Logo 
Search:

Sharepoint Forum

Ask Question   UnAnswered
Home » Forum » Sharepoint       RSS Feeds

Deployment Scenario Comparison?

  Asked By: Griffin    Date: Oct 19    Category: Sharepoint    Views: 1078

Can anyone describe the difference between these two, or the pros and cons using any1 of these, what difference will it make to install a SQL on a separate machine?

Single server with SQL Server One computer running the Web component, index component, and search component, and running as the job server. This computer has SQL Server 2000 installed. SQL Server is used to store the databases. This computer can optionally run the components for backward-compatibility with Microsoft SharePoint Portal Server 2001 document libraries. You can also install the components for backward-compatible document libraries on another server.

VS

Small server farm You must configure the servers in the small server farm as follows:
One computer running the Web component, index component, and search component, and running as the job server. This computer can optionally run the components for backward-compatibility with Microsoft SharePoint Portal Server 2001 document libraries.
One or more computers running Microsoft SQL Server 2000.

Share: 

 

3 Answers Found

 
Answer #1    Answered By: Gregg Wilkinson     Answered On: Oct 19

In the single server  configuration, one computer  is running  all four farm roles plus SQL. In the small farm configuration, two  computers are needed – one for the four SharePoint farm roles and the other to run SQL.

 
Answer #2    Answered By: Darrel Sexton     Answered On: Oct 19

I mean what difference  it make to add a new server  machine as SQL to this scenario? Like the stand alone deployment  on a single server using the DB engine only supports the data storage to 2 GB. What it is for adding a SQL server to the machine, and then adding a new machine for SQL. What benefits one get for adding another physical machine/server?

 
Answer #3    Answered By: Tory Sellers     Answered On: Oct 19

The primary reason for choosing the different “farms” is largely due to performance and scale.

When you have a single server  installation, one server is doing ALL five (5) jobs – web  Server, search  Server, job  Server, index  Server and SQL Server.

When you do the small farm, you still have one server doing a lot, but you separate  the SQL Server onto a separate server. This way the processing required for writing to an reading from the database is separated out. This is usually people’s first step and increasing the performance of sharepoint, assuming you have a decent SQL server dedicated to the task and a good fast network connection between the two.

When you do a medium load balancing farm (my favorite), you have a couple of load balancing servers doing the Web and Search server, a dedicated SQL Server for database, and a single server doing job/index roles. In this configuration, web and search respond to users requests very quickly (they’re dedicated servers for that purpose) AND it’s somewhat redundant because you could lose one of the front end servers or take one offline to do maintenance without your user community noticing.

You could also go all out in very large environments and build a server or cluster of servers for each of the roles.

As far as your 2GB statement goes – the 2GB limitation is a MSDE limitation, and WMSDE doesn’t have that limitation. You can still run a full fledged version of SQL Server Standard, with no size limitations on the same server that’s running  Sharepoint Portal Server. You’d just better throw a pretty big machine with lots of RAM and fast disks if you put everything on one box.

 
Didn't find what you were looking for? Find more on Deployment Scenario Comparison? Or get search suggestion and latest updates.




Tagged: