SQL 2000 and dot.NET | SQL Server Performance Forums

SQL Server Performance Forum – Threads Archive

SQL 2000 and dot.NET

Pardon the possible naivete of my question, but here it goes: We intend to put up a handful of Win2000 servers with IIS5 and dot.NET
Framework on them (in order to use ASP.NET). In addition, there will be one
dedicated Win2000 Server machine with SQL2000, which will act as a back-end
database server answering queries from the IIS boxes. This SQL2000 computer
will NOT have IIS installed because it doesn’t need it. So my question is: In the above scenario, is it a good idea to install the
dot.NET Framework also on the dedicated SQL2000 box, or only on the web server
boxes? What are the advantages/pros/cons of installing, vs. not installing the
dot.NET Framework on a dedicated SQL2000 machine with no IIS? Thank you.
We install the .Net framework as part of the standard installation. Even if you don’t run IIS on the same box, more and more third-party tools that might get also installed require its presence. —
Frank Kalis
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
http://www.insidesql.de
Ich unterstütze PASS Deutschland e.V. http://www.sqlpass.de)

Thank you, Frank, that makes sense. Since it seems you have plenty of experience with the dotNet/SQL setup, let me ask you a few more questions: 1) Is it better to install dotNET first and SQL next, or vice versa? 2) Any particular ‘gotchas’ to watch for? 3) Does anything change on the SQL administration by the fact the dotNET is also on the box? Thank you very much.
Sorry, but when I said "we", I actually meant our network support guys. They do all these stuff and just deliver the ready to use machine. They install the framework right after the OS is installed and before further software is installed. I don’t know if this the "best" way, but at least we haven’t had any issues with it. And the presence of the framework doesn’t change a thing to the administration of SQL Server. Here are two links I’ve ound that deal with issues regarding the .Net framework:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;895242
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;891058

Frank Kalis
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
http://www.insidesql.de
Ich unterstütze PASS Deutschland e.V. http://www.sqlpass.de)

Can you seperate IIS from SQL Server as it tends to degrade performance if the database is used frequently. Also it is not suggested to install .NET on a SQL server 2000 box as it is required for SQL 2005 installations. Satya SKJ
Moderator
http://www.SQL-Server-Performance.Com/forum
This posting is provided “AS IS” with no rights for the sake of knowledge sharing.
Satya, have you experienced any issues with .Net? —
Frank Kalis
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
http://www.insidesql.de
Ich unterstütze PASS Deutschland e.V. http://www.sqlpass.de)

Yes on a SQL 2K box with .NET in development environment, for some reason IIS was unable to connect SQL server and only after uninstalling .NET framework all well again. Satya SKJ
Moderator
http://www.SQL-Server-Performance.Com/forum
This posting is provided “AS IS” with no rights for the sake of knowledge sharing.
Hm, we don’t use IIS here anyway, but good to know. —
Frank Kalis
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
http://www.insidesql.de
Ich unterstütze PASS Deutschland e.V. http://www.sqlpass.de)

quote:Originally posted by satya Can you seperate IIS from SQL Server as it tends to degrade performance if the database is used frequently. Also it is not suggested to install .NET on a SQL server 2000 box as it is required for SQL 2005 installations.

Satya, Thank you for your response. As for separating IIS, that’s precisely what we intend to do: IIS on one machine (several, actually) and SQL on another box, exclusively with nothing else on it. The IIS boxes will have .NET framework because we need it; my question was about having/not having the .NET on the SQL box. I personally tend NOT to install more than absolutely necessary. However: It is true that more and more tools simply require the .NET framework, including SQL tools. Some of them must be installed on the same box where the SQL server is – that alone seems to be asking for the .NET to be installed on the SQL box. Also as you say yourself, SQL2005 requires .NET anyway; that may indirectly suggest the .NET might be useful for SQL2000 also. I am talking about .NET 1.1, not the beta of .NET 2.0 which I understand is causing some ‘hiccups’ with SQL2000. So under these circumstances, what would you suggest: yes .NET or no .NET? Thank you.
Frank:<br /><br />Thank you for your information and the MSKB links, they are very helpful.<br /><br />As I have already posted to my answer to Satya, I tend not to install more that absolutely necessary. On the other hand, just about every tool coming out now requires .NET; that’s what started this whole thread in the first place. <br /><br />We have put up two SQL2000 test installations, one with .NET and one without, and have experienced no problems at all (so far) with either one of them. No troubles connecting from IIS (5.0 on W2K SP4) to the SQL2000 SP3 (also on W2K SP4) at alll regardless if with .NET or without.<br /><br />So which way to go?<br />I tell you, I hate situations where both the pro and con are about 50/50 <img src=’/community/emoticons/emotion-1.gif’ alt=’:)‘ /><br /><br />PS: Uebrigens, ich habe knapp drei Jahre bei Stuttgart gewohnt, es is aber schon ueber 20 Jahre her. Jetzt bin ich in den U.S.
The less you need to install, the less can cause trouble thereafter. My point was that we haven’t experienced any issues so far with an installed .Net 1.1 framework. But these server also have some network administrational software installed which require the framework. <br />But if you are quite sure you don’t need it in the near future, don’t install it. <br /><br />I live somewhere close to Cologne and Düsseldorf. After more than 20 years you have a suprisingly good German. [<img src=’/community/emoticons/emotion-1.gif’ alt=’:)‘ />]<br /><br />–<br />Frank Kalis<br />Microsoft SQL Server MVP<br /<a target="_blank" href=http://www.insidesql.de>http://www.insidesql.de</a><br />Ich unterstütze PASS Deutschland e.V. <a target="_blank" href=http://www.sqlpass.de>http://www.sqlpass.de</a>) <br />
&gt;&gt; I live somewhere close to Cologne and Düsseldorf. <br /><br />Have been in both and like them both. Then again, I felt great all over the country (haven’t been in the East though, it was still DDR at that time).<br /><br />&gt;&gt; After more than 20 years you have a suprisingly good German. <br /><br />That’s probably because I still have a number of friends there and we yak on the phone all the time <img src=’/community/emoticons/emotion-1.gif’ alt=’:)‘ /><br /><br /><br /><br />If you don’t mind, I have one more question: How the best split SQL components across drives inside one box. I mean, the more spindles the better, but I am also quite sure the final performance depends on what part you put on what drive.<br /><br />So far, my idea goes like this: One boot drive (IDE) + 3 SCSI drives.<br /><br />The boot drive has just the OS (W2K) + the SQL server software itself. It also keeps daily backups for quick access if needed (another backup copy is off-site for security).<br /><br />Windows paging file split across all drives. The machine has 2 GB RAM, the paging file is 1GB on each drive (=4 GB total). Too big/too small?<br /><br />The 3 SCSI drives keep databases and related files, split this way: Databases (tables) on one drive, indexes on the second, and logs on the third.<br /><br />Would you consider this a good topology, or can you suggest a better one?<br /><br />Thanks a million.<br />
Better to start a new thread when you have a new question. There are very knowledgeable guys on that topic around in this forum, which might miss your second question because of the irritating subject. I’m not good in these things. [<img src=’/community/emoticons/emotion-6.gif’ alt=’:(‘ />]<br /><br /><br />–<br />Frank Kalis<br />Microsoft SQL Server MVP<br /<a target="_blank" href=http://www.insidesql.de>http://www.insidesql.de</a><br />Ich unterstütze PASS Deutschland e.V. <a target="_blank" href=http://www.sqlpass.de>http://www.sqlpass.de</a>) <br />
I would suggest until unless it is required in SQL 2000 environment, better not to install to avoid any shambles in future. BTW what is the database growth and writen contention? Satya SKJ
Moderator
http://www.SQL-Server-Performance.Com/forum
This posting is provided “AS IS” with no rights for the sake of knowledge sharing.
]]>