Showing posts with label wrotegt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label wrotegt. Show all posts

Monday, March 26, 2012

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

Thursday, March 22, 2012

Enterprise Managers "current activity":How in SQL?

Manfred Braun wrote:
> Hi All !
> Can someone show, how to obtain that, what Enterprise manager calls "curre
nt
> activity", in SQL? I really would like to see the same output, not that,
> what sp_who, sp_lock etc give.
> I just have currently not the right knowledge to make all the neccessary
> relationships from sp_who/sp_lock/sysprocesses etc
> Any help would be great.
> Thanks so far and
> best regards,
> Manfred Braun
>
Hi Manfred
You could try to run a trace while you open "Current activity". This
would most likely reveal which sql statement EM is running to view that
info.
Regards
Steen Schlter Persson
Database Administrator / System AdministratorAlso, take a look at this procedure by Erland:
http://www.sommarskog.se/sqlutil/aba_lockinfo.html
HTH
Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
"Steen Persson (DK)" <steen@.asavaengetREMOVETHIS.dk> wrote in message
news:OllyWgkjGHA.836@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Manfred Braun wrote:
> Hi Manfred
> You could try to run a trace while you open "Current activity". This would
> most likely reveal which sql statement EM is running to view that info.
>
> --
> Regards
> Steen Schlter Persson
> Database Administrator / System Administrator|||Hi All !
Can someone show, how to obtain that, what Enterprise manager calls "current
activity", in SQL? I really would like to see the same output, not that,
what sp_who, sp_lock etc give.
I just have currently not the right knowledge to make all the neccessary
relationships from sp_who/sp_lock/sysprocesses etc
Any help would be great.
Thanks so far and
best regards,
Manfred Braun|||Manfred Braun wrote:
> Hi All !
> Can someone show, how to obtain that, what Enterprise manager calls "curre
nt
> activity", in SQL? I really would like to see the same output, not that,
> what sp_who, sp_lock etc give.
> I just have currently not the right knowledge to make all the neccessary
> relationships from sp_who/sp_lock/sysprocesses etc
> Any help would be great.
> Thanks so far and
> best regards,
> Manfred Braun
>
Hi Manfred
You could try to run a trace while you open "Current activity". This
would most likely reveal which sql statement EM is running to view that
info.
Regards
Steen Schlter Persson
Database Administrator / System Administrator|||Also, take a look at this procedure by Erland:
http://www.sommarskog.se/sqlutil/aba_lockinfo.html
HTH
Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
"Steen Persson (DK)" <steen@.asavaengetREMOVETHIS.dk> wrote in message
news:OllyWgkjGHA.836@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Manfred Braun wrote:
> Hi Manfred
> You could try to run a trace while you open "Current activity". This would
> most likely reveal which sql statement EM is running to view that info.
>
> --
> Regards
> Steen Schlter Persson
> Database Administrator / System Administrator