|
Home > Archive > BizTalk Server > March 2007 > Host instaces VS Sql database connections
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Host instaces VS Sql database connections
|
|
| flashbeir 2007-03-15, 1:22 pm |
| Hi,
I want to start a little discussion here. To increase performance, you must
create multiple host instances like for receiving, processing and sending.
But if you create multiple host instances, then I suspose you get more
database connections so more database locks or I'm wrong?
Thanks
| |
| Yossi Dahan 2007-03-15, 1:22 pm |
| I believe it is correct you c an improve performance by adding hosts,
especially to separate send and receives from processing, and even more so
when web services are involved
Having said that hosts have an impact as well as you've mentioned in terms
of connectoins to the database, pollings etc so you usually don't want to
have more than a handfull.
Yossi Dahan
"flashbeir" <flashbeir@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6E79E86C-A588-4AF6-8671-8D66011B25E6@microsoft.com...
> Hi,
>
> I want to start a little discussion here. To increase performance, you
> must
> create multiple host instances like for receiving, processing and sending.
> But if you create multiple host instances, then I suspose you get more
> database connections so more database locks or I'm wrong?
>
> Thanks
| |
| flashbeir 2007-03-15, 1:22 pm |
| Do you mean that you usually don't have to have a handfull host instances or
database connections.
Sorry for the confusing.
Thanks again
"Yossi Dahan" wrote:
> I believe it is correct you c an improve performance by adding hosts,
> especially to separate send and receives from processing, and even more so
> when web services are involved
>
> Having said that hosts have an impact as well as you've mentioned in terms
> of connectoins to the database, pollings etc so you usually don't want to
> have more than a handfull.
>
> Yossi Dahan
>
>
> "flashbeir" <flashbeir@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:6E79E86C-A588-4AF6-8671-8D66011B25E6@microsoft.com...
>
| |
| Yossi Dahan 2007-03-15, 1:22 pm |
| I think that if you have more then say 10 hosts in your group you need to
examine your architecture
"flashbeir" <flashbeir@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E1B59D26-5919-40AE-8182-823265BA3685@microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Do you mean that you usually don't have to have a handfull host instances
> or
> database connections.
> Sorry for the confusing.
>
> Thanks again
>
> "Yossi Dahan" wrote:
>
| |
| flashbeir 2007-03-15, 1:22 pm |
| OK, I thaught you could create for each application a host for sending,
receiving and processing.
I think that would be too much.
So, normally, you create a host for receiving, sending and processing and
then create the host instances.
The hosts are just the logical ones and the host instances represents the
physical items.
Last week, there was a Microsoft Permier Support here and he said, create a
lot off host instances!
Currently, we have 3 applications and we have 5 hosts for the applications
to use and 1 for the tracking.
we have 10 host instances so I think this is enough.
Greetings
"Yossi Dahan" wrote:
> I think that if you have more then say 10 hosts in your group you need to
> examine your architecture
>
>
> "flashbeir" <flashbeir@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:E1B59D26-5919-40AE-8182-823265BA3685@microsoft.com...
>
|
|
|
|
|