Multiple Databases on SQL

I'm a SQL newbie, so please be kind. I have just recently installed SQL as a
part of a new accounting/project management/CRM app that is Very Important to
the company. It's performance is vital. I want to install an email archiving
solution which uses SQL as the backend, but I'm wondering what sort of
performance hit SQL takes when you start loading databases on it.
It is SQL 2005 on a Server 2003 (32-bit) machine (Proliant DL380 G4, 1 Xeon
3Ghz proc, 4 GB RAM. I was told that SQL is not multi threaded, so adding
processors wouldn't improve performance. Is that true? How much load can SQL
stand before showing performance degradation? What should I look for on the
server? Processor cycles, disk reads? IS this an adequate machine for running
the two apps I describe? We are a 125 person company with our own Exchange
server.
Thanks for any info that's forthcoming.> I was told that SQL is not multi threaded, so adding
> processors wouldn't improve performance. Is that true?
No, that is not true. SQL Server has many threads, and even a single query can be paralized over
several processors.
It is impossible to say how much machine you need for "two applications", since each application is
different. You can look at resource usage for your current app (memory, disk, network, processor)
and try to determine whether you have resources left for the other app. You would of course need to
know about resource usage for that other app in order to know whether it will fit.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
"maitakeboy" <maitakeboy@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:229F4810-47CD-4155-8C84-E45A3579C7BC@.microsoft.com...
> I'm a SQL newbie, so please be kind. I have just recently installed SQL as a
> part of a new accounting/project management/CRM app that is Very Important to
> the company. It's performance is vital. I want to install an email archiving
> solution which uses SQL as the backend, but I'm wondering what sort of
> performance hit SQL takes when you start loading databases on it.
> It is SQL 2005 on a Server 2003 (32-bit) machine (Proliant DL380 G4, 1 Xeon
> 3Ghz proc, 4 GB RAM. I was told that SQL is not multi threaded, so adding
> processors wouldn't improve performance. Is that true? How much load can SQL
> stand before showing performance degradation? What should I look for on the
> server? Processor cycles, disk reads? IS this an adequate machine for running
> the two apps I describe? We are a 125 person company with our own Exchange
> server.
> Thanks for any info that's forthcoming.|||> even a single query can be paralized over several processors.
Paralized (paralyzed) means the opposite of what you're trying to say, I
think.
;-)
How about parallelized?
--
HTH
Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
www.InsideSQLServer.com
http://blog.kalendelaney.com
"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in
message news:5E7AC07B-52B5-4354-9066-1AF25AB6023E@.microsoft.com...
>> I was told that SQL is not multi threaded, so adding
>> processors wouldn't improve performance. Is that true?
> No, that is not true. SQL Server has many threads, and even a single query
> can be paralized over several processors.
> It is impossible to say how much machine you need for "two applications",
> since each application is different. You can look at resource usage for
> your current app (memory, disk, network, processor) and try to determine
> whether you have resources left for the other app. You would of course
> need to know about resource usage for that other app in order to know
> whether it will fit.
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
>
> "maitakeboy" <maitakeboy@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:229F4810-47CD-4155-8C84-E45A3579C7BC@.microsoft.com...
>> I'm a SQL newbie, so please be kind. I have just recently installed SQL
>> as a
>> part of a new accounting/project management/CRM app that is Very
>> Important to
>> the company. It's performance is vital. I want to install an email
>> archiving
>> solution which uses SQL as the backend, but I'm wondering what sort of
>> performance hit SQL takes when you start loading databases on it.
>> It is SQL 2005 on a Server 2003 (32-bit) machine (Proliant DL380 G4, 1
>> Xeon
>> 3Ghz proc, 4 GB RAM. I was told that SQL is not multi threaded, so adding
>> processors wouldn't improve performance. Is that true? How much load can
>> SQL
>> stand before showing performance degradation? What should I look for on
>> the
>> server? Processor cycles, disk reads? IS this an adequate machine for
>> running
>> the two apps I describe? We are a 125 person company with our own
>> Exchange
>> server.
>> Thanks for any info that's forthcoming.
>|||> It is SQL 2005 on a Server 2003 (32-bit) machine (Proliant DL380 G4, 1
> Xeon
> 3Ghz proc, 4 GB RAM. I was told that SQL is not multi threaded, so adding
> processors wouldn't improve performance. Is
To add on the other responses, SQL Server can also use multiple processors
to process multiple queries concurrently. This is especially important in
an environment with many concurrent users and/or long- running queries.
--
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
http://weblogs.sqlteam.com/dang/
"maitakeboy" <maitakeboy@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:229F4810-47CD-4155-8C84-E45A3579C7BC@.microsoft.com...
> I'm a SQL newbie, so please be kind. I have just recently installed SQL as
> a
> part of a new accounting/project management/CRM app that is Very Important
> to
> the company. It's performance is vital. I want to install an email
> archiving
> solution which uses SQL as the backend, but I'm wondering what sort of
> performance hit SQL takes when you start loading databases on it.
> It is SQL 2005 on a Server 2003 (32-bit) machine (Proliant DL380 G4, 1
> Xeon
> 3Ghz proc, 4 GB RAM. I was told that SQL is not multi threaded, so adding
> processors wouldn't improve performance. Is that true? How much load can
> SQL
> stand before showing performance degradation? What should I look for on
> the
> server? Processor cycles, disk reads? IS this an adequate machine for
> running
> the two apps I describe? We are a 125 person company with our own Exchange
> server.
> Thanks for any info that's forthcoming.|||> How about parallelized?
Yep, that was the one I was thinking of. Thanks.
This is one of those I never seem to get the right spelling for. My spell check found this type, but
my finger pressed "Ignore" and it got sent before it reached my brain-cells. :-)
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
"Kalen Delaney" <replies@.public_newsgroups.com> wrote in message
news:u0hQEVHcIHA.5712@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> even a single query can be paralized over several processors.
> Paralized (paralyzed) means the opposite of what you're trying to say, I think.
> ;-)
> How about parallelized?
> --
> HTH
> Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
> www.InsideSQLServer.com
> http://blog.kalendelaney.com
>
> "Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:5E7AC07B-52B5-4354-9066-1AF25AB6023E@.microsoft.com...
>> I was told that SQL is not multi threaded, so adding
>> processors wouldn't improve performance. Is that true?
>> No, that is not true. SQL Server has many threads, and even a single query can be paralized over
>> several processors.
>> It is impossible to say how much machine you need for "two applications", since each application
>> is different. You can look at resource usage for your current app (memory, disk, network,
>> processor) and try to determine whether you have resources left for the other app. You would of
>> course need to know about resource usage for that other app in order to know whether it will fit.
>> --
>> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
>> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
>> http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
>>
>> "maitakeboy" <maitakeboy@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:229F4810-47CD-4155-8C84-E45A3579C7BC@.microsoft.com...
>> I'm a SQL newbie, so please be kind. I have just recently installed SQL as a
>> part of a new accounting/project management/CRM app that is Very Important to
>> the company. It's performance is vital. I want to install an email archiving
>> solution which uses SQL as the backend, but I'm wondering what sort of
>> performance hit SQL takes when you start loading databases on it.
>> It is SQL 2005 on a Server 2003 (32-bit) machine (Proliant DL380 G4, 1 Xeon
>> 3Ghz proc, 4 GB RAM. I was told that SQL is not multi threaded, so adding
>> processors wouldn't improve performance. Is that true? How much load can SQL
>> stand before showing performance degradation? What should I look for on the
>> server? Processor cycles, disk reads? IS this an adequate machine for running
>> the two apps I describe? We are a 125 person company with our own Exchange
>> server.
>> Thanks for any info that's forthcoming.
>|||I even wrote a blog post about getting this word wrong, whether is
misspelling or misspeaking...
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/kalen_delaney/archive/2007/07/29/geek-city-total-paralysis.aspx
:-)
--
HTH
Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
www.InsideSQLServer.com
http://blog.kalendelaney.com
"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in
message news:6702E3AB-59D3-46A0-9A31-A0C509659B66@.microsoft.com...
>> How about parallelized?
> Yep, that was the one I was thinking of. Thanks.
> This is one of those I never seem to get the right spelling for. My spell
> check found this type, but my finger pressed "Ignore" and it got sent
> before it reached my brain-cells. :-)
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
>
> "Kalen Delaney" <replies@.public_newsgroups.com> wrote in message
> news:u0hQEVHcIHA.5712@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> even a single query can be paralized over several processors.
>> Paralized (paralyzed) means the opposite of what you're trying to say, I
>> think.
>> ;-)
>> How about parallelized?
