I am looking to upgrade my current M1.large Windows SQL Standard instance to M4.2xlarge Window SQL Express.
I need to do this upgrade as I now have a higher performance requirement for the instance and also the SQL Express instance is way cheaper.
I am just wondering what would be the best approach for me to tackle this? The obvious issue here is the SQL database engine, as I am going from SQL standard to SQL express.
One of options is to create a new instance and manually rebuild the whole instance, but I want to keep the efforts minimum... I do have loads of data in the SQL database.
Any ideas?
SQL Express is a limited version of SQL server. Its limited to 1 GB of memory and 4 Cores. Upgrading your instances size but downgrading SQL server wont get you anymore performance.
You will need to stay with Standard if you expect to get the performance of the new instance. All you need to do is shut it down, change the size and start it back up again.
Related
I have a client who has a VB 6.0 application with MS Access as backend. But, now the Access is unable to take the load. So, we are now considering to shift to SqlExpress Edition. Also, we will convert VB6.0 application to c# based Winforms. My questions -
1) Can SqlserverExpress support 10 users concurrently? If not SqlExpress, then what other options are available?
2) Should I first convert VB 6.0 to C# application? Because, if I transfer data to Sqlserver, will VB 6.0 application continue to work?
thanks
Yes it can
You don't need to convert your app, but Access and Sql Express - are different database engines, so you will need to adopt your app to sql express
Note, that sql express prior to 2008 R2 can handle up to 4 Gb databases, while 2008 R2 can handle up to 10 Gb per database.
1) SQL Express allows over 32 thousand simultaneous users. The only real limit is database size, which is 10 Gigabytes.
2) You'll need to at least modify the VB 6 application to have the correct connection string before it will work with SQL server.
I am curious though why you say that Access (the JET database engine) is unable to take the load. Usually 20 or even more simultaneous users are no problem.
If product is for in house use and doesnt generate cash you can use oracle. Its free to use unless your app is for commercial use.
One question to ask is after how many users does the system slow down? And if it is slow with one user, then this might be some software design issue and not necessary the "load" on the server. There also the issue of the type of connection WAN or LAN. In fact you can read about this issue in the following article:
http://www.kallal.ca//Wan/Wans.html
The above in a nutshell explains why the Access data engine does not work well on a WAN.
Also migration of data to SQL server without determining what particular issue is causing the slowdown could very well result in a further slowdown. In other words often just up-sizing data to a server database engine will not solve performance issues and in some cases it can become worse.
In fact in many on line Access forums we often see users complain of a slowdown when moving the back end data file from Access to SQL server. So just moving to SQL server without taking advantages of SQL server features does not always guarantee a performance boost.
The other issue you want to determine here is if the VB6 program uses ADO or DAO. Either data object model is fine, but ADO would suggest LESS code will have to be modified then if the application is based on DAO.
Another issue is you not mentioned how large tables are, and the number. So say 30 to 50 highly related tables, and say a small number of rows (say 200,000) in some of the tables should run just fine with 5 to 15 users. If your user count is only about 10, and your table row counts are small as noted then performance should be ok, and if it is not, then as noted you might be able to keep the application as is and moving the data to SQL server may not yield performance gains without further code modifications. And of course SOME code will have to be modified to work with SQL server - how much will depend on the data object used, and how much code there is over all. (more recordset code = more chance of needing more code changes).
If you do decide to convert from Access to SQL Server Express, there is a migration wizard which can give you a quick start with that process. Here's the link
I am a junior developer and about to get my feet wet in my first "real" project. However we are trying to figure out a way to set everything up as the current developer lives out of country.
I was told to install certain programs, subversion clients and SQL Server 2000.
It does not seem that SQL Server 2000 can be installed on Windows 7. Are there inherent issues with me developing in a higher version of SQL Server like 2005? Is there an issue with stored procedures that can not be properly translated from on SQL Server version to another?
Again, I'm fairly new at this; please let me know if this is just a bad idea, impossible and any other guidance you can provide.
There are many features in newer versions of MSSQL that were not there in 2000 (multi-row inserts, newer hashing algorithms, and VARCHAR(MAX) to name a few). If you're using SQL Server Management Studio, it will not check these differences for you, even if you are connected to a SQL server 2000 database - it automatically uses 2008 rules for its syntax highlighting. Because of this it's easy to accidentally write code that's not 2000-compatible.
As far as getting 2000 running, if you have the install disk for an older version of windows, you could run a VM (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/virtual-pc/) and install the database server there. If your company has a separate development environment, you could create a copy of the production database to work off of as well.
The newer versions of SQL server bring new language and database features, if you write something using a feature that is available in SQL 2005 and not 2000 i.e. PIVOT then when you try and promote this to live then it will just get a syntax error.
There is no translation, if you went back in time 11 years, you'd still speak English you'd just get an odd look if you talked about 'Tweeting'.
You can set the database compatibility level to an earlier version for the specific database you are working on. This will stop you using the more modern features.
For the most part, you won't run into issues is you're simply running standard stored procedures and SQL statements.
However, there are several things that might not work properly if you're not in sync. SQL2005 was a relatively major upgrade and instroduced quite a bit of new functionality.
I don't know what you've got for available resources - dollars, etc, but if you have an MSDN Subscription at a level that provides you access to operating systems, then I would strongly recommend setting up a virual machine with an older version of Windows using your MSDN licenses, just to keep things on an even playing field.
I have application that requires SQL Server 2000 as database storage.
I do not really want to use SQL Server 2000, but I can user MySQL Server instead.
Application uses ODBC to connect to SQL Server Database.
