RAID1 vs 3-disk RAID5 for DB

I'm making whatever hardware upgrades I can very easily do on this box.

Due to only having 6 HDD slots in my IBM x235 tower's backplane, I can't have 3 volumes AND have one of them as RAID 5. Also; a 3 volume RAID 5 just seems silly. Wouldn't it have worse performance than mirrored (both read and write)? Well; I don't claim any knowledge on all this so should stop on the wild guesses.

My DB is 3GB (+ 2GB log file). It's looking like it may grow up to 5 or 10 GB per year on the very outside, so 140GB for DB should be plenty for years to come.

I just want to keep this upgrade small and simple with zero exposure to upgrade heartache and regret. Therefore; I plan to avoid an O/S or Software rebuild.

My hardware / network guy says upgrading the O/S drive from 10K RPM to a larger 15K RPM drive requires OS reload. He's not entirely sure since he's never done it using this IBM RAID card, but 10K RPM should be fine for the O/S.

Existing:
Internal IBM PCI RAID Controller (not sure model, but decent). All RAID is via hardware controller.

Volume 1 = 10K RPM mirrored SCSI.
Volume 2 = 10K RPM RAID5 with 3 volumes
Slot 6 empty.

Solution 1:
1. 2 volume solution that includes a small RAID 5.

Volume 1 = 10K RPM RAID1 SCSI. (O/S, Log, and DB Backup files)
Volume 2 = 15K RPM RAID6 or RAID5 with 4 disks

2. 3 volume solution

Volume 1 = 10K RPM RAID1 SCSI. (O/S only)
Volume 2 = 15K RPM RAID1 SCSI (for DB only)
Volume 3 = 15K RPM RAID1 SCSI (for Log files only)

I have heard it's better to have log files on a mirrored disk because the I/O tends to be write intensive and contiguous. I don't know how intensive DB I/O is vs. Log File I/O vs. OS I/O. Maybe someone who does could advise me in this matter.

Additional question: Are higher capacity HDDs faster for read/write? Say; comparing 32GB vs. 300GB, the 300GB must be more compressed, so more data would travel over the heads. Yet; the specs don't seem to imply that there's much difference (unless I'm missing something).

Thanks!Hi vich

others will be able to answer - I'm pretty hopeless on hardware. Every so often I try to work my way through this and pick up a little more each time:
http://sql-server-performance.com/Community/forums/t/2337.aspx|||Let me take a stab at this and then let the experts chew me apart...

I would recommend the 3 RAID-1 volumes with a big caveat: make sure you have adequate space on the main data volume. If you don't, and you end up "spilling over" data files onto either the O/S volume or the log volume, you've negated any advantage.

Also, check your channel configuration carefully; you'd like the IO from the data LUNs on a separate channel from the IO for the log files (but definitely separate from the backup LUNs). Usually one SCSI card supports two channels, so you'll probably end up having to compromise something here.

My reasoning:

The OS volume should have the paging file; segregating the I/O for the paging file onto a separate LUN should be a plus;
Having the log files write to a RAID 1 LUN should be a plus; RAID-1 does sequential writes better (when compared to RAID-5);
Provided there's sufficient room, having a RAID-1 LUN for your data should be good; better would be to have more physical spindles for data access (ie, reads), but everything's a compromise in the end.

You did not specify where you were going to write the db backup files in the 3-drive scenario: I would probably go with the OS LUN (again, if it's big enough). Alternatively, if you're network is big enough and reliable enough (and the target is reliable enough), you can write your backups over the network. A LOT of people recommend against this (and with good reason). But if you understand the risks and you are SURE that the network is adequate and the target is reliable, then over the network backups can be a big boost in terms of space saved and IO performance.

Higher capacity drives do not directly affect IO performance. The key metrics for IO performance are RPM and latency. Indirectly however, they do have an impact. Since the new drives are higher cap, the budget guys tend to think you need fewer drives. Fewer drives means fewer spindles. Fewer spindles means slower (read) performance.

Recognizing that not every organization can afford them, I keep pushing SANs, even if it means using some of the lower end systems like the AX 1000 from EMC. Once you break into this world, you'll never want to go back.

Okay, so now everyone can rip into me and show me how ignorant I am!

Regards,

hmscott|||Okay, so now everyone can rip into me and show me how ignorant I am!I had to google LUN :o|||Sounds pretty good to me, hmscott.

In an ideal world, I would want separate spindles for the following objects split off in order of importance:
1) OS/pagefile
2) data filegroups
3) logs
4) tempdb
5) index filegroups

If you have a system that does not do a lot of writing, and mainly reading joined tables, or sorting output, items 3 and 4 invert. Reporting systems love tempdb. If you can not get 5 physical spindles, indexes collapse into the data. If you can not get 4 spindles, try to get tempdb in with the transaction logs. If you only have 2 spindles, hope you have a lightly used system.

Tempdb and transaction logs like having mirror arrays. Data/index filegroups can live with RAID 5, since the write I/O is asynchronous.

EDIT: Cleared up some of the ambiguous pasages.|||Coo - why would you make logs a higher priority on a read heavy system?|||DOH! I renumbered things when I added OS. That should be that tempdb and logs invert, not datafiles and logs invert. Perhaps I should do some editing...|||Sounds pretty good to me, hmscott.

In an ideal world, I would want separate spindles for the following objects split off in order of importance:
1) OS/pagefile
2) data filegroups
3) logs
4) tempdb
5) index filegroups

If you have a system that does not do a lot of writing, and mainly reading joined tables, or sorting output, items 3 and 4 invert. Reporting systems love tempdb. If you can not get 5 physical spindles, indexes collapse into the data. If you can not get 4 spindles, try to get tempdb in with the transaction logs. If you only have 2 spindles, hope you have a lightly used system.

Tempdb and transaction logs like having mirror arrays. Data/index filegroups can live with RAID 5, since the write I/O is asynchronous.

EDIT: Cleared up some of the ambiguous pasages.Great info. Thanks.

So; would I be correct to interpret this as ... having separate spindles for logs + tempdb (ie: 3 spindles rather than just two) should take precedence over putting RAID5 on the Data?

Also; for heavy reporting (I think that's my environment) you clearly say that putting TempDB on a separate spindle is better. But should the Log collapse onto the DB (+ Index) or TempDB spindle? Of any given hour; I would say that only 10 minutes of it actually has a report running somewhere in background. Most of those reports are heavy index users that do not do sorts (Crystal Reports does the sorting - separate processor) so I don't think they use TempDB much. Is there a stock-software simple way to analyze TempDB activity vs. Log activity? My thinking is to combine TempDB and Log files.

I should note: Although we run a fair number of report queries, the non-reporting aspect of the system is more performance critical. Users here wouldn't notice a 100% gain in reporting speed but would find a 200% update / random access slow-down unacceptable.

Your wording almost implies that you don't mind putting Data on a mirror if space allows. My DB is relatively tiny (3GB) so mirrored 72GB drives would be ample. I thought striping actually added performance, albeit hampered by extra processing so only applicable if it's an adequate controller, ergo the popular recommendation of RAID-0 on speed hungry systems not requiring fault tolerance (hard to imagine). Are you saying it's a minor consideration compared with the advantage of spindle separation?

Note: As a humble suggestion, in a high budget system; wouldn't you make a 6th spindle for the OS's swap file? It could be small and cheap, but placing it with the OS would thrash some. Having it's own dedicated spindle would keep the heads in one place and, since it's like-memory storage, it should be as fast as humanly possible.|||If the users are willing to pay the extra $X,000 dollars for the extra spindle, I would certainly not mind using it. Part of this job, however, is to deliver maximum performance at minimum cost. If the existing system shows no signs of disk queues, then most of this is moot. At 3GB most of this database is going to fit in memory, especially if only the last 2 weeks of data are accessed 90% of the time.|||If the users are willing to pay the extra $X,000 dollars for the extra spindle, I would certainly not mind using it. Part of this job, however, is to deliver maximum performance at minimum cost. If the existing system shows no signs of disk queues, then most of this is moot. At 3GB most of this database is going to fit in memory, especially if only the last 2 weeks of data are accessed 90% of the time.
Thanks. They don't mind paying $2.5K for 4 new disks ($650 ea) and $700 for two 1GB RAM sticks. It'll make this box last until next year. It's a safety net for the largely unknown extra load of upcoming MRP - going live next month, and for a $30M company, really, $3K is nothing for a little insurance. They could easily pay the $30K for a new box if it were warranted, but it's not. The larger expense is drawing my time from my larger project, MRP Implementation.

Lots of other hardware boost paths make more sense, but this is the easiest (I think).

My hardware guy will do the actual upgrade. The day before, I'll simply move the DB from E: drive (the RAID 5 volume) to D: drive (Mirrored volume shared by D and C: drives). It'll be a little slow for a day. If it's a disaster; I'll take it down and move back (15 minutes). Then, the next evening (Friday night) he can remove the RAID 5 volume and rebuild those 4 bays however I request.

That box's backplane only has 6 disk bays.

I can either have one 4-disk RAID 5 volume or two RAID 1 volumes.

So; the question on this thread is which one?

With more memory (4GB) plus the boot.ine 3GB switch on; you have a good point that (for the time being) nearly all of the popular pages will always be in memory. So; (DB writes being asynchronous), having slower DB drives will be fine.

Since, in an effort to keep this risk free and simple, we are NOT upgrading the OS volume (C/D), if I go with just a single RAID-5 volume, the more time-critical (synchronous) LOG files will still be on the slower volume.

Going the 3-RAID1-volume route; for the shorter more ongoing index-heavy random IO I'm gambling that they'll usually be using in-memory-pages since the short random reads is where striped volumes help (correct? still fuzzy for me).

Solution 2 is to migrate the DB to our Standy Server, a non-production machine (I use for development). It's the same model (IBM x235) but by a fluke it has 2 processors that are faster (2.6 GHz vs 2.0 GHz), and a faster backplane (although purchased only a month later, IBM had just increased the specs from 400K to 530K). But; it currently only has a single Windows Mirrored volume.

This weekend, when remoted in and fooling around with all this upgrade-option stuff, I discovered it's RAID controller isn't the one my hardware guy thought. It's the 4Lx (see link (http://www-304.ibm.com/jct01004c/systems/support/supportsite.wss/docdisplay?brandind=5000008&lndocid=MIGR-59936)), not the 6M as he thought. Huge difference! So; as of this morning, Solution 2 is looking more attractive. A new RAID controller is another $950, but this (Standby) box (with 15K drives and faster controller), should be at least a 30% overall boost. That would also leave me with a far better standby solution (the old server). Slightly more risk since the OS needs rebuilding.

However; the Standby machine also has the same 6 bay backplane. So I'm stuck with the same Volume choice.

MCrowley - I realize I'm splitting hairs here. Although it is a real upgrade exercise, it's been a wonderful opportunity to display my ignorance, and by doing so, allow some of it to evaporate. :) However; any more "thinking" on this could be considered "playing around". It's really been an education to see the parts in motion, as it were. Well; back to the Application Software side of my job here. I feel more comfortable knowing I at least won't screw things up by eliminating RAID 5. Next year; I'll add a SAS or SAN box if the MRP grinds and expands as I think it will.|||As a caution, I do feel I have to say that learning this stuff is a good thing for you to do. But knowledge, being power, can be dangerous, too (just ask the Sorcerer's Apprentice). I do not know how your shop works, but as a generalism, businesses like to talk about ROI, and results, and other such rubbish. If you spend too much money for no noticeable effect, then the budget for next year may not consider your improvement ideas. It is an almost impossible hole to dig out of, too. Think about it this way. If your doctor prescribes a bunch of pills one week, then a whole new set the next week, and a third set the third week, and you are not feeling any better, how many weeks would you maintain faith in the doctor? This is much more a matter of office politics than technical detail, so your judgment there is going to carry much more weight than I am.|||As a caution, I do feel I have to say that learning this stuff is a good thing for you to do. But knowledge, being power, can be dangerous, too (just ask the Sorcerer's Apprentice). I do not know how your shop works, but as a generalism, businesses like to talk about ROI, and results, and other such rubbish. If you spend too much money for no noticeable effect, then the budget for next year may not consider your improvement ideas. It is an almost impossible hole to dig out of, too. Think about it this way. If your doctor prescribes a bunch of pills one week, then a whole new set the next week, and a third set the third week, and you are not feeling any better, how many weeks would you maintain faith in the doctor? This is much more a matter of office politics than technical detail, so your judgment there is going to carry much more weight than I am.
Thanks. I'm taking that to mean you don't think it's warranted. From a performance standpoint, you may be right. I'm not skilled enough reading Disk performance stats to really know. The upcoming MRP implementation is the motivation. It's well into the 6 digit number already, so $4K for adding 30% to 4 year old servers seems worth the insurance.

However; I'll take your advice and go with migrating the DB to Standby Server. This solution has the added ROI of improving the realistic capability of our Standby Server solution to actually assume the production load in the event of a failure. Coupled with the extra performance (and accompanying extra capacity for Load growth), it's a true ROI. Not ROI they may see, but "they" are in tune with the fact that not all ROIs are visible.

Of course; if I "upgraded" and made things worse by eliminating RAID-5 (ergo, this thread), then I'd (rightly) have a credibility problem.

The way this shop works is that my credibility is very good so they allow me to make all IT decisions, including spending - within a set budget, but they don't hesitate to expand that budget on my say-so. In 4 years, they have never once said "no" nor questioned my word, except as clarification. I've taken that trust to heart. In return; they're very satisfied with how smoothly IT runs itself (so to speak). They happily shell out my rate and give me utmost respect. It's wonderful and I would hate to forfeit that position so safeguarding my credibility is a worthy suggestion. Still; they spend $300K+ on new manufacturing gear, trucks, etc at the drop of a hat. $4K won't even be noticed (unless it buys them grief).

Appreciate all the help.

Raid performance

Hi!
I have a 6xPIII-700 Xeon 4Gb RAM Raid1 (OS) Raid5 (6x18Gb,- data)
Raid1 (logs)
/* all hardware RAID */
The server has ULTRA3 controller with 128Mb read/write cache (50%/50%)
I have this software on the server: Win2k Adv. Server sp4 + MS SQL
2000 sp3.
The total size of databases is about 60Gb.
Recently noticed very large queue for disk on Raid5, it was about
60(Avg. Disk Queue Length counter).
At the same time the Avg. Disk Bytes/Transfer counter was 37015, that
is only 36Kb.
Is it normal or I am having something wrong configured?
These are exact numbers:
Average Minimum Maximum Duration
Avg. Disk
Queue Length 59,281 0 374,205 1:40
Avg. Disk
Bytes/Transfer 37015,042 0,000 90173,594 1:40
These are screenshots:
http://roustam.hotbox.ru/queue_length.jpg
http://roustam.hotbox.ru/disk_transfer.jpg
I guess this can be locale problem. In my locale comma ',' means
fraction, point '.' devides large numbers into 3 digit portions.
Because of mix of locales (the Win2k server is English), comma is used
for both purposes. Perhaps, in this case, the "Avg. Disk
Bytes/Transfer" counter is actualy not 37015 bytes, but 37 015 042
bytes. But "Avg. Disk Queue Length" couter is 59 on the average. This
is only a guess.
Thanks.HI all,
I encountered a problem in SQL Server. Suddenly, my SQL Server stopped and
NT event log generated the entry:
" wait_for_client_connects: Process 2892 generated fatal exception c0000005
EXCEPTION_ACCESS_VIOLATION. SQL Server is terminating this process."
Contents of Exception.log:
--
09/16/03 13:19:51 spid 0 Exception c0000005 E at 0041170b (PvODSMemalloc +
c) reading address 0000000C
09/16/03 13:19:53 spid 0 Exception c0000005 E at 41061eae (IGetFullEvent +
104) writing address 23550000
Contents of dump file:
--
****************************************************************************
**
*
*
* Exception Address = 0041170B (PvODSMemalloc + c)
* Exception Code = c0000005 E
* Access Violation occurred reading address 0000000C
*
* MODULE BASE END SIZE
* sqlservr 00400000 008bbfff 004bc000
* ntdll 77f80000 77ffafff 0007b000
* KERNEL32 77e80000 77f35fff 000b6000
* ADVAPI32 77db0000 77e0cfff 0005d000
* RPCRT4 77d30000 77d9dfff 0006e000
* USER32 77e10000 77e74fff 00065000
* GDI32 77f40000 77f7bfff 0003c000
* ole32 77a50000 77b3bfff 000ec000
* OLEAUT32 779b0000 77a4afff 0009b000
* VERSION 77820000 77826fff 00007000
* LZ32 759b0000 759b5fff 00006000
* opends60 41060000 41085fff 00026000
* ums 41090000 4109cfff 0000d000
*
* Edi: 77E87828: 15ff0424 74ff0008 c2ffffff 7ee80c24 74ff0c24 74ff006a
* Esi: 000D8CD0: 411a105a 411a1069 411a1041 411a1037 411a100a 411a1064
* Eax: 22580028: 3f800000 00000000 40989800 00000000 0000003e 00000000
* Ebx: 00000003:
* Ecx: 00000000:
* Edx: 22580028: 3f800000 00000000 40989800 00000000 0000003e 00000000
* Eip: 0041170B: 5d0409b8 660017e5 70850f00 087d8366 ec8b55c3 5d0c51ff
* Ebp: 3FCBFEEC: 22580028 41064131 00000360 22580028 410619d4 22580028
* SegCs: 0000001B:
* EFlags: 00010206: 00730079 0053005c 0054004e 004e0049 0057005c 003a0043
* Esp: 3FCBFEE4: 00000360 22580028 410619d4 22580028 00000360 22580028
* SegSs: 00000023:
****************************************************************************
***
----
--
Short Stack Dump
0x0041170b Module(sqlservr+1170b) (PvODSMemalloc+c)
0x410619d4 Module(opends60+19d4) (srv_allocMO+18)
----
--
Location : 0x0041170b Module(sqlservr+1170b) (PvODSMemalloc+c)
Return Addr: 0x410619d4 Module(opends60+19d4) (srv_allocMO+18)
Frame : 3fcbfeec
Parameters:
[1] 22580028: 3f800000 00000000 40989800 00000000 0000003e 00000000
[2] 00000360:
[3] 41064131: fe8bc033 000000d8 b9000095 fa840ff3 3b08c483 db33f08b
[4] 22580028: 3f800000 00000000 40989800 00000000 0000003e 00000000
160 bytes of stack data from 3fcbfe4c to 3fcbfeec
3fcbfe4c: 001132b0 00d70178 00d70178 7ffafbf8 [.2..x...x......]
3fcbfe5c: 00000000 3f730000 00000404 75021166 [.....s?...f..u]
3fcbfe6c: 00102800 7502119d 74fd7560 000003fc [.(....u`u.t...]
3fcbfe7c: 000003f8 000000d4 00000000 00000000 [............]
3fcbfe8c: 000bd6d8 00000048 3fbbf28c 74fd75f5 [...H.....?.u.t]
3fcbfe9c: 00103ca0 000d8d1c 00103830 000db208 [.<.....08.....]
3fcbfeac: 75021100 00000005 75021100 00000000 [...u......u...]
3fcbfebc: 00000000 000bd6d8 00d70178 00d70178 [......x...x...]
3fcbfecc: 00d70178 00d70178 00103830 000d8d1c [x...x...08.....]
3fcbfedc: 000d8d0c 00000000 22580028 00000360 [......(.X"`...]
----
--
Location : 0x410619d4 Module(opends60+19d4) (srv_allocMO+18)
Return Addr: 0x41064131 Module(opends60+4131) (int_InitSrvProc+1c)
Frame : 3fcbfef8
Parameters:
[1] 22580028: 3f800000 00000000 40989800 00000000 0000003e 00000000
[2] 00000360:
[3] 77E87828: 15ff0424 74ff0008 c2ffffff 7ee80c24 74ff0c24 74ff006a
[4] 000D8CD0: 411a105a 411a1069 411a1041 411a1037 411a100a 411a1064
12 bytes of stack data from 3fcbfeec to 3fcbfef8
3fcbfeec: 22580028 410619d4 22580028 [(.X"...A(.X"]
..........
..........
..........
----
--
Dump thread - spid = 1, PSS = 0x1f82a084, EC = 0x1f82a234
Short Stack Dump
0x77f83786 Module(ntdll+3786) (NtWaitForSingleObject+b)
0x41092d0b Module(ums+2d0b) (UmsThreadScheduler::Switch+56)
0x41091775 Module(ums+1775) (UmsScheduler::Suspend+b2)
0x004c4e6f Module(sqlservr+c4e6f) (GlobalTskMgrProc+14a)
0x41092be1 Module(ums+2be1) (ProcessWorkRequests+ed)
0x4109336a Module(ums+336a) (ThreadStartRoutine+139)
Unable to get thread context for spid 7
Unable to get thread context for spid 8
Any details on this will be more helpful.
Thanks,
Balaji Ragupathi|||Has a Service Pack or HotFix just been applied to the SQL Server...? I
recall a problem post SP install which sounds very similar to what your
experiencing.
--
HTH
Ryan Waight, MCDBA, MCSE
"Balaji Ragupathi" <balajir@.rajasri.com> wrote in message
news:eNDOVTQfDHA.1712@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> HI all,
> I encountered a problem in SQL Server. Suddenly, my SQL Server stopped and
> NT event log generated the entry:
> " wait_for_client_connects: Process 2892 generated fatal exception
c0000005
> EXCEPTION_ACCESS_VIOLATION. SQL Server is terminating this process."
> Contents of Exception.log:
> --
> 09/16/03 13:19:51 spid 0 Exception c0000005 E at 0041170b (PvODSMemalloc +
> c) reading address 0000000C
> 09/16/03 13:19:53 spid 0 Exception c0000005 E at 41061eae (IGetFullEvent +
> 104) writing address 23550000
> Contents of dump file:
> --
>
****************************************************************************
> **
> *
> *
> * Exception Address = 0041170B (PvODSMemalloc + c)
> * Exception Code = c0000005 E
> * Access Violation occurred reading address 0000000C
> *
> * MODULE BASE END SIZE
> * sqlservr 00400000 008bbfff 004bc000
> * ntdll 77f80000 77ffafff 0007b000
> * KERNEL32 77e80000 77f35fff 000b6000
> * ADVAPI32 77db0000 77e0cfff 0005d000
> * RPCRT4 77d30000 77d9dfff 0006e000
> * USER32 77e10000 77e74fff 00065000
> * GDI32 77f40000 77f7bfff 0003c000
> * ole32 77a50000 77b3bfff 000ec000
> * OLEAUT32 779b0000 77a4afff 0009b000
> * VERSION 77820000 77826fff 00007000
> * LZ32 759b0000 759b5fff 00006000
> * opends60 41060000 41085fff 00026000
> * ums 41090000 4109cfff 0000d000
> *
> * Edi: 77E87828: 15ff0424 74ff0008 c2ffffff 7ee80c24 74ff0c24 74ff006a
> * Esi: 000D8CD0: 411a105a 411a1069 411a1041 411a1037 411a100a 411a1064
> * Eax: 22580028: 3f800000 00000000 40989800 00000000 0000003e 00000000
> * Ebx: 00000003:
> * Ecx: 00000000:
> * Edx: 22580028: 3f800000 00000000 40989800 00000000 0000003e 00000000
> * Eip: 0041170B: 5d0409b8 660017e5 70850f00 087d8366 ec8b55c3 5d0c51ff
> * Ebp: 3FCBFEEC: 22580028 41064131 00000360 22580028 410619d4 22580028
> * SegCs: 0000001B:
> * EFlags: 00010206: 00730079 0053005c 0054004e 004e0049 0057005c 003a0043
> * Esp: 3FCBFEE4: 00000360 22580028 410619d4 22580028 00000360 22580028
> * SegSs: 00000023:
>
****************************************************************************
> ***
> ----
--
> --
> Short Stack Dump
> 0x0041170b Module(sqlservr+1170b) (PvODSMemalloc+c)
> 0x410619d4 Module(opends60+19d4) (srv_allocMO+18)
> ----
--
> --
> Location : 0x0041170b Module(sqlservr+1170b) (PvODSMemalloc+c)
> Return Addr: 0x410619d4 Module(opends60+19d4) (srv_allocMO+18)
> Frame : 3fcbfeec
> Parameters:
> [1] 22580028: 3f800000 00000000 40989800 00000000 0000003e 00000000
> [2] 00000360:
> [3] 41064131: fe8bc033 000000d8 b9000095 fa840ff3 3b08c483 db33f08b
> [4] 22580028: 3f800000 00000000 40989800 00000000 0000003e 00000000
> 160 bytes of stack data from 3fcbfe4c to 3fcbfeec
> 3fcbfe4c: 001132b0 00d70178 00d70178 7ffafbf8 [.2..x...x......]
> 3fcbfe5c: 00000000 3f730000 00000404 75021166 [.....s?...f..u]
> 3fcbfe6c: 00102800 7502119d 74fd7560 000003fc [.(....u`u.t...]
> 3fcbfe7c: 000003f8 000000d4 00000000 00000000 [............]
> 3fcbfe8c: 000bd6d8 00000048 3fbbf28c 74fd75f5 [...H.....?.u.t]
> 3fcbfe9c: 00103ca0 000d8d1c 00103830 000db208 [.<.....08.....]
> 3fcbfeac: 75021100 00000005 75021100 00000000 [...u......u...]
> 3fcbfebc: 00000000 000bd6d8 00d70178 00d70178 [......x...x...]
> 3fcbfecc: 00d70178 00d70178 00103830 000d8d1c [x...x...08.....]
> 3fcbfedc: 000d8d0c 00000000 22580028 00000360 [......(.X"`...]
> ----
--
> --
> Location : 0x410619d4 Module(opends60+19d4) (srv_allocMO+18)
> Return Addr: 0x41064131 Module(opends60+4131) (int_InitSrvProc+1c)
> Frame : 3fcbfef8
> Parameters:
> [1] 22580028: 3f800000 00000000 40989800 00000000 0000003e 00000000
> [2] 00000360:
> [3] 77E87828: 15ff0424 74ff0008 c2ffffff 7ee80c24 74ff0c24 74ff006a
> [4] 000D8CD0: 411a105a 411a1069 411a1041 411a1037 411a100a 411a1064
> 12 bytes of stack data from 3fcbfeec to 3fcbfef8
> 3fcbfeec: 22580028 410619d4 22580028 [(.X"...A(.X"]
> ..........
> ..........
> ..........
> ----
--
> --
> Dump thread - spid = 1, PSS = 0x1f82a084, EC = 0x1f82a234
> Short Stack Dump
> 0x77f83786 Module(ntdll+3786) (NtWaitForSingleObject+b)
> 0x41092d0b Module(ums+2d0b) (UmsThreadScheduler::Switch+56)
> 0x41091775 Module(ums+1775) (UmsScheduler::Suspend+b2)
> 0x004c4e6f Module(sqlservr+c4e6f) (GlobalTskMgrProc+14a)
> 0x41092be1 Module(ums+2be1) (ProcessWorkRequests+ed)
> 0x4109336a Module(ums+336a) (ThreadStartRoutine+139)
> Unable to get thread context for spid 7
> Unable to get thread context for spid 8
>
> Any details on this will be more helpful.
> Thanks,
> Balaji Ragupathi
>
>|||I am not sure if the comma is for decimals or not but in either case you
have a disk bottle neck. What is the percentage of reads to writes? You
can monitor disk % for both of these. My guess would be the writes and you
may want to change the controllers cache to be 100% write back and 0% for
read. Sql server does a good job of caching the data for reads and with a
write intensive app you want a lot of write back cache.
Andrew J. Kelly
SQL Server MVP
"Roust_m" <roustam@.hotbox.ru> wrote in message
news:a388fd78.0309170130.5ad407b4@.posting.google.com...
> Hi!
> I have a 6xPIII-700 Xeon 4Gb RAM Raid1 (OS) Raid5 (6x18Gb,- data)
> Raid1 (logs)
> /* all hardware RAID */
> The server has ULTRA3 controller with 128Mb read/write cache (50%/50%)
> I have this software on the server: Win2k Adv. Server sp4 + MS SQL
> 2000 sp3.
> The total size of databases is about 60Gb.
> Recently noticed very large queue for disk on Raid5, it was about
> 60(Avg. Disk Queue Length counter).
> At the same time the Avg. Disk Bytes/Transfer counter was 37015, that
> is only 36Kb.
> Is it normal or I am having something wrong configured?
> These are exact numbers:
> Average Minimum Maximum Duration
> Avg. Disk
> Queue Length 59,281 0 374,205 1:40
> Avg. Disk
> Bytes/Transfer 37015,042 0,000 90173,594 1:40
> These are screenshots:
> http://roustam.hotbox.ru/queue_length.jpg
> http://roustam.hotbox.ru/disk_transfer.jpg
> I guess this can be locale problem. In my locale comma ',' means
> fraction, point '.' devides large numbers into 3 digit portions.
> Because of mix of locales (the Win2k server is English), comma is used
> for both purposes. Perhaps, in this case, the "Avg. Disk
> Bytes/Transfer" counter is actualy not 37015 bytes, but 37 015 042
> bytes. But "Avg. Disk Queue Length" couter is 59 on the average. This
> is only a guess.
>
> Thanks.|||disk queue length should be less than 2 per disk/spindle.
also check avg. disk sec/read which should be in single
digits.
>--Original Message--
>Hi!
>I have a 6xPIII-700 Xeon 4Gb RAM Raid1 (OS) Raid5
(6x18Gb,- data)
>Raid1 (logs)
>/* all hardware RAID */
>The server has ULTRA3 controller with 128Mb read/write
cache (50%/50%)
>I have this software on the server: Win2k Adv. Server sp4
+ MS SQL
>2000 sp3.
>The total size of databases is about 60Gb.
>Recently noticed very large queue for disk on Raid5, it
was about
>60(Avg. Disk Queue Length counter).
>At the same time the Avg. Disk Bytes/Transfer counter was
37015, that
>is only 36Kb.
>Is it normal or I am having something wrong configured?
>These are exact numbers:
> Average Minimum
Maximum Duration
>Avg. Disk
>Queue Length 59,281 0
374,205 1:40
>Avg. Disk
>Bytes/Transfer 37015,042 0,000
90173,594 1:40
>These are screenshots:
>http://roustam.hotbox.ru/queue_length.jpg
>http://roustam.hotbox.ru/disk_transfer.jpg
>I guess this can be locale problem. In my locale
comma ',' means
>fraction, point '.' devides large numbers into 3 digit
portions.
>Because of mix of locales (the Win2k server is English),
comma is used
>for both purposes. Perhaps, in this case, the "Avg. Disk
>Bytes/Transfer" counter is actualy not 37015 bytes, but
37 015 042
>bytes. But "Avg. Disk Queue Length" couter is 59 on the
average. This
>is only a guess.
>
>Thanks.
>.
>sql

Raid 10 and SQL

Are there any significant performance issues between running raid 5 verses
raid 10
with equal hardware configurations?. Thanks for being there to help, you
people have been life-savers.
Hi
Check out SQL Server 2000 Performance Tuning Technical Reference ISBN
0-7356-1270-6
There is a performance gain from Raid 10, this has to be taken into the
context of the system as a whole and what loads it will be under.
John
"coenzyme" wrote:

> Are there any significant performance issues between running raid 5 verses
> raid 10
> with equal hardware configurations?. Thanks for being there to help, you
> people have been life-savers.
>
|||Yes for sure..
Only think i can say that cost is high with RAID 10 but for performance it's
great..
"coenzyme" wrote:

> Are there any significant performance issues between running raid 5 verses
> raid 10
> with equal hardware configurations?. Thanks for being there to help, you
> people have been life-savers.
>
|||in most cases, yes.
I think I have read articles that suggest anything over 10% Writes you
should get off of RAID 5
Greg Jackson
PDX, Oregon
|||We found that RAID10 was over twice as fast when used for our database dump
volume as compared to RAID5. Not to mention that RAID10 is significantly
more tolerant of disk failures.
Mike Kruchten
"coenzyme" <coenzyme@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:74B28604-FE4A-4553-B134-269A3E6FBD1F@.microsoft.com...
> Are there any significant performance issues between running raid 5 verses
> raid 10
> with equal hardware configurations?. Thanks for being there to help, you
> people have been life-savers.
>
|||Check out what this site has to say about Raid 5:
http://www.baarf.com/
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"coenzyme" <coenzyme@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:74B28604-FE4A-4553-B134-269A3E6FBD1F@.microsoft.com...
> Are there any significant performance issues between running raid 5 verses
> raid 10
> with equal hardware configurations?. Thanks for being there to help, you
> people have been life-savers.
>

Raid 10 and SQL

Are there any significant performance issues between running raid 5 verses
raid 10
with equal hardware configurations?. Thanks for being there to help, you
people have been life-savers.Yes for sure..
Only think i can say that cost is high with RAID 10 but for performance it's
great..
"coenzyme" wrote:
> Are there any significant performance issues between running raid 5 verses
> raid 10
> with equal hardware configurations?. Thanks for being there to help, you
> people have been life-savers.
>|||Hi
Check out SQL Server 2000 Performance Tuning Technical Reference ISBN
0-7356-1270-6
There is a performance gain from Raid 10, this has to be taken into the
context of the system as a whole and what loads it will be under.
John
"coenzyme" wrote:
> Are there any significant performance issues between running raid 5 verses
> raid 10
> with equal hardware configurations?. Thanks for being there to help, you
> people have been life-savers.
>|||in most cases, yes.
I think I have read articles that suggest anything over 10% Writes you
should get off of RAID 5
Greg Jackson
PDX, Oregon|||We found that RAID10 was over twice as fast when used for our database dump
volume as compared to RAID5. Not to mention that RAID10 is significantly
more tolerant of disk failures.
Mike Kruchten
"coenzyme" <coenzyme@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:74B28604-FE4A-4553-B134-269A3E6FBD1F@.microsoft.com...
> Are there any significant performance issues between running raid 5 verses
> raid 10
> with equal hardware configurations?. Thanks for being there to help, you
> people have been life-savers.
>|||Check out what this site has to say about Raid 5:
http://www.baarf.com/
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"coenzyme" <coenzyme@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:74B28604-FE4A-4553-B134-269A3E6FBD1F@.microsoft.com...
> Are there any significant performance issues between running raid 5 verses
> raid 10
> with equal hardware configurations?. Thanks for being there to help, you
> people have been life-savers.
>

Raid 10 and SQL

Are there any significant performance issues between running raid 5 verses
raid 10
with equal hardware configurations?. Thanks for being there to help, you
people have been life-savers.Hi
Check out SQL Server 2000 Performance Tuning Technical Reference ISBN
0-7356-1270-6
There is a performance gain from Raid 10, this has to be taken into the
context of the system as a whole and what loads it will be under.
John
"coenzyme" wrote:

> Are there any significant performance issues between running raid 5 verses
> raid 10
> with equal hardware configurations?. Thanks for being there to help, you
> people have been life-savers.
>|||Yes for sure..
Only think i can say that cost is high with RAID 10 but for performance it's
great..
"coenzyme" wrote:

> Are there any significant performance issues between running raid 5 verses
> raid 10
> with equal hardware configurations?. Thanks for being there to help, you
> people have been life-savers.
>|||in most cases, yes.
I think I have read articles that suggest anything over 10% Writes you
should get off of RAID 5
Greg Jackson
PDX, Oregon|||We found that RAID10 was over twice as fast when used for our database dump
volume as compared to RAID5. Not to mention that RAID10 is significantly
more tolerant of disk failures.
Mike Kruchten
"coenzyme" <coenzyme@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:74B28604-FE4A-4553-B134-269A3E6FBD1F@.microsoft.com...
> Are there any significant performance issues between running raid 5 verses
> raid 10
> with equal hardware configurations?. Thanks for being there to help, you
> people have been life-savers.
>|||Check out what this site has to say about Raid 5:
http://www.baarf.com/
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"coenzyme" <coenzyme@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:74B28604-FE4A-4553-B134-269A3E6FBD1F@.microsoft.com...
> Are there any significant performance issues between running raid 5 verses
> raid 10
> with equal hardware configurations?. Thanks for being there to help, you
> people have been life-savers.
>

questions on recovery (zero day for me, wrapping up recovery)

I lost a whole server (was windows 2000 sp4 with sql server 2000 sp3).
Restored from backup on new server hardware (new idently as far as domain
goes also, did not bring back old server's identity).
Luckily I had a full backup from just the day before. I setup new server
(w2k3 r2 sp2) and installed sql server 2000 sp3. I was using simple recovery
model with just 1 full backup every day (fine for our needs) and so it was a
simple full restore from backup device (file). Completed, no problems. All
user data appears to be there and custom client application seems to be
working fine so far with it today (after updating ODBC config to reflect new
server and refreshing the linked tables in the Access front end mdb file)
1) so from here I'm not sure if I should restore my backups of the system
databases (master, msdb)? In my situation, the front end app just uses one
sql user account (via odbc connection), so recreating and assigning the one
user permissions was no problem (thats what I did). I didn't have any custom
system or user error messages, and wasn't using any linked servers. Users
are already using the system for 1/2 day now without any issues. Also, as
far as msdb, I don't mind creating new backup devices and a new maintenance
plan for this restored database. My backups of these system databases are
about 1 year old. I'm afraid I may cause a problem by restoring these... '
any input on this would be GREATLY appreciated. Just leave it be? is there
something I am overlooking on the need to restore these system databases in
*my* scenario?
2) REPLICATION: also, along the same lines, I'm not sure if I should restore
my distribution database for the merge replication that was on the old
server, or just recreate instead? Again, this backup is about 1 year old.
I'm wondering if it would be simpler/better for me to just recreate from
scratch? In fact it just occurred to me that I need to change to
transactional replication anyway (if I got the term right, its been a while
since I setup replication) because the requirement changed from 2 way
synching to just 1-way recently anyway. I have all the most recent user data
on my end to setup new. Will I have issues with this due to traces of the
old replication in my database? do I need to clean up first? or just create
new?
all in all, as far as I can tell to this point, we have lost zero user data,
which is all my DR plan really set out to do. I planned on having a day of
downtime to rebuild a server if this happened, and as luck would have it, it
happened on a sunday so the company experienced no down time. So what I'm
hoping is that what I've done is fine, and that I don't need to restore the
system databases or distribustion databases, and that instead, I just need
to re-do some configs. yes/no?
sorry so long.David,
You system setup seems very simple. Is this is infact true, by creating the
user account manually and recreating backup/maintenance jobs, you no longer
need to worry about restoring master or MSDB. For future reference, I would
include these DBs in my backup plan though.
"David" <nospam@.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:%23vaaqqNFIHA.1324@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>I lost a whole server (was windows 2000 sp4 with sql server 2000 sp3).
>Restored from backup on new server hardware (new idently as far as domain
>goes also, did not bring back old server's identity).
> Luckily I had a full backup from just the day before. I setup new server
> (w2k3 r2 sp2) and installed sql server 2000 sp3. I was using simple
> recovery model with just 1 full backup every day (fine for our needs) and
> so it was a simple full restore from backup device (file). Completed, no
> problems. All user data appears to be there and custom client application
> seems to be working fine so far with it today (after updating ODBC config
> to reflect new server and refreshing the linked tables in the Access front
> end mdb file)
> 1) so from here I'm not sure if I should restore my backups of the system
> databases (master, msdb)? In my situation, the front end app just uses one
> sql user account (via odbc connection), so recreating and assigning the
> one user permissions was no problem (thats what I did). I didn't have any
> custom system or user error messages, and wasn't using any linked servers.
> Users are already using the system for 1/2 day now without any issues.
> Also, as far as msdb, I don't mind creating new backup devices and a new
> maintenance plan for this restored database. My backups of these system
> databases are about 1 year old. I'm afraid I may cause a problem by
> restoring these... ' any input on this would be GREATLY appreciated. Just
> leave it be? is there something I am overlooking on the need to restore
> these system databases in *my* scenario?
>
> 2) REPLICATION: also, along the same lines, I'm not sure if I should
> restore my distribution database for the merge replication that was on the
> old server, or just recreate instead? Again, this backup is about 1 year
> old. I'm wondering if it would be simpler/better for me to just recreate
> from scratch? In fact it just occurred to me that I need to change to
> transactional replication anyway (if I got the term right, its been a
> while since I setup replication) because the requirement changed from 2
> way synching to just 1-way recently anyway. I have all the most recent
> user data on my end to setup new. Will I have issues with this due to
> traces of the old replication in my database? do I need to clean up first?
> or just create new?
> all in all, as far as I can tell to this point, we have lost zero user
> data, which is all my DR plan really set out to do. I planned on having a
> day of downtime to rebuild a server if this happened, and as luck would
> have it, it happened on a sunday so the company experienced no down time.
> So what I'm hoping is that what I've done is fine, and that I don't need
> to restore the system databases or distribustion databases, and that
> instead, I just need to re-do some configs. yes/no?
> sorry so long.
>|||I agree with Dragon: you seem to be fine.
You might want to study the system tables in the system databases on a 2000 install as well as Books
Online. They can give you some extra hints on what information are stored in system databases so you
can pick it up in case you forgot about it (like sp_configure setting as an example).
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
"David" <nospam@.nospam.com> wrote in message news:%23vaaqqNFIHA.1324@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>I lost a whole server (was windows 2000 sp4 with sql server 2000 sp3). Restored from backup on new
>server hardware (new idently as far as domain goes also, did not bring back old server's identity).
> Luckily I had a full backup from just the day before. I setup new server (w2k3 r2 sp2) and
> installed sql server 2000 sp3. I was using simple recovery model with just 1 full backup every day
> (fine for our needs) and so it was a simple full restore from backup device (file). Completed, no
> problems. All user data appears to be there and custom client application seems to be working fine
> so far with it today (after updating ODBC config to reflect new server and refreshing the linked
> tables in the Access front end mdb file)
> 1) so from here I'm not sure if I should restore my backups of the system databases (master,
> msdb)? In my situation, the front end app just uses one sql user account (via odbc connection), so
> recreating and assigning the one user permissions was no problem (thats what I did). I didn't have
> any custom system or user error messages, and wasn't using any linked servers. Users are already
> using the system for 1/2 day now without any issues. Also, as far as msdb, I don't mind creating
> new backup devices and a new maintenance plan for this restored database. My backups of these
> system databases are about 1 year old. I'm afraid I may cause a problem by restoring these... '
> any input on this would be GREATLY appreciated. Just leave it be? is there something I am
> overlooking on the need to restore these system databases in *my* scenario?
>
> 2) REPLICATION: also, along the same lines, I'm not sure if I should restore my distribution
> database for the merge replication that was on the old server, or just recreate instead? Again,
> this backup is about 1 year old. I'm wondering if it would be simpler/better for me to just
> recreate from scratch? In fact it just occurred to me that I need to change to transactional
> replication anyway (if I got the term right, its been a while since I setup replication) because
> the requirement changed from 2 way synching to just 1-way recently anyway. I have all the most
> recent user data on my end to setup new. Will I have issues with this due to traces of the old
> replication in my database? do I need to clean up first? or just create new?
> all in all, as far as I can tell to this point, we have lost zero user data, which is all my DR
> plan really set out to do. I planned on having a day of downtime to rebuild a server if this
> happened, and as luck would have it, it happened on a sunday so the company experienced no down
> time. So what I'm hoping is that what I've done is fine, and that I don't need to restore the
> system databases or distribustion databases, and that instead, I just need to re-do some configs.
> yes/no?
> sorry so long.
>|||thanks. I appreciate it.
"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in
message news:0231D4CD-9B7A-47B1-BF27-131FB29400C0@.microsoft.com...
>I agree with Dragon: you seem to be fine.
> You might want to study the system tables in the system databases on a
> 2000 install as well as Books Online. They can give you some extra hints
> on what information are stored in system databases so you can pick it up
> in case you forgot about it (like sp_configure setting as an example).
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
>
> "David" <nospam@.nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:%23vaaqqNFIHA.1324@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>I lost a whole server (was windows 2000 sp4 with sql server 2000 sp3).
>>Restored from backup on new server hardware (new idently as far as domain
>>goes also, did not bring back old server's identity).
>> Luckily I had a full backup from just the day before. I setup new server
>> (w2k3 r2 sp2) and installed sql server 2000 sp3. I was using simple
>> recovery model with just 1 full backup every day (fine for our needs) and
>> so it was a simple full restore from backup device (file). Completed, no
>> problems. All user data appears to be there and custom client application
>> seems to be working fine so far with it today (after updating ODBC config
>> to reflect new server and refreshing the linked tables in the Access
>> front end mdb file)
>> 1) so from here I'm not sure if I should restore my backups of the system
>> databases (master, msdb)? In my situation, the front end app just uses
>> one sql user account (via odbc connection), so recreating and assigning
>> the one user permissions was no problem (thats what I did). I didn't have
>> any custom system or user error messages, and wasn't using any linked
>> servers. Users are already using the system for 1/2 day now without any
>> issues. Also, as far as msdb, I don't mind creating new backup devices
>> and a new maintenance plan for this restored database. My backups of
>> these system databases are about 1 year old. I'm afraid I may cause a
>> problem by restoring these... ' any input on this would be GREATLY
>> appreciated. Just leave it be? is there something I am overlooking on the
>> need to restore these system databases in *my* scenario?
>>
>> 2) REPLICATION: also, along the same lines, I'm not sure if I should
>> restore my distribution database for the merge replication that was on
>> the old server, or just recreate instead? Again, this backup is about 1
>> year old. I'm wondering if it would be simpler/better for me to just
>> recreate from scratch? In fact it just occurred to me that I need to
>> change to transactional replication anyway (if I got the term right, its
>> been a while since I setup replication) because the requirement changed
>> from 2 way synching to just 1-way recently anyway. I have all the most
>> recent user data on my end to setup new. Will I have issues with this due
>> to traces of the old replication in my database? do I need to clean up
>> first? or just create new?
>> all in all, as far as I can tell to this point, we have lost zero user
>> data, which is all my DR plan really set out to do. I planned on having a
>> day of downtime to rebuild a server if this happened, and as luck would
>> have it, it happened on a sunday so the company experienced no down time.
>> So what I'm hoping is that what I've done is fine, and that I don't need
>> to restore the system databases or distribustion databases, and that
>> instead, I just need to re-do some configs. yes/no?
>> sorry so long.
>|||thanks. I appreciate it.
"Dragon" <noSpam_baadil@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:On$CWTOFIHA.4880@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> David,
> You system setup seems very simple. Is this is infact true, by creating
> the user account manually and recreating backup/maintenance jobs, you no
> longer need to worry about restoring master or MSDB. For future reference,
> I would include these DBs in my backup plan though.
>
> "David" <nospam@.nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:%23vaaqqNFIHA.1324@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>I lost a whole server (was windows 2000 sp4 with sql server 2000 sp3).
>>Restored from backup on new server hardware (new idently as far as domain
>>goes also, did not bring back old server's identity).
>> Luckily I had a full backup from just the day before. I setup new server
>> (w2k3 r2 sp2) and installed sql server 2000 sp3. I was using simple
>> recovery model with just 1 full backup every day (fine for our needs) and
>> so it was a simple full restore from backup device (file). Completed, no
>> problems. All user data appears to be there and custom client application
>> seems to be working fine so far with it today (after updating ODBC config
>> to reflect new server and refreshing the linked tables in the Access
>> front end mdb file)
>> 1) so from here I'm not sure if I should restore my backups of the system
>> databases (master, msdb)? In my situation, the front end app just uses
>> one sql user account (via odbc connection), so recreating and assigning
>> the one user permissions was no problem (thats what I did). I didn't have
>> any custom system or user error messages, and wasn't using any linked
>> servers. Users are already using the system for 1/2 day now without any
>> issues. Also, as far as msdb, I don't mind creating new backup devices
>> and a new maintenance plan for this restored database. My backups of
>> these system databases are about 1 year old. I'm afraid I may cause a
>> problem by restoring these... ' any input on this would be GREATLY
>> appreciated. Just leave it be? is there something I am overlooking on the
>> need to restore these system databases in *my* scenario?
>>
>> 2) REPLICATION: also, along the same lines, I'm not sure if I should
>> restore my distribution database for the merge replication that was on
>> the old server, or just recreate instead? Again, this backup is about 1
>> year old. I'm wondering if it would be simpler/better for me to just
>> recreate from scratch? In fact it just occurred to me that I need to
>> change to transactional replication anyway (if I got the term right, its
>> been a while since I setup replication) because the requirement changed
>> from 2 way synching to just 1-way recently anyway. I have all the most
>> recent user data on my end to setup new. Will I have issues with this due
>> to traces of the old replication in my database? do I need to clean up
>> first? or just create new?
>> all in all, as far as I can tell to this point, we have lost zero user
>> data, which is all my DR plan really set out to do. I planned on having a
>> day of downtime to rebuild a server if this happened, and as luck would
>> have it, it happened on a sunday so the company experienced no down time.
>> So what I'm hoping is that what I've done is fine, and that I don't need
>> to restore the system databases or distribustion databases, and that
>> instead, I just need to re-do some configs. yes/no?
>> sorry so long.
>