Difference between running MS SQL Server 2000 on a desktop PC and a Server

Hi Everyone,

Apparently, I was being asked on a question, "Why don't we procure a
desktop PC to run MS SQL Server 2000 rather than a buying a server?".
From a Management point-of-view, buying a desktop PC is much cheaper
than a server. However, I just wanted to understand that is it a
viable solution given the database size is something around 200 GB?
Equipping with more memory, more storage and a more powerful CPU on a
desktop PC could really taking up the role to support the DBMS?

Besides this "sensitive" costing concerns, what will be others
difference in running the SQL Server 2000 on the two different
hardware architecture? For example, IO rate, reliability, RAID-1
support, performance, etc.

(Note: The operating system is Microsoft Windows 2000 Enterprise
Edition)

Regards,
Ambrose"Ambrose" <achung@.hec.com.hk> wrote in message
news:6ec03d10.0410182005.618e1377@.posting.google.c om...
> Hi Everyone,
> Apparently, I was being asked on a question, "Why don't we procure a
> desktop PC to run MS SQL Server 2000 rather than a buying a server?".
> From a Management point-of-view, buying a desktop PC is much cheaper
> than a server. However, I just wanted to understand that is it a
> viable solution given the database size is something around 200 GB?
> Equipping with more memory, more storage and a more powerful CPU on a
> desktop PC could really taking up the role to support the DBMS?

Well, there's a lot of questions here.

How valuable is the data? I mean a 200GB SATA drive is cheap these days.
But if it fails, you're hosed.

I've run some small non-critical databases on workstations. Heck, if it was
non-critical, I might run a large (i.e. 200GB one) on a work station.

However, if it's critical, then I'm starting to look at things like ECC
memory, RAID, etc.

So, sure, the desktop is cheaper... but what if you lose your data? Or are
down for 10 hours restoring it from backup?

Also, if it's high volume, I'm looknig at RAID, multiple channels of RAID,
multiple NICs, multiple XEON CPUs. etc.

> Besides this "sensitive" costing concerns, what will be others
> difference in running the SQL Server 2000 on the two different
> hardware architecture? For example, IO rate, reliability, RAID-1
> support, performance, . etc.

MS Press has a book (don't recall the title) on this.

> (Note: The operating system is Microsoft Windows 2000 Enterprise
> Edition)
> Regards,
> Ambrosesql

Device activation error

Hello,
I'm attempting to upgrade from MSDE 1.0 to MSDE 2000. However, before
removing MSDE 1.0, a database apparently was not properly detached after
attempting to attach (using sp_attach_db not attach w/ single file) this very
database to MSDE 2000.
The following error is rec'd:
"Can not create file C:\Program Files...\MyData.LDF because it already
exists.
Could not open new database "MyData". CREATE DATABASE is aborted.
Device activation error. The physical file name "C:\MSSQL7\Data\MyData.LDF
may be incorrect."
Should I attempt to place the log file back to its old location, restore the
database and then detach or should I try to shrink the file and truncate the
log?
Just want to know before I further screw things up.
any help is appreciated.
Hello,
If you have the latest backup then RESTORE the DATABASe using RESTORE
DATABASE WITH MOVE options..Try restoring using a new name and make sure
that
dataBase backup is good.
Thanks
Hari
"jim" <jim@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:F3BE2646-3666-40C7-AF83-763ED47957B2@.microsoft.com...
> Hello,
> I'm attempting to upgrade from MSDE 1.0 to MSDE 2000. However, before
> removing MSDE 1.0, a database apparently was not properly detached after
> attempting to attach (using sp_attach_db not attach w/ single file) this
> very
> database to MSDE 2000.
> The following error is rec'd:
> "Can not create file C:\Program Files...\MyData.LDF because it already
> exists.
> Could not open new database "MyData". CREATE DATABASE is aborted.
> Device activation error. The physical file name "C:\MSSQL7\Data\MyData.LDF
> may be incorrect."
> Should I attempt to place the log file back to its old location, restore
> the
> database and then detach or should I try to shrink the file and truncate
> the
> log?
> Just want to know before I further screw things up.
> any help is appreciated.
>
|||Hi Hari,
Thanks for the response. I just have one more question. With the new
database name, does this mean that the existing database name can no longer
be used on this computer? Or, once the database is restored, I can detach the
database w/ the new database name and then attach the database w/ the old
name in the new location? Hopefully, this question isn't too silly.
your help is appreciated.
"Hari Prasad" wrote:

> Hello,
> If you have the latest backup then RESTORE the DATABASe using RESTORE
> DATABASE WITH MOVE options..Try restoring using a new name and make sure
> that
> dataBase backup is good.
> Thanks
> Hari
> "jim" <jim@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:F3BE2646-3666-40C7-AF83-763ED47957B2@.microsoft.com...
>
>