RE: [RadiusNT] SQL Server and RadiusNT

majordomo@essex1.com ( (no email) )
Thu, 20 Apr 2000 16:04:04 -0500

Hardware is definately not an issue. We have expanding a lot lately, and
going through growing pains again. I figured separating the SQL and Radius
may improve the performance of the calls database specifically.

Regards,
Tom

At 11:58 AM 4/20/00 -0700, you wrote:
>What changed?
>
>You may not need to move it depending on what the conditions are.
>
>For example:
>
>RAM, many folks setup a server with say 128 megs of ram, when your calls
>table is small and your number of terminal servers is small that's ok.
>But if you have more calls records to manage you may just need more ram for
>SQL Server to run well.
>
>If you have not done so checkout information on how to use performance
>monitor to view things like:
>Cache hit ratio, number of writes, number of reads, number of transactions
>and other stats.
>
>Unless you a) have huge numbers of users or b) have a weak server (IE: old
>Pentium 100, no raid hardware etc...) you do *have* to split them.
>
>Well in fact there are some arguments why you should (can we say build a
>more robust system here )
>
>But if you are just running low on ram well...
>
>In my exp. 128 megs is only enough ram to test SQL server or run a few
>hundred accounts.
>256 megs or more is 100% better.
>Depending on what that box is running NT may need 64 megs just to build a
>good "working set" in ram.
>Also if you have not changed the default setting SQL server only gets about
>16 megs of ram which is *WAY* to low
>For any real call logging.
>
>When if first used RadiusNT I've ran logging for 20,000 + accounts on 128
>megs by just killing all the "extra" junk and tuning SQL servers ram.
>That ran fine for quite a while and the performance began to drag when the
>calls table grew to over 2 million records. Even then it was "OK"
>So at that point you need to either trim the table or have more ram.
>
>That box by the way was (as I recall):
>PII 400
>128 Megs
>Adaptec ARO-1130 Raid Port
>6 4.5 Gig Ultra SCSI Disks in a Raid 5 config with one hot spare.
>
>No Web, Mail,Print, fileshare or other services on that box ...
>Just NT,SQL and RadiusNT.
>
>PS: that load was *Accounting* records no authentication was on that box.
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: radiusnt-request@iea-software.com
>[mailto:radiusnt-request@iea-software.com]On Behalf Of majordomo@essex1.com
>Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2000 10:48 AM
>To: radiusnt@iea-software.com
>Subject: [RadiusNT] SQL Server and RadiusNT
>
>I am running RadiusNT Enterprise and SQL 6.5 on the same server at this
>time. The system has handled remarkably well in the past, but it is
>starting to show degredation in performance. I am planning to move the
>radius database over to a new dedicated SQL server and wanted to know the
>advantages/disadvantages of separating my Radius and SQL server. Note that
>the existing SQL is dedicated to Radius.
>
>TIA,
>Tom
>tep@essex1.com
>
>
>For more information about this list (including removal) go to:
>http://www.iea-software.com/support/maillists/liststart
>
>
>For more information about this list (including removal) go to:
>http://www.iea-software.com/support/maillists/liststart
>

For more information about this list (including removal) go to:
http://www.iea-software.com/support/maillists/liststart