We are about to move to SQL Server 2000, as we already have a licenced
copy of it. However, as i understand it you licence by the number of
users (where else can i find out what the options are with it). The big
question is: We want it to run two seperate databases, we dont want the
admin of one to be able to have admin of the other, or be able to use
the other database. Is this possible, if so where might I be able to
find out more about it.
Thanks in advance for any help
DavidDavid wrote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hi,
>
We are about to move to SQL Server 2000, as we already have a licenced
copy of it. However, as i understand it you licence by the number of
users (where else can i find out what the options are with it). The big
question is: We want it to run two seperate databases, we dont want the
admin of one to be able to have admin of the other, or be able to use
the other database. Is this possible, if so where might I be able to
find out more about it.
>
Thanks in advance for any help
>
David
Licensing per user is one option but not the only one and not
necessarily the most cost-effective. Details at:
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/default.mspx
It is quite normal for users to have different sets of permissions in
different databases. Depending on exactly what admin tasks you want the
administators to take on it may make sense also to have two separate
server instances (on the same machine).
Is there some special reason why you are moving to SQL Server 2000
instead of 2005?
--
David Portas, SQL Server MVP
Whenever possible please post enough code to reproduce your problem.
Including CREATE TABLE and INSERT statements usually helps.
State what version of SQL Server you are using and specify the content
of any error messages.
SQL Server Books Online:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/library/...US,SQL.90).aspx
--|||Thanks for the reply. I will check the link now. The reason we are
moving to MS SQL 2000, is because we received it with a server a while
ago. However, due to time constaints it was never setup, as i only had
4 days on-site, and other things took priority.
I know we need two users for one of the databases, and may
unfortunately need 8 for the other so ill check on that now thanks.
There is another query as well, if possible. I was looking into
performance of it and obviously it depends on the structure of the
databases. We are not sure if we trust the suppliers of each database,
to make them run efficiently. Therefore apart from wrapping the SQL
servers, in Virtual Machines, and limiting the virtual machines use of
the CPU, is there any other way to control the resources used by the
server, in order to stop it using the full resources of the machine, in
case of bad structuring?
Thanks again for the reply, hope you had a good weekend
David
David Portas wrote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
David wrote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hi,
We are about to move to SQL Server 2000, as we already have a licenced
copy of it. However, as i understand it you licence by the number of
users (where else can i find out what the options are with it). The big
question is: We want it to run two seperate databases, we dont want the
admin of one to be able to have admin of the other, or be able to use
the other database. Is this possible, if so where might I be able to
find out more about it.
Thanks in advance for any help
David
>
Licensing per user is one option but not the only one and not
necessarily the most cost-effective. Details at:
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/default.mspx
>
It is quite normal for users to have different sets of permissions in
different databases. Depending on exactly what admin tasks you want the
administators to take on it may make sense also to have two separate
server instances (on the same machine).
>
Is there some special reason why you are moving to SQL Server 2000
instead of 2005?
>
--
David Portas, SQL Server MVP
>
Whenever possible please post enough code to reproduce your problem.
Including CREATE TABLE and INSERT statements usually helps.
State what version of SQL Server you are using and specify the content
of any error messages.
>
SQL Server Books Online:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/library/...US,SQL.90).aspx
--|||Just had a look I believe we currently have the Standard Edition, so i
guess then we can just buy additional CALS, for the 8 or so extra
users.
Thanks
David Portas wrote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
David wrote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hi,
We are about to move to SQL Server 2000, as we already have a licenced
copy of it. However, as i understand it you licence by the number of
users (where else can i find out what the options are with it). The big
question is: We want it to run two seperate databases, we dont want the
admin of one to be able to have admin of the other, or be able to use
the other database. Is this possible, if so where might I be able to
find out more about it.
Thanks in advance for any help
David
>
Licensing per user is one option but not the only one and not
necessarily the most cost-effective. Details at:
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/default.mspx
>
It is quite normal for users to have different sets of permissions in
different databases. Depending on exactly what admin tasks you want the
administators to take on it may make sense also to have two separate
server instances (on the same machine).
>
Is there some special reason why you are moving to SQL Server 2000
instead of 2005?
>
--
David Portas, SQL Server MVP
>
Whenever possible please post enough code to reproduce your problem.
Including CREATE TABLE and INSERT statements usually helps.
State what version of SQL Server you are using and specify the content
of any error messages.
>
SQL Server Books Online:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/library/...US,SQL.90).aspx
--|||David wrote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Thanks for the reply. I will check the link now. The reason we are
moving to MS SQL 2000, is because we received it with a server a while
ago. However, due to time constaints it was never setup, as i only had
4 days on-site, and other things took priority.
>
I know we need two users for one of the databases, and may
unfortunately need 8 for the other so ill check on that now thanks.
>
There is another query as well, if possible. I was looking into
performance of it and obviously it depends on the structure of the
databases. We are not sure if we trust the suppliers of each database,
to make them run efficiently. Therefore apart from wrapping the SQL
servers, in Virtual Machines, and limiting the virtual machines use of
the CPU, is there any other way to control the resources used by the
server, in order to stop it using the full resources of the machine, in
case of bad structuring?
>
Thanks again for the reply, hope you had a good weekend
>
David
>
>
>
You can restrict the number of processors and the number of threads
used by SQL Server. You can also limit the amount of RAM available to
it. You'll find those settings under the Properties option if you
right-click on the server in Enterprise Manager.
Unless you have other more demanding applications on the same server it
is usually better to allow SQL Server to manage those things for
itself. SQL Server works best with as much RAM as possible and it will
automatically yield resources to other processes that need them.
--
David Portas, SQL Server MVP
Whenever possible please post enough code to reproduce your problem.
Including CREATE TABLE and INSERT statements usually helps.
State what version of SQL Server you are using and specify the content
of any error messages.
SQL Server Books Online:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/library/...US,SQL.90).aspx
--|||Yet, again thanks for the great help. We will be putting in 2.5GB RAM,
to give MS SQL server plenty of room to work. If we need to then we can
restrict it to 1 of the two hyper-threaded processors. Basically it
will be running on the same server as an AD domain controller, for 10
PC's with FileSharing, so im guessing in that case we will be fine.
Im sorry i would check but need to get them to ifnd me the CD's, when
applying the RAM and processor constraints, is this per Server
instance. Im just wondering, if this can be done at a database level.
Thanks for all your time and help, its greatly appreciated.
David
David Portas wrote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
David wrote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Thanks for the reply. I will check the link now. The reason we are
moving to MS SQL 2000, is because we received it with a server a while
ago. However, due to time constaints it was never setup, as i only had
4 days on-site, and other things took priority.
I know we need two users for one of the databases, and may
unfortunately need 8 for the other so ill check on that now thanks.
There is another query as well, if possible. I was looking into
performance of it and obviously it depends on the structure of the
databases. We are not sure if we trust the suppliers of each database,
to make them run efficiently. Therefore apart from wrapping the SQL
servers, in Virtual Machines, and limiting the virtual machines use of
the CPU, is there any other way to control the resources used by the
server, in order to stop it using the full resources of the machine, in
case of bad structuring?
Thanks again for the reply, hope you had a good weekend
David
>
You can restrict the number of processors and the number of threads
used by SQL Server. You can also limit the amount of RAM available to
it. You'll find those settings under the Properties option if you
right-click on the server in Enterprise Manager.
>
Unless you have other more demanding applications on the same server it
is usually better to allow SQL Server to manage those things for
itself. SQL Server works best with as much RAM as possible and it will
automatically yield resources to other processes that need them.
>
--
David Portas, SQL Server MVP
>
Whenever possible please post enough code to reproduce your problem.
Including CREATE TABLE and INSERT statements usually helps.
State what version of SQL Server you are using and specify the content
of any error messages.
>
SQL Server Books Online:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/library/...US,SQL.90).aspx
--
