I'm sure someone has tried this. We have a database server where all users are using for order entry/job etc. It currently has one NIC.
If you have another NIC in and both connected to a switch than to a 100 base hubs, theoratically will that double the input/output for file access? or is it the same since it's all going into one database so there is a wait time. I've been thinking about this but I don't have a spare box to test it out yet. The server is a win2K server. What about the chance of data corruption?

Sounds like you are talking about "load balancing" (also called "teaming", and in modems referred to as "multi-link" and branded as "shotgun"), and it's completely possible. Your best bet would be to monitor your network I/O on that server and see if you are running a high utilization on the current single NIC. If you are running over 70% constantly (which is really rare), then load balancing is a great way to go. If you are using a client-side data handling structure, then this can help a ton. It will also help if you have the DB server backing up application servers (such as a web application running on multiple webservers but querying the DB on one DB server). How many concurrent connections are you talking about anyway?

I wasn't looking so much into clustering but rather just see if using 2 NIC cards running to on database would make a different in performance and speed. We have a Compaq Prolient that does have 2 nics and a "teaming" option. I was thinking having users from building A run through (NIC1) and users from building B on NIC2. Like I said since everyone share a common Database I was not sure if it's beneficial with the setup. What do you think clutch?

Well, it's possible that it could help. While that would help to reduce any bottleneck on the two subnets connecting to the server, the server should also be "aware" of its surroundings and know how to route out requests accordingly. If setup incorrectly, you could do way more damage to your response time (and reputation) than if you had left it alone.

If it was up to me, I would just monitor the network traffic for a few days or even a week, and see what the usage is like. If the CPU utilization floats at 80% but the network utilization is less than 10%, increasing the CPU load by using another NIC wouldn't help, now would it?

Most likely on a database server, your performance will not be over the wire. Stored procedures, or whatever they are called in the database you are using, will dramatically reduce the amount of data that must go over the wire. I hope you are using a switched network. That will improve performance without having to worry about load ballancing or routing.

I know for my MS SQL server it just wants memory, as much as you can give it. Look at your paging to see if that will help.

-RY

Yep, I have a switch network. I have the servers run into a switch and feed it out to the hubs. We're running 100base right now and it's fine. I was putzing around and got to thinking that what if each building is dedicated to it's own NIC card? will it make a different. Oh well...just a thought. Thanks for the reply.
Here's my thought process in case you're wondering.

BUILDING 1 --> 100BASE HUB1 --> 100BASE SWITCH --> NIC1 --> DATA
BUILDING 2 --> 100BASE HUB2 --> 100BASE SWITCH --> NIC2 --> DATA