abitguru

hope this helps, I not really into performance monitor :( Disk. copy a large file (~ 2GB)

my mistake. And my mistake forgot say this change we do last weekend, every disk has a direct connection to storage. I'll try to find NETWORK STORAGE AND LAN in perform (only find Network Interface) and post results. thanks

All interfaces (supposedly) have an direct connection to an Iscsi disk. 192.168 (STORAGE LAN) 10.95 (SERVER and uses lan) EXCEPT First Connection (the one with 16GB). This connection has another IP (other lan) All interfaces except Citrix PV Ethernet Adapter has an 192.168 IP But Citrix PV Ethernet Adapter has an 10.95 IP, 10.95 is the users lan When we make a SQL query the traffics goes for Citrix PV Ethernet Adapter_4 (192.168) When we make a DBF query or process the traffics goes for Citrix PV Ethernet Adapter (10.95) So the dbf traffics goes for users lan. If you want to see a pic of this please ask and i will upload I see that this could be the problem, because we have problems with dbf process (too long). IF traffic goes for users lan, and not for storage. Another test: 5 am run a process took 4 secs 9 am the same process took 30 secs Only diference is the users connected. Thans again!!!

about 5 minutes (and we generate a little traffic :) )

Here is a pic of Performance Monitor The only problem is in spanish :( http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/7265/datosg.png

Nod32 is active in the server and in every PC. It has Network disk active to scan (in every pc), but they say us that this is no problem because only scans when a file is open. There isnt a process scanning the network, but we will disable this option and test. I dont know how NOD32 works, so we will test this too. Thanks!!!

yes rigth, we have two separeted lans when we make the server change, we asign a network connection for each disk (1 for windows, 1 for sql data, 1 for log, 1 for tmpdb, 1 for system file(dbf) ) I will see if i can find what you say in performance monitor. thanks a lot.

Sorry to be soooo noob, but i cant find in performance monitor any counter with NETWORK STORAGE AND LAN. I have network interface MSAS 2008: XXXXX You mean log a specific counter or I misunderstod?

We not experiment much timeouts because we have a lot of RAM assgned to SQL, and this compense. (I think) ~ 12MB/s Copy. Reading cound be better but not to much. I will use the counter you say and post the results. About the second point (i dont have access to storage tools, and at this point i think the admin dont know if this exists) The point you mencioned in point 2 is what we want, prove that is a problem of the storage and SQL or Windows has nothing,

Tested this simple way. lask weekend we reinstall ALL, Windows Server 2008 R2 SQL Server. 1 - Transfering Backup (80 GB) From old server to new Server. ~ 12 MB/s No uses conected, Old Server restarted No Lan Traffic ~ 12 Mb/s for me its a joke. 2 - Test 2. Today, early in the morning we test a process (run on old legacy system in fox pro 2.6 with dbfs) Results. The process finish in less than 10 seconds. Test the same process at 8:00 am, with most users connected took ~ 45 sec This makes me think there are a bottleneck somewhere. Other test we will do at noon is, ask for users to close the system and test again same process and see if there changes. Thanks a lot.!

Thanks so much!! We make some tests and realise that the problem with performance is not the ram, is not SQL. We make a simple process with a few users using the system, and the process take less than 10 seconds, now with more users the same process took 30 ~ 45 seconds. I supouse there is a RAM problem, but with this test I can say there is no RAM problem. I'm close to say the storage has the problem, but I cant prove it. (and the it guy don't do anything to test for his own) Thanks for your help again! :D :D

What do you mean with fixed? http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/138/imgih.png/ Now is set to automaticaly set the size of page file. If you see previos 2 images, that is the situation, SQL consuming 21 GB (its ok) but we have 37 MB free in first image, and ~ 900 in second image.

Yes I think we have a long way to see and discover what really happend. (We cant make magic with our systems if we have poor performance) I think we have severals points to check and correct. Thanks again!

Right now Windows Server config is: Page File Size 32762 MB Minimun 16 MB Recomended 49143 MB http://imageshack.us.../pagefilec.png/ http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/52/hardmonitor.png/

I'll post an image on my profile (waiting for 20 posts :) ) thanks!