Friday, March 30, 2012

replacing hard disk

I have a server running sql 2000. We recently had to replace a failed drive
on a raid 5 array. Subsequent to changing it, the performance of the server
has declined considerably and blocking locks are occuring, which we never had
experienced before on this server. There are no errors reported for the new
disk.
I'm now trying to work out what could be the problem and how in fact to
correct it. Will running specific maintenance jobs correct the problem? Like
UPDATE STATISTICS?
Thanks!Hi
Has the array rebuilt?
The fact that performance is perceived to be worse, look at a hardware
problem, not at a SQL one.
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"gracie" <gracie@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:83C86485-F322-491C-973F-DF197CD10EBE@.microsoft.com...
>I have a server running sql 2000. We recently had to replace a failed drive
> on a raid 5 array. Subsequent to changing it, the performance of the
> server
> has declined considerably and blocking locks are occuring, which we never
> had
> experienced before on this server. There are no errors reported for the
> new
> disk.
> I'm now trying to work out what could be the problem and how in fact to
> correct it. Will running specific maintenance jobs correct the problem?
> Like
> UPDATE STATISTICS?
> Thanks!|||Yes it's been rebuilt and the status of the drive and the drive array are
reported with a status of ok.
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
> Hi
> Has the array rebuilt?
> The fact that performance is perceived to be worse, look at a hardware
> problem, not at a SQL one.
> Regards
> --
> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Zurich, Switzerland
> IM: mike@.epprecht.net
> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
> "gracie" <gracie@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:83C86485-F322-491C-973F-DF197CD10EBE@.microsoft.com...
> >I have a server running sql 2000. We recently had to replace a failed drive
> > on a raid 5 array. Subsequent to changing it, the performance of the
> > server
> > has declined considerably and blocking locks are occuring, which we never
> > had
> > experienced before on this server. There are no errors reported for the
> > new
> > disk.
> >
> > I'm now trying to work out what could be the problem and how in fact to
> > correct it. Will running specific maintenance jobs correct the problem?
> > Like
> > UPDATE STATISTICS?
> >
> > Thanks!
>
>|||Did you replace like for like..?
For instance replacing a 72Gb 15,000RPM disk with a 72Gb 10,000RPM disk
would cause the entire array to drop back to 10,000RPM
--
HTH
"gracie" <gracie@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:F84864F8-F9C5-4879-97A0-542842DD59AB@.microsoft.com...
> Yes it's been rebuilt and the status of the drive and the drive array are
> reported with a status of ok.
>
> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > Has the array rebuilt?
> > The fact that performance is perceived to be worse, look at a hardware
> > problem, not at a SQL one.
> >
> > Regards
> > --
> > Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> > Zurich, Switzerland
> >
> > IM: mike@.epprecht.net
> >
> > MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> >
> > Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
> >
> > "gracie" <gracie@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:83C86485-F322-491C-973F-DF197CD10EBE@.microsoft.com...
> > >I have a server running sql 2000. We recently had to replace a failed
drive
> > > on a raid 5 array. Subsequent to changing it, the performance of the
> > > server
> > > has declined considerably and blocking locks are occuring, which we
never
> > > had
> > > experienced before on this server. There are no errors reported for
the
> > > new
> > > disk.
> > >
> > > I'm now trying to work out what could be the problem and how in fact
to
> > > correct it. Will running specific maintenance jobs correct the
problem?
> > > Like
> > > UPDATE STATISTICS?
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> >
> >
> >

No comments:

Post a Comment