Architecture question

I have a couple of dozen users running about 20 reports. The reports are
running from SQL Server stored procedures on a server named CORP_DB. The
reports render quickly, even running on my development box, I've never had
anyone complain about performance. My question is this: can I use a beefy
workstation with 2.5ghz cpu and 1gb ram (I'll call it CORP_RS) as my server
to host IIS and Reporting Services? If I do it this way should I put the two
RS databases on CORP_DB or should I put them on CORP_RS? I may be scaling up
to about 100 users and 50 to 80 reports.
Thanks,
DougSMy personal feeling is to have the RS databases local, even if the data is
on another server. The RS databases are used as an object store (all the
report definitions are stored there, as well as everything else need by RS).
SQL Server is good at how it uses memory. I am currently using a workstation
with 2 gigs of ram and 2 processors. My suggestion is to add a gig of ram if
you can (RS is pretty ram intensive) and add a processor. You might be fine
with 1 processor and 1 gig but it up if at all possible beef it up. Also,
install Windows 2003 Server Standard edition on it.
Bruce Loehle-Conger
MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
"DougS" <doug@.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:OWP73$EmFHA.3144@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>I have a couple of dozen users running about 20 reports. The reports are
>running from SQL Server stored procedures on a server named CORP_DB. The
>reports render quickly, even running on my development box, I've never had
>anyone complain about performance. My question is this: can I use a beefy
>workstation with 2.5ghz cpu and 1gb ram (I'll call it CORP_RS) as my server
>to host IIS and Reporting Services? If I do it this way should I put the
>two RS databases on CORP_DB or should I put them on CORP_RS? I may be
>scaling up to about 100 users and 50 to 80 reports.
> Thanks,
> DougS
>|||I have to have a sql server license for the machine that is rendering the
reports dont I? That's MS's gotcha isnt it? RS is 'free' with SQL Server but
it has to run on a machine by itself so you end up buying another license.
"Bruce L-C [MVP]" <bruce_lcNOSPAM@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uxTlqRFmFHA.3552@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> My personal feeling is to have the RS databases local, even if the data is
> on another server. The RS databases are used as an object store (all the
> report definitions are stored there, as well as everything else need by
> RS). SQL Server is good at how it uses memory. I am currently using a
> workstation with 2 gigs of ram and 2 processors. My suggestion is to add a
> gig of ram if you can (RS is pretty ram intensive) and add a processor.
> You might be fine with 1 processor and 1 gig but it up if at all possible
> beef it up. Also, install Windows 2003 Server Standard edition on it.
>
> --
> Bruce Loehle-Conger
> MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
>
>
> "DougS" <doug@.nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:OWP73$EmFHA.3144@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>>I have a couple of dozen users running about 20 reports. The reports are
>>running from SQL Server stored procedures on a server named CORP_DB. The
>>reports render quickly, even running on my development box, I've never had
>>anyone complain about performance. My question is this: can I use a beefy
>>workstation with 2.5ghz cpu and 1gb ram (I'll call it CORP_RS) as my
>>server to host IIS and Reporting Services? If I do it this way should I
>>put the two RS databases on CORP_DB or should I put them on CORP_RS? I may
>>be scaling up to about 100 users and 50 to 80 reports.
>> Thanks,
>> DougS
>|||No, you do not have to have it run on a machine by itself. I currently have
it running on the same machine as my datamart. Now, some IT departments
freak at the idea of having anything but a database run on the machine.
Especially IIS but IIS with an asp.net application really disturbs them. My
feeling is having a web server running on the database machine is the
direction all vendors are going (Oracle does this too) so the dba's need to
get with the program. Anyway, it is your own decision whether to have it on
the same box or not. Now, people that are doing a web farm by definition are
running on other boxes.
Bruce Loehle-Conger
MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
"DougS" <doug@.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:epbro4bmFHA.3120@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>I have to have a sql server license for the machine that is rendering the
>reports dont I? That's MS's gotcha isnt it? RS is 'free' with SQL Server
>but it has to run on a machine by itself so you end up buying another
>license.
> "Bruce L-C [MVP]" <bruce_lcNOSPAM@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:uxTlqRFmFHA.3552@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> My personal feeling is to have the RS databases local, even if the data
>> is on another server. The RS databases are used as an object store (all
>> the report definitions are stored there, as well as everything else need
>> by RS). SQL Server is good at how it uses memory. I am currently using a
>> workstation with 2 gigs of ram and 2 processors. My suggestion is to add
>> a gig of ram if you can (RS is pretty ram intensive) and add a processor.
>> You might be fine with 1 processor and 1 gig but it up if at all possible
>> beef it up. Also, install Windows 2003 Server Standard edition on it.
>>
>> --
>> Bruce Loehle-Conger
>> MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
>>
>>
>> "DougS" <doug@.nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:OWP73$EmFHA.3144@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>>I have a couple of dozen users running about 20 reports. The reports are
>>running from SQL Server stored procedures on a server named CORP_DB. The
>>reports render quickly, even running on my development box, I've never
>>had anyone complain about performance. My question is this: can I use a
>>beefy workstation with 2.5ghz cpu and 1gb ram (I'll call it CORP_RS) as
>>my server to host IIS and Reporting Services? If I do it this way should
>>I put the two RS databases on CORP_DB or should I put them on CORP_RS? I
>>may be scaling up to about 100 users and 50 to 80 reports.
>> Thanks,
>> DougS
>>
>