Adding a second processor

Hello,
We use a client/server application from our vendor running on SQL 2000,
which runs on a Windows 2003 Server in an ADS domain. The server is
currently only running a single Xeon processor and it has the capability for
having 2 processors. Our vendor claims that their application is not "coded
"
to run on a dual-processor machine (a bunch of bull?), but their application
only runs on the client end, not on the server.
The way I see it, it is Windows and SQL that have to be able to handle the
processor, which we all know they can certainly do. Does anyone think that
by adding a second processor, we would be doing any damage to our data and o
r
the application?
The application is Time Matters Enterprise 5.0 (sr2), by LexisNexis and it
is a case management system for a law firm. This is our mission-critical
application.
Thanks, JeffOutside of the fact that your vendor doesn't support it, I really see no
reason why you would want to limit yourself to just one processor. In most
cases, SQL Server would run faster with more CPU's. This is because your
workload is distributed across all of the CPU's. Thus, if you have 100
concurrent queries, 50 would run on one and 50 would run on the other -
ignoring parallelism. However, in most cases parallelism would improve an
individual query's performance, since both CPU's would be used to service
the query. In some cases, parallelism makes specific queries run slower,
but you can turn parallelism off on a per-query basis (or even at the server
level, if you prefer).
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
.
"Jeff" <Jeff@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:56410EBD-043F-4AC4-870B-652141840545@.microsoft.com...
Hello,
We use a client/server application from our vendor running on SQL 2000,
which runs on a Windows 2003 Server in an ADS domain. The server is
currently only running a single Xeon processor and it has the capability for
having 2 processors. Our vendor claims that their application is not
"coded"
to run on a dual-processor machine (a bunch of bull?), but their application
only runs on the client end, not on the server.
The way I see it, it is Windows and SQL that have to be able to handle the
processor, which we all know they can certainly do. Does anyone think that
by adding a second processor, we would be doing any damage to our data and
or
the application?
The application is Time Matters Enterprise 5.0 (sr2), by LexisNexis and it
is a case management system for a law firm. This is our mission-critical
application.
Thanks, Jeff|||I do realize the benefits of a second processor in SQL and that's just it, w
e
don't want to limit ourselves to a single processor. We purchased a new
server recently and only purchased one processor because of what our vendor
told us. It didn't make any sense to me then and it doesn't now. The mobo
on that server is setup for dual-processors. Since the application runs on
the client, I didn't understand why they would tell us that.
More importantly, we no longer have a service contract with that vendor so
they are not going to support us either way unless we get another contract.
My thought is that the worst that can happen is that we have to restore the
database off of a backup and pull the second processor out.
--
Thanks, Jeff
"Tom Moreau" wrote:

> Outside of the fact that your vendor doesn't support it, I really see no
> reason why you would want to limit yourself to just one processor. In mos
t
> cases, SQL Server would run faster with more CPU's. This is because your
> workload is distributed across all of the CPU's. Thus, if you have 100
> concurrent queries, 50 would run on one and 50 would run on the other -
> ignoring parallelism. However, in most cases parallelism would improve an
> individual query's performance, since both CPU's would be used to service
> the query. In some cases, parallelism makes specific queries run slower,
> but you can turn parallelism off on a per-query basis (or even at the serv
er
> level, if you prefer).
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> ..
> "Jeff" <Jeff@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:56410EBD-043F-4AC4-870B-652141840545@.microsoft.com...
> Hello,
> We use a client/server application from our vendor running on SQL 2000,
> which runs on a Windows 2003 Server in an ADS domain. The server is
> currently only running a single Xeon processor and it has the capability f
or
> having 2 processors. Our vendor claims that their application is not
> "coded"
> to run on a dual-processor machine (a bunch of bull?), but their applicati
on
> only runs on the client end, not on the server.
> The way I see it, it is Windows and SQL that have to be able to handle the
> processor, which we all know they can certainly do. Does anyone think tha
t
> by adding a second processor, we would be doing any damage to our data and
> or
> the application?
> The application is Time Matters Enterprise 5.0 (sr2), by LexisNexis and it
> is a case management system for a law firm. This is our mission-critical
> application.
> --
> Thanks, Jeff
>|||The only real issue I see is that of licensing. If you go with a per-CPU
license, you will have to spend some change to do the upgrade. Other than
that, you're fine.
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
"Jeff" <Jeff@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:7CA5419B-884D-4D51-8B1C-3DEE16B291F1@.microsoft.com...
I do realize the benefits of a second processor in SQL and that's just it,
we
don't want to limit ourselves to a single processor. We purchased a new
server recently and only purchased one processor because of what our vendor
told us. It didn't make any sense to me then and it doesn't now. The mobo
on that server is setup for dual-processors. Since the application runs on
the client, I didn't understand why they would tell us that.
More importantly, we no longer have a service contract with that vendor so
they are not going to support us either way unless we get another contract.
My thought is that the worst that can happen is that we have to restore the
database off of a backup and pull the second processor out.
--
Thanks, Jeff
"Tom Moreau" wrote:

> Outside of the fact that your vendor doesn't support it, I really see no
> reason why you would want to limit yourself to just one processor. In
> most
> cases, SQL Server would run faster with more CPU's. This is because your
> workload is distributed across all of the CPU's. Thus, if you have 100
> concurrent queries, 50 would run on one and 50 would run on the other -
> ignoring parallelism. However, in most cases parallelism would improve an
> individual query's performance, since both CPU's would be used to service
> the query. In some cases, parallelism makes specific queries run slower,
> but you can turn parallelism off on a per-query basis (or even at the
> server
> level, if you prefer).
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> ..
> "Jeff" <Jeff@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:56410EBD-043F-4AC4-870B-652141840545@.microsoft.com...
> Hello,
> We use a client/server application from our vendor running on SQL 2000,
> which runs on a Windows 2003 Server in an ADS domain. The server is
> currently only running a single Xeon processor and it has the capability
> for
> having 2 processors. Our vendor claims that their application is not
> "coded"
> to run on a dual-processor machine (a bunch of bull?), but their
> application
> only runs on the client end, not on the server.
> The way I see it, it is Windows and SQL that have to be able to handle the
> processor, which we all know they can certainly do. Does anyone think
> that
> by adding a second processor, we would be doing any damage to our data and
> or
> the application?
> The application is Time Matters Enterprise 5.0 (sr2), by LexisNexis and it
> is a case management system for a law firm. This is our mission-critical
> application.
> --
> Thanks, Jeff
>|||"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:uzy8rPbeGHA.5016@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> The only real issue I see is that of licensing. If you go with a per-CPU
> license, you will have to spend some change to do the upgrade. Other than
> that, you're fine.
I'll second this.
And second the opinion that the original vendor is full of it. :-)

> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> "Jeff" <Jeff@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:7CA5419B-884D-4D51-8B1C-3DEE16B291F1@.microsoft.com...
> I do realize the benefits of a second processor in SQL and that's just it,
> we
> don't want to limit ourselves to a single processor. We purchased a new
> server recently and only purchased one processor because of what our
vendor
> told us. It didn't make any sense to me then and it doesn't now. The
mobo
> on that server is setup for dual-processors. Since the application runs
on
> the client, I didn't understand why they would tell us that.
> More importantly, we no longer have a service contract with that vendor so
> they are not going to support us either way unless we get another
contract.
> My thought is that the worst that can happen is that we have to restore
the
> database off of a backup and pull the second processor out.
> --
> Thanks, Jeff
>
> "Tom Moreau" wrote:
>
your[vbcol=seagreen]
an[vbcol=seagreen]
service[vbcol=seagreen]
slower,[vbcol=seagreen]
the[vbcol=seagreen]
and[vbcol=seagreen]
it[vbcol=seagreen]
mission-critical[vbcol=seagreen]
>sql

Adding a second processor

Hello,
We use a client/server application from our vendor running on SQL 2000,
which runs on a Windows 2003 Server in an ADS domain. The server is
currently only running a single Xeon processor and it has the capability for
having 2 processors. Our vendor claims that their application is not "coded"
to run on a dual-processor machine (a bunch of bull?), but their application
only runs on the client end, not on the server.
The way I see it, it is Windows and SQL that have to be able to handle the
processor, which we all know they can certainly do. Does anyone think that
by adding a second processor, we would be doing any damage to our data and or
the application?
The application is Time Matters Enterprise 5.0 (sr2), by LexisNexis and it
is a case management system for a law firm. This is our mission-critical
application.
--
Thanks, JeffOutside of the fact that your vendor doesn't support it, I really see no
reason why you would want to limit yourself to just one processor. In most
cases, SQL Server would run faster with more CPU's. This is because your
workload is distributed across all of the CPU's. Thus, if you have 100
concurrent queries, 50 would run on one and 50 would run on the other -
ignoring parallelism. However, in most cases parallelism would improve an
individual query's performance, since both CPU's would be used to service
the query. In some cases, parallelism makes specific queries run slower,
but you can turn parallelism off on a per-query basis (or even at the server
level, if you prefer).
--
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
.
"Jeff" <Jeff@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:56410EBD-043F-4AC4-870B-652141840545@.microsoft.com...
Hello,
We use a client/server application from our vendor running on SQL 2000,
which runs on a Windows 2003 Server in an ADS domain. The server is
currently only running a single Xeon processor and it has the capability for
having 2 processors. Our vendor claims that their application is not
"coded"
to run on a dual-processor machine (a bunch of bull?), but their application
only runs on the client end, not on the server.
The way I see it, it is Windows and SQL that have to be able to handle the
processor, which we all know they can certainly do. Does anyone think that
by adding a second processor, we would be doing any damage to our data and
or
the application?
The application is Time Matters Enterprise 5.0 (sr2), by LexisNexis and it
is a case management system for a law firm. This is our mission-critical
application.
--
Thanks, Jeff|||I do realize the benefits of a second processor in SQL and that's just it, we
don't want to limit ourselves to a single processor. We purchased a new
server recently and only purchased one processor because of what our vendor
told us. It didn't make any sense to me then and it doesn't now. The mobo
on that server is setup for dual-processors. Since the application runs on
the client, I didn't understand why they would tell us that.
More importantly, we no longer have a service contract with that vendor so
they are not going to support us either way unless we get another contract.
My thought is that the worst that can happen is that we have to restore the
database off of a backup and pull the second processor out.
--
Thanks, Jeff
"Tom Moreau" wrote:
> Outside of the fact that your vendor doesn't support it, I really see no
> reason why you would want to limit yourself to just one processor. In most
> cases, SQL Server would run faster with more CPU's. This is because your
> workload is distributed across all of the CPU's. Thus, if you have 100
> concurrent queries, 50 would run on one and 50 would run on the other -
> ignoring parallelism. However, in most cases parallelism would improve an
> individual query's performance, since both CPU's would be used to service
> the query. In some cases, parallelism makes specific queries run slower,
> but you can turn parallelism off on a per-query basis (or even at the server
> level, if you prefer).
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> ..
> "Jeff" <Jeff@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:56410EBD-043F-4AC4-870B-652141840545@.microsoft.com...
> Hello,
> We use a client/server application from our vendor running on SQL 2000,
> which runs on a Windows 2003 Server in an ADS domain. The server is
> currently only running a single Xeon processor and it has the capability for
> having 2 processors. Our vendor claims that their application is not
> "coded"
> to run on a dual-processor machine (a bunch of bull?), but their application
> only runs on the client end, not on the server.
> The way I see it, it is Windows and SQL that have to be able to handle the
> processor, which we all know they can certainly do. Does anyone think that
> by adding a second processor, we would be doing any damage to our data and
> or
> the application?
> The application is Time Matters Enterprise 5.0 (sr2), by LexisNexis and it
> is a case management system for a law firm. This is our mission-critical
> application.
> --
> Thanks, Jeff
>|||The only real issue I see is that of licensing. If you go with a per-CPU
license, you will have to spend some change to do the upgrade. Other than
that, you're fine.
--
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
"Jeff" <Jeff@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:7CA5419B-884D-4D51-8B1C-3DEE16B291F1@.microsoft.com...
I do realize the benefits of a second processor in SQL and that's just it,
we
don't want to limit ourselves to a single processor. We purchased a new
server recently and only purchased one processor because of what our vendor
told us. It didn't make any sense to me then and it doesn't now. The mobo
on that server is setup for dual-processors. Since the application runs on
the client, I didn't understand why they would tell us that.
More importantly, we no longer have a service contract with that vendor so
they are not going to support us either way unless we get another contract.
My thought is that the worst that can happen is that we have to restore the
database off of a backup and pull the second processor out.
--
Thanks, Jeff
"Tom Moreau" wrote:
> Outside of the fact that your vendor doesn't support it, I really see no
> reason why you would want to limit yourself to just one processor. In
> most
> cases, SQL Server would run faster with more CPU's. This is because your
> workload is distributed across all of the CPU's. Thus, if you have 100
> concurrent queries, 50 would run on one and 50 would run on the other -
> ignoring parallelism. However, in most cases parallelism would improve an
> individual query's performance, since both CPU's would be used to service
> the query. In some cases, parallelism makes specific queries run slower,
> but you can turn parallelism off on a per-query basis (or even at the
> server
> level, if you prefer).
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> ..
> "Jeff" <Jeff@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:56410EBD-043F-4AC4-870B-652141840545@.microsoft.com...
> Hello,
> We use a client/server application from our vendor running on SQL 2000,
> which runs on a Windows 2003 Server in an ADS domain. The server is
> currently only running a single Xeon processor and it has the capability
> for
> having 2 processors. Our vendor claims that their application is not
> "coded"
> to run on a dual-processor machine (a bunch of bull?), but their
> application
> only runs on the client end, not on the server.
> The way I see it, it is Windows and SQL that have to be able to handle the
> processor, which we all know they can certainly do. Does anyone think
> that
> by adding a second processor, we would be doing any damage to our data and
> or
> the application?
> The application is Time Matters Enterprise 5.0 (sr2), by LexisNexis and it
> is a case management system for a law firm. This is our mission-critical
> application.
> --
> Thanks, Jeff
>|||"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:uzy8rPbeGHA.5016@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> The only real issue I see is that of licensing. If you go with a per-CPU
> license, you will have to spend some change to do the upgrade. Other than
> that, you're fine.
I'll second this.
And second the opinion that the original vendor is full of it. :-)
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> "Jeff" <Jeff@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:7CA5419B-884D-4D51-8B1C-3DEE16B291F1@.microsoft.com...
> I do realize the benefits of a second processor in SQL and that's just it,
> we
> don't want to limit ourselves to a single processor. We purchased a new
> server recently and only purchased one processor because of what our
vendor
> told us. It didn't make any sense to me then and it doesn't now. The
mobo
> on that server is setup for dual-processors. Since the application runs
on
> the client, I didn't understand why they would tell us that.
> More importantly, we no longer have a service contract with that vendor so
> they are not going to support us either way unless we get another
contract.
> My thought is that the worst that can happen is that we have to restore
the
> database off of a backup and pull the second processor out.
> --
> Thanks, Jeff
>
> "Tom Moreau" wrote:
> > Outside of the fact that your vendor doesn't support it, I really see no
> > reason why you would want to limit yourself to just one processor. In
> > most
> > cases, SQL Server would run faster with more CPU's. This is because
your
> > workload is distributed across all of the CPU's. Thus, if you have 100
> > concurrent queries, 50 would run on one and 50 would run on the other -
> > ignoring parallelism. However, in most cases parallelism would improve
an
> > individual query's performance, since both CPU's would be used to
service
> > the query. In some cases, parallelism makes specific queries run
slower,
> > but you can turn parallelism off on a per-query basis (or even at the
> > server
> > level, if you prefer).
> >
> > --
> > Tom
> >
> > ----
> > Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> > SQL Server MVP
> > Toronto, ON Canada
> > ..
> > "Jeff" <Jeff@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:56410EBD-043F-4AC4-870B-652141840545@.microsoft.com...
> > Hello,
> >
> > We use a client/server application from our vendor running on SQL 2000,
> > which runs on a Windows 2003 Server in an ADS domain. The server is
> > currently only running a single Xeon processor and it has the capability
> > for
> > having 2 processors. Our vendor claims that their application is not
> > "coded"
> > to run on a dual-processor machine (a bunch of bull?), but their
> > application
> > only runs on the client end, not on the server.
> >
> > The way I see it, it is Windows and SQL that have to be able to handle
the
> > processor, which we all know they can certainly do. Does anyone think
> > that
> > by adding a second processor, we would be doing any damage to our data
and
> > or
> > the application?
> >
> > The application is Time Matters Enterprise 5.0 (sr2), by LexisNexis and
it
> > is a case management system for a law firm. This is our
mission-critical
> > application.
> >
> > --
> > Thanks, Jeff
> >
> >
>

Adding a second CPU

Hi all.
I have a 1 cpu server running sql server 2000 sp3a and we would like to add
a second cpu to it and I wonder if it is just a matter of installaing the
second CPU and then start the system and SQL server automaticly start to use
the second cpu or do i have to make any configuration changes for SQL server
to start use the second cpu.
Thanks
Thomas
Once you add the 2nd CPU and re-start the machine SQL Server will
automatically recognise the extra processor.
The only exception would be if you had a an Affinity Mask on (to
restrict to 1 CPU) or were using MAXDOP but these aren't applicable in
your case.
ALI
Thomas_ wrote:
> Hi all.
> I have a 1 cpu server running sql server 2000 sp3a and we would like to add
> a second cpu to it and I wonder if it is just a matter of installaing the
> second CPU and then start the system and SQL server automaticly start to use
> the second cpu or do i have to make any configuration changes for SQL server
> to start use the second cpu.
> Thanks
> Thomas
|||Hi
If the OS sees it on startup, SQL Server will also and will use it. No
changes for you.
Regards
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Thomas_" wrote:

> Hi all.
> I have a 1 cpu server running sql server 2000 sp3a and we would like to add
> a second cpu to it and I wonder if it is just a matter of installaing the
> second CPU and then start the system and SQL server automaticly start to use
> the second cpu or do i have to make any configuration changes for SQL server
> to start use the second cpu.
> Thanks
> Thomas
|||Thank you very much for your quick reply.
Regards
Thomas
"zashah@.gmail.com" wrote:

> Once you add the 2nd CPU and re-start the machine SQL Server will
> automatically recognise the extra processor.
> The only exception would be if you had a an Affinity Mask on (to
> restrict to 1 CPU) or were using MAXDOP but these aren't applicable in
> your case.
> ALI
>
> Thomas_ wrote:
>
|||Like Mike said, SQL Server will can use the processors detected by the OS.
Depending on your Windows version, additional steps may be needed to install
a multiprocessor HAL:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/234558
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;888729
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Thomas_" <Thomas_@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:FCED2511-598D-4D4D-9E6D-C4FBE15B2075@.microsoft.com...
> Hi all.
> I have a 1 cpu server running sql server 2000 sp3a and we would like to
> add
> a second cpu to it and I wonder if it is just a matter of installaing the
> second CPU and then start the system and SQL server automaticly start to
> use
> the second cpu or do i have to make any configuration changes for SQL
> server
> to start use the second cpu.
> Thanks
> Thomas

Adding a second CPU

Hi all.
I have a 1 cpu server running sql server 2000 sp3a and we would like to add
a second cpu to it and I wonder if it is just a matter of installaing the
second CPU and then start the system and SQL server automaticly start to use
the second cpu or do i have to make any configuration changes for SQL server
to start use the second cpu.
Thanks
ThomasOnce you add the 2nd CPU and re-start the machine SQL Server will
automatically recognise the extra processor.
The only exception would be if you had a an Affinity Mask on (to
restrict to 1 CPU) or were using MAXDOP but these aren't applicable in
your case.
ALI
Thomas_ wrote:
> Hi all.
> I have a 1 cpu server running sql server 2000 sp3a and we would like to add
> a second cpu to it and I wonder if it is just a matter of installaing the
> second CPU and then start the system and SQL server automaticly start to use
> the second cpu or do i have to make any configuration changes for SQL server
> to start use the second cpu.
> Thanks
> Thomas|||Hi
If the OS sees it on startup, SQL Server will also and will use it. No
changes for you.
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Thomas_" wrote:
> Hi all.
> I have a 1 cpu server running sql server 2000 sp3a and we would like to add
> a second cpu to it and I wonder if it is just a matter of installaing the
> second CPU and then start the system and SQL server automaticly start to use
> the second cpu or do i have to make any configuration changes for SQL server
> to start use the second cpu.
> Thanks
> Thomas|||Thank you very much for your quick reply.
Regards
Thomas
"zashah@.gmail.com" wrote:
> Once you add the 2nd CPU and re-start the machine SQL Server will
> automatically recognise the extra processor.
> The only exception would be if you had a an Affinity Mask on (to
> restrict to 1 CPU) or were using MAXDOP but these aren't applicable in
> your case.
> ALI
>
> Thomas_ wrote:
> > Hi all.
> >
> > I have a 1 cpu server running sql server 2000 sp3a and we would like to add
> > a second cpu to it and I wonder if it is just a matter of installaing the
> > second CPU and then start the system and SQL server automaticly start to use
> > the second cpu or do i have to make any configuration changes for SQL server
> > to start use the second cpu.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Thomas
>|||Like Mike said, SQL Server will can use the processors detected by the OS.
Depending on your Windows version, additional steps may be needed to install
a multiprocessor HAL:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/234558
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;888729
--
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Thomas_" <Thomas_@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:FCED2511-598D-4D4D-9E6D-C4FBE15B2075@.microsoft.com...
> Hi all.
> I have a 1 cpu server running sql server 2000 sp3a and we would like to
> add
> a second cpu to it and I wonder if it is just a matter of installaing the
> second CPU and then start the system and SQL server automaticly start to
> use
> the second cpu or do i have to make any configuration changes for SQL
> server
> to start use the second cpu.
> Thanks
> Thomas

