I've always heard this maxim, and follow it myself, but I've always been curious about WHY separating them yields better performance. You'd think that things would be smoother if the data didn't have to travel over a network between storage and processing, but I guess it's not the case.
Ed On Mar 10, 12:50 pm, "Prasanth Nittala" <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Bobby, > > CMS and SQL Server being seperate servers is the way to go for enterprise > standards. Else you would encounter performance issues. This is better from > architectural perspective in terms of scalability and extensibility. > Thanks, > Prasanth------------------------------------------------------------------- - > Prasanth Nittala > 213-814-4163 |www.oshyn.com > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: bobbykjack <[email protected]> > > To: "Prasanth Nittala" <[email protected]> > > Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 07:01:48 -0800 (PST) > > Subject: [reddot] RedDot system requirements > > Just a quick straw poll: are you running RedDot CMS and MS SQL Server > > on the same physical server, or multiple boxes? Any recommendations or > > problems suffered with either approach? > > Thanks, > > - Bobby > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "RedDot CMS Users" group. > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > > For more options, visit this group > athttp://groups.google.com/group/reddot-cms-users?hl=en > [http://groups.google.com/group/reddot-cms-users?hl=en]. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RedDot CMS Users" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/reddot-cms-users?hl=en.
