Configure AWE in SQL Server 2k on Win2k3 Enterprise Server

I just went through configuring windows 2003 server to utilize the full 8gb of RAM on the box for the purpose of enabling sql server 2000 to grab more memory. After setting the /PAE and /3GB switches in the boot file, I set the server options on the sql server to show advanced options, enabled awe memory capability and set sql server to use a constant 3gb of RAM. I received some error messages which I tracked down and, as a result of the solutions I found online, disabled auto shrinking of the databases and also disabled the minimum memory setting for queries
What I found was a problem with, I believe, the lock memory in sql server after making these changes. A complex update query that before the changes would complete in five or six minutes was now not completing after an hour or two...I would have to go into QA and kill the process everytime. After running a trace and running sp_who2, it looked like tens of thousands of locks were being created when the query would run
Now here is my request
Obviously, I missed something in the configuration of the AWE memory in sql server. If anyone can walk me through it I would be most grateful
Thank you
MichaeThis is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--=_NextPart_000_06F0_01C3B362.895E6E60
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="Utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
You have 8 GGB on the server, yet configure SQL Server to take "a constant
3gb of RAM". Why? On our cluster, we gave 6.5 GB to SQL Server and the
rest to the OS. Use:
sp_configure 'awe', 6656
... and restart SQL Server.
--
Tom
---
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
"michael weiss" <mhweiss@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2F59D0ED-086F-4BD2-8117-B05882D7F1D4@.microsoft.com...
I just went through configuring windows 2003 server to utilize the full 8gb
of RAM on the box for the purpose of enabling sql server 2000 to grab more
memory. After setting the /PAE and /3GB switches in the boot file, I set the
server options on the sql server to show advanced options, enabled awe
memory capability and set sql server to use a constant 3gb of RAM. I
received some error messages which I tracked down and, as a result of the
solutions I found online, disabled auto shrinking of the databases and also
disabled the minimum memory setting for queries.
What I found was a problem with, I believe, the lock memory in sql server
after making these changes. A complex update query that before the changes
would complete in five or six minutes was now not completing after an hour
or two...I would have to go into QA and kill the process everytime. After
running a trace and running sp_who2, it looked like tens of thousands of
locks were being created when the query would run.
Now here is my request -
Obviously, I missed something in the configuration of the AWE memory in sql
server. If anyone can walk me through it I would be most grateful.
Thank you,
Michael
--=_NextPart_000_06F0_01C3B362.895E6E60
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="Utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
=EF=BB=BF<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
&

---

You have 8 GGB on the server, yet =configure SQL Server to take "a constant 3gb of RAM". Why? On our cluster, =we gave 6.5 GB to SQL Server and the rest to the OS. Use:
sp_configure 'awe', =6656
... and restart SQL =Server.
-- Tom
---T=homas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBASQL Server MVPColumnist, SQL =Server ProfessionalToronto, ON Canadahttp://www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql">www.pinnaclepublishing.com=/sql
"michael weiss" wrote in =message news:2F5=9D0ED-086F-4BD2-8117-B05882D7F1D4@.microsoft.com...I just went through configuring windows 2003 server to utilize the full =8gb of RAM on the box for the purpose of enabling sql server 2000 to grab more =memory. After setting the /PAE and /3GB switches in the boot file, I set the =server options on the sql server to show advanced options, enabled awe memory capability and set sql server to use a constant 3gb of RAM. I received =some error messages which I tracked down and, as a result of the solutions I =found online, disabled auto shrinking of the databases and also disabled the =minimum memory setting for queries.What I found was a problem with, I =believe, the lock memory in sql server after making these changes. A complex update =query that before the changes would complete in five or six minutes was now =not completing after an hour or two...I would have to go into QA and kill =the process everytime. After running a trace and running sp_who2, it looked =like tens of thousands of locks were being created when the query would =run.Now here is my request -Obviously, I missed something in the =configuration of the AWE memory in sql server. If anyone can walk me through it I would =be most grateful.Thank you,Michael

---

--=_NextPart_000_06F0_01C3B362.895E6E60--|||Thank you, Tom...I used the sp_configure and set the memory to use that way. Then I started to have serious problems with that update query that seemed to be holding locks and not releasing them. Therefore, I wondered if I were missing something or if anyone else has had a similar issue? Reverting back to the original configuration for memory usage (AWE disabled and removing the /PAE and /3GB switches from the boot ini file) fixed the query problem. I am running the latest service packs/updates on both sql server and win2k3 enterprise server.
Thanks,
Michael|||This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--=_NextPart_000_0775_01C3B368.3E2D1B20
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="Utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sorry about that. Try:
sp_configure 'awe', 1
reconfigure with override
go
sp_configure 'max server', 6656
reconfigure with override
go
sp_configure 'min server', 0
reconfigure with override
go
Restart SQL Server. That said, it is possible that parallelism caused
degradation of this particular query. If the above doesn't work, try adding
OPTION (MAXDOP 1) at the end of the statement. This turns off parallelism.
--
Tom
---
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
"michael weiss" <mhweiss@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:317296B6-5AEE-451A-ABDA-471474D79703@.microsoft.com...
Thank you, Tom...I used the sp_configure and set the memory to use that way.
Then I started to have serious problems with that update query that seemed
to be holding locks and not releasing them. Therefore, I wondered if I were
missing something or if anyone else has had a similar issue? Reverting back
to the original configuration for memory usage (AWE disabled and removing
the /PAE and /3GB switches from the boot ini file) fixed the query problem.
I am running the latest service packs/updates on both sql server and win2k3
enterprise server.
Thanks,
Michael
--=_NextPart_000_0775_01C3B368.3E2D1B20
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="Utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
=EF=BB=BF<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
&

---

Sorry about that. =Try:
sp_configure 'awe', =1reconfigure with overridegosp_configure 'max server', 6656reconfigure with overridegosp_configure 'min server', 0reconfigure with overridego
Restart SQL Server. That =said, it is possible that parallelism caused degradation of this particular =query. If the above doesn't work, try adding OPTION (MAXDOP 1) at the end of =the statement. This turns off parallelism.
-- Tom
---T=homas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBASQL Server MVPColumnist, SQL =Server ProfessionalToronto, ON Canadahttp://www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql">www.pinnaclepublishing.com=/sql
"michael weiss" wrote in =message news:317=296B6-5AEE-451A-ABDA-471474D79703@.microsoft.com...Thank you, Tom...I used the sp_configure and set the memory to use that way. =Then I started to have serious problems with that update query that seemed to =be holding locks and not releasing them. Therefore, I wondered if I were =missing something or if anyone else has had a similar issue? Reverting back to =the original configuration for memory usage (AWE disabled and removing the =/PAE and /3GB switches from the boot ini file) fixed the query problem. I am =running the latest service packs/updates on both sql server and win2k3 enterprise server.Thanks,Michael

---

--=_NextPart_000_0775_01C3B368.3E2D1B20--|||Tom,
Could parallelism cause the creation of massive quantities of table locks?
Thanks,
Michael|||This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--=_NextPart_000_0818_01C3B36D.BC615B50
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="Utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
It's not uncommon to have parallelized queries run slower than their
single-threaded counterparts. I'm surprised about "massive quantities of
table locks". A query would issue one table lock per table. It could issue
many, many page or row locks, though. Is it possible to specify a table
lock for this query or are others accessing the table at the time?
Tom
---
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
"michael weiss" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2C7FADE9-E72C-492C-915D-D58458944D89@.microsoft.com...
Tom,
Could parallelism cause the creation of massive quantities of table locks?
Thanks,
Michael
--=_NextPart_000_0818_01C3B36D.BC615B50
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="Utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
=EF=BB=BF<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
&

---

It's not uncommon to have parallelized =queries run slower than their single-threaded counterparts. I'm surprised =about "massive quantities of table locks". A query would issue one table =lock per table. It could issue many, many page or row locks, =though. Is it possible to specify a table lock for this query or are others =accessing the table at the time?
-- Tom
---T=homas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBASQL Server MVPColumnist, SQL =Server ProfessionalToronto, ON Canadahttp://www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql">www.pinnaclepublishing.com=/sql
"michael weiss" wrote in message news:2C7=FADE9-E72C-492C-915D-D58458944D89@.microsoft.com...Tom,Could= parallelism cause the creation of massive quantities of table locks?Thanks,Michael

---

--=_NextPart_000_0818_01C3B36D.BC615B50--|||Sorry, Tom...I meant page locks, not table locks. My mistake. The query calls a correlated subquery many times depending on the outcome of various CASE statements. Therefore, the table which the subquery pulls data from is queried several times. I just never had any problems before I tried enabling AWE on the sql server
Thanks
Michael|||This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--=_NextPart_000_089B_01C3B371.9D7C9610
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="Utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
OK, have you tried my revised script and re-started SQL Server? Also, it
could be that the query needs a re-write or you may need to tune your
indexing.
--
Tom
---
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
"michael weiss" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:05211AC9-8FF9-4980-AB85-D7262629F027@.microsoft.com...
Sorry, Tom...I meant page locks, not table locks. My mistake. The query
calls a correlated subquery many times depending on the outcome of various
CASE statements. Therefore, the table which the subquery pulls data from is
queried several times. I just never had any problems before I tried enabling
AWE on the sql server.
Thanks,
Michael
--=_NextPart_000_089B_01C3B371.9D7C9610
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="Utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
=EF=BB=BF<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
&

---

OK, have you tried my revised script =and re-started SQL Server? Also, it could be that the query needs a =re-write or you may need to tune your indexing.
-- Tom
---T=homas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBASQL Server MVPColumnist, SQL =Server ProfessionalToronto, ON Canadahttp://www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql">www.pinnaclepublishing.com=/sql
"michael weiss" wrote in message news:052=11AC9-8FF9-4980-AB85-D7262629F027@.microsoft.com...Sorry, Tom...I meant page locks, not table locks. My mistake. The query calls a =correlated subquery many times depending on the outcome of various CASE statements. Therefore, the table which the subquery pulls data from is =queried several times. I just never had any problems before I tried enabling AWE =on the sql server.Thanks,Michael

---

--=_NextPart_000_089B_01C3B371.9D7C9610--|||Thank you, Tom...I set the server as you suggested including configuring sql server to use 6.5GB of RAM, added the MAXDOP(1) option to the end of the query and it smoked right through 1.5 million records in just over 4 minutes.
Many thanks,
Michael|||P.S. on a related note...
take a look at dbcc sqlperf(waitstats). You should be able to find some
decent info on it if you google it..
Large waittimes with a waittype of cxpacket are often associated with cases
where parallelism is getting bogged down for one reason or another such that
serial plans (or at leat DOP less than number of CPU...) is a good idea...
looking at the waitstats is a nice way to quantitatively predict if lowering
DOP might help...
--
Brian Moran
Principal Mentor
Solid Quality Learning
SQL Server MVP
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com
"michael weiss" <mhweiss@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1D2337B2-D79B-4B8F-975C-12138EBDCEEA@.microsoft.com...
> Thank you, Tom...I set the server as you suggested including configuring
sql server to use 6.5GB of RAM, added the MAXDOP(1) option to the end of the
query and it smoked right through 1.5 million records in just over 4
minutes.
> Many thanks,
> Michael|||This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--=_NextPart_000_007A_01C3B3F9.C79FC0B0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="Utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Kewl! Glad to have made a difference. You may be able to tweak it more
with some coding and indexing changes.
--
Tom
---
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
"michael weiss" <mhweiss@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1D2337B2-D79B-4B8F-975C-12138EBDCEEA@.microsoft.com...
Thank you, Tom...I set the server as you suggested including configuring sql
server to use 6.5GB of RAM, added the MAXDOP(1) option to the end of the
query and it smoked right through 1.5 million records in just over 4
minutes.
Many thanks,
Michael
--=_NextPart_000_007A_01C3B3F9.C79FC0B0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="Utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
=EF=BB=BF<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
&

---

Kewl! Glad to have made a =difference. You may be able to tweak it more with some coding and indexing changes.
-- Tom
---T=homas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBASQL Server MVPColumnist, SQL =Server ProfessionalToronto, ON Canadahttp://www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql">www.pinnaclepublishing.com=/sql
"michael weiss" wrote in =message news:1D2=337B2-D79B-4B8F-975C-12138EBDCEEA@.microsoft.com...Thank you, Tom...I set the server as you suggested including configuring sql =server to use 6.5GB of RAM, added the MAXDOP(1) option to the end of the query and =it smoked right through 1.5 million records in just over 4 minutes.Many =thanks,Michael

---

--=_NextPart_000_007A_01C3B3F9.C79FC0B0--

configuration of disks

I need help understanding how this works. We're using SS2000 Standard on Windows 2000 Server. I've been reading about spreading the data in a database or a table across several drives using filegroups. Since most of our work is extract, transfer and load
and involves a lot of writes, it seems that raid 10 is better than 5 although more expensive. Let's say we determine that we need 3 36G drives just for data (forgetting logs for now). If we create one raid 10 using 6 drives does this mean that we address
that one raid 10 with one drive letter, say drive e:? If so, does this mean that we wouldn't be able to take advantage of filegroups because everything would be on drive e:?
However, if we created 3 raid 10s of two drives each then we would have drives e:, f:, and g: to work with. Correct? And then we would be able to use filegroups by creating a filegroup for each drive letter and then creating a database with 3 files, one i
n each filegroup.
Is that correct or do I not understand how it works?
Thanks,
Dan D.
Once you create a RAID 10, all you get is a big chuck of space, you can
still partition it into different logical drives, but everything is
spread out across those 3 disks (6 disks if you count the mirror). If
you want to spread out filegroup, then you have two options 1) forget
about RAID, put each filegroup on differnet physical disk 2) create a
set of RAID, put each filegroup on different RAID, this can be very
expensive
With 6 disks, you can't have 3 RAID 10, you have 3 RAID 1. This
basically is option 2 listed above, you can spread out filegroups into
different physical disks. Provide you have a really good SCSI card, this
may not be a bad choice.
Eric Li
SQL DBA
MCDBA
Dan wrote:

> I need help understanding how this works. We're using SS2000 Standard on Windows 2000 Server. I've been reading about spreading the data in a database or a table across several drives using filegroups. Since most of our work is extract, transfer and loa
d and involves a lot of writes, it seems that raid 10 is better than 5 although more expensive. Let's say we determine that we need 3 36G drives just for data (forgetting logs for now). If we create one raid 10 using 6 drives does this mean that we addres
s that one raid 10 with one drive letter, say drive e:? If so, does this mean that we wouldn't be able to take advantage of filegroups because everything would be on drive e:?
> However, if we created 3 raid 10s of two drives each then we would have drives e:, f:, and g: to work with. Correct? And then we would be able to use filegroups by creating a filegroup for each drive letter and then creating a database with 3 files, one
in each filegroup.
> Is that correct or do I not understand how it works?
> Thanks,
> Dan D.
|||"Dan" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:4A634A1A-1174-4048-9471-2F5EA0FD1D21@.microsoft.com...
> I need help understanding how this works. We're using SS2000 Standard on
Windows 2000 Server. I've been reading about spreading the data in a
database or a table across several drives using filegroups. Since most of
our work is extract, transfer and load and involves a lot of writes, it
seems that raid 10 is better than 5 although more expensive. Let's say we
determine that we need 3 36G drives just for data (forgetting logs for now).
If we create one raid 10 using 6 drives does this mean that we address that
one raid 10 with one drive letter, say drive e:? If so, does this mean that
we wouldn't be able to take advantage of filegroups because everything would
be on drive e:?
> However, if we created 3 raid 10s of two drives each then we would have
drives e:, f:, and g: to work with. Correct? And then we would be able to
use filegroups by creating a filegroup for each drive letter and then
creating a database with 3 files, one in each filegroup.
> Is that correct or do I not understand how it works?
Don't do RAID striping and Filegroups. Just pick one. If you have 6 disks
in RAID 10, you are already spreading out the IO over a 3 disk stripe set in
hardware. If you really want to use filegroups, you should just use RAID
for mirroring, and deploy the 6 disks in 3 2-disk mirror sets. Then you
spread out your files over the 3 disks.
David
|||As far as seeking the optimal performance, can you recommend using the raid 10 over the raid 1 and filegroups or vice versa?
Thanks,
Dan D.
-- David Browne wrote: --
"Dan" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:4A634A1A-1174-4048-9471-2F5EA0FD1D21@.microsoft.com...
> I need help understanding how this works. We're using SS2000 Standard on
Windows 2000 Server. I've been reading about spreading the data in a
database or a table across several drives using filegroups. Since most of
our work is extract, transfer and load and involves a lot of writes, it
seems that raid 10 is better than 5 although more expensive. Let's say we
determine that we need 3 36G drives just for data (forgetting logs for now).
If we create one raid 10 using 6 drives does this mean that we address that
one raid 10 with one drive letter, say drive e:? If so, does this mean that
we wouldn't be able to take advantage of filegroups because everything would
be on drive e:?[vbcol=seagreen]
drives e:, f:, and g: to work with. Correct? And then we would be able to
use filegroups by creating a filegroup for each drive letter and then
creating a database with 3 files, one in each filegroup.[vbcol=seagreen]
Don't do RAID striping and Filegroups. Just pick one. If you have 6 disks
in RAID 10, you are already spreading out the IO over a 3 disk stripe set in
hardware. If you really want to use filegroups, you should just use RAID
for mirroring, and deploy the 6 disks in 3 2-disk mirror sets. Then you
spread out your files over the 3 disks.
David
|||I forgot to mention that we're moving to a SAN. I don't know if that makes any difference.
So, you're saying that the raid is created first with the six drives and then we could partition 3 logical drives on the raid 1? Isn't the object of having the 3 filegroups on 3 different drives so you while the heads of one drive are accessing some of th
e data, the heads another drive could be accessing some more of the data? After creating the raid 1, is it possible to create the three partitions one on each physical drive?
Can you explain why with 6 disks we can't have 3 raid 10? And what advantage is there to adding a raid 0 to a raid 1?
Thanks,
Dan D.
-- Eric.Li wrote: --
Once you create a RAID 10, all you get is a big chuck of space, you can
still partition it into different logical drives, but everything is
spread out across those 3 disks (6 disks if you count the mirror). If
you want to spread out filegroup, then you have two options 1) forget
about RAID, put each filegroup on differnet physical disk 2) create a
set of RAID, put each filegroup on different RAID, this can be very
expensive
With 6 disks, you can't have 3 RAID 10, you have 3 RAID 1. This
basically is option 2 listed above, you can spread out filegroups into
different physical disks. Provide you have a really good SCSI card, this
may not be a bad choice.
Eric Li
SQL DBA
MCDBA
Dan wrote:

