Hi, Does anybody have successful SQL implementation? If yes what hardwire do you use? And what is database size? We are trying to evaluate possibility to switch to SQL. So far the performance is unacceptable.
What version of Navision are you wanting to implement?
We have 2.5 Manufacturing. We tryed to run it with 2.6F and 3.60 executables. Database size 64GB Server: 1 pentium 4 1.4G 1Gb ram RAID1 hard drives LOG and Database on diffrent drives As i said performance is unacceptable.
First of all, You ned a lot of RAM. 1 Gb is an absolute minimum. 2Gb is recommended. How many users? Lets say 25 to 50. Then You should have 2 CPU’s also. You also ned quite a few disks to get a deasent SQL Server. A common setup is like this: - OS and executables on the first RAID-1, default stripe size - Log on second RAID-1, 64K stripe size. Large stripe size and dedicated disk since we have sequential r/w here - Database on at least 2*2 disks in RAID1+0. Probably You’ll need a lot mor disk than this since You have a large database. There is a good documentation that Navision did together with Siemens a time ago. I’ts name is “NFSQL_Sizing_Guide_260.pdf”. It’s still valid i think though it’s quite old. //Lars
This strictly depends from the number of users and activities they perform. The “Siemens” document contains very usefull information, but should be considered a bit of obsolete, especially for the 3.60 version, since it has major differences in the DB structure, hence the performance will be different /mine observations are that its worse/ than 2.60. 1GB of RAM and 1 processor is not enough at all to run such a big database. I would even recommend 4GB of RAM, 2 to 4 processors and the fastest possible disk and network hardware you can get. As you know Navision takes a LOT of network bandwidth and the decision to put either 1 or 2 Gigabit network cards on the server can make a lot of difference. brgds.
I think navision has provide the hardware recommedation for version 3.60. Please contact your NSC.
Hi, Just wondering! Is there anyone of you configure using RAID5 with 3 SCSI HDDs? We have encountered some performance issues, the system slow in repond at certain time. We are using IBM ServeRAID Contoller, PIII 1GHz, 1GB RAM, 3 x 36.4GB HDD and SQL option (20 users). Cheers, Darren
Yes. RAID-5 on three disks with 20 users should be slow. You should at least have the log on separat disks in RAID-1 and data files on 4 disks (2+2) in RAID-10. OS and other executables on other disks (maybe the RAID-5 that You have today) /Lars
Got it. Thanks!
I would never use RAID5 on SQL database, as it could be VERY slow. RAID 1+0 is best for maximum capacity and fault tolerance. As said in previous posts, for such a big database, your configuration is not beefy enough. I would recommend at least 3 CPU’s, more if you can spring it, and at least 2 GB of RAM. 3-4 for such a large database would be suggested. Make sure that they are Xeon processors, 2MB of cache. High speed drives of at least 10,000 RPM speed, examine 15,000 RPM drives if available. Dedicated SCSI controller with as much cache as possible (probably 128 MB or more). We have an 8GB database, with 55 concurrent users, and we are running with 3 Xeon processors, 10 10,000 RPM hard disks, Windows and program files on first mirrored set, database on second striped and mirrored set, and log on another mirrored set. 2.5 GB of RAM, with which we let SQL take 2 GB of it (the limit with the Standard Edition of SQL 2000, I believe). Dedicated, high speed SCSI controller. With SQL, it will take everything you give it, and the minimum requirements are MUCH higher than the Navision database option.