3 ms·

A Dev once told me that running SQL Server and IIS (Microsoft webserver) on the same machine would allow shared memory. Just pass a pointer from db to web; no c

by irq-1 4y ago

A Dev once told me that running SQL Server and IIS (Microsoft webserver) on the same machine would allow shared memory. Just pass a pointer from db to web; no copying of the data. Postgres doesn't do this AFAIK.

JohnBooty 4y ago
Purely FYI for those wondering: yeah, this is the default when connecting to MSSQL from the same box. It's not an IIS thing per se. Any app can do this with the appropriate connection string. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/tools/configuration-manager/shared-memory-properties?view=sql-server-ver16 https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/tools/configuration-ma... https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/tools/configuration-manager/creating-a-valid-connection-string-using-shared-memory-protocol?view=sql-server-ver16 https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/tools/configuration-ma... It's been ages since I worked in Microsoft land, but this is one of the reasons why MS shops often scale up instead of out. Imagine a single box with a dozens of beefy cores and a couple hundred gigs of RAM running both IIS and SQL. That's... a significant amount of power. It's also a potentially massive blast radius for security oopsies, but I don't know the practical history of how secure it has or hasn't been, or how it integrates with things like clustering etc.
- bob1029 4y ago
  I've personally found that one computer is substantially easier to keep an eye on than many computers.
  - JohnBooty 4y ago
    Yeah. And a lot of businesses just don't need the high availability that a cluster of lesser boxen can provide. If they need to have a few hours of downtime each month to install patches on the one-and-only Big Ass Server, that's not necessarily a problem. Oh, and even an idiot can admin the thing. (Not a literal idiot, but it's about the simplest admin experience possible) I honestly think a lot of businesses would honestly be better off with this kind of simplified "scale up" architecture. The downsides are clear and it's not the right fit for everything, obviously. But I see the IT world defaulting to these complicated 95384-piece AWS instances "Because that's how Netflix does it" or whatever and it's like... you're not Netflix and hardly anybody is.

by irq-1 4y ago

JohnBooty 4y ago

Purely FYI for those wondering: yeah, this is the default when connecting to MSSQL from the same box. It's not an IIS thing per se. Any app can do this with the appropriate connection string. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/tools/configuration-manager/shared-memory-properties?view=sql-server-ver16 https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/tools/configuration-ma... https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/tools/configuration-manager/creating-a-valid-connection-string-using-shared-memory-protocol?view=sql-server-ver16 https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/tools/configuration-ma... It's been ages since I worked in Microsoft land, but this is one of the reasons why MS shops often scale up instead of out. Imagine a single box with a dozens of beefy cores and a couple hundred gigs of RAM running both IIS and SQL. That's... a significant amount of power. It's also a potentially massive blast radius for security oopsies, but I don't know the practical history of how secure it has or hasn't been, or how it integrates with things like clustering etc.

bob1029 4y ago
I've personally found that one computer is substantially easier to keep an eye on than many computers.
- JohnBooty 4y ago
  Yeah. And a lot of businesses just don't need the high availability that a cluster of lesser boxen can provide. If they need to have a few hours of downtime each month to install patches on the one-and-only Big Ass Server, that's not necessarily a problem. Oh, and even an idiot can admin the thing. (Not a literal idiot, but it's about the simplest admin experience possible) I honestly think a lot of businesses would honestly be better off with this kind of simplified "scale up" architecture. The downsides are clear and it's not the right fit for everything, obviously. But I see the IT world defaulting to these complicated 95384-piece AWS instances "Because that's how Netflix does it" or whatever and it's like... you're not Netflix and hardly anybody is.