Added CPUs

Hi,
If I add more CPUs to an existing computer running SQL Server 2000
Enterprise Edition + SP4, do I need to do anything special to get SQL Server
to recognize the extra CPUs, or does it automatically detect them? What
about Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition + SP2? I'd be going from 2
CPUs to 4 CPUs.
--
Thank you,
Daniel Jameson
SQL Server DBA
Children's Oncology Group
www.childrensoncologygroup.orgIt will detect and use automatically. If you want to check read about sp_configure and "affinity
mask". This setting specifies which CPUs SQL Server can use. By default all.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
"Daniel Jameson" <no_djameson_spam@.childrensoncologygroup.org> wrote in message
news:uEvg1JElIHA.4076@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> If I add more CPUs to an existing computer running SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition + SP4, do I
> need to do anything special to get SQL Server to recognize the extra CPUs, or does it
> automatically detect them? What about Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition + SP2? I'd be going
> from 2 CPUs to 4 CPUs.
> --
> Thank you,
> Daniel Jameson
> SQL Server DBA
> Children's Oncology Group
> www.childrensoncologygroup.org
>|||Cool. Thanks for the quick answer.
--
Thank you,
Daniel Jameson
SQL Server DBA
Children's Oncology Group
www.childrensoncologygroup.org
"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in
message news:%23$sjjgElIHA.1744@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> It will detect and use automatically. If you want to check read about
> sp_configure and "affinity mask". This setting specifies which CPUs SQL
> Server can use. By default all.
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
>
> "Daniel Jameson" <no_djameson_spam@.childrensoncologygroup.org> wrote in
> message news:uEvg1JElIHA.4076@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> Hi,
>> If I add more CPUs to an existing computer running SQL Server 2000
>> Enterprise Edition + SP4, do I need to do anything special to get SQL
>> Server to recognize the extra CPUs, or does it automatically detect them?
>> What about Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition + SP2? I'd be going
>> from 2 CPUs to 4 CPUs.
>> --
>> Thank you,
>> Daniel Jameson
>> SQL Server DBA
>> Children's Oncology Group
>> www.childrensoncologygroup.org
>>
>

Add user to R\O Database

I have a SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition sp4 production database that is log
shipping to 2 servers (one for DR purposes and the other for reporting).
On the reporting server, the database is in Read-Only mode. I need to
add another user to the database so they can run reports. How can I do
this with the database in read-only mode? I can't take it out of
read-only because I'll have to set up log shipping all over again, won't
I? This is a 40 GB database so that would take quite some time to do.
Do you have any suggestions?
Thank you.
Toni
*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.codecomments.com ***"Toni" <teibner@.SQLallina.com> wrote in message
news:evNCYtFSGHA.5736@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>I have a SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition sp4 production database that is log
> shipping to 2 servers (one for DR purposes and the other for reporting).
> On the reporting server, the database is in Read-Only mode. I need to
> add another user to the database so they can run reports. How can I do
> this with the database in read-only mode? I can't take it out of
> read-only because I'll have to set up log shipping all over again, won't
> I? This is a 40 GB database so that would take quite some time to do.
> Do you have any suggestions?
The only way is to add that user to a role that has access... you could
create a server role that has SELECT permissions for all objects, but I'm
not sure that a new role's access would be grand-fathered into an r/o db.
Unfortunately, the only built-in role that leaves you with is sysadmin...
but it's worth a try.
-Mark

> Thank you.
> Toni
> *** Sent via Developersdex http://www.codecomments.com ***

Add User to Log-Shipped Database

I have a SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition sp4 production database that is log
shipping to 2 servers (one for DR purposes and the other for reporting).
On the reporting server, the database is in Read-Only mode. I need to
add another user to the database so they can run reports. How can I do
this with the database in read-only mode? I can't take it out of
read-only because I'll have to set up log shipping all over again, won't
I?
This is a 40 GB database so that would take quite some time to do.
Do you have any suggestions?
Thank you.
Toni
*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.codecomments.com ***
You need to add a login for that user on the originating server, add a user for that login on the
originating server and then add the same login on the reporting machine (making sure that the SID
matches).
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Toni" <teibner@.SQLallina.com> wrote in message news:uv9UQ5OSGHA.256@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>I have a SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition sp4 production database that is log
> shipping to 2 servers (one for DR purposes and the other for reporting).
> On the reporting server, the database is in Read-Only mode. I need to
> add another user to the database so they can run reports. How can I do
> this with the database in read-only mode? I can't take it out of
> read-only because I'll have to set up log shipping all over again, won't
> I?
> This is a 40 GB database so that would take quite some time to do.
> Do you have any suggestions?
> Thank you.
> Toni
> *** Sent via Developersdex http://www.codecomments.com ***
|||The sid! Of course! I made the sid match and everything is perfect!
I'll make sure to put this in my documentation so I don't forget.
Thank you so much!
Toni
*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.codecomments.com ***

Add User to Log-Shipped Database

I have a SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition sp4 production database that is log
shipping to 2 servers (one for DR purposes and the other for reporting).
On the reporting server, the database is in Read-Only mode. I need to
add another user to the database so they can run reports. How can I do
this with the database in read-only mode? I can't take it out of
read-only because I'll have to set up log shipping all over again, won't
I?
This is a 40 GB database so that would take quite some time to do.
Do you have any suggestions?
Thank you.
Toni
*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.codecomments.com ***You need to add a login for that user on the originating server, add a user
for that login on the
originating server and then add the same login on the reporting machine (mak
ing sure that the SID
matches).
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Toni" <teibner@.SQLallina.com> wrote in message news:uv9UQ5OSGHA.256@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...

>I have a SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition sp4 production database that is log
> shipping to 2 servers (one for DR purposes and the other for reporting).
> On the reporting server, the database is in Read-Only mode. I need to
> add another user to the database so they can run reports. How can I do
> this with the database in read-only mode? I can't take it out of
> read-only because I'll have to set up log shipping all over again, won't
> I?
> This is a 40 GB database so that would take quite some time to do.
> Do you have any suggestions?
> Thank you.
> Toni
> *** Sent via Developersdex http://www.codecomments.com ***|||The sid! Of course! I made the sid match and everything is perfect!
I'll make sure to put this in my documentation so I don't forget.
Thank you so much!
Toni
*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.codecomments.com ***

Add User to Log-Shipped Database

I have a SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition sp4 production database that is log
shipping to 2 servers (one for DR purposes and the other for reporting).
On the reporting server, the database is in Read-Only mode. I need to
add another user to the database so they can run reports. How can I do
this with the database in read-only mode? I can't take it out of
read-only because I'll have to set up log shipping all over again, won't
I?
This is a 40 GB database so that would take quite some time to do.
Do you have any suggestions?
Thank you.
Toni
*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com ***You need to add a login for that user on the originating server, add a user for that login on the
originating server and then add the same login on the reporting machine (making sure that the SID
matches).
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Toni" <teibner@.SQLallina.com> wrote in message news:uv9UQ5OSGHA.256@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>I have a SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition sp4 production database that is log
> shipping to 2 servers (one for DR purposes and the other for reporting).
> On the reporting server, the database is in Read-Only mode. I need to
> add another user to the database so they can run reports. How can I do
> this with the database in read-only mode? I can't take it out of
> read-only because I'll have to set up log shipping all over again, won't
> I?
> This is a 40 GB database so that would take quite some time to do.
> Do you have any suggestions?
> Thank you.
> Toni
> *** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com ***

add user to database role

Hello,
When i add a user to a database role, enterprise manager
ask me for the user password. I do the same in other
server and and i don't need to give any password.
I've yet the same problem but i cant remember what i've
done to correct this situation.
Best Regards
Hi;
Not sure about this issue. I recommend you to add the server / database
fixed roles
from query analyzer.
For the Server wide roles use :-
sp_addsrvrolemember 'login','sysadmin'
For the Database wide roles use:-
use paytest
go
sp_addrolemember 'db_owner','user'
Thanks
Hari
MCDBA
"CC&JM" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:18df601c44c75$c16bd250$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> When i add a user to a database role, enterprise manager
> ask me for the user password. I do the same in other
> server and and i don't need to give any password.
> I've yet the same problem but i cant remember what i've
> done to correct this situation.
> Best Regards
|||You may be running into the following:
FIX: You Are Prompted for Password Confirmation After You
Change a Standard SQL Server Login
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=826161
-Sue
On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 02:56:51 -0700, "CC&JM"
<anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>Hello,
>When i add a user to a database role, enterprise manager
>ask me for the user password. I do the same in other
>server and and i don't need to give any password.
>I've yet the same problem but i cant remember what i've
>done to correct this situation.
>Best Regards
|||Thanks Sue
I apply the patch and now i've got no problem
Thanks again,
bye

>--Original Message--
>You may be running into the following:
>FIX: You Are Prompted for Password Confirmation After You
>Change a Standard SQL Server Login
>http://support.microsoft.com/?id=826161
>-Sue
>On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 02:56:51 -0700, "CC&JM"
><anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>.
>

add user to database role

Hello,
When i add a user to a database role, enterprise manager
ask me for the user password. I do the same in other
server and and i don't need to give any password.
I've yet the same problem but i cant remember what i've
done to correct this situation.
Best RegardsHi;
Not sure about this issue. I recommend you to add the server / database
fixed roles
from query analyzer.
For the Server wide roles use :-
sp_addsrvrolemember 'login','sysadmin'
For the Database wide roles use:-
use paytest
go
sp_addrolemember 'db_owner','user'
Thanks
Hari
MCDBA
"CC&JM" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:18df601c44c75$c16bd250$a301280a@.phx
.gbl...
> Hello,
> When i add a user to a database role, enterprise manager
> ask me for the user password. I do the same in other
> server and and i don't need to give any password.
> I've yet the same problem but i cant remember what i've
> done to correct this situation.
> Best Regards|||You may be running into the following:
FIX: You Are Prompted for Password Confirmation After You
Change a Standard SQL Server Login
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=826161
-Sue
On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 02:56:51 -0700, "CC&JM"
<anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>Hello,
>When i add a user to a database role, enterprise manager
>ask me for the user password. I do the same in other
>server and and i don't need to give any password.
>I've yet the same problem but i cant remember what i've
>done to correct this situation.
>Best Regards|||Thanks Sue
I apply the patch and now i've got no problem
Thanks again,
bye

>--Original Message--
>You may be running into the following:
>FIX: You Are Prompted for Password Confirmation After You
>Change a Standard SQL Server Login
>http://support.microsoft.com/?id=826161
>-Sue
>On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 02:56:51 -0700, "CC&JM"
><anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>.
>

add user to database role

Hello,
When i add a user to a database role, enterprise manager
ask me for the user password. I do the same in other
server and and i don't need to give any password.
I've yet the same problem but i cant remember what i've
done to correct this situation.
Best RegardsHi;
Not sure about this issue. I recommend you to add the server / database
fixed roles
from query analyzer.
For the Server wide roles use :-
sp_addsrvrolemember 'login','sysadmin'
For the Database wide roles use:-
use paytest
go
sp_addrolemember 'db_owner','user'
Thanks
Hari
MCDBA
"CC&JM" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:18df601c44c75$c16bd250$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> When i add a user to a database role, enterprise manager
> ask me for the user password. I do the same in other
> server and and i don't need to give any password.
> I've yet the same problem but i cant remember what i've
> done to correct this situation.
> Best Regards|||You may be running into the following:
FIX: You Are Prompted for Password Confirmation After You
Change a Standard SQL Server Login
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=826161
-Sue
On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 02:56:51 -0700, "CC&JM"
<anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>Hello,
>When i add a user to a database role, enterprise manager
>ask me for the user password. I do the same in other
>server and and i don't need to give any password.
>I've yet the same problem but i cant remember what i've
>done to correct this situation.
>Best Regards|||Thanks Sue
I apply the patch and now i've got no problem
Thanks again,
bye
>--Original Message--
>You may be running into the following:
>FIX: You Are Prompted for Password Confirmation After You
>Change a Standard SQL Server Login
>http://support.microsoft.com/?id=826161
>-Sue
>On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 02:56:51 -0700, "CC&JM"
><anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>>Hello,
>>When i add a user to a database role, enterprise manager
>>ask me for the user password. I do the same in other
>>server and and i don't need to give any password.
>>I've yet the same problem but i cant remember what i've
>>done to correct this situation.
>>Best Regards
>.
>

Add new SQL Server in "SQL Server Group"

Hi,
Does anyone know how to add a new SQL Server under the "SQL Server Group"
using Enterprise Manager other than run the setup.exe in MSDE?
Thanks.
Paul
Paul wrote:
> Hi,
> Does anyone know how to add a new SQL Server under the "SQL Server
> Group" using Enterprise Manager other than run the setup.exe in MSDE?
> Thanks.
> Paul
SQL EM does not actually create new instances of SQL Server. It only
"adds" instances of SQL Server that already exist to its UI. To create a
new instance of SQL Server, you need to re-run the SQL Server
installation and apply the necessary service packs. I'm not sure MSDE
supports multiple instances. It might, but I'm not sure.
David Gugick
Imceda Software
www.imceda.com
|||David,
Thanks. MSDE does support multiple instances. I am just trying to find a
better way to add a new instance.
Paul
"David Gugick" wrote:

> Paul wrote:
> SQL EM does not actually create new instances of SQL Server. It only
> "adds" instances of SQL Server that already exist to its UI. To create a
> new instance of SQL Server, you need to re-run the SQL Server
> installation and apply the necessary service packs. I'm not sure MSDE
> supports multiple instances. It might, but I'm not sure.
> --
> David Gugick
> Imceda Software
> www.imceda.com
>
|||To install another instance of SQL Server you must go through setup..
If you merely wish to administer an existing SQL in your SEM, then right
click the server group, and select Register server
Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Mariner, Charlotte, NC
www.mariner-usa.com
(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
community of SQL Server professionals.
www.sqlpass.org
"Paul" <Paul@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0B1A4C3B-2FEC-49B6-AF61-3A3F98921FEE@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> Does anyone know how to add a new SQL Server under the "SQL Server Group"
> using Enterprise Manager other than run the setup.exe in MSDE?
> Thanks.
> Paul
|||Wayne,
Thanks.
Paul
"Wayne Snyder" wrote:

> To install another instance of SQL Server you must go through setup..
> If you merely wish to administer an existing SQL in your SEM, then right
> click the server group, and select Register server
> --
> Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
> Mariner, Charlotte, NC
> www.mariner-usa.com
> (Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
> I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
> community of SQL Server professionals.
> www.sqlpass.org
> "Paul" <Paul@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:0B1A4C3B-2FEC-49B6-AF61-3A3F98921FEE@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||No problem
Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Mariner, Charlotte, NC
www.mariner-usa.com
(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
community of SQL Server professionals.
www.sqlpass.org
"Paul" <Paul@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:7EE2E3E4-10BE-4D72-A0CB-CD1E78ADBE82@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Wayne,
> Thanks.
> Paul
> "Wayne Snyder" wrote:
Group"[vbcol=seagreen]

Add new SQL Server in "SQL Server Group"

Hi,
Does anyone know how to add a new SQL Server under the "SQL Server Group"
using Enterprise Manager other than run the setup.exe in MSDE?
Thanks.
PaulPaul wrote:
> Hi,
> Does anyone know how to add a new SQL Server under the "SQL Server
> Group" using Enterprise Manager other than run the setup.exe in MSDE?
> Thanks.
> Paul
SQL EM does not actually create new instances of SQL Server. It only
"adds" instances of SQL Server that already exist to its UI. To create a
new instance of SQL Server, you need to re-run the SQL Server
installation and apply the necessary service packs. I'm not sure MSDE
supports multiple instances. It might, but I'm not sure.
--
David Gugick
Imceda Software
www.imceda.com|||David,
Thanks. MSDE does support multiple instances. I am just trying to find a
better way to add a new instance.
Paul
"David Gugick" wrote:
> Paul wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Does anyone know how to add a new SQL Server under the "SQL Server
> > Group" using Enterprise Manager other than run the setup.exe in MSDE?
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Paul
> SQL EM does not actually create new instances of SQL Server. It only
> "adds" instances of SQL Server that already exist to its UI. To create a
> new instance of SQL Server, you need to re-run the SQL Server
> installation and apply the necessary service packs. I'm not sure MSDE
> supports multiple instances. It might, but I'm not sure.
> --
> David Gugick
> Imceda Software
> www.imceda.com
>|||To install another instance of SQL Server you must go through setup..
If you merely wish to administer an existing SQL in your SEM, then right
click the server group, and select Register server
--
Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Mariner, Charlotte, NC
www.mariner-usa.com
(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
community of SQL Server professionals.
www.sqlpass.org
"Paul" <Paul@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0B1A4C3B-2FEC-49B6-AF61-3A3F98921FEE@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> Does anyone know how to add a new SQL Server under the "SQL Server Group"
> using Enterprise Manager other than run the setup.exe in MSDE?
> Thanks.
> Paul|||Wayne,
Thanks.
Paul
"Wayne Snyder" wrote:
> To install another instance of SQL Server you must go through setup..
> If you merely wish to administer an existing SQL in your SEM, then right
> click the server group, and select Register server
> --
> Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
> Mariner, Charlotte, NC
> www.mariner-usa.com
> (Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
> I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
> community of SQL Server professionals.
> www.sqlpass.org
> "Paul" <Paul@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:0B1A4C3B-2FEC-49B6-AF61-3A3F98921FEE@.microsoft.com...
> > Hi,
> >
> > Does anyone know how to add a new SQL Server under the "SQL Server Group"
> > using Enterprise Manager other than run the setup.exe in MSDE?
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Paul
>
>|||No problem
--
Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Mariner, Charlotte, NC
www.mariner-usa.com
(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
community of SQL Server professionals.
www.sqlpass.org
"Paul" <Paul@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:7EE2E3E4-10BE-4D72-A0CB-CD1E78ADBE82@.microsoft.com...
> Wayne,
> Thanks.
> Paul
> "Wayne Snyder" wrote:
> > To install another instance of SQL Server you must go through setup..
> >
> > If you merely wish to administer an existing SQL in your SEM, then right
> > click the server group, and select Register server
> >
> > --
> > Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
> > Mariner, Charlotte, NC
> > www.mariner-usa.com
> > (Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
> >
> > I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
> > community of SQL Server professionals.
> > www.sqlpass.org
> >
> > "Paul" <Paul@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:0B1A4C3B-2FEC-49B6-AF61-3A3F98921FEE@.microsoft.com...
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Does anyone know how to add a new SQL Server under the "SQL Server
Group"
> > > using Enterprise Manager other than run the setup.exe in MSDE?
> > > Thanks.
> > >
> > > Paul
> >
> >
> >

Add new SQL Server in "SQL Server Group"

Hi,
Does anyone know how to add a new SQL Server under the "SQL Server Group"
using Enterprise Manager other than run the setup.exe in MSDE?
Thanks.
PaulPaul wrote:
> Hi,
> Does anyone know how to add a new SQL Server under the "SQL Server
> Group" using Enterprise Manager other than run the setup.exe in MSDE?
> Thanks.
> Paul
SQL EM does not actually create new instances of SQL Server. It only
"adds" instances of SQL Server that already exist to its UI. To create a
new instance of SQL Server, you need to re-run the SQL Server
installation and apply the necessary service packs. I'm not sure MSDE
supports multiple instances. It might, but I'm not sure.
David Gugick
Imceda Software
www.imceda.com|||David,
Thanks. MSDE does support multiple instances. I am just trying to find a
better way to add a new instance.
Paul
"David Gugick" wrote:

> Paul wrote:
> SQL EM does not actually create new instances of SQL Server. It only
> "adds" instances of SQL Server that already exist to its UI. To create a
> new instance of SQL Server, you need to re-run the SQL Server
> installation and apply the necessary service packs. I'm not sure MSDE
> supports multiple instances. It might, but I'm not sure.
> --
> David Gugick
> Imceda Software
> www.imceda.com
>|||To install another instance of SQL Server you must go through setup..
If you merely wish to administer an existing SQL in your SEM, then right
click the server group, and select Register server
Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Mariner, Charlotte, NC
www.mariner-usa.com
(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
community of SQL Server professionals.
www.sqlpass.org
"Paul" <Paul@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0B1A4C3B-2FEC-49B6-AF61-3A3F98921FEE@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> Does anyone know how to add a new SQL Server under the "SQL Server Group"
> using Enterprise Manager other than run the setup.exe in MSDE?
> Thanks.
> Paul|||Wayne,
Thanks.
Paul
"Wayne Snyder" wrote:

> To install another instance of SQL Server you must go through setup..
> If you merely wish to administer an existing SQL in your SEM, then right
> click the server group, and select Register server
> --
> Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
> Mariner, Charlotte, NC
> www.mariner-usa.com
> (Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
> I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
> community of SQL Server professionals.
> www.sqlpass.org
> "Paul" <Paul@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:0B1A4C3B-2FEC-49B6-AF61-3A3F98921FEE@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||No problem
Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Mariner, Charlotte, NC
www.mariner-usa.com
(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
community of SQL Server professionals.
www.sqlpass.org
"Paul" <Paul@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:7EE2E3E4-10BE-4D72-A0CB-CD1E78ADBE82@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Wayne,
> Thanks.
> Paul
> "Wayne Snyder" wrote:
>
Group"[vbcol=seagreen]

Add New Database to solution

I'm running VS 2005 Enterprise, and SQL Server 2005 Developer / workgroup edition.

I'm trying to follow a few online examples to play around, and some of these examples require that you add a SQL DB to your solution by going:
-right click on website
-Add new Item
-Add SQL DataBase.

WHen I do that, I get the error that SQL Express isn't installed. Now the question is, why would I want SQL Express installed when I have SQL server 2005 already installed? My Machine can support it, but it's sort of a waste when I need to run SQL Server 2000, SQL Server 2005 and then SQL Server express all at the same time.

Any advice?

You are getting the error because you are using SQL Server as Access database when you have the developer edition which is the enterprise edition with deployment restrictions installed.

Now go to programs SQL Server, then management studio and then go to databases right click and go to new and then create a new database to create the blank database. To connect go to VS and click to datalink property and you should be able to connect. Hope this helps.

|||Caddre, thank you for the quick response! That solved it.|||I am glad I could help.

Add new column?

How do you add a new column in a table between two existing columns (like when you add columns with enterprise manager) using alter table?
/y0d4Is this a slow forum or is the topic to trivial for people to open it?

/y0d4|||An ATLER TABLE statement only adds the column to the end and since this is a relational database there is no problem where the column appears. However if you wish to add the column in a partical position then:

Example

CREATE TblA
(
col1 int,
col3 int,
col4 int
)

exec sp_rename Tb1A, OldTb1A
go

CREATE TblA
(
col1 int,
col2 int,
col3 int,
col4 int
)
GO
INSERT Tb1A (col1,col2,col3 ,col4 )
SELECT col1, 0,col3 ,col4
FROM OldTb1A
GO

DROP TABLE OldTb1A
GO

Do get a better idea of handling IDENTITY and so forth columns turn Profiler on and go into Enterprise Manager under the design Table option and insert a column into the middle of table and Save. You will see all the transactions that Microsoft does to perform this in Profiler.

Add new cluster and use existing LUN's?

Hi All,
We have a Win2003 Enterprise/SQL 2000 "active/passive" cluster, and we want
to split a few larger DB's off to a seperate and new "active/passive"
cluster. The reason for the split is to allow this new cluster to control
the one application and the other cluster to control the existing app.
Currently we have:
SQL LUN occupying 4 Raid 10 disks with 175 GB assigned to this LUN. Doing
the math leaves us with appx. 225 GB left on these 4 discs that is
unnassigned and unformatted.
T-log/Quorum LUN occupying 2 Raid 10 disks with all of the space assigned to
this LUN (appx 134 GB).
We are most likely not going to utilize the entire 175 GB for the data
collection side let alone the additional 225 GB. At what impact to the disk
I/O are we going to suffer if we create the new a/p cluster using a newly
assigned LUN that occupies the previously unformatted 225 GB on the SQL data
disks? So essentially we would have 2 seperate virtual servers operating off
of the same spindles, however 2 different LUN's. My gut feeling says that we
would take some type of I/O performance hit since 2 seperate high I/O
applications are accessing the same spindles. We would however have 2 new
RAID 10 disks for the t-logs and quorum of the new cluster and since they are
the highest I/O portion of SQL and would not be sharing this is the only
reason I think the idea may be feasible.
The reasons for trying to use the unformatted space on those 4 spindles is:
A) The data collection app already running on those spindles in the 175 GB
space is never going to use all of that space (it is using 50 GB currently
and at least half of that is the other app we want to split off). So a
future of adding the 225 GB as a metalun to the existing SQL LUN is slim to
nill.
B) We are hosed on that 225 GB of space for eternity really. If we can't
use it for another SQL cluster I don't think there is anyway we would use it
for file storage for example. That is based on my opinion...I have a hard
time believing it is okay to add another set of SQL data let alone file data.
C) We only have 3 slots left in the first SAN cabinet. We will be using 2
of those for a RAID 10 t-log setup for the new SQL cluster so that leaves us
with 1 drive space open for the new SQL cluster data which=impossible. So
now we not only have to buy additional drives but also a new cabinet and all
associated hardware.
Keep in mind our main goal here is the processing power. Our existing
cluster's processor is by no means outdated, but the data collection AND
reporting runs at the same time are causing slow downs due to processing
requests from many different applications. If reporting were on it's own
cluster that means it has its own server to beat up on and our clients don't
notice delays in web surveys or IVR calls when the daily reports are being
aggregated.
Any help provided is greatly appreciated.
You need to stress test, look at the results, and then test some more.
Testing will tell you what the correct answer is for your environment.
Cheers,
Rod
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering Website
http://msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
http://www.clusterhelp.com - Cluster Training
"skyline" <skyline@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:18DB25CC-37FC-4FEF-AF56-64696BE9D0B8@.microsoft.com...
> Hi All,
> We have a Win2003 Enterprise/SQL 2000 "active/passive" cluster, and we
> want
> to split a few larger DB's off to a seperate and new "active/passive"
> cluster. The reason for the split is to allow this new cluster to control
> the one application and the other cluster to control the existing app.
> Currently we have:
> SQL LUN occupying 4 Raid 10 disks with 175 GB assigned to this LUN. Doing
> the math leaves us with appx. 225 GB left on these 4 discs that is
> unnassigned and unformatted.
> T-log/Quorum LUN occupying 2 Raid 10 disks with all of the space assigned
> to
> this LUN (appx 134 GB).
> We are most likely not going to utilize the entire 175 GB for the data
> collection side let alone the additional 225 GB. At what impact to the
> disk
> I/O are we going to suffer if we create the new a/p cluster using a newly
> assigned LUN that occupies the previously unformatted 225 GB on the SQL
> data
> disks? So essentially we would have 2 seperate virtual servers operating
> off
> of the same spindles, however 2 different LUN's. My gut feeling says that
> we
> would take some type of I/O performance hit since 2 seperate high I/O
> applications are accessing the same spindles. We would however have 2 new
> RAID 10 disks for the t-logs and quorum of the new cluster and since they
> are
> the highest I/O portion of SQL and would not be sharing this is the only
> reason I think the idea may be feasible.
> The reasons for trying to use the unformatted space on those 4 spindles
> is:
> A) The data collection app already running on those spindles in the 175
> GB
> space is never going to use all of that space (it is using 50 GB currently
> and at least half of that is the other app we want to split off). So a
> future of adding the 225 GB as a metalun to the existing SQL LUN is slim
> to
> nill.
> B) We are hosed on that 225 GB of space for eternity really. If we can't
> use it for another SQL cluster I don't think there is anyway we would use
> it
> for file storage for example. That is based on my opinion...I have a hard
> time believing it is okay to add another set of SQL data let alone file
> data.
> C) We only have 3 slots left in the first SAN cabinet. We will be using 2
> of those for a RAID 10 t-log setup for the new SQL cluster so that leaves
> us
> with 1 drive space open for the new SQL cluster data which=impossible. So
> now we not only have to buy additional drives but also a new cabinet and
> all
> associated hardware.
> Keep in mind our main goal here is the processing power. Our existing
> cluster's processor is by no means outdated, but the data collection AND
> reporting runs at the same time are causing slow downs due to processing
> requests from many different applications. If reporting were on it's own
> cluster that means it has its own server to beat up on and our clients
> don't
> notice delays in web surveys or IVR calls when the daily reports are being
> aggregated.
> Any help provided is greatly appreciated.
|||I realize that testing is the ideal way to come to the complete conclusion on
our pathway but my first and foremost question really is has anyone
successfully used a set of drives and have 2 luns for 2 different virtual
servers on that same set of drives?
I'd like to know if I am doing something "average" or if the general
consensus is against such an idea. That helps me to determine how much of a
possibility this really becomes and how much money I will be spending.
Thanks for your input thusfar.
"Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" wrote:

> You need to stress test, look at the results, and then test some more.
> Testing will tell you what the correct answer is for your environment.
> Cheers,
> Rod
> MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
> http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering Website
> http://msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
> http://www.clusterhelp.com - Cluster Training
> "skyline" <skyline@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:18DB25CC-37FC-4FEF-AF56-64696BE9D0B8@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||It depends on the SAN. You may not be allowed to share the drives with
different servers.
Cheers,
Rod
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering Website
http://msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
http://www.clusterhelp.com - Cluster Training
"skyline" <skyline@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A4415101-D95B-4871-A666-4D4A2497275F@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
>I realize that testing is the ideal way to come to the complete conclusion
>on
> our pathway but my first and foremost question really is has anyone
> successfully used a set of drives and have 2 luns for 2 different virtual
> servers on that same set of drives?
> I'd like to know if I am doing something "average" or if the general
> consensus is against such an idea. That helps me to determine how much of
> a
> possibility this really becomes and how much money I will be spending.
> Thanks for your input thusfar.
> "Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" wrote:
|||The SAN is indeed capable. Creating a LUN out of the 225 GB of unformatted
data and assigning it to the new SQL server storage group is quick and easy.
The first 5 drives of our SAN share the system binaries, Snapview reserved
LUN's, and 3 additional LUN's all set as RAID 5 (making a total of 509 GB
divided between several different LUN's.) It is possible to share the same
drives with more than one server, however you can't share one LUN with more
than 1 server.
However we would have 1 virtual server accessing the original LUN of 175 GB
and the other virtual server accessing the newly created LUN of 225 GB--my
only hang up being the fact that the 2 LUN's exist on the same set of 4
drives and if you have 2 completely independent SQL servers accessing the
same drives is it going to put a hurt on performance. Again, t-logs stay
seperate (IE the 2 virtual servers would not be sharing the t-log drives,
they would each have their seperate set of RAID 10 drives) so that is my only
saving grace thinking this implementation may be possible.
I am here because I need a second opinion (and 3rd or 4ths if possible) from
some higher SQL guru's. I personally am the Net Admin so my SQL experience
is not broad however I understand the concept of the SAN well and know what I
am looking to do with the SQL servers.
Thanks!
"Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" wrote:

> It depends on the SAN. You may not be allowed to share the drives with
> different servers.
> Cheers,
> Rod
> MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
> http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering Website
> http://msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
> http://www.clusterhelp.com - Cluster Training
> "skyline" <skyline@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:A4415101-D95B-4871-A666-4D4A2497275F@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||Even a SAN has a maximum I/O capacity. Whether you are I/O bound on the
disks in question will determine whether using the remaining space will
impact your current system performance. Your SAN vendor (EMC from the hints
you dropped) should have tools (likely for an additional fee) that can
measure IO at the LUN/RAID set/disk level. You will definitely need that
capability in order to measure the impact of your proposed change. A quick
test would be to run a simulated SQL I/O load on the newly created LUNs
while monitoring I/O performance at the SQL, OS, and SAN levels. Do the
same without the load and see how much you can get away with.
Personally, I prefer to use LUNS that map one-to-one to RAID Sets, mostly to
avoid this problem. Since that isn't a real option now, you may want to
consider purchasing an additional drive tray. It isn't the cheapest
solution, but it may be the most effective.
BTW, you can share a LUN with more than one server. That is how a cluster
is built. Access Logix whines about it but you can force it to do what you
need. .
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"skyline" <skyline@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:DA48AC82-6A9F-4738-BDB6-08D10D16EAB4@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> The SAN is indeed capable. Creating a LUN out of the 225 GB of
> unformatted
> data and assigning it to the new SQL server storage group is quick and
> easy.
> The first 5 drives of our SAN share the system binaries, Snapview reserved
> LUN's, and 3 additional LUN's all set as RAID 5 (making a total of 509 GB
> divided between several different LUN's.) It is possible to share the
> same
> drives with more than one server, however you can't share one LUN with
> more
> than 1 server.
> However we would have 1 virtual server accessing the original LUN of 175
> GB
> and the other virtual server accessing the newly created LUN of 225 GB--my
> only hang up being the fact that the 2 LUN's exist on the same set of 4
> drives and if you have 2 completely independent SQL servers accessing the
> same drives is it going to put a hurt on performance. Again, t-logs stay
> seperate (IE the 2 virtual servers would not be sharing the t-log drives,
> they would each have their seperate set of RAID 10 drives) so that is my
> only
> saving grace thinking this implementation may be possible.
> I am here because I need a second opinion (and 3rd or 4ths if possible)
> from
> some higher SQL guru's. I personally am the Net Admin so my SQL
> experience
> is not broad however I understand the concept of the SAN well and know
> what I
> am looking to do with the SQL servers.
> Thanks!
> "Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" wrote:
|||I don't have access to the tool you mentioned but will research it (Dell/EMC
is correct by the way). I still have the fear of affecting performance on
both virtual servers by forcing them to share the same 4 disks because RAID
10 is not even bulletproof enough to gurantee a good speed if we are high on
the disk I/O side. I didn't want to semi-blindly make a decision to purchase
another cabinet and additional drives...hence why I came out here looking to
see if a few MVP's reccomended against it. I figured real world experience
may help me in the decision.
Like I told Rodney, I know testing is in store for us--a smoking gun for the
decision. All I have now are my own opinions and reservations and that isn't
enough to guide my decision to spend or not spend money.
Thanks for the advice.
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:

> Even a SAN has a maximum I/O capacity. Whether you are I/O bound on the
> disks in question will determine whether using the remaining space will
> impact your current system performance. Your SAN vendor (EMC from the hints
> you dropped) should have tools (likely for an additional fee) that can
> measure IO at the LUN/RAID set/disk level. You will definitely need that
> capability in order to measure the impact of your proposed change. A quick
> test would be to run a simulated SQL I/O load on the newly created LUNs
> while monitoring I/O performance at the SQL, OS, and SAN levels. Do the
> same without the load and see how much you can get away with.
> Personally, I prefer to use LUNS that map one-to-one to RAID Sets, mostly to
> avoid this problem. Since that isn't a real option now, you may want to
> consider purchasing an additional drive tray. It isn't the cheapest
> solution, but it may be the most effective.
> BTW, you can share a LUN with more than one server. That is how a cluster
> is built. Access Logix whines about it but you can force it to do what you
> need. .
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>
> "skyline" <skyline@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:DA48AC82-6A9F-4738-BDB6-08D10D16EAB4@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||I am speaking from experience here: spindle contention can big the BIGGEST
bottleneck to a SQL installation. Recommendation, be careful. I think you
are on the right track though. A few points to help guide you.
1. A physical spindle (real disk) has limited IOPS and bandwidth capacity,
anywhere between 75 and 150 IOPS (I/Os per second) theoretical maximum
sequential reads. Random reads and any type of writes decrease from there.
To overcome this limitation, Meta-volumes are constructed out of the RAID
sets/Hyper-volumes.
2. Whether or not these RAID sets from which you construct the Hyper and
Meta-volumes are dedicated to a single host, single activity (OS, swap file,
TLogs, Data Files, or TempDB) or shared among many hosts with similar or
varied activity (DBMSes, Messaging Server, File Server, Web Servers,
Application Servers, or Middleware components), the physical spindles retain
the same theoretical IOPS and bandwidth capacities. Make sure what you
construct can handle the anticipated loads: both in IOPS and total
throughput.
3. The various activities of all hosts as well as those of a particular host
need to be isolated: O/S, page file, Quorum, MS DTC, TLogs, Data Files,
TempDB, Exchange Server jet files, Web Server pages, etc. You could
however, create a large RAID set that could be shared across multiple hosts
from which you construct several Meta-volumes that are dedicated to, say,
page file space. The point is ISOLATE the TYPE of activity, then share with
as many hosts as the IOPS and bandwidth will support.
4. Some of the physical spindle limitations can be addressed through the SAN
cache, which can be configured fractionally as dedicated to Read and or
Write operations. This piece requires a detailed understanding of the SAN
configuration and the anticipated host activity, whether or not that
activity has been made homogeneous throughout the SAN or whether or not the
various activities have been segmented to dedicate RAID sets.
5. Consider the number of SAN fibre controllers and available ports, each
one has a theoretical limit that can be overloaded and the number limits the
total activity that can be assigned to a given SAN cabinet installation.
6. Network switches, each port and switch have theoretical limitations and
which will be serving up all connected hosts. The total usage must be
aggregated to properly configure.
7. HBAs on each host have limitations. Even if you go through all of the
trouble of isolating activity on the SAN, carving up and presented isolated
LUNs to each host dedicated to the separate activities, if you try to run
all of that through one or two HBAs, you may still cause the same sort of
contention. Seriously consider running Windows 2003 and using STORport
drivers over SCSIport minidrivers. You will also need to look into a MPIO
solution like Veritas Volume Manager or EMC Power Path. This will allow you
to leverage the bandwidth across all HBAs and allow you to get by with fewer
overall, not to mention this will provide you another
Single-Point-of-Failure isolation.
8. Finally, I've already said it, but it so important that I'm going to say
it again. Many engineers only aggregate and examine total bandwidth real
and/or anticipated consumption, in the components, networks, or storage
solutions. That is, size capacity and throughput. How much data do I need
to store and how much do I need to transfer per second. However, for a
heavily used OLTP system, size is less important. Number of concurrent
transactions, and thus IOPS, will be the limiting factor. I don't know how
many times I have asked my sub-system engineers to look into either the
network or storage components just to have them come back and tell me I am
only using 10% of the bandwidth or total storage capacity. To which I
respond, I am running over 1,000 TPS and up to 1,000,000 IOPS. The typical
response is "Huh?". Which is never a good response to hear in a crisis
situation.
Hope this helps.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas

"skyline" <skyline@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9993F283-E654-4F30-8316-E491670CCF35@.microsoft.com...
> I don't have access to the tool you mentioned but will research it
(Dell/EMC
> is correct by the way). I still have the fear of affecting performance on
> both virtual servers by forcing them to share the same 4 disks because
RAID
> 10 is not even bulletproof enough to gurantee a good speed if we are high
on
> the disk I/O side. I didn't want to semi-blindly make a decision to
purchase
> another cabinet and additional drives...hence why I came out here looking
to
> see if a few MVP's reccomended against it. I figured real world
experience
> may help me in the decision.
> Like I told Rodney, I know testing is in store for us--a smoking gun for
the
> decision. All I have now are my own opinions and reservations and that
isn't[vbcol=seagreen]
> enough to guide my decision to spend or not spend money.
> Thanks for the advice.
> "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
hints[vbcol=seagreen]
that[vbcol=seagreen]
quick[vbcol=seagreen]
mostly to[vbcol=seagreen]
cluster[vbcol=seagreen]
you[vbcol=seagreen]
reserved[vbcol=seagreen]
GB[vbcol=seagreen]
175[vbcol=seagreen]
GB--my[vbcol=seagreen]
4[vbcol=seagreen]
the[vbcol=seagreen]
stay[vbcol=seagreen]
drives,[vbcol=seagreen]
my[vbcol=seagreen]
possible)[vbcol=seagreen]
with[vbcol=seagreen]
general[vbcol=seagreen]
much[vbcol=seagreen]
spending.[vbcol=seagreen]
more.[vbcol=seagreen]
environment.[vbcol=seagreen]
and[vbcol=seagreen]
to[vbcol=seagreen]
existing[vbcol=seagreen]
LUN.[vbcol=seagreen]
is[vbcol=seagreen]
the[vbcol=seagreen]
to[vbcol=seagreen]
using a[vbcol=seagreen]
the[vbcol=seagreen]
high[vbcol=seagreen]
have[vbcol=seagreen]
since[vbcol=seagreen]
the[vbcol=seagreen]
the[vbcol=seagreen]
off).[vbcol=seagreen]
is[vbcol=seagreen]
If we[vbcol=seagreen]
have[vbcol=seagreen]
alone[vbcol=seagreen]
be[vbcol=seagreen]
that[vbcol=seagreen]
cabinet[vbcol=seagreen]
collection[vbcol=seagreen]
are[vbcol=seagreen]
|||Anthony,
This is exactly what I was looking for. We have dual HBA's using the
Storport driver and Powerpath on all of our SAN host servers so we are trying
to make the best of our fibre connections.
In the end I think that I may play it cautious and create a new RAID group,
move our SQL data over temporarily, and destroy/recreate the 4 disk RAID 10
into 2 RAID 10 groups with 2 drives a piece and then add 2 drives to our
remaining open slots and create a RAID 10 group out of them for the second
virtual servers t-logs.
My final decision will probably come based upon our drive usage analysis,
but as you said I am going to be careful
"Anthony Thomas" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> I am speaking from experience here: spindle contention can big the BIGGEST
> bottleneck to a SQL installation. Recommendation, be careful. I think you
> are on the right track though. A few points to help guide you.
> 1. A physical spindle (real disk) has limited IOPS and bandwidth capacity,
> anywhere between 75 and 150 IOPS (I/Os per second) theoretical maximum
> sequential reads. Random reads and any type of writes decrease from there.
> To overcome this limitation, Meta-volumes are constructed out of the RAID
> sets/Hyper-volumes.
> 2. Whether or not these RAID sets from which you construct the Hyper and
> Meta-volumes are dedicated to a single host, single activity (OS, swap file,
> TLogs, Data Files, or TempDB) or shared among many hosts with similar or
> varied activity (DBMSes, Messaging Server, File Server, Web Servers,
> Application Servers, or Middleware components), the physical spindles retain
> the same theoretical IOPS and bandwidth capacities. Make sure what you
> construct can handle the anticipated loads: both in IOPS and total
> throughput.
> 3. The various activities of all hosts as well as those of a particular host
> need to be isolated: O/S, page file, Quorum, MS DTC, TLogs, Data Files,
> TempDB, Exchange Server jet files, Web Server pages, etc. You could
> however, create a large RAID set that could be shared across multiple hosts
> from which you construct several Meta-volumes that are dedicated to, say,
> page file space. The point is ISOLATE the TYPE of activity, then share with
> as many hosts as the IOPS and bandwidth will support.
> 4. Some of the physical spindle limitations can be addressed through the SAN
> cache, which can be configured fractionally as dedicated to Read and or
> Write operations. This piece requires a detailed understanding of the SAN
> configuration and the anticipated host activity, whether or not that
> activity has been made homogeneous throughout the SAN or whether or not the
> various activities have been segmented to dedicate RAID sets.
> 5. Consider the number of SAN fibre controllers and available ports, each
> one has a theoretical limit that can be overloaded and the number limits the
> total activity that can be assigned to a given SAN cabinet installation.
> 6. Network switches, each port and switch have theoretical limitations and
> which will be serving up all connected hosts. The total usage must be
> aggregated to properly configure.
> 7. HBAs on each host have limitations. Even if you go through all of the
> trouble of isolating activity on the SAN, carving up and presented isolated
> LUNs to each host dedicated to the separate activities, if you try to run
> all of that through one or two HBAs, you may still cause the same sort of
> contention. Seriously consider running Windows 2003 and using STORport
> drivers over SCSIport minidrivers. You will also need to look into a MPIO
> solution like Veritas Volume Manager or EMC Power Path. This will allow you
> to leverage the bandwidth across all HBAs and allow you to get by with fewer
> overall, not to mention this will provide you another
> Single-Point-of-Failure isolation.
> 8. Finally, I've already said it, but it so important that I'm going to say
> it again. Many engineers only aggregate and examine total bandwidth real
> and/or anticipated consumption, in the components, networks, or storage
> solutions. That is, size capacity and throughput. How much data do I need
> to store and how much do I need to transfer per second. However, for a
> heavily used OLTP system, size is less important. Number of concurrent
> transactions, and thus IOPS, will be the limiting factor. I don't know how
> many times I have asked my sub-system engineers to look into either the
> network or storage components just to have them come back and tell me I am
> only using 10% of the bandwidth or total storage capacity. To which I
> respond, I am running over 1,000 TPS and up to 1,000,000 IOPS. The typical
> response is "Huh?". Which is never a good response to hear in a crisis
> situation.
> Hope this helps.
> Sincerely,
>
> Anthony Thomas
>
> --
> "skyline" <skyline@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:9993F283-E654-4F30-8316-E491670CCF35@.microsoft.com...
> (Dell/EMC
> RAID
> on
> purchase
> to
> experience
> the
> isn't
> hints
> that
> quick
> mostly to
> cluster
> you
> reserved
> GB
> 175
> GB--my
> 4
> the
> stay
> drives,
> my
> possible)
> with
> general
> much
> spending.
> more.
> environment.
> and
> to
> existing
> LUN.
> is
> the
> to
> using a
> the
> high
> have
> since
> the
|||Hi,
Could you indicate a good tool that perform IO Stress with SQL 2005 over
64-bit plataform? SQLIOStress isn′t fully compatible with that.
Thank you!
Luis

Add MS SQL 7.0 server in MS SQL 2000 SEM

Hi.
Rookie question.
Is it possible to add a MS SQL 7.0 server in a MS SQL 2000 Server Enterprise
Manager consol? I've added a login on the MS SQL 7.0 server, dedictaed to
the MS SQL 2000 login, but the 7.0 server appear to be "not associated with
a trusted SQL Server connection" when I try to register the 7.0 server in
the 2000 consol.
Please guide me on this one if you can.
Regards
Mr. SmithHi
SQL Server 2000 EM can manage SQL Server 7.0 installations.
Your problem is security. Are you logged on using an account that has
permissions on the SQL Server 7.0 server and domain? If not, you need to be
given the rights. Else, connect using SQL Server security by passing in a
Username and Password.
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Mr. Smith" <nospam@.blindfolded.gone> wrote in message
news:e08lOn32EHA.924@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Hi.
> Rookie question.
> Is it possible to add a MS SQL 7.0 server in a MS SQL 2000 Server
Enterprise
> Manager consol? I've added a login on the MS SQL 7.0 server, dedictaed to
> the MS SQL 2000 login, but the 7.0 server appear to be "not associated
with
> a trusted SQL Server connection" when I try to register the 7.0 server in
> the 2000 consol.
> Please guide me on this one if you can.
> Regards
> Mr. Smith
>

Add Formula for a column

I'm trying to add a formula to a column in a Table, in Enterprise Manager,
but I'm not being allowed.
I want a column to be multiplication of two other columns, datatypes money
and decimal.
I'm typing SubTotal * TaxRate ...
What's the big deal with this?
Hi Calvin
As per my knowledge you cannot add formula to the table. You can do this in
your query.
If u feel you use the formula frequently, u can create a VIEW of UDF
Hope this will solve your problem.
Thanks and regards
Chandra
"Calvin" wrote:

> I'm trying to add a formula to a column in a Table, in Enterprise Manager,
> but I'm not being allowed.
> I want a column to be multiplication of two other columns, datatypes money
> and decimal.
> I'm typing SubTotal * TaxRate ...
> What's the big deal with this?
>
>
|||Try using Query Analyzer and execute the CREATE TABLE statement instead, then you can post an error
message for us. Below work fine on my machine:
CREATE TABLE #t
(subtotal decimal(5,3)
,taxrate int
,x AS subtotal*taxrate)
An alternative is to present derived information in views instead of in the table...
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Calvin" <calvin@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:BE975F7D.1622%calvin@.discussions.microsoft.co m...
> I'm trying to add a formula to a column in a Table, in Enterprise Manager,
> but I'm not being allowed.
> I want a column to be multiplication of two other columns, datatypes money
> and decimal.
> I'm typing SubTotal * TaxRate ...
> What's the big deal with this?
>
|||Yeah... realized that would save the hassle after my post. Thanks for your
reply.
On 29/4/05 7:06 am, in article
5042C552-DDBF-4D63-BE77-C8B6ECDAF946@.microsoft.com, "Chandra"
<Chandra@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi Calvin
> As per my knowledge you cannot add formula to the table. You can do this in
> your query.
> If u feel you use the formula frequently, u can create a VIEW of UDF
> Hope this will solve your problem.
> Thanks and regards
> Chandra
>
> "Calvin" wrote:
|||Decided to change the query which updates the table instead, but thanks fr
your reply.
On 29/4/05 9:19 am, in article O6qYcQJTFHA.3056@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl, "Tibor
Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote:

> Try using Query Analyzer and execute the CREATE TABLE statement instead, then
> you can post an error
> message for us. Below work fine on my machine:
> CREATE TABLE #t
> (subtotal decimal(5,3)
> ,taxrate int
> ,x AS subtotal*taxrate)
> An alternative is to present derived information in views instead of in the
> table...

Add Formula for a column

I'm trying to add a formula to a column in a Table, in Enterprise Manager,
but I'm not being allowed.
I want a column to be multiplication of two other columns, datatypes money
and decimal.
I'm typing SubTotal * TaxRate ...
What's the big deal with this?Hi Calvin
As per my knowledge you cannot add formula to the table. You can do this in
your query.
If u feel you use the formula frequently, u can create a VIEW of UDF
Hope this will solve your problem.
Thanks and regards
Chandra
"Calvin" wrote:

> I'm trying to add a formula to a column in a Table, in Enterprise Manager,
> but I'm not being allowed.
> I want a column to be multiplication of two other columns, datatypes money
> and decimal.
> I'm typing SubTotal * TaxRate ...
> What's the big deal with this?
>
>|||Try using Query Analyzer and execute the CREATE TABLE statement instead, the
n you can post an error
message for us. Below work fine on my machine:
CREATE TABLE #t
(subtotal decimal(5,3)
,taxrate int
,x AS subtotal*taxrate)
An alternative is to present derived information in views instead of in the
table...
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Calvin" <calvin@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:BE975F7D.1622%calvin@.discussions.microsoft.com...
> I'm trying to add a formula to a column in a Table, in Enterprise Manager,
> but I'm not being allowed.
> I want a column to be multiplication of two other columns, datatypes money
> and decimal.
> I'm typing SubTotal * TaxRate ...
> What's the big deal with this?
>|||Yeah... realized that would save the hassle after my post. Thanks for your
reply.
On 29/4/05 7:06 am, in article
5042C552-DDBF-4D63-BE77-C8B6ECDAF946@.microsoft.com, "Chandra"
<Chandra@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi Calvin
> As per my knowledge you cannot add formula to the table. You can do this
in
> your query.
> If u feel you use the formula frequently, u can create a VIEW of UDF
> Hope this will solve your problem.
> Thanks and regards
> Chandra
>
> "Calvin" wrote:
>|||Decided to change the query which updates the table instead, but thanks fr
your reply.
On 29/4/05 9:19 am, in article O6qYcQJTFHA.3056@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl, "Tibor
Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote:

> Try using Query Analyzer and execute the CREATE TABLE statement instead, t
hen
> you can post an error
> message for us. Below work fine on my machine:
> CREATE TABLE #t
> (subtotal decimal(5,3)
> ,taxrate int
> ,x AS subtotal*taxrate)
> An alternative is to present derived information in views instead of in th
e
> table...

Add Formula for a column

I'm trying to add a formula to a column in a Table, in Enterprise Manager,
but I'm not being allowed.
I want a column to be multiplication of two other columns, datatypes money
and decimal.
I'm typing SubTotal * TaxRate ...
What's the big deal with this?Hi Calvin
As per my knowledge you cannot add formula to the table. You can do this in
your query.
If u feel you use the formula frequently, u can create a VIEW of UDF
Hope this will solve your problem.
Thanks and regards
Chandra
"Calvin" wrote:
> I'm trying to add a formula to a column in a Table, in Enterprise Manager,
> but I'm not being allowed.
> I want a column to be multiplication of two other columns, datatypes money
> and decimal.
> I'm typing SubTotal * TaxRate ...
> What's the big deal with this?
>
>|||Try using Query Analyzer and execute the CREATE TABLE statement instead, then you can post an error
message for us. Below work fine on my machine:
CREATE TABLE #t
(subtotal decimal(5,3)
,taxrate int
,x AS subtotal*taxrate)
An alternative is to present derived information in views instead of in the table...
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Calvin" <calvin@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:BE975F7D.1622%calvin@.discussions.microsoft.com...
> I'm trying to add a formula to a column in a Table, in Enterprise Manager,
> but I'm not being allowed.
> I want a column to be multiplication of two other columns, datatypes money
> and decimal.
> I'm typing SubTotal * TaxRate ...
> What's the big deal with this?
>|||Decided to change the query which updates the table instead, but thanks fr
your reply.
On 29/4/05 9:19 am, in article O6qYcQJTFHA.3056@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl, "Tibor
Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote:
> Try using Query Analyzer and execute the CREATE TABLE statement instead, then
> you can post an error
> message for us. Below work fine on my machine:
> CREATE TABLE #t
> (subtotal decimal(5,3)
> ,taxrate int
> ,x AS subtotal*taxrate)
> An alternative is to present derived information in views instead of in the
> table...|||Yeah... realized that would save the hassle after my post. Thanks for your
reply.
On 29/4/05 7:06 am, in article
5042C552-DDBF-4D63-BE77-C8B6ECDAF946@.microsoft.com, "Chandra"
<Chandra@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
> Hi Calvin
> As per my knowledge you cannot add formula to the table. You can do this in
> your query.
> If u feel you use the formula frequently, u can create a VIEW of UDF
> Hope this will solve your problem.
> Thanks and regards
> Chandra
>
> "Calvin" wrote:
>> I'm trying to add a formula to a column in a Table, in Enterprise Manager,
>> but I'm not being allowed.
>> I want a column to be multiplication of two other columns, datatypes money
>> and decimal.
>> I'm typing SubTotal * TaxRate ...
>> What's the big deal with this?
>>

Add Datafile

I have a need to add a secondary datafile. My question pertains to the
FIlegroups tab in Enterprise Manager. Do I need to change the value of the
Primary Filegroup 'Files' from 1 to 2? From researching, I believe that a
database can only have one primary file.
Hi
I prefer to do such things by QA not by EM
CREATE DATABASE databasename
GO
ALTER DATABASE databasename SET RECOVERY FULL
ALTER DATABASE databasename ADD FILEGROUP new_customers
ALTER DATABASE databasename ADD FILEGROUP sales
GO
ALTER DATABASE databasenameADD FILE
(NAME=databasename_data_1',
FILENAME='d:\mw.dat1')
TO FILEGROUP new_customers
ALTER DATABASE databasename
ADD FILE
(NAME='databasename_data_2',
FILENAME='d:\mw.dat2')
TO FILEGROUP sales
"paldba" <paldba@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:560E20AD-0955-44A6-95AF-6C853151F478@.microsoft.com...
>I have a need to add a secondary datafile. My question pertains to the
> FIlegroups tab in Enterprise Manager. Do I need to change the value of
> the
> Primary Filegroup 'Files' from 1 to 2? From researching, I believe that a
> database can only have one primary file.

Add Datafile

I have a need to add a secondary datafile. My question pertains to the
FIlegroups tab in Enterprise Manager. Do I need to change the value of the
Primary Filegroup 'Files' from 1 to 2? From researching, I believe that a
database can only have one primary file.Hi
I prefer to do such things by QA not by EM
CREATE DATABASE databasename
GO
ALTER DATABASE databasename SET RECOVERY FULL
ALTER DATABASE databasename ADD FILEGROUP new_customers
ALTER DATABASE databasename ADD FILEGROUP sales
GO
ALTER DATABASE databasenameADD FILE
(NAME=databasename_data_1',
FILENAME='d:\mw.dat1')
TO FILEGROUP new_customers
ALTER DATABASE databasename
ADD FILE
(NAME='databasename_data_2',
FILENAME='d:\mw.dat2')
TO FILEGROUP sales
"paldba" <paldba@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:560E20AD-0955-44A6-95AF-6C853151F478@.microsoft.com...
>I have a need to add a secondary datafile. My question pertains to the
> FIlegroups tab in Enterprise Manager. Do I need to change the value of
> the
> Primary Filegroup 'Files' from 1 to 2? From researching, I believe that a
> database can only have one primary file.