I know it depends, but I am just curious what specifications others are using to run a simple site with a MS SQL Server back-end. What is recommended for the application, not the database?
If you're not talking about the database, I would say that running a simple MVC web application you would just need enough RAM to run whatever Windows OS you plan on deploying it under. You shouldn't need any more than the recommended amount.
So for example, here are the Windows Server 2008 requirements.
Would have to agree with Joe, the recommended RAM for running the OS should be sufficient. However, when you start to use resource hungry tools like SQL Server I would always recommend adding at least 1 GB.
You can run a simple MVC site on Windows XP with IIS 5.1 and SQL Server 2005 Express. Here are the system requirements for Windows XP.
RAM is so cheap now I would go with at least 2 GB.
Related
I have 17 simple data entry applications(.net version is 3.5, designed in asp.net, coding language is c# and database is Oracle 10g) hosted under one application pool which is configured on IIS7 as .Net Framework Version = v2.0, Manged pipeline mode = Classic. My server is Windows server 2008 r2 64 bit with 32 GB ram.
Problem is one of my application started responding slowly, it was working fine before but now even pressing the tab key takes 2 to 3 seconds.
To check the problem I debugged the application in visual studio 2008 and it was working fine, then I configured the IIS7 on my PC and hosted the application from it and it was working fine( surprisingly my pc only have 4GB of ram and 32 bit windows 7 as operating system.)
I also tried DebugDiag on server to check the performance of w3wp.exe but couldn't find anything.
I also compared both the hosted applications (one from my local PC and one from server) using Firebug and fond under the .net tab that application hosted from server is taking more time, but I don't know the reason.
I also know for sure that database is not responding slow.
If someone can advice me how to check the problem that would be great,any advice would be appreciated.
Many thanks.
I have recently gotten the task of uploading a few ASP.NET projects to my VPS, which happens to be running Windows Server 2008 R2. One of these projects has to be given a subdomain (I use the server as DNS), and all projects has a MSSQL database, which have to work.
I've heard that IIS Express doesn't support neither databases nor subdomains, so I'm here to ask you guys what else I'm supposed to use, and preferably, how to do so. I'm brand new to hosting this way. I have regular IIS installed (which I've never worked with), as it comes with the OS, but I've been told that won't run databases either.
I'd prefer a free solution. The server is enough money by itself.
In windows server 2008
There is IIS 5 in Windows server 2008. You don't have the Express version, you got the "real" version.
We are struggling to find out what could be the ASP.NET application performance decrease when we pass from our staging server to our production server and we would like to hear from you to help us find the bottleneck.
Our staging server is a Intel Core 2 Quad CPU Q8200 (2.33 GHz) with 4GB of RAM, Windows Server 2003 R2 SP2 x64 Edition. Databases are hosted on Sql Server 2008 Express Edition. Everything seems to work smoothly. Page change is almost immediate ad page load time (for example switching pages in a grid) is ok.
Our production server is a VIRTUAL double Intel Xeon 3.00 GHz with 2GB of RAM, Windows Server 2008 Web Edition SP2 x86 Edition. Database are hosted on Sql Server 2008 Web Edition.
Our application is a .NET 3.5 (migrating to .NET 4 in these days) using classical best practices (masterpages, CSS, AJAX, paging for data, client cache for static resources, gzip compression on IIS for static and dynamic resources, server side cache for data that doesn't change frequently...).
I really can't understand what can cause the application to run so differently between the two scenarios. What could that be? The missing RAM? The load on the production server? The network limit?
What can I do to narrow bottlenecks' research?
You could briefly enable tracing on your production server (don't forget to turn it back off) and see what stages of your page loading are taking so long).
If you can easily add 2 GB more of RAM to the virtual server, try that, it's easy and might matter. Check your RAM usage in task manager and see how much you're using.
Are these servers hosted at the same place or might there be network latency differences?
On the server, run perfmon.msc and watch the counters, what's maxing out?
Does anybody know of Memory Leak in Oracle Client 10.2.04 64bit?
We use in on ASP.NET application running on Windows 2008 server with
System.Data.OracleClient and our process is growing to 2.4GB withing few days!
Can you test this on a 32bit client somewhere? Has the app worked in other environments, e.g., is this a sudden onset associated with migrating to 64 bit software? Is this an in-house developed app? Before I would point to Oracle, I'd suspect my own code. Particularly with something as egregious as this appears to be! Make sure there are no loops that open cursors inside and never close them.
I am building an ASP .NET 2.0 web app for an intranet environment. The site may have to be hosted on an XP machine in the LAN. IIS would restrict the number of connections to 40.
My requirements are different - the number of clients in the LAN could be much higher - say upto 1000 or maybe even more.
The site is built using ASP .NET 2.0 and extensively uses ASP .NET Ajax 1.0.
What options do I have? Is hosting it on an Apache server possible? (with ASP .NET Ajax)
If not, any alternatives?
Thanks.
EDIT: I've heard about ultidev cassini. Is that a good option (ASP .NET 2.0+ ASP .NET AJAX 1.0)?
I wouldn't consider cassini, in my experience it's too slow for production. Other alternatives:
Apache + mod_mono (but your app would be running under Mono instead of "standard" .net, which may or may not bring its own problems)
Apache + mod_aspdotnet (but this mod seems rather old and unmaintained)
Buy a Windows Web Server license (2003 or 2008), but I guess that's not an option is it? :-)
With those sorts of numbers, you should be able to justify a license really - will they all be accessing the server concurrently - if not you might be able to get away with the XP hosting.
How are you managing 1000 users without a single server instance in there - surely one of them has a bit of capacity to run IIS?
You can get a Windows Web Server 2008 License from around $469
This doesn't require CALs for access, but (IANAL) you might not be able use Windows Auth with that and it should be a public facing website...