ASP.Net with IIS and SQL Server in different hosting companies

[Michel Couche]

Hello,

I am working on a project for a potential customer.

The project will basically involve an ASP.Net 2.0 application and a
database (ideally MS SQL). The customer has already a hosting plan but it
does not currently include a MS SQL database. This option is offered as a
rather expensive add-on (600 US $ /year).

If we need cost saving, I could offer to set-up a MS SQL 2005 DB on my own
hosting plan in a different company (I may have 10 DB's) and use it as the
database for my customer's web site.

This would be a cheaper alternative but . do you think that there would be a
efficiency penalty ? I believe that as the IIS server and the MS SQL server
resides on separate machine with their own IP's it should be transparent
for my application and there should be no penalty in terms of user's
perceived efficacy

Thanks in advance for your feedback and advice,

Michel

NB: Last indication my hosting company is physically in the US and the
customer's hosting is in the UK

[Mark Fitzpatrick]

You can do this if need be. I'm doing it for one of my clients because of
the exact same cost reason for them. As to how much of a performance hit
you'll take, it will depend upon where the database server resides in
relation to the web server. There is always a penalty in performance due to
latency. This could cause your app to appear slower since you could be
running even half a second slower for database activities. To improve this
performance try limiting the number of data accesses on a page. If your
would normally return a number of datareaders, try getting one datareader
with multiple resultsets that you can iterate through. This can improve
performance because you're only using the one connection instead of
numerous. You can run a trace (using tracert at the command prompt) to find
the path to the various hosts to get an idea of where the datacenters are
actually located and this could help you figure out a rough idea of the
latency.
--
Hope this helps,
Mark Fitzpatrick
Microsoft MVP - FrontPage

"Michel Couche" <Contact //@// michelcouhe.net wrote in message
news:eV******** *******@TK2MSFT NGP05.phx.gbl.. .

Hello,

I am working on a project for a potential customer.

The project will basically involve an ASP.Net 2.0 application and a
database (ideally MS SQL). The customer has already a hosting plan but it
does not currently include a MS SQL database. This option is offered as a
rather expensive add-on (600 US $ /year).

If we need cost saving, I could offer to set-up a MS SQL 2005 DB on my own
hosting plan in a different company (I may have 10 DB's) and use it as the
database for my customer's web site.

This would be a cheaper alternative but . do you think that there would be
a efficiency penalty ? I believe that as the IIS server and the MS SQL
server resides on separate machine with their own IP's it should be
transparent for my application and there should be no penalty in terms of
user's perceived efficacy

Thanks in advance for your feedback and advice,

Michel

NB: Last indication my hosting company is physically in the US and the
customer's hosting is in the UK

[Norman Yuan]

Yes, theoretically, you can host SQL Server and your web app far from apart.
The key issue is the connection speed. If the communication between the two
hosts is via regular internet connection, as you use at home "High-Speed",
say, a few Mbp, then your web app would be literally useless. So, you may
need make sure you have a very good connection between the two host, maybe a
dedicated line with speed of 10, 50, or 100Mbp, which may well cost ten or
hundred times higher than $600/year hosing fee.
"Michel Couche" <Contact //@// michelcouhe.net wrote in message
news:eV******** *******@TK2MSFT NGP05.phx.gbl.. .

Hello,

I am working on a project for a potential customer.

The project will basically involve an ASP.Net 2.0 application and a
database (ideally MS SQL). The customer has already a hosting plan but it
does not currently include a MS SQL database. This option is offered as a
rather expensive add-on (600 US $ /year).

If we need cost saving, I could offer to set-up a MS SQL 2005 DB on my own
hosting plan in a different company (I may have 10 DB's) and use it as the
database for my customer's web site.

This would be a cheaper alternative but . do you think that there would be
a efficiency penalty ? I believe that as the IIS server and the MS SQL
server resides on separate machine with their own IP's it should be
transparent for my application and there should be no penalty in terms of
user's perceived efficacy

Thanks in advance for your feedback and advice,

Michel

NB: Last indication my hosting company is physically in the US and the
customer's hosting is in the UK

[John Timney \(MVP\)]

Am I being pedantic here. $600 bucks per year is peanuts, its not even a
day or two's consultancy rates for a cheap consultant.

Having SQL in a different hosting company is certianly do-able - but
different SLA's and having to seek support from two teams instead of one,
anthe potnetial latency of SQL traffic pales that figure into a sum not even
worth worrying about.

Regards

John Timney (MVP)
http://www.johntimney.com
http://www.johntimney.com/blog
"Michel Couche" <Contact //@// michelcouhe.net wrote in message
news:eV******** *******@TK2MSFT NGP05.phx.gbl.. .

Hello,

I am working on a project for a potential customer.

The project will basically involve an ASP.Net 2.0 application and a
database (ideally MS SQL). The customer has already a hosting plan but it
does not currently include a MS SQL database. This option is offered as a
rather expensive add-on (600 US $ /year).

If we need cost saving, I could offer to set-up a MS SQL 2005 DB on my own
hosting plan in a different company (I may have 10 DB's) and use it as the
database for my customer's web site.

This would be a cheaper alternative but . do you think that there would be
a efficiency penalty ? I believe that as the IIS server and the MS SQL
server resides on separate machine with their own IP's it should be
transparent for my application and there should be no penalty in terms of
user's perceived efficacy

Thanks in advance for your feedback and advice,

Michel

NB: Last indication my hosting company is physically in the US and the
customer's hosting is in the UK

[Juan T. Llibre]

You could also host the site at DiscountASP.NET :

http://www.discountasp.net/features.aspx

$90/yr. for the basic hosting plan + $10/month for adding SQL Server access.

See http://www.discountasp.net/features.aspx#addons for the addons pricelist.

Their SQL Server and their ASP.NET servers are hosted in the same network,
so you'd have good bandwidth between them.

They have reseller plans, so you could make a bit of money on those rates, too.

Disclaimer : I am not connected to DiscountASP.NET in any way.

Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
=============== =============== ========
"Michel Couche" <Contact //@// michelcouhe.net wrote in message news:eV******** *******@TK2MSFT NGP05.phx.gbl.. .

Hello,

I am working on a project for a potential customer.

The project will basically involve an ASP.Net 2.0 application and a database (ideally MS SQL). The customer has
already a hosting plan but it does not currently include a MS SQL database. This option is offered as a rather
expensive add-on (600 US $ /year).

If we need cost saving, I could offer to set-up a MS SQL 2005 DB on my own hosting plan in a different company (I may
have 10 DB's) and use it as the database for my customer's web site.

This would be a cheaper alternative but . do you think that there would be a efficiency penalty ? I believe that as
the IIS server and the MS SQL server resides on separate machine with their own IP's it should be transparent for my
application and there should be no penalty in terms of user's perceived efficacy

Thanks in advance for your feedback and advice,

Michel

NB: Last indication my hosting company is physically in the US and the customer's hosting is in the UK

[Mike]

600 a year isn't bad but a little high to add SQL db to your existing site.
That comes out to be 50 a month.
I should up my hosting rates with SQL. :)


"John Timney (MVP)" <x_****@timney. eclipse.co.ukwr ote in message
news:Rp******** *************** *******@eclipse .net.uk...

Am I being pedantic here. $600 bucks per year is peanuts, its not even a
day or two's consultancy rates for a cheap consultant.

Having SQL in a different hosting company is certianly do-able - but
different SLA's and having to seek support from two teams instead of one,
anthe potnetial latency of SQL traffic pales that figure into a sum not
even worth worrying about.

Regards

John Timney (MVP)
http://www.johntimney.com
http://www.johntimney.com/blog
"Michel Couche" <Contact //@// michelcouhe.net wrote in message
news:eV******** *******@TK2MSFT NGP05.phx.gbl.. .

>Hello,

I am working on a project for a potential customer.

The project will basically involve an ASP.Net 2.0 application and a
database (ideally MS SQL). The customer has already a hosting plan but it
does not currently include a MS SQL database. This option is offered as a
rather expensive add-on (600 US $ /year).

If we need cost saving, I could offer to set-up a MS SQL 2005 DB on my
own hosting plan in a different company (I may have 10 DB's) and use it
as the database for my customer's web site.

This would be a cheaper alternative but . do you think that there would
be a efficiency penalty ? I believe that as the IIS server and the MS SQL
server resides on separate machine with their own IP's it should be
transparent for my application and there should be no penalty in terms of
user's perceived efficacy

Thanks in advance for your feedback and advice,

Michel

NB: Last indication my hosting company is physically in the US and the
customer's hosting is in the UK

[=?Utf-8?B?UGV0ZXIgQnJvbWJlcmcgW0MjIE1WUF0=?=]

Hmm. I use gate.com for two separate ASP.NET 2.0 sites, I get a 25% discount
on the 2nd one, it averages $8.75 per month each and each one has its own SQL
2005 database. Am I missing something?
-- Peter
Recursion: see Recursion
site: http://www.eggheadcafe.com
unBlog: http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com
BlogMetaFinder: http://www.blogmetafinder.com

"Michel Couche" wrote:

Hello,

I am working on a project for a potential customer.

The project will basically involve an ASP.Net 2.0 application and a
database (ideally MS SQL). The customer has already a hosting plan but it
does not currently include a MS SQL database. This option is offered as a
rather expensive add-on (600 US $ /year).

If we need cost saving, I could offer to set-up a MS SQL 2005 DB on my own
hosting plan in a different company (I may have 10 DB's) and use it as the
database for my customer's web site.

This would be a cheaper alternative but . do you think that there would be a
efficiency penalty ? I believe that as the IIS server and the MS SQL server
resides on separate machine with their own IP's it should be transparent
for my application and there should be no penalty in terms of user's
perceived efficacy

Thanks in advance for your feedback and advice,

Michel

NB: Last indication my hosting company is physically in the US and the
customer's hosting is in the UK

[uybelgigaq]

Hello! Good Site! Thanks you! bdiztgiqmxmpmi