MSDTC and Win2K3: March 2012

Friday, March 30, 2012

MSSQL 2000: How can we track table/sp/function changes?

My company would like to start keeping track of everytime a table, stored procedure, or function is changed.
What is the best way to do this?Option 1)
Create a database for storing metadata on all the other databases. Nightly, run a query that loops across all database and records all the objects along with their checksum values, and notes any objects who's checksum value has changed.

Option 2)
Upgrade to SQL Server 2005 and create database triggers to log changes to objects.|||sourcegears vault, visual sourcesafe. nothing makes it into our software\database builds that is not in our sourcecode management software.|||Revoke sysadmin/DBO rights from everyone but the DBAs.|||As suggested you cna take help of Visual Sourcesafe or PVCS in order to take care of object changes.

mssql 2000 v/s raid 5ee

Hallo all
I know mssql2000 v/s raid 5 is dont work (very slowly). Who knows if i
install mssql 2000 on raid 5ee (win 2003server standard) i will have
better performance or not ? I know the best performance is no raid 10
but i dont have.
Hi,
The performance depends up on the volume of data and amount of access. Take
a look into the below URL .
http://www-03.ibm.com/support/techdo...Index/WP100350
Thanks
Hari
<ebolasty@.op.pl> wrote in message
news:1160926718.834857.267660@.k70g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> Hallo all
> I know mssql2000 v/s raid 5 is dont work (very slowly). Who knows if i
> install mssql 2000 on raid 5ee (win 2003server standard) i will have
> better performance or not ? I know the best performance is no raid 10
> but i dont have.
>
sql

mssql 2000 v/s raid 5ee

Hallo all
I know mssql2000 v/s raid 5 is dont work (very slowly). Who knows if i
install mssql 2000 on raid 5ee (win 2003server standard) i will have
better performance or not ? I know the best performance is no raid 10
but i dont have.Hi,
The performance depends up on the volume of data and amount of access. Take
a look into the below URL .
http://www-03.ibm.com/support/techd...bIndex/WP100350
Thanks
Hari
<ebolasty@.op.pl> wrote in message
news:1160926718.834857.267660@.k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Hallo all
> I know mssql2000 v/s raid 5 is dont work (very slowly). Who knows if i
> install mssql 2000 on raid 5ee (win 2003server standard) i will have
> better performance or not ? I know the best performance is no raid 10
> but i dont have.
>

mssql 2000 v/s raid 5ee

Hallo all
I know mssql2000 v/s raid 5 is dont work (very slowly). Who knows if i
install mssql 2000 on raid 5ee (win 2003server standard) i will have
better performance or not ? I know the best performance is no raid 10
but i dont have.Hi,
The performance depends up on the volume of data and amount of access. Take
a look into the below URL .
http://www-03.ibm.com/support/techdocs/atsmastr.nsf/WebIndex/WP100350
Thanks
Hari
<ebolasty@.op.pl> wrote in message
news:1160926718.834857.267660@.k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Hallo all
> I know mssql2000 v/s raid 5 is dont work (very slowly). Who knows if i
> install mssql 2000 on raid 5ee (win 2003server standard) i will have
> better performance or not ? I know the best performance is no raid 10
> but i dont have.
>

mssql 2000 update from select

I am trying to update a table from a select statement, any suggestions?

update (select column1 from table1)
set column2 = 'value'

The data in column1 contains the name of the table I want to update column2 with the 'value'.

I'm am pretty sure the syntax is in correct along with the structure. The error...

Server: Msg 170, Level 15, State 1, Line 2
Line 2: Incorrect syntax near '('.
Server: Msg 170, Level 15, State 1, Line 3
Line 3: Incorrect syntax near '='.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tdority

I am trying to update a table from a select statement, any suggestions?

update (select column1 from table1)
set column2 = 'value'

The data in column1 contains the name of the table I want to update column2 with the 'value'.

I'm am pretty sure the syntax is in correct along with the structure. The error...

Server: Msg 170, Level 15, State 1, Line 2
Line 2: Incorrect syntax near '('.
Server: Msg 170, Level 15, State 1, Line 3
Line 3: Incorrect syntax near '='.

nope, the syntax is not correct. in this case you have to build the string for the entire update command..

set @.sqlcmd = 'update ..."

exec (@.sqlcmd)|||Please explain how to build.

MS-SQL 2000 Tape/Hardware Support

Hi,
Where can I find a list of supported tape drives by MS-SQL?
For example: DDS, DLT etc.
Thanks
Shiri Tzuk
Shiri Tzuk wrote:
> Hi,
> Where can I find a list of supported tape drives by MS-SQL?
> For example: DDS, DLT etc.
> Thanks
I don't know if such a list exists, but why don't you just backup your
databases to disk? You can then let your backup program backup the files
to tape because now it's just a regular file backup.
Regards
Steen
|||Hello Steen,
Thanks for your reply.
We would like to backup to tape since our customers (that using our product)
request for that feature. We also provide of course the ability to backup to
the network.
The customers also can decide which tape drive and this is why I need to
know if there is a limitation in that area.
Shiri
Shiri Tzuk
"Steen Persson (DK)" wrote:

> Shiri Tzuk wrote:
> I don't know if such a list exists, but why don't you just backup your
> databases to disk? You can then let your backup program backup the files
> to tape because now it's just a regular file backup.
> Regards
> Steen
>

MS-SQL 2000 Tape/Hardware Support

Hi,
Where can I find a list of supported tape drives by MS-SQL?
For example: DDS, DLT etc.
Thanks
--
Shiri TzukShiri Tzuk wrote:
> Hi,
> Where can I find a list of supported tape drives by MS-SQL?
> For example: DDS, DLT etc.
> Thanks
I don't know if such a list exists, but why don't you just backup your
databases to disk? You can then let your backup program backup the files
to tape because now it's just a regular file backup.
Regards
Steen|||Hello Steen,
Thanks for your reply.
We would like to backup to tape since our customers (that using our product)
request for that feature. We also provide of course the ability to backup to
the network.
The customers also can decide which tape drive and this is why I need to
know if there is a limitation in that area.
Shiri
--
Shiri Tzuk
"Steen Persson (DK)" wrote:

> Shiri Tzuk wrote:
> I don't know if such a list exists, but why don't you just backup your
> databases to disk? You can then let your backup program backup the files
> to tape because now it's just a regular file backup.
> Regards
> Steen
>sql

MS-SQL 2000 Tape/Hardware Support

Hi,
Where can I find a list of supported tape drives by MS-SQL?
For example: DDS, DLT etc.
Thanks
--
Shiri TzukShiri Tzuk wrote:
> Hi,
> Where can I find a list of supported tape drives by MS-SQL?
> For example: DDS, DLT etc.
> Thanks
I don't know if such a list exists, but why don't you just backup your
databases to disk? You can then let your backup program backup the files
to tape because now it's just a regular file backup.
Regards
Steen|||Hello Steen,
Thanks for your reply.
We would like to backup to tape since our customers (that using our product)
request for that feature. We also provide of course the ability to backup to
the network.
The customers also can decide which tape drive and this is why I need to
know if there is a limitation in that area.
Shiri
--
Shiri Tzuk
"Steen Persson (DK)" wrote:
> Shiri Tzuk wrote:
> > Hi,
> > Where can I find a list of supported tape drives by MS-SQL?
> > For example: DDS, DLT etc.
> > Thanks
> I don't know if such a list exists, but why don't you just backup your
> databases to disk? You can then let your backup program backup the files
> to tape because now it's just a regular file backup.
> Regards
> Steen
>

MSSQL 2000 Standard Edition not utilizing Maximum Memory!

Hi All
Can anybody tell me why Memory is not utilized by MSSQL Service. The Environment as follows..
It is an Critical Web based Application with SQL 2000 Standard Edition + SP3 as backend
OS: Win 2000 Advanced Server + 3GB Memory + 2 CP
MSSQL Memory Configured as Dynamic with Maximum Memory has been set as "2 GB". This Server has Replication
Configuration also. During peak time or non-peak time, it always use 1 GB Memory only. Why MSSQL is not taking more than 1 GB, even though server has got 3 GB and database's max. memory configured as 2 GB
In SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition, to utilize more than 2 GB for database, we will give /3GB in boot.ini. Similarly anything should be given for SQL 2000 Standard Edition. Right now, boot.ini doesn't contain this option
Appreciate your help on this
tks in advance
vasuAre you running other applications on the server besides SQL Server? SQL
Server will manage memory based on amount of free memory available.
Consequently, if other apps running on the same box (e.g. IIS) consume
significant amounts of memory, SQL Server won't acquire additional memory
because this would negatively impact performance.
--
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"vasum" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E2239F3D-53B5-4DA7-B7AC-280DC8B54ED7@.microsoft.com...
> Hi All,
> Can anybody tell me why Memory is not utilized by MSSQL Service. The
Environment as follows...
> It is an Critical Web based Application with SQL 2000 Standard Edition +
SP3 as backend .
> OS: Win 2000 Advanced Server + 3GB Memory + 2 CPU
> MSSQL Memory Configured as Dynamic with Maximum Memory has been set as "2
GB". This Server has Replication
> Configuration also. During peak time or non-peak time, it always use 1 GB
Memory only. Why MSSQL is not taking more than 1 GB, even though server has
got 3 GB and database's max. memory configured as 2 GB.
> In SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition, to utilize more than 2 GB for database, we
will give /3GB in boot.ini. Similarly anything should be given for SQL 2000
Standard Edition. Right now, boot.ini doesn't contain this option.
> Appreciate your help on this.
> tks in advance,
> vasum
>|||Verify if your application is I/O bound or Memory Bound '
If your cpu utilization is fixed at 100%, then you should worry about
Memory.
Most of the performance problems in databases usually come from locks,
blocking, lot of IO read/writes, etc.
Check http://www.sql-server-performance.com/ for various ways to measure SQL
Server Performance.
Amol.
"vasum" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E2239F3D-53B5-4DA7-B7AC-280DC8B54ED7@.microsoft.com...
> Hi All,
> Can anybody tell me why Memory is not utilized by MSSQL Service. The
Environment as follows...
> It is an Critical Web based Application with SQL 2000 Standard Edition +
SP3 as backend .
> OS: Win 2000 Advanced Server + 3GB Memory + 2 CPU
> MSSQL Memory Configured as Dynamic with Maximum Memory has been set as "2
GB". This Server has Replication
> Configuration also. During peak time or non-peak time, it always use 1 GB
Memory only. Why MSSQL is not taking more than 1 GB, even though server has
got 3 GB and database's max. memory configured as 2 GB.
> In SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition, to utilize more than 2 GB for database, we
will give /3GB in boot.ini. Similarly anything should be given for SQL 2000
Standard Edition. Right now, boot.ini doesn't contain this option.
> Appreciate your help on this.
> tks in advance,
> vasum
>

MSSQL 2000 Standard Edition not utilizing Maximum Memory!

Hi All,
Can anybody tell me why Memory is not utilized by MSSQL Service. The Environment as follows...
It is an Critical Web based Application with SQL 2000 Standard Edition + SP3 as backend .
OS: Win 2000 Advanced Server + 3GB Memory + 2 CPU
MSSQL Memory Configured as Dynamic with Maximum Memory has been set as "2 GB". This Server has Replication
Configuration also. During peak time or non-peak time, it always use 1 GB Memory only. Why MSSQL is not taking more than 1 GB, even though server has got 3 GB and database's max. memory configured as 2 GB.
In SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition, to utilize more than 2 GB for database, we will give /3GB in boot.ini. Similarly anything should be given for SQL 2000 Standard Edition. Right now, boot.ini doesn't contain this option.
Appreciate your help on this.
tks in advance,
vasum
Are you running other applications on the server besides SQL Server? SQL
Server will manage memory based on amount of free memory available.
Consequently, if other apps running on the same box (e.g. IIS) consume
significant amounts of memory, SQL Server won't acquire additional memory
because this would negatively impact performance.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"vasum" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E2239F3D-53B5-4DA7-B7AC-280DC8B54ED7@.microsoft.com...
> Hi All,
> Can anybody tell me why Memory is not utilized by MSSQL Service. The
Environment as follows...
> It is an Critical Web based Application with SQL 2000 Standard Edition +
SP3 as backend .
> OS: Win 2000 Advanced Server + 3GB Memory + 2 CPU
> MSSQL Memory Configured as Dynamic with Maximum Memory has been set as "2
GB". This Server has Replication
> Configuration also. During peak time or non-peak time, it always use 1 GB
Memory only. Why MSSQL is not taking more than 1 GB, even though server has
got 3 GB and database's max. memory configured as 2 GB.
> In SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition, to utilize more than 2 GB for database, we
will give /3GB in boot.ini. Similarly anything should be given for SQL 2000
Standard Edition. Right now, boot.ini doesn't contain this option.
> Appreciate your help on this.
> tks in advance,
> vasum
>
|||Verify if your application is I/O bound or Memory Bound ?
If your cpu utilization is fixed at 100%, then you should worry about
Memory.
Most of the performance problems in databases usually come from locks,
blocking, lot of IO read/writes, etc.
Check http://www.sql-server-performance.com/ for various ways to measure SQL
Server Performance.
Amol.
"vasum" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E2239F3D-53B5-4DA7-B7AC-280DC8B54ED7@.microsoft.com...
> Hi All,
> Can anybody tell me why Memory is not utilized by MSSQL Service. The
Environment as follows...
> It is an Critical Web based Application with SQL 2000 Standard Edition +
SP3 as backend .
> OS: Win 2000 Advanced Server + 3GB Memory + 2 CPU
> MSSQL Memory Configured as Dynamic with Maximum Memory has been set as "2
GB". This Server has Replication
> Configuration also. During peak time or non-peak time, it always use 1 GB
Memory only. Why MSSQL is not taking more than 1 GB, even though server has
got 3 GB and database's max. memory configured as 2 GB.
> In SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition, to utilize more than 2 GB for database, we
will give /3GB in boot.ini. Similarly anything should be given for SQL 2000
Standard Edition. Right now, boot.ini doesn't contain this option.
> Appreciate your help on this.
> tks in advance,
> vasum
>

MSSQL 2000 Standard Edition not utilizing Maximum Memory!

Hi All,
Can anybody tell me why Memory is not utilized by MSSQL Service. The Environ
ment as follows...
It is an Critical Web based Application with SQL 2000 Standard Edition + SP3
as backend .
OS: Win 2000 Advanced Server + 3GB Memory + 2 CPU
MSSQL Memory Configured as Dynamic with Maximum Memory has been set as "2 GB
". This Server has Replication
Configuration also. During peak time or non-peak time, it always use 1 GB Me
mory only. Why MSSQL is not taking more than 1 GB, even though server has go
t 3 GB and database's max. memory configured as 2 GB.
In SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition, to utilize more than 2 GB for database, we w
ill give /3GB in boot.ini. Similarly anything should be given for SQL 2000 S
tandard Edition. Right now, boot.ini doesn't contain this option.
Appreciate your help on this.
tks in advance,
vasumAre you running other applications on the server besides SQL Server? SQL
Server will manage memory based on amount of free memory available.
Consequently, if other apps running on the same box (e.g. IIS) consume
significant amounts of memory, SQL Server won't acquire additional memory
because this would negatively impact performance.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"vasum" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E2239F3D-53B5-4DA7-B7AC-280DC8B54ED7@.microsoft.com...
> Hi All,
> Can anybody tell me why Memory is not utilized by MSSQL Service. The
Environment as follows...
> It is an Critical Web based Application with SQL 2000 Standard Edition +
SP3 as backend .
> OS: Win 2000 Advanced Server + 3GB Memory + 2 CPU
> MSSQL Memory Configured as Dynamic with Maximum Memory has been set as "2
GB". This Server has Replication
> Configuration also. During peak time or non-peak time, it always use 1 GB
Memory only. Why MSSQL is not taking more than 1 GB, even though server has
got 3 GB and database's max. memory configured as 2 GB.
> In SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition, to utilize more than 2 GB for database, we
will give /3GB in boot.ini. Similarly anything should be given for SQL 2000
Standard Edition. Right now, boot.ini doesn't contain this option.
> Appreciate your help on this.
> tks in advance,
> vasum
>|||Verify if your application is I/O bound or Memory Bound '
If your cpu utilization is fixed at 100%, then you should worry about
Memory.
Most of the performance problems in databases usually come from locks,
blocking, lot of IO read/writes, etc.
Check http://www.sql-server-performance.com/ for various ways to measure SQL
Server Performance.
Amol.
"vasum" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E2239F3D-53B5-4DA7-B7AC-280DC8B54ED7@.microsoft.com...
> Hi All,
> Can anybody tell me why Memory is not utilized by MSSQL Service. The
Environment as follows...
> It is an Critical Web based Application with SQL 2000 Standard Edition +
SP3 as backend .
> OS: Win 2000 Advanced Server + 3GB Memory + 2 CPU
> MSSQL Memory Configured as Dynamic with Maximum Memory has been set as "2
GB". This Server has Replication
> Configuration also. During peak time or non-peak time, it always use 1 GB
Memory only. Why MSSQL is not taking more than 1 GB, even though server has
got 3 GB and database's max. memory configured as 2 GB.
> In SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition, to utilize more than 2 GB for database, we
will give /3GB in boot.ini. Similarly anything should be given for SQL 2000
Standard Edition. Right now, boot.ini doesn't contain this option.
> Appreciate your help on this.
> tks in advance,
> vasum
>

MSSQL 2000 SSL Snapshot problem

Currently I am running 2 MSSQL SQL 2000 Enterprise servers running on Win2k3
utilizing SSL via "force protocol encryption". The systems are running fine
with the exception of Snapshots and/or DTS packages that write to the local
disk. When trying to get a snapshot to run for the local machine I recieve
the following error:
General network error. Check your network documentation.
(Source: SERVER (Data source); Error number: 11)
If I turn off "force protocol encryption" the snapshot works just fine.
I suspect the replication binaries do not support SSL. You should contact MS
(PSS) for further clarification on how to configure this.
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"PSchultz" <PSchultz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A6ECD0B1-87BD-4D41-9A80-48E26BAA155A@.microsoft.com...
> Currently I am running 2 MSSQL SQL 2000 Enterprise servers running on
> Win2k3
> utilizing SSL via "force protocol encryption". The systems are running
> fine
> with the exception of Snapshots and/or DTS packages that write to the
> local
> disk. When trying to get a snapshot to run for the local machine I
> recieve
> the following error:
> General network error. Check your network documentation.
> (Source: SERVER (Data source); Error number: 11)
> If I turn off "force protocol encryption" the snapshot works just fine.
>
|||Some tables will successfully produce a snapshot, however, it is quite hit or
miss so I believe that the binaries do support SSL. I've also looked into it
being a possible issue with a timeout, however, that isn't the root cause as
the error occurs within seconds of the snapshot starting
"Hilary Cotter" wrote:

> I suspect the replication binaries do not support SSL. You should contact MS
> (PSS) for further clarification on how to configure this.
> --
> Hilary Cotter
> Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
> Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
> http://www.indexserverfaq.com
>
> "PSchultz" <PSchultz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:A6ECD0B1-87BD-4D41-9A80-48E26BAA155A@.microsoft.com...
>
>
sql

MSSQL 2000 SP4 Memory Leak

Greetings all!

On one of our intranet SQL servers running under Windows 2000 SP 3,
MSsql 2000 SP4 seems to gradually "eat" away all available memory (with no obvious reason for it) until a certain limit is reached, forcing the server to slow down substantially since the OS has to SWAP continuously.

I would appreciate any suggestions at this point on how to tackle this problem :)

Thank you!
VincentJSThat is the nature of SQL Server. By default, it will continue to claim available memory that is not being used by applications. It's not a memory leak. Most of this memory is used for data cache, which greatly improves performance. You want SQL Server to have plenty of memory. But you can limit this amout if you view the server properties in enterprise manager.

