SQL server is doing simple
> operations on large volumes of data, thus bottlenecks somewhere else
> (RAM cache, disk speed, network bandwidth) before it gets anywhere
> close to bottlenecking on CPU. A bottleneck on CPU may indicate a
> complex query in need of simplification (e.g. inefficient joins,
> cursors that could be replaced with joins, sorting that could be
> more effectively delegated to the client).
>
> Network should be stable, and bandwidth should be adequate, but a
> bottleneck on bandwidth may indicate a need for more filtering on the
> data prior to transmitting it to the client.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|