I agree, SQL runs better on W2K, when properly configured! I have been
following the SQL thread here for quite some time and, frankly, there is a
LOT of mis-information going around. A couple of quick points if I may. This
is long but, I had to say it....
First, after Mike Nice was gracious enough to share his re-worked
ODBCUSER.DLL, external database use with Imail and SQL servers became a
reality. Thanks to Ipswitch for incorporating that code in recent releases.
While some work still could be done in the multi-threading area, it works as
is.
Second, the one biggest and most important performance issue when using
Imail with an external database and SQL is NOT the Imail box, it's the SQL
box and it's network connectivity.
I know, your saying "but I've got a Pentium 4 and a zillion megs of RAM,
etc..." and it still does not work.... Well, lets look at a few issues
shall we? First, never, never, never (did I make that plain enough?) run
SQL on the same machine as Imail, just don't do it, SQL running with Imail
will seriously degrade Imail's performance, that's just the nature of
database servers, they want it all... Let them have it all, run SQL on it's
own server, nothing else running with it.
Hows your network working? Are you running in a switched Ethernet
environment? You should be, 100mbs, full duplex. Do you monitor LAN traffic?
You should. If your still running 10mbs, half duplex through standard hubs,
UPGRADE! The Imail box and the SQL server can only process packets as fast
as they arrive. Remember, Ethernet trashes packets when they collide and has
to resend. The higher the collision rate on your LAN, the lower the overall
performance. Get a switch, buy some new 100 mbs cards and join the new
century...
How's your SQL box configured? A fast processor won't help if the RAM is
not there or, the I/O and disk access is slow. Avoid the temptation to buy
huge IDE hard drives, drive access time suffers, no matter what the
manufacturer says. Run SCSI, boot from IDE if you must but, use SCSI drives
for SQL and it's data. And about RAM, 500 plus megs, PC 100 or higher DIMMS,
no SIMMS, run at processor bus speed, especiall on the SQL box, period.
Beware of RAID! There are some cheap RAID controllers out there that will
severly slow performence in RAID 5 configurations. Sure its nice to have
RAID 5 but, count on the overhead to slow you down. Again, if you must use
RAID, spend the money for a quality controller.
Is your NT on W2K installation tuned for best performence? Foreground apps
should have minimum priority (performence boost) and background and server
apps should have maximum. Set up for maximum boost for "networking apps",
not "file sharing" and certainly not "load balancing"
Even if you have all the RAM in the world, increase your swap file size, NT
will still use it and bigger is better. A general rule of thumb is to double
whatever NT recommends.
Having run Imail servers since version 2 (i believe, long time ago) we have
found the software to be quite stable and resilant, if you give it a fast
environment to work in. If you have the means, test the time your SQL box
takes to authenticate a database request. Anything over 20ms is telling you
something is wrong! We have found that, SMTP AUTH especially, will fail or
severly degrade if it does not get an IMMEDIATE answer from the SQL server.
Consider this when pulling you hair out because users are getting a password
request box when sending mail using SMTP AUTH.
Oh, and how's your PDC performing? If it running over 25% utilization for
any 30 second period, upgrade it! Remember, an NT network is only as good as
all the machines that make it a network, PDC and BDC's included...
That's, it, flame away but these observations come from running Imail and
SQL in a 50,000+ user environment on all kinds of hardware and network
topology, think about before complaining to IPSwitch about SMTP AUTH....
Robert J Fehn Sr. CEO, Senior Engineer
ProNet USA Inc. www.pro-usa.net
----- Original Message -----
From: "OurLists" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 2:34 PM
Subject: RE: [IMail Forum] For those using MS SQL
> Certainly not my experience. Everything we have runs better on Win2k
> including Sql7. In fact I was surprised at how much better Sql7 ran on
> Win2k.
>
> Terry Fritts
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Chris Hunt
> Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 1:00 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [IMail Forum] For those using MS SQL
>
>
>
> The Redmond menace
>
> Microsoft recently threw around its weight -- and its
> fat wallet -- to squash an independent testing lab
> from publishing benchmark results that the lab ran for
> InfoWorld's sister publication NetworkWorld. The test
> demonstrated that SQL Server 7 runs nearly twice as
> fast on Windows NT 4.0 than it does on Windows 2000.
>
> The lab's director of research claims that when he
> discovered the performance crevasse, thinking it his
> own fault, he contacted Microsoft and worked with them
> for a week to figure out what went wrong. When neither
> company could fix the problem, Microsoft shifted its
> sails, thereby changing the direction of the wind as
> well, and cited a SQL Server "no publication without
> authorization" license clause, indirectly threatening
> legal action.
>
> "We used to be Microsoft fans," the lab director said.
> "Now, I just feel like I got run over by a train. When
> they realized they couldn't fix the problem, they, as
> my son would say from Toy Story, put on their angry
> eyes and came after us. We have been intimidated into
> not going forward with our results because we don't
> have the pockets to battle Microsoft in court." The
> results were on the lab's Web site Thursday evening
> but had disappeared by Friday morning.
>
> Along the way, Microsoft pulled one of the tricks for
> which it has gained notoriety: blaming the hardware.
> The lab's director said that Microsoft declared a NIC
> (network interface card) to be at fault, which he
> added was a common Intel NIC -- one on the hardware
> compatibility list Team Redmond points to so frequently.
>
> NetworkWorld eventually overcame the Microsoft threat,
> however. The test results were posted on its site
> early last week.
>
>
> Please visit http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html
> to be removed from this list.
>
> An Archive of this list is available at:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/
>
Please visit http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html
to be removed from this list.
An Archive of this list is available at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/
