Re: middle tier recommendations

From: Alvin Bruney [MVP] (vapor)
Date: 11/29/04 

Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 13:12:55 -0400

it is an iis setting, run inetmgr at the command prompt to access the snap
in 

-- 
Regards,
Alvin Bruney
[ASP.NET MVP http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/default.aspx]
Got tidbits? Get it here... http://tinyurl.com/27***
"Param R." <pr@nospam.com> wrote in message 
news:%23nhyAKi1EHA.304@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> All my apps are asp.net. How can I switch from IIS5 Compatibility mode to 
> full iis6 mode? Is it a registry setting?
>
> thanks!
>
> "Nick Malik" <nickmalik@hotmail.nospam.com> wrote in message 
> news:jNyqd.683468$8_6.429900@attbi_s04...
>> Hi Param
>>
>>> 1. I forgot to mention I do have a standby database server for failover.
>> The
>>> only thing is that it is a cold standby. We are running Standard 
>>> Edition.
>>> Currently we cannot afford EE.
>>
>> Hidden secret: if you can get your hands on the SQL Server SDK from SQL
>> Server 6.5, there is a little utility in there for "log shipping."  It
>> continues to work under Windows 2000, and it will work just fine for
>> Standard Edition.  This gives you an ability to have a "warm" standby
>> (manual effort to restart, but restart within 5 minutes).  Log Shipping 
>> is
>> built in to SQL Server 2000 EE... basically the same stuff but with much
>> better U/I... but if you are on the cheap, this will do.
>>
>>> 2. We use Windows Load Balancing between the 2 webservers. They are 
>>> single
>>> CPU with 1GB RAM. I am planning on adding 1GB more  of RAM. 
>>> Unfortunately
>> I
>>> do not have a budget for a 3rd box and a load balancer.
>>
>> Depending on how political your organization is, it is often better to 
>> ask
>> for hardware and get the request shot down... that way when it turns out
>> that your hardware is not sufficient, you can say "not my fault."
>> Regardless, the cost of one more web server and a load balancer is not 
>> that
>> high.  (under 30K total).  You could lose customers if the site isn't 
>> fast
>> enough, right?  What's the value of those customers?  Anyway: you 
>> probably
>> already know the arguments.
>>
>>> 4. I can get away with realtime modifications after 10, so I can keep it
>>> simple for now.
>>
>> Then you can simply stage a change on your test machine and when it is 
>> time
>> to go live, make the change in the middle of the night.  No need for
>> pluggable bits (good for you... time is of the essence).
>>
>>> 5. I know the cost of marshalling is high. I was coming from a "code
>>> re-usability" / plug-n-play standpoint. If tomorrow I need to expose an
>>> interface to an external partner I can simply write a web service layer
>> over
>>> the business logic/data layer to exchange data? OR if the growth is
>>> tremendous then I can go get servers that will just run the middle tier?
>>
>> That depends on the amount of use that interface will get.  If your 
>> design
>> is scalable, you can put your app, with DLLs, on any web server without
>> regard to other web servers.  If so, then there will be no problem with
>> putting the same DLLs on another machine with a different interface (web
>> services as opposed to ASP.NET).  If the interface is not being widely 
>> used,
>> put it on BOTH web servers and balance it, just like a regular web site.
>>
>>> I come from the good old days of COM/COM+ where MS was pushing the whole
>>> n-tier philosophy. Does the same apply to .net 1.1 and the upcoming 2.0?
>>
>> Still applies, but there will be much more work done in Longhorn to bring
>> this to a much tighter reality. For now, you don't gain anything from 
>> that
>> approach, so simply distribute your DLLs to each machine.  You can still 
>> run
>> them in Enterprise Services if you want to manage security more tightly, 
>> or
>> if you want better transactional support for SQL.
>>
>>> 6. Talking about server 2003, we just recently upgraded a few of our 
>>> apps
>>> from 2000 to 2003 and have begun to see significant slow page load &
>>> response times. Most of our sites run over SSL and we cant seem to find
>> the
>>> problem. Same hardware. Our network guys are working on it but havent
>> struck
>>> gold as yet. From reading various posts on these NGs it seems 2003 has
>> some
>>> inherent performance issues with IIS
>>>
>> Most common reason is running IIS 6 in IIS 5 Compatibility mode.  Some of
>> your apps will stop working when you switch this off, so be prepared for 
>> the
>> possibility that you may need to rewrite some bits, but when you switch 
>> to
>> full IIS 6, it should run much faster.
>>
>> Hope this helps,
>> --- Nick
>>
>>
>
>