Re: What's the latest thinking of the besttwo orthreewebdevelopment languages/environ...

<i> It's the "applications" that should have their own
servers.</i>

And those "servers" are now being virtualized to multiple partitions per server due to inefficiencies of low CPU / disk usage, according to every other word from IBM and the trade rag media.

sort of gets back to one server being optimal, doesn't it?


Walden H. Leverich wrote:

Walden is saying (I think) the Windows model is to have one application/database per server

Perhaps not that far, but that's the general idea. I have no problem
with a file server also being a print server, or an web server also
handling DNS. It's the "applications" that should have their own
servers. For example, a SQLServer shouldn't also be an Exchange server,
or a domain controller shouldn't also be a web server. "Can" you run it
all on one machine? Sure. Something like SBS even forces you to. But
"should" you is another question.
For example, SQLServer, like any DB server, incl. DB2/400, eats memory.
The more memory it can get the happier it is. Heck, my copy on my
desktop will happily eat 6Gig of memory if I'm doing something complex.
Now, Exchange is the same way, Exchange will also eat memory, it is a
database of sorts too. Why would you take two applications like that and
drop them on the same machine and make them fight it out for memory?

-Walden

--
Walden H Leverich III
Tech Software
(516) 627-3800 x3051
WaldenL@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.TechSoftInc.com

Quiquid latine dictum sit altum viditur.
(Whatever is said in Latin seems profound.)