What Limits Do You Want in 2019?

  • Steve Jones - SSC Editor

    SSC Guru

    Points: 715422

    Comments posted to this topic are about the item What Limits Do You Want in 2019?

  • William Rayer

    Say Hey Kid

    Points: 672

    I would like to see an increase in the capacity of SQL Server Express (the free version). I suggest to increase the maximum amount of memory from 1GB to 2GB (or more), and the maximum database size from 10GB to 50GB. These limits were set in 2008 (I think) and it's time to revise them.

  • Thom A

    SSC Guru

    Points: 98307

    I agree that seeing extra resources in Express would actually be nice. According to Compare SQL Server 2017 Editions Express can have 1410MB of RAM, but that's still not a lot in the grand scheme of things. For entry level, 10GB isn't too bad for a maximum database size though, in my view, especially when that limitation is per database not instance (so you could have 10 9GB databases on Express). Data is getting larger, but I am of mind that if you are starting to get towards to needing Standard as a minimum; as you're probably looking for a lot of the tools that Standard brings at that stage (like Agent).

    Not sure if we'll see an increase in 2019, as it is already in Preview and you would have expected them to increase those limits with the version. but then again, 2019 preview supports 2008 compatibility and I woukdn't be surprised if that isn't in the final release (as 2008 will very likely be out of support by then).

    The limits are definitely based on how technology was around a decade ago. A Server having more than 128MB of RAM is not uncommon. Our standard edition has more than that, but that's also because it's limited tom 128GB per feature, and we make heavy use of SSRS as well. As a result SQL Server can use the full 128, and SSRS, and SSAS, as well as the OS, have plenty left to share. The limit being per feature is something that some forget about. If you are using standard, and think you'll going to need all 128GB of RAM for the data engine, as well as have the other features installed then you definitely want more than 128GB installed on the host. In the grand scheme of things, RAM is pretty cheap and having enough for your OS and other services is just as important has having enough for your data engine.

    Thom~

    Excuse my typos and sometimes awful grammar. My fingers work faster than my brain does.

  • williamjoseph.lpa

    Newbie

    Points: 6

    I would like to see an increase in the storage capacity of SQL Server.

  • jasona.work

    SSC-Forever

    Points: 49870

    While I can't run Standard Edition due to requirements to use TDE, I think MS might be wise to consider setting the hardware limits the same across all the paid for versions, then make features such as TDE Enterprise-only.  Keep the high availability feature sets as they are now, to give Enterprise a reason to exist.  After all, if you *NEED* a feature like TDE or lots of failover nodes or the like, well, you've got the money to burn for it.

  • Steve Jones - SSC Editor

    SSC Guru

    Points: 715422

    williamjoseph.lpa wrote:

    I would like to see an increase in the storage capacity of SQL Server.

    To what? The storage limit exceeds any known database, AFAIK

  • Steve Jones - SSC Editor

    SSC Guru

    Points: 715422

    jasona.work wrote:

    While I can't run Standard Edition due to requirements to use TDE, I think MS might be wise to consider setting the hardware limits the same across all the paid for versions, then make features such as TDE Enterprise-only.  Keep the high availability feature sets as they are now, to give Enterprise a reason to exist.  After all, if you *NEED* a feature like TDE or lots of failover nodes or the like, well, you've got the money to burn for it.

     

    I feel differently. The TDE benefit is debatable and it's in Azure by default. That ought to be in every edition. In increases security, and if it's a load and you need more cores, then maybe you need EE, but the feature ought to be there. I can see saying that online indexing, and some "performance" based items ought to be EE, as well as resources.

  • Steve Jones - SSC Editor

    SSC Guru

    Points: 715422

    I'm torn on Express. I've seen no shortage of people trying to use this for production loads, cramming in data where they can or using it for short term holding of data that gets moved to another edition. Or someone uses it for monitoring, but just keeps limited history.

    At the same time, 50GB of data isn't much. Not quite sure what I think about Express.

  • jasona.work

    SSC-Forever

    Points: 49870

    Steve Jones - SSC Editor wrote:

    jasona.work wrote:

    While I can't run Standard Edition due to requirements to use TDE, I think MS might be wise to consider setting the hardware limits the same across all the paid for versions, then make features such as TDE Enterprise-only.  Keep the high availability feature sets as they are now, to give Enterprise a reason to exist.  After all, if you *NEED* a feature like TDE or lots of failover nodes or the like, well, you've got the money to burn for it.

      I feel differently. The TDE benefit is debatable and it's in Azure by default. That ought to be in every edition. In increases security, and if it's a load and you need more cores, then maybe you need EE, but the feature ought to be there. I can see saying that online indexing, and some "performance" based items ought to be EE, as well as resources.

    I don't disagree that security features *should* be available in all editions, but MS does need some way to differentiate Expensive Edition from Standard Edition.  I don't see not allowing TDE as a good choice (as you say, from a security standpoint,) but they need to make their $$$ somewhere.

  • Steve Jones - SSC Editor

    SSC Guru

    Points: 715422

    I think they make plenty of money. Not sure how things work out, but the last time I see the SE/EE breakdown, it was 3:1 or 4:1. Since EE costs 5x SE, perhaps what they're doing is the best thing financially. Personally, I think security is such a problem that I'd rather they move other features around the enterprise systems need, but that's me.

  • Jo Pattyn

    SSC-Dedicated

    Points: 31259

    I would rather see the minimum limits gone (minimum 4 core licenses per virtual machine).

  • Robert Sterbal

    SSChampion

    Points: 10954

    I've always been puzzled by the business model. It works for them.

    I imagine they are going to do licensing that makes doing workloads online more attractive.

    412-977-3526 call/text

  • DinoRS

    SSCrazy

    Points: 2338

    I'd like to see SQL Server 2o19 SE with a per Feature Limit of 256 GB.

Viewing 13 posts - 1 through 13 (of 13 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply