Remember, Supported does not mean "is it possible and works fine anyway". For example, most companies use some type of console right-click addon tool. Those are certainly not supported by Microsoft... but we use them anyway.
Same thing with a certain MVP that uses VMs for high redundancy -- not supported, but it's possible and works for that company. The situation would be something like this: Company is running fine for 2 years in an unsupported, but works fine configuration. Then that company starts to experience performance issues. A support call would attempt to help them as much as possible with the unsupported configuration; but if that support call led to SQL performance issues, they *might* say "please reconfigure your Primary site configuration to be within supported guidelines, and if you STILL have the issue--which we can't reproduce in the supported configuration--THEN reopen the issue". So it all depends upon risk/benefits as evaluated by your own internal processes. If having 2 servers; both high-powered; 1 for SQL and 1 for the Primary role (even though you offload EVERY role) makes sense to your company, then do that. This is slightly OT: but I'm still waiting (hoping) for some type of official statement from Microsoft regarding IOPS needed--not necessarily SQL onbox or offbox, but one could put SQL offbox on some horrid SAN storage solution and be worse off than local; because it's not about on or off box; it's really about IOPS available. Sherry Kissinger ________________________________ From: Eric Morrison <eric.morri...@hotmail.com> To: mssms@lists.myitforum.com Sent: Monday, August 5, 2013 9:27 AM Subject: RE: [mssms] CM12: SQL local or remote? Local on the primary or CAS? I’m going by the TechNet document and my argument is being in a supported configuration, not if it is possible or not. CAS does not state it needs to be remote if over 50K, only that you need to be running SQL Enterprise. From:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com [mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] On Behalf Of Marcum, John Sent: Monday, August 5, 2013 7:42 AM To: mssms@lists.myitforum.com; mssms@lists.myitforum.com Subject: RE: [mssms] CM12: SQL local or remote? I believe that there's a particular large bank where a couple MVP's work that has over 100k and SQL is local. ________________________________ John Marcum Sr. Desktop Architect Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP ________________________________ From:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com [mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] On Behalf Of Eric Morrison Sent: Sunday, August 04, 2013 5:17 PM To: mssms@lists.myitforum.com Subject: RE: [mssms] CM12: SQL local or remote? If they have that primary's site code, then it's handling those systems. You'll need remote DPs and MPs anyway to handle that count. So yes, you'll need remote SQL if you're managing that many systems. You'll also need to look at the mp, dp, sup, and other roles to see what count they support. For example, you're going to need multiple MPs for that many systems to one site. I believe 25k is the supported count o'er mp. Sent from my Windows Phone ________________________________ From: Roland Janus Sent: 8/4/2013 4:44 PM To: mssms@lists.myitforum.com Subject: [mssms] CM12: SQL local or remote? I do have an opinion on this and I know what I want to do, but I also have a conflict with a statement from technet: “A child primary site that uses SQL Server installed on the same computer as the site server can support up to 50,000 clients. When you use SQL Server that is installed on a computer that is remote from the site server, the child primary site can support up to 100,000 clients.” We expect up-to 100’000 clients but that site server will not serve clients, all handled with local servers (MP-replica, SUP). The site server is basically doing processing and replication, that’s it. I like to avoid more servers, more points of failures, more things to manage, more complexity. Anyone doing local despite what technet says? Anyone had this question raised to MS and got kind of an agreement doing so? (That is kind of important…) PM me if you don’t want to go public? -Roland ________________________________ Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail is from a law firm and may be protected by the attorney-client or work product privileges. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by replying to this e-mail and then delete it from your computer. ________________________________ Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail is from a law firm and may be protected by the attorney-client or work product privileges. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by replying to this e-mail and then delete it from your computer.
