remote server or local server? | SQL Server Performance Forums

SQL Server Performance Forum – Threads Archive

remote server or local server?

MS recommended run MS SQL on a separate server,
the application servers on a different server.
But if they are on the same server, they
communicate via shared memory which is the fastest
you can get, if they reside in different servers,
they will likely use TCP, which is slower than
shared mem.
Why MS recommended on separate servers?
There is a trade-off in performance both ways, but generally speaking, two servers out performs one server, even with the extra network latency. As a matter of policy at our company, all SQL Server databases on on dedicated SQL Servers, and all app software are on other servers. This also makes administration a little easier for us. —————————–
Brad M. McGehee, MVP
Is there some documentation on the shared memory concept? I don’t think the processes share their memory at process level. Also keeping the servers on different machines will put just additional overhead of network transfer which is not significant if the applications are designed well. But this setup gives the advantage of dedicated resources and the two spplications (applications and SQL Server) not competing against each other. For scalability also this set up is recommended. Gaurav
Man thrives, oddly enough, only in the presence of a challenging environment- L. Ron Hubbard

Gaurav See whether this link is any help about memory management. _________
Satya SKJ