|
|
You're in the
sql server data warehouse
group:NAS recommandation for dev team...
sql server data warehouse:
Hi,
I want to setup a computer or server as a storage server to host database files. I'm not looking for a top performance system because its for "small" datawarehouses and for development / test purpose. small = 5 to 20gb (generally a subset of data) I want to allow a developper to copy any database to test something without breaking anything on original databases. my SQL Server server will host tempdb (master & msdb) and original databases. I plan a computer like a standard PC with 4 * 80 gb SATA drives in RAID 0+1 + Gigabyte network card and switch + Win 2003 standard I know that this type of config is not safe and performance consuming , but also its a cheap solution :-) and also is development purpose, so I'll have 1 to 3 users at the same time on a database. My database server is a 2 * P4 Xeon HP server with 4Gb of RAM. what do you think about this? what other element I have to think in the config? does it better to boost local computer of each developper and install a dev edition of SQL on each one? thanks for your feedback. Jerome.
It's certainly a good idea to seperate development from production. What I
would do is to create a backup schedule and give the devs a copy to play on their dev server. This way, you would achieve 2 things, a backup of your original in case you need recovery, and a copy of the databases for your devs. -- -oj [quoted text, click to view] "Jéjé" <willgart@BBBhotmailAAA.com> wrote in message news:OA4v%23GIQFHA.1176@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl... > Hi, > > I want to setup a computer or server as a storage server to host database > files. > > I'm not looking for a top performance system because its for "small" > datawarehouses and for development / test purpose. > small = 5 to 20gb (generally a subset of data) > > I want to allow a developper to copy any database to test something > without breaking anything on original databases. > > my SQL Server server will host tempdb (master & msdb) and original > databases. > > I plan a computer like a standard PC with 4 * 80 gb SATA drives in RAID > 0+1 + Gigabyte network card and switch + Win 2003 standard > > I know that this type of config is not safe and performance consuming , > but also its a cheap solution :-) > and also is development purpose, so I'll have 1 to 3 users at the same > time on a database. > > My database server is a 2 * P4 Xeon HP server with 4Gb of RAM. > > what do you think about this? > what other element I have to think in the config? > > does it better to boost local computer of each developper and install a > dev edition of SQL on each one? > > thanks for your feedback. > > Jerome. > >
when I talk about "production" I talk about released version, but not a
production server with end-users connected on it! so the "production" version is here for front end development & demonstrations. The real production server are deployed in our client's servers so its a complete and dedicated environment. Also I split the "production" and the "developpers" versions into 2 separate instances of SQL Server. [quoted text, click to view] "Ray" <someone@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:8ws7e.3396$716.2013@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com... > Having Dev and Prod on the same server is a recipe for either high risk or > low performance. Those are your choices without spending a lot of money > on a high-end system. By high risk I mean there's no good way to separate > the system resources or the SQL server into two distinct units. The > developers in this situation will bring down your production system sooner > or later. By low performance, you could over come most of the risk by > using Virtual PC or VMware to divide the computer resources into two > systems. But these are generally slow performers. > > This is a case of needing to buy two servers. I assume you are using SQL > Server 2000 Standard Edition. Keep the server you have and buy another > cheaper system for the developers. Install the developer edition on it. > > Ray > > > "Jéjé" <willgart@BBBhotmailAAA.com> wrote in message > news:OA4v%23GIQFHA.1176@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl... >> Hi, >> >> I want to setup a computer or server as a storage server to host >> database files. >> >> I'm not looking for a top performance system because its for "small" >> datawarehouses and for development / test purpose. >> small = 5 to 20gb (generally a subset of data) >> >> I want to allow a developper to copy any database to test something >> without breaking anything on original databases. >> >> my SQL Server server will host tempdb (master & msdb) and original >> databases. >> >> I plan a computer like a standard PC with 4 * 80 gb SATA drives in RAID >> 0+1 + Gigabyte network card and switch + Win 2003 standard >> >> I know that this type of config is not safe and performance consuming , >> but also its a cheap solution :-) >> and also is development purpose, so I'll have 1 to 3 users at the same >> time on a database. >> >> My database server is a 2 * P4 Xeon HP server with 4Gb of RAM. >> >> what do you think about this? >> what other element I have to think in the config? >> >> does it better to boost local computer of each developper and install a >> dev edition of SQL on each one? >> >> thanks for your feedback. >> >> Jerome. >> >> > >
Having Dev and Prod on the same server is a recipe for either high risk or
low performance. Those are your choices without spending a lot of money on a high-end system. By high risk I mean there's no good way to separate the system resources or the SQL server into two distinct units. The developers in this situation will bring down your production system sooner or later. By low performance, you could over come most of the risk by using Virtual PC or VMware to divide the computer resources into two systems. But these are generally slow performers. This is a case of needing to buy two servers. I assume you are using SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition. Keep the server you have and buy another cheaper system for the developers. Install the developer edition on it. Ray [quoted text, click to view] "Jéjé" <willgart@BBBhotmailAAA.com> wrote in message news:OA4v%23GIQFHA.1176@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl... > Hi, > > I want to setup a computer or server as a storage server to host database > files. > > I'm not looking for a top performance system because its for "small" > datawarehouses and for development / test purpose. > small = 5 to 20gb (generally a subset of data) > > I want to allow a developper to copy any database to test something > without breaking anything on original databases. > > my SQL Server server will host tempdb (master & msdb) and original > databases. > > I plan a computer like a standard PC with 4 * 80 gb SATA drives in RAID > 0+1 + Gigabyte network card and switch + Win 2003 standard > > I know that this type of config is not safe and performance consuming , > but also its a cheap solution :-) > and also is development purpose, so I'll have 1 to 3 users at the same > time on a database. > > My database server is a 2 * P4 Xeon HP server with 4Gb of RAM. > > what do you think about this? > what other element I have to think in the config? > > does it better to boost local computer of each developper and install a > dev edition of SQL on each one? > > thanks for your feedback. > > Jerome. > >
David,
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/304261 Also from: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/windowsserver2003/technologies/clustering/sercsfaq.mspx Q. Can Server clusters use NAS for the shared storage? A. Yes, providing the applications can store data on file shares and the file shares are accessible to the applications as they failover across the cluster, there is no reason why NAS cannot be used as the storage solution in a cluster. There is currently no support in Windows to use NAS as the quorum resource. In Windows Server 2003, we are providing a new quorum resource Majority Node Set that can be used to remove the need for a shared disk for the quorum resource. If you combine NAS storage with Majority Node Set quorum, you can build a failover cluster that does not require shared disks in the traditional sense of SCSI or SAN. [quoted text, click to view] "David Portas" <REMOVE_BEFORE_REPLYING_dportas@acm.org> wrote in message news:ic2dnUxZFMTHX8PfRVn-jA@giganews.com... > NAS isn't supported and doesn't make sense for a SQL Server database, not > even for development. Use SAN or Direct Attached storage. > > If you run Personal or Developer Edition on each PC then each developer > can develiop and test locally before releasing into source control. Backup > and restore from the live environment and use scripts as the source to > build your database changes. > > -- > David Portas > SQL Server MVP > -- > >
Yes, I understand there is/was exactly one NAS product formally
supported by SQL Server - but maybe they added more at some point, I don't know. My own extremely brief encounter with a SQL Server / Win2K on NAS left me with one conclusion: Don't go there! For SQL, the disadvantages outweigh the advantages. Do you have a different experience? I'm interested to know. -- David Portas SQL Server MVP --
at my last job, we used a NAS that WAS in the recommended hardware list.
It sucked rocks. we were forced to move to a Hitachi SAN and it ROCKED. we only migrated AFTER losing our biggest customer....OUCH In short....."Dont Go There" Greg Jackson PDX, Oregon
NAS isn't supported and doesn't make sense for a SQL Server database, not
even for development. Use SAN or Direct Attached storage. If you run Personal or Developer Edition on each PC then each developer can develiop and test locally before releasing into source control. Backup and restore from the live environment and use scripts as the source to build your database changes. -- David Portas SQL Server MVP --
No. I don't mix sql and nas though it is officially supported. If I were
given a choice of either having a sql on nas or none, it's pretty easy for me to just take it. -- -oj [quoted text, click to view] "David Portas" <REMOVE_BEFORE_REPLYING_dportas@acm.org> wrote in message news:1113507779.148389.255750@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > Yes, I understand there is/was exactly one NAS product formally > supported by SQL Server - but maybe they added more at some point, I > don't know. > > My own extremely brief encounter with a SQL Server / Win2K on NAS left > me with one conclusion: Don't go there! For SQL, the disadvantages > outweigh the advantages. Do you have a different experience? I'm > interested to know. > > -- > David Portas > SQL Server MVP > -- >
One note further. We may be blurring the line between development and
production here but the SQL license for Standard does not allow for the install of multiple instances. If this will only be for development purposes install the developer edition. Then you can use instances. [quoted text, click to view] "Jéjé" <willgart_A_@hotmail_A_.com> wrote in message news:ewKgX8OQFHA.3628@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl... > when I talk about "production" I talk about released version, but not a > production server with end-users connected on it! > so the "production" version is here for front end development & > demonstrations. > > The real production server are deployed in our client's servers so its a > complete and dedicated environment. > > Also I split the "production" and the "developpers" versions into 2 > separate instances of SQL Server. > > > "Ray" <someone@nowhere.com> wrote in message > news:8ws7e.3396$716.2013@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com... >> Having Dev and Prod on the same server is a recipe for either high risk >> or low performance. Those are your choices without spending a lot of >> money on a high-end system. By high risk I mean there's no good way to >> separate the system resources or the SQL server into two distinct units. >> The developers in this situation will bring down your production system >> sooner or later. By low performance, you could over come most of the risk >> by using Virtual PC or VMware to divide the computer resources into two >> systems. But these are generally slow performers. >> >> This is a case of needing to buy two servers. I assume you are using SQL >> Server 2000 Standard Edition. Keep the server you have and buy another >> cheaper system for the developers. Install the developer edition on it. >> >> Ray >> >> >> "Jéjé" <willgart@BBBhotmailAAA.com> wrote in message >> news:OA4v%23GIQFHA.1176@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl... >>> Hi, >>> >>> I want to setup a computer or server as a storage server to host >>> database files. >>> >>> I'm not looking for a top performance system because its for "small" >>> datawarehouses and for development / test purpose. >>> small = 5 to 20gb (generally a subset of data) >>> >>> I want to allow a developper to copy any database to test something >>> without breaking anything on original databases. >>> >>> my SQL Server server will host tempdb (master & msdb) and original >>> databases. >>> >>> I plan a computer like a standard PC with 4 * 80 gb SATA drives in RAID >>> 0+1 + Gigabyte network card and switch + Win 2003 standard >>> >>> I know that this type of config is not safe and performance consuming , >>> but also its a cheap solution :-) >>> and also is development purpose, so I'll have 1 to 3 users at the same >>> time on a database. >>> >>> My database server is a 2 * P4 Xeon HP server with 4Gb of RAM. >>> >>> what do you think about this? >>> what other element I have to think in the config? >>> >>> does it better to boost local computer of each developper and install a >>> dev edition of SQL on each one? >>> >>> thanks for your feedback. >>> >>> Jerome. >>> >>> >> >> > >
Don't see what you're looking for? Try a search.
|
January 2003
March 2003
July 2003
August 2003
September 2003
October 2003
November 2003
December 2003
January 2004
February 2004
March 2004
April 2004
May 2004
June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
| home · blog · groups | Questions? Comments? Contact the dn |