 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
SQL Server Forum / General / Data Warehousing / April 2005NAS recommandation for dev team...
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.  Signature-oj > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > 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 > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > 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. > 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 [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] >> >> Jerome. 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. > when I talk about "production" I talk about released version, but not a > production server with end-users connected on it! [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] >>> >>> Jerome. Note that multiple instances *is* allowed on same license for SE when you use Per Processor licensing. Not per seat, though: http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/faq.asp SignatureTibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/ > 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 [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] >>>> >>>> Jerome. 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. SignatureDavid Portas SQL Server MVP -- David, http://support.microsoft.com/kb/304261 Also from: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/windowsserver2003/technologies/clus tering/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. > NAS isn't supported and doesn't make sense for a SQL Server database, not > even for development. Use SAN or Direct Attached storage. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > and restore from the live environment and use scripts as the source to > build your database changes. 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. SignatureDavid 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 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 > Yes, I understand there is/was exactly one NAS product formally > supported by SQL Server - but maybe they added more at some point, I [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > outweigh the advantages. Do you have a different experience? I'm > interested to know. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.