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

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
thomaszhwangAsked:
Who is Participating?

[Product update] Infrastructure Analysis Tool is now available with Business Accounts.Learn More

x
I wear a lot of hats...

"The solutions and answers provided on Experts Exchange have been extremely helpful to me over the last few years. I wear a lot of hats - Developer, Database Administrator, Help Desk, etc., so I know a lot of things but not a lot about one thing. Experts Exchange gives me answers from people who do know a lot about one thing, in a easy to use platform." -Todd S.

Aaron TomoskySD-WAN SimplifiedCommented:
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
jogosCommented:
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
thomaszhwangAuthor Commented:
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
Big Business Goals? Which KPIs Will Help You

The most successful MSPs rely on metrics – known as key performance indicators (KPIs) – for making informed decisions that help their businesses thrive, rather than just survive. This eBook provides an overview of the most important KPIs used by top MSPs.

Aaron TomoskySD-WAN SimplifiedCommented:
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
thomaszhwangAuthor Commented:
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
Aaron TomoskySD-WAN SimplifiedCommented:
which resource? cpu,memory, disk?
0
thomaszhwangAuthor Commented:
Mainly from the disk, but in general they are all at a very high level.
0
Aaron TomoskySD-WAN SimplifiedCommented:
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

Experts Exchange Solution brought to you by

Your issues matter to us.

Facing a tech roadblock? Get the help and guidance you need from experienced professionals who care. Ask your question anytime, anywhere, with no hassle.

Start your 7-day free trial
thomaszhwangAuthor Commented:
Thanks.
0
It's more than this solution.Get answers and train to solve all your tech problems - anytime, anywhere.Try it for free Edge Out The Competitionfor your dream job with proven skills and certifications.Get started today Stand Outas the employee with proven skills.Start learning today for free Move Your Career Forwardwith certification training in the latest technologies.Start your trial today
Microsoft SQL Server 2008

From novice to tech pro — start learning today.