Server Fault is a question and answer site for system and network administrators. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I don't have any background at all in ASP or MS server technologies, but this seems a bit odd to me -

A vendor told my company that their software (written in ASP.Net) required the following on our server(s) for every 5 users of the system.

  • 2 CPUs
  • 4GB of RAM

So if we have 20 users with this system (accessed via a browser over our LAN), according to the vendor, our server(s) should have 8 CPUs, and 16GB of RAM.

Am I wrong in thinking that for 20 users those systems requirements are kind of crazy? The application doesn't have to do much at all - it's largely just a database front-end that doesn't do any really specialized processing, and with less than 50,000 DB entries. It is integrated with Crystal Reports for reporting.

Does ASP.Net really have such a high resource usage? Could this just be a poorly designed application? Or am I not understanding something?

share|improve this question
up vote 1 down vote accepted

I think there is a big breakdown somewhere in communication, likely on the vendor's end. I can't even imagine creating an application with that sort of requirement. I am aware of multiplayer, online game servers written in Microsoft .NET which can handle many hundreds of concurrent users in near-real-time on a single CPU and 1Gig of RAM. Yes, ASP.NET adds a little bit more, as does having a RDBMS involved, but; well... if that sort of thing applied to StackExchange, it'd be impossible to run!

Anyway... ranting aside; I think miscommunication is the most likely trouble here. Any app which actually had that sort of requirement must be doing some incredible processing, and/or is written horribly.

share|improve this answer
Or really bad programming. Can be - seen that. – TomTom Oct 25 '10 at 21:51
+1 @TomTom, sadly. heh – Andrew Barber Oct 25 '10 at 23:54
Thanks. I'm inclined to go with the bad programming interpretation, having also seen the DB back-end:… – Kyle Lowry Oct 26 '10 at 14:43
Yowza, Kyle; I see what you mean. – Andrew Barber Oct 26 '10 at 15:28

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.