In reading the admin guide for SRM, it can be installed on the same host as VC or a different host. Should it be on the same or different host? What about the DB server? Same or different?
Our DB is MS SQL 2005 running on a Dell PE2950 and VC is running on a PE1950. Both are duel proc, quad core. Currently memory is 4Gb for both but we are adding 4 more GB to the DB server.
Thanks,
Chris
Well, personally I don't think there are any hard and fast views on this...
Personally, I'm getting increasing anxious about the number of management roles the VC box has to run now (Convertor, Update Manager, VC, Web Access, Mount, Capcity Planner) to name but a few...
Personally, I would perfer to run my SRM box on separate VM... I know that's costing us another M$ license, but heck as happy customers if we don't spend our money we will end up with rapid deflation on our hands!!!
I've always ran my SQL box as separate instances too, in SQL Authentication mode, as I don't have any corp policies that prohibit its use... remember if you MUST use Windows Authentication in SQL, the ONLY supported way of doing this to run a SQL instance on the VC box... That's an expensive solution because you cannot reuse an existing SQL box to hold the DB...
TO summarise my config:
Two Seperate VCs
Two Seperate Update Managers
Two Seperate SQL boxes with a VC-DB, VUM-DB and now a SRM-DB...
So now my single point of failure is my SQL boxes, if that goes down... roll-on the death of MS SQL as our DB backend - and roll-on some Open-LDAP multiple-master replication system...
Regards
Mike Laverick
RTFM Education
http://www.rtfm-ed.co.uk
Author of the SRM Book:
http://www.lulu.com/content/4343147
