Click here to monitor SSC
SQLServerCentral is supported by Red Gate Software Ltd.
 
Log in  ::  Register  ::  Not logged in
 
 
 
        
Home       Members    Calendar    Who's On


Add to briefcase «««4,2624,2634,2644,2654,266»»»

Are the posted questions getting worse? Expand / Collapse
Author
Message
Posted Friday, January 24, 2014 6:24 AM


SSChampion

SSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampion

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 4:48 AM
Points: 14,802, Visits: 27,278
Greg Edwards-268690 (1/24/2014)
Koen Verbeeck (1/24/2014)
Anyone with a better grasp of SQL Server security and auditing can take this one?

http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1534372-2799-1.aspx?Update=1


Trust Me, but audit all the other Admins!
Something missing in that picture.


Sounds like pretty standard security set ups. Very first major system I developed, lo these many years ago, I went to the five business groups that were going to be customers to get specs. First group says, "I need to see all documents, but I don't want the other groups to see mine." Second group says, "I need to see all documents, but I don't want the other groups to see mine." Repeat through all five groups. Solved it by not putting in security.


----------------------------------------------------
"The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood..." Theodore Roosevelt
The Scary DBA
Author of: SQL Server 2012 Query Performance Tuning
SQL Server 2008 Query Performance Tuning Distilled
and
SQL Server Execution Plans

Product Evangelist for Red Gate Software
Post #1534467
Posted Friday, January 24, 2014 6:29 AM
Hall of Fame

Hall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of Fame

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: 2 days ago @ 10:37 PM
Points: 3,306, Visits: 2,351
Grant Fritchey (1/24/2014)
Greg Edwards-268690 (1/24/2014)
Koen Verbeeck (1/24/2014)
Anyone with a better grasp of SQL Server security and auditing can take this one?

http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1534372-2799-1.aspx?Update=1


Trust Me, but audit all the other Admins!
Something missing in that picture.


Sounds like pretty standard security set ups. Very first major system I developed, lo these many years ago, I went to the five business groups that were going to be customers to get specs. First group says, "I need to see all documents, but I don't want the other groups to see mine." Second group says, "I need to see all documents, but I don't want the other groups to see mine." Repeat through all five groups. Solved it by not putting in security.

That scenario would sound funny if it didn't sound so very familiar.



Tally Tables - Performance Personified
Best practices on how to ask questions
Post #1534471
Posted Friday, January 24, 2014 9:14 AM


SSC-Insane

SSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-Insane

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 2:06 PM
Points: 22,510, Visits: 30,230
Has anyone else ever heard that it is a best practice to have enough server memory to hold your entire database in memory?



Lynn Pettis

For better assistance in answering your questions, click here
For tips to get better help with Performance Problems, click here
For Running Totals and its variations, click here or when working with partitioned tables
For more about Tally Tables, click here
For more about Cross Tabs and Pivots, click here and here
Managing Transaction Logs

SQL Musings from the Desert Fountain Valley SQL (My Mirror Blog)
Post #1534544
Posted Friday, January 24, 2014 9:32 AM
Hall of Fame

Hall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of Fame

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: 2 days ago @ 10:37 PM
Points: 3,306, Visits: 2,351
Lynn Pettis (1/24/2014)
Has anyone else ever heard that it is a best practice to have enough server memory to hold your entire database in memory?

I have not. In fact, I don't know how that would be possible. Some databases get pretty huge.

I recently attended a seminar on 2014 that focused on in-memory tables. He recommend that you have memory available that's twice the expected size of the table. It isn't a cure-all for everything, though. There are restrictions that are focused on high performance and it's really only for your hottest tables where being written to disk isn't critical. They seem cool, but their use is pretty limited.



Tally Tables - Performance Personified
Best practices on how to ask questions
Post #1534562
Posted Friday, January 24, 2014 9:42 AM


Ten Centuries

Ten CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen Centuries

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, April 17, 2014 10:09 AM
Points: 1,207, Visits: 9,333
Lynn Pettis (1/24/2014)
Has anyone else ever heard that it is a best practice to have enough server memory to hold your entire database in memory?


No, but I've heard plenty of people try to justify that you can't possibly use more RAM than the sum of the database size.
Post #1534567
Posted Friday, January 24, 2014 9:47 AM


Ten Centuries

Ten CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen Centuries

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Monday, April 07, 2014 7:35 AM
Points: 1,172, Visits: 2,413
Lynn Pettis (1/24/2014)
Has anyone else ever heard that it is a best practice to have enough server memory to hold your entire database in memory?


That seems to fall into the "hell yeah, if we can get it" category.

There's a faction in my company that insists on prototyping no-SQL database solutions that they claim are much faster than relational DBs for our purposes. So far, they've never been faster than the T-SQL code we currently run and have always relied on an in-memory data structure holding about 1/1000 of the entire database. My response has been, "*If* you get your process running faster than mine, give me enough memory to hold even half of the database in the buffer cache and see if you can still beat me."


Jason Wolfkill
Blog: SQLSouth
Twitter: @SQLSouth
Post #1534569
Posted Friday, January 24, 2014 10:00 AM


Ten Centuries

Ten CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen Centuries

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 9:01 AM
Points: 1,150, Visits: 6,252
Ed Wagner (1/24/2014)
Lynn Pettis (1/24/2014)
Has anyone else ever heard that it is a best practice to have enough server memory to hold your entire database in memory?

I have not. In fact, I don't know how that would be possible. Some databases get pretty huge.

I recently attended a seminar on 2014 that focused on in-memory tables. He recommend that you have memory available that's twice the expected size of the table. It isn't a cure-all for everything, though. There are restrictions that are focused on high performance and it's really only for your hottest tables where being written to disk isn't critical. They seem cool, but their use is pretty limited.


Some of us may be old enough to remember loading the whole game (Doom comes to mind) into RAM Disk.
Yes, with in memory technology you need more RAM.
And if may differ between what you need for SQL vs. OLAP.
That would be a pretty severe limitation on size for most if you needed that much RAM.
Post #1534576
Posted Friday, January 24, 2014 11:51 AM
Hall of Fame

Hall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of Fame

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: 2 days ago @ 10:37 PM
Points: 3,306, Visits: 2,351
Greg Edwards-268690 (1/24/2014)
Ed Wagner (1/24/2014)
Lynn Pettis (1/24/2014)
Has anyone else ever heard that it is a best practice to have enough server memory to hold your entire database in memory?

I have not. In fact, I don't know how that would be possible. Some databases get pretty huge.

I recently attended a seminar on 2014 that focused on in-memory tables. He recommend that you have memory available that's twice the expected size of the table. It isn't a cure-all for everything, though. There are restrictions that are focused on high performance and it's really only for your hottest tables where being written to disk isn't critical. They seem cool, but their use is pretty limited.


Some of us may be old enough to remember loading the whole game (Doom comes to mind) into RAM Disk.
Yes, with in memory technology you need more RAM.
And if may differ between what you need for SQL vs. OLAP.
That would be a pretty severe limitation on size for most if you needed that much RAM.

Doom was revolutionary at the time. I know what you mean about loading everything into RAM. When you ran out, just create a RAM disk and you're off to the races. I think those days are gone except for the page file. With databases, I don't know of any company that could afford as much RAM as they have database size. I know we can't.



Tally Tables - Performance Personified
Best practices on how to ask questions
Post #1534613
Posted Friday, January 24, 2014 1:53 PM


SSChampion

SSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampion

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 4:48 AM
Points: 14,802, Visits: 27,278
Lynn Pettis (1/24/2014)
Has anyone else ever heard that it is a best practice to have enough server memory to hold your entire database in memory?


Yeah, it's called SQL Server 2014.

But seriously, a best practice? No. Not at all. Wouldn't it be nice? yes. But I've dealt with 600gb of data on Windows XP. Tweren't no 600gb of memory on that machine, I assure you.


----------------------------------------------------
"The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood..." Theodore Roosevelt
The Scary DBA
Author of: SQL Server 2012 Query Performance Tuning
SQL Server 2008 Query Performance Tuning Distilled
and
SQL Server Execution Plans

Product Evangelist for Red Gate Software
Post #1534640
Posted Friday, January 24, 2014 2:17 PM


SSC-Insane

SSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-Insane

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 2:06 PM
Points: 22,510, Visits: 30,230
Thanks to all who answered my question so far. I was just curious as I overheard one of our SAs make the comment that it was a best practice to have sufficient memory to hold the entire database in memory. I just wonder where they come up with these ideas.



Lynn Pettis

For better assistance in answering your questions, click here
For tips to get better help with Performance Problems, click here
For Running Totals and its variations, click here or when working with partitioned tables
For more about Tally Tables, click here
For more about Cross Tabs and Pivots, click here and here
Managing Transaction Logs

SQL Musings from the Desert Fountain Valley SQL (My Mirror Blog)
Post #1534647
« Prev Topic | Next Topic »

Add to briefcase «««4,2624,2634,2644,2654,266»»»

Permissions Expand / Collapse