Ask the Expert

Why should Exchange and SQL Server not be on the same server?

The configuration I inherited is an HP box handling: primary domain controller, Exchange 5.5, Industry Standard Architecture, SQL Server 7.0, Windows Server 2000, Domain DNS and DHCP.

I am fully aware that both Exchange and SQL Server should never share the same box, as they both grab all the resources possible. But can you explain to me why none of these applications/systems should be on the same server?

To add insult to injury, no limitations were set on e-mail profiles and some are extreme.

    Requires Free Membership to View

SQL Server and Exchange are extremely disk-intensive applications. People who run SQL Server or Exchange are expecting valid real-time performance. They are not the people submitting batch jobs to a mainframe -- where waiting is expected.

End-users are generally unwilling to wait for RPC responses from Exchange, or wait for complex queries to complete against SQL Server. This means you should always plan on isolating these applications, or understanding through the use of Perfmon and WMI the end-user experience you are providing.

Do you have comments on this Ask the Expert Q&A? Let us know.
Related information from

  • Learning Guide: Exchange Migration
  • Reference Center: Interoperability

  • This was first published in October 2005

    There are Comments. Add yours.

    TIP: Want to include a code block in your comment? Use <pre> or <code> tags around the desired text. Ex: <code>insert code</code>

    REGISTER or login:

    Forgot Password?
    By submitting you agree to receive email from TechTarget and its partners. If you reside outside of the United States, you consent to having your personal data transferred to and processed in the United States. Privacy
    Sort by: OldestNewest

    Forgot Password?

    No problem! Submit your e-mail address below. We'll send you an email containing your password.

    Your password has been sent to: