Related
I've been using Access to rapid-prototype a DB. Now I'd like to do a small group online test so I split the DB and placed the back-end on Azure SQL Server, then re-linked. It's incredibly slow and I've been researching solutions for days without positive results. My local environment is Win10, Office2016 64bit and internet connection is fast and stable.
I have tried different ODBC drivers, including the SQL Native Client v11.
I've disabled auto-tuning level on the NIC.
I've recreated all queries from access on the server.
I've made sure that Tracing in ODBC is off.
But I enabled tracing temporarily to see what was happening. If I opened the front-end, logged in (Small user table), and did something on the first form (Add 1 record with 3 sub-records...and really...nothing fancy or heavy at all and this only takes 1 minute) then closed the DB, I see that the Tracing log file is 1.5MB.
So I created an empty Access file and an ODBC link to only the User table (12 columns, 20 records), and then monitored the tracing log file again. Opening access doesn't add anything to the log file, but opening this one, linked table made the log file grow to 255kb. Opening this table in access took 5 seconds.
Access sent about 800 requests to the server for opening just this one small table. If I paste all the User table data into a text file, it's only 2kb. SO why is it so slow?
Any ideas on this, and specifically other suggestions to get this working faster?
Kind regards,
Well, the reason why using Azure is slower than running Access connected to a local instance of SQL server is because, well slow is slow!
I mean, if you going to travel 30 miles, you have a choice to walk, or to take a car.
So here is the question you need to know:
Why is walking slower than driving a car?
Answer: Because you are travelling at a slower speed!
So why is using Azure slower the using an instance of SQL server running on your local computer or local network?
Answer:
Because the connection speed to Azure is about 100 times slower!
The idea here that you not going to take into account the DIFFERENCE in connection speed is the issue here. It is a disservice to the reading public that may conclude that such a setup (Access front end on a pc to Azure instance of SQL server) is not a viable setup.
So the first issue here is to make a note of your connection speed to the back end database.
A typical office local area network has a speed of 100mbits, or today most are 1gig – even the el-cheapo routers you purchase at Best Buy are now rated at 1gig (1000 mbits).
However, your typical high speed internet is rated at about 5, or 10 mbits. So that is 100 times slower. (Actually 1000/5 = 200 times slower!!!).
That means if something NOW takes 3 seconds on your office network with Access and SQL server? Well then a WAN (over the internet), then you need to multiple the time by the change in your connection speed (this is so simple – yet it seems to escape all!). So, if you lucky, you might have a 5 mbits speed rating for your internet. That means you go
1000 / 5 = 200
You now take the 200 and multiple the existing delay you have of say 3 seconds and you get 600 seconds (that is 10 minutes if you are wondering!). So you going from 3 seconds to 10 minutes!
This kind of comparison in speed would be like walking into a sports shop to purchase a rubber boat to cross the Atlantic. So not taking into account the change in internet speed and wondering why things are slow is the issue here.
You can most certainly use Access to Azure, but you have to realize two simple concepts.
a connection and test with a connection that is 50-200 times slower than your LAN is a test that going to run 50 to 200 times slower! The failure to mention and take into considering the MASSIVE DIFFERENCE in your speed connection of your LAN compared to a WAN is the simple issue here.
opening a form bound to a large table of data is going to case performance issues.
I was sitting at the bus stop talking to a 90 year old granny lady. I asked her the following:
Have you ever used an instant teller?
She said, why yes, I use them all the time.
I then asked here don’t you think it would be bad to have the teller machine download all the peoples accounts while you wait and THEN ask you for your account number?
The old lady stated, of course, that would be silly. I type in my account pin and the machine ONLY downloads my account information – this is practical and obvious.
In other words that old lady realised that downloading a bunch of data BEFORE you the user even types in or does anything is a waste of bandwidth.
So you never want to launch a form bound to a table and THEN ask the user what record to work on. Why have Access download large numbers of records into a form and THEN ask the user or allow the user to navigate to the required record?
Even when using Google, it does not download the whole internet into your web browser page and you then go ctrl+f to search the contents of that web page.
The same concepts should be applied to Access applications. A design that asks for what to work on and then launches a form bound to a table with a "where" clause will thus fix this issue.
So if you have a form (and even a sub form) that displays a customer invoice, you would FIRST ASK FOR the invoice number, and then simply launch that form using a where clause that restricts the form to the ONE invoice!
Keep in mind that you can STILL use that invoice form bound to a table of 1 million rows and ONLY THE ONE record will be pulled down the network connection *if one used the where clause.
So a typical internet connection has adequate speed to run a browser, and also has MORE than adequate bandwidth speed to pull down a few records. Access often gets a bad rap for poor performance, but that is ONLY DUE to Access developers IGNORING the obvious advice that downloading tons of things that you don’t yet need into a form will run slow.
So web based applications, or even desktop applications written in vb.net perform well with SQL Azure running in the cloud over that MUCH slower internet connection because those applications don’t launch forms bound to large datasets WITHOUT FIRST simply allowing the user to request what they need to see and view.
As for Access and using SharePoint? That setup can be VERY fast, and in fact MUCH faster than SQL Azure, MySQL or any traditional database system because when you using SharePoint tables and Access, then Access automatic syncs a copy of the data local. This setup means your application will continue to run WITHOUT ANY internet connection. The instant the connection is restored, then the data sync can resume.
This means that if you have a table with 15,000 rows and run a report on that data the report can run and launch in an instant with SharePoint back end since a local copy of the data exists in the front end at ALL TIMES! So this setup is VERY well suited an off line mode or in cases that you have a poor and slow internet connections since you as noted always have local copy of the data – only when a record is changed does a sync occur, and that sync can occur independent of Access. So you change one record – and it starts syncing with SharePoint.
However for larger data sets that have to be updated, then SQL server is far better since you can execute a sql update on 10,000 rows and ZERO network traffic and transfer of data need occur to update those 10,000 rows when using SQL server (a pass through query) and when using SharePoint, the 10,000 rows WILL transfer over the network since the local copy requires the rows to be updated. So that massive advantage of using SharePoint for the database backend does not exist for applications that have to update lots of rows or do lots of row update types of data processing.
So the key concepts and take away here:
The high speed internet connection you have is often 10-200 times slower than your typical cheap office (local) network. So that means a 2 second operation will now take 10-200 times longer.
The Access application needs to be optimized to avoid things like loading too many records into a form. So building search forms etc. That FIRST ASK the user what they need to work on is a basic and simple requirement for all good developers and that includes Access developers.
Access and SharePoint can be the BEST option, and such a setup allows the application to run EVEN WHEN there is no internet connection at all. If table sizes are below say 10,000 rows, then this setup can often be ideal. However for applications that have to update lots of rows and for data processing heavy applications this setup is poor since updates to any rows will case data syncing to occur over the network. This setup is also the cheapest, since a single office 365 account with SharePoint support for Access can be had for $6 per month, and that $6 account allows up to 500 free users and those 500 users can even use their Gmail or non-Microsoft account for this setup. And such access applications that do fit within the bounds of SharePoint tables tend to need far less changes and optimizing then using SQL server over the internet.
With SQL server, use of views, pass-tough query and in some cases writing store procedures allows updates and code to run WITHOUT using ANY bandwidth. So one can send a single update query to the server that updates 10,000 rows of data – the only network cost will be the “tiny” amount of bandwidth to send that sql statement.
So while bound forms can be used with SQL Azure running in the cloud, one needs to build software like those do for the web, or vb.net in which they FIRST ask the user what account or customer to work on and THEN launch the UI to display that given data.
So in access, you build a search form say like this:
So at the end of the day, it is important to ignore posts here that suggests Access to SQL in the cloud is not viable. Access with proper designs will work rather well over typical internet connections to SQL server running on Azure.
In fact I seen people use Access to SQL over a 56k modem!
