August 21, 2008 at 6:50 am
Perry Whittle (8/21/2008)
GilaMonster (8/20/2008)
You can't do Raid 10 (striped and mirrored) with only two drives. It requires a minimum of 4.Gail i pointed this out already
I thought it was worth repeating and expanding on.
Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability
August 21, 2008 at 8:52 am
GilaMonster (8/21/2008)I thought it was worth repeating and expanding on.
for sure, considering he still mentioned using it 😉
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ya can't make an omelette without breaking just a few eggs" 😉
August 21, 2008 at 9:28 am
We have 2XQUAD processors. Do we go for SQL 2005 standard or Enterprise ?
I know SQL 2005 standard will support OS (Windoiws Ent with 12GB) max memory, but will it
support 2XQUAD processors ?
August 21, 2008 at 9:31 am
we run sql standard with 2 quad core CPU's, x64 version
we only run enterprise x64 if we need clustering and for SQL if we absolutely need online indexing
August 21, 2008 at 9:39 am
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/editions/enterprise/comparison.mspx
says the Standard only supports 4 CPU
August 21, 2008 at 9:46 am
pretty sure MS considers 1 CPU to be 1 socket and not a core
I think it was Oracle that tried the 1 core is 1CPu thing a few years ago and went back on it
August 21, 2008 at 9:54 am
Do you have SAN attached to the Box. What other considerations need when you setup the box ?
Whats is the price difference between standrd and Enterprise ?
How did you arrange the drives ?
Thanks for your replies..
August 21, 2008 at 10:01 am
Thayal Muhunthan (8/21/2008)
Whats is the price difference between standrd and Enterprise ?..
Depends on how you are purchasing SQL Server, per processor or user/device CAL's.
😎
August 21, 2008 at 10:02 am
Thayal Muhunthan (8/21/2008)
We have 2XQUAD processors. Do we go for SQL 2005 standard or Enterprise ?
do you plan to use the Enterprise features or not, in most cases SQL2005 Std will suffice
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ya can't make an omelette without breaking just a few eggs" 😉
August 21, 2008 at 10:04 am
CAL's are the same
for the server license it's a few thousand $$$ for Windows and SQL
you can do CPU licensing but that's only if you have tens of thousands of internet users hitting your db, otherwise it doesn't make sense. and with current hardware you can scale up so much on entry level servers that it's amazing compared to even 5 years ago
big thing about enterprise SQL is online indexing. std can do clustering but i think it's only 2 nodes. for indexing it might be cheaper to buy new hardware. we have an archive db with around a billion rows in 2 tables. used to run on a HP Proliant DL 380 G4 with SCSI drives, SQL 2000, windows 2000. we were running out of space and bought a HP Proliant DL 380 G5 and moved it to x64 SQL. Index maintenance went from more than 12 hours to 90 minutes and this is with only 8GB of RAM and SATA drives with everything being on 1 RAID5 array
August 21, 2008 at 10:11 am
Maximum we have 1500 users, might use 2/3 applications connecting to different DBs on the same SQL server.
We have 20 SQL 2000 and 5 SQL 2005 licences per processors ands trying to consolidate as much as we can on this server to reduce server licences.
Is CAL better than per processor ? Is there any docs I can get some infor on clever licencing ?
August 21, 2008 at 10:28 am
SQL Noob (8/21/2008)
you can do CPU licensing but that's only if you have tens of thousands of internet users hitting your db, otherwise it doesn't make sense.
Not true. You need to look at how many users/devices will be hitting the server. If you have a small organization with only a limited number of users that will access the server, buying SQL Server using per processor licensing would not be cost effective. If, however, you have a large organization, the buying all the users CAL's to access the server because excessive.
We purchased SQL Server 2005 Enterprise Edition using per processor licensing based on the number of internal users that could potentially access our servers. It made sense economically.
😎
August 21, 2008 at 10:42 am
Thayal Muhunthan (8/21/2008)
Maximum we have 1500 users, might use 2/3 applications connecting to different DBs on the same SQL server.We have 20 SQL 2000 and 5 SQL 2005 licences per processors ands trying to consolidate as much as we can on this server to reduce server licences.
Is CAL better than per processor ? Is there any docs I can get some infor on clever licencing ?
The more users you have accessing a server the more cost effective the per processor licensing mode becomes. Partly depends on how many processors in the server and how many servers you need to have SQL Server installed. You need to do a cost analysis both ways to know what is best for your organization.
You can get the list pricing off of Microsofts web site and use that as a starting point. That is where I started when I needed to justify purchasing SQL Server for both my current and previous employer. The actual costs turned out lower in both cases, but that was a result of purchasing finding better deals or using existing licensing options I was not aware of during my analysis.
😎
August 21, 2008 at 10:49 am
Thayal Muhunthan (8/21/2008)
Maximum we have 1500 users, might use 2/3 applications connecting to different DBs on the same SQL server.We have 20 SQL 2000 and 5 SQL 2005 licences per processors ands trying to consolidate as much as we can on this server to reduce server licences.
Is CAL better than per processor ? Is there any docs I can get some infor on clever licencing ?
I looked at Microsofts web site. Each additional CAL for accessing SQL Server 2005 costs 162 each. If you need to license each of the 1500 users that would be $243,000 (USD). The cost for SQL Server 2005 Enterprise Edition using per processor is $24,999 USD (or $49,998 USD for a dual processor server).
At this point, per processor looks the best. But, please, do your own analysis.
😎
August 22, 2008 at 5:53 am
You can still go multiple instance, but in that case, you may want to have a look at Windows System Resource Manager (WSRM) to avoid one instance starving you server.
For SQLserver instances advice is to have WSRM only manage the processors (and let SQLserver manage RAM)
WSRM lets you "reserve" % CPU (and dedicate cores) for an application.
If a server goes near 100% cpu usage, WSRM will take control (+- 90 seconds needed) so your dedicated cpu% is guaranteed for your software (instance).
Johan
Learn to play, play to learn !
Dont drive faster than your guardian angel can fly ...
but keeping both feet on the ground wont get you anywhere :w00t:
- How to post Performance Problems
- How to post data/code to get the best help[/url]
- How to prevent a sore throat after hours of presenting ppt
press F1 for solution, press shift+F1 for urgent solution 😀
Need a bit of Powershell? How about this
Who am I ? Sometimes this is me but most of the time this is me
Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 37 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply