March 1, 2010 at 9:08 am
I need to come up with the benefits of having a dedicated SQL Server and thought I would ask here to make sure I don't forget anything.
We currently have a 25GB database with up to 200 users.
Please respond with as many benefits why a company would use a dedicated server rather than sharing it with many other databases.
Thank You!
March 1, 2010 at 9:18 am
Dedicated server? Do you mean a single instance (default or named) hosting a single database? Here are some benefits of a separate instance:
Can allocate specific memory to that instance
Can control access thru its defined port and firewall rules
Because there's separate services, it can be serviced separate from other databases on the server (or vice versa)
Can have specific configuration settings for this instance, for security/performance/maintenance
There's just a few, probably plenty more to think about.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sacramento SQL Server users group - http://sac.sqlpass.org
Follow me on Twitter - @SQLDCH
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 1, 2010 at 9:50 am
Whether it requires a dedicated server for the database, you need to consider its application importance, security, availability, performance, and manageability. Here are some thoughts for having a dedicated database server:
Application Importance - If this database supports a critical application, why can't you afford a dedicated server for it to generate more revenue or benefits for the company?:-P
Security - If you want to avoid unrelated people to potentially view the data, dedicated server is a choice.
Availability - The other database instance(s) on the same server may be unstable and requires frequent server reboot that reduces your database availability.
Performance - Your database instance may compete computer resources with other instances that may cause undesired performance to your database.
Manageability - It require more coordination for many things in a shared environment and this coordination is not always an easy task.
March 1, 2010 at 10:11 am
dbychen gave some good responses. In addition I would add easier troubleshooting (no other apps interfering).
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 2, 2010 at 7:53 am
Thanks for the responses... much appreciated!
March 2, 2010 at 9:23 am
scott.trick (3/2/2010)
Thanks for the responses... much appreciated!
You're welcome.
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 13, 2010 at 9:34 pm
I tried making making this argument for many of the reasons
that were suggested in this thread and my advise was taken during a consolidation exercise.
I had one poorly designed unstable Database, etc. THis Database was a revenue generated.
The audience were Network Admin's so I tried to make and analogy.
You want to make sure that you Databases that you place a a Server Play nice in the Sandbox together.
It stated that if you put an unstable resource hog on a Server with other mission critical Databases then you put your Business at risk.
For better, quicker answers on T-SQL questions, click on the following...
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/Best+Practices/61537/
For better answers on performance questions, click on the following...
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/SQLServerCentral/66909/
March 13, 2010 at 9:35 pm
I tried making making this argument for many of the reasons
that were suggested in this thread and my advise was taken during a consolidation exercise.
I had one poorly designed unstable Database, etc. THis Database was a revenue generated.
The audience were Network Admin's so I tried to make and analogy.
You want to make sure that the Databases that you place a a Server Play nice in the Sandbox together.
It respectfully stated that if you put an unstable resource hog on a Server with other mission critical Databases then you put your Business at risk.
For better, quicker answers on T-SQL questions, click on the following...
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/Best+Practices/61537/
For better answers on performance questions, click on the following...
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/SQLServerCentral/66909/
August 10, 2010 at 5:11 pm
Depending on your I/O needs too, SQL Server can be a bit of a resource hog. If you have SQL Server 2008, you can use Resource Governor though to help out with any issues on that end. A 25 GB database isn't that big, but you also need to consider its growth rate too. It depends on your hardware set up also as I don't know how big your drives are or how fast the boxes are.
Good points about security too as SysAdmins, Network Admins, etc. are going to need access to the box. If it's sensitive information (e.g. HR database), then that should be on its own box regardless as the less people with access to the box in any way, shape, or form, the better.
Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply