HomeApplianceData Warehouse Fast Track for SQL Server 2016

Comments

Data Warehouse Fast Track for SQL Server 2016 — 5 Comments

  1. Hi James,

    Just wondering around 100TB Mark, how’s the general performance between SQL Server 2016 and APS? Also, at 100TB, what is the benefit of APS over SQL Server 2016?

    Regards,
    George Qiao

    • Hi George,

      Great question! You can expect just about any query to be much faster in APS over SQL Server 2016 no matter what the size of the database. Usually 20x-100x faster. It just becomes a question of what is the acceptable query performance from the end user. If I’m running an operational report and it takes 1 hour in SQL 2016 and 5 minutes in APS, it may not matter if the report is run at night to be ready for the next morning. But if I am using a dashboard and queries take 20 seconds in SQL 2016 but 1 second in APS, then it’s a big deal. APS can also load data much quicker. I mention other reasons at https://www.jamesserra.com/archive/2015/05/how-an-mpp-appliance-solution-can-improve-your-future/

  2. Interesting, thanks!

    It seems that Lenovo at least is not that particular with redundancy. In their 6TB example using SATA SSDS they state:

    “Data files and tempdb can be on Raid 0 drives.”

    Sure, the x3550 is a 1U box with only 8 drive bays. What to do when one of these drives fail? Serious downtime for a simple drive replacement :/

    Older DWFT designs allways use RAID1 or 10 for the data lun’s.

    regards

  3. Just want to point out that those data sizes are likely raw data and not compressed. I don’t think APS starting size even has 150TB capacity but assuming you are using columnstore compression the actual size on disk might be 30TB or less.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>