Databases per Server

All,

I have 2 web applications running on 2 W2K servers. Each server has a local SQL server(2000). We are about to upgrade the servers to Windows 2003. The web applications are running classic ASP and VB COM+ objects. We are going to take the opportunity to seperate SQL from the web server. What will end up with is 2 web servers running the applications and a single database server with 2 databases servering up the data. We will upgrade the SQL2K to SQL2K5.

My question is how will the SQL performance be affected? What's the best place to locate the COM+ objects? What kind of pitfalls do I need to be aware of?

Thanks

BB

Make sure that the consolidated box has suitable hardware to support both apps (memory, disks, processors). Also, remember that now the a failure of the SQL Server will bring down both while if one database starts hogging resources, the other would be adversely affected. Similarly you'll only have one set of system databases so make sure that tempdb is on a fast set of disks.

Certainly one area you may need to check any conflicts arising from any SQL Server configurations that may differ on the current boxes and also any login conflicts. Remember, also that future patches will be applied at the server level and both apps will need to be able to run on the same SQL version.

You are able to run multiple instances on one box which would allow you to allocate resources better to each application or could consider virtual servers which is becoming more and more popular these days.

HTH!

|||

Great advice - thanks!

What about the increase in network traffic. Is there something to do hardware wise? Like adding a second NIC card? Will that even make a difference?

Thanks

Database with Many Tables for different applications

Hello,
I work for a company that chose to implement one database with LOTS (126) of tables. There are many applications that use different tables in this database and the users are spread throughout the business areas of the company. The idea for one database w
ith ALL the tables the company uses was for ease of backup (only having to backup 1 database instead of the 20 or so for each applcation).
We do not use stored procedures or relationships on SQL server - just primary keys and handle everything else in the application.
My question is this: Does this sort of setup impede performance of the applications or SQL database? If many users are hitting a set of tables in the database - does this interfere with other users in the same database but using different tables?
Any insight would be appreciated on this topic. Implementers of this model are of the mainframe mindset and I would like validation to its effectiveness.
Thank you for your time,
Angela
http://www.sqljunkies.com/Article/7F...8946C8D0C.scuk for information on common symptoms and tools to assess the performance.
HTH
--
Satya SKJ
Visit http://www.sql-server-performance.com for tips and articles on Performance topic.
"Angela" wrote:

> Hello,
> I work for a company that chose to implement one database with LOTS (126) of tables. There are many applications that use different tables in this database and the users are spread throughout the business areas of the company. The idea for one database
with ALL the tables the company uses was for ease of backup (only having to backup 1 database instead of the 20 or so for each applcation).
> We do not use stored procedures or relationships on SQL server - just primary keys and handle everything else in the application.
> My question is this: Does this sort of setup impede performance of the applications or SQL database? If many users are hitting a set of tables in the database - does this interfere with other users in the same database but using different tables?
> Any insight would be appreciated on this topic. Implementers of this model are of the mainframe mindset and I would like validation to its effectiveness.
> Thank you for your time,
> Angela

Database with Many Tables for different applications

Hello,
I work for a company that chose to implement one database with LOTS (126) of
tables. There are many applications that use different tables in this datab
ase and the users are spread throughout the business areas of the company.
The idea for one database w
ith ALL the tables the company uses was for ease of backup (only having to b
ackup 1 database instead of the 20 or so for each applcation).
We do not use stored procedures or relationships on SQL server - just primar
y keys and handle everything else in the application.
My question is this: Does this sort of setup impede performance of the appl
ications or SQL database? If many users are hitting a set of tables in the
database - does this interfere with other users in the same database but usi
ng different tables?
Any insight would be appreciated on this topic. Implementers of this model
are of the mainframe mindset and I would like validation to its effectivenes
s.
Thank you for your time,
Angelahttp://www.sqljunkies.com/Article/7...E8946C8D0C.scuk
for information on common symptoms and tools to assess the performance.
HTH
--
--
Satya SKJ
Visit http://www.sql-server-performance.com for tips and articles on Perform
ance topic.
"Angela" wrote:

> Hello,
> I work for a company that chose to implement one database with LOTS (126) of table
s. There are many applications that use different tables in this database and the us
ers are spread throughout the business areas of the company. The idea for one datab
ase
with ALL the tables the company uses was for ease of backup (only having to backup 1 databas
e instead of the 20 or so for each applcation).
> We do not use stored procedures or relationships on SQL server - just prim
ary keys and handle everything else in the application.
> My question is this: Does this sort of setup impede performance of the ap
plications or SQL database? If many users are hitting a set of tables in th
e database - does this interfere with other users in the same database but u
sing different tables?
> Any insight would be appreciated on this topic. Implementers of this mode
l are of the mainframe mindset and I would like validation to its effectiven
ess.
> Thank you for your time,
> Angela