M
Mark Fitzpatrick
You can do this if need be. I'm doing it for one of my clients because of
the exact same cost reason for them. As to how much of a performance hit
you'll take, it will depend upon where the database server resides in
relation to the web server. There is always a penalty in performance due to
latency. This could cause your app to appear slower since you could be
running even half a second slower for database activities. To improve this
performance try limiting the number of data accesses on a page. If your
would normally return a number of datareaders, try getting one datareader
with multiple resultsets that you can iterate through. This can improve
performance because you're only using the one connection instead of
numerous. You can run a trace (using tracert at the command prompt) to find
the path to the various hosts to get an idea of where the datacenters are
actually located and this could help you figure out a rough idea of the
latency.
the exact same cost reason for them. As to how much of a performance hit
you'll take, it will depend upon where the database server resides in
relation to the web server. There is always a penalty in performance due to
latency. This could cause your app to appear slower since you could be
running even half a second slower for database activities. To improve this
performance try limiting the number of data accesses on a page. If your
would normally return a number of datareaders, try getting one datareader
with multiple resultsets that you can iterate through. This can improve
performance because you're only using the one connection instead of
numerous. You can run a trace (using tracert at the command prompt) to find
the path to the various hosts to get an idea of where the datacenters are
actually located and this could help you figure out a rough idea of the
latency.
