This post was edited - but the editor replaced the "sql" tag with "sql-server". It wasn't clear to me that the OP meant Microsoft SQL Server - so I rejected it. I'm just wondering if that was what I should have done - I'm 85% sure that it was the right call - any advice/opinions?
"hi, our sql server had no disk space left and we couldn't start it, we removed some files and now our db is inaccessible, oh yeah, we shift-deleted the ldf files and our backups have been failing for weeks"
@dezso I put the why of my rejection in my comment to the edit - so hopefully the OP will see it and respond if necessary. It was my first time rejecting outright - if it's a SQL Server issue, I normally accept (or skip if I'm not sure). It's the one major server that I don't run.
@JackDouglas I think this is a known issue with the type of flash they use on high-volume drives like the Intel S3700. The flash can cope with a lot more cycles than standard NAND flash but the data is volatile if the power is left off. For drives using ordinary NAND flash (e.g. the S3500) this should be a non-issue.
@ConcernedOfTunbridgeWells I feel like I should have known that, and I'm guessing it applies to the P3700s in our servers too - though that's what I mean by over-egging - if it's just enterprise drives then they aren't likely to be in storage.
If you are using enterprise flash for archival you are doing something wrong :S
I working with SSIS
I have 1 Question that I can't find answer
I want to know Which is faster between 2 flow below
First flow :
this Flow I store rowId as List in Object variable
and loop for call Webservice many time depend on rowId .
Second Flow :
This flow I Query rowId and format...
In all seriousness: We use RCSI on several databases where I work now. We've been happy with it so far. We're about to enable it on another where it's more likely to cause pain, but less pain than the current situation with blocking.
We have another database where devs enabled snapshot (not RCSI) in a release without adding the necessary error handling to their code. Probably partly my fault for not forcing them to explain what they had tested. They're about to switch to RCSI instead soon.
@AndriyM I wouldn't think a separate drive would matter as much as having fast disks. I don't think I have a good general answer to that, though. I like to use distributed replay to test such scenarios.