The configuration you describe matches the one I've had for many years now - Only I have 3 web servers in front.
The only downside to this is that you are adding an additional connection to the mix - between the web and Witango servers. You should also know that managing 2 Witango services, rather than just one, changes the game somewhat. They aren't aware of each other, so you need to build a suite of tools to keep everything in line. Purging the file cache and managing higher scopes is the worst. I strongly agree that SQL should be on a machine of its own, not only for processing needs, but also because SQL servers are typically very different in design to application servers like web and Witango. However, I feel that the web and Witango services are a closer match and do reside well on the same machine. Depending on the speed/type of the server you should be able to produce at least 8 requests per second on your setup without congestion. That's quite a bit of load. If you are not able to obtain that level of performance, then you likely have a configuration or programming issue that can be optimized. Your second question is easily answered with a peek in clients.ini, which tells the plugin/cgi where the Witango servers are. As for your 3rd question, the answer is a resounding no. Now, I'm one for throwing hardware at problems, probably just because I love getting my hands on the latest tech, but there is no guarantee that your issue is a contention problem between the web and Witango services. Nor do you know that having more Witango threads via new hardware and licenses won't to the same thing as having more threads on your current configuration. If you don't carefully monitor the stat "AvgQryProcTime" you should, as well as "MaxActiveQryThr" and a few others that can tell you how well Witango is running. Do you know the typical requests per second or minute of your server? Considering that I don't know your site, your load, or your application, this advice is very averaged, but I have found that a few good SQL indexes, or some better managed loops can have the same effect as another $5,000 server. Oh and using the latest version of Witango 5.5 is also helpful. It can manage resources under load much better than any previous version, including 5.5.003. Then again, if you've covered these bases, and that Quad server of yours is using 4 500MHz P3s, then my answer is for a definite hardware infusion. <@SHAMELESSPLUG> Or, you could always let a hosting provider like myself manage your sites. </@SHAMELESSPLUG> Robert -----Original Message----- From: Wolf, Gene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 9:22 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Witango-Talk: Server setup question Here's a general question that some of you have probably run in to before and I need some direction. We currently have Witango professional running on a Windows 2003 quad server accessing a SQL database on another server. At times, due to load, we are seeing the Witango server slow down. Now, our web server is also being run on this machine. What I would like to do is to purchase another Witango professional license, and move our current Witango application server to another box, and the new server to yet another box. This would give us two Witango application servers, accessing our SQL server and handling calls from our IIS server. Four boxes in all. First question, is this doable? Second question, how would I set up IIS to determine which box to send queries to? Third question, shouldn't this help our response time assuming the database is not the bottleneck? Thanks for your advice! ________________________________________________________________________ TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Go to http://www.witango.com/developer/maillist.taf ________________________________________________________________________ TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Go to http://www.witango.com/developer/maillist.taf
