HW configuration for SQL server 2000

MS SQL SERVER

    Sponsored Links

    Next

  • 1. Using a .BAK File to Restore to a NEW SQL SErver 2000
    I apologize to appear as a novice, our SQL Programmer left, but he did leave valid Backup files. Since our programmer left, we decided to have an outside hosting company install our db. My question is, how do I take a .BAK file that is about 70MB and use the restore db tool in SQL Server 2000? I installed SQL Server 2000, installed the necessary Service Packs, etc. All I want to do is restore that db....I do point the restore device to the backup file name, however it does not work, before I post all the error msgs, there must be something really freaking obvious that I am missing. Any help is greatly appreciated.
  • 2. SQL 6.5 on windows 2000 and temp db in RAM
    Hope there is still someone running SQL 6.5, although it is 2004 now. I have SQL 6.5 on windows 2000 with 4GB RAM to replace a old machine which is running SQL 6.5 on NT. The old box has 1.5GB RAM and 700MB used as tempdb in RAM and 700MB as memory for SQL 6.5 When I copy the EXACTLY the same configuration to the new windows 2000 box, SQL 6.5 won't start with error message in the application event log: 17053 :udactivate(IN_RAM): Operating system error 8(Not enough storage is available to process this command.) encountered 18118 :crdb_tempdb: Unable to move tempdb into RAM; RAM device doesn't exist, cannot be created, or doesn't have enough space for tempdb Did anyone has any idea? Thanks a lot, Bin
  • 3. Getting round the 'delete BU after some many days' bug in SQL 6.5
    Hi All I know I should be running on a min of SQL 2000, but I can't for now. My problem is that I'm sure the DB Main Plan in SQL 6.5 had a bug whereby the option to delete old backups after x amount of days never actually worked. Just wanted to confirm with you whether I can get into the SQL task/job itself and change the TSQL code in the task to make this work - is it possible or does this option not work because there basically isn't any TSQL command to do this? Thanks in advance for your help. Rgds Robbie

HW configuration for SQL server 2000

Postby Eric Spinosa » Sun, 20 Jul 2003 03:40:39 GMT

Andrew,

Thank you for your input. I was thinking about one last configuration.
Would 1 set of RAID 1 on each channel (2 channels) + 1 hot spare be my best
choice (total of 5 drives)?

Thank you again.

Eric.




Re: HW configuration for SQL server 2000

Postby Andrew J. Kelly » Sun, 20 Jul 2003 04:51:10 GMT

Eric,

I assume you are referring to me as I seem to remember discussing this with
you before.  But since you didn't reply to the original message and I don't
keep a history I do not recall your exact configuration but that sounds like
it would be fine.

-- 

Andrew J. Kelly
SQL Server MVP






best



Re: HW configuration for SQL server 2000

Postby Andrew J. Kelly » Sun, 20 Jul 2003 06:10:53 GMT

Well it depends<g>.  The Raid 5 will give you twice as much disk space as
the Raid 1 given the same size drives.  But the Raid 1 will be a little less
write intensive and gives you a spare drive.  I am assuming your not doing a
lot of data manipulation so both will probably work.

-- 

Andrew J. Kelly
SQL Server MVP







with
don't






Re: HW configuration for SQL server 2000

Postby Eric Spinosa » Sun, 20 Jul 2003 06:19:54 GMT

I don't think there will be a lot of data manipulation.
Is there a different and better config with 5 HD?

What would you do if you had a server with 5 HD?

Thanx again.





less
a




Re: HW configuration for SQL server 2000

Postby Andrew J. Kelly » Sun, 20 Jul 2003 09:14:43 GMT

Eric,

Like I said it is hard to say. It depends a lot on the database and
application design along with the amount of data and how it is accessed.  If
this is a small operation with low transaction rate you would probably see
no difference in 2 separate Raid 1's or one 5 disk Raid 5.  The type of
array dictates how much useable disk space you have as well and I don't know
what your requirements are.  If your raid controller supports it you can
even go with a 4 disk Raid 10 or 0+1 which would give you better performance
over the Raid 5. If your doing a lot of transactions it is usually best to
place the Log on a separate Raid 1 but if not it's not as big a deal.

