just a curious question regarding how you would handle having multiple applications. Were i took end there space three applications, all installed on the same server where the network share reside. Two of them use SQL i m sorry is on an additional server, the various other program depends on papers locally save on computer on the server.

You are watching: When more than one application is running on a server

There are times as soon as the server needs to be restarted because of an application issue, this way that all users require to acquire off the systems.

We"re a hyper-v shop and was thinking about creating 3 vm"s simply to run each application. Would certainly that it is in a great practice or just an ext overhead?


Which of the complying with retains the details it's storing as soon as the system power is rotate off?


little Green guy

This is whereby virtualization shines, specially if you room using Server 2012 R2 typical / datacenter. You can individualize or team similar role apps together on one instance. I"ve been splitting servers right into separate instances based on role for a while.



When I began at my present job we had numerous servers running various application that had nothing to perform with every other. I created a virtual environment and also split all the applications right into their very own groups. So if ns look at any type of server the only has the software that will impact one department. For example our finance department has their own servers this means our clinical departments do not have to gain shut down due to the fact that the finance applications crashed again. I even have the SQL separation into various servers for the very same reason. This rises licensing however when the comes under to it, even spending much more money ~ above the licensing we save money as soon as it concerns down time.

I likewise like this because it is orderly, but that is me.

I agree v JoeWilliams. Additionally want come say that if girlfriend are limited on resources, at the very least move SQL to its very own server.

Best Practise decrees segregation and also most compliance programmes additionally demand it.

So yes, separate server every application and if you"ve acquired the performance requirement then different DB come application, for this reason minimum of single server per application, potential of 2 servers every application. As a minimum!

thanks for the advice everyone. Ns was looking right into separating them which appears to be the logical method to go, I simply wanted to obtain the intake of other IT pros.


Another poll for one app per VM server. As soon as I started at my shop, we had actually our CRM and Quickbooks jae won data ~ above the very same physical server. Drive room was always an issue. It was type of a war between sales and also finance. Ns have due to the fact that migrated our financials come their own separate Hyper-V VM and life is much quieter now.

I think it relies on the application, even if it is they are an essential or not. Ns usually group non-critical applications/services ~ above the exact same server, and also sometimes 1 or 2 critical applications together. Ns am no for a while had actually to restart a server due to a crashed/unresponsive app, generally a fast restart or start/stop of the application company is all the is needed. Though because that SQL, should definitely be ~ above its own. 

Years ago when every little thing ran on physical servers, I constantly encountered difficulties with server applications clashing through each various other for one reason or another.

Now, every application has its very own VM, and also I don"t need to worry around that any kind of more.

Additionally, if we discontinue use of a particular application, the VM just gets deleted and that"s the finish of it.

If you deserve to afford or have no issues around licensing and also hardware then separation them. If not then i would certainly think it would certainly be yes to have actually one if they space friendly. 

It"s walk to count on the hardware and also the application. Usually speaking if the applications "lives" top top the server climate 100% separation is best if possible.

However if her "application" server is simply a glorified File/Database server climate I would err on the side of gift reasonable (and frugal v resources) and also say the bunching some of them together is walk to be fine, so lengthy as your vendor approves the this or it"s otherwise practical.

Just remember the you are producing overhead v the extra OSes, it"s most likely negligible yet if girlfriend do end up having general performance issues you might want to take into consideration consolidation before upgrading.

Your idea is point out on OP. I"m guessing you are running data center version top top the master so license shouldn"t be a problem. Make certain you have enough ram for the extra vm load

Another poll for separating applications as lot as possible. If you have actually a lot of applications that require Windows, it can get a little expensive in the beginning, but your life will be much much much easier in the end. Isolating the applications way you"ll isolate any type of problems the may crop up. It might make DR easier, too, together you have the right to restore VMs in stimulate of importance and also get the miscellaneous services fired up more quickly (feed the users single apps in fast fire together opposed to waiting longer for the "App server" come restore and also be fully dead in the water, if that renders sense).

ceez wrote:

There are times once the server demands to it is in restarted since of an applications issue, this means that all users require to get off the systems.

^^ this would be a an excellent enough argument for me if these issues happen ~ above a consistent basis. Also if restarting the server just takes a issue of minute you can dual or triple that time waiting for people to read your email, complain, conserve their work, stop out. No to cite how lengthy it bring away them come get ago to wherein they were.Good arguments for management if you need the extra $$ for licensing.

Agree with everyone else.

One application per server if friend can get away through it (in all however the smallest environments). As far as SQL, i normally run many SQL instances on a single server, but lately have been deploying SQL clusters to include redundancy.

Best practice vs. Best Business Decision

Bigger or more financially robust shops have simple time make this decision however I"d venture to say many of us who job-related for or manage small business can"t bust out Server 2012 instances like they are going the end of style.

Depending on whereby you occupational the under time can be agree or preferred however outside of the separate as lot as possible.

See more: How Many Milliliters Are In 1 Quart S (Liquid) To Milliliters

I have end up being a 1 server per application UNLESS i don"t. :-)

The an ext thought I give it, ns think I have actually become much more of a "one server every department" online machine. There room a pair reasons I execute it this means but that boils down to:

We space a relatively small (non-profit) organization however fortunate sufficient to have decent $ because that server infrastructure and also the countless VMs/licensing version of home windows 2012 (datacenter?).We have only 3 departments (for now) that operation server-based applications for your department only: bookkeeping (2 an important server apps), advance (1 critical and 1 middle server app) and also IT (all kinds of fun points going top top there yet they only influence my department of 2). We may include a fourth for the interactions department if we decide to move our hosted web servers back in-house.Corporate-wide apps don"t yes, really exist because that us yet if lock did, I would run one application per VM. I mean our domain controllers (which also run DNS, DFS, and print services) space critical. We run 2 domain contoller VMs on separate hosts because that that. Other corporate-wide apps may be essential (i.e. yellowcomic.com) however if I deserve to afford to live without them because that 1-8 hrs then I tend to bundle those apps top top a solitary server figuring downtime for any kind of of the apps ~ above the "moderately crucial apps server" has small impact ~ above the organization as a whole.

For me, the decision is normally to balance as couple of apps as feasible to a VM yet the as whole consideration is WHAT IS THE influence TO THE organization IF THIS SERVER IS down FOR any REASON.