Using Windows XP as a SQL Server

Question

I was wondering if anyone knew of any limitations to using Windows XP as a File and SQL server. I am asking because one of the applications we sell, requires the customer to setup a server for filesharing and as a SQL Server. We already allow them to use SQL Express, but we wanted to see if we can suggest Windows XP as a low cost alternative to Windows Server. The only potential problem that I could see if there were limits on the number of concurrent connections to either the files or the database. We are only thinking of recommending this for smaller sized companies who would have 10-15 users.

Answer 1

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

Answer 2

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

Answer 3

From http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314882)">this MS KB Article:

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

Per development: The connection limit refers to the number of redirector-based connections and is enforced for any file, print, named pipe, or mail slot session. The TCP connection limit is not enforced, but it may be bound by legal agreement to not permit more than 10 clients.

I suggest reading the kb article for more information.

Answer 4

This will break the EULA.

Here is the relevant knowledge base article. Note that while TCP connection limits are not enforced for XP, legally they are limited to 10 connections.

Small business server seems like a better fit, and is cost effective if you shop around.

Answer 5

The problem with Small Business Server is all the frill it comes with that is unnecessary for a simple file and sql server; like exchange server, sharepoint, etc. I've used Windows XP as a small business SQL/File server, but as others have pointed out, you are limited to 10 connections legally speaking.

Answer 6

Presumably you are meaning SQL Express, as you can't run SQL Server on XP, it's a server product.

If the customer can afford your product, they can afford a copy of Server 2003, or whatever, the file sharing's built-in. Admittedly SQL Server's fairly expensive, but if your product needs it, that's the way it goes. If cost were an issue, you shouldn't be using SQL Server as the database platform. There's no point in trying to force a server-based solution into a client OS. You'll end up with all sorts of problems before long.

Doesn't the client have a domain-based infrastructure already?

The upshot being being if the client has 5-10 users of the software, they should be on SBS anyway for a variety of other reasons. You don't get SQL Server with it though.

(Samba would be an option for file-sharing, but doubtless more expensive than simply buying Server 2003 in this instance).

Answer 7

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

Answer 8

Another issue with Small Business Server is it can't be installed on an existing domain. Your best bet would be to package the SQL Server portion around a normal Windows server installation. If you're looking at 10-15 users, there's no guarantee that they have a domain. But if they don't, likely they are already dealing with the file server problem using accounts with same usernames/passwords on the file server(s) as on their individual workstations.