Installing SQL 2005 on a Windows 2003 Terminal Server

[Guest Paul Duncan]

I have found several Microsoft KB articles saying that SQL Server is not

supported on Windows Server 2003 Terminal Server application server (KB

327270).

This article appears to be specific to SQL Server Failover Clustering on

Microsoft Windows Server 2003-based server clusters where the Windows Server

2003-based server clusters have Terminal Server installed on the cluster.

Is there an official stance about installing SQL 2005 on a Terminal Server?

My experience has been that SQL significantly degrades performance when it

is installed on a TS.

Thanks!

[Guest Vera Noest [MVP]]

Re: Installing SQL 2005 on a Windows 2003 Terminal Server

 

It's possible to install SQL2005 on a TS, but absolutely *not*

recommended. SQL and TS have very different resource requirements,

and the server must be tuned differently for these two roles.

 

_________________________________________________________

Vera Noest

MCSE, CCEA, Microsoft MVP - Terminal Server

TS troubleshooting: http://ts.veranoest.net

___ please respond in newsgroup, NOT by private email ___

 

=?Utf-8?B?UGF1bCBEdW5jYW4=?=

<PaulDuncan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote on 24 sep 2008 in

microsoft.public.windows.terminal_services:

> I have found several Microsoft KB articles saying that SQL

> Server is not supported on Windows Server 2003 Terminal Server

> application server (KB 327270).

> This article appears to be specific to SQL Server Failover

> Clustering on Microsoft Windows Server 2003-based server

> clusters where the Windows Server 2003-based server clusters

> have Terminal Server installed on the cluster. Is there an

> official stance about installing SQL 2005 on a Terminal Server?

> My experience has been that SQL significantly degrades

> performance when it is installed on a TS.

> Thanks!

[Guest Jeff Pitsch]

Re: Installing SQL 2005 on a Windows 2003 Terminal Server

 

Plus I don't think it's actually documented anywhere outside of blogs.

It really boils down to plain common sense.

 

Jeff Pitsch

Microsoft MVP - Terminal Services

 

Vera Noest [MVP] wrote:

> It's possible to install SQL2005 on a TS, but absolutely *not*

> recommended. SQL and TS have very different resource requirements,

> and the server must be tuned differently for these two roles.

>

> _________________________________________________________

> Vera Noest

> MCSE, CCEA, Microsoft MVP - Terminal Server

> TS troubleshooting: http://ts.veranoest.net

> ___ please respond in newsgroup, NOT by private email ___

>

> =?Utf-8?B?UGF1bCBEdW5jYW4=?=

> <PaulDuncan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote on 24 sep 2008 in

> microsoft.public.windows.terminal_services:

>

>> I have found several Microsoft KB articles saying that SQL

>> Server is not supported on Windows Server 2003 Terminal Server

>> application server (KB 327270).

>> This article appears to be specific to SQL Server Failover

>> Clustering on Microsoft Windows Server 2003-based server

>> clusters where the Windows Server 2003-based server clusters

>> have Terminal Server installed on the cluster. Is there an

>> official stance about installing SQL 2005 on a Terminal Server?

>> My experience has been that SQL significantly degrades

>> performance when it is installed on a TS.

>> Thanks!

[Guest Paul Duncan]

Re: Installing SQL 2005 on a Windows 2003 Terminal Server

 

Thanks for the responses. I agree that it is common sense to NOT impose this

on a TS. Unfortunately, the task of convincing decision makers to use common

sense on the matter is a uphill battle. Thus, having an official documented

position to point to would be valuable.

 

"Jeff Pitsch" wrote:

> Plus I don't think it's actually documented anywhere outside of blogs.

> It really boils down to plain common sense.

>

> Jeff Pitsch

> Microsoft MVP - Terminal Services

>

> Vera Noest [MVP] wrote:

> > It's possible to install SQL2005 on a TS, but absolutely *not*

> > recommended. SQL and TS have very different resource requirements,

> > and the server must be tuned differently for these two roles.

> >

> > _________________________________________________________

> > Vera Noest

> > MCSE, CCEA, Microsoft MVP - Terminal Server

> > TS troubleshooting: http://ts.veranoest.net

> > ___ please respond in newsgroup, NOT by private email ___

> >

> > =?Utf-8?B?UGF1bCBEdW5jYW4=?=

> > <PaulDuncan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote on 24 sep 2008 in

> > microsoft.public.windows.terminal_services:

> >

> >> I have found several Microsoft KB articles saying that SQL

> >> Server is not supported on Windows Server 2003 Terminal Server

> >> application server (KB 327270).

> >> This article appears to be specific to SQL Server Failover

> >> Clustering on Microsoft Windows Server 2003-based server

> >> clusters where the Windows Server 2003-based server clusters

> >> have Terminal Server installed on the cluster. Is there an

> >> official stance about installing SQL 2005 on a Terminal Server?

> >> My experience has been that SQL significantly degrades

> >> performance when it is installed on a TS.

> >> Thanks!

>

[Guest TP]

Re: Installing SQL 2005 on a Windows 2003 Terminal Server

 

Hi,

 

It depends on the needs of the particular situation. If you are asking

if it is recommended to install an instance of SQL Server that will

support hundreds of concurrent users with database sizes several

hundred gigabytes to terabytes, then the answer is no.

 

Only you know the specifications of the server, the number of users

that will use TS, the applications and the load they impose, the

security/uptime requirements of the organization, the memory, cpu,

hard drive and i/o requirements of sql server in this specific use case,

the queries that normally run, etc.

 

There is no one answer that works for every situation without knowing

all the facts. There are literally tons of cases where running multiple

roles on the same server is a perfectly reasonable business decision,

however, there are also lots of cases where it makes the most sense

to have each server dedicated to a single function.

 

Think about it for a moment--if the advice of the experts in each

specialty (ts, exchange, sql, ad, web, erp, crm, etc.) was followed

blindly, even a small company with a handful of employees would run

ten or more servers. Or in today's world, perhaps they would be VMs

running on a server with multiple 6-core CPUs.

 

-TP

 

Paul Duncan wrote:

> I have found several Microsoft KB articles saying that SQL Server is

> not supported on Windows Server 2003 Terminal Server application

> server (KB 327270).

> This article appears to be specific to SQL Server Failover Clustering

> on Microsoft Windows Server 2003-based server clusters where the

> Windows Server 2003-based server clusters have Terminal Server

> installed on the cluster. Is there an official stance about

> installing SQL 2005 on a Terminal Server? My experience has been that

> SQL significantly degrades performance when it is installed on a TS.

> Thanks!