Consolildation plan

Question

Consolildation plan

ericwenger1

Hall of Fame

Points: 3408
More actions
January 23, 2013 at 4:13 am

#273224

We are planning on consolidating alot of our 2005 servers to a sql server blade server using sql server 2008 R2 Clustering. Our Plan is to create a named instance's on the blade server to represent what use to be sepearate 2005 Servers. The SQL Server 2008 R2 Clustered environment is a Active/Pass two node Cluster. I'm looking for some opinions on this strategy. I know that I haven't provided all of the details, but, I'm looking for alternatives and possible pitfalls.

Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply

Grant Fritchey SSC Guru Points: 397721 More actions · Answer 1

So, instead of 5-10 machines you'll have 5-10 instances? While that makes migration of connection strings pretty straight forward, you might have performance maintenance worries. Instead of a single instance trying for as much memory or CPU as it can, you'll have a bunch. This means you'll want to lock down the memory allocation on each instance to ensure they share well. You may also need to look at setting CPU affinity on the instances to ensure they're not stepping on each other.

While it's more work, I'd go with creating fewer instances so you have less to manage, one of the supposed advantages of server consolidation.

----------------------------------------------------The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood... Theodore RooseveltThe Scary DBAAuthor of: SQL Server 2017 Query Performance Tuning, 5th Edition and SQL Server Execution Plans, 3rd EditionProduct Evangelist for Red Gate Software

Stupeo Hall of Fame Points: 3067 More actions · Answer 2

Sounds like a good plan for 'hardware consolidation'.

I personally, wouldn't want to do it that way. Why not have 1 or 2 instances of SQL for all your databases? Is it for security purposes?

Gail Shaw SSC Guru Points: 1004494 More actions · Answer 3

Personally I'd go for either consolidating databases onto fewer instances or consolidating physical machines into virtual machines on a single powerful server. Multiple instances on a single machine, not my primary choice.

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

We walk in the dark places no others will enter
We stand on the bridge and no one may pass

Mike.Hahn SSCarpal Tunnel Points: 4053 More actions · Answer 4

I think everyone else has iterated the same thing. What is the actual goal of the migration? That would help in determining a strategy. If you're goal is to save rack space then a blade center is fine but I agree with everyone else that less instances make more sense. Also why not upgrade to SQL 2008 if you can. Installing SQL 2005 on 2008 R2 server is a pain in the A**.

---------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Hahn - MCSomething someday:-)
Right way to ask for help!!
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/Best+Practices/61537/
I post so I can see my avatar :hehe:
I want a personal webpage 😎
I want to win the lotto 😀
I want a gf like Tiffa :w00t: Oh wait I'm married!:-D

ericwenger1 Hall of Fame Points: 3408 More actions · Answer 5

Thanks Gail. This descision was made prior to my arrival here, however, we are just starting the consolidation and there may be time to stil persuade some folks here. Virtualization sounds like a good Idea. They way they want to do it currently will require me to do a very good job of memory and cpu management.

ericwenger1 Hall of Fame Points: 3408 More actions · Answer 6

Thanks to everyone that replied to my post about server consolidation. I now have some ammunition to talk with management on considering some of your recommendations. This decision to create named instances for every server that we are consolidating was made prior to my arrival at this job.

Thanks again!