One has to adopt sensible designs in which the data pulled for a given task is restricted – this is a hall mark of all developers – the only issue is Access does NOT enforce this approach while most other developer tools don’t let you hang yourself with things like bound forms to large tables! It not that Access is slow, but Access is slow when you make poor design decisions.
Access to SharePoint can be a real winner – especially for poor bandwidth, spotty bandwidth and even when the connection is lost, the application will continue to run and run faster than 99% of the cases if you were running the same application with a SQL back end. There is a BIG caveat here since only certain types of applications will work well with SharePoint tables. For me to explain the why, how, and when such applications are better is beyond a simple post here, but one simply needs to be aware that SharePoint can be incredible solution, but not for all applications and SQL server can and will be better choice. This SharePoint “better” choice can only be determined on a case by case evaluation of the given type of application in question.
The problem is simply that Azure SQL Database is not very fast running with small DTUs (Database Transaction Units) compared to, say, an in-house instance of SQL Server hosted on even a moderate modern server.
I've checked it out too, and it requires extremely careful design of queries and filtering - far from what you normally can get away with - to obtain acceptable overall speed. On the other hand, this is a giving experience that will bring focus to potential bottlenecks you otherwise wouldn't encounter before it might be too late.
OK, so after almost a week of trying to get this to work (Access front-end to SQL Server back-end on Azure), I've come to the conclusion that it's not a viable solution.
I've tried SQL Server, and setup a Sharepoint 2016 server on Azure, which also failed.
What has worked is using a product from Bullzipp called MS Access to MySQL to convert the access tables, then adding a MySQL DB on the server and importing the file generated by Bullzip. The only thing to note here is that Bullzip doesn't like the newer access formats (it wants an MDB file) so go to Access, create a new, empty file, but make sure you set its file type to MDB. then import your tables across and run Bullzip.
It's now working a hell of a lot faster than the SQL Server, but I am getting some write conflicts in Access, so I just need to go through the code and do whatever I need to so I can avoid those messages.
Using Access as a front to Azure SQL tables is the worst solution. But, sometimes you have to do it. I have a client who is adamant that she wants to keep her Access database. When she hired her very first employee, it became clear she needed to SQL tables behind the screens.
This was a bit of a nightmare. However, after redesigning some terrible table structures, creating views and many procs, I've been able to do it. I use local tables in some cases, and refill by pulling from a stored proc and inserting into the local table. I use linked tables for basic data edits, and do explicit save records almost constantly.
I also have a first-load module that opens all forms, goes to the last record, back to the first record, and then hides the form until needed. The load limps along for about 3
My only remaining issue is now that Azure will close connections after idle time of (I think) 30 or more minutes -- or maybe it's when the laptop sleeps? That kills the app and it has to be closed and re-opened.
I'm looking for a little advice.
I have some SQL Server tables I need to move to local Access databases for some local production tasks - once per "job" setup, w/400 jobs this qtr, across a dozen users...
A little background:
I am currently using a DSN-less approach to avoid distribution issues
I can create temporary LINKS to the remote tables and run "make table" queries to populate the local tables, then drop the remote tables. Works as expected.
Performance here in US is decent - 10-15 seconds for ~40K records. Our India teams are seeing >5-10 minutes for the same datasets. Their internet connection is decent, not great and a variable I cannot control.
I am wondering if MS Access is adding some overhead here than can be avoided by a more direct approach: i.e., letting the server do all/most of the heavy lifting vs Access?
I've tinkered with various combinations, with no clear improvement or success:
Parameterized stored procedures from Access
SQL Passthru queries from Access
ADO vs DAO
Any suggestions, or an overall approach to suggest? How about moving data as XML?
Note: I have Access 7, 10, 13 users.
Thanks!
It's not entirely clear but if the MSAccess database performing the dump is local and the SQL Server database is remote, across the internet, you are bound to bump into the physical limitations of the connection.
ODBC drivers are not meant to be used for data access beyond a LAN, there is too much latency.
