Pervasive SQL and MSSQL on Server 2003?

[Cousin Patty]

i was wondering if anybody knew if it was possible to have mssql and pervasive sql running on the same server? In this case being server 2003. Basically I have a client that has two servers, one running mssql on server 2003 and the other running pervasive sql v8 on a server 2000 machine. Thanks

 

[tgabe213]

A quick guess of probably not. Depends on which ports the 2 app's use. Looks like they want to consolidate into 1? Sounds like a perfect opportunity for virtualization.

 

[calebb]

They should play fine together, depending on how heavily they are being used relative to the available hardware.

Pervasive SQL defaults to port 1583, MSSQL defaults to port 1403.

Watch out for MSSQL Buffer Cache - there's a SQL Server property for the maximum amount of memory SQL Server will use. Set this low enough for Pervasive SQL to have some room. You'll run into performance issues on both if you don't - specifically, if your Buffer Cache starts getting paged to disk you'll run into performance issues. (pin the SQL Server Buffer Cache to memory or decrease the total memory utilization for SQL server).

Additionally, you can assign SQL Server to specific processors (cores) if you need to ration the processor resources.

Now... just because you CAN, doesn't mean you should. You need to carefully consider this client's business requirements, application responsiveness requirements, availability requirements, etc.

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

Yes, I've had early Microsoft Dynamics (Great Plains) on a server while using Backup Exec for backup. Great Plains with Pervasive, Bloatup Exec on MSDE.

 

[Cousin Patty]

thanks guys.

the 03 server's hardware isnt being taxed at all really. its the 2000 server thats really old, causing problems with terminal services/registry problems and other stuff. unfortunately its also handling most of the important roles and resources. so we need to move stuff over transparently so the client can still work and wont be bitching. i like the idea of virtualizing server 2000 though.

thanks again. any more comments/suggestions are welcome

 

[calebb]

thanks guys.

the 03 server's hardware isnt being taxed at all really. its the 2000 server thats really old, causing problems with terminal services/registry problems and other stuff. unfortunately its also handling most of the important roles and resources. so we need to move stuff over transparently so the client can still work and wont be bitching. i like the idea of virtualizing server 2000 though.

thanks again. any more comments/suggestions are welcome

If you're going to virtualize a SQL server, definitely test, test test first.

And don't use Virtual Server 2005 (R2 or not). Use VMWare, Server 2008 Hyper-V or another solution that has a semblance of a decent track record running virtualized SQL servers.