ASP / SQL 2000 performance problems

[Craig McBeath]

I am working with a CMS system that runs on a SQL 2000 db.
The server the website sits on is the the DMZ and the SQL
server resides in the internal network. Things have
progessed fine up until this point. We have started to
stress test the DMZ box for Internet use before we go
live, and have noticed performace degredation after 10
concurrent users. (Both the DMZ and SQL boxes are new
Compaq DL380's. The DMZ box has 1 2.8GHZ Xeon 2GB RAM, the
SQL box has 2 2.8GHZ Xeon's 4GB RAM.) When the pages are
hit they are dynamically generated from ASP and ADO calls
to the SQL DB. With multiple users (5+) the processor on
the internet box jumps to around 100%, and the reponse
time for page requests falls to 8-9 sec. Nothing else is
on the servers but the OS and the needed software per
manchine.
The firewall bewteen the boxes does not show any dropped
or blocked packets, I even turned the firewall to
allow "any" port traffic between the two boxes, and still
get the same response.
The CMS support believes this to be a connection issue
between the boxes. After all that... Has anyone come
across anything remotely familiar to this? I have worked
with this for awhile and need some fresh ideas. Let me
know if you need any further information.

Thanks

[Craig McBeath]

Sorry, I used the wrong address.

>-----Original Message-----
>I am working with a CMS system that runs on a SQL 2000

db.

>The server the website sits on is the the DMZ and the SQL
>server resides in the internal network. Things have
>progessed fine up until this point. We have started to
>stress test the DMZ box for Internet use before we go
>live, and have noticed performace degredation after 10
>concurrent users. (Both the DMZ and SQL boxes are new
>Compaq DL380's. The DMZ box has 1 2.8GHZ Xeon 2GB RAM,

the

>SQL box has 2 2.8GHZ Xeon's 4GB RAM.) When the pages are
>hit they are dynamically generated from ASP and ADO calls
>to the SQL DB. With multiple users (5+) the processor on
>the internet box jumps to around 100%, and the reponse
>time for page requests falls to 8-9 sec. Nothing else is
>on the servers but the OS and the needed software per
>manchine.
>The firewall bewteen the boxes does not show any dropped
>or blocked packets, I even turned the firewall to
>allow "any" port traffic between the two boxes, and still
>get the same response.
>The CMS support believes this to be a connection issue
>between the boxes. After all that... Has anyone come
>across anything remotely familiar to this? I have worked
>with this for awhile and need some fresh ideas. Let me
>know if you need any further information.
>
>Thanks
>.
>

[John Beschler]

I would think the best way to elimnate the firewall issue
is to temporarily cable the Web Server directly to the
same network as the SQL server and run your tests again.

If the results are the same, then the firewall is not the
issue.

HTH,
John

>-----Original Message-----
>I am working with a CMS system that runs on a SQL 2000

db.

>The server the website sits on is the the DMZ and the SQL
>server resides in the internal network. Things have
>progessed fine up until this point. We have started to
>stress test the DMZ box for Internet use before we go
>live, and have noticed performace degredation after 10
>concurrent users. (Both the DMZ and SQL boxes are new
>Compaq DL380's. The DMZ box has 1 2.8GHZ Xeon 2GB RAM,

the

>SQL box has 2 2.8GHZ Xeon's 4GB RAM.) When the pages are
>hit they are dynamically generated from ASP and ADO calls
>to the SQL DB. With multiple users (5+) the processor on
>the internet box jumps to around 100%, and the reponse
>time for page requests falls to 8-9 sec. Nothing else is
>on the servers but the OS and the needed software per
>manchine.
>The firewall bewteen the boxes does not show any dropped
>or blocked packets, I even turned the firewall to
>allow "any" port traffic between the two boxes, and still
>get the same response.
>The CMS support believes this to be a connection issue
>between the boxes. After all that... Has anyone come
>across anything remotely familiar to this? I have worked
>with this for awhile and need some fresh ideas. Let me
>know if you need any further information.
>
>Thanks
>.
>