"PerFry" <PerFry@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A0F3FEED-C578-4558-A8C0-7FF0F7A4636E@microsoft.com...
> It's about what I shall recommend all our customers. I want to recommend
> them
> the best configuration options when they choose to install our application
> server and SQL Server on the same machine. So when I have to recommend
> something, would it be shared memory?
> /Per
>
> "Matt Neerincx [MS]" wrote:
>
>> IMO -> In general you are not going to see huge differences in
>> performance
>> using the different network library options such as named pipes, shared
>> memory or tcp-ip sockets.
>>
>> The reason for this is the overhead network library performance is
>> usually
>> insignificant compared to perf of the client application and SQL query
>> performance.
>>
>> So you are better off spending time optimizing your SQL queries and your
>> client code.
>>
>> Matt
>>
>>
>> "PerFry" <PerFry@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:161A939F-0102-46C2-80EB-6CC0B55DAD2F@microsoft.com...
>> > I'd like to stress that we're having the client and server on the same
>> > machine, so I'm referring to _local_ named pipes. Books Online states
>> > that
>> > "Local named pipes runs in kernel mode and is extremely fast" (
>> > http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/odbcsql/od_odbc_g_5l9r.asp )
>> > .
>> >
>> >
>> > "Rand Boyd [MSFT]" wrote:
>> >
>> >> With SQL Server 2000 the default for local connections (connections
>> >> made
>> >> on
>> >> the server itself) is shared memory. Steve is correct that named pipes
>> >> is
>> >> for the most part a legacy connection method. I would just use the
>> >> default
>> >> of shared memory for local connections and TCP/IP for remote
>> >> connections.
>> >>
>> >> Rand
>> >> This posting is provided "as is" with no warranties and confers no
>> >> rights.
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>
>>