devenv.exe hangs up with alomost 100% cpu usage

For some reason my visual studio with SSIS project hangs up with almost 100% cpu usage sometimes immediately after opening the studio.

Any resolution?

Thanks

I'm having the same problem and it is driving me nuts! I do a lot of BI work and this has disrupted my project timelines significantly.

As best as I can tell. it seems to have start after applying a patch to the .NET framework 2.0. The patch is defined in the KB922770. I'm not sure if this is the culprit by itself or if there are others factors re-enforcing the problem.

Let me know if you come up with a resolution.

Thanks, Darryl

darryl_jewett@.msn.com

|||

We were able to reduce the occurrence of hangup by 90% with two settings... particulary with the first one.

1. Project property -> Configuration Manger - > Build = UNCHECK (This gets checked mysteriously even though we Uncheck and save in TFS - so we verify for this setting frequently when we open the project). If it is checked - all packages in the project are built/compiled irrespective of package you are working on and if there are 100's of packages - compiling all of them takes hell of time.

2. Tools->Options->Environment->AutoRecovery - Save autorecovery information... = UNCHECK. (I did this bz I saw in the status bar of VS the message: Saving autorecovery details.. when it gets stuck)

Hope it helps you as well (if above setting are not important to you ).

But the problem has not gone altogether.... it still hangs up once in a while.

Thanks

development with several developers

Using SS2000 SP4. I'm wondering how companies with several developers (from 2
to 200) set up development environments. We have a new project manager who
wants to set up 6 different databases (one for each developer) and 6
different web environments for the developers. We're a small company and the
most developers we've ever had working on a project at the same time is 2.
We're hiring outside contractors for a special project.
With 6 different development databases and 6 different web environments, it
would seem that it would be harder to keep all of the databases and web apps
in sync. Everything is supposed to funnel into a single development database
and web app. Then we'll have testing server and staging server before going
to production.
I'm suggesting one development database and web app that the developers can
have control of but when everything moves to testing, they can only access
the database through the app and any changes to the app or database have to
be made in development.
Can someone who has more experience with larger staffs give me some feedback
on how they handle development?
Thanks,
--
Dan D.What we are doing here is -
* We have 3 set of environments (DEV -> TEST -> LIVE).
* Each environment is made up of two physical servers (IIS and MSSQL
DS).
* Developers have full control of the DEV environment (local admin)
* TEST is a copy of LIVE (or mimic the LIVE)
* System Administrators control and maintain the TEST and LIVE
environment. During the TEST, system administrators start involved in
the project with developers. Any system change requests need to go
through by the system administrators.
Hope this helps.
Mel|||Do you have several developers working on the same project? Do the developers
work on the dev database directly or work on their own copies of the database
and then update dev periodically?
One of the things that concerns me about developers having full control over
even a dev database is not knowing what they're doing. We normally have
backend reporting processes and data ETL processes that are separate from an
app and if we don't know what the app is doing it could affect the backend
processes and vice versa. For instance, we had a developer put a trigger on a
table once that no one else knew about. When someone in the database
department inserted new rows in
the table with the trigger it updated a column that it shouldn't have. No
one discovered the problem for weeks and now trying to get the data back
corrected could take weeks.
Thanks,
--
Dan D.
"MSLam" wrote:
> What we are doing here is -
> * We have 3 set of environments (DEV -> TEST -> LIVE).
> * Each environment is made up of two physical servers (IIS and MSSQL
> DS).
> * Developers have full control of the DEV environment (local admin)
> * TEST is a copy of LIVE (or mimic the LIVE)
> * System Administrators control and maintain the TEST and LIVE
> environment. During the TEST, system administrators start involved in
> the project with developers. Any system change requests need to go
> through by the system administrators.
> Hope this helps.
> Mel
>|||Yes, we do (2 to 3 developers working on the same project), we use
SourceSafe for versioning tracking. They were told not to develop on
their own PC but on the Dev environment. However you probabily can
guess this may not happen as a strict enforcement not yet in place.
Taking full control away from the developers still a struggle here, as
the developers used to be 'master of everthing' - install, deploy,
support and troubleshoot. However as the department starts growing we
start define the job in more details and have more expertises for the
tasks (labour division).
Just like normal users, it is difficult to take permission away after
they have tasted the power! That why it is important to get the things
correct in the 1st place, otherwise it will become a 'historical
burden' later on, which I am in now.
Mel|||That's the problem here. We didn't have a dba for a long time. Now we're
trying to clean up the databases and set up and enforce new procedures but
it's a struggle.
Thanks for the feedback Mel.
--
Dan D.
"MSLam" wrote:
> Yes, we do (2 to 3 developers working on the same project), we use
> SourceSafe for versioning tracking. They were told not to develop on
> their own PC but on the Dev environment. However you probabily can
> guess this may not happen as a strict enforcement not yet in place.
> Taking full control away from the developers still a struggle here, as
> the developers used to be 'master of everthing' - install, deploy,
> support and troubleshoot. However as the department starts growing we
> start define the job in more details and have more expertises for the
> tasks (labour division).
> Just like normal users, it is difficult to take permission away after
> they have tasted the power! That why it is important to get the things
> correct in the 1st place, otherwise it will become a 'historical
> burden' later on, which I am in now.
> Mel
>|||You basically have to balance complexity with isolation. Generally,
developers are going to be working on mutually exclusive application code.
That also generally translates to mutually exclusive database code.
Everyone has to hit the same tables.
I've never seen a shop setup a separate environment for each developer. The
reason being is plain and simple cost. That's not just licensing, but also
the time and effort to administer it. You have 6 developers right now.
What happens when you have 12 developers? What happens if you have 50
developers? How many people are going to wind up spending 100% of their
time just maintaining something like this.
Managing this is all about process and not installing separated
environments. You still have 1 application that has to be built coherently
and deployed. It's been a long time since I've been anywhere that
developers weren't using some kind of version control system to manage their
application. However, I've almost never seen anyone do this with a
database. Your database is code, just like everything else. All of that
stuff should also be in your version control system and bound by the same
rules you have for checking out and checking in your application code. You
have someone who has the final say on what goes into your application and
what doesn't. You also need someone to have the final say on what goes into
the database and what doesn't.
You application gets built out of your version control system and deployed.
Your database changes also need to be built from version control and
deployed as well.
So, the short answer is, I haven't been in a shop (2 developers all the way
up to well over 1000 developers) that has done what your project manager is
proposing. Anyone working on a particular application works against the
same source code tree and into the same database. The application is then
built from source code control. Any database changes are applied via a
script to make the modifications and since that is code, has to go through
all of the same approval processes as the app code.
--
Mike
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com
Disclaimer: This communication is an original work and represents my sole
views on the subject. It does not represent the views of any other person
or entity either by inference or direct reference.
"Dan D." <DanD@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:AE2111B3-3EA9-47AA-9A3C-750A1157504A@.microsoft.com...
> Using SS2000 SP4. I'm wondering how companies with several developers
> (from 2
> to 200) set up development environments. We have a new project manager who
> wants to set up 6 different databases (one for each developer) and 6
> different web environments for the developers. We're a small company and
> the
> most developers we've ever had working on a project at the same time is 2.
> We're hiring outside contractors for a special project.
> With 6 different development databases and 6 different web environments,
> it
> would seem that it would be harder to keep all of the databases and web
> apps
> in sync. Everything is supposed to funnel into a single development
> database
> and web app. Then we'll have testing server and staging server before
> going
> to production.
> I'm suggesting one development database and web app that the developers
> can
> have control of but when everything moves to testing, they can only access
> the database through the app and any changes to the app or database have
> to
> be made in development.
> Can someone who has more experience with larger staffs give me some
> feedback
> on how they handle development?
> Thanks,
> --
> Dan D.|||Well he finally thought better of it and changed his mind. We'll now use one
development database for everyone.
The scenario you outline is what I've always read about and basically done
with 2 developers.
Thanks for your feedback Mike.
--
Dan D.
"Michael Hotek" wrote:
> You basically have to balance complexity with isolation. Generally,
> developers are going to be working on mutually exclusive application code.
> That also generally translates to mutually exclusive database code.
> Everyone has to hit the same tables.
> I've never seen a shop setup a separate environment for each developer. The
> reason being is plain and simple cost. That's not just licensing, but also
> the time and effort to administer it. You have 6 developers right now.
> What happens when you have 12 developers? What happens if you have 50
> developers? How many people are going to wind up spending 100% of their
> time just maintaining something like this.
> Managing this is all about process and not installing separated
> environments. You still have 1 application that has to be built coherently
> and deployed. It's been a long time since I've been anywhere that
> developers weren't using some kind of version control system to manage their
> application. However, I've almost never seen anyone do this with a
> database. Your database is code, just like everything else. All of that
> stuff should also be in your version control system and bound by the same
> rules you have for checking out and checking in your application code. You
> have someone who has the final say on what goes into your application and
> what doesn't. You also need someone to have the final say on what goes into
> the database and what doesn't.
> You application gets built out of your version control system and deployed.
> Your database changes also need to be built from version control and
> deployed as well.
> So, the short answer is, I haven't been in a shop (2 developers all the way
> up to well over 1000 developers) that has done what your project manager is
> proposing. Anyone working on a particular application works against the
> same source code tree and into the same database. The application is then
> built from source code control. Any database changes are applied via a
> script to make the modifications and since that is code, has to go through
> all of the same approval processes as the app code.
> --
> Mike
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com
> Disclaimer: This communication is an original work and represents my sole
> views on the subject. It does not represent the views of any other person
> or entity either by inference or direct reference.
>
> "Dan D." <DanD@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:AE2111B3-3EA9-47AA-9A3C-750A1157504A@.microsoft.com...
> > Using SS2000 SP4. I'm wondering how companies with several developers
> > (from 2
> > to 200) set up development environments. We have a new project manager who
> > wants to set up 6 different databases (one for each developer) and 6
> > different web environments for the developers. We're a small company and
> > the
> > most developers we've ever had working on a project at the same time is 2.
> > We're hiring outside contractors for a special project.
> >
> > With 6 different development databases and 6 different web environments,
> > it
> > would seem that it would be harder to keep all of the databases and web
> > apps
> > in sync. Everything is supposed to funnel into a single development
> > database
> > and web app. Then we'll have testing server and staging server before
> > going
> > to production.
> >
> > I'm suggesting one development database and web app that the developers
> > can
> > have control of but when everything moves to testing, they can only access
> > the database through the app and any changes to the app or database have
> > to
> > be made in development.
> >
> > Can someone who has more experience with larger staffs give me some
> > feedback
> > on how they handle development?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > --
> > Dan D.
>
>

development with several developers

Using SS2000 SP4. I'm wondering how companies with several developers (from
2
to 200) set up development environments. We have a new project manager who
wants to set up 6 different databases (one for each developer) and 6
different web environments for the developers. We're a small company and the
most developers we've ever had working on a project at the same time is 2.
We're hiring outside contractors for a special project.
With 6 different development databases and 6 different web environments, it
would seem that it would be harder to keep all of the databases and web apps
in sync. Everything is supposed to funnel into a single development database
and web app. Then we'll have testing server and staging server before going
to production.
I'm suggesting one development database and web app that the developers can
have control of but when everything moves to testing, they can only access
the database through the app and any changes to the app or database have to
be made in development.
Can someone who has more experience with larger staffs give me some feedback
on how they handle development?
Thanks,
--
Dan D.What we are doing here is -
* We have 3 set of environments (DEV -> TEST -> LIVE).
* Each environment is made up of two physical servers (IIS and MSSQL
DS).
* Developers have full control of the DEV environment (local admin)
* TEST is a copy of LIVE (or mimic the LIVE)
* System Administrators control and maintain the TEST and LIVE
environment. During the TEST, system administrators start involved in
the project with developers. Any system change requests need to go
through by the system administrators.
Hope this helps.
Mel|||Do you have several developers working on the same project? Do the developer
s
work on the dev database directly or work on their own copies of the databas
e
and then update dev periodically?
One of the things that concerns me about developers having full control over
even a dev database is not knowing what they're doing. We normally have
backend reporting processes and data ETL processes that are separate from an
app and if we don't know what the app is doing it could affect the backend
processes and vice versa. For instance, we had a developer put a trigger on
a
table once that no one else knew about. When someone in the database
department inserted new rows in
the table with the trigger it updated a column that it shouldn't have. No
one discovered the problem for weeks and now trying to get the data back
corrected could take weeks.
Thanks,
--
Dan D.
"MSLam" wrote:

> What we are doing here is -
> * We have 3 set of environments (DEV -> TEST -> LIVE).
> * Each environment is made up of two physical servers (IIS and MSSQL
> DS).
> * Developers have full control of the DEV environment (local admin)
> * TEST is a copy of LIVE (or mimic the LIVE)
> * System Administrators control and maintain the TEST and LIVE
> environment. During the TEST, system administrators start involved in
> the project with developers. Any system change requests need to go
> through by the system administrators.
> Hope this helps.
> Mel
>|||Yes, we do (2 to 3 developers working on the same project), we use
SourceSafe for versioning tracking. They were told not to develop on
their own PC but on the Dev environment. However you probabily can
guess this may not happen as a strict enforcement not yet in place.
Taking full control away from the developers still a struggle here, as
the developers used to be 'master of everthing' - install, deploy,
support and troubleshoot. However as the department starts growing we
start define the job in more details and have more expertises for the
tasks (labour division).
Just like normal users, it is difficult to take permission away after
they have tasted the power! That why it is important to get the things
correct in the 1st place, otherwise it will become a 'historical
burden' later on, which I am in now.
Mel|||That's the problem here. We didn't have a dba for a long time. Now we're
trying to clean up the databases and set up and enforce new procedures but
it's a struggle.
Thanks for the feedback Mel.
--
Dan D.
"MSLam" wrote:

> Yes, we do (2 to 3 developers working on the same project), we use
> SourceSafe for versioning tracking. They were told not to develop on
> their own PC but on the Dev environment. However you probabily can
> guess this may not happen as a strict enforcement not yet in place.
> Taking full control away from the developers still a struggle here, as
> the developers used to be 'master of everthing' - install, deploy,
> support and troubleshoot. However as the department starts growing we
> start define the job in more details and have more expertises for the
> tasks (labour division).
> Just like normal users, it is difficult to take permission away after
> they have tasted the power! That why it is important to get the things
> correct in the 1st place, otherwise it will become a 'historical
> burden' later on, which I am in now.
> Mel
>|||You basically have to balance complexity with isolation. Generally,
developers are going to be working on mutually exclusive application code.
That also generally translates to mutually exclusive database code.
Everyone has to hit the same tables.
I've never seen a shop setup a separate environment for each developer. The
reason being is plain and simple cost. That's not just licensing, but also
the time and effort to administer it. You have 6 developers right now.
What happens when you have 12 developers? What happens if you have 50
developers? How many people are going to wind up spending 100% of their
time just maintaining something like this.
Managing this is all about process and not installing separated
environments. You still have 1 application that has to be built coherently
and deployed. It's been a long time since I've been anywhere that
developers weren't using some kind of version control system to manage their
application. However, I've almost never seen anyone do this with a
database. Your database is code, just like everything else. All of that
stuff should also be in your version control system and bound by the same
rules you have for checking out and checking in your application code. You
have someone who has the final say on what goes into your application and
what doesn't. You also need someone to have the final say on what goes into
the database and what doesn't.
You application gets built out of your version control system and deployed.
Your database changes also need to be built from version control and
deployed as well.
So, the short answer is, I haven't been in a shop (2 developers all the way
up to well over 1000 developers) that has done what your project manager is
proposing. Anyone working on a particular application works against the
same source code tree and into the same database. The application is then
built from source code control. Any database changes are applied via a
script to make the modifications and since that is code, has to go through
all of the same approval processes as the app code.
Mike
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com
Disclaimer: This communication is an original work and represents my sole
views on the subject. It does not represent the views of any other person
or entity either by inference or direct reference.
"Dan D." <DanD@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:AE2111B3-3EA9-47AA-9A3C-750A1157504A@.microsoft.com...
> Using SS2000 SP4. I'm wondering how companies with several developers
> (from 2
> to 200) set up development environments. We have a new project manager who
> wants to set up 6 different databases (one for each developer) and 6
> different web environments for the developers. We're a small company and
> the
> most developers we've ever had working on a project at the same time is 2.
> We're hiring outside contractors for a special project.
> With 6 different development databases and 6 different web environments,
> it
> would seem that it would be harder to keep all of the databases and web
> apps
> in sync. Everything is supposed to funnel into a single development
> database
> and web app. Then we'll have testing server and staging server before
> going
> to production.
> I'm suggesting one development database and web app that the developers
> can
> have control of but when everything moves to testing, they can only access
> the database through the app and any changes to the app or database have
> to
> be made in development.
> Can someone who has more experience with larger staffs give me some
> feedback
> on how they handle development?
> Thanks,
> --
> Dan D.|||Well he finally thought better of it and changed his mind. We'll now use one
development database for everyone.
The scenario you outline is what I've always read about and basically done
with 2 developers.
Thanks for your feedback Mike.
--
Dan D.
"Michael Hotek" wrote:

> You basically have to balance complexity with isolation. Generally,
> developers are going to be working on mutually exclusive application code.
> That also generally translates to mutually exclusive database code.
> Everyone has to hit the same tables.
> I've never seen a shop setup a separate environment for each developer. T
he
> reason being is plain and simple cost. That's not just licensing, but als
o
> the time and effort to administer it. You have 6 developers right now.
> What happens when you have 12 developers? What happens if you have 50
> developers? How many people are going to wind up spending 100% of their
> time just maintaining something like this.
> Managing this is all about process and not installing separated
> environments. You still have 1 application that has to be built coherentl
y
> and deployed. It's been a long time since I've been anywhere that
> developers weren't using some kind of version control system to manage the
ir
> application. However, I've almost never seen anyone do this with a
> database. Your database is code, just like everything else. All of that
> stuff should also be in your version control system and bound by the same
> rules you have for checking out and checking in your application code. Yo
u
> have someone who has the final say on what goes into your application and
> what doesn't. You also need someone to have the final say on what goes in
to
> the database and what doesn't.
> You application gets built out of your version control system and deployed
.
> Your database changes also need to be built from version control and
> deployed as well.
> So, the short answer is, I haven't been in a shop (2 developers all the wa
y
> up to well over 1000 developers) that has done what your project manager i
s
> proposing. Anyone working on a particular application works against the
> same source code tree and into the same database. The application is then
> built from source code control. Any database changes are applied via a
> script to make the modifications and since that is code, has to go through
> all of the same approval processes as the app code.
> --
> Mike
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com
> Disclaimer: This communication is an original work and represents my sole
> views on the subject. It does not represent the views of any other person
> or entity either by inference or direct reference.
>
> "Dan D." <DanD@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:AE2111B3-3EA9-47AA-9A3C-750A1157504A@.microsoft.com...
>
>

Developing a report with Reporting Services in SQL Express

Hi,

I'm trying to use reporting services in teh VS2003 but the Option to I create the project does not appear, i've already installed SP3 and no success, any idea ?

Thanks

Which reporting service? I don't believe SQL 2000 Reporting Services is supported on MSDE. You should probably be asking this question in a Visual Studio forum rather than a SQL forum.

Mike

|||

Ok, then

Thanks... And do you Know if SQL 2005 Express has this service ?

Thanks

|||

Yes, SQL Express with Advanced Services includes Reporting Services. The tool to create reports, BIDS, is available in the SQL Express Toolkit. Both can be downloaded from http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/express/sql/download.

Regards,

Mike Wachal
SQL Express team

|||

Nice....

Another thing, I have an application that is currently using MSDE, I use some stored procedures and functions.... Is it all compatible with SQL Express 2005 do I need to change anything in my application ?

Thanks

|||

Hi, question regarding developing a report using SQL Express with advanced/reporting services. I have all packages installed correctly (I think) but am unable to start the BI report developer tool because the Start menu shortcut for the business intelligence development studio points to an executable that is not there. It points to: "C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio 8\Common7\IDE\devenv.exe"

FYI, I am running Windows XP SP2 and do not have Visual Studio installed, although I do have Visual C# Express installed. There is a VCSExpress.exe in that directory, if that helps.

I can access the web based links for the reporting services manager at http://localhost/Reports$SQLExpress with no problems.

Any idea on how to use the report developer tool?

Thanks,

Todd

Developer Edition and Standard Edition on the same machine

Hi All,
I have installed the Developer Edition on my computer and have been using
this SQL database for my project.
The SQL server Standard Edition is installed on the server and I need a SQL
client to be installed on my PC to be able to communicate with the SQL Serve
r
on the server. This would be for another project. When once the SQL client i
s
installed on my PC, will I still be able use the Developer Edition on the
local mahine as before, for the first project?
Thanks
kdPlease don't post independently in separate newsgroups. You can add
multiple newsgroups to the header and then all the answers appear as one.
See my reply in the other newsgroup.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"kd" <kd@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:67B0C0CA-0413-4E73-8BA6-F6693BFEFC72@.microsoft.com...
> Hi All,
> I have installed the Developer Edition on my computer and have been using
> this SQL database for my project.
> The SQL server Standard Edition is installed on the server and I need a
> SQL
> client to be installed on my PC to be able to communicate with the SQL
> Server
> on the server. This would be for another project. When once the SQL client
> is
> installed on my PC, will I still be able use the Developer Edition on the
> local mahine as before, for the first project?
> Thanks
> kd|||Hi,
Thanks for the answer and sorry about that; didn't know that multiple
newsgroups could be added in the header.
Regards,
kd
"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:

> Please don't post independently in separate newsgroups. You can add
> multiple newsgroups to the header and then all the answers appear as one.
> See my reply in the other newsgroup.
>
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "kd" <kd@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:67B0C0CA-0413-4E73-8BA6-F6693BFEFC72@.microsoft.com...
>
>

Developer Edition and Standard Edition on the same machine

Hi All,
I have installed the Developer Edition on my computer and have been using
this SQL database for my project.
The SQL server Standard Edition is installed on the server and I need a SQL
client to be installed on my PC to be able to communicate with the SQL Server
on the server. This would be for another project. When once the SQL client is
installed on my PC, will I still be able use the Developer Edition on the
local mahine as before, for the first project?
Thanks
kd
Please don't post independently in separate newsgroups. You can add
multiple newsgroups to the header and then all the answers appear as one.
See my reply in the other newsgroup.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"kd" <kd@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:67B0C0CA-0413-4E73-8BA6-F6693BFEFC72@.microsoft.com...
> Hi All,
> I have installed the Developer Edition on my computer and have been using
> this SQL database for my project.
> The SQL server Standard Edition is installed on the server and I need a
> SQL
> client to be installed on my PC to be able to communicate with the SQL
> Server
> on the server. This would be for another project. When once the SQL client
> is
> installed on my PC, will I still be able use the Developer Edition on the
> local mahine as before, for the first project?
> Thanks
> kd
|||Hi,
Thanks for the answer and sorry about that; didn't know that multiple
newsgroups could be added in the header.
Regards,
kd
"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:

> Please don't post independently in separate newsgroups. You can add
> multiple newsgroups to the header and then all the answers appear as one.
> See my reply in the other newsgroup.
>
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "kd" <kd@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:67B0C0CA-0413-4E73-8BA6-F6693BFEFC72@.microsoft.com...
>
>

Developer Edition and Standard Edition on the same machine

Hi All,
I have installed the Developer Edition on my computer and have been using
this SQL database for my project.
The SQL server Standard Edition is installed on the server and I need a SQL
client to be installed on my PC to be able to communicate with the SQL Server
on the server. This would be for another project. When once the SQL client is
installed on my PC, will I still be able use the Developer Edition on the
local mahine as before, for the first project?
Thanks
kdPlease don't post independently in separate newsgroups. You can add
multiple newsgroups to the header and then all the answers appear as one.
See my reply in the other newsgroup.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"kd" <kd@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:67B0C0CA-0413-4E73-8BA6-F6693BFEFC72@.microsoft.com...
> Hi All,
> I have installed the Developer Edition on my computer and have been using
> this SQL database for my project.
> The SQL server Standard Edition is installed on the server and I need a
> SQL
> client to be installed on my PC to be able to communicate with the SQL
> Server
> on the server. This would be for another project. When once the SQL client
> is
> installed on my PC, will I still be able use the Developer Edition on the
> local mahine as before, for the first project?
> Thanks
> kd|||Hi,
Thanks for the answer and sorry about that; didn't know that multiple
newsgroups could be added in the header.
Regards,
kd
"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
> Please don't post independently in separate newsgroups. You can add
> multiple newsgroups to the header and then all the answers appear as one.
> See my reply in the other newsgroup.
>
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "kd" <kd@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:67B0C0CA-0413-4E73-8BA6-F6693BFEFC72@.microsoft.com...
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I have installed the Developer Edition on my computer and have been using
> > this SQL database for my project.
> >
> > The SQL server Standard Edition is installed on the server and I need a
> > SQL
> > client to be installed on my PC to be able to communicate with the SQL
> > Server
> > on the server. This would be for another project. When once the SQL client
> > is
> > installed on my PC, will I still be able use the Developer Edition on the
> > local mahine as before, for the first project?
> >
> > Thanks
> > kd
>
>

Developer and Standard Edition

Hi All,
I have installed the Developer Edition on my computer and have been using
this SQL database for my project.
The SQL server Standard Edition is installed on the server and I need a SQL
client to be installed on my PC to be able to communicate with the SQL Server
on the server. This would be for another project. When once the SQL client is
installed on my PC, will I still be able use the Developer Edition on the
local mahine as before, for the first project?
Thanks
kd
I am not 100% sure what you are asking but if you already have the developer
edition installed on your PC then you most likely have the client tools such
as Enterprise Manager and Query Analyzer loaded. You can point these to any
SQL Server you wish. In EM just right click on the server node and choose
Register a new server and follow the wizard. Just a word of caution when
developing on the Developer Edition where production is Std Edition.
Developer is essentially the same as Enterprise Edition so if you used any
of the EE features such as Indexed Views and such they will not work on Std
Edition. There are other optimizations as well so be sure to test under Std
Edition to be sure you are getting the results you want.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"kd" <kd@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:83D65348-FA9E-4843-B7C8-F817F6088DAB@.microsoft.com...
> Hi All,
> I have installed the Developer Edition on my computer and have been using
> this SQL database for my project.
> The SQL server Standard Edition is installed on the server and I need a
> SQL
> client to be installed on my PC to be able to communicate with the SQL
> Server
> on the server. This would be for another project. When once the SQL client
> is
> installed on my PC, will I still be able use the Developer Edition on the
> local mahine as before, for the first project?
> Thanks
> kd

Dev Sql Server Edition same thru project lifecyle ?

Hi
Could someone tell me whether I need to use the same edition of Sql Server
in Dev, UAT & Prod. I need Enterprise Edition in PROD but wonder if I need to
develop and then test it in UAT on Enterprise Edition and thereby
consequently buy 3 Enterprise Edition licenses.
Cheers
Bil
Hello, Bil
Here is a quote from http://www.microsoft.com/sql/editions/developer/default.mspx:
"[...] Developer Edition includes all of the functionality of
Enterprise Edition, but is licensed only for development, test, and
demo use. [...] Each license of SQL Server 2005 Developer Edition
entitles one developer to use the software [...]"
So you can buy only one Enterprise Edition license and a number of
Developer Edition licenses equal to the number of developers and
testers involved in your project.
Razvan
|||Hi Razvan
I'm going to be using Sql Server 2000 rather than 2005. Do you know if this
is the same. Also do you know how much each license for Developer Edition
costs ?
To clarify do you mean that instead of having to buy 3 Enterprise Edition
licenses ( each for 4 CPU's ) I would only have to buy 1 Enterprise Edition
license for PROD ( 4 CPU's ) and enough Dev Edition licenses to cover
developpers and testers ( approx 50 ). It will depend on the cost of the
approx 50 licenses for Dev Edition against the 2 extra Enterprise Edition
licenses ( 4 CPU's ).
Cheers
Bil
"Razvan Socol" wrote:

> Hello, Bil
> Here is a quote from http://www.microsoft.com/sql/editions/developer/default.mspx:
> "[...] Developer Edition includes all of the functionality of
> Enterprise Edition, but is licensed only for development, test, and
> demo use. [...] Each license of SQL Server 2005 Developer Edition
> entitles one developer to use the software [...]"
> So you can buy only one Enterprise Edition license and a number of
> Developer Edition licenses equal to the number of developers and
> testers involved in your project.
> Razvan
>
|||Dev feature matrix is same as Enterprise edition in both 2000 and 2005 IIRC.
However, if you intend/need (you SHOULD) do scalability testing you should
probably get an Enterprise license for your test box. The feature set is
the same, but I believe (but cannot find a link to at the moment darn it)
the internal engine has some differences as to how much work it can do how
well per unit time. Could be wrong on that tho.
TheSQLGuru
President
Indicium Resources, Inc.
"Bil" <Bil@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:F314CDD4-FA72-444E-AB48-7FA9FDDCDFD2@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi Razvan
> I'm going to be using Sql Server 2000 rather than 2005. Do you know if
> this
> is the same. Also do you know how much each license for Developer Edition
> costs ?
> To clarify do you mean that instead of having to buy 3 Enterprise Edition
> licenses ( each for 4 CPU's ) I would only have to buy 1 Enterprise
> Edition
> license for PROD ( 4 CPU's ) and enough Dev Edition licenses to cover
> developpers and testers ( approx 50 ). It will depend on the cost of the
> approx 50 licenses for Dev Edition against the 2 extra Enterprise Edition
> licenses ( 4 CPU's ).
> --
> Cheers
> Bil
>
> "Razvan Socol" wrote:
|||The only difference between the Development and Enterprise editions is
licensing. I don't see any problem with performance testing using the
Developer Edition as long as Enterprise will used in production.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"TheSQLGuru" <kgboles@.earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:O2usoLroHHA.4772@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Dev feature matrix is same as Enterprise edition in both 2000 and 2005
> IIRC. However, if you intend/need (you SHOULD) do scalability testing you
> should probably get an Enterprise license for your test box. The feature
> set is the same, but I believe (but cannot find a link to at the moment
> darn it) the internal engine has some differences as to how much work it
> can do how well per unit time. Could be wrong on that tho.
> --
> TheSQLGuru
> President
> Indicium Resources, Inc.
> "Bil" <Bil@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:F314CDD4-FA72-444E-AB48-7FA9FDDCDFD2@.microsoft.com...
>
|||Thanks Dan / All
How much do the Dev Edition Licenses cost ? As per my usage as listed in the
email what are the cost advantages of going with Dev Edition instead of Ent
Edition. Ball park how much cheaper would going the Dev Edition route be ?
Cheers
Bil
"Dan Guzman" wrote:

> The only difference between the Development and Enterprise editions is
> licensing. I don't see any problem with performance testing using the
> Developer Edition as long as Enterprise will used in production.
> --
> Hope this helps.
> Dan Guzman
> SQL Server MVP
> "TheSQLGuru" <kgboles@.earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:O2usoLroHHA.4772@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>
|||http://www.amazon.com/Microsoft-SQL-Server-2000-Developer/dp/B000050AVL
I can't find it on Microsoft's site... They're already hyping SQL
Server Code-Named 'Katmai'. You'll have to contact Microsoft to see.
Developer Edition of 2005 is $49.95
Cheers,
Jason Lepack
On May 30, 8:48 am, Bil <B...@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
> Thanks Dan / All
> How much do the Dev Edition Licenses cost ? As per my usage as listed in the
> email what are the cost advantages of going with Dev Edition instead of Ent
> Edition. Ball park how much cheaper would going the Dev Edition route be ?
> --
> Cheers
> Bil
>
> "Dan Guzman" wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
|||As Jason mentioned, Developer Edition is about $50 USD. It's also included
with MSDN subscriptions. Standard and Enterprise cost thousands of dollars
so it's a no-brainer to go with Developer for development.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Bil" <Bil@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:FA8E188F-AC87-4B00-8729-62A4CAD4C26D@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Thanks Dan / All
> How much do the Dev Edition Licenses cost ? As per my usage as listed in
> the
> email what are the cost advantages of going with Dev Edition instead of
> Ent
> Edition. Ball park how much cheaper would going the Dev Edition route be ?
> --
> Cheers
> Bil
>
> "Dan Guzman" wrote:
|||Thanks Jason
So basically 50 devloppers / testers * approx 50 bucks is a damn site
cheaper than having to buy 2 Ent Edition licenses that's for sure. Unless
anyone has anything else to say then this is the route I will take :-
50 Dev Edition Licenses to cover Dev and Testing Environments. I'm presuming
as it's just 1 license per Developper I can split the Dev and Testing across
lots of Dev Edition Instances
This seems much better than paying a whole heap more for only being able to
have 1 Instance of Ent Edition in Dev and 1 Ent Edition in UAT
Cheers
Bil
"Jason Lepack" wrote:

> http://www.amazon.com/Microsoft-SQL-Server-2000-Developer/dp/B000050AVL
> I can't find it on Microsoft's site... They're already hyping SQL
> Server Code-Named 'Katmai'. You'll have to contact Microsoft to see.
> Developer Edition of 2005 is $49.95
> Cheers,
> Jason Lepack
> On May 30, 8:48 am, Bil <B...@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>

Dev Sql Server Edition same thru project lifecyle ?

Hi
Could someone tell me whether I need to use the same edition of Sql Server
in Dev, UAT & Prod. I need Enterprise Edition in PROD but wonder if I need to
develop and then test it in UAT on Enterprise Edition and thereby
consequently buy 3 Enterprise Edition licenses.
--
Cheers
BilHello, Bil
Here is a quote from http://www.microsoft.com/sql/editions/developer/default.mspx:
"[...] Developer Edition includes all of the functionality of
Enterprise Edition, but is licensed only for development, test, and
demo use. [...] Each license of SQL Server 2005 Developer Edition
entitles one developer to use the software [...]"
So you can buy only one Enterprise Edition license and a number of
Developer Edition licenses equal to the number of developers and
testers involved in your project.
Razvan|||Hi Razvan
I'm going to be using Sql Server 2000 rather than 2005. Do you know if this
is the same. Also do you know how much each license for Developer Edition
costs ?
To clarify do you mean that instead of having to buy 3 Enterprise Edition
licenses ( each for 4 CPU's ) I would only have to buy 1 Enterprise Edition
license for PROD ( 4 CPU's ) and enough Dev Edition licenses to cover
developpers and testers ( approx 50 ). It will depend on the cost of the
approx 50 licenses for Dev Edition against the 2 extra Enterprise Edition
licenses ( 4 CPU's ).
--
Cheers
Bil
"Razvan Socol" wrote:
> Hello, Bil
> Here is a quote from http://www.microsoft.com/sql/editions/developer/default.mspx:
> "[...] Developer Edition includes all of the functionality of
> Enterprise Edition, but is licensed only for development, test, and
> demo use. [...] Each license of SQL Server 2005 Developer Edition
> entitles one developer to use the software [...]"
> So you can buy only one Enterprise Edition license and a number of
> Developer Edition licenses equal to the number of developers and
> testers involved in your project.
> Razvan
>|||Dev feature matrix is same as Enterprise edition in both 2000 and 2005 IIRC.
However, if you intend/need (you SHOULD) do scalability testing you should
probably get an Enterprise license for your test box. The feature set is
the same, but I believe (but cannot find a link to at the moment darn it)
the internal engine has some differences as to how much work it can do how
well per unit time. Could be wrong on that tho.
--
TheSQLGuru
President
Indicium Resources, Inc.
"Bil" <Bil@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:F314CDD4-FA72-444E-AB48-7FA9FDDCDFD2@.microsoft.com...
> Hi Razvan
> I'm going to be using Sql Server 2000 rather than 2005. Do you know if
> this
> is the same. Also do you know how much each license for Developer Edition
> costs ?
> To clarify do you mean that instead of having to buy 3 Enterprise Edition
> licenses ( each for 4 CPU's ) I would only have to buy 1 Enterprise
> Edition
> license for PROD ( 4 CPU's ) and enough Dev Edition licenses to cover
> developpers and testers ( approx 50 ). It will depend on the cost of the
> approx 50 licenses for Dev Edition against the 2 extra Enterprise Edition
> licenses ( 4 CPU's ).
> --
> Cheers
> Bil
>
> "Razvan Socol" wrote:
>> Hello, Bil
>> Here is a quote from
>> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/editions/developer/default.mspx:
>> "[...] Developer Edition includes all of the functionality of
>> Enterprise Edition, but is licensed only for development, test, and
>> demo use. [...] Each license of SQL Server 2005 Developer Edition
>> entitles one developer to use the software [...]"
>> So you can buy only one Enterprise Edition license and a number of
>> Developer Edition licenses equal to the number of developers and
>> testers involved in your project.
>> Razvan
>>|||The only difference between the Development and Enterprise editions is
licensing. I don't see any problem with performance testing using the
Developer Edition as long as Enterprise will used in production.
--
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"TheSQLGuru" <kgboles@.earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:O2usoLroHHA.4772@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Dev feature matrix is same as Enterprise edition in both 2000 and 2005
> IIRC. However, if you intend/need (you SHOULD) do scalability testing you
> should probably get an Enterprise license for your test box. The feature
> set is the same, but I believe (but cannot find a link to at the moment
> darn it) the internal engine has some differences as to how much work it
> can do how well per unit time. Could be wrong on that tho.
> --
> TheSQLGuru
> President
> Indicium Resources, Inc.
> "Bil" <Bil@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:F314CDD4-FA72-444E-AB48-7FA9FDDCDFD2@.microsoft.com...
>> Hi Razvan
>> I'm going to be using Sql Server 2000 rather than 2005. Do you know if
>> this
>> is the same. Also do you know how much each license for Developer
>> Edition
>> costs ?
>> To clarify do you mean that instead of having to buy 3 Enterprise Edition
>> licenses ( each for 4 CPU's ) I would only have to buy 1 Enterprise
>> Edition
>> license for PROD ( 4 CPU's ) and enough Dev Edition licenses to cover
>> developpers and testers ( approx 50 ). It will depend on the cost of the
>> approx 50 licenses for Dev Edition against the 2 extra Enterprise Edition
>> licenses ( 4 CPU's ).
>> --
>> Cheers
>> Bil
>>
>> "Razvan Socol" wrote:
>> Hello, Bil
>> Here is a quote from
>> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/editions/developer/default.mspx:
>> "[...] Developer Edition includes all of the functionality of
>> Enterprise Edition, but is licensed only for development, test, and
>> demo use. [...] Each license of SQL Server 2005 Developer Edition
>> entitles one developer to use the software [...]"
>> So you can buy only one Enterprise Edition license and a number of
>> Developer Edition licenses equal to the number of developers and
>> testers involved in your project.
>> Razvan
>>
>|||Thanks Dan / All
How much do the Dev Edition Licenses cost ? As per my usage as listed in the
email what are the cost advantages of going with Dev Edition instead of Ent
Edition. Ball park how much cheaper would going the Dev Edition route be ?
--
Cheers
Bil
"Dan Guzman" wrote:
> The only difference between the Development and Enterprise editions is
> licensing. I don't see any problem with performance testing using the
> Developer Edition as long as Enterprise will used in production.
> --
> Hope this helps.
> Dan Guzman
> SQL Server MVP
> "TheSQLGuru" <kgboles@.earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:O2usoLroHHA.4772@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> > Dev feature matrix is same as Enterprise edition in both 2000 and 2005
> > IIRC. However, if you intend/need (you SHOULD) do scalability testing you
> > should probably get an Enterprise license for your test box. The feature
> > set is the same, but I believe (but cannot find a link to at the moment
> > darn it) the internal engine has some differences as to how much work it
> > can do how well per unit time. Could be wrong on that tho.
> >
> > --
> > TheSQLGuru
> > President
> > Indicium Resources, Inc.
> >
> > "Bil" <Bil@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:F314CDD4-FA72-444E-AB48-7FA9FDDCDFD2@.microsoft.com...
> >> Hi Razvan
> >>
> >> I'm going to be using Sql Server 2000 rather than 2005. Do you know if
> >> this
> >> is the same. Also do you know how much each license for Developer
> >> Edition
> >> costs ?
> >>
> >> To clarify do you mean that instead of having to buy 3 Enterprise Edition
> >> licenses ( each for 4 CPU's ) I would only have to buy 1 Enterprise
> >> Edition
> >> license for PROD ( 4 CPU's ) and enough Dev Edition licenses to cover
> >> developpers and testers ( approx 50 ). It will depend on the cost of the
> >> approx 50 licenses for Dev Edition against the 2 extra Enterprise Edition
> >> licenses ( 4 CPU's ).
> >> --
> >> Cheers
> >> Bil
> >>
> >>
> >> "Razvan Socol" wrote:
> >>
> >> Hello, Bil
> >>
> >> Here is a quote from
> >> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/editions/developer/default.mspx:
> >>
> >> "[...] Developer Edition includes all of the functionality of
> >> Enterprise Edition, but is licensed only for development, test, and
> >> demo use. [...] Each license of SQL Server 2005 Developer Edition
> >> entitles one developer to use the software [...]"
> >>
> >> So you can buy only one Enterprise Edition license and a number of
> >> Developer Edition licenses equal to the number of developers and
> >> testers involved in your project.
> >>
> >> Razvan
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>|||http://www.amazon.com/Microsoft-SQL-Server-2000-Developer/dp/B000050AVL
I can't find it on Microsoft's site... They're already hyping SQL
Server Code-Named 'Katmai'. You'll have to contact Microsoft to see.
Developer Edition of 2005 is $49.95
Cheers,
Jason Lepack
On May 30, 8:48 am, Bil <B...@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
> Thanks Dan / All
> How much do the Dev Edition Licenses cost ? As per my usage as listed in the
> email what are the cost advantages of going with Dev Edition instead of Ent
> Edition. Ball park how much cheaper would going the Dev Edition route be ?
> --
> Cheers
> Bil
>
> "Dan Guzman" wrote:
> > The only difference between the Development and Enterprise editions is
> > licensing. I don't see any problem with performance testing using the
