Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    4

    Red face Unanswered: SQL Server EE 2000 over Windows 2003

    Hi!

    I was running SQL server 2000 on Windows XP professional.
    Recently I installed SQL Server EE 2000 (SP3a) on a new machine (Windows 2003 standard version).
    And I transferred my old database and program to new DB on Windows 2003.
    The new server has higher computing power (Dual XEON - 2.8GHz, 2GB Memory) than old one (Single XEON - 2.8GHz, 1GB Memory).

    Howerver, the newer DB machine gives very poor performance compared to old one, though it has higher computing power and larger memory.
    (My program tries 1000 insertions into a certain table. The old DB machine returns result almost as soon as I fed the query. But the new DB machine was nealy locked and gives result after 7 seconds.)

    Database, index, and etc. were created with same script.
    What would be cause of this slow down?

    Any help would be very appreciated.
    Last edited by moolbul; 12-19-03 at 04:40.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    311

    Re: SQL Server EE 2000 over Windows 2003

    Do you have a faster Disk Controller in the old machine?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    4

    Re: SQL Server EE 2000 over Windows 2003

    Originally posted by joejcheng
    Do you have a faster Disk Controller in the old machine?
    Old machine's disk controller is EIDE and new machine's is SCSI.
    Is SCSI so slower than EIDE?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    2,232
    No - scsi is faster. Do you have a raid configuration on the new system ? Have you tried sp3a ?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    4
    No RAID configuration.
    I applied SP3A just after installation of SQL Server.
    HDD was formatted in NTFS format with default parameter.

    Thanks anyway!


    Originally posted by rnealejr
    No - scsi is faster. Do you have a raid configuration on the new system ? Have you tried sp3a ?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    2,232
    I remember reading an article from ms that reported similar results to yours. It was because there was no caching on the scsi drive - once caching existed, the scsi drive was equally as fast.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    4
    Hi!

    Still I have the problem.
    Please help me!

    I did simple disk speed check:
    - generated 500MB file and merged it into a file to create 1GB file.

    result:
    new machine: it took about 45 seconds.
    old machine: it took about 60 seconds.

    It looks like that disk performance does not matter on this problem.

    Any idea to trace the problem?

    Thanks.
    Last edited by moolbul; 12-19-03 at 04:42.

Posting Permissions

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