Not just your vendor, IBM recommends it, the government recommends it, PCI recommends it, etc.
-----Original Message----- From: Marc Harbeson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 7:46 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [U2] Unidata and Win2k3 Depends on what the communications "environment" is? Our vendor for example recommends that the "Web Portals" be installed on a separate web server because "Dot Net" is memory hungry. The Web Portals use the RedBack gateway into UniData. So I think the answer depends on what this environment is/does. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Smith, Robert Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 7:34 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [U2] Unidata and Win2k3 Good Afternoon, We are presently in the process of trying to evaluate whether or not it would be in our best interests to locate a portion of our software infrastructure on a separate server and I wondered if anyone on this listserv has ever done anything similar. We are preparing to move to our vendors newest software version - Release 18 - and are concerned that the potential load on our existing server might be problematic. Our existing production server is also going to be Release 18's new home. We're creating the new environment and maintaining the existing production environment, at the same time...on the same box. Initially, we had the option of moving our present Release 17 environment to either a combined (both app and database on the same server) or distributed (not supported after 8/8/2007) configuration. From the beginning, we planned to be a combined environment. As other users have gone LIVE with a combined environment, we've started to notice that some (a few) were having load issues. This is a condition we **really** want to avoid. After we created a test environment, we decided to pound on it to see what kind of results we would get. Unfortunately, a few times we bought the server to a virtual standstill (this was done during the summer so our normal load was rather light). Through discussions with the vendor, a recommendation started to evolve where the portion of the infrastructure that is used to handle communications with the database, be moved to a separate server. This communications server would be "hard wired" (IP to IP) to our database/app server and would handle all traffic between the app/web and the database. The thinking is that by off-loading the overhead associated with the app/web accessing the database onto a separate box, our performance will improve. We've created a test communications server and are in the process of setting it up on our network. After further discussions today with the vendor, we're still not sure what type of results to expect. But mention was made that Unidata is resource hungry (especially on Windows), and would probably benefit from this off-loading. I have found over my many years in IT that, although I may think the issue I am facing is completely unique, this is rarely the case. Has anyone on the listserv ever had to off-load an aspect of their infrastructure onto a separate server in order to accommodate any resource issues between their app/web and Unidata (on Windows)? Even if you've not had to do this, are there any recommendations in light of the scenario I've painted above? Thanks in advance, Rob Smith ------- u2-users mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.487 / Virus Database: 269.13.21/1012 - Release Date: 9/16/2007 6:32 PM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.487 / Virus Database: 269.13.21/1012 - Release Date: 9/16/2007 6:32 PM ------- u2-users mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ ------- u2-users mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
