SQL Server Performance Forum – Threads Archive
consolidate sql server with a file server
our new network admin had investigated our application environment and came up with a consolidation plan to move everything from a network drive ( basically a drive holding all the client-server application files used by head office users ) to the database server.her idea is bascally based on what she is seeing on the server – not too much activities ( average 2% CPU usage and 2% network usage etc) and her conclusion is the database server is not busy at all – it should be used for something else and free up another server for some other purpose. meanwhile putting application files and database together can simplify the DRP process. the database server is used by the company branches across the country ( 10 branches and average concurrent 50-80 users total ). each branch has their own file server (and will stay that way only HO one will be merged with the DB server). the production database and training database are on the server. production database is about 20g ( I know the size does not mather too much here)
as the dba, I don’t like the idea very much, but based on what she is saying, I don’t know if I can convince others to agree with me. is there a good reason to have a serve dedicated for SQL production database even though the db server seems not that busy??? thanks!
I don’t recomend it but if you want to move forward try to use seperate physical drive to host the files from file server and make sure you exclude sql file from virus scanning software you are installing one…
MohammedU.
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Moderator
SQL-Server-Performance.com All postings are provided “AS IS†with no warranties for accuracy.
everything for the database server is on a SAN box. I beleive there are three drive letters but physically controlled by the same controller. so the file request and db request will compete for disk usage if they are on the same server.
Whats does the ‘application files’ involve? Would it simply be a bunch of .exe’s? <br />If so, do these applciations write or read frequently to the ‘home’ directory?<br /><br />I can see why youd be reluctant to want to do this, but theres a chance it might not really make much of an impact.<br />Try to put the files on a seperate raid volume if possible. <br /><br />The first thing Id check is the disk read/write queue’s. If the disk really isnt that active (and with 2% cpu usage, I suspect it isnt), then I wouldnt worry too much. <br />Id also be checking RAM utilisation, take a look at the file server and see how its coping (if its maxed out, it doesnt tell you much since its serving a lot more users, but if the current file server isnt breaking a sweat with 80 users, thats even better)<br /><br />Id never design a system like that, but as a cost saving exercise it probably makes sense. <br />There could be an upside too… it could be easier to justify a server upgrade in the future <img src=’/community/emoticons/emotion-5.gif’ alt=’;-)’ /><br /><br />
just to give a little bit more details regards to the file server – the files are basically the application exe files. we don’t deploy the application to individual desktops.we deploy it to branch file servers. this was an old practice from the old client-server age. the application also has web clients. the web client request is from a seperate server (Tomcat). the application also calls Microsoft Word function ( by using OLE functionality – we all love it! it is slow and hard to fix performane issues). we have thousands of MS word files on the file server used by this application – files will be opened/printed by the application. many Word files will be opened/closed by single client function since they need to be combined together and printed as one single document. for sure I will ask for the file server’s current workload – but without knowing how busy the file server is, is giving a dedicated server to SQL a very good practice for an enterprice???
quote:Originally posted by Link
everything for the database server is on a SAN box. I beleive there are three drive letters but physically controlled by the same controller. so the file request and db request will compete for disk usage if they are on the same server.
If they are on SAN, it is different story…And depends on SAN configuration….
You try using seperate LUN for file server files and possible configure to use different NIC card to seperate SQL and file server traffic…
MohammedU.
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Moderator
SQL-Server-Performance.com All postings are provided “AS IS†with no warranties for accuracy.
I’m not an expert on configuing the SAN. as far as know we have single LUN since we are putting log files and database files on the same drive – everyone agrees there is no point to seperate them when we were talking about how to allocate the database files… if we have multiple LUN then the first thing I will suggest is to seperate the log and data files.
two network cards are configured for two different databases sitting on the same server… to have the application files sitting on their own server makes more sense to me than spending more money for the SAN – SAN is expensive.
See thishttp://www.sql-server-performance.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=15002 is any help in configuring. Satya SKJ
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Writer, Contributing Editor & Moderator
http://www.SQL-Server-Performance.Com
@http://www.askasqlguru.com/ This posting is provided AS IS with no rights for the sake of knowledge sharing. Knowledge is of two kinds. We know a subject ourselves or we know where we can find information on it.
]]>