Windows Media Services and SQL on same server

Are there strong reasons not to have SQL Server 2005 and Windows Media
Services running on the same server? It seems SQL is more processor
intensive and WMS is more bandwidth intensive and they might share the
same server pretty well.  Sure, if the budget was there, each would get
it's own box but since it is recommended that IIS and WMS not run on
the same box, I'm wondering if I can slip MMS onto the SQL server
instead. WMS would be available to the world (on the order of 1000
video requests per day), and SQL would be used by about 5 other servers
on the same domain for what I believe would be considered "light duty"
by people who know a lot more about SQL than me.  Thanks in advance for
your opinions.

Hi

In general it is best to dedicate a server to SQL Server. You would hope
that SQL Server is not too CPU intensive, but it could have prolonged peeks,
it will almost certainly be I/O intensive if it is running a significant
workload and could require high network bandwith. Memory requirements would
also need to be factored in.

You should carefully evaluate the projected workloads on both systems before
making any decission to co-host.

John


"davidwkelling@yahoo.com" wrote:

> Are there strong reasons not to have SQL Server 2005 and Windows Media
> Services running on the same server? It seems SQL is more processor
> intensive and WMS is more bandwidth intensive and they might share the
> same server pretty well.  Sure, if the budget was there, each would get
> it's own box but since it is recommended that IIS and WMS not run on
> the same box, I'm wondering if I can slip MMS onto the SQL server
> instead. WMS would be available to the world (on the order of 1000
> video requests per day), and SQL would be used by about 5 other servers
> on the same domain for what I believe would be considered "light duty"
> by people who know a lot more about SQL than me.  Thanks in advance for
> your opinions.
>
>