Using Windows XP as SQL Server

Question

I was interested to find out if there are any restrictions on using Windows XP as a file and SQL server. I ask because one of the applications that we sell requires a client to install a server for file sharing, and like SQL Server. We already allow them to use SQL Express, but we would like to know if we can offer Windows XP as an inexpensive alternative to Windows Server. The only potential problem I could see with was there a limit on the number of concurrent connections to files or the database. We are just thinking of recommending this for smaller companies that would have 10-15 users.

Answer 1

There is a limit of 10 inbound connections on XP professional and 5 on XP Home. Therefore, this would be practicable for a very small company.

Answer 2

From this MS KB article:

Note. For Windows XP Professional, the maximum number of other computers that are allowed to simultaneously connect over the network is ten. This limit includes all shipments and resource sharing protocols. For Windows XP Home Edition, the maximum number of other computers that are allowed to simultaneously connect over the network is five. This limit is the number of simultaneous sessions from other computers the system is allowed to host. This restriction does not apply to the use of administrative tools that have a remote computer.

For development: the connection limit refers to a number based on forwarding and is mandatory for any file, print, named pipe, or mail slot session. A TCP connection limit is not applicable, but this may be due not to allow more than 10 clients.

I suggest reading the kb article for more information.

Answer 3

In fact, you can run SQL Server Standard or Workgroup Edition on Windows XP Pro. This is not limited to the express version ...

Answer 4

One economical alternative is the Windows Small Business Server . SBS 2003 R2: Features at a Glance

Answer 5

This will violate the EULA.

Here is the related knowledge base article . Please note that although TCP connection restrictions do not apply to XP, they are legally limited to 10 connections.

A small business server looks better and is economical if you shop.

Answer 6

The problem with Small Business Server is all you need, which is not needed for a simple sql file and server; like an exchange server, sharepoint, etc. I used Windows XP as a SQL / File server for small businesses, but as others have pointed out, you are limited to 10 legal appearances.

Answer 7

Another problem with Small Business Server cannot be installed in an existing domain. It would be best to pack part of SQL Server around a typical Windows server installation. If you are looking for 10-15 users, there is no guarantee that they have a domain. But if they do not, then probably they are already dealing with the file server problem using accounts with the same user names / passwords on the file server (s) as on separate workstations.

Answer 8

The number of connections is not related to the release of SQL Server, but to the operating system. For example, Windows XP allows only 10 concurrent connections, Windows 7 20. For Windows Server [no need to purchase a new server machine], the number of connections is unlimited (but you can limit the use of Terminal Services). The error message displayed when the connection limit is reached is something like "reached security limit ... number of simultaneous connection attempts"

Answer 9

Presumably, you mean SQL Express, since you cannot run SQL Server on XP, this is a server product.

If the client can afford your product, he can provide a copy of Server 2003 or something else built into file sharing. Admittedly, SQL Server is quite expensive, but if your product needs it, then how it goes. If cost was a problem, you should not use SQL Server as a database platform. It makes no sense to try to force the server solution into the client OS. Soon you will have all kinds of problems.

Does the client no longer have a domain infrastructure?

As a result, if the client has 5-10 software users, they should be on SBS anyway for a number of other reasons. However, you are not getting SQL Server.

(Samba will be an option for file sharing, but certainly more expensive than just buying Server 2003 in this case).