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
>
>.
>
Showing posts with label processor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label processor. Show all posts
Friday, March 23, 2012
Friday, March 9, 2012
Hardware Configuration - Need Advice
We have a web app currently being hosted on a RAID 5 with four disks, 2 GB
RAM, Xenon 3.2 processor. Also running Windows 2003 Server Standard Ed. and
SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition. Our database is about 4GB and at most we
have 10 concurrent users hitting our server, with a mix of read and write
operations. Both the OS and our DB are on the same machine. I am aware that
having both IIS and SQL Server on the same box is not the ideal
configuration, but it has suited our needs given the load.
We are looking to private license our software to one other company, which
would entail the licensee having their own seperate db, but running in the
same instance of SQL Server. At a minimum, I'm thinking we would move SQL
Server onto its own dedicated machine, keeping the current RAID 5 config.
Perhaps this would not be sufficient?
What I'm looking for is some indication as to whether or not the proposed
platform could handle an increased user load, say 20 times what is now (200
concurrent users). This is primarily an OLTP db used for ACH processing,
with several reporting features. I'm fully aware that the application design
itself, along with query tuning, indexing, etc is equally important as the
hardware, but need some guidance on the hardware itself.
What I'm looking for are some general guidelines to follow given this
scenario. Thanks in advance.
Eric there is no way to answer that without knowing a lot more of what your
current system is doing and how the hardware is holding up now. Do you do 1
transaction per second or 1 thousand? What are the disk Queues, processor
queues etc. like now?
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Eric" <Eric@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3C2BC87F-5505-4DD6-9E79-A053B86527BA@.microsoft.com...
> We have a web app currently being hosted on a RAID 5 with four disks, 2 GB
> RAM, Xenon 3.2 processor. Also running Windows 2003 Server Standard Ed.
> and
> SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition. Our database is about 4GB and at most
> we
> have 10 concurrent users hitting our server, with a mix of read and write
> operations. Both the OS and our DB are on the same machine. I am aware
> that
> having both IIS and SQL Server on the same box is not the ideal
> configuration, but it has suited our needs given the load.
> We are looking to private license our software to one other company, which
> would entail the licensee having their own seperate db, but running in the
> same instance of SQL Server. At a minimum, I'm thinking we would move SQL
> Server onto its own dedicated machine, keeping the current RAID 5 config.
> Perhaps this would not be sufficient?
> What I'm looking for is some indication as to whether or not the proposed
> platform could handle an increased user load, say 20 times what is now
> (200
> concurrent users). This is primarily an OLTP db used for ACH processing,
> with several reporting features. I'm fully aware that the application
> design
> itself, along with query tuning, indexing, etc is equally important as the
> hardware, but need some guidance on the hardware itself.
> What I'm looking for are some general guidelines to follow given this
> scenario. Thanks in advance.
RAM, Xenon 3.2 processor. Also running Windows 2003 Server Standard Ed. and
SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition. Our database is about 4GB and at most we
have 10 concurrent users hitting our server, with a mix of read and write
operations. Both the OS and our DB are on the same machine. I am aware that
having both IIS and SQL Server on the same box is not the ideal
configuration, but it has suited our needs given the load.
We are looking to private license our software to one other company, which
would entail the licensee having their own seperate db, but running in the
same instance of SQL Server. At a minimum, I'm thinking we would move SQL
Server onto its own dedicated machine, keeping the current RAID 5 config.
Perhaps this would not be sufficient?
What I'm looking for is some indication as to whether or not the proposed
platform could handle an increased user load, say 20 times what is now (200
concurrent users). This is primarily an OLTP db used for ACH processing,
with several reporting features. I'm fully aware that the application design
itself, along with query tuning, indexing, etc is equally important as the
hardware, but need some guidance on the hardware itself.
What I'm looking for are some general guidelines to follow given this
scenario. Thanks in advance.
Eric there is no way to answer that without knowing a lot more of what your
current system is doing and how the hardware is holding up now. Do you do 1
transaction per second or 1 thousand? What are the disk Queues, processor
queues etc. like now?
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Eric" <Eric@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3C2BC87F-5505-4DD6-9E79-A053B86527BA@.microsoft.com...
> We have a web app currently being hosted on a RAID 5 with four disks, 2 GB
> RAM, Xenon 3.2 processor. Also running Windows 2003 Server Standard Ed.
> and
> SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition. Our database is about 4GB and at most
> we
> have 10 concurrent users hitting our server, with a mix of read and write
> operations. Both the OS and our DB are on the same machine. I am aware
> that
> having both IIS and SQL Server on the same box is not the ideal
> configuration, but it has suited our needs given the load.
> We are looking to private license our software to one other company, which
> would entail the licensee having their own seperate db, but running in the
> same instance of SQL Server. At a minimum, I'm thinking we would move SQL
> Server onto its own dedicated machine, keeping the current RAID 5 config.
> Perhaps this would not be sufficient?
> What I'm looking for is some indication as to whether or not the proposed
> platform could handle an increased user load, say 20 times what is now
> (200
> concurrent users). This is primarily an OLTP db used for ACH processing,
> with several reporting features. I'm fully aware that the application
> design
> itself, along with query tuning, indexing, etc is equally important as the
> hardware, but need some guidance on the hardware itself.
> What I'm looking for are some general guidelines to follow given this
> scenario. Thanks in advance.
Hardware Configuration - Need Advice
We have a web app currently being hosted on a RAID 5 with four disks, 2 GB
RAM, Xenon 3.2 processor. Also running Windows 2003 Server Standard Ed. and
SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition. Our database is about 4GB and at most we
have 10 concurrent users hitting our server, with a mix of read and write
operations. Both the OS and our DB are on the same machine. I am aware that
having both IIS and SQL Server on the same box is not the ideal
configuration, but it has suited our needs given the load.
We are looking to private license our software to one other company, which
would entail the licensee having their own seperate db, but running in the
same instance of SQL Server. At a minimum, I'm thinking we would move SQL
Server onto its own dedicated machine, keeping the current RAID 5 config.
Perhaps this would not be sufficient?
What I'm looking for is some indication as to whether or not the proposed
platform could handle an increased user load, say 20 times what is now (200
concurrent users). This is primarily an OLTP db used for ACH processing,
with several reporting features. I'm fully aware that the application design
itself, along with query tuning, indexing, etc is equally important as the
hardware, but need some guidance on the hardware itself.
What I'm looking for are some general guidelines to follow given this
scenario. Thanks in advance.Eric there is no way to answer that without knowing a lot more of what your
current system is doing and how the hardware is holding up now. Do you do 1
transaction per second or 1 thousand? What are the disk Queues, processor
queues etc. like now?
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Eric" <Eric@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3C2BC87F-5505-4DD6-9E79-A053B86527BA@.microsoft.com...
> We have a web app currently being hosted on a RAID 5 with four disks, 2 GB
> RAM, Xenon 3.2 processor. Also running Windows 2003 Server Standard Ed.
> and
> SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition. Our database is about 4GB and at most
> we
> have 10 concurrent users hitting our server, with a mix of read and write
> operations. Both the OS and our DB are on the same machine. I am aware
> that
> having both IIS and SQL Server on the same box is not the ideal
> configuration, but it has suited our needs given the load.
> We are looking to private license our software to one other company, which
> would entail the licensee having their own seperate db, but running in the
> same instance of SQL Server. At a minimum, I'm thinking we would move SQL
> Server onto its own dedicated machine, keeping the current RAID 5 config.
> Perhaps this would not be sufficient?
> What I'm looking for is some indication as to whether or not the proposed
> platform could handle an increased user load, say 20 times what is now
> (200
> concurrent users). This is primarily an OLTP db used for ACH processing,
> with several reporting features. I'm fully aware that the application
> design
> itself, along with query tuning, indexing, etc is equally important as the
> hardware, but need some guidance on the hardware itself.
> What I'm looking for are some general guidelines to follow given this
> scenario. Thanks in advance.
RAM, Xenon 3.2 processor. Also running Windows 2003 Server Standard Ed. and
SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition. Our database is about 4GB and at most we
have 10 concurrent users hitting our server, with a mix of read and write
operations. Both the OS and our DB are on the same machine. I am aware that
having both IIS and SQL Server on the same box is not the ideal
configuration, but it has suited our needs given the load.
We are looking to private license our software to one other company, which
would entail the licensee having their own seperate db, but running in the
same instance of SQL Server. At a minimum, I'm thinking we would move SQL
Server onto its own dedicated machine, keeping the current RAID 5 config.
Perhaps this would not be sufficient?
What I'm looking for is some indication as to whether or not the proposed
platform could handle an increased user load, say 20 times what is now (200
concurrent users). This is primarily an OLTP db used for ACH processing,
with several reporting features. I'm fully aware that the application design
itself, along with query tuning, indexing, etc is equally important as the
hardware, but need some guidance on the hardware itself.
What I'm looking for are some general guidelines to follow given this
scenario. Thanks in advance.Eric there is no way to answer that without knowing a lot more of what your
current system is doing and how the hardware is holding up now. Do you do 1
transaction per second or 1 thousand? What are the disk Queues, processor
queues etc. like now?
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Eric" <Eric@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3C2BC87F-5505-4DD6-9E79-A053B86527BA@.microsoft.com...
> We have a web app currently being hosted on a RAID 5 with four disks, 2 GB
> RAM, Xenon 3.2 processor. Also running Windows 2003 Server Standard Ed.
> and
> SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition. Our database is about 4GB and at most
> we
> have 10 concurrent users hitting our server, with a mix of read and write
> operations. Both the OS and our DB are on the same machine. I am aware
> that
> having both IIS and SQL Server on the same box is not the ideal
> configuration, but it has suited our needs given the load.
> We are looking to private license our software to one other company, which
> would entail the licensee having their own seperate db, but running in the
> same instance of SQL Server. At a minimum, I'm thinking we would move SQL
> Server onto its own dedicated machine, keeping the current RAID 5 config.
> Perhaps this would not be sufficient?
> What I'm looking for is some indication as to whether or not the proposed
> platform could handle an increased user load, say 20 times what is now
> (200
> concurrent users). This is primarily an OLTP db used for ACH processing,
> with several reporting features. I'm fully aware that the application
> design
> itself, along with query tuning, indexing, etc is equally important as the
> hardware, but need some guidance on the hardware itself.
> What I'm looking for are some general guidelines to follow given this
> scenario. Thanks in advance.
Hardware Configuration - Need Advice
We have a web app currently being hosted on a RAID 5 with four disks, 2 GB
RAM, Xenon 3.2 processor. Also running Windows 2003 Server Standard Ed. and
SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition. Our database is about 4GB and at most we
have 10 concurrent users hitting our server, with a mix of read and write
operations. Both the OS and our DB are on the same machine. I am aware tha
t
having both IIS and SQL Server on the same box is not the ideal
configuration, but it has suited our needs given the load.
We are looking to private license our software to one other company, which
would entail the licensee having their own seperate db, but running in the
same instance of SQL Server. At a minimum, I'm thinking we would move SQL
Server onto its own dedicated machine, keeping the current RAID 5 config.
Perhaps this would not be sufficient?
What I'm looking for is some indication as to whether or not the proposed
platform could handle an increased user load, say 20 times what is now (200
concurrent users). This is primarily an OLTP db used for ACH processing,
with several reporting features. I'm fully aware that the application desig
n
itself, along with query tuning, indexing, etc is equally important as the
hardware, but need some guidance on the hardware itself.
What I'm looking for are some general guidelines to follow given this
scenario. Thanks in advance.Eric there is no way to answer that without knowing a lot more of what your
current system is doing and how the hardware is holding up now. Do you do 1
transaction per second or 1 thousand? What are the disk Queues, processor
queues etc. like now?
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Eric" <Eric@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3C2BC87F-5505-4DD6-9E79-A053B86527BA@.microsoft.com...
> We have a web app currently being hosted on a RAID 5 with four disks, 2 GB
> RAM, Xenon 3.2 processor. Also running Windows 2003 Server Standard Ed.
> and
> SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition. Our database is about 4GB and at most
> we
> have 10 concurrent users hitting our server, with a mix of read and write
> operations. Both the OS and our DB are on the same machine. I am aware
> that
> having both IIS and SQL Server on the same box is not the ideal
> configuration, but it has suited our needs given the load.
> We are looking to private license our software to one other company, which
> would entail the licensee having their own seperate db, but running in the
> same instance of SQL Server. At a minimum, I'm thinking we would move SQL
> Server onto its own dedicated machine, keeping the current RAID 5 config.
> Perhaps this would not be sufficient?
> What I'm looking for is some indication as to whether or not the proposed
> platform could handle an increased user load, say 20 times what is now
> (200
> concurrent users). This is primarily an OLTP db used for ACH processing,
> with several reporting features. I'm fully aware that the application
> design
> itself, along with query tuning, indexing, etc is equally important as the
> hardware, but need some guidance on the hardware itself.
> What I'm looking for are some general guidelines to follow given this
> scenario. Thanks in advance.
RAM, Xenon 3.2 processor. Also running Windows 2003 Server Standard Ed. and
SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition. Our database is about 4GB and at most we
have 10 concurrent users hitting our server, with a mix of read and write
operations. Both the OS and our DB are on the same machine. I am aware tha
t
having both IIS and SQL Server on the same box is not the ideal
configuration, but it has suited our needs given the load.
We are looking to private license our software to one other company, which
would entail the licensee having their own seperate db, but running in the
same instance of SQL Server. At a minimum, I'm thinking we would move SQL
Server onto its own dedicated machine, keeping the current RAID 5 config.
Perhaps this would not be sufficient?
What I'm looking for is some indication as to whether or not the proposed
platform could handle an increased user load, say 20 times what is now (200
concurrent users). This is primarily an OLTP db used for ACH processing,
with several reporting features. I'm fully aware that the application desig
n
itself, along with query tuning, indexing, etc is equally important as the
hardware, but need some guidance on the hardware itself.
What I'm looking for are some general guidelines to follow given this
scenario. Thanks in advance.Eric there is no way to answer that without knowing a lot more of what your
current system is doing and how the hardware is holding up now. Do you do 1
transaction per second or 1 thousand? What are the disk Queues, processor
queues etc. like now?
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Eric" <Eric@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3C2BC87F-5505-4DD6-9E79-A053B86527BA@.microsoft.com...
> We have a web app currently being hosted on a RAID 5 with four disks, 2 GB
> RAM, Xenon 3.2 processor. Also running Windows 2003 Server Standard Ed.
> and
> SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition. Our database is about 4GB and at most
> we
> have 10 concurrent users hitting our server, with a mix of read and write
> operations. Both the OS and our DB are on the same machine. I am aware
> that
> having both IIS and SQL Server on the same box is not the ideal
> configuration, but it has suited our needs given the load.
> We are looking to private license our software to one other company, which
> would entail the licensee having their own seperate db, but running in the
> same instance of SQL Server. At a minimum, I'm thinking we would move SQL
> Server onto its own dedicated machine, keeping the current RAID 5 config.
> Perhaps this would not be sufficient?
> What I'm looking for is some indication as to whether or not the proposed
> platform could handle an increased user load, say 20 times what is now
> (200
> concurrent users). This is primarily an OLTP db used for ACH processing,
> with several reporting features. I'm fully aware that the application
> design
> itself, along with query tuning, indexing, etc is equally important as the
> hardware, but need some guidance on the hardware itself.
> What I'm looking for are some general guidelines to follow given this
> scenario. Thanks in advance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)