Number of allowed connections for SQL Server 2005 Standard on XP P

I assume that the number of connections that SQL Server 2005 Standard can
concurrently have will be limited by the operating system it is running on.
If that OS is XP Pro, how many concurrent connections can SQL Server 2005
Standard have?
Michael
I believe that is a wrong assumption. There is no limit based on the OS that
I know of other than the fact that 64 bit can support more memory for
connections. But if you are worried about lots of connections then why would
you want to use XP Pro? The # of connections will ultimately be limited by
the amount of memory and the hardware.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"michael" <michael@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0EA3B57E-6583-4A59-B38B-FB4C89AB5D74@.microsoft.com...
>I assume that the number of connections that SQL Server 2005 Standard can
> concurrently have will be limited by the operating system it is running
> on.
> If that OS is XP Pro, how many concurrent connections can SQL Server 2005
> Standard have?
> --
> Michael
|||Yup... and the amount of CPU time you can dedicate to the threads SQL Server
will generate to handle the operations.
Let's hear more about your connection strategy and application architecture.
____________________________________
William (Bill) Vaughn
Author, Mentor, Consultant
Microsoft MVP
INETA Speaker
www.betav.com/blog/billva
www.betav.com
Please reply only to the newsgroup so that others can benefit.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
__________________________________
Visit www.hitchhikerguides.net to get more information on my latest book:
Hitchhiker's Guide to Visual Studio and SQL Server (7th Edition)
and Hitchhiker's Guide to SQL Server 2005 Compact Edition (EBook)
------
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:OSgPZMRiHHA.4596@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>I believe that is a wrong assumption. There is no limit based on the OS
>that I know of other than the fact that 64 bit can support more memory for
>connections. But if you are worried about lots of connections then why
>would you want to use XP Pro? The # of connections will ultimately be
>limited by the amount of memory and the hardware.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> "michael" <michael@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:0EA3B57E-6583-4A59-B38B-FB4C89AB5D74@.microsoft.com...
>
|||I did think about this for a bit, so, my answer will probably expose some of
my ignorance on the subject. My apologies in advance.
The reason I want to use XP Pro is that I already own a copy running on a
spare machine. The machine belongs to a domain managed on another box.
Nothing else running on the XP box. Nothing about the operation of the
database is really mission critical. I may have 10 - 30 concurrent users,
but, that's about it. I can put as much memory and storage space as I want.
What would I really get by running SQL Server 2005 on an MS server platform
in such a situation?
Respectfully,
Michael
"William (Bill) Vaughn" wrote:

> Yup... and the amount of CPU time you can dedicate to the threads SQL Server
> will generate to handle the operations.
> Let's hear more about your connection strategy and application architecture.
> --
> ____________________________________
> William (Bill) Vaughn
> Author, Mentor, Consultant
> Microsoft MVP
> INETA Speaker
> www.betav.com/blog/billva
> www.betav.com
> Please reply only to the newsgroup so that others can benefit.
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
> __________________________________
> Visit www.hitchhikerguides.net to get more information on my latest book:
> Hitchhiker's Guide to Visual Studio and SQL Server (7th Edition)
> and Hitchhiker's Guide to SQL Server 2005 Compact Edition (EBook)
> ------
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:OSgPZMRiHHA.4596@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>
>
|||The other thing to keep in mind is that regardless of any SQL Server
limitations, Windows XP only has 10 TCP/IP connections so supporting 30
concurrent users might not be possible. XP is tuned to give preference to
UI foreground application and not IO and memory intensive applications like
SQL Server so performance often isn't what you expect.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Use of included script samples are subject to the terms specified at
http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm
"michael" <michael@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:212C8757-2AE9-4D70-B57C-986F384BB85C@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
>I did think about this for a bit, so, my answer will probably expose some
>of
> my ignorance on the subject. My apologies in advance.
> The reason I want to use XP Pro is that I already own a copy running on a
> spare machine. The machine belongs to a domain managed on another box.
> Nothing else running on the XP box. Nothing about the operation of the
> database is really mission critical. I may have 10 - 30 concurrent users,
> but, that's about it. I can put as much memory and storage space as I
> want.
> What would I really get by running SQL Server 2005 on an MS server
> platform
> in such a situation?
> Respectfully,
>
> --
> Michael
>
> "William (Bill) Vaughn" wrote:
|||Roger brings up several very good points that you should take into
consideration. XP just isn't geared for the types of work that SQL Server
may demand. If you have 30 concurrent connections I would not call that
trivial and if you want to do it right I would look at a server OS.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"michael" <michael@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:212C8757-2AE9-4D70-B57C-986F384BB85C@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
>I did think about this for a bit, so, my answer will probably expose some
>of
> my ignorance on the subject. My apologies in advance.
> The reason I want to use XP Pro is that I already own a copy running on a
> spare machine. The machine belongs to a domain managed on another box.
> Nothing else running on the XP box. Nothing about the operation of the
> database is really mission critical. I may have 10 - 30 concurrent users,
> but, that's about it. I can put as much memory and storage space as I
> want.
> What would I really get by running SQL Server 2005 on an MS server
> platform
> in such a situation?
> Respectfully,
>
> --
> Michael
>
> "William (Bill) Vaughn" wrote:
|||Roger brings up a good point. However, it's possible (and legal) to alter
the number of connections by using the metadata editor to bump the number of
connections to (a maximum of) 40.
____________________________________
William (Bill) Vaughn
Author, Mentor, Consultant
Microsoft MVP
INETA Speaker
www.betav.com/blog/billva
www.betav.com
Please reply only to the newsgroup so that others can benefit.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
__________________________________
Visit www.hitchhikerguides.net to get more information on my latest book:
Hitchhiker's Guide to Visual Studio and SQL Server (7th Edition)
and Hitchhiker's Guide to SQL Server 2005 Compact Edition (EBook)
------
"Roger Wolter[MSFT]" <rwolter@.online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9C5831CD-59BC-4948-95BA-D2513BCDF3A8@.microsoft.com...
> The other thing to keep in mind is that regardless of any SQL Server
> limitations, Windows XP only has 10 TCP/IP connections so supporting 30
> concurrent users might not be possible. XP is tuned to give preference to
> UI foreground application and not IO and memory intensive applications
> like SQL Server so performance often isn't what you expect.
> --
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> rights.
> Use of included script samples are subject to the terms specified at
> http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm
> "michael" <michael@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:212C8757-2AE9-4D70-B57C-986F384BB85C@.microsoft.com...
>