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 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 a new node to a SQL server cluster

I need to add a second node to a SQL Server Cluster.
What i have to do?
I have join the second node using Cluster Administrator.
I don't see any resource..
I need to manually recreate disks resources in Cluster Administrator?
I need to reinstall SQL Server?
Thanks.
Follow the instructions in BOL. Look up 'Maintaining a Failover Cluster'.
You will need to re-run the SQL installer, but if you follow the steps
correctly, all it will do is bring in the new node. Don't forget to reapply
any service packs and hotfixes after the base install.
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
www.sqlpass.org
"SP" <spupilli@.infinito.it> wrote in message
news:eGBS4kUeEHA.2352@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> I need to add a second node to a SQL Server Cluster.
> What i have to do?
> I have join the second node using Cluster Administrator.
> I don't see any resource..
> I need to manually recreate disks resources in Cluster Administrator?
> I need to reinstall SQL Server?
> Thanks.
>
|||Hi
What version of Windows and SQL are you running on?
How is your SAN configured?
..
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Johannesburg, South Africa
Mobile: +27-82-552-0268
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"SP" <spupilli@.infinito.it> wrote in message
news:eGBS4kUeEHA.2352@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> I need to add a second node to a SQL Server Cluster.
> What i have to do?
> I have join the second node using Cluster Administrator.
> I don't see any resource..
> I need to manually recreate disks resources in Cluster Administrator?
> I need to reinstall SQL Server?
> Thanks.
>
|||I'using VMWare Workstation 4.5 to test thesolution. I'll make the real
cluster the next week.
I'm using SQL Server 2000 Ent. Edition and Windows Server 2003 Ent. Edition.
Thanks.
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:u1OSlzWeEHA.1604@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> What version of Windows and SQL are you running on?
> How is your SAN configured?
> .
> --
> --
> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Johannesburg, South Africa
> Mobile: +27-82-552-0268
> IM: mike@.epprecht.net
> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
> "SP" <spupilli@.infinito.it> wrote in message
> news:eGBS4kUeEHA.2352@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>
|||Here is how you add a new node [As per SQL Server BOL topic "How to add nodes to an existing virtual server (Setup)"]
On the Welcome screen of the Microsoft SQL Server Installation Wizard, click Next.
On the Computer Name screen, click Virtual Server and specify the virtual server to which you want to add a node. Click Next.
On the Installation Selection screen, click Advanced options. Click Next.
On the Advanced Options screen, click Maintain a virtual server for failover clustering. Click Next.
On the Failover Clustering screen, click Next.
You do not need to enter an IP address.
On the Cluster Management screen, select the node and click Add.
If the node is listed as unavailable, you must modify the disk resources in the cluster group of the virtual server so the disk is available for the node you want to add to the
Microsoft SQL Server configuration. Click Next.
On the Remote Information screen, enter login credentials for the remote cluster node that has administrator privileges on the remote node of the cluster. Click Next.
On the Setup Complete screen, click Finish.
After this you will need to reapply any SQL Server service packs, security patches/hotfixes that you had applied to the virtual sql instance.
HTH,
Best Regards,
Uttam Parui
Microsoft Corporation
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Are you secure? For information about the Strategic Technology Protection Program and to order your FREE Security Tool Kit, please visit
http://www.microsoft.com/security.
Microsoft highly recommends that users with Internet access update their Microsoft software to better protect against viruses and security vulnerabilities. The easiest way
to do this is to visit the following websites: http://www.microsoft.com/protect
http://www.microsoft.com/security/guidance/default.mspx
|||How did you set it up in VMWare? I want to test a node active/passive
Windows 2003 cluster with SQL 2000. Do you know any good guides for doing
this? I am new to clusters :/
Best regards
Niklas E
"SP" <spupilli@.infinito.it> wrote in message
news:%23$kxl6WeEHA.3428@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> I'using VMWare Workstation 4.5 to test thesolution. I'll make the real
> cluster the next week.
> I'm using SQL Server 2000 Ent. Edition and Windows Server 2003 Ent.
> Edition.
> Thanks.
> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:u1OSlzWeEHA.1604@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>
|||The VMWARE web site explains setting up a cluster in a box. The idea is to
create two virtual computers and a shared virtual drives.
http://www.vmware.com/support/gsx25/...erbox_gsx.html
"VMware GSX Server 2.5.2"
Chris Skorlinski
Microsoft SQL Server Support
Please reply directly to the thread with any updates.
This posting is provided "as is" with no warranties and confers no rights.

