| Author |
SQL Server behind firewall
|
|
| jokes54321 2005-07-04, 8:23 pm |
| We just put our SQL server behind a Cisco Pix 515E firewall. We opened up
traffic for the SQL tcp port. The VB clients are still able to access this
SQL server but the response times has slowed down a quite a bit. The Pix CPU
usage is only showing 3% so I assuming traffic flow isn't exceeding the
capabilities of the Pix.
Does anyone have any thought on this matter?
Thank you,
Denny
| |
| jokes54321 2005-07-04, 8:23 pm |
| I should mention this is SQL Server 2000 running on Windows 2000 Server
"jokes54321" <jokes54321@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:uXEZuNNgFHA.3460@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> We just put our SQL server behind a Cisco Pix 515E firewall. We opened up
> traffic for the SQL tcp port. The VB clients are still able to access this
> SQL server but the response times has slowed down a quite a bit. The Pix
> CPU usage is only showing 3% so I assuming traffic flow isn't exceeding
> the capabilities of the Pix.
>
> Does anyone have any thought on this matter?
>
> Thank you,
>
> Denny
>
| |
| Mike Epprecht \(SQL MVP\) 2005-07-04, 8:23 pm |
| Hi
This is quite normal. Each packet has to be inspected so it adds latency.
At work we have some SQL Server's behind some very fast firewalls, but we
still loose about 15% on performance.
Regards
--------------------------------
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"jokes54321" <jokes54321@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:uTtAmPNgFHA.3584@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>I should mention this is SQL Server 2000 running on Windows 2000 Server
>
>
> "jokes54321" <jokes54321@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:uXEZuNNgFHA.3460@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>
>
| |
| JTC ^..^ 2005-07-04, 8:23 pm |
| "jokes54321" <jokes54321@nospam.com> wrote in
news:uTtAmPNgFHA.3584@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl:
> I should mention this is SQL Server 2000 running on Windows 2000
> Server
>
>
> "jokes54321" <jokes54321@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:uXEZuNNgFHA.3460@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>
>
What happens if you disable all filtering on the firewall?
--
Regards
JTC ^..^
| |
| Mike Epprecht \(SQL MVP\) 2005-07-04, 8:23 pm |
| Hi
Every device a packet has to go though incurs latency.
I can't switch the filers off as they are not under our control and by doing
so would mean breaking the law for us.
Regards
--------------------------------
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"JTC ^..^" < dave@(nospam)JazzThe
Cat.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Xns9689DF345C90
0daveJTC@213.123.26.234...
> "jokes54321" <jokes54321@nospam.com> wrote in
> news:uTtAmPNgFHA.3584@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl:
>
>
> What happens if you disable all filtering on the firewall?
>
> --
> Regards
> JTC ^..^
| |
| jokes54321 2005-07-04, 8:23 pm |
| I didn't try disabling the filtering, but it seems it would go against the
reason we put the DB behind the firewall in the first place.
I suppose I could try disabling it just to see if that corrects the problem.
That would at least give us an idea as to what is causing the problem.
Thank you both for your replies,
Denny
"JTC ^..^" < dave@(nospam)JazzThe
Cat.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Xns9689DF345C90
0daveJTC@213.123.26.234...
> "jokes54321" <jokes54321@nospam.com> wrote in
> news:uTtAmPNgFHA.3584@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl:
>
>
> What happens if you disable all filtering on the firewall?
>
> --
> Regards
> JTC ^..^
|
|
|
|