Using SQL Server for WSS 3.0 instead of Windows Internal database

views:

474

answers:

+1 Q:

Using SQL Server for WSS 3.0 instead of Windows Internal database

Hi Folks,

There are actually two related questions:

is it possible or advisable to use a full blown stand-alone SQL server for SharePoint Services WSS3.0 instead of the supplied windows internal database it comes with? The client I am working for is asking to utilize their existent SQL server for all WSS content databases to possibly minimize admin effort and improve performance.
As well, would you advise to install WSS on one physical server and the content database on another server? Any gain in performace? Practicality? ect. The default is WSS and all of its databases are installed on the same single server. We don't really need a farm setup of MOSS, because the WSS capabilities are enough for our needs.

Thanks, Val

+2 A:

Yes, when you create the site check the installation to be a "Web Front End" It will then prompt you to select a location for the SQL database. Just point it to which server you want.

I would definitely recommend putting it on a non-Sql Express instance. The express version only scales to 4 gig, limits the maximum number of connections etc. If your client is going to do much with it at all, you will eventually hit that limit. Full blown sql server has other advantages too, like help with backups etc.

Kevin 2010-03-16 14:35:23

Thanks Kevin. Do you mean "when create the site" or "site collection" to select "web front end"? I don't see the option anywhere.The WSS comes with windows internal DB and not SQL express, so the 4 GB limit is not an issue. We use WSS.

val 2010-03-16 15:06:31

What Kevin means when he says "create the site" is "when you are installing wss on your server". Hope that clears things up :-)

Paul Lucas 2010-03-18 14:10:28

Yes and yes.

Keeping the SQL and WSS servers separate saves resources on both, and neither are light weight applications. It also allows you to easily begin clustered/distributed environment in the event your usage increases, as well as following a least privledge principle, keeping product patches separate, etc.

As an addendum, you say you don't need a MOSS farm because WSS fits your needs, but be aware that it's just as easy to setup a distributed WSS environment as is MOSS; MOSS only adds capabilities to the application. It's usually a good idea to have at least two WFE's in the farm, if for nothing else than redundancy in case of failure.

OedipusPrime 2010-03-16 14:58:11

OP, Thanks for the good suggestion.I was also asked if it's possible and advisable to have a separete content database for each site in the site collection. Any word on that?

val 2010-03-16 15:09:00

An entire site collection can be bound to a specified content database, but individual sites within a site collection cannot. A web application can have any number of content databases available to it.

OedipusPrime 2010-03-16 16:29:00

The number of content databases you use will depend on the number of site collections you anticipate on having. If you are only going to have a small number of very large site collections, if may be worth having a content database for each of those site collections. Alternatively, if you have a large number of small site collections, a single content db might be the best way to go.Either way, do some research and planning to decide what your best options are.

Paul Lucas 2010-03-18 14:16:54

Yes you can use a 'full blown' SQL Server instead of the the free and limited SQL Server Express that is delivered with Windows SharePoint Services 3.0 (wss 3.0)

It's even better to separate the database and the actual website! More scalable (if you upgrade to MOSS), easier to manage and less security risks.

W0ut 2010-03-18 09:27:10

ansaurus

tags:

views:

answers:

Using SQL Server for WSS 3.0 instead of Windows Internal database

related questions