What the minimal speed is required to connect to SQL Server over internet to
give a good connection?
I mean where i can open forms, select item from the list boxes, generate
reports, inputing data...
Thanks
José
no technical minimum...the limitation is more in your application and where
it resides. Describe what you are using to connect to SQL Server
Kevin Hill
3NF Consulting
http://www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
Real-world stuff I run across with SQL Server:
http://kevin3nf.blogspot.com
"Jos" <Jos@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D42C3EDA-88A8-4261-BB6F-3401FADD2B0F@.microsoft.com...
> What the minimal speed is required to connect to SQL Server over internet
> to
> give a good connection?
> I mean where i can open forms, select item from the list boxes, generate
> reports, inputing data...
> Thanks
> Jos
>
|||I'm testing an aplication.
I tested up 128kb/s is acceptable, I test dial connection, is too slow...
For each form, I don't have many information. The data in table, is a table
with 70 records and 20 columns maximum...
thanks
"Kevin3NF" wrote:
> no technical minimum...the limitation is more in your application and where
> it resides. Describe what you are using to connect to SQL Server
> --
> Kevin Hill
> 3NF Consulting
> http://www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
> Real-world stuff I run across with SQL Server:
> http://kevin3nf.blogspot.com
>
> "José" <Jos@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:D42C3EDA-88A8-4261-BB6F-3401FADD2B0F@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||Access? .Net? Powerbuilder?
Kevin Hill
3NF Consulting
http://www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
Real-world stuff I run across with SQL Server:
http://kevin3nf.blogspot.com
"Jose Perdigao" <JosePerdigao@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:552C6722-D866-47A7-976E-295638A6ED6A@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> I'm testing an aplication.
> I tested up 128kb/s is acceptable, I test dial connection, is too slow...
> For each form, I don't have many information. The data in table, is a
> table
> with 70 records and 20 columns maximum...
> thanks
> "Kevin3NF" wrote:
|||I'm connecting by MS Access 2003 (ADP)
"Kevin3NF" wrote:
> Access? .Net? Powerbuilder?
> --
> Kevin Hill
> 3NF Consulting
> http://www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
> Real-world stuff I run across with SQL Server:
> http://kevin3nf.blogspot.com
>
> "Jose Perdigao" <JosePerdigao@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:552C6722-D866-47A7-976E-295638A6ED6A@.microsoft.com...
>
>
Showing posts with label minimal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label minimal. Show all posts
Friday, March 23, 2012
minimum speed to coonectSQL Server over inernet
What the minimal speed is required to connect to SQL Server over internet to
give a good connection?
I mean where i can open forms, select item from the list boxes, generate
reports, inputing data...
Thanks
Joséno technical minimum...the limitation is more in your application and where
it resides. Describe what you are using to connect to SQL Server
Kevin Hill
3NF Consulting
http://www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
Real-world stuff I run across with SQL Server:
http://kevin3nf.blogspot.com
"Jos" <Jos@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D42C3EDA-88A8-4261-BB6F-3401FADD2B0F@.microsoft.com...
> What the minimal speed is required to connect to SQL Server over internet
> to
> give a good connection?
> I mean where i can open forms, select item from the list boxes, generate
> reports, inputing data...
> Thanks
> Jos
>|||I'm testing an aplication.
I tested up 128kb/s is acceptable, I test dial connection, is too slow...
For each form, I don't have many information. The data in table, is a table
with 70 records and 20 columns maximum...
thanks
"Kevin3NF" wrote:
> no technical minimum...the limitation is more in your application and wher
e
> it resides. Describe what you are using to connect to SQL Server
> --
> Kevin Hill
> 3NF Consulting
> http://www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
> Real-world stuff I run across with SQL Server:
> http://kevin3nf.blogspot.com
>
> "José" <Jos@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:D42C3EDA-88A8-4261-BB6F-3401FADD2B0F@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||Access? .Net? Powerbuilder?
Kevin Hill
3NF Consulting
http://www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
Real-world stuff I run across with SQL Server:
http://kevin3nf.blogspot.com
"Jose Perdigao" <JosePerdigao@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:552C6722-D866-47A7-976E-295638A6ED6A@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> I'm testing an aplication.
> I tested up 128kb/s is acceptable, I test dial connection, is too slow...
> For each form, I don't have many information. The data in table, is a
> table
> with 70 records and 20 columns maximum...
> thanks
> "Kevin3NF" wrote:
>|||I'm connecting by MS Access 2003 (ADP)
"Kevin3NF" wrote:
> Access? .Net? Powerbuilder?
> --
> Kevin Hill
> 3NF Consulting
> http://www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
> Real-world stuff I run across with SQL Server:
> http://kevin3nf.blogspot.com
>
> "Jose Perdigao" <JosePerdigao@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:552C6722-D866-47A7-976E-295638A6ED6A@.microsoft.com...
>
>
give a good connection?
I mean where i can open forms, select item from the list boxes, generate
reports, inputing data...
Thanks
Joséno technical minimum...the limitation is more in your application and where
it resides. Describe what you are using to connect to SQL Server
Kevin Hill
3NF Consulting
http://www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
Real-world stuff I run across with SQL Server:
http://kevin3nf.blogspot.com
"Jos" <Jos@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D42C3EDA-88A8-4261-BB6F-3401FADD2B0F@.microsoft.com...
> What the minimal speed is required to connect to SQL Server over internet
> to
> give a good connection?
> I mean where i can open forms, select item from the list boxes, generate
> reports, inputing data...
> Thanks
> Jos
>|||I'm testing an aplication.
I tested up 128kb/s is acceptable, I test dial connection, is too slow...
For each form, I don't have many information. The data in table, is a table
with 70 records and 20 columns maximum...
thanks
"Kevin3NF" wrote:
> no technical minimum...the limitation is more in your application and wher
e
> it resides. Describe what you are using to connect to SQL Server
> --
> Kevin Hill
> 3NF Consulting
> http://www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
> Real-world stuff I run across with SQL Server:
> http://kevin3nf.blogspot.com
>
> "José" <Jos@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:D42C3EDA-88A8-4261-BB6F-3401FADD2B0F@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||Access? .Net? Powerbuilder?
Kevin Hill
3NF Consulting
http://www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
Real-world stuff I run across with SQL Server:
http://kevin3nf.blogspot.com
"Jose Perdigao" <JosePerdigao@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:552C6722-D866-47A7-976E-295638A6ED6A@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> I'm testing an aplication.
> I tested up 128kb/s is acceptable, I test dial connection, is too slow...
> For each form, I don't have many information. The data in table, is a
> table
> with 70 records and 20 columns maximum...
> thanks
> "Kevin3NF" wrote:
>|||I'm connecting by MS Access 2003 (ADP)
"Kevin3NF" wrote:
> Access? .Net? Powerbuilder?
> --
> Kevin Hill
> 3NF Consulting
> http://www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
> Real-world stuff I run across with SQL Server:
> http://kevin3nf.blogspot.com
>
> "Jose Perdigao" <JosePerdigao@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:552C6722-D866-47A7-976E-295638A6ED6A@.microsoft.com...
>
>
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Minimal required DLLS for Named Pipes connection?
I have a work around for an application use Integrated Security
instead of SQL Security (which is great). I need to use named pipes
for this to work.
I only got it to work after I did a SQL 2005 Connectivity and Client
Tools install which
installed everything but the Server services. Boss doesn't like this
approach, wants minimal install.
My questions:
Are there just a few DLLs that I need to connect to SQL Server with
named pipes only?
Do I need to Register the DLLs using REGSRV32.EXE?
Thanks
ErikYou can probably get this to work with only installing the client
connectivity. I wouldn't try to hack it.
Jason Massie
http://statisticsio.com
"Erik G" <info@.fdaregulatory.com> wrote in message
news:1194885570.885338.225030@.v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>I have a work around for an application use Integrated Security
> instead of SQL Security (which is great). I need to use named pipes
> for this to work.
> I only got it to work after I did a SQL 2005 Connectivity and Client
> Tools install which
> installed everything but the Server services. Boss doesn't like this
> approach, wants minimal install.
> My questions:
> Are there just a few DLLs that I need to connect to SQL Server with
> named pipes only?
> Do I need to Register the DLLs using REGSRV32.EXE?
> Thanks
> Erik
>
instead of SQL Security (which is great). I need to use named pipes
for this to work.
I only got it to work after I did a SQL 2005 Connectivity and Client
Tools install which
installed everything but the Server services. Boss doesn't like this
approach, wants minimal install.
My questions:
Are there just a few DLLs that I need to connect to SQL Server with
named pipes only?
Do I need to Register the DLLs using REGSRV32.EXE?
Thanks
ErikYou can probably get this to work with only installing the client
connectivity. I wouldn't try to hack it.
Jason Massie
http://statisticsio.com
"Erik G" <info@.fdaregulatory.com> wrote in message
news:1194885570.885338.225030@.v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>I have a work around for an application use Integrated Security
> instead of SQL Security (which is great). I need to use named pipes
> for this to work.
> I only got it to work after I did a SQL 2005 Connectivity and Client
> Tools install which
> installed everything but the Server services. Boss doesn't like this
> approach, wants minimal install.
> My questions:
> Are there just a few DLLs that I need to connect to SQL Server with
> named pipes only?
> Do I need to Register the DLLs using REGSRV32.EXE?
> Thanks
> Erik
>
Minimal required DLLS for Named Pipes connection?
I have a work around for an application use Integrated Security
instead of SQL Security (which is great). I need to use named pipes
for this to work.
I only got it to work after I did a SQL 2005 Connectivity and Client
Tools install which
installed everything but the Server services. Boss doesn't like this
approach, wants minimal install.
My questions:
Are there just a few DLLs that I need to connect to SQL Server with
named pipes only?
Do I need to Register the DLLs using REGSRV32.EXE?
Thanks
Erik
You can probably get this to work with only installing the client
connectivity. I wouldn't try to hack it.
Jason Massie
http://statisticsio.com
"Erik G" <info@.fdaregulatory.com> wrote in message
news:1194885570.885338.225030@.v3g2000hsg.googlegro ups.com...
>I have a work around for an application use Integrated Security
> instead of SQL Security (which is great). I need to use named pipes
> for this to work.
> I only got it to work after I did a SQL 2005 Connectivity and Client
> Tools install which
> installed everything but the Server services. Boss doesn't like this
> approach, wants minimal install.
> My questions:
> Are there just a few DLLs that I need to connect to SQL Server with
> named pipes only?
> Do I need to Register the DLLs using REGSRV32.EXE?
> Thanks
> Erik
>
sql
instead of SQL Security (which is great). I need to use named pipes
for this to work.
I only got it to work after I did a SQL 2005 Connectivity and Client
Tools install which
installed everything but the Server services. Boss doesn't like this
approach, wants minimal install.
My questions:
Are there just a few DLLs that I need to connect to SQL Server with
named pipes only?
Do I need to Register the DLLs using REGSRV32.EXE?
Thanks
Erik
You can probably get this to work with only installing the client
connectivity. I wouldn't try to hack it.
Jason Massie
http://statisticsio.com
"Erik G" <info@.fdaregulatory.com> wrote in message
news:1194885570.885338.225030@.v3g2000hsg.googlegro ups.com...
>I have a work around for an application use Integrated Security
> instead of SQL Security (which is great). I need to use named pipes
> for this to work.
> I only got it to work after I did a SQL 2005 Connectivity and Client
> Tools install which
> installed everything but the Server services. Boss doesn't like this
> approach, wants minimal install.
> My questions:
> Are there just a few DLLs that I need to connect to SQL Server with
> named pipes only?
> Do I need to Register the DLLs using REGSRV32.EXE?
> Thanks
> Erik
>
sql
Minimal install possible?
The smallest downloadable version seems to be 53MB. Is there any way to create a smaller version to use as an embedded DB for an application? I only need it to be single-user, for what that's worth. I'm thinking more in the 10MB to 20MB range.to my knowledge NO and the SQLExpress team made every effort to ensure the smallest D/Ls possible.|||
You have an option to use SQL Server 2005 Everywhere edition. It has to be run in-process and won't run as a service (however, I think it might be possible to create your own windows service where you embed SQL Server Everywhere). It only uses a few MB HD space, and uses about 5 MB RAM. Available at http://www.microsoft.com/sql/ctp_sqlserver2005everywhereedition.mspx, though only in CTP. Scheduled for release at the end of 2006.
Best regards
Bj?rnar Sundsb?
Minimal install possible?
The smallest downloadable version seems to be 53MB. Is there any way to create a smaller version to use as an embedded DB for an application? I only need it to be single-user, for what that's worth. I'm thinking more in the 10MB to 20MB range.to my knowledge NO and the SQLExpress team made every effort to ensure the smallest D/Ls possible.|||
You have an option to use SQL Server 2005 Everywhere edition. It has to be run in-process and won't run as a service (however, I think it might be possible to create your own windows service where you embed SQL Server Everywhere). It only uses a few MB HD space, and uses about 5 MB RAM. Available at http://www.microsoft.com/sql/ctp_sqlserver2005everywhereedition.mspx, though only in CTP. Scheduled for release at the end of 2006.
Best regards
Bj?rnar Sundsb?
minimal hardware requirement for SQL failover clustering
HI,
I would like to build a SQL 2000 failover clustering to improve my network
knowledge. For testing and learning purpose, what's the minimal hareware
requirment?
Best Regards,
Lynn
Hi
Hardware should be from the the Microsoft HCL
But typically:
2 Identical Servers with Minimum 512Mb RAM
4 NICs
1 x SAN
2 x SAN connectivity
Network and other cabling
Or as Uttam answered yesterday:
"
Lynn,
For testing purposes, you may find this useful
Using Microsoft Virtual Server 2005 to Create and Configure a Two-Node
Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Cluster
This guide provides step-by-step instructions for using Virtual Server 2005
to create and configure a two-node server cluster.
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro...y/cvs2005.mspx
If you do not want to install virtual server and want to build using minimum
hardware, long ago I had build a two node cluster using two laptops
with
SCSI card and one
SCSI disk and a cross-over cable. This is the bare minimum. I also was able
to install SQL Server 2000 clustered instance on this bare min cluster. It
worked and was good
for testing but NOT supported and also it did not work sometimes as
expected. Ofcourse, I would not do this for a real test cluster or dev
cluster.
Best Regards,
Uttam Parui
Microsoft Corporation
"
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Lynn" <Lynn@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:4B93ABB7-5F40-478D-B4E9-009520E72C94@.microsoft.com...
> HI,
> I would like to build a SQL 2000 failover clustering to improve my network
> knowledge. For testing and learning purpose, what's the minimal hareware
> requirment?
> --
> Best Regards,
> Lynn
|||Mike,
Thank you so much for your quick response. It's very useful.
Rihgt now, I already have a machine with 512 RAM, and I would like buy a new
machine with higher hardware component. Is "two identical machines" the
must-be? Or, I can configure two-node failover clustering with two different
hardware component machines.
Best Regards,
Lynn
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
> Hi
> Hardware should be from the the Microsoft HCL
> But typically:
> 2 Identical Servers with Minimum 512Mb RAM
> 4 NICs
> 1 x SAN
> 2 x SAN connectivity
> Network and other cabling
> Or as Uttam answered yesterday:
> "
> Lynn,
> For testing purposes, you may find this useful
> Using Microsoft Virtual Server 2005 to Create and Configure a Two-Node
> Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Cluster
> This guide provides step-by-step instructions for using Virtual Server 2005
> to create and configure a two-node server cluster.
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro...y/cvs2005.mspx
> If you do not want to install virtual server and want to build using minimum
> hardware, long ago I had build a two node cluster using two laptops with
> SCSI card and one
> SCSI disk and a cross-over cable. This is the bare minimum. I also was able
> to install SQL Server 2000 clustered instance on this bare min cluster. It
> worked and was good
> for testing but NOT supported and also it did not work sometimes as
> expected. Ofcourse, I would not do this for a real test cluster or dev
> cluster.
> Best Regards,
> Uttam Parui
> Microsoft Corporation
> "
> --
> --
> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Zurich, Switzerland
> IM: mike@.epprecht.net
> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
> "Lynn" <Lynn@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:4B93ABB7-5F40-478D-B4E9-009520E72C94@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||Are you looking to build a Highly Available 2-node cluster that is fully supported by Microsoft and the hardware vendor? Or are you just looking to build a 2-node cluster
for testing?
Yesterday, I had already answered for the latter.
For the former -- i.e. to build a highly available cluster supported by Microsoft and hardware vendor, you need a "Qualified complete cluster solution". So, where does
one find the list of complete cluster solutions that are qualified?
The most current Cluster Hardware Compatibility List (HCL) is available at the following Microsoft Web site:
http://www.microsoft.com/hcl (http://www.microsoft.com/hcl)
When you visit this site, click the Cluster category. The Cluster and Cluster/Datacenter categories display only complete cluster solutions that have been qualified. The
subcategories list components that have passed Cluster Component Candidate testing. These cluster components are listed for Original Equipment Manufacturers
(OEMs) and System Integrators to design complete clusters and then submit a complete cluster solution for testing.
The most current Cluster Windows Server Catalog (WSC) is available at the following Microsoft Web Site:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/catalog/server/ (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/catalog/server/)
When you visit this site, click the Hardware tab, and then click on the Cluster Solutions category. The Cluster Solutions category displays only complete cluster solutions
that have been qualified.
NOTE:
Customers should not use this list to build a cluster solution because using these individual components in a cluster does not qualify as a complete HCL or WSC
solution. Microsoft fully supports only clusters that are complete solutions that are listed in the Cluster category on the HCL or WSC.
To answer you qs "Is "two identical machines" the must-be? Or, I can configure two-node failover clustering with two different hardware component machines."
ANS. Currently today, a vendor can submit a solution for testing / qualification if the hardware is dissimilar. For example a Proliant DL380 as one node and a Proliant
DL580 as another node. But the ENTIRE SOLUTION still needs to be submitted as a COMPLETE SOLUTION and Windows Hardware Quality Labs (WHQL) qualified.
Now it is true that these are rare...
Recommended Reading
======================
The Microsoft support policy for server clusters, the Hardware Compatibility List, and the Windows Server Catalog
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;309395
The Microsoft support policy for a SQL Server failover cluster
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;327518
Best Regards,
Uttam Parui
Microsoft Corporation
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Are you secure? For information about the Strategic Technology Protection Program and to order your FREE Security Tool Kit, please visit
http://www.microsoft.com/security.
Microsoft highly recommends that users with Internet access update their Microsoft software to better protect against viruses and security vulnerabilities. The easiest
way to do this is to visit the following websites: http://www.microsoft.com/protect
http://www.microsoft.com/security/guidance/default.mspx
I would like to build a SQL 2000 failover clustering to improve my network
knowledge. For testing and learning purpose, what's the minimal hareware
requirment?
Best Regards,
Lynn
Hi
Hardware should be from the the Microsoft HCL
But typically:
2 Identical Servers with Minimum 512Mb RAM
4 NICs
1 x SAN
2 x SAN connectivity
Network and other cabling
Or as Uttam answered yesterday:
"
Lynn,
For testing purposes, you may find this useful
Using Microsoft Virtual Server 2005 to Create and Configure a Two-Node
Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Cluster
This guide provides step-by-step instructions for using Virtual Server 2005
to create and configure a two-node server cluster.
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro...y/cvs2005.mspx
If you do not want to install virtual server and want to build using minimum
hardware, long ago I had build a two node cluster using two laptops
withSCSI card and one
SCSI disk and a cross-over cable. This is the bare minimum. I also was able
to install SQL Server 2000 clustered instance on this bare min cluster. It
worked and was good
for testing but NOT supported and also it did not work sometimes as
expected. Ofcourse, I would not do this for a real test cluster or dev
cluster.
Best Regards,
Uttam Parui
Microsoft Corporation
"
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Lynn" <Lynn@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:4B93ABB7-5F40-478D-B4E9-009520E72C94@.microsoft.com...
> HI,
> I would like to build a SQL 2000 failover clustering to improve my network
> knowledge. For testing and learning purpose, what's the minimal hareware
> requirment?
> --
> Best Regards,
> Lynn
|||Mike,
Thank you so much for your quick response. It's very useful.
Rihgt now, I already have a machine with 512 RAM, and I would like buy a new
machine with higher hardware component. Is "two identical machines" the
must-be? Or, I can configure two-node failover clustering with two different
hardware component machines.
Best Regards,
Lynn
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
> Hi
> Hardware should be from the the Microsoft HCL
> But typically:
> 2 Identical Servers with Minimum 512Mb RAM
> 4 NICs
> 1 x SAN
> 2 x SAN connectivity
> Network and other cabling
> Or as Uttam answered yesterday:
> "
> Lynn,
> For testing purposes, you may find this useful
> Using Microsoft Virtual Server 2005 to Create and Configure a Two-Node
> Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Cluster
> This guide provides step-by-step instructions for using Virtual Server 2005
> to create and configure a two-node server cluster.
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro...y/cvs2005.mspx
> If you do not want to install virtual server and want to build using minimum
> hardware, long ago I had build a two node cluster using two laptops
with> SCSI card and one
> SCSI disk and a cross-over cable. This is the bare minimum. I also was able
> to install SQL Server 2000 clustered instance on this bare min cluster. It
> worked and was good
> for testing but NOT supported and also it did not work sometimes as
> expected. Ofcourse, I would not do this for a real test cluster or dev
> cluster.
> Best Regards,
> Uttam Parui
> Microsoft Corporation
> "
> --
> --
> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Zurich, Switzerland
> IM: mike@.epprecht.net
> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
> "Lynn" <Lynn@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:4B93ABB7-5F40-478D-B4E9-009520E72C94@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||Are you looking to build a Highly Available 2-node cluster that is fully supported by Microsoft and the hardware vendor? Or are you just looking to build a 2-node cluster
for testing?
Yesterday, I had already answered for the latter.
For the former -- i.e. to build a highly available cluster supported by Microsoft and hardware vendor, you need a "Qualified complete cluster solution". So, where does
one find the list of complete cluster solutions that are qualified?
The most current Cluster Hardware Compatibility List (HCL) is available at the following Microsoft Web site:
http://www.microsoft.com/hcl (http://www.microsoft.com/hcl)
When you visit this site, click the Cluster category. The Cluster and Cluster/Datacenter categories display only complete cluster solutions that have been qualified. The
subcategories list components that have passed Cluster Component Candidate testing. These cluster components are listed for Original Equipment Manufacturers
(OEMs) and System Integrators to design complete clusters and then submit a complete cluster solution for testing.
The most current Cluster Windows Server Catalog (WSC) is available at the following Microsoft Web Site:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/catalog/server/ (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/catalog/server/)
When you visit this site, click the Hardware tab, and then click on the Cluster Solutions category. The Cluster Solutions category displays only complete cluster solutions
that have been qualified.
NOTE:
Customers should not use this list to build a cluster solution because using these individual components in a cluster does not qualify as a complete HCL or WSC
solution. Microsoft fully supports only clusters that are complete solutions that are listed in the Cluster category on the HCL or WSC.
To answer you qs "Is "two identical machines" the must-be? Or, I can configure two-node failover clustering with two different hardware component machines."
ANS. Currently today, a vendor can submit a solution for testing / qualification if the hardware is dissimilar. For example a Proliant DL380 as one node and a Proliant
DL580 as another node. But the ENTIRE SOLUTION still needs to be submitted as a COMPLETE SOLUTION and Windows Hardware Quality Labs (WHQL) qualified.
Now it is true that these are rare...
Recommended Reading
======================
The Microsoft support policy for server clusters, the Hardware Compatibility List, and the Windows Server Catalog
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;309395
The Microsoft support policy for a SQL Server failover cluster
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;327518
Best Regards,
Uttam Parui
Microsoft Corporation
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Are you secure? For information about the Strategic Technology Protection Program and to order your FREE Security Tool Kit, please visit
http://www.microsoft.com/security.
Microsoft highly recommends that users with Internet access update their Microsoft software to better protect against viruses and security vulnerabilities. The easiest
way to do this is to visit the following websites: http://www.microsoft.com/protect
http://www.microsoft.com/security/guidance/default.mspx
Monday, March 19, 2012
minimal hardware for building testing failover clustering for SQL
Hi,
I am trying to practice to build a failover clustering for SQL 2000. Does
anyone know the minimal hardware request for a testing clutering? thank you
for your help.
Best Regards,
Lynn
Lynn,
For testing purposes, you may find this useful
Using Microsoft Virtual Server 2005 to Create and Configure a Two-Node Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Cluster
This guide provides step-by-step instructions for using Virtual Server 2005 to create and configure a two-node server cluster.
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro...y/cvs2005.mspx
If you do not want to install virtual server and want to build using minimum hardware, long ago I had build a two node cluster using two laptops with SCSI card and one
SCSI disk and a cross-over cable. This is the bare minimum. I also was able to install SQL Server 2000 clustered instance on this bare min cluster. It worked and was good
for testing but NOT supported and also it did not work sometimes as expected. Ofcourse, I would not do this for a real test cluster or dev cluster.
Best Regards,
Uttam Parui
Microsoft Corporation
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Are you secure? For information about the Strategic Technology Protection Program and to order your FREE Security Tool Kit, please visit
http://www.microsoft.com/security.
Microsoft highly recommends that users with Internet access update their Microsoft software to better protect against viruses and security vulnerabilities. The easiest way
to do this is to visit the following websites: http://www.microsoft.com/protect
http://www.microsoft.com/security/guidance/default.mspx
I am trying to practice to build a failover clustering for SQL 2000. Does
anyone know the minimal hardware request for a testing clutering? thank you
for your help.
Best Regards,
Lynn
Lynn,
For testing purposes, you may find this useful
Using Microsoft Virtual Server 2005 to Create and Configure a Two-Node Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Cluster
This guide provides step-by-step instructions for using Virtual Server 2005 to create and configure a two-node server cluster.
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro...y/cvs2005.mspx
If you do not want to install virtual server and want to build using minimum hardware, long ago I had build a two node cluster using two laptops
with SCSI card and oneSCSI disk and a cross-over cable. This is the bare minimum. I also was able to install SQL Server 2000 clustered instance on this bare min cluster. It worked and was good
for testing but NOT supported and also it did not work sometimes as expected. Ofcourse, I would not do this for a real test cluster or dev cluster.
Best Regards,
Uttam Parui
Microsoft Corporation
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Are you secure? For information about the Strategic Technology Protection Program and to order your FREE Security Tool Kit, please visit
http://www.microsoft.com/security.
Microsoft highly recommends that users with Internet access update their Microsoft software to better protect against viruses and security vulnerabilities. The easiest way
to do this is to visit the following websites: http://www.microsoft.com/protect
http://www.microsoft.com/security/guidance/default.mspx
Minimal configuration, suggestions wanted.
Keep in mind that a server with a 200GB db and moderate load may not be the
same for a 10GB db with light load and this is addressing the latter as you
asked. A RAID 0+1 will give the most fault tolerate Raid with good
performance as well. If the load is light enough (not a lot of
transactions) then you can probably get away with a good size (meaning # of
disks not size of disks) RAID 0+1 or even 1+0 that has everything on it.
But it is usually best to place the logs on their own RAID 1 and separate
from the data for performance reasons. With a minimal configuration a good
raid is essential along with proper backups. A full backup once a night is
usually OK for most applications. The frequency of the log backups depend
on how much data you are willing to loose. If you can afford to loose up to
15 minutes worth of transactions then use a 15 minute interval etc. Just
ensure the backups are not done to the same drive the logs or data reside
on.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"ben brugman" <ben@.niethier.nl> wrote in message
news:u1zBcW7GEHA.688@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Minimal configuration.
> (Performance is not an issue).
> Dataloss should not happen. (But we do not account
> for real dissasters, for example a big fire destroying
> the complete production center, resulting
> in the dataloss of 24 hours would be acceptable.)
> The shop runs 7 x 24 hours.
> Most is done during office hours.
> Some is done during all day.
> At night the system must be available but it is
> used very limited.
> Once a day a tape goes from the production machine to an
> offsite safe.
> The total amount of data has a disk footprint off
> between 1 and 10 Gigabytes.
> Offcourse there is a production machine and
> a standby machine probably in another location.
> (The second machine will be used for testing and
> practicing procedures.)
> Raid is required, raid protects agains single disks failures,
> but what are the options for more protection ?
> What configuration is considered minimal in these circumstances ?
> Esspecially what to do with the disks ?
> (OS / Logging / Data / Backupdata / Transactionlog backup) ?
> What can be combined and what can not be combined ?
> And how often to do the transactionlog backup ?
> (Side question what "route" should the transactionlog(-backup)
> take).
>
> Keep in mind : We are looking for a minimal configuration.
> Later on we will also looking for a 'larger' configuration with
> more performance, a larger database etc. (But still no super
> configuration. Something like 100-200 Gigabyte and more load).
> Thanks for your thoughts,
> ben brugman.
>
Going with your suggestions,
suppose you have split the total RAID device in 3 groups
of disks (fysical separate), how would you place
1 OS
2 Logging
3 Data
4 Backupdata
5 Transactionlog backup
Have I missed anything ?
Or are 2 groups enough ?
Or do I need more groups ?
> on how much data you are willing to loose. If you can afford to loose up
to
> 15 minutes worth of transactions then use a 15 minute interval etc. Just
If I go from estimates of MTBF of disks the chance of
losing a mirrored disk is extremely small. So the chance
of loosing up to 15 minutes of data is extremely small.
Loosing the complete system because of a major
dissaster (fire for example) looks more likely and then
you loose everything since the last time you brought
the backup to outside of the 'box' or the computerroom.
Because for a minimal system bringing the data out of the
room more than once or twice a day would probably be a
problem.
(Calculation for 2 disks failing, assuming a MTBF of 300000 hours,
that a failed disk is spotted with in 24 hours. I get a failure of
two disks every once in 1/(24/300000)^2 days = 156250000 days)
Two of my problems :
1. Backup of the transaction log is not a 'backup' but a 'move' of the
'content',
so how do I protect the backup of the transaction log, because at that
moment
it is the only 'copy' of that data in existence. (Still mirrored I would
suggest).
2. If part of the chain of transactionlogs (active of backupped) is lost the
datafiles are worthless, so I do not understand that the datafiles
should be on a separate disk.
(Performance not being a consideration).
Thanks for your thoughts.
ben brugman
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnoooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:uRptBADHEHA.2260@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Keep in mind that a server with a 200GB db and moderate load may not be
the
> same for a 10GB db with light load and this is addressing the latter as
you
> asked. A RAID 0+1 will give the most fault tolerate Raid with good
> performance as well. If the load is light enough (not a lot of
> transactions) then you can probably get away with a good size (meaning #
of
> disks not size of disks) RAID 0+1 or even 1+0 that has everything on it.
> But it is usually best to place the logs on their own RAID 1 and separate
> from the data for performance reasons. With a minimal configuration a
good
> raid is essential along with proper backups. A full backup once a night
is
> usually OK for most applications. The frequency of the log backups depend
> on how much data you are willing to loose. If you can afford to loose up
to
> 15 minutes worth of transactions then use a 15 minute interval etc. Just
> ensure the backups are not done to the same drive the logs or data reside
> on.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "ben brugman" <ben@.niethier.nl> wrote in message
> news:u1zBcW7GEHA.688@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>
|||It depends on how you will use the database. If you have a lot of
operations that use tempdb heavily you may wish to place tempdb on it's own
raid as well. Logs should be on their own array unless it is mostly read
only. A typical config for a moderate system is usually something like
this:
RAID 1 OS / SQL Binaries
RAID 1 SQL Transaction Logs
RAID 10 DATA, TempDB
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"ben brugman" <ben@.niethier.nl> wrote in message
news:c50moh$gtq$1@.reader11.wxs.nl...
> Going with your suggestions,
> suppose you have split the total RAID device in 3 groups
> of disks (fysical separate), how would you place
> 1 OS
> 2 Logging
> 3 Data
> 4 Backupdata
> 5 Transactionlog backup
> Have I missed anything ?
> Or are 2 groups enough ?
> Or do I need more groups ?
>
up
> to
> If I go from estimates of MTBF of disks the chance of
> losing a mirrored disk is extremely small. So the chance
> of loosing up to 15 minutes of data is extremely small.
> Loosing the complete system because of a major
> dissaster (fire for example) looks more likely and then
> you loose everything since the last time you brought
> the backup to outside of the 'box' or the computerroom.
> Because for a minimal system bringing the data out of the
> room more than once or twice a day would probably be a
> problem.
> (Calculation for 2 disks failing, assuming a MTBF of 300000 hours,
> that a failed disk is spotted with in 24 hours. I get a failure of
> two disks every once in 1/(24/300000)^2 days = 156250000 days)
> Two of my problems :
> 1. Backup of the transaction log is not a 'backup' but a 'move' of the
> 'content',
> so how do I protect the backup of the transaction log, because at that
> moment
> it is the only 'copy' of that data in existence. (Still mirrored I would
> suggest).
> 2. If part of the chain of transactionlogs (active of backupped) is lost
the
> datafiles are worthless, so I do not understand that the datafiles
> should be on a separate disk.
> (Performance not being a consideration).
> Thanks for your thoughts.
> ben brugman
>
>
>
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnoooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:uRptBADHEHA.2260@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> the
> you
> of
separate
> good
> is
depend
up
> to
reside
>
|||>
> RAID 1 OS / SQL Binaries
> RAID 1 SQL Transaction Logs
> RAID 10 DATA, TempDB
>
What about :
I still have difficulty in understanding why different groups
offer more 'protection' than less different groups.
In your schema at least 8 disks are needed to realise
the solution. (1 each for the RAID 1 solution and at least
four for the RAID 10 solution. This is often the maximum
number of disks a 'simple' RAID box supports).
IF (this is supposed by me, so you can point out the
error or mistake in my reasoning.)
IF I put everything OS/Log/Data on a single group of
RAID disks the worst that can happen is that two mirrored
disks fail, resulting in the dataloss since the last backup and
move to outside the system.
But with the proposed system of having OS/Log/Data each on
their own group, the risk of losing the Log is the same because
losing the mirrored disk (with only the logs) gives us the
same amount of dataloss as with everything on the same group.
I very strongly feel that I AM MISSING SOME UNDERSTANDING
of this situation.
(Offcourse if the volumes of data and log become larger and
performance is an issue, I would go with more groups and understand
the reasons for this.).
My question is : Why is it wrong to put OS/Log/Data on a single
group of disks ?
(What is the risc of this ? Or why are there more riscs for this
than 3 groups of disks ?)
Everybody (books, discussions, usegroups) that this should
not be done, but except for performance the reason(s) is (are) not
explained.
Thanks again for your time,
and sorry to go on on this subject, but I really would like to
understand it.
ben brugman
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "ben brugman" <ben@.niethier.nl> wrote in message
> news:c50moh$gtq$1@.reader11.wxs.nl...
> up
Just
> the
be
as
#
it.
> separate
night
> depend
> up
Just
> reside
>
|||The main reason to separate them is for performance and scalability. While
there is some added protection for data loss with separate arrays over just
one it is secondary to performance and maintenance. If all your worried
about is a minimal configuration then use a single RAID 10 and be done with
it. This will suite many smaller applications just fine. If performance
becomes an issue and it is attributed to disk I/O you can look into adding
another RAID 1 for the logs etc.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"ben brugman" <ben@.niethier.nl> wrote in message
news:eFLE5oUHEHA.2836@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> What about :
> I still have difficulty in understanding why different groups
> offer more 'protection' than less different groups.
> In your schema at least 8 disks are needed to realise
> the solution. (1 each for the RAID 1 solution and at least
> four for the RAID 10 solution. This is often the maximum
> number of disks a 'simple' RAID box supports).
> IF (this is supposed by me, so you can point out the
> error or mistake in my reasoning.)
> IF I put everything OS/Log/Data on a single group of
> RAID disks the worst that can happen is that two mirrored
> disks fail, resulting in the dataloss since the last backup and
> move to outside the system.
> But with the proposed system of having OS/Log/Data each on
> their own group, the risk of losing the Log is the same because
> losing the mirrored disk (with only the logs) gives us the
> same amount of dataloss as with everything on the same group.
> I very strongly feel that I AM MISSING SOME UNDERSTANDING
> of this situation.
> (Offcourse if the volumes of data and log become larger and
> performance is an issue, I would go with more groups and understand
> the reasons for this.).
> My question is : Why is it wrong to put OS/Log/Data on a single
> group of disks ?
> (What is the risc of this ? Or why are there more riscs for this
> than 3 groups of disks ?)
> Everybody (books, discussions, usegroups) that this should
> not be done, but except for performance the reason(s) is (are) not
> explained.
> Thanks again for your time,
> and sorry to go on on this subject, but I really would like to
> understand it.
> ben brugman
loose
> Just
would
lost
> be
> as
(meaning
> #
> it.
a
> night
loose
> Just
>
|||"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnoooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:ODHMefdHEHA.2948@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> The main reason to separate them is for performance and scalability.
While
> there is some added protection for data loss with separate arrays over
just
> one it is secondary to performance and maintenance. If all your worried
> about is a minimal configuration then use a single RAID 10 and be done
with
> it. This will suite many smaller applications just fine. If performance
> becomes an issue and it is attributed to disk I/O you can look into adding
> another RAID 1 for the logs etc.
>
Hello Andrew,
Thanks for your anwser,
We will probably go for a RAID 10 solution, were all
SQL-server data and log is stored on one diskgroup.
But we will probably have an offsite copy of this RAID 10
solution, which will be a hardware mirror of the first
RAID 10 box.
For the larger systems a SAN will be used, but this will
be to expensive for the smaller locations.
Thanks for your time.
ben brugman
[color=darkblue]
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "ben brugman" <ben@.niethier.nl> wrote in message
> news:eFLE5oUHEHA.2836@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> loose
etc.[color=darkblue]
the[color=darkblue]
that[color=darkblue]
> would
> lost
not[color=darkblue]
latter[color=darkblue]
good[color=darkblue]
> (meaning
on[color=darkblue]
configuration[color=darkblue]
> a
backups[color=darkblue]
> loose
etc.[color=darkblue]
?
>
same for a 10GB db with light load and this is addressing the latter as you
asked. A RAID 0+1 will give the most fault tolerate Raid with good
performance as well. If the load is light enough (not a lot of
transactions) then you can probably get away with a good size (meaning # of
disks not size of disks) RAID 0+1 or even 1+0 that has everything on it.
But it is usually best to place the logs on their own RAID 1 and separate
from the data for performance reasons. With a minimal configuration a good
raid is essential along with proper backups. A full backup once a night is
usually OK for most applications. The frequency of the log backups depend
on how much data you are willing to loose. If you can afford to loose up to
15 minutes worth of transactions then use a 15 minute interval etc. Just
ensure the backups are not done to the same drive the logs or data reside
on.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"ben brugman" <ben@.niethier.nl> wrote in message
news:u1zBcW7GEHA.688@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Minimal configuration.
> (Performance is not an issue).
> Dataloss should not happen. (But we do not account
> for real dissasters, for example a big fire destroying
> the complete production center, resulting
> in the dataloss of 24 hours would be acceptable.)
> The shop runs 7 x 24 hours.
> Most is done during office hours.
> Some is done during all day.
> At night the system must be available but it is
> used very limited.
> Once a day a tape goes from the production machine to an
> offsite safe.
> The total amount of data has a disk footprint off
> between 1 and 10 Gigabytes.
> Offcourse there is a production machine and
> a standby machine probably in another location.
> (The second machine will be used for testing and
> practicing procedures.)
> Raid is required, raid protects agains single disks failures,
> but what are the options for more protection ?
> What configuration is considered minimal in these circumstances ?
> Esspecially what to do with the disks ?
> (OS / Logging / Data / Backupdata / Transactionlog backup) ?
> What can be combined and what can not be combined ?
> And how often to do the transactionlog backup ?
> (Side question what "route" should the transactionlog(-backup)
> take).
>
> Keep in mind : We are looking for a minimal configuration.
> Later on we will also looking for a 'larger' configuration with
> more performance, a larger database etc. (But still no super
> configuration. Something like 100-200 Gigabyte and more load).
> Thanks for your thoughts,
> ben brugman.
>
Going with your suggestions,
suppose you have split the total RAID device in 3 groups
of disks (fysical separate), how would you place
1 OS
2 Logging
3 Data
4 Backupdata
5 Transactionlog backup
Have I missed anything ?
Or are 2 groups enough ?
Or do I need more groups ?
> on how much data you are willing to loose. If you can afford to loose up
to
> 15 minutes worth of transactions then use a 15 minute interval etc. Just
If I go from estimates of MTBF of disks the chance of
losing a mirrored disk is extremely small. So the chance
of loosing up to 15 minutes of data is extremely small.
Loosing the complete system because of a major
dissaster (fire for example) looks more likely and then
you loose everything since the last time you brought
the backup to outside of the 'box' or the computerroom.
Because for a minimal system bringing the data out of the
room more than once or twice a day would probably be a
problem.
(Calculation for 2 disks failing, assuming a MTBF of 300000 hours,
that a failed disk is spotted with in 24 hours. I get a failure of
two disks every once in 1/(24/300000)^2 days = 156250000 days)
Two of my problems :
1. Backup of the transaction log is not a 'backup' but a 'move' of the
'content',
so how do I protect the backup of the transaction log, because at that
moment
it is the only 'copy' of that data in existence. (Still mirrored I would
suggest).
2. If part of the chain of transactionlogs (active of backupped) is lost the
datafiles are worthless, so I do not understand that the datafiles
should be on a separate disk.
(Performance not being a consideration).
Thanks for your thoughts.
ben brugman
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnoooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:uRptBADHEHA.2260@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Keep in mind that a server with a 200GB db and moderate load may not be
the
> same for a 10GB db with light load and this is addressing the latter as
you
> asked. A RAID 0+1 will give the most fault tolerate Raid with good
> performance as well. If the load is light enough (not a lot of
> transactions) then you can probably get away with a good size (meaning #
of
> disks not size of disks) RAID 0+1 or even 1+0 that has everything on it.
> But it is usually best to place the logs on their own RAID 1 and separate
> from the data for performance reasons. With a minimal configuration a
good
> raid is essential along with proper backups. A full backup once a night
is
> usually OK for most applications. The frequency of the log backups depend
> on how much data you are willing to loose. If you can afford to loose up
to
> 15 minutes worth of transactions then use a 15 minute interval etc. Just
> ensure the backups are not done to the same drive the logs or data reside
> on.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "ben brugman" <ben@.niethier.nl> wrote in message
> news:u1zBcW7GEHA.688@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>
|||It depends on how you will use the database. If you have a lot of
operations that use tempdb heavily you may wish to place tempdb on it's own
raid as well. Logs should be on their own array unless it is mostly read
only. A typical config for a moderate system is usually something like
this:
RAID 1 OS / SQL Binaries
RAID 1 SQL Transaction Logs
RAID 10 DATA, TempDB
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"ben brugman" <ben@.niethier.nl> wrote in message
news:c50moh$gtq$1@.reader11.wxs.nl...
> Going with your suggestions,
> suppose you have split the total RAID device in 3 groups
> of disks (fysical separate), how would you place
> 1 OS
> 2 Logging
> 3 Data
> 4 Backupdata
> 5 Transactionlog backup
> Have I missed anything ?
> Or are 2 groups enough ?
> Or do I need more groups ?
>
up
> to
> If I go from estimates of MTBF of disks the chance of
> losing a mirrored disk is extremely small. So the chance
> of loosing up to 15 minutes of data is extremely small.
> Loosing the complete system because of a major
> dissaster (fire for example) looks more likely and then
> you loose everything since the last time you brought
> the backup to outside of the 'box' or the computerroom.
> Because for a minimal system bringing the data out of the
> room more than once or twice a day would probably be a
> problem.
> (Calculation for 2 disks failing, assuming a MTBF of 300000 hours,
> that a failed disk is spotted with in 24 hours. I get a failure of
> two disks every once in 1/(24/300000)^2 days = 156250000 days)
> Two of my problems :
> 1. Backup of the transaction log is not a 'backup' but a 'move' of the
> 'content',
> so how do I protect the backup of the transaction log, because at that
> moment
> it is the only 'copy' of that data in existence. (Still mirrored I would
> suggest).
> 2. If part of the chain of transactionlogs (active of backupped) is lost
the
> datafiles are worthless, so I do not understand that the datafiles
> should be on a separate disk.
> (Performance not being a consideration).
> Thanks for your thoughts.
> ben brugman
>
>
>
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnoooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:uRptBADHEHA.2260@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> the
> you
> of
separate
> good
> is
depend
up
> to
reside
>
|||>
> RAID 1 OS / SQL Binaries
> RAID 1 SQL Transaction Logs
> RAID 10 DATA, TempDB
>
What about :
I still have difficulty in understanding why different groups
offer more 'protection' than less different groups.
In your schema at least 8 disks are needed to realise
the solution. (1 each for the RAID 1 solution and at least
four for the RAID 10 solution. This is often the maximum
number of disks a 'simple' RAID box supports).
IF (this is supposed by me, so you can point out the
error or mistake in my reasoning.)
IF I put everything OS/Log/Data on a single group of
RAID disks the worst that can happen is that two mirrored
disks fail, resulting in the dataloss since the last backup and
move to outside the system.
But with the proposed system of having OS/Log/Data each on
their own group, the risk of losing the Log is the same because
losing the mirrored disk (with only the logs) gives us the
same amount of dataloss as with everything on the same group.
I very strongly feel that I AM MISSING SOME UNDERSTANDING
of this situation.
(Offcourse if the volumes of data and log become larger and
performance is an issue, I would go with more groups and understand
the reasons for this.).
My question is : Why is it wrong to put OS/Log/Data on a single
group of disks ?
(What is the risc of this ? Or why are there more riscs for this
than 3 groups of disks ?)
Everybody (books, discussions, usegroups) that this should
not be done, but except for performance the reason(s) is (are) not
explained.
Thanks again for your time,
and sorry to go on on this subject, but I really would like to
understand it.
ben brugman
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "ben brugman" <ben@.niethier.nl> wrote in message
> news:c50moh$gtq$1@.reader11.wxs.nl...
> up
Just
> the
be
as
#
it.
> separate
night
> depend
> up
Just
> reside
>
|||The main reason to separate them is for performance and scalability. While
there is some added protection for data loss with separate arrays over just
one it is secondary to performance and maintenance. If all your worried
about is a minimal configuration then use a single RAID 10 and be done with
it. This will suite many smaller applications just fine. If performance
becomes an issue and it is attributed to disk I/O you can look into adding
another RAID 1 for the logs etc.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"ben brugman" <ben@.niethier.nl> wrote in message
news:eFLE5oUHEHA.2836@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> What about :
> I still have difficulty in understanding why different groups
> offer more 'protection' than less different groups.
> In your schema at least 8 disks are needed to realise
> the solution. (1 each for the RAID 1 solution and at least
> four for the RAID 10 solution. This is often the maximum
> number of disks a 'simple' RAID box supports).
> IF (this is supposed by me, so you can point out the
> error or mistake in my reasoning.)
> IF I put everything OS/Log/Data on a single group of
> RAID disks the worst that can happen is that two mirrored
> disks fail, resulting in the dataloss since the last backup and
> move to outside the system.
> But with the proposed system of having OS/Log/Data each on
> their own group, the risk of losing the Log is the same because
> losing the mirrored disk (with only the logs) gives us the
> same amount of dataloss as with everything on the same group.
> I very strongly feel that I AM MISSING SOME UNDERSTANDING
> of this situation.
> (Offcourse if the volumes of data and log become larger and
> performance is an issue, I would go with more groups and understand
> the reasons for this.).
> My question is : Why is it wrong to put OS/Log/Data on a single
> group of disks ?
> (What is the risc of this ? Or why are there more riscs for this
> than 3 groups of disks ?)
> Everybody (books, discussions, usegroups) that this should
> not be done, but except for performance the reason(s) is (are) not
> explained.
> Thanks again for your time,
> and sorry to go on on this subject, but I really would like to
> understand it.
> ben brugman
loose
> Just
would
lost
> be
> as
(meaning
> #
> it.
a
> night
loose
> Just
>
|||"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnoooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:ODHMefdHEHA.2948@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> The main reason to separate them is for performance and scalability.
While
> there is some added protection for data loss with separate arrays over
just
> one it is secondary to performance and maintenance. If all your worried
> about is a minimal configuration then use a single RAID 10 and be done
with
> it. This will suite many smaller applications just fine. If performance
> becomes an issue and it is attributed to disk I/O you can look into adding
> another RAID 1 for the logs etc.
>
Hello Andrew,
Thanks for your anwser,
We will probably go for a RAID 10 solution, were all
SQL-server data and log is stored on one diskgroup.
But we will probably have an offsite copy of this RAID 10
solution, which will be a hardware mirror of the first
RAID 10 box.
For the larger systems a SAN will be used, but this will
be to expensive for the smaller locations.
Thanks for your time.
ben brugman
[color=darkblue]
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "ben brugman" <ben@.niethier.nl> wrote in message
> news:eFLE5oUHEHA.2836@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> loose
etc.[color=darkblue]
the[color=darkblue]
that[color=darkblue]
> would
> lost
not[color=darkblue]
latter[color=darkblue]
good[color=darkblue]
> (meaning
on[color=darkblue]
configuration[color=darkblue]
> a
backups[color=darkblue]
> loose
etc.[color=darkblue]
?
>
Minimal configuration, suggestions wanted.
Minimal configuration.
(Performance is not an issue).
Dataloss should not happen. (But we do not account
for real dissasters, for example a big fire destroying
the complete production center, resulting
in the dataloss of 24 hours would be acceptable.)
The shop runs 7 x 24 hours.
Most is done during office hours.
Some is done during all day.
At night the system must be available but it is
used very limited.
Once a day a tape goes from the production machine to an
offsite safe.
The total amount of data has a disk footprint off
between 1 and 10 Gigabytes.
Offcourse there is a production machine and
a standby machine probably in another location.
(The second machine will be used for testing and
practicing procedures.)
Raid is required, raid protects agains single disks failures,
but what are the options for more protection ?
What configuration is considered minimal in these circumstances ?
Esspecially what to do with the disks ?
(OS / Logging / Data / Backupdata / Transactionlog backup) ?
What can be combined and what can not be combined ?
And how often to do the transactionlog backup ?
(Side question what "route" should the transactionlog(-backup)
take).
Keep in mind : We are looking for a minimal configuration.
Later on we will also looking for a 'larger' configuration with
more performance, a larger database etc. (But still no super
configuration. Something like 100-200 Gigabyte and more load).
Thanks for your thoughts,
ben brugman.Keep in mind that a server with a 200GB db and moderate load may not be the
same for a 10GB db with light load and this is addressing the latter as you
asked. A RAID 0+1 will give the most fault tolerate Raid with good
performance as well. If the load is light enough (not a lot of
transactions) then you can probably get away with a good size (meaning # of
disks not size of disks) RAID 0+1 or even 1+0 that has everything on it.
But it is usually best to place the logs on their own RAID 1 and separate
from the data for performance reasons. With a minimal configuration a good
raid is essential along with proper backups. A full backup once a night is
usually OK for most applications. The frequency of the log backups depend
on how much data you are willing to loose. If you can afford to loose up to
15 minutes worth of transactions then use a 15 minute interval etc. Just
ensure the backups are not done to the same drive the logs or data reside
on.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"ben brugman" <ben@.niethier.nl> wrote in message
news:u1zBcW7GEHA.688@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Minimal configuration.
> (Performance is not an issue).
> Dataloss should not happen. (But we do not account
> for real dissasters, for example a big fire destroying
> the complete production center, resulting
> in the dataloss of 24 hours would be acceptable.)
> The shop runs 7 x 24 hours.
> Most is done during office hours.
> Some is done during all day.
> At night the system must be available but it is
> used very limited.
> Once a day a tape goes from the production machine to an
> offsite safe.
> The total amount of data has a disk footprint off
> between 1 and 10 Gigabytes.
> Offcourse there is a production machine and
> a standby machine probably in another location.
> (The second machine will be used for testing and
> practicing procedures.)
> Raid is required, raid protects agains single disks failures,
> but what are the options for more protection ?
> What configuration is considered minimal in these circumstances ?
> Esspecially what to do with the disks ?
> (OS / Logging / Data / Backupdata / Transactionlog backup) ?
> What can be combined and what can not be combined ?
> And how often to do the transactionlog backup ?
> (Side question what "route" should the transactionlog(-backup)
> take).
>
> Keep in mind : We are looking for a minimal configuration.
> Later on we will also looking for a 'larger' configuration with
> more performance, a larger database etc. (But still no super
> configuration. Something like 100-200 Gigabyte and more load).
> Thanks for your thoughts,
> ben brugman.
>|||Going with your suggestions,
suppose you have split the total RAID device in 3 groups
of disks (fysical separate), how would you place
1 OS
2 Logging
3 Data
4 Backupdata
5 Transactionlog backup
Have I missed anything ?
Or are 2 groups enough ?
Or do I need more groups ?
> on how much data you are willing to loose. If you can afford to loose up
to
> 15 minutes worth of transactions then use a 15 minute interval etc. Just
If I go from estimates of MTBF of disks the chance of
losing a mirrored disk is extremely small. So the chance
of loosing up to 15 minutes of data is extremely small.
Loosing the complete system because of a major
dissaster (fire for example) looks more likely and then
you loose everything since the last time you brought
the backup to outside of the 'box' or the computerroom.
Because for a minimal system bringing the data out of the
room more than once or twice a day would probably be a
problem.
(Calculation for 2 disks failing, assuming a MTBF of 300000 hours,
that a failed disk is spotted with in 24 hours. I get a failure of
two disks every once in 1/(24/300000)^2 days = 156250000 days)
Two of my problems :
1. Backup of the transaction log is not a 'backup' but a 'move' of the
'content',
so how do I protect the backup of the transaction log, because at that
moment
it is the only 'copy' of that data in existence. (Still mirrored I would
suggest).
2. If part of the chain of transactionlogs (active of backupped) is lost the
datafiles are worthless, so I do not understand that the datafiles
should be on a separate disk.
(Performance not being a consideration).
Thanks for your thoughts.
ben brugman
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnoooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:uRptBADHEHA.2260@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Keep in mind that a server with a 200GB db and moderate load may not be
the
> same for a 10GB db with light load and this is addressing the latter as
you
> asked. A RAID 0+1 will give the most fault tolerate Raid with good
> performance as well. If the load is light enough (not a lot of
> transactions) then you can probably get away with a good size (meaning #
of
> disks not size of disks) RAID 0+1 or even 1+0 that has everything on it.
> But it is usually best to place the logs on their own RAID 1 and separate
> from the data for performance reasons. With a minimal configuration a
good
> raid is essential along with proper backups. A full backup once a night
is
> usually OK for most applications. The frequency of the log backups depend
> on how much data you are willing to loose. If you can afford to loose up
to
> 15 minutes worth of transactions then use a 15 minute interval etc. Just
> ensure the backups are not done to the same drive the logs or data reside
> on.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "ben brugman" <ben@.niethier.nl> wrote in message
> news:u1zBcW7GEHA.688@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>|||It depends on how you will use the database. If you have a lot of
operations that use tempdb heavily you may wish to place tempdb on it's own
raid as well. Logs should be on their own array unless it is mostly read
only. A typical config for a moderate system is usually something like
this:
RAID 1 OS / SQL Binaries
RAID 1 SQL Transaction Logs
RAID 10 DATA, TempDB
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"ben brugman" <ben@.niethier.nl> wrote in message
news:c50moh$gtq$1@.reader11.wxs.nl...
> Going with your suggestions,
> suppose you have split the total RAID device in 3 groups
> of disks (fysical separate), how would you place
> 1 OS
> 2 Logging
> 3 Data
> 4 Backupdata
> 5 Transactionlog backup
> Have I missed anything ?
> Or are 2 groups enough ?
> Or do I need more groups ?
>
up
> to
> If I go from estimates of MTBF of disks the chance of
> losing a mirrored disk is extremely small. So the chance
> of loosing up to 15 minutes of data is extremely small.
> Loosing the complete system because of a major
> dissaster (fire for example) looks more likely and then
> you loose everything since the last time you brought
> the backup to outside of the 'box' or the computerroom.
> Because for a minimal system bringing the data out of the
> room more than once or twice a day would probably be a
> problem.
> (Calculation for 2 disks failing, assuming a MTBF of 300000 hours,
> that a failed disk is spotted with in 24 hours. I get a failure of
> two disks every once in 1/(24/300000)^2 days = 156250000 days)
> Two of my problems :
> 1. Backup of the transaction log is not a 'backup' but a 'move' of the
> 'content',
> so how do I protect the backup of the transaction log, because at that
> moment
> it is the only 'copy' of that data in existence. (Still mirrored I would
> suggest).
> 2. If part of the chain of transactionlogs (active of backupped) is lost
the
> datafiles are worthless, so I do not understand that the datafiles
> should be on a separate disk.
> (Performance not being a consideration).
> Thanks for your thoughts.
> ben brugman
>
>
>
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnoooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:uRptBADHEHA.2260@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> the
> you
> of
separate
> good
> is
depend
up
> to
reside
>|||>
> RAID 1 OS / SQL Binaries
> RAID 1 SQL Transaction Logs
> RAID 10 DATA, TempDB
>
What about :
I still have difficulty in understanding why different groups
offer more 'protection' than less different groups.
In your schema at least 8 disks are needed to realise
the solution. (1 each for the RAID 1 solution and at least
four for the RAID 10 solution. This is often the maximum
number of disks a 'simple' RAID box supports).
IF (this is supposed by me, so you can point out the
error or mistake in my reasoning.)
IF I put everything OS/Log/Data on a single group of
RAID disks the worst that can happen is that two mirrored
disks fail, resulting in the dataloss since the last backup and
move to outside the system.
But with the proposed system of having OS/Log/Data each on
their own group, the risk of losing the Log is the same because
losing the mirrored disk (with only the logs) gives us the
same amount of dataloss as with everything on the same group.
I very strongly feel that I AM MISSING SOME UNDERSTANDING
of this situation.
(Offcourse if the volumes of data and log become larger and
performance is an issue, I would go with more groups and understand
the reasons for this.).
My question is : Why is it wrong to put OS/Log/Data on a single
group of disks ?
(What is the risc of this ? Or why are there more riscs for this
than 3 groups of disks ?)
Everybody (books, discussions, usegroups) that this should
not be done, but except for performance the reason(s) is (are) not
explained.
Thanks again for your time,
and sorry to go on on this subject, but I really would like to
understand it.
ben brugman
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "ben brugman" <ben@.niethier.nl> wrote in message
> news:c50moh$gtq$1@.reader11.wxs.nl...
> up
Just
> the
be
as
#
it.
> separate
night
> depend
> up
Just
> reside
>|||The main reason to separate them is for performance and scalability. While
there is some added protection for data loss with separate arrays over just
one it is secondary to performance and maintenance. If all your worried
about is a minimal configuration then use a single RAID 10 and be done with
it. This will suite many smaller applications just fine. If performance
becomes an issue and it is attributed to disk I/O you can look into adding
another RAID 1 for the logs etc.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"ben brugman" <ben@.niethier.nl> wrote in message
news:eFLE5oUHEHA.2836@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> What about :
> I still have difficulty in understanding why different groups
> offer more 'protection' than less different groups.
> In your schema at least 8 disks are needed to realise
> the solution. (1 each for the RAID 1 solution and at least
> four for the RAID 10 solution. This is often the maximum
> number of disks a 'simple' RAID box supports).
> IF (this is supposed by me, so you can point out the
> error or mistake in my reasoning.)
> IF I put everything OS/Log/Data on a single group of
> RAID disks the worst that can happen is that two mirrored
> disks fail, resulting in the dataloss since the last backup and
> move to outside the system.
> But with the proposed system of having OS/Log/Data each on
> their own group, the risk of losing the Log is the same because
> losing the mirrored disk (with only the logs) gives us the
> same amount of dataloss as with everything on the same group.
> I very strongly feel that I AM MISSING SOME UNDERSTANDING
> of this situation.
> (Offcourse if the volumes of data and log become larger and
> performance is an issue, I would go with more groups and understand
> the reasons for this.).
> My question is : Why is it wrong to put OS/Log/Data on a single
> group of disks ?
> (What is the risc of this ? Or why are there more riscs for this
> than 3 groups of disks ?)
> Everybody (books, discussions, usegroups) that this should
> not be done, but except for performance the reason(s) is (are) not
> explained.
> Thanks again for your time,
> and sorry to go on on this subject, but I really would like to
> understand it.
> ben brugman
>
loose
> Just
would
lost
> be
> as
(meaning
> #
> it.
a
> night
loose
> Just
>|||"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnoooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:ODHMefdHEHA.2948@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> The main reason to separate them is for performance and scalability.
While
> there is some added protection for data loss with separate arrays over
just
> one it is secondary to performance and maintenance. If all your worried
> about is a minimal configuration then use a single RAID 10 and be done
with
> it. This will suite many smaller applications just fine. If performance
> becomes an issue and it is attributed to disk I/O you can look into adding
> another RAID 1 for the logs etc.
>
Hello Andrew,
Thanks for your anwser,
We will probably go for a RAID 10 solution, were all
SQL-server data and log is stored on one diskgroup.
But we will probably have an offsite copy of this RAID 10
solution, which will be a hardware mirror of the first
RAID 10 box.
For the larger systems a SAN will be used, but this will
be to expensive for the smaller locations.
Thanks for your time.
ben brugman
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "ben brugman" <ben@.niethier.nl> wrote in message
> news:eFLE5oUHEHA.2836@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> loose
etc.
the
that
> would
> lost
not
latter
good
> (meaning
on
configuration
> a
backups
> loose
etc.
?
>
(Performance is not an issue).
Dataloss should not happen. (But we do not account
for real dissasters, for example a big fire destroying
the complete production center, resulting
in the dataloss of 24 hours would be acceptable.)
The shop runs 7 x 24 hours.
Most is done during office hours.
Some is done during all day.
At night the system must be available but it is
used very limited.
Once a day a tape goes from the production machine to an
offsite safe.
The total amount of data has a disk footprint off
between 1 and 10 Gigabytes.
Offcourse there is a production machine and
a standby machine probably in another location.
(The second machine will be used for testing and
practicing procedures.)
Raid is required, raid protects agains single disks failures,
but what are the options for more protection ?
What configuration is considered minimal in these circumstances ?
Esspecially what to do with the disks ?
(OS / Logging / Data / Backupdata / Transactionlog backup) ?
What can be combined and what can not be combined ?
And how often to do the transactionlog backup ?
(Side question what "route" should the transactionlog(-backup)
take).
Keep in mind : We are looking for a minimal configuration.
Later on we will also looking for a 'larger' configuration with
more performance, a larger database etc. (But still no super
configuration. Something like 100-200 Gigabyte and more load).
Thanks for your thoughts,
ben brugman.Keep in mind that a server with a 200GB db and moderate load may not be the
same for a 10GB db with light load and this is addressing the latter as you
asked. A RAID 0+1 will give the most fault tolerate Raid with good
performance as well. If the load is light enough (not a lot of
transactions) then you can probably get away with a good size (meaning # of
disks not size of disks) RAID 0+1 or even 1+0 that has everything on it.
But it is usually best to place the logs on their own RAID 1 and separate
from the data for performance reasons. With a minimal configuration a good
raid is essential along with proper backups. A full backup once a night is
usually OK for most applications. The frequency of the log backups depend
on how much data you are willing to loose. If you can afford to loose up to
15 minutes worth of transactions then use a 15 minute interval etc. Just
ensure the backups are not done to the same drive the logs or data reside
on.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"ben brugman" <ben@.niethier.nl> wrote in message
news:u1zBcW7GEHA.688@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Minimal configuration.
> (Performance is not an issue).
> Dataloss should not happen. (But we do not account
> for real dissasters, for example a big fire destroying
> the complete production center, resulting
> in the dataloss of 24 hours would be acceptable.)
> The shop runs 7 x 24 hours.
> Most is done during office hours.
> Some is done during all day.
> At night the system must be available but it is
> used very limited.
> Once a day a tape goes from the production machine to an
> offsite safe.
> The total amount of data has a disk footprint off
> between 1 and 10 Gigabytes.
> Offcourse there is a production machine and
> a standby machine probably in another location.
> (The second machine will be used for testing and
> practicing procedures.)
> Raid is required, raid protects agains single disks failures,
> but what are the options for more protection ?
> What configuration is considered minimal in these circumstances ?
> Esspecially what to do with the disks ?
> (OS / Logging / Data / Backupdata / Transactionlog backup) ?
> What can be combined and what can not be combined ?
> And how often to do the transactionlog backup ?
> (Side question what "route" should the transactionlog(-backup)
> take).
>
> Keep in mind : We are looking for a minimal configuration.
> Later on we will also looking for a 'larger' configuration with
> more performance, a larger database etc. (But still no super
> configuration. Something like 100-200 Gigabyte and more load).
> Thanks for your thoughts,
> ben brugman.
>|||Going with your suggestions,
suppose you have split the total RAID device in 3 groups
of disks (fysical separate), how would you place
1 OS
2 Logging
3 Data
4 Backupdata
5 Transactionlog backup
Have I missed anything ?
Or are 2 groups enough ?
Or do I need more groups ?
> on how much data you are willing to loose. If you can afford to loose up
to
> 15 minutes worth of transactions then use a 15 minute interval etc. Just
If I go from estimates of MTBF of disks the chance of
losing a mirrored disk is extremely small. So the chance
of loosing up to 15 minutes of data is extremely small.
Loosing the complete system because of a major
dissaster (fire for example) looks more likely and then
you loose everything since the last time you brought
the backup to outside of the 'box' or the computerroom.
Because for a minimal system bringing the data out of the
room more than once or twice a day would probably be a
problem.
(Calculation for 2 disks failing, assuming a MTBF of 300000 hours,
that a failed disk is spotted with in 24 hours. I get a failure of
two disks every once in 1/(24/300000)^2 days = 156250000 days)
Two of my problems :
1. Backup of the transaction log is not a 'backup' but a 'move' of the
'content',
so how do I protect the backup of the transaction log, because at that
moment
it is the only 'copy' of that data in existence. (Still mirrored I would
suggest).
2. If part of the chain of transactionlogs (active of backupped) is lost the
datafiles are worthless, so I do not understand that the datafiles
should be on a separate disk.
(Performance not being a consideration).
Thanks for your thoughts.
ben brugman
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnoooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:uRptBADHEHA.2260@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Keep in mind that a server with a 200GB db and moderate load may not be
the
> same for a 10GB db with light load and this is addressing the latter as
you
> asked. A RAID 0+1 will give the most fault tolerate Raid with good
> performance as well. If the load is light enough (not a lot of
> transactions) then you can probably get away with a good size (meaning #
of
> disks not size of disks) RAID 0+1 or even 1+0 that has everything on it.
> But it is usually best to place the logs on their own RAID 1 and separate
> from the data for performance reasons. With a minimal configuration a
good
> raid is essential along with proper backups. A full backup once a night
is
> usually OK for most applications. The frequency of the log backups depend
> on how much data you are willing to loose. If you can afford to loose up
to
> 15 minutes worth of transactions then use a 15 minute interval etc. Just
> ensure the backups are not done to the same drive the logs or data reside
> on.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "ben brugman" <ben@.niethier.nl> wrote in message
> news:u1zBcW7GEHA.688@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>|||It depends on how you will use the database. If you have a lot of
operations that use tempdb heavily you may wish to place tempdb on it's own
raid as well. Logs should be on their own array unless it is mostly read
only. A typical config for a moderate system is usually something like
this:
RAID 1 OS / SQL Binaries
RAID 1 SQL Transaction Logs
RAID 10 DATA, TempDB
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"ben brugman" <ben@.niethier.nl> wrote in message
news:c50moh$gtq$1@.reader11.wxs.nl...
> Going with your suggestions,
> suppose you have split the total RAID device in 3 groups
> of disks (fysical separate), how would you place
> 1 OS
> 2 Logging
> 3 Data
> 4 Backupdata
> 5 Transactionlog backup
> Have I missed anything ?
> Or are 2 groups enough ?
> Or do I need more groups ?
>
up
> to
> If I go from estimates of MTBF of disks the chance of
> losing a mirrored disk is extremely small. So the chance
> of loosing up to 15 minutes of data is extremely small.
> Loosing the complete system because of a major
> dissaster (fire for example) looks more likely and then
> you loose everything since the last time you brought
> the backup to outside of the 'box' or the computerroom.
> Because for a minimal system bringing the data out of the
> room more than once or twice a day would probably be a
> problem.
> (Calculation for 2 disks failing, assuming a MTBF of 300000 hours,
> that a failed disk is spotted with in 24 hours. I get a failure of
> two disks every once in 1/(24/300000)^2 days = 156250000 days)
> Two of my problems :
> 1. Backup of the transaction log is not a 'backup' but a 'move' of the
> 'content',
> so how do I protect the backup of the transaction log, because at that
> moment
> it is the only 'copy' of that data in existence. (Still mirrored I would
> suggest).
> 2. If part of the chain of transactionlogs (active of backupped) is lost
the
> datafiles are worthless, so I do not understand that the datafiles
> should be on a separate disk.
> (Performance not being a consideration).
> Thanks for your thoughts.
> ben brugman
>
>
>
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnoooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:uRptBADHEHA.2260@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> the
> you
> of
separate
> good
> is
depend
up
> to
reside
>|||>
> RAID 1 OS / SQL Binaries
> RAID 1 SQL Transaction Logs
> RAID 10 DATA, TempDB
>
What about :
I still have difficulty in understanding why different groups
offer more 'protection' than less different groups.
In your schema at least 8 disks are needed to realise
the solution. (1 each for the RAID 1 solution and at least
four for the RAID 10 solution. This is often the maximum
number of disks a 'simple' RAID box supports).
IF (this is supposed by me, so you can point out the
error or mistake in my reasoning.)
IF I put everything OS/Log/Data on a single group of
RAID disks the worst that can happen is that two mirrored
disks fail, resulting in the dataloss since the last backup and
move to outside the system.
But with the proposed system of having OS/Log/Data each on
their own group, the risk of losing the Log is the same because
losing the mirrored disk (with only the logs) gives us the
same amount of dataloss as with everything on the same group.
I very strongly feel that I AM MISSING SOME UNDERSTANDING
of this situation.
(Offcourse if the volumes of data and log become larger and
performance is an issue, I would go with more groups and understand
the reasons for this.).
My question is : Why is it wrong to put OS/Log/Data on a single
group of disks ?
(What is the risc of this ? Or why are there more riscs for this
than 3 groups of disks ?)
Everybody (books, discussions, usegroups) that this should
not be done, but except for performance the reason(s) is (are) not
explained.
Thanks again for your time,
and sorry to go on on this subject, but I really would like to
understand it.
ben brugman
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "ben brugman" <ben@.niethier.nl> wrote in message
> news:c50moh$gtq$1@.reader11.wxs.nl...
> up
Just
> the
be
as
#
it.
> separate
night
> depend
> up
Just
> reside
>|||The main reason to separate them is for performance and scalability. While
there is some added protection for data loss with separate arrays over just
one it is secondary to performance and maintenance. If all your worried
about is a minimal configuration then use a single RAID 10 and be done with
it. This will suite many smaller applications just fine. If performance
becomes an issue and it is attributed to disk I/O you can look into adding
another RAID 1 for the logs etc.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"ben brugman" <ben@.niethier.nl> wrote in message
news:eFLE5oUHEHA.2836@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> What about :
> I still have difficulty in understanding why different groups
> offer more 'protection' than less different groups.
> In your schema at least 8 disks are needed to realise
> the solution. (1 each for the RAID 1 solution and at least
> four for the RAID 10 solution. This is often the maximum
> number of disks a 'simple' RAID box supports).
> IF (this is supposed by me, so you can point out the
> error or mistake in my reasoning.)
> IF I put everything OS/Log/Data on a single group of
> RAID disks the worst that can happen is that two mirrored
> disks fail, resulting in the dataloss since the last backup and
> move to outside the system.
> But with the proposed system of having OS/Log/Data each on
> their own group, the risk of losing the Log is the same because
> losing the mirrored disk (with only the logs) gives us the
> same amount of dataloss as with everything on the same group.
> I very strongly feel that I AM MISSING SOME UNDERSTANDING
> of this situation.
> (Offcourse if the volumes of data and log become larger and
> performance is an issue, I would go with more groups and understand
> the reasons for this.).
> My question is : Why is it wrong to put OS/Log/Data on a single
> group of disks ?
> (What is the risc of this ? Or why are there more riscs for this
> than 3 groups of disks ?)
> Everybody (books, discussions, usegroups) that this should
> not be done, but except for performance the reason(s) is (are) not
> explained.
> Thanks again for your time,
> and sorry to go on on this subject, but I really would like to
> understand it.
> ben brugman
>
loose
> Just
would
lost
> be
> as
(meaning
> #
> it.
a
> night
loose
> Just
>|||"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnoooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:ODHMefdHEHA.2948@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> The main reason to separate them is for performance and scalability.
While
> there is some added protection for data loss with separate arrays over
just
> one it is secondary to performance and maintenance. If all your worried
> about is a minimal configuration then use a single RAID 10 and be done
with
> it. This will suite many smaller applications just fine. If performance
> becomes an issue and it is attributed to disk I/O you can look into adding
> another RAID 1 for the logs etc.
>
Hello Andrew,
Thanks for your anwser,
We will probably go for a RAID 10 solution, were all
SQL-server data and log is stored on one diskgroup.
But we will probably have an offsite copy of this RAID 10
solution, which will be a hardware mirror of the first
RAID 10 box.
For the larger systems a SAN will be used, but this will
be to expensive for the smaller locations.
Thanks for your time.
ben brugman
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "ben brugman" <ben@.niethier.nl> wrote in message
> news:eFLE5oUHEHA.2836@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> loose
etc.
the
that
> would
> lost
not
latter
good
> (meaning
on
configuration
> a
backups
> loose
etc.
?
>
Minimal configuration of .NET Visual Studio
Hi
What is a minimal configuration of .NET Visual Studio to setup Reporting
Service?
Regards,
GennadiWhat is needed is the 2003 IDE shell.
Visual Basic.NET 2003 version should be enough.
--
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Gena" <gretchkosiy@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uJQ0PpkiEHA.3148@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> What is a minimal configuration of .NET Visual Studio to setup Reporting
> Service?
> Regards,
> Gennadi
>|||Thanx
Is there any possibilities to run away from .NET VisualStudio to create
reports? I mean any GUI tools.
Thanx
Gennadi
"Lev Semenets [MSFT]" <levs@.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:uzSqmxkiEHA.1764@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> What is needed is the 2003 IDE shell.
> Visual Basic.NET 2003 version should be enough.
> --
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.
> "Gena" <gretchkosiy@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:uJQ0PpkiEHA.3148@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > Hi
> >
> > What is a minimal configuration of .NET Visual Studio to setup Reporting
> > Service?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Gennadi
> >
> >
>|||Report Designer is implemented as VS component and would not work without
VS.
--
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Gena" <gretchkosiy@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23mwUt5kiEHA.3664@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Thanx
> Is there any possibilities to run away from .NET VisualStudio to create
> reports? I mean any GUI tools.
> Thanx
> Gennadi
> "Lev Semenets [MSFT]" <levs@.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:uzSqmxkiEHA.1764@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> What is needed is the 2003 IDE shell.
>> Visual Basic.NET 2003 version should be enough.
>> --
>> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> rights.
>> "Gena" <gretchkosiy@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:uJQ0PpkiEHA.3148@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> > Hi
>> >
>> > What is a minimal configuration of .NET Visual Studio to setup
>> > Reporting
>> > Service?
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Gennadi
>> >
>> >
>>
>
What is a minimal configuration of .NET Visual Studio to setup Reporting
Service?
Regards,
GennadiWhat is needed is the 2003 IDE shell.
Visual Basic.NET 2003 version should be enough.
--
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Gena" <gretchkosiy@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uJQ0PpkiEHA.3148@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> What is a minimal configuration of .NET Visual Studio to setup Reporting
> Service?
> Regards,
> Gennadi
>|||Thanx
Is there any possibilities to run away from .NET VisualStudio to create
reports? I mean any GUI tools.
Thanx
Gennadi
"Lev Semenets [MSFT]" <levs@.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:uzSqmxkiEHA.1764@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> What is needed is the 2003 IDE shell.
> Visual Basic.NET 2003 version should be enough.
> --
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.
> "Gena" <gretchkosiy@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:uJQ0PpkiEHA.3148@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > Hi
> >
> > What is a minimal configuration of .NET Visual Studio to setup Reporting
> > Service?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Gennadi
> >
> >
>|||Report Designer is implemented as VS component and would not work without
VS.
--
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Gena" <gretchkosiy@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23mwUt5kiEHA.3664@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Thanx
> Is there any possibilities to run away from .NET VisualStudio to create
> reports? I mean any GUI tools.
> Thanx
> Gennadi
> "Lev Semenets [MSFT]" <levs@.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:uzSqmxkiEHA.1764@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> What is needed is the 2003 IDE shell.
>> Visual Basic.NET 2003 version should be enough.
>> --
>> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> rights.
>> "Gena" <gretchkosiy@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:uJQ0PpkiEHA.3148@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> > Hi
>> >
>> > What is a minimal configuration of .NET Visual Studio to setup
>> > Reporting
>> > Service?
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Gennadi
>> >
>> >
>>
>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)