NIC Teaming

I have a Dell 2850 that is being setup for a SQL database. In the past (for
example my Exchange 2003 server) I have had problems when teaming the NIC
cards on the server in a load balancing mode.
My question is, for SQL server (this server will also run IIS) where clients
will connect via a browser to view documents, what is the best method for
teaming the NIC's? Is there any benefit in using load balancing? When
dealing with my back-up server I have been told that teaming NIC cards for
load balancing does not improve bandwidth, if so what is the benefit for
teaming two NIC's for load balancing.
Thank You.
A lot of the earlier teaming software had serious issues, and I got burned
resulting in me not using it for a long time. The newer generations are
pretty solid. I don't have any issues using it now. Just make sure you
have the lates BIOS and load balancing software.
There are several benefits of using load balancing of course. One, you have
more paths to push the data over. Two, you have more redundancy.
Typically, you never approach the maximum capacity of your NICs anyway if
you are using 1GB. The bottlenecks usually occur in other areas of the
system.
"mcwe_admin" <mcweadmin@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:90F8DA61-CB2B-4E7A-BEA9-3716F403EF8A@.microsoft.com...
> I have a Dell 2850 that is being setup for a SQL database. In the past
(for
> example my Exchange 2003 server) I have had problems when teaming the NIC
> cards on the server in a load balancing mode.
> My question is, for SQL server (this server will also run IIS) where
clients
> will connect via a browser to view documents, what is the best method for
> teaming the NIC's? Is there any benefit in using load balancing? When
> dealing with my back-up server I have been told that teaming NIC cards for
> load balancing does not improve bandwidth, if so what is the benefit for
> teaming two NIC's for load balancing.
> Thank You.
|||Would load-balancing be preferred over fault tolerance mode for a sql
database server running iis?
Thanks.
"Derrick Leggett" wrote:

> A lot of the earlier teaming software had serious issues, and I got burned
> resulting in me not using it for a long time. The newer generations are
> pretty solid. I don't have any issues using it now. Just make sure you
> have the lates BIOS and load balancing software.
> There are several benefits of using load balancing of course. One, you have
> more paths to push the data over. Two, you have more redundancy.
> Typically, you never approach the maximum capacity of your NICs anyway if
> you are using 1GB. The bottlenecks usually occur in other areas of the
> system.
>
> "mcwe_admin" <mcweadmin@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:90F8DA61-CB2B-4E7A-BEA9-3716F403EF8A@.microsoft.com...
> (for
> clients
>
>
|||Not if you don't need it. If you're not getting and network latency or wait
times, then just stick with fault tolerance. There's no reason to introduce
more variables into the equation if you don't need them.
The bigger issue is running IIS on the database server. I wouldn't mind
this for a reporting database server, but would try my hardest to avoid it
on the main, critical production database servers of a corporation if I
could avoid it.
"mcwe_admin" <mcweadmin@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:4332A3FA-489E-4FE6-B439-8DC77DBD47BF@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Would load-balancing be preferred over fault tolerance mode for a sql
> database server running iis?
> Thanks.
> "Derrick Leggett" wrote:
burned[vbcol=seagreen]
are[vbcol=seagreen]
have[vbcol=seagreen]
if[vbcol=seagreen]
past[vbcol=seagreen]
NIC[vbcol=seagreen]
for[vbcol=seagreen]
When[vbcol=seagreen]
for[vbcol=seagreen]
for[vbcol=seagreen]
|||Note that there is only about 100 users that will be accessing this server,
IIS will be needed as the front end for the database. With this amount of
users do you think that I would need a seperate server for IIS?
The server is a Dell 2850, dual processor with 2 Gig of Ram.
What types of problems do you think could occur?
Thanks.
"Derrick Leggett" wrote:

> Not if you don't need it. If you're not getting and network latency or wait
> times, then just stick with fault tolerance. There's no reason to introduce
> more variables into the equation if you don't need them.
> The bigger issue is running IIS on the database server. I wouldn't mind
> this for a reporting database server, but would try my hardest to avoid it
> on the main, critical production database servers of a corporation if I
> could avoid it.
>
> "mcwe_admin" <mcweadmin@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:4332A3FA-489E-4FE6-B439-8DC77DBD47BF@.microsoft.com...
> burned
> are
> have
> if
> past
> NIC
> for
> When
> for
> for
>
>