-- 

Andrew J. Kelly
SQL Server MVP







doing



Similar Threads:

1.SQL server 2000 HW configuration

Hello,

I am building a Windows 2000 server (standard) to run SQL 2000.
I am new to the "NT" (and SQL) environment but I pretty much read the same
thing when it comes to the HD configuration: SQL should be installed on the
different HD set than the OS.
So far what I had in mind was a Xeon 2.8 GHZ, 1GB of ram with 3x 36GB HD in
a RAID 5 set (72 GB HD space).
The server will be used by a maximum of 15 users producing a light traffic.
That is why I thought that I would be comfortable with the configuration I
mentioned and I had planned to put everything (OS, SQL, SQL data) on the
same C partition/drive set.

Some have recommended that I put a set of mirrored HD for the OS and a RAID
5 set for the SQL!

Does this make any sense when you have only 15 users? Would it be a major
performance improvement or is it for recovery purposes?

Thank you for your help.


Eric Spinosa


2.SQL Server Configuration - SQL 2000 on W2K3 server

Looking to get a feel for whether SQL 2000 makes use of the extra cache size 
on the Xenon 3.0 GHz 4 Mb cache processors, over the 2.7GHz 2 Mb cache Xenon 
CPUs. (Memory is 4 GB)

Price of server is the same with dual 3 GHz and quad 2.7 GHz Xenons, so was 
wondering if anyone has experience on the best bang for the buck.

We are using Epicor Financials to run on this, and the disks are being 
segregated.

Using 4 channel RAID controller (all channels SCSI 320 hot swap, 15K drives 
except where indicated), with 3 channels used internally
Chan 1 -     Mirrored 36.4 GB (OS and SQL Application)
                 Mirrored 72.8 GB (10K rpm) (locally staged backups and 
storage)
Chan 2 -     Mirrored 36.4 GB (logs)
Chan 3 -     RAID 5 - 4 drives 72.8 GB each (Database)

We are running SQL server in Named User mode, so we don't have to worry 
about the CPU Count for the license.

Also - would we be better adding more memory - SQL 2000 Enterprise Server.

Thanks.

-- 
Dennis Atherton
Sr. Tech Services Specialist
Affinity Group
2575 Vista Del Mar Drive
Ventura CA 93001
PH 805-667-4377
FX 805-667-4421
Cell 805-701-0342
 XXXX@XXXXX.COM 

3.Server and Hardware Configuration/SQL Server 2000

Hi,
I am interested in recommendation for hardware and server configuration.  
Currently, I am using Windows Professional, SQL Server 2000 (bother DTS and 
Analysis Services) in development.  I have less than a hundred packages and 
the several cubes on the development server.  I am not sure what hardware 
configuration I am going to need for production.  I have a dozen of users and 
the cubes are less than 5 gbytes total for two years of data.  However, the 
production environment will have at least 5 years.

Any suggestion and/or recommendation for hardware and software configuration 
is greatly appreciate it.

Regards,
Fernando Sanchez

4.SQL 2000 Dev Edition Install Failu "SQL Server configuration failed"

5.W2K3 + SQL 2000 + Exchange 2K3 HW requirements

I'd like to use a Dell Dimension 4400 (equipped with a  XXXX@XXXXX.COM ) with:

- Windows Server 2003
- SQL Server 2000
- Exchange Server 2003
- Acting also as PDC, file/print server (2 postscript laser printers)
- 7 LAN users
- 3 SQL server users only with a less-than 50MB database, very few
transactions
- 5 file server users (very few accesses a day)
- 5 print server users
- 3 Exchange server users

To hold the load above I would increase memory to 1GB RAM (can't go any 
further) + a Raid 5 system (3Ware 9500 + 4x250GB Hard SATA disks)

Do you think that the expanded hardware config will hold the workload 
properly? 


6. Memory configuration for sql server 2000 active/passive cluste

7. Memory configuration for sql server 2000 active/passive cluster

8. Configuration management tools for SQL Server 2000



Return to MS SQL SERVER

 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 guest