CAL licenses - don't understand!

Hi
I'm in the process of migrating from hosting web sites on a shared server
and just buying SQL Server DBs when I need them, to a dedicated server which
I have to administer. So now I need to buy a 'proper' copy of SQL Server as
well as the Developer Edition version I develop on.
I read everything I could find about this on the MS site and ended up none
the wiser. If I have a one-processor server serving web sites from its own
copy of IIS, am I ok with the Standard Edition plus 5 CALs? If I host 10
sites on the server, each with its own db, does this use 1 CAL or 10?
I'm so confused!
Thanks for any clarification.Read about "multiplexing". You need to go Per Processor if you don't want to
ensure that everyone
who accesses your web site has a SQL Server CAL.
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/faq.mspx
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Tim P" <TimP@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:409D6E35-21E7-4E12-BE01-32BAD2382BA1@.microsoft.com...
> Hi
> I'm in the process of migrating from hosting web sites on a shared server
> and just buying SQL Server DBs when I need them, to a dedicated server whi
ch
> I have to administer. So now I need to buy a 'proper' copy of SQL Server a
s
> well as the Developer Edition version I develop on.
> I read everything I could find about this on the MS site and ended up none
> the wiser. If I have a one-processor server serving web sites from its own
> copy of IIS, am I ok with the Standard Edition plus 5 CALs? If I host 10
> sites on the server, each with its own db, does this use 1 CAL or 10?
> I'm so confused!
> Thanks for any clarification.|||"Tim P" wrote:

> Hi
> I'm in the process of migrating from hosting web sites on a shared server
> and just buying SQL Server DBs when I need them, to a dedicated server whi
ch
> I have to administer. So now I need to buy a 'proper' copy of SQL Server a
s
> well as the Developer Edition version I develop on.
> I read everything I could find about this on the MS site and ended up none
> the wiser. If I have a one-processor server serving web sites from its own
> copy of IIS, am I ok with the Standard Edition plus 5 CALs? If I host 10
> sites on the server, each with its own db, does this use 1 CAL or 10?
> I'm so confused!
> Thanks for any clarification.
If you are hosting a publicly accessible website then you need to purchase a
Processor licence.
If you are hosting an intranet site where you can determine and control the
number of users then you have the option of Processor or CAL licensing. You
need one CAL per end-user or end-user device.
Licensing issues are often difficult and consfusing so if you have any
doubts consult a Microsoft rep or authorised dealer.
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
--|||Ah, that makes sense.
Thanks guys!
"David Portas" wrote:

> "Tim P" wrote:
>
> If you are hosting a publicly accessible website then you need to purchase
a
> Processor licence.
> If you are hosting an intranet site where you can determine and control th
e
> number of users then you have the option of Processor or CAL licensing. Yo
u
> need one CAL per end-user or end-user device.
> Licensing issues are often difficult and consfusing so if you have any
> doubts consult a Microsoft rep or authorised dealer.
> --
> David Portas
> SQL Server MVP
> --
>

CAL licenses - don't understand!

Hi
I'm in the process of migrating from hosting web sites on a shared server
and just buying SQL Server DBs when I need them, to a dedicated server which
I have to administer. So now I need to buy a 'proper' copy of SQL Server as
well as the Developer Edition version I develop on.
I read everything I could find about this on the MS site and ended up none
the wiser. If I have a one-processor server serving web sites from its own
copy of IIS, am I ok with the Standard Edition plus 5 CALs? If I host 10
sites on the server, each with its own db, does this use 1 CAL or 10?
I'm so confused!
Thanks for any clarification.Read about "multiplexing". You need to go Per Processor if you don't want to ensure that everyone
who accesses your web site has a SQL Server CAL.
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/faq.mspx
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Tim P" <TimP@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:409D6E35-21E7-4E12-BE01-32BAD2382BA1@.microsoft.com...
> Hi
> I'm in the process of migrating from hosting web sites on a shared server
> and just buying SQL Server DBs when I need them, to a dedicated server which
> I have to administer. So now I need to buy a 'proper' copy of SQL Server as
> well as the Developer Edition version I develop on.
> I read everything I could find about this on the MS site and ended up none
> the wiser. If I have a one-processor server serving web sites from its own
> copy of IIS, am I ok with the Standard Edition plus 5 CALs? If I host 10
> sites on the server, each with its own db, does this use 1 CAL or 10?
> I'm so confused!
> Thanks for any clarification.|||"Tim P" wrote:
> Hi
> I'm in the process of migrating from hosting web sites on a shared server
> and just buying SQL Server DBs when I need them, to a dedicated server which
> I have to administer. So now I need to buy a 'proper' copy of SQL Server as
> well as the Developer Edition version I develop on.
> I read everything I could find about this on the MS site and ended up none
> the wiser. If I have a one-processor server serving web sites from its own
> copy of IIS, am I ok with the Standard Edition plus 5 CALs? If I host 10
> sites on the server, each with its own db, does this use 1 CAL or 10?
> I'm so confused!
> Thanks for any clarification.
If you are hosting a publicly accessible website then you need to purchase a
Processor licence.
If you are hosting an intranet site where you can determine and control the
number of users then you have the option of Processor or CAL licensing. You
need one CAL per end-user or end-user device.
Licensing issues are often difficult and consfusing so if you have any
doubts consult a Microsoft rep or authorised dealer.
--
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
--|||Ah, that makes sense.
Thanks guys!
"David Portas" wrote:
> "Tim P" wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > I'm in the process of migrating from hosting web sites on a shared server
> > and just buying SQL Server DBs when I need them, to a dedicated server which
> > I have to administer. So now I need to buy a 'proper' copy of SQL Server as
> > well as the Developer Edition version I develop on.
> >
> > I read everything I could find about this on the MS site and ended up none
> > the wiser. If I have a one-processor server serving web sites from its own
> > copy of IIS, am I ok with the Standard Edition plus 5 CALs? If I host 10
> > sites on the server, each with its own db, does this use 1 CAL or 10?
> >
> > I'm so confused!
> >
> > Thanks for any clarification.
> If you are hosting a publicly accessible website then you need to purchase a
> Processor licence.
> If you are hosting an intranet site where you can determine and control the
> number of users then you have the option of Processor or CAL licensing. You
> need one CAL per end-user or end-user device.
> Licensing issues are often difficult and consfusing so if you have any
> doubts consult a Microsoft rep or authorised dealer.
> --
> David Portas
> SQL Server MVP
> --
>

CAL licenses - don't understand!

Hi
I'm in the process of migrating from hosting web sites on a shared server
and just buying SQL Server DBs when I need them, to a dedicated server which
I have to administer. So now I need to buy a 'proper' copy of SQL Server as
well as the Developer Edition version I develop on.
I read everything I could find about this on the MS site and ended up none
the wiser. If I have a one-processor server serving web sites from its own
copy of IIS, am I ok with the Standard Edition plus 5 CALs? If I host 10
sites on the server, each with its own db, does this use 1 CAL or 10?
I'm so confused!
Thanks for any clarification.
Read about "multiplexing". You need to go Per Processor if you don't want to ensure that everyone
who accesses your web site has a SQL Server CAL.
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/faq.mspx
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Tim P" <TimP@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:409D6E35-21E7-4E12-BE01-32BAD2382BA1@.microsoft.com...
> Hi
> I'm in the process of migrating from hosting web sites on a shared server
> and just buying SQL Server DBs when I need them, to a dedicated server which
> I have to administer. So now I need to buy a 'proper' copy of SQL Server as
> well as the Developer Edition version I develop on.
> I read everything I could find about this on the MS site and ended up none
> the wiser. If I have a one-processor server serving web sites from its own
> copy of IIS, am I ok with the Standard Edition plus 5 CALs? If I host 10
> sites on the server, each with its own db, does this use 1 CAL or 10?
> I'm so confused!
> Thanks for any clarification.
|||"Tim P" wrote:

> Hi
> I'm in the process of migrating from hosting web sites on a shared server
> and just buying SQL Server DBs when I need them, to a dedicated server which
> I have to administer. So now I need to buy a 'proper' copy of SQL Server as
> well as the Developer Edition version I develop on.
> I read everything I could find about this on the MS site and ended up none
> the wiser. If I have a one-processor server serving web sites from its own
> copy of IIS, am I ok with the Standard Edition plus 5 CALs? If I host 10
> sites on the server, each with its own db, does this use 1 CAL or 10?
> I'm so confused!
> Thanks for any clarification.
If you are hosting a publicly accessible website then you need to purchase a
Processor licence.
If you are hosting an intranet site where you can determine and control the
number of users then you have the option of Processor or CAL licensing. You
need one CAL per end-user or end-user device.
Licensing issues are often difficult and consfusing so if you have any
doubts consult a Microsoft rep or authorised dealer.
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
|||Ah, that makes sense.
Thanks guys!
"David Portas" wrote:

> "Tim P" wrote:
>
> If you are hosting a publicly accessible website then you need to purchase a
> Processor licence.
> If you are hosting an intranet site where you can determine and control the
> number of users then you have the option of Processor or CAL licensing. You
> need one CAL per end-user or end-user device.
> Licensing issues are often difficult and consfusing so if you have any
> doubts consult a Microsoft rep or authorised dealer.
> --
> David Portas
> SQL Server MVP
> --
>

Buying SQL Server 2000

Does anyone know how much longer we will be able to buy SQL 2K?
Hi,
For sure until the next release of SQL Server releases.
Thanks
Hari
<jmwest99@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1161130582.408935.181200@.i3g2000cwc.googlegro ups.com...
> Does anyone know how much longer we will be able to buy SQL 2K?
>
|||In addition to Hari, you should have a look on the announcements of
Microsoft for the support of Microsoft and the end-of-life dates. Even
is the product will be no longer available "In the stores" you should
be able to get valid licences. But what are they worth if no support is
available anymore at Microsoft and you eventually would need some
hotfixes to fix future problems. So the end-of-life date and the life
cycle should be watched carefully.
HTH, Jens K. Suessmeyer.
http://www.sqlserver2005.de

Buying SQL Server 2000

Does anyone know how much longer we will be able to buy SQL 2K?Hi,
For sure until the next release of SQL Server releases.
Thanks
Hari
<jmwest99@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1161130582.408935.181200@.i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Does anyone know how much longer we will be able to buy SQL 2K?
>|||In addition to Hari, you should have a look on the announcements of
Microsoft for the support of Microsoft and the end-of-life dates. Even
is the product will be no longer available "In the stores" you should
be able to get valid licences. But what are they worth if no support is
available anymore at Microsoft and you eventually would need some
hotfixes to fix future problems. So the end-of-life date and the life
cycle should be watched carefully.
HTH, Jens K. Suessmeyer.
--
http://www.sqlserver2005.de
--

buying sql server 2000

We have our website on a hosting server. In order for me
to change fields in our database there, they said I need
SQL Server. What should I buy? I just need the smallest,
limited parts of SQL possible- for small simple changes.Shev,
You just need to connect to that SQL Server, right? If so, you only need to
install client utlities like Query analyzer,Enterprise manager etc.Since you
cannot buy client utlities seperate, you need to buy the retail SQL
server.Just ask them if they can provide them with SQL client-only setup.If
they have enough client access licenses, they should be able to. If not, the
below article helps you in explaining the different editions of SQL Server:
Choosing an Edition of SQL Server 2000
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techinfo/planning/SQLResKChooseEd.asp
Once decided, these articles contain the purchase info:
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/default.asp
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/development.asp
Dinesh.
SQL Server FAQ at
http://www.tkdinesh.com
"shev" <shevyf123@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0a6501c33f44$b1e421f0$a001280a@.phx.gbl...
> We have our website on a hosting server. In order for me
> to change fields in our database there, they said I need
> SQL Server. What should I buy? I just need the smallest,
> limited parts of SQL possible- for small simple changes.
>

Buying SQL Server 2000

Does anyone know how much longer we will be able to buy SQL 2K?Hi,
For sure until the next release of SQL Server releases.
Thanks
Hari
<jmwest99@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1161130582.408935.181200@.i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Does anyone know how much longer we will be able to buy SQL 2K?
>|||In addition to Hari, you should have a look on the announcements of
Microsoft for the support of Microsoft and the end-of-life dates. Even
is the product will be no longer available "In the stores" you should
be able to get valid licences. But what are they worth if no support is
available anymore at Microsoft and you eventually would need some
hotfixes to fix future problems. So the end-of-life date and the life
cycle should be watched carefully.
HTH, Jens K. Suessmeyer.
http://www.sqlserver2005.de
--

Buying and Installing SQL 2005

Greetings...

I don't know if you have this question being asked before, but I searched and I didn't find. I'm not an expert in SQL issues.

I'm used to doing some programming on ASP on my personal computer. I use the SQL 2000 as a database - I used to use to SQL 2000 enterprise manager to manage my database on my local computer or to enter my database on the web hosting companies. Any way, my question is: I have now windows vista. I'd like to install SQL 2005 to do my usual work.

What version of sql 2005 should have for this personal use as mentioned above?

I totally appreciate any help or additional information regarding this topic since i'm not an expert and still new in this field

Thanks

It depends on how you are going to be using SQL Server, if you are running a production site, using it as a learning tool, number of connections, db sizes, etc. Check out the feature comparison chart listed here:

http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/features/compare-features.mspxhttp://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/features/compare-features.mspx

and also the detailed explanation of the different editions here:

http://www.microsoft.com/sql/editions/default.mspx

If you have any further questions, let us know.

Thanks,
Sam Lester (MSFT)

|||For learning purposes, I recommend using Deveoper Edition. It has all the same features as Enterprise -and it will install on a client OS. (I think that it is only about $50.)

buying a new server to put SQL2000 onto

Our SQL Developer asked for a new server with a separate small hard disk for the Transaction Log alone to reside on, to increase performance. This will be hard to do, since the servers we have been looking at are low-profile rackmount, and only hold 2 SATA disks. I hate to waste our only expansion bay on a small HD. Is this really something important, or will a Quad-core processor and plenty of RAM make the performance difference negligible? We have 32-bit SQL2000 licensed per processor, and our database is only about 26GB. I was hoping to get 1 large disk and partition it into a 20GB OS partition, and the rest would be for SQL. Am I totally on the wrong track?

My 2nd question is about RAM - if we get 4GB of RAM, will it decrease the performance if we get 64-bit O/S pre-installed instead of 32-bit? I know 64-bit O/S *can use* more RAM than 4GB, but does it *need* more RAM for the same level of performance that we have now? (We are planning to expand that to at least 8-12GB whenever we upgrade to 64-bit SQL2005, but the budget does not allow it just yet.)

Thanks!

Ideally, there would be separate disk arrays for the Transaction Log, the database file, and the TempDb database. Notice, I mentioned disk arrays (Or LUNs on a SAN or NAS). Now that is for a high performance, high activity enterprise critical system. You needs may not be so critical.

You didn't mention if this server was for Development work, or for Production. (Development work can get by with considerably less server capability.)

I would choose the 64bit OS, it will use memory more efficiently and will allow for easier upgrade of your SQL Server. I would 'fast track' the SQL Server upgrade to 64 bit, and additional memory. And then a SAN or NAS, or disk array.

So for now, you 'may' be able to 'live' with the two SATA disks -put the TLog files on one, and the TempDb and Datafiles on the other. Don't expect a lot of performance improvement if your current situation is 'disk bound' -you may get some improvement, just don't expect it and hopefully you will be pleasantly surprised.

|||

Thanks, here are a few more details if it helps. This is a production server, but its for a small business and high availability is not that critical. (We have time to restore from tape if needed.) According to our Developer, we are processor-bound right now, we're maxing out an older single 32-bit 3GHz Xeon. We are currently running everything on one disk and currently running with 3GB of RAM. And we're not hurting all that bad for SQL performance, we are rearranging our hardware to allow for an Exchange Server upgrade, and we're planning to move SQL to a new machine because we think it would benefit from it more than Exchange would.

Thanks again for your advice

Buying a car without a driver's seat

Express :
Isn't that like getting the SQL server without the mangement program?
Without the buying of courseNo, it's like buying a Windows PC without a mouse :-)
WBR, Evergray
--
Words mean nothing...
"Tammy B" <querygirl@.plumbbob32domain.com> wrote in message
news:rKydnagtv6wUUpLZnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@.co
mcast.com...
> Express :
> Isn't that like getting the SQL server without the mangement program?
> Without the buying of course
>|||Tammy B wrote:
> Express :
> Isn't that like getting the SQL server without the mangement program?
> Without the buying of course
Express is fine if you just want to plug in an application and run it.
Otherwise take a look at the other editions:
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodin...e-features.mspx
David Portas, SQL Server MVP
Whenever possible please post enough code to reproduce your problem.
Including CREATE TABLE and INSERT statements usually helps.
State what version of SQL Server you are using and specify the content
of any error messages.
SQL Server Books Online:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/library/ms130214(en-US,SQL.90).aspx
--|||The Management Studio application for SSEE can be downloaded from Microsoft
seperately. Some distributed applications that use SSEE only need or want
the runtime installed.
"Tammy B" <querygirl@.plumbbob32domain.com> wrote in message
news:rKydnagtv6wUUpLZnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@.co
mcast.com...
> Express :
> Isn't that like getting the SQL server without the mangement program?
> Without the buying of course
>|||On Wed, 8 Mar 2006 23:47:38 -0700, Tammy B wrote:

>Express :
>Isn't that like getting the SQL server without the mangement program?
Hi Tammy,
I'd rather compare it to buying (or: getting) a very basic car, with no
automatic gear, no servo-brake, no wheel ratification, no cruise
control, and no remote controlled doorlock.
You can still do anything you have to do, but it takes some more effort.
As David said, Express is not primarily positioned for development work,
but rather to serve as a backend DB for an application. If you want a
version of SQL Server for development work, consider buying the
developer edition:
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/editio...er/default.mspx
Hugo Kornelis, SQL Server MVP

Buy SQL Server 2000 or...

Hi all,
I just need an opinion -
The organization I work for is considering buying the "full version" of SQL
Server 2000 (we're using MSDE 2000 right now).
The thing is, since we're in 2004, I'm worried that the next big version of
SQL Server could be somewhere around the corner.
(The present version's capabilities are absolutely convenient for our needs
now and as far as I can see in the future.)
Our server is running on Windows 2000, and maybe we'll move to Windows 2003
some time next year.
So here are my questions:
- Is it worth it to invest substantial money in SQL Server 2000 now or
should we cope with MSDE and wait for the next release;
- If we're going with the 2000 version, and since the life cycle of server
products tends to be a bit longer than destop products, how many years from
now is it reasonable to think that it would be supported ?
TIA
Paul Dussault, MCPThe next version is SQL Server 2005 ("Yukon") which Microsoft has announced
for the first half of 2005.
Microsoft's support lifecycle policies are documented here:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=lifecycle
This states that Mainstream Support for SQLServer 2000 will end 31 December
2005. In view of the projected release date of Yukon I wouldn't be surprised
if the end date of the Mainstream Support period was pushed back. Extended
Support ends 31 December 2007.
I would suggest that if SQL2000 meets your requirements and is going to
bring benefits to your organization today then there is no reason to wait.
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
--|||It is expected that Yukon (the next version of SQL Server) will be =
released some time next year. If you need to upgrade to SQL Server it =
might be good to do so now. SQL Server 2000 will probably be supported =
until the version of SQL Server after Yukon is released, so SQL Server =
2000 will probabaly be supported for a while. =20
If you have a database with many users I am guessing that SQL Server =
will probably perform better than MSDE. With that said, I cannot tell =
you what to do. How is MSDE performing for you? You mentioned =
"substancial money" ...do you have to buy a new server, or are you =
talking about license cost? =20
--=20
Keith
"Paul Dussault" <paulduss@.hotmail.com> wrote in message =
news:%23ArQuNDNEHA.2780@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hi all,
>=20
> I just need an opinion -
>=20
> The organization I work for is considering buying the "full version" =
of SQL
> Server 2000 (we're using MSDE 2000 right now).
> The thing is, since we're in 2004, I'm worried that the next big =
version of
> SQL Server could be somewhere around the corner.
> (The present version's capabilities are absolutely convenient for our =
needs
> now and as far as I can see in the future.)
> Our server is running on Windows 2000, and maybe we'll move to Windows =
2003
> some time next year.
>=20
> So here are my questions:
>=20
> - Is it worth it to invest substantial money in SQL Server 2000 now or
> should we cope with MSDE and wait for the next release;
> - If we're going with the 2000 version, and since the life cycle of =
server
> products tends to be a bit longer than destop products, how many years =
from
> now is it reasonable to think that it would be supported ?
>=20
>=20
> TIA
>=20
>=20
> Paul Dussault, MCP
>=20
>|||I'm assuming it's likely that you have a business reason for asking - i.e. M
SDE is struggling to meet your demands? If that's so - then it depends how m
uch your business wants to move forward. If you've properly evaluated SQL2k
then it may be an idea to i
ntroduce a product which has been serviced packed several times and is very
stable rather than waiting for a new product and the development/bedding in
process' you may need.
Julie
http://www.sqlporn.co.uk :o)|||Hi Keith,

> If you have a database with many users I am guessing that SQL Server will
probably perform better than MSDE.
For now we have just a few apps with just a few users. But many more apps
and Web sites are in planning or in development, so we're bound to work with
the full version at one time or another.

> How is MSDE performing for you? You mentioned "substancial money" ...do
you have to buy a new server, or are you talking about license cost?
MSDE is OK right now. And we have a brand new server and it rocks. I
personally think that SQL Server 2000 will be supported for a while; but I
have to sit with management and will have to deal with their perception:
"why should we buy a 3000$ product that is 4 year old, to replace a product
that's working fine and is... free?"
You get the idea... So I'll need all the arguments I can get (and a few
experts opinions could do no harm!) to convince them that it's a worthy
purchase...
Thanks for your input!
Paul Dussault, MCP
Keith
"Paul Dussault" <paulduss@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23ArQuNDNEHA.2780@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hi all,
> I just need an opinion -
> The organization I work for is considering buying the "full version" of
SQL
> Server 2000 (we're using MSDE 2000 right now).
> The thing is, since we're in 2004, I'm worried that the next big version
of
> SQL Server could be somewhere around the corner.
> (The present version's capabilities are absolutely convenient for our
needs
> now and as far as I can see in the future.)
> Our server is running on Windows 2000, and maybe we'll move to Windows
2003
> some time next year.
> So here are my questions:
> - Is it worth it to invest substantial money in SQL Server 2000 now or
> should we cope with MSDE and wait for the next release;
> - If we're going with the 2000 version, and since the life cycle of server
> products tends to be a bit longer than destop products, how many years
from
> now is it reasonable to think that it would be supported ?
>
> TIA
>
> Paul Dussault, MCP
>|||Thanks David,
This kind of data will be helpful.
Paul Dussault, MCP
"David Portas" <REMOVE_BEFORE_REPLYING_dportas@.acm.org> wrote in message
news:luidnetW86CJCwbdRVn-gw@.giganews.com...
> The next version is SQL Server 2005 ("Yukon") which Microsoft has
announced
> for the first half of 2005.
> Microsoft's support lifecycle policies are documented here:
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=lifecycle
> This states that Mainstream Support for SQLServer 2000 will end 31
December
> 2005. In view of the projected release date of Yukon I wouldn't be
surprised
> if the end date of the Mainstream Support period was pushed back. Extended
> Support ends 31 December 2007.
> I would suggest that if SQL2000 meets your requirements and is going to
> bring benefits to your organization today then there is no reason to wait.
> --
> David Portas
> SQL Server MVP
> --
>|||..this maybe somewhere to start?
http://www.teratrax.com/articles/ms...sql_server.html|||Thanks Julie,
This will be a good read for my bosses indeed.
Paul Dussault, MCP
"Julie" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B71D98AC-4EEB-4C1E-AF95-4C17A592B25A@.microsoft.com...
> ..this maybe somewhere to start?
> http://www.teratrax.com/articles/ms...sql_server.html|||Paul,
A tip if you aren't already aware of it:
You can use DBCC CONCURRENCYVIOLATION to monitor how often etc. the performa
nce throttling has kicked in. This
might buy you some time, and perhaps the support plans for SQL2K has been up
dated by the time this reports any
significant throttling...
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
"Paul Dussault" <paulduss@.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:uQ6buGENEHA.3476@.TK2MSFTNGP09.p
hx.gbl...
> Hi Keith,
>
> probably perform better than MSDE.
> For now we have just a few apps with just a few users. But many more apps
> and Web sites are in planning or in development, so we're bound to work wi
th
> the full version at one time or another.
>
> you have to buy a new server, or are you talking about license cost?
> MSDE is OK right now. And we have a brand new server and it rocks. I
> personally think that SQL Server 2000 will be supported for a while; but I
> have to sit with management and will have to deal with their perception:
> "why should we buy a 3000$ product that is 4 year old, to replace a produc
t
> that's working fine and is... free?"
> You get the idea... So I'll need all the arguments I can get (and a few
> experts opinions could do no harm!) to convince them that it's a worthy
> purchase...
> Thanks for your input!
>
> Paul Dussault, MCP
> --
> Keith
>
> "Paul Dussault" <paulduss@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23ArQuNDNEHA.2780@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> SQL
> of
> needs
> 2003
> from
>

Buy SQL Server 2000 or...

Hi all,
I just need an opinion -
The organization I work for is considering buying the "full version" of SQL
Server 2000 (we're using MSDE 2000 right now).
The thing is, since we're in 2004, I'm worried that the next big version of
SQL Server could be somewhere around the corner.
(The present version's capabilities are absolutely convenient for our needs
now and as far as I can see in the future.)
Our server is running on Windows 2000, and maybe we'll move to Windows 2003
some time next year.
So here are my questions:
- Is it worth it to invest substantial money in SQL Server 2000 now or
should we cope with MSDE and wait for the next release;
- If we're going with the 2000 version, and since the life cycle of server
products tends to be a bit longer than destop products, how many years from
now is it reasonable to think that it would be supported ?
TIA
Paul Dussault, MCPThe next version is SQL Server 2005 ("Yukon") which Microsoft has announced
for the first half of 2005.
Microsoft's support lifecycle policies are documented here:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=lifecycle
This states that Mainstream Support for SQLServer 2000 will end 31 December
2005. In view of the projected release date of Yukon I wouldn't be surprised
if the end date of the Mainstream Support period was pushed back. Extended
Support ends 31 December 2007.
I would suggest that if SQL2000 meets your requirements and is going to
bring benefits to your organization today then there is no reason to wait.
--
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
--|||It is expected that Yukon (the next version of SQL Server) will be =released some time next year. If you need to upgrade to SQL Server it =might be good to do so now. SQL Server 2000 will probably be supported =until the version of SQL Server after Yukon is released, so SQL Server =2000 will probabaly be supported for a while.
If you have a database with many users I am guessing that SQL Server =will probably perform better than MSDE. With that said, I cannot tell =you what to do. How is MSDE performing for you? You mentioned ="substancial money" ...do you have to buy a new server, or are you =talking about license cost? -- Keith
"Paul Dussault" <paulduss@.hotmail.com> wrote in message =news:%23ArQuNDNEHA.2780@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hi all,
> > I just need an opinion -
> > The organization I work for is considering buying the "full version" =of SQL
> Server 2000 (we're using MSDE 2000 right now).
> The thing is, since we're in 2004, I'm worried that the next big =version of
> SQL Server could be somewhere around the corner.
> (The present version's capabilities are absolutely convenient for our =needs
> now and as far as I can see in the future.)
> Our server is running on Windows 2000, and maybe we'll move to Windows =2003
> some time next year.
> > So here are my questions:
> > - Is it worth it to invest substantial money in SQL Server 2000 now or
> should we cope with MSDE and wait for the next release;
> - If we're going with the 2000 version, and since the life cycle of =server
> products tends to be a bit longer than destop products, how many years =from
> now is it reasonable to think that it would be supported ?
> > > TIA
> > > Paul Dussault, MCP
> >|||Hi Keith,
> If you have a database with many users I am guessing that SQL Server will
probably perform better than MSDE.
For now we have just a few apps with just a few users. But many more apps
and Web sites are in planning or in development, so we're bound to work with
the full version at one time or another.
> How is MSDE performing for you? You mentioned "substancial money" ...do
you have to buy a new server, or are you talking about license cost?
MSDE is OK right now. And we have a brand new server and it rocks. I
personally think that SQL Server 2000 will be supported for a while; but I
have to sit with management and will have to deal with their perception:
"why should we buy a 3000$ product that is 4 year old, to replace a product
that's working fine and is... free?"
You get the idea... So I'll need all the arguments I can get (and a few
experts opinions could do no harm!) to convince them that it's a worthy
purchase...
Thanks for your input!
Paul Dussault, MCP
--
Keith
"Paul Dussault" <paulduss@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23ArQuNDNEHA.2780@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hi all,
> I just need an opinion -
> The organization I work for is considering buying the "full version" of
SQL
> Server 2000 (we're using MSDE 2000 right now).
> The thing is, since we're in 2004, I'm worried that the next big version
of
> SQL Server could be somewhere around the corner.
> (The present version's capabilities are absolutely convenient for our
needs
> now and as far as I can see in the future.)
> Our server is running on Windows 2000, and maybe we'll move to Windows
2003
> some time next year.
> So here are my questions:
> - Is it worth it to invest substantial money in SQL Server 2000 now or
> should we cope with MSDE and wait for the next release;
> - If we're going with the 2000 version, and since the life cycle of server
> products tends to be a bit longer than destop products, how many years
from
> now is it reasonable to think that it would be supported ?
>
> TIA
>
> Paul Dussault, MCP
>|||Thanks David,
This kind of data will be helpful.
Paul Dussault, MCP
"David Portas" <REMOVE_BEFORE_REPLYING_dportas@.acm.org> wrote in message
news:luidnetW86CJCwbdRVn-gw@.giganews.com...
> The next version is SQL Server 2005 ("Yukon") which Microsoft has
announced
> for the first half of 2005.
> Microsoft's support lifecycle policies are documented here:
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=lifecycle
> This states that Mainstream Support for SQLServer 2000 will end 31
December
> 2005. In view of the projected release date of Yukon I wouldn't be
surprised
> if the end date of the Mainstream Support period was pushed back. Extended
> Support ends 31 December 2007.
> I would suggest that if SQL2000 meets your requirements and is going to
> bring benefits to your organization today then there is no reason to wait.
> --
> David Portas
> SQL Server MVP
> --
>|||Thanks Julie,
This will be a good read for my bosses indeed.
Paul Dussault, MCP
"Julie" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B71D98AC-4EEB-4C1E-AF95-4C17A592B25A@.microsoft.com...
> ..this maybe somewhere to start?
> http://www.teratrax.com/articles/msde_vs_sql_server.html|||Paul,
A tip if you aren't already aware of it:
You can use DBCC CONCURRENCYVIOLATION to monitor how often etc. the performance throttling has kicked in. This
might buy you some time, and perhaps the support plans for SQL2K has been updated by the time this reports any
significant throttling...
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
"Paul Dussault" <paulduss@.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:uQ6buGENEHA.3476@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hi Keith,
> > If you have a database with many users I am guessing that SQL Server will
> probably perform better than MSDE.
> For now we have just a few apps with just a few users. But many more apps
> and Web sites are in planning or in development, so we're bound to work with
> the full version at one time or another.
> > How is MSDE performing for you? You mentioned "substancial money" ...do
> you have to buy a new server, or are you talking about license cost?
> MSDE is OK right now. And we have a brand new server and it rocks. I
> personally think that SQL Server 2000 will be supported for a while; but I
> have to sit with management and will have to deal with their perception:
> "why should we buy a 3000$ product that is 4 year old, to replace a product
> that's working fine and is... free?"
> You get the idea... So I'll need all the arguments I can get (and a few
> experts opinions could do no harm!) to convince them that it's a worthy
> purchase...
> Thanks for your input!
>
> Paul Dussault, MCP
> --
> Keith
>
> "Paul Dussault" <paulduss@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23ArQuNDNEHA.2780@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I just need an opinion -
> >
> > The organization I work for is considering buying the "full version" of
> SQL
> > Server 2000 (we're using MSDE 2000 right now).
> > The thing is, since we're in 2004, I'm worried that the next big version
> of
> > SQL Server could be somewhere around the corner.
> > (The present version's capabilities are absolutely convenient for our
> needs
> > now and as far as I can see in the future.)
> > Our server is running on Windows 2000, and maybe we'll move to Windows
> 2003
> > some time next year.
> >
> > So here are my questions:
> >
> > - Is it worth it to invest substantial money in SQL Server 2000 now or
> > should we cope with MSDE and wait for the next release;
> > - If we're going with the 2000 version, and since the life cycle of server
> > products tends to be a bit longer than destop products, how many years
> from
> > now is it reasonable to think that it would be supported ?
> >
> >
> > TIA
> >
> >
> > Paul Dussault, MCP
> >
> >
>

Buy SQL Server 2000 or...

Hi all,
I just need an opinion -
The organization I work for is considering buying the "full version" of SQL
Server 2000 (we're using MSDE 2000 right now).
The thing is, since we're in 2004, I'm worried that the next big version of
SQL Server could be somewhere around the corner.
(The present version's capabilities are absolutely convenient for our needs
now and as far as I can see in the future.)
Our server is running on Windows 2000, and maybe we'll move to Windows 2003
some time next year.
So here are my questions:
- Is it worth it to invest substantial money in SQL Server 2000 now or
should we cope with MSDE and wait for the next release;
- If we're going with the 2000 version, and since the life cycle of server
products tends to be a bit longer than destop products, how many years from
now is it reasonable to think that it would be supported ?
TIA
Paul Dussault, MCP
The next version is SQL Server 2005 ("Yukon") which Microsoft has announced
for the first half of 2005.
Microsoft's support lifecycle policies are documented here:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=lifecycle
This states that Mainstream Support for SQLServer 2000 will end 31 December
2005. In view of the projected release date of Yukon I wouldn't be surprised
if the end date of the Mainstream Support period was pushed back. Extended
Support ends 31 December 2007.
I would suggest that if SQL2000 meets your requirements and is going to
bring benefits to your organization today then there is no reason to wait.
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
|||It is expected that Yukon (the next version of SQL Server) will be =
released some time next year. If you need to upgrade to SQL Server it =
might be good to do so now. SQL Server 2000 will probably be supported =
until the version of SQL Server after Yukon is released, so SQL Server =
2000 will probabaly be supported for a while. =20
If you have a database with many users I am guessing that SQL Server =
will probably perform better than MSDE. With that said, I cannot tell =
you what to do. How is MSDE performing for you? You mentioned =
"substancial money" ...do you have to buy a new server, or are you =
talking about license cost? =20
--=20
Keith
"Paul Dussault" <paulduss@.hotmail.com> wrote in message =
news:%23ArQuNDNEHA.2780@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hi all,
>=20
> I just need an opinion -
>=20
> The organization I work for is considering buying the "full version" =
of SQL
> Server 2000 (we're using MSDE 2000 right now).
> The thing is, since we're in 2004, I'm worried that the next big =
version of
> SQL Server could be somewhere around the corner.
> (The present version's capabilities are absolutely convenient for our =
needs
> now and as far as I can see in the future.)
> Our server is running on Windows 2000, and maybe we'll move to Windows =
2003
> some time next year.
>=20
> So here are my questions:
>=20
> - Is it worth it to invest substantial money in SQL Server 2000 now or
> should we cope with MSDE and wait for the next release;
> - If we're going with the 2000 version, and since the life cycle of =
server
> products tends to be a bit longer than destop products, how many years =
from
> now is it reasonable to think that it would be supported ?
>=20
>=20
> TIA
>=20
>=20
> Paul Dussault, MCP
>=20
>
|||I'm assuming it's likely that you have a business reason for asking - i.e. MSDE is struggling to meet your demands? If that's so - then it depends how much your business wants to move forward. If you've properly evaluated SQL2k then it may be an idea to i
ntroduce a product which has been serviced packed several times and is very stable rather than waiting for a new product and the development/bedding in process' you may need.
Julie
http://www.sqlporn.co.uk :o)
|||Hi Keith,

> If you have a database with many users I am guessing that SQL Server will
probably perform better than MSDE.
For now we have just a few apps with just a few users. But many more apps
and Web sites are in planning or in development, so we're bound to work with
the full version at one time or another.

> How is MSDE performing for you? You mentioned "substancial money" ...do
you have to buy a new server, or are you talking about license cost?
MSDE is OK right now. And we have a brand new server and it rocks. I
personally think that SQL Server 2000 will be supported for a while; but I
have to sit with management and will have to deal with their perception:
"why should we buy a 3000$ product that is 4 year old, to replace a product
that's working fine and is... free?"
You get the idea... So I'll need all the arguments I can get (and a few
experts opinions could do no harm!) to convince them that it's a worthy
purchase...
Thanks for your input!
Paul Dussault, MCP
Keith
"Paul Dussault" <paulduss@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23ArQuNDNEHA.2780@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hi all,
> I just need an opinion -
> The organization I work for is considering buying the "full version" of
SQL
> Server 2000 (we're using MSDE 2000 right now).
> The thing is, since we're in 2004, I'm worried that the next big version
of
> SQL Server could be somewhere around the corner.
> (The present version's capabilities are absolutely convenient for our
needs
> now and as far as I can see in the future.)
> Our server is running on Windows 2000, and maybe we'll move to Windows
2003
> some time next year.
> So here are my questions:
> - Is it worth it to invest substantial money in SQL Server 2000 now or
> should we cope with MSDE and wait for the next release;
> - If we're going with the 2000 version, and since the life cycle of server
> products tends to be a bit longer than destop products, how many years
from
> now is it reasonable to think that it would be supported ?
>
> TIA
>
> Paul Dussault, MCP
>
|||Thanks David,
This kind of data will be helpful.
Paul Dussault, MCP
"David Portas" <REMOVE_BEFORE_REPLYING_dportas@.acm.org> wrote in message
news:luidnetW86CJCwbdRVn-gw@.giganews.com...
> The next version is SQL Server 2005 ("Yukon") which Microsoft has
announced
> for the first half of 2005.
> Microsoft's support lifecycle policies are documented here:
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=lifecycle
> This states that Mainstream Support for SQLServer 2000 will end 31
December
> 2005. In view of the projected release date of Yukon I wouldn't be
surprised
> if the end date of the Mainstream Support period was pushed back. Extended
> Support ends 31 December 2007.
> I would suggest that if SQL2000 meets your requirements and is going to
> bring benefits to your organization today then there is no reason to wait.
> --
> David Portas
> SQL Server MVP
> --
>
|||...this maybe somewhere to start?
http://www.teratrax.com/articles/msd...ql_server.html
|||Thanks Julie,
This will be a good read for my bosses indeed.
Paul Dussault, MCP
"Julie" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B71D98AC-4EEB-4C1E-AF95-4C17A592B25A@.microsoft.com...
> ..this maybe somewhere to start?
> http://www.teratrax.com/articles/msd...ql_server.html
|||Paul,
A tip if you aren't already aware of it:
You can use DBCC CONCURRENCYVIOLATION to monitor how often etc. the performance throttling has kicked in. This
might buy you some time, and perhaps the support plans for SQL2K has been updated by the time this reports any
significant throttling...
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
"Paul Dussault" <paulduss@.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:uQ6buGENEHA.3476@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hi Keith,
> probably perform better than MSDE.
> For now we have just a few apps with just a few users. But many more apps
> and Web sites are in planning or in development, so we're bound to work with
> the full version at one time or another.
> you have to buy a new server, or are you talking about license cost?
> MSDE is OK right now. And we have a brand new server and it rocks. I
> personally think that SQL Server 2000 will be supported for a while; but I
> have to sit with management and will have to deal with their perception:
> "why should we buy a 3000$ product that is 4 year old, to replace a product
> that's working fine and is... free?"
> You get the idea... So I'll need all the arguments I can get (and a few
> experts opinions could do no harm!) to convince them that it's a worthy
> purchase...
> Thanks for your input!
>
> Paul Dussault, MCP
> --
> Keith
>
> "Paul Dussault" <paulduss@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23ArQuNDNEHA.2780@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> SQL
> of
> needs
> 2003
> from
>