Great Plains and SQL Server

Have you obtained the Great Plains hardware specification document? It has several hardware configurations, based upon number of users, modules used, and transaction loads.

I can't see how you were able to put 12 users on the Ctree database!! Anyone moving from Ctree to MSSQL is going to see a major increase in speed after the migration is complete!

We do worry when our clients are running Great Plains and Exchange on the same server.

Email me if you need to get a copy of the document.

Brian Begley
Business Microvar
brianb@bmicrovar.com

Thanks for the reminder on the hardware specs. I checked the web site and we appear to be within the hardware parameters set out by GPS. Although, their recomendations are silent concerning running other applications on the server with GPS.

We have been able to handle 12 users on Ctree satisfactorly. I think this is because we have several companies running in Great Plains. As I understand it, Ctree slows down as additional users sign on within an individual company. Users accessing other companies do not impact the access spead of the first company.

With respect to the dedicated GPS server, I was just wondering if there are strong enough reasons, other than speed, to justify the cost of putting GPS on it's own server.

Gene

It mostly has to do with RAM. SQL will need the RAM and if you have other things running they will take some of that. As lpgforms said, it is definetly not good to have Exchange running on the same server. If you use the server for file sharing that isn't heavy use it should be okay. How much are you planning to have in the server and what kinds of things do you want to put on it?

sql and exchange on the same server are bad news.... putting isa and firewall on the same box at the same time is even more bad news.

SBS2003 or for that matter any SBS cannot handle the load.

mark my words, you will be moving to a seperate box at some point in the near future.



-----------
and they wonder why they call it Great Pains!

jaz

As I understand your responses, in theory we can probably run SQL and Exchange on the same server if we have enough memory. However, in practice having both on the same server will probably lead to problems at some point in the future. Is my thinking on track? Why does SQL and Exchange on the same server cause problems?

Stef315, other than services SBS requires, we plan to run Great Plains, Exchange, BackupExec, Trend Micro Client/Server/Messaging suite, and GFI MailEssentails Spam Filtering. We will also have a separate Citrix server running GPS for all users and Microsoft Office for about half of our users.

Thanks for all of your advice. You certainly have helped get my thought process going in the right direction.

Gene

From my understanding - running SQL and Exchange on the same box is not recommended because of the volume of data transfer inherent in both applications.

I guess in theory it might be supported but I really meant that you need enough memory to run SQL with other uses but NOT Exchange. I would not even try to run Exchange on the same server.

Exchange is such a memory hog. I don't know that much about Exchange but I don't think you can limit the amount of memory it uses...it will keep using. In SQL, you can limit the maximum amount of memory it uses but that doesn't do you much good when Exchange is taking it all anyway. I believe standard practice is to have Exchange on it's own server.

We do have some clients who have attempted to use Small Business Server. One used the SQL, Exchange, and Terminal Services pieces all together. They have 2 GB of memory and overload that. Everything was slow, crashed, and they were very unhappy. SBS is supposed to handle this but I wouldn't reccomend it.

It may be different with Windows 2003 because of it's improved memory management. Also, I'm not sure if people have other reasons for Exchange on a seperate server--like security or something.

Don't use SBS but....

I have a couple of clients on Windows 2000 AD FSMO servers running at 2.8 ghz (Supermicro board), Lsilogic u320-2 raid5- 200gig arrays, 2 gig ram ,with Great plains Dynamics/ SQL 2000, the servers are general use file servers.
Great performances, DNS and DHCP respond quickly, will run for months before I shut down for MS patches. Servers are also running Symantec CE 8.0, Executive Software Undelete and Diskkeper, Veritas 8.6, APC battery backup. SQL is set to use 1.1 gig of memory
Having a U320 interface is important, disks are Seagate 15k drives, 10k drives are acceptable.


I consider this the maximum load I want on the servers. Placing Exchange on such a server would be a heavy load, no less a mail server should not be on a general use server due to security and virus threats. Personally I would not even consider Exchange on a SQL 2000 equipped server.

Aside from Exchange being a resource hog, just how much do you think one server can handle. On the servers I manage, the network card is basically the only bottle neck , not that it's performance is poor by any means; the fact SQL basically does all the work internal to the server makes up for the network card bandwidth. If you install Exchange on it, the added network activity/resource use will slow down every thing.

Personally with any mail server, I require anti spamming software, and more than one AV scan engine, which is quit a load.`

"As I understand your responses, in theory we can probably run SQL and Exchange on the same server if we have enough memory." Theory...Microsoft is full of theories ( bullsh*t). Just like they have hyped raid 0 ( beyond dangerous), or and as in previous times they touted how you could have a disk array of 32 drives, of mixed interfaces, mfm, scsi,ide, and have it remain intact for more than 5 minutes ( A Ms wetdream).

Your going to like Dynamics on SQL, my client's systems were ported over from Dynamics/ Pervasive, which was an absolute nightmare to maintain.