Results 1 to 4 of 4
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2

    Question Unanswered: Optimal installation on Win 2003

    Hi

    I'm fairly new to this, so bare with me...

    I have to make a new installation of an MS SQL 2000 EE on a Windows 2003 Std. Edt.

    HW:
    ---------------------
    Dual Xeon 2,4 + 1 GB Ecc
    1 x 32 MB Adaptec 2100S RAID Controller
    2 x 18 GB 10K HD
    4 x 18 GB 15K HD
    ---------------------

    So far I have made following configuration....
    ---------------------
    2 x 18 GB 10K HD / RAID 1
    - C:\OS
    - D:\MSSQL program files + System DB's (Master, pubs ect.)

    4 x 18 GB 15K HD / RAID 5
    - E:\TempDB
    - F:\Data + Logs
    ---------------------
    But I'm not sure that this is the optimal configuration, and I'm willing to start all over


    So my q's are.......
    --------------------
    Which RAID configuration would you suggest?
    Which partitions on the raids would you suggest?
    Which usage would you assign the various partitions?
    How do I move the system and temp db's?
    --------------------


    Thanx!

    Regards,

    Taras Bredel dk

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    21

    Re: Optimal installation on Win 2003

    Hi Taras,

    I just had our systems guys create a SQL 2000 box on Win 2k3. I have a raid 5 (with 2 HD) on a dual p3 with 1 gig of ram.

    Let me just say that I can't remember having so many problems with a SQL box. Granted anyone using Win 2k3 in a production environment should have expected some early adopter problems, I didn't think my problem would be so frustrating.

    My problem is that I can't get the SQL box to listen on any ports. By default, SQL server should listen on port 1433. I can plainly see that Network Utility has TCP/IP enabled and the default port is 1433.

    I'm this close to rebuilding that box to a win 2k server.
    The only thing really stopping me now is debating what is less work - moving the data - or trying to fix the SQL server.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2
    Hi Lee

    Well it could install it on a W2K, but benchmarks shows that the performance gain on W2K3 should be considerably large.

    So my advice to you is trouble shoot the W2K3 installation.

    //Taras

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    21
    Taras,

    Yes. That was the main reason that I wanted it on a 2k3 machine. The data is to be served internally on a quasi realtime basis. This is not a real-time system - but I would like as much performance as possible.

    Once you get the machine up and running tell me if you had any problems.

    Thanks.

Posting Permissions

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