Still celebrating National IT Professionals Day with 3 months of free Premium Membership. Use Code ITDAY17

x
?
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
Medium Priority
?
346 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 1600 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 400 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
Simplifying Server Workload Migrations

This use case outlines the migration challenges that organizations face and how the Acronis AnyData Engine supports physical-to-physical (P2P), physical-to-virtual (P2V), virtual to physical (V2P), and cross-virtual (V2V) migration scenarios to address these challenges.

 
LVL 39

Assisted Solution

by:Aaron Tomosky
Aaron Tomosky earned 1600 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 1600 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 1600 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

Migrating Your Company's PCs

To keep pace with competitors, businesses must keep employees productive, and that means providing them with the latest technology. This document provides the tips and tricks you need to help you migrate an outdated PC fleet to new desktops, laptops, and tablets.

Question has a verified solution.

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

This article explains how to reset the password of the sa account on a Microsoft SQL Server.  The steps in this article work in SQL 2005, 2008, 2008 R2, 2012, 2014 and 2016.
This article shows gives you an overview on SQL Server 2016 row level security. You will also get to know the usages of row-level-security and how it works
Using examples as well as descriptions, and references to Books Online, show the documentation available for date manipulation functions and by using a select few of these functions, show how date based data can be manipulated with these functions.
Viewers will learn how to use the SELECT statement in SQL and will be exposed to the many uses the SELECT statement has.

722 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