March 15, 2012 at 9:31 am
My boss wants to put SSRS on our largest shared SQL Server because he doesn't want to pay for a new server. He wants us to prove that it needs its own server. Everything I've read is that any reporting applications are resource intensive and are best if they're separate from the database server. Does anyone know of any load tests of SSRS on separate server vs on same server as database server? My boss wants us to prove that this is necessary. Otherwise we may be forced to support an application that may bring down our biggest SQL Server. Any great (or not so great) ideas would be very much appreciated...
March 15, 2012 at 9:45 am
It is environment dependent. I have run SSRS on the same box many times without performance impact. For scalability, I have put it on a different server. I have seen occasion where a report or group of reports was very resource intensive and that warranted placing SSRS on a different server.
Jason...AKA CirqueDeSQLeil
_______________________________________________
I have given a name to my pain...MCM SQL Server, MVP
SQL RNNR
Posting Performance Based Questions - Gail Shaw[/url]
Learn Extended Events
March 15, 2012 at 10:02 am
It would be helpful if I could find best practice articles, load tests or whitepapers on recommendations to bring back to my boss. The bigger issue is that if SSRS is put on the box then a lot of other applications will want to use it and may bog down the shared server. That's the thing that concerns me the most.
March 15, 2012 at 10:05 am
Your best evidence for a case like that is to load a test/dev server with all apps ans ssrs and put it through a normal workday load. provide that information to your boss.
Jason...AKA CirqueDeSQLeil
_______________________________________________
I have given a name to my pain...MCM SQL Server, MVP
SQL RNNR
Posting Performance Based Questions - Gail Shaw[/url]
Learn Extended Events
March 15, 2012 at 10:08 am
Thanks, I'll try that.
March 15, 2012 at 10:47 am
There's something quite funny about watching RS tank the all-singing, all-dancing new server.
Less so when you get the rap for putting it there! 😀
March 15, 2012 at 10:50 am
Yep, that's what I'm trying to avoid. I'm at least going to tell my boss what I recommend and ask for a backup plan if/when that happens. It's not fun implementing something you know is a bad idea...
March 15, 2012 at 10:52 am
Elizabeth.Block (3/15/2012)
Yep, that's what I'm trying to avoid. I'm at least going to tell my boss what I recommend and ask for a backup plan if/when that happens. It's not fun implementing something you know is a bad idea...
Like I said, it is not always a bad idea to put SSRS on the same box as SQL Server. That is why you must test. If tests show performance is bad - then you know it is a bad idea.
Jason...AKA CirqueDeSQLeil
_______________________________________________
I have given a name to my pain...MCM SQL Server, MVP
SQL RNNR
Posting Performance Based Questions - Gail Shaw[/url]
Learn Extended Events
March 15, 2012 at 10:57 am
Thanks for the info. I can't really test beforehand because this is for an upgrade. Once the upgrade is in place if SSRS does impact the shared server the customer most likely won't be open to ponying up for a separate server. I will keep looking for BP articles for SSRS architecture to get the information to my boss.
Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply