I am using Django on Windows 2003 Server SP2 and IIS 6 with pyisapi.
Do you recommend using sqlite3 on this production server?
What are the advantages and disadvantages of using sqlite3 on a production server in general and especially on Windows 2003 Server.
Our application is an order management tool which will have 5 clients accessing it (not necessarily concurrently). It is only used on an intranet. For this purpose we have adjusted the admin interface to our needs.
SQLite is an excellent product. It's very simple to use and deploy, is very fast, highly reliable and doesn't typically require any external administration. It uses very few operating system resources, allowing you do better utilize the operating system and hardware resources that are available. SQLite is used by many projects.
You may also want to look into Berkeley DB's SQL API. It's completely SQLite compatible. In addition, it offers concurrency (multiple readers and writers active in the database), scalability (BDB manages databases in the 100's of GB to TB range today) and HA (High Availability either for load balancing or for hot standby with automatic failover) above and beyond what's currently available with SQLite.
Related
When a project is created in Asp.net MVC you have the possibility to choose between different types of database, which is the recommended and what are their differences and uses.
SQL Server runs as a service, whereas SQL Server Compact is an embedded database in the same physical location as the application. SQL Server Compact is meant for a standalone application and is not intended to be shared among many users or in situations where there is a lot of concurrent access, such as with a web site.
SQL Server runs as a service and listens for requests on a port. You can have multiple concurrent connections with its use and it acts as a gatekeeper checking for permissions from incoming connections. It is meant for work groups and enterprises, and is not intended (overkill) for single-user/single-computer applications.
SQL Server Express is the free edition of the full SQL Server, and has certain limitations such as a maximum database size of 10GB, among others. SQL Server Standard is like the full edition. There are also Enterprise, Datacenter, and Developer editions.
consider I write a desktop software in C# for example,and it reads/writes data to/from sql server,Can I run this software on a system without having sql server installed.
I saw the two links of stackoverflow,but did not get my answer.
I want to know CAN THAT BE DONE OR NOT?
if yes,how?
thanks in advance.
Sql Server must be installed, and running, somewhere to be able to use it. However, this does not need to be on local machine. The most common scenario for Sql Server is to be installed on a dedicated server machine off in a data center somewhere, and either many clients will connect to and use the same database, or one or a few web servers will connect potentially many times per second with different requests. It's not really intended for desktop use.
If you want to build a desktop app, and you want a database to use only as a local data store, Sql Server is actually a really poor choice for this. That includes the free Sql Server Express. Don't use it for applications that will be distributed to end users, where all the data will kept on each user's local system. It is a server-class engine, and works best when it can run on dedicated hardware.
Instead, you want a desktop-class or in-process database engine, such as Sqlite, Sql Server Compact (not Express) Edition, or even MS Access.
There are many SQL engines that can be embedded in desktop application. For example SQLite, there should be one with C# interoperability.
I am working on an application in my free time and I want to use a SQL Server database. I have the .iso for SQL Server 2008 R2 Developer but I don't have an extra computer to dedicate as a server. I assumed I could use VMware Player for a virtual server but from what I've read it seems that I would need VMware vCenter or another paid version.
Is there a free option for creating a SQL Server database virtually? This will be extremely small scale (3 tables and just for my personal use) so I am not worried about performance at all.
You can install that locally on your computer. There is no need for a virtual engine. Even if some of the MS documents say you need a server operating system, that is not the case. The setup has a check for valid operating system, and it just installs fine on Windows XP, Vista, 7 in my experience.
But if you want, VMWare Player would also work. In contrast to its name, you can also create virtual engines with it - but with some limitations.
And for a really small solution, even SQL Server Express, which is also free, would do. If I remeber correctly, the main restriction is that the data may not exceed 1 TB.
SQL Server can run locally without any problems, even in your dev/gaming/browsing computer without creating too much interference. There is no problem in installing it for testing and even for production of small systems (the express edition is free and valid for those uses).
Another, even slimmer, alternative, if you dare to upgrade to SQL 2012, would be to use a new feature called LocalDB. It's basically the very same db engine with a very important difference: it does NOT run as a service, but instead it's a regular program that is automatically started when a connection is attempted. Advantages would be that it does not consume resources until it's needed and yet you've got almost the full feature set of the real server. Here is an introduction on it. While I've never used it (always with the full express version), it seems good for the kind of programs you want to develop.
I have been working on the software using a SQL Server database. Now I am in the phase when I would like to provide this software for other people, but I don't know how to manage the database. The thing is that it is really inconvenient when installing my software to also install SQL Server at the users computer (many unexpected thing could happen).
Therefore I thought that I would pay for web hosting with SQL Server, but it is:
Expensive (just for database with few tables).
Most of the web hosting don't offer remote access to the SQL Server database (so I can't connect there from my software).
So there is my question, what would you do? My own virtual server? (even more expensive), or would you install SQL Server on users computer? Or do you know where to get only SQL Server hosting for low costs?
I don't advice using a remote SQL Server. SQL Connections strongly depend on network connection and the Internet is not "stable" enough for that. There are also performance issues that will make your application completely useless.
One important thing you didn't mention is whether different users will share the same data or will have their own. If each user will use their own data you can install a "local" SQL Server Edition (SQL Compact Edition, here is the reference)
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa983341(v=vs.110).aspx
In case several users will share the same data, you shouldn't rely on the database solely. One possible approach is having an Application server that implements business logic whereas your desktop application stays actiong as a "dumb" client. This is a lot better for performance and reduce data transfer problems. You can implement webservices for you application server. This is a good solution as the data is transfered from he application server to the clients through HTTP/HTTPS and this relieves you from dealing with ports and other communication issues. An alternative is using Microsoft Communication Framework (WCF)
Good luck!
We have a DB server with a couple web app db's on there (don't get a ton of traffic). We'd like to make use of the server and allow it to be the DB server for sharepoint. I'm assuming it's not good practice and that sharepoint should have it's own exclusive db server. Am I right in that conclusion, or is it alright if we put the database on a server that already hosts other databases.
You can install SharePoint on an existing DB server, sure. Unless your environment is going to be huge, I don't see why you would give it its own DB server. It will use an embedded SQL Server instance if you want, but you'll get better performance if you have the full-blown version. We're running a few SharePoint apps on our DB server with a number of other applications.
The way in which I solve this is to install a second SQL Server instance dedicated to SharePoint, as SharePoint likes to have a lot of control over the database and spews all sorts of stuff such as logins, etc. across the instance, which you really want to separate from your standard line of business instance.
The added bonus is multiple SQL Server instances on the same physical machine are included in your licence.
Be careful with the SQL Server collation. I think SharePoint requires a particular setting for this. See http://www.moss2007.be/blogs/vandest/archive/2007/07/24/sharepoint-2007-and-sql-server-collation-latin1_general_ci_as_ks_ws.aspx for one reference.
Prior to centralizing our environment we had many Sharepoint sites located on servers with existing applications. I'm not a fan of adding an additional named instance as this increases the administrative overhead for the DBA. You have to know how much use you expect of your Sharepoint instance then measure the resource utilization of your existing applications balance it from there.