What features of SQL 2005 will I loose if I install SQL Server 2005 on
Windows 2000 Adv Server? also will there be any problems running it? Thanks
in advanced

You will loose very few features in SQL Server if any. The main one I see if
the ability to not have to zero initialize the data files. I believe there
are some security features that may require Win 2003 but I am not 100% sure.
What I am thinking of is the ability to use the windows security policies.
But off hand I believe all the other functionality is there. You do loose
some performance by not going to Win2003 but that is due to the advances in
the OS that SQL Server takes advantage of not SQL Server itself per say.

--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP

"HenryT" <HenryT@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:84694D76-D550-441A-8B87-43C6206913A1@microsoft.com...
> What features of SQL 2005 will I loose if I install SQL Server 2005 on
> Windows 2000 Adv Server? also will there be any problems running it?
> Thanks
> in advanced

Andrew,

Thank you so much for your quick response. It s me a lot. Since you
are a SQL MVP, may I ask more questions? - what kind of horse power (CPU's,
RAM, disk space, etc. ) for a server do I need to run SQLserver 2005
comfortably? The minimum hardware requirements from the Book on Line doesn't
. Is this a good idea to run SQL server 2005 on a virtual server? I try
set spec out a base-line hardware requirements for both physical and virtual
server to run SQL Server 2005 in my shop. Any information is appreciated.
Thanks again.

"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:

> You will loose very few features in SQL Server if any. The main one I see if
> the ability to not have to zero initialize the data files. I believe there
> are some security features that may require Win 2003 but I am not 100% sure.
> What I am thinking of is the ability to use the windows security policies.
> But off hand I believe all the other functionality is there. You do loose
> some performance by not going to Win2003 but that is due to the advances in
> the OS that SQL Server takes advantage of not SQL Server itself per say.
>
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "HenryT" <HenryT@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:84694D76-D550-441A-8B87-43C6206913A1@microsoft.com...
> > What features of SQL 2005 will I loose if I install SQL Server 2005 on
> > Windows 2000 Adv Server? also will there be any problems running it?
> > Thanks
> > in advanced
>
>
>

The minimum hardware varies greatly depending onthe workload and how well
optimized the process is. The is no guideline per say. If you are concerned
with performance then I would tend to stay away from using virtual servers
for Sql Server. If the load is very light it may not be a problem but I see
little value in running SQL server on a virtual server. Are you talking
about a systemt hat will do 10 transactions a minute or 10,000 a second?
Will the data you use daily be 10MB's or 100GB's? How many concurrent
users. Etc, Etc.

--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP

"HenryT" <HenryT@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:384101C3-FE76-4AFE-BE68-0DDBEEE66FB5@microsoft.com...
> Andrew,
>
> Thank you so much for your quick response. It s me a lot. Since you
> are a SQL MVP, may I ask more questions? - what kind of horse power
> (CPU's,
> RAM, disk space, etc. ) for a server do I need to run SQLserver 2005
> comfortably? The minimum hardware requirements from the Book on Line
> doesn't
> . Is this a good idea to run SQL server 2005 on a virtual server? I
> try
> set spec out a base-line hardware requirements for both physical and
> virtual
> server to run SQL Server 2005 in my shop. Any information is appreciated.
> Thanks again.
>
> "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
>
>> You will loose very few features in SQL Server if any. The main one I see
>> if
>> the ability to not have to zero initialize the data files. I believe
>> there
>> are some security features that may require Win 2003 but I am not 100%
>> sure.
>> What I am thinking of is the ability to use the windows security
>> policies.
>> But off hand I believe all the other functionality is there. You do
>> loose
>> some performance by not going to Win2003 but that is due to the advances
>> in
>> the OS that SQL Server takes advantage of not SQL Server itself per say.
>>
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>>
>> "HenryT" <HenryT@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:84694D76-D550-441A-8B87-43C6206913A1@microsoft.com...
>> > What features of SQL 2005 will I loose if I install SQL Server 2005 on
>> > Windows 2000 Adv Server? also will there be any problems running it?
>> > Thanks
>> > in advanced
>>
>>
>>

Thanks for your reply, Andrew.

If anyone else out there reads this discussion thread, can you share your
thoughts? What is the best practice or common industry practice in putting
SQL server on virtual server. I can understand putting test SQL servers on
virtual environment. What about production SQL servers? Should they be
virtualized?

"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:

> The minimum hardware varies greatly depending onthe workload and how well
> optimized the process is. The is no guideline per say. If you are concerned
> with performance then I would tend to stay away from using virtual servers
> for Sql Server. If the load is very light it may not be a problem but I see
> little value in running SQL server on a virtual server. Are you talking
> about a systemt hat will do 10 transactions a minute or 10,000 a second?
> Will the data you use daily be 10MB's or 100GB's? How many concurrent
> users. Etc, Etc.
>
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "HenryT" <HenryT@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:384101C3-FE76-4AFE-BE68-0DDBEEE66FB5@microsoft.com...
> > Andrew,
> >
> > Thank you so much for your quick response. It s me a lot. Since you
> > are a SQL MVP, may I ask more questions? - what kind of horse power
> > (CPU's,
> > RAM, disk space, etc. ) for a server do I need to run SQLserver 2005
> > comfortably? The minimum hardware requirements from the Book on Line
> > doesn't
> > . Is this a good idea to run SQL server 2005 on a virtual server? I
> > try
> > set spec out a base-line hardware requirements for both physical and
> > virtual
> > server to run SQL Server 2005 in my shop. Any information is appreciated.
> > Thanks again.
> >
> > "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
> >
> >> You will loose very few features in SQL Server if any. The main one I see
> >> if
> >> the ability to not have to zero initialize the data files. I believe
> >> there
> >> are some security features that may require Win 2003 but I am not 100%
> >> sure.
> >> What I am thinking of is the ability to use the windows security
> >> policies.
> >> But off hand I believe all the other functionality is there. You do
> >> loose
> >> some performance by not going to Win2003 but that is due to the advances
> >> in
> >> the OS that SQL Server takes advantage of not SQL Server itself per say.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> >>
> >> "HenryT" <HenryT@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >> news:84694D76-D550-441A-8B87-43C6206913A1@microsoft.com...
> >> > What features of SQL 2005 will I loose if I install SQL Server 2005 on
> >> > Windows 2000 Adv Server? also will there be any problems running it?
> >> > Thanks
> >> > in advanced
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
>

I have seen some problems with production servers that were
virtual. Had some even with light loads that still had
performance issues which cleared up when moved to physical
servers. We've tried it at a few places I've been at and I
wouldn't recommend it for production servers. Even with a
beefy ESX server.

-Sue

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 08:55:02 -0700, HenryT
<HenryT@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>Thanks for your reply, Andrew.
>
>If anyone else out there reads this discussion thread, can you share your
>thoughts? What is the best practice or common industry practice in putting
>SQL server on virtual server. I can understand putting test SQL servers on
>virtual environment. What about production SQL servers? Should they be
>virtualized?
>
>"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
>
>> The minimum hardware varies greatly depending onthe workload and how well
>> optimized the process is. The is no guideline per say. If you are concerned
>> with performance then I would tend to stay away from using virtual servers
>> for Sql Server. If the load is very light it may not be a problem but I see
>> little value in running SQL server on a virtual server. Are you talking
>> about a systemt hat will do 10 transactions a minute or 10,000 a second?
>> Will the data you use daily be 10MB's or 100GB's? How many concurrent
>> users. Etc, Etc.
>>
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>>
>> "HenryT" <HenryT@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:384101C3-FE76-4AFE-BE68-0DDBEEE66FB5@microsoft.com...
>> > Andrew,
>> >
>> > Thank you so much for your quick response. It s me a lot. Since you
>> > are a SQL MVP, may I ask more questions? - what kind of horse power
>> > (CPU's,
>> > RAM, disk space, etc. ) for a server do I need to run SQLserver 2005
>> > comfortably? The minimum hardware requirements from the Book on Line
>> > doesn't
>> > . Is this a good idea to run SQL server 2005 on a virtual server? I
>> > try
>> > set spec out a base-line hardware requirements for both physical and
>> > virtual
>> > server to run SQL Server 2005 in my shop. Any information is appreciated.
>> > Thanks again.
>> >
>> > "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
>> >
>> >> You will loose very few features in SQL Server if any. The main one I see
>> >> if
>> >> the ability to not have to zero initialize the data files. I believe
>> >> there
>> >> are some security features that may require Win 2003 but I am not 100%
>> >> sure.
>> >> What I am thinking of is the ability to use the windows security
>> >> policies.
>> >> But off hand I believe all the other functionality is there. You do
>> >> loose
>> >> some performance by not going to Win2003 but that is due to the advances
>> >> in
>> >> the OS that SQL Server takes advantage of not SQL Server itself per say.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>> >>
>> >> "HenryT" <HenryT@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:84694D76-D550-441A-8B87-43C6206913A1@microsoft.com...
>> >> > What features of SQL 2005 will I loose if I install SQL Server 2005 on
>> >> > Windows 2000 Adv Server? also will there be any problems running it?
>> >> > Thanks
>> >> > in advanced
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>
>>

Sue,
Thanks so much for sharing your experience. I am glad to hear this before
making any server recommendations.

"Sue Hoegemeier" wrote:

> I have seen some problems with production servers that were
> virtual. Had some even with light loads that still had
> performance issues which cleared up when moved to physical
> servers. We've tried it at a few places I've been at and I
> wouldn't recommend it for production servers. Even with a
> beefy ESX server.
>
> -Sue
>
> On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 08:55:02 -0700, HenryT
> <HenryT@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> >Thanks for your reply, Andrew.
> >
> >If anyone else out there reads this discussion thread, can you share your
> >thoughts? What is the best practice or common industry practice in putting
> >SQL server on virtual server. I can understand putting test SQL servers on
> >virtual environment. What about production SQL servers? Should they be
> >virtualized?
> >
> >"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
> >
> >> The minimum hardware varies greatly depending onthe workload and how well
> >> optimized the process is. The is no guideline per say. If you are concerned
> >> with performance then I would tend to stay away from using virtual servers
> >> for Sql Server. If the load is very light it may not be a problem but I see
> >> little value in running SQL server on a virtual server. Are you talking
> >> about a systemt hat will do 10 transactions a minute or 10,000 a second?
> >> Will the data you use daily be 10MB's or 100GB's? How many concurrent
> >> users. Etc, Etc.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> >>
> >> "HenryT" <HenryT@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >> news:384101C3-FE76-4AFE-BE68-0DDBEEE66FB5@microsoft.com...
> >> > Andrew,
> >> >
> >> > Thank you so much for your quick response. It s me a lot. Since you
> >> > are a SQL MVP, may I ask more questions? - what kind of horse power
> >> > (CPU's,
> >> > RAM, disk space, etc. ) for a server do I need to run SQLserver 2005
> >> > comfortably? The minimum hardware requirements from the Book on Line
> >> > doesn't
> >> > . Is this a good idea to run SQL server 2005 on a virtual server? I
> >> > try
> >> > set spec out a base-line hardware requirements for both physical and
> >> > virtual
> >> > server to run SQL Server 2005 in my shop. Any information is appreciated.
> >> > Thanks again.
> >> >
> >> > "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> You will loose very few features in SQL Server if any. The main one I see
> >> >> if
> >> >> the ability to not have to zero initialize the data files. I believe
> >> >> there
> >> >> are some security features that may require Win 2003 but I am not 100%
> >> >> sure.
> >> >> What I am thinking of is the ability to use the windows security
> >> >> policies.
> >> >> But off hand I believe all the other functionality is there. You do
> >> >> loose
> >> >> some performance by not going to Win2003 but that is due to the advances
> >> >> in
> >> >> the OS that SQL Server takes advantage of not SQL Server itself per say.
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> >> >>
> >> >> "HenryT" <HenryT@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:84694D76-D550-441A-8B87-43C6206913A1@microsoft.com...
> >> >> > What features of SQL 2005 will I loose if I install SQL Server 2005 on
> >> >> > Windows 2000 Adv Server? also will there be any problems running it?
> >> >> > Thanks
> >> >> > in advanced
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>