How fast is your SIMS

[chazzy2501]

using local sims with full SQL.. I was wondering how fast it should be. 1000 pupils big..

 

it takes 2-3 seconds to get a list of pupils from the search and about 3-4 seconds to bring up their record.. Not bad, Not great.

 

I was going through student records and it feels so much slower that the numbers show.

 

any pro tips for making it faster?

 

8gb ram 4 cores of xeon 4110, full sql. 6gb database. on a dell raid 6 direct sas.

[bobsmith]

8Gb? More like 24.

 

I've yet to find the magic formula which makes it fly.

[mrbios]

Storage is everything to be honest. Back in the days when we had slower (not slow, but slower) storage, the data admin could almost completely lock up sims by running huge reports. The last 3-4 years since we've had everything running off a nimble SAN with <2ms latency times max, the whole sims application is massively more responsive.

 

Desktops running on SSDs with 8gb ram also helps to ensure the local app is responsive.

 

My sims server is a VM with 4 vCPUs, 32gb ram. SIMS database is 17GB, FMS is <1GB, Discover is 3GB. I also run a second SSQL instance from the same VM but most databases there are tiny now, but used to have MLS library system on there, uniflow print database, among a few others.

[Simcfc73]

Our SIMS manager was complaining it takes 30 seconds to upload each PDF to the kids record. Its always ran as a dog for me.

[PotNoodleTech]

using local sims with full SQL.. I was wondering how fast it should be. 1000 pupils big..

 

it takes 2-3 seconds to get a list of pupils from the search and about 3-4 seconds to bring up their record.. Not bad, Not great.

 

I was going through student records and it feels so much slower that the numbers show.

 

any pro tips for making it faster?

 

8gb ram 4 cores of xeon 4110, full sql. 6gb database. on a dell raid 6 direct sas.

 

16GB RAM and RAID5 SSD array would pep it right up!

[localzuk]

Our largest SIMS install (school with 560 children, 12GB SIMS.mdf file), runs on a 16vCPU, 16GB RAM VM running on enterprise SSDs in a RAID 6 array. I would still say it isn't much better than those times. The main difference we found, giving it better resources, was the big intensive tasks - like importing lots of CTF files.

[msi_school]

I have been doing some cross referencing today maximising and minimising SIMS and it takes several seconds to redraw the SIMS application on my Haswell i5 with 16GB RAM and a Samsung EVO Pro SSD.

 

There are problems with the database but the application is also dog slow.

[Chaniel]

Similar size school, we're using 4vCPU and 24GB RAM for our SIMS server with similar speeds to load students etc.

 

Pretty sure our limiting factor is our storage speed, rather than the VM.

[ITGURU]

We have SIMS as a physical server at one site (2 x 6 core CPUs, 24GB, Raid 50 storage) and Virtual at another (12virtual cores, 24gb, VHDK on RAID 10 local storage). When running updates, and intensive tasks, physical server performance still wins hands down and completes first.. clicking the arrow through student records is still quicker on the physical.

 

Whenever companies remote onto our server to complete sims integrations or capita remote on, they always say they are surprised at how quick the physical server performs.

[PotNoodleTech]

We have SIMS as a physical server at one site (2 x 6 core CPUs, 24GB, Raid 50 storage) and Virtual at another (12virtual cores, 24gb, VHDK on RAID 10 local storage). When running updates, and intensive tasks, physical server performance still wins hands down and completes first.. clicking the arrow through student records is still quicker on the physical.

 

Whenever companies remote onto our server to complete sims integrations or capita remote on, they always say they are surprised at how quick the physical server performs.

 

Ah - but is that because the physical server has a raid array configuration (50) that is much faster at reading and writing data?

[ITGURU]

Ah - but is that because the physical server has a raid array configuration (50) that is much faster at reading and writing data?

 

I'd have thought RAID 10 would be faster?

[synaesthesia]

SIMS for us runs "reasonably" - where reasonable is like a dog. As soon as someone fires off a large report though, said dog becomes entirely lame.

ESXi VM, 64GB RAM dedicated with full use of 4 Xeon e5630, RAID1 enterprise SSDs and full SQL with a 10gbit connection to the network.

[ITGURU]

SIMS for us runs "reasonably" - where reasonable is like a dog. As soon as someone fires off a large report though, said dog becomes entirely lame.

ESXi VM, 64GB RAM dedicated with full use of 4 Xeon e5630, RAID1 enterprise SSDs and full SQL with a 10gbit connection to the network.

 

I think you can throw whatever you like at SIMS but when it comes to reports being run, SQL CPU never goes very high maybe 20%. It's badly coded.

[PotNoodleTech]

I'd have thought RAID 10 would be faster?

 

Raid 50 is significantly faster at reading data - writing is very dependent on the raid controller used but raid 50 usually writes slower, especially on lower end controllers.

 

Random writes are usually cached straight into RAM on the SIMS DB so you shouldn't have much problem with daily use. Reads cannot be cached though due to the random nature so read performance from disk is very important.

 

Horses for coursed and very dependent on the kit you are running - my advice would be if chasing SIMS issues always run benchmarks like crystaldiskmark as it can really help you pin down issues that may be with the host/nas/san etc rather than SIMS itself.

[FishCustard]

I think you can throw whatever you like at SIMS but when it comes to reports being run, SQL CPU never goes very high maybe 20%. It's badly coded.

 

This - many of the responsiveness issues with SIMS are down to inefficient algorithms. You can throw all the resource you want at it, but an O(n^2) algorithm is still going to be slower than the alternatives.

 

For reasons I won't bore you with I've looked at SIMS' internals, and it was a little like peering into Hell.

[psydii]

We paid MS support for performance guidance (standard £220+VAT). It made a bit of a difference. They tuned some stuff, some of which is basic SQL Server admin 101, and other bits are a bit more specialist/local to our use patterns. Not had any complaints since. Big reports still lock it up, but people try to run those out of school hours.

 

We have Lots of Ram, Lots of spinning disks. *very* occasionally a query will try to page in from disk at the same time other servers are also hammering the same set of disks, then we feel it, but it is only a momentary blip.

 

I should stress: it never feels fast fast.

 

 

Also We have been seeing the slow screen redraw on the client recently. I think this started after a recent (Feb?) Windows update, nobody has really complained but it does make it feel a little like Windows 3.1 / 1993.

[Zammo]

This - many of the responsiveness issues with SIMS are down to inefficient algorithms. You can throw all the resource you want at it, but an O(n^2) algorithm is still going to be slower than the alternatives.

 

For reasons I won't bore you with I've looked at SIMS' internals, and it was a little like peering into Hell.

 

Agreed. I have seen all sorts of setups and SIMS is never, ever "fast".

 

Someone once (possibly on here) pulled out some of the queries and/or code from SIMS and even to my untrained eye it was a mess. Dead tables, queries that never return anything etc. Also IIRC some sort of backward compatibility for the likes of Exams module, old System Manager users and NOVA-T