Please start any new threads on our new
site at https://forums.sqlteam.com. We've got lots of great SQL Server
experts to answer whatever question you can come up with.
| Author |
Topic |
|
dataguru1971
Master Smack Fu Yak Hacker
1464 Posts |
 Posted - 2007-10-29 : 15:14:35
|
| Hello All,I currently manage and do the majority of the programming for a SQL Server that is used to currently store approximately 500GB of data across over 30 databases which is primarily used by about 15 analysts daily and about 15 other users less frequently (maybe a couple times a week or less.) The 3 primary databases used represent over 140 million rows of data (with on of them having over 110 million and growing by nearly 2MM per month).As you can imagine, it is sometimes difficult to achieve optimum performance, but for the most part I have everything running smoothly as possible.However, my recently installed boss (not a DBA or even close) is pushing to of SAS Enterprise Minor installed on the same box. For obvious reasons, I think this would be an extraordinarily bad idea.Many users hook to the database using ODBC via Excel, Access, and in recent months SAS. Each connection SAS makes causes minor performance hits as every connection gets allocated at least some space for running queries. This in and of itself is not a major issue, as those users are utilizing their own machines resources to do the heavy lifting on queries. Even if they expand the RAM from 4GB to 12GB and add another 360 GB RAID+1, the subsequent load of SAS EM would bring performance to a crawl (IMHO). SAS people claim it is "do-able", but no one involved in the discussions (prior to me) has any idea how much damage SAS EM could do to performance.Does anyone have any experience with SAS EM running on the same box as SQL Server 2000? WE are also upgrading to SQL 2005 on the box in mid 2008, but I am looking for some backup to my objections to putting SAS EM on the same box. Any insight is welcomed. |
|
|
|
|
|
SQL Server and SAS EM on same box