June 26, 2006 at 11:42 am
hi, in our network we have 2 main servers:
- the sql server
- and the access server
This is the background: the sql server has a windows2003 os and the access has a samba linux os installed. I installed a apache+php webserver in the windows(sql2000) machine and its running queries and pages consulting the local sql server and odbc the access db in the samba linux machine.
This is my question: Its a common or good practice to run the webserver+php+etc in the same machine as the decicated sql2000 server (wich is one of the most important servers in the office)? or should i have another decitated serve running apache and querying the other 2 servers (sql2000 and access)? or i should run the apache+php server in the same machine as samba? if yes: are there a free/Open option for have odbc drivers in the linux server?... or if you have a better idea of how i should handle my machines and servers all comments are welcome. This is too complicated i know.
Thanks in advance.
Aldo
June 27, 2006 at 9:03 am
As with so many other things in the IT realm, the best answer to this question is... It Depends.
I have seen applications where the Web application spoke directly to a database on the same machine, but I have also seen plenty where that just doesn’t make sense.
First you need to look at security. If this is a public web server having the Access .mdb files stored on your public web server in most likely public directories like the web root would be a very bad thing. Having it stored anywhere on a public facing web server isn’t the best idea out there because of the numerous ways to exploit an .mdb file.
You also need to look at performance, both what you get now and what’s expected. Is this an app for tens hundreds or thousands of users? I typically use hundreds as a dividing line when I split my db away from my web server for an internal web application. I always do it for a public web app. That way if they hack my web server, they won’t necessarily be able to get to my data. Looking back at your post if the SQL2000 server is one of the most important machines on your network I‘d suggest leave it as it is and keep your Apache/php instance separate from it. Particularly with the plethora of PHP security holes that have been popping up the last few months.
Just out of curiosity what does your Access database do? And why does it reside on your Samba box? Is this just a file server holding an .adp file that your users use to enter data that gets updated on the SQL db? If so why would your web application need to talk to it? IF it actually stores data you could consider storing that data on your SQL server or if you really wanted to complicate things you could use one of the many open source databases (PostgreSQL would be my choice because it’s awesome, mature, fully featured, robust, reliable, but MySQL could also be used)
I know this is long and somewhat rambling, but perhaps it may get you thinking about the questions you really need to be asking yourself.
-Luke.
June 27, 2006 at 10:59 am
Now i agree with you in the fact that i should keep separated the public webserver away from the other 2 data servers.
Well this is why i have a samba box with an access database.
We are a corp with 2 main divisions, internet division and brick&mortar division.
For the internet we have a order manager wich is MS-Access based and of course it have a client and a server side, the server side is just the main access database with resides in the samba box for security and cost down reasons, it is also the main fileserver.
The other server runs the phisical store manager and its PO's, and its SQL2000 based thats for we have the main sql server too.
And the apache its accessing both database servers because we need comparative reports, inventory transfers, syncronization, etc between 2 stores for headquarter operations.
Do you think i should create a vlan or some for the sqlserver?
Aldo
Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply