Hi,

I heard many comment about not putting SQL server on a domain
controller. Can someone tell me what is the implication of it?

Thanks

The context for that comment is that you really care about your databases and
the availability of your databases. If not, all bets are off, and you are
free to put your databases anywhere you like including domain controllers,
web servers, app servers, workstations, laptops, and so on.

Now if your databases are critical to your business, you would not want to
do things to complicate their support, and potentially compromise their
availability by also running other heavy apps on the same box competing for
the same compute resources. Plus, your domain controllers may have different
maintanence schedules and requirements and carry their own risk of succumbing
to bugs or other stability issues. The list of potential problems just goes
on when mixing them together without being able to protect them from each
other.

Linchi

"OM" wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I heard many comment about not putting SQL server on a domain
> controller. Can someone tell me what is the implication of it?
>
> Thanks
>

In addition to Linchi's comments, there are some other minor restrictions,
for example I don't think the SQL Server service account can be "local
service" or "network service" when installed on a domain controller.

Microsoft recommends against this configuration for the performance reasons
that Linchi outlined. Also note that if you go against their advice and
install it (at least in the case of Express, not sure about other SKUs), and
then later change the server's role (e.g. using dcpromo), you will no longer
be supported.


On 5/20/08 6:00 PM, in article #rbLdTsuIHA.396@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl, "OM"
<om@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I heard many comment about not putting SQL server on a domain
> controller. Can someone tell me what is the implication of it?
>
> Thanks