3

I'm looking at two different options to host the databases of my websites.

1) I can use the Shared SQL Server 2008 offerings of my host company (plenty of space) instead of installing database software on my webserver.

2) I can install my copy of SQL Server 2008 Web Edition on my Windows Server 2008 Hyper-V VPS account and host my database directly.

I realize there are questions about the load on the shared server, what I'll have the website doing, etc, but essentially this is just a server hosting a few CMS sites that have moderate traffic in the whole scheme of things.

So, my real question is: Are there any glaring issues between one choice or the other in terms of speed and performance that is commonly known?

1 Answer 1

2

With solution 1:

  • you don't put extra overhead of managing another SQL instance
  • You will have good performance as it seems underused
  • Your applications will have to stick with the current SQL collation (is it ok ?)
  • For security reasons, this web sites should have restricted access, just to their database. NO SA/ADMIN ACCOUNT
  • If you have a firewall in the middle which is stateful, just check your web sites can survive a lost SQL connection

With Solution 2:

  • If the web sites are hacked, the hacker will only get access to small sql database, and not to your main sql server
  • If you need later to move the web sites to another location, easier to move them with their own sql server
  • You will have to manage/backup/monitor/patch another SQL instance just for that small sites

I vote for Solution 1 except if your others database are high sensitive confidential content. I always prefer one SQL instance well managed than 2 badly managed

1
  • Add to that: crappy performance because your VPS likely does NOT Have the same fast disc subsystem than a dedicated SQL Sever machine. This can make a HUGH difference.
    – TomTom
    Mar 17, 2011 at 6:15

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .