Enterprise vs. Standard

Can anyone please tell me the differences between the enterprise and standard
versions. Spoke with Microsoft sales who suggested I post out here.
Specifically, I want to know about the difference in the two with the 256
table limit in views. Thanks.Hi,
Verify the below link:-
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/evaluation/features/choosing.asp
Thanks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
"GregO" <GregO@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C8940D30-ACCC-48BB-AAB9-E04C0612A8B4@.microsoft.com...
> Can anyone please tell me the differences between the enterprise and
> standard
> versions. Spoke with Microsoft sales who suggested I post out here.
> Specifically, I want to know about the difference in the two with the 256
> table limit in views. Thanks.|||Don't think that limit changes with the edition. Standard vs. Enterprise is
more for things like clustering support, log shipping and the ability to use
more resources such as memory and CPUs
--
Kevin Hill
President
3NF Consulting
www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
www.DallasDBAs.com/forum - new DB forum for Dallas/Ft. Worth area DBAs.
www.experts-exchange.com - experts compete for points to answer your
questions
"GregO" <GregO@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C8940D30-ACCC-48BB-AAB9-E04C0612A8B4@.microsoft.com...
> Can anyone please tell me the differences between the enterprise and
> standard
> versions. Spoke with Microsoft sales who suggested I post out here.
> Specifically, I want to know about the difference in the two with the 256
> table limit in views. Thanks.|||Enterprise Edition has the same limit when it comes to maximum number of
tables references in a view.
Gert-Jan
GregO wrote:
> Can anyone please tell me the differences between the enterprise and standard
> versions. Spoke with Microsoft sales who suggested I post out here.
> Specifically, I want to know about the difference in the two with the 256
> table limit in views. Thanks.|||Hi Grego
Just check this
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/architec/8_ar_ts_1cdv.asp
--
best Regards,
Chandra
http://chanduas.blogspot.com/
http://groups.msn.com/SQLResource/
---
"GregO" wrote:
> Can anyone please tell me the differences between the enterprise and standard
> versions. Spoke with Microsoft sales who suggested I post out here.
> Specifically, I want to know about the difference in the two with the 256
> table limit in views. Thanks.sql

Enterprise vs. Standard

Can anyone please tell me the differences between the enterprise and standard
versions. Spoke with Microsoft sales who suggested I post out here.
Specifically, I want to know about the difference in the two with the 256
table limit in views. Thanks.
Hi,
Verify the below link:-
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/evaluat...s/choosing.asp
Thanks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
"GregO" <GregO@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C8940D30-ACCC-48BB-AAB9-E04C0612A8B4@.microsoft.com...
> Can anyone please tell me the differences between the enterprise and
> standard
> versions. Spoke with Microsoft sales who suggested I post out here.
> Specifically, I want to know about the difference in the two with the 256
> table limit in views. Thanks.
|||Don't think that limit changes with the edition. Standard vs. Enterprise is
more for things like clustering support, log shipping and the ability to use
more resources such as memory and CPUs
Kevin Hill
President
3NF Consulting
www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
www.DallasDBAs.com/forum - new DB forum for Dallas/Ft. Worth area DBAs.
www.experts-exchange.com - experts compete for points to answer your
questions
"GregO" <GregO@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C8940D30-ACCC-48BB-AAB9-E04C0612A8B4@.microsoft.com...
> Can anyone please tell me the differences between the enterprise and
> standard
> versions. Spoke with Microsoft sales who suggested I post out here.
> Specifically, I want to know about the difference in the two with the 256
> table limit in views. Thanks.
|||Enterprise Edition has the same limit when it comes to maximum number of
tables references in a view.
Gert-Jan
GregO wrote:
> Can anyone please tell me the differences between the enterprise and standard
> versions. Spoke with Microsoft sales who suggested I post out here.
> Specifically, I want to know about the difference in the two with the 256
> table limit in views. Thanks.
|||Hi Grego
Just check this:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...ar_ts_1cdv.asp
best Regards,
Chandra
http://chanduas.blogspot.com/
http://groups.msn.com/SQLResource/
"GregO" wrote:

> Can anyone please tell me the differences between the enterprise and standard
> versions. Spoke with Microsoft sales who suggested I post out here.
> Specifically, I want to know about the difference in the two with the 256
> table limit in views. Thanks.

Enterprise vs. Standard

Can anyone please tell me the differences between the enterprise and standar
d
versions. Spoke with Microsoft sales who suggested I post out here.
Specifically, I want to know about the difference in the two with the 256
table limit in views. Thanks.Hi,
Verify the below link:-
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/evalua...es/choosing.asp
Thanks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
"GregO" <GregO@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C8940D30-ACCC-48BB-AAB9-E04C0612A8B4@.microsoft.com...
> Can anyone please tell me the differences between the enterprise and
> standard
> versions. Spoke with Microsoft sales who suggested I post out here.
> Specifically, I want to know about the difference in the two with the 256
> table limit in views. Thanks.|||Don't think that limit changes with the edition. Standard vs. Enterprise is
more for things like clustering support, log shipping and the ability to use
more resources such as memory and CPUs
Kevin Hill
President
3NF Consulting
www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
www.DallasDBAs.com/forum - new DB forum for Dallas/Ft. Worth area DBAs.
www.experts-exchange.com - experts compete for points to answer your
questions
"GregO" <GregO@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C8940D30-ACCC-48BB-AAB9-E04C0612A8B4@.microsoft.com...
> Can anyone please tell me the differences between the enterprise and
> standard
> versions. Spoke with Microsoft sales who suggested I post out here.
> Specifically, I want to know about the difference in the two with the 256
> table limit in views. Thanks.|||Enterprise Edition has the same limit when it comes to maximum number of
tables references in a view.
Gert-Jan
GregO wrote:
> Can anyone please tell me the differences between the enterprise and stand
ard
> versions. Spoke with Microsoft sales who suggested I post out here.
> Specifically, I want to know about the difference in the two with the 256
> table limit in views. Thanks.|||Hi Grego
Just check this:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d...br />
1cdv.asp
best Regards,
Chandra
http://chanduas.blogspot.com/
http://groups.msn.com/SQLResource/
---
"GregO" wrote:

> Can anyone please tell me the differences between the enterprise and stand
ard
> versions. Spoke with Microsoft sales who suggested I post out here.
> Specifically, I want to know about the difference in the two with the 256
> table limit in views. Thanks.

