My company has a website that connects to a sql server (on a different box). I am trying to convince them to get sql server 2005. However, I do not know if SQL Server 2005 Workgroup edition is okay for our needs. Can someone please tell me if it is.
Basically, our setup is the following:
The SQL Server will only have one/two clients - the web server
The SQL Server will have a number of different user accounts though
The SQL Server will have its databases replicated to another SQL Server - both will be 2005
The SQL Server will not have more than 4Gb of RAM
The SQL Server will only have one processor - possible Xeon, and/or Dual Core
The database will not have complicated analysis done on them. The most that will be done are complicated selects which indexing should be able to handle.
We use crystal reports.
Thank you for any help.
Jagdip.
One other big consideration to make in your analysis is the volume of traffic you're going to have to the web server. If your web server is incredibly active and is going to be hammering the SQL server with requests, that will definitely affect your decision.
This page illustrates the differences between the editions:
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/features/compare-features.mspx
Off the bat, it sounds like one feature that the Workgroup edition might lack that you need is Mirroring. Other than that, from what you described, I would think that the Workgroup edition would be fine for you. If you can find a way around the requirement for Mirroring (some other replication scheme--several exist), then you might be able to stick with the Workgroup rather than going with Standard.
Ryan
|||Hi ya,
You have got a difficult choice. Well if you don't want to have that much and can replicate using your own logic then Sql Server express, the only limit for Database size which is a 4 GB. Workgroup would be better but you have got RAM limit of 3 GB although no limit on actual DB itself.
If you want to be cost effective then use SQL Express, if you can okay with small cost then workgroup
You can read the whole comparision about it from thislink
Hope that helps
Cheers
|||
Thank you both for your replies.
SQL Express is not an option as some of the databases are already over 4Gb.
The volume of traffic is not going to be great. If things go the way they are, we are looking at about 10 users per hour !!!
Thank you for the links as well. I had read these and was still unsure. Database Mirroring sounds good - but we are implementing a failover solution on the web server instead. If the primary web server/database fails over, then the secondaries will become active (using either Neverfail or Doubletake software). We are planning on using merge replication, so this should not be a problem.
The one thing I am worried about is the number of clients that can access the sql server simultaneously. Will the sql server restrict the number of users logged at once?
I can't find anything anywhere about a limit on concurrent users for Workgroup Edition. If any of you SQL guys out there know of one, please chime in. It sounds like you're looking at VERY low usage though, so you should be fine. Were it not for your other requirements, SQL Express would be the perfect solution here. It sounds like you have a good plan in place and like you've got a good idea of which product is the right one for you. The nice thing about SQL is that it's easy to upgrade down the road as well, so if your requirements change in the future you should remain flexible.
|||Hi ya,
If sql express is out of the question still workgroup would be more then enough as there is no hard core limit on concurrent no of users that can attach to a Sql Server. However it does depend on the actual machine performance which you already explained would be having 2-3 GB.
Hope that helps
Cheers
|||
Brilliant.
I just found out that we do not need to spend ￡300 for a server license of visual sourcesafe - so the money will hopefully go towards a new sql server.
|||Awesome. That worked out great. I'm glad you were able to find the right product for your needs.
No comments:
Post a Comment