When Access queries data, is doesn't open a stream, it fetches blocks of it, wait for the data wot be downloaded, then request another batch. This is OK on a LAN but quickly degrades over long distances, especially when you consider that communication between the US and India has probably around 200ms latency and you can't do much about it as it adds up very quickly if the communication protocol is chatty, all this on top of the connection's bandwidth that is very likely way below what you would get on a LAN.
The better solution would be to perform the dump locally and then transmit the resulting Access file after it has been compacted and maybe zipped (using 7z for instance for better compression). This would most likely result in very small files that would be easy to move around in a few seconds.
The process could easily be automated. The easiest is maybe to automatically perform this dump every day and making it available on an FTP server or an internal website ready for download.
You can also make it available on demand, maybe trough an app running on a server and made available through RemoteApp using RDP services on a Windows 2008 server or simply though a website, or a shell.
You could also have a simple windows service on your SQL Server that listens to requests for a remote client installed on the local machines everywhere, that would process the dump and sent it to the client which would then unpack it and replace the previously downloaded database.
Plenty of solutions for this, even though they would probably require some amount of work to automate reliably.
One final note: if you automate the data dump from SQL Server to Access, avoid using Access in an automated way. It's hard to debug and quite easy to break. Use an export tool instead that doesn't rely on having Access installed.
Renaud and all, thanks for taking time to provide your responses. As you note, performance across the internet is the bottleneck. The fetching of blocks (vs a continguous DL) of data is exactly what I was hoping to avoid via an alternate approach.
Or workflow is evolving to better leverage both sides of the clock where User1 in US completes their day's efforts in the local DB and then sends JUST their updates back to the server (based on timestamps). User2 in India, also has a local copy of the same DB, grabs just the updated records off the server at the start of his day. So, pretty efficient for day-to-day stuff.
The primary issue is the initial DL of the local DB tables from the server (huge multi-year DB) for the current "job" - should happen just once at the start of the effort (~1 wk long process) This is the piece that takes 5-10 minutes for India to accomplish.
We currently do move the DB back and forth via FTP - DAILY. It is used as a SINGLE shared DB and is a bit LARGE due to temp tables. I was hoping my new timestamped-based push-pull of just the changes daily would have been an overall plus. Seems to be, but the initial DL hurdle remains.
I have multiple ~50MB Access 2000-2003 databases (MDB files) that only contain tables with data. The data-databases are located on a server in my enterprise that can take ~1-2 second to respond (and about 10 seconds to actually open the 50 MDB file manually while browsing in the file explorer). I have other databases that only contain forms. Most of those forms-database (still MDB files) are actually copied from the server to the client (after some testing, the execution looks smoother) before execution with a batch file. Most of those forms-databases use table-links to fetch the data from the data-databases.
Now, my question is: is there any advantage/disadvantage to merge all data-databases from my ~50MB databases to make one big database (let's say 500MB)? Will it be slower? It would actually help to clean up my code if I wouln't have to connect to all those different databases and I don't think 500MB is a lot, but I don't pretend to be really used to Access by any mean and that's why I'm asking. If Access needs to read the whole MDB file to get the data from a specific table, then it would be slower. It wouldn't be really that surprising from Microsoft, but I've been pleased so far with MS Access database performances.
There will never be more than ~50 people connected to the database at the same time (most likely, this number won't in fact be more than 10, but I prefer being a little bit conservative here just to be sure).
The db engine does not read the entire MDB file to get information from a specific table. It must read information from the system tables (hidden tables whose names start with MSys) to determine where the data you need is stored. Furthermore, if you're using a query to retrieve information from the table, and the db engine can use an index to determine which rows satisfy the query's WHERE clause, it may read only those rows from the table.
However, you have issues with your network's performance. When those lead to dropped connections, you risk corrupting the MDB. That is why Access is not well suited for use in wide area networks or with wireless connections. And even on a wired LAN, you can suffer such problems when the network is flaky.
So while reducing the amount of data you pull across the network is a good thing, it is not the best remedy for Access on a flaky network. Instead you should migrate the data to a client-server db so it can be kept safe in spite of dropped connections.
You are walking on thin ice here.
Access will handle your scenario, but is not really meant to allow so many concurrent connections.
Merging everything in a big database (500mb) is not a wise move.
Have you tried to open it from a network location?
As far as I can suggest, I will use a backend SqlServer Express to merge all the tables in a single real client-server database.
The changes required by client mdb front-end should not be very pervasive.
Listening to Scott Hanselman's interview with the Stack Overflow team (part 1 and 2), he was adamant that the SQL server and application server should be on separate machines. Is this just to make sure that if one server is compromised, both systems aren't accessible? Do the security concerns outweigh the complexity of two servers (extra cost, dedicated network connection between the two, more maintenance, etc.), especially for a small application, where neither piece is using too much CPU or memory? Even with two servers, with one server compromised, an attacker could still do serious damage, either by deleting the database, or messing with the application code.
Why would this be such a big deal if performance isn't an issue?
Security. Your web server lives in a DMZ, accessible to the public internet and taking untrusted input from anonymous users. If your web server gets compromised, and you've followed least privilege rules in connecting to your DB, the maximum exposure is what your app can do through the database API. If you have a business tier in between, you have one more step between your attacker and your data. If, on the other hand, your database is on the same server, the attacker now has root access to your data and server.
Scalability. Keeping your web server stateless allows you to scale your web servers horizontally pretty much effortlessly. It is very difficult to horizontally scale a database server.
Performance. 2 boxes = 2 times the CPU, 2 times the RAM, and 2 times the spindles for disk access.
All that being said, I can certainly see reasonable cases that none of those points really matter.
It doesn't really matter (you can quite happily run your site with web/database on the same machine), it's just the easiest step in scaling..
It's exactly what StackOverflow did - starting with single machine running IIS/SQL Server, then when it started getting heavily loaded, a second server was bought and the SQL server was moved onto that.
If performance is not an issue, do not waste money buying/maintaining two servers.
On the other hand, referring to a different blogging Scott (Watermasyck, of Telligent) - they found that most users could speed up the websites (using Telligent's Community Server), by putting the database on the same machine as the web site. However, in their customer's case, usually the db & web server are the only applications on that machine, and the website isn't straining the machine that much. Then, the efficiency of not having to send data across the network more that made up for the increased strain.
Tom is correct on this. Some other reasons are that it isn't cost effective and that there are additional security risks.
Webservers have different hardware requirements than database servers. Database servers fare better with a lot of memory and a really fast disk array while web servers only require enough memory to cache files and frequent DB requests (depending on your setup). Regarding cost effectiveness, the two servers won't necessarily be less expensive, however performance/cost ratio should be higher since you don't have to different applications competing for resources. For this reason, you're probably going to have to spend a lot more for one server which caters to both and offers equivalent performance to 2 specialized ones.
The security concern is that if the single machine is compromised, both webserver and database are vulnerable. With two servers, you have some breathing room as the 2nd server will still be secure (for a while at least).
Also, there are some scalability benefits since you may only have to maintain a few database servers that are used by a bunch of different web applications. This way you have less work to do applying upgrades or patches and doing performance tuning. I believe that there are server management tools for making these tasks easier though (in the single machine case).
I would think the big factor would be performance. Both the web server/app code and SQL Server would cache commonly requested data in memory and you're killing your cache performance by running them in the same memory space.
Security is a major concern. Ideally your database server should be sitting behind a firewall with only the ports required to perform data access opened. Your web application should be connecting to the database server with a SQL account that has just enough rights for the application to function and no more. For example you should remove rights that permit dropping of objects and most certainly you shouldn't be connecting using accounts such as 'sa'.
In the event that you lose the web server to a hijack (i.e. a full blown privilege escalation to administrator rights), the worst case scenario is that your application's database may be compromised but not the whole database server (as would be the case if the database server and web server were the same machine). If you've encrypted your database connection strings and the hacker isn't savvy enough to decrypt them then all you've lost is the web server.
One factor that hasn't been mentioned yet is load balancing. If you start off thinking of the web server and the database as separate machines, you optimize for fewer network round trips and also it gets easier to add a second web server or a second database engine as needs increase.
I agree with Daniel Earwicker - the security question is pretty much flawed.
If you have a single box setup with a webserver and only the database for that webserver on it, if that webserver is compromised you lose both the webserver and only the database for that specific application.
This is exactly the same as what happens if you lose the webserver on a 2-server setup. You lose the web server, and just the database for that specific application.
The argument that 'the rest of the DB server's integrity is maintained' where you have a 2-server setup is irrelevant, because in the first scenario, every other database server relating to every other application (if there are any) remain unaffected as well - being, as they are, hosted elsewhere.
Similarly, to the question posed by Kev 'what about all the other databases residing on the DB server? All you've lost is one database.'
if you were hosting an application and database on one server, you would only host databases on that server which related to that application. Therefore, you would not lose any additional databases in a single server setup when compared to a multiple server setup.
By contrast, in a 2 server setup, where the attacker had access to the Web Server, and by proxy, limited rights (in the best case scenario) to the database server, they could put the databases of every other application at risk by carrying out slow, memory intensive queries or maximising the available storage space on the database server. By separating the applications out into their own concerns, very much like virtualisation, you also isolate them for security purposes in a positive way.
I can speak from first hand experience that it is often a good idea to place the web server and database on different machines. If you have an application that is resource intensive, it can easily cause the CPU cycles on the machine to peak, essentially bringing the machine to a halt. However, if your application has limited use of the database, it would probably be no big deal to have them share a server.
Wow, No one brings up the fact that if you actually buy SQL server at 5k bucks, you might want to use it for more than your web application. If your using express, maybe you don't care. I see SQL servers run Databases for 20 to 30 applicaitions, so putting it on the webserver would not be smart.
Secondly, depends on whom the server is for. I do work for financial companies and the govt. So we use a crazy pain in the arse approach of using only sprocs and limiting ports from webserver to SQL. So if the web app gets hacked. The only thing the hacker can do is call sprocs as the user account on the webserver is locked down to only see/call sprocs on the DB. So now the hacker has to figure out how to get into the DB. If its on the web server well its kind of easy to get to.
It depends on the application and the purpose. When high availability and performance is not critical, it's not bad to not to separate the DB and web server. Especially considering the performance gains - if the appliation makes a large amount of database queries, a considerable amount of network load can be removed by keeping it all on the same system, keeping the response times low.
I listened to that podcast, and it was amusing, but the security argument made no sense to me. If you've compromised server A, and that server can access data on server B, then you instantly have access to the data on server B.
I think its because the two machines usually would need to be optimized in different ways. Other than that I have no idea, we run all our applications with the server-database on the same machine - granted we're not public facing - but we've had no problems.
I can't imagine that too many people care about one machine being compromised over both since the web application will usually have nearly unrestricted access to at the very least the data if not the schema inside the database.
Interested in what others might say.
Database licences are not cheep and are often charged per CPU, therefore by separating out your web-servers you can reduce the cost of your database licences.
E.g if you have 1 server doing both web and database that contains 8 CPUs you will have to pay for an 8 cpu licence. However if you have two servers each with 4 CPUs and runs the database on one server you will only have to pay for a 4 cpu licences
An additional concern is that databases like to take up all the available memory and hold it in reserve for when it wants to use it. You can force it to limit the memory but this can considerably slow data access.
Something not mentioned here, and the reason I am facing, is 0 downtime deployments. Currently I have DB/webserver on same machine and that makes updates a pain. If you they are on a seprate machine, you can perform A/B releases.
I.e.:
The DNS currently points to WebServerA
Apply sofware updates to WebServerB
Change DNS to point to WebServerB
Work on WebServerA at leisure for the next round of updates.
This works before the state is stored in the DB, on a separate server.
Arguing that there is a real performance gain to be had by running a database server on a web server is a flawed argument.
Since Database servers take query strings and return result sets, the data actually flowing from data server to web server is relatively small, but the horsepower required to process the query and generate the result set is relatively large. Optimizing performance around the data transfer time therefore is optimizing around the wrong thing.