Adding a second CPU

Hi all.
I have a 1 cpu server running sql server 2000 sp3a and we would like to add
a second cpu to it and I wonder if it is just a matter of installaing the
second CPU and then start the system and SQL server automaticly start to use
the second cpu or do i have to make any configuration changes for SQL server
to start use the second cpu.
Thanks
ThomasOnce you add the 2nd CPU and re-start the machine SQL Server will
automatically recognise the extra processor.
The only exception would be if you had a an Affinity Mask on (to
restrict to 1 CPU) or were using MAXDOP but these aren't applicable in
your case.
ALI
Thomas_ wrote:
> Hi all.
> I have a 1 cpu server running sql server 2000 sp3a and we would like to ad
d
> a second cpu to it and I wonder if it is just a matter of installaing the
> second CPU and then start the system and SQL server automaticly start to u
se
> the second cpu or do i have to make any configuration changes for SQL serv
er
> to start use the second cpu.
> Thanks
> Thomas|||Hi
If the OS sees it on startup, SQL Server will also and will use it. No
changes for you.
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Thomas_" wrote:

> Hi all.
> I have a 1 cpu server running sql server 2000 sp3a and we would like to ad
d
> a second cpu to it and I wonder if it is just a matter of installaing the
> second CPU and then start the system and SQL server automaticly start to u
se
> the second cpu or do i have to make any configuration changes for SQL serv
er
> to start use the second cpu.
> Thanks
> Thomas|||Thank you very much for your quick reply.
Regards
Thomas
"zashah@.gmail.com" wrote:

> Once you add the 2nd CPU and re-start the machine SQL Server will
> automatically recognise the extra processor.
> The only exception would be if you had a an Affinity Mask on (to
> restrict to 1 CPU) or were using MAXDOP but these aren't applicable in
> your case.
> ALI
>
> Thomas_ wrote:
>|||Like Mike said, SQL Server will can use the processors detected by the OS.
Depending on your Windows version, additional steps may be needed to install
a multiprocessor HAL:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/234558
http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...kb;en-us;888729
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Thomas_" <Thomas_@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:FCED2511-598D-4D4D-9E6D-C4FBE15B2075@.microsoft.com...
> Hi all.
> I have a 1 cpu server running sql server 2000 sp3a and we would like to
> add
> a second cpu to it and I wonder if it is just a matter of installaing the
> second CPU and then start the system and SQL server automaticly start to
> use
> the second cpu or do i have to make any configuration changes for SQL
> server
> to start use the second cpu.
> Thanks
> Thomas

Adding a read only logins to a standby server

Hi,
I am running a standby server which backups my main Sql server. I also
use this server as readonly server and everything works fine with my
login but I no matter what I try I am not able to add new users to be
able to read from the standby server. Besides trying to add users
directly to the standby server (?which of course failed) I also tried
to add the same login on both servers allowing the new login to read
from the main database and then performed the "backup-restore"
routine.
Thanks,
RanIf you want this destination to become an available source
database, you must select the Allow database to assume
primary role check box. If this box is not selected, this
destination database will not be able to assume the source
database role in the future. If you have selected the
Allow database to assume primary role check box, you must
also specify the Transaction Log Backup Directory on the
destination database to which the logs will be backed up.
Koohyar
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and
confers no rights.
>--Original Message--
>Hi,
>I am running a standby server which backups my main Sql
server. I also
>use this server as readonly server and everything works
fine with my
>login but I no matter what I try I am not able to add new
users to be
>able to read from the standby server. Besides trying to
add users
>directly to the standby server (.which of course failed)
I also tried
>to add the same login on both servers allowing the new
login to read
>from the main database and then performed the "backup-
restore"
>routine.
>Thanks,
>Ran
>.
>|||Here is a totally unsupported hack to the system tables. Use at your own
risk.
This runs on the standby server. It needs a linked server path to the
primary server. Create the logins on the Primary server and give them
permissions on the databases on the primary server. Run the following
script, changing the source server and the login name. Make sure the login
does not exist on the stand-by server before running this script.
insert master.dbo.sysxlogins
([srvid], [sid], [xstatus], [xdate1], [xdate2], [name], [password],
[dbid], [language])
select [srvid], [sid], [xstatus], [xdate1], [xdate2], [name], [password],
[dbid], [language]
from [PrimaryServerName].master.dbo.sysxlogins
where [name] = 'MyLoginName'
and srvid is NULL
Again, this is totally unsupported and is completely at your own risk. If
you don't understand what it is doing, don't run it.
--
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
"ran" <rveierov@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fb241b13.0310070716.7eb1ac5d@.posting.google.com...
> Hi,
> I am running a standby server which backups my main Sql server. I also
> use this server as readonly server and everything works fine with my
> login but I no matter what I try I am not able to add new users to be
> able to read from the standby server. Besides trying to add users
> directly to the standby server (.which of course failed) I also tried
> to add the same login on both servers allowing the new login to read
> from the main database and then performed the "backup-restore"
> routine.
> Thanks,
> Ran|||Hi Koohyar,
I have no problem in making the destination become an available source
database and i don't see how this may help me solve my problem with
adding new logins to my secondary database.
thanks,
Ran
"koohyar[MSFT]" <koohyd@.online.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:<0a5701c38cea$0d3244e0$a001280a@.phx.gbl>...
> If you want this destination to become an available source
> database, you must select the Allow database to assume
> primary role check box. If this box is not selected, this
> destination database will not be able to assume the source
> database role in the future. If you have selected the
> Allow database to assume primary role check box, you must
> also specify the Transaction Log Backup Directory on the
> destination database to which the logs will be backed up.
> Koohyar
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and
> confers no rights.
> >--Original Message--
> >Hi,
> >
> >I am running a standby server which backups my main Sql
> server. I also
> >use this server as readonly server and everything works
> fine with my
> >login but I no matter what I try I am not able to add new
> users to be
> >able to read from the standby server. Besides trying to
> add users
> >directly to the standby server (.which of course failed)
> I also tried
> >to add the same login on both servers allowing the new
> login to read
> >from the main database and then performed the "backup-
> restore"
> >routine.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Ran
> >.
> >|||Hi Geoff,
I have tried this on my development environment, but I am keep getting
the following error message:
"Server: Msg 259, Level 16, State 2, Line 1
Ad hoc updates to system catalogs are not enabled. The system
administrator must reconfigure SQL Server to allow this."
Is there anyway to get pass this restriction?
Thanks,
Ran
"Geoff N. Hiten" <SRDBA@.Careerbuilder.com> wrote in message news:<OsCa4wOjDHA.2704@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>...
> Here is a totally unsupported hack to the system tables. Use at your own
> risk.
> This runs on the standby server. It needs a linked server path to the
> primary server. Create the logins on the Primary server and give them
> permissions on the databases on the primary server. Run the following
> script, changing the source server and the login name. Make sure the login
> does not exist on the stand-by server before running this script.
> insert master.dbo.sysxlogins
> ([srvid], [sid], [xstatus], [xdate1], [xdate2], [name], [password],
> [dbid], [language])
> select [srvid], [sid], [xstatus], [xdate1], [xdate2], [name], [password],
> [dbid], [language]
> from [PrimaryServerName].master.dbo.sysxlogins
> where [name] = 'MyLoginName'
> and srvid is NULL
> Again, this is totally unsupported and is completely at your own risk. If
> you don't understand what it is doing, don't run it.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Senior Database Administrator
> Careerbuilder.com
>
> "ran" <rveierov@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:fb241b13.0310070716.7eb1ac5d@.posting.google.com...
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am running a standby server which backups my main Sql server. I also
> > use this server as readonly server and everything works fine with my
> > login but I no matter what I try I am not able to add new users to be
> > able to read from the standby server. Besides trying to add users
> > directly to the standby server (.which of course failed) I also tried
> > to add the same login on both servers allowing the new login to read
> > from the main database and then performed the "backup-restore"
> > routine.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Ran|||Hi Geoff,
Thanks for the tip. it worked perfectly. (my other problem was solved
with sp_configure 'allow updates',1)
Thank,
Ran
rveierov@.hotmail.com (ran) wrote in message news:<fb241b13.0310072345.76828f86@.posting.google.com>...
> Hi Geoff,
> I have tried this on my development environment, but I am keep getting
> the following error message:
> "Server: Msg 259, Level 16, State 2, Line 1
> Ad hoc updates to system catalogs are not enabled. The system
> administrator must reconfigure SQL Server to allow this."
> Is there anyway to get pass this restriction?
> Thanks,
> Ran
>
> "Geoff N. Hiten" <SRDBA@.Careerbuilder.com> wrote in message news:<OsCa4wOjDHA.2704@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>...
> > Here is a totally unsupported hack to the system tables. Use at your own
> > risk.
> >
> > This runs on the standby server. It needs a linked server path to the
> > primary server. Create the logins on the Primary server and give them
> > permissions on the databases on the primary server. Run the following
> > script, changing the source server and the login name. Make sure the login
> > does not exist on the stand-by server before running this script.
> >
> > insert master.dbo.sysxlogins
> > ([srvid], [sid], [xstatus], [xdate1], [xdate2], [name], [password],
> > [dbid], [language])
> > select [srvid], [sid], [xstatus], [xdate1], [xdate2], [name], [password],
> > [dbid], [language]
> > from [PrimaryServerName].master.dbo.sysxlogins
> > where [name] = 'MyLoginName'
> > and srvid is NULL
> >
> > Again, this is totally unsupported and is completely at your own risk. If
> > you don't understand what it is doing, don't run it.
> >
> > --
> > Geoff N. Hiten
> > Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> > Senior Database Administrator
> > Careerbuilder.com
> >
> >
> >
> > "ran" <rveierov@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:fb241b13.0310070716.7eb1ac5d@.posting.google.com...
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I am running a standby server which backups my main Sql server. I also
> > > use this server as readonly server and everything works fine with my
> > > login but I no matter what I try I am not able to add new users to be
> > > able to read from the standby server. Besides trying to add users
> > > directly to the standby server (.which of course failed) I also tried
> > > to add the same login on both servers allowing the new login to read
> > > from the main database and then performed the "backup-restore"
> > > routine.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Ransql

adding a new sql server node to an existing sql cluster

I currently have a single node SQL 2000 cluster running on 2003 Server. I now
want to add the second node, but want to make sure I fully understand the
process. I run the SQL setup from the new node and select the advanced option
for failover clustering. It all seems very straight forward, but I want to be
sure. Does this cause the clustered SQL instance to be restarted, or is there
no outage?
Any help confirming this would be appreciated.
The cluster won't restart when you add a new node. Be sure to add the SQL
service pack to the new node while the *OLD* node owns the SQL Server
resource. This will simply add the binaries to the new node without
interrupting SQL. If you need to add a hotfix, however, you'll have to do
that on the mode that owns SQL Server. Therefore, you'll have to failover
to the new node and add the hotfix from there.
Tom
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinpub.com
..
"Stephan" <Stephan@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:48266C9D-90DC-418B-B3FA-9B91FA8A9E04@.microsoft.com...
I currently have a single node SQL 2000 cluster running on 2003 Server. I
now
want to add the second node, but want to make sure I fully understand the
process. I run the SQL setup from the new node and select the advanced
option
for failover clustering. It all seems very straight forward, but I want to
be
sure. Does this cause the clustered SQL instance to be restarted, or is
there
no outage?
Any help confirming this would be appreciated.
|||Thanks, Tom, that's what I thought.
"Tom Moreau" wrote:

> The cluster won't restart when you add a new node. Be sure to add the SQL
> service pack to the new node while the *OLD* node owns the SQL Server
> resource. This will simply add the binaries to the new node without
> interrupting SQL. If you need to add a hotfix, however, you'll have to do
> that on the mode that owns SQL Server. Therefore, you'll have to failover
> to the new node and add the hotfix from there.
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> Toronto, ON Canada
> www.pinpub.com
> ..
> "Stephan" <Stephan@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:48266C9D-90DC-418B-B3FA-9B91FA8A9E04@.microsoft.com...
> I currently have a single node SQL 2000 cluster running on 2003 Server. I
> now
> want to add the second node, but want to make sure I fully understand the
> process. I run the SQL setup from the new node and select the advanced
> option
> for failover clustering. It all seems very straight forward, but I want to
> be
> sure. Does this cause the clustered SQL instance to be restarted, or is
> there
> no outage?
> Any help confirming this would be appreciated.
>

Adding 2nd Processor

I want to add a second processor to the server, which has
MS SQL7 Server running on it, and want to know if there
is anything I need to do to SQL7 Server either before or
after I add the processor.In article <2b8801c3747d$90def250$a101280a@.phx.gbl>,
dcoleman31p@.sbcglobal.net said...
> I want to add a second processor to the server, which has
> MS SQL7 Server running on it, and want to know if there
> is anything I need to do to SQL7 Server either before or
> after I add the processor.
If you have a per processor license you will have to buy another.|||What OS are you using? If it is NT4.0 you need to upgrade the OS kernel to
the multi-processor one..
--
--
Mike Epprecht
Epprecht Consulting (PTY) LTD
Johannesburg, South Africa
Mobile: +27-82-552-0268
Specialist SQL Server Solutions and Consulting
"Del" <dcoleman31p@.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:2b8801c3747d$90def250$a101280a@.phx.gbl...
> I want to add a second processor to the server, which has
> MS SQL7 Server running on it, and want to know if there
> is anything I need to do to SQL7 Server either before or
> after I add the processor.|||Hi,
Providing the OS can see the processor, SQL will use it, there should be
nothing required from SQL,
assuming that the affinity mask has not been set (by default this is not
set)
Regards,
Clive Challinor [MSFT]
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

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.org
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
>
|||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...
>
sql

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_months function

Hi - I am running an SQL on my oracle database.

I have used the add_months function in my select statement and that is all working fine.

I now want a parameter to show me only rows where the result of the add_months function is 1st July.

I am getting an error message "ORA-01841: (full) year must be between -4713 and +9999, and not be 0". Does anyone know the exact format of how I should enter my date? I have tried a few different ways.

SQL is as follows

select acc_account_no,acc_term_band_start_date,acc_term_i nterval,add_months(acc_term_band_start_date,(acc_t erm_interval*12))
from accounts
where add_months(acc_term_band_start_date,(acc_term_inte rval*12) = '01-JUL-2003'
;

Any advise would be appreciated.
Regards,
BethOriginally posted by elisabeth
Hi - I am running an SQL on my oracle database.

I have used the add_months function in my select statement and that is all working fine.

I now want a parameter to show me only rows where the result of the add_months function is 1st July.

I am getting an error message "ORA-01841: (full) year must be between -4713 and +9999, and not be 0". Does anyone know the exact format of how I should enter my date? I have tried a few different ways.

SQL is as follows

select acc_account_no,acc_term_band_start_date,acc_term_i nterval,add_months(acc_term_band_start_date,(acc_t erm_interval*12))
from accounts
where add_months(acc_term_band_start_date,(acc_term_inte rval*12) = '01-JUL-2003'
;

Any advise would be appreciated.
Regards,
Beth
Never use a character string literal like '01-JUL-2003' where a DATE is required. Instead, use TO_DATE with an explicit format mask to properly convert it to a date:

TO_DATE('01-JUL-2003','DD-MON-YYYY')

Add step to JOB that checks to see if Maintenance Plan X is running

Hi All,
How can I add a step to a job that will check to see if a maintenance
plan is running? If it is, don't run the rest of the job, but if it
isn't run the rest of the job.
Thanks!
KiranYou could look at the job state:
http://www.replicationanswers.com/Downloads/KillRunningJobs.txt
Cheers,
Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com .

Add step to JOB that checks to see if Maintenance Plan X is running

Hi All,
How can I add a step to a job that will check to see if a maintenance
plan is running? If it is, don't run the rest of the job, but if it
isn't run the rest of the job.
Thanks!
Kiran
You could look at the job state:
http://www.replicationanswers.com/Downloads/KillRunningJobs.txt
Cheers,
Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com .

