i have installed TFS 2010 in a 2 server setup with an App Tier server and a SQL Server and am not 100% happy with the performance.
Both are running in VM's on SAN disks and have been given the following virtual hardware each:
Windows 2008 R2
1 CPU # 2.8Ghz
2gb RAM
what should i lift - neither machine is hammered but both do go up to 80% when people are doing things on them - should i add another CPU to each - usually this is now required in a VMWARE setup but i don't know if TFS 2010 takes advantage of an extra core???
thank you in advance :-)
It would appear that i am more having issues with sharepoint going cold on non-peak use projects.
By installing an IIS app warmer, i solved all my problems:
http://www.diaryofaninja.com/blog/2010/05/06/keep-your-aspnet-websites-warm-and-fast-247
I am running my app server with 2 virtual cores and 2gb of RAM and it's booming
I have the database server using 2gb RAM and a single core
Related
Ok, I know what is basically a Hyper-V is.
Simple, a virtual machine. Well, good for testing application and development usage.
Ok, so far so good for the understanding. and here the main question:
Why do you need to install servers in a Hyper-V on a real server?
Isn't that running a server os on the real machine is somehow better performance than running it in a virtual environment?
for example, database server. Install it in a virtual machine? why not on the real machine?
One example of its use would be to create the perfect developer environment if you want to run many different versions of SQL Server on the same physical box.
SQL Server 2005 isn't compatible with Windows 10 so a virtual server running Windows 2003 is better to house it. Windows 2008 for SQL Server 2008 and so on.
This also gives you the flexibility to allocate resources to different VMs and prioritise RAM to the instance that your currently developing against. Giving you server level options with client tools running on the host OS as intended.
Check out this blog post on setting up such a dev environment.
http://www.purplefrogsystems.com/paul/2016/05/using-hyper-v-and-powershell-to-create-the-perfect-developer-workstation/
We are currently running two instances of SQL Server. For development purposes, we run a local DB on a desktop PC in our office.
The PC has following stats:
8 GB Ram
AMD Athlon 5350 APU with Radeon(tm) R3 2.05 GZ
64 Bit Windows 8.1
Microsoft SQL Server 2014 - 12.0.2000.8 (X64) Express Edition (64-bit)
HDD Seagate ST1000DM003 1 TB
The server is located in Azure as VM Standard-Tier A3 running the pre-provided Windows Server 2012 R2 Datacenter image
Now we are facing a problem that the exact same query is running locally on the desktop 10 times faster than the on the server.
I connect to the pc with a local installed Management Studio via TCP/IP over our local network. When I connect to the server I use Remote Desktop connection and start a local instance of management studio on the server.
I have changed already the connection mode from default to TCP/IP on the server which brings me to the factor 10 times slower with default connection it will be 20 times slower. Even changing to named pipes the performance is worse.
Also rewriting the query and using different approaches, always the express version is much faster than the server. We did not do any configuration or tuning on the installation of the express version so on the server side.
Any comments a very appreciated!
Best
Simon
You should add the following at the top of the query to see where the differences are:
SET STATISTICS TIME ON
SET STATISTICS IO ON
Is your Local machine have SSD ? If it's the case, it's normal.
Try to rebuild indexes used.
Update the Database/Table statistics. The Execution Plan can be the same, but with bad stats, I've often saw very low performance. Especially if you make a lot of insert/delete.
You can see if something is wrong with SET STATISTICS IO ON. Look at the logical reads on tables, the orders of workfill tables, etc. Check if it's different from the local server.
I'm in need of some guidance. My company is running TFS 2010 and any time a user attempts to access Team Web Access it is blindingly slow. We also have Urban Turtle installed and when we try to bring up the planning board tab that takes forever, too (~15 - 20 seconds).
Here's the setup:
Application Tier (Virtual Machine)
Windows Server 2008R2
IIS 7
TFS 2010 SP1 & latest patches
SQL Server 2008 R2 Analysis and
Reporting Services
2x 2.5GHz CPUs
8GB RAM
2x 80GB HDDs (C: & E:)
Data Tier (Virtual Machine)
Windows Server 2012R2
SQL Server 2008R2 SP2 CU4
4x 2.5GHz CPUs
16GB RAM
4x HDDs (C: 80GB, E: 40GB Temp, F: 40GB Log, G: 300GB Data)
The data tier was virtualized back in early February. It seems like performance has degraded over time as opposed to all at once. I would think if the issue was related to virtualization, we would have seen that right away or at least much sooner.
I have moved the TFS cache to a separate drive on the App Tier. That hasn't really improved anything.
I did some defrag analysis, and the C: drive on the app tier is at 24% fragmentation and E: is at 65% fragmentation. That's terrible! My next step is to defrag these two drives during a maintenance window.
Can you guys think of anything of any other suggestions to help improve performance?
I have the Execute SQL Script package that contains the script to insert about 150K records.
Problem in here is when I execute the package in the Virtual machine its taking 25 min's approx and the same package in physical machine its taking 2 min's
Question 1? Why its taking that much time to load the same data in VM.
Question 2? How to solve this performance issue.
Physical machine configuration has 4GB Ram and 250GB HD + Windows server 2008 R2 + SQL server 2008 R2 Standard Edition.
Virtual machine has the same Configuration
Update: The Problem is with the SQL Server in VM.
Question 1? Why its taking that much time to Run the same script in VM.
Question 2? How to solve this performance issue.
Both the batabases schema in Physical Machine and VM are identical. Other databases are also same. There was no indexing applied for that tables in both machines. Datatypes are same. harddisk as I said has the same configuration.
No RAID is done on both the machines.
Physical machine has the 2.67GHz RAM Quad Core and in the virtual machine has the
2.00GHz RAM Quad Core
Version of SQL PM:
Microsoft SQL Server 2008 R2 (RTM) - 10.50.1600.1 (X64) Apr 2 2010 15:48:46 Copyright (c) Microsoft Corporation Standard Edition (64-bit) on Windows NT 6.1 (Build 7601: Service Pack 1)
Version of SQL PM:
Microsoft SQL Server 2008 R2 (RTM) - 10.50.1600.1 (X64) Apr 2 2010 15:48:46 Copyright (c) Microsoft Corporation Standard Edition (64-bit) on Windows NT 6.1 (Build 7601: Service Pack 1) (Hypervisor)
I executed the script Execution plan for both are the same as there is no difference in plan.
Vendor is HP ML350 Machine.
There are almost 20 VM's on the same physical server out of which 7 servers are active.
There's an article about properly setting SQL's configuration for a VM implementation here: Best Practices for SQL Server. Below is an excerpt, though the article includes other tips and a good performance testing plan:
Storage configuration problems are the number one cause of SQL performance issues. Usually these problems arise because the DBA requests a virtual disk of the VI admin, the VI admin places the VMDK on a LUN that may or may not meet the DBA's performance needs. For instance:
VMs' VMDK files placed on VMFS volumes without enough spindles.
Many VMDK files placed on a single VMFS volume which could use more spindles.
Database and log files placed on the same LUN which, you guessed it, could use more spindles.
This may be obvious to some, but this problem occurs again and again. The VI administrator should be aware of a few technical items that can help understand and avoid this problem:
Based on the IO demands of the DB files, a certain number of
spindles should be guaranteed to this file. This means that its
VMDK must be placed on a VMFS volume to accout for the SQL Server's
demands and all of the other demands on that volume.
Mixing sequential activity (such as log file update) and random activity
(such as database access) results in random behavior. This means
that the LUN configuration in the pre-virtual physical environment
may not be sufficient for the consolidated environment. This is
discussed some in Storage Performance: VMFS and Protocols.
When storage isn't meeting the SQL Server's demands, the device latency
or kernel latency (queueing time) will increase. Read up on these
counters in Storage Performance Analysis and Monitoring.
The most common cause for this problem is the lack of RAM. Having everything setup on a small 4GB RAM machine is your problem.
When you try to load those 150k rows into memory (remember, everything that happens in SSIS is in memory), a lot of those rows are being handled by your pagefile.
Pagefile on your VM is a lot slower than the one on your physical machine.
To solve this, increase the amount of RAM on your virtual machine.
I have a similar problem.
Two client machines (one physical, one virtual) execute a batch using SQLCMD. This batch calls a Stored procedure on a physical server (so it's not a memory problem since the elaboration is only on server side).
The batch executed from the physical machine takes 20 minutes. The batch executed from the virtual machine takes 1 hour and 20 minutes.
Using SQL profiler I noted that in the case of slow execution there is a wait type ASYNC_NETWORK_IO.
Probably the virtualized network layer is not optimized.
Could you run a SQL profiler and check if you see the wait type ASYNC_NETWORK_IO?
Currently running Server 2003 but am looking at reinstalling in the near future due to a change of direction with the domains. Should I take this opportunity to install Windows Server 2008 instead?
I would love to play with new technology and the server is only for a small home business so downtime/performance issues aren't really a concern.
I am no expert on Windows server revisions, but the only new feature of Server 2008 I can think of is Hyper-V. But I would try Server 2008 just for Hyper-V, as this VM hypervisor is supposedly much faster than VMware and Virtual PC, and is compatible with Virtual PC virtual disks.
One rule that has served me very well over the years is: Do not upgrade infrastructure components just for the sake of upgrading. If it works well, leave it be. You mentioned that some downtime isn't a big deal, but if the server is actually used then there is a chance it can become a big deal unexpectedly. Why not simply get (or build) a new machine and play with the new operating system there? That way you get the best of both worlds.
There is no Exchange Server 2008. Exchange has always been tightly integrated with IIS which tends to bind it to a specific version of Windows. However, Exchange Server 2007 SP1 can be installed on Windows Server 2008.
Exchange Server 2003, however, cannot run on Windows Server 2008 and I do not believe there are any plans to do so in a future service pack.
Note that Exchange Server 2007 requires x64 architecture, running the 64-bit OS, on a production system. The days of booting /3GB are past - it simply does not provide enough virtual address space for current large databases. Exchange's long-running virtual memory fragmentation problem has not been fixed, it has just been given more virtual address space to work in.