Solved

Need some data to proof if putting the SSAS server and the relational db on the same server would be a good idea or bad one

Posted on 2012-03-18
9
335 Views
Last Modified: 2016-02-14
Need some data to proof if putting the SSAS server and the relational db on the same server would be a good idea or bad one

Thanks
0
Comment
Question by:thomaszhwang
[X]
Welcome to Experts Exchange

Add your voice to the tech community where 5M+ people just like you are talking about what matters.

  • Help others & share knowledge
  • Earn cash & points
  • Learn & ask questions
  • 4
  • 4
9 Comments
 
LVL 39

Assisted Solution

by:Aaron Tomosky
Aaron Tomosky earned 400 total points
ID: 37735644
It all comes down to CPU, disk io, and network io.
Depending on your capacity for those and how the app is bottlenecked will show you the best path.
For example:
Box 1 app, box 2 db
Anything the app wants from the db it has to get over the network. But each box gets its own disks and CPU.
Box 1 disk 1 app, box 1 disk 2 db
Now we are sharing CPU between app and db. If the CPU can hang this is pretty nice because the network is totally eliminated.
Box 1 disk 1 app, box 1 disk 1 db
This can become a problem as now we are sharing a disk between the app and the db which can really slow things down even if the CPU has power to spare. Really the only way this is a good idea is if disk1 isn't just a disk but a raid10 array.

I personally like the idea of removing the network from the equation, just make sure your disk and CPU can handle it.
0
 
LVL 25

Assisted Solution

by:jogos
jogos earned 100 total points
ID: 37737064
If on same server you can think about Resource Governor http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb933866.aspx to limit the resources taken by SSAS-task.

<<It all comes down to CPU, disk io, and network io.>>
Add memory to that list

Eliminating network as suggested in previous post is a thought, but putting it all on one disk is then making that one disk a bottleneck. A more diversed advice on the placement of your db-files at http://www.mssqltips.com/sqlservertip/2329/how-to-identify-io-bottlenecks-in-ms-sql-server/

And you want proof. That's hard to give.  Do you already have both but on different servers? Or do you have nothing yet?
If you have both you can measure usage on different levels during the day (mont, year) and think if on the peak usage the resources can be challanged by the additional load it is still workable.  
Other server is a hardware and license cost, one server can be only putting another disk and some additional memory ...

If you decide for 2 servers, concider if a clustered environment (active/active) can be of use to have the high availability as a plus (and easy of server patches without instance going offline).
0
 

Author Comment

by:thomaszhwang
ID: 37737942
We are now having everything on one server, but we plan to have them separate.  In order to do so, I need some hard proof - something maybe like a white paper or something - to support my assertion for applying for the new hardware.
0
Use Case: Protecting a Hybrid Cloud Infrastructure

Microsoft Azure is rapidly becoming the norm in dynamic IT environments. This document describes the challenges that organizations face when protecting data in a hybrid cloud IT environment and presents a use case to demonstrate how Acronis Backup protects all data.

 
LVL 39

Assisted Solution

by:Aaron Tomosky
Aaron Tomosky earned 400 total points
ID: 37738288
If it runs well on one server I can only think of two reasons for another:
1. Growth. Look at your CPU, memory, disk io, users, etc...
2. Uptime/failover/load balancing.

Splitting the app and db without any failover thoughts will just double your potential failures. You would have two boxes where if either had a fault the whole thing would go down.
0
 

Author Comment

by:thomaszhwang
ID: 37738570
The initial reason why we want separation is because we have observed some high resource contention.

We definitely will have failover or NLB if we decide to separate the SSAS server.
0
 
LVL 39

Assisted Solution

by:Aaron Tomosky
Aaron Tomosky earned 400 total points
ID: 37738613
which resource? cpu,memory, disk?
0
 

Author Comment

by:thomaszhwang
ID: 37738638
Mainly from the disk, but in general they are all at a very high level.
0
 
LVL 39

Accepted Solution

by:
Aaron Tomosky earned 400 total points
ID: 37738766
Id recommend a second server just for the HA/DR factor. As far as performance, you can look at adding memory and changing your disk setup.
0
 

Author Closing Comment

by:thomaszhwang
ID: 37806656
Thanks.
0

Featured Post

On Demand Webinar - Networking for the Cloud Era

This webinar discusses:
-Common barriers companies experience when moving to the cloud
-How SD-WAN changes the way we look at networks
-Best practices customers should employ moving forward with cloud migration
-What happens behind the scenes of SteelConnect’s one-click button

Question has a verified solution.

If you are experiencing a similar issue, please ask a related question

Ever needed a SQL 2008 Database replicated/mirrored/log shipped on another server but you can't take the downtime inflicted by initial snapshot or disconnect while T-logs are restored or mirror applied? You can use SQL Server Initialize from Backup…
It is possible to export the data of a SQL Table in SSMS and generate INSERT statements. It's neatly tucked away in the generate scripts option of a database.
This video shows how to set up a shell script to accept a positional parameter when called, pass that to a SQL script, accept the output from the statement back and then manipulate it in the Shell.
Viewers will learn how the fundamental information of how to create a table.

623 members asked questions and received personalized solutions in the past 7 days.

Join the community of 500,000 technology professionals and ask your questions.

Join & Ask a Question