I am a little puzzled now
Simple (or maybe not so simple) question
Is the Enterprise versions more "stable" or "usable" than the Standard
versions?
I got an email today stating this:
" (...) runs on the standard edition they may well run into problems down
the line with performance and usability"
Obviously Enterprise versions scales much better than standard versions and
the Enterprise versions has some features not supported in Standard versions
But consider a small server with max 2 cpu's and max 4Gb mem and max eg 50
users and only light load
Nothing special like data replication etc is used, you could use eg PostGRE
instead and you'll be fine
Any comments? - please
- Peter
Hi! I'm a .signature *virus*!
Copy me into your ~/.signature to help me spread!No difference regarding stability. As for usability, well, that can only mea
n that EE has features
that SE don't. If you don't need those features, then go for SE.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Peter Lykkegaard" <plykkegaard@.nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:%23Ka01e7OHHA.2232@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Hi All
> I am a little puzzled now
> Simple (or maybe not so simple) question
> Is the Enterprise versions more "stable" or "usable" than the Standard ver
sions?
> I got an email today stating this:
> " (...) runs on the standard edition they may well run into problems down
the line with
> performance and usability"
> Obviously Enterprise versions scales much better than standard versions an
d the Enterprise
> versions has some features not supported in Standard versions
> But consider a small server with max 2 cpu's and max 4Gb mem and max eg 50
users and only light
> load
> Nothing special like data replication etc is used, you could use eg PostGR
E instead and you'll be
> fine
> Any comments? - please
> - Peter
> --
> Hi! I'm a .signature *virus*!
> Copy me into your ~/.signature to help me spread!
>|||Hi,
for the reference see the feature list on the MS website:
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodin...e-features.mspx
HTH, jens K. Suessmeyer.
http://www.sqlserver2005.de
--|||Peter Lykkegaard wrote:
> Hi All
> I am a little puzzled now
> Simple (or maybe not so simple) question
> Is the Enterprise versions more "stable" or "usable" than the Standard
> versions?
> I got an email today stating this:
> " (...) runs on the standard edition they may well run into problems down
> the line with performance and usability"
> Obviously Enterprise versions scales much better than standard versions an
d
> the Enterprise versions has some features not supported in Standard versio
ns
> But consider a small server with max 2 cpu's and max 4Gb mem and max eg 50
> users and only light load
> Nothing special like data replication etc is used, you could use eg PostGR
E
> instead and you'll be fine
> Any comments? - please
> - Peter
>
I've never heard any claims that one is more/less stable than the other.
Standard is limited in the amount of memory it can use, thus *may* not
perform as well as Enterprise under the right conditions. Enterprise
also offers some tools and features that Standard doesn't, but certainly
nothing affecting stability.
Tracy McKibben
MCDBA
http://www.realsqlguy.com|||Jens wrote:
> for the reference see the feature list on the MS website:
Thanks
Online Restore and Fast Recovery could be of interest in some cases but only
as nice to have
- Peter
Hi! I'm a .signature *virus*!
Copy me into your ~/.signature to help me spread!|||Hello Tracy,
Standard is only limited to the memory supported by the OS. With 64 bit edit
ion
the max is 32TB. Thats not very limiting.
I really stuggle to find a reason to use Enterprise
Given cost of hardware, its probably cheaper to have 2 standard edition boxe
s
that you load balance than 1 enterprise edition. With this you can do mainte
nance
on one whilst the other is still up.
I just but an order in for a 4 way dual core server with 32Gb of ram and
almost 1Tb of storage for 12k, thats 3k per proc which is much less than
the difference between Ent and standard
Simon Sabin
SQL Server MVP
http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/simons
> Peter Lykkegaard wrote:
>
> I've never heard any claims that one is more/less stable than the
> other.
> Standard is limited in the amount of memory it can use, thus *may*
> not
> perform as well as Enterprise under the right conditions. Enterprise
> also offers some tools and features that Standard doesn't, but
> certainly nothing affecting stability.
>|||Simon Sabin wrote:
> Standard is only limited to the memory supported by the OS. With 64
> bit edition the max is 32TB. Thats not very limiting.
>
For 2005 Std there's no limit on memory - I can't recall if 2000 Std has a
limit?
> I really stuggle to find a reason to use Enterprise
Absolutely
> Given cost of hardware, its probably cheaper to have 2 standard
> edition boxes that you load balance than 1 enterprise edition. With
> this you can do maintenance on one whilst the other is still up.
>
2005 Std supports 2 node failover clustering
For 2000 you needed the Enterprise to do the clustering tango
Btw number of CPU's?
Is this number of processors or physical CPU's?
4 Xeon with HT gives you 8 processors in task manager
Thanks/Peter
Hi! I'm a .signature *virus*!
Copy me into your ~/.signature to help me spread!|||IMO, online index rebuilds is enough reason to go with Enterprise if
you're in a high-availability environment.
-Dave
Simon Sabin wrote:
> Hello Tracy,
> Standard is only limited to the memory supported by the OS. With 64 bit
> edition the max is 32TB. Thats not very limiting.
> I really stuggle to find a reason to use Enterprise
> Given cost of hardware, its probably cheaper to have 2 standard edition
> boxes that you load balance than 1 enterprise edition. With this you can
> do maintenance on one whilst the other is still up.
> I just but an order in for a 4 way dual core server with 32Gb of ram and
> almost 1Tb of storage for 12k, thats 3k per proc which is much less
> than the difference between Ent and standard
>
> Simon Sabin
> SQL Server MVP
> http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/simons
>
>|||Dave Markle" wrote:
> IMO, online index rebuilds is enough reason to go with Enterprise if
> you're in a high-availability environment.
>
Online indexing also has some negative sideeffects
http://www.databasejournal.com/feat...cle.php/3447711
- Peter
Hi! I'm a .signature *virus*!
Copy me into your ~/.signature to help me spread!|||> Btw number of CPU's?
> Is this number of processors or physical CPU's?
It is number pf sockets. So, you can have (for instance) 4 dual core hyperth
readed, which would give
you 16 logical processors but still only pay for 4 "processors".
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Peter Lykkegaard" <plykkegaard@.nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:eh4ja9BPHHA.4820@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Simon Sabin wrote:
> For 2005 Std there's no limit on memory - I can't recall if 2000 Std has a
limit?
>
> Absolutely
>
> 2005 Std supports 2 node failover clustering
> For 2000 you needed the Enterprise to do the clustering tango
> Btw number of CPU's?
> Is this number of processors or physical CPU's?
> 4 Xeon with HT gives you 8 processors in task manager
> Thanks/Peter
> --
> Hi! I'm a .signature *virus*!
> Copy me into your ~/.signature to help me spread!
>sql
