How many users you have connected to sql server?

-----Original Message-----
From: mdefnet
[mailto:mssqldba-ezmlmshield-x20583642.[Email address protected]
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 12:59 PM
To: LazyDBA.com Discussion
Subject: performance thresholds

We are running a SQL Server that is generally running at an average of 50%
CPU utilization and that has me somewhat concerned. It will sometimes
crater to 10-15% (and lower) and sometimes swells to 80% (sometimes even
more, but generally not). It generally follows a sine wave pattern between
30 and 70%. It is running on a Compaq DL380G3 running W2K3 Enterprise
Edition, SQL Server 2000 SP3a, 6GB of memory, SQL Server itself is installed
on drive C:, the two user databases and logs share drive D: which is RAID-5
on 4x146GB drives, and 2 physical 3.08GHz CPUs (that appear as four to the
OS and SQL Server ... I was told the two virtual CPUs are the same as
physical ones). It never does memory pages, and the avg. disk queue length
is almost always under 1. The databases are both about 10GB in size with
5GB of logs each so there is a lot of open disk space.



Does the CPU utilization sound too high? I don't know what comprises a
reasonable threshold for a SQL Server-based server. The primary reason I am
asking is that the developers are stating they are getting frequent
timeouts. Should the log files be put on a separate drive array? I've read
that the log files should be physically separated from the data files and
the recommendation is RAID-5 for the DB and RAID-10 for the logs. Is this
overkill?



Any thoughts or recommendations are greatly appreciated. Or am I concerned
for no reason?



Mike









---------------------------------------------------------------------
TO REPLY TO EVERBODY , PLEASE CLICK REPLY-ALL, NOT JUST REPLY
Website : http://www.LazyDBA.com
To unsubscribe: http://www.lazydba.com/unsubscribe.html
For additional commands, e-mail: mssqldba-[Email address protected]

MS Sql Server LazyDBA home page