Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations derfloh on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
What is the difference?
- Thread starter bairdt
- Start date
- Thread starter
- #3
It was in this webcast:
bairdt,
I believe what the distinction they are using is between servers that serve your web content(webpages), and servers that have a service or application that is used over the web. For example if your company is running a Citrix server or has uses internet applications for their business they would be considered web services.
Microsoft likes to think of webservices as being part of the .NET framework.
hope this helps,
Ben
I believe what the distinction they are using is between servers that serve your web content(webpages), and servers that have a service or application that is used over the web. For example if your company is running a Citrix server or has uses internet applications for their business they would be considered web services.
Microsoft likes to think of webservices as being part of the .NET framework.
hope this helps,
Ben
- Thread starter
- #5
It does help but it leads to another question.
Would SharePoint be a Web Service or a Web Server? Would it fall under that category? Yes it's confusing because I wouldn't put my content on one server and say IIS be on another. Seems rediculous to say you have to have 2 or even 3 servers according to M$'s model. 1 for the request, 1 for the files and the other is your application. Couldn't they realistically be one machine?
Would SharePoint be a Web Service or a Web Server? Would it fall under that category? Yes it's confusing because I wouldn't put my content on one server and say IIS be on another. Seems rediculous to say you have to have 2 or even 3 servers according to M$'s model. 1 for the request, 1 for the files and the other is your application. Couldn't they realistically be one machine?
I would definetely put them on one machine. I would however make sure they they are on two different partitions (if not physical drives). And make sure you have a good complete backup system for both.
You have to weigh the benefits of keeping the cost down by combining servers vs the cost of downtime to multiple components if you need to service one or the other. You also have to weigh your business size and needs. Many of the Microsoft models make no sense for a small business. The size of the org that I work for would have overkill if we followed the M$ book. But for larger corps with serious $$ on the line spending an extra 2,000 to seperate each feature might be worth it.
Personally I would keep them together.
You have to weigh the benefits of keeping the cost down by combining servers vs the cost of downtime to multiple components if you need to service one or the other. You also have to weigh your business size and needs. Many of the Microsoft models make no sense for a small business. The size of the org that I work for would have overkill if we followed the M$ book. But for larger corps with serious $$ on the line spending an extra 2,000 to seperate each feature might be worth it.
Personally I would keep them together.
- Thread starter
- #7
I think we're looking at overall performance including future expansion. We know we want a server dedicated for just .NET applications (That would be the application server) but it was the Web Server and Web Services that has us confused. I'm used to, personally, having it where I had a web server (Apache) and I hosted everything there all on the same machine. Now if they are thinking programs like SharePoint is a Web Service I get that but, in that model, would Application Center control it?
Life was much easier as Linux but now M$ has taken over.
Life was much easier as Linux but now M$ has taken over.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question