Regarding security, there are advantages to having the data server on a different box than the web server. Having such a setup is not the be all and end all of security, but it is a step in the right direction.
Regarding scalability, it is easy and relatively cheap to add web servers and put them into cluster to handle increased traffic. It is not so easy and cheap to add data servers and cluster them. Also, web servers and data servers have different hardware needs, so multiple boxes help out with scalability.
If you are starting small and have only one box, then a good way would go would be to use virtual machines. Running the web server and data server in different VMs on one host gives you all the gains of separate boxes at the cost of one large box price.
Operating system is another consideration. While your database may require larger memory spaces and therefore UNIX, your web server - or more specifically your app server since you mention only two tiers - may be a .Net-based, and therefore require Windows.
Ok! Here is the thing, it is more Secure to have your DB Server installed on another Machine and your Application on the Web Server. You then connect your application to the DB with a Web Link. Thanks it.
Is it good, bad, or indifferent to run SQL Server on your webserver?
I'm using Server 2008 and SQL Server 2005, but I don't think that matters to this question.
For small sites, it doesn't make a bit of a difference.
As the load grows, though, this scales really badly, and quicker than you think:
Database servers are built on the premise they "own" the server. They trade memory for speed and they easily use all available RAM for internal caching.
Once resources start to be scarce, profiling becomes very difficult -- it is clear that IIS and SQL are both suffering, less clear where the bottleneck is. IIS needs CPU, SQL Server needs RAM or CPU etc etc
No matter how many layers you put in your code, it all runs on the same CPU, therefore a single layered application will run better in this context -- less overhead -- but it will not scale.
Security is really bad, usually you isolate SQL behind a firewall!
If you can afford it, it's probably better to shell out a few bucks and get a second server, maybe using PostgreSQL. One IIS server and one PostgreSQL cost about as much as on IIS + SQL Server because of licensing costs...
Larger shops would probably not consider this a best practice... However, if you aren't dealing with hundreds of requests per second, you're fine putting them both on one box.
In fact, for small apps, you will see better performance on the back-end because data does not have to go across the wire. It's all about scale.
Keep in mind that database servers eat memory. Here's one important lesson from the school of hard knocks: if you decide to run SQL Server 2005 on the same machine as your web server (and that is the setup you mentioned in your question), make sure you go into Sql Server Management Studio and do this:
Right click on the server instance and click properties
Select 'memory' from the list on the left
Change 'maximum server memory' to something your server can sustain.
If you don't do that, SQL Server will eventually take up all of your server's RAM and hang onto it indefinitely. This will cause your server to more or less sputter and die. If you are not aware of this, it can be very frustrating to troubleshoot.
I've done this quite a few times. It's not something you would do if you had the infrastructure of a large corporation and it does not scale, but it's fine for a lot of things.
It really comes down to how much work your webserver and your sql server are doing.
Without more information I doubt you are going to get any helpful answers.
If your web server is publicly accessible, this is a VERY bad idea from a security perspective.
Although it makes a lot of things more difficult from a routing, firewall, ports, authentication, etc. perspective, separation is good. When you have your database server running on the web server, if your web server is compromised, then your sql server is, too.
When you have them on separate boxes, you've raised the bar a little.
There's still a lot more work to be done to secure your web server AND your database server, but why make it easier than it needs to be?
I'd say it was best to run them on the same server until it becomes a problem. That way you'll save yourself some money and time upfront. Once the site becomes a success and requires a some architectural changes it should have already paid for itself.
Remember to back up :)
It will depend on the expected load of the server. For small sites, it is no problem at all (if correctly configured). For large sites, you might want to consider distributing the load over different servers: web server, file server, database server, etc.
I've seen this issue over and over again. The right answer is to put SQL Server on one machine and IIS (web server) on the other. Your money will go into the SQL Server machine because the right drive system and RAM must be purchased to support a efficient server but the web server can be a much scaled down & less expensive machine with just a mirrored drive set.