>> --
>> HTH
>> Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
>> www.InsideSQLServer.com
>> http://blog.kalendelaney.com
>>
>> "Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote
>> in message news:5E7AC07B-52B5-4354-9066-1AF25AB6023E@.microsoft.com...
>> I was told that SQL is not multi threaded, so adding
>> processors wouldn't improve performance. Is that true?
>> No, that is not true. SQL Server has many threads, and even a single
>> query can be paralized over several processors.
>> It is impossible to say how much machine you need for "two
>> applications", since each application is different. You can look at
>> resource usage for your current app (memory, disk, network, processor)
>> and try to determine whether you have resources left for the other app.
>> You would of course need to know about resource usage for that other app
>> in order to know whether it will fit.
>> --
>> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
>> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
>> http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
>>
>> "maitakeboy" <maitakeboy@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:229F4810-47CD-4155-8C84-E45A3579C7BC@.microsoft.com...
>> I'm a SQL newbie, so please be kind. I have just recently installed SQL
>> as a
>> part of a new accounting/project management/CRM app that is Very
>> Important to
>> the company. It's performance is vital. I want to install an email
>> archiving
>> solution which uses SQL as the backend, but I'm wondering what sort of
>> performance hit SQL takes when you start loading databases on it.
>> It is SQL 2005 on a Server 2003 (32-bit) machine (Proliant DL380 G4, 1
>> Xeon
>> 3Ghz proc, 4 GB RAM. I was told that SQL is not multi threaded, so
>> adding
>> processors wouldn't improve performance. Is that true? How much load
>> can SQL
>> stand before showing performance degradation? What should I look for on
>> the
>> server? Processor cycles, disk reads? IS this an adequate machine for
>> running
>> the two apps I describe? We are a 125 person company with our own
>> Exchange
>> server.
>> Thanks for any info that's forthcoming.
>>
>|||"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote
in news:5E7AC07B-52B5-4354-9066-1AF25AB6023E@.microsoft.com:
> No, that is not true. SQL Server has many threads, and even a single
> query can be paralized over several processors.
I agree with Tibor. My servers are often paralized.
Thanks for all your input over the years Tibor, but I couldn't resist.|||> Thanks for all your input over the years Tibor, but I couldn't resist.
I don't mind. Glad I've been of some help.
:-)
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
"David Henson" <dhenson@.certifiednetworks.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9A465E020FBBCdhensoncertifiednetw@.64.74.227.2...
> "Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote
> in news:5E7AC07B-52B5-4354-9066-1AF25AB6023E@.microsoft.com:
>> No, that is not true. SQL Server has many threads, and even a single
>> query can be paralized over several processors.
> I agree with Tibor. My servers are often paralized.
>
> Thanks for all your input over the years Tibor, but I couldn't resist.|||Thanks to all of you who responded. Obviously, I got some bad info. Thanks
for clearing that up.
"Dan Guzman" wrote:
> > It is SQL 2005 on a Server 2003 (32-bit) machine (Proliant DL380 G4, 1
> > Xeon
> > 3Ghz proc, 4 GB RAM. I was told that SQL is not multi threaded, so adding
> > processors wouldn't improve performance. Is
> To add on the other responses, SQL Server can also use multiple processors
> to process multiple queries concurrently. This is especially important in
> an environment with many concurrent users and/or long- running queries.
> --
> Hope this helps.
> Dan Guzman
> SQL Server MVP
> http://weblogs.sqlteam.com/dang/
> "maitakeboy" <maitakeboy@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:229F4810-47CD-4155-8C84-E45A3579C7BC@.microsoft.com...
> > I'm a SQL newbie, so please be kind. I have just recently installed SQL as
> > a
> > part of a new accounting/project management/CRM app that is Very Important
> > to
> > the company. It's performance is vital. I want to install an email
> > archiving
> > solution which uses SQL as the backend, but I'm wondering what sort of
> > performance hit SQL takes when you start loading databases on it.
> > It is SQL 2005 on a Server 2003 (32-bit) machine (Proliant DL380 G4, 1
> > Xeon
> > 3Ghz proc, 4 GB RAM. I was told that SQL is not multi threaded, so adding
> > processors wouldn't improve performance. Is that true? How much load can
> > SQL
> > stand before showing performance degradation? What should I look for on
> > the
> > server? Processor cycles, disk reads? IS this an adequate machine for
> > running
> > the two apps I describe? We are a 125 person company with our own Exchange
> > server.
> > Thanks for any info that's forthcoming.
>