Please start any new threads on our new
site at https://forums.sqlteam.com. We've got lots of great SQL Server
experts to answer whatever question you can come up with.
| Author |
Topic |
|
chrisdixon2
Starting Member
1 Post |
 Posted - 2011-03-07 : 09:35:55
|
| Hi AllI have a couple of questions about mirroring which I would like to implement in our environment in the next month or so if its a good idea (logshipping is becoming unbearable due to scripts!. Our infrastructure will consist of:2 * Dell servers 64GB RAM, 6 * 600GB 10 k SAS drives, Dual Opteron 2.1GHZ 12 core processors running Server 2008 R2 and SQLServer 2008 R2 (using live now)a 100MB P2P Link (less than 15 miles away being installed in a few weeks)Our data transfer per hour using logshipping is about 200 -250mb (using compression)38 Databases varying in size between 500mb and 19GB total of 197GB. There are actually only 2 applications using the databases as each of our 19 clients that we use SQLServer for have their own seperate DB for each application.My Plan:Move all the individual databases into just 2 separate databases and use mirroring (our software development team have tested this with the 2 products in question). I then intend to migrate about 30 other clients from access to sqlserver into this this so total space used would probably be about 300GB initially (still with just 2 DBs).My questions!1: Is that a good idea?2: Are 100GB MDF files fast enough to search / are they slower than having individual databases?I would be grateful for any suggestions!Chris |
|
|
dinakar
Master Smack Fu Yak Hacker
2507 Posts |
|
|
Lumbago
Norsk Yak Master
3271 Posts |
Posted - 2011-03-08 : 05:00:17
|
| What would probably concern me the most is the network link...not an option to make it 1Gb instead?- LumbagoMy blog-> http://thefirstsql.com/2011/02/07/regular-expressions-advanced-string-matching-and-new-split-function-sql-server-2008-r2/ |
 |
|
|
mkincaid
Starting Member
1 Post |
Posted - 2011-03-09 : 10:44:20
|
| Database mirroring primarily uses the TLOGs so MDF size would not be much of an issue (I've mirrored a database over 2TB before). That being said, you would probably get better performance having more/smaller databases than fewer/larger databases, since there would be less contention in the TLOGs. Also consider anything else you have in your environment that needs the TLOG (ie: Replication, index defrags, etc). We have seen issues caused by database maintenance tasks on systems that also use Replication and Mirroring (they all need the TLOG and excessive transactions can cause a backup in replication/mirroring).Since you are using SQL 2008, you get the benefit of log stream compression, which should help with the slower network. See this article for details:http://sqlcat.com/technicalnotes/archive/2007/09/17/database-mirroring-log-compression-in-sql-server-2008-improves-throughput.aspx |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mirroring and performance considerations