Showing posts with label guys. Show all posts
Showing posts with label guys. Show all posts

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

New to MDX. Help Needed with a Calculation Definition in my SSAS 2005 Cube

I'm new to MDX and I don't quite get the hang of it yet, so I'll try to provide all of the relevant information that I can so that you guys can help me.

My company has a lot of "Rolling 12 Month" metrics and I've been able to incorporate all but a few in my SSAS 2005 cube. By "Rolling 12", we refer to the 12-month period that ends with the previous month. So all "Rolling 12" metrics reviewed in December 2005 refer to the period of December 2004 through November 2005.

So for "Rolling 12 Month Invoices", I have the following calculation defined in my cube and it seems to be correct:

SUM( LASTPERIODS ( 12, [Invoice Date].[Invoice Month]), [Measures].[Invoice $])

Now I'm having trouble defining the # of customers in the Rolling 12 month period. I added a DistinctCount measure for # of customers and have been able to use it in the definition of 2 other metrics.

For example, for the # of customers for 2004, I have it defined as:

([Measures].[# of Customers] , [Invoice Date].[Invoice Year].&[2004])

And it appears to fine.

I tried similar variation of the following with no luck:

SUM(SUM( LASTPERIODS ( 12, [Invoice Date].[Invoice Month]), [Measures].[# of Customers]))

Your help is greatly appreciated!

EDIT: I'm using SQL Server 2005 Standard Edition
EDIT: Please let me know what other details you may need about my cube.A Distinct Count measure isn't strictly additive, so try Aggregate() rather than
Sum() to compute it over a set (only works with AS 2005):

>>
Aggregate(LASTPERIODS ( 12, [Invoice Date].[Invoice Month]),
[Measures].[# of Customers])
>>
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms145524(en-US,SQL.90).aspx
>>

Aggregate (MDX)

Returns a scalar value calculated by aggregating either measures or an optionally specified numeric expression over the tuples of a specified set.
...

Distinct Count

An aggregation across the fact data contributing to the subcube when the slicer axis includes a set.

Calculations on the set generate an error. Calculations below granularity of the set are ignored.

...
>>

|||Thank you very much!!! Big Smile

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

New SQL Config - Hardware Proposal

Hi all,
I'm planning to install a new SQL 2005 Cluster ( Real MS Cluster ).
I wanted to know what you guys think about my config.
To roundup the charge the server will have :
- Over 6000 small databases ( with autoclose option = ON ) with a
total of 70 Gb of data
This number is so high because the main application is not
constructed well
In April of this year this number will fall to 1500 - 2000 databases
due to ( finally ) an update of this app
- +- 100 concurrent users ( via Citrix ) using this accounting
software including reporting
- Each user opens around 5 - 50 connections, sometimes I get more then
50 new connection/sec on the current system
The current system ( DL380 G3 2 * 2.8 Xeon ( 512K chache ) with 6Gb
memory ) is currently really underperforming.
2 local disks in RAID 0 as system disk and a Clariion CX3-10 ( all
fibre disks 10K ) with IPStore ( FalconStor ) in front for mirroring &
failover.
IO is no problem, Memory is fully used and CPU is avg 90 % ( with
Parallelism not active, otherwise avg 100 % and slow responses )
for the HP-minded I'm looking into following models :
- DL585 G2 with 4 procs AMD 2.8 ( dual core ) 8220SE ( too bad HP does
not have the quad-core's AMD yet )
- DL580 G5 with 4 procs Xeon 2.4Gh E7340 ( quad-core )
Is the xeon quad-core really that much faster giving a 40 % increase
in price
for the IBM-minded :
- x3850 M2 with 2 to 4 procs Xeon 2.4Gh E7330
Another question,why is there such a big price diff between HP & IBM
or should I not compare those 2 HP servers with this x3850 M2 system.
Anybody got an idea whether I should wait for the x3950 who did so
great on the TPC tests ?
Thanks in advance ...
Sven Peeters
Is your current system using AWE? You might get some CPU improvement by
going to 64bit. I would go with dual quad core 580 if I had a choice. It is
fast and leaves alot of room for growth.
Jason Massie
Web: http://statisticsio.com
RSS: http://feeds.feedburner.com/statisticsio
"Icemokka" <icemokka@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:646e815f-a91d-47f6-9b6f-fbd01e751dc1@.e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> Hi all,
> I'm planning to install a new SQL 2005 Cluster ( Real MS Cluster ).
> I wanted to know what you guys think about my config.
> To roundup the charge the server will have :
> - Over 6000 small databases ( with autoclose option = ON ) with a
> total of 70 Gb of data
> This number is so high because the main application is not
> constructed well
> In April of this year this number will fall to 1500 - 2000 databases
> due to ( finally ) an update of this app
> - +- 100 concurrent users ( via Citrix ) using this accounting
> software including reporting
> - Each user opens around 5 - 50 connections, sometimes I get more then
> 50 new connection/sec on the current system
> The current system ( DL380 G3 2 * 2.8 Xeon ( 512K chache ) with 6Gb
> memory ) is currently really underperforming.
> 2 local disks in RAID 0 as system disk and a Clariion CX3-10 ( all
> fibre disks 10K ) with IPStore ( FalconStor ) in front for mirroring &
> failover.
> IO is no problem, Memory is fully used and CPU is avg 90 % ( with
> Parallelism not active, otherwise avg 100 % and slow responses )
> for the HP-minded I'm looking into following models :
> - DL585 G2 with 4 procs AMD 2.8 ( dual core ) 8220SE ( too bad HP does
> not have the quad-core's AMD yet )
> - DL580 G5 with 4 procs Xeon 2.4Gh E7340 ( quad-core )
> Is the xeon quad-core really that much faster giving a 40 % increase
> in price
> for the IBM-minded :
> - x3850 M2 with 2 to 4 procs Xeon 2.4Gh E7330
> Another question,why is there such a big price diff between HP & IBM
> or should I not compare those 2 HP servers with this x3850 M2 system.
> Anybody got an idea whether I should wait for the x3950 who did so
> great on the TPC tests ?
>
> Thanks in advance ...
> Sven Peeters
|||DL580 with two quad-core sockets does deliver impressive compute power in my
own tests.
Linchi
"Jason Massie" wrote:

> Is your current system using AWE? You might get some CPU improvement by
> going to 64bit. I would go with dual quad core 580 if I had a choice. It is
> fast and leaves alot of room for growth.
> --
> Jason Massie
> Web: http://statisticsio.com
> RSS: http://feeds.feedburner.com/statisticsio
> "Icemokka" <icemokka@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:646e815f-a91d-47f6-9b6f-fbd01e751dc1@.e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
|||On Feb 12, 6:17Xam, Icemokka <icemo...@.gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
> I'm planning to install a new SQL 2005 Cluster ( Real MS Cluster ).
> I wanted to know what you guys think about my config.
> To roundup the charge the server will have :
> - Over 6000 small databases ( with autoclose option = ON ) with a
> total of 70 Gb of data
> X This number is so high because the main application is not
> constructed well
> X In April of this year this number will fall to 1500 - 2000 databases
> due to ( finally ) an update of this app
> - +- 100 concurrent users ( via Citrix ) using this accounting
> software including reporting
> - Each user opens around 5 - 50 connections, sometimes I get more then
> 50 new connection/sec on the current system
> The current system ( DL380 G3 2 * 2.8 Xeon ( 512K chache ) with 6Gb
> memory ) is currently really underperforming.
> 2 local disks in RAID 0 as system disk and a Clariion CX3-10 ( all
> fibre disks 10K ) with IPStore (FalconStor) in front for mirroring &
> failover.
> IO is no problem, Memory is fully used and CPU is avg 90 % ( with
> Parallelism not active, otherwise avg 100 % and slow responses )
> for the HP-minded I'm looking into following models :
> - DL585 G2 with 4 procs AMD 2.8 ( dual core ) 8220SE ( too bad HP does
> not have the quad-core's AMD yet )
> - DL580 G5 with 4 procs Xeon 2.4Gh E7340 ( quad-core )
> Is the xeon quad-core really that much faster giving a 40 % increase
> in price
> for the IBM-minded :
> - x3850 M2 with 2 to 4 procs Xeon 2.4Gh E7330
> Another question,why is there such a big price diff between HP & IBM
> or should I not compare those 2 HP servers with this x3850 M2 system.
> Anybody got an idea whether I should wait for the x3950 who did so
> great on the TPC tests ?
> Thanks in advance ...
> Sven Peeters
Hi Sven.
For starters, hopefully you meant the system disks are in a Raid 1
pair not Raid 0.
I would take an Xray of your IPStor server and submit to
support@.falconstor.com for analysis. They will let you know if
something looks like it has been configured incorrectly or if there is
a patch available for any known issues. There may be some specific
settings for optimizing the Clariion that have not been done.
Your mirroring may not be done in an optimal fashion. In order to
maintain consistency between disk arrays of unmatched performance you
would have a Safe Cache area. If this is set on the same disks as your
primary storage then you're just creating twice as many writes.
Also, if you have turned on TimeMarks/SnapShots the same goes for the
SnapShot Resource Area. Due to the Copy-on-First-Write pattern you
could be really pounding away at the same disks for all three writes
plus incurring hte overhead of the extra read for each write as it
goes through the CoFW process. Ideally TimeMarks/Snapshots should be
written to an IPStor server setup in CDP mode and leave your
provisioning server to just provisioning. In the "triplet"
configuration the CDP server would hold a complete copy of your data
and then create your TimeMarks/Snapshot from there instead of your
production disks.
Lastly, double check your PCI slots and your actual IO requirements.
If you're pumping everything through a single bus you may have hit a
bottle neck. Maybe you need more ports or at least dispersed ports so
that targets and initiators are on separate HBAs.
If you're going to go ahead with new servers and are going with the
DL585 then do make sure you populate all sockets. IPStor won't need
the processing power but due to the way the AMD chipset accesses
memory you won't get full memory optimization with empty sockets. The
DL385 may be sufficient with 2 x CPUs.
Hope this helps with some new things to try.
|||On Feb 16, 12:16Xam, SnowCan...@.gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 12, 6:17Xam, Icemokka <icemo...@.gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Sven.
> For starters, hopefully you meant the system disks are in a Raid 1
> pair not Raid 0.
> I would take an Xray of your IPStor server and submit to
> supp...@.falconstor.com for analysis. They will let you know if
> something looks like it has been configured incorrectly or if there is
> a patch available for any known issues. There may be some specific
> settings for optimizing the Clariion that have not been done.
> Your mirroring may not be done in an optimal fashion. In order to
> maintain consistency between disk arrays of unmatched performance you
> would have a Safe Cache area. If this is set on the same disks as your
> primary storage then you're just creating twice as many writes.
> Also, if you have turned on TimeMarks/SnapShots the same goes for the
> SnapShot Resource Area. Due to the Copy-on-First-Write pattern you
> could be really pounding away at the same disks for all three writes
> plus incurring hte overhead of the extra read for each write as it
> goes through the CoFW process. Ideally TimeMarks/Snapshots should be
> written to an IPStor server setup in CDP mode and leave your
> provisioning server to just provisioning. In the "triplet"
> configuration the CDP server would hold a complete copy of your data
> and then create your TimeMarks/Snapshot from there instead of your
> production disks.
> Lastly, double check your PCI slots and your actual IO requirements.
> If you're pumping everything through a single bus you may have hit a
> bottle neck. Maybe you need more ports or at least dispersed ports so
> that targets and initiators are on separate HBAs.
> If you're going to go ahead with new servers and are going with the
> DL585 then do make sure you populate all sockets. IPStor won't need
> the processing power but due to the way the AMD chipset accesses
> memory you won't get full memory optimization with empty sockets. XThe
> DL385 may be sufficient with 2 x CPUs.
> Hope this helps with some new things to try.- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
A further thought on this... you said you are running on a DL380 G3
which as I recall was a 32-bit platform which in turn means you are
running IPStor 4.x. Note: The final release of IPStor on 32-bit was
version 4.5 build 954 and then there have been patches and driver
updates not only to IPStor but to the OS as well. There is a
fundamental difference in how IPStor 4.x and IPStor 5.x (64-bit)
handles TimeMarks/Snapshots. In v4.x ALL TimeMarks and the resulting
CoFW blocks are held in memory until deleted. In v5.x only the LAST
TimeMark and current CoFW data is held in memory, the earlier ones are
flushed to disk. If you have EVER turned on the TimeMark feature, even
if you're not using it, then ALL writes are subject to examination and
as blacks were changed the original block is held in memory. You could
effectively be holding 100% of your disk in memory and still imposing
upto 30% performance hit watching changed blocks. If you have not
turned on TimeMarks then of course this is all irrelevant.
also, where is your mirror? You have only mentioned one IPStor server
and one Clariion. If you have virtualized the LUNs on the same
spindles you may have imposed a software Raid 1 on top of a hardware
raid 5 and then put both mirrors on the same spindles. It's only
natural that it would underperform.
BTW - that email address above should have read
support(a)falconstor.com - you may also want to check their online
knowledge base.
- Craig

New SQL Config - Hardware Proposal

Hi all,
I'm planning to install a new SQL 2005 Cluster ( Real MS Cluster ).
I wanted to know what you guys think about my config.
To roundup the charge the server will have :
- Over 6000 small databases ( with autoclose option = ON ) with a
total of 70 Gb of data
This number is so high because the main application is not
constructed well
In April of this year this number will fall to 1500 - 2000 databases
due to ( finally ) an update of this app
- +- 100 concurrent users ( via Citrix ) using this accounting
software including reporting
- Each user opens around 5 - 50 connections, sometimes I get more then
50 new connection/sec on the current system
The current system ( DL380 G3 2 * 2.8 Xeon ( 512K chache ) with 6Gb
memory ) is currently really underperforming.
2 local disks in RAID 0 as system disk and a Clariion CX3-10 ( all
fibre disks 10K ) with IPStore ( FalconStor ) in front for mirroring &
failover.
IO is no problem, Memory is fully used and CPU is avg 90 % ( with
Parallelism not active, otherwise avg 100 % and slow responses )
for the HP-minded I'm looking into following models :
- DL585 G2 with 4 procs AMD 2.8 ( dual core ) 8220SE ( too bad HP does
not have the quad-core's AMD yet )
- DL580 G5 with 4 procs Xeon 2.4Gh E7340 ( quad-core )
Is the xeon quad-core really that much faster giving a 40 % increase
in price
for the IBM-minded :
- x3850 M2 with 2 to 4 procs Xeon 2.4Gh E7330
Another question,why is there such a big price diff between HP & IBM
or should I not compare those 2 HP servers with this x3850 M2 system.
Anybody got an idea whether I should wait for the x3950 who did so
great on the TPC tests ?
Thanks in advance ...
Sven PeetersIs your current system using AWE? You might get some CPU improvement by
going to 64bit. I would go with dual quad core 580 if I had a choice. It is
fast and leaves alot of room for growth.
--
Jason Massie
Web: http://statisticsio.com
RSS: http://feeds.feedburner.com/statisticsio
"Icemokka" <icemokka@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:646e815f-a91d-47f6-9b6f-fbd01e751dc1@.e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> Hi all,
> I'm planning to install a new SQL 2005 Cluster ( Real MS Cluster ).
> I wanted to know what you guys think about my config.
> To roundup the charge the server will have :
> - Over 6000 small databases ( with autoclose option = ON ) with a
> total of 70 Gb of data
> This number is so high because the main application is not
> constructed well
> In April of this year this number will fall to 1500 - 2000 databases
> due to ( finally ) an update of this app
> - +- 100 concurrent users ( via Citrix ) using this accounting
> software including reporting
> - Each user opens around 5 - 50 connections, sometimes I get more then
> 50 new connection/sec on the current system
> The current system ( DL380 G3 2 * 2.8 Xeon ( 512K chache ) with 6Gb
> memory ) is currently really underperforming.
> 2 local disks in RAID 0 as system disk and a Clariion CX3-10 ( all
> fibre disks 10K ) with IPStore ( FalconStor ) in front for mirroring &
> failover.
> IO is no problem, Memory is fully used and CPU is avg 90 % ( with
> Parallelism not active, otherwise avg 100 % and slow responses )
> for the HP-minded I'm looking into following models :
> - DL585 G2 with 4 procs AMD 2.8 ( dual core ) 8220SE ( too bad HP does
> not have the quad-core's AMD yet )
> - DL580 G5 with 4 procs Xeon 2.4Gh E7340 ( quad-core )
> Is the xeon quad-core really that much faster giving a 40 % increase
> in price
> for the IBM-minded :
> - x3850 M2 with 2 to 4 procs Xeon 2.4Gh E7330
> Another question,why is there such a big price diff between HP & IBM
> or should I not compare those 2 HP servers with this x3850 M2 system.
> Anybody got an idea whether I should wait for the x3950 who did so
> great on the TPC tests ?
>
> Thanks in advance ...
> Sven Peeters|||DL580 with two quad-core sockets does deliver impressive compute power in my
own tests.
Linchi
"Jason Massie" wrote:
> Is your current system using AWE? You might get some CPU improvement by
> going to 64bit. I would go with dual quad core 580 if I had a choice. It is
> fast and leaves alot of room for growth.
> --
> Jason Massie
> Web: http://statisticsio.com
> RSS: http://feeds.feedburner.com/statisticsio
> "Icemokka" <icemokka@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:646e815f-a91d-47f6-9b6f-fbd01e751dc1@.e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I'm planning to install a new SQL 2005 Cluster ( Real MS Cluster ).
> > I wanted to know what you guys think about my config.
> >
> > To roundup the charge the server will have :
> > - Over 6000 small databases ( with autoclose option = ON ) with a
> > total of 70 Gb of data
> > This number is so high because the main application is not
> > constructed well
> > In April of this year this number will fall to 1500 - 2000 databases
> > due to ( finally ) an update of this app
> > - +- 100 concurrent users ( via Citrix ) using this accounting
> > software including reporting
> > - Each user opens around 5 - 50 connections, sometimes I get more then
> > 50 new connection/sec on the current system
> >
> > The current system ( DL380 G3 2 * 2.8 Xeon ( 512K chache ) with 6Gb
> > memory ) is currently really underperforming.
> > 2 local disks in RAID 0 as system disk and a Clariion CX3-10 ( all
> > fibre disks 10K ) with IPStore ( FalconStor ) in front for mirroring &
> > failover.
> > IO is no problem, Memory is fully used and CPU is avg 90 % ( with
> > Parallelism not active, otherwise avg 100 % and slow responses )
> >
> > for the HP-minded I'm looking into following models :
> > - DL585 G2 with 4 procs AMD 2.8 ( dual core ) 8220SE ( too bad HP does
> > not have the quad-core's AMD yet )
> > - DL580 G5 with 4 procs Xeon 2.4Gh E7340 ( quad-core )
> > Is the xeon quad-core really that much faster giving a 40 % increase
> > in price
> >
> > for the IBM-minded :
> > - x3850 M2 with 2 to 4 procs Xeon 2.4Gh E7330
> >
> > Another question,why is there such a big price diff between HP & IBM
> > or should I not compare those 2 HP servers with this x3850 M2 system.
> > Anybody got an idea whether I should wait for the x3950 who did so
> > great on the TPC tests ?
> >
> >
> > Thanks in advance ...
> > Sven Peeters
>
>|||On Feb 12, 6:17=A0am, Icemokka <icemo...@.gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
> I'm planning to install a new SQL 2005 Cluster ( Real MS Cluster ).
> I wanted to know what you guys think about my config.
> To roundup the charge the server will have :
> - Over 6000 small databases ( with autoclose option =3D ON ) with a
> total of 70 Gb of data
> =A0 This number is so high because the main application is not
> constructed well
> =A0 In April of this year this number will fall to 1500 - 2000 databases
> due to ( finally ) an update of this app
> - +- 100 concurrent users ( via Citrix ) using this accounting
> software including reporting
> - Each user opens around 5 - 50 connections, sometimes I get more then
> 50 new connection/sec on the current system
> The current system ( DL380 G3 2 * 2.8 Xeon ( 512K chache ) with 6Gb
> memory ) is currently really underperforming.
> 2 local disks in RAID 0 as system disk and a Clariion CX3-10 ( all
> fibre disks 10K ) with IPStore (FalconStor) in front for mirroring &
> failover.
> IO is no problem, Memory is fully used and CPU is avg 90 % ( with
> Parallelism not active, otherwise avg 100 % and slow responses )
> for the HP-minded I'm looking into following models :
> - DL585 G2 with 4 procs AMD 2.8 ( dual core ) 8220SE ( too bad HP does
> not have the quad-core's AMD yet )
> - DL580 G5 with 4 procs Xeon 2.4Gh E7340 ( quad-core )
> Is the xeon quad-core really that much faster giving a 40 % increase
> in price
> for the IBM-minded :
> - x3850 M2 with 2 to 4 procs Xeon 2.4Gh E7330
> Another question,why is there such a big price diff between HP & IBM
> or should I not compare those 2 HP servers with this x3850 M2 system.
> Anybody got an idea whether I should wait for the x3950 who did so
> great on the TPC tests ?
> Thanks in advance ...
> Sven Peeters
Hi Sven.
For starters, hopefully you meant the system disks are in a Raid 1
pair not Raid 0.
I would take an Xray of your IPStor server and submit to
support@.falconstor.com for analysis. They will let you know if
something looks like it has been configured incorrectly or if there is
a patch available for any known issues. There may be some specific
settings for optimizing the Clariion that have not been done.
Your mirroring may not be done in an optimal fashion. In order to
maintain consistency between disk arrays of unmatched performance you
would have a Safe Cache area. If this is set on the same disks as your
primary storage then you're just creating twice as many writes.
Also, if you have turned on TimeMarks/SnapShots the same goes for the
SnapShot Resource Area. Due to the Copy-on-First-Write pattern you
could be really pounding away at the same disks for all three writes
plus incurring hte overhead of the extra read for each write as it
goes through the CoFW process. Ideally TimeMarks/Snapshots should be
written to an IPStor server setup in CDP mode and leave your
provisioning server to just provisioning. In the "triplet"
configuration the CDP server would hold a complete copy of your data
and then create your TimeMarks/Snapshot from there instead of your
production disks.
Lastly, double check your PCI slots and your actual IO requirements.
If you're pumping everything through a single bus you may have hit a
bottle neck. Maybe you need more ports or at least dispersed ports so
that targets and initiators are on separate HBAs.
If you're going to go ahead with new servers and are going with the
DL585 then do make sure you populate all sockets. IPStor won't need
the processing power but due to the way the AMD chipset accesses
memory you won't get full memory optimization with empty sockets. The
DL385 may be sufficient with 2 x CPUs.
Hope this helps with some new things to try.|||On Feb 16, 12:16=A0am, SnowCan...@.gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 12, 6:17=A0am, Icemokka <icemo...@.gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > Hi all,
> > I'm planning to install a new SQL 2005 Cluster ( Real MS Cluster ).
> > I wanted to know what you guys think about my config.
> > To roundup the charge the server will have :
> > - Over 6000 small databases ( with autoclose option =3D ON ) with a
> > total of 70 Gb of data
> > =A0 This number is so high because the main application is not
> > constructed well
> > =A0 In April of this year this number will fall to 1500 - 2000 databases=
> > due to ( finally ) an update of this app
> > - +- 100 concurrent users ( via Citrix ) using this accounting
> > software including reporting
> > - Each user opens around 5 - 50 connections, sometimes I get more then
> > 50 new connection/sec on the current system
> > The current system ( DL380 G3 2 * 2.8 Xeon ( 512K chache ) with 6Gb
> > memory ) is currently really underperforming.
> > 2 local disks in RAID 0 as system disk and a Clariion CX3-10 ( all
> > fibre disks 10K ) with IPStore (FalconStor) in front for mirroring &
> > failover.
> > IO is no problem, Memory is fully used and CPU is avg 90 % ( with
> > Parallelism not active, otherwise avg 100 % and slow responses )
> > for the HP-minded I'm looking into following models :
> > - DL585 G2 with 4 procs AMD 2.8 ( dual core ) 8220SE ( too bad HP does
> > not have the quad-core's AMD yet )
> > - DL580 G5 with 4 procs Xeon 2.4Gh E7340 ( quad-core )
> > Is the xeon quad-core really that much faster giving a 40 % increase
> > in price
> > for the IBM-minded :
> > - x3850 M2 with 2 to 4 procs Xeon 2.4Gh E7330
> > Another question,why is there such a big price diff between HP & IBM
> > or should I not compare those 2 HP servers with this x3850 M2 system.
> > Anybody got an idea whether I should wait for the x3950 who did so
> > great on the TPC tests ?
> > Thanks in advance ...
> > Sven Peeters
> Hi Sven.
> For starters, hopefully you meant the system disks are in a Raid 1
> pair not Raid 0.
> I would take an Xray of your IPStor server and submit to
> supp...@.falconstor.com for analysis. They will let you know if
> something looks like it has been configured incorrectly or if there is
> a patch available for any known issues. There may be some specific
> settings for optimizing the Clariion that have not been done.
> Your mirroring may not be done in an optimal fashion. In order to
> maintain consistency between disk arrays of unmatched performance you
> would have a Safe Cache area. If this is set on the same disks as your
> primary storage then you're just creating twice as many writes.
> Also, if you have turned on TimeMarks/SnapShots the same goes for the
> SnapShot Resource Area. Due to the Copy-on-First-Write pattern you
> could be really pounding away at the same disks for all three writes
> plus incurring hte overhead of the extra read for each write as it
> goes through the CoFW process. Ideally TimeMarks/Snapshots should be
> written to an IPStor server setup in CDP mode and leave your
> provisioning server to just provisioning. In the "triplet"
> configuration the CDP server would hold a complete copy of your data
> and then create your TimeMarks/Snapshot from there instead of your
> production disks.
> Lastly, double check your PCI slots and your actual IO requirements.
> If you're pumping everything through a single bus you may have hit a
> bottle neck. Maybe you need more ports or at least dispersed ports so
> that targets and initiators are on separate HBAs.
> If you're going to go ahead with new servers and are going with the
> DL585 then do make sure you populate all sockets. IPStor won't need
> the processing power but due to the way the AMD chipset accesses
> memory you won't get full memory optimization with empty sockets. =A0The
> DL385 may be sufficient with 2 x CPUs.
> Hope this helps with some new things to try.- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
A further thought on this... you said you are running on a DL380 G3
which as I recall was a 32-bit platform which in turn means you are
running IPStor 4.x. Note: The final release of IPStor on 32-bit was
version 4.5 build 954 and then there have been patches and driver
updates not only to IPStor but to the OS as well. There is a
fundamental difference in how IPStor 4.x and IPStor 5.x (64-bit)
handles TimeMarks/Snapshots. In v4.x ALL TimeMarks and the resulting
CoFW blocks are held in memory until deleted. In v5.x only the LAST
TimeMark and current CoFW data is held in memory, the earlier ones are
flushed to disk. If you have EVER turned on the TimeMark feature, even
if you're not using it, then ALL writes are subject to examination and
as blacks were changed the original block is held in memory. You could
effectively be holding 100% of your disk in memory and still imposing
upto 30% performance hit watching changed blocks. If you have not
turned on TimeMarks then of course this is all irrelevant.
also, where is your mirror? You have only mentioned one IPStor server
and one Clariion. If you have virtualized the LUNs on the same
spindles you may have imposed a software Raid 1 on top of a hardware
raid 5 and then put both mirrors on the same spindles. It's only
natural that it would underperform.
BTW - that email address above should have read
support(a)falconstor.com - you may also want to check their online
knowledge base.
- Craigsql

Monday, February 20, 2012

New Database System Overview

Hi guys,
I am currently finishing off my high level structure for the new
business intelligence database system for my company and without going
into too much detail I would like to get your comments on it. Maybe
there is something you have tried that did/didn't work. Any comments
at all would be appreciated.
I have a pretty standard system plan in place. We have about 10 OLTP
systems/databases currently and all vary in the amount of traffic from
low (5 transactions a minute) to heavy (5-30 rows a second). We have
thousands of financial terminals all over the world and these
terminals feed our OLTP servers in near real time. Our customer
service team must have near real time access to this data so this is
where I want to make use of an ODS. My thought is to develop a
messaging system from all of the OLTP systems and stage this data to
this ODS. This will be where the tech support/ops/customer care teams
can have instant access to the data and be able to support the
customers with a real time view to the session events. Much of our
daily reporting and information gathering is done by the
afforementioned teams. Customer payments, machine health, peripheral
activity and software events are all gathered and sent back. I am
designnig the ODS so our employees can make quick decisions based on
the incoming events. Separate from the ODS, I am also going to
implement a data warehouse. This area will contain more long term
trending of transactions and other data used for executive decisions.
I have already designed and successfully built data warehouses before
so I am very confident in this area. The area that I do have a few
questions is the bridge between the ODS and the data warehouse. I have
read many articles dealing with real time data warehousing and ODS ETL
and many people have different opinions on what they think is the way
to go. My initial thought is to stage OLTP data to the ODS in near
real time. From there I will stage the data into the data warehouse
every night as we have the hardware to do it this frequently. So my
question is:
Should I run two systems (ODS/DW) side by side for long periods of
time and use the systems as separate entities for different groups of
people or should I use the ODS for say just the current day and the
run any earlier reporting off the data warehouse?
I know having redundant data costs money and greater effort to manage
but we have the resources to back this if need be. Our OPS team needs
data in real time, our financial team needs it daily and the executive
team needs it monthly so the ODS would serve the OPS team pretty much
exclusively.
Does anyone have any general comments to describe their experiences in
designing and building similiar systems? Our data flow is not overly
large right now but it is growing exponentially every month and I want
to be ready for it years down the road. Thanks for reading my long
winded article and I would love to hear all of your thoughts. It is
late on a Sunday night and I am very tired so I apologize if my
article is not gramatically ready for tomorrow's Wall Street
Journal . Thanks in advance.
CoreyHi Corey,
this is an interesting scenario.
I can only do some general consideration.
It would be important to know if you are going to use Analysis
Services or not. One of the new features of Analysis Services is the
ability to directly push data into dimensions and measure group
partitions. This means that you could implement an almost continuous
update of the cube with data that are pushed into analysis services
directly from a queue that is fed by the middle tier. This can be
useful when you cannot afford a query on OLTP during daily operations.
Anyway, there are a wide range of opportunities here, ranging from
these extremely optimized one to the classical relational data
warehouse with intra-day operations that is updated frequently and
consolidated into a larger data warehouse nightly.
I you want to design a "classical" relational data warehouse, the best
practice is to design a simpler star schema, with fewer dimensions
than the big one, just to make sure that you are able to insert data
into fact table in a fast way. It is important to use some decoupling
technique between the OLTP transaction and the ODS update: Message
Queue, Service Broker or something like this.
I would not consider using a single data warehouse with even the intra-
day updates, unless both data warehouse and daily values can share the
same dimensions, both in number and in contents. In that case, I would
create a partition (or a separate fact table) with only the intra-day
operation, and then each night I would consolidate data making all
necessary cleansing operations.
Good work!
Marco Russo
http://www.sqlbi.eu
http://www.sqljunkies.com/weblog/sqlbi
On Jan 29, 9:10 am, kild...@.yahoo.ca wrote:
> Hi guys,
> I am currently finishing off my high level structure for the new
> business intelligence database system for my company and without going
> into too much detail I would like to get your comments on it. Maybe
> there is something you have tried that did/didn't work. Any comments
> at all would be appreciated.
> I have a pretty standard system plan in place. We have about 10 OLTP
> systems/databases currently and all vary in the amount of traffic from
> low (5 transactions a minute) to heavy (5-30 rows a second). We have
> thousands of financial terminals all over the world and these
> terminals feed our OLTP servers in near real time. Our customer
> service team must have near real time access to this data so this is
> where I want to make use of an ODS. My thought is to develop a
> messaging system from all of the OLTP systems and stage this data to
> this ODS. This will be where the tech support/ops/customer care teams
> can have instant access to the data and be able to support the
> customers with a real time view to the session events. Much of our
> daily reporting and information gathering is done by the
> afforementioned teams. Customer payments, machine health, peripheral
> activity and software events are all gathered and sent back. I am
> designnig the ODS so our employees can make quick decisions based on
> the incoming events. Separate from the ODS, I am also going to
> implement a data warehouse. This area will contain more long term
> trending of transactions and other data used for executive decisions.
> I have already designed and successfully built data warehouses before
> so I am very confident in this area. The area that I do have a few
> questions is the bridge between the ODS and the data warehouse. I have
> read many articles dealing with real time data warehousing and ODS ETL
> and many people have different opinions on what they think is the way
> to go. My initial thought is to stage OLTP data to the ODS in near
> real time. From there I will stage the data into the data warehouse
> every night as we have the hardware to do it this frequently. So my
> question is:
> Should I run two systems (ODS/DW) side by side for long periods of
> time and use the systems as separate entities for different groups of
> people or should I use the ODS for say just the current day and the
> run any earlier reporting off the data warehouse?
> I know having redundant data costs money and greater effort to manage
> but we have the resources to back this if need be. Our OPS team needs
> data in real time, our financial team needs it daily and the executive
> team needs it monthly so the ODS would serve the OPS team pretty much
> exclusively.
> Does anyone have any general comments to describe their experiences in
> designing and building similiar systems? Our data flow is not overly
> large right now but it is growing exponentially every month and I want
> to be ready for it years down the road. Thanks for reading my long
> winded article and I would love to hear all of your thoughts. It is
> late on a Sunday night and I am very tired so I apologize if my
> article is not gramatically ready for tomorrow's Wall Street
> Journal . Thanks in advance.
> Corey|||Thanks for the reply Marco. I think we are along the same lines here.
I guess my biggest concern is the difference in the requirements of
our operations department and the rest of the company. The biggest
challenge will be to "combine" their needs within the ODS with the
warehouse. Also, transactions can be voided days later and since the
datawarehouse is a non volitile area I am going have to figure out how
to make changes to the fact tables or wait a few days before the
warehouse gets staged. So, in your opinion,would you run the ODS side
by side with the warehouse to serve the functional needs of the
different corporate departments or should I try my best to get all of
the info into the warehouse and use the ODS for only 1 day or so worth
of data. I am just concerned that the two systems will not mesh well
enough to support everyone involved. Thanks for your input. It is very
much appreciated.
BTW... we haven't made up our minds on Analysis server yet but I am
going to definitely do some research on its feasibility here.
Corey|||Corey,
Your approach sounds reasonable. If I remember correctly, Kimball addresses
the ODS in his book: The Data Warehouse Lifecycle Toolkit.
-- Bill
<kildenc@.yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:1170058228.206470.269570@.s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
> Hi guys,
> I am currently finishing off my high level structure for the new
> business intelligence database system for my company and without going
> into too much detail I would like to get your comments on it. Maybe
> there is something you have tried that did/didn't work. Any comments
> at all would be appreciated.
> I have a pretty standard system plan in place. We have about 10 OLTP
> systems/databases currently and all vary in the amount of traffic from
> low (5 transactions a minute) to heavy (5-30 rows a second). We have
> thousands of financial terminals all over the world and these
> terminals feed our OLTP servers in near real time. Our customer
> service team must have near real time access to this data so this is
> where I want to make use of an ODS. My thought is to develop a
> messaging system from all of the OLTP systems and stage this data to
> this ODS. This will be where the tech support/ops/customer care teams
> can have instant access to the data and be able to support the
> customers with a real time view to the session events. Much of our
> daily reporting and information gathering is done by the
> afforementioned teams. Customer payments, machine health, peripheral
> activity and software events are all gathered and sent back. I am
> designnig the ODS so our employees can make quick decisions based on
> the incoming events. Separate from the ODS, I am also going to
> implement a data warehouse. This area will contain more long term
> trending of transactions and other data used for executive decisions.
> I have already designed and successfully built data warehouses before
> so I am very confident in this area. The area that I do have a few
> questions is the bridge between the ODS and the data warehouse. I have
> read many articles dealing with real time data warehousing and ODS ETL
> and many people have different opinions on what they think is the way
> to go. My initial thought is to stage OLTP data to the ODS in near
> real time. From there I will stage the data into the data warehouse
> every night as we have the hardware to do it this frequently. So my
> question is:
> Should I run two systems (ODS/DW) side by side for long periods of
> time and use the systems as separate entities for different groups of
> people or should I use the ODS for say just the current day and the
> run any earlier reporting off the data warehouse?
> I know having redundant data costs money and greater effort to manage
> but we have the resources to back this if need be. Our OPS team needs
> data in real time, our financial team needs it daily and the executive
> team needs it monthly so the ODS would serve the OPS team pretty much
> exclusively.
> Does anyone have any general comments to describe their experiences in
> designing and building similiar systems? Our data flow is not overly
> large right now but it is growing exponentially every month and I want
> to be ready for it years down the road. Thanks for reading my long
> winded article and I would love to hear all of your thoughts. It is
> late on a Sunday night and I am very tired so I apologize if my
> article is not gramatically ready for tomorrow's Wall Street
> Journal . Thanks in advance.
> Corey
>|||Corey,
On further thought, I would address each one as an independent requirement.
If you constrain the ODS based upon the requirements of the DW, then the ODS
may not be as agile as it could be. More than likely, the requirements of
the ODS will be far more dynamic than that of the DW. Just a few thoughts.
-- Bill
<kildenc@.yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:1170179507.956288.267830@.q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Thanks for the reply Marco. I think we are along the same lines here.
> I guess my biggest concern is the difference in the requirements of
> our operations department and the rest of the company. The biggest
> challenge will be to "combine" their needs within the ODS with the
> warehouse. Also, transactions can be voided days later and since the
> datawarehouse is a non volitile area I am going have to figure out how
> to make changes to the fact tables or wait a few days before the
> warehouse gets staged. So, in your opinion,would you run the ODS side
> by side with the warehouse to serve the functional needs of the
> different corporate departments or should I try my best to get all of
> the info into the warehouse and use the ODS for only 1 day or so worth
> of data. I am just concerned that the two systems will not mesh well
> enough to support everyone involved. Thanks for your input. It is very
> much appreciated.
> BTW... we haven't made up our minds on Analysis server yet but I am
> going to definitely do some research on its feasibility here.
> Corey
>|||I agree with AlterEgo: if requirements are going to change, the
maintenance of your Data Warehouse could become a nightmare.
That said, if one of your requirements is the real-time update of
information compared with historical data, you should maintain some
relationship between the two worlds.
Talking about void transaction, you can incrementally handle them by
inserting opposite transactions in the Data Warehouse. Not so easy,
but possible.
Marco Russo
http://www.sqlbi.eu
http://www.sqljunkies.com/weblog/sqlbi
On Jan 31, 12:10 am, "AlterEgo" <altereg...@.dslextreme.com> wrote:
> Corey,
> On further thought, I would address each one as an independent requirement
.
> If you constrain the ODS based upon the requirements of the DW, then the O
DS
> may not be as agile as it could be. More than likely, the requirements of
> the ODS will be far more dynamic than that of the DW. Just a few thoughts.
> -- Bill
> <kild...@.yahoo.ca> wrote in message
> news:1170179507.956288.267830@.q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -|||Thanks guys,
As the project proceeds more of these questions will be answered. I
have read some very interesting articles from Kimball dealing with the
ODS. I can understand why he would want to bring the ODS under the
roof of the data warehouse and it is a definite possibility but as you
guys mentioned that it may become a very tedious task to keep the
requirements of both systems the same so they mesh well together. I
just see the operations requirements being too granular. For instance,
a simple question from our operations team would be, "What are the
transactions details for the last payment for the customer with the
phone number 5555555?". Then show me all of the session details for
this transaction. I just don't see this data fitting well into the
datawarehouse. Thanks for the input Bill and Marco. It is very much
appreciated.
Corey

New Database System Overview

Hi guys,
I am currently finishing off my high level structure for the new
business intelligence database system for my company and without going
into too much detail I would like to get your comments on it. Maybe
there is something you have tried that did/didn't work. Any comments
at all would be appreciated.
I have a pretty standard system plan in place. We have about 10 OLTP
systems/databases currently and all vary in the amount of traffic from
low (5 transactions a minute) to heavy (5-30 rows a second). We have
thousands of financial terminals all over the world and these
terminals feed our OLTP servers in near real time. Our customer
service team must have near real time access to this data so this is
where I want to make use of an ODS. My thought is to develop a
messaging system from all of the OLTP systems and stage this data to
this ODS. This will be where the tech support/ops/customer care teams
can have instant access to the data and be able to support the
customers with a real time view to the session events. Much of our
daily reporting and information gathering is done by the
afforementioned teams. Customer payments, machine health, peripheral
activity and software events are all gathered and sent back. I am
designnig the ODS so our employees can make quick decisions based on
the incoming events. Separate from the ODS, I am also going to
implement a data warehouse. This area will contain more long term
trending of transactions and other data used for executive decisions.
I have already designed and successfully built data warehouses before
so I am very confident in this area. The area that I do have a few
questions is the bridge between the ODS and the data warehouse. I have
read many articles dealing with real time data warehousing and ODS ETL
and many people have different opinions on what they think is the way
to go. My initial thought is to stage OLTP data to the ODS in near
real time. From there I will stage the data into the data warehouse
every night as we have the hardware to do it this frequently. So my
question is:
Should I run two systems (ODS/DW) side by side for long periods of
time and use the systems as separate entities for different groups of
people or should I use the ODS for say just the current day and the
run any earlier reporting off the data warehouse?
I know having redundant data costs money and greater effort to manage
but we have the resources to back this if need be. Our OPS team needs
data in real time, our financial team needs it daily and the executive
team needs it monthly so the ODS would serve the OPS team pretty much
exclusively.
Does anyone have any general comments to describe their experiences in
designing and building similiar systems? Our data flow is not overly
large right now but it is growing exponentially every month and I want
to be ready for it years down the road. Thanks for reading my long
winded article and I would love to hear all of your thoughts. It is
late on a Sunday night and I am very tired so I apologize if my
article is not gramatically ready for tomorrow's Wall Street
Journal . Thanks in advance.
Corey
Hi Corey,
this is an interesting scenario.
I can only do some general consideration.
It would be important to know if you are going to use Analysis
Services or not. One of the new features of Analysis Services is the
ability to directly push data into dimensions and measure group
partitions. This means that you could implement an almost continuous
update of the cube with data that are pushed into analysis services
directly from a queue that is fed by the middle tier. This can be
useful when you cannot afford a query on OLTP during daily operations.
Anyway, there are a wide range of opportunities here, ranging from
these extremely optimized one to the classical relational data
warehouse with intra-day operations that is updated frequently and
consolidated into a larger data warehouse nightly.
I you want to design a "classical" relational data warehouse, the best
practice is to design a simpler star schema, with fewer dimensions
than the big one, just to make sure that you are able to insert data
into fact table in a fast way. It is important to use some decoupling
technique between the OLTP transaction and the ODS update: Message
Queue, Service Broker or something like this.
I would not consider using a single data warehouse with even the intra-
day updates, unless both data warehouse and daily values can share the
same dimensions, both in number and in contents. In that case, I would
create a partition (or a separate fact table) with only the intra-day
operation, and then each night I would consolidate data making all
necessary cleansing operations.
Good work!
Marco Russo
http://www.sqlbi.eu
http://www.sqljunkies.com/weblog/sqlbi
On Jan 29, 9:10 am, kild...@.yahoo.ca wrote:
> Hi guys,
> I am currently finishing off my high level structure for the new
> business intelligence database system for my company and without going
> into too much detail I would like to get your comments on it. Maybe
> there is something you have tried that did/didn't work. Any comments
> at all would be appreciated.
> I have a pretty standard system plan in place. We have about 10 OLTP
> systems/databases currently and all vary in the amount of traffic from
> low (5 transactions a minute) to heavy (5-30 rows a second). We have
> thousands of financial terminals all over the world and these
> terminals feed our OLTP servers in near real time. Our customer
> service team must have near real time access to this data so this is
> where I want to make use of an ODS. My thought is to develop a
> messaging system from all of the OLTP systems and stage this data to
> this ODS. This will be where the tech support/ops/customer care teams
> can have instant access to the data and be able to support the
> customers with a real time view to the session events. Much of our
> daily reporting and information gathering is done by the
> afforementioned teams. Customer payments, machine health, peripheral
> activity and software events are all gathered and sent back. I am
> designnig the ODS so our employees can make quick decisions based on
> the incoming events. Separate from the ODS, I am also going to
> implement a data warehouse. This area will contain more long term
> trending of transactions and other data used for executive decisions.
> I have already designed and successfully built data warehouses before
> so I am very confident in this area. The area that I do have a few
> questions is the bridge between the ODS and the data warehouse. I have
> read many articles dealing with real time data warehousing and ODS ETL
> and many people have different opinions on what they think is the way
> to go. My initial thought is to stage OLTP data to the ODS in near
> real time. From there I will stage the data into the data warehouse
> every night as we have the hardware to do it this frequently. So my
> question is:
> Should I run two systems (ODS/DW) side by side for long periods of
> time and use the systems as separate entities for different groups of
> people or should I use the ODS for say just the current day and the
> run any earlier reporting off the data warehouse?
> I know having redundant data costs money and greater effort to manage
> but we have the resources to back this if need be. Our OPS team needs
> data in real time, our financial team needs it daily and the executive
> team needs it monthly so the ODS would serve the OPS team pretty much
> exclusively.
> Does anyone have any general comments to describe their experiences in
> designing and building similiar systems? Our data flow is not overly
> large right now but it is growing exponentially every month and I want
> to be ready for it years down the road. Thanks for reading my long
> winded article and I would love to hear all of your thoughts. It is
> late on a Sunday night and I am very tired so I apologize if my
> article is not gramatically ready for tomorrow's Wall Street
> Journal . Thanks in advance.
> Corey
|||Thanks for the reply Marco. I think we are along the same lines here.
I guess my biggest concern is the difference in the requirements of
our operations department and the rest of the company. The biggest
challenge will be to "combine" their needs within the ODS with the
warehouse. Also, transactions can be voided days later and since the
datawarehouse is a non volitile area I am going have to figure out how
to make changes to the fact tables or wait a few days before the
warehouse gets staged. So, in your opinion,would you run the ODS side
by side with the warehouse to serve the functional needs of the
different corporate departments or should I try my best to get all of
the info into the warehouse and use the ODS for only 1 day or so worth
of data. I am just concerned that the two systems will not mesh well
enough to support everyone involved. Thanks for your input. It is very
much appreciated.
BTW... we haven't made up our minds on Analysis server yet but I am
going to definitely do some research on its feasibility here.
Corey
|||Corey,
Your approach sounds reasonable. If I remember correctly, Kimball addresses
the ODS in his book: The Data Warehouse Lifecycle Toolkit.
-- Bill
<kildenc@.yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:1170058228.206470.269570@.s48g2000cws.googlegr oups.com...
> Hi guys,
> I am currently finishing off my high level structure for the new
> business intelligence database system for my company and without going
> into too much detail I would like to get your comments on it. Maybe
> there is something you have tried that did/didn't work. Any comments
> at all would be appreciated.
> I have a pretty standard system plan in place. We have about 10 OLTP
> systems/databases currently and all vary in the amount of traffic from
> low (5 transactions a minute) to heavy (5-30 rows a second). We have
> thousands of financial terminals all over the world and these
> terminals feed our OLTP servers in near real time. Our customer
> service team must have near real time access to this data so this is
> where I want to make use of an ODS. My thought is to develop a
> messaging system from all of the OLTP systems and stage this data to
> this ODS. This will be where the tech support/ops/customer care teams
> can have instant access to the data and be able to support the
> customers with a real time view to the session events. Much of our
> daily reporting and information gathering is done by the
> afforementioned teams. Customer payments, machine health, peripheral
> activity and software events are all gathered and sent back. I am
> designnig the ODS so our employees can make quick decisions based on
> the incoming events. Separate from the ODS, I am also going to
> implement a data warehouse. This area will contain more long term
> trending of transactions and other data used for executive decisions.
> I have already designed and successfully built data warehouses before
> so I am very confident in this area. The area that I do have a few
> questions is the bridge between the ODS and the data warehouse. I have
> read many articles dealing with real time data warehousing and ODS ETL
> and many people have different opinions on what they think is the way
> to go. My initial thought is to stage OLTP data to the ODS in near
> real time. From there I will stage the data into the data warehouse
> every night as we have the hardware to do it this frequently. So my
> question is:
> Should I run two systems (ODS/DW) side by side for long periods of
> time and use the systems as separate entities for different groups of
> people or should I use the ODS for say just the current day and the
> run any earlier reporting off the data warehouse?
> I know having redundant data costs money and greater effort to manage
> but we have the resources to back this if need be. Our OPS team needs
> data in real time, our financial team needs it daily and the executive
> team needs it monthly so the ODS would serve the OPS team pretty much
> exclusively.
> Does anyone have any general comments to describe their experiences in
> designing and building similiar systems? Our data flow is not overly
> large right now but it is growing exponentially every month and I want
> to be ready for it years down the road. Thanks for reading my long
> winded article and I would love to hear all of your thoughts. It is
> late on a Sunday night and I am very tired so I apologize if my
> article is not gramatically ready for tomorrow's Wall Street
> Journal . Thanks in advance.
> Corey
>
|||Corey,
On further thought, I would address each one as an independent requirement.
If you constrain the ODS based upon the requirements of the DW, then the ODS
may not be as agile as it could be. More than likely, the requirements of
the ODS will be far more dynamic than that of the DW. Just a few thoughts.
-- Bill
<kildenc@.yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:1170179507.956288.267830@.q2g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
> Thanks for the reply Marco. I think we are along the same lines here.
> I guess my biggest concern is the difference in the requirements of
> our operations department and the rest of the company. The biggest
> challenge will be to "combine" their needs within the ODS with the
> warehouse. Also, transactions can be voided days later and since the
> datawarehouse is a non volitile area I am going have to figure out how
> to make changes to the fact tables or wait a few days before the
> warehouse gets staged. So, in your opinion,would you run the ODS side
> by side with the warehouse to serve the functional needs of the
> different corporate departments or should I try my best to get all of
> the info into the warehouse and use the ODS for only 1 day or so worth
> of data. I am just concerned that the two systems will not mesh well
> enough to support everyone involved. Thanks for your input. It is very
> much appreciated.
> BTW... we haven't made up our minds on Analysis server yet but I am
> going to definitely do some research on its feasibility here.
> Corey
>
|||I agree with AlterEgo: if requirements are going to change, the
maintenance of your Data Warehouse could become a nightmare.
That said, if one of your requirements is the real-time update of
information compared with historical data, you should maintain some
relationship between the two worlds.
Talking about void transaction, you can incrementally handle them by
inserting opposite transactions in the Data Warehouse. Not so easy,
but possible.
Marco Russo
http://www.sqlbi.eu
http://www.sqljunkies.com/weblog/sqlbi
On Jan 31, 12:10 am, "AlterEgo" <altereg...@.dslextreme.com> wrote:
> Corey,
> On further thought, I would address each one as an independent requirement.
> If you constrain the ODS based upon the requirements of the DW, then the ODS
> may not be as agile as it could be. More than likely, the requirements of
> the ODS will be far more dynamic than that of the DW. Just a few thoughts.
> -- Bill
> <kild...@.yahoo.ca> wrote in message
> news:1170179507.956288.267830@.q2g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
|||Thanks guys,
As the project proceeds more of these questions will be answered. I
have read some very interesting articles from Kimball dealing with the
ODS. I can understand why he would want to bring the ODS under the
roof of the data warehouse and it is a definite possibility but as you
guys mentioned that it may become a very tedious task to keep the
requirements of both systems the same so they mesh well together. I
just see the operations requirements being too granular. For instance,
a simple question from our operations team would be, "What are the
transactions details for the last payment for the customer with the
phone number 5555555?". Then show me all of the session details for
this transaction. I just don't see this data fitting well into the
datawarehouse. Thanks for the input Bill and Marco. It is very much
appreciated.
Corey