Enterprise Vs standard edition

Can anyone tell me the difference between Enterprise
Edition and Standard Edition of SQL Server?
Thanks.Have you looked at this topic in Books Online?
Features Supported by the Editions of SQL Server 2000
--
Brian Moran
Principal Mentor
Solid Quality Learning
SQL Server MVP
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com
"Billy" <billya@.yahoo.com.uk> wrote in message
news:07a201c38ecd$b26e7890$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> Can anyone tell me the difference between Enterprise
> Edition and Standard Edition of SQL Server?
> Thanks.|||These links should help
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/evaluation/features/choosing.asp
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techinfo/planning/SQLResKChooseEd.asp
HTH
--
Ray Higdon MCSE, MCDBA, CCNA
--
"Billy" <billya@.yahoo.com.uk> wrote in message
news:07a201c38ecd$b26e7890$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> Can anyone tell me the difference between Enterprise
> Edition and Standard Edition of SQL Server?
> Thanks.

Enterprise vs Standard edition

Hello,
I installed sql server 2000 Enterprise edition on one of
my servers. It is currently being used. I found out today
that I was supposed to use Standard edition due to
licensing.
Is there any way to back down to Standard edition without
uninstalling and reinstalling?
Thanks
SteveHi,
No , you cant. Only way is to remove Enterprise edition and install Standard
edition. But the other way is possible.
THanks
Hari
MCDBA
"Steve" <ee07@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cfcb01c48aa7$f19e4730$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> I installed sql server 2000 Enterprise edition on one of
> my servers. It is currently being used. I found out today
> that I was supposed to use Standard edition due to
> licensing.
> Is there any way to back down to Standard edition without
> uninstalling and reinstalling?
> Thanks
> Steve|||Nope. You can upgrade from Standard to Enterprise, but you can't downgrade.
Uninstall and reinstall is the only way unfortunately. You can backup your
databases from Enterprise and restore them on Standard though.
--
Jacco Schalkwijk
SQL Server MVP
"Steve" <ee07@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cfcb01c48aa7$f19e4730$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> I installed sql server 2000 Enterprise edition on one of
> my servers. It is currently being used. I found out today
> that I was supposed to use Standard edition due to
> licensing.
> Is there any way to back down to Standard edition without
> uninstalling and reinstalling?
> Thanks
> Steve

Enterprise vs Standard edition

Hello,
I installed sql server 2000 Enterprise edition on one of
my servers. It is currently being used. I found out today
that I was supposed to use Standard edition due to
licensing.
Is there any way to back down to Standard edition without
uninstalling and reinstalling?
Thanks
Steve
Hi,
No , you cant. Only way is to remove Enterprise edition and install Standard
edition. But the other way is possible.
THanks
Hari
MCDBA
"Steve" <ee07@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cfcb01c48aa7$f19e4730$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> I installed sql server 2000 Enterprise edition on one of
> my servers. It is currently being used. I found out today
> that I was supposed to use Standard edition due to
> licensing.
> Is there any way to back down to Standard edition without
> uninstalling and reinstalling?
> Thanks
> Steve
|||Nope. You can upgrade from Standard to Enterprise, but you can't downgrade.
Uninstall and reinstall is the only way unfortunately. You can backup your
databases from Enterprise and restore them on Standard though.
Jacco Schalkwijk
SQL Server MVP
"Steve" <ee07@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cfcb01c48aa7$f19e4730$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> I installed sql server 2000 Enterprise edition on one of
> my servers. It is currently being used. I found out today
> that I was supposed to use Standard edition due to
> licensing.
> Is there any way to back down to Standard edition without
> uninstalling and reinstalling?
> Thanks
> Steve
sql

Enterprise vs Standard edition

Hello,
I installed sql server 2000 Enterprise edition on one of
my servers. It is currently being used. I found out today
that I was supposed to use Standard edition due to
licensing.
Is there any way to back down to Standard edition without
uninstalling and reinstalling?
Thanks
SteveHi,
No , you cant. Only way is to remove Enterprise edition and install Standard
edition. But the other way is possible.
THanks
Hari
MCDBA
"Steve" <ee07@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cfcb01c48aa7$f19e4730$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> I installed sql server 2000 Enterprise edition on one of
> my servers. It is currently being used. I found out today
> that I was supposed to use Standard edition due to
> licensing.
> Is there any way to back down to Standard edition without
> uninstalling and reinstalling?
> Thanks
> Steve|||Nope. You can upgrade from Standard to Enterprise, but you can't downgrade.
Uninstall and reinstall is the only way unfortunately. You can backup your
databases from Enterprise and restore them on Standard though.
Jacco Schalkwijk
SQL Server MVP
"Steve" <ee07@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cfcb01c48aa7$f19e4730$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> I installed sql server 2000 Enterprise edition on one of
> my servers. It is currently being used. I found out today
> that I was supposed to use Standard edition due to
> licensing.
> Is there any way to back down to Standard edition without
> uninstalling and reinstalling?
> Thanks
> Steve

