More on drive space

xp_fixeddrive works fine for getting the free space of a drive, but is there
a clean way to get the size of the drive? chkdsk and fsutil through
xp_cmdshell have been ruled out.There are couple of ways of doing that: You can use SMO/DMO based on SQL
Server version. You can use Powershell/VBScript and get a snapshot of "My
Computer"
Another ugly way of doing is (I dont' recommend) (You can run SRVINFO from
NT resource kit and spit the output in a textfile and get that info in SQL
using SP_ReadErrorLog)
However, there's a good script on how to get SQL Server data/log utilization
report from each drive @.
http://sqlcommunity.com/Default.aspx?grm2id=49&tabid=56
Thank you,
Saleem Hakani
HTTP://WWW.SQLCOMMUNITY.COM (World Wide SQL Server Community)
SQL Tips, Scripts, Articles, Forums, Radio and a lot of SQL Server fun.
"Jay" wrote:
> xp_fixeddrive works fine for getting the free space of a drive, but is there
> a clean way to get the size of the drive? chkdsk and fsutil through
> xp_cmdshell have been ruled out.
>
>|||Well Saleem, nice little script except for a couple things.
- It doesn't pull the capicity of the drive.
- You posted a copy with errors in it.
Intresting site though.
"Saleem Hakani" <SaleemHakani@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A8CDF944-53AB-4EC1-9CFC-A27AE1F9E0FE@.microsoft.com...
> There are couple of ways of doing that: You can use SMO/DMO based on SQL
> Server version. You can use Powershell/VBScript and get a snapshot of "My
> Computer"
> Another ugly way of doing is (I dont' recommend) (You can run SRVINFO from
> NT resource kit and spit the output in a textfile and get that info in SQL
> using SP_ReadErrorLog)
> However, there's a good script on how to get SQL Server data/log
> utilization
> report from each drive @.
> http://sqlcommunity.com/Default.aspx?grm2id=49&tabid=56
> Thank you,
> Saleem Hakani
> HTTP://WWW.SQLCOMMUNITY.COM (World Wide SQL Server Community)
> SQL Tips, Scripts, Articles, Forums, Radio and a lot of SQL Server fun.
>
> "Jay" wrote:
>> xp_fixeddrive works fine for getting the free space of a drive, but is
>> there
>> a clean way to get the size of the drive? chkdsk and fsutil through
>> xp_cmdshell have been ruled out.
>>|||Hi Jay,
I think this is what you are looking for:
Get the facts about your drives and SQL Server space utilization from SQL
Server: http://www.sqlcommunity.com/Default.aspx?grm2id=53&tabid=56
Hope this helps.
Thank you,
Saleem Hakani
HTTP://WWW.SQLCOMMUNITY.COM (World Wide SQL Server Community)
SQLTips, Scripts, Discussions, Blogs, Articles, Radio and a lot of SQL
Server Fun.
"Jay" wrote:
> Well Saleem, nice little script except for a couple things.
> - It doesn't pull the capicity of the drive.
> - You posted a copy with errors in it.
> Intresting site though.
>
> "Saleem Hakani" <SaleemHakani@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:A8CDF944-53AB-4EC1-9CFC-A27AE1F9E0FE@.microsoft.com...
> > There are couple of ways of doing that: You can use SMO/DMO based on SQL
> > Server version. You can use Powershell/VBScript and get a snapshot of "My
> > Computer"
> >
> > Another ugly way of doing is (I dont' recommend) (You can run SRVINFO from
> > NT resource kit and spit the output in a textfile and get that info in SQL
> > using SP_ReadErrorLog)
> >
> > However, there's a good script on how to get SQL Server data/log
> > utilization
> > report from each drive @.
> > http://sqlcommunity.com/Default.aspx?grm2id=49&tabid=56
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Saleem Hakani
> > HTTP://WWW.SQLCOMMUNITY.COM (World Wide SQL Server Community)
> > SQL Tips, Scripts, Articles, Forums, Radio and a lot of SQL Server fun.
> >
> >
> > "Jay" wrote:
> >
> >> xp_fixeddrive works fine for getting the free space of a drive, but is
> >> there
> >> a clean way to get the size of the drive? chkdsk and fsutil through
> >> xp_cmdshell have been ruled out.
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>sql

Monitoring log usage

Hi Everyone,
I'mn setting up a proposal for a new hard drive for one of our SQL servers.
In an effort to get supporting data, I've defined performance counter logs f
or both %Disk and %Idle. Currently, %Idle is a minimum of 74.161 and a maxi
mum of 100.081. After I get the new drive installed and move the logs over
to that drive, I expect the
se percentages to change.
Question: Are there any other counter(s) I should be using to get more exac
t data that exposes the benefits of having the log files on a different hard
drive?
Thanks in advance
LarryYou should always have the log on a separate physcial drive from the data
for 2 reasons ( irregardless of stats) if there is going to be anything more
than minimal use of the database.
1. separate random IO from Serial IO... Log is serial(mostly) and data files
are random (mostly).
2. If you need up to the minute recovery without loss of data, you'd better
have your log on a separate drive...
Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Mariner, Charlotte, NC
www.mariner-usa.com
(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
community of SQL Server professionals.
www.sqlpass.org
"Larry" <Larry@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8A16AAEB-D472-4037-90EE-1D9B9EB5A202@.microsoft.com...
> Hi Everyone,
> I'mn setting up a proposal for a new hard drive for one of our SQL
servers.
> In an effort to get supporting data, I've defined performance counter logs
for both %Disk and %Idle. Currently, %Idle is a minimum of 74.161 and a
maximum of 100.081. After I get the new drive installed and move the logs
over to that drive, I expect these percentages to change.
> Question: Are there any other counter(s) I should be using to get more
exact data that exposes the benefits of having the log files on a different
hard drive?
> Thanks in advance
> Larry

Monitoring log usage

Hi Everyone,
I'mn setting up a proposal for a new hard drive for one of our SQL servers.
In an effort to get supporting data, I've defined performance counter logs for both %Disk and %Idle. Currently, %Idle is a minimum of 74.161 and a maximum of 100.081. After I get the new drive installed and move the logs over to that drive, I expect the
se percentages to change.
Question: Are there any other counter(s) I should be using to get more exact data that exposes the benefits of having the log files on a different hard drive?
Thanks in advance
Larry
You should always have the log on a separate physcial drive from the data
for 2 reasons ( irregardless of stats) if there is going to be anything more
than minimal use of the database.
1. separate random IO from Serial IO... Log is serial(mostly) and data files
are random (mostly).
2. If you need up to the minute recovery without loss of data, you'd better
have your log on a separate drive...
Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Mariner, Charlotte, NC
www.mariner-usa.com
(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
community of SQL Server professionals.
www.sqlpass.org
"Larry" <Larry@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8A16AAEB-D472-4037-90EE-1D9B9EB5A202@.microsoft.com...
> Hi Everyone,
> I'mn setting up a proposal for a new hard drive for one of our SQL
servers.
> In an effort to get supporting data, I've defined performance counter logs
for both %Disk and %Idle. Currently, %Idle is a minimum of 74.161 and a
maximum of 100.081. After I get the new drive installed and move the logs
over to that drive, I expect these percentages to change.
> Question: Are there any other counter(s) I should be using to get more
exact data that exposes the benefits of having the log files on a different
hard drive?
> Thanks in advance
> Larry

Monitoring log usage

Hi Everyone,
I'mn setting up a proposal for a new hard drive for one of our SQL servers.
In an effort to get supporting data, I've defined performance counter logs for both %Disk and %Idle. Currently, %Idle is a minimum of 74.161 and a maximum of 100.081. After I get the new drive installed and move the logs over to that drive, I expect these percentages to change.
Question: Are there any other counter(s) I should be using to get more exact data that exposes the benefits of having the log files on a different hard drive?
Thanks in advance
LarryYou should always have the log on a separate physcial drive from the data
for 2 reasons ( irregardless of stats) if there is going to be anything more
than minimal use of the database.
1. separate random IO from Serial IO... Log is serial(mostly) and data files
are random (mostly).
2. If you need up to the minute recovery without loss of data, you'd better
have your log on a separate drive...
--
Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Mariner, Charlotte, NC
www.mariner-usa.com
(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
community of SQL Server professionals.
www.sqlpass.org
"Larry" <Larry@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8A16AAEB-D472-4037-90EE-1D9B9EB5A202@.microsoft.com...
> Hi Everyone,
> I'mn setting up a proposal for a new hard drive for one of our SQL
servers.
> In an effort to get supporting data, I've defined performance counter logs
for both %Disk and %Idle. Currently, %Idle is a minimum of 74.161 and a
maximum of 100.081. After I get the new drive installed and move the logs
over to that drive, I expect these percentages to change.
> Question: Are there any other counter(s) I should be using to get more
exact data that exposes the benefits of having the log files on a different
hard drive?
> Thanks in advance
> Larry