I've hit the 4gb limit in my database and I need a bit of breathing space before upgrading it to a SQL Server 2008 database and I just wondered if increasing auto growth would give me more space inside the database beyond the 4GB limit that SQL Server 2005 Express imposes.
I know the pitfalls of Auto Growth with regards to performance as data will be fragmented across the disk and thus make querying it slower but is there an advantage in granting it say 50/100mb of room for auto growth? Whilst the migration process is planned out or an alternative is sought.
Disk space is not an issue and it would only be a temporary measure anyway.
No. Express Edition will not grow, nor attach or restore, a database over its size limit, no matter what the errorlog viewer tells you. Not even temporarily.
But you have an easy solution: SQL Server 2008R2 Express Edition has raised the limit to 10GB.
No it won't. The SQL Server Express edition is for creating Database-oriented applications without the need to purchase an official SQL Server licenses. However, you cannot use it in an production environment for more reasons other than just file size limit.
No, once you've reached 10'240 MB (10*1024MB) , you're out of luck
(technically not exactly 10GiB).
Related
I am trying to migrate my ASP (IIS) +SQLServer application from SQL Server Express Edition to Azure SQL database. Currently, we only have one dedicated server with both IIS and SQL express edition on it. The planned setup will be ASP (IIS) on an Azure virtual machine and Azure SQL database.
Per my search on google, it seems SQL server Express Edition has performance issues which are resolved in standard and enterprise edition. The DTU calculator indicates that I should move to 200 DTUs. However, that is based on test run on SQL Express edition setup with IIS on the same dedicated server.
Some more information:
The database size is around 5 GB currently including backup files.
Total users are around 500.
Concurrent usage is limited, say around 30-40 users at a time.
Bulk usage happens for report retrieval during a certain time frame only by a limited number of users.
I am skeptical to move to 300DTUs given the low number of total users. I am initially assuming 100 DTUs is good enough but looking for some advice on someone who has dealt with this before.
Database size and number of users isn't a solid way to estimate DTU usage. A poorly indexed database with a handful of users can consume ridiculous amounts of DTUs. A well-tuned database with lively traffic can consume a comparatively small number of DTUs. At one of my clients, we have a database that handles several million CRUD ops per day over 3,000+ users that rarely breaks 40DTUs.
That being said, don't agonize over your DTU settings. It is REALLY easy to monitor and change. You can scale up or scale down without interrupting service. I'd make a best guess, over-allocate slightly, then move your allocated DTUs up or down based on what you see.
it seems SQL server Express Edition has performance issues
This is not correct.There are certain limitations like 10GB size,one core CPU and some features are disabled ..
I am initially assuming 100 DTUs is good enough but looking for some advice on someone who has dealt with this before.
I would go with the advice of DTU calculator,but if you want to go with 100 DTU's,i recommend going with it ,but consistently evaluate performance..
Below query can provide you DTU metrics in your instance and if any one of the metrics is consistently over 90% over a period of time,i would try to tune that metric and finally upgrade to new tier,if i am not successfull
DTU query
SELECT start_time, end_time,
(SELECT Max(v)
FROM (VALUES (avg_cpu_percent), (avg_physical_data_read_percent), (avg_log_write_percent)) AS value(v)) AS [avg_DTU_percent]
FROM sys.resource_stats
WHERE database_name = '<your db name>'
ORDER BY end_time DESC;
-- Run the following select on the Azure Database you are using
SELECT
max (avg_cpu_percent),max(avg_data_io_percent),
max (avg_log_write_percent)
FROM sys.resource_stats
WHERE database_name = 'Database_Name'
I'm not sure whether sql server 2012 developer edition can be installed to a Windows Server 2008/2012 for testing and development purpose. On the other hand, it seems express version has a limitation of 10GB database size, does it mean all databases 10GB, or it can create multiple databases, and each database 10GB?
Thanks,
Joe
First Question
Yes, you can. Have a look at this link http://www.mytechmantra.com/LearnSQLServer/Install-SQL-Server-2012-P1.html
Second Question
It is 10 GB per Database. You can have 10 databases of 10GB size each. Which means 100GBs of Databases.
Not sure about the developer edition, but I suppose yes, it doesn't matters if it's installed on a server or on a developer machine, as long as it's used just for testing and development only and not for real production usage.
About the express edition, the limitation is 10GB per database. You can have as many as you want, whose totaling size can be as big as you want, as long as each one, individually, is smaller than 10GB.
I will preface this by stating we are using MS SQL Server 2008 R2.
We're having issues when our database backups are running SQL Server takes all of the available memory and never releases. Our current high watermark of memory usage is about 60%. When the backup job runs it goes to 99% and never releases unless we reset the SQL service. This leads me to 2 questions:
Dealing with memory allocation, Is there a way to accurately limit memory usage of SQL Server? We are limiting the "Maximum server memory" value to 85% but in consistently exceeds that value.
What is the best method of backing up the database? We are currently relying on our provider to maintain the database backups and it seems like the "home grown" method they use through a stored proc and commands is the cause of the memory issues but it is working for other customers of theirs. Should we look at using Maintenance Plans as a replacement?
Any help with this would be great.
Is there a way to accurately limit memory usage of SQL Server?
Yes there is. How to: Set a Fixed Amount of Memory (SQL Server Management Studio)
Use the default settings to allow SQL Server to change its memory
requirements dynamically based on available system resources. The
default setting for min server memory is 0, and the default setting
for max server memory is 2147483647 megabytes (MB). The minimum amount
of memory you can specify for max server memory is 16 MB.
What is the best method of backing up the database?
You can get the answer here: Select the Most Optimal Backup Methods for Server
I know it is recommended for SQL 2005 onward but does it also apply on SQL Server 2000?
Any link for reference will also be appreciated.
Any thing you read about SQL Server 2000 is probably out of date because of how technology
has moved on since then.
However, this appears to be best for SQL Server 2000. But not SQL Server 2005+
This says SQL Server 2000 is different to SQL Server 2005+ (my bold)
Only one file group in TempDB is allowed for data and one file group for logs, however you can configure multiple files. With SQL Server 2000 the recommendation is to have one data file per CPU core, however with optimisations in SQL Server 2005/2008 it is now recommend to have 1/2 or 1/4 as many files as CPU cores. This is only a guide and TempDB should be monitored to see if PAGELATCH waits increase or decrease with each change.
Paul Randal
On SQL Server 2000, the recommendation was one tempdb data file for each processor core. On 2005 and 2008, that recommendation persists, but because of some optimizations (see my blog post) you may not need one-to-one - you may be ok with the number of tempdb data files equal to 1/4 to 1/2 the number of processor cores.
SQL Server Engineers. This is interesting that it is internal MS and appears at odd with the first two articles
Now, I'd go by the first two and decide if you need to actually do anything.
As Paul Randal also says (my bold):
One of the biggest confusion points is that the SQL CAT team recommends 1-to-1, but they're coming from a purely scaling perspective, not from an overall perf perspective, and they're dealing with big customers with top-notch servers and IO subsystems. Most people are not.
Have you demonstrated that:
you require this?
have a bottleneck
you have separate disk arrays per file?
you understand TF 1118
...
Wikipedia says SQL Server Express Edition is limited to "one processor, 1 GB memory and 4 GB database files". Does anyone have practical experience with how well this scales?
It's a regular sql server, it just has a limit. SharePoint by default uses the sql server express if that gives you any idea. We have our entire office (80+) people running on that instance.
We have used SQL Server Express Edition in some of our smaller applications, maybe 5+ users, and smaller databases. The 4GB is very limiting in a high transaction environments, and in some cases we have had to migrate our customer to SQL Server Standard Edition.
It really comes down to the nature of your database and application. What kind of application(s) are hitting SQL Server? In my experience, it only handles 5-10 users with a heavy read/write application.
This question is far too vague to be useful to you or anyone else. Also, Wikipedia is your primary source of info on SQL Server, fail?
The first matrix of the MSDN page for Features Supported by the Editions of SQL Server 2008 is titled "Scalability." The only edition with any features marked "Yes" is Enterprise (you get Partitioning, Data compression, Resource governor, and Partition table parallelism.) And it goes down the line from there, Express does not support many of the features designed for "scale." If your main demand is space, how soon will you exceed 4GB? If your main demand is high availability and integrity, don't even bother with Express.
"Scalable" is quickly becoming a weasel-/buzz-word, alongside "robust." People use it when they haven't thought hard enough about what they mean.