> I need help understanding how this works. We're using SS2000 Standard on Windows 2000 Server. I've been reading about spreading the data in a database or a table across several drives using filegroups. Since most of our work is extract, transfer an
d load and involves a lot of writes, it seems that raid 10 is better than 5 although more expensive. Let's say we determine that we need 3 36G drives just for data (forgetting logs for now). If we create one raid 10 using 6 drives does this mean that we a
ddress that one raid 10 with one drive letter, say drive e:? If so, does this mean that we wouldn't be able to take advantage of filegroups because everything would be on drive e:?[vbcol=seagreen]
s, one in each filegroup.[vbcol=seagreen]
|||In article <F4FC777D-69AC-408C-A2B0-FD19A7104BAF@.microsoft.com>,
anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com said...
> I forgot to mention that we're moving to a SAN. I don't know if that makes any difference.
> So, you're saying that the raid is created first with the six drives and then we could partition 3 logical drives on the raid 1? Isn't the object of having the 3 filegroups on 3 different drives so you while the heads of one drive are accessing some of
the data, the heads another drive could be accessing some more of the data? After creating the raid 1, is it possible to create the three partitions one on each
physical drive?
> Can you explain why with 6 disks we can't have 3 raid 10? And what advantage is there to adding a raid 0 to a raid 1?
With pairs of disks you only have the option of RAID 1 or RAID 0. For a
single RAID 10 you need at least 4 disks so to do 3 of them you would need
12 disks. Do a web search on RAID and you'll understand the various
levels pretty quickly.
|||"Dan D." <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:43CACB17-1C0C-46B7-863D-1F27E7124962@.microsoft.com...
> As far as seeking the optimal performance, can you recommend using the
raid 10 over the raid 1 and filegroups or vice versa?
>
Personally I never use filegroups. But I can't really make a recommendation
since in principle both approaches should be pretty close in performance. I
just think doing this a the disk level is easier than integrating it into
your physical database design.
David

configuration of disks

I need help understanding how this works. We're using SS2000 Standard on Win
dows 2000 Server. I've been reading about spreading the data in a database o
r a table across several drives using filegroups. Since most of our work is
extract, transfer and load
and involves a lot of writes, it seems that raid 10 is better than 5 althoug
h more expensive. Let's say we determine that we need 3 36G drives just for
data (forgetting logs for now). If we create one raid 10 using 6 drives does
this mean that we address
that one raid 10 with one drive letter, say drive e:? If so, does this mean
that we wouldn't be able to take advantage of filegroups because everything
would be on drive e:?
However, if we created 3 raid 10s of two drives each then we would have driv
es e:, f:, and g: to work with. Correct? And then we would be able to use fi
legroups by creating a filegroup for each drive letter and then creating a d
atabase with 3 files, one i
n each filegroup.
Is that correct or do I not understand how it works?
Thanks,
Dan D.Once you create a RAID 10, all you get is a big chuck of space, you can
still partition it into different logical drives, but everything is
spread out across those 3 disks (6 disks if you count the mirror). If
you want to spread out filegroup, then you have two options 1) forget
about RAID, put each filegroup on differnet physical disk 2) create a
set of RAID, put each filegroup on different RAID, this can be very
expensive
With 6 disks, you can't have 3 RAID 10, you have 3 RAID 1. This
basically is option 2 listed above, you can spread out filegroups into
different physical disks. Provide you have a really good SCSI card, this
may not be a bad choice.
Eric Li
SQL DBA
MCDBA
Dan wrote:

