SQL Server and My Disaster Recovery Experience

How true when they say, you learn best from experience.

Last month, I got a call from a client requesting an onsite visit to check why their SQL Server backups are failing. So I went and immediately ran a full database backup. A dreaded error message greeted me. The following is the error:

10 percent processed.
20 percent processed.
30 percent processed.
Msg 3271, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
A nonrecoverable I/O error occurred on file “K:\DATA\xxxxx.mdf:” 1117(The request could not be performed because of an I/O device error.).
Msg 3013, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
BACKUP DATABASE is terminating abnormally.

I felt a brief terror and the first step that I did in solving the situation was post the error message as a status on my Facebook to convey to my friends how my day is gearing up to be undesirable. How genius of me. Right? 🙂

Then I checked the last known good backup and found out that the server has not been backing up successfully for the last 10 days from when they reported the problem. The client never thought the problem would be critical as the applications are running smoothly uninterrupted since they can remember.

As I investigate the problem, it was concluded that one disk in one RAID 10 array is defective. Worst, the array was meant to store the MDF files. The mirror in the RAID 10 array doesn’t seem to kick in too. The other arrays where the LOGs, the TEMPDBs are located SEEM to be working fine. Hardware wasn’t my expertise so I never bothered to spend time on what went wrong with the hard disks and RAID controllers and decided to just focus on how get the data intact through other means since backing up is failing.

Luckily for me, the TRANSACTION LOGs are doing fine and can be copied. However, as I restored from the last known known good full backup and restored all the transaction log backups that were done right after, it was determined that TRANSACTION LOG backups have stopped too when SQL Server Agent stopped running few days prior. When I attempted to backup the transaction log, I got a similar I/O error. I then remember one of Kimberly Tripps’ PASS SUMMIT videos on disaster recovery. In the video, she demo’d how SQL Server handled when an entire disk volume/array went black. Then hope came on to me. Though no one encounters this every day, and probably no SQL Server professional has encountered this in his/her entire SQL Server career, I felt some degree of hope that the problem I am about to deal with is solvable. The mere fact that the applications depending on the database that can’t be backed up are running perfectly fine tells me something in SQL Server is allowing the database to stay and used online.

My first instincts based on my limited actual experience on disaster and data recovery were to do the following:

  • Never to turn off/restart the server nor restart the services, which I did
  • Ask the client if they can go offline while I resolve the issue, which they allowed so I turned off web server running the applications
  • Find a way to get a full backup of the current state of the database, which I failed
  • Find a way to copy all the associated files (MDFs, LDFS, etc) and having it restored on another SQL Server instance, which I also failed. The MDF file simply just can’t be copied using various tools.
  • Google for relevant info. There were lots but none was as specific to assist me on how to go about it one step at a time
  • Ask fellow SQL Server practitioners about it, but I never came to actually go about this during the whole exercise of data recovery
  • Watch again Kimberly Tripp’s video, which I did and gave me some indirect insights how SQL Server behaves when it is crippled.

What eventually allowed me to recover the data wasn’t accidental but a result of some sound practice in database deployment. There were two things that allowed for recovery:

  1. The LOG files saved the day for me as they happened to be stored on a separate container (disk array) since the day the server was first put up.
  2. SQL Server had ample memory (RAM). It has more than enough memory (RAM) to contain more than twice the size of the database concerned.

So what really happened? How did the storing of the TRANSACTION LOG files on a separate disk array allowed the system to stay good and recoverable? How did memory helped out.

  • SQL Server has the ability to keep data for as long as it can in memory. For read only queries, SQL Server will never bother to read data from data files on disk for as long as it can, provided data aren’t flushed out of memory (e.g. when a need for another memory is requested and there is not enough memory for SQL Server to grant the request another chunk of memory).
  • UPDATES are also reflected on memory and the transaction is recorded in the TRANSACTION LOGs when a database is in Full Recovery Mode. SQL Server does not need to update data files for as long as it can. Data are persisted when TRANSACTION LOGS are backed up in this mode.
  • Coincidentally (well not really as the client followed the advice to have ample memory based on earlier recommendations), the ample amount of memory the SQL Server has allowed the memory manager not to flush out data from memory to accommodate other requests for other data.
  • What appeared to be a problem though was READing from the disks. It appears SQL Server can write to the LOG files but can’t back them up, thus, it allowed SQL Server to continue updating data in memory and record the transactions in the log files allowing the applications to still working. I can do a SELECT * FROM table despite the disk read problems (for SQL Server is getting it from memory). I just can’t backup the database whether full or transactional.

What I eventually did to successfully recover 100% of the critical data are the following:

  • I restored the last known good backup sets (FULL and TRANSACTION LOGS) to another defect-free location
  • I compared the row counts and contents of tables (FROM MEMORY vs LAST KNOWN GOOD BACKUP). Turned out only 2 tables had differences and these tables are the most critical and frequently used ones.
  • I simply copied data from memory to another database located in a defect-free disk array.

That was it. I recovered everything I needed.

After I made sure everything was fully recovered and have the database installed on a new server and have the applications running for a few days, the defective server was decommissioned. Before laying it to rest, I played with it with fear of losing data and knowing it is still essentially an active ‘production’ server.

Here are some experiments I did:

  • Tried various file recovery tools in copying the almost 2GB MDF file to no avail. The attempt always ends up with an I/O error.
  • I tried updating the database, insert new records in the two critical tables and it worked flawlessly as if nothing has gone wrong. I was able to INSERT 100k records with no redflags. I was able to edit 5k records and delete 5k records with no clamor whatsoever.
  • I attempted to try FULL BACKUP one last time and the error is now different. It says:The operating system returned error 21(The device is not ready.) to SQL Server during a write at offset 0x0000000023c000 in file ‘ K:\DATA\xxxxx.mdf ‘. Additional messages in the SQL Server error log and system event log may provide more detail. This is a severe system-level error condition that threatens database integrity and must be corrected immediately. Complete a full database consistency check (DBCC CHECKDB). This error can be caused by many factors; for more information, see SQL Server Books Online. (Microsoft SQL Server, Error: 823)Apparently, the array can’t be accessed anymore. Maybe I had subjected it with added stress it gave out. But HEY, I can still access the database and do some updates.
  • Lastly, I rebooted the ‘newly decommissioned’ database server and it just won’t start anymore.

Hope I don’t get to experience this again until I retire from doing SQL Server 😀

Toto Gamboa is a consultant specializing on databases, Microsoft SQL Server and software development operating in the Philippines. He is currently a member and one of the leaders of Philippine SQL Server Users Group, a Professional Association for SQL Server (PASS) chapter and is one of Microsoft’s MVP for SQL Server in the Philippines. You may reach him by sending an email to totogamboa@gmail.com



Grilling with the Philippine MVPs : Episode 2 – Grill version 2.00

Since I became a Microsoft MVP for SQL Server some years ago, the challenge to gather the MVPs to go on some quality non-tech time has been a challenge, unless of course if called by the local unit of Microsoft. The first episode was a super success. 2 years ago, we went to a bird sanctuary to do some bird watching/photography and some grilling and of course a lot of discussion on whatever things that come our way. Check out MVP Jojo Ayson and MVP Eduardo Lorenzo’s accounts of the first MVP outing.

Last week, rarin’ for another quality time with fellow MVPs, I posted on Facebook the idea of doing the 2nd episode of the MVP’s version of non-tech weekend with fellow MVPs. And yesterday, with MVPs Allan Spartacus Mangune, John De Lizo and his other half and his pet Floppy and Michael Corpuz with his lovely wife and great kids, another milestone was achieved as we went to some nice resort south of Manila to spend the entire day by the beach and over grills and a lot of talk about how things are/were with each of our lives. And of course, as part of the tradition, we can’t avoid making as topics those MVPs who were not around. 🙂

Fast forward, we are once again on the road when for the 2nd time, I remember about the grill I was supposed to bring. Together with the grill was the knife and the charcoal igniter. We thought of going back for the important items as we are still not outside of the metropolis but thanks to Michael, for the second time, as resourceful as he is, he saved our day as he agreed to find some grill along the way so we have something to use for our BBQs.

So at around 7:00am, we cruised along CAVITEX

Photo courtesy of Chellie Acbang

and on the road in Kawit, Cavite, we bought some yummy talaba (oysters) and tahong (mussels). We bought some ice along the way too.

Photo courtesy of Chellie Acbang

It was a smooth easy ride and around 8:00am, we reached our destination: Puerto Azul, Ternate, Cavite.

Photo courtesy of Chellie Acbang

After we got ourselves settled down on some cottages, the main business for the day started : GRILLING.

Once again, like in the first outing, one has to ask: how many MVPs are needed to light the fire and make BBQs? There was a significant improvement compared to the first as to how MVPs deploy the grill and make BBQs. First, the grill Mike bought was better and a lot bigger.  Second, the charcoal was superb. A far cry from what MVP Eduardo Lorenzo brought in the first outing. Everyone agreed that what makes a great grill is not the wire mesh/grill but the quality of charcoal. John De Lizo brought the premium branded kind. 🙂 And with that, we all concluded to redefine what a charcoal for grilling is. We agreed that the charcoal has to be unused and dry 😛

Then it’s time to start the fire. Allan was the genius. He got the fire burning fast with some scrap newspaper. All these while he was able to avoid getting that black soot on his immaculate hands. 🙂

We thought, everything will go smooth when we realized that every food we brought, except for the fish Michael brought in, were all frozen, and are yet to be thawed. But to hell with ice, we defrosted everything on top of the grill … that is how efficient Mirosoft MVPs are.

Here is the MVPs Grill 2011, version 1.00.

Photo courtesy of Jojo Ayson … grabbed from his blogsite Lakwatsero

Here is what we had yesterday… the MVPs Grill 2013, vastly improved version 2.00.

Photo courtesy of Michael Corpuz

They say everything gets really awesome with Version 3.00. We probably need Jojo Ayson for the 3rd release 😛

So for the rest of the day, we just chilled out and enjoyed what the resort had for us. And we had with us the instant star of the day – Floppy, John De Lizo’s golden retriever, who had us star-strucked and glued to him all day! Here we are:

Photo courtesy of the resort’s caretaker 🙂

We headed home past 3:00pm and had another successful episode of Philippine Microsoft MVPs bonding together to form a great family. Great experience, great food, great company once again! Looking forward for Episode 03.

Database Server Provisioning: Partitions & Logical Drives

People overlook the importance of coming up with the right number and correct combination of storage partitions when setting up SQL Server server. More often, people just create partitions equal to the number of disks or arrays they have on the server. For example:

Array 1, Raid 1, Disks 1-2, Partition 1 – Drive C: (OS)
Array 2, Raid 1, Disks 3-4, Partition 2 – Drive D: (Data)
Array 3, Raid 1, Disks 5-6, Partition 3 – Drive E: (Log)
Array 4, Raid 1, Disks 7-8, Partition 4 – Drive F: (TempDB)

This works perfectly however if you are lucky enough to have a server capable of having the right amount of partitions that would host your intended files. But most of us live in the world where funds are scarce that we have to deal with limited amount of resources like server hard drives.

So if you are one of those who weren’t lucky enough to be given the right amount of funds for the right amount of server hard drives, creating storage partitions like as if you have the right amount of hard drives will save you some future work when you finally had your server with the right amount of hard drives.

For example, if you only have 2 drives, configured as RAID 1, instead of just creating a single partition (drive C:) to house every file you have in the server, you may want to create the partitions  in a manner that would mimic your best/ideal configuration even though you have a limited amount of resource underneath. For example:

Array 1, Raid 1, Disks 1-2, Partition 1 – Drive C: (OS)
Array 1, Raid 1, Disks 1-2, Partition 2 – Drive D: (Data)
Array 1, Raid 1, Disks 1-2, Partition 3 – Drive E: (Log)
Array 1, Raid 1, Disks 1-2, Partition 4 – Drive F: (TempDB)

When bosses grant your wishes to have the server configuration you desire, rest assured that you will have lesser tweaks to do when migrating to the newer server. For example, on the newer server, you will have the following:

Array 1, Raid 1, Disks 1-2, Partition 1 – Drive C: (OS)
Array 2, Raid 1+0, Disks 3-8, Partition 2 – Drive D: (Data)
Array 3, Raid 1+0, Disks 9-12, Partition 3 – Drive E: (Log)
Array 4, Raid 1+0, Disks 13-16, Partition 4 – Drive F: (TempDB)

By pre-configuring your servers with the ideal amount of partitions regardless of the underlying number of physical drives / arrays, you simply just restore a database backup on the new server and this saves you from reconfiguring file locations to take advantage of what is in the new server.

Caution: The examples above aren’t suggestive of best practice in terms of server/database performance but are mere simple examples to drive a point. Your ideal partition configuration may be more exotic or elaborate than the samples presented as based from your unique circumstances.


Philipine Duck, Anas luzonica (endemic)
Photographed in Candaba, Pampanga

Toto Gamboa is a consultant specializing on databases, Microsoft SQL Server and software development operating in the Philippines. He is currently a member and one of the leaders of Philippine SQL Server Users Group, a Professional Association for SQL Server (PASS) chapter and is one of Microsoft’s MVP for SQL Server in the Philippines. You may reach him by sending an email to totogamboa@gmail.com

Database Server Provisioning: How Many Disks Do I Need For RAID 10?

I have a new server box intended as a dedicated SQL Server 2012 server. With the new box, I am now faced with a question on what should be the optimal number of physical disk I would configure on each RAID 10 array that I would set. Having the answer to the question would greatly help me in deciding as to how many partitions I will create to support the separation of SQL Server’s data, transaction log and tempdb.

To come up with an answer, I conducted some simple SQLIO test to determine which array configuration is best suited for the read-query-intensive application that I am about to set up. The test should be able to answer the following:

  • Is a 6-disk RAID 1+0 array better than a 4-disk RAID 1+0 array?
  • Is an 8-disk RAID 1+0 array better than a 6-disk RAID 1+0 array?

The Test

I carefully devised the following tests:

  • Run an SQLIO READ test using a 10GB file on a RAID 1+0 array with either 4, 6, 8 and 10 disks.
  • Run an SQLIO WRITE test using the same configurations as the READ test.
  • Each SQLIO test case should be run 5 times and get the average from the results.
  • Prior to each test, I have to destroy the RAID configuration using the server’s RAID utilities, set it up with full initialization, create and format the partition.

The Results

The following are numbers produced by SQLIO:





Latency (ms)
































Latency (ms)
















My Conclusion

  • I conducted the READ test first which influenced my decision to just instead run the full WRITE test on a 4 and 8 disk array.
  • After the READ test, it seems to suggest that having 4 and 6 disks in an array don’t seem to have a significant difference in terms of performance between the two.
  • Going beyond 8 disks, performance wouldn’t improve much
  • With only 14 physical disks to utilize, I ended up with 2 RAID 1+0 arrays. One with 4 disks and the other with 8 disks.

Additional Information

  • I only run each test once on a 6 and 10 disk arrays so I have not included the figures in the results.
  • I tested the 10-disk array configuration just to confirm if there will be significant performance gain.
  • Disks used were the ordinary 250GB SATA drives.


The results presented here do not, in any way, represent a recommendation. It merely shows based on my specific configuration. It may differ in other server configurations and I have no way to know the possible results of other test using a different server configuration. It is therefore highly recommended to conduct your own testing when you have a new server.

Mountain Province, Philippines


Toto Gamboa is a consultant specializing on databases, Microsoft SQL Server and software development operating in the Philippines. He is currently a member and one of the leaders of Philippine SQL Server Users Group, a Professional Association for SQL Server (PASS) chapter and is one of Microsoft’s MVP for SQL Server in the Philippines. You may reach him by sending an email to totogamboa@gmail.com

Database Server Provisioning: What’s Best Practice, What’s Real

Many months ago I have been tasked to recommend an upgrade to the server hardware of a medium-sized mission-critical OLTP dedicated database server running on SQL Server 2005. The client has gone through the regular 5-year maintenance/upgrading cycle and has added more applications that were not previously foreseen putting added stress on the database server. The combined size of the databases is rather small, roughly around 50GB that has accumulated for almost a decade. Around 15GB of which are highly active. Furthermore, the server is catering roughly to around 6000 active users with 10% of which doing complex, highly relational computation and aggregation. Most of the processing are complex querying on large data sets and which are largely read-intensive.

Though the database server is holding up, it was now considered near-end-of-life. Server utilization has increased to almost 60%-80% during regular working hours and on occasional peak, performance would degrade noticeably.

The client’s upgrading directive is for me to find out the best possible configuration for the least amount of money. And in the segment that I am active with, it is almost impossible to get a good idea on what is best out there based on an actual production setup and experience. With the absence of such information and with the lack of experience (as I do NOT get to do upgrading on a monthly or regular basis, who does anyway?), the most logical thing to do is check on best practices articles/guides that are vastly available over the Internet.

What is Best Practice?

What’s interesting about most of these articles and guides by Microsoft and various 3rd party experts is that, these are anchored on the premise of one having an ideal environment given ideal or best possible circumstances. And commonly, you will see that these best practices are presented in a way not based on various limitations but rather to almost always take advantage on what best/top solution is available out there. One would really have to work his way through these articles to get a balanced solution that is acceptable to a certain level if his circumstances are far from being ideal. But there is nothing wrong with these … and this is exactly why these are called ‘best practices’. No one would definitely be able to see all the variables and factors that can affect the outcome of what your ideal setup will become.

What is Real?

Out there however, reality bites. We all have to work with limits. Out there we are given constraints like having limited budget, hardware vendors carry only certain server models (some needed devices need to be imported from another country) and often we all don’t have the luxury of playing around the real stuff until you get one paid and delivered it to you. And there are lots of other unique and strange variables that we have to hurdle.

It is more than necessary for one to do some heavy sleuthing to come up with options to the client without being extravagant and not being unreasonably idealistic, and that one of these options could become acceptable and still be adhering to most, if not all, of the ideals that are staple in these best practices.

The Recommendations

So I came up with the following:

  • Recommendation #1: Upgrade 2005 to SQL Server 2012. Though SQL Server 2005 can provide for what the client requires today, the client’s thirst of technological solutions now seem to be picking up the pace, they seem bent on evolving their systems rapidly. This kind of upgrade though needs to be justified — for one, SQL Server 2012, for a 12-core server doesn’t come cheap.  So the justification here is that SQL Server 2005 SP2 has already reached end-of-life in 2010 while SP3’s life is on lease. Futhermore, the boatload of new features and performance enhancements in 2012 can surely can justify the upgrade. Though initially, the goal is to just simply move to 2012, once done, the direction is to take advantage of the bevy of new features available in 2012. FILETABLE and the new FULLTEXT SEARCHING capabilities come to mind rather quick. I’d be able to make a case to upgrade just for these two features alone.
  • Recommendation #2: I decided to stick with Windows Server 2008 R2 mainly because the client is not ready for an upgrade of its Active Directory to 2012 across all servers. Two years ago, we upgraded the OS/Active Directory from Windows 2003 and every server moved to 2008 R2. Running in 2008 R2 has been flawless for the past years. so I believe Windows 2012 at this point is not necessary. 2008 R2 is very much potent and very stable. I would probably recommend to them to skip fully Windows 2012 and just wait for the next/future releases of this server OS.
  • Recommendation #3: Mid-level DAS server that can handle more than 8 bays without special kits. IBM allowed me to have a server that can have up to 24. Old servers that were acquired only had 8 bays for DAS HDDs. SANs or Servers allowing more bays were then beyond reach for this client, money-wise — well, this was until IBM introduced certain server models that are very much affordable. With these new servers, these will allow me to configure more RAID arrays.
  • Recommendation #4: From a 2008 generation 2 x 4 core, client is moving to a two socket 6-core/socket server having a total of 12-core current generation technology with faster speed, hyper threading and double the cache. The 8-core per socket is beyond reach as this will also increase the spending on SQL Server 2012 which can now only be licensed on a per core basis . Besides, there isn’t much CPU issues with the existing setup. Having this new processing power could provide ample room for growth in the coming years.
  • Recommendation #5: From 16GB of RAM, now it would be 32GB. A fairly good portion of the database would fit into this space. As RAM gets cheaper in the coming years, we could probably have this server @ 64GB and make RAM less of an issue. Besides the current database is still small. But having RAM double for now will tremendously help and would probably cover some unforeseen growth in the coming years. There is a big chance that newer apps will utilize this server.
  • Recommendation #6: From the existing 6 x 7krpm SATA spindles fashioned in a single RAID controller (configured RAID 1 and RAID 5), I recommended 14 x 7krpm SATA drives on 2 RAID controllers. This is where I have done a lot of thinking, weighing the client’s directive to spend the least amount of money while still achieving some of the ideals of what should be is a best practice. After all, this is the most critical and the slowest of all the system’s components. Going for the considerably performant 15krpm SAS drives would have quadrupled the storage cost. My notion here is that, with me having my hand on Recommendation #3, I would still have gained substantial disk IO performance gain over the existing setup if I’d be able to spread at least three Raid 1+0 Arrays and will have 2 RAID controllers sharing the load. This way, I would be able to separate DATA, LOG and TEMPDB. I understand, the best practice out there is to have at least 3 Arrays so SQL Server’s data, log and tempdb can each be placed on separate arrays — that is what people are evangelizing, or so it seems.

What Came Out of My Recommendations

Now that the client has approved all my recommendations and the components for upgrading were delivered by various vendors, I would like to show what came out of it.

All recommendations were as expected other than Recommendation #6 where it turned out to be interesting and has shown another example of when best practice gets tweaked down to a level that is acceptable and also when harsh reality bites.  The 2 RAID controller setup is not possible (the vendor claimed). The first RAID controller (built-in) is getting disabled by the second RAID controller (add-on). I was fed a wrong information from the start by another vendor and only got to confirm that it is not going to work after the servers were delivered and configured. Unfortunately, the client ordered the server from another vendor so they cannot hold the vendor responsible for the wrong information. Client cannot afford to wait for another 30-day delivery so it has to deal with a single RAID controller setup.

So why 14? Why not 24?

First, given an extra push, the client could have gone for 24. However, what concerned me that time was that, I can’t be certain of the performance gain I will have with having the 24 — well, NOT until the client has paid and the server is delivered. This is one of the realities I have to face, server hardware vendors around here aren’t known  or say familiar with these realities, and they can’t give you figures on how their machines would fare given the load you expect. So I recommended a safe setup.  I came up with 14 thinking that if performance gain over the existing setup comes up short in one of the unforeseen rounds of expansion, I still would be able to tell the client to get the faster 15krpm SAS drives to fill the remaining bays without decommissioning some few hard disks. And now, after playing with the actual machine, my caution seem to hit the mark.

Upon testing using SQLIO, I seem to always get optimal performance with an array of 8 spindles. Increasing the spindles does not improve things much further. I am not sure if this is true with a different server brand/specs/configuration. So now I ended up with the following:

Array 1, RAID 1, 2xDisks, Single Partition (OS, MSSQL)
Array 2, RAID 1+0, 8xDisks, Single Partition (DATA)
Array 3, RAID 1+0, 4xDisks, Two Partition (LOG @ Partition 1, TEMPDB @ Partition 2)

The above setup, far from being ideal, seem to have gained me more than double the I/O performance than that of the existing just by running SQLIO. Testing further and having able to spread SQL Server’s data, log and tempdb across arrays further improved the system’s performance way better than I expected. I’d probably have another blog discussing in length how I came down with this decision. Some SQLIO numbers would definitely shed light on this.

In the end, I believe I was able to satisfy what was required of me without being unreasonably idealistic.


Bataan, Philippines

Toto Gamboa is a consultant specializing on databases, Microsoft SQL Server and software development operating in the Philippines. He is currently a member and one of the leaders of Philippine SQL Server Users Group, a Professional Association for SQL Server (PASS) chapter and is one of Microsoft’s MVP for SQL Server in the Philippines. You may reach him by sending an email to totogamboa@gmail.com

Database Server Provisioning: Items Of Concern Using Commodity Servers

There were series of requests for info directed at me lately from clients and acquaintances on how to best deal with their need to come up with the right server specification for their SQL Server based applications.

Upon some substantial researching, I came to a conclusion that preparing a new environment for our SQL Server isn’t an exact science. It almost always followed by lots of questions where answers are hard to come by easily. The complexity of coming up with a sound specification is heightened by the lack or low frequency of our exposure to the task at hand. I mean, how many of us are tasked to come up with a new server for some new SQL Server based application on a daily or even weekly basis?

So I thought of compiling what I have stumbled upon the Web, the online fora, and from interactions with various hardware vendors. This compilation of information would probably serve as a starting point to coming up with sound configuration of a machine that would run our SQL Server and would also serve as my guide and reminder of the things that I need to be concerned of.

Today, we have so many options to choose from. But I only need to focus on those that will affect SQL Server’s performance using commodity servers. So what is in the market today that needs our attention?

CAUTION: I’ll only assume that the server will be configured as dedicated only to SQL Server. I won’t cover virtualized scenarios here.

Processing  Unit

  • 64bit. Going 64bit is the way to go in most of us. This should allow us  to go beyond the memory addressing limits of a 32bit system. SQL Server need not task itself too with the extra memory handling posed by 32bit.
  • Speed. Faster core speed would generally give us better performance. So I’d say buy the fastest per core speed processing unit your money can have.
  • Cache. Larger cache are better. Cache allows the CPU to keep frequently used data nearer and faster to the processing unit. The more it can accommodate, the better.
  • Thread. Today’s processing units offer flavors that have multi-threading in the cores. Extra threads allow us to have more ‘processors’ (logical) than what we actually have (physical) to work on a given task. SQL Server takes advantage of this. In fact, the maker of SQL Server states that the compute capacity of the 2 logical processors in the hyperthreaded core is greater than the compute capacity of the same core with hyperthreading disabled. So go for the processors with threading.
  • Cores. Today’s staple are from commodity servers have 4, 6, 8 cores per socket. Go for the highest numbers your money can buy. Be aware though that starting with SQL Server 2012, the number of cores that you have comes with licensing implications, so you need to check on these concerns too.
  • Sockets. Today’s commodity servers have 1, 2 and 4 sockets. Though your application may need only 1 single processor, it is sensible to factor in growth and future expansion options. You may opt for a server with spare sockets for growth. However, do take note that you may have difficulties acquiring additional processors for your server if you decide to expand after several years. It also make sense that if you have enough money to fill the spare sockets with the processors you need. Be aware though that starting with SQL Server 2012, the number of sockets that you have comes with licensing implications, so you need to check on these concerns too.


  • Size. More is better. Period! 🙂
  • Density. Go for the denser memory modules so don’t quickly fill the limited number of memory slots meant for expansion. E.g., If your server has 4 memory slots and can handle up to 32GB max and you need 16GB of memory, it is better to get two 8GB modules than four 4GB modules so you still have two slots for expansion. Expanding to 32GB will render your 4GB modules unusable.

Storage and Related Components

Probably the slowest components in your server, choosing the right combination of storage and related components can lead you to a better, performant SQL Server database server.

  • Capacity. In SQL Server terms, server storing capacity isn’t disk size. SQL Server has various ways of utilizing storage. You can have multiple file groups across several arrays or disks in multiple enclosures. Size is really dictated by what your application needs. Determine first your size estimates and have enough buffer for growth. If you can expand size in the future without having to shut down and reconfigure your system, that is for me is the most sensible path to take.
  • Disk Size. Individual disk size may or may not affect SQL Server. But do note that size can relatively affect seek speed. Go easy with larger disks. Heads can travel longer in larger capacity drives. So if you are building an array of multiple drives, you may prefer building it with smaller capacity drives.
  • SATA, SAS. To make things simple, SAS drives are faster but are more expensive than SATA drives.
  • SSD. Solid State Drives are the future but it is here now. Though I have not personally tried this yet in a production server, vendors and customer testimonies tout SSDs are superbly faster in a lot of cases and increases significantly the server’s performance. There are still reliability issues that I have read but things are getting better each day. I’d probably want to utilize SSDs for my tempdb.
  • RAID. There should be more than enough information on RAID and SQL Server on the web. It is one piece of component an SQL Server DBA need to be concerned of and familiarity is the key. There are plenty of storage/server options that allows you to have multiple RAID controllers and build various array types. It is just impossible to have it covered here in this article. I’d say it is always better to check with your vendor. However, I have the belief that in SQL Server, the more RAID arrays you have spread across several controllers using the fastest, most reliable and less dense disk drives are the way to go. This way, you can freely spread load such as separating transaction logs, tempdb, data files to their own arrays. You may check on other blogs on this matter.

Ethernet Ports

  • Bandwidth. Servers with 1Gbps ports are now a norm but I have seen some server models with 10Gbps ports. However, you can only take advantage of these high volume ports if your network (cabling, switches, etc) supports it. I would assume that within the datacenter, or the least within your servers’ rack/enclosure that you have the fastest links. SQL Server will take advantage of whatever bandwidth you have in your box.

Blades, Storage Area Networks, NAS and External Storage options

These types of options present a bit different set of concerns to an SQL Server DBA as compared to standard/commodity servers.  But the nuances of the common components I have mentioned above can still be applied on these options. I would love to expand this article to cover these options. This is all for now!


Whiskered Tree-Swift, 𝘏𝘦𝘮𝘪𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘯𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘢 (female)
Photographed in Mt. Palay Palay, Cavite

Toto Gamboa is a consultant specializing on databases, Microsoft SQL Server and software development operating in the Philippines. He is currently a member and one of the leaders of Philippine SQL Server Users Group, a Professional Association for SQL Server (PASS) chapter and is one of Microsoft’s MVP for SQL Server in the Philippines. You may reach him by sending an email to totogamboa@gmail.com

Cleaning Up Old Database Dirt with SQL Server 2012

I am about to venture into transitioning a 10 year old database that started with SQL Server 2000 which has surely some (a lot?) accumulated  ‘dirt’ in it that started way back in 2001. In the past (am sure it still is with 2012 edition), SQL Server has been very forgiving for all the sins of its handlers (DBAs, developers, users, & pretenders). It had allowed a lot of minor issues to creep into the database without constantly complaining and compromising its ability to run in production. In a perfect world, those issues could have been eradicated a long time ago.

The ‘dirt’ has accumulated as SQL Server hasn’t been pestering people that there is some cleaning up to do. In the real world, that is acceptable. We just can’t stop the show after someone spilt water on the stage floor. After 10 years,with better tools and ways to clean up dirt, it would be a worthwhile exercise so we can navigate easily through the challenges of modern times.

Enter SQL Server 2012, it packs with efficient and reliable tools to accomplish this tasks of cleaning things up. To start on the cleaning process though I need to see the mostly unseen ‘dirt’. SSDT comes in handy for this job.

Using SQL Server Data Tools (SSDT) As Dirt Probe

Here is how to begin identifying what needs to be cleaned.

Then allow SSDT to scan your database for ‘dirt’. I am actually referring to ‘errors’ and ‘warnings’!

After scanning, go to the Error List tab and VOILA!!! now you see the ‘dirt’.

Armed with a long ugly list, you can now hire a cleaner to scrub off each and every dirt you have identified.

That is all for now for the cleaning up!

Toto Gamboa is a consultant specializing on databases, Microsoft SQL Server and software development operating in the Philippines. He is currently a member and one of the leaders of Philippine SQL Server Users Group, a Professional Association for SQL Server (PASS) chapter and is one of Microsoft’s MVP for SQL Server in the Philippines. You may reach him by sending an email to totogamboa@gmail.com

Tomorrow, Microsoft Will Bet Its Farm On Apple!!!

Will the next version of Microsoft’s Windows Phone OS be codenamed blackberry? or apple? 😛 Should Ballmer call it Microsoft apple, it will be my first time to own an apple. Hehehe. And one can imagine a news headline saying, millions and millions of Microsoft users now use apple! That would be bedlam. Then we probably hear Mac fanatics or Steve Jobs saying apple sucks! Ahh … that would surely perk up my day!

Expertise Bug Leads to Major Database Design Blunder

Often, we hear software developers (myself included) say, “yeah … we can definitely do that!” or “yeah … you have come to the right place, anything you want .. we can build it for you”! Then often, we too hear stories of software projects fail here and there. And now I begin to wonder how things could be worked out properly so problems, or worst case, failures can be avoided.

What happened to me recently could probably be one of the reasons why software projects fail. For the past several months, I have been working on a system that concerns the health of people. The system is intended for use by doctors, dentists, physical therapists, nurses, or any practice or profession that deals with people’s health, etc. The system, when done, will handle quite an extensive amount of data gathered from a good number of processes and sources that are realized every minute of the day.

For the past several months, there was a good amount of communication between my group and those potential users of the system. A lot of time were spent in requirements discovery and gathering, analysis, and everybody even subject a lot of items to questions just to sort things out clearly so things come out fine. A near functional prototype has been established for several months and it looks like everybody is happy of everyone’s progress … including the state of the system. Beta testing was conducted, had 6 major beta builds in the last few months, and seemed not a thing was amiss. In fact, it is almost done that the potential users are so eager to have the system deployed already and pioneered as soon as possible (that would have been like last month). I was into the finishing touches and was like in the process of putting icing on the cake.

Then … it was KABLAAAAAAMMMMMM!!! As the project’s database designer, I thought of something that hurled everything back into the drawing board. I miss identifying one piece of information that should have been in the database design from the very start. With the set of people contributing to make this happen … this one thing never had any manifestation of being thought out. The medical guys involved in the project never thought of the item. The software development guys never had any clue. I never had any clue. And I have contemplated so deeply to analyze how I could miss something this important. People who played the analyst role came short in thinking about this (I am one of those). But I, being the database designer, am blaming of missing something so important.

After gathering myself, I came to a conclusion that the only time that I’d be able to easily identify or come across such piece of information, is probably when I am a doctor, a practicing one, and at the same time a database designer who had lots of databases and experience tucked under my belt. I caught the missing piece from a totally unrelated event, not even related to what I am doing.

To cut the story short, what happened thereafter was 1 table was added to the database structure with 1 new column that would serve as a reference for 70% of other tables. With the change, 70% of sql code were re-written, 50% of critical UI got revamped and lots of time lost and gained lots of sleepless nights.

The moral of my story, though completely lacking of juicy technical details as I cannot divulge those for fear of legal ramifications and of ridicule (ano ako hilo? hahahha), software development / technical expertise can only bring us to certain extents and domain expertise is clearly a desirable attribute one can have, especially if you are a database designer. The reality and funny thing though is that, I can’t picture myself as a doctor and a database person so I can eliminate this problem in the future and this is probably the reason why there are just too many software project that have failed. And I can still hear myself saying “yeah … of course, anything you want, I can build it for you!”.

The system I talked about here is almost done and is looking really good! And I don’t think I have missed some more that would screw up my day. How about you? Do you say, being considered as an expert, can do of anything that is asked of you? 😛

1.5Terabytes of Photography Gone and Back, and How Windows 7 Installs and Fixes Itself!

Last Thursday morning, Windows 7 popped an ugly message … cannot read Drive S: and after I closed the message, I immediately opened Windows Explorer and there was no more drive S:. Suddenly, a rush of panic engulfed my senses. It was in that drive that I recently consolidated all my photos, and yeah …. 1.35TB of RAW files since I got into the digital photography madness. I load up event viewer and one item says, “The device, \Device\Harddisk1\DR1, has a bad block.”. Loaded up Disk Management and Drive S just wasn’t there. I rebooted and my PC’s BIOS telling me I had a bad disk.

After a fresh restart, I immediately opened Windows Explorer to check on drive S:. Thankfully it was there but it cannot be opened and accessed. I immediately went on recovery mode. First thing I did was to test if my chances for recovery is high. I ran an old Sandisk tool RescuePro and recovered files without subjecting the faulty hard disk of any write operation. Though very effective, RescuePro just went on and dumped every file it can recover in a single folder with the recovered files named as 00001.cr2, 00002.cr2 …. xxxxx.cr2. After a few files recovered, I realize it would be a nightmare trying to check each file for its content. I cancelled RescuePro and run TestDisk which I had used with my faulty CF and SD cards before. This tool is very advanced in terms of disk/file recovery but its UI is as old as those character based DOS apps of the 80s. Running TestDisk, I was able to peer into the folder structure of the faulty hard drive, and have each recovered to another disk 1.5TB disk. It took me almost 24 hours to have everything recovered. Yeah … ALL files were recovered.

Just as I thought my woes are over, while verifying each folder if it indeed been recovered, Windows 7 PC blue screened. If you are just a street away from me that time, you could have been deaf by the curses you have heard from me. I restarted the PC and it says something about a missing BootMgr. What the !@#$!!!!! Upon further scrutiny, I realized the problem started some couple of years ago when I had this PC freshly formatted when I added some new hard drives. I remember when I had the first HDD upgrade, I set the BIOS to boot on the new 1.5TB HD instead of the switching cables so that boot order would match corresponding disk ports. What happened was I had the following setup:

  • BIOS Boot Order on Device 1
  • Device 0, 320GB, Active Primary D:\, …
  • Device 1, 1.5TB, System, Boot, C:\, ….

Earlier this year, I replaced the old 320GB with another 1.5TB and forgot to reset what was in the BIOS all these times. So I had the following setup:

  • BIOS Boot Order on Device 1
  • Device 0, 1.5TB (new)
  • Device 1, 1.5TB (old)

Without this HDD crash incident, I could not have known that Windows 7 did the following when I had it reformatted right after installing the new 1.5TB HDD some months back.

  • BIOS Boot Order on Device 1
  • Device 0, 1.5TB (System, C:\, C:\Windows)
  • Device 1, 1.5TB (Boot)

As you can see, BIOS tells the PC to boot from Device 1. Since it has crashed, it could NOT find the necessary boot info, thus I got the “BOOTMGR is missing” message. I attempted to BCDEdit, but the app hangs as it accessed the faulty drive. I have tried Windows repair and all to no avail. Windows repair only managed to fix the partition issue but it does not repair BOOT miscue. All these until I got Hanselman’s blog on BCDBoot where he happen to be in a similar situation.

I immediately ran BCDBoot and restarted the PC, changed BOOT Order to Device 0 and it just wont boot properly.

Thinking, BCDBoot had already corrected the BOOT miscue, I thought Windows Repair could do things differently this time. I popped the Windows 7 installer and went on Repair mode and voila … the PC booted normally. Checking on Disk Management, my rig now says:

  • BIOS Boot Order on Device 0
  • Device 0, 1.5TB (System, Boot, Primary Partition, C:\, C:\Windows)
  • Device 1, 1.5TB (Active, Primary Partition)

I then physically removed the faulty hard drive for one last reboot … and everything just are back, all 1.35terabytes of RAW files and some new knowledge on how Windows 7 installs and fixes itself!