Must Site Server dtabase be separate

Must Site Server dtabase be separate

Post by Allen Bae » Wed, 18 Oct 2000 04:00:00



I'm in the process of redesigning the configuration of our Internet servers and
am planning a large cluster to run SQL Server 7.  This SQL Server cluster would
host the Site Server database as well as the databases for all of our
applications.

My questions are:
1.  Should I run SQL Server on a separate server to host my Site Server database
to avoid the risk of an runaway application or query slowing Site Server down.

2.  Does SQL Server 2000 provide better isolation of the different databases in
one instance of SQL Server.

 
 
 

1. SQL Server 2000 license overriding SQL Server 7.0 license on separate server

We have the following situation.

Server A is a W2K server (not domain controller) with SQL Server 7.0
installed. This SQL server has an Internet connector license.

Server B is a W2K domain controller with SQL Server 2000 Standard
Edition installed.

Server B has a web app that accesses SQL server on Server A. This web
app does not use the database on Server B.

Web clients accessing Server B have their SQL accesses rejected with the
message "Logon failed. The number of users on this 'Standard Edition'
exceeds the maximum of 10 allowed by the license."

Why does the license on B trump the license on A? How do I fix it?

Q153140 appears to be irrelevant. License Manager doesn't show anything
for the SQL Server 2000 installation.

2. Field index out of range

3. intraware site is down Sun AM 6/4

4. Informix and PHP

5. separate a name into 2 separate fields

6. Training Registry - Directory of Database training resources

7. mysql - separate many values in one field separated by pipe

8. Snapshots: Synchronous refresh?

9. SQL server 2000 and IIS 5 server in separate machine

10. Separate OLAP Server and Web Server

11. dtabase

12. Object Oriented Designs and Relational Dtabases

13. FM on web: where to house dtabase?