September 17, 2003 at 1:25 pm
I've installed SQL Server 2000 EE multiple times with Terminal Services without any problems. I've been informed recently that this isn't something that Microsoft recommends. Has anyone had any issues with installing SQL Server 2000 with terminal services?
September 17, 2003 at 1:35 pm
I've had none.
September 17, 2003 at 1:43 pm
maybe it seems like a bad idea because if something happens like the machine locks up, blue screens on reboot, or if you don't have terminal services set to start automatically, heh or if you left a cd or floppy in the server and it tries to boot from it after a reboot ("why am I going into Windows setup?").. you'll end up being stuck.
I've done it before and can't attribute to it any problems I've had. I've haven't heard of any specific reason why this is a bad idea.
-Ken
September 17, 2003 at 1:43 pm
I have done few installations including cluster installation in active/active without problems.
September 18, 2003 at 8:49 am
The main problem would be memory usage. Terminal Server user sessions can use a good bit of memory depending upon what applications are being run. I personally have seen individual sessions using 150 MBs of RAM each, but that was a poorly written app. SQL Server can use a good bit of memory itself. Between the two a server could quickly run out of available memory.
September 19, 2003 at 2:50 am
I read this article http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;301520 a couple days ago as we're currently looking at running clustered servers on proliant blade servers with terminal services. I'm not entirely convinced by this article and was going to post the question on this sql server central as I've only seen this on the MS support site. What hardware config have you got?
Ferks
Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply