[windows2000] Re: SQL Server 2000 on an ISA server

  • From: "Costanzo, Ray" <rcostanzo@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <windows2000@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 10:29:31 -0500

On a scale of 1 to 10, my opinions should only factor in with a 2 or 3
rating, as I am no expert.  I just like to reply.  ;]

ISA and SQL Server are both the type of application that likes to suck
up all the memory on the system and then dole it out to other
applications as it seems fit.  Having two applications doing this on the
same server does not sound like a good idea...

Also, having a SQL Server not behind a firewall does not sound too
desirable either.  There are constant attacks on unprotected SQL Servers
going on, and it's inevitable that someone will find another security
hole in the future.

If at all possible, I would NOT install SQL Server on any machine that
has another primary purpose or any machine that is not behind a
firewall.  And honestly, if you have a .6 GB database with 20-30
concurrent connections, you could install SQL server on a
workstation-grade machine and be fine with it.  Just stick a gig of RAM
in it, and you should be fine.  And for the backups, in my opinion, it
is best not to back up a SQL Server in the same way other server-types
may be backed up.  If one of our SQL Servers burned to the ground and we
had to replace it with a new server, I would rather start with a server
with just the OS installed, install SQL Server myself, and then restore
my databases from SQL Server-generated backups, not any third party
backup types or ntbackup types of backups.  Restoring the OS state on a
SQL Server is not as critical as restoring your SQL setup and database
schemas and stuff like that.  Just have a good backup strategy for SQL
Server itself, and there isn't that much to worry about for disaster
recovery, relatively speaking.

Ray at work 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rod Falanga [mailto:rfalanga@xxxxxxx] 
> I'm looking for opinions.  I've got a new server, which I 
> intend to use to replace our ISA server.  It will have 
> Windows 2003 Server on it.  It is a pretty beefy machine; 
> lots of memory, lots of disk space.  The guy who is 
> configuring it for me wants to put SQL Server 2000 onto it as 
> well.  I've been to one or two regional TechNet meetings that 
> Microsoft puts on and their recommendation is to not put much 
> onto an ISA server that is playing the part of the DMZ.  
> Perhaps I should not have ordered a server with so much 
> resources, but I did, and my parent company is very strongly 
> suggesting that we put other things onto this server, like 
> SQL Server.  And certainly we are a pretty small shop.  My 
> network has just 20 internal users with maybe 100 external 
> users to either dial in, or connect via VPN and terminal 
> services.  Our SQL Server databases all told, probably come 
> to something like 0.6 GB.
> So, my question to you is this.  Should I keep SQL Server off 
> of it?  Or given our relatively low demand (I am sure we have 
> much less business than most of you), go ahead and put SQL 
> Server onto it?

The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the 
personal and confidential use
of the recipient(s) named above.  Distribution, publication, or retransmission 
of this message is strictly 
prohibited.  This message may be a bank to client communication and as such is 
privileged and confidential.  
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent 
responsible for delivering it to the 
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this 
document in error and that any 
review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly 
prohibited.  If you have received 
this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete 
the original message.

The sender of this e-mail specifically "opts-out" of the Electronic Signatures 
and Global and National 
Commerce Act (E-Sign) and any and all similar state and federal acts.  
Accordingly, but without limitation, 
any and all documents, contracts, and agreements must contain a handwritten 
signature of the sender to
be legal, valid, and enforceable.

This Weeks Sponsor StressedPuppy.com Games
Feeling stressed out? Check out our games to
relieve your stress.
To Unsubscribe, set digest or vacation
mode or view archives use the below link.


Other related posts: