Well we fixed it enough for our users to stop complaining.
Bought a Dell server for £80 off Ebay (unused purchased in 2006, but never
deployed), installed Server 2003 OEM (£300), upped processer to biggest
available (Pentium D, £80) and 2GB of RAM (£60) and using on board RAID 1
controller with builtin dual 80GB SATA disks.
Anyway performance was better but still times of 100% CPU, eventually traced
using SQL Performance Dashboard due to excessive waiting for network I/O
(upto 40%) despite being a 1Gb connection to all machines.
Updated the Gb Ethernet driver and network I/O dropped to 0.01% and we have
now had 18 users (11 real 7 virtual PC) all connected and yes CPU is
consistently high but users are getting almost instant response.
Only our two sales users have SQL running on their portables all others have
SQL disabled on their PC's and connect to the server and report no speed
issues.
A result hopefully for not too much outlay.
> On Aug 28, 11:44 am, Ian_m <ia...@bvmltd.co.uk> wrote:
> > We have installed SQL 2005 Express on a Server 2003 64bit server (4GB RAM)
> > andsharedtheBCMdatabasewith 5 users and initially it appeared to work
> > fine.
> >
> > However we have one or two mobile users who when they come back into the
> > office and re-sync their SQL databases/Outlook2007, cause the SQL server on
> > Server 2003 to consume 100% CPU for say 1/2 hour (it varies) until synched.
> > During synching all otherBCMusers experience veryslowand almost unusable
> > Outlook2007. Also happens during the day 100% CPU for say 30seconds and
> > otherBCMusers Outlook slows down. TheBCMdatabaseis only 500MB.
> >
> > Is it because we installed SQL 2005 Express (32bit obviously) on a 64bit
> > server and are being clobbered by WOW64 conversion layer ?
> >
> > Is there a 64bit edition of SQL 2005 Express ?
> >
> > Should I try moving thedatabaseto a 32bit test server ?
> >
> > Anyone got any notes of moving SQL databases to another SQL server ?
>
> I can tell u that I am running a 32 bit server and having the same
> exact problems...I am at a loss for why.
>
>
|