locked
Separate Maintenance Database Required for SCCM Database Index Optimization? RRS feed

Answers

All replies

  • I prefer using Ola‘s solution. It logs to the master database by default. Does it work? Yes. Do I configure it that way? No. "Personal" data has to go to own DBs, not system ones. But there is no difference in the outcome though.

    Torsten Meringer | http://www.mssccmfaq.de

    • Marked as answer by Ron_Ratzlaff Wednesday, May 28, 2014 6:46 AM
    Sunday, May 25, 2014 9:29 AM
  • Okay, so you are saying to change the default ([Master]) to whatever database you want to run Ola's script against? I changed it to the SCCM database, but doesn't this modify the SCCM database which is unsupported by Microsoft? 

    Thanks Torsten


    Monday, May 26, 2014 2:13 AM
  • Creating a separate DB will be a bit of concern for SQL teams in some of the cooperate world :) So Some of them may prefer this method. Honestly, I'm not very sure how effective this will be.  http://blogs.technet.com/b/smartinez/archive/2014/03/28/talking-database-in-configmgr.aspx 

    Anoop C Nair (My Blog www.AnoopCNair.com) - Twitter @anoopmannur - FaceBook Forum For SCCM

    • Marked as answer by Ron_Ratzlaff Tuesday, May 27, 2014 4:08 PM
    Monday, May 26, 2014 3:03 AM
  • The separate DB has nothing to do with being effective. It's simply an additional container to provide separation of non-ConfigMgr "things". There is no explicit technical reason to put them in another DB except to not do something that isn't technically supported (modify the ConfigMgr DB manually).

    Steve's recommendation is based on his many years of SQL expertise (he is a ConfigMgr MVP currently and was a SQL Server MVP previously).


    Jason | http://blog.configmgrftw.com

    • Marked as answer by Ron_Ratzlaff Wednesday, May 28, 2014 6:46 AM
    Monday, May 26, 2014 11:09 PM
  • Steve's recommendation is based on his many years of SQL expertise (he is a ConfigMgr MVP currently and was a SQL Server MVP previously).


    No offense . I know Steve ! I was talking about real world difficulties dealing with internal SQL team :)

    Anoop C Nair (My Blog www.AnoopCNair.com) - Twitter @anoopmannur - FaceBook Forum For SCCM

    Tuesday, May 27, 2014 2:24 AM
  • So does this mean that I can just proceed with what I am currently doing, or should I just revamp it and re-create a new database (DB_Maint) and re-run Ola's script on that instead of the SCCM 2012 database?


    Tuesday, May 27, 2014 2:58 AM
  • Anoop, that looks like a great method as well. Thanks for sharing that. 
    Tuesday, May 27, 2014 3:03 AM
  • Okay, so you are saying to change the default ([Master]) to whatever database you want to run Ola's script against? I changed it to the SCCM database, but doesn't this modify the SCCM database which is unsupported by Microsoft? 


    Please read the docs first: http://ola.hallengren.com/sql-server-index-and-statistics-maintenance.html.
    Database logging would be written (if enabled at all) to the CM database. That's not a good idea.
    "USE [master] -- Specify the database in which the objects will be created." is used to define in which database the logs will be stored (when using @LogToTable).
    You should use "@Databases" to define which DBs should be optimized. But that's all covered in the link I provided.


    Torsten Meringer | http://www.mssccmfaq.de

    • Marked as answer by Ron_Ratzlaff Wednesday, May 28, 2014 6:46 AM
    Tuesday, May 27, 2014 6:56 AM
  • Thanks Torsten, I am familiar with that link, just wanted some clarification. Also, as I stated above, I'd prefer to go with a method that requires the least amount of overhead. As it appears at this point, Santos Martinez's method seems to require the least. I want to hurry it up and get this thing up and running, but still provide an efficiently working SCCM 2012 environment. Also, the Martinez method does not require the creation of a whole new database, and that appeals to me.

    Was the method that Santos Martinez used also covered at TechED 2014? If not, why?

    Anyway, I think I am going to side with Anoop on this one and go with Santos Martinez's method. 

    Thanks everyone, I appreciate your help as always. 

    I am sure you will be hearing from me, again, very soon. 


    Tuesday, May 27, 2014 2:03 PM
    • Marked as answer by Ron_Ratzlaff Wednesday, May 28, 2014 6:46 AM
    Wednesday, May 28, 2014 2:22 AM
  • GRRRRRRR AAAHHHHHHHH SERIOUSLY bro?!

    You guys are killing me here - LOL

    Okay thanks, Anoop, I will take a look man.




    Wednesday, May 28, 2014 5:50 AM
  • I'm sold.

    I am going with the "Ola Hallengren Method". I came up with this cool title, but you all are free to use it. Steve Thompson told me that calling it the Ola Hallengren Method would be more appropriate. In all actuality, you could just call it the "Hallengren-Thompson Method" - WHOA, now that really does have a nice ring to it. What a cool profession that would be to sit around and just come up with awesome nomenclatures like the "Hallengren-Thompson Method". Sounds like something out of a Physics text book. 

    Okay on a serious note, this is what I am going with:

    http://channel9.msdn.com/Events/TechEd/NorthAmerica/2014/PCIT-B320#fbid= 

    You guys are all awesome. 

    Thanks again for helping me out, as usual. 


    Wednesday, May 28, 2014 7:06 AM