new database server for every application
-
Lately is seems every vendor who’s application uses a sql server database is demanding there own server just for the database. I would like to limit the number of database servers for the following reasons.
1.It is easier and more efficient to use fewer servers.
2. Our large robust servers can easily handle the relatively small database’s associated with these applications.
3. The applications will actually run better when accessing data from a more robust server rather than all the mini servers the vendors are requesting.
4. The overall cost for hardware/maintenance and sqlserver licensing will be much lower.
The attitude that is relayed from the vendors to our upper management is that we can not be responsible if you don’t do it our way.
I was looking to see how other dba’s or their counterparts have handled this rather silly situation.
Thanks
David Weil
-
I have the same issue with some web portal products. I just do it and don't tell the vendor. It is dishonest, but anytime I need tech support from those vendors, they are unable to help anyway. I think the real issue is the lack of testing. Vendors are putting out systems that are not well tested, not even with virus scanning software. This is a serious issue and the vendors requiring their own servers tend to be using programming that relies on other (usually OS) features that they don't understand.
-
Boy do I agree that this practice is a Right Royal Pain. I agree that there is a apucity of testing. It would really pay these Vendors to include an experienced DBA into their development and design teams, maybe then we wouldn't find so much hideous database practices inside some of their products.
I have found it is possible to please all of the people all of the time if you do exactly what they want. Harold Macmillan 1961
I have found it is possible to please all of the people all of the time if you do exactly what they want. Harold Macmillan 1961 -
I've got this as one of my worst practices and I often argue with Vendors. I went through this with Great Plains (prior to MS). Told them to shove it and it wasn't their business to dictate this to me.
They backed down, their reasoning being so there's no interference. I told them if their code is clean, there is no interference.
Hard to argue this one, I'm sure MS and hardare vendors are happy to support the app vendors
Steve Jones
-
More servers can get expensive in a hurry, hardware + software + manpower. It is ridiculous. Whats worse to me is when your INTERNAL users go, hey, I need a database server for payroll. Whats it going to do the rest of the time?!
Andy
-
What a great discussion!!
I would even like to see the vendors create everything on a schema level without regard to the name of the database, let alone a whole new server.
"Keep Your Stick On the Ice" ..Red Green -
The biggest reason for this is vendors do not want to be responsible for any issue that could be related to other activity on the box. We have one app like this and fortunately the size does warrant the extra box. However, some departments in my company feel that it is important to own their own box for each app as to have the highest possible up time for each app. Remember all it takes is one problem to stall the entire server. Now as for my area I am trying just to get them to keep me in enough drive space to support all our databases and trying to get a few extra servers for realtime apps that have issues cooperating on the same box. But that is what the vendors give me as the answer to why it is so important to them otherwise they tell us we are on our own.
"Don't roll your eyes at me. I will tape them in place." (Teacher on Boston Public)
Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply