If money is a problem for management, and you can't get a dedicated staging
server, you could install another SQL engine (note not another instance, but
another engine), and run the second engine on the passive node of the
cluster?
This will keep the staging SQL spearated from the production resouces,
allowing staging to utilize what would otherwise be an idle server.
However the thing you need to watch out for is memory configurations if
there's a fail over. As in the even to of a fail over you don't want the
staging engine to consume resources that are needed by production.
[quoted text, click to view] "_Stephen" wrote:
> What are cons for placing both stage and production versions of the same db
> on our only "real" cluster? 4 cpu / 4 gig ram dell server.
>
> We have heavy batch work where we prepare data for submission to another
> process, so there is a ton of munge work in the batches for 2+ hr durations
> and then no real activity rest of day.
>
> Would you put both STAGE and PROD in this configuration, knowing that you
> could take Stage out via the cluster management? Or would you just put
> Stage on a beefed up workstation, or "We dun't need no stink'n STAGE" ;->
>
>
>
[quoted text, click to view] > server, you could install another SQL engine (note not another instance, but
> another engine), and run the second engine on the passive node of the
Hmmm... How do you define the difference between an engine and an instance?
Linchi
[quoted text, click to view] "Mitch980" wrote:
> If money is a problem for management, and you can't get a dedicated staging
> server, you could install another SQL engine (note not another instance, but
> another engine), and run the second engine on the passive node of the
> cluster?
>
> This will keep the staging SQL spearated from the production resouces,
> allowing staging to utilize what would otherwise be an idle server.
>
> However the thing you need to watch out for is memory configurations if
> there's a fail over. As in the even to of a fail over you don't want the
> staging engine to consume resources that are needed by production.
>
> "_Stephen" wrote:
>
> > What are cons for placing both stage and production versions of the same db
> > on our only "real" cluster? 4 cpu / 4 gig ram dell server.
> >
> > We have heavy batch work where we prepare data for submission to another
> > process, so there is a ton of munge work in the batches for 2+ hr durations
> > and then no real activity rest of day.
> >
> > Would you put both STAGE and PROD in this configuration, knowing that you
> > could take Stage out via the cluster management? Or would you just put
> > Stage on a beefed up workstation, or "We dun't need no stink'n STAGE" ;->
> >
> >
> >
Sorry didn't explain that very well.
No difference really. What I was getting was when I ran multiple instances
of the same SQL Server installation on different nodes, for some reason I ran
into issues. I couldn't get to the bottom of it, so what I ended up doing was
running a completely different installation of SQL Server on the other node.
I hope installation is a better way of describing it?
Cheers.
[quoted text, click to view] "Linchi Shea" wrote:
> > server, you could install another SQL engine (note not another instance, but
> > another engine), and run the second engine on the passive node of the
>
> Hmmm... How do you define the difference between an engine and an instance?
>
> Linchi
>
> "Mitch980" wrote:
>
> > If money is a problem for management, and you can't get a dedicated staging
> > server, you could install another SQL engine (note not another instance, but
> > another engine), and run the second engine on the passive node of the
> > cluster?
> >
> > This will keep the staging SQL spearated from the production resouces,
> > allowing staging to utilize what would otherwise be an idle server.
> >
> > However the thing you need to watch out for is memory configurations if
> > there's a fail over. As in the even to of a fail over you don't want the
> > staging engine to consume resources that are needed by production.
> >
> > "_Stephen" wrote:
> >
> > > What are cons for placing both stage and production versions of the same db
> > > on our only "real" cluster? 4 cpu / 4 gig ram dell server.
> > >
> > > We have heavy batch work where we prepare data for submission to another
> > > process, so there is a ton of munge work in the batches for 2+ hr durations
> > > and then no real activity rest of day.
> > >
> > > Would you put both STAGE and PROD in this configuration, knowing that you
> > > could take Stage out via the cluster management? Or would you just put
> > > Stage on a beefed up workstation, or "We dun't need no stink'n STAGE" ;->
> > >
> > >
> > >
Don't see what you're looking for? Try a search.