Add step to JOB that checks to see if Maintenance Plan X is running

Hi All,
How can I add a step to a job that will check to see if a maintenance
plan is running? If it is, don't run the rest of the job, but if it
isn't run the rest of the job.
Thanks!
KiranYou could look at the job state:
http://www.replicationanswers.com/D...RunningJobs.txt
Cheers,
Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com .

Add SQL Compact to CE 6.0

I'm trying to add an SQL Compact Edition database to my application running on a CE 6.0 platform that I am also developing. Unlike PB 5.0, I don't see sql CE listed as an option in the catalog and when I try to run my application I get a pInvoke sqlceme30.dll error. I have found a number of references to this same issue elsewhere but no real good solutions. Most seem to point to the cab files not being deployed. I am thinking that I should have the necessary support files deployed in the CE image and I have downloaded and installed every sql CE version/update that I can find but none of them seem to add support to PB 6.0.

I am trying to add the cab files manually but I would appreciate any suggestions if there is a better solution............ Thanks
OK, I got it working with SQL CE 3.5 by manually adding the cabs to the PB catalog........... now I need to figure out how to installe the cabs automatically.

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 Hindi Language Data In Sql Server

I want to store data in hindi language. I have taken nvarchar as datatype for this column. When i store data from a client application running on browser ascii value for corresponding data is stored in the database. I want hindi font should be displayed when i view the database in enterprise manager not like this ???Might be a silly question, but this held me up for a couple of days:

Have you installed the correct fonts/character sets on your client?|||Also, is the client booting with the Locale and Regional settings that support this character set?

add disk to a cluster running sql2005

hi,
I have a windows 2003 sp1 cluster running sql2005.
the DB is installed on S: and i have a R: & U: drive letter that is both
differend disk and runs fine in the cluster.
But i can not see those disks in sql 2005 why ?
the disks are in the same resource group (SQL)
where can I choose the R drive ?
if I choose attach DB I see only the S drive where the DB is installed.
any help is welcome
greetings,
Robert
Hi,
Just fixed it
I added the disk resources to the SQL2005 server resource and now it is
running.
greetings,
"Robert Smit ( 450331)" <RSM.news@.thebackbone.nl> wrote in message
news:OeiQZhQFGHA.524@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> hi,
> I have a windows 2003 sp1 cluster running sql2005.
> the DB is installed on S: and i have a R: & U: drive letter that is both
> differend disk and runs fine in the cluster.
> But i can not see those disks in sql 2005 why ?
> the disks are in the same resource group (SQL)
> where can I choose the R drive ?
> if I choose attach DB I see only the S drive where the DB is installed.
> any help is welcome
> greetings,
> Robert
>
|||Just adding them to the SQL Server group is not enough. They have to be
added as a dependency of the SQL Server resource.
Mike
Mentor
Solid Quality Learning
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com
"Robert Smit ( 450331)" <RSM.news@.thebackbone.nl> wrote in message
news:OeiQZhQFGHA.524@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> hi,
> I have a windows 2003 sp1 cluster running sql2005.
> the DB is installed on S: and i have a R: & U: drive letter that is both
> differend disk and runs fine in the cluster.
> But i can not see those disks in sql 2005 why ?
> the disks are in the same resource group (SQL)
> where can I choose the R drive ?
> if I choose attach DB I see only the S drive where the DB is installed.
> any help is welcome
> greetings,
> Robert
>

Add Category to SQL Full-text

I'm moving my STS sites to WSS, and I'm running into a bit of a
problem. We've got everyone on our team adding a category to their
documents to help us search and organize them. However, seach under
WSS (w/ SQL and Free-Text search) doesn't pick up the category field
in my Word documents.
I saw some talk about adding it via SQL so it appears in searchs
through Sharepoint, but I've no idea how. Any suggestions or
instructions that could help me out here?
that's correct. SQL FTS only indexes documents contents when they are stored
in the image data type columns. It doesn't index properties. You would have
to extract the property and store it separately in a column in the table you
are full text indexing.
"Elroy" <derekvof@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:47f03009.0403231310.5344561b@.posting.google.c om...
> I'm moving my STS sites to WSS, and I'm running into a bit of a
> problem. We've got everyone on our team adding a category to their
> documents to help us search and organize them. However, seach under
> WSS (w/ SQL and Free-Text search) doesn't pick up the category field
> in my Word documents.
> I saw some talk about adding it via SQL so it appears in searchs
> through Sharepoint, but I've no idea how. Any suggestions or
> instructions that could help me out here?

Add article to Merge Repl. Publication

I am running merge replication (SQL 2000 with SP2) with an anonymous pull subscription. The application vendor has come out with update that requires adding a table to a database. The vendor has created scripts that will add the table, as well as some stored procedures. If I apply the scripts to both servers and add the table as a new article to the publication, am I going to have to apply a snapshot of the entire database (which is very large)?

Your help is greatly appreciated.

GaryHi, don't add the table to both sides. Just add the table at the publisher and include it in the publication using the ARTICLES tab of Replication-Properties in EM. Start the Snapshot-Agent. The merge agent would apply only the new table to the subscriber. It's for the subscribers running SQL2000.|||Thanks for the prompt reply. The scripts will also modify some stored procedures - is that handled by the snapshot, or are the changes just replicated?|||Hi, the merge-agent applies the new tables to the subscriber.
About stored-procedures i am not sure, can u modify the stored-procedure if it's being published? Published tables can't be modified unless we use sp_repladdcolumn/sp_repldropcolumn to add or drop columns within the published tables. See if u can modify a published stored procedure at the publisher.

Howdy!