I'd like to add my two cents...
First, from a licensing stand point.. if you put IMS on the SQL server, the
way it was described... You will have to purchase two copies of CF... so, if
you kept IMS on the IIS machine.. you've already saved some money..
Now... from the aspect of competing with the resources.. I've been keeping
an eye on IMS running on a great many machines (from a 90mhz Pent, running
nt4.0 to an 800mhz machine running W2K server, both with CF 4.51).. and I
have not noticed anything that would come close to justifying needing a huge
powerful machine for IMS... IMS simply needs a few megs of resources (unlike
other products, like Exchange-grant it, exchange does more...but..) to be
happy... and that's a major contributing factor as to why we have selected
IMS as our email platform for several hundred domains, and proportionally
more users...
Now for a kicker... I'm in the process of testing in a development
environment a W2K server(no service packs), IIS 5, CF 4.51, SQL 7, and IMS
on the same 450mhz machine.... I'll let everyone know how it goes after a
week or two.....
Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: Adrian Cooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2000 3:17 PM
To: inFusion Support List
Subject: Re: [iMS] Server horsepower (again)
Hi Max:
Thanks for your suggestion - clearly that is one of the two alternatives -
the
question being - does iMS go on the Web server machine or the SQL Server
achine - at least until such time as they are indeed divided between three
machines?
I am still not sure I would want iMS competing with resources with IIS & CF
which are most certainly less efficient and stable than SQL Server and tend
to
hog resources. Also - IIS is more likely to crash the mail server than SQL
is,
and keeping the mail up is a top priority. The other aspect of the rationale
is
that both iMS and SQL need fast and scaleable storage - RAID 10 in this
case,
and of course backup. The web server need only server HTTP with CF, and to
that
end doesn't need anything like the resources of iMS and SQL. If I was to
place
iMS with IIS it means that machine would also need greatly enhanced storage
capabilities. From what people have said here and elsewhere, I am quite
sure
that the main potential bottleneck for iMS and SQL is actually disk I/O, and
accordingly it makes sense to give them the machine where this is optimised.
Adrian.
> I think if I were in your shoes, I'd make one SQL Server box, and put
everything else on the >other one, for now. Then, when your Web traffic
picks
up, break off the IIS/CF (Webmail) >functions to a 3rd box. This way you'll
have 3 boxes doing 3 distinct tasks. Also, you can use >your SQL Server for
other stuff besides mail (perhaps help recoup some of the cost). Even
>though
the SS machine and the iMS machine both may require large storage, it won't
do
you >much good if they're competing for the disk access whenever an email
comes
in. Also, stick >your SQL logs on a different drive array from your data if
you
can (for speed and safety).
========================================================================
This list server is Powered by iMS
'The Swiss Army Knife of Mail Servers'
--------------------------------------
To leave this list please complete the form at
http://www.CoolFusion.com/iMS.htm
List archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/infusion-email%40eoscape.com/
========================================================================
========================================================================
This list server is Powered by iMS
'The Swiss Army Knife of Mail Servers'
--------------------------------------
To leave this list please complete the form at
http://www.CoolFusion.com/iMS.htm
List archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/infusion-email%40eoscape.com/
========================================================================