Enterprise vs Standard

After performing an Audit we discovered that my
predicessor inadvertantly installed a SQL 2000 Enterprise
Edition instead of Standard.
This weekend I will be upgrading to a new Server and wish
to use this window to convert to the proper version of
SQL 2000.
It is my understanding that you can upgrade Standard to
Enterprise but cannot perform the reverse.
My question is, are the System databases the same between
versions.
I realize that master.spt_server_info.attribute_id Value
2 would need to be changed (DBMS_VER) as well as
attribute 500 (SYS_SPROC_VERSION)
Other than that does any body know why I cannot do the
following.
1. Backup all Databases on Original Server.
2. Modify the DBMS_VER. and SYS_SPROC_VERSION.
2. Stop All SQL Services on Original Services.
3. Copy All mdf and ldf to a network storage local.
4. Shut down the Original Server.
5. Remove the Original Server from Active Directory.
6. Boot up the New Server with the original IP Address
and Computer name.
7. Install SQL 2000 Standard.
8. Install SP 3a.
9. Stop All SQL Services.
10. Copy all mdfs and ldfs from the network storage to
the proper folder on the new Server.
11. Restart the SQL services.
Does anyone see any major problems with this?
I know I could just attach the the Database but then I
would have to re-write all jobs and create all users in
the master DB providing the SID and Password. SID are not
a problem, but some of the Passwords may be difficult to
come by. (Damn my predisesor!).Your scheme should work, from an architectural standpoint. And it most
probably will. But it is not supported, so give yourself time to verify that
everything seems OK after the switch. You need to make sure that you have
the same directory structure for the SQL Server database files.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
"A Dubey" <adubey@.winstead.com> wrote in message
news:de1d01c40ae6$121701b0$a101280a@.phx.gbl...
> After performing an Audit we discovered that my
> predicessor inadvertantly installed a SQL 2000 Enterprise
> Edition instead of Standard.
> This weekend I will be upgrading to a new Server and wish
> to use this window to convert to the proper version of
> SQL 2000.
> It is my understanding that you can upgrade Standard to
> Enterprise but cannot perform the reverse.
> My question is, are the System databases the same between
> versions.
> I realize that master.spt_server_info.attribute_id Value
> 2 would need to be changed (DBMS_VER) as well as
> attribute 500 (SYS_SPROC_VERSION)
> Other than that does any body know why I cannot do the
> following.
> 1. Backup all Databases on Original Server.
> 2. Modify the DBMS_VER. and SYS_SPROC_VERSION.
> 2. Stop All SQL Services on Original Services.
> 3. Copy All mdf and ldf to a network storage local.
> 4. Shut down the Original Server.
> 5. Remove the Original Server from Active Directory.
> 6. Boot up the New Server with the original IP Address
> and Computer name.
> 7. Install SQL 2000 Standard.
> 8. Install SP 3a.
> 9. Stop All SQL Services.
> 10. Copy all mdfs and ldfs from the network storage to
> the proper folder on the new Server.
> 11. Restart the SQL services.
> Does anyone see any major problems with this?
> I know I could just attach the the Database but then I
> would have to re-write all jobs and create all users in
> the master DB providing the SID and Password. SID are not
> a problem, but some of the Passwords may be difficult to
> come by. (Damn my predisesor!).|||Thanks,
I felt like it would, Just wanted to get a little feed
back incase I was missing something.
AD
>--Original Message--
>Your scheme should work, from an architectural
standpoint. And it most
>probably will. But it is not supported, so give yourself
time to verify that
>everything seems OK after the switch. You need to make
sure that you have
>the same directory structure for the SQL Server database
files.
>--
>Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
>http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
>
>"A Dubey" <adubey@.winstead.com> wrote in message
>news:de1d01c40ae6$121701b0$a101280a@.phx.gbl...
Enterprise
wish
between
Value
not
to
>
>.
>

Enterprise versus Standard edition (2000 or 2005)

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 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 mean 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 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!
>|||Hi,
for the reference see the feature list on the MS website:
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/features/compare-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 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
>
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!

Enterprise versus Standard edition (2000 or 2005)

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 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
>
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
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

> 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.
>
|||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
>
>
|||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.
>
This is true with SQL 2005, but not with SQL 2000.
Tracy McKibben
MCDBA
http://www.realsqlguy.com

Enterprise versus Standard edition (2000 or 2005)

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 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

Enterprise to Standard downgrade

We have a SQL 2000 server running Enterprise Edition. We also have a separate machine running SQL 2000, Standard edition. We then detached the database from the Enterprise server, copied the MDF and LDF files to the Standard server and reattached. Currently, a program running on the Standard Edition server is returning an error message when trying to access "systables". The questions are as follows:
1) is this error a result of the copy process?
2) is this a recoverable error, and if so, how?
3) are there any other problems and side-effects of which we need to be aware?I have moved databases between Standard and Enterprise several times before, and not had this issue, so it can be done. Without any other information, I can only guess as to why this is happening, but here is my guess:

The user-account being used by the program that is throwing the error probably has a different default database setting than on the Enterprise version. In other words, UserX on the Enterprise server probably has a default database pointing to the application database, and on the Standard edition has a default database of something like Master.

This would cause a problem in implicit database references. If the program issues a command like SELECT * FROM systables, thinking it is going to automatically be pointing to the application database, but is actually pointing to something else, it will not be able to find systables. The proper syntax for the query would explicitly state the table name SELECT * FROM [dbname].dbo.systables, in which case the default database setting of the user would not affect the code.|||The default database for the user is the same on both servers. Any other ideas? Is there any other information I could give that might be of assistance?

Originally posted by bpdWork
I have moved databases between Standard and Enterprise several times before, and not had this issue, so it can be done. Without any other information, I can only guess as to why this is happening, but here is my guess:

The user-account being used by the program that is throwing the error probably has a different default database setting than on the Enterprise version. In other words, UserX on the Enterprise server probably has a default database pointing to the application database, and on the Standard edition has a default database of something like Master.

