SQL - SQL box vs. shared box

By moorer ·
We are a local government in the last month of our Fiscal year. We are planning to replace our webserver before the next FY. Our webserver will be hosting DotNetNuke, Sharepoint and a few custom in-house web applications via IIS. All of these will have SQL as the back-end database. We currently do not have a stand-alone SQL box. In your opinion, expertise, should SQL live on the Webserver or a stand-alone SQL box and why?

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Answers

Collapse -

More is always better

by robo_dev In reply to SQL - SQL box vs. shared ...

From a performance perspective, that's starting to sound like a lot of processing requirements for one server.

As you add more and more apps, having to deal with database response-time issues may force you to move the database later anyway. Easier to move it now, before all the new apps are all hooked into it.

When you talk 'webserver', do you mean it's a Internet webserver or Intranet? If it's a Internet web server, I would not want SQL server on the same machine.

Any public web server should host as little code as possible (no SQL server, no sharepoint, no custom apps).

A public web server needs to be hardened completely and the fewer apps on it, the more secure it is, and the easier it will be to recover if it gets hacked.

Collapse -

Personally I'd go for separate

by Tony Hopkinson In reply to SQL - SQL box vs. shared ...

It gives you way more options, and generally two medium sized boxes are cheaper than one large one.

On top of that you get to optimise both boxes, which again could mean you could get more out of less...

Also if you are going to go for sql2005, it's (30%) slower on anything but wholly stored procedurre based designs, so you might need the extra oomph anyway.


Related Discussions

Related Forums