Enterprise database(s) on file server

DanaNolan · ‎11-06-2023

My organization is dropping file servers but they (sort of) get that our GIS needs them. They really do not get GIS in general. Our not very experienced SQL Server support person asked if ArcGIS requires that the database server be dedicated to database services, i.e., can enterprise databases co-exist with active file servers (storing mostly file geodatabases, lyr and lyrx files, tools, and documentation). We currently have multiple databases running on one server, with only a few having many concurrent viewers, with other data on a different file server. I would prefer for many reasons to keep it this way. Our primary users are now on Pro, but we still have some ArcMap users.

However, we are now required to move everything to new servers and to upgrade SQL Server to 2019 on a short timeline. Am I right in arguing that the 2-server setup is best practice for performance, maintenance, and/or security reasons? Is it actually required for enterprise databases?

I tried searching this forum and Database Administration on stack.exchange, but I have not seen any discussions of this topic under 8 years old.

RyanUthoff · ‎11-06-2023

There isn't necessarily a "right" or "wrong" way with what you're asking. Every organization has it's own requirements and needs, and ultimately the best decision is going to be different from organization to organization. Honestly, my recommendation would be to consult with professional services so they can perform an analysis of your current architecture and usage, and give you their recommendations on how to move forward to ensure it meets your business requirements.

With that being said, there is nothing wrong with the file server and SQL Server to be on the same machine. You are correct that in an ideal world, it would be better for them to be separated in a 2-server environment. You might see better performance with that setup, but it depends on what your server usage is. If you're a small shop, it probably won't matter. But if you're large with hundreds+ users, then it's probably in your best interest to have a 2-server setup. Also, a 2-server setup is not required for EGDBs. We have ArcGIS Enterprise, SQL Server, file server, etc. all hosted on a single machine in one of our dev environments and it works perfectly fine.

View solution in original post

RyanUthoff · ‎11-06-2023

There isn't necessarily a "right" or "wrong" way with what you're asking. Every organization has it's own requirements and needs, and ultimately the best decision is going to be different from organization to organization. Honestly, my recommendation would be to consult with professional services so they can perform an analysis of your current architecture and usage, and give you their recommendations on how to move forward to ensure it meets your business requirements.

With that being said, there is nothing wrong with the file server and SQL Server to be on the same machine. You are correct that in an ideal world, it would be better for them to be separated in a 2-server environment. You might see better performance with that setup, but it depends on what your server usage is. If you're a small shop, it probably won't matter. But if you're large with hundreds+ users, then it's probably in your best interest to have a 2-server setup. Also, a 2-server setup is not required for EGDBs. We have ArcGIS Enterprise, SQL Server, file server, etc. all hosted on a single machine in one of our dev environments and it works perfectly fine.