August 13, 2010 at 4:53 am
Hi All,
My Problem is.....
The data on my server is more than 700 GB, after data archival. The server is placed in a place where it is costed more for its size (not specified).
Now, I have an option for having 350 GB on one server (that is costed too huge) and the other 350 GB in my local server.
My Questions are:
1) Can this be done without any major impact for the data or the application programming?
2) For example, If i have 300 tables by which 150 are highly loaded tables and the other are smaller tables, Can i move the smaller tables alone to the local server?
Also, this process should not affect performance.....
Any help, greatly appreciated...
Thanks in advance
Priya
Regards
Priya
August 13, 2010 at 5:09 am
Would need some more detail information before anyone can assist you on this....anyways let me roll the ideas out for you in case it helps you think in right direction 🙂
1. When you say highly loaded table, are the frequently used table ? If not then moving them to archival system is good idea.
2. Is the Smaller table transaction tables ? Frequently accessed ?
3. Saving storage costs depends on indentfying the data which can be used in current year for production, rest archived in manner which is accesible as well at lower cost.
Cheers
Sat
Cheer Satish 🙂
August 13, 2010 at 5:19 am
Hi Sat,
Thanks for your quicker response...
The highly loaded tables are frequently accessed tables.
Also, the data greater than 90 days gets deleted. So, i believe there is no way of data archival.
Is there any way to seperate a part of tables to local server and the remaining the costed server, and the transaction gets into their respective servers with better performance.
I believe, I m clear to your queries.... If not please specify
Thanks again
Priya
Regards
Priya
August 13, 2010 at 5:55 am
MSSQLBuddy (8/13/2010)
Is there any way to seperate a part of tables to local server and the remaining the costed server, and the transaction gets into their respective servers with better performance.
Not without changes to the application to know where to look. Or linked server and synonyms (but that's likely to degrade performance more)
Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability
August 13, 2010 at 6:17 am
-We had build system for client sometime back where we use to ship 6 months old data to different server for reporting purposes (read only)
-Deleted the from current database previous data , offcourse they had time window so there was no performance impact for user's online.
- checked if we shrink the database after deletion (not great idea) but was done since cost was constraint we had live through it
- All the above was done as workaround to save on licenses for SQL server 2005 Enterprise , disk costs and also they did not have full time DBA to manage the affairs.
Anyways it as bad script since cost strigent ideas firms want end up paying huge price later down road in terms of performance and consulting costs of MSSQL expert 🙂
Cheers
Cheer Satish 🙂
August 15, 2010 at 9:57 pm
Hi
Can the same be done using Federated Database server by which the database can be given to multiple servers....?
As per the MSDBN, there is no effect on the performance.
Please let me know your views on this....?
Thanks
Regards
Priya
Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply