SQL Clone
SQLServerCentral is supported by Redgate
 
Log in  ::  Register  ::  Not logged in
 
 
 


scalable hardware solution for 10TB now to 100TB in 3 years


scalable hardware solution for 10TB now to 100TB in 3 years

Author
Message
Jeff Moden
Jeff Moden
SSC Guru
SSC Guru (87K reputation)SSC Guru (87K reputation)SSC Guru (87K reputation)SSC Guru (87K reputation)SSC Guru (87K reputation)SSC Guru (87K reputation)SSC Guru (87K reputation)SSC Guru (87K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 87022 Visits: 41112
mlbauer (12/31/2010)
We want to scan the *complete data in less than 1 hour*


I have to ask... to what end? Why is this necessary and why will it be necessary when you have 50TB of data?

--Jeff Moden

RBAR is pronounced ree-bar and is a Modenism for Row-By-Agonizing-Row.
First step towards the paradigm shift of writing Set Based code:
Stop thinking about what you want to do to a row... think, instead, of what you want to do to a column.
If you think its expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur. -- Red Adair

Helpful Links:
How to post code problems
How to post performance problems
Forum FAQs
mlbauer
mlbauer
Grasshopper
Grasshopper (10 reputation)Grasshopper (10 reputation)Grasshopper (10 reputation)Grasshopper (10 reputation)Grasshopper (10 reputation)Grasshopper (10 reputation)Grasshopper (10 reputation)Grasshopper (10 reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 10 Visits: 132
Hi,

good question. The short answer is: We know our data will grow. We want to do our current tasks in the future, so we want 10x performance and capacity. It is not clear how fast our data will grow, so we want to be sure to have some additional capacity available.

P.S.
I have openend a small suvey about SAN systems here:
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1052953-377-1.aspx
Scott Murray-240410
Scott Murray-240410
Old Hand
Old Hand (399 reputation)Old Hand (399 reputation)Old Hand (399 reputation)Old Hand (399 reputation)Old Hand (399 reputation)Old Hand (399 reputation)Old Hand (399 reputation)Old Hand (399 reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 399 Visits: 3117
Also.... will you continue to add data without an archive strategy? Some years of data are likely to no longer be used at some point.
mlbauer
mlbauer
Grasshopper
Grasshopper (10 reputation)Grasshopper (10 reputation)Grasshopper (10 reputation)Grasshopper (10 reputation)Grasshopper (10 reputation)Grasshopper (10 reputation)Grasshopper (10 reputation)Grasshopper (10 reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 10 Visits: 132
hi,

you are right. Old data will be less important at some point of time. An archive will be necessary for historic data. But i would be nice to have it available - maybe with less speed.
We are doing data mining, so a large collection of historic data will help us. We are currently developing and testing different ways of analyzing our data so it will help us to have lots of data available with a performance high enough to do many experiments without having to wait for weeks in every step of development.
At the moment, our hardware guys have a clear tendency towards netapp hardware, with an estimated cost of about 1 million euros for a 200 TB solution. This is a huge leap of costs compared to our current hardware and it would be nice to have at least one or two alternative suggestions for the discussion about the best hardware for our purposes. Does any of the SAN manufacturers provide any technical feature that others do not?
P.S. Our options seem to be only HP or NetApp.
Michael Valentine Jones
Michael Valentine Jones
SSCertifiable
SSCertifiable (5.8K reputation)SSCertifiable (5.8K reputation)SSCertifiable (5.8K reputation)SSCertifiable (5.8K reputation)SSCertifiable (5.8K reputation)SSCertifiable (5.8K reputation)SSCertifiable (5.8K reputation)SSCertifiable (5.8K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 5796 Visits: 11771
You may want to look into SSD storage. For example, this product promises 6 GB/Sec of bandwidth on a 5 TB device.
http://www.fusionio.com/products/iodriveoctal

With 10 units, you would have 60 GB/Sec of IO bandwidth with 50 TB of storage. That would be enough bandwidth to let you read 50 TB in about 14 minutes.

Of course you may want to verify that the vendors product can actually do what they claim. :-)

There are plenty of other potential bottlenecks when you get into this area: PCI bus speed, memory speed, front-side bus speed, processor speed, etc. I think you will find this a difficult challenge with current hardware.

I would recommend waiting as long as possible to buy the hardware, instead of trying to buy something now that will be good for three years. Performance of hardware per dollar will be much better later, especially for emerging technology like SSD storage.

I would also look into database compression if you are not already using it. If you can get 70% compression that will save a lot of space and IO bandwidth. Use it with partitioned tables to tailor compression for best performance, like compressing anything older than 90 days. Even though it uses more CPU, you save a lot on IO and memory footprint.

Also, I would seriously explore the importance of this to the business. It is easy to demand fantastic performance when you don't understand the cost, but when you start talking millions of dollars people will take a harder look at the value they are getting for that money. Perhaps a solution where they could see all the recent data quickly would be enough. Or you might be able to break the most important data out to a smaller dataset that doesn't require as much time to query.
Jeff Moden
Jeff Moden
SSC Guru
SSC Guru (87K reputation)SSC Guru (87K reputation)SSC Guru (87K reputation)SSC Guru (87K reputation)SSC Guru (87K reputation)SSC Guru (87K reputation)SSC Guru (87K reputation)SSC Guru (87K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 87022 Visits: 41112
mlbauer (1/25/2011)
Hi,

good question. The short answer is: We know our data will grow. We want to do our current tasks in the future, so we want 10x performance and capacity. It is not clear how fast our data will grow, so we want to be sure to have some additional capacity available.

P.S.
I have openend a small suvey about SAN systems here:
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1052953-377-1.aspx


Have you considered simply partitioning the tables?

--Jeff Moden

RBAR is pronounced ree-bar and is a Modenism for Row-By-Agonizing-Row.
First step towards the paradigm shift of writing Set Based code:
Stop thinking about what you want to do to a row... think, instead, of what you want to do to a column.
If you think its expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur. -- Red Adair

Helpful Links:
How to post code problems
How to post performance problems
Forum FAQs
mlbauer
mlbauer
Grasshopper
Grasshopper (10 reputation)Grasshopper (10 reputation)Grasshopper (10 reputation)Grasshopper (10 reputation)Grasshopper (10 reputation)Grasshopper (10 reputation)Grasshopper (10 reputation)Grasshopper (10 reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 10 Visits: 132
Yes. We are using partitioned tables for all data that are loaded daily.
Go


Permissions

You can't post new topics.
You can't post topic replies.
You can't post new polls.
You can't post replies to polls.
You can't edit your own topics.
You can't delete your own topics.
You can't edit other topics.
You can't delete other topics.
You can't edit your own posts.
You can't edit other posts.
You can't delete your own posts.
You can't delete other posts.
You can't post events.
You can't edit your own events.
You can't edit other events.
You can't delete your own events.
You can't delete other events.
You can't send private messages.
You can't send emails.
You can read topics.
You can't vote in polls.
You can't upload attachments.
You can download attachments.
You can't post HTML code.
You can't edit HTML code.
You can't post IFCode.
You can't post JavaScript.
You can post emoticons.
You can't post or upload images.

Select a forum

































































































































































SQLServerCentral


Search