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 ««12345»»»

A True SQL OS Expand / Collapse
Author
Message
Posted Wednesday, August 26, 2009 12:12 PM
Mr or Mrs. 500

Mr or Mrs. 500Mr or Mrs. 500Mr or Mrs. 500Mr or Mrs. 500Mr or Mrs. 500Mr or Mrs. 500Mr or Mrs. 500Mr or Mrs. 500

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Saturday, April 26, 2014 12:44 PM
Points: 577, Visits: 199
I've wondered in the past why MS (or for that matter, Oracle or IBM) hadn't developed a specific "database appliance"--hardware with software specifically built to run just the database software. It seems that the RDBMS war is serious enough to justify that type of decision...

At my last job they were just starting to consider a "DW appliance" from Netezza
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netezza). I guess the DW world got it first due to the massive amounts of data being processed.

And maybe I'm wrong, but isn't Project Madison aimed at making a DW-specific appliance as well?
Post #777735
Posted Wednesday, August 26, 2009 12:12 PM
Grasshopper

GrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopper

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, July 31, 2014 1:25 PM
Points: 10, Visits: 101
Great idea!

An OS built specifically on and around an embedded enterprise class RDBMS.

Of course Microsoft would be a bit late to the party…say 30 years or so; given that the IBM System/38 was announced in 1978 and delivered in 1979.

The current descendant of the System/38’s operating system, IBM i running on POWER hardware, of course continues to have an integrated RDBMS which is known as IBM DB2 for i. http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/i/software/db2/

-Charles
Post #777736
Posted Wednesday, August 26, 2009 12:26 PM


SSChampion

SSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampion

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, December 18, 2014 9:58 AM
Points: 13,872, Visits: 9,600
ammo (8/26/2009)
I've wondered in the past why MS (or for that matter, Oracle or IBM) hadn't developed a specific "database appliance"--hardware with software specifically built to run just the database software. It seems that the RDBMS war is serious enough to justify that type of decision...

At my last job they were just starting to consider a "DW appliance" from Netezza
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netezza). I guess the DW world got it first due to the massive amounts of data being processed.

And maybe I'm wrong, but isn't Project Madison aimed at making a DW-specific appliance as well?


I've actually heard of custom-built versions of this using Linux and one or another FOSS RDBMS.

There isn't much of a market for it.


- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread

"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
Post #777747
Posted Wednesday, August 26, 2009 12:29 PM
Grasshopper

GrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopper

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, July 31, 2014 1:25 PM
Points: 10, Visits: 101
IBM's got one....IBM i running on POWER Hardware. ( i is for integrated )

From 1,2,4 cores with up to 64GB of RAM and 30.6TB of disk
to 64 cores with 4TB of RAM and something like 620TB of disk.

-Charles

ammo (8/26/2009)
I've wondered in the past why MS (or for that matter, Oracle or IBM) hadn't developed a specific "database appliance"--hardware with software specifically built to run just the database software. It seems that the RDBMS war is serious enough to justify that type of decision...
Post #777749
Posted Wednesday, August 26, 2009 12:32 PM


Old Hand

Old HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld Hand

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Monday, May 7, 2012 9:23 AM
Points: 304, Visits: 716
When you go to these Microsoft "talks" Steve, do you ever ask the people giving those talks if they have done any research on the ideas they are presenting? Seems like each time we read about something "new" from "inside Microsoft", what we are really hearing are very old ideas, often (like this one) already done. IBM has done this already and did it before there was even a Microsoft Windows on the market.

I think these folks out in Redmond have reached a point where they need a good two semesters (probably more) in a Computing History class. That way, they might, at the very least, have a truly original idea at some point.


There's no such thing as dumb questions, only poorly thought-out answers...
Post #777753
Posted Wednesday, August 26, 2009 12:41 PM
SSC-Addicted

SSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-Addicted

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, December 2, 2014 11:30 AM
Points: 471, Visits: 848
Scott Jacobson (8/26/2009)
Robert Hermsen (8/26/2009)
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143506.aspx -- "SQL Server 2008 is not supported on Windows Server 2008 and Windows Server 2008 R2 Server Core installations."

Unfortunately SQL Server 2008 is not compatible with the Windows Server 2008 Core only installation. Maybe it is part of MS long term upgrade strategy.


That specifically says "not supported". In MS-ese that is not the same as "not compatible". I'd guess this stems from the fact that .NET is required for SQL to install. Initially, .NET was not supported under Core installations either. But I think this might have changed: http://blogs.technet.com/server_core/archive/2008/12/19/net-3-0-and-3-5-in-windows-server-2008-r2-server-core.aspx


More research on my part would have found the procedures to do the install as well... so while not supported.... well neither was mirroring initially right?

http://sqlblog.hartskeerl.nl/archive/2009/06/20/installing-sql-server-2008-on-windows-2008-r2-core.aspx
Post #777756
Posted Wednesday, August 26, 2009 1:07 PM
SSC-Enthusiastic

SSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-Enthusiastic

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Monday, December 9, 2013 10:10 AM
Points: 167, Visits: 154
ammo (8/26/2009)
At my last job they were just starting to consider a "DW appliance" from Netezza
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netezza). I guess the DW world got it first due to the massive amounts of data being processed.

And maybe I'm wrong, but isn't Project Madison aimed at making a DW-specific appliance as well?


Project Madison stems from Microsoft's purchase of Netezza's competitor, Datallegro. And, for all intents and purposes, Teradata fits in this category as well (although much larger). This is largely possible in Data Warehousing because query patterns in this type of application are fairly constant accross implementations (bulk writes and reads) so we can standardize hardware and optimize the underlying OS for it.

I think transactional databases work a bit differently, and a true appliance doesn't quite fit as well. I agree with an earlier posting that we should leave the hardware interaction and driver management out of the SQL OS, but do give it an opportunity to understand that it is on a dedicated server and does not have to play nicely with other applications.

I see this as a more likely scenario using Enterprise Edition and Windows Server Core in conjunction with a Project Madison. Use these pieces to build a large, multi-node, RDBMS environment and dramatically reduce costs by having less of the OS administration involved.
Post #777781
Posted Wednesday, August 26, 2009 1:07 PM


SSC-Dedicated

SSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-Dedicated

Group: Administrators
Last Login: Yesterday @ 3:11 PM
Points: 31,368, Visits: 15,837
blandry (8/26/2009)
When you go to these Microsoft "talks" Steve, do you ever ask the people giving those talks if they have done any research on the ideas they are presenting?


I never said that this was presented as an idea from MS. You're reading into the editorial a bit much. This was something I've wanted for a long time, since NT4 actually when we got the "basic tuning" for the server that let you decide if this was primary a server by putting GUI tasks in the background as low priority.

Many of the talks I've heard from MS engineers were on various things. I have heard talks about the memory management, NUMA, the schedulers and how they are spun up based on resources, etc. In many of these talks the people have done research in their areas, and they know what they are presenting on. Even in the talks where they are giving something new, it's not that they haven't researched it, but that they have a different perspective.

Lots of companies look to apply old ideas in new ways, or to their own products. There are lots of reasons to bash Microsoft, but this isn't one of them. I don't even think them applying "old" ideas as something "new" in their product is a reason to complain.







Follow me on Twitter: @way0utwest

Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
Post #777783
Posted Wednesday, August 26, 2009 1:14 PM
Mr or Mrs. 500

Mr or Mrs. 500Mr or Mrs. 500Mr or Mrs. 500Mr or Mrs. 500Mr or Mrs. 500Mr or Mrs. 500Mr or Mrs. 500Mr or Mrs. 500

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: 2 days ago @ 3:04 PM
Points: 589, Visits: 3,648
I think Oracle tried to go down that route with nCube:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCUBE


Andy



Post #777789
Posted Wednesday, August 26, 2009 1:42 PM


Ten Centuries

Ten CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen Centuries

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: 2 days ago @ 7:17 AM
Points: 1,189, Visits: 551
A stripped down version of Windows to support SQL Server is a great idea. It's a rather proven concept (as many others have pointed out) that would simplify administration and improve performance. But then, no one at MS is concerned about performance when you can just raise the minimum hardware level to a point where it "appears" to be running efficiently!

One of my pet peeves is taking bloated, poorly written code and then throwing it on newer, faster, bigger hardware as a "solution" to performance issues. In the days when you had to do your own memory management and truly had limited resources, code was generally written in a much more efficient manner. Of course, some folks threw good coding techniques out the window in favor of shaving an additional few bytes or microseconds from execution.



"...when ye are in the service of your fellow beings ye are only in the service of your God." -- Mosiah 2:17
Post #777818
« Prev Topic | Next Topic »

Add to briefcase ««12345»»»

Permissions Expand / Collapse