469,087 Members | 1,286 Online
Bytes | Developer Community
New Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Post your question to a community of 469,087 developers. It's quick & easy.

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
Jul 20 '05 #1
1 1819

"Ambrose" <ac****@hec.com.hk> wrote in message
news:6e**************************@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,
Ambrose

Jul 20 '05 #2

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

Similar topics

5 posts views Thread by Chris Dugan | last post: by
5 posts views Thread by nafej | last post: by
1 post views Thread by CARIGAR | last post: by
reply views Thread by zhoujie | last post: by
reply views Thread by kglaser89 | last post: by
By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.