sql server 2000
Printed From: Web Wiz Forums
Category: General Discussion
Forum Name: Database Discussion
Forum Description: Discussion and chat on database related topics.
URL: https://forums.webwiz.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=5622
Printed Date: 30 March 2026 at 12:17pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.08 - https://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: sql server 2000
Posted By: mrdany
Subject: sql server 2000
Date Posted: 09 September 2003 at 9:17am
|
hello i am just wondering, if i need to install the webwizforums on my own server... i have a web server (win 2000 advanced server) and an sql server (but i have only license for 25 user access) i just am wondering if i put my servers online, and lets say 100 users try to access the database at the same time, what will be the result in this case? usually the connection string that i use to access the sql server is one username and password, so all users will be connecting to the database using the same username and password... in that case all teh web users count as one unique user or what? i appreciate any clarifications Thanks Dany |
Replies:
Posted By: michael
Date Posted: 09 September 2003 at 9:41am
|
With SQL 7 you had to buy a so called Internet Connector License. This becasme obsolete with SQL2000 as they intorduced Processor licensing. As web users are close to impossible to track MS says to use Processor licenses for your web enabled SQL Server. So the answer is you basically need a processor license for each CPU in your Server. If you do not do that you theoretically would have to purchase a license for each web user which as you can imagine may add up. ------------- http://baumannphoto.com" rel="nofollow - Blog | http://mpgtracker.com" rel="nofollow - MPG Tracker |
Posted By: dpyers
Date Posted: 13 September 2003 at 10:18am
|
Most of the db companies had to come out with processor based licenses as a single server-side process can access a db on the behalf of thousands of clients. Oracle at one time wanted to charge a dollar for every web user who hit one of their db's until they realized that only a single process would be accessing the db's. Dany's correct in his assumption that his 10 users would be regarded as a single user instance. ------------- 
Lead me not into temptation... I know the short cut, follow me. |
Posted By: michael
Date Posted: 13 September 2003 at 10:45pm
|
Um, I think you are wrong, as it is not one process, every user connecting creates a process. Thus I don't mind proven wrong I find MS licensing confusing. Maybe I am misunderstanding the concept but i am sure that you cannot use a 10 user sql server to serve all :countless: web users. ------------- http://baumannphoto.com" rel="nofollow - Blog | http://mpgtracker.com" rel="nofollow - MPG Tracker |
Posted By: mrdany
Date Posted: 15 September 2003 at 6:01am
|
guys!! correct me if i am wrong, but usually the connection si made per user? or per request? what i thought as solution is to create a 3-tier application and all users that will request information from the database, will request the information from the application (server) which will query the database (sql server) and return the desired results to the web application... in that way it's only one machine that is querying the database... is that true? (just to clarify things up, i will be hosting my own web site, so i have 3 servers, one the web server, 2 the server that will capture the requests through an application, and 3 the sql server...) thanks again, Dany |
Posted By: dpyers
Date Posted: 15 September 2003 at 11:45am
|
Actually, I wasn't being clear. It's not many processes. It's many instances of the same process. the process requires the db credentials, not each individual instance of it that is spawned. The Client - App Server - DB Server - Web Server model is very common. I originally separated the App and DB servers to overcome DB licensing issues bfore they changed the license model. Back then, the DB vendors had this thought that everyone sat at their desk and directly acccessed the DB through a 24x80 screen. Client-Server stuff was a shock. Internet access was another shock. What did come out of the whole thing was a better security model. I'd add a DMZ machine configuration you described. the web server can be on the same level as the DMZ, but the app and db servers should have all traffic to/from them routed through the DMZ. Use encryption and non-standard ports in/out of the app and db servers as well. The Oreilly Firewall book is very good and covers some inexpensive DMZ based solutions. The basic concept is to totally remove your app and dp from web space Only specific processes with specific credentials coming in on specific ports, using specific protocols can access specific things on the app and db servers. IIRC, redhat, or some other linux vendors have "DMZ in a box" type solutions. I used BSD, but it requires some knowledge of IP chains and IP spoofing. -------------
Lead me not into temptation... I know the short cut, follow me. |