SQL Server on the same box as Terminal Server

[webuser]

Why does Microsoft recommend not putting SQL Server 2000 on the same box as a machine used for Terminal Services (2003). Assuming there is enough CPU power and memory and all the other potential hardware bottlenecks are taken care of?

I know this is not ideal, but I want to understand the reasoning behind it. Will it run at all? If not, why? And if it will run, what types of problems can I potentially run in to? In my situation, there would be one and only one application that the users would be using (which would connect to the SQL Server). On the flip side, I thought there could be a side BENEFIT in that those users would not be going over the network to access the DB...

If anyone can enlighten me, I would truly appreciate it.

Thanks in advance!!!

 

[ascotta]

It will probably run, but SQL grabs a lot of CPU, its the usual, don't run two type of server on the one box.

[blue]Arguably the best cat skinner around ! [/blue]

Cheers
Scott

 

[webuser]

Thanks. Yes, my assumption is that the hardware will not be a bottleneck. I just want to know if the software will somehow conflict or cause errors to occur. We have put Exchange and SQL on the same box (in fact Small Business Server comes with those two and a lot more), but I know that Terminal Server is different because the WHOLE server runs in a different mode, which is the reason I am asking...

 

[ascotta]

dvice is not to do it. however if you are pushed then you get pushed I suppose.

I have an SBS that is getting binned this weekend. In favour of two shiney new boxes. Two separate TS/Citrix servers access it, but SQL is so slow on the existing DC.

[blue]Arguably the best cat skinner around ! [/blue]

Cheers
Scott