SEO

Hi,

I want to setup a computer or server as a storage server to host database
files.

I'm not looking for a top performance system because its for "small"
datawarehouses and for development / test purpose.
small = 5 to 20gb (generally a subset of data)

I want to allow a developper to copy any database to test something without
breaking anything on original databases.

my SQL Server server will host tempdb (master & msdb) and original
databases.

I plan a computer like a standard PC with 4 * 80 gb SATA drives in RAID 0+1
+ Gigabyte network card and switch + Win 2003 standard

I know that this type of config is not safe and performance consuming , but
also its a cheap solution :-)
and also is development purpose, so I'll have 1 to 3 users at the same time
on a database.

My database server is a 2 * P4 Xeon HP server with 4Gb of RAM.

what do you think about this?
what other element I have to think in the config?

does it better to boost local computer of each developper and install a dev
edition of SQL on each one?

thanks for your feedback.

Jerome.

It's certainly a good idea to seperate development from production. What I
would do is to create a backup schedule and give the devs a copy to play on
their dev server. This way, you would achieve 2 things, a backup of your
original in case you need recovery, and a copy of the databases for your
devs.

--
-oj


"Jéjé" <willgart@BBBhotmailAAA.com> wrote in message
news:OA4v%23GIQFHA.1176@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
>
> I want to setup a computer or server as a storage server to host database
> files.
>
> I'm not looking for a top performance system because its for "small"
> datawarehouses and for development / test purpose.
> small = 5 to 20gb (generally a subset of data)
>
> I want to allow a developper to copy any database to test something
> without breaking anything on original databases.
>
> my SQL Server server will host tempdb (master & msdb) and original
> databases.
>
> I plan a computer like a standard PC with 4 * 80 gb SATA drives in RAID
> 0+1 + Gigabyte network card and switch + Win 2003 standard
>
> I know that this type of config is not safe and performance consuming ,
> but also its a cheap solution :-)
> and also is development purpose, so I'll have 1 to 3 users at the same
> time on a database.
>
> My database server is a 2 * P4 Xeon HP server with 4Gb of RAM.
>
> what do you think about this?
> what other element I have to think in the config?
>
> does it better to boost local computer of each developper and install a
> dev edition of SQL on each one?
>
> thanks for your feedback.
>
> Jerome.
>
>

Having Dev and Prod on the same server is a recipe for either high risk or
low performance. Those are your choices without spending a lot of money on
a high-end system. By high risk I mean there's no good way to separate the
system resources or the SQL server into two distinct units. The developers
in this situation will bring down your production system sooner or later.
By low performance, you could over come most of the risk by using Virtual PC
or VMware to divide the computer resources into two systems. But these are
generally slow performers.

This is a case of needing to buy two servers. I assume you are using SQL
Server 2000 Standard Edition. Keep the server you have and buy another
cheaper system for the developers. Install the developer edition on it.

Ray


"Jéjé" <willgart@BBBhotmailAAA.com> wrote in message
news:OA4v%23GIQFHA.1176@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
>
> I want to setup a computer or server as a storage server to host database
> files.
>
> I'm not looking for a top performance system because its for "small"
> datawarehouses and for development / test purpose.
> small = 5 to 20gb (generally a subset of data)
>
> I want to allow a developper to copy any database to test something
> without breaking anything on original databases.
>
> my SQL Server server will host tempdb (master & msdb) and original
> databases.
>
> I plan a computer like a standard PC with 4 * 80 gb SATA drives in RAID
> 0+1 + Gigabyte network card and switch + Win 2003 standard
>
> I know that this type of config is not safe and performance consuming ,
> but also its a cheap solution :-)
> and also is development purpose, so I'll have 1 to 3 users at the same
> time on a database.
>
> My database server is a 2 * P4 Xeon HP server with 4Gb of RAM.
>
> what do you think about this?
> what other element I have to think in the config?
>
> does it better to boost local computer of each developper and install a
> dev edition of SQL on each one?
>
> thanks for your feedback.
>
> Jerome.
>
>

when I talk about "production" I talk about released version, but not a
production server with end-users connected on it!
so the "production" version is here for front end development &
demonstrations.

