Results 1 to 18 of 18
  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    668

    MSSQL Standard Edition vs Small Business Edition

    Ok here is the question i have for MS people or people who deal with MS licensing

    What does it mean by Unauthenticated user.
    This is from SBS website
    http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserv...s/default.mspx

    Q. Can I use the SQL Server component for Web-based business applications?

    A. Yes, new with Windows Small Business Server 2003 is the ability for you to use the SQL Server component for an unlimited number of un-authenticated users. As long as you are un-authenticated, you also do not need a Windows Small Business Server 2003 CAL.


    Does that mean i can buy a MS SBS , which comes with MS SQL and exchange and use it in webhosting environment as well and can offer SQL??

    OR The sql version which comes with 5 Client license can i use that?
    OR do i need to get 1 CPU license for that.

    All confused with stupid MS licensing policies
    Server4Sale
    Dirt CHEAP Servers coming soon

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,834

    Re: MSSQL Standard Edition vs Small Business Edition

    Originally posted by server4sale


    All confused with stupid MS licensing policies
    It is really very simple. If you are providing shared hosting you MUST have the SQL Server 2000 processor license. No "ifs", "ands" or "buts".

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    668
    So we cant even use Standard MSSQL which comes with 5 client license?
    Server4Sale
    Dirt CHEAP Servers coming soon

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,834
    Sure, you could use the 5 CAL license. But if you were ever audited by Microsoft they would whip you with a wet noodle.

  5. #5
    Don't think Bill Gates wouldn't do it... I wouldn't ever recommend Small Business Server for web hosting.
    e-Tech-Solution.com: Shared Windows 2003 Hosting and Cross-platform Web Development

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    6,946
    SBS can only take a maximum of 75 Cals, also it is better to get a Processor license for hosting. Not much 75 Cals can do

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    668
    Great thank you all for your comments and feedback. We will probably be purchasing CPU license. Now i understand why SQL is so expensive
    Server4Sale
    Dirt CHEAP Servers coming soon

  8. #8
    So for one site with unathenticated users, this would provide the full SQLServer functionality? Do any dedicated server providers offer SBE?

  9. #9
    Originally posted by server4sale
    Great thank you all for your comments and feedback. We will probably be purchasing CPU license. Now i understand why SQL is so expensive
    I take it you've never had to price out Oracle

    Justin

  10. #10
    Don't use SBS for web hosting.

    Running MS SQL on the same box as IIS is a bad idea.
    e-Tech-Solution.com: Shared Windows 2003 Hosting and Cross-platform Web Development

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,834
    Originally posted by TechSolution
    Running MS SQL on the same box as IIS is a bad idea.
    Don't stop there MAN! I'm on the edge of my seat! You can continue by starting with "Because...................."

  12. #12
    I didn't go "..."

    ...because of the resource usage of both servers, especially MS SQL.

    I'm intending this as advice to everyone, not just server4sale, lower-end system don't react well to MS SQL. You're better off with two low-end web servers (Celeron, even) with a beefy Dual Opteron (or Xeon, if you must) MS SQL server backend, than one beefy (to use the term again) server running both IIS/MS SQL.
    e-Tech-Solution.com: Shared Windows 2003 Hosting and Cross-platform Web Development

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,834
    Originally posted by TechSolution
    lower-end system don't react well to MS SQL. You're better off with two low-end web servers (Celeron, even) .........
    Who was asking about celeron JUNK? You can certainly host IIS and SQL Server 2000 nicely on the same machine, provided your machine is a "machine".

    I agree with you, if you are going to host an enterprise level DBMS such as SQL Server 2000 on a $59 celeron you need your head examined.

    Those that prefer to use real *server* grade hardware host IIS and SQL Server 2000 all freekin' day long.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    668
    PSFserver what u call a person who wants to run Windows 2003 STD edition with a control panel on a celeron 800Mhz box with 256MB ram and keep insisting that he wants it on celeron .....
    Server4Sale
    Dirt CHEAP Servers coming soon

  15. #15
    A nutcase...

    No, it's just an example, you could use P4s, anything... My point is just it's better to keep your database off your web servers.
    e-Tech-Solution.com: Shared Windows 2003 Hosting and Cross-platform Web Development

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    53
    why should we not host IIS and MS SQL 2000 on the same box ?

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,834
    I really agree with TechSolution, at the end of the day, the best practice is for SQL Server is to run it on a dedicated box cross connected to your webserver.

    Here is my recommendation of why you should do this......I feel that you should ALWAYS run SQL on a Raid Array with redudency (1, 5, 10). I don't think a daily back up regiment is good enough in the case of a hard disk failure. And since RAID is preferred, it requires special tuning for random read and random write performance, along with other I/O tricks which are not really that good (or needed) for the webserver.

    I think I have found the middle ground by running SQL Server and IIS on RAID 10. Gives excellent performance plus redudency.

    But, most people run SQL Server and IIS together all the time. 99% of the Linux hosts have run Apache and MySql on the same box with no problems.

  18. #18
    You really don't have to run a web server with high-end raid (like 1+0, which I would recommend for SQL for speed and security)... If it's the only box with the data, and you have no fail-over, then you might want a basic raid for the web server.
    e-Tech-Solution.com: Shared Windows 2003 Hosting and Cross-platform Web Development

  19. Newsletters

    Subscribe Now & Get The WHT Quick Start Guide!

Related Posts from theWHIR.com

Posting Permissions

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