Shared drive's performance vs local drive : to test SQL script's runtime
In a previous maintenance window, I ran an SQL script given by our
principal to update DB schemas & this run took double the amount
of time catered for our downtime.
I'll need to run this script on yet another MS SQL database which is
about four times larger than this last database so I'm required by the
CAB (Change advisory board) to test this on a staging MS SQL VM
(which has SQL Mgmt Studio & MS SQL softwares installed)
However, I have hard time justifying to add a 320GB LUN to this test
server: instead there's another VM (let's call it VM B) n the same subnet
as this test which has 320GB of free space (also FC disk):
I'm exploring the options,
If I share out this VM B's drive to my test server (which has MS SQL &
Mgmt studio installed), restore from tape the DB's backup into it , will
running the SQL script to update this 'test Db over the LAN' give us an
estimated run time that's quite close to having the test database sits
in a local drive (FC disk)?
This VM B & test servers are both FC disk
Suppose I install SQL Mgmt Studio on this VM B (which does not have
MS SQL server running it it), is it sufficient to run the MS SQL script
or I'll still need to have MS SQL software installed/run on it?
I thought of getting our DBA to export out a dump of the production Db
& build a new DB: is this likely to be faster than restoring the production
Db into a test environment?
Microsoft SQL Server 2008Microsoft SQL ServerScripting Languages