http://choirulamri.org born to train, forced to code::SQL Server, SharePoint, .Net, Business Intelligence Mon, 19 Oct 2009 03:33:58 +0000 http://backend.userland.com/rss092 en http://choirulamri.org/archives/481 http://choirulamri.org/archives/480 http://choirulamri.org/archives/456 http://choirulamri.org/archives/445 http://choirulamri.org/archives/433 http://choirulamri.org/archives/359 http://choirulamri.org/archives/358 There are several advantages of integrating SSRS with SharePoint:

• Seamless UI for end user. They do not need to jump from one screen to another to open report and SharePoint dashboard at the same time.
• All reports are deployed as document library, so it follows all SharePoint library setting. It saves lots of time instead of managing report in separate report manager.
• All reports are under SharePoint security setting, giving better consolidated administrative from SharePoint perspective
• Render reports inside web part. It makes building SharePoint dashboard faster and easier.

What do we need to configure this:

• SharePoint Services 3.0 or MOSS 2007, It’s better if upgraded to SP1 or SP2.
• SQL Server 2005 Reporting Services with SP2, or Reporting Services 2008.
• Reporting Services add-in for SharePoint. There are 2 versions of add-in: SSRS 2005 and SSRS 2008.

Configuration can be simple (all in one box) or scale up to separate boxes. Below is the logical architecture if SSRS and SharePoint are installed on separate boxes: Assuming that SharePoint already installed, below are the explanations to do integration.]]> http://choirulamri.org/archives/417 http://choirulamri.org/archives/342

Save disk space, the compressed size is only around 10% of normal backup.

Faster backup time.

Faster restore time (surprise)!.

This is very convenience approach instead of doing normal backup and compress it with Winzip. According to benchmark I did, Winzip compression works slower than backup with compress on the fly. Not mention that we also have to unzip the file to restore from backup. I am also surprise because restoring compressed backup is faster than non compressed. Logically, it needs to decompress and restore so it should be slower than restoring normal one. But my benchmark showed the opposite. I modified the AdventureWorks2008 sample database and insert additional data to make it bigger. Below is my benchmark results with 900 MB size.

• Backup with no compress: 115 seconds
• Backup with compress: 49 seconds
• Restore from non compressed backup : 123 seconds
• Restore from compressed backup : 113 seconds

So, are you convinced? Here are the scripts to do compressed backup.]]> http://choirulamri.org/archives/376