Adding 2nd Processor

I'm preparing to add a second cpu to our server that runs
SQL Server 7 database software. Are there any changes I
need to make to SQL 7 platform to get database to
recognize the second processor?
The OS is Windows NT Server 4.0 SP6a
Thanks,
GregThe hard bit is getting NT4 to pick it up :-)
As Keith says , once that's done then SQL will pick it up automatically
--
HTH
Jasper Smith (SQL Server MVP)
I support PASS - the definitive, global
community for SQL Server professionals -
http://www.sqlpass.org
"Gregory Dover" <gdovernospam@.bolingbrook.com> wrote in message
news:056401c35b8f$5b65b930$a101280a@.phx.gbl...
I'm preparing to add a second cpu to our server that runs
SQL Server 7 database software. Are there any changes I
need to make to SQL 7 platform to get database to
recognize the second processor?
The OS is Windows NT Server 4.0 SP6a
Thanks,
Greg|||Would this also be true for an OS of Windows 2000
Professional?
>--Original Message--
>SQL Server should see it after you get NT to recognize
the second processor.
>--
>Keith, SQL Server MVP
>"Gregory Dover" <gdovernospam@.bolingbrook.com> wrote in
message news:056401c35b8f$5b65b930$a101280a@.phx.gbl...
>> I'm preparing to add a second cpu to our server that
runs
>> SQL Server 7 database software. Are there any changes
I
>> need to make to SQL 7 platform to get database to
>> recognize the second processor?
>> The OS is Windows NT Server 4.0 SP6a
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Greg
>.
>sql

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.

Adding "From Query" parameters degrades performance

Hi list,
This is the second time I've posted this question, the second time I've
created a report with "From Query" parameters and the second time I've had
problems with performance with the "From Query" parameters...
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=eOTaQ1ufEHA.3024%40TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3DFrom%2BQuery%2Bparameters%2Bslows%2Bquery%2Bmicrosoft.public.sqlserver.reportingsvcs%26ie%3DUTF-8%26hl%3Den%26btnG%3DGoogle%2BSearch
Here's the question I posed before, unfortunately I've recieved no
response.. Can someone help, has anyone else noticed the same problem...?
The problem I'm having is very easy to reproduce...
On the main menu in report designer... In the Report->Report Parameters
property page there are two types of
parameters Non-Queried and From Query. Non-Queried appears to prompt the
user for its value while the From Query parameter appears to be populated
from the query as it's name implies by assigning a column from the dataset.
I've created several of these type of parameters because I need a way to
have a page header with data from the query repeat on every page since I
cannot put Fields in the page header and using a table with the
repeatonnewpage doesn't seem to work this was my only viable solution. If
you look at my posts for the last couple days you'll get an idea of what I'm
trying to do. So my question remains why would creating From Query
parameters slow the execution of my report...? Am I using them incorrectly
is there another direction I can take to to achieve my goal...
Thanks,
DanI use this all the time without any performance problem whatsoever. A few
questions for you. How many parameters do you have in the report? How many
rows are being returned? How long does it take for each of them to run from
outside of RS (from Query Analyzer).
Am I right in assuming the time taken is for the report to come up and
prompt for the parameters? It is not when you try to then view the report is
it?
Try a report that does nothing except have the report parameters based on
the queries. This would help pinpoint if it is the parameters or something
else.
Bruce L-C
"alien2_51" <dan.billow"at"n.o.s.p.a.m.monacocoach.commercialversion> wrote
in message news:%2392SqZrjEHA.3608@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hi list,
> This is the second time I've posted this question, the second time I've
> created a report with "From Query" parameters and the second time I've had
> problems with performance with the "From Query" parameters...
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=eOTaQ1ufEHA.3024%40TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3DFrom%2BQuery%2Bparameters%2Bslows%2Bquery%2Bmicrosoft.public.sqlserver.reportingsvcs%26ie%3DUTF-8%26hl%3Den%26btnG%3DGoogle%2BSearch
> Here's the question I posed before, unfortunately I've recieved no
> response.. Can someone help, has anyone else noticed the same problem...?
> The problem I'm having is very easy to reproduce...
> On the main menu in report designer... In the Report->Report Parameters
> property page there are two types of
> parameters Non-Queried and From Query. Non-Queried appears to prompt the
> user for its value while the From Query parameter appears to be populated
> from the query as it's name implies by assigning a column from the
dataset.
> I've created several of these type of parameters because I need a way to
> have a page header with data from the query repeat on every page since I
> cannot put Fields in the page header and using a table with the
> repeatonnewpage doesn't seem to work this was my only viable solution. If
> you look at my posts for the last couple days you'll get an idea of what
I'm
> trying to do. So my question remains why would creating From Query
> parameters slow the execution of my report...? Am I using them incorrectly
> is there another direction I can take to to achieve my goal...
> Thanks,
> Dan
>
>|||Hi Bruce,
Thanks for your reply, in this particular report I have 47 "From Query"
parameters which is less than the previous report I built which seemed to
take longer. For the report I'm working on now I have a header and a
subreport, the header returns one row of data and contains the from query
parameters. Strangely enough the troubles I was having with the header
report have seemed to clear up, although the first couple of times I tried
to run the report the report previewer indicated that my report had been
canceled and then I would click the View Report button again and the report
would run. My first report returned several rows of data but the data was
repeated for every line of detail this is the one that I'm continually
having performance problems with I'm assigning the repeated data to the From
Query parameters.
Dan
"Bruce Loehle-Conger" <bruce_lcNOSPAM@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OO4WMgrjEHA.3392@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> I use this all the time without any performance problem whatsoever. A few
> questions for you. How many parameters do you have in the report? How many
> rows are being returned? How long does it take for each of them to run
from
> outside of RS (from Query Analyzer).
> Am I right in assuming the time taken is for the report to come up and
> prompt for the parameters? It is not when you try to then view the report
is
> it?
> Try a report that does nothing except have the report parameters based on
> the queries. This would help pinpoint if it is the parameters or something
> else.
> Bruce L-C
>
> "alien2_51" <dan.billow"at"n.o.s.p.a.m.monacocoach.commercialversion>
wrote
> in message news:%2392SqZrjEHA.3608@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > Hi list,
> >
> > This is the second time I've posted this question, the second time I've
> > created a report with "From Query" parameters and the second time I've
had
> > problems with performance with the "From Query" parameters...
> >
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=eOTaQ1ufEHA.3024%40TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3DFrom%2BQuery%2Bparameters%2Bslows%2Bquery%2Bmicrosoft.public.sqlserver.reportingsvcs%26ie%3DUTF-8%26hl%3Den%26btnG%3DGoogle%2BSearch
> >
> > Here's the question I posed before, unfortunately I've recieved no
> > response.. Can someone help, has anyone else noticed the same
problem...?
> > The problem I'm having is very easy to reproduce...
> >
> > On the main menu in report designer... In the Report->Report Parameters
> > property page there are two types of
> > parameters Non-Queried and From Query. Non-Queried appears to prompt the
> > user for its value while the From Query parameter appears to be
populated
> > from the query as it's name implies by assigning a column from the
> dataset.
> > I've created several of these type of parameters because I need a way to
> > have a page header with data from the query repeat on every page since I
> > cannot put Fields in the page header and using a table with the
> > repeatonnewpage doesn't seem to work this was my only viable solution.
If
> > you look at my posts for the last couple days you'll get an idea of what
> I'm
> > trying to do. So my question remains why would creating From Query
> > parameters slow the execution of my report...? Am I using them
incorrectly
> > is there another direction I can take to to achieve my goal...
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Dan
> >
> >
> >
>|||One other issue to look at as well is whether the performance issue is seen
in only the development environment versus both development and after
deployment. That would be one other issue to consider.
Bruce L-C
"alien2_51" <dan.billow"at"n.o.s.p.a.m.monacocoach.commercialversion> wrote
in message news:uxjpJzrjEHA.712@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hi Bruce,
> Thanks for your reply, in this particular report I have 47 "From Query"
> parameters which is less than the previous report I built which seemed to
> take longer. For the report I'm working on now I have a header and a
> subreport, the header returns one row of data and contains the from query
> parameters. Strangely enough the troubles I was having with the header
> report have seemed to clear up, although the first couple of times I tried
> to run the report the report previewer indicated that my report had been
> canceled and then I would click the View Report button again and the
report
> would run. My first report returned several rows of data but the data was
> repeated for every line of detail this is the one that I'm continually
> having performance problems with I'm assigning the repeated data to the
From
> Query parameters.
> Dan
>
>
>
> "Bruce Loehle-Conger" <bruce_lcNOSPAM@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:OO4WMgrjEHA.3392@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> > I use this all the time without any performance problem whatsoever. A
few
> > questions for you. How many parameters do you have in the report? How
many
> > rows are being returned? How long does it take for each of them to run
> from
> > outside of RS (from Query Analyzer).
> >
> > Am I right in assuming the time taken is for the report to come up and
> > prompt for the parameters? It is not when you try to then view the
report
> is
> > it?
> >
> > Try a report that does nothing except have the report parameters based
on
> > the queries. This would help pinpoint if it is the parameters or
something
> > else.
> >
> > Bruce L-C
> >
> >
> > "alien2_51" <dan.billow"at"n.o.s.p.a.m.monacocoach.commercialversion>
> wrote
> > in message news:%2392SqZrjEHA.3608@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > > Hi list,
> > >
> > > This is the second time I've posted this question, the second time
I've
> > > created a report with "From Query" parameters and the second time I've
> had
> > > problems with performance with the "From Query" parameters...
> > >
> >
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=eOTaQ1ufEHA.3024%40TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3DFrom%2BQuery%2Bparameters%2Bslows%2Bquery%2Bmicrosoft.public.sqlserver.reportingsvcs%26ie%3DUTF-8%26hl%3Den%26btnG%3DGoogle%2BSearch
> > >
> > > Here's the question I posed before, unfortunately I've recieved no
> > > response.. Can someone help, has anyone else noticed the same
> problem...?
> > > The problem I'm having is very easy to reproduce...
> > >
> > > On the main menu in report designer... In the Report->Report
Parameters
> > > property page there are two types of
> > > parameters Non-Queried and From Query. Non-Queried appears to prompt
the
> > > user for its value while the From Query parameter appears to be
> populated
> > > from the query as it's name implies by assigning a column from the
> > dataset.
> > > I've created several of these type of parameters because I need a way
to
> > > have a page header with data from the query repeat on every page since
I
> > > cannot put Fields in the page header and using a table with the
> > > repeatonnewpage doesn't seem to work this was my only viable solution.
> If
> > > you look at my posts for the last couple days you'll get an idea of
what
> > I'm
> > > trying to do. So my question remains why would creating From Query
> > > parameters slow the execution of my report...? Am I using them
> incorrectly
> > > is there another direction I can take to to achieve my goal...
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Dan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>|||I think the entire query is first run without parameters. Then from the
results of the query, the parameters are retrieved making them available for
selection. That would be why you would see a performance issue, especially
with larger sets of data.
"alien2_51" <dan.billow"at"n.o.s.p.a.m.monacocoach.commercialversion> wrote
in message news:%2392SqZrjEHA.3608@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hi list,
> This is the second time I've posted this question, the second time I've
> created a report with "From Query" parameters and the second time I've had
> problems with performance with the "From Query" parameters...
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=eOTaQ1ufEHA.3024%40TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3DFrom%2BQuery%2Bparameters%2Bslows%2Bquery%2Bmicrosoft.public.sqlserver.reportingsvcs%26ie%3DUTF-8%26hl%3Den%26btnG%3DGoogle%2BSearch
> Here's the question I posed before, unfortunately I've recieved no
> response.. Can someone help, has anyone else noticed the same problem...?
> The problem I'm having is very easy to reproduce...
> On the main menu in report designer... In the Report->Report Parameters
> property page there are two types of
> parameters Non-Queried and From Query. Non-Queried appears to prompt the
> user for its value while the From Query parameter appears to be populated
> from the query as it's name implies by assigning a column from the
dataset.
> I've created several of these type of parameters because I need a way to
> have a page header with data from the query repeat on every page since I
> cannot put Fields in the page header and using a table with the
> repeatonnewpage doesn't seem to work this was my only viable solution. If
> you look at my posts for the last couple days you'll get an idea of what
I'm
> trying to do. So my question remains why would creating From Query
> parameters slow the execution of my report...? Am I using them incorrectly
> is there another direction I can take to to achieve my goal...
> Thanks,
> Dan
>
>

'Addding' Column In View

Hi! Here is what I need to do:
I have 2 tables; the first called "IDs" and the second called "Test".
This 'Test' doesn't have an identity field, and I need to have one to
do some filtering, but for burocracy I can't simply add another column
to the table. So, as as it is, I had to create another table
called 'IDs' with only 1 field called 'ID' filled with autogenerated
numbers from 1 to 99999999^9999 :D. Then, the thing that I can't do is
to "append" this table to the "Test".
When I do, for example:
<select IDs.id, Test.Name from IDs, test>, what I get is something
like:
id name
--
----
1 ABC
2 ABC
3 ABC
4 ABC
1 DEF
2 DEF
3 DEF
4 DEF
1 GHI
2 GHI
3 GHI
4 GHI
1 JKM
2 JKM
3 JKM
4 JKM
Notice the repetition of the values...
I would need it to be like:
id name
--
----
1 ABC
2 ABC
3 ABC
4 ABC
So... is there something I can do to get this? And also, what would
happen if one of the tables had more registries than the other? Would
it work?
Very very thanks in advance;
Bye.See if this helps:
How to dynamically number rows in a SELECT Statement
http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...kb;en-us;186133
AMB
"Dan_Aykroyd" wrote:

> Hi! Here is what I need to do:
> I have 2 tables; the first called "IDs" and the second called "Test".
> This 'Test' doesn't have an identity field, and I need to have one to
> do some filtering, but for burocracy I can't simply add another column
> to the table. So, as as it is, I had to create another table
> called 'IDs' with only 1 field called 'ID' filled with autogenerated
> numbers from 1 to 99999999^9999 :D. Then, the thing that I can't do is
> to "append" this table to the "Test".
> When I do, for example:
> <select IDs.id, Test.Name from IDs, test>, what I get is something
> like:
> id name
> --
> ----
> 1 ABC
> 2 ABC
> 3 ABC
> 4 ABC
> 1 DEF
> 2 DEF
> 3 DEF
> 4 DEF
> 1 GHI
> 2 GHI
> 3 GHI
> 4 GHI
> 1 JKM
> 2 JKM
> 3 JKM
> 4 JKM
> Notice the repetition of the values...
> I would need it to be like:
> id name
> --
> ----
> 1 ABC
> 2 ABC
> 3 ABC
> 4 ABC
> So... is there something I can do to get this? And also, what would
> happen if one of the tables had more registries than the other? Would
> it work?
> Very very thanks in advance;
> Bye.
>|||SQL2005 will have 'rownumber', which will let you do it really easily.
But for the time being, you will have to do it the nasty way.|||Wow... it wasn't as easy as I thought! :)
I thought that what I needed to do would be easy, because it
requires... "no processing"; I mean, no combination of rows, no
relations, no linking, etc etc; it's just adding a column to a view in
the way it's stored in the table...
Thanks very much Alejandro; I'm gonna read it now!
And if there's an easier way... I'd be glad to hear it ;)sql

