|
|
You're in the
sql server reporting services
group:Reporting Services in small office - SQL Server license issue
sql server reporting services:
great success The only issue you are going to face with 1 proc is that SQL RS is very processor intensive as far as rendering goes... Having IIS and SQL on the same server is a non-issue as long as both are behind a firewall. Basically, as long as you have the horsepower “Option 1†is no problem
I am developing a business databse system for a small engineering office,
well, not that small: 50 workstations and 6 server computers. SQL Server (statndard version) is used as data store. I am planning to use SQL Server's Reporting Services to produce data reports. According to our work load, one SQL Server (standard, 1 processor license) with properly configured hardware is definitely enough both to handle both production data access and to host reporting serivces database. But as all you know, reporting services also require IIS to serve the reports, therefore IIS must be running on the server where Reporting services are hosted. By the way, most psrt of our database app is ASP.NET app, running on IIS of one of our server (intranet web server, no outside access, at least for now). But, our network administrator insists that web server and SQL Server must run on seperate computers with the attitute "over my dead body if you want to put web server and Sql Server on the same machine." So, the coices are: 1. A machine as web server, to server ASP.NET apps and Reporting Services. Obviously, we need also put SQL Server on this computer to host only Reporting Services databases. And another computer for another SQL Server to hold production data. So, we need two SQL Server licenses. Expensive solution 2. A computer as web server to host ASP.NET apps. Another computer to host SQL Server, serving both production data and Reporting Services databases. Obviously, IIS is also needed on this computer to serve the reports. Thus, there are two IIS web server running on the network. The network admin's theory is that the more web servers on the network, the more risk you take. 3. Consider the work load, put web server, SQL Server on the same computer (we must "run over" the network admin's dead body to do that). I'd love to go with option 1 to seperate production data with IIS, after all, data is more important. But we just cannot justify the two SQL server licenses (near $10000). How do you set up reporting services in your office of similar size?
One thing that surprised me is that you have per processor license. If they
were using CALs then no extra CALs would be needed and all you would need is 1,000 about for the standard server license. I believe that a CAL would give you access to both. I suggest talking to a MS person about licensing and see if a processor license is really needed or if you could convert it to a server license and CALs instead. Otherwise, I think what you are seeing is typical with DBAs. I think DBAs need to get over it. You can configure IIS to safely run on the same machine and with IIS 6 (Windows 2003) I think you will find the stability is quite high too. -- Bruce Loehle-Conger MVP SQL Server Reporting Services [quoted text, click to view] "Norman Yuan" <nobody@nowhere.no> wrote in message news:ORTIqCnyEHA.1188@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... >I am developing a business databse system for a small engineering office, > well, not that small: 50 workstations and 6 server computers. SQL Server > (statndard version) is used as data store. I am planning to use SQL > Server's > Reporting Services to produce data reports. > > According to our work load, one SQL Server (standard, 1 processor license) > with properly configured hardware is definitely enough both to handle both > production data access and to host reporting serivces database. But as all > you know, reporting services also require IIS to serve the reports, > therefore IIS must be running on the server where Reporting services are > hosted. By the way, most psrt of our database app is ASP.NET app, running > on > IIS of one of our server (intranet web server, no outside access, at least > for now). > > But, our network administrator insists that web server and SQL Server must > run on seperate computers with the attitute "over my dead body if you want > to put web server and Sql Server on the same machine." So, the coices are: > > 1. A machine as web server, to server ASP.NET apps and Reporting Services. > Obviously, we need also put SQL Server on this computer to host only > Reporting Services databases. And another computer for another SQL Server > to > hold production data. So, we need two SQL Server licenses. Expensive > solution > > 2. A computer as web server to host ASP.NET apps. Another computer to host > SQL Server, serving both production data and Reporting Services databases. > Obviously, IIS is also needed on this computer to serve the reports. Thus, > there are two IIS web server running on the network. The network admin's > theory is that the more web servers on the network, the more risk you > take. > > 3. Consider the work load, put web server, SQL Server on the same computer > (we must "run over" the network admin's dead body to do that). > > I'd love to go with option 1 to seperate production data with IIS, after > all, data is more important. But we just cannot justify the two SQL server > licenses (near $10000). > > How do you set up reporting services in your office of similar size? > >
To expand on Bruce's comment:
[quoted text, click to view] > You can configure IIS to safely run on the same machine and with IIS 6 > (Windows 2003) I think you will find the stability is quite high too. Read Chapters 2 and 5 of our book "The Hitchhiker's Guide to SQL Server 2000 Reporting Services" And take the following steps: (i) Disable Integrated Security on the Report Server. (ii) Install SSL on the IIS Web Site. (iii) Configure the Report Server to use a Domain Account to Access the Report Server Database. (iv) Carefully consider the RSExec Role Membership Accounts Peter Blackburn Windows Server Systems - SQL Server MVP Hitchhiker's Guide to SQL Server Reporting Services http://www.sqlreportingservices.net [quoted text, click to view] "Bruce L-C [MVP]" <bruce_lcNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:%23Qi0f3ryEHA.3368@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl... > One thing that surprised me is that you have per processor license. If > they were using CALs then no extra CALs would be needed and all you would > need is 1,000 about for the standard server license. I believe that a CAL > would give you access to both. I suggest talking to a MS person about > licensing and see if a processor license is really needed or if you could > convert it to a server license and CALs instead. > > Otherwise, I think what you are seeing is typical with DBAs. I think DBAs > need to get over it. You can configure IIS to safely run on the same > machine and with IIS 6 (Windows 2003) I think you will find the stability > is quite high too. > > -- > Bruce Loehle-Conger > MVP SQL Server Reporting Services > > > > "Norman Yuan" <nobody@nowhere.no> wrote in message > news:ORTIqCnyEHA.1188@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... >>I am developing a business databse system for a small engineering office, >> well, not that small: 50 workstations and 6 server computers. SQL Server >> (statndard version) is used as data store. I am planning to use SQL >> Server's >> Reporting Services to produce data reports. >> >> According to our work load, one SQL Server (standard, 1 processor >> license) >> with properly configured hardware is definitely enough both to handle >> both >> production data access and to host reporting serivces database. But as >> all >> you know, reporting services also require IIS to serve the reports, >> therefore IIS must be running on the server where Reporting services are >> hosted. By the way, most psrt of our database app is ASP.NET app, running >> on >> IIS of one of our server (intranet web server, no outside access, at >> least >> for now). >> >> But, our network administrator insists that web server and SQL Server >> must >> run on seperate computers with the attitute "over my dead body if you >> want >> to put web server and Sql Server on the same machine." So, the coices >> are: >> >> 1. A machine as web server, to server ASP.NET apps and Reporting >> Services. >> Obviously, we need also put SQL Server on this computer to host only >> Reporting Services databases. And another computer for another SQL Server >> to >> hold production data. So, we need two SQL Server licenses. Expensive >> solution >> >> 2. A computer as web server to host ASP.NET apps. Another computer to >> host >> SQL Server, serving both production data and Reporting Services >> databases. >> Obviously, IIS is also needed on this computer to serve the reports. >> Thus, >> there are two IIS web server running on the network. The network admin's >> theory is that the more web servers on the network, the more risk you >> take. >> >> 3. Consider the work load, put web server, SQL Server on the same >> computer >> (we must "run over" the network admin's dead body to do that). >> >> I'd love to go with option 1 to seperate production data with IIS, after >> all, data is more important. But we just cannot justify the two SQL >> server >> licenses (near $10000). >> >> How do you set up reporting services in your office of similar size? >> >> > >
Thanks for the replies.
[quoted text, click to view] "Norman Yuan" <nobody@nowhere.no> wrote in message news:ORTIqCnyEHA.1188@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... > I am developing a business databse system for a small engineering office, > well, not that small: 50 workstations and 6 server computers. SQL Server > (statndard version) is used as data store. I am planning to use SQL Server's > Reporting Services to produce data reports. > > According to our work load, one SQL Server (standard, 1 processor license) > with properly configured hardware is definitely enough both to handle both > production data access and to host reporting serivces database. But as all > you know, reporting services also require IIS to serve the reports, > therefore IIS must be running on the server where Reporting services are > hosted. By the way, most psrt of our database app is ASP.NET app, running on > IIS of one of our server (intranet web server, no outside access, at least > for now). > > But, our network administrator insists that web server and SQL Server must > run on seperate computers with the attitute "over my dead body if you want > to put web server and Sql Server on the same machine." So, the coices are: > > 1. A machine as web server, to server ASP.NET apps and Reporting Services. > Obviously, we need also put SQL Server on this computer to host only > Reporting Services databases. And another computer for another SQL Server to > hold production data. So, we need two SQL Server licenses. Expensive > solution > > 2. A computer as web server to host ASP.NET apps. Another computer to host > SQL Server, serving both production data and Reporting Services databases. > Obviously, IIS is also needed on this computer to serve the reports. Thus, > there are two IIS web server running on the network. The network admin's > theory is that the more web servers on the network, the more risk you take. > > 3. Consider the work load, put web server, SQL Server on the same computer > (we must "run over" the network admin's dead body to do that). > > I'd love to go with option 1 to seperate production data with IIS, after > all, data is more important. But we just cannot justify the two SQL server > licenses (near $10000). > > How do you set up reporting services in your office of similar size? > >
Cost per CAL for SQL Server is $175, plus ~$800 for the server license, so to
use a CAL-based approach for a company with 50 users will run just under $10k for a single instance of SQL Server ($175 * 50) + $800 = $9550 -- you would then double that for separate instances of SQL Server 2000 and Reporting Services if they are running on separate machines. So the cheapest approach is definitely to go with the processor license, since Microsoft says you need a license not only for each person who actually runs a report, but anyone who views a report (even in hard-copy printed format or as an email). If this is only for internal use, though, and is not made publicly available outside your company firewall, I don't see why it would be a security issue. [quoted text, click to view] "Bruce L-C [MVP]" wrote:
> One thing that surprised me is that you have per processor license. If they > were using CALs then no extra CALs would be needed and all you would need is > 1,000 about for the standard server license. I believe that a CAL would give > you access to both. I suggest talking to a MS person about licensing and see > if a processor license is really needed or if you could convert it to a > server license and CALs instead. > > Otherwise, I think what you are seeing is typical with DBAs. I think DBAs > need to get over it. You can configure IIS to safely run on the same machine > and with IIS 6 (Windows 2003) I think you will find the stability is quite > high too. > > -- > Bruce Loehle-Conger > MVP SQL Server Reporting Services > > > > "Norman Yuan" <nobody@nowhere.no> wrote in message > news:ORTIqCnyEHA.1188@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... > >I am developing a business databse system for a small engineering office, > > well, not that small: 50 workstations and 6 server computers. SQL Server > > (statndard version) is used as data store. I am planning to use SQL > > Server's > > Reporting Services to produce data reports. > > > > According to our work load, one SQL Server (standard, 1 processor license) > > with properly configured hardware is definitely enough both to handle both > > production data access and to host reporting serivces database. But as all > > you know, reporting services also require IIS to serve the reports, > > therefore IIS must be running on the server where Reporting services are > > hosted. By the way, most psrt of our database app is ASP.NET app, running > > on > > IIS of one of our server (intranet web server, no outside access, at least > > for now). > > > > But, our network administrator insists that web server and SQL Server must > > run on seperate computers with the attitute "over my dead body if you want > > to put web server and Sql Server on the same machine." So, the coices are: > > > > 1. A machine as web server, to server ASP.NET apps and Reporting Services. > > Obviously, we need also put SQL Server on this computer to host only > > Reporting Services databases. And another computer for another SQL Server > > to > > hold production data. So, we need two SQL Server licenses. Expensive > > solution > > > > 2. A computer as web server to host ASP.NET apps. Another computer to host > > SQL Server, serving both production data and Reporting Services databases. > > Obviously, IIS is also needed on this computer to serve the reports. Thus, > > there are two IIS web server running on the network. The network admin's > > theory is that the more web servers on the network, the more risk you > > take. > > > > 3. Consider the work load, put web server, SQL Server on the same computer > > (we must "run over" the network admin's dead body to do that). > > > > I'd love to go with option 1 to seperate production data with IIS, after > > all, data is more important. But we just cannot justify the two SQL server > > licenses (near $10000). > > > > How do you set up reporting services in your office of similar size? > > > > > >
I thought the user CAL gives access to any server you have in the
organization. I work for a very large organization and for us, all I need to do is buy additional server licenses but that might be a different licensing scheme. -- Bruce Loehle-Conger MVP SQL Server Reporting Services [quoted text, click to view] "Joel Corra" <JoelCorra@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:35182241-F520-496D-A901-669ABB37DF57@microsoft.com... > Cost per CAL for SQL Server is $175, plus ~$800 for the server license, so to > use a CAL-based approach for a company with 50 users will run just under $10k > for a single instance of SQL Server ($175 * 50) + $800 = $9550 -- you would > then double that for separate instances of SQL Server 2000 and Reporting > Services if they are running on separate machines. > > So the cheapest approach is definitely to go with the processor license, > since Microsoft says you need a license not only for each person who actually > runs a report, but anyone who views a report (even in hard-copy printed > format or as an email). > > If this is only for internal use, though, and is not made publicly available > outside your company firewall, I don't see why it would be a security issue. > > "Bruce L-C [MVP]" wrote: > > > One thing that surprised me is that you have per processor license. If they > > were using CALs then no extra CALs would be needed and all you would need is > > 1,000 about for the standard server license. I believe that a CAL would give > > you access to both. I suggest talking to a MS person about licensing and see > > if a processor license is really needed or if you could convert it to a > > server license and CALs instead. > > > > Otherwise, I think what you are seeing is typical with DBAs. I think DBAs > > need to get over it. You can configure IIS to safely run on the same machine > > and with IIS 6 (Windows 2003) I think you will find the stability is quite > > high too. > > > > -- > > Bruce Loehle-Conger > > MVP SQL Server Reporting Services > > > > > > > > "Norman Yuan" <nobody@nowhere.no> wrote in message > > news:ORTIqCnyEHA.1188@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... > > >I am developing a business databse system for a small engineering office, > > > well, not that small: 50 workstations and 6 server computers. SQL Server > > > (statndard version) is used as data store. I am planning to use SQL > > > Server's > > > Reporting Services to produce data reports. > > > > > > According to our work load, one SQL Server (standard, 1 processor license) > > > with properly configured hardware is definitely enough both to handle both > > > production data access and to host reporting serivces database. But as all > > > you know, reporting services also require IIS to serve the reports, > > > therefore IIS must be running on the server where Reporting services are > > > hosted. By the way, most psrt of our database app is ASP.NET app, running > > > on > > > IIS of one of our server (intranet web server, no outside access, at least > > > for now). > > > > > > But, our network administrator insists that web server and SQL Server must > > > run on seperate computers with the attitute "over my dead body if you want > > > to put web server and Sql Server on the same machine." So, the coices are: > > > > > > 1. A machine as web server, to server ASP.NET apps and Reporting Services. > > > Obviously, we need also put SQL Server on this computer to host only > > > Reporting Services databases. And another computer for another SQL Server > > > to > > > hold production data. So, we need two SQL Server licenses. Expensive > > > solution > > > > > > 2. A computer as web server to host ASP.NET apps. Another computer to host > > > SQL Server, serving both production data and Reporting Services databases. > > > Obviously, IIS is also needed on this computer to serve the reports. Thus, > > > there are two IIS web server running on the network. The network admin's > > > theory is that the more web servers on the network, the more risk you > > > take. > > > > > > 3. Consider the work load, put web server, SQL Server on the same computer > > > (we must "run over" the network admin's dead body to do that). > > > > > > I'd love to go with option 1 to seperate production data with IIS, after > > > all, data is more important. But we just cannot justify the two SQL server > > > licenses (near $10000). > > > > > > How do you set up reporting services in your office of similar size? > > > > > > > > > > > >
Don't see what you're looking for? Try a search.
|
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
| home · blog · groups | Questions? Comments? Contact the dn |