- This topic has 2 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 9 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
Hello. I have run into a situation where a user is trying to run BizTalk, SQL Server, Oracle, and 2 huge ERP solutions one one server. Obviously, this is too much, and we are looking into distributing the services. The BizTalk solution processes about 10k large transactions per day.
A question has come up about separating BizTalk from SQL Server. I have typically maintained SQL Server with BizTalk, if only to handle the master databases.
Does anyone have such a situation, where your BizTalk relies COMPLETELY on remote SQL Server(s)?
Thanks,
Gary
-
Greg,
Thank you for a quick and detailed response! We need to act fast with this user, and your help will be greatly applied.
Gary
-
None of the implementations I have been involved with have used local SQL server, I have never installed SQL Server on the BizTalk server, except on a development machine.
There is nothing wrong with the all in one approach that you have used in fact it should be slightly faster than with a remote SQL Server.
But my preference is to scale out Biztalk Server and scale up SQL server by creating a Biztalk group with multiple Biztalk servers connecting to the same Biztalk databases. This is easier with a remote SQL Server.
You can also scale out the databases but this becomes much trickier come backup time.
With multiple Biztalk servers you can also allocate work load, so a massive batch job will not impact any real time of near-real time applicationsOne advantage of a remote SQL Server in a smaller implementation, is the ability to use an existing SQL server, save the cost of a license and save the dbadmins having to manage another SQL box.
The Biztalk server is a one or two CPU 1U server 2+GB RAM and minimal disk. All the money goes on the database server.
-
-
- The forum ‘BizTalk 2004 – BizTalk 2010’ is closed to new topics and replies.