add second node to sql2005 clustered

Hi, where I can find a guide step-by-step to add a second node to
existing sql2005 cluster?
I have installed an istance only on first node and now I want add the
second one.
I run the setup but i don't see the option to add the new node.
The resources are off-line in the node that i'm going to install.
Thank and sorry for my bad english
..yo.mo.
Cluster modifications are no longer run from the setup CD. Use "Add/Remove
Programs" in control panel to make cluster modifications to SQL 2005
systems.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
<dpasella@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1135164200.016047.77780@.g14g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
> Hi, where I can find a guide step-by-step to add a second node to
> existing sql2005 cluster?
> I have installed an istance only on first node and now I want add the
> second one.
> I run the setup but i don't see the option to add the new node.
> The resources are off-line in the node that i'm going to install.
>
> Thank and sorry for my bad english
> .yo.mo.
>
|||> <dpasella@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1135164200.016047.77780@.g14g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
>Geoff N. Hiten wrote:
> Cluster modifications are no longer run from the setup CD. Use "Add/Remove
> Programs" in control panel to make cluster modifications to SQL 2005
> systems.
>
Thanks for your reply.
I have used "add/remove programs" but i can't modify the instance.
The log report that:
Complete: SetPackageInstallStateAction at: 2005/11/27 18:19:12,
returned true
Running: DeterminePackageTransformsAction at: 2005/11/27 18:19:12
Complete: DeterminePackageTransformsAction at: 2005/11/27 18:19:14,
returned true
Running: ValidateSetupPropertiesAction at: 2005/11/27 18:19:14
Complete: ValidateSetupPropertiesAction at: 2005/11/27 18:19:14,
returned true
Running: OpenPipeAction at: 2005/11/27 18:19:14
Complete: OpenPipeAction at: 2005/11/27 18:19:14, returned false
Error: Action "OpenPipeAction" failed during execution.
Running: CreatePipeAction at: 2005/11/27 18:19:14
Complete: CreatePipeAction at: 2005/11/27 18:19:14, returned true
Running: RunRemoteSetupAction at: 2005/11/27 18:19:14
<Func Name='CProcessCtrl::GetInstallPath'>
<EndFunc Name='CProcessCtrl::GetInstallPath' Return='0'
GetLastError='0'>
Error: 0x80070005 TaskScheduler::SetTargetComputer for \\CASTORE
Complete: RunRemoteSetupAction at: 2005/11/27 18:19:16, returned false
Error: Action "RunRemoteSetupAction" failed during execution. Error
information reported during run:
Attempting to determine log files for remote install.
Connection to remote computer's scheduler service.
Error: 80070005 Access denied
Running: PopulateMutatorDbAction at: 2005/11/27 18:19:16
Complete: PopulateMutatorDbAction at: 2005/11/27 18:19:16, returned
true
Running: GenerateRequestsAction at: 2005/11/27 18:19:16
Thanks for your help
..yo.mo.
|||Make sure the Windows Scheduler is running on the remote node.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
<dpasella@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1135704589.682373.8140@.g49g2000cwa.googlegrou ps.com...
> Thanks for your reply.
> I have used "add/remove programs" but i can't modify the instance.
> The log report that:
>
> Complete: SetPackageInstallStateAction at: 2005/11/27 18:19:12,
> returned true
> Running: DeterminePackageTransformsAction at: 2005/11/27 18:19:12
> Complete: DeterminePackageTransformsAction at: 2005/11/27 18:19:14,
> returned true
> Running: ValidateSetupPropertiesAction at: 2005/11/27 18:19:14
> Complete: ValidateSetupPropertiesAction at: 2005/11/27 18:19:14,
> returned true
> Running: OpenPipeAction at: 2005/11/27 18:19:14
> Complete: OpenPipeAction at: 2005/11/27 18:19:14, returned false
> Error: Action "OpenPipeAction" failed during execution.
> Running: CreatePipeAction at: 2005/11/27 18:19:14
> Complete: CreatePipeAction at: 2005/11/27 18:19:14, returned true
> Running: RunRemoteSetupAction at: 2005/11/27 18:19:14
> <Func Name='CProcessCtrl::GetInstallPath'>
> <EndFunc Name='CProcessCtrl::GetInstallPath' Return='0'
> GetLastError='0'>
> Error: 0x80070005 TaskScheduler::SetTargetComputer for \\CASTORE
> Complete: RunRemoteSetupAction at: 2005/11/27 18:19:16, returned false
> Error: Action "RunRemoteSetupAction" failed during execution. Error
> information reported during run:
> Attempting to determine log files for remote install.
> Connection to remote computer's scheduler service.
> Error: 80070005 Access denied
> Running: PopulateMutatorDbAction at: 2005/11/27 18:19:16
> Complete: PopulateMutatorDbAction at: 2005/11/27 18:19:16, returned
> true
> Running: GenerateRequestsAction at: 2005/11/27 18:19:16
>
> Thanks for your help
> .yo.mo.
>
|||Yes, the service is running (local service).
It is the first control that I have made
Thanks
..yo.mo.
Geoff N. Hiten wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> Make sure the Windows Scheduler is running on the remote node.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>
> <dpasella@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1135704589.682373.8140@.g49g2000cwa.googlegrou ps.com...

Add second dual core processor

If we have a SQL 2005 server with one dual core processor and we want to add
a second dual core processor, can this be accomplished without re-installing
SQL 2005? We are using the per CPU licensing model.
ThanksYou don't have to reinstall SQL Server. for this. You will have to purchase
an extra license for the second CPU.
--
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
.
"Tim Kelley" <tkelley@.company.com> wrote in message
news:e0FzwhgxGHA.2432@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
If we have a SQL 2005 server with one dual core processor and we want to add
a second dual core processor, can this be accomplished without re-installing
SQL 2005? We are using the per CPU licensing model.
Thanks

Add second dual core processor

If we have a SQL 2005 server with one dual core processor and we want to add
a second dual core processor, can this be accomplished without re-installing
SQL 2005? We are using the per CPU licensing model.
ThanksYou don't have to reinstall SQL Server. for this. You will have to purchase
an extra license for the second CPU.
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
.
"Tim Kelley" <tkelley@.company.com> wrote in message
news:e0FzwhgxGHA.2432@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
If we have a SQL 2005 server with one dual core processor and we want to add
a second dual core processor, can this be accomplished without re-installing
SQL 2005? We are using the per CPU licensing model.
Thanks

Add a second databse - benefits?

Hi, there is an existing application running on a SQL Server database.

Now I have to built a different app, which will have two common tables
with the existing database (Customers, sales)

Is there any benefit (performance mainly) creating the tables for the
new app in a new database? (On the same machine and the same instance)

*** Sent via Devdex http://www.devdex.com ***
Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!chora (choracy@.hotmail.com) writes:
> Hi, there is an existing application running on a SQL Server database.
> Now I have to built a different app, which will have two common tables
> with the existing database (Customers, sales)
> Is there any benefit (performance mainly) creating the tables for the
> new app in a new database? (On the same machine and the same instance)

There is too little information to say anything with certainty. If the
two apps not only share the table definitions, but also the data in
the table, putting everything in the same database.

As long as the applications are access their individual tables, there
is not much interferance between them. All I can think is that autogrow
caused by one app will affect the userss of the other app two, but
autogrows should not occur frequently.

Of course, in the common tables there may be blocking issues with
improper application design.

--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se

Books Online for SQL Server SP3 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techin.../2000/books.asp|||
Erland ,

thanks for the reply.

The databases will share the data of the two tables. The new database
will have 'read only' access to these tables.

*** Sent via Devdex http://www.devdex.com ***
Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!|||Hi

If these tables are large, then you may want to make them federated and
create a partitioned view for them. This may give you a performance
improvement e.g http://vyaskn.tripod.com/federated.htm

There may also be other reasons to use a separate database such as ownership
(e.g if a third party package it may invalidate the waranty to stick extra
tables in there), security and maintainance.

John

"chora" <choracy@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:40d5962f$0$16472$c397aba@.news.newsgroups.ws.. .
>
> Hi, there is an existing application running on a SQL Server database.
> Now I have to built a different app, which will have two common tables
> with the existing database (Customers, sales)
> Is there any benefit (performance mainly) creating the tables for the
> new app in a new database? (On the same machine and the same instance)
>
>
> *** Sent via Devdex http://www.devdex.com ***
> Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!