I would like to know if it is possible to make fake SQL Server which will send and receive data to/from MySQL Server
application <---> odbc manager <---> fake SQL Server driver <---> mysql server
Any one if such thing is possible to make?
If your application simply uses vanilla SQL via the ODBC driver, you should be able to use MySQL with few problems. If it uses specific features of SQLServer, then you need SQLServer - you cannot realistically fake it.
I wouldn't.
You're going to spend so long persuading the two to play nicely to no real benefit. You'll have to do most code the SQL Server way to work in this scenario. Given these, you might as well just bite the bullet and learn to use SQL Server directly rather than trying to tie the two together somehow, I'm afraid.
You can use a provider model and just switch out which provider your using at run time.
Of course, the biggest issue will be in the differing SQL code support. So you will have to take care that all of your SQL is located inside of each provider and stay away from any sort of embedding it in your application logic.. which you should be doing anyway.
Another way is to simply change the ODBC data source at deployment time, but again, you will have to make sure the SQL code actually works in both environments; which is tough.
Typically supporting multiple database back ends is a art form in itself. Simple things like SELECT TOP 100 for SQL Server 2k versus MySql's LIMIT command are enough to keep people from doing this.
There's no real way of "faking" it because the database servers are fundamentally different. You would end up writing a fair amount of code just to translate a sql call from one to the other... Which is a waste of time.
I'd suggest you just bite the bullet and learn MS SQL Server.
This site shows a very simple example of how SQL Server, Oracle, and MySql differ on just one implementation of a select statement.
Not sure why you "do not really want to use SQL Server 2000" but, if you decide you need to and you have a PC with Windows available, you can use the Microsoft Database Engine 2000 Release A (MSDE2000A.exe). It is the real thing and free to use on a desktop.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms811304.aspx
I do not think it is available for download from Microsoft anymore but you might be able to find it somewhere else. If you can't find it, your next best option may be to use the 2005 version (SQL Server 2005 Express Edition) and make sure you do not use any new features since 2000:
http://www.microsoft.com/Sqlserver/2005/en/us/express.aspx
We have a Sql Server 2005 Standard Edition running on a Production website. We'd like to move to a cloud hosting but they only offer Sql Server Express Edition on there.
My question is, will there be any problems in moving over? We only use tables, views, stored procedures and a few user defined functions. And we also have a Backup Maintenance Plan in place. Will any if this change?
WHat other limitations/problems (if any) can we expect to have? And is it a good idea to run on Express in Production?
And I would like to add, will it be OK if we moved from SQL server 2005 Standard to Sql Server 2008 Express - what possible problems there could be with this move?
There are limitations for SQL Server 2005 Express as listed here
These include:
- max 1GB RAM only
- max DB size of 4GB
- 1 CPU
Theses restrictions may cause you a problem. See the full list in the link.
With regrd to moving from 2005 Standard, to 2008 Express, then I expect the limitations of Express Edition may be the main factor when you consider if it really is an option. The limitations for 2008 Express are similar, see here.
Hope this helps
The migration im unsure.
Express does not support triggers (fully), nor SQL scheudling.
Its size is limited to 4GB.
You can only ever have one instance with express.
It does however support Full Text and Reporting Services (in the express advanced edition)
We have plenty of clients running SQL Express due to cost. Only small pain has been the need to write a windows service for a job that could be easily run in proper SQL scheduling in the paid for the version.
Im sure there are many more differences but these are the ones im aware of, hope this helps.
I've used SQL Server Express for simple data persistence in production with no issues.
From the looks of your situation the only feature that will not be supported is backup maintenance. However, if you're hosted on a cloud, your ISP should take care of backup for you.
I am about to move servers and i was talking to somebody and they suggested using sql server express 2008 installed on the servers. I have full access to the server.
Does this express engine work at the same speed (performance) as a true sql server 2008?
I know about the limitations i..e max 4 GB per DB ... and max 1 GB of ram... Considering the server has 2GB installed and is shared with windows... i don't see this being a problem but would love to hear some feedback..
I have around 4 dbs .. and they have maybe 4 users logged into them at the same time, its not a great deal of use really...
What i really trying to mesure up is if i should installed SQL SERVER 2008 FULL version on the server or express..
Any help with a choice would be really helpful.
It appears express uses the same DB engine as the FULL version ...
I don't need any clever replication, clustering or things like that...
But i want to go down the right path ...
Any help really appreciated
Express is the same code as the other SQL editions (Workgroup, Standard, Enterprise/Developer and Data Center). The only different code base is the 'CE' edition, that is based on the mobile SQL CE code. Express has the restrictions you already enumerated (DB size, RAM) and also is using only one scheduler, so in effect will use only one CPU core. Also certain features are restricted in Express, like certain replication scenarios. The biggest advantage is that customers can start with Express and if they out-grow its capabilities they can swap in a higher edition without any application change, the database files are interchangeable between all editions, including Express.
Its the same engine, but I found you have to fight it all the way in making it anything but a desktop-environment database, from management to tcpip configuration, etc. And of course, it has built in limits on database size and resource usage. Once it is configured the way you want though, it runs fine. In real production settings I find the lack of SSIS quite the killer, though.
So the bottom line is that it is usable, but not great. You might also consider the Workgroup edition, which is reasonably priced and less limited, but of course it is more expensive than free.
Just to add to this SQL Express 2008 R2 can use multiple cores (but only 1 CPU).
You'll probably be fine with Express. It's the same basic engine. If you ever want to upgrade, the process should be rather painless.
you should be fine, performance should be similar to full version in your case since your databases are small