|
|
Posted by Erland Sommarskog on 06/30/05 00:56
heyitsme_ryan (UseLinkToEmail@dbForumz.com) writes:
> First is for windows 2003 server:
> We have a windows 2003 server that is a Logon Server and we have at
> least 90 workstation here in our office to manage. The problem is when
> we connect to this logon server. It takes 15 to 20 minutes to connect
> the workstation to the server. My guess is the specs of the logon
> server. This is the Specs: An IBM computer with a pentium IV 3.0GHz
> processor, 512MB memory and a 40Gig Harddisk. Well, is that enough to
> be a logon server? What is the minimum requirements?
General Windows servers is not my speciality, but this should really
be enough, even if the amount of memory might be a tad small. The
reason for logons taking as ridiculously long time as 15-20 minutes
should be sought elsewhere.
> Second, SQL Server:
> My boss wants me to setup a SQL Server in a Dell computer with 2.8GHz,
> a 512mb of memory and a 80Gig Harddisk. My question is also the same,
> Is it enough requirement?
This depende largely on the application you intended to run. But it will
have to be a small database for 512 MB to be really sufficient. SQL Server
likes to keep as much data in cache as possible for good performance.
If you only can afford one more 5182 MB board, it's better to put it
in the SQL Server and not the logon server.
> And another thing, my boss wants me to install a SQL Server right?
> Well he said that I should install it in the two partition, thats
> Partition C: and D: (of course this is a dual OS of both Server 2003),
> so that's two SQL server in one harddisk. His Strategy is to backup
> the database from C to D and if in case the server in C: went down
> then the other SQL (which is in D: drive) will start its operation.
> Is this the right thing to do for SQL server, I mean is this the
> proper way of doing things in SQL Server Administration? Is there any
> complications on this?
This does not really make much sense to me. The two OSs cannot be active
at the same time, so if one SQL Server goes down, there is no other to
jump in.
If you had different harddisks, it could make a little more sense, since
if one disk died, you could get an SQL Server running on the second
disk after some downtime.
If you need real redudancy with a fallback server coming on the point,
then you need a cluster. But the price tag for that hardware is somewhat
hefiter for what you have now.
--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@sommarskog.se
Books Online for SQL Server SP3 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techinfo/productdoc/2000/books.asp
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|