This would cause a problem in implicit database references. If the program issues a command like SELECT * FROM systables, thinking it is going to automatically be pointing to the application database, but is actually pointing to something else, it will not be able to find systables. The proper syntax for the query would explicitly state the table name SELECT * FROM [dbname].dbo.systables, in which case the default database setting of the user would not affect the code.|||1) Are you sure the database you moved has the table systables, and that it is not in a different database?

2) Does the user account being used by the application have SELECT (etc) permissions for the table?

The exact error message might be helpful.|||check the service pack level|||We've found the issue. Basically, an error was made during the installation of the software. To everyone, thanks for the help.

enterprise to standard

dear all,

if one has purchased enterprise edition of sql server, could he install the standard version instead of the enterprise one without violating software license?

regards

My suggestion would be to contact the vendor that you purchased the licenese through and check with them.

Thanks,
Sam Lester (MSFT)

enterprise to standard

dear all,

if one has purchased enterprise edition of sql server, could he install the standard version instead of the enterprise one without violating software license?

regards

My suggestion would be to contact the vendor that you purchased the licenese through and check with them.

Thanks,
Sam Lester (MSFT)

Enterprise SQL Projects (1000+ Stored Procedures)

Enterprise SQL Projects
--------
When Design is replaced with an Architectural Plan

The following post is intended as a starting point of some main concepts to consider when dealing with ent. sql projects. While it is not a direct question of any kind, it would interest people that are/or was involved in ent. projects and therefore have been troubled with similar problems.

Here is a quick overview of a couple main concepts when you have to deal with a Ent. Projects with 1000+ stored procedures.

DOCUMENTATION:
It is an absolute must to include 100% explanatory code on top of the sps.

FUNCTIONS:
Use functions to the maximum extent to reduce overal stored procedure complexity
a rule of thumb is to have 1 to 10, functions to sps ratio or simmilar.

TRIGGERS:
A lot to say about them that cannot be covered in this context

NAMING CONVENSION:
Your naming convension should be 100% pre-thought and designed, no mistakes allowed in this context as it will cause all stored procedures to be extremely difficult/impossible to browse.

a quick template could look as this:

sp
module name
underscore(_)
action (lower case)
noun (proper case)

For example:
spOrders_putOrderDetail
spMaintainUsers_deactivateUser
spReports_getZeroInventory

(quoted by: tmorton)

my addition to this would be something like:
sp< as a prefix is surtently an overkill when dealing with 1000+ sps and is not needed.

however a lot more complex naming strategies can be used, that will cause the project to be a lot more easy to maintain.Just a note on your last comment - I would also like to submit that I have thought for several years now that prefacing stored procedure names with "sp" and / or table names with "tbl" is completely unnecessary. Back in "the day" this might have been necessary but I don't think I've seen a compelling enough reason in years to continue this practice.

Of course, this is just my opinion.|||Russem:

Personally, it's all about readability and how the programmer feels which coding paradigm is easier for them to read. I personally love the Hungarian naming convention. For example, once you get into huge projects, i.e. > 1M lines of code, it gets more difficult to read the code, so by utilizing these prefixes, it sure helps the eyes (and brain)!|||::Just a note on your last comment - I would also like to submit that I have thought for
::several years now that prefacing stored procedure names with "sp" and / or table names
::with "tbl" is completely unnecessary. Back in "the day" this might have been necessary but
::I don't think I've seen a compelling enough reason in years to continue this practice.

Naturally, though, this "compelling reason" some people seem to see has NOT included going to the documentation.

There you would find out that the official documentation says that whatever you name a stored procedure, you do NOT start it with "sp_".

Because contrary to what people that have not read the documentation do think, this means "System Procedure" (not Stored Procedure).

And it DOES make a difference. Let me quote:

::It is strongly recommended that you do not create any stored procedures using sp_ as a
::prefix. SQL Server always looks for a stored procedure beginning with sp_ in this order:
::
::The stored procedure in the master database.
::
::The stored procedure based on any qualifiers provided (database name or owner).
::
::The stored procedure using dbo as the owner, if one is not specified.
::
::Therefore, although the user-created stored procedure prefixed with sp_ may exist in the
::current database, the master database is always checked first, even if the stored
::procedure is qualified with the database name.
::
::Important If any user-created stored procedure has the same name as a system stored
::procedure, the user-created stored procedure will never be executed.

Prefx if you want, but people following this should have the dignitiy to read the documentation.

Funnily, a lot of "sql gurus" in companies just prefix all "stored procedures" with "sp_" as this is "how ms does it, too".|||I'll prefix variables, sure. But I won't do it with stored procedures (and a standard prefix for all of them) and especially not with tables. I definitely agree with adding a prefix to variable names, though :)

Enterprise SQL move to Standard

Is it possible to follow the steps of moving ALL db's from an Enterprise SQL
Server to a Standard SQL Server?
We would like to just stop the SQL services and move the DB's across, rename
the server to match the old server and start the new SQL server.
Will this work or will it break since we are going from Enterprise to
Standard?
Paul Bergson
See if this helps:
HOW TO: Move Databases Between Computers That Are Running SQL Server
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;314546
AMB
"Paul Bergson" wrote:

