Data driven subscriptions and scale-out?

Say I have a scheduled data-driven reports that will product pdf files (a lot). Will this benefit
from scale-out?

I.e., having one SQL Server with the reporting services databases and several
servers with the reporting services windows service and web services.

I have this feeling that when the Agent job starts, it will do this in a matter so that all the
reports for this job will be processes on only one RS server? Or perhaps I can partition this
myself, where I somehow have several jobs, each job connecting to a different server generating a
subset of the reports?

No replies so I tested it myself. After lots of hassle to get scale-out installed, but I finally got it working. And the answer is Yes.

I processed a data-driven subscription to generate bunch of pdf files and CPU went up on both RS machines. Also looking in the RS log files I can see that each RS machine processed different PDF files.

Data driven subscriptions and scale-out?

Say I have a scheduled data-driven reports that will product pdf files (a lot). Will this benefit
from scale-out?

I.e., having one SQL Server with the reporting services databases and several
servers with the reporting services windows service and web services.

I have this feeling that when the Agent job starts, it will do this in a matter so that all the
reports for this job will be processes on only one RS server? Or perhaps I can partition this
myself, where I somehow have several jobs, each job connecting to a different server generating a
subset of the reports?

No replies so I tested it myself. After lots of hassle to get scale-out installed, but I finally got it working. And the answer is Yes.

I processed a data-driven subscription to generate bunch of pdf files and CPU went up on both RS machines. Also looking in the RS log files I can see that each RS machine processed different PDF files.

Data and log sits on different disk drive.

Hi,
Can I create a database with the .mdf (data) and .ldf (log) on 2 different disk drive? Is there any benefit of doing it in term of performance? How about backup and recovery?
Thanks.
Hi,
That will be a very good approach to reduce the Disk I/o and increase the
performance. I recommend you to create multiple file groups
to keep the data and Index as well.
Backup and Recovery will of same sort as normal. If you have File groups you
will be able to backup and restore file group wise.
Have a look into this article (Read the Disk I/o Part).
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...us/dnsql7/html
/msdn_sql7perftune.asp
Thanks
Hari
MCDBA
"Alida" <Alida@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:773FA6D4-CA83-46EE-BB23-2ACC8851C84E@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> Can I create a database with the .mdf (data) and .ldf (log) on 2 different
disk drive? Is there any benefit of doing it in term of performance? How
about backup and recovery?
> Thanks.
>
|||In addition to Hari's response... IF you need up-to-the-minute recovery OR
better performance, you should always keep the log and data on separate
physical drives ( not just a different partition on the same drive.)
This separates serial IO ( log io) from random IO (Data rows) which allows
for better performance. The log should be mirrored...
Here are the data placement rules.:
1. Keep log away from data
2. Keep data away from master, model
3. Mirror the log
As Hari says, there is no difference in regard to how backup is done..
Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Mariner, Charlotte, NC
www.mariner-usa.com
(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
community of SQL Server professionals.
www.sqlpass.org
"Alida" <Alida@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:773FA6D4-CA83-46EE-BB23-2ACC8851C84E@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> Can I create a database with the .mdf (data) and .ldf (log) on 2 different
disk drive? Is there any benefit of doing it in term of performance? How
about backup and recovery?
> Thanks.
>

Data and log sits on different disk drive.

Hi,
Can I create a database with the .mdf (data) and .ldf (log) on 2 different disk drive? Is there any benefit of doing it in term of performance? How about backup and recovery?
Thanks.Hi,
That will be a very good approach to reduce the Disk I/o and increase the
performance. I recommend you to create multiple file groups
to keep the data and Index as well.
Backup and Recovery will of same sort as normal. If you have File groups you
will be able to backup and restore file group wise.
Have a look into this article (Read the Disk I/o Part).
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnsql7/html
/msdn_sql7perftune.asp
Thanks
Hari
MCDBA
"Alida" <Alida@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:773FA6D4-CA83-46EE-BB23-2ACC8851C84E@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> Can I create a database with the .mdf (data) and .ldf (log) on 2 different
disk drive? Is there any benefit of doing it in term of performance? How
about backup and recovery?
> Thanks.
>|||In addition to Hari's response... IF you need up-to-the-minute recovery OR
better performance, you should always keep the log and data on separate
physical drives ( not just a different partition on the same drive.)
This separates serial IO ( log io) from random IO (Data rows) which allows
for better performance. The log should be mirrored...
Here are the data placement rules.:
1. Keep log away from data
2. Keep data away from master, model
3. Mirror the log
As Hari says, there is no difference in regard to how backup is done..
--
Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Mariner, Charlotte, NC
www.mariner-usa.com
(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
community of SQL Server professionals.
www.sqlpass.org
"Alida" <Alida@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:773FA6D4-CA83-46EE-BB23-2ACC8851C84E@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> Can I create a database with the .mdf (data) and .ldf (log) on 2 different
disk drive? Is there any benefit of doing it in term of performance? How
about backup and recovery?
> Thanks.
>

Data and log sits on different disk drive.

Hi,
Can I create a database with the .mdf (data) and .ldf (log) on 2 different d
isk drive? Is there any benefit of doing it in term of performance? How abou
t backup and recovery?
Thanks.Hi,
That will be a very good approach to reduce the Disk I/o and increase the
performance. I recommend you to create multiple file groups
to keep the data and Index as well.
Backup and Recovery will of same sort as normal. If you have File groups you
will be able to backup and restore file group wise.
Have a look into this article (Read the Disk I/o Part).
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d...-us/dnsql7/html
/msdn_sql7perftune.asp
Thanks
Hari
MCDBA
"Alida" <Alida@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:773FA6D4-CA83-46EE-BB23-2ACC8851C84E@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> Can I create a database with the .mdf (data) and .ldf (log) on 2 different
disk drive? Is there any benefit of doing it in term of performance? How
about backup and recovery?
> Thanks.
>|||In addition to Hari's response... IF you need up-to-the-minute recovery OR
better performance, you should always keep the log and data on separate
physical drives ( not just a different partition on the same drive.)
This separates serial IO ( log io) from random IO (Data rows) which allows
for better performance. The log should be mirrored...
Here are the data placement rules.:
1. Keep log away from data
2. Keep data away from master, model
3. Mirror the log
As Hari says, there is no difference in regard to how backup is done..
Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Mariner, Charlotte, NC
www.mariner-usa.com
(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
community of SQL Server professionals.
www.sqlpass.org
"Alida" <Alida@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:773FA6D4-CA83-46EE-BB23-2ACC8851C84E@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> Can I create a database with the .mdf (data) and .ldf (log) on 2 different
disk drive? Is there any benefit of doing it in term of performance? How
about backup and recovery?
> Thanks.
>