installing ColdFusion and database

[peterswan]

Hello,

Should ColdFusion be installed on the same server as the database. My notion is that if they are installed on different servers the performance will be slower. Please if anyone has any input on why two different servers is better, please let me know.

Thanks,

Peter

[JMF3]

Have always installed CF on a different server than the database. It's

generally a resource-allocation issue: let high load hit the web server

and let difficult data requests hit the DB server. Assuming you have a

good solid connection between the 2 servers, the overall performance

benefit will usually outweigh the slight uptick in network overhead.

[Owainnorth]

As above, as long as you have decent connectivity (ie gigabit) between the two servers, it will *always* be faster having the database stored separately (assuming identical hardware etc).

[Adam Cameron.]

I too agree with the other two bods.  Put 'em on different servers, but with a good quick network connect between the two (and with a bare minimum of networking hardware / infrastructure between the two of 'em, too).

--

Adam

[JR__Bob__Dobbs]

I would install the CF and database on seperate servers based on security concerns.  The CF services will generally be installed on your web server (running IIS or Apache) and that server will need to be "open" to internet traffic; receiving HTTP requests and reponding to them.  This assumes your CF site is a public internet site, and not an office intranet site.  Your database server should not be open to internet traffic and should only be able to communicate with other servers within your network.  This limits the database's exposure to potential attacks.

I would also agree with the previous posters comments that dividing the web and database workload across two servers will probably improve overall performance of your site.

[tclaremont]

I agree with the above, with an additional reason....I like having them on separate servers for the benefts in the event of a hardware failure. With separate servers, you might lose your database, or you might lose your web server, but you probably are not going to lose them both!

Nowadays I am running just about all hardware redundantly anyway, but on a smaller budget you might not have that luxury.

[Owainnorth]

Not a reason I've ever heard!

Surely a back-end database with no website is as useless as a website without a database? Personally I'd just have backups

[Adam Cameron.]

Not related to this thread @ all, but this reminds me: CF9 licensing allows for a "cold stand-by" box. Sonfornthe sake of redundancy, I'd have one of those lying around.

--

Adam

[Dave Watts]

No, actually that's a pretty good reason! (In addition to all the other reasons already listed.)

Web servers tend to be less stable than database servers, all things being considered. Having them both on the same machine means that whatever stability problems your web and application servers have will now affect your database. This isn't really an issue of "just having backups" although you do certainly need them - but if your database server is stopped unexpectedly you could lose data not yet committed, so unless you're backing up transaction logs constantly you could still have odd problems and data loss.

Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software

http://www.figleaf.com/

http://training.figleaf.com/

[Reed_Powell-ttnmOb]

I just went through some of this, and using a single server is still an issue.  We run with a couple of CF servers and a single MS SQL server, but have a client that we wanted to isolate onto their own system.  We put both MS SQL and CF onto a single large (dual Quad CPU + 16gb memory).  Although SQL runs like a scalded {insertanimalnamehere} CF isn't much faster.  We had to tune the max memory for both MS SQL and Cf so that they both didn't try to take over the system. 

Basically, you have two pieces of software that each try to handle their own CPU scheduling and memory management.  When they are alone on a system then it's just htem and the OS, but put them together and now you start to have situations where they each think they have a resource available (cpu, memory), and the OS ends up trying to sort it out for them.

If I had to set that box up again I would seriously consider virtualizing it into two boxes to keep them out of each other's hair.  Or just getting a second box for CF, which doesn't need much in the way of disks and doesn't need to be a beefy as a database server.

[tclaremont]

Owain, my point was that you only have to restore from the backup on ONE of the servers, rather than, essentially, both of them, It cuts your recovery efforts in half, and typically reduces your downtime in the event of a hardware failure. Common sense, really.