Re: BizTalk 2004 on Virtual Server 2005

Tech-Archive recommends: Repair Windows Errors & Optimize Windows Performance


Hey, good news!

Please note: the app will always live in memory this way, so you'll need to
keep that in mind of you stack alot of other things on the machine. doesnt
sound like it will be an issue but please keep it in mind.

Cheers,

BA


"Christoffer" <christoffer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:OnTuZwD5FHA.3192@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> I changed both settings to -1 and I am no longer experiencing this
problem.
> Thank you very much!
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
> "BA" <biztalk.architect@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:OXAW3D44FHA.1188@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > It sounds like your application is unloading after 20 minutes. That
means
> > the whole thing has to load into memory again, that would explain the
time
> > delay. Had a similar problem once, the calling app (external) had a
> > timeout
> > and was causing errors when the service was idle for a while -BizTalk
> > intermittendly couldnt respond fast enough becuase of it.
> >
> > Moving the DB would never get you that kind of performance gain with so
> > little load. Its 99% not a hardware problem, sounds like a config
> > problem.
> >
> > Check out SecondsIdleBeforeShutdown and SecondsEmptyBeforeShutdown in
the
> > BTS docs, that explains how to change the BTSNTSvc.exe.config file.
> >
> > BA
> >
> > "Christoffer" <christoffer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > news:%23Lr1n634FHA.3588@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> Its cheaper to run Virtual server (at least I was told so).
> >>
> >> We are running Virtual server 2005 on quite a hefty machine, with 4
gigs
> > of
> >> ram in total, the BizTalk having 2 gigs. Yet we are still experiencing
> >> performace problem. Not the usual performance problem with loads and
> >> loads
> >> of calls. We usually get one or two calls per hour as of today, but we
> > need
> >> to service them within 5 seconds or so. Right now this takes about 30
> >> seconds and I can't see why.
> >>
> >> I'm not sure where our problem is. I can't see it being a hardware
> >> problem
> >> since the production machine isn't heavily loaded, but it could be a
> > problem
> >> if Virtual server mucks something up when running BizTalk on it. We
could
> >> move a part of the DB to another machine, having only BizTalk databases
> >> (Messagebox etc) on the virtual machine. Can't really see this being a
> >> problem either.
> >>
> >> My best shot now is that the IIS is having problem starting the Web
> > service
> >> or calling the Orchestration. I just want to make sure its not a
hardware
> >> problem.
> >>
> >> What do you think?
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Chris
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> "BA" <biztalk.architect@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> >> news:%232NHMx34FHA.3292@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> >I have never heard of anyone doing that, but VPC/server 2004 was
> >> >technically
> >> > not supported, 2006 + virtual server 2005 is. Dont know about 2005 +
> >> > Biztalk 2004. I cant help but be curious as to why you'd run a
virtual
> >> > environment in production?
> >> >
> >> > If you do it, having the DB on a seperate virtual machine (same
server)
> >> > would deteriorate performance, might be a bit better if writing to a
> >> > seperate disk on the same server but you needs lots of memory.
> >> >
> >> > The only scenario that would change your performance would be to run
it
> >> > against a DB on a seperate server/disk.
> >> >
> >> > BA
> >> >
> >> > "Christoffer" <christoffer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> >> > news:e2mEzi34FHA.1536@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> >> And for production?
> >> >>
> >> >> "BA" <biztalk.architect@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> >> >> news:u%23qYqu24FHA.1096@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> >> >
> >> >> > For development, sure this is fine.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > BA
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "Christoffer" <christoffer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> >> >> > news:O5jGnkS4FHA.3876@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> >> >> Heya all,
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> We are currently running our BizTalk Server 2004 as a Virtual
> > Machine
> >> > on
> >> >> >> Virtual Server 2005. We are only using one Virtual Machine for
the
> >> >> >> BizTalk
> >> >> >> Server, which means that both the server and the database is on
the
> >> > same
> >> >> >> Virtual Machine.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Is this a good idea?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Cheers,
> >> >> >> Chris
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Run file as exe?
    ... mind were .sys files used to load drivers inside of config.sys. ... be loaded as a memory management layer. ... those were my first thoughts that came to mind and I thought ...
    (microsoft.public.vb.general.discussion)
  • Re: A Method to get bytes of file without loading file?
    ... It's certainly not true that you have to load a file into memory, _any_ of the file never mind all of it. ... I said that because the documentation does not clearly state one way or another the property of a file on disk is expressed as metadata which can be read without loading the file into memory. ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp)
  • Re: A Method to get bytes of file without loading file?
    ... It's certainly not true that you have to load a file into memory, _any_ of the file never mind all of it. ... what has given you the impression that you do? ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp)
  • Re: Memory limit reached with Windows Mobile
    ... That would explain the memory problem - you just can't do that. ... You have to load stuff when it's ... All native DLLs get loaded ...
    (microsoft.public.pocketpc.developer)
  • Re: Memory limit reached with Windows Mobile
    ... That would explain the memory problem - you just can't do that. ... Once I reached the 12 Mb limit, I cannot load any DLLs, yet if I ... Actually, simply by loading our 18 Native DLLs, we reduce the Virtual ...
    (microsoft.public.pocketpc.developer)