Showing posts with label planning. Show all posts
Showing posts with label planning. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

Best solution for this "problem"

Alright, me and mine are planning of creating a big community, ( no futher details possible )
The point is that, we got 1 webserver with php who's reading out a huge database.
That database is beeing updated by some of a 100 users, all these users are updating the db at the same time. so as you can see, what we need is a good and reliable database witch can easily hold up this lot of data.

Wich database type do you guys recommend?

Need to know more before recommending anything, but if you are thinking about SQL Server check this link

http://www.microsoft.com/sql/editions/default.mspx

All the info about various editions of SQL Server and what they can and can not support.

Sunday, March 25, 2012

BEST RECOMMENDATION FOR A TESTING SCENARIO

guys:
I would like to have your best advise.
We am planning to install Passive/Active SQL server Clustering in the
production environment that includes two identical Dell PowerEdge 6650 dual
processor servers with a External Disk Storage PoweVault 220S. We have
bought two copies of Windows 2003 enterprise (for each one of the servers)
and one only copy of SQL Server 200 enterprise Edition licensed per
processor (I was told that only one copy of this software ins needed in an
Active/Passive mode)
On the other hand, since the configuration above would be in production at
all times, we would like to have similar scenario for development and
testing purposes.I was advised to replicate the same hardware and software
scenario described above, however, as you can see, it would be a costly
endeavor. Each Dell 6650 costs approximately $20,000 (two processors, 8 GB
RAM, 2 MB cache) the External Raid $8,000, the Windows 2003 Enterprise
server software $3,000 (for the two servers), and the SQL Server 200
enterprise software about $24,000 (license for two processor, for just one
server)
Could you please if you see any issue in the production scenario? Are we Ok
using only one copy of SQL server there?
Secondly, do we have any other choice for a development and testing
scenario? Most people recommend that a development and testing scenario
would be, if not identical, at least very similar to the production
scenario. I was planning to get those Dell 6650 server but with a single
processor, only 1 GB of RAM, and 1 MB cache (or even 512 KB). In terms of
software I was also told that one economical approach would be to acquire
the MSDN Universal subscription that allows use software for testing
(Windows and SQL server)
Thirdly, do you have any other (most economical recommendation in terms of
hardware and software for our development and testing scenario? How critical
is that this has to be very similar (or identical) to the production
scenario?
Thanks for all your answers
White
First off, what you are implementing is a single instance cluster, not an
active/passive cluster. It may just look like a term, but there is a very
dramatic difference between the two.
As for licensing SQL Server in a cluster, you have exactly what you need.
The easiest way to tally up licensing for a cluster is to ask how many SQL
Servers you can connect to from an application. In your case, it would be
1.
For the dev/testing environments, you do not need to purchase the Enterprise
Edition of SQL Server. You can use the Developer Edition which gives you
the full functionality of Enterprise Edition without all of the cost and
hardware requirements. This even allows you to simulate a cluster, you just
don't get full clustering functionality. But, you do NOT need to stuff
clusters into your dev/test environments. There is no case that I'm aware
of where a clustered SQL Server behaves differently with respect to an
application than a standalone SQL Server.
My recommendation would be to purchase a Dell 6650 with the external RAID
array. Depending on your testing and development scenario, you can very
easily place BOTH dev and test on the same machine in different SQL Server
instances without collisions. The only real reason to have completely
different systems for the two would be if you are doing a lot of very heavy
performance related work. If not, you can get away with a single machine
with external array + Windows 2003 Server + SQL Server 2000 Developer
Edition.
I can send you my address so you can send a check for the ~$54,000 that I
just saved you.
Mike
Principal Mentor
Solid Quality Learning
"More than just Training"
SQL Server MVP
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com
http://www.mssqlserver.com

Best Practises for Server Sizing for MS Reporting Services

We are planning to deploy the MS Reporting Services. Unfortunately,
there isn't much guidance on how to effectively size a server.

Here are my questions:

1) In an environment with 1 reporting server (hosting the reporting
data layer, application, and management layer) connecting to 1 or more
SQL servers (over 2 trunked 1Gbps switches connections), what is the
constraining resource when running large reports against a database of
say 4GB in size? CPU, RAM, DISK, or Network speed on the Reporting
Server? Or the Data hosting SQL server? Or does it depend on code?
2) If I have a Duel Core CPU, do I buy 1 CPU license. MS had responded
to the HyperThreading as 2 virtual CPUs with the statement that you buy
CPU licenses based on socket count effectively. This would imply that
if I buy a 4 Duel Core AMD Opteron Proliant 585 (8 CPU cores in 4
packages / sockets), I can run MS Reporting Services Standard Edition.
Is that true?

Any input or direction would be appreciated.

Paul V.You might want to post in microsoft.public.sqlserver.reportingsvcs to
see if you get a better response.

For licensing issues, there is an FAQ, but if it doesn't answer your
question it would probably be best to contact Microsoft directly for a
definite answer:

http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/faq.mspx

Simon

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

Best Practices for Changing Merge Replication Server

We are planning on moving some SQL Server databases that are currenlty
running Merge replication as the publisher and distributor. The existing
server will eventually be scrapped and the new server will take over as the
new Publisher/Distributor. The current server is replication to a subscriber
that is also our 24/7 website SQL Server, and cannot be interrupted, and it
is imperative that no transactions on the website server be lost. Can anyone
provide any insight or articles that outline the best approach to take while
doing this migration?
Regards,
With merge replication transactions can be and frequently are rolled back.
So from the start your topology does not make a lot of sense.
If you want to minimize data loss in your situation you would be better off
to make your web server the publisher and configure it with anonymous
subscribers. This way you can drop a subscriber or take it offline and bring
it back on line or redeploy the subscription to a new server with little
impact on the publisher (now the web server). Still you have the possibility
of data loss.
With your current topology there is no way to do this without disruption
your web server/subscriber.
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"Frank" <Frank@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:075DE1AF-FC0D-4423-8548-E8CCC744558B@.microsoft.com...
> We are planning on moving some SQL Server databases that are currenlty
> running Merge replication as the publisher and distributor. The existing
> server will eventually be scrapped and the new server will take over as
the
> new Publisher/Distributor. The current server is replication to a
subscriber
> that is also our 24/7 website SQL Server, and cannot be interrupted, and
it
> is imperative that no transactions on the website server be lost. Can
anyone
> provide any insight or articles that outline the best approach to take
while
> doing this migration?
> Regards,