Windows 2003 Server and SQL Server on same box?

Anybody doing this?

[rehabguy]

With 3.0 Ghz processor and 1GB of RAM, do you think that you could run Windows 2003 Server and SQL Server 2000 (Professional Edition) on same box?

I know the conventional wisdom is to have two seperate boxes, but this idea came about years ago when everything was 200 MGhz or less processors.

This is for Internet use. 3-4 million page views/month.

Anybody doing this rather than having two seperate servers?

[mattglet]

We were in the same situation, approx. same server specs too. We soon found that our server was starting to feel the effects of having both web & database on the same box, and we moved to 2 servers (1 web, 1 database).

It's a play-it-by-ear thing, I think. You can definitely start out having both run on the same box, but keep watch of your server performance and site speed. If your processor is pegged high for long amounts of time, you should consider moving to 2 boxes.

A lot depends on how much work your database does, and any other processor intensive activities are present on your site.

[TheNige]

It also depends on what type of data you are serving. Does it need to be retrieved from the database on each page load? Or can you cache it so that you don't have to hit the database each time?

[digitalv]

My first question is why would you want to? With 3 - 4 Million page views per month you should be able to generate significant revenue off of your website - certainly enough to cover the cost of a second server and rack space.

[rehabguy]

Well, it's a non-profit web site, so you know how they are about expenses.

I appreciate the input so far, by the way!

[raywood]

What does your load profile look like over time? Your server could probably handle 3-4 million page views per month with a flat time profile. Tha's maybe a hundred or so requests per minute.
But your actual peak load is probably 10 or 20 or 100 times that. Your server will choke pretty soon.
About the expense of a server. If the web site is used to raise funds, then it makes sense to keep it running. A broken web site will shut down the incoming cash flow whether you are for profit or non-profit.

[MetaFunk]

There are also security implications, due to ports required to be opened.

Its safest of have them both on seperate servers.

G,

[rehabguy]

A broken web site will shut down the incoming cash flow whether you are for profit or non-profit.

Its safest of have them both on seperate servers.

I appreciate everyone's feedback. Great responses, by the way. I'm leaning towards keeping them seperate now.