I have 4 small small SQL 2000 databases that I need to consolidate to a
single machine.
The data is minimal maybe 100 GB total with an expection of some
moderate growth.
The box will be configured with a raid 5.
Question:
Should the O.S and each instance be on its own partition?
Or would it be better to have the instances on one partition and
dedicate a partition for the data and log files?
Any inforomation would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Hulicat
I would investigate if the four database could reside in the same server.
(Perhaps because of security or other needs, that is not possible.)
If you have to have 'separate' servers, install multiple instances of SQL
Server on the same box. All instances will use the same OS -the only thing
being 'duplicated' is SQL Server instances (code, settings, etc.)
Drives.
Best choice: RAID 1 for OS and SQL installables (2 drives). RAID 10 for data
files (4 drives). RAID 10 for Logs files (4 drives). For optimal
performance, each instance 'should' have its own drives for data and logs.
I wouldn't recommend trying to make everything work with a single RAID 5.
That would be painful.
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
You can't help someone get up a hill without getting a little closer to the
top yourself.
- H. Norman Schwarzkopf
"Hulicat" <dennis_A_white@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1162403869.339729.318940@.e64g2000cwd.googlegr oups.com...
>I have 4 small small SQL 2000 databases that I need to consolidate to a
> single machine.
> The data is minimal maybe 100 GB total with an expection of some
> moderate growth.
> The box will be configured with a raid 5.
> Question:
> Should the O.S and each instance be on its own partition?
> Or would it be better to have the instances on one partition and
> dedicate a partition for the data and log files?
> Any inforomation would be greatly appreciated.
> Thanks,
> Hulicat
>
|||~Thanks~
Arnie Rowland wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> I would investigate if the four database could reside in the same server.
> (Perhaps because of security or other needs, that is not possible.)
> If you have to have 'separate' servers, install multiple instances of SQL
> Server on the same box. All instances will use the same OS -the only thing
> being 'duplicated' is SQL Server instances (code, settings, etc.)
> Drives.
> Best choice: RAID 1 for OS and SQL installables (2 drives). RAID 10 for data
> files (4 drives). RAID 10 for Logs files (4 drives). For optimal
> performance, each instance 'should' have its own drives for data and logs.
> I wouldn't recommend trying to make everything work with a single RAID 5.
> That would be painful.
> --
> Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
> Westwood Consulting, Inc
> Most good judgment comes from experience.
> Most experience comes from bad judgment.
> - Anonymous
> You can't help someone get up a hill without getting a little closer to the
> top yourself.
> - H. Norman Schwarzkopf
>
> "Hulicat" <dennis_A_white@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1162403869.339729.318940@.e64g2000cwd.googlegr oups.com...
Showing posts with label design. Show all posts
Showing posts with label design. Show all posts
Friday, March 30, 2012
Installing Multiple Instances Design Question
I have 4 small small SQL 2000 databases that I need to consolidate to a
single machine.
The data is minimal maybe 100 GB total with an expection of some
moderate growth.
The box will be configured with a raid 5.
Question:
Should the O.S and each instance be on its own partition?
Or would it be better to have the instances on one partition and
dedicate a partition for the data and log files?
Any inforomation would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
HulicatI would investigate if the four database could reside in the same server.
(Perhaps because of security or other needs, that is not possible.)
If you have to have 'separate' servers, install multiple instances of SQL
Server on the same box. All instances will use the same OS -the only thing
being 'duplicated' is SQL Server instances (code, settings, etc.)
Drives.
Best choice: RAID 1 for OS and SQL installables (2 drives). RAID 10 for data
files (4 drives). RAID 10 for Logs files (4 drives). For optimal
performance, each instance 'should' have its own drives for data and logs.
I wouldn't recommend trying to make everything work with a single RAID 5.
That would be painful.
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
You can't help someone get up a hill without getting a little closer to the
top yourself.
- H. Norman Schwarzkopf
"Hulicat" <dennis_A_white@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1162403869.339729.318940@.e64g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>I have 4 small small SQL 2000 databases that I need to consolidate to a
> single machine.
> The data is minimal maybe 100 GB total with an expection of some
> moderate growth.
> The box will be configured with a raid 5.
> Question:
> Should the O.S and each instance be on its own partition?
> Or would it be better to have the instances on one partition and
> dedicate a partition for the data and log files?
> Any inforomation would be greatly appreciated.
> Thanks,
> Hulicat
>|||~Thanks~
Arnie Rowland wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> I would investigate if the four database could reside in the same server.
> (Perhaps because of security or other needs, that is not possible.)
> If you have to have 'separate' servers, install multiple instances of SQL
> Server on the same box. All instances will use the same OS -the only thing
> being 'duplicated' is SQL Server instances (code, settings, etc.)
> Drives.
> Best choice: RAID 1 for OS and SQL installables (2 drives). RAID 10 for da
ta
> files (4 drives). RAID 10 for Logs files (4 drives). For optimal
> performance, each instance 'should' have its own drives for data and logs.
> I wouldn't recommend trying to make everything work with a single RAID 5.
> That would be painful.
> --
> Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
> Westwood Consulting, Inc
> Most good judgment comes from experience.
> Most experience comes from bad judgment.
> - Anonymous
> You can't help someone get up a hill without getting a little closer to th
e
> top yourself.
> - H. Norman Schwarzkopf
>
> "Hulicat" <dennis_A_white@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1162403869.339729.318940@.e64g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...sql
single machine.
The data is minimal maybe 100 GB total with an expection of some
moderate growth.
The box will be configured with a raid 5.
Question:
Should the O.S and each instance be on its own partition?
Or would it be better to have the instances on one partition and
dedicate a partition for the data and log files?
Any inforomation would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
HulicatI would investigate if the four database could reside in the same server.
(Perhaps because of security or other needs, that is not possible.)
If you have to have 'separate' servers, install multiple instances of SQL
Server on the same box. All instances will use the same OS -the only thing
being 'duplicated' is SQL Server instances (code, settings, etc.)
Drives.
Best choice: RAID 1 for OS and SQL installables (2 drives). RAID 10 for data
files (4 drives). RAID 10 for Logs files (4 drives). For optimal
performance, each instance 'should' have its own drives for data and logs.
I wouldn't recommend trying to make everything work with a single RAID 5.
That would be painful.
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
You can't help someone get up a hill without getting a little closer to the
top yourself.
- H. Norman Schwarzkopf
"Hulicat" <dennis_A_white@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1162403869.339729.318940@.e64g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>I have 4 small small SQL 2000 databases that I need to consolidate to a
> single machine.
> The data is minimal maybe 100 GB total with an expection of some
> moderate growth.
> The box will be configured with a raid 5.
> Question:
> Should the O.S and each instance be on its own partition?
> Or would it be better to have the instances on one partition and
> dedicate a partition for the data and log files?
> Any inforomation would be greatly appreciated.
> Thanks,
> Hulicat
>|||~Thanks~
Arnie Rowland wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> I would investigate if the four database could reside in the same server.
> (Perhaps because of security or other needs, that is not possible.)
> If you have to have 'separate' servers, install multiple instances of SQL
> Server on the same box. All instances will use the same OS -the only thing
> being 'duplicated' is SQL Server instances (code, settings, etc.)
> Drives.
> Best choice: RAID 1 for OS and SQL installables (2 drives). RAID 10 for da
ta
> files (4 drives). RAID 10 for Logs files (4 drives). For optimal
> performance, each instance 'should' have its own drives for data and logs.
> I wouldn't recommend trying to make everything work with a single RAID 5.
> That would be painful.
> --
> Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
> Westwood Consulting, Inc
> Most good judgment comes from experience.
> Most experience comes from bad judgment.
> - Anonymous
> You can't help someone get up a hill without getting a little closer to th
e
> top yourself.
> - H. Norman Schwarzkopf
>
> "Hulicat" <dennis_A_white@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1162403869.339729.318940@.e64g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...sql
Installing Multiple Instances Design Question
I have 4 small small SQL 2000 databases that I need to consolidate to a
single machine.
The data is minimal maybe 100 GB total with an expection of some
moderate growth.
The box will be configured with a raid 5.
Question:
Should the O.S and each instance be on its own partition?
Or would it be better to have the instances on one partition and
dedicate a partition for the data and log files?
Any inforomation would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
HulicatI would investigate if the four database could reside in the same server.
(Perhaps because of security or other needs, that is not possible.)
If you have to have 'separate' servers, install multiple instances of SQL
Server on the same box. All instances will use the same OS -the only thing
being 'duplicated' is SQL Server instances (code, settings, etc.)
Drives.
Best choice: RAID 1 for OS and SQL installables (2 drives). RAID 10 for data
files (4 drives). RAID 10 for Logs files (4 drives). For optimal
performance, each instance 'should' have its own drives for data and logs.
I wouldn't recommend trying to make everything work with a single RAID 5.
That would be painful.
--
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
You can't help someone get up a hill without getting a little closer to the
top yourself.
- H. Norman Schwarzkopf
"Hulicat" <dennis_A_white@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1162403869.339729.318940@.e64g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>I have 4 small small SQL 2000 databases that I need to consolidate to a
> single machine.
> The data is minimal maybe 100 GB total with an expection of some
> moderate growth.
> The box will be configured with a raid 5.
> Question:
> Should the O.S and each instance be on its own partition?
> Or would it be better to have the instances on one partition and
> dedicate a partition for the data and log files?
> Any inforomation would be greatly appreciated.
> Thanks,
> Hulicat
>|||~Thanks~
Arnie Rowland wrote:
> I would investigate if the four database could reside in the same server.
> (Perhaps because of security or other needs, that is not possible.)
> If you have to have 'separate' servers, install multiple instances of SQL
> Server on the same box. All instances will use the same OS -the only thing
> being 'duplicated' is SQL Server instances (code, settings, etc.)
> Drives.
> Best choice: RAID 1 for OS and SQL installables (2 drives). RAID 10 for data
> files (4 drives). RAID 10 for Logs files (4 drives). For optimal
> performance, each instance 'should' have its own drives for data and logs.
> I wouldn't recommend trying to make everything work with a single RAID 5.
> That would be painful.
> --
> Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
> Westwood Consulting, Inc
> Most good judgment comes from experience.
> Most experience comes from bad judgment.
> - Anonymous
> You can't help someone get up a hill without getting a little closer to the
> top yourself.
> - H. Norman Schwarzkopf
>
> "Hulicat" <dennis_A_white@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1162403869.339729.318940@.e64g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> >I have 4 small small SQL 2000 databases that I need to consolidate to a
> > single machine.
> > The data is minimal maybe 100 GB total with an expection of some
> > moderate growth.
> >
> > The box will be configured with a raid 5.
> >
> > Question:
> > Should the O.S and each instance be on its own partition?
> > Or would it be better to have the instances on one partition and
> > dedicate a partition for the data and log files?
> >
> > Any inforomation would be greatly appreciated.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Hulicat
> >
single machine.
The data is minimal maybe 100 GB total with an expection of some
moderate growth.
The box will be configured with a raid 5.
Question:
Should the O.S and each instance be on its own partition?
Or would it be better to have the instances on one partition and
dedicate a partition for the data and log files?
Any inforomation would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
HulicatI would investigate if the four database could reside in the same server.
(Perhaps because of security or other needs, that is not possible.)
If you have to have 'separate' servers, install multiple instances of SQL
Server on the same box. All instances will use the same OS -the only thing
being 'duplicated' is SQL Server instances (code, settings, etc.)
Drives.
Best choice: RAID 1 for OS and SQL installables (2 drives). RAID 10 for data
files (4 drives). RAID 10 for Logs files (4 drives). For optimal
performance, each instance 'should' have its own drives for data and logs.
I wouldn't recommend trying to make everything work with a single RAID 5.
That would be painful.
--
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
You can't help someone get up a hill without getting a little closer to the
top yourself.
- H. Norman Schwarzkopf
"Hulicat" <dennis_A_white@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1162403869.339729.318940@.e64g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>I have 4 small small SQL 2000 databases that I need to consolidate to a
> single machine.
> The data is minimal maybe 100 GB total with an expection of some
> moderate growth.
> The box will be configured with a raid 5.
> Question:
> Should the O.S and each instance be on its own partition?
> Or would it be better to have the instances on one partition and
> dedicate a partition for the data and log files?
> Any inforomation would be greatly appreciated.
> Thanks,
> Hulicat
>|||~Thanks~
Arnie Rowland wrote:
> I would investigate if the four database could reside in the same server.
> (Perhaps because of security or other needs, that is not possible.)
> If you have to have 'separate' servers, install multiple instances of SQL
> Server on the same box. All instances will use the same OS -the only thing
> being 'duplicated' is SQL Server instances (code, settings, etc.)
> Drives.
> Best choice: RAID 1 for OS and SQL installables (2 drives). RAID 10 for data
> files (4 drives). RAID 10 for Logs files (4 drives). For optimal
> performance, each instance 'should' have its own drives for data and logs.
> I wouldn't recommend trying to make everything work with a single RAID 5.
> That would be painful.
> --
> Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
> Westwood Consulting, Inc
> Most good judgment comes from experience.
> Most experience comes from bad judgment.
> - Anonymous
> You can't help someone get up a hill without getting a little closer to the
> top yourself.
> - H. Norman Schwarzkopf
>
> "Hulicat" <dennis_A_white@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1162403869.339729.318940@.e64g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> >I have 4 small small SQL 2000 databases that I need to consolidate to a
> > single machine.
> > The data is minimal maybe 100 GB total with an expection of some
> > moderate growth.
> >
> > The box will be configured with a raid 5.
> >
> > Question:
> > Should the O.S and each instance be on its own partition?
> > Or would it be better to have the instances on one partition and
> > dedicate a partition for the data and log files?
> >
> > Any inforomation would be greatly appreciated.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Hulicat
> >
Monday, March 19, 2012
installation.
GOOD MORNING,
I HAVE INSTALLED THE MSSQL RPT SVC ON A SQL SERVER
BUT HOW CAN I DESIGN A REPORT?
I DON'T HAVE VISUAL STUDIO .NET ON THE SERVER ,IS A PROBLEM?Good morning,
Congratulations for being able to set up RS.
The short question with version 1.0 you have to have Visual Studio.NET (on
you dev machine) for report authoring unless you want to generate the report
programatically or use third party tools. Looking ahead, SQL Server 2005
will give come with a stand alone designer and you won't need VS.NET.
--
Hope this helps.
---
Teo Lachev, MCSD, MCT
Author: "Microsoft Reporting Services in Action"
http://www.prologika.com
"Killer" <roninkaiser@.tiscali.it> wrote in message
news:SxpOc.20707$1V3.480258@.twister2.libero.it...
> GOOD MORNING,
> I HAVE INSTALLED THE MSSQL RPT SVC ON A SQL SERVER
> BUT HOW CAN I DESIGN A REPORT?
> I DON'T HAVE VISUAL STUDIO .NET ON THE SERVER ,IS A PROBLEM?
>|||On a side note, you only need the basic IDE with Visual Basic, which you can
get in VB.NET for under $100.
--
Bryan Keller
Developer Documentation
SQL Server Reporting Services
A friendly reminder that this posting is provided "AS IS" with no
warranties, and confers no rights.
"Teo Lachev" <teo@.nospam.prologika.com> wrote in message
news:%23hI2LSjdEHA.3704@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Good morning,
> Congratulations for being able to set up RS.
> The short question with version 1.0 you have to have Visual Studio.NET (on
> you dev machine) for report authoring unless you want to generate the
report
> programatically or use third party tools. Looking ahead, SQL Server 2005
> will give come with a stand alone designer and you won't need VS.NET.
> --
> Hope this helps.
> ---
> Teo Lachev, MCSD, MCT
> Author: "Microsoft Reporting Services in Action"
> http://www.prologika.com
>
> "Killer" <roninkaiser@.tiscali.it> wrote in message
> news:SxpOc.20707$1V3.480258@.twister2.libero.it...
> > GOOD MORNING,
> > I HAVE INSTALLED THE MSSQL RPT SVC ON A SQL SERVER
> > BUT HOW CAN I DESIGN A REPORT?
> >
> > I DON'T HAVE VISUAL STUDIO .NET ON THE SERVER ,IS A PROBLEM?
> >
> >
>
I HAVE INSTALLED THE MSSQL RPT SVC ON A SQL SERVER
BUT HOW CAN I DESIGN A REPORT?
I DON'T HAVE VISUAL STUDIO .NET ON THE SERVER ,IS A PROBLEM?Good morning,
Congratulations for being able to set up RS.
The short question with version 1.0 you have to have Visual Studio.NET (on
you dev machine) for report authoring unless you want to generate the report
programatically or use third party tools. Looking ahead, SQL Server 2005
will give come with a stand alone designer and you won't need VS.NET.
--
Hope this helps.
---
Teo Lachev, MCSD, MCT
Author: "Microsoft Reporting Services in Action"
http://www.prologika.com
"Killer" <roninkaiser@.tiscali.it> wrote in message
news:SxpOc.20707$1V3.480258@.twister2.libero.it...
> GOOD MORNING,
> I HAVE INSTALLED THE MSSQL RPT SVC ON A SQL SERVER
> BUT HOW CAN I DESIGN A REPORT?
> I DON'T HAVE VISUAL STUDIO .NET ON THE SERVER ,IS A PROBLEM?
>|||On a side note, you only need the basic IDE with Visual Basic, which you can
get in VB.NET for under $100.
--
Bryan Keller
Developer Documentation
SQL Server Reporting Services
A friendly reminder that this posting is provided "AS IS" with no
warranties, and confers no rights.
"Teo Lachev" <teo@.nospam.prologika.com> wrote in message
news:%23hI2LSjdEHA.3704@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Good morning,
> Congratulations for being able to set up RS.
> The short question with version 1.0 you have to have Visual Studio.NET (on
> you dev machine) for report authoring unless you want to generate the
report
> programatically or use third party tools. Looking ahead, SQL Server 2005
> will give come with a stand alone designer and you won't need VS.NET.
> --
> Hope this helps.
> ---
> Teo Lachev, MCSD, MCT
> Author: "Microsoft Reporting Services in Action"
> http://www.prologika.com
>
> "Killer" <roninkaiser@.tiscali.it> wrote in message
> news:SxpOc.20707$1V3.480258@.twister2.libero.it...
> > GOOD MORNING,
> > I HAVE INSTALLED THE MSSQL RPT SVC ON A SQL SERVER
> > BUT HOW CAN I DESIGN A REPORT?
> >
> > I DON'T HAVE VISUAL STUDIO .NET ON THE SERVER ,IS A PROBLEM?
> >
> >
>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)