SQL Express = really nice but...

[darrel]

I played with ASP.net 2.0 last year a bit but got sidtracked and haven't had
a chance to dive into it again until recently. I'm now planning on fully
going over to 2.0 and VS.2005

Pretty much every tutorial for 2.0 used SQL Express. I really like it. It's
slick, integrated well with VS and it's nice to have it 'contained' within
my app. Plus, it makes it really easy to work offline without having to pay
for a full SQL license.

The one catch, though, is that it doesn't seem to be a practical DB to use
in actual production as none of the web hosts want to support it.

So, am I just missing a basic concept? Should SQL Express ONLY be used for
RAD and then switch everything to full SQL? IF so, is there an easy way to
migrate your SQLExpress app over to full SQL?

-Darrel

[David Wier]

Have you checked with WebHost4life.com? They support SQL Express.
What kind of traffic are you expecting with your site?
Here's the question you really need to ask yourself:
"Is there any need for features in SQL 2005 that are not included in SQL
Express?"

(if you go with WH4Life, please use 'dwier' for a referral id)
--
David Wier
MVP/ASPInsider
http://aspnet101.com
http://aspexpress.com
"darrel" <no*****@nowhere.comwrote in message
news:O2*************@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

I played with ASP.net 2.0 last year a bit but got sidtracked and haven't

had

a chance to dive into it again until recently. I'm now planning on fully
going over to 2.0 and VS.2005

Pretty much every tutorial for 2.0 used SQL Express. I really like it.

It's

slick, integrated well with VS and it's nice to have it 'contained' within
my app. Plus, it makes it really easy to work offline without having to

pay

for a full SQL license.

The one catch, though, is that it doesn't seem to be a practical DB to use
in actual production as none of the web hosts want to support it.

So, am I just missing a basic concept? Should SQL Express ONLY be used for
RAD and then switch everything to full SQL? IF so, is there an easy way to
migrate your SQLExpress app over to full SQL?

-Darrel

[Juan T. Llibre]

re:

The one catch, though, is that it doesn't seem to be a practical DB to use in actual production as
none of the web hosts want to support it.

It's not designed for production use.

re:

So, am I just missing a basic concept? Should SQL Express ONLY be used for RAD and then switch
everything to full SQL?

That's pretty much the idea.

re:

IF so, is there an easy way to migrate your SQLExpress app over to full SQL?

Use the Import and Export Wizard of SQL Server Management Studio
to copy the data to your remote SQL Server database.

Download the Management Studio at:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...DisplayLang=en

Make sure you download the right version, 32 or 64 bit, in the language you want.

Here's a rundown on the procedure:
http://aspalliance.com/888_Exporting...ote_SQL_Server


Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
===================================
"darrel" <no*****@nowhere.comwrote in message news:O2*************@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>I played with ASP.net 2.0 last year a bit but got sidtracked and haven't had a chance to dive into
it again until recently. I'm now planning on fully going over to 2.0 and VS.2005

Pretty much every tutorial for 2.0 used SQL Express. I really like it. It's slick, integrated well
with VS and it's nice to have it 'contained' within my app. Plus, it makes it really easy to work
offline without having to pay for a full SQL license.

The one catch, though, is that it doesn't seem to be a practical DB to use in actual production as
none of the web hosts want to support it.

So, am I just missing a basic concept? Should SQL Express ONLY be used for RAD and then switch
everything to full SQL? IF so, is there an easy way to migrate your SQLExpress app over to full
SQL?

-Darrel

[darrel]

It's not designed for production use.

....which makes sense seeing as how it's a Free product, I suppose... ;o)

re:

>IF so, is there an easy way to migrate your SQLExpress app over to full
SQL?

Use the Import and Export Wizard of SQL Server Management Studio
to copy the data to your remote SQL Server database.

Cool! Will check that out.

-Darrel

[Joerg Jooss]

Thus wrote Juan,

re:

>The one catch, though, is that it doesn't seem to be a practical DB
to use in actual production as none of the web hosts want to support
it.

It's not designed for production use.

Um... where does that notion come from?
--
Joerg Jooss
ne********@joergjooss.de

[Juan T. Llibre]

Well, if it was *designed* for production use, how would Microsoft
get everybody to upgrade from Express to the full-fledged version ?

Express will only bind to one CPU at a time, and it cannot run queries in parallel.

Express cannot use more than 1 GB of RAM at a time for queries and data pages.
SQL Server 2005 will handle many more concurrent queries than the Express version.

No one database in Express can be larger than 4 GB.

Data mining, Data Transformation Services (DTS) and reporting functions are not available for
Express.

Other functions not available in Express include clustering or mirroring,
full-text indexing or searching, SQLMail, indexed views, partitioned views and SQL Agent.

I.O.W., although it will work fine for small traffic websites,
it is not designed for heavy-duty production websites.

Think big, Joerg.

;-)


Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
===================================
"Joerg Jooss" <ne********@joergjooss.dewrote in message
news:94**************************@msnews.microsoft .com...

Thus wrote Juan,

>re:

>>The one catch, though, is that it doesn't seem to be a practical DB
to use in actual production as none of the web hosts want to support
it.

It's not designed for production use.

Um... where does that notion come from? --
Joerg Jooss
ne********@joergjooss.de

[darrel]

I.O.W., although it will work fine for small traffic websites,

it is not designed for heavy-duty production websites.

Which, from a business POV, makes perfect sense. MS is in the business of
making money, afterall.

That said, one issue I have with ASP.net in general is that it often seems
overkill for you run of the mill 'grandma needs a blog' type of things.

Once can use MySQL, of course, but Express seems to integrate so nicely with
VS that it just seems ideal for that type of web project.

Basically, a MUCH better replacement for what Access DBs once were used for
online.

To answer Joerg's question...the bigger problem seems to be that very few
web hosts bother to support it, so you have to fork out more money
(typically) for full SQL access on the web host.

Which is a bit of a bummer.

-Darrel

[Juan T. Llibre]

re:

the bigger problem seems to be that very few web hosts bother to support it, so you have to fork
out more money (typically) for full SQL access on the web host.

The answer to that is running your website from home, of course.
I've been running my website (links in my sig) for several years, with a variable IP, using
ZoneEdit.

That works fine...and you get to control the software you run, free or paid-for.
If you can get a fixed IP from your ISP, that works even better.


Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
===================================
"darrel" <no*****@nowhere.comwrote in message news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>I.O.W., although it will work fine for small traffic websites,
it is not designed for heavy-duty production websites.

Which, from a business POV, makes perfect sense. MS is in the business of making money, afterall.

That said, one issue I have with ASP.net in general is that it often seems overkill for you run of
the mill 'grandma needs a blog' type of things.

Once can use MySQL, of course, but Express seems to integrate so nicely with VS that it just seems
ideal for that type of web project.

Basically, a MUCH better replacement for what Access DBs once were used for online.

To answer Joerg's question...the bigger problem seems to be that very few web hosts bother to
support it, so you have to fork out more money (typically) for full SQL access on the web host.

Which is a bit of a bummer.

-Darrel

[bruce barker]

for a small hosted site, a good solution is SQLSever 2005 Compact. it is
a set of dll's that run in you applications address space, rather than
calls to a service. thus the db files are local to your code and the
database code does not need to be installed by the host.

-- bruce (sqlwork.com)

darrel wrote:

>I.O.W., although it will work fine for small traffic websites,
it is not designed for heavy-duty production websites.

Which, from a business POV, makes perfect sense. MS is in the business of
making money, afterall.

That said, one issue I have with ASP.net in general is that it often seems
overkill for you run of the mill 'grandma needs a blog' type of things.

Once can use MySQL, of course, but Express seems to integrate so nicely with
VS that it just seems ideal for that type of web project.

Basically, a MUCH better replacement for what Access DBs once were used for
online.

To answer Joerg's question...the bigger problem seems to be that very few
web hosts bother to support it, so you have to fork out more money
(typically) for full SQL access on the web host.

Which is a bit of a bummer.

-Darrel

[Joerg Jooss]

Thus wrote Juan,

Well, if it was *designed* for production use, how would Microsoft get
everybody to upgrade from Express to the full-fledged version ?

Express will only bind to one CPU at a time, and it cannot run queries
in parallel.

Express cannot use more than 1 GB of RAM at a time for queries and
data pages. SQL Server 2005 will handle many more concurrent queries
than the Express version.

No one database in Express can be larger than 4 GB.

Data mining, Data Transformation Services (DTS) and reporting
functions are not available for Express.

Other functions not available in Express include clustering or
mirroring, full-text indexing or searching, SQLMail, indexed views,
partitioned views and SQL Agent.

I.O.W., although it will work fine for small traffic websites, it is
not designed for heavy-duty production websites.
Think big, Joerg.

;-)

Actually, thinking big nicely fits my job description ;-)

First of all, claiming it was not "designed" for production is wrong. It's
the same product (and code base) as SQL Server, minus various powerful features
you've mentioned. Yet, what of you don't need all the power? What if all
you really need is a plain old RDBMS? What if you want a local database for
your smart/rich client or small-scale web application? What about Service
Broker?

I fully agree that Express is not the solution for a typical web application
scenario -- SQL Express won't cut it for an Amazonian use case. But such
web applications are not the world's only kind of .NET solution. Think small
as well ;-)

Cheers,
--
Joerg Jooss
ne********@joergjooss.de

[darrel]

The answer to that is running your website from home, of course.

I've been running my website (links in my sig) for several years, with a
variable IP, using ZoneEdit.

That's not a practical answer for clients. ;o)

I've ran servers off and on at home but I don't want to be an ISP/Web Host.

-Darrel

[Juan T. Llibre]

re:

That's not a practical answer for clients. ;o)

Of course... ;-)
For testing purposes it works wonders, though.


Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
===================================
"darrel" <no*****@nowhere.comwrote in message news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>The answer to that is running your website from home, of course.
I've been running my website (links in my sig) for several years, with a variable IP, using
ZoneEdit.

That's not a practical answer for clients. ;o)

I've ran servers off and on at home but I don't want to be an ISP/Web Host.
-Darrel