Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    22

    Unanswered: SQL Server Standard vs. Enterprise

    I'm setting up a new system and want to do a cluster. We have Win2k3 Enterprise already. My question is do you have to have enterprise edition of SQL2K to do clustering w/ win2k3?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    71
    SQL Enterprise is required for 'High Availability'

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    22
    All I really want is a failover cluster. I don't want to do load balancing or anything else. Just if the primary box fails, the secondary automagically takes over. I'd have to have external storage, I'm assuming, for the database files, but nothing more fancy than that. Is this possible with Standard?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    71
    My understanding is that you won't get failover with Standard edition so, sorry to say, you will require Enterprise Edition (and a big budget). Looking on the bright side, it's still a lot cheaper than Oracle.

    Clive

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    England
    Posts
    152
    You'll need enterprise edition for failover clustering.

    Cheaper than Oracle - only just - it 17K per processor!! :-)
    Regards
    Dbabren

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    71
    I think it's more than $17K but... Oracle needs twice the budget. Annual support contracts on top.

    http://www.microsoft.com/sql/evaluat...ison.asp#basic

    Back to the original question... It often pays to ask what the business requirement really is in terms of how much downtime it can put up with. When faced with the huge hike in licencing and hardware costs, organisations usually adjust their expectations downwards. I've found that a few of the clients I support have been happy to accept solutions that involve automatically copying backups off the production server with automatic restores onto another stand-alone DR/Test server. If transaction log backps are being sent across too, point-in-time recovery is achievable and data loss can be kept down to reasonable durations depending on the interval for tran log backups and the amount of bandwidth available to copy them across to the DR box. This has the added benefit of a daily test of the integrity of the backups. Some use Replication for this but I would rather not.

    Regards,

    Clive

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    England
    Posts
    152
    I meant SQL Server Ent was 17k, and you are right Oracle Ent is more (about 24K), although the versions are not directly compatable - and then you count the cost of h/ware , support .. Anyway Clive don't wish to start a battle of Oracle vs SQL ...

    I do agree with Clives comments above - depends on what your business needs and almost more importantly how much money they are willing to spend.
    Regards
    Dbabren

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Kansas City, MO
    Posts
    734
    Unless your licensing is different in the UK, you don't need to license the passive side of an active/passive cluster for SQL Server. If you have "anything" at all running on the passive SQL Server physical server though (for example another instance of SQL Server), then you must have it licensed.
    MeanOldDBA
    derrickleggett@hotmail.com
    When life gives you a lemon, fire the DBA.

Posting Permissions

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