DB2 UDB 8.1 for Windows installation questions

[Joseph Barbaro]

I am trying to install DB2 Universal Database Enterprise Server Edition
Version 8.1 (for Windows operating systems on 32-bit systems) on Windows
2000 Advanced Server that can be either standalone or part of a network. I
am trying to avoid installing Active Directory and setting up the server as
a domain controller.
1) Must DB2 UDB Enterprise be installed on a domain controller or can it be
installed on W2K Advanced Server set up as a standalone server (or a member
of a workgroup and not a domain)?
2) For a W2K Advanced Server installation that is not part of a domain,
should DB2 UDB Workgroup Server Edition be installed rather than the
Enterprise Server Edition? That is, does using DB2 UDB Workgroup Edition
relieve me of having to reconfigure my W2K server as a domain controller?

Thank you for any assistance.

Regards,
Joe Barbaro

[Mark A]

"Joseph Barbaro" <jb******@boic. com> wrote in message
news:2Z******** *************@t wister.nyc.rr.c om...

I am trying to install DB2 Universal Database Enterprise Server Edition
Version 8.1 (for Windows operating systems on 32-bit systems) on Windows
2000 Advanced Server that can be either standalone or part of a network. I
am trying to avoid installing Active Directory and setting up the server as a domain controller.
1) Must DB2 UDB Enterprise be installed on a domain controller or can it be installed on W2K Advanced Server set up as a standalone server (or a member of a workgroup and not a domain)?
Standalone W2K Advanced Server or even W2K Professional is fine (except for
the W2K professional limitation on simultaneous connections).
2) For a W2K Advanced Server installation that is not part of a domain,
should DB2 UDB Workgroup Server Edition be installed rather than the
Enterprise Server Edition? That is, does using DB2 UDB Workgroup Edition
relieve me of having to reconfigure my W2K server as a domain controller?
The type of W2K Advanced Server setup has no bearing on which DB2 version
you set up. Typically, most people use a separate machine for the domain
controller to avoid overhead on the DB2 server machine, but depending on
your application it may not be a big deal.

You would normally want ESE if you were connecting to a mainframe or using
the data partitioning feature (sold separately), or some other feature that
WSE does not have that you may need.
Thank you for any assistance.

Regards,
Joe Barbaro

[Mark A]

"Mark A" <ma@switchboard .net> wrote in message
news:ic******** ********@news.u swest.net...

Standalone W2K Advanced Server or even W2K Professional is fine (except

for the W2K professional limitation on simultaneous connections).

Correction.

DB2 version 7.2 was supported on Windows 2000 Professional, but DB2 version
8 may require Windows 2000 Server. I do know that DB2 version 8 is not
supported on XP Home or XP Professional.

But as stated previously, the server does not need to be a domain controller
(and it would be better if it were not).

[Joseph Barbaro]

Hi Mark,

Thank you for your responses to my query. I plowed ahead and successfully
installed DB2 UDB v8.1 on Windows 2000 Advanced Server without it being a
domain controller nor having Active Directory installed. While on a roll, I
also successfully installed it on Windows 2000 Professional. Thank you again
for your help.

Regards,
Joe Barbaro

"Mark A" <ma@switchboard .net> wrote in message
news:Py******** ********@news.u swest.net...

"Mark A" <ma@switchboard .net> wrote in message
news:ic******** ********@news.u swest.net...

Standalone W2K Advanced Server or even W2K Professional is fine (except

for

the W2K professional limitation on simultaneous connections).

Correction.

DB2 version 7.2 was supported on Windows 2000 Professional, but DB2

version 8 may require Windows 2000 Server. I do know that DB2 version 8 is not
supported on XP Home or XP Professional.

But as stated previously, the server does not need to be a domain controller (and it would be better if it were not).

[Mark A]

"Joseph Barbaro" <jb******@boic. com> wrote in message
news:cc******** ***********@twi ster.nyc.rr.com ...

Hi Mark,

Thank you for your responses to my query. I plowed ahead and successfully
installed DB2 UDB v8.1 on Windows 2000 Advanced Server without it being a
domain controller nor having Active Directory installed. While on a roll, I also successfully installed it on Windows 2000 Professional. Thank you again for your help.

Regards,
Joe Barbaro

Thanks for the feedback.

[Mark Yudkin]

Although your DB2 W2K AS need not be a domain controller (preferably you
have separate DC systems), I would strongly recommend implementing Active
Directory on the domain and registering the database in the AD (LDAP
catalogue), unless your company is so small that cataloguing databases in
the individual client is not a problem. Note also that you need AD for
Kerberos functionality, which is also highly recommended (again, unless your
company is so small that managing security is not a problem).

"Joseph Barbaro" <jb******@boic. com> wrote in message
news:cc******** ***********@twi ster.nyc.rr.com ...

Hi Mark,

Thank you for your responses to my query. I plowed ahead and successfully
installed DB2 UDB v8.1 on Windows 2000 Advanced Server without it being a
domain controller nor having Active Directory installed. While on a roll, I also successfully installed it on Windows 2000 Professional. Thank you again for your help.

Regards,
Joe Barbaro

"Mark A" <ma@switchboard .net> wrote in message
news:Py******** ********@news.u swest.net...

"Mark A" <ma@switchboard .net> wrote in message
news:ic******** ********@news.u swest.net...

>
Standalone W2K Advanced Server or even W2K Professional is fine

(except for

the W2K professional limitation on simultaneous connections).
>

Correction.

DB2 version 7.2 was supported on Windows 2000 Professional, but DB2

version

8 may require Windows 2000 Server. I do know that DB2 version 8 is not
supported on XP Home or XP Professional.

But as stated previously, the server does not need to be a domain

controller

(and it would be better if it were not).