|
|
You're in the
sql server connect
group:Number of allowed connections for SQL Server 2005 Standard on XP P
sql server connect:
concurrently have will be limited by the operating system it is running on. If that OS is XP Pro, how many concurrent connections can SQL Server 2005 Standard have? --
I believe that is a wrong assumption. There is no limit based on the OS that
I know of other than the fact that 64 bit can support more memory for connections. But if you are worried about lots of connections then why would you want to use XP Pro? The # of connections will ultimately be limited by the amount of memory and the hardware. -- Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP [quoted text, click to view] "michael" <michael@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:0EA3B57E-6583-4A59-B38B-FB4C89AB5D74@microsoft.com... >I assume that the number of connections that SQL Server 2005 Standard can > concurrently have will be limited by the operating system it is running > on. > If that OS is XP Pro, how many concurrent connections can SQL Server 2005 > Standard have? > > -- > Michael
Yup... and the amount of CPU time you can dedicate to the threads SQL Server
will generate to handle the operations. Let's hear more about your connection strategy and application architecture. -- ____________________________________ William (Bill) Vaughn Author, Mentor, Consultant Microsoft MVP INETA Speaker www.betav.com/blog/billva www.betav.com Please reply only to the newsgroup so that others can benefit. This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. __________________________________ Visit www.hitchhikerguides.net to get more information on my latest book: Hitchhiker's Guide to Visual Studio and SQL Server (7th Edition) and Hitchhiker's Guide to SQL Server 2005 Compact Edition (EBook) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [quoted text, click to view] "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@shadhawk.com> wrote in message news:OSgPZMRiHHA.4596@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >I believe that is a wrong assumption. There is no limit based on the OS >that I know of other than the fact that 64 bit can support more memory for >connections. But if you are worried about lots of connections then why >would you want to use XP Pro? The # of connections will ultimately be >limited by the amount of memory and the hardware. > > -- > Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP > > "michael" <michael@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > news:0EA3B57E-6583-4A59-B38B-FB4C89AB5D74@microsoft.com... >>I assume that the number of connections that SQL Server 2005 Standard can >> concurrently have will be limited by the operating system it is running >> on. >> If that OS is XP Pro, how many concurrent connections can SQL Server 2005 >> Standard have? >> >> -- >> Michael > >
I did think about this for a bit, so, my answer will probably expose some of
my ignorance on the subject. My apologies in advance. The reason I want to use XP Pro is that I already own a copy running on a spare machine. The machine belongs to a domain managed on another box. Nothing else running on the XP box. Nothing about the operation of the database is really mission critical. I may have 10 - 30 concurrent users, but, that's about it. I can put as much memory and storage space as I want. What would I really get by running SQL Server 2005 on an MS server platform in such a situation? Respectfully, -- Michael [quoted text, click to view] "William (Bill) Vaughn" wrote:
> Yup... and the amount of CPU time you can dedicate to the threads SQL Server > will generate to handle the operations. > Let's hear more about your connection strategy and application architecture. > > -- > ____________________________________ > William (Bill) Vaughn > Author, Mentor, Consultant > Microsoft MVP > INETA Speaker > www.betav.com/blog/billva > www.betav.com > Please reply only to the newsgroup so that others can benefit. > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. > __________________________________ > Visit www.hitchhikerguides.net to get more information on my latest book: > Hitchhiker's Guide to Visual Studio and SQL Server (7th Edition) > and Hitchhiker's Guide to SQL Server 2005 Compact Edition (EBook) > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@shadhawk.com> wrote in message > news:OSgPZMRiHHA.4596@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > >I believe that is a wrong assumption. There is no limit based on the OS > >that I know of other than the fact that 64 bit can support more memory for > >connections. But if you are worried about lots of connections then why > >would you want to use XP Pro? The # of connections will ultimately be > >limited by the amount of memory and the hardware. > > > > -- > > Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP > > > > "michael" <michael@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > > news:0EA3B57E-6583-4A59-B38B-FB4C89AB5D74@microsoft.com... > >>I assume that the number of connections that SQL Server 2005 Standard can > >> concurrently have will be limited by the operating system it is running > >> on. > >> If that OS is XP Pro, how many concurrent connections can SQL Server 2005 > >> Standard have? > >> > >> -- > >> Michael > > > > > >
The other thing to keep in mind is that regardless of any SQL Server
limitations, Windows XP only has 10 TCP/IP connections so supporting 30 concurrent users might not be possible. XP is tuned to give preference to UI foreground application and not IO and memory intensive applications like SQL Server so performance often isn't what you expect. -- This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. Use of included script samples are subject to the terms specified at http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm [quoted text, click to view] "michael" <michael@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:212C8757-2AE9-4D70-B57C-986F384BB85C@microsoft.com... >I did think about this for a bit, so, my answer will probably expose some >of > my ignorance on the subject. My apologies in advance. > > The reason I want to use XP Pro is that I already own a copy running on a > spare machine. The machine belongs to a domain managed on another box. > Nothing else running on the XP box. Nothing about the operation of the > database is really mission critical. I may have 10 - 30 concurrent users, > but, that's about it. I can put as much memory and storage space as I > want. > > What would I really get by running SQL Server 2005 on an MS server > platform > in such a situation? > > Respectfully, > > > > -- > Michael > > > "William (Bill) Vaughn" wrote: > >> Yup... and the amount of CPU time you can dedicate to the threads SQL >> Server >> will generate to handle the operations. >> Let's hear more about your connection strategy and application >> architecture. >> >> -- >> ____________________________________ >> William (Bill) Vaughn >> Author, Mentor, Consultant >> Microsoft MVP >> INETA Speaker >> www.betav.com/blog/billva >> www.betav.com >> Please reply only to the newsgroup so that others can benefit. >> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no >> rights. >> __________________________________ >> Visit www.hitchhikerguides.net to get more information on my latest book: >> Hitchhiker's Guide to Visual Studio and SQL Server (7th Edition) >> and Hitchhiker's Guide to SQL Server 2005 Compact Edition (EBook) >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@shadhawk.com> wrote in message >> news:OSgPZMRiHHA.4596@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >> >I believe that is a wrong assumption. There is no limit based on the OS >> >that I know of other than the fact that 64 bit can support more memory >> >for >> >connections. But if you are worried about lots of connections then why >> >would you want to use XP Pro? The # of connections will ultimately be >> >limited by the amount of memory and the hardware. >> > >> > -- >> > Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP >> > >> > "michael" <michael@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message >> > news:0EA3B57E-6583-4A59-B38B-FB4C89AB5D74@microsoft.com... >> >>I assume that the number of connections that SQL Server 2005 Standard >> >>can >> >> concurrently have will be limited by the operating system it is >> >> running >> >> on. >> >> If that OS is XP Pro, how many concurrent connections can SQL Server >> >> 2005 >> >> Standard have? >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Michael >> > >> > >> >> >>
Roger brings up several very good points that you should take into
consideration. XP just isn't geared for the types of work that SQL Server may demand. If you have 30 concurrent connections I would not call that trivial and if you want to do it right I would look at a server OS. -- Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP [quoted text, click to view] "michael" <michael@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:212C8757-2AE9-4D70-B57C-986F384BB85C@microsoft.com... >I did think about this for a bit, so, my answer will probably expose some >of > my ignorance on the subject. My apologies in advance. > > The reason I want to use XP Pro is that I already own a copy running on a > spare machine. The machine belongs to a domain managed on another box. > Nothing else running on the XP box. Nothing about the operation of the > database is really mission critical. I may have 10 - 30 concurrent users, > but, that's about it. I can put as much memory and storage space as I > want. > > What would I really get by running SQL Server 2005 on an MS server > platform > in such a situation? > > Respectfully, > > > > -- > Michael > > > "William (Bill) Vaughn" wrote: > >> Yup... and the amount of CPU time you can dedicate to the threads SQL >> Server >> will generate to handle the operations. >> Let's hear more about your connection strategy and application >> architecture. >> >> -- >> ____________________________________ >> William (Bill) Vaughn >> Author, Mentor, Consultant >> Microsoft MVP >> INETA Speaker >> www.betav.com/blog/billva >> www.betav.com >> Please reply only to the newsgroup so that others can benefit. >> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no >> rights. >> __________________________________ >> Visit www.hitchhikerguides.net to get more information on my latest book: >> Hitchhiker's Guide to Visual Studio and SQL Server (7th Edition) >> and Hitchhiker's Guide to SQL Server 2005 Compact Edition (EBook) >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@shadhawk.com> wrote in message >> news:OSgPZMRiHHA.4596@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >> >I believe that is a wrong assumption. There is no limit based on the OS >> >that I know of other than the fact that 64 bit can support more memory >> >for >> >connections. But if you are worried about lots of connections then why >> >would you want to use XP Pro? The # of connections will ultimately be >> >limited by the amount of memory and the hardware. >> > >> > -- >> > Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP >> > >> > "michael" <michael@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message >> > news:0EA3B57E-6583-4A59-B38B-FB4C89AB5D74@microsoft.com... >> >>I assume that the number of connections that SQL Server 2005 Standard >> >>can >> >> concurrently have will be limited by the operating system it is >> >> running >> >> on. >> >> If that OS is XP Pro, how many concurrent connections can SQL Server >> >> 2005 >> >> Standard have? >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Michael >> > >> > >> >> >>
Roger brings up a good point. However, it's possible (and legal) to alter
the number of connections by using the metadata editor to bump the number of connections to (a maximum of) 40. -- ____________________________________ William (Bill) Vaughn Author, Mentor, Consultant Microsoft MVP INETA Speaker www.betav.com/blog/billva www.betav.com Please reply only to the newsgroup so that others can benefit. This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. __________________________________ Visit www.hitchhikerguides.net to get more information on my latest book: Hitchhiker's Guide to Visual Studio and SQL Server (7th Edition) and Hitchhiker's Guide to SQL Server 2005 Compact Edition (EBook) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [quoted text, click to view] "Roger Wolter[MSFT]" <rwolter@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:9C5831CD-59BC-4948-95BA-D2513BCDF3A8@microsoft.com... > The other thing to keep in mind is that regardless of any SQL Server > limitations, Windows XP only has 10 TCP/IP connections so supporting 30 > concurrent users might not be possible. XP is tuned to give preference to > UI foreground application and not IO and memory intensive applications > like SQL Server so performance often isn't what you expect. > > -- > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no > rights. > Use of included script samples are subject to the terms specified at > http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm > > "michael" <michael@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > news:212C8757-2AE9-4D70-B57C-986F384BB85C@microsoft.com... >>I did think about this for a bit, so, my answer will probably expose some >>of >> my ignorance on the subject. My apologies in advance. >> >> The reason I want to use XP Pro is that I already own a copy running on a >> spare machine. The machine belongs to a domain managed on another box. >> Nothing else running on the XP box. Nothing about the operation of the >> database is really mission critical. I may have 10 - 30 concurrent users, >> but, that's about it. I can put as much memory and storage space as I >> want. >> >> What would I really get by running SQL Server 2005 on an MS server >> platform >> in such a situation? >> >> Respectfully, >> >> >> >> -- >> Michael >> >> >> "William (Bill) Vaughn" wrote: >> >>> Yup... and the amount of CPU time you can dedicate to the threads SQL >>> Server >>> will generate to handle the operations. >>> Let's hear more about your connection strategy and application >>> architecture. >>> >>> -- >>> ____________________________________ >>> William (Bill) Vaughn >>> Author, Mentor, Consultant >>> Microsoft MVP >>> INETA Speaker >>> www.betav.com/blog/billva >>> www.betav.com >>> Please reply only to the newsgroup so that others can benefit. >>> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no >>> rights. >>> __________________________________ >>> Visit www.hitchhikerguides.net to get more information on my latest >>> book: >>> Hitchhiker's Guide to Visual Studio and SQL Server (7th Edition) >>> and Hitchhiker's Guide to SQL Server 2005 Compact Edition (EBook) >>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@shadhawk.com> wrote in message >>> news:OSgPZMRiHHA.4596@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >>> >I believe that is a wrong assumption. There is no limit based on the OS >>> >that I know of other than the fact that 64 bit can support more memory >>> >for >>> >connections. But if you are worried about lots of connections then why >>> >would you want to use XP Pro? The # of connections will ultimately be >>> >limited by the amount of memory and the hardware. >>> > >>> > -- >>> > Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP >>> > >>> > "michael" <michael@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message >>> > news:0EA3B57E-6583-4A59-B38B-FB4C89AB5D74@microsoft.com... >>> >>I assume that the number of connections that SQL Server 2005 Standard >>> >>can >>> >> concurrently have will be limited by the operating system it is >>> >> running >>> >> on. >>> >> If that OS is XP Pro, how many concurrent connections can SQL Server >>> >> 2005 >>> >> Standard have? >>> >> >>> >> -- >>> >> Michael >>> > >>> > >>> >>> >>> >
Don't see what you're looking for? Try a search.
|
June 2003
July 2003
August 2003
September 2003
October 2003
November 2003
December 2003
January 2004
February 2004
March 2004
April 2004
May 2004
June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
August 2008
| home · blog · groups | Questions? Comments? Contact the dn |