Hello,
I'm using Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition which has multiple instances
of SQL Server 2005 standard edition. Am running a few tests that require the
switching on/off of the physical & logical disk counters.
Diskperf on Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition does not allow me to do thi
s.
Either both (Logical & Physical) are enabled or both are disabled.
How can I turn them on/off individually?
Cheers!
SqlcatzThe implementation of this changed on Windows 2003. Both
logical and physical are automatically enabled "on demand"
under Win 2003.
-Sue
On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 03:51:02 -0700, SQLCatz
<SQLCatz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>Hello,
>I'm using Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition which has multiple instances
>of SQL Server 2005 standard edition. Am running a few tests that require th
e
>switching on/off of the physical & logical disk counters.
>Diskperf on Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition does not allow me to do th
is.
>Either both (Logical & Physical) are enabled or both are disabled.
>How can I turn them on/off individually?
>Cheers!
>Sqlcatz|||Hello Sue,
Thank you for the reply.
Yes. They are automatically enabled - I came across that from an article.
But I'm not able to find anything that will allow me to disable them
(individually).
I'm executing certain tests for an application one of which requires that
these counters be disabled.
Is there any specific reason for Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition to
prevent the enabling/disabling of these counters? Can you point me to some
literature regarding this. I can accept the fact that this kind of behaviour
is not allowed - but need to know why - so that I provide a technical/logica
l
reason.
Cheers!
sqlcatz|||The are enabled when an application calls them - it's
automatic and built into the OS.
Previously, there were problems when you would have a
production performance issue and needed to monitor disks. If
the performance counters weren't enabled, you had to run
diskperf and reboot - not good for a production server.
You can run diskperf /help from the command line and read
the comments. That's one area of "documentation" on it - for
whatever that's worth. But the output is along the lines of:
NOTE: Disk performance counters are permanently enabled on
systems beyond Windows 2000.
-Sue
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 22:13:01 -0700, SQLCatz
<SQLCatz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>Hello Sue,
>Thank you for the reply.
>Yes. They are automatically enabled - I came across that from an article.
>But I'm not able to find anything that will allow me to disable them
>(individually).
>I'm executing certain tests for an application one of which requires that
>these counters be disabled.
>Is there any specific reason for Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition to
>prevent the enabling/disabling of these counters? Can you point me to some
>literature regarding this. I can accept the fact that this kind of behaviou
r
>is not allowed - but need to know why - so that I provide a technical/logic
al
>reason.
>Cheers!
>sqlcatz|||Thank you Sue!
sqlcatz
2012年3月29日星期四
Diskperf on Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition.
Hello,
I'm using Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition which has multiple instances
of SQL Server 2005 standard edition. Am running a few tests that require the
switching on/off of the physical & logical disk counters.
Diskperf on Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition does not allow me to do this.
Either both (Logical & Physical) are enabled or both are disabled.
How can I turn them on/off individually?
Cheers!
SqlcatzThe implementation of this changed on Windows 2003. Both
logical and physical are automatically enabled "on demand"
under Win 2003.
-Sue
On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 03:51:02 -0700, SQLCatz
<SQLCatz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>Hello,
>I'm using Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition which has multiple instances
>of SQL Server 2005 standard edition. Am running a few tests that require the
>switching on/off of the physical & logical disk counters.
>Diskperf on Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition does not allow me to do this.
>Either both (Logical & Physical) are enabled or both are disabled.
>How can I turn them on/off individually?
>Cheers!
>Sqlcatz|||Hello Sue,
Thank you for the reply.
Yes. They are automatically enabled - I came across that from an article.
But I'm not able to find anything that will allow me to disable them
(individually).
I'm executing certain tests for an application one of which requires that
these counters be disabled.
Is there any specific reason for Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition to
prevent the enabling/disabling of these counters? Can you point me to some
literature regarding this. I can accept the fact that this kind of behaviour
is not allowed - but need to know why - so that I provide a technical/logical
reason.
Cheers!
sqlcatz|||The are enabled when an application calls them - it's
automatic and built into the OS.
Previously, there were problems when you would have a
production performance issue and needed to monitor disks. If
the performance counters weren't enabled, you had to run
diskperf and reboot - not good for a production server.
You can run diskperf /help from the command line and read
the comments. That's one area of "documentation" on it - for
whatever that's worth. But the output is along the lines of:
NOTE: Disk performance counters are permanently enabled on
systems beyond Windows 2000.
-Sue
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 22:13:01 -0700, SQLCatz
<SQLCatz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>Hello Sue,
>Thank you for the reply.
>Yes. They are automatically enabled - I came across that from an article.
>But I'm not able to find anything that will allow me to disable them
>(individually).
>I'm executing certain tests for an application one of which requires that
>these counters be disabled.
>Is there any specific reason for Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition to
>prevent the enabling/disabling of these counters? Can you point me to some
>literature regarding this. I can accept the fact that this kind of behaviour
>is not allowed - but need to know why - so that I provide a technical/logical
>reason.
>Cheers!
>sqlcatz|||Thank you Sue!
sqlcatz
I'm using Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition which has multiple instances
of SQL Server 2005 standard edition. Am running a few tests that require the
switching on/off of the physical & logical disk counters.
Diskperf on Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition does not allow me to do this.
Either both (Logical & Physical) are enabled or both are disabled.
How can I turn them on/off individually?
Cheers!
SqlcatzThe implementation of this changed on Windows 2003. Both
logical and physical are automatically enabled "on demand"
under Win 2003.
-Sue
On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 03:51:02 -0700, SQLCatz
<SQLCatz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>Hello,
>I'm using Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition which has multiple instances
>of SQL Server 2005 standard edition. Am running a few tests that require the
>switching on/off of the physical & logical disk counters.
>Diskperf on Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition does not allow me to do this.
>Either both (Logical & Physical) are enabled or both are disabled.
>How can I turn them on/off individually?
>Cheers!
>Sqlcatz|||Hello Sue,
Thank you for the reply.
Yes. They are automatically enabled - I came across that from an article.
But I'm not able to find anything that will allow me to disable them
(individually).
I'm executing certain tests for an application one of which requires that
these counters be disabled.
Is there any specific reason for Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition to
prevent the enabling/disabling of these counters? Can you point me to some
literature regarding this. I can accept the fact that this kind of behaviour
is not allowed - but need to know why - so that I provide a technical/logical
reason.
Cheers!
sqlcatz|||The are enabled when an application calls them - it's
automatic and built into the OS.
Previously, there were problems when you would have a
production performance issue and needed to monitor disks. If
the performance counters weren't enabled, you had to run
diskperf and reboot - not good for a production server.
You can run diskperf /help from the command line and read
the comments. That's one area of "documentation" on it - for
whatever that's worth. But the output is along the lines of:
NOTE: Disk performance counters are permanently enabled on
systems beyond Windows 2000.
-Sue
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 22:13:01 -0700, SQLCatz
<SQLCatz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>Hello Sue,
>Thank you for the reply.
>Yes. They are automatically enabled - I came across that from an article.
>But I'm not able to find anything that will allow me to disable them
>(individually).
>I'm executing certain tests for an application one of which requires that
>these counters be disabled.
>Is there any specific reason for Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition to
>prevent the enabling/disabling of these counters? Can you point me to some
>literature regarding this. I can accept the fact that this kind of behaviour
>is not allowed - but need to know why - so that I provide a technical/logical
>reason.
>Cheers!
>sqlcatz|||Thank you Sue!
sqlcatz
diskpar and Hitachi SAN for performance
We have a Hitachi Thunder SAN to host SharePoint databases. We are running
SQL server 2000 SP3 in a 2 node active/passive cluster. I have read articles
stating to run diskpar to align the offset correctly with the disks to
dramatically increase performance. I'm undecided on whether I should run
diskpar.
Does anybody have experience of seeing improvement using Hitachi SANs?
There seems to be more experience with Exchange than SQL out there.
--
Will RobinsonHi
Yes, run it. The alignment of OS blocks with the underlying SAN block does
eliminate the need for the SAN to do unnecessary IO.
Also, make sure that your formatting matches your SAN's block size. On or
Hitachi and EMC's, we format the drives with 64kb blocks, as this matches
SQL Server I/O sizes and our SAN's stripe size.
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"WillAva" <WillAva@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C95D1918-D841-42F9-B156-1C00A7BF8304@.microsoft.com...
> We have a Hitachi Thunder SAN to host SharePoint databases. We are
> running
> SQL server 2000 SP3 in a 2 node active/passive cluster. I have read
> articles
> stating to run diskpar to align the offset correctly with the disks to
> dramatically increase performance. I'm undecided on whether I should run
> diskpar.
> Does anybody have experience of seeing improvement using Hitachi SANs?
> There seems to be more experience with Exchange than SQL out there.
