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


A True SQL OS


A True SQL OS

Author
Message
ammo-963576
ammo-963576
Say Hey Kid
Say Hey Kid (669 reputation)Say Hey Kid (669 reputation)Say Hey Kid (669 reputation)Say Hey Kid (669 reputation)Say Hey Kid (669 reputation)Say Hey Kid (669 reputation)Say Hey Kid (669 reputation)Say Hey Kid (669 reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 669 Visits: 208
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?
wiltc-836148
wiltc-836148
Grasshopper
Grasshopper (20 reputation)Grasshopper (20 reputation)Grasshopper (20 reputation)Grasshopper (20 reputation)Grasshopper (20 reputation)Grasshopper (20 reputation)Grasshopper (20 reputation)Grasshopper (20 reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 20 Visits: 103
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
GSquared
GSquared
SSC Guru
SSC Guru (60K reputation)SSC Guru (60K reputation)SSC Guru (60K reputation)SSC Guru (60K reputation)SSC Guru (60K reputation)SSC Guru (60K reputation)SSC Guru (60K reputation)SSC Guru (60K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 60347 Visits: 9730
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
wiltc-836148
wiltc-836148
Grasshopper
Grasshopper (20 reputation)Grasshopper (20 reputation)Grasshopper (20 reputation)Grasshopper (20 reputation)Grasshopper (20 reputation)Grasshopper (20 reputation)Grasshopper (20 reputation)Grasshopper (20 reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 20 Visits: 103
IBM's got one....IBM i running on POWER Hardware. ( i is for integrated :-D )

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...

blandry
blandry
Ten Centuries
Ten Centuries (1K reputation)Ten Centuries (1K reputation)Ten Centuries (1K reputation)Ten Centuries (1K reputation)Ten Centuries (1K reputation)Ten Centuries (1K reputation)Ten Centuries (1K reputation)Ten Centuries (1K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 1017 Visits: 723
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...
BJ Hermsen
BJ Hermsen
Ten Centuries
Ten Centuries (1K reputation)Ten Centuries (1K reputation)Ten Centuries (1K reputation)Ten Centuries (1K reputation)Ten Centuries (1K reputation)Ten Centuries (1K reputation)Ten Centuries (1K reputation)Ten Centuries (1K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 1005 Visits: 880
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
Michael Ross-468051
Michael Ross-468051
SSC Veteran
SSC Veteran (281 reputation)SSC Veteran (281 reputation)SSC Veteran (281 reputation)SSC Veteran (281 reputation)SSC Veteran (281 reputation)SSC Veteran (281 reputation)SSC Veteran (281 reputation)SSC Veteran (281 reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 281 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.
Steve Jones
Steve Jones
SSC Guru
SSC Guru (151K reputation)SSC Guru (151K reputation)SSC Guru (151K reputation)SSC Guru (151K reputation)SSC Guru (151K reputation)SSC Guru (151K reputation)SSC Guru (151K reputation)SSC Guru (151K reputation)

Group: Administrators
Points: 151504 Visits: 19455
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
My Blog: www.voiceofthedba.com
j.a.c
j.a.c
SSC Eights!
SSC Eights! (904 reputation)SSC Eights! (904 reputation)SSC Eights! (904 reputation)SSC Eights! (904 reputation)SSC Eights! (904 reputation)SSC Eights! (904 reputation)SSC Eights! (904 reputation)SSC Eights! (904 reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 904 Visits: 4474
I think Oracle tried to go down that route with nCube:

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


Andy
Aaron N. Cutshall
Aaron N. Cutshall
SSCrazy
SSCrazy (2.9K reputation)SSCrazy (2.9K reputation)SSCrazy (2.9K reputation)SSCrazy (2.9K reputation)SSCrazy (2.9K reputation)SSCrazy (2.9K reputation)SSCrazy (2.9K reputation)SSCrazy (2.9K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 2878 Visits: 1087
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
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