> I need help understanding how this works. We're using SS2000 Standard on Windows 2
000 Server. I've been reading about spreading the data in a database or a table acro
ss several drives using filegroups. Since most of our work is extract, transfer and
loa
d and involves a lot of writes, it seems that raid 10 is better than 5 altho
ugh more expensive. Let's say we determine that we need 3 36G drives just fo
r data (forgetting logs for now). If we create one raid 10 using 6 drives do
es this mean that we addres
s that one raid 10 with one drive letter, say drive e:? If so, does this mean that we wouldn
't be able to take advantage of filegroups because everything would be on drive e:?agreen">
> However, if we created 3 raid 10s of two drives each then we would have drives e:,
f:, and g: to work with. Correct? And then we would be able to use filegroups by cr
eating a filegroup for each drive letter and then creating a database with 3 files,
one
in each filegroup.
> Is that correct or do I not understand how it works?
> Thanks,
> Dan D.|||"Dan" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:4A634A1A-1174-4048-9471-2F5EA0FD1D21@.microsoft.com...
> I need help understanding how this works. We're using SS2000 Standard on
Windows 2000 Server. I've been reading about spreading the data in a
database or a table across several drives using filegroups. Since most of
our work is extract, transfer and load and involves a lot of writes, it
seems that raid 10 is better than 5 although more expensive. Let's say we
determine that we need 3 36G drives just for data (forgetting logs for now).
If we create one raid 10 using 6 drives does this mean that we address that
one raid 10 with one drive letter, say drive e:? If so, does this mean that
we wouldn't be able to take advantage of filegroups because everything would
be on drive e:?
> However, if we created 3 raid 10s of two drives each then we would have
drives e:, f:, and g: to work with. Correct? And then we would be able to
use filegroups by creating a filegroup for each drive letter and then
creating a database with 3 files, one in each filegroup.
> Is that correct or do I not understand how it works?
Don't do RAID striping and Filegroups. Just pick one. If you have 6 disks
in RAID 10, you are already spreading out the IO over a 3 disk stripe set in
hardware. If you really want to use filegroups, you should just use RAID
for mirroring, and deploy the 6 disks in 3 2-disk mirror sets. Then you
spread out your files over the 3 disks.
David|||As far as seeking the optimal performance, can you recommend using the raid
10 over the raid 1 and filegroups or vice versa?
Thanks,
Dan D.
-- David Browne wrote: --
"Dan" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:4A634A1A-1174-4048-9471-2F5EA0FD1D21@.microsoft.com...
> I need help understanding how this works. We're using SS2000 Standard on
Windows 2000 Server. I've been reading about spreading the data in a
database or a table across several drives using filegroups. Since most of
our work is extract, transfer and load and involves a lot of writes, it
seems that raid 10 is better than 5 although more expensive. Let's say we
determine that we need 3 36G drives just for data (forgetting logs for now).
If we create one raid 10 using 6 drives does this mean that we address that
one raid 10 with one drive letter, say drive e:? If so, does this mean that
we wouldn't be able to take advantage of filegroups because everything would
be on drive e:?[vbcol=seagreen]
drives e:, f:, and g: to work with. Correct? And then we would be able to
use filegroups by creating a filegroup for each drive letter and then
creating a database with 3 files, one in each filegroup.[vbcol=seagreen]
Don't do RAID striping and Filegroups. Just pick one. If you have 6 disks
in RAID 10, you are already spreading out the IO over a 3 disk stripe set in
hardware. If you really want to use filegroups, you should just use RAID
for mirroring, and deploy the 6 disks in 3 2-disk mirror sets. Then you
spread out your files over the 3 disks.
David|||I forgot to mention that we're moving to a SAN. I don't know if that makes a
ny difference.
So, you're saying that the raid is created first with the six drives and the
n we could partition 3 logical drives on the raid 1? Isn't the object of hav
ing the 3 filegroups on 3 different drives so you while the heads of one dri
ve are accessing some of th
e data, the heads another drive could be accessing some more of the data? Af
ter creating the raid 1, is it possible to create the three partitions one o
n each physical drive?
Can you explain why with 6 disks we can't have 3 raid 10? And what advantage
is there to adding a raid 0 to a raid 1?
Thanks,
Dan D.
-- Eric.Li wrote: --
Once you create a RAID 10, all you get is a big chuck of space, you can
still partition it into different logical drives, but everything is
spread out across those 3 disks (6 disks if you count the mirror). If
you want to spread out filegroup, then you have two options 1) forget
about RAID, put each filegroup on differnet physical disk 2) create a
set of RAID, put each filegroup on different RAID, this can be very
expensive
With 6 disks, you can't have 3 RAID 10, you have 3 RAID 1. This
basically is option 2 listed above, you can spread out filegroups into
different physical disks. Provide you have a really good SCSI card, this
may not be a bad choice.
Eric Li
SQL DBA
MCDBA
Dan wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> I need help understanding how this works. We're using SS2000 Standard on Windows 2
000 Server. I've been reading about spreading the data in a database or a table acro
ss several drives using filegroups. Since most of our work is extract, transfer an[/
vbcol]
d load and involves a lot of writes, it seems that raid 10 is better than 5
although more expensive. Let's say we determine that we need 3 36G drives ju
st for data (forgetting logs for now). If we create one raid 10 using 6 driv
es does this mean that we a
ddress that one raid 10 with one drive letter, say drive e:? If so, does this mean that we w
ouldn't be able to take advantage of filegroups because everything would be on drive e:?[vbc
ol=seagreen]
s, one in each filegroup.[vbcol=seagreen]|||In article <F4FC777D-69AC-408C-A2B0-FD19A7104BAF@.microsoft.com>,
anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com said...
> I forgot to mention that we're moving to a SAN. I don't know if that makes
any difference.
> So, you're saying that the raid is created first with the six drives and then we c
ould partition 3 logical drives on the raid 1? Isn't the object of having the 3 file
groups on 3 different drives so you while the heads of one drive are accessing some
of
the data, the heads another drive could be accessing some more of the data?
After creating the raid 1, is it possible to create the three partitions one
on each
physical drive?
> Can you explain why with 6 disks we can't have 3 raid 10? And what advantage is th
ere to adding a raid 0 to a raid 1?
With pairs of disks you only have the option of RAID 1 or RAID 0. For a
single RAID 10 you need at least 4 disks so to do 3 of them you would need
12 disks. Do a web search on RAID and you'll understand the various
levels pretty quickly.|||"Dan D." <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:43CACB17-1C0C-46B7-863D-1F27E7124962@.microsoft.com...
> As far as seeking the optimal performance, can you recommend using the
raid 10 over the raid 1 and filegroups or vice versa?
>
Personally I never use filegroups. But I can't really make a recommendation
since in principle both approaches should be pretty close in performance. I
just think doing this a the disk level is easier than integrating it into
your physical database design.
David