> Is it possible to follow the steps of moving ALL db's from an Enterprise SQL
> Server to a Standard SQL Server?
> We would like to just stop the SQL services and move the DB's across, rename
> the server to match the old server and start the new SQL server.
> Will this work or will it break since we are going from Enterprise to
> Standard?
> --
> Paul Bergson
>
>
|||I have seen this. I want to know if I can move between Enterprise and
standard.
The bad thing about these newgroups is once someone answers in a thread a
lot of people no longer see them. So I will probably have to repost.
Paul Bergson MCT, MCSE, MCSA, CNE, CNA, CCA
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Alejandro Mesa" <AlejandroMesa@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:F21A54AA-F591-4F4D-894B-806F1C9061C9@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> See if this helps:
> HOW TO: Move Databases Between Computers That Are Running SQL Server
> http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;314546
>
> AMB
>
> "Paul Bergson" wrote:
SQL[vbcol=seagreen]
rename[vbcol=seagreen]
|||I think there is not a problem moving dbs between editions. At least there is
not a single comment in both KB articles, the one I posted and this one.
Moving SQL Server databases to a new location with Detach/Attach
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/224071/EN-US/
I have done it before (moving user dbs) between servers with diff edition,
and have not got any problem till now.
AMB
"Paul Bergson" wrote:

> I have seen this. I want to know if I can move between Enterprise and
> standard.
> The bad thing about these newgroups is once someone answers in a thread a
> lot of people no longer see them. So I will probably have to repost.
> --
> Paul Bergson MCT, MCSE, MCSA, CNE, CNA, CCA
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
>
> "Alejandro Mesa" <AlejandroMesa@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:F21A54AA-F591-4F4D-894B-806F1C9061C9@.microsoft.com...
> SQL
> rename
>
>
|||Shouldn't be a problem, since the real difference in the editions is things
like clustering support, log shipping, cpu and memory specs, etc. Its not
like DBCC Indexdefrag is going to be different in one edition vs. the
other...
Of course...you should be testing this in your lab anyway to confirm :-)
Kevin Hill
President
3NF Consulting
www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
www.DallasDBAs.com/forum - new DB forum for Dallas/Ft. Worth area DBAs.
www.experts-exchange.com - experts compete for points to answer your
questions
"Paul Bergson" <pbergson_nospam@.allete.com> wrote in message
news:ua7SFT8VFHA.3176@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Is it possible to follow the steps of moving ALL db's from an Enterprise
> SQL
> Server to a Standard SQL Server?
> We would like to just stop the SQL services and move the DB's across,
> rename
> the server to match the old server and start the new SQL server.
> Will this work or will it break since we are going from Enterprise to
> Standard?
> --
> Paul Bergson
>
|||Ok
Thanks
Paul Bergson
"Kevin3NF" <KHill@.NopeIDontNeedNoSPAM3NF-inc.com> wrote in message
news:#4y4ru8VFHA.1384@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Shouldn't be a problem, since the real difference in the editions is
things
> like clustering support, log shipping, cpu and memory specs, etc. Its not
> like DBCC Indexdefrag is going to be different in one edition vs. the
> other...
> Of course...you should be testing this in your lab anyway to confirm :-)
> --
> Kevin Hill
> President
> 3NF Consulting
> www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
> www.DallasDBAs.com/forum - new DB forum for Dallas/Ft. Worth area DBAs.
> www.experts-exchange.com - experts compete for points to answer your
> questions
>
> "Paul Bergson" <pbergson_nospam@.allete.com> wrote in message
> news:ua7SFT8VFHA.3176@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>
|||Ok
Thanks
Paul Bergson
"Alejandro Mesa" <AlejandroMesa@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:09828E93-517B-47FE-8D3E-FE4017A12C1C@.microsoft.com...
> I think there is not a problem moving dbs between editions. At least there
is[vbcol=seagreen]
> not a single comment in both KB articles, the one I posted and this one.
> Moving SQL Server databases to a new location with Detach/Attach
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/224071/EN-US/
> I have done it before (moving user dbs) between servers with diff edition,
> and have not got any problem till now.
>
> AMB
> "Paul Bergson" wrote:
a[vbcol=seagreen]
rights.[vbcol=seagreen]
message[vbcol=seagreen]
Enterprise[vbcol=seagreen]
across,[vbcol=seagreen]
to[vbcol=seagreen]
sql

Enterprise SQL move to Standard

Is it possible to follow the steps of moving ALL db's from an Enterprise SQL
Server to a Standard SQL Server?
We would like to just stop the SQL services and move the DB's across, rename
the server to match the old server and start the new SQL server.
Will this work or will it break since we are going from Enterprise to
Standard?
Paul BergsonSee if this helps:
HOW TO: Move Databases Between Computers That Are Running SQL Server
http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...kb;en-us;314546
AMB
"Paul Bergson" wrote:

> Is it possible to follow the steps of moving ALL db's from an Enterprise S
QL
> Server to a Standard SQL Server?
> We would like to just stop the SQL services and move the DB's across, rena
me
> the server to match the old server and start the new SQL server.
> Will this work or will it break since we are going from Enterprise to
> Standard?
> --
> Paul Bergson
>
>|||I have seen this. I want to know if I can move between Enterprise and
standard.
The bad thing about these newgroups is once someone answers in a thread a
lot of people no longer see them. So I will probably have to repost.
Paul Bergson MCT, MCSE, MCSA, CNE, CNA, CCA
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Alejandro Mesa" <AlejandroMesa@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:F21A54AA-F591-4F4D-894B-806F1C9061C9@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> See if this helps:
> HOW TO: Move Databases Between Computers That Are Running SQL Server
> http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...kb;en-us;314546
>
> AMB
>
> "Paul Bergson" wrote:
>
SQL[vbcol=seagreen]
rename[vbcol=seagreen]|||I think there is not a problem moving dbs between editions. At least there i
s
not a single comment in both KB articles, the one I posted and this one.
Moving SQL Server databases to a new location with Detach/Attach
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/224071/EN-US/
I have done it before (moving user dbs) between servers with diff edition,
and have not got any problem till now.
AMB
"Paul Bergson" wrote:

