asked on

SQL Server with Storage in Cloud instead of SAN

Hi experts! i was wondering about the feasability of having a server with just the Storage drives in the Cloud, even temporarily. Would that just be so slow and not worth it, or is that possible even in the short term? The reason i ask is we are looking to move some servers and i thought if we could set one server up with the storage in the cloud, we could then just ship the server over and use replication until the time we send the actual production servers over with the SAN if that makes sense? Otherwise we will need to either buy a small SAN or copy backups to huge storage devices or cloud space (we are talking about approx 6 TB of data ). Below is kind of the process I am thinking of, I welcome thoughts, suggestions, etc. Thanks...

Location A has 1 SAN with all servers attached:
Prod
Test
Dev

Move Dev to Location B (SAN has to stay for now so need storage here)

Switch to Use Dev at Location B as primary.

Shut down Location A Prod/Test/SAN and ship to Location B

Restore Prod from Dev Location B

Switch to use Location B Prod as primary

Evan Cutler

if your going to use the cloud, I'd use one that is rigged for your systems

SQL Azure (Microsoft) is a cloud based SQL Server. it costs $100/mo for 10TB.
I'd use that for your movements.

CRBam

ASKER

Thanks for your response! If we went with SQl Azure,would that require any changes to our configurations, application code, SPs, etc? Or would it act exactly as our Test and Prod servers which are SQL Server 2008 R2?

ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION

Evan Cutler

membership

This solution is only available to members.

To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.

Start Free Trial

Evan Cutler

I think tho, you would have to update your appcode to the new connection string tho....it's like if you moved your database to a different host.