configuration of disks

I need help understanding how this works. We're using SS2000 Standard on Windows 2000 Server. I've been reading about spreading the data in a database or a table across several drives using filegroups. Since most of our work is extract, transfer and load and involves a lot of writes, it seems that raid 10 is better than 5 although more expensive. Let's say we determine that we need 3 36G drives just for data (forgetting logs for now). If we create one raid 10 using 6 drives does this mean that we address that one raid 10 with one drive letter, say drive e:? If so, does this mean that we wouldn't be able to take advantage of filegroups because everything would be on drive e:
However, if we created 3 raid 10s of two drives each then we would have drives e:, f:, and g: to work with. Correct? And then we would be able to use filegroups by creating a filegroup for each drive letter and then creating a database with 3 files, one in each filegroup
Is that correct or do I not understand how it works
Thanks
Dan D.Once you create a RAID 10, all you get is a big chuck of space, you can
still partition it into different logical drives, but everything is
spread out across those 3 disks (6 disks if you count the mirror). If
you want to spread out filegroup, then you have two options 1) forget
about RAID, put each filegroup on differnet physical disk 2) create a
set of RAID, put each filegroup on different RAID, this can be very
expensive
With 6 disks, you can't have 3 RAID 10, you have 3 RAID 1. This
basically is option 2 listed above, you can spread out filegroups into
different physical disks. Provide you have a really good SCSI card, this
may not be a bad choice.
Eric Li
SQL DBA
MCDBA
Dan wrote:
> I need help understanding how this works. We're using SS2000 Standard on Windows 2000 Server. I've been reading about spreading the data in a database or a table across several drives using filegroups. Since most of our work is extract, transfer and load and involves a lot of writes, it seems that raid 10 is better than 5 although more expensive. Let's say we determine that we need 3 36G drives just for data (forgetting logs for now). If we create one raid 10 using 6 drives does this mean that we address that one raid 10 with one drive letter, say drive e:? If so, does this mean that we wouldn't be able to take advantage of filegroups because everything would be on drive e:?
> However, if we created 3 raid 10s of two drives each then we would have drives e:, f:, and g: to work with. Correct? And then we would be able to use filegroups by creating a filegroup for each drive letter and then creating a database with 3 files, one in each filegroup.
> Is that correct or do I not understand how it works?
> Thanks,
> Dan D.|||"Dan" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:4A634A1A-1174-4048-9471-2F5EA0FD1D21@.microsoft.com...
> I need help understanding how this works. We're using SS2000 Standard on
Windows 2000 Server. I've been reading about spreading the data in a
database or a table across several drives using filegroups. Since most of
our work is extract, transfer and load and involves a lot of writes, it
seems that raid 10 is better than 5 although more expensive. Let's say we
determine that we need 3 36G drives just for data (forgetting logs for now).
If we create one raid 10 using 6 drives does this mean that we address that
one raid 10 with one drive letter, say drive e:? If so, does this mean that
we wouldn't be able to take advantage of filegroups because everything would
be on drive e:?
> However, if we created 3 raid 10s of two drives each then we would have
drives e:, f:, and g: to work with. Correct? And then we would be able to
use filegroups by creating a filegroup for each drive letter and then
creating a database with 3 files, one in each filegroup.
> Is that correct or do I not understand how it works?
Don't do RAID striping and Filegroups. Just pick one. If you have 6 disks
in RAID 10, you are already spreading out the IO over a 3 disk stripe set in
hardware. If you really want to use filegroups, you should just use RAID
for mirroring, and deploy the 6 disks in 3 2-disk mirror sets. Then you
spread out your files over the 3 disks.
David|||As far as seeking the optimal performance, can you recommend using the raid 10 over the raid 1 and filegroups or vice versa
Thanks
Dan D
-- David Browne wrote: --
"Dan" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in messag
news:4A634A1A-1174-4048-9471-2F5EA0FD1D21@.microsoft.com..
> I need help understanding how this works. We're using SS2000 Standard o
Windows 2000 Server. I've been reading about spreading the data in
database or a table across several drives using filegroups. Since most o
our work is extract, transfer and load and involves a lot of writes, i
seems that raid 10 is better than 5 although more expensive. Let's say w
determine that we need 3 36G drives just for data (forgetting logs for now)
If we create one raid 10 using 6 drives does this mean that we address tha
one raid 10 with one drive letter, say drive e:? If so, does this mean tha
we wouldn't be able to take advantage of filegroups because everything woul
be on drive e:
>> However, if we created 3 raid 10s of two drives each then we would hav
drives e:, f:, and g: to work with. Correct? And then we would be able t
use filegroups by creating a filegroup for each drive letter and the
creating a database with 3 files, one in each filegroup
>> Is that correct or do I not understand how it works
Don't do RAID striping and Filegroups. Just pick one. If you have 6 disk
in RAID 10, you are already spreading out the IO over a 3 disk stripe set i
hardware. If you really want to use filegroups, you should just use RAI
for mirroring, and deploy the 6 disks in 3 2-disk mirror sets. Then yo
spread out your files over the 3 disks
Davi|||I forgot to mention that we're moving to a SAN. I don't know if that makes any difference.
So, you're saying that the raid is created first with the six drives and then we could partition 3 logical drives on the raid 1? Isn't the object of having the 3 filegroups on 3 different drives so you while the heads of one drive are accessing some of the data, the heads another drive could be accessing some more of the data? After creating the raid 1, is it possible to create the three partitions one on each physical drive
Can you explain why with 6 disks we can't have 3 raid 10? And what advantage is there to adding a raid 0 to a raid 1
Thanks
Dan D
-- Eric.Li wrote: --
Once you create a RAID 10, all you get is a big chuck of space, you can
still partition it into different logical drives, but everything is
spread out across those 3 disks (6 disks if you count the mirror). If
you want to spread out filegroup, then you have two options 1) forget
about RAID, put each filegroup on differnet physical disk 2) create a
set of RAID, put each filegroup on different RAID, this can be very
expensiv
With 6 disks, you can't have 3 RAID 10, you have 3 RAID 1. This
basically is option 2 listed above, you can spread out filegroups into
different physical disks. Provide you have a really good SCSI card, this
may not be a bad choice
--
Eric L
SQL DB
MCDB
Dan wrote
> I need help understanding how this works. We're using SS2000 Standard on Windows 2000 Server. I've been reading about spreading the data in a database or a table across several drives using filegroups. Since most of our work is extract, transfer and load and involves a lot of writes, it seems that raid 10 is better than 5 although more expensive. Let's say we determine that we need 3 36G drives just for data (forgetting logs for now). If we create one raid 10 using 6 drives does this mean that we address that one raid 10 with one drive letter, say drive e:? If so, does this mean that we wouldn't be able to take advantage of filegroups because everything would be on drive e:
>> However, if we created 3 raid 10s of two drives each then we would have drives e:, f:, and g: to work with. Correct? And then we would be able to use filegroups by creating a filegroup for each drive letter and then creating a database with 3 files, one in each filegroup
>> Is that correct or do I not understand how it works
>> Thanks
>> Dan D.|||In article <F4FC777D-69AC-408C-A2B0-FD19A7104BAF@.microsoft.com>,
anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com said...
> I forgot to mention that we're moving to a SAN. I don't know if that makes any difference.
> So, you're saying that the raid is created first with the six drives and then we could partition 3 logical drives on the raid 1? Isn't the object of having the 3 filegroups on 3 different drives so you while the heads of one drive are accessing some of the data, the heads another drive could be accessing some more of the data? After creating the raid 1, is it possible to create the three partitions one on each
physical drive?
> Can you explain why with 6 disks we can't have 3 raid 10? And what advantage is there to adding a raid 0 to a raid 1?
With pairs of disks you only have the option of RAID 1 or RAID 0. For a
single RAID 10 you need at least 4 disks so to do 3 of them you would need
12 disks. Do a web search on RAID and you'll understand the various
levels pretty quickly.|||"Dan D." <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:43CACB17-1C0C-46B7-863D-1F27E7124962@.microsoft.com...
> As far as seeking the optimal performance, can you recommend using the
raid 10 over the raid 1 and filegroups or vice versa?
>
Personally I never use filegroups. But I can't really make a recommendation
since in principle both approaches should be pretty close in performance. I
just think doing this a the disk level is easier than integrating it into
your physical database design.
Davidsqlsql

Configuration Management

With all the new security patches coming out for windows, how do I test them
for SQL server before installing it in production?
Hi
Install the patches on you test server, and run your applications against
the SQL Server on this test server to see if everything works as expected.
Regards
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"docsql" <docsql@.noemail.nospam> wrote in message
news:O%23J3%23ifnFHA.3656@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> With all the new security patches coming out for windows, how do I test
> them for SQL server before installing it in production?
>
sqlsql

Configuration Management

With all the new security patches coming out for windows, how do I test them
for SQL server before installing it in production?Hi
Install the patches on you test server, and run your applications against
the SQL Server on this test server to see if everything works as expected.
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"docsql" <docsql@.noemail.nospam> wrote in message
news:O%23J3%23ifnFHA.3656@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> With all the new security patches coming out for windows, how do I test
> them for SQL server before installing it in production?
>

Configuration Management

With all the new security patches coming out for windows, how do I test them
for SQL server before installing it in production?Hi
Install the patches on you test server, and run your applications against
the SQL Server on this test server to see if everything works as expected.
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"docsql" <docsql@.noemail.nospam> wrote in message
news:O%23J3%23ifnFHA.3656@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> With all the new security patches coming out for windows, how do I test
> them for SQL server before installing it in production?
>

Configuration for Configuration Package? Is this Possible?

Hi Guys,

Here's the current scenario:

I am creating a windows application to manage my ssis packages.

My SSIS packages use package configurations, and by default connect to the "SSIS Configurations" table in sql server.

However, I want it to connect to a view instead of this table, so i create a view "vwSSIS_Configurations" and point the package configuration to use the view in sql server.

The application SHOULD be capable of altering the package configuration's configuration and switch its connection between the default "ssis configurations" table, and the view.

Is this possible? I cannot think of a way which I can have my application switch the package configuration's connection.

Thanks,

kervy

There are a number of ways. I would store the connection string of the connection manager in an XML configuration file.

-Jamie

|||

it's not the connection string of the connection manager, but the connection to the package configuration table,

currently my package configurations are looking in the "SSIS Configurations" table.. but I want my application to let the dtsx switch to another configuration table named "SSIS Configurations2" both have the same schema but different values. is there a "configuration" property for the configuration table connection?

|||

Ah OK. Well I've just looked at the setup screen for SQL Server configs for the first time in my life and seen that you can store the config location in an environment variable. I don't know exactly what it does but have you explored that? BOL should contain details to help you.

-Jamie

Configuration Error in roleManager in security VSS

We have a project that is in a server with windows 2000 (SQL Server 2005 and .Net 2005) And the other developer has a windows XP machine ( .Net 2005) , We are using the VSSC for the project , when the other developer run the application , the following error is show :

Server Error in '/XXX' Application.

---

Configuration Error

Description: An error occurred during the processing of a configuration file required to service this request. Please review the specific error details below and modify your configuration file appropriately.

Parser Error Message: Could not load type 'XXXSecurity.RoleSql'.

Source Error:

Line 27: <roleManager enabled="true" defaultProvider="SqlRoleManager" cacheRolesInCookie="true" cookieTimeout="30" cookieRequireSSL="false" createPersistentCookie="true"> Line 28: <providers> Line 29: <add name="SqlRoleManager" type="XXXSecurity.RoleSql" connectionStringName="MySqlConnection" applicationName="XXX"/> Line 30: </providers> Line 31: </roleManager>

Source File: C:\Documents and Settings\YYYY\My Documents\Visual Studio 2005\Projects\XXX\RRRR\KKKKK\web.config Line: 29

Where XXX is the name of application.

SomeOne Know How Help Me Please?

This error has nothing to do with SourceSafe. Moving to SQL groups, perhaps they can help...

Alin

|||

The error seems to come from the VS XML parser. I don't see anything related to SQL Server.

Thanks
Laurentiu

Configuracion de SQL server 2005

Hola, he usado por mucho tiempo SQL server 2000 y windows 2000. Hoy en
dia migre a SQL server 2005, pero es super distinta la configuracion y
el proceso de instalacion, quisiera saber si alguien sabe los pasos
para dejarlo tal cual como un SQL 2000... se espera su ayuda.
Gracias
Hi
"sebastian.cebiche@.gmail.com" wrote:

> Hola, he usado por mucho tiempo SQL server 2000 y windows 2000. Hoy en
> dia migre a SQL server 2005, pero es super distinta la configuracion y
> el proceso de instalacion, quisiera saber si alguien sabe los pasos
> para dejarlo tal cual como un SQL 2000... se espera su ayuda.
> Gracias
>
Hola,
If you run the SQL 2005 upgrade advisor it will tell you what you need to be
changed when you upgrade.
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?displaylang=es&FamilyID=1470E86B-7E05-4322-A677-95AB44F12D75
You should test the upgrade before migrating any live system so any issues
with your database/application can be rectified before the live upgrade.
Doing this will also help you get familiar with SQL Server Management Studio
(SSMS) and SQL Server Surface Area Configuration (SAC) and SQL Server
Configuration Manager (SCM). You can still use Query Analyser to run queries
against a SQL 2005 system.
You may want to post in microsoft.public.es.sqlserver
And from Babelfish:
Si usted funciona a consejero de la mejora del SQL 2005 le dirá lo que usted
necesita ser cambiado cuando usted aumenta.
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?displaylang=es&FamilyID=1470E86B-7E05-4322-A677-95AB44F12D75
Usted debe probar la mejora antes de emigrar sistema vivo asX que cualquier
edición con su database/application se puede rectificar antes de que la
mejora viva. Hacer esto también le ayudará a conseguir familiar con la
configuración del área superficial del estudio de la gerencia del servidor
del SQL (SSMS) y del servidor del SQL (SACO) y el encargado de la
configuración del servidor del SQL (SCM). Usted puede todavXa utilizar el
analizador de la pregunta para funcionar preguntas contra un sistema 2005 del
SQL.
Usted puede desear fijar en microsoft.public.es.sqlserver
HTH
John

Configuracion de SQL server 2005

Hola, he usado por mucho tiempo SQL server 2000 y windows 2000. Hoy en
dia migre a SQL server 2005, pero es super distinta la configuracion y
el proceso de instalacion, quisiera saber si alguien sabe los pasos
para dejarlo tal cual como un SQL 2000... se espera su ayuda.
GraciasHi
"sebastian.cebiche@.gmail.com" wrote:
> Hola, he usado por mucho tiempo SQL server 2000 y windows 2000. Hoy en
> dia migre a SQL server 2005, pero es super distinta la configuracion y
> el proceso de instalacion, quisiera saber si alguien sabe los pasos
> para dejarlo tal cual como un SQL 2000... se espera su ayuda.
> Gracias
>
Hola,
If you run the SQL 2005 upgrade advisor it will tell you what you need to be
changed when you upgrade.
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?displaylang=es&FamilyID=1470E86B-7E05-4322-A677-95AB44F12D75
You should test the upgrade before migrating any live system so any issues
with your database/application can be rectified before the live upgrade.
Doing this will also help you get familiar with SQL Server Management Studio
(SSMS) and SQL Server Surface Area Configuration (SAC) and SQL Server
Configuration Manager (SCM). You can still use Query Analyser to run queries
against a SQL 2005 system.
You may want to post in microsoft.public.es.sqlserver
And from Babelfish:
Si usted funciona a consejero de la mejora del SQL 2005 le dirá lo que usted
necesita ser cambiado cuando usted aumenta.
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?displaylang=es&FamilyID=1470E86B-7E05-4322-A677-95AB44F12D75
Usted debe probar la mejora antes de emigrar sistema vivo así que cualquier
edición con su database/application se puede rectificar antes de que la
mejora viva. Hacer esto también le ayudará a conseguir familiar con la
configuración del área superficial del estudio de la gerencia del servidor
del SQL (SSMS) y del servidor del SQL (SACO) y el encargado de la
configuración del servidor del SQL (SCM). Usted puede todavía utilizar el
analizador de la pregunta para funcionar preguntas contra un sistema 2005 del
SQL.
Usted puede desear fijar en microsoft.public.es.sqlserver
HTH
Johnsqlsql

Configuracion de SQL server 2005

Hola, he usado por mucho tiempo SQL server 2000 y windows 2000. Hoy en
dia migre a SQL server 2005, pero es super distinta la configuracion y
el proceso de instalacion, quisiera saber si alguien sabe los pasos
para dejarlo tal cual como un SQL 2000... se espera su ayuda.
GraciasHi
"sebastian.cebiche@.gmail.com" wrote:

> Hola, he usado por mucho tiempo SQL server 2000 y windows 2000. Hoy en
> dia migre a SQL server 2005, pero es super distinta la configuracion y
> el proceso de instalacion, quisiera saber si alguien sabe los pasos
> para dejarlo tal cual como un SQL 2000... se espera su ayuda.
> Gracias
>
Hola,
If you run the SQL 2005 upgrade advisor it will tell you what you need to be
changed when you upgrade.
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...77-95AB44F12D75
You should test the upgrade before migrating any live system so any issues
with your database/application can be rectified before the live upgrade.
Doing this will also help you get familiar with SQL Server Management Studio
(SSMS) and SQL Server Surface Area Configuration (SAC) and SQL Server
Configuration Manager (SCM). You can still use Query Analyser to run queries
against a SQL 2005 system.
You may want to post in microsoft.public.es.sqlserver
And from Babelfish:
Si usted funciona a consejero de la mejora del SQL 2005 le dirá lo que uste
d
necesita ser cambiado cuando usted aumenta.
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...77-95AB44F12D75
Usted debe probar la mejora antes de emigrar sistema vivo as_ que cualquier
edición con su database/application se puede rectificar antes de que la
mejora viva. Hacer esto también le ayudará a conseguir familiar con la
configuración del área superficial del estudio de la gerencia del servidor
del SQL (SSMS) y del servidor del SQL (SACO) y el encargado de la
configuración del servidor del SQL (SCM). Usted puede todav_a utilizar el
analizador de la pregunta para funcionar preguntas contra un sistema 2005 de
l
SQL.
Usted puede desear fijar en microsoft.public.es.sqlserver
HTH
John

Concurrent query optimization

I have a server with Windows 2000, SQL Server 2000, 2 1GHz
processors and 1.5GHz of memory. The users were
complaining of slowness today from tehir web application.
The only message that I found in any of the logs was the
following:
This SQL Server has been optimized for 8 concurrent
queries. This limit has been exceeded by 2 queries and
performance may be adversely affected.
I don't know if this is giving me any info cuz I don't
know what the message means. Is there anywhere (or
anyone) that can explain this to me?This probably means that you are not using Standard Edition or
Enterprise Edition of SQL-Server, but the MSDE or some other version
that cannot be licensed for real production loads.
The statement
SELECT @.@.version
should tell you which edition is installed.
Gert-Jan
Tom Griffin wrote:
> I have a server with Windows 2000, SQL Server 2000, 2 1GHz
> processors and 1.5GHz of memory. The users were
> complaining of slowness today from tehir web application.
> The only message that I found in any of the logs was the
> following:
> This SQL Server has been optimized for 8 concurrent
> queries. This limit has been exceeded by 2 queries and
> performance may be adversely affected.
> I don't know if this is giving me any info cuz I don't
> know what the message means. Is there anywhere (or
> anyone) that can explain this to me?|||Thanks for your reply. You are correct; this server was
installed with SQL Server 2000 Personal Edition. We have
the licensing for the Standard Edition, but apparently it
was not installed properly. Is there a "simple" method to
upgrade to the Standard Edition?
Tom
>--Original Message--
>This probably means that you are not using Standard
Edition or
>Enterprise Edition of SQL-Server, but the MSDE or some
other version
>that cannot be licensed for real production loads.
>The statement
> SELECT @.@.version
>should tell you which edition is installed.
>Gert-Jan
>
>Tom Griffin wrote:
>> I have a server with Windows 2000, SQL Server 2000, 2
1GHz
>> processors and 1.5GHz of memory. The users were
>> complaining of slowness today from tehir web
application.
>> The only message that I found in any of the logs was the
>> following:
>> This SQL Server has been optimized for 8 concurrent
>> queries. This limit has been exceeded by 2 queries and
>> performance may be adversely affected.
>> I don't know if this is giving me any info cuz I don't
>> know what the message means. Is there anywhere (or
>> anyone) that can explain this to me?
>.
>|||See
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?
url=/library/en-us/instsql/in_overview_2xtf.asp
>--Original Message--
>Thanks for your reply. You are correct; this server was
>installed with SQL Server 2000 Personal Edition. We have
>the licensing for the Standard Edition, but apparently it
>was not installed properly. Is there a "simple" method
to
>upgrade to the Standard Edition?
>Tom
>>--Original Message--
>>This probably means that you are not using Standard
>Edition or
>>Enterprise Edition of SQL-Server, but the MSDE or some
>other version
>>that cannot be licensed for real production loads.
>>The statement
>> SELECT @.@.version
>>should tell you which edition is installed.
>>Gert-Jan
>>
>>Tom Griffin wrote:
>> I have a server with Windows 2000, SQL Server 2000, 2
>1GHz
>> processors and 1.5GHz of memory. The users were
>> complaining of slowness today from tehir web
>application.
>> The only message that I found in any of the logs was
the
>> following:
>> This SQL Server has been optimized for 8 concurrent
>> queries. This limit has been exceeded by 2 queries and
>> performance may be adversely affected.
>> I don't know if this is giving me any info cuz I don't
>> know what the message means. Is there anywhere (or
>> anyone) that can explain this to me?
>>.
>.
>