I do have an opinion on this and I know what I want to do, but I also have a conflict with a statement from technet:
"A child primary site that uses SQL Server installed on the same computer as the site server can support up to 50,000 clients. When you use SQL Server that is installed on a computer that is remote from the site server, the child primary site can support up to 100,000 clients." We expect up-to 100'000 clients but that site server will not serve clients, all handled with local servers (MP-replica, SUP). The site server is basically doing processing and replication, that's it. I like to avoid more servers, more points of failures, more things to manage, more complexity. Anyone doing local despite what technet says? Anyone had this question raised to MS and got kind of an agreement doing so? (That is kind of important.) PM me if you don't want to go public? -Roland
