"Steen Persson (DK)" <spe@REMOVEdatea.dk> wrote in message
news:uWTeOBZyFHA.4016@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Ivan wrote:
>> Hi....
>>
>> I need to buy a new server for my MS-SQL... becose frequently appear
>> deadlock's, and the Disk Times (read and write) are over the 80%... so i
>> have some questions about that...
>>
>> What's better for SQL... server with 2 cpu bus 800 or 4 cpu bus 400??????
>>
>> If i bought 2 servers for clustering, and one of then have RAID 10 with 4
>> HDD, is good idea to store all the DB in this server??? or i need a
>> SAN????
>>
>> Thanks.
>
> What about trying to optimize your existing server before you just by a
> new one? If you are experiencing excessive disk READ/WRITE times, it won't
> help a lot just to get a better CPU. Instead you should look at your disk
> configuration. I.e. what RAID level are you running, how is your database
> files organized, number of physical disk's, disk types etc.
> Just blindly buying a new server might not give you anything else than a
> happy hardware vendor...:-).
>
>
>
> Regards
> Steen

Ivan wrote:
> Hi....
>
> I need to buy a new server for my MS-SQL... becose frequently appear
> deadlock's, and the Disk Times (read and write) are over the 80%... so i have
> some questions about that...
>
> What's better for SQL...
> server with 2 cpu bus 800 or 4 cpu bus 400??????
>
> If i bought 2 servers for clustering, and one of then have RAID 10 with 4
> HDD, is good idea to store all the DB in this server??? or i need a SAN????
>
> Thanks.

Kevin3NF wrote:

>Additionally,
>
>yes, you need a SAN if you go to clustering....as well as enterprise
>editions of Windows and SQL....this is big money...
>
>If I'm not mistaken, deadlocks are caused by two processes conflicting with
>each other and neither willing to release to the other. The best hardware
>in the world cannot resolve this code problem (maybe decrease the instances
>of it, but not resolve). Fix that first and see what happens to perf.
>
>
>