Adding a static text to a report header?

Does anyone know how to add static text to the report in the same section where report parameters and View Report are located?

Thanks,

Yadgor2000

Drop a textbox in the header and type into it. Bear in mind that a rich/html textbox is not supported so you can't format individual words. Any formats and fonts will apply to the entire contents of the textbox.|||

Will the static text render before the report is run?

Thanks

YADGOR2000

|||No. When you run the report you will see the green circular loading gif and only once the report output has been generated in the RSTempDB database the report HTML will be sent to the client for output. I think you're referring to the way HTML tables get rendered as soon as the browser detects a closing </table> tag. This is not the way things work in RS.

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 script in Reporting Services

Hi.
I need to display a date with his serial week number of the year (from 1-52
weeks).
I wrote a class method that will receive this date and will return the
corresponding week number, and made a dll file out of it.
I added this dll as a reference to my report using Report->Report
Properties->Add Reference.
Now to the tricky part, how do I embed this code in my report?
I found some documented material that I need to uncomment the
<customAssembies> in the rsconfig file. I looked into my config file but no
such <customAssembies> exists.
Does anyone have an example of how to use external dll and to successfully
embed them in the report?
I will highly appreciate any word of wisdom...
Thanks,
GuyGuy,
I didn't figure out your dll question but I believe this will solve
your date problem.
=DatePart(DateInterval.WeekOfYear,Today)
or
=DatePart("ww",Today)
Hope this helps.
Here's a link to the Visual Basic Run-time Library Members
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/vblr7/html/vaoriVBRuntimeLibraryKeywords.asp
Steve|||Steve, thanks a lot.
You have been very helpful.
I also realized how to create GetWeekOfYear( ) in VB.Net and to embed this
function in my report as Code.GetWeekOfYear( ).
I would to rephrase my request for assistance:
1. I created a class in C# and the class method as GetWeekOfYear( ) and
create a dll file of this class.
2. I added this reference to an existing report using the Report->Add
reference command from the Menu toolbar.
3. According to MSDN documentation I need to uncomment the
<CustomAssemblies> in the RSReportingServer.config
However, I didn't find any <CustomAssemblies> in the
RSReportingServer.config, therefore I can't refer to my dll file which
contains the GetWeekOfYear( ) method.
I will appreciate any help in adding and using dll in the Reporting Services
(which is not written in VB.Net which is the natural language in this
environment).
Thanks,
Guy
"sjeffrey@.gmail.com" wrote:
> Guy,
> I didn't figure out your dll question but I believe this will solve
> your date problem.
> =DatePart(DateInterval.WeekOfYear,Today)
> or
> =DatePart("ww",Today)
> Hope this helps.
> Here's a link to the Visual Basic Run-time Library Members
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/vblr7/html/vaoriVBRuntimeLibraryKeywords.asp
> Steve
>|||Why not simply have a reference date table that contains a record for every
date and the week numbers in the record? Then you solve the problem with a
join at the data source. This reference date table has plenty of benefits
as mentioned in other recent posts.
--
Cheers,
'(' Jeff A. Stucker
\
Business Intelligence
www.criadvantage.com
---
"GuyR" <GuyR@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:4B1CFD27-5D6C-44BA-A07B-D2F186EC4876@.microsoft.com...
> Hi.
> I need to display a date with his serial week number of the year (from
> 1-52
> weeks).
> I wrote a class method that will receive this date and will return the
> corresponding week number, and made a dll file out of it.
> I added this dll as a reference to my report using Report->Report
> Properties->Add Reference.
> Now to the tricky part, how do I embed this code in my report?
> I found some documented material that I need to uncomment the
> <customAssembies> in the rsconfig file. I looked into my config file but
> no
> such <customAssembies> exists.
> Does anyone have an example of how to use external dll and to successfully
> embed them in the report?
> I will highly appreciate any word of wisdom...
> Thanks,
> Guy
>sql