> > Developer Edition as long as Enterprise will used in production.
> > --
> > Hope this helps.
> > Dan Guzman
> > SQL Server MVP
> > "TheSQLGuru" <kgbo...@.earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >news:O2usoLroHHA.4772@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> > > Dev feature matrix is same as Enterprise edition in both 2000 and 2005
> > > IIRC. However, if you intend/need (you SHOULD) do scalability testing you
> > > should probably get an Enterprise license for your test box. The feature
> > > set is the same, but I believe (but cannot find a link to at the moment
> > > darn it) the internal engine has some differences as to how much work it
> > > can do how well per unit time. Could be wrong on that tho.
> > > --
> > > TheSQLGuru
> > > President
> > > Indicium Resources, Inc.
> > > "Bil" <B...@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > >news:F314CDD4-FA72-444E-AB48-7FA9FDDCDFD2@.microsoft.com...
> > >> Hi Razvan
> > >> I'm going to be using Sql Server 2000 rather than 2005. Do you know if
> > >> this
> > >> is the same. Also do you know how much each license for Developer
> > >> Edition
> > >> costs ?
> > >> To clarify do you mean that instead of having to buy 3 Enterprise Edition
> > >> licenses ( each for 4 CPU's ) I would only have to buy 1 Enterprise
> > >> Edition
> > >> license for PROD ( 4 CPU's ) and enough Dev Edition licenses to cover
> > >> developpers and testers ( approx 50 ). It will depend on the cost of the
> > >> approx 50 licenses for Dev Edition against the 2 extra Enterprise Edition
> > >> licenses ( 4 CPU's ).
> > >> --
> > >> Cheers
> > >> Bil
> > >> "Razvan Socol" wrote:
> > >> Hello, Bil
> > >> Here is a quote from
> > >>http://www.microsoft.com/sql/editions/developer/default.mspx:
> > >> "[...] Developer Edition includes all of the functionality of
> > >> Enterprise Edition, but is licensed only for development, test, and
> > >> demo use. [...] Each license of SQL Server 2005 Developer Edition
> > >> entitles one developer to use the software [...]"
> > >> So you can buy only one Enterprise Edition license and a number of
> > >> Developer Edition licenses equal to the number of developers and
> > >> testers involved in your project.
> > >> Razvan- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -|||As Jason mentioned, Developer Edition is about $50 USD. It's also included
with MSDN subscriptions. Standard and Enterprise cost thousands of dollars
so it's a no-brainer to go with Developer for development.
--
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Bil" <Bil@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:FA8E188F-AC87-4B00-8729-62A4CAD4C26D@.microsoft.com...
> Thanks Dan / All
> How much do the Dev Edition Licenses cost ? As per my usage as listed in
> the
> email what are the cost advantages of going with Dev Edition instead of
> Ent
> Edition. Ball park how much cheaper would going the Dev Edition route be ?
> --
> Cheers
> Bil
>
> "Dan Guzman" wrote:
>> The only difference between the Development and Enterprise editions is
>> licensing. I don't see any problem with performance testing using the
>> Developer Edition as long as Enterprise will used in production.
>> --
>> Hope this helps.
>> Dan Guzman
>> SQL Server MVP
>> "TheSQLGuru" <kgboles@.earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:O2usoLroHHA.4772@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> > Dev feature matrix is same as Enterprise edition in both 2000 and 2005
>> > IIRC. However, if you intend/need (you SHOULD) do scalability testing
>> > you
>> > should probably get an Enterprise license for your test box. The
>> > feature
>> > set is the same, but I believe (but cannot find a link to at the moment
>> > darn it) the internal engine has some differences as to how much work
>> > it
>> > can do how well per unit time. Could be wrong on that tho.
>> >
>> > --
>> > TheSQLGuru
>> > President
>> > Indicium Resources, Inc.
>> >
>> > "Bil" <Bil@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> > news:F314CDD4-FA72-444E-AB48-7FA9FDDCDFD2@.microsoft.com...
>> >> Hi Razvan
>> >>
>> >> I'm going to be using Sql Server 2000 rather than 2005. Do you know if
>> >> this
>> >> is the same. Also do you know how much each license for Developer
>> >> Edition
>> >> costs ?
>> >>
>> >> To clarify do you mean that instead of having to buy 3 Enterprise
>> >> Edition
>> >> licenses ( each for 4 CPU's ) I would only have to buy 1 Enterprise
>> >> Edition
>> >> license for PROD ( 4 CPU's ) and enough Dev Edition licenses to cover
>> >> developpers and testers ( approx 50 ). It will depend on the cost of
>> >> the
>> >> approx 50 licenses for Dev Edition against the 2 extra Enterprise
>> >> Edition
>> >> licenses ( 4 CPU's ).
>> >> --
>> >> Cheers
>> >> Bil
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "Razvan Socol" wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hello, Bil
>> >>
>> >> Here is a quote from
>> >> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/editions/developer/default.mspx:
>> >>
>> >> "[...] Developer Edition includes all of the functionality of
>> >> Enterprise Edition, but is licensed only for development, test, and
>> >> demo use. [...] Each license of SQL Server 2005 Developer Edition
>> >> entitles one developer to use the software [...]"
>> >>
>> >> So you can buy only one Enterprise Edition license and a number of
>> >> Developer Edition licenses equal to the number of developers and
>> >> testers involved in your project.
>> >>
>> >> Razvan
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >|||Thanks Jason
So basically 50 devloppers / testers * approx 50 bucks is a damn site
cheaper than having to buy 2 Ent Edition licenses that's for sure. Unless
anyone has anything else to say then this is the route I will take :-
50 Dev Edition Licenses to cover Dev and Testing Environments. I'm presuming
as it's just 1 license per Developper I can split the Dev and Testing across
lots of Dev Edition Instances
This seems much better than paying a whole heap more for only being able to
have 1 Instance of Ent Edition in Dev and 1 Ent Edition in UAT
--
Cheers
Bil
"Jason Lepack" wrote:
> http://www.amazon.com/Microsoft-SQL-Server-2000-Developer/dp/B000050AVL
> I can't find it on Microsoft's site... They're already hyping SQL
> Server Code-Named 'Katmai'. You'll have to contact Microsoft to see.
> Developer Edition of 2005 is $49.95
> Cheers,
> Jason Lepack
> On May 30, 8:48 am, Bil <B...@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
> > Thanks Dan / All
> >
> > How much do the Dev Edition Licenses cost ? As per my usage as listed in the
> > email what are the cost advantages of going with Dev Edition instead of Ent
> > Edition. Ball park how much cheaper would going the Dev Edition route be ?
> > --
> > Cheers
> > Bil
> >
> >
> >
> > "Dan Guzman" wrote:
> > > The only difference between the Development and Enterprise editions is
> > > licensing. I don't see any problem with performance testing using the
> > > Developer Edition as long as Enterprise will used in production.
> >
> > > --
> > > Hope this helps.
> >
> > > Dan Guzman
> > > SQL Server MVP
> >
> > > "TheSQLGuru" <kgbo...@.earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > >news:O2usoLroHHA.4772@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> > > > Dev feature matrix is same as Enterprise edition in both 2000 and 2005
> > > > IIRC. However, if you intend/need (you SHOULD) do scalability testing you
> > > > should probably get an Enterprise license for your test box. The feature
> > > > set is the same, but I believe (but cannot find a link to at the moment
> > > > darn it) the internal engine has some differences as to how much work it
> > > > can do how well per unit time. Could be wrong on that tho.
> >
> > > > --
> > > > TheSQLGuru
> > > > President
> > > > Indicium Resources, Inc.
> >
> > > > "Bil" <B...@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > > >news:F314CDD4-FA72-444E-AB48-7FA9FDDCDFD2@.microsoft.com...
> > > >> Hi Razvan
> >
> > > >> I'm going to be using Sql Server 2000 rather than 2005. Do you know if
> > > >> this
> > > >> is the same. Also do you know how much each license for Developer
> > > >> Edition
> > > >> costs ?
> >
> > > >> To clarify do you mean that instead of having to buy 3 Enterprise Edition
> > > >> licenses ( each for 4 CPU's ) I would only have to buy 1 Enterprise
> > > >> Edition
> > > >> license for PROD ( 4 CPU's ) and enough Dev Edition licenses to cover
> > > >> developpers and testers ( approx 50 ). It will depend on the cost of the
> > > >> approx 50 licenses for Dev Edition against the 2 extra Enterprise Edition
> > > >> licenses ( 4 CPU's ).
> > > >> --
> > > >> Cheers
> > > >> Bil
> >
> > > >> "Razvan Socol" wrote:
> >
> > > >> Hello, Bil
> >
> > > >> Here is a quote from
> > > >>http://www.microsoft.com/sql/editions/developer/default.mspx:
> >
> > > >> "[...] Developer Edition includes all of the functionality of
> > > >> Enterprise Edition, but is licensed only for development, test, and
> > > >> demo use. [...] Each license of SQL Server 2005 Developer Edition
> > > >> entitles one developer to use the software [...]"
> >
> > > >> So you can buy only one Enterprise Edition license and a number of
> > > >> Developer Edition licenses equal to the number of developers and
> > > >> testers involved in your project.
> >
> > > >> Razvan- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
>

Determining the mode my SQL server 2003 is installed in.

Hi,
I am trying to install Project 2K3 server on a 2K3 server that has SQL
server 2K3 installed. Since Project server requires SQL server to be in
mixed mode...how do I a) verify which mode the SQL server is installed in,
and b) if I need to change the mode of the SQL server, how can I do that?
Regards,
AndrewRight click on the server in EM click properties and then click the security
tab
http://sqlservercode.blogspot.com/
"Bill Gates" wrote:
> Hi,
> I am trying to install Project 2K3 server on a 2K3 server that has SQL
> server 2K3 installed. Since Project server requires SQL server to be in
> mixed mode...how do I a) verify which mode the SQL server is installed in,
> and b) if I need to change the mode of the SQL server, how can I do that?
> Regards,
> Andrew
>|||Thanks! wow that really was a brutally simple one wasn't it! I'm not an SQL
guy as you can tell! Thanks again!
"SQL" wrote:
> Right click on the server in EM click properties and then click the security
> tab
> http://sqlservercode.blogspot.com/
> "Bill Gates" wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am trying to install Project 2K3 server on a 2K3 server that has SQL
> > server 2K3 installed. Since Project server requires SQL server to be in
> > mixed mode...how do I a) verify which mode the SQL server is installed in,
> > and b) if I need to change the mode of the SQL server, how can I do that?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Andrew
> >
> >

Determining the mode my SQL server 2003 is installed in.

Hi,
I am trying to install Project 2K3 server on a 2K3 server that has SQL
server 2K3 installed. Since Project server requires SQL server to be in
mixed mode...how do I a) verify which mode the SQL server is installed in,
and b) if I need to change the mode of the SQL server, how can I do that?
Regards,
Andrew
Right click on the server in EM click properties and then click the security
tab
http://sqlservercode.blogspot.com/
"Bill Gates" wrote:

> Hi,
> I am trying to install Project 2K3 server on a 2K3 server that has SQL
> server 2K3 installed. Since Project server requires SQL server to be in
> mixed mode...how do I a) verify which mode the SQL server is installed in,
> and b) if I need to change the mode of the SQL server, how can I do that?
> Regards,
> Andrew
>
|||Thanks! wow that really was a brutally simple one wasn't it! I'm not an SQL
guy as you can tell! Thanks again!
"SQL" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Right click on the server in EM click properties and then click the security
> tab
> http://sqlservercode.blogspot.com/
> "Bill Gates" wrote:

Determining the mode my SQL server 2003 is installed in.

Hi,
I am trying to install Project 2K3 server on a 2K3 server that has SQL
server 2K3 installed. Since Project server requires SQL server to be in
mixed mode...how do I a) verify which mode the SQL server is installed in,
and b) if I need to change the mode of the SQL server, how can I do that?
Regards,
AndrewRight click on the server in EM click properties and then click the securit
y
tab
http://sqlservercode.blogspot.com/
"Bill Gates" wrote:

> Hi,
> I am trying to install Project 2K3 server on a 2K3 server that has SQL
> server 2K3 installed. Since Project server requires SQL server to be in
> mixed mode...how do I a) verify which mode the SQL server is installed in
,
> and b) if I need to change the mode of the SQL server, how can I do that?
> Regards,
> Andrew
>|||Thanks! wow that really was a brutally simple one wasn't it! I'm not an SQ
L
guy as you can tell! Thanks again!
"SQL" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Right click on the server in EM click properties and then click the secur
ity
> tab
> http://sqlservercode.blogspot.com/
> "Bill Gates" wrote:
>