I am developing a business databse system for a small engineering office,
well, not that small: 50 workstations and 6 server computers. SQL Server
(statndard version) is used as data store. I am planning to use SQL Server's
Reporting Services to produce data reports.
According to our work load, one SQL Server (standard, 1 processor license)
with properly configured hardware is definitely enough both to handle both
production data access and to host reporting serivces database. But as all
you know, reporting services also require IIS to serve the reports,
therefore IIS must be running on the server where Reporting services are
hosted. By the way, most psrt of our database app is ASP.NET app, running on
IIS of one of our server (intranet web server, no outside access, at least
for now).
But, our network administrator insists that web server and SQL Server must
run on seperate computers with the attitute "over my dead body if you want
to put web server and Sql Server on the same machine." So, the coices are:
1. A machine as web server, to server ASP.NET apps and Reporting Services.
Obviously, we need also put SQL Server on this computer to host only
Reporting Services databases. And another computer for another SQL Server to
hold production data. So, we need two SQL Server licenses. Expensive
solution
2. A computer as web server to host ASP.NET apps. Another computer to host
SQL Server, serving both production data and Reporting Services databases.
Obviously, IIS is also needed on this computer to serve the reports. Thus,
there are two IIS web server running on the network. The network admin's
theory is that the more web servers on the network, the more risk you take.
3. Consider the work load, put web server, SQL Server on the same computer
(we must "run over" the network admin's dead body to do that).
I'd love to go with option 1 to seperate production data with IIS, after
all, data is more important. But we just cannot justify the two SQL server
licenses (near $10000).
How do you set up reporting services in your office of similar size?We run many web sites internally and externally and have been using RS with
great success
The only issue you are going to face with 1 proc is that SQL RS is very
processor intensive as far as rendering goes...
Having IIS and SQL on the same server is a non-issue as long as both are
behind a firewall.
Basically, as long as you have the horsepower â'Option 1â' is no problem|||One thing that surprised me is that you have per processor license. If they
were using CALs then no extra CALs would be needed and all you would need is
1,000 about for the standard server license. I believe that a CAL would give
you access to both. I suggest talking to a MS person about licensing and see
if a processor license is really needed or if you could convert it to a
server license and CALs instead.
Otherwise, I think what you are seeing is typical with DBAs. I think DBAs
need to get over it. You can configure IIS to safely run on the same machine
and with IIS 6 (Windows 2003) I think you will find the stability is quite
high too.
--
Bruce Loehle-Conger
MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
"Norman Yuan" <nobody@.nowhere.no> wrote in message
news:ORTIqCnyEHA.1188@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>I am developing a business databse system for a small engineering office,
> well, not that small: 50 workstations and 6 server computers. SQL Server
> (statndard version) is used as data store. I am planning to use SQL
> Server's
> Reporting Services to produce data reports.
> According to our work load, one SQL Server (standard, 1 processor license)
> with properly configured hardware is definitely enough both to handle both
> production data access and to host reporting serivces database. But as all
> you know, reporting services also require IIS to serve the reports,
> therefore IIS must be running on the server where Reporting services are
> hosted. By the way, most psrt of our database app is ASP.NET app, running
> on
> IIS of one of our server (intranet web server, no outside access, at least
> for now).
> But, our network administrator insists that web server and SQL Server must
> run on seperate computers with the attitute "over my dead body if you want
> to put web server and Sql Server on the same machine." So, the coices are:
> 1. A machine as web server, to server ASP.NET apps and Reporting Services.
> Obviously, we need also put SQL Server on this computer to host only
> Reporting Services databases. And another computer for another SQL Server
> to
> hold production data. So, we need two SQL Server licenses. Expensive
> solution
> 2. A computer as web server to host ASP.NET apps. Another computer to host
> SQL Server, serving both production data and Reporting Services databases.
> Obviously, IIS is also needed on this computer to serve the reports. Thus,
> there are two IIS web server running on the network. The network admin's
> theory is that the more web servers on the network, the more risk you
> take.
> 3. Consider the work load, put web server, SQL Server on the same computer
> (we must "run over" the network admin's dead body to do that).
> I'd love to go with option 1 to seperate production data with IIS, after
> all, data is more important. But we just cannot justify the two SQL server
> licenses (near $10000).
> How do you set up reporting services in your office of similar size?
>|||To expand on Bruce's comment:
> You can configure IIS to safely run on the same machine and with IIS 6
> (Windows 2003) I think you will find the stability is quite high too.
Read Chapters 2 and 5 of our book "The Hitchhiker's Guide to SQL Server 2000
Reporting Services"
And take the following steps:
(i) Disable Integrated Security on the Report Server.
(ii) Install SSL on the IIS Web Site.
(iii) Configure the Report Server to use a Domain Account to Access the
Report Server Database.
(iv) Carefully consider the RSExec Role Membership Accounts
Peter Blackburn
Windows Server Systems - SQL Server MVP
Hitchhiker's Guide to SQL Server Reporting Services
http://www.sqlreportingservices.net
"Bruce L-C [MVP]" <bruce_lcNOSPAM@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23Qi0f3ryEHA.3368@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> One thing that surprised me is that you have per processor license. If
> they were using CALs then no extra CALs would be needed and all you would
> need is 1,000 about for the standard server license. I believe that a CAL
> would give you access to both. I suggest talking to a MS person about
> licensing and see if a processor license is really needed or if you could
> convert it to a server license and CALs instead.
> Otherwise, I think what you are seeing is typical with DBAs. I think DBAs
> need to get over it. You can configure IIS to safely run on the same
> machine and with IIS 6 (Windows 2003) I think you will find the stability
> is quite high too.
> --
> Bruce Loehle-Conger
> MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
>
> "Norman Yuan" <nobody@.nowhere.no> wrote in message
> news:ORTIqCnyEHA.1188@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>>I am developing a business databse system for a small engineering office,
>> well, not that small: 50 workstations and 6 server computers. SQL Server
>> (statndard version) is used as data store. I am planning to use SQL
>> Server's
>> Reporting Services to produce data reports.
>> According to our work load, one SQL Server (standard, 1 processor
>> license)
>> with properly configured hardware is definitely enough both to handle
>> both
>> production data access and to host reporting serivces database. But as
>> all
>> you know, reporting services also require IIS to serve the reports,
>> therefore IIS must be running on the server where Reporting services are
>> hosted. By the way, most psrt of our database app is ASP.NET app, running
>> on
>> IIS of one of our server (intranet web server, no outside access, at
>> least
>> for now).
>> But, our network administrator insists that web server and SQL Server
>> must
>> run on seperate computers with the attitute "over my dead body if you
>> want
>> to put web server and Sql Server on the same machine." So, the coices
>> are:
>> 1. A machine as web server, to server ASP.NET apps and Reporting
>> Services.
>> Obviously, we need also put SQL Server on this computer to host only
>> Reporting Services databases. And another computer for another SQL Server
>> to
>> hold production data. So, we need two SQL Server licenses. Expensive
>> solution
>> 2. A computer as web server to host ASP.NET apps. Another computer to
>> host
>> SQL Server, serving both production data and Reporting Services
>> databases.
>> Obviously, IIS is also needed on this computer to serve the reports.
>> Thus,
>> there are two IIS web server running on the network. The network admin's
>> theory is that the more web servers on the network, the more risk you
>> take.
>> 3. Consider the work load, put web server, SQL Server on the same
>> computer
>> (we must "run over" the network admin's dead body to do that).
>> I'd love to go with option 1 to seperate production data with IIS, after
>> all, data is more important. But we just cannot justify the two SQL
>> server
>> licenses (near $10000).
>> How do you set up reporting services in your office of similar size?
>>
>|||Thanks for the replies.
"Norman Yuan" <nobody@.nowhere.no> wrote in message
news:ORTIqCnyEHA.1188@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> I am developing a business databse system for a small engineering office,
> well, not that small: 50 workstations and 6 server computers. SQL Server
> (statndard version) is used as data store. I am planning to use SQL
Server's
> Reporting Services to produce data reports.
> According to our work load, one SQL Server (standard, 1 processor license)
> with properly configured hardware is definitely enough both to handle both
> production data access and to host reporting serivces database. But as all
> you know, reporting services also require IIS to serve the reports,
> therefore IIS must be running on the server where Reporting services are
> hosted. By the way, most psrt of our database app is ASP.NET app, running
on
> IIS of one of our server (intranet web server, no outside access, at least
> for now).
> But, our network administrator insists that web server and SQL Server must
> run on seperate computers with the attitute "over my dead body if you want
> to put web server and Sql Server on the same machine." So, the coices are:
> 1. A machine as web server, to server ASP.NET apps and Reporting Services.
> Obviously, we need also put SQL Server on this computer to host only
> Reporting Services databases. And another computer for another SQL Server
to
> hold production data. So, we need two SQL Server licenses. Expensive
> solution
> 2. A computer as web server to host ASP.NET apps. Another computer to host
> SQL Server, serving both production data and Reporting Services databases.
> Obviously, IIS is also needed on this computer to serve the reports. Thus,
> there are two IIS web server running on the network. The network admin's
> theory is that the more web servers on the network, the more risk you
take.
> 3. Consider the work load, put web server, SQL Server on the same computer
> (we must "run over" the network admin's dead body to do that).
> I'd love to go with option 1 to seperate production data with IIS, after
> all, data is more important. But we just cannot justify the two SQL server
> licenses (near $10000).
> How do you set up reporting services in your office of similar size?
>|||Cost per CAL for SQL Server is $175, plus ~$800 for the server license, so to
use a CAL-based approach for a company with 50 users will run just under $10k
for a single instance of SQL Server ($175 * 50) + $800 = $9550 -- you would
then double that for separate instances of SQL Server 2000 and Reporting
Services if they are running on separate machines.
So the cheapest approach is definitely to go with the processor license,
since Microsoft says you need a license not only for each person who actually
runs a report, but anyone who views a report (even in hard-copy printed
format or as an email).
If this is only for internal use, though, and is not made publicly available
outside your company firewall, I don't see why it would be a security issue.
"Bruce L-C [MVP]" wrote:
> One thing that surprised me is that you have per processor license. If they
> were using CALs then no extra CALs would be needed and all you would need is
> 1,000 about for the standard server license. I believe that a CAL would give
> you access to both. I suggest talking to a MS person about licensing and see
> if a processor license is really needed or if you could convert it to a
> server license and CALs instead.
> Otherwise, I think what you are seeing is typical with DBAs. I think DBAs
> need to get over it. You can configure IIS to safely run on the same machine
> and with IIS 6 (Windows 2003) I think you will find the stability is quite
> high too.
> --
> Bruce Loehle-Conger
> MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
>
> "Norman Yuan" <nobody@.nowhere.no> wrote in message
> news:ORTIqCnyEHA.1188@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> >I am developing a business databse system for a small engineering office,
> > well, not that small: 50 workstations and 6 server computers. SQL Server
> > (statndard version) is used as data store. I am planning to use SQL
> > Server's
> > Reporting Services to produce data reports.
> >
> > According to our work load, one SQL Server (standard, 1 processor license)
> > with properly configured hardware is definitely enough both to handle both
> > production data access and to host reporting serivces database. But as all
> > you know, reporting services also require IIS to serve the reports,
> > therefore IIS must be running on the server where Reporting services are
> > hosted. By the way, most psrt of our database app is ASP.NET app, running
> > on
> > IIS of one of our server (intranet web server, no outside access, at least
> > for now).
> >
> > But, our network administrator insists that web server and SQL Server must
> > run on seperate computers with the attitute "over my dead body if you want
> > to put web server and Sql Server on the same machine." So, the coices are:
> >
> > 1. A machine as web server, to server ASP.NET apps and Reporting Services.
> > Obviously, we need also put SQL Server on this computer to host only
> > Reporting Services databases. And another computer for another SQL Server
> > to
> > hold production data. So, we need two SQL Server licenses. Expensive
> > solution
> >
> > 2. A computer as web server to host ASP.NET apps. Another computer to host
> > SQL Server, serving both production data and Reporting Services databases.
> > Obviously, IIS is also needed on this computer to serve the reports. Thus,
> > there are two IIS web server running on the network. The network admin's
> > theory is that the more web servers on the network, the more risk you
> > take.
> >
> > 3. Consider the work load, put web server, SQL Server on the same computer
> > (we must "run over" the network admin's dead body to do that).
> >
> > I'd love to go with option 1 to seperate production data with IIS, after
> > all, data is more important. But we just cannot justify the two SQL server
> > licenses (near $10000).
> >
> > How do you set up reporting services in your office of similar size?
> >
> >
>
>|||I thought the user CAL gives access to any server you have in the
organization. I work for a very large organization and for us, all I need to
do is buy additional server licenses but that might be a different licensing
scheme.
--
Bruce Loehle-Conger
MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
"Joel Corra" <JoelCorra@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:35182241-F520-496D-A901-669ABB37DF57@.microsoft.com...
> Cost per CAL for SQL Server is $175, plus ~$800 for the server license, so
to
> use a CAL-based approach for a company with 50 users will run just under
$10k
> for a single instance of SQL Server ($175 * 50) + $800 = $9550 -- you
would
> then double that for separate instances of SQL Server 2000 and Reporting
> Services if they are running on separate machines.
> So the cheapest approach is definitely to go with the processor license,
> since Microsoft says you need a license not only for each person who
actually
> runs a report, but anyone who views a report (even in hard-copy printed
> format or as an email).
> If this is only for internal use, though, and is not made publicly
available
> outside your company firewall, I don't see why it would be a security
issue.
> "Bruce L-C [MVP]" wrote:
> > One thing that surprised me is that you have per processor license. If
they
> > were using CALs then no extra CALs would be needed and all you would
need is
> > 1,000 about for the standard server license. I believe that a CAL would
give
> > you access to both. I suggest talking to a MS person about licensing and
see
> > if a processor license is really needed or if you could convert it to a
> > server license and CALs instead.
> >
> > Otherwise, I think what you are seeing is typical with DBAs. I think
DBAs
> > need to get over it. You can configure IIS to safely run on the same
machine
> > and with IIS 6 (Windows 2003) I think you will find the stability is
quite
> > high too.
> >
> > --
> > Bruce Loehle-Conger
> > MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
> >
> >
> >
> > "Norman Yuan" <nobody@.nowhere.no> wrote in message
> > news:ORTIqCnyEHA.1188@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > >I am developing a business databse system for a small engineering
office,
> > > well, not that small: 50 workstations and 6 server computers. SQL
Server
> > > (statndard version) is used as data store. I am planning to use SQL
> > > Server's
> > > Reporting Services to produce data reports.
> > >
> > > According to our work load, one SQL Server (standard, 1 processor
license)
> > > with properly configured hardware is definitely enough both to handle
both
> > > production data access and to host reporting serivces database. But as
all
> > > you know, reporting services also require IIS to serve the reports,
> > > therefore IIS must be running on the server where Reporting services
are
> > > hosted. By the way, most psrt of our database app is ASP.NET app,
running
> > > on
> > > IIS of one of our server (intranet web server, no outside access, at
least
> > > for now).
> > >
> > > But, our network administrator insists that web server and SQL Server
must
> > > run on seperate computers with the attitute "over my dead body if you
want
> > > to put web server and Sql Server on the same machine." So, the coices
are:
> > >
> > > 1. A machine as web server, to server ASP.NET apps and Reporting
Services.
> > > Obviously, we need also put SQL Server on this computer to host only
> > > Reporting Services databases. And another computer for another SQL
Server
> > > to
> > > hold production data. So, we need two SQL Server licenses. Expensive
> > > solution
> > >
> > > 2. A computer as web server to host ASP.NET apps. Another computer to
host
> > > SQL Server, serving both production data and Reporting Services
databases.
> > > Obviously, IIS is also needed on this computer to serve the reports.
Thus,
> > > there are two IIS web server running on the network. The network
admin's
> > > theory is that the more web servers on the network, the more risk you
> > > take.
> > >
> > > 3. Consider the work load, put web server, SQL Server on the same
computer
> > > (we must "run over" the network admin's dead body to do that).
> > >
> > > I'd love to go with option 1 to seperate production data with IIS,
after
> > > all, data is more important. But we just cannot justify the two SQL
server
> > > licenses (near $10000).
> > >
> > > How do you set up reporting services in your office of similar size?
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
