Re: SQL Architecture Opinion
- From: "aaron.kempf@xxxxxxxxx" <aaron.kempf@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 23 Oct 2006 17:15:23 -0700
im not sure that you would need more memory than all 20 servers
combined. 20 servers with 3gb ram each = 1 server with 32gb ram not 1
server with 60gb ram
I would think that having one good sql server would be a lot cooler
than having 20 servers..
but I think that is kinda ridiculous...
I think that CPU is more important than memory; I mean-- you're going
to have 16gb or 32gb of ram (dont even try this in 32 bit world)
but it's just the sheer CPU horsepower that you'll be pushing the
limits on.. and storage...
I mean; is he getting a 16-way unisys box? rofl
200 databases under 1gb; I would consolidate databases first; not
database servers
Russ Rose wrote:
Going from a horizontal load distribution to a vertical one would depend on
how much money you have. If the new server has more memory than the 20
servers combined (with room to grow), more than double the disk space you
expect to use in the coming year (with room to grow), a very, very wide
avenue for disk access, and at least 4 dual-core 64 bit processors, it might
be a fair trade.
I would keep the 20 servers around just in case...
"Eric" <eric@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1161319975_68537@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
SQL Architecture Opinion
Hello. I am looking for your opinions on an architecture solution that
our System Architect came up with for our SQL Servers within our IT
division. Essentially, his idea is to implement one large SQL Server
that all databases will run off of, regardless of use. Here is some
base information about our setup:
We have approximately 20 SQL Server. A small number are for our public
website applications. They are in a separate zone and do not contain
any protected/private data. There are approximately 200 databases of
varying size (most under 1 GB) with varying uses and importance. We
also have 4 major 3rd party applications with a database backend. When
deploying a new application, I determine which server to put it on based
on uptime requirements and load. I understand that 20 servers is
excessive, but my request is the following:
What do you guys think of having a single fault tolerant SQL Server for
ALL databases, combining public/private data, high load needs/low
priority, essentially putting all of our eggs in one basket. I already
have my opinion, but I want to extend the opportunity for people in the
industry to comment on this particular idea. Thanks in advance!
Eric
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
=----
.
- References:
- SQL Architecture Opinion
- From: Eric
- Re: SQL Architecture Opinion
- From: Russ Rose
- SQL Architecture Opinion
- Prev by Date: Re: News Group dedicated to Reporting Services?
- Next by Date: Re: SQL express performens lagg
- Previous by thread: Re: SQL Architecture Opinion
- Next by thread: Help with uniqueness constraint
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
