I have an IaaS SQL Server in which internet is disabled.
We plan to set up ADF integration run time on the database server itself rather than creating a new server just for IR.
In order to set up, we need to install .net framework and internet should be available in that VM.
So do we feel that installing .net framework and enabling internet in IaaS SQL Server is a security risk for the database server and we need to go ahead with a new gateway server or is the above idea great for cost saving and less maintenance purpose
Enabling outbound internet access on a SQL Server is not a security risk, per se. But using a separate server for the Self-Hosted Integration Runtim (SHIR) is generally recommended over installing it on your SQL Server directly because
The SQL Server is isolated from the performance impact of the SHIR
A single SHIR can provide access to multiple data sources.
You can individually size and scale the SQL Server and the SHIR, and the SHIR doesn't need a SQL Server license. So it may not cost any more to run them seperately.
Related
We have a SQL Server VM with a SQL Server instance running on it. Can we install other software on it including the application server on this SQL Server VM? And can we use it as a jump server to connect other SQL Server databases and managed instances?
I have a SQL Server VM with many other software installed on it and it is being used as a jump server. Want to know if we can continue with it or shall not be used for other purposes.
Want to know the cons of this approach.
Thanks & Regards
This is considered a bad practice.
Reasons:
You are using resources (CPU/Memory/IO/Network) from your (expensive) SQL Server
Your SQL Server license is paid by core, so if you would need to scale because of the other applications, this would impact your SQL server licensing cost.
SQL Server will consume the amount of memory that is configured, so if you set it to 90% of that server, your app server won't have any memory to use.
Troubleshooting will become harder because of shared resources.
Security: You'll open more ports then the SQL server ports increasing the attack surface
SQL server also has a specific set of best practices for the host. Eg: Disk Sector size, ...
If you enable lock pages in memory together with apps running on the same server, you are going to have a bad time.
...
So host your applications on a different server preferably in a different subnet for security reasons.
Create a seperate jump box, because remote sessions will always impact performance, even if they are idle.
When we create azure SQL on VM resource it seems that we are getting VM with full control and this resource is displayed both under VM and SQL services, but there has to be some difference between these two.
VM on SQL is intended for running of SQL server, but technically if we are getting VM then we should be able to install whatever we want on that VM? If this is the case, then we could turn this VM to be multi functional and make it to be the same as provisioning regular VM and installing SQL server manually.
If this is not the case and we are not getting full control, then it seems that this shouldn't be categorized as IaaS and shouldn't be marketed that way.
One obvious difference is in deployment models, with SQL on VM we are getting pre-installed SQL server with additional features like automated backups, etc.
Probably there is some difference in pricing models, but other then this I couldn't find any mentions about these two services.
SQL Server on Azure Virtual Machines provides full versions of SQL Server and simplify licensing costs when you pay as you go.
You are correct, SQL Server on Azure Virtual Machines provides additional benefits like Automated updates, Automated backups.
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/azure-sql/virtual-machines/windows/sql-server-on-azure-vm-iaas-what-is-overview
When using SQL Server on Azure Virtual Machines you pay the per-minute licensing rate of SQL Server. The SQL Server license fee is included in the virtual machine image price.
https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/resources/knowledge-center/how-do-i-license-sql-server-in-azure-virtual/
Microsoft Azure sends invoice with SQL License fee each month.
I'm preparing a migration plan to migrate on-premises SQL Server to Azure. On our on-prem there are two sql instance (DevSQL01\Dev and DevSQL01\Demo) running on single VM. Can we create a same scenario on azure, i.e. can we create two SQL instance on a single Auzure SQL VM or is their any other option?
I know i can create a windows VM on Auzre and install SQL Server and create two instance manually, but i like to find out options like managed instance, elastic pool, etc.. has the feature to host named instance by default.
Forgive me if this is noob question, I just started exploring cloud technologies.
On all flavors of Azure SQL PaaS (Managed Instance, DTU-model, vCore, Serverless, Hyperscale) the concept of named instance does not exist. Your best option is a SQL VM where you can run SQL Setup and install multiple instances.
It seems you need it for development purposes, then you may want to install SQL Server Developer Edition to avoid licensing costs as mentioned here. If this will be a Production server, remember to balance memory usage across the two SQL Server instances and leave some memory for the operating system to avoid impact on the server performance.
I got a task to define various SharePoint farm topologies.
But I haven't any experience about SharePoint and anything else like that.
I found some information about the system requirement and the supported topologies, but I´m not sure if they are really supported.
It's hard to find helpful information. So my question.
I define a three tier topologie.
SharePoint 2016 Server
MSSQL 2016 Server
Workflow Manager Server
Is it supported to share the Database Server with the SharePoint and the Workflow Manager Server?
You can use the same SQL server for the workflow and SharePoint databases without a problem.
In fact I have a site that runs workflow manger from the SQL Server, database and IIS. This was due to the fact the all servers in the farm were Server 2016 and workflow manger is not supported on Server 2016. The only server available to install workflow manager was the SQL server which was Server 2012 R2.
Unless you have an insane amount of workflows, I wouldn't both with a dedicated workflow server, I would split the SharePoint server out into a Web and App Server.
NO, Based on Microsoft best practices SQL server should has its own box, SP and WFM should not be located on the same server to reduce any possible dependency in the future.
ex. sometimes, you will need to renew the certs which are expired. to do so, you need to change the time back.
if SQL and SP sharing the same box, the sites and db transactions will be infected.
another example: if WFM caused any memory leak or throttling, then the SP and SQL will also be infected.
you should dedicate a box for each platform.
1 more thing, the WFM should has odd number of servers. as the Windows/ service fabric uses voting to decide which server to handle the traffic. odd number of servers will allow one of the servers to be identified as preferred server to do so.
I am configuring a new environment to run several intranet web applications. I have 2 servers, one will be the SQL Server 2008 server, and the other will be the IIS server. I also need to install SQL Server Reporting Services. I am not sure whether it would be better to run reporting services on the database server, or web server. Is there a best practice for this situation?
Depends...
The reporting services rendering is fairly processor intensive so you need to keep that in mind. Typically if I'm designing a system with heavy load or throughput requirements I place the reporting services instance on its own server. The best practice is really dependent on the complexity of your system.
If a third server is not an option and the two servers you already have are similarly speced I would probably place it on the one with the lowest processor load. If you place the reporting server on the web server make sure that Reporting services uses your dedicated database server for the reporting services meta-data so that you don't have to install the RDBMS on both machines.
You need to keep in mind that if you don't place the reporting server on the same box as SQL server you will need another SQL Server license. The product is only "free" if it is installed on the same machine as SQL.
I would run installer on your web server so that the web service components of Reporting Services are installed there.
It is also benificial to configure reporting services with it's own application domain in IIS so that you can tweak the configurations independant of say your other web applications.
When you run through setup using the Reporting Services Configuration Tool, set up the database on your non web server (i.e. dedicated db server). This way all your data processing is handled on one server and all your web processing/data rendering is handled on another.
Hope this is clear and of use but please feel free to pose further questions.
Cheers,John