The real production server are deployed in our client's servers so its a
complete and dedicated environment.

Also I split the "production" and the "developpers" versions into 2 separate
instances of SQL Server.


"Ray" <someone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:8ws7e.3396$716.2013@newssvr19.news.prodigy.co m...
> Having Dev and Prod on the same server is a recipe for either high risk or
> low performance. Those are your choices without spending a lot of money
> on a high-end system. By high risk I mean there's no good way to separate
> the system resources or the SQL server into two distinct units. The
> developers in this situation will bring down your production system sooner
> or later. By low performance, you could over come most of the risk by
> using Virtual PC or VMware to divide the computer resources into two
> systems. But these are generally slow performers.
>
> This is a case of needing to buy two servers. I assume you are using SQL
> Server 2000 Standard Edition. Keep the server you have and buy another
> cheaper system for the developers. Install the developer edition on it.
>
> Ray
>
>
> "Jéjé" <willgart@BBBhotmailAAA.com> wrote in message
> news:OA4v%23GIQFHA.1176@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> Hi,
>>
>> I want to setup a computer or server as a storage server to host
>> database files.
>>
>> I'm not looking for a top performance system because its for "small"
>> datawarehouses and for development / test purpose.
>> small = 5 to 20gb (generally a subset of data)
>>
>> I want to allow a developper to copy any database to test something
>> without breaking anything on original databases.
>>
>> my SQL Server server will host tempdb (master & msdb) and original
>> databases.
>>
>> I plan a computer like a standard PC with 4 * 80 gb SATA drives in RAID
>> 0+1 + Gigabyte network card and switch + Win 2003 standard
>>
>> I know that this type of config is not safe and performance consuming ,
>> but also its a cheap solution :-)
>> and also is development purpose, so I'll have 1 to 3 users at the same
>> time on a database.
>>
>> My database server is a 2 * P4 Xeon HP server with 4Gb of RAM.
>>
>> what do you think about this?
>> what other element I have to think in the config?
>>
>> does it better to boost local computer of each developper and install a
>> dev edition of SQL on each one?
>>
>> thanks for your feedback.
>>
>> Jerome.
>>
>>
>
>

NAS isn't supported and doesn't make sense for a SQL Server database, not
even for development. Use SAN or Direct Attached storage.

If you run Personal or Developer Edition on each PC then each developer can
develiop and test locally before releasing into source control. Backup and
restore from the live environment and use scripts as the source to build
your database changes.

--
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
--

David,

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/304261

Also from:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro.../sercsfaq.mspx
Q. Can Server clusters use NAS for the shared storage?
A. Yes, providing the applications can store data on file shares and the
file shares are accessible to the applications as they failover across the
cluster, there is no reason why NAS cannot be used as the storage solution
in a cluster.

There is currently no support in Windows to use NAS as the quorum resource.

In Windows Server 2003, we are providing a new quorum resource Majority Node
Set that can be used to remove the need for a shared disk for the quorum
resource. If you combine NAS storage with Majority Node Set quorum, you can
build a failover cluster that does not require shared disks in the
traditional sense of SCSI or SAN.

"David Portas" <REMOVE_BEFORE_REPLYING_dportas@acm.org> wrote in message
news:ic2dnUxZFMTHX8PfRVn-jA@giganews.com...
> NAS isn't supported and doesn't make sense for a SQL Server database, not
> even for development. Use SAN or Direct Attached storage.
>
> If you run Personal or Developer Edition on each PC then each developer
> can develiop and test locally before releasing into source control. Backup
> and restore from the live environment and use scripts as the source to
> build your database changes.
>
> --
> David Portas
> SQL Server MVP
> --
>
>

Yes, I understand there is/was exactly one NAS product formally
supported by SQL Server - but maybe they added more at some point, I
don't know.

My own extremely brief encounter with a SQL Server / Win2K on NAS left
me with one conclusion: Don't go there! For SQL, the disadvantages
outweigh the advantages. Do you have a different experience? I'm
interested to know.

--
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
--

at my last job, we used a NAS that WAS in the recommended hardware list.

It sucked rocks.

we were forced to move to a Hitachi SAN and it ROCKED.

we only migrated AFTER losing our biggest customer....OUCH

In short....."Dont Go There"



Greg Jackson
PDX, Oregon

One note further. We may be blurring the line between development and
production here but the SQL license for Standard does not allow for the
install of multiple instances. If this will only be for development
purposes install the developer edition. Then you can use instances.


"Jéjé" <willgart_A_@hotmail_A_.com> wrote in message
news:ewKgX8OQFHA.3628@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> when I talk about "production" I talk about released version, but not a
> production server with end-users connected on it!
> so the "production" version is here for front end development &
> demonstrations.
>
> The real production server are deployed in our client's servers so its a
> complete and dedicated environment.
>
> Also I split the "production" and the "developpers" versions into 2
> separate instances of SQL Server.
>
>
> "Ray" <someone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:8ws7e.3396$716.2013@newssvr19.news.prodigy.co m...
>> Having Dev and Prod on the same server is a recipe for either high risk
>> or low performance. Those are your choices without spending a lot of
>> money on a high-end system. By high risk I mean there's no good way to
>> separate the system resources or the SQL server into two distinct units.
>> The developers in this situation will bring down your production system
>> sooner or later. By low performance, you could over come most of the risk
>> by using Virtual PC or VMware to divide the computer resources into two
>> systems. But these are generally slow performers.
>>
>> This is a case of needing to buy two servers. I assume you are using SQL
>> Server 2000 Standard Edition. Keep the server you have and buy another
>> cheaper system for the developers. Install the developer edition on it.
>>
>> Ray
>>
>>
>> "Jéjé" <willgart@BBBhotmailAAA.com> wrote in message
>> news:OA4v%23GIQFHA.1176@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I want to setup a computer or server as a storage server to host
>>> database files.
>>>
>>> I'm not looking for a top performance system because its for "small"
>>> datawarehouses and for development / test purpose.
>>> small = 5 to 20gb (generally a subset of data)
>>>
>>> I want to allow a developper to copy any database to test something
>>> without breaking anything on original databases.
>>>
>>> my SQL Server server will host tempdb (master & msdb) and original
>>> databases.
>>>
>>> I plan a computer like a standard PC with 4 * 80 gb SATA drives in RAID
>>> 0+1 + Gigabyte network card and switch + Win 2003 standard
>>>
>>> I know that this type of config is not safe and performance consuming ,
>>> but also its a cheap solution :-)
>>> and also is development purpose, so I'll have 1 to 3 users at the same
>>> time on a database.
>>>
>>> My database server is a 2 * P4 Xeon HP server with 4Gb of RAM.
>>>
>>> what do you think about this?
>>> what other element I have to think in the config?
>>>
>>> does it better to boost local computer of each developper and install a
>>> dev edition of SQL on each one?
>>>
>>> thanks for your feedback.
>>>
>>> Jerome.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

No. I don't mix sql and nas though it is officially supported. If I were
given a choice of either having a sql on nas or none, it's pretty easy for
me to just take it.

--
-oj


"David Portas" <REMOVE_BEFORE_REPLYING_dportas@acm.org> wrote in message
news:1113507779.148389.255750@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
> Yes, I understand there is/was exactly one NAS product formally
> supported by SQL Server - but maybe they added more at some point, I
> don't know.
>
> My own extremely brief encounter with a SQL Server / Win2K on NAS left
> me with one conclusion: Don't go there! For SQL, the disadvantages
> outweigh the advantages. Do you have a different experience? I'm
> interested to know.
>
> --
> David Portas
> SQL Server MVP
> --
>