Hi Harry, 1 - Is there documentation explaining MS recommendations about SQL Server setup you're talking about?
2 - Wow, never heard of those disc-alignment issue. Seems to cause quite of a performance problem. It's surprising people don't talk about that much. I'll need a bit more reading to understand the problem better and check if our SAN could suffer from this. I hope not! 3, 4 - Cluster Index and compatibility mode : Note inserted in my upgrade plan. :) Thanks for the tips! Steeve... --- In Axapta-Knowledge-Village@yahoogroups.com, Harry Deshpande <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi > > As per my experience SQL Server 2005 performance is much better than '2000'. > > > 1. Please check whether the SQL Server setup is in line with Microsoft recommendations. > > 2. Go further and check things like disc-alignment. Take a look at http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/christian/archive/2007/10/09/disk- sector-alignment.aspx > > 3. SQL Server 2005 engine is heavily optimized towards cluster indexes. You will see a lot of cluster indexes introduced from V4.0 onwards. Please back-port them. However, please note that there is a small chance that the cluster indexes for some tables in standard Ax may not be appropriate with your data usage pattern. In this case you will have to figure out the best fit cluster index yourself. > > 4. Last but not the least make sure you are running the database with compatibility mode 90. (It is easy to forget this). > > I must say I am a very happy camper since I started using SQL Server 2005. > > Regards > > Harry > > > > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no > rights. Use of included script samples are subject to the terms > specified at http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm"; > The code provided (if any) may be written from the point of view of a > third party and the programming style/development standards may suit > such a point of view. > > From: Axapta-Knowledge-Village@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Axapta- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steeve Gilbert > Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 10:51 AM > To: Axapta-Knowledge-Village@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [Axapta-Knowledge-Village] Axapta slower on SQL Server 2005 then SQL Server 2000? > > > I read a couple of post here and there about Axapta being slower on SQL > Server 2005 then 2000. I thought that people that have problem post > messages and those who don't stays quiet. That's why I was only seeing > post about SQL 2005 being slower. But then I stubble on a post on MBS > forum > (http://www.microsoft.com/Businesssolutions/Community/Newsgroups/dgbro ws > er/en-us/default.mspx? > query=sql+2005&dg=microsoft.public.axapta.database&cat=&lang=en&cr=US& pt > =&catlist=8d3f188d-a0E9-40e4-86e2- > 46508a35c759&dglist=&ptlist=&exp=&sloc=en-us). And the quote is : > "First of all Ax database runing on same hardware with SQL2005 is ~20% > slower than SQL200 database (tested)." > > I can't find something clearer that this. So, does my friends of the > Axapta Knowledge Village acknowledge this statement? > > I'm gonna test this in our dev environment and if it turns out true, > then it's gonna be the end of our SQL Server 2005 migration I guess. > Btw, we are staying at Ax3.0 SP3 even if we migrate to SQL 2005. > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >
