Results 1 to 12 of 12
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    22

    Unanswered: Understanding licensing for 2000

    There seem to be a slew of options.

    Finally figuring out that I can't use Express, I need to temporarily have my own SQL Server 2000 db server running. Hopefully just a couple of months, but who knows how long it'll take to convert over to MySQL.

    Anyway, I need this db server to be on one machine. One web server will be accessing it (for one db).

    What type of license do I need? Is it really the massively-priced per processor type? Or can I use another?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    122
    If your web server using the SQL Server is accessible on the internet you will have to buy a processor license.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    22
    Crap. Maybe I will rent then. Motivation to save Thanks for the answer.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    210
    You could use the 4 month evaluation then deal with it if time exceeds expiration.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    1,313
    why can't you use Express? is your db too big?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    22
    It's accessed too much. I consulted with my current datacenter (I have my own servers, but I'm on a shared SQL Server), and they let me know my db consumes a lot of resources. The 1GB of RAM limit seems where I'd be hit hard.

    I plan on converting to MySQL, so a 4-month evaluation might be just what I need, thanks for the suggestion vich.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    96
    Without knowing the specifics of the database, and it's purpose, it's rather difficult to state if Express is too much or too little.

    Since you seem to be pretty much enlightned regarding the licencing maybe you should consider if you aren't going to take an even bigger hit with the move from MSSQL to MySql. I'm sorry to raise this but are you sure that in the end of the day during the whole life-cycle of the app you will be winning with that change? 99% of the times I faced that question in the end of the day, with all the math done, MySql ends up to be more expensive for the kind of projects I usually undertake.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    210
    Quote Originally Posted by Diabolic
    Without knowing the specifics of the database, and it's purpose, it's rather difficult to state if Express is too much or too little.

    Since you seem to be pretty much enlightned regarding the licencing maybe you should consider if you aren't going to take an even bigger hit with the move from MSSQL to MySql. I'm sorry to raise this but are you sure that in the end of the day during the whole life-cycle of the app you will be winning with that change? 99% of the times I faced that question in the end of the day, with all the math done, MySql ends up to be more expensive for the kind of projects I usually undertake.
    I'm curious - can you do a quick summary?

    I'm pretty ignorant of the MySQL world. I've been surprised over the past year on this site to see how well respect it commands - a SQL that came as a freebie in a beginner SQL book several years back. It seems to have grown into enterprise class software.

    Is it the peripheral management software or are there other costs?

    Thanks.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    22
    I'd be curious as well.

    The current shared server I'm on:
    Dual Xeons 2.00GHz
    3GB of RAM
    Running:
    MSSQL 2000 Enterprise

    I was really beating it up for a bit. I cached a few things here and there and it's running fine now, but I need my own machine. I don't think I need Enterprise, but I need something of my own for a bit.

    I have two databases, this one, and a MySQL one running a website of mine. Due to the apps I'm running that require MySQL, and me not doing anything MSSQL-specific with my MSSQL db (so I think), I'd like to really merge them, as it'd be much easier to run my site off of one db (I have to interact between the two now sometimes).

    Due to the situation I've been limiting growth as much as possible, but I have a lot planned.

    So my goal is to get this all wrapped up into one. I have a MySQL server that has plenty of room to grow.

    In the interim, I want to make sure I can do whatever I need to do and have no performance issue.

    My datacenter offers MSSQL Standard (2000 and 2005) for monthly fees as opposed to just purchasing it. One of the things I'm looking at right now is if 2005 Workgroup would be good for what I need. 3GB RAM limit, and the 2 proc license is considerably cheaper than the 1 proc Standard license.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by vich
    I'm curious - can you do a quick summary?

    I'm pretty ignorant of the MySQL world. I've been surprised over the past year on this site to see how well respect it commands - a SQL that came as a freebie in a beginner SQL book several years back. It seems to have grown into enterprise class software.

    Is it the peripheral management software or are there other costs?

    Thanks.
    Let's just say that I like MySql and that it has it's own space (market share). It's just not as advanced / robust as its commercial counterparts

    It's all about using the right tool for the job.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    22
    Someone should make a "don't use MySQL if..." list

    As for me, I'm actually strongly leaning towards Workgroup 2005, as it seems to have a good balance between features and limitations (and the price from my datacenter is reasonable for a 2-proc license). If anyone has any reason for me not to use that, I am all ears.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    96
    Are you sure that you need a 2-proc licence? It's cheaper to rent a quad-core processor with SQL Server (of any version). This way you won't have to pay 2 processor licences.

    2 * Workgroup is probably more expensive than 1 * Standard in a quad-core, and of course more expensive than 1 * workgroup in a quad core

    And I can also tell you more: Are you sure you need that much processing power? You should consider starting with a simple dual-core with 4Gb of RAM and 3 ou 4 HDs. I can assure you that in 99,9999% of the cases this setup is much better than the 2 dua-core 2gb ram and 1 or 2 hd....

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •