Results 1 to 14 of 14
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Far away from heaven
    Posts
    194

    Unanswered: Restoring Backup

    Guys, i've 1.6 GB of backup size and it takes 1 hour for this backup to get restored over a SCSII 10,000 rpm.
    Is it normal. How can i make the restore faster.
    It takes only 5-10 mins to take the backup however.
    I am restoring the full backup, no differential or log file.



    Howdy!

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    San Antonio, TX
    Posts
    3,662
    Could it be that your RAID configuration is scewed towards READing? R-75, W-25?
    "The data in a record depends on the Key to the record, the Whole Key, and
    nothing but the Key, so help me Codd."

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Far away from heaven
    Posts
    194
    Hi guru, RAID-0 has been configured.
    However, what should be the normal time span in which the backup of this size should get restored.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    San Antonio, TX
    Posts
    3,662
    Restoring is always slower than doing the initial backup. 1 hour for 1.6G is a little slow (well, maybe not a little), I'd expect it to be finished in under 30 minutes...and WHY are you calling me "guru"? And you still didn't answer the question: How your RAID is configured in respect to READs vs. WRITEs?
    "The data in a record depends on the Key to the record, the Whole Key, and
    nothing but the Key, so help me Codd."

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Far away from heaven
    Posts
    194

    Thumbs up

    Thanx for ur kind reply.
    How your RAID is configured in respect to READs vs. WRITEs?
    RAID;I don't know very much about. There are two SCSII included in the RAID. Disk stripes and both read write are set for best performance; this is what i know. Do i need to check in the controller's config to check READ vs WRITES?
    and WHY are you calling me "guru"?
    I call u "guru" for i always like my teachers, rather I love . Let me know if u mind it.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    San Antonio, TX
    Posts
    3,662
    OK, since we're done with "guru" business, check if your controller is configured any way other than 50% READ and 50% WRITE. As I said earlier, 1 hour to restore 1.6G database is kind of high.
    "The data in a record depends on the Key to the record, the Whole Key, and
    nothing but the Key, so help me Codd."

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Kansas City, MO
    Posts
    734
    Also, pull up the drive on performance monitor while you have a restore going. Look at the disk queue lengths. Pay special attention to the write queue length. How high does it get?

    You're restoring onto RAID 0??????? Why?
    MeanOldDBA
    derrickleggett@hotmail.com
    When life gives you a lemon, fire the DBA.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    San Antonio, TX
    Posts
    3,662
    Yeah, THAT would have been my next question, unless it's SAN, which it's not!
    "The data in a record depends on the Key to the record, the Whole Key, and
    nothing but the Key, so help me Codd."

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Far away from heaven
    Posts
    194
    Folks, i couldn't find the % read-write ratio for the RAID CONFIGURATION UTILITY. Even if i create a RAID level from scratch; there's no option.
    Only the settings i could find are; 2 disks included in RAID-0 with strip-size 64KB and WRITE-CACHE=FULL ENABLED.
    You're restoring onto RAID 0??????? Why?
    I am using this machine as a secondary server; and restore the backup at times to verify my backups. I've total of 3 SCSIIs in the machine and i though one disk for operating-system and the other two with RAID-0 would perform optimum. Do i need to change the settings; Raid-5 etc??



    Howdy!

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    San Antonio, TX
    Posts
    3,662
    I am not 100% sure, but I think you need to disable your WRITE CACHE option.
    "The data in a record depends on the Key to the record, the Whole Key, and
    nothing but the Key, so help me Codd."

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Far away from heaven
    Posts
    194
    guru, what's the reason for doing so. I've enabled this option on the production server for RAID-5. Is this option not good, i mean any consquences for doing so.
    "Unless the write-caching disk controller is spcefically designed for use with a database, u risk corrunpting ur database. SQL relies on the windows operating sys to notify it when an I/O operation has completed. If the write-caching disk controller notifies the windows operating system that a write operation has cmpleted that never actually completes, ur database can become corrupt" (Microsoft Press)
    But mine RAID-controller is fully compatible.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Kansas City, MO
    Posts
    734
    Disable your write cache? Are you kidding me? I wouldn't do this, if the controller was designed properly. You need to have this and a good powerdown system to insure data integrity during a power failure. The only one's I know of that aren't are the stupid controllers that Compaq was shipping during the mid-90's. Now, if you want to talk about IO problems.

    What kind of server/RAID controller is this? We might be able to walk you through it if you can tell us. Also, if you're not worried about redundancy, the RAID 0 will be the faster performing. RAID 5 isn't particulary efficient at writes. It's even worse with only 3 disks. I don't ever recommend someone move to RAID 5 if they only have 3 disks.
    MeanOldDBA
    derrickleggett@hotmail.com
    When life gives you a lemon, fire the DBA.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Far away from heaven
    Posts
    194
    I am really very thankful for ur interest in solving the prob. I am getting in love with the forum indeed.

    I guess i should rather put forward the same prob with my production server i am running with 60 users concurrently 24/7.
    MACHINE SPEC:
    Branded COMPAQ ML350:
    Processor:
    Intel® Xeon™ Processors with hyper-threading support.
    3.06 GHz/533MHz-512KB
    Quantity=2 [i get 4 processors in the task mgr. and selected to utilize all for SQL]
    RAM
    PC2100 ECC DDR
    Quantity:
    2 physical chips 1 GB each =2GB
    1 physical chip 256 MB
    Total=2.25 GB
    Integrated Dual Channel Wide-Ultra3 SCSI Adapter
    Controller
    Smart Array 641 Controller(RAID)
    Disks
    36.4 GB Pluggable Ultra 320 SCSI 15,000 rpm Universal Hard Drive
    Quantity
    3 Disks.
    Hardware Raid:
    RAID LEVEL 5
    NIC Card:
    Compaq NC7760 Gigabit Auto Switching


    If i choose RAID-0; there would be no fault-tolerance which i can't therefore choose. However what would be the most favorable setup if one has three SCSIIs:
    RAID-0 for SQL data and tran files. and One SCSII left for Operating system and Paging file. OR
    One SCSII for operating-system; one for Data file and one for the Log.?????? OR some other configuration? again, no FAULT-TOLERANCE.

    Dear Mr.Legget, Currently my processor sits below 40 %; less processor queue length over 5-10 secs; Ram is 256 available to operating system and i've configured SQL Boost Perfomance(no other app or services running on the machine except office 2000 outlook for e-mails), Max Worker threads 100, Fixed Ram assignment 2056 MB.
    I am getting Disk Write % bottlenecks however. But what best RAID level i could setup if i want FAULT-TOLERANCE? If i go to RAID-1 write would be more miserable.


    Also kindly suggest; if it's good to use WIN 20003 Std. edition; i've been surrffing the forum and had an eye on a post mentioned not to use WIN 2003(don't exactly know the post) with SQL. Should i rather choose WIN 2000 Server.

    At last; would be the most suitable RAID level config dispite the quantity of DISKS.
    ?? RAID-1 for operating sys. RAID-1 for tran-log. RAID-10 or RAID-5 for data files. Oh my 2+2+4=8 SCSIIs. I know i can't afford. And would my RAID-CONTROLLER gonna support all this.???

    I hope u would read this stupid text; and would be generous enough to suggest recommendations.

    Thanx ya all.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    San Antonio, TX
    Posts
    3,662
    If you're not using Win2003 hyperthreading should be turned off because Win2K does not take advantage of it. Maybe that's why your restore takes so long (MAYBE, so don't attack me!) I'd also turn off the BOOST switch, but ensure that Performance Options is set for Background Services. With the disks, ram, and other stuff I think Derrick will be of more help.
    "The data in a record depends on the Key to the record, the Whole Key, and
    nothing but the Key, so help me Codd."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •