General software, Operating Systems, and Programming discussion.
Everything from software questions, OSes, simple HTML to scripting languages, Perl, PHP, Python, MySQL, VB, C++ etc.
I currently have Pervasive.SQL runing on our fileserver for our payroll program.
Another department want a special program that only runs of Microsoft Server SQL 7.0.
I was wondering can you have two SQL databases/servers running concurrently on the 1 server?
Are you asking about multiple databases or multiple database servers (like Oracle and MSSQL)? The former is common, the latter is probably a bad idea (though it may work).
DBServers can use A LOT of CPU and RAM.
anything is possible - nothing is free
Blisster wrote:It *would* be brokeback bay if I in fact went and hung out with Skye and co (did I mention he is teh hotness?)
cyberskye wrote:Are you asking about multiple databases or multiple database servers (like Oracle and MSSQL)? The former is common, the latter is probably a bad idea (though it may work).
DBServers can use A LOT of CPU and RAM.
Sounds like he wants multple servers but IMO I would just setup seperate databases. However Mysql should be able to handle both just fine, and for free.
It really depends. Permissions, especially, are handled differently across dbms's - if the app is PURE ansi sql, it may work. Oracle and MSSQL (see tablespace vs database) and DB/2 (I know, not very popular anymore but even more different) are night n' day in some respects - and not just admin tasks.
MySQL just started supporting stored procedures - functionaltiy VERY common in business apps (for security and performance reasons). It really depends, and if you don't have a skilled person looking at the sourcecode, you can only try to import teh data.
Moving a database is not as easy as it sounds - especially when crossing RDMS's
I still say running to RDMS's on a single host is a bad idea - unless you're talking data center-class machines or clustering - and even then, I'd avoid it.
Skye
anything is possible - nothing is free
Blisster wrote:It *would* be brokeback bay if I in fact went and hung out with Skye and co (did I mention he is teh hotness?)
For the most part I would agree with Skye on the general issue. Depending on the load that the current database places on the server and the hardware that you have to work with, it might or might not work. Even if you think they will work on the same machine, you will need to tune both of the databases to get them to "play nice" together (making sure they don't hog the RAM, monopolize the CPU, etc.). A seperate machine would be the best way to go, less of a headache to set up and maintain.
That being said, I would lean toward not having any application that requires Microsoft SQL Server 7.0. Primarily because, its' mainstream product support is going to end in December 2005 (you can extend that for an additional 5 years by paying for "extended support"). So, you'd only get just over 1 year's worth of bugfixes and security patches for free, and then you need to pay for support. And if you decide not to get the extended support, you pretty much can't upgrade/patch that machine's operating system a few security updates after the support ends for fear of breaking SQL Server (you can, but be prepared to have to uninstall an update and restore the database from a backup at some point).
If another department want to run this program, tell them how much a server and support for it will cost, then see if they have the budget, and still have the will to run it. Alternatively, tell them the cost of a study to find out how it could be done on the existing server.
Wave upon wave of demented avengers march cheerfully out of obscurity into the dream.
