ConfigMan and MOM

myITforum.com Community Forum

Home Forums Blogs Live Support chat Search Articles Wiki FAQ Email Lists Register Login My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums

Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ Ticket List Log Out

All Forums RSS Feed Subscription:

ConfigMan and MOM

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Management Products] >> System Center Products >> System Center Configuration Manager >> ConfigMan and MOM

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

ConfigMan and MOM - 6/19/2008 10:33:44 AM

jbland

Posts: 21
Score: 0
Joined: 10/20/2004
Status: offline

I have asked the higher ups for a dedicated SQL server to run ConfigMan databases for two primary sites as part of my deployment of ConfigMan to the enterprise.

The higher ups now want to use this same box not only for my DBs, but MOM's DB and SolarWinds DB, and anything else they choose to dump on it. I have asked that they keep MOM and SolarWinds off because of the resource hogs that they are.

ConfigMan for two sites is a beast on its own. My research says that MOM databases should not be on the same SQL server as ConfigMan DBs. Can I have some feedback on this configuration and also, on just how robust would that SQL server need to be to support everything they want to put on it without bringing all those applications to a screeching halt

thanks

Post #: 1

RE: ConfigMan and MOM - 6/19/2008 10:44:12 AM

mreavis

Posts: 769
Score: 77
Joined: 9/10/2002
From: Olathe, Kansas
Status: offline

Basically, I would put the SCOM database with SCOM, SCCM with SCCM. This minimizes the traffic for the servers to talk to the database. Even the your DBAs should be a little suspect of doing this. Basically, run some perf reports showing what your processor, disk and memory usage are now, and then explain that it would double if you add SQL traffic for either of these major apps. I do run minor DBs on my SCCM DB server, but they generate maybe 2-5% traffic.

_____________________________

Michael Reavis
SMS Admin
MCSE, MCDBA, MCDST
Johnson County Goverment

(in reply to jbland)

Post #: 2

RE: ConfigMan and MOM - 6/19/2008 10:51:57 AM

jnelson993

Posts: 805
Score: 113
Joined: 2/18/2005
From: Minneapolis, MN
Status: offline

I would fight it like a sumunabeech! OK, depending...how many clients are we talking? How many machines managed by SCOM?

SCOM is very heavy even by itself, especially if you're doing the audit collection stuff.
SCCM is much more SQL intensive by itself now too (compared to SMS).

I guess if I were forced to have a dedicated SQL box to hold 2 SCCM primaries, SCOM and grandma's cookie recipes, I'd build it with a Dell 2950 (or equivalent) a 30 disk external disk array with a PercE SAS controller and configure the disks in a RAID 10 array for max throughput. The disks I'd format with 64K allocation unit. This will spread the SQL I/O across as many disks as possible. Then I'd throw at least 32GB of RAM in the server (Server 2003 x64 or Server 2008 x64 with SQL 2005 or 2008 x64...the important part is x64 on Windows and SQL)

So, I'd say, fight it if you can, if not, let them know it's going to be 40-50K for a gynormous server to handle all of that. (unless we're talking about 500 clients in SCCM and 10 machines managed with SCOM...then I'd say just deal with it cuz my laptop could almost handle that. :)

_____________________________

Number2 (John Nelson)
MyITForum - Blog
MyITForum - Forum Posts

(in reply to jbland)

Post #: 3

RE: ConfigMan and MOM - 6/19/2008 11:10:17 AM

jbland

Posts: 21
Score: 0
Joined: 10/20/2004
Status: offline

ok, we're small potatoes
1000 machines but growing, and also acquiring other small companies in the future
so, what would your answer be to that number (sorry i didn't provide it initially)

(in reply to jnelson993)

Post #: 4

RE: ConfigMan and MOM - 6/19/2008 11:16:24 AM

jnelson993

Posts: 805
Score: 113
Joined: 2/18/2005
From: Minneapolis, MN
Status: offline

Well, I'd still fight it if you can.

But honestly, if your inventory and heartbeat intervals are at most daily (not hourly or something silly) then you'll probably be able to handle it just fine...I wouldn't want to but it would be fine. The thing is you want to plan for growth and you don't want to have to ask someone's permission in case you have to reboot your SQL box. Unless SCOM is also deployed to the same 1000 machines, that's going to require a fully dedicated server of it's own.

_____________________________

Number2 (John Nelson)
MyITForum - Blog
MyITForum - Forum Posts

(in reply to jbland)

Post #: 5

RE: ConfigMan and MOM - 6/19/2008 11:51:33 AM

jbland

Posts: 21
Score: 0
Joined: 10/20/2004
Status: offline

the plan is to deploy the unified client for ConfigMan/OpsMan to the 1000 machines so that SCOM can monitor them and SCCM can do what it does.

(in reply to jnelson993)

Post #: 6

RE: ConfigMan and MOM - 6/19/2008 12:06:28 PM

gjones

Posts: 766
Score: 46
Joined: 6/5/2001
From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Status: offline

You want to monitor 1000 PCs with OpsMgr??? If so then you will need one HUGE SQL Box!!!

Is ConfigMgr going to sit on it own box?

_____________________________

Garth@enhansoft.com

For a List of my Articles
http://www.myitforum.com/contrib/default.asp?cid=116
Blogs:
http://smsug.ca/blogs/garth_jones/default.aspx
http://myitforum.com/cs2/blogs/gjones/default.aspx

(in reply to jbland)

Post #: 7

RE: ConfigMan and MOM - 6/19/2008 12:13:58 PM

jbland

Posts: 21
Score: 0
Joined: 10/20/2004
Status: offline

ok, sorry, i'm an idiot, we would put the unified client on 80 servers - we would not be monitoring PCs. Configuration Manager would be on its own box, but would share a SQL server with MOM and all manner of whatnot

(in reply to gjones)

Post #: 8

RE: ConfigMan and MOM - 6/19/2008 12:37:56 PM

gjones

Posts: 766
Score: 46
Joined: 6/5/2001
From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Status: offline

Trust me you are not an idiot, may you need more coffee. ( I know that I do)

Personally I don't understand a company who want to move the SQL db to a share server for such a small # of PCs. It would not be until 15K or more PCs before I would recommend moving the db. Even then...

I question the cost vs the benefit of such a move.

_____________________________

Garth@enhansoft.com

For a List of my Articles
http://www.myitforum.com/contrib/default.asp?cid=116
Blogs:
http://smsug.ca/blogs/garth_jones/default.aspx
http://myitforum.com/cs2/blogs/gjones/default.aspx

(in reply to jbland)

Post #: 9

RE: ConfigMan and MOM - 6/19/2008 12:38:12 PM

jnelson993

Posts: 805
Score: 113
Joined: 2/18/2005
From: Minneapolis, MN
Status: offline

Good gravy!!! SCOM absolutely MUST be separate. SCCM will be fine though.

<edited>

Oh, I see. Should have hit refresh...

< Message edited by jnelson993 -- 6/19/2008 12:39:08 PM >

_____________________________

Number2 (John Nelson)
MyITForum - Blog
MyITForum - Forum Posts

(in reply to gjones)

Post #: 10

RE: ConfigMan and MOM - 6/19/2008 12:52:04 PM

jbland

Posts: 21
Score: 0
Joined: 10/20/2004
Status: offline

thanks for your help, i'll consider everything before i wave the white flag in defeat

(in reply to jnelson993)

Post #: 11

RE: ConfigMan and MOM - 6/19/2008 1:01:17 PM

jbland

Posts: 21
Score: 0
Joined: 10/20/2004
Status: offline

At MMS, a number of microsoft reps advised me against putting SQL2005 on the site servers, even in our small environment, so that's why I am scrounging for a separate dedicated SQL machine for my project.

My company would put the DBs on a share to keep from having to buy me my own SQL box to put both site DBs on it - more bang for the buck for them. I want optimum performance and since the deployment has not occurred and I am in the "asking for equipment" phase, of course I will ask for the moon.

thanks for all your help and guidance

(in reply to gjones)

Post #: 12

RE: ConfigMan and MOM - 6/19/2008 1:02:51 PM

gjones

Posts: 766
Score: 46
Joined: 6/5/2001
From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Status: offline

If you have to do this then insist that an Server Level Agreement SLA is setup and reviewed on a regular bases. If SLA levels are not met then ask for the SQL db to be moved.

_____________________________

Garth@enhansoft.com

For a List of my Articles
http://www.myitforum.com/contrib/default.asp?cid=116
Blogs:
http://smsug.ca/blogs/garth_jones/default.aspx
http://myitforum.com/cs2/blogs/gjones/default.aspx

(in reply to jbland)

Post #: 13

RE: ConfigMan and MOM - 6/19/2008 1:14:58 PM

jnelson993

Posts: 805
Score: 113
Joined: 2/18/2005
From: Minneapolis, MN
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jbland

At MMS, a number of microsoft reps advised me against putting SQL2005 on the site servers, even in our small environment, so that's why I am scrounging for a separate dedicated SQL machine for my project.

My company would put the DBs on a share to keep from having to buy me my own SQL box to put both site DBs on it - more bang for the buck for them. I want optimum performance and since the deployment has not occurred and I am in the "asking for equipment" phase, of course I will ask for the moon.

thanks for all your help and guidance

Ha! I know many, many people who are going to flat out ignore that request, including us because it just adds one more level of failure and complexity. I even know of people who manage SCCM within Microsoft who said they were going to try it with SQL on box after speaking to Brian Mason and I. If you've got the RAM and the disks, you're going to be better off with SQL on box. Especially when you go to upgrade to the next version of SCCM due out soon. Makes that upgrade path much easier. Don't let MS bully you into going SQL off box to gain a POSSIBLE few percent in performance on a server you're not going to max out anyway.

Just my $0.02

_____________________________

Number2 (John Nelson)
MyITForum - Blog
MyITForum - Forum Posts

(in reply to jbland)

Post #: 14