I love PostgreSQL, however for the majority of our apps, clients, and vendors if I made the suggestion to use PostgreSQL over Oracle or MS SQL, I'ld be laughed out of the room ;).
But, PostgreSQL is a great product. The number one reason to use PostgreSQL - Select Distinct _ON_. Damn I love that ;). Trey Rouse > -----Original Message----- > From: Josh Trefethen [mailto:jtnewsletters@;exciteworks.com] > Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2002 1:22 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: is my redundancy solution a violation of licensing terms? > > Switch to PostgreSQL! > > http://postgresql.org > > I made the switch from SQL Server a while back and haven't paid or > worried about licensing for sometime; yet still enjoy advanced RDBMS > features like stored procs, triggers, etc. > > Take a look... > > Josh Trefethen > http://exciteworks.com > Affordable CF Hosting on Linux > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Trey Rouse [mailto:trouse@;rice.edu] > Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2002 1:20 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: is my redundancy solution a violation of licensing terms? > > I'm fairly certain this is a violation of both licensures. > > However, you CAN use your single SQL license to run on two boxes > provided > you configure them in a passive cluster. However your non-clustered fail > over solution does not meet their definition of fail-over only. > > Microsoft has made a concession that if your implementation is purely as > passive fail over, then they don't hit you twice for licensing. They > admit > that since only one license can actually be available at any given > moment, > they can't charge you for 2. In honesty, I was surprised when our M$ rep > told us this ;). > > Perhaps Macromedia should consider allowing this when installed on OS > enforced passive clusters as well ;). > > > Trey Rouse > > -----Original Message----- > From: John Innit [mailto:harmony@;mtv.net] > Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 8:22 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: is my redundancy solution a violation of licensing terms? > > > I'm running a site on CF 4.5 on Win2K, IIS 5.0 and SQL 2000. > > We have 2 servers. Web server runs IIS 5.0, CF 4.5 and the DB Server > runs > SQL 2000 > > I want to set up a redundancy precaution where I install SQL Server on > the > Web server and CF and IIS on the DB server so that in the event of a > hardware failure on either of the machines, I'll still be able to get > the > site up and running quickly. > > Does this violate the standard licensing agreements? I'm not sure what > licenses we have, but I will check with my tech people, I just want to > know > if this is a viable option and if not can anyone suggest a way we can > have > a backup solution in the event of a hardware failure on either of my > servers? > > Thanks for your help. > > > > > > "The only difference between me and a madman is that I'm not mad. Innit > ? > - Salvador Dali + Co. (1904-1989) > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting.
