Your setup sounds like a management, maintenance, and licensing nightmare.
How many users do you serve? How do your applications perform? How do your
database (and application) servers handle the load?
It makes sense to me that you might want to consolidate all of those SQL
Server installs into a few capable servers. Application servers are
typically lightweight boxes. You could purchase one (or a few) SQL Servers
that you would move your databases to. This might be difficult if you have
multiple databases called "customer" on different servers and they all
contain different data (server1 contains data for customer xyz, server b
contains data for client abc).
--
Keith
[quoted text, click to view] "Ryan" <langton@ci.manhattan.ks.us> wrote in message
news:OBXiD39AFHA.3236@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> I'm fairly new to running SQL Server 2000 in a business environment. We
> currently have multiple application servers that each have their own SQL
> 2000 installation and databases stored locally. More application servers
on
> the way, more installs of SQL server on each server. I always thought
that
> it's best to have a single SQL 2000 server and separate application
servers
> that use that SQL server (but do not have local installations of SQL
2000).
> However, our Network Consultant experts have advised us to continue
> installing local copies of SQL Server on each application server and
> configuring it that way. I'm just looking for 3rd opinions on whether
this
> is the ideal configuration for our business. We have around 100 users,
and
> 3 application servers (so far) that use SQL (MS Project, MS Exchange
Server,
> and a 3rd party application).
>
> Thanks.
>
>