473,322 Members | 1,480 Online
Bytes | Software Development & Data Engineering Community
Post Job

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Join Bytes to post your question to a community of 473,322 software developers and data experts.

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

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

Sep 19 '07 #1
7 1753
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.netwrote in message
news:eV***************@TK2MSFTNGP05.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

Sep 19 '07 #2
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.netwrote in message
news:eV***************@TK2MSFTNGP05.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
Sep 19 '07 #3
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.netwrote in message
news:eV***************@TK2MSFTNGP05.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

Sep 19 '07 #4
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.netwrote in message news:eV***************@TK2MSFTNGP05.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

Sep 19 '07 #5
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.ukwrote 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.netwrote in message
news:eV***************@TK2MSFTNGP05.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


Sep 19 '07 #6
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

Sep 19 '07 #7
Hello! Good Site! Thanks you! bdiztgiqmxmpmi
Nov 23 '07 #8

This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion.

Similar topics

3
by: cooldv | last post by:
i am running a website on Windows 2000 server with ASP 3 webpages and Access 2000 database. (with a hosting company) traffic is slow at this time but expect to grow. lately i have been reading...
4
by: Uncle Ben | last post by:
Some ASP hosting companies allow users to upload any ASP programs that they want. But, as you know, ASP programs can do virtually everything, including running components, doing disk operations,...
12
by: Troy | last post by:
My ISP provides me with 2 servers: one for normal web hosting (non-PHP) and a CGI server (with PHP). I create my website using fusion 7 and upload this in its entirity to the web hosting server....
7
by: John | last post by:
Do you guys have any idea if web hosting companies usually give access to SQL Server databases through Enterprise Manager? I used to have have access to my DB through EE with my previous provider...
2
by: Carl Gilbert | last post by:
Hi I feel as if I'm fighting a loosing battle with shared hosting at the moment. I have an account with 1&1. For a whopping £16.99 a month I get 6GB of shared Microsoft hosting. I also get...
7
by: Vincent Delporte | last post by:
Hello I'm interested in hearing reflections by seasoned web app developpers about the different ways to write PHP apps, and especially how they compare in terms of performance, whether it's the...
3
by: Steve Holden | last post by:
I know there are quite a few hosting companies now who represent themselves as Python-friendly. Rather than trawl through the Wiki pages, however, and email each one separately I am sending this...
11
by: mp- | last post by:
I want to be able to allow people to check their email from my PHP online application. Given only the users 1) email address, 2) username (if applicable) and 3) password - how can I auto detect...
2
by: adlloyd | last post by:
Hi all, I'm doing a little research into Windows-based managed/dedicated servers. There are a few companies that provide what I want with a reputation to back it up: rackspace.co.uk...
0
by: DolphinDB | last post by:
Tired of spending countless mintues downsampling your data? Look no further! In this article, you’ll learn how to efficiently downsample 6.48 billion high-frequency records to 61 million...
0
by: ryjfgjl | last post by:
ExcelToDatabase: batch import excel into database automatically...
0
isladogs
by: isladogs | last post by:
The next Access Europe meeting will be on Wednesday 6 Mar 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC) and finishing at about 19:15 (7.15PM). In this month's session, we are pleased to welcome back...
0
by: Vimpel783 | last post by:
Hello! Guys, I found this code on the Internet, but I need to modify it a little. It works well, the problem is this: Data is sent from only one cell, in this case B5, but it is necessary that data...
0
by: jfyes | last post by:
As a hardware engineer, after seeing that CEIWEI recently released a new tool for Modbus RTU Over TCP/UDP filtering and monitoring, I actively went to its official website to take a look. It turned...
0
by: ArrayDB | last post by:
The error message I've encountered is; ERROR:root:Error generating model response: exception: access violation writing 0x0000000000005140, which seems to be indicative of an access violation...
1
by: PapaRatzi | last post by:
Hello, I am teaching myself MS Access forms design and Visual Basic. I've created a table to capture a list of Top 30 singles and forms to capture new entries. The final step is a form (unbound)...
0
by: Faith0G | last post by:
I am starting a new it consulting business and it's been a while since I setup a new website. Is wordpress still the best web based software for hosting a 5 page website? The webpages will be...
0
isladogs
by: isladogs | last post by:
The next Access Europe User Group meeting will be on Wednesday 3 Apr 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC+1) and finishing by 19:30 (7.30PM). In this session, we are pleased to welcome former...

By using Bytes.com and it's services, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

To disable or enable advertisements and analytics tracking please visit the manage ads & tracking page.