Have dual processors / need SQL (1 or 2) license?

Need to install MS-SQL on a WIN2K Server box - Looking at
getting MS-SQL for 1 processor product = 228-01079. I'm
confused because I want to be legal and have 2 processors
in this box therefore - Do I need 2 copies of this
software to run or would one be enought?
ThanksOne question is do you really need a processor license. The links below
outline most of this stuff:
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/serverproc.asp Licensing
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/sqlserverlicensing.asp
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/default.asp
Andrew J. Kelly
SQL Server MVP
"Dave" <Razar44140@.aol.com> wrote in message
news:00b001c37c72$f35cff60$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> Need to install MS-SQL on a WIN2K Server box - Looking at
> getting MS-SQL for 1 processor product = 228-01079. I'm
> confused because I want to be legal and have 2 processors
> in this box therefore - Do I need 2 copies of this
> software to run or would one be enought?
> Thanks|||Maybe yes, maybe no!
We are about to acquire a software package which specs
out that the server must have dual processors in the box
and rather large amount of RAM. Additionally it requires
that we install WIN2K Server and MS-SQL. We will have
about 75 users running this DB application therefore I
think that a processor license would be appropiate (cost
wise at discount house) over a CAL. Original question...
Do I need two copies for on machine utilizing two
processors? or Is there another avenue to take here?
Thanks
PS - I looked at the How to Buy and it didn't answer my
question. I
>--Original Message--
>One question is do you really need a processor license.
The links below
>outline most of this stuff:
>
>http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/serverproc.asp
Licensing
>http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/sqlserverlicensing.
asp
>http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/default.asp
>
>--
>Andrew J. Kelly
>SQL Server MVP
>
>"Dave" <Razar44140@.aol.com> wrote in message
>news:00b001c37c72$f35cff60$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
>> Need to install MS-SQL on a WIN2K Server box - Looking
at
>> getting MS-SQL for 1 processor product = 228-01079. I'm
>> confused because I want to be legal and have 2
processors
>> in this box therefore - Do I need 2 copies of this
>> software to run or would one be enought?
>> Thanks
>
>.
>

hardware upgrade of active/active cluster

I'm planning a hardware upgrade of our active/active dual node Windows
2000 sql cluster. Hostnames and IP addresses will remain unchanged.
Here's a high level overview of my plan..
1. move all cluster groups/resources to node 2
2. shutdown sql services on node 1
3. uninstall MSCS on node 1
4. evict node 1 from cluster using cluster administrator on node 2
5. power down node 1
6. reset node 1 account in domain
7. add new node 1 to domain
8. install MSCS on new node 1
9. install sql server on new node 1
10. install sql sp2 on new node 1
11. add new node 1 to existing cluster
12. verify that all resources can move to new node 1 correctly
** repeat for node 2
I know this has been discussed several times before in this newsgroup,
but there's a few extra steps in there that I believe have not been
addressed in the past. Does the above look accurate and also is it
feasible to roll back to a ghost image and backup of the quarum in the
event of a problem with either server?
Thanks in advance,
David
Step 1.5 Uninstall SQL from Node 1. If you do not do this step, you cannot
do step 9. Uninstalling SQL also tells the existing cluster not to look for
that node any longer as a valid SQL host node. You can do it as step 8.5,
but you will have to wait on some timeouts since the node is no onger there.
I haven't tried a ghost of the quorum as a restore technique, but I suspect
that given the SQL configuration changes, it wouldn't work.
Since you are reusing node names, make sure you have removed all traces of
the nodes from Active Directory and allowed it to globally synch before
trying to add the machines back in.
IMHO, I would take the opportunity to upgrade to Windows 2003 as a host OS
during the upgrade. In that case, you would need to be on at least SP3a
before starting the cluster upgrade.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
<davidawest@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1132725533.573424.291710@.z14g2000cwz.googlegr oups.com...
> I'm planning a hardware upgrade of our active/active dual node Windows
> 2000 sql cluster. Hostnames and IP addresses will remain unchanged.
> Here's a high level overview of my plan..
> 1. move all cluster groups/resources to node 2
> 2. shutdown sql services on node 1
> 3. uninstall MSCS on node 1
> 4. evict node 1 from cluster using cluster administrator on node 2
> 5. power down node 1
> 6. reset node 1 account in domain
> 7. add new node 1 to domain
> 8. install MSCS on new node 1
> 9. install sql server on new node 1
> 10. install sql sp2 on new node 1
> 11. add new node 1 to existing cluster
> 12. verify that all resources can move to new node 1 correctly
> ** repeat for node 2
> I know this has been discussed several times before in this newsgroup,
> but there's a few extra steps in there that I believe have not been
> addressed in the past. Does the above look accurate and also is it
> feasible to roll back to a ghost image and backup of the quarum in the
> event of a problem with either server?
> Thanks in advance,
> David
>

Hardware requirements

I am going to buy a new server that will be running Windows 2003 Server,
Exchange 2003 & SQL 2000. I was looking at a server with dual Xeon 3.6Ghz
processors with 2GB RAM & RAID 5 but I was told that I should use RAID 1
instead of RAID 5. Is this true that RAID 1 will work better with this setup
or am I being mis-informed and why would RAID 1 be better than RAID 5?
How about the processor's and RAM?
Thanks,
ScottWell you need to keep the following in mind:
1. One I/O per logical read is required on all RAIDS (0,1,10,5)
2. For each logical write, the following applies:
RAID 1: 2 I/Os.
RAID 5: 4 I/Os.
Based on the analysis of requirements that you have done (or should do!),
you can decide what is the most appropriate. Typically, a database
transaction log is put on a RAID 1 since 95%+ of all transactions of a
transaction log are WRITEs and you do not want to go for a RAID 5 if
possible. Cost wise RAID 1 will cost you more. Now, if you should have
Exchange and SQL on the same box is another topic but ultimately it depends
on the load you are expecting on the server. I personally don't like running
anything else on a SQL Server machine. Also keep in mind that SQL Server 200
0
Standard will not use more than 2 GBs of ram.
The decision you will make can be critical for your business and I suggest
you read on Capacity planning in SQL Server Administrator Companion
(MicrosoftPress).
Sasan
"Scott A" wrote:

> I am going to buy a new server that will be running Windows 2003 Server,
> Exchange 2003 & SQL 2000. I was looking at a server with dual Xeon 3.6Ghz
> processors with 2GB RAM & RAID 5 but I was told that I should use RAID 1
> instead of RAID 5. Is this true that RAID 1 will work better with this set
up
> or am I being mis-informed and why would RAID 1 be better than RAID 5?
> How about the processor's and RAM?
> Thanks,
> Scott|||Thanks Susan. I forgot to add that we have about 70 users on Exchange and ou
r
new SQL database will have 5-10 users on at any given time. Does this make a
difference at all?
Thanks,
Scott
"Sasan Saidi" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Well you need to keep the following in mind:
> 1. One I/O per logical read is required on all RAIDS (0,1,10,5)
> 2. For each logical write, the following applies:
> RAID 1: 2 I/Os.
> RAID 5: 4 I/Os.
> Based on the analysis of requirements that you have done (or should do!),
> you can decide what is the most appropriate. Typically, a database
> transaction log is put on a RAID 1 since 95%+ of all transactions of a
> transaction log are WRITEs and you do not want to go for a RAID 5 if
> possible. Cost wise RAID 1 will cost you more. Now, if you should have
> Exchange and SQL on the same box is another topic but ultimately it depend
s
> on the load you are expecting on the server. I personally don't like runni
ng
> anything else on a SQL Server machine. Also keep in mind that SQL Server 2
000
> Standard will not use more than 2 GBs of ram.
> The decision you will make can be critical for your business and I suggest
> you read on Capacity planning in SQL Server Administrator Companion
> (MicrosoftPress).
> Sasan
>
> "Scott A" wrote:
>

Hardware requirements

I am going to buy a new server that will be running Windows 2003 Server,
Exchange 2003 & SQL 2000. I was looking at a server with dual Xeon 3.6Ghz
processors with 2GB RAM & RAID 5 but I was told that I should use RAID 1
instead of RAID 5. Is this true that RAID 1 will work better with this setup
or am I being mis-informed and why would RAID 1 be better than RAID 5?
How about the processor's and RAM?
Thanks,
Scott
Well you need to keep the following in mind:
1. One I/O per logical read is required on all RAIDS (0,1,10,5)
2. For each logical write, the following applies:
RAID 1: 2 I/Os.
RAID 5: 4 I/Os.
Based on the analysis of requirements that you have done (or should do!),
you can decide what is the most appropriate. Typically, a database
transaction log is put on a RAID 1 since 95%+ of all transactions of a
transaction log are WRITEs and you do not want to go for a RAID 5 if
possible. Cost wise RAID 1 will cost you more. Now, if you should have
Exchange and SQL on the same box is another topic but ultimately it depends
on the load you are expecting on the server. I personally don't like running
anything else on a SQL Server machine. Also keep in mind that SQL Server 2000
Standard will not use more than 2 GBs of ram.
The decision you will make can be critical for your business and I suggest
you read on Capacity planning in SQL Server Administrator Companion
(MicrosoftPress).
Sasan
"Scott A" wrote:

> I am going to buy a new server that will be running Windows 2003 Server,
> Exchange 2003 & SQL 2000. I was looking at a server with dual Xeon 3.6Ghz
> processors with 2GB RAM & RAID 5 but I was told that I should use RAID 1
> instead of RAID 5. Is this true that RAID 1 will work better with this setup
> or am I being mis-informed and why would RAID 1 be better than RAID 5?
> How about the processor's and RAM?
> Thanks,
> Scott
|||Thanks Susan. I forgot to add that we have about 70 users on Exchange and our
new SQL database will have 5-10 users on at any given time. Does this make a
difference at all?
Thanks,
Scott
"Sasan Saidi" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Well you need to keep the following in mind:
> 1. One I/O per logical read is required on all RAIDS (0,1,10,5)
> 2. For each logical write, the following applies:
> RAID 1: 2 I/Os.
> RAID 5: 4 I/Os.
> Based on the analysis of requirements that you have done (or should do!),
> you can decide what is the most appropriate. Typically, a database
> transaction log is put on a RAID 1 since 95%+ of all transactions of a
> transaction log are WRITEs and you do not want to go for a RAID 5 if
> possible. Cost wise RAID 1 will cost you more. Now, if you should have
> Exchange and SQL on the same box is another topic but ultimately it depends
> on the load you are expecting on the server. I personally don't like running
> anything else on a SQL Server machine. Also keep in mind that SQL Server 2000
> Standard will not use more than 2 GBs of ram.
> The decision you will make can be critical for your business and I suggest
> you read on Capacity planning in SQL Server Administrator Companion
> (MicrosoftPress).
> Sasan
>
> "Scott A" wrote:

Hardware requirements

I am going to buy a new server that will be running Windows 2003 Server,
Exchange 2003 & SQL 2000. I was looking at a server with dual Xeon 3.6Ghz
processors with 2GB RAM & RAID 5 but I was told that I should use RAID 1
instead of RAID 5. Is this true that RAID 1 will work better with this setup
or am I being mis-informed and why would RAID 1 be better than RAID 5?
How about the processor's and RAM?
Thanks,
ScottWell you need to keep the following in mind:
1. One I/O per logical read is required on all RAIDS (0,1,10,5)
2. For each logical write, the following applies:
RAID 1: 2 I/Os.
RAID 5: 4 I/Os.
Based on the analysis of requirements that you have done (or should do!),
you can decide what is the most appropriate. Typically, a database
transaction log is put on a RAID 1 since 95%+ of all transactions of a
transaction log are WRITEs and you do not want to go for a RAID 5 if
possible. Cost wise RAID 1 will cost you more. Now, if you should have
Exchange and SQL on the same box is another topic but ultimately it depends
on the load you are expecting on the server. I personally don't like running
anything else on a SQL Server machine. Also keep in mind that SQL Server 2000
Standard will not use more than 2 GBs of ram.
The decision you will make can be critical for your business and I suggest
you read on Capacity planning in SQL Server Administrator Companion
(MicrosoftPress).
Sasan
"Scott A" wrote:
> I am going to buy a new server that will be running Windows 2003 Server,
> Exchange 2003 & SQL 2000. I was looking at a server with dual Xeon 3.6Ghz
> processors with 2GB RAM & RAID 5 but I was told that I should use RAID 1
> instead of RAID 5. Is this true that RAID 1 will work better with this setup
> or am I being mis-informed and why would RAID 1 be better than RAID 5?
> How about the processor's and RAM?
> Thanks,
> Scott|||Thanks Susan. I forgot to add that we have about 70 users on Exchange and our
new SQL database will have 5-10 users on at any given time. Does this make a
difference at all?
Thanks,
Scott
"Sasan Saidi" wrote:
> Well you need to keep the following in mind:
> 1. One I/O per logical read is required on all RAIDS (0,1,10,5)
> 2. For each logical write, the following applies:
> RAID 1: 2 I/Os.
> RAID 5: 4 I/Os.
> Based on the analysis of requirements that you have done (or should do!),
> you can decide what is the most appropriate. Typically, a database
> transaction log is put on a RAID 1 since 95%+ of all transactions of a
> transaction log are WRITEs and you do not want to go for a RAID 5 if
> possible. Cost wise RAID 1 will cost you more. Now, if you should have
> Exchange and SQL on the same box is another topic but ultimately it depends
> on the load you are expecting on the server. I personally don't like running
> anything else on a SQL Server machine. Also keep in mind that SQL Server 2000
> Standard will not use more than 2 GBs of ram.
> The decision you will make can be critical for your business and I suggest
> you read on Capacity planning in SQL Server Administrator Companion
> (MicrosoftPress).
> Sasan
>
> "Scott A" wrote:
> > I am going to buy a new server that will be running Windows 2003 Server,
> > Exchange 2003 & SQL 2000. I was looking at a server with dual Xeon 3.6Ghz
> > processors with 2GB RAM & RAID 5 but I was told that I should use RAID 1
> > instead of RAID 5. Is this true that RAID 1 will work better with this setup
> > or am I being mis-informed and why would RAID 1 be better than RAID 5?
> >
> > How about the processor's and RAM?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Scott

Hardware Recommendation

Hello,
I plan to run Microsoft CRM, Navision SQL, and Project Server off the
same SQL box. What would you recommend hardware wise?
Dual 2.8 Xeon? How much RAM? 2GB? 4GB?
Thanks in advanceFirst, put as much memory as you can afford in the box. Be aware that
anything over 4GB will require Enterprise Edition to take advantage of the
extra RAM. Dual Procs are a minimum. Go with procs with more cache rather
than faster procs, but only by 300-500 MHz. Then we geet to the disk
system. Definitely separate your SQL logs and data onto different spindles.
RAID 1 or 1+0 for logs will improve performance significantly. RAID 1+0 for
data if you can afford it, RAID5 otherwise, but it will impact performance.
--
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
"CB" <chadb@.dentistryonline.com> wrote in message
news:esoMsGvMEHA.3096@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> I plan to run Microsoft CRM, Navision SQL, and Project Server off the
> same SQL box. What would you recommend hardware wise?
> Dual 2.8 Xeon? How much RAM? 2GB? 4GB?
> Thanks in advance
>