> I have seen this. I want to know if I can move between Enterprise and
> standard.
> The bad thing about these newgroups is once someone answers in a thread a
> lot of people no longer see them. So I will probably have to repost.
> --
> Paul Bergson MCT, MCSE, MCSA, CNE, CNA, CCA
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights
.
>
> "Alejandro Mesa" <AlejandroMesa@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in messag
e
> news:F21A54AA-F591-4F4D-894B-806F1C9061C9@.microsoft.com...
> SQL
> rename
>
>|||Shouldn't be a problem, since the real difference in the editions is things
like clustering support, log shipping, cpu and memory specs, etc. Its not
like DBCC Indexdefrag is going to be different in one edition vs. the
other...
Of course...you should be testing this in your lab anyway to confirm :-)
Kevin Hill
President
3NF Consulting
www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
www.DallasDBAs.com/forum - new DB forum for Dallas/Ft. Worth area DBAs.
www.experts-exchange.com - experts compete for points to answer your
questions
"Paul Bergson" <pbergson_nospam@.allete.com> wrote in message
news:ua7SFT8VFHA.3176@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Is it possible to follow the steps of moving ALL db's from an Enterprise
> SQL
> Server to a Standard SQL Server?
> We would like to just stop the SQL services and move the DB's across,
> rename
> the server to match the old server and start the new SQL server.
> Will this work or will it break since we are going from Enterprise to
> Standard?
> --
> Paul Bergson
>|||Ok
Thanks
Paul Bergson
"Kevin3NF" <KHill@.NopeIDontNeedNoSPAM3NF-inc.com> wrote in message
news:#4y4ru8VFHA.1384@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Shouldn't be a problem, since the real difference in the editions is
things
> like clustering support, log shipping, cpu and memory specs, etc. Its not
> like DBCC Indexdefrag is going to be different in one edition vs. the
> other...
> Of course...you should be testing this in your lab anyway to confirm :-)
> --
> Kevin Hill
> President
> 3NF Consulting
> www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
> www.DallasDBAs.com/forum - new DB forum for Dallas/Ft. Worth area DBAs.
> www.experts-exchange.com - experts compete for points to answer your
> questions
>
> "Paul Bergson" <pbergson_nospam@.allete.com> wrote in message
> news:ua7SFT8VFHA.3176@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>|||Ok
Thanks
Paul Bergson
"Alejandro Mesa" <AlejandroMesa@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:09828E93-517B-47FE-8D3E-FE4017A12C1C@.microsoft.com...
> I think there is not a problem moving dbs between editions. At least there
is[vbcol=seagreen]
> not a single comment in both KB articles, the one I posted and this one.
> Moving SQL Server databases to a new location with Detach/Attach
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/224071/EN-US/
> I have done it before (moving user dbs) between servers with diff edition,
> and have not got any problem till now.
>
> AMB
> "Paul Bergson" wrote:
>
a[vbcol=seagreen]
rights.[vbcol=seagreen]
message[vbcol=seagreen]
Enterprise[vbcol=seagreen]
across,[vbcol=seagreen]
to[vbcol=seagreen]

Enterprise SQL move to Standard

Is it possible to follow the steps of moving ALL db's from an Enterprise SQL
Server to a Standard SQL Server?
We would like to just stop the SQL services and move the DB's across, rename
the server to match the old server and start the new SQL server.
Will this work or will it break since we are going from Enterprise to
Standard?
--
Paul BergsonSee if this helps:
HOW TO: Move Databases Between Computers That Are Running SQL Server
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;314546
AMB
"Paul Bergson" wrote:
> Is it possible to follow the steps of moving ALL db's from an Enterprise SQL
> Server to a Standard SQL Server?
> We would like to just stop the SQL services and move the DB's across, rename
> the server to match the old server and start the new SQL server.
> Will this work or will it break since we are going from Enterprise to
> Standard?
> --
> Paul Bergson
>
>|||I have seen this. I want to know if I can move between Enterprise and
standard.
The bad thing about these newgroups is once someone answers in a thread a
lot of people no longer see them. So I will probably have to repost.
--
Paul Bergson MCT, MCSE, MCSA, CNE, CNA, CCA
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Alejandro Mesa" <AlejandroMesa@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:F21A54AA-F591-4F4D-894B-806F1C9061C9@.microsoft.com...
> See if this helps:
> HOW TO: Move Databases Between Computers That Are Running SQL Server
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;314546
>
> AMB
>
> "Paul Bergson" wrote:
> > Is it possible to follow the steps of moving ALL db's from an Enterprise
SQL
> > Server to a Standard SQL Server?
> >
> > We would like to just stop the SQL services and move the DB's across,
rename
> > the server to match the old server and start the new SQL server.
> >
> > Will this work or will it break since we are going from Enterprise to
> > Standard?
> >
> > --
> >
> > Paul Bergson
> >
> >
> >|||I think there is not a problem moving dbs between editions. At least there is
not a single comment in both KB articles, the one I posted and this one.
Moving SQL Server databases to a new location with Detach/Attach
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/224071/EN-US/
I have done it before (moving user dbs) between servers with diff edition,
and have not got any problem till now.
AMB
"Paul Bergson" wrote:
> I have seen this. I want to know if I can move between Enterprise and
> standard.
> The bad thing about these newgroups is once someone answers in a thread a
> lot of people no longer see them. So I will probably have to repost.
> --
> Paul Bergson MCT, MCSE, MCSA, CNE, CNA, CCA
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
>
> "Alejandro Mesa" <AlejandroMesa@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:F21A54AA-F591-4F4D-894B-806F1C9061C9@.microsoft.com...
> > See if this helps:
> >
> > HOW TO: Move Databases Between Computers That Are Running SQL Server
> > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;314546
> >
> >
> > AMB
> >
> >
> > "Paul Bergson" wrote:
> >
> > > Is it possible to follow the steps of moving ALL db's from an Enterprise
> SQL
> > > Server to a Standard SQL Server?
> > >
> > > We would like to just stop the SQL services and move the DB's across,
> rename
> > > the server to match the old server and start the new SQL server.
> > >
> > > Will this work or will it break since we are going from Enterprise to
> > > Standard?
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Paul Bergson
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>|||Shouldn't be a problem, since the real difference in the editions is things
like clustering support, log shipping, cpu and memory specs, etc. Its not
like DBCC Indexdefrag is going to be different in one edition vs. the
other...
Of course...you should be testing this in your lab anyway to confirm :-)
--
Kevin Hill
President
3NF Consulting
www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
www.DallasDBAs.com/forum - new DB forum for Dallas/Ft. Worth area DBAs.
www.experts-exchange.com - experts compete for points to answer your
questions
"Paul Bergson" <pbergson_nospam@.allete.com> wrote in message
news:ua7SFT8VFHA.3176@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Is it possible to follow the steps of moving ALL db's from an Enterprise
> SQL
> Server to a Standard SQL Server?
> We would like to just stop the SQL services and move the DB's across,
> rename
> the server to match the old server and start the new SQL server.
> Will this work or will it break since we are going from Enterprise to
> Standard?
> --
> Paul Bergson
>|||Ok
Thanks
--
Paul Bergson
"Kevin3NF" <KHill@.NopeIDontNeedNoSPAM3NF-inc.com> wrote in message
news:#4y4ru8VFHA.1384@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Shouldn't be a problem, since the real difference in the editions is
things
> like clustering support, log shipping, cpu and memory specs, etc. Its not
> like DBCC Indexdefrag is going to be different in one edition vs. the
> other...
> Of course...you should be testing this in your lab anyway to confirm :-)
> --
> Kevin Hill
> President
> 3NF Consulting
> www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
> www.DallasDBAs.com/forum - new DB forum for Dallas/Ft. Worth area DBAs.
> www.experts-exchange.com - experts compete for points to answer your
> questions
>
> "Paul Bergson" <pbergson_nospam@.allete.com> wrote in message
> news:ua7SFT8VFHA.3176@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > Is it possible to follow the steps of moving ALL db's from an Enterprise
> > SQL
> > Server to a Standard SQL Server?
> >
> > We would like to just stop the SQL services and move the DB's across,
> > rename
> > the server to match the old server and start the new SQL server.
> >
> > Will this work or will it break since we are going from Enterprise to
> > Standard?
> >
> > --
> >
> > Paul Bergson
> >
> >
>|||Ok
Thanks
--
Paul Bergson
"Alejandro Mesa" <AlejandroMesa@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:09828E93-517B-47FE-8D3E-FE4017A12C1C@.microsoft.com...
> I think there is not a problem moving dbs between editions. At least there
is
> not a single comment in both KB articles, the one I posted and this one.
> Moving SQL Server databases to a new location with Detach/Attach
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/224071/EN-US/
> I have done it before (moving user dbs) between servers with diff edition,
> and have not got any problem till now.
>
> AMB
> "Paul Bergson" wrote:
> > I have seen this. I want to know if I can move between Enterprise and
> > standard.
> >
> > The bad thing about these newgroups is once someone answers in a thread
a
> > lot of people no longer see them. So I will probably have to repost.
> >
> > --
> >
> > Paul Bergson MCT, MCSE, MCSA, CNE, CNA, CCA
> >
> > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.
> >
> >
> >
> > "Alejandro Mesa" <AlejandroMesa@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message
> > news:F21A54AA-F591-4F4D-894B-806F1C9061C9@.microsoft.com...
> > > See if this helps:
> > >
> > > HOW TO: Move Databases Between Computers That Are Running SQL Server
> > > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;314546
> > >
> > >
> > > AMB
> > >
> > >
> > > "Paul Bergson" wrote:
> > >
> > > > Is it possible to follow the steps of moving ALL db's from an
Enterprise
> > SQL
> > > > Server to a Standard SQL Server?
> > > >
> > > > We would like to just stop the SQL services and move the DB's
across,
> > rename
> > > > the server to match the old server and start the new SQL server.
> > > >
> > > > Will this work or will it break since we are going from Enterprise
to
> > > > Standard?
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > Paul Bergson
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
> >

Enterprise Reporting Services with Standard Edition SQL 2000

Hi
I am implementing Reporting Services and SQL Server on different servers ->
Server1: Reporting Services Enterprise Edition
Server2: SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition SP3a
Can I still use the Enterprise features of Reporting Services (specifically Data Driven Subscriptions), if the ReportServer database is implemented on a standard edition of SQL 2000?
Thanks,
MarkYou need an additional license for the additional server. In this case you
need SQL Server enterprise edition.
Erik
"Mark Barker" <MarkBarker@.discussions.microsoft.com> schreef in bericht
news:318E8A09-3241-4566-B3D7-85A2C93109FB@.microsoft.com...
> Hi
> I am implementing Reporting Services and SQL Server on different
servers ->
> Server1: Reporting Services Enterprise Edition
> Server2: SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition SP3a
> Can I still use the Enterprise features of Reporting Services
(specifically Data Driven Subscriptions), if the ReportServer database is
implemented on a standard edition of SQL 2000?
> Thanks,
> Mark
>|||Thanks Erik
I understand the licensing implications - What i was concerned about was functionality at the database layer - ie Will a ReportServer database implemented on standard edition (SQL Server) support data driven subscriptions from an enterprise edition of Reporting Services?
Thanks,
Mark
"Erik Tamminga" wrote:
> You need an additional license for the additional server. In this case you
> need SQL Server enterprise edition.
> Erik
> "Mark Barker" <MarkBarker@.discussions.microsoft.com> schreef in bericht
> news:318E8A09-3241-4566-B3D7-85A2C93109FB@.microsoft.com...
> > Hi
> >
> > I am implementing Reporting Services and SQL Server on different
> servers ->
> >
> > Server1: Reporting Services Enterprise Edition
> >
> > Server2: SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition SP3a
> >
> > Can I still use the Enterprise features of Reporting Services
> (specifically Data Driven Subscriptions), if the ReportServer database is
> implemented on a standard edition of SQL 2000?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Mark
> >
>
>|||Yes, SQL and Reporting Services standard and enterprise SKUs can be mixed /
matched.
--
Brian Welcker
Group Program Manager
SQL Server Reporting Services
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Mark Barker" <MarkBarker@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8B46132E-78D8-43F8-B0F0-AE70AF707A34@.microsoft.com...
> Thanks Erik
> I understand the licensing implications - What i was concerned about was
> functionality at the database layer - ie Will a ReportServer database
> implemented on standard edition (SQL Server) support data driven
> subscriptions from an enterprise edition of Reporting Services?
> Thanks,
> Mark
> "Erik Tamminga" wrote:
>> You need an additional license for the additional server. In this case
>> you
>> need SQL Server enterprise edition.
>> Erik
>> "Mark Barker" <MarkBarker@.discussions.microsoft.com> schreef in bericht
>> news:318E8A09-3241-4566-B3D7-85A2C93109FB@.microsoft.com...
>> > Hi
>> >
>> > I am implementing Reporting Services and SQL Server on different
>> servers ->
>> >
>> > Server1: Reporting Services Enterprise Edition
>> >
>> > Server2: SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition SP3a
>> >
>> > Can I still use the Enterprise features of Reporting Services
>> (specifically Data Driven Subscriptions), if the ReportServer database is
>> implemented on a standard edition of SQL 2000?
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Mark
>> >
>>

Enterprise Publisher to Express Subscribers (2005)

I implemented a merge replication publication on a SQL Server 2005
Enterprise instance on a test server. On my laptop I have VS.NET 2005
installed with SQL Server 2005 Express.

It's my understanding that I can subscribe to a publication with
Express. I also have SQL Server Workgroup installed on my laptop so I'm
able to use Management Studio to control the Express instance.

The first issue I encountered was that you cannot subscribe to a
publication if you are not on the same network as the publishing
instance (it requires the actual server name). And in lieu of this I
tried to implement Web synchronization, but had problems with SSL
(which is my problem since I'm not entirely familiar with how to
implement SSL certs so they don't show the security warning on the
client without purchasing a certificate).

So then I decided to go ahead and create an account on my laptop and
add it to the domain of the test publishing server. I was then able to
subscribe to the published replication.

So then I look at my Express instance and the synchronization never
runs. In the documentation it says that you're supposed to be able to
right-click on the subscription and "View Synchronization" and force it
to run. This is not available in the Express instance, but it is
available in the Workgroup instance.

So I'm looking at cleaning up my web synchronization issues to make
that work, but I see two issues here.

1) Why do I have to specify the "real name" of the publishing database?
Why can't I access it like any other sql server via an IP address? This
seems like a highly restrictive implementation of replication to me.

2) Why do I have to implement SSL for replication? I understand the
need for security, but that should be left to me to implement. I
shouldn't be forced to use SSL as my security layer.

3) Why doesn't Express have "View Synchronization"?

Any help here is greatly appreciated.

David Cornelson

Hi David,
You should be able to use Web synchronization in your case.

Regarding your questions:
1) Not sure what you mean here. You need to have the actual and real publishing database name. Without it, we cannot know which database the subscription is referring to.

2) SSL is required for Web Synchronization. It is for Security Purposes. A security feature cannot be optional.

3) SQL Server Express does not have SQL Server Agent. Hence you do not have 'View Synchronization' (Workgroup has it and hence you see the option). You need to either use RMO or ActiveX sync components or use the Window Sync Manager to synchronizing.|||

re 1) So why can't I direct a subscriber to ipaddress\instanceName? Why does it have to be serverName\instanceName?

2) If all of my replication is done within my own company, say I have Smart Clients that are on different segments of my network, so they can't actually "see" the publishing database, I might want to use web synchronization and _not_ use SSL. You're making a security decision that I don't need. I understand that this should be default behaviour, but I should be able to turn it off. You're actually making my architecture more complex by forcing SSL into my replication strategy.

3) Where can I find information on Windows Sync Manager?

Thanks,

David C.

|||1) Not sure, but looks like there is no option for you to provide an ipaddress of the publisher to connect to. Servername/instance may be the only way.

2) Security is always a big concern and that is the reason for mandating the SSL. If you wish, you could workaround with a test certificate. MSDN has a tool for installing a test certificate.
For IIS6.0: http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=56fc92ee-a71a-4c73-b628-ade629c89499&displaylang=en
For IIS5.0: http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;228984

3) Windows Sync manager comes with Standard windows installation. Books online has more information about synchronizing using Sync Manager. To open Sync Manager follow either of the steps:
a) Windows Explorer-->Tools-->Synchronize
b) Start-->AllPrograms-->Accessories-->Synchronize|||1) Okay

2) Alright

3) It only has a Sql Server 2000 and an IE sync listed. Where's 2005?

Thanks for the help.

David C.|||3) I dont understand what you are saying. Where do you see SQL Server 2000 listed?
Windows sync manager is a windows mechanism for synchronization which can be launched using the 2 methods I described in my previous post. You have to enable the subscription on the Subscriber to be using the Windows Sync Manager. Once you have done that, you will start seeing the subscription in the Sync Manager and you can synchronize the subscription with the publication at the Publisher.