|
database
newsgroups
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
How many NDF files do we need?!?He likes to hop into EM and make NDF files. He says it's to increase performance. So far, we have ISD.mdf, ISD1.ndf, ISD2.ndf, ISD3.ndf and ISD4.ndf all on the same partition. I am convinced that this is stupid, but it would be nice if I could get some other opinions from you guys to prove or disprove my point. Secondarily, if I am correct, and this practice IS as stupid as I think it is, how do we correct the data back to a single file? -- Peace & happy computing, Mike Labosh, MCSD "Mr. McKittrick, after very careful consideration, I have come to the conclusion that this new system SUCKS." -- General Barringer, "War Games" You could patch up the holes in the water barrel, but the cowbow will just
shoot it full of bullets again. Who is the designated DBA for this server? Sort that out and then let the DBA decide how many secondary data files are needed and where to put them. Show quote "Mike Labosh" <mlab***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:O49dBxkgFHA.1044@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... > We have a suit here that knows the SA password. @#$%^& > > He likes to hop into EM and make NDF files. He says it's to increase > performance. So far, we have ISD.mdf, ISD1.ndf, ISD2.ndf, ISD3.ndf and > ISD4.ndf all on the same partition. > > I am convinced that this is stupid, but it would be nice if I could get some > other opinions from you guys to prove or disprove my point. > > Secondarily, if I am correct, and this practice IS as stupid as I think it > is, how do we correct the data back to a single file? > > -- > Peace & happy computing, > > Mike Labosh, MCSD > > "Mr. McKittrick, after very careful consideration, I have > come to the conclusion that this new system SUCKS." > -- General Barringer, "War Games" > > > You could patch up the holes in the water barrel, but the cowbow will just Just to clarify, you are agreeing with me that having all these NDF files on > shoot it full of bullets again. Who is the designated DBA for this server? > Sort that out and then let the DBA decide how many secondary data files > are > needed and where to put them. the same disk is dumb? We have another developer here who has been assigned DBA status by the suits, and between she and I (also a developer), and all of my posts here, we have managed to keep this system from exploding. We really need a REAL DBA here, but the company won't pay for one. -- Peace & happy computing, Mike Labosh, MCSD "Mr. McKittrick, after very careful consideration, I have come to the conclusion that this new system SUCKS." -- General Barringer, "War Games" You can see a perf gain if you have several physical disk.
To keep the discussion simple, imagine a RAID0 with 10 disks, one partition. If you create > 1 file, you can see better I/O perf (greater parallelism etc). We've asked MS what ratio to opt for (1 disk per file, 2 disks per file...). MS has done some tests, but it is so HW dependent so they don't want go give umbers that might not apply to your scenario. Test and see. For sure no use to have more than one file per disk. (from a perf perspective). -- Show quoteTibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/ Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/ "Mike Labosh" <mlab***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:enJoK$kgFHA.2472@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl... >> You could patch up the holes in the water barrel, but the cowbow will just >> shoot it full of bullets again. Who is the designated DBA for this server? >> Sort that out and then let the DBA decide how many secondary data files are >> needed and where to put them. > > Just to clarify, you are agreeing with me that having all these NDF files on the same disk is > dumb? > > We have another developer here who has been assigned DBA status by the suits, and between she and > I (also a developer), and all of my posts here, we have managed to keep this system from > exploding. We really need a REAL DBA here, but the company won't pay for one. > > -- > Peace & happy computing, > > Mike Labosh, MCSD > > "Mr. McKittrick, after very careful consideration, I have > come to the conclusion that this new system SUCKS." > -- General Barringer, "War Games" > > You can see a perf gain if you have several physical disk. See, that's exactly my line of thinking. Our big momma SQL server has RAID > > To keep the discussion simple, imagine a RAID0 with 10 disks, one > partition. If you create > 1 file, you can see better I/O perf (greater > parallelism etc). We've asked MS what ratio to opt for (1 disk per file, 2 > disks per file...). MS has done some tests, but it is so HW dependent so > they don't want go give umbers that might not apply to your scenario. Test > and see. For sure no use to have more than one file per disk. (from a perf > perspective). 10 (Two striped stacks that are mirrors) The whole RAID box is split into C:, D: & E: My user account does not have permissions to its file system, but our group routinely receives messages from the MIS group saying that D: is full or E: is full. I am convinced (even though I am just a developer) that if given the power, I could reconfigure the thing the right way. It angers me that they pay the suits so much money to muck up the system, but they won't hire a real DBA. If *any* of you folks actually came here, you would probably slap someone. -- Peace & happy computing, Mike Labosh, MCSD "Mr. McKittrick, after very careful consideration, I have come to the conclusion that this new system SUCKS." -- General Barringer, "War Games" We wouldn't slap anyone. We would fix the issue, submit the bill, and cash
the check. Living well IS the best revenge. We would tell stories over beers at a conference somewhere, but believe me, this issue doesn't even reach the second tier of stupidity. Geoff N. Hiten Microsoft SQL Server MVP Show quote "Mike Labosh" <mlab***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:eASt3glgFHA.2444@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... >> You can see a perf gain if you have several physical disk. >> >> To keep the discussion simple, imagine a RAID0 with 10 disks, one >> partition. If you create > 1 file, you can see better I/O perf (greater >> parallelism etc). We've asked MS what ratio to opt for (1 disk per file, >> 2 disks per file...). MS has done some tests, but it is so HW dependent >> so they don't want go give umbers that might not apply to your scenario. >> Test and see. For sure no use to have more than one file per disk. (from >> a perf perspective). > > See, that's exactly my line of thinking. Our big momma SQL server has > RAID 10 (Two striped stacks that are mirrors) The whole RAID box is split > into C:, D: & E: My user account does not have permissions to its file > system, but our group routinely receives messages from the MIS group > saying that D: is full or E: is full. > > I am convinced (even though I am just a developer) that if given the > power, I could reconfigure the thing the right way. > > It angers me that they pay the suits so much money to muck up the system, > but they won't hire a real DBA. If *any* of you folks actually came here, > you would probably slap someone. > > -- > Peace & happy computing, > > Mike Labosh, MCSD > > "Mr. McKittrick, after very careful consideration, I have > come to the conclusion that this new system SUCKS." > -- General Barringer, "War Games" > Did anyone mention chaging the SA password?
Show quote "Geoff N. Hiten" <sqlcrafts***@gmail.com> wrote in message news:u7tztfmgFHA.2880@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... > We wouldn't slap anyone. We would fix the issue, submit the bill, and cash > the check. Living well IS the best revenge. We would tell stories over > beers at a conference somewhere, but believe me, this issue doesn't even > reach the second tier of stupidity. > > Geoff N. Hiten > Microsoft SQL Server MVP > > "Mike Labosh" <mlab***@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:eASt3glgFHA.2444@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... > >> You can see a perf gain if you have several physical disk. > >> > >> To keep the discussion simple, imagine a RAID0 with 10 disks, one > >> partition. If you create > 1 file, you can see better I/O perf (greater > >> parallelism etc). We've asked MS what ratio to opt for (1 disk per file, > >> 2 disks per file...). MS has done some tests, but it is so HW dependent > >> so they don't want go give umbers that might not apply to your scenario. > >> Test and see. For sure no use to have more than one file per disk. (from > >> a perf perspective). > > > > See, that's exactly my line of thinking. Our big momma SQL server has > > RAID 10 (Two striped stacks that are mirrors) The whole RAID box is split > > into C:, D: & E: My user account does not have permissions to its file > > system, but our group routinely receives messages from the MIS group > > saying that D: is full or E: is full. > > > > I am convinced (even though I am just a developer) that if given the > > power, I could reconfigure the thing the right way. > > > > It angers me that they pay the suits so much money to muck up the system, > > but they won't hire a real DBA. If *any* of you folks actually came here, > > you would probably slap someone. > > > > -- > > Peace & happy computing, > > > > Mike Labosh, MCSD > > > > "Mr. McKittrick, after very careful consideration, I have > > come to the conclusion that this new system SUCKS." > > -- General Barringer, "War Games" > > > > > Did anyone mention chaging the SA password? Would you believe that 6 months ago we had a 4 hour "team meeting" about that and the answer was "NO"? @#$%^&* -- Peace & happy computing, Mike Labosh, MCSD "Mr. McKittrick, after very careful consideration, I have come to the conclusion that this new system SUCKS." -- General Barringer, "War Games" Sounds like an ulcer factory where I used to work
-- Show quote"Programming proves that Natural Selection is true, since every time I idiot-proof a program a better idiot comes along. Robert W. Drummond John Linville "Mike Labosh" <mlab***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:uBHOH8mgFHA.2560@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... > > Did anyone mention chaging the SA password? > > Would you believe that 6 months ago we had a 4 hour "team meeting" about > that and the answer was "NO"? @#$%^&* > > -- > Peace & happy computing, > > Mike Labosh, MCSD > > "Mr. McKittrick, after very careful consideration, I have > come to the conclusion that this new system SUCKS." > -- General Barringer, "War Games" > > The least they could do is have everyone login using windows authentication
(rather than using the generic SA account) and grant system admin rights to whomever needs them. That way, if something terrible goes wrong, it can perhaps be determined who performed the action. Show quote "Mike Labosh" <mlab***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:uBHOH8mgFHA.2560@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... > > Did anyone mention chaging the SA password? > > Would you believe that 6 months ago we had a 4 hour "team meeting" about > that and the answer was "NO"? @#$%^&* > > -- > Peace & happy computing, > > Mike Labosh, MCSD > > "Mr. McKittrick, after very careful consideration, I have > come to the conclusion that this new system SUCKS." > -- General Barringer, "War Games" > >
Show quote
"Mike Labosh" <mlab***@hotmail.com> wrote in message If the files are just additional files in the PRIMARY filegroup you can news:O49dBxkgFHA.1044@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... > We have a suit here that knows the SA password. @#$%^& > > He likes to hop into EM and make NDF files. He says it's to increase > performance. So far, we have ISD.mdf, ISD1.ndf, ISD2.ndf, ISD3.ndf and > ISD4.ndf all on the same partition. > > I am convinced that this is stupid, but it would be nice if I could get > some other opinions from you guys to prove or disprove my point. > > Secondarily, if I am correct, and this practice IS as stupid as I think it > is, how do we correct the data back to a single file? > empty them and then remove them dbcc shrinkfile(ISD1,emptyfile) alter database test1 remove file ISD1 (Assuming ISD1 is the logical name of the file) David  |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Other interesting topics