I guess it depends on how big the server is doesn't it? On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 8:33 PM, Eric Morrison <[email protected]>wrote:
> I personally disagree about the increase in performance by having SQL > local when supporting that many systems. > > But if you desire to be in support should you ever run in to issues or > open a support ticket with MSFT, I'd follow the guidelines in TechNet. > > Sent from my Windows Phone > ------------------------------ > From: Roland Janus <[email protected]> > Sent: 8/4/2013 6:39 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [mssms] CM12: SQL local or remote? > > Everything else is remote, to relieve the site server of that and to > have a bit more resilience. > > But since the site server can only be one server and it also does most of > the processing, SQL local would *increase* performance and reduce an > additional single point of failure (not considering SQL clustering). > > > > The only reason to do remote is that article, otherwise I don’t see any > reason or benefit. > > > > > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Eric Morrison > *Sent:* Montag, 5. August 2013 00:17 > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* RE: [mssms] CM12: SQL local or remote? > > > > If they have that primary's site code, then it's handling those systems. > You'll need remote DPs and MPs anyway to handle that count. So yes, you'll > need remote SQL if you're managing that many systems. You'll also need to > look at the mp, dp, sup, and other roles to see what count they support. > For example, you're going to need multiple MPs for that many systems to one > site. I believe 25k is the supported count o'er mp. > > Sent from my Windows Phone > ------------------------------ > > *From: *Roland Janus <[email protected]> > *Sent: *8/4/2013 4:44 PM > *To: *[email protected] > *Subject: *[mssms] CM12: SQL local or remote? > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > >
