2K Developer Edition Install

Hi, folks.

I've just reached the end of my frustration with trying to learn MSDE with no interface (in addition to simultaneously learning ASP.NET), so I'm going to install 2K Developer Edition. However, I'd like to know if it's safe install it on top of MSDE. I'm currently running XP Pro, VS.NET, IIS 5.x, so I'm afraid that if I have uninstall MSDE that I'll break a bunch things that I've painstakingly configured. ;-)

Advice?

TIA,

BobI'd detach the database(s) you've created, and tuck them away for safekeeping. Once you get the developer edition installed, reattach them (and maybe fix any SQL login/user mappings using sp_change_users_login (http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/tsqlref/ts_sp_ca-cz_8qzy.asp)).

-PatP|||MSDE only supports named instance, if I am not mistaken. This means that your new install will also have a named instance. If you want to live with it, - then start double-clicking on setup. Otherwise remove MSDE install completely. I wouldn't keep it even if you're trying to learn it. There's nothing to learn other than the fact that it has the highest number of limitations among all editions.

2GB Limit in MSDE 2000

I have a database that has reached the MSDE 2GB limit.
I have tried running the sp_spaceused command and I can't see how the
results equalls 2GB
Can someone explain what values are used by MSDE to determine that the
database has reached the 2GB limit?
Sp_SpaceUsed Resuls:
Database Size 1903.38MB
Unused 0.16MB
Reserved 1947864KB
Data 1038296KB
Index Size 204584KB
unused 704984KB
Hi
Database Size 1903.38MB
If you have it set to 100Mb autogrow, it can't grow any more as it would
exceed 2GB.
Regards
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"azar" <azar@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8FBCCD5B-F8C7-4F91-8CCB-F94A1151BD8D@.microsoft.com...
>I have a database that has reached the MSDE 2GB limit.
> I have tried running the sp_spaceused command and I can't see how the
> results equalls 2GB
> Can someone explain what values are used by MSDE to determine that the
> database has reached the 2GB limit?
> Sp_SpaceUsed Resuls:
> Database Size 1903.38MB
> Unused 0.16MB
> Reserved 1947864KB
> Data 1038296KB
> Index Size 204584KB
> unused 704984KB
|||What are you storing in the database that has pushed it to this limit?
Pictures? Documents?
____________________________________
William (Bill) Vaughn
Author, Mentor, Consultant
Microsoft MVP
www.betav.com/blog/billva
www.betav.com
Please reply only to the newsgroup so that others can benefit.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
__________________________________
"azar" <azar@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8FBCCD5B-F8C7-4F91-8CCB-F94A1151BD8D@.microsoft.com...
>I have a database that has reached the MSDE 2GB limit.
> I have tried running the sp_spaceused command and I can't see how the
> results equalls 2GB
> Can someone explain what values are used by MSDE to determine that the
> database has reached the 2GB limit?
> Sp_SpaceUsed Resuls:
> Database Size 1903.38MB
> Unused 0.16MB
> Reserved 1947864KB
> Data 1038296KB
> Index Size 204584KB
> unused 704984KB

2GB Limit

What happens when an SQL2K MSDE database reaches 2GB? I've actually seen
MSDE databases reach that size and nothing happened.
Thanks,
Ademar.
hi Ademar,
Ademar Nunes wrote:
> What happens when an SQL2K MSDE database reaches 2GB? I've actually
> seen MSDE databases reach that size and nothing happened.
when you exceed that limit, nex time the Storage Engine requires a file
allocation beyond the allocated space, thus trying expanding the data file,
an exception will be raised..
Andrea Montanari (Microsoft MVP - SQL Server)
http://www.asql.biz/DbaMgr.shtmhttp://italy.mvps.org
DbaMgr2k ver 0.15.0 - DbaMgr ver 0.60.0
(my vb6+sql-dmo little try to provide MS MSDE 1.0 and MSDE 2000 a visual
interface)
-- remove DMO to reply
|||Maybe the 2GB+ installation I'm referring to is actually a Personal edition
and not MSDE.
I'll run the SELECT @.@.VERSION statement on it and I'm assuming that will
tell me if it is MSDE.
Thanks,
Ademar.
"Andrea Montanari" <andrea.sqlDMO@.virgilio.it> wrote in message
news:3o8jmjF4mu4pU1@.individual.net...
> hi Ademar,
> Ademar Nunes wrote:
> when you exceed that limit, nex time the Storage Engine requires a file
> allocation beyond the allocated space, thus trying expanding the data
> file, an exception will be raised..
> --
> Andrea Montanari (Microsoft MVP - SQL Server)
> http://www.asql.biz/DbaMgr.shtmhttp://italy.mvps.org
> DbaMgr2k ver 0.15.0 - DbaMgr ver 0.60.0
> (my vb6+sql-dmo little try to provide MS MSDE 1.0 and MSDE 2000 a visual
> interface)
> -- remove DMO to reply
>
|||Hi,
If it is Personal edition; there is no db size limitation. See details in
below URL
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/?u...asp?frame=true
Thanks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
"Ademar Nunes" <anunes@.myemail.com> wrote in message
news:%23VOAP38sFHA.3500@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Maybe the 2GB+ installation I'm referring to is actually a Personal
> edition and not MSDE.
> I'll run the SELECT @.@.VERSION statement on it and I'm assuming that will
> tell me if it is MSDE.
> Thanks,
> Ademar.
> "Andrea Montanari" <andrea.sqlDMO@.virgilio.it> wrote in message
> news:3o8jmjF4mu4pU1@.individual.net...
>

2G limit in MSDE

I am aware that there is a 2G limit in MSDE. However in some of our
production databases we are running out of space. There is a long term plan
to upgrade to SQL2005 to double the space available to us. However in the
short term is there a quick way to have more space available ?
I could create a second database and then link a table / view back to the
original for example. Or would I be able to create a second filegroup which
would have another 2 G ?
Any ideas ?
Si
Ah, what are you storing in the database? Don't tell me... let me guess...
ah... it's coming to me...
PICTURES! I got it right?...No? Documents?
These are BLOBs. If you want to save space, don't store the BLOBs in the
database--put them on CDs (if they are RO) or on other drives and put the
path and attributes in the database. File IO can far faster (6 to 10x) than
SQL query IO. Yes, it would require a change in your code, but it's not that
much trouble...
hth
____________________________________
William (Bill) Vaughn
Author, Mentor, Consultant
Microsoft MVP
INETA Speaker
www.betav.com/blog/billva
www.betav.com
Please reply only to the newsgroup so that others can benefit.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
__________________________________
Visit www.hitchhikerguides.net to get more information on my latest book:
Hitchhiker's Guide to Visual Studio and SQL Server (7th Edition)
and Hitchhiker's Guide to SQL Server 2005 Compact Edition (EBook)
------
"Simon" <Simon@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:FA3B4343-37BD-4B74-8EF4-EFFA21EC7B66@.microsoft.com...
>I am aware that there is a 2G limit in MSDE. However in some of our
> production databases we are running out of space. There is a long term
> plan
> to upgrade to SQL2005 to double the space available to us. However in the
> short term is there a quick way to have more space available ?
> I could create a second database and then link a table / view back to the
> original for example. Or would I be able to create a second filegroup
> which
> would have another 2 G ?
> Any ideas ?
> Si
>
|||Check out reindexing with a smaller fill factor.
--DatabaseAdmins.com
Remote DBA Services
"William (Bill) Vaughn" wrote:

> Ah, what are you storing in the database? Don't tell me... let me guess...
> ah... it's coming to me...
> PICTURES! I got it right?...No? Documents?
> These are BLOBs. If you want to save space, don't store the BLOBs in the
> database--put them on CDs (if they are RO) or on other drives and put the
> path and attributes in the database. File IO can far faster (6 to 10x) than
> SQL query IO. Yes, it would require a change in your code, but it's not that
> much trouble...
> hth
> --
> ____________________________________
> William (Bill) Vaughn
> Author, Mentor, Consultant
> Microsoft MVP
> INETA Speaker
> www.betav.com/blog/billva
> www.betav.com
> Please reply only to the newsgroup so that others can benefit.
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
> __________________________________
> Visit www.hitchhikerguides.net to get more information on my latest book:
> Hitchhiker's Guide to Visual Studio and SQL Server (7th Edition)
> and Hitchhiker's Guide to SQL Server 2005 Compact Edition (EBook)
> ------
> "Simon" <Simon@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:FA3B4343-37BD-4B74-8EF4-EFFA21EC7B66@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||Bill
do you know much about the varbinary method for storing documents?
I read somewhere that you can stored docs as varbinary instead of image and
it's a lot lot lot faster-- but it only works with small docs
thanks
"William (Bill) Vaughn" <billvaRemoveThis@.nwlink.com> wrote in message
news:ejV$Kw0XHHA.3952@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Ah, what are you storing in the database? Don't tell me... let me
guess...
> ah... it's coming to me...
> PICTURES! I got it right?...No? Documents?
> These are BLOBs. If you want to save space, don't store the BLOBs in the
> database--put them on CDs (if they are RO) or on other drives and put the
> path and attributes in the database. File IO can far faster (6 to 10x)
than
> SQL query IO. Yes, it would require a change in your code, but it's not
that
> much trouble...
> hth
> --
> ____________________________________
> William (Bill) Vaughn
> Author, Mentor, Consultant
> Microsoft MVP
> INETA Speaker
> www.betav.com/blog/billva
> www.betav.com
> Please reply only to the newsgroup so that others can benefit.
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.
> __________________________________
> Visit www.hitchhikerguides.net to get more information on my latest book:
> Hitchhiker's Guide to Visual Studio and SQL Server (7th Edition)
> and Hitchhiker's Guide to SQL Server 2005 Compact Edition (EBook)
> ----
---[vbcol=seagreen]
> "Simon" <Simon@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:FA3B4343-37BD-4B74-8EF4-EFFA21EC7B66@.microsoft.com...
the[vbcol=seagreen]
the
>
|||partition your older data into an archive table-- in a different database
"Simon" <Simon@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:FA3B4343-37BD-4B74-8EF4-EFFA21EC7B66@.microsoft.com...
> I am aware that there is a 2G limit in MSDE. However in some of our
> production databases we are running out of space. There is a long term
plan
> to upgrade to SQL2005 to double the space available to us. However in the
> short term is there a quick way to have more space available ?
> I could create a second database and then link a table / view back to the
> original for example. Or would I be able to create a second filegroup
which
> would have another 2 G ?
> Any ideas ?
> Si
>
|||My tests (albeit unscientific at times) shows storing BLOBs (in whatever
datatype) in the database is 6x slower than storing the same data on a file.
Your mileage may vary.
____________________________________
William (Bill) Vaughn
Author, Mentor, Consultant
Microsoft MVP
INETA Speaker
www.betav.com/blog/billva
www.betav.com
Please reply only to the newsgroup so that others can benefit.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
__________________________________
Visit www.hitchhikerguides.net to get more information on my latest book:
Hitchhiker's Guide to Visual Studio and SQL Server (7th Edition)
and Hitchhiker's Guide to SQL Server 2005 Compact Edition (EBook)
------
"Aaron Kempf" <akempf@.dol.wa.gov> wrote in message
news:eBBZVECjHHA.1240@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Bill
> do you know much about the varbinary method for storing documents?
> I read somewhere that you can stored docs as varbinary instead of image
> and
> it's a lot lot lot faster-- but it only works with small docs
> thanks
>
> "William (Bill) Vaughn" <billvaRemoveThis@.nwlink.com> wrote in message
> news:ejV$Kw0XHHA.3952@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> guess...
> than
> that
> rights.
> the
> the
>

25 MSDE Connections

In the MSDE Edition of Sql Server 2000 there is a limit of 25 connections.
What is the definition of a "connection"? For example, if I create a
connection pool of 5 connections in an application, does that count as 5
against the 25?
-Thanks
-Tom
hi Tom,
Tom Celica wrote:
> In the MSDE Edition of Sql Server 2000 there is a limit of 25
> connections. What is the definition of a "connection"? For
> example, if I create a connection pool of 5 connections in an
> application, does that count as 5 against the 25?
there's not such a limit of "25 connection"... this magic number is just a
guess about the probably supported load of an MSDE instance.. and it fo
course is influenced by your architectural design, both within the db and
the app...
please have a look at
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/?u...asp?frame=true
for all available info about the built in Workload Governor..
Andrea Montanari (Microsoft MVP - SQL Server)
http://www.asql.biz/DbaMgr.shtmhttp://italy.mvps.org
DbaMgr2k ver 0.14.0 - DbaMgr ver 0.59.0
(my vb6+sql-dmo little try to provide MS MSDE 1.0 and MSDE 2000 a visual
interface)
-- remove DMO to reply

25 MSDE Connections

In the MSDE Edition of Sql Server 2000 there is a limit of 25 connections.
What is the definition of a "connection"? For example, if I create a
connection pool of 5 connections in an application, does that count as 5
against the 25?
-Thanks
-Tom
I didn't know there was a hard limit but the soft limit was actually 5.
Over 5 concurrent connections and it would start to throttle back your
performance. I don't know for sure but the license probably states a limit
of 5 concurrent connections. It was not intended to be used for that many
connections. That is what the standard edition is for. A connection is
anytime someone is connected to the server. If the pool has 5 open
connections then it is 5 connections.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Tom Celica" <tom@.dontreply.com> wrote in message
news:V1%Ae.1617$_%4.505@.newssvr14.news.prodigy.com ...
> In the MSDE Edition of Sql Server 2000 there is a limit of 25 connections.
> What is the definition of a "connection"? For example, if I create a
> connection pool of 5 connections in an application, does that count as 5
> against the 25?
> -Thanks
> -Tom
>
|||AFAIK there is no such limit. What makes you say that the limit is 25?
MSDE is optimized for 5 connections or less so if you want 25
connections you should probably be considering Standard or Workgroup
edition.
David Portas
SQL Server MVP

25 MSDE Connections

In the MSDE Edition of Sql Server 2000 there is a limit of 25 connections.
What is the definition of a "connection"? For example, if I create a
connection pool of 5 connections in an application, does that count as 5
against the 25?
-Thanks
-TomIndependently answered to many of the independently posted questions.
Please refrain from posting the same question independently to multiple
newsgroups.
"Tom Celica" <tom@.dontreply.com> wrote in message
news:s3%Ae.1619$_%4.824@.newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> In the MSDE Edition of Sql Server 2000 there is a limit of 25 connections.
> What is the definition of a "connection"? For example, if I create a
> connection pool of 5 connections in an application, does that count as 5
> against the 25?
> -Thanks
> -Tom
>

25 MSDE Connections

In the MSDE Edition of Sql Server 2000 there is a limit of 25 connections.
What is the definition of a "connection"? For example, if I create a
connection pool of 5 connections in an application, does that count as 5
against the 25?
-Thanks
-TomI didn't know there was a hard limit but the soft limit was actually 5.
Over 5 concurrent connections and it would start to throttle back your
performance. I don't know for sure but the license probably states a limit
of 5 concurrent connections. It was not intended to be used for that many
connections. That is what the standard edition is for. A connection is
anytime someone is connected to the server. If the pool has 5 open
connections then it is 5 connections.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Tom Celica" <tom@.dontreply.com> wrote in message
news:V1%Ae.1617$_%4.505@.newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> In the MSDE Edition of Sql Server 2000 there is a limit of 25 connections.
> What is the definition of a "connection"? For example, if I create a
> connection pool of 5 connections in an application, does that count as 5
> against the 25?
> -Thanks
> -Tom
>|||AFAIK there is no such limit. What makes you say that the limit is 25?
MSDE is optimized for 5 connections or less so if you want 25
connections you should probably be considering Standard or Workgroup
edition.
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
--

25 MSDE Connections

In the MSDE Edition of Sql Server 2000 there is a limit of 25 connections.
What is the definition of a "connection"? For example, if I create a
connection pool of 5 connections in an application, does that count as 5
against the 25?
-Thanks
-Tom
Independently answered to many of the independently posted questions.
Please refrain from posting the same question independently to multiple
newsgroups.
"Tom Celica" <tom@.dontreply.com> wrote in message
news:s3%Ae.1619$_%4.824@.newssvr14.news.prodigy.com ...
> In the MSDE Edition of Sql Server 2000 there is a limit of 25 connections.
> What is the definition of a "connection"? For example, if I create a
> connection pool of 5 connections in an application, does that count as 5
> against the 25?
> -Thanks
> -Tom
>

25 MSDE Connections

In the MSDE Edition of Sql Server 2000 there is a limit of 25 connections.
What is the definition of a "connection"? For example, if I create a
connection pool of 5 connections in an application, does that count as 5
against the 25?
-Thanks
-TomIndependently answered to many of the independently posted questions.
Please refrain from posting the same question independently to multiple
newsgroups.
"Tom Celica" <tom@.dontreply.com> wrote in message
news:s3%Ae.1619$_%4.824@.newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> In the MSDE Edition of Sql Server 2000 there is a limit of 25 connections.
> What is the definition of a "connection"? For example, if I create a
> connection pool of 5 connections in an application, does that count as 5
> against the 25?
> -Thanks
> -Tom
>

25 Concurrent Connections

Hey,

MSDE 2000 allows 25 concurrent connections.

If these are all used up, and a 26th connection comes in. What happens? is the connection rejected? or does it sit in a queue, waiting to be given a connection?

Thanks,
-Ashleigh::Hey,

Hey

::MSDE 2000 allows 25 concurrent connections

Wrong.

MSDE allows more than 32000 concurrent connections, as any SQL Server.|||Bunch of info here

http://dbforums.com/arch/30/2002/12/630637

24/7 Uptime

Hello,
I have a unique requirement to keep the MSDE database up for 24/7 as much as
possible.
Once the hard disk fails on work station, it is programmed to boot up with
Flash Drive operating system. So, we installed MSDE software on a flash
drive.
How should I plan for data availability through Flash drive? The point over
here is that, the DB size is around 1.3 GB. It will take time to transfer all
the data from Host server to Flash drive MSDE instance.
Any innovative ideas of renaming DB files from work station to Flash Drive
DB files? When work station is up and working, it can communicate with Flash
Drive easily.
I really appreciate in advance!
David
hi David,
David wrote:
> Hello,
> I have a unique requirement to keep the MSDE database up for 24/7 as
> much as possible.
> Once the hard disk fails on work station, it is programmed to boot up
> with Flash Drive operating system. So, we installed MSDE software on
> a flash drive.
> How should I plan for data availability through Flash drive? The
> point over here is that, the DB size is around 1.3 GB. It will take
> time to transfer all the data from Host server to Flash drive MSDE
> instance.
> Any innovative ideas of renaming DB files from work station to Flash
> Drive DB files? When work station is up and working, it can
> communicate with Flash Drive easily.
I'm not very confortable with a solution like that..
first of all this is not a fault tolerance solution... ok, you'll perhaps
have little down time for the OS, but I'm not that confident on memory
flash... more, if I corectly understand you, your scenario id not redundant
as you planned only for db failure and not the whole system crash (say CPU,
mother board and the like)..
the ideal solution would be of course a cluster with a SAN.. if one node
fails the other will survive and be up without human intervention and no
needs for further adjustements.. and the SAN are usually protected in RAID
design...
another logical way could be replication, with 2 servers and the databases
in replica.. SQL Server Agent is there but a manual replica should be set
and without the use of EM as MSDE does not provide that tool...
or a kind of manual log shipping.. not that precise, but the like...
additionally you have to provide the path to switch from one server to the
other...
another solution could be 2 servers, 1 completely in stand by or even shut
down, where th elive one operates for db access on an external HD
(http://www.lacie.com) ..in case of hardware failure (not the disk, of
course), you just need to switch the USB external drive to the other
server..
USB 2 is of course slower than a standard HD, but I'd really prefer a
standard mechanical HD over a flash one... and of course you do not have
problems to migrate 1,5gb of data over the net (which could be even
impossible in case of complete failure of the original system)..
again, a path to point to the new server is required...
Andrea Montanari (Microsoft MVP - SQL Server)
http://www.asql.biz/DbaMgr.shtmhttp://italy.mvps.org
DbaMgr2k ver 0.15.0 - DbaMgr ver 0.60.0
(my vb6+sql-dmo little try to provide MS MSDE 1.0 and MSDE 2000 a visual
interface)
-- remove DMO to reply

2005 or 2000?

We are about to purchase a new Server which will act as a SQL Server and
expand access to our existing MSDE database. Currently 5 users on a Lan but
we will be going to approx. 25 users (15 of which will be using Terminal
Server). I appreciate this is about the cut off point for the Licensing
options (between Processor or Server Licensing). My worry is that I go for
the single processor option (and by extension a single processor server) and
it isn't able to cope. Anyone got any experience of similar scenarios. I
don't really want to go to a Dual Processor option due to cost. Also, I take
it it makes sense to pay the extra for a 2005 license (for future benefits)
even though existing database is only compatible with 2000 currently.25 users is tiny, how big is the Db and how many transactions...will it get
bigger, new users ?.....not knowing all the details, i would bet a one proc
would do ya on sql 2000
"AK" <AK@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9EC567CA-2EC2-448B-803E-04A11C256944@.microsoft.com...
> We are about to purchase a new Server which will act as a SQL Server and
> expand access to our existing MSDE database. Currently 5 users on a Lan
> but
> we will be going to approx. 25 users (15 of which will be using Terminal
> Server). I appreciate this is about the cut off point for the Licensing
> options (between Processor or Server Licensing). My worry is that I go for
> the single processor option (and by extension a single processor server)
> and
> it isn't able to cope. Anyone got any experience of similar scenarios. I
> don't really want to go to a Dual Processor option due to cost. Also, I
> take
> it it makes sense to pay the extra for a 2005 license (for future
> benefits)
> even though existing database is only compatible with 2000 currently.|||Db is currently about .5 Gb, not a huge number of transactions. Majority of
Users will be accessing for reporting purposes. Sounds like 1 proc should be
ok then
"David J. Cartwright" wrote:

> 25 users is tiny, how big is the Db and how many transactions...will it g
et
> bigger, new users ?.....not knowing all the details, i would bet a one pr
oc
> would do ya on sql 2000
> "AK" <AK@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:9EC567CA-2EC2-448B-803E-04A11C256944@.microsoft.com...
>
>

2005 or 2000?

We are about to purchase a new Server which will act as a SQL Server and
expand access to our existing MSDE database. Currently 5 users on a Lan but
we will be going to approx. 25 users (15 of which will be using Terminal
Server). I appreciate this is about the cut off point for the Licensing
options (between Processor or Server Licensing). My worry is that I go for
the single processor option (and by extension a single processor server) and
it isn't able to cope. Anyone got any experience of similar scenarios. I
don't really want to go to a Dual Processor option due to cost. Also, I take
it it makes sense to pay the extra for a 2005 license (for future benefits)
even though existing database is only compatible with 2000 currently.
25 users is tiny, how big is the Db and how many transactions...will it get
bigger, new users ?.....not knowing all the details, i would bet a one proc
would do ya on sql 2000
"AK" <AK@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9EC567CA-2EC2-448B-803E-04A11C256944@.microsoft.com...
> We are about to purchase a new Server which will act as a SQL Server and
> expand access to our existing MSDE database. Currently 5 users on a Lan
> but
> we will be going to approx. 25 users (15 of which will be using Terminal
> Server). I appreciate this is about the cut off point for the Licensing
> options (between Processor or Server Licensing). My worry is that I go for
> the single processor option (and by extension a single processor server)
> and
> it isn't able to cope. Anyone got any experience of similar scenarios. I
> don't really want to go to a Dual Processor option due to cost. Also, I
> take
> it it makes sense to pay the extra for a 2005 license (for future
> benefits)
> even though existing database is only compatible with 2000 currently.
|||Db is currently about .5 Gb, not a huge number of transactions. Majority of
Users will be accessing for reporting purposes. Sounds like 1 proc should be
ok then
"David J. Cartwright" wrote:

> 25 users is tiny, how big is the Db and how many transactions...will it get
> bigger, new users ?.....not knowing all the details, i would bet a one proc
> would do ya on sql 2000
> "AK" <AK@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:9EC567CA-2EC2-448B-803E-04A11C256944@.microsoft.com...
>
>

2005 or 2000?

We are about to purchase a new Server which will act as a SQL Server and
expand access to our existing MSDE database. Currently 5 users on a Lan but
we will be going to approx. 25 users (15 of which will be using Terminal
Server). I appreciate this is about the cut off point for the Licensing
options (between Processor or Server Licensing). My worry is that I go for
the single processor option (and by extension a single processor server) and
it isn't able to cope. Anyone got any experience of similar scenarios. I
don't really want to go to a Dual Processor option due to cost. Also, I take
it it makes sense to pay the extra for a 2005 license (for future benefits)
even though existing database is only compatible with 2000 currently.25 users is tiny, how big is the Db and how many transactions...will it get
bigger, new users ?.....not knowing all the details, i would bet a one proc
would do ya on sql 2000
"AK" <AK@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9EC567CA-2EC2-448B-803E-04A11C256944@.microsoft.com...
> We are about to purchase a new Server which will act as a SQL Server and
> expand access to our existing MSDE database. Currently 5 users on a Lan
> but
> we will be going to approx. 25 users (15 of which will be using Terminal
> Server). I appreciate this is about the cut off point for the Licensing
> options (between Processor or Server Licensing). My worry is that I go for
> the single processor option (and by extension a single processor server)
> and
> it isn't able to cope. Anyone got any experience of similar scenarios. I
> don't really want to go to a Dual Processor option due to cost. Also, I
> take
> it it makes sense to pay the extra for a 2005 license (for future
> benefits)
> even though existing database is only compatible with 2000 currently.|||Db is currently about .5 Gb, not a huge number of transactions. Majority of
Users will be accessing for reporting purposes. Sounds like 1 proc should be
ok then
"David J. Cartwright" wrote:
> 25 users is tiny, how big is the Db and how many transactions...will it get
> bigger, new users ?.....not knowing all the details, i would bet a one proc
> would do ya on sql 2000
> "AK" <AK@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:9EC567CA-2EC2-448B-803E-04A11C256944@.microsoft.com...
> > We are about to purchase a new Server which will act as a SQL Server and
> > expand access to our existing MSDE database. Currently 5 users on a Lan
> > but
> > we will be going to approx. 25 users (15 of which will be using Terminal
> > Server). I appreciate this is about the cut off point for the Licensing
> > options (between Processor or Server Licensing). My worry is that I go for
> > the single processor option (and by extension a single processor server)
> > and
> > it isn't able to cope. Anyone got any experience of similar scenarios. I
> > don't really want to go to a Dual Processor option due to cost. Also, I
> > take
> > it it makes sense to pay the extra for a 2005 license (for future
> > benefits)
> > even though existing database is only compatible with 2000 currently.
>
>

2005 Express - Concurrent Connections

Hi all !

Does someone know how many concurrent connections 2005 Express can
accommodate ? The limit on MSDE was 5 before performance drops considerably.

Thanks for your help.

SebastianThere is no workload governor as in MSDE, but Express can only use 1
CPU, 1GB RAM and the database size is limited to 4GB:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d...sseoverview.asp

Simon