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