From: "Robert Comer" 

It's not that I think SQL Server is bad btw, just not smart in the
environment I have now...

- Bob Comer


"Ellen K."  wrote in message
news:vj1ab19u9rmimeaaou5ooc2pesc5qmku05{at}4ax.com...
> Then you don't need SQL Server, you are correct.
>
> On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 09:18:13 -0400, "Robert Comer"
>  wrote in message :
>
>>Yes.
>>
>>- Bob Comer
>>
>>
>>"Ellen K"  wrote in message
>>news:e09bc1.d18613{at}harborwebs.com...
>>> It comes with a version of DB2?
>>>
>>>> From: "Robert Comer"

>>>> I'm moving away from MS SQL Server, so it really doesn't matter.
>>>> It's not because MS SQL Server is bad, it's just that the
AS/400's DB
>>>> is
>>>> better and I already have that, so SQL Server is a redundant extra
>>>> cost.
>>>> - Bob Comer
>>>> "Ellen K." 
wrote in message
>>>> news:b1n4b1d8q4hcpmtofa068eavu1l7gefqq0{at}4ax.com...
>>>>> Well, Standard is very cost-effective.   :)
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 16:23:22 -0400, "Robert Comer"
>>>>>  wrote in message
>>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>>>> The other thing to bear in mind is that you
may not need Enterprise.
>>>>>>> Enterprise is currently needed if you want to
use the prebuilt log
>>>>>>> shipping or clustering, or more than 2 CPUs or
more than 4 GB RAM. I
>>>>>>> think you also need Enterprise for indexed
views (what Oracle calls
>>>>>>> materialized views).  If you want log shipping
on Standard you can
>>>>>>> RYO.
>>>>>>> I'm using Standard on all my current
databases, and it's about 1/4
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> cost.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We wouldn't need any of those, so no need for enterprise.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Bob Comer
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Ellen K."
 wrote in message
>>>>>> news:cm73b1loqb99g2ngkpn4bk8pdv0j6h9opl{at}4ax.com...
>>>>>>> The other thing to bear in mind is that you
may not need Enterprise.
>>>>>>> Enterprise is currently needed if you want to
use the prebuilt log
>>>>>>> shipping or clustering, or more than 2 CPUs or
more than 4 GB RAM.
>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>> think you also need Enterprise for indexed
views (what Oracle calls
>>>>>>> materialized views).  If you want log shipping
on Standard you can
>>>>>>> RYO.
>>>>>>> I'm using Standard on all my current
databases, and it's about 1/4
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> cost.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For 2005 they are coming out with another
level I forget the name of
>>>>>>> that's between Standard and Enterprise but is
only slightly more
>>>>>>> expensive than the current Standard (I think
list is $6K vs $5K for
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> current Standard), it has failover clustering,
up to I think 4 CPUs,
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> as much RAM as your O/S allows.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 10:36:42 -0400,
"Robert Comer"
>>>>>>>  wrote
in message
>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So it wouldn't make sense here...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Bob Comer
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "John Cuccia"
 wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:nr23b1l8rm1mrth1jm9tvj5mc6tvu34tpv{at}4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 09:22:38 -0400,
"Robert Comer"
>>>>>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> As for per-user, I can't
imagine going per-user on a production
>>>>>>>>>>> database, per-CPU gets cheaper
at a pretty low number of users.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Just what is that pretty low
number of users?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Looks like just under 100, based on this:
>>>>>>>>>
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/default.asp
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Enterprise is $19128 per processor.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Per server + user CAL price is $6382 +
$146/user, so
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (19128 - 6382)/146 = 87
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5