Resources

[Jim]

I have a question...say I have an asp app that works as a front end to
an sql server 2000 database. Would it be better, performance wise, to
seperate the webserver from the sqlserver or to have them on the same
machine?


-Jim

[Rowland Banks]

Re: Resources

"Jim" <jim.ferris@mot orola.com> wrote in message
news:729757f9.0 407270658.284ae ff0@posting.goo gle.com...[color=blue]
> I have a question...say I have an asp app that works as a front end to
> an sql server 2000 database. Would it be better, performance wise, to
> seperate the webserver from the sqlserver or to have them on the same
> machine?
>
>
> -Jim[/color]

I hope I'm not missing the point of your question, but I would have thought
it's always faster if two communicating applications are on the same server
unless, perhaps, that server has such low specs that it can only reasonably
run one app. If you think this may be a problem then benchmark and find out.

Hope that helps,

Rowland.

[Erland Sommarskog]

Re: Resources

Jim (jim.ferris@mot orola.com) writes:[color=blue]
> I have a question...say I have an asp app that works as a front end to
> an sql server 2000 database. Would it be better, performance wise, to
> seperate the webserver from the sqlserver or to have them on the same
> machine?[/color]

Securitywise, it would definitely be better to put SQL Server on a
different box, on the other size of a firewall or so. Having SQL
Servers exposed on the Internet is not good.

Performancewise , it depends a little. You can save bandwidth by all
data access being local. But if the web server and SQL Server starts
to compete for memory, it will not be very fun.

--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@sommarsk og.se

Books Online for SQL Server SP3 at

http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techinfo/productdoc/2000/books.asp