General configuration question - maximum performance.

This is a hyperthetical question.
If a web site is running slowly then we can create a web farm and spilt the
problem between multiple servers.
However if my database is running slowly, and given that its schema is well
designed and the application that is communicating with it is well designed,
what options do I have to speed it up? Does SQL Server have a concept of
a database farm? Can I throw another server at it?
I understand that I could peel off read-only data to another database but
what would happen if it was all read-write? eg maybe like a banks computer
system or a credit card processing authority?
I could throw more CPU, RAM, hard disk, etc at it but ultimately this only
goes so far.
What databases do the BIG database users use? eg AMEX? Walmart? etc. I
guess they are not on SQL Server?
Regards
Dave ADave
I'd turn on SQL Server Profiler to identify long running queries , stored
procedures and try to imrove them. How to improve, that is probably playing
with indexes and/or if you are in SQL Server 2005 let the 'problematic'
query run throu Tuning wizard to advise you.
> What databases do the BIG database users use? eg AMEX? Walmart? etc. I
> guess they are not on SQL Server?
SQL Server has no problem to keep TERA byte databases , the point is how
well the db is designed?
"Dave A" <dave@.sigmasolutionsdonotspamme.com.au> wrote in message
news:e5kphEFJIHA.1208@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> This is a hyperthetical question.
> If a web site is running slowly then we can create a web farm and spilt
> the problem between multiple servers.
> However if my database is running slowly, and given that its schema is
> well designed and the application that is communicating with it is well
> designed, what options do I have to speed it up? Does SQL Server have a
> concept of a database farm? Can I throw another server at it?
> I understand that I could peel off read-only data to another database but
> what would happen if it was all read-write? eg maybe like a banks computer
> system or a credit card processing authority?
> I could throw more CPU, RAM, hard disk, etc at it but ultimately this only
> goes so far.
> What databases do the BIG database users use? eg AMEX? Walmart? etc. I
> guess they are not on SQL Server?
> Regards
> Dave A
>|||Remember, this is a hyperthetical question. There is no need to run Profile
since there is no database to profile.
I have no doubt that SQL Server can handle multiterabyte datbases, my
problem is when there are a million conurrenct users updating and reading
that data, what options does an SQL Server designer have at thier disposal?
(Don't worry, I am an SQL Server zealot. I am just wondering what happens
when we push the limits and how far can it go.)
So, my question remains. Is there a concept of a farm of sql servers? - just
like there is a cluster of sql servers or a farm of web servers.
Regards
Dave A
"Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> wrote in message
news:ec0KCYFJIHA.5468@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Dave
> I'd turn on SQL Server Profiler to identify long running queries , stored
> procedures and try to imrove them. How to improve, that is probably
> playing with indexes and/or if you are in SQL Server 2005 let the
> 'problematic' query run throu Tuning wizard to advise you.
>> What databases do the BIG database users use? eg AMEX? Walmart? etc. I
>> guess they are not on SQL Server?
>
> SQL Server has no problem to keep TERA byte databases , the point is how
> well the db is designed?
>
>
> "Dave A" <dave@.sigmasolutionsdonotspamme.com.au> wrote in message
> news:e5kphEFJIHA.1208@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> This is a hyperthetical question.
>> If a web site is running slowly then we can create a web farm and spilt
>> the problem between multiple servers.
>> However if my database is running slowly, and given that its schema is
>> well designed and the application that is communicating with it is well
>> designed, what options do I have to speed it up? Does SQL Server have
>> a concept of a database farm? Can I throw another server at it?
>> I understand that I could peel off read-only data to another database but
>> what would happen if it was all read-write? eg maybe like a banks
>> computer system or a credit card processing authority?
>> I could throw more CPU, RAM, hard disk, etc at it but ultimately this
>> only goes so far.
>> What databases do the BIG database users use? eg AMEX? Walmart? etc. I
>> guess they are not on SQL Server?
>> Regards
>> Dave A
>|||When it comes to CPU and RAM, you can only scale up, not scale out. So
"throwing another server at it" will not help.
With the long standing trend of ever faster CPU's and the growing number
of cores per computer this can go a long way.
But even if SQL Server supported scaling out, this would only go "so
far" too. If you have one server and add an identical server, the
performance gain will never be 100%, it will be less. There is a limit
as to how much you can scale out, just as there is a limit to how much
you can scale up.
You should have a look at the TPC numbers show (see www.tpc.org). An
interesting chart is the Top 10 TPC-C by Performance. You will notice
that there is only one clustered configuration in this top 10, which
uses Oracle 10g. All others are nonclustered configuration are
nonclustered, including 4 other Oracle 10g configurations.
I therefore conclude that currently, there is no practical need for a
clustered SQL Server solution.
--
Gert-Jan
Dave A wrote:
> This is a hyperthetical question.
> If a web site is running slowly then we can create a web farm and spilt the
> problem between multiple servers.
> However if my database is running slowly, and given that its schema is well
> designed and the application that is communicating with it is well designed,
> what options do I have to speed it up? Does SQL Server have a concept of
> a database farm? Can I throw another server at it?
> I understand that I could peel off read-only data to another database but
> what would happen if it was all read-write? eg maybe like a banks computer
> system or a credit card processing authority?
> I could throw more CPU, RAM, hard disk, etc at it but ultimately this only
> goes so far.
> What databases do the BIG database users use? eg AMEX? Walmart? etc. I
> guess they are not on SQL Server?
> Regards
> Dave A|||On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 20:54:20 +1000, "Dave A"
<dave@.sigmasolutionsdonotspamme.com.au> wrote:
>This is a hyperthetical question.
>If a web site is running slowly then we can create a web farm and spilt the
>problem between multiple servers.
>However if my database is running slowly, and given that its schema is well
>designed and the application that is communicating with it is well designed,
>what options do I have to speed it up? Does SQL Server have a concept of
>a database farm? Can I throw another server at it?
No. Not automagically. You are of course free to put all the A's on
one server, etc, and replicate data between them. This is often
enough done, but it is a lot of work. SQL Server 2008 looks like it's
aimed at much bigger configs, but I'm not up on the details.
>I could throw more CPU, RAM, hard disk, etc at it but ultimately this only
>goes so far.
It goes pretty far, on a maxed-out Wintel machine, these days, with
SAN storage, etc. But increasingly, you actually have to know what
you're doing, config the hardware right, and be very careful of the
execution plans going sour on you. But do all that, and we're
probably running about 10^6 bigger and faster than SQL 6.5 on a 100mhz
server ten years ago! On a given hardware platform, for an average
transactional mix (whatever that might mean), or for a preplanned OLAP
environment, SQLServer is at least competitive with anyone.
>What databases do the BIG database users use? eg AMEX? Walmart? etc. I
>guess they are not on SQL Server?
Oracle is still your game if you want to throw hardware at the
problem. Teradata is another way to go on humongous databases and
ad-hoc queries. I suppose DB2 fits in there somewhere, but I don't
know quite where.
J.