Hi, 500mb is very good size for a sql database but its only 1 database. 50mb X 10db etc.. TOTAL 500mb will be great! Customer should select its size. There are alot of problems to use only 1 db. We need more db without giving much more money. If this is a marketing strategy (1db with 500mb) there is a problem for you not only for customer.
I totally agree. Love DiscountASP.NET and have about 10 hosting accounts. But the SQL Server solution should be the same as the MySQL addon. Why is there a difference between SQL/MYSQL? Sorry to say, for this reason I had to move over for some clients to another provider which provides 10 SQL instances. We did not see any free feature (incl. storage/bandwidth) upgrades for a long time and you should take care competition is not overtaking your leading position.
SQL and MySQL are two totally different applications. We are able to call on certain functions on SQL that is simply not available with MySQL. That is why there is a big difference in the control panel functionality.
I understand the differences between the 2 platforms, but with a MySql account you can create multiple databases within 1 account. With the SQL server add-on you can't. Technically this should not be a problem. Thats why I don't understand its possible with the mySQL addon and not with (the more expensive) SQL Server add-on. But there should be a business (money) wise explanation for it.
There is. Licensing fees. MS SQL = hundreds of dollars per server per month. MySQL = $0. That's the primary reason for the difference. But technically, you also find lower processing overhead on the MySQL servers (generally speaking), meaning you can host more active databases per server. So the MS SQL servers come at a higher financial cost, and also support far fewer databases on them than the MySQL servers.
But if you're paying a license fee per server, what is the differenc3 between giving your customers 1 500MB database vs 10 50MB databases (or 5 databases /w 100MB for that matter)? This shouldn't have an effect on licensing correct? As far as CPU usage, I'd be very happy with just 1 or 2 extra databases (with the same overall quota).
We maintain server health by capping the number of databases per server. So increasing the number of databases per user decreases the number of users per server, requiring more servers to support the same number of users. We're always looking at ways to increase value, but we are also here to provide quality service (in fact that is our primary goal above all others). Jamming as many users as we can onto one server reduces reliability and the quality of the service. The argument that other hosts do it is irrelevant. We're better than they are. Having said that, again, we're always looking for ways to improve value. The problem with changing the way databases are provisioned is doing so would require more than simply deciding to provide more resources or increasing flexibility. It would entail rewriting the database provisioning system, control panel, API, etc. - not a trivial matter. But we hear you. We'll see if we can't come up with something to accommodate the needs of those of you who require multiple databases on one account.
