June 22, 2011 at 10:34 am
TheSQLGuru (6/22/2011)
Anyone else find it ironic that a company is moving from a FREE SQL Server product to an Oracle product? :w00t:
Meh. I've seen odder business decisions. Like downgrading from SQL Express to MS Access because SQL is "too complicated."
June 22, 2011 at 10:41 am
Brandie Tarvin (6/22/2011)
TheSQLGuru (6/22/2011)
Anyone else find it ironic that a company is moving from a FREE SQL Server product to an Oracle product? :w00t:Meh. I've seen odder business decisions. Like downgrading from SQL Express to MS Access because SQL is "too complicated."
How many times over did they lose their shirts over this one :w00t:?
June 22, 2011 at 11:18 am
Ninja's_RGR'us (6/22/2011)
Brandie Tarvin (6/22/2011)
TheSQLGuru (6/22/2011)
Anyone else find it ironic that a company is moving from a FREE SQL Server product to an Oracle product? :w00t:Meh. I've seen odder business decisions. Like downgrading from SQL Express to MS Access because SQL is "too complicated."
How many times over did they lose their shirts over this one :w00t:?
I don't know. I didn't actually work for that company. I just did some help desk support for a software firm that used SQL Server and MS Access as back ends for a custom interface. The company in question was a client. I grew up into a real DBA shortly afterward and haven't heard a peep about it since.
June 23, 2011 at 6:39 am
TheSQLGuru (6/22/2011)
Anyone else find it ironic that a company is moving from a FREE SQL Server product to an Oracle product? :w00t:
I thought that was odd myself.
June 27, 2011 at 12:57 pm
SPtiruttani (6/20/2011)
We are using the free version of MS SQL Server 2005 for in the organization. Now the data growingand reaches to 2.7GB. So for free version Microsoft provides upto 4Gb. So any other way to extend
the memory free of cost?.
Now, by "extend the memory" I assume you meant "extend the limits of your edition of SQL".
If I fully understand your dilemma, and as the other posters here have already pointed out, you cannot do that, per se, but...
What you can try are some creative variations on the following:
1) Archive data from some of the larger tables, placing them into "archive" databases.
You will have to alter any SPROCS, VIEWS, UDF's, etc., used in reporting, where appropriate.
2) Move tables (and their views) from core database into separate "transaction" databases.
That is, let's say your master/control/metadata tables can exist in the core application database.
Take those larger tables that are causing the gargantuan-sized back-ups and move them to other databases.
Again: You'll have to alter SPROCS, VIEWS, UDF's, etc., used in reporting, where appropriate.
Also - any back-up maintenance plans or SPROCS will need to include your new databases
Let me know if I understood you correctly and if those suggestions help, at all.
Best,
Rene
June 27, 2011 at 1:14 pm
Be aware:
repicurus (6/27/2011)
1) Archive data from some of the larger tables, placing them into "archive" databases.You will have to alter any SPROCS, VIEWS, UDF's, etc., used in reporting, where appropriate.
This breaks the Terms of Use license, by purposely avoiding the restrictions and using multiple databases for the same data source.
2) Move tables (and their views) from core database into separate "transaction" databases.
That is, let's say your master/control/metadata tables can exist in the core application database.
Take those larger tables that are causing the gargantuan-sized back-ups and move them to other databases.
Again: You'll have to alter SPROCS, VIEWS, UDF's, etc., used in reporting, where appropriate.
As does this.
Also - any back-up maintenance plans or SPROCS will need to include your new databases
Let me know if I understood you correctly and if those suggestions help, at all.
Best,
Rene
What you have recommended here can get the company heavily fined, and perhaps even sued, if audited. This is exactly the ideas that the others, previously in the thread, purposely did not discuss as options because of financial and legal risks to the person/company performing them.
Never stop learning, even if it hurts. Ego bruises are practically mandatory as you learn unless you've never risked enough to make a mistake.
For better assistance in answering your questions[/url] | Forum Netiquette
For index/tuning help, follow these directions.[/url] |Tally Tables[/url]
Twitter: @AnyWayDBA
June 27, 2011 at 2:08 pm
Craig:
I'm sorry but are you saying that you can ONLY create ONE database in the EXPRESS editions of SQL?
Because I thought the limit was on EACH database, and all I was suggesting was to create multiple databases.
Please advise.
Thank You.
June 27, 2011 at 2:09 pm
Also, kindly point to the text in the license that forbids what I suggested (in good faith, NOT to get around limitations or law).
Thanks, again.
June 27, 2011 at 2:26 pm
Craig Farrell (6/27/2011)
Be aware:repicurus (6/27/2011)
1) Archive data from some of the larger tables, placing them into "archive" databases.You will have to alter any SPROCS, VIEWS, UDF's, etc., used in reporting, where appropriate.
This breaks the Terms of Use license, by purposely avoiding the restrictions and using multiple databases for the same data source.
2) Move tables (and their views) from core database into separate "transaction" databases.
That is, let's say your master/control/metadata tables can exist in the core application database.
Take those larger tables that are causing the gargantuan-sized back-ups and move them to other databases.
Again: You'll have to alter SPROCS, VIEWS, UDF's, etc., used in reporting, where appropriate.
As does this.
Also - any back-up maintenance plans or SPROCS will need to include your new databases
Let me know if I understood you correctly and if those suggestions help, at all.
Best,
Rene
What you have recommended here can get the company heavily fined, and perhaps even sued, if audited. This is exactly the ideas that the others, previously in the thread, purposely did not discuss as options because of financial and legal risks to the person/company performing them.
From MSDN:
The 4 GB database size limit applies only to data files and not to log files. However, there are no limits to the number of databases that can be attached to the server. There are some minor changes to the startup of SQL Server Express. User databases are not automatically started, and the distributed Transaction Coordinator is not automatically initialized. For the user experience, though, there should be no difference other than a faster startup. Programmers intending to use SQL Server Express are recommended to keep these changes in mind when designing their applications.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-US/library/ms345154(v=SQL.90).aspx
I also don't remember reading anything in the licensing agreeements, for that matter, that is consistent with your concerns.
I'm sorry, Craig but what am I missing here? Are we even discussing the same thing?
Please let me know because I do NOT want to give bad advice or be willfully ignorant about something this important.
Thanks,
Rene
June 27, 2011 at 2:32 pm
repicurus (6/27/2011)
From MSDN:The 4 GB database size limit applies only to data files and not to log files. However, there are no limits to the number of databases that can be attached to the server. There are some minor changes to the startup of SQL Server Express. User databases are not automatically started, and the distributed Transaction Coordinator is not automatically initialized. For the user experience, though, there should be no difference other than a faster startup. Programmers intending to use SQL Server Express are recommended to keep these changes in mind when designing their applications.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-US/library/ms345154(v=SQL.90).aspx
I also don't remember reading anything in the licensing agreeements, for that matter, that is consistent with your concerns.
I'm sorry, Craig but what am I missing here? Are we even discussing the same thing?
Please let me know because I do NOT want to give bad advice or be willfully ignorant about something this important.
Thanks,
Rene
Let me go look, I know it USED to be in there, explicitly. If its not anymore I'll be publically apologizing to you shortly. It's not a one database limit, but a one database per usage limit. In particular, working around the size limitations for a single application/usage instance by using multiple databases.
Back shortly. I didn't want to leave this hanging.
Never stop learning, even if it hurts. Ego bruises are practically mandatory as you learn unless you've never risked enough to make a mistake.
For better assistance in answering your questions[/url] | Forum Netiquette
For index/tuning help, follow these directions.[/url] |Tally Tables[/url]
Twitter: @AnyWayDBA
June 27, 2011 at 2:39 pm
Craig Farrell (6/27/2011)
repicurus (6/27/2011)
From MSDN:The 4 GB database size limit applies only to data files and not to log files. However, there are no limits to the number of databases that can be attached to the server. There are some minor changes to the startup of SQL Server Express. User databases are not automatically started, and the distributed Transaction Coordinator is not automatically initialized. For the user experience, though, there should be no difference other than a faster startup. Programmers intending to use SQL Server Express are recommended to keep these changes in mind when designing their applications.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-US/library/ms345154(v=SQL.90).aspx
I also don't remember reading anything in the licensing agreeements, for that matter, that is consistent with your concerns.
I'm sorry, Craig but what am I missing here? Are we even discussing the same thing?
Please let me know because I do NOT want to give bad advice or be willfully ignorant about something this important.
Thanks,
Rene
Let me go look, I know it USED to be in there, explicitly. If its not anymore I'll be publically apologizing to you shortly. It's not a one database limit, but a one database per usage limit. In particular, working around the size limitations for a single application/usage instance by using multiple databases.
Back shortly. I didn't want to leave this hanging.
Oh, okay - that puts it into clearer context for me.
Either way - thanks! I really do not want to give bad advice.
June 27, 2011 at 3:10 pm
That's cute, the detailed Express license is AWOL from here:
http://www.microsoftvolumelicensing.com/default.aspx
It's not offered here:
http://www.microsoft.com/sqlserver/2008/en/us/express.aspx
or here (basically same link as offered above):
http://www.microsoft.com/sqlserver/en/us/editions/express.aspx
Or here...
http://www.microsoft.com/sqlserver/2008/en/us/licensing.aspx
Okay, that's getting rediculous. Anyone installed R2 Express lately and can attach a copy of the license.txt file (I think that's its name) which should be somewhere in the install directory?
Never stop learning, even if it hurts. Ego bruises are practically mandatory as you learn unless you've never risked enough to make a mistake.
For better assistance in answering your questions[/url] | Forum Netiquette
For index/tuning help, follow these directions.[/url] |Tally Tables[/url]
Twitter: @AnyWayDBA
June 28, 2011 at 2:24 am
I have a 64-bit R2 Express install on my PC here. Just checked it out, and found the following files:
License_SqlBrowser.txt
license_SQLCMD.txt
License_SQLNCLI_ENU.txt (one of these in both Program Files (x86) and in Program Files)
License_SqlPolicies.txt
license_SQLWriter.txt
None of these seem to contain any information about limits on database usage.
June 28, 2011 at 6:41 am
paul.knibbs (6/28/2011)
I have a 64-bit R2 Express install on my PC here. Just checked it out, and found the following files:License_SqlBrowser.txt
license_SQLCMD.txt
License_SQLNCLI_ENU.txt (one of these in both Program Files (x86) and in Program Files)
License_SqlPolicies.txt
license_SQLWriter.txt
None of these seem to contain any information about limits on database usage.
I looked last night, too (before I upgraded to Dev Edition), and could not find any language indicating that.
Thanks - perhaps it could've been in 2005 and not 2008?
I never used 2005 Express, only Standard and Dev editions.
June 28, 2011 at 6:44 am
Just my 0.02$... MS decided that 1 GB ram and 4 GB data was what they were prepared to give for free. Trying to go around that feels like steeling a key or something.
If you plan on continue using SQL server and need more than 4GB, then maybe it's time to budget a couple $ for 1 license!
Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 60 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply