SQL Server 2000

[Fatboy]

My boss has finally agreed to looking into getting SQL rather than trying to maintain a 550MB database on access, and being the most IT literate guy in the company (we mostly deal with managed services, so any IT administration is pretty minimal).

I don't know quite what options are available, or exactly what we would need...

We have about 18-20 users running on terminal services, and the database is held on the same server.

The only suitable option I have found thus far is SQL Server 2000 Enterprise - 25 cal. Is this going to be the best option, or is there a better (i.e. less costly) way of implementing SQL?

Thanks in advance for any input.

[TiG]

SQL server is a very complicated license model, i still don't understand it. But I'm trying to understand why you need 25 cals?. Are you really going to have 25 users accessing the Database?.

It depends on the requirements of the users, how data is managed. What user access you need to it etc.

But for cheapness MSDE might be an option. (its basically free SQL server with much less management tools, licensing you will need to check if your use of it is compliant with the agreement)

Any backup plans/experience etc.

This sounds like you could do with getting a expert in for a day and getting them to advise you with proper knowledge.

TiG

[Moby-Dick]

per user will be your cheapest untill you get a lot of users , then you can think about per CPU.

do you think your DB will grow much ?

you could *try* and use MSDE , but I really wouldn't reccomend it.

if your boss whinges about the cost of SQL , tell him to go out and get a quote for Oracle. Then laugh a him


Lots

depending on how the databse is written ( ie do you use stored procedures ) you could try and port it to MySQL ( which is open source ) but its not easy.

what sort of thing is the DB doing ? is it a backend for a front end VB app ?

[Moby-Dick]

tiG I'm pretty sure user cals are just that - it allows 25 concurrent connections to the DB - beyond that , the licening becomes unlimited on the users and is charged on the scale of the server ( ie the number of real CPU's it has - not sure how dual core/ hyperthreading is counted )

[Fatboy]

Cool, I thought that might be the case. I've found SQL 2000 (25cal) for £5870.71, does that sound about right?

The database is going to grow, although I don't know by how much, it should be a fairly steady process. The issues that we are having with the current Access setup is that records are constantly being updated etc (it's a marketing company) and it tends to throw a wobbly unless we run a compact and repair regularly (we've got it scheduled to run at the end of every week day). Otherwise it gets a bit bloated (700MB) alarmingly quickly.

In terms of setting everything up if we implement SQL, I'm really only going to be coordinating it, the work will actually be done by a company that wrote the front end for the current database.

[Moby-Dick]

In that case you have got to stick with SQL.

To put things in perspective, I think an SQL CPu licence is about £8000 per cpu unless you can get a heft discount from Microsoft.

also its worth bearing in mind that SQL 2005 is due out soon , you may well want to try and get that or buy some software assurance for a "free" upgrade.

[Fatboy]

Cheers,that's pretty much confirmed my thoughts on the matter.

[TiG]

Fatboy you use front end to the system?, Is it a web site or a VB/C++ type app?.

Because that is important to the licence implications.

IF you use say a web site to update a database with user records, you only need 1 Cal as the machine that doing the updates is the 1 "user". At least this is what my pratical experience has shown me. Check the SQL licencing tool to double check (user will be WebServer\Administrator etc)

If you move to SQL you should not allow 25 user direct access to the database, that is lunacy. (Infact its probably less lunacy that 25 users direct accessing access but still)

MSDE is sooo easy, and it is MSSQL core, just without the admin. Its easily as good for what you are doing.

But all this depends on how the get data into the database. (Hoping and praying its not directly!)

TiG

[Moby-Dick]

I suppose the service account would be the part connecting to the database , unless you have some middleware / com objects inbetween ?

however I dont think thats the way that microsoft sees it. You have multiple users connecting to the DB , even if it is only via one account , therefor you would require a user CAL for each one.

The Microsoft EULA is quoted on MS license clarification page as saying: "'Multiplexing.' Hardware or software that reduces the number of Devices directly accessing or using the Server Software does not reduce the number of required CALs. The number you need is based on the number of distinct inputs to the hardware or software 'front end.'".

http://www.experts-exchange.com/Data..._21171236.html


A fully web based one would mostly likely use a CPU licence ( its not cheap but thatt the price you pay )

on a little more hunting , you shoudl be able to use SQL server Standard ed. not enterprise ( which does a whole bunch of thing you dont need )

source:

http://www.developer.com/db/article.php/3502746

for small web apps....

http://www.microsoft.com/sql/msde/howtobuy/msdeuse.mspx

MS claim its good for up to 25 users ( as long as your DB doesn't go over 2Gb )

but it might be a way of saving cash now, as it could be a while before your DB gets that big ?

[Paul Adams]

I suppose the service account would be the part connecting to the database , unless you have some middleware / com objects inbetween ?

however I dont think thats the way that microsoft sees it. You have multiple users connecting to the DB , even if it is only via one account , therefor you would require a user CAL for each one.

I believe this is correct, the licensing is done in 1 of 3 ways:
i. per physical processor (socket) in the server (so dual core = 1 licence)
ii. per END device CAL - the machines the users are actually using
iii. per END user CAL - the users that might access the server from different locations

Separating the end users/devices from the SQL server does not reduce the number of CALs required - the fact that it is only one user account used for accessing the server if it is through middleware is just an administrative benefit.

http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/faq.mspx
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobu...licensing.mspx

[Moby-Dick]

I figured as so - we've always used CPU licences , so its not been a problem

[TiG]

Sorry if i'm slightly confused, but the SQL licencing tool would then be pointless or at least inaccurate then if it doesn't deal with Web Server/middleware components then?....

MSSQL6.5/7 used to have a web server specific licence if i remember rightly, but this disappeared in MSSQL2000.

Looks like i've been breaking licencing rules then :-)

TiG

[Moby-Dick]

not heard of this licening tool ? have you got a link to it ?

[Stoo]

IIRC you wouldn't be able to use the MSDE (the redistributable one) in a production environment as you're not a developer packaging and delivering database driven products..

The Developer Edition is useful for testing the system out (it's the full enterprise edition, but only about £30 to buy), but as soon as you set the system live you need to move to a full license.

From what I recall, if you're running web services you really need to be using the per CPU licensing model.

[Fatboy]

Right, I think its a VB front end, but regarding access to the database, if the users are constantly using/adding/updating the records how would this otherwise be achieved?

This is probably some way off at the moment, but I need to be "armed" with all the relevant info.

Given that it is a small company, and any changes are going to be implemented by another company that will maintain/update the system (and therefore presumeably already use the developer edition), could we then get away with using a lesser package such as the workgroup or express editions?

[Moby-Dick]

IIRC you wouldn't be able to use the MSDE (the redistributable one) in a production environment as you're not a developer packaging and delivering database driven products..

The Developer Edition is useful for testing the system out (it's the full enterprise edition, but only about £30 to buy), but as soon as you set the system live you need to move to a full license.

From what I recall, if you're running web services you really need to be using the per CPU licensing model.

Stoo you numpty - MSDE = Microsoft SQL Desktop Engine , not the MSDN one

its a cut down version of SQL designed for simple back-ends.

the 2005 version is SQL 2005 Desktop edition ( only uses 1 CPu , and has a DB and concurrent user limit )

Q. Can I use MSDE as a database for Web applications?
A. Yes, MSDE is an ideal solution for basic Web applications with up to 25 concurrent users.

I'm pretty sure the most cost effective full blown SQL prudct would be SQL standard with 24 Cals ( although that it just over price point where per CPu is cheaper , the chances are that your TS box is dual CPU )