> --
> Will Robinson
SQL server 2000 SP3 in a 2 node active/passive cluster. I have read articles
stating to run diskpar to align the offset correctly with the disks to
dramatically increase performance. I'm undecided on whether I should run
diskpar.
Does anybody have experience of seeing improvement using Hitachi SANs?
There seems to be more experience with Exchange than SQL out there.
--
Will RobinsonHi
Yes, run it. The alignment of OS blocks with the underlying SAN block does
eliminate the need for the SAN to do unnecessary IO.
Also, make sure that your formatting matches your SAN's block size. On or
Hitachi and EMC's, we format the drives with 64kb blocks, as this matches
SQL Server I/O sizes and our SAN's stripe size.
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"WillAva" <WillAva@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C95D1918-D841-42F9-B156-1C00A7BF8304@.microsoft.com...
> We have a Hitachi Thunder SAN to host SharePoint databases. We are
> running
> SQL server 2000 SP3 in a 2 node active/passive cluster. I have read
> articles
> stating to run diskpar to align the offset correctly with the disks to
> dramatically increase performance. I'm undecided on whether I should run
> diskpar.
> Does anybody have experience of seeing improvement using Hitachi SANs?
> There seems to be more experience with Exchange than SQL out there.
> --
> Will Robinson
diskpar and Hitachi SAN for performance
We have a Hitachi Thunder SAN to host SharePoint databases. We are running
SQL server 2000 SP3 in a 2 node active/passive cluster. I have read articles
stating to run diskpar to align the offset correctly with the disks to
dramatically increase performance. I'm undecided on whether I should run
diskpar.
Does anybody have experience of seeing improvement using Hitachi SANs?
There seems to be more experience with Exchange than SQL out there.
Will Robinson
Hi
Yes, run it. The alignment of OS blocks with the underlying SAN block does
eliminate the need for the SAN to do unnecessary IO.
Also, make sure that your formatting matches your SAN's block size. On or
Hitachi and EMC's, we format the drives with 64kb blocks, as this matches
SQL Server I/O sizes and our SAN's stripe size.
Regards
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"WillAva" <WillAva@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C95D1918-D841-42F9-B156-1C00A7BF8304@.microsoft.com...
> We have a Hitachi Thunder SAN to host SharePoint databases. We are
> running
> SQL server 2000 SP3 in a 2 node active/passive cluster. I have read
> articles
> stating to run diskpar to align the offset correctly with the disks to
> dramatically increase performance. I'm undecided on whether I should run
> diskpar.
> Does anybody have experience of seeing improvement using Hitachi SANs?
> There seems to be more experience with Exchange than SQL out there.
> --
> Will Robinson
sql
SQL server 2000 SP3 in a 2 node active/passive cluster. I have read articles
stating to run diskpar to align the offset correctly with the disks to
dramatically increase performance. I'm undecided on whether I should run
diskpar.
Does anybody have experience of seeing improvement using Hitachi SANs?
There seems to be more experience with Exchange than SQL out there.
Will Robinson
Hi
Yes, run it. The alignment of OS blocks with the underlying SAN block does
eliminate the need for the SAN to do unnecessary IO.
Also, make sure that your formatting matches your SAN's block size. On or
Hitachi and EMC's, we format the drives with 64kb blocks, as this matches
SQL Server I/O sizes and our SAN's stripe size.
Regards
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"WillAva" <WillAva@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C95D1918-D841-42F9-B156-1C00A7BF8304@.microsoft.com...
> We have a Hitachi Thunder SAN to host SharePoint databases. We are
> running
> SQL server 2000 SP3 in a 2 node active/passive cluster. I have read
> articles
> stating to run diskpar to align the offset correctly with the disks to
> dramatically increase performance. I'm undecided on whether I should run
> diskpar.
> Does anybody have experience of seeing improvement using Hitachi SANs?
> There seems to be more experience with Exchange than SQL out there.
> --
> Will Robinson
sql
diskpar and Hitachi SAN for performance
We have a Hitachi Thunder SAN to host SharePoint databases. We are running
SQL server 2000 SP3 in a 2 node active/passive cluster. I have read article
s
stating to run diskpar to align the offset correctly with the disks to
dramatically increase performance. I'm undecided on whether I should run
diskpar.
Does anybody have experience of seeing improvement using Hitachi SANs?
There seems to be more experience with Exchange than SQL out there.
--
Will RobinsonHi
Yes, run it. The alignment of OS blocks with the underlying SAN block does
eliminate the need for the SAN to do unnecessary IO.
Also, make sure that your formatting matches your SAN's block size. On or
Hitachi and EMC's, we format the drives with 64kb blocks, as this matches
SQL Server I/O sizes and our SAN's stripe size.
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"WillAva" <WillAva@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C95D1918-D841-42F9-B156-1C00A7BF8304@.microsoft.com...
> We have a Hitachi Thunder SAN to host SharePoint databases. We are
> running
> SQL server 2000 SP3 in a 2 node active/passive cluster. I have read
> articles
> stating to run diskpar to align the offset correctly with the disks to
> dramatically increase performance. I'm undecided on whether I should run
> diskpar.
> Does anybody have experience of seeing improvement using Hitachi SANs?
> There seems to be more experience with Exchange than SQL out there.
> --
> Will Robinson
SQL server 2000 SP3 in a 2 node active/passive cluster. I have read article
s
stating to run diskpar to align the offset correctly with the disks to
dramatically increase performance. I'm undecided on whether I should run
diskpar.
Does anybody have experience of seeing improvement using Hitachi SANs?
There seems to be more experience with Exchange than SQL out there.
--
Will RobinsonHi
Yes, run it. The alignment of OS blocks with the underlying SAN block does
eliminate the need for the SAN to do unnecessary IO.
Also, make sure that your formatting matches your SAN's block size. On or
Hitachi and EMC's, we format the drives with 64kb blocks, as this matches
SQL Server I/O sizes and our SAN's stripe size.
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"WillAva" <WillAva@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C95D1918-D841-42F9-B156-1C00A7BF8304@.microsoft.com...
> We have a Hitachi Thunder SAN to host SharePoint databases. We are
> running
> SQL server 2000 SP3 in a 2 node active/passive cluster. I have read
> articles
> stating to run diskpar to align the offset correctly with the disks to
> dramatically increase performance. I'm undecided on whether I should run
> diskpar.
> Does anybody have experience of seeing improvement using Hitachi SANs?
> There seems to be more experience with Exchange than SQL out there.
> --
> Will Robinson
Diskkeeper users ..
Anyone uses Diskkeeper in their production environment to defrag their files
? Any pros and cons that you are aware of ? Can you defrag the files while
the databases are active or do we need to do it when SQL is offline ?
Thanks
Hi
Yes, but not with SQL Server running.
Once it has been defragmented, and you manually grow the DBs to a decent
size so that autogrow does not kick, there is very little need to do i again.
Regards
Mike
"Hassan" wrote:
> Anyone uses Diskkeeper in their production environment to defrag their files
> ? Any pros and cons that you are aware of ? Can you defrag the files while
> the databases are active or do we need to do it when SQL is offline ?
> Thanks
>
>
? Any pros and cons that you are aware of ? Can you defrag the files while
the databases are active or do we need to do it when SQL is offline ?
Thanks
Hi
Yes, but not with SQL Server running.
Once it has been defragmented, and you manually grow the DBs to a decent
size so that autogrow does not kick, there is very little need to do i again.
Regards
Mike
"Hassan" wrote:
> Anyone uses Diskkeeper in their production environment to defrag their files
> ? Any pros and cons that you are aware of ? Can you defrag the files while
> the databases are active or do we need to do it when SQL is offline ?
> Thanks
>
>
Diskkeeper users ..
Anyone uses Diskkeeper in their production environment to defrag their files
? Any pros and cons that you are aware of ? Can you defrag the files while
the databases are active or do we need to do it when SQL is offline ?
ThanksHi
Yes, but not with SQL Server running.
Once it has been defragmented, and you manually grow the DBs to a decent
size so that autogrow does not kick, there is very little need to do i again
.
Regards
Mike
"Hassan" wrote:
> Anyone uses Diskkeeper in their production environment to defrag their fil
es
> ? Any pros and cons that you are aware of ? Can you defrag the files while
> the databases are active or do we need to do it when SQL is offline ?
> Thanks
>
>
? Any pros and cons that you are aware of ? Can you defrag the files while
the databases are active or do we need to do it when SQL is offline ?
ThanksHi
Yes, but not with SQL Server running.
Once it has been defragmented, and you manually grow the DBs to a decent
size so that autogrow does not kick, there is very little need to do i again
.
Regards
Mike
"Hassan" wrote:
> Anyone uses Diskkeeper in their production environment to defrag their fil
es
> ? Any pros and cons that you are aware of ? Can you defrag the files while
> the databases are active or do we need to do it when SQL is offline ?
> Thanks
>
>
订阅：
博文 (Atom)