Server Fault is a question and answer site for system and network administrators. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I have a database that gets about 500,000 stored procedure calls a day in addition to other stuff. It's running too slow for us and we're going to upgrade it when we get around to it.

I'm looking at Amazon EC2 as a solution and it seems alright. Sites like Reddit use it for extensive database stuff and they say good things about it. Are there any better solutions than Amazon EC2?

share|improve this question
Read reddit's post carefully. Its phrased in a positive tone, but the actual details are that they had to jump through a bunch of hoops just to get mediocre levels of i/o performance. Hoops i'm not even sure are an option in windows (can you do software raid10 ?) – cagenut Feb 12 '10 at 20:07
up vote 3 down vote accepted

No one else will know the answer to this question better then yourself!

I would do some investigation into where the bottlenecks are on your current server. i.e. CPU, memory, disk i/o and use that to at least guesstimate the kind of specs you would need for a new database server + allowing for future growth & headroom.

Once you get your hands on the VPS from your educated guess you can then setup sql and run some testing, even something simple like a replaying a profiler trace & see how the server performance statistics compare to your current server. These results will then allow you to improve/adjust your initial guess.

share|improve this answer

Do you specifically want a 'cloudy' solution or is that just one option you're looking at?

It's actually only about 6sp/s - which isn't much but it all depends on what kind of load they place on the server - if they're very write-heavy then you're going to need to significantly bolster your storage performance, if they're very read-heavy then moving to a newer server (such as a nehalem xeon-based box) would really help as their memory is very fast.

share|improve this answer
make that 18/second (triple average as peak). Without knowing more, this can not be answered. I have a smaller server happily handling about 50 times that amount, without extreme load, but it is a small sp. – TomTom Mar 24 '10 at 9:16

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.