March 4, 2004 at 9:42 am
I read an article recently on the web, somewhere like sqlservercentral.com or sql-server-performance.com, but I don't exactly remember where, but I remember it explicitly noting that to ABSOLUTELY NOT install/use TERMINAL SERVICES on SQL Server 2000.
Was I reading correctly or was I dreaming this up? I would like to know what some of you are using out there to connect remotely to SQL Server 2000? What are other options if not via Terminal Services? Are there some esoteric ways to connect?
Thank you in advance for any ideas/suggestions.
March 4, 2004 at 9:56 am
I would never install software over terminal services, however using it I have never experienced a problem. That includes all the usual SQL functionality like designing, executing DTS, managing server options etc.
March 4, 2004 at 10:05 am
My guess is they meant do not install the terminal server on the same machine as SQL Server, but its ok to use terminal services to access the SQL Server box.
Our site uses an IBM KVM Switch to access the servers. I have installed IBM Netbay Virtual Console on my workstation to access the servers. I still have problems if others are attached to the server I want or or using the same channel as I need, so sometime I still take to a walk into the server room. PC_anywhere is used occasionly but only on certain servers and its use is tightly controlled (turned off on on only for those to prearrange it)
Francis
March 4, 2004 at 10:53 am
SQL Server Setup does have the ability (apparently) to deploy to remote computers. I've never used it, however.
Terminal Services is always on W2K, W2K3.
There is some software that doesn't install correctly through a terminal window, which is slightly different from the console. If you have doubts, don't. If you can test it and it works, then you should be ok. I've deployed service packs through terminal services.
Follow me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/way0utwest
Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
My Blog: www.voiceofthedba.com
March 4, 2004 at 12:52 pm
The reason for not installing terminal services and sql server on same box is one regarding performance. I think I saw the same article on that website. They recommend dedicated boxes for each one.
March 4, 2004 at 12:56 pm
Having terminal services for remote administration is fine, that gives you a limit of 2 remote users. The performance problem is only really going to be a factor if you set the server up a a dedicated terminal server (terminal server licensing server) allowing multiple connections.
March 5, 2004 at 1:41 am
We have the terminal services client installed on our sql server. We don't experience any problems with it, but it is true that you musn't install software via terminal services. This can give installation problems for certain software.
But it's better to install the terminal services server on another server on a less critical server.
March 9, 2004 at 8:02 pm
I am not sure whether you mean installing SQL Server on a machine by logging on using Terminal Service client. If that is what you meant, yes it is true. I have come across situations where the SQL Server or Service pack install failed especially SQL cluster install. MS tech support confirmed this.
March 22, 2004 at 4:07 am
As my understanding is that the Absolutely Not ONLY referrs to Terminal Server as an Application Server and not as an Administrative tool (of course one could argue that it is some kind of Application Server but configured for far less users and not intended to run Office like Applications on).
Like stacenic said but just clarifying a little.
Regards, Hans!
March 22, 2004 at 4:59 am
This is what I recall from SQL Server Performance.com
Don't run SQL Server on the same physical server that you are running Terminal Services, or Citrix software. Both Terminal Services and Citrix are huge resource hogs, and will significantly affect the performance of SQL Server. Running the administrative version of Terminal Services on a SQL Server physical server, on the other hand, is OK, and a good idea from a convenience point of view. As is mentioned in other parts of this website, ideally, SQL Server should run on a dedicated physical server. But if you have to share a SQL Server with another application, make sure it is not Terminal Services or Citrix. [7.0, 2000] Updated 2-16-2004
March 22, 2004 at 6:40 am
Hmm, we are not very clear on this subject. We are all saying things about Terminal Services but in the end it seems like it is a question of interpretation by the people reading this. What do we actually think? In what scenarios do we rin Terminal Services and when do we not?
My case: Terminal Services ONLY runs on SQL Servers IF TerminalServices is configured in Adminstration Mode.
There are two ways of installing Terminal Services:
When in Application Server mode it can cosume HUGH amounts of resources due to the nature of an Application Server. This is what is strongly rekommended NOT to run on the same physical server as a SQL Server instance.
Regards, Hanslindgren!
March 22, 2004 at 7:46 pm
I agree Hans! I've been running Term Services on my servers for the last 2 years in remote admin mode and will continue to do so for the unforseable future. I use it every day for many hours a day with no ill effects. In fact right now I have a server churning away at a script that will run for 48 hours or so. I used remote desktop to log into the server and started up QA. Started the script and then closed the window to the remote desktop connection. This allows me to periodically log back into that session and check the progress of the script. I use this functionallity all the time!
Gary Johnson
Microsoft Natural Language Group
DBA, Sr. DB Engineer
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. The opinions expressed in this post are my own and may not reflect that of my employer.
Viewing 12 posts - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply