I personally disagree about the increase in performance by having SQL local when supporting that many systems.
But if you desire to be in support should you ever run in to issues or open a support ticket with MSFT, I'd follow the guidelines in TechNet. Sent from my Windows Phone ________________________________ From: Roland Janus<mailto:roland.ja...@hispeed.ch> Sent: 8/4/2013 6:39 PM To: mssms@lists.myitforum.com<mailto:mssms@lists.myitforum.com> Subject: RE: [mssms] CM12: SQL local or remote? Everything else is remote, to relieve the site server of that and to have a bit more resilience. But since the site server can only be one server and it also does most of the processing, SQL local would increase performance and reduce an additional single point of failure (not considering SQL clustering). The only reason to do remote is that article, otherwise I don’t see any reason or benefit. From: listsad...@lists.myitforum.com [mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] On Behalf Of Eric Morrison Sent: Montag, 5. August 2013 00:17 To: mssms@lists.myitforum.com Subject: RE: [mssms] CM12: SQL local or remote? If they have that primary's site code, then it's handling those systems. You'll need remote DPs and MPs anyway to handle that count. So yes, you'll need remote SQL if you're managing that many systems. You'll also need to look at the mp, dp, sup, and other roles to see what count they support. For example, you're going to need multiple MPs for that many systems to one site. I believe 25k is the supported count o'er mp. Sent from my Windows Phone _____ From: Roland Janus <mailto:roland.ja...@hispeed.ch> Sent: 8/4/2013 4:44 PM To: mssms@lists.myitforum.com Subject: [mssms] CM12: SQL local or remote? I do have an opinion on this and I know what I want to do, but I also have a conflict with a statement from technet: “A child primary site that uses SQL Server installed on the same computer as the site server can support up to 50,000 clients. When you use SQL Server that is installed on a computer that is remote from the site server, the child primary site can support up to 100,000 clients.” We expect up-to 100’000 clients but that site server will not serve clients, all handled with local servers (MP-replica, SUP). The site server is basically doing processing and replication, that’s it. I like to avoid more servers, more points of failures, more things to manage, more complexity. Anyone doing local despite what technet says? Anyone had this question raised to MS and got kind of an agreement doing so? (That is kind of important…) PM me if you don’t want to go public? -Roland