Bill|||if you can afford it, you should have your web and database servers on different machines. I believe you can limit the amount memory sql server consums with the max server memory option in sp_configure but I have never used it

MS-SQL 2000 SP2

I have a client that has noticed a "slowness in reads" during a performance
benchmark. They mentioned something about a MS-SQL "fix" to improve read
performance. Is there such a fix or patch? I know this is real vague but
it's all the information I have.All publicly available "fixes" are available through the service packs.
Microsoft Support may issue individual patches for specific problems to
resolve support cases, however these are only available after opening a case
with tech support or by specific reference in certain knowledgebase
articles. Without knowing exactly what "fix" your client is referencing,
its hard to provide additional information. I'd double check with them to
get some additional details.
--
--Brian
(Please reply to the newsgroups only.)
"Jo Ratner" <jo_ratner@.NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:riURb.466$jH6.359@.newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>I have a client that has noticed a "slowness in reads" during a performance
> benchmark. They mentioned something about a MS-SQL "fix" to improve read
> performance. Is there such a fix or patch? I know this is real vague but
> it's all the information I have.
>|||Hi
Although I dont know of any "fix" there are alot of things you can do to
improve reads.. ranging from changing SQL, adding/updating
indexes/statistics to additional hardware or a change of O/S. Windows 2003
has a improved file system that in turn improves SQL Server performance. It
could even be the way the tests are being run.
Without analysing the problem you may not know exacly where the problem(s)
may occur.
The latest service pack is 3a, and, as this contains several security fixes
it would be sensible to use this. It would be reasonable to assume any
system being implemented would be atleast at this level, a system on Service
pack 2 may not be representative.
John
"Jo Ratner" <jo_ratner@.NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:riURb.466$jH6.359@.newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> I have a client that has noticed a "slowness in reads" during a
performance
> benchmark. They mentioned something about a MS-SQL "fix" to improve read
> performance. Is there such a fix or patch? I know this is real vague but
> it's all the information I have.
>|||It was an invalid benchmark test...
Thanks!
"John Bell" <jbellnewsposts@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bvft13$cal$1@.sparta.btinternet.com...
> Hi
> Although I dont know of any "fix" there are alot of things you can do to
> improve reads.. ranging from changing SQL, adding/updating
> indexes/statistics to additional hardware or a change of O/S. Windows 2003
> has a improved file system that in turn improves SQL Server performance.
It
> could even be the way the tests are being run.
> Without analysing the problem you may not know exacly where the problem(s)
> may occur.
> The latest service pack is 3a, and, as this contains several security
fixes
> it would be sensible to use this. It would be reasonable to assume any
> system being implemented would be atleast at this level, a system on
Service
> pack 2 may not be representative.
> John
> "Jo Ratner" <jo_ratner@.NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:riURb.466$jH6.359@.newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> > I have a client that has noticed a "slowness in reads" during a
> performance
> > benchmark. They mentioned something about a MS-SQL "fix" to improve
read
> > performance. Is there such a fix or patch? I know this is real vague
but
> > it's all the information I have.
> >
> >
>

MS-SQL 2000 SP2

quote:

>I have a client that has noticed a "slowness in reads" during a performance
> benchmark. They mentioned something about a MS-SQL "fix" to improve read
> performance. Is there such a fix or patch? I know this is real vague but
> it's all the information I have.
>

|||Hi
Although I dont know of any "fix" there are alot of things you can do to
improve reads.. ranging from changing SQL, adding/updating
indexes/statistics to additional hardware or a change of O/S. Windows 2003
has a improved file system that in turn improves SQL Server performance. It
could even be the way the tests are being run.
Without analysing the problem you may not know exacly where the problem(s)
may occur.
The latest service pack is 3a, and, as this contains several security fixes
it would be sensible to use this. It would be reasonable to assume any
system being implemented would be atleast at this level, a system on Service
pack 2 may not be representative.
John
"Jo Ratner" <jo_ratner@.NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:riURb.466$jH6.359@.newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...

quote:

> I have a client that has noticed a "slowness in reads" during a

performance

quote:

> benchmark. They mentioned something about a MS-SQL "fix" to improve read
> performance. Is there such a fix or patch? I know this is real vague but
> it's all the information I have.
>

|||It was an invalid benchmark test...
Thanks!
"John Bell" <jbellnewsposts@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bvft13$cal$1@.sparta.btinternet.com...

quote:

> Hi
> Although I dont know of any "fix" there are alot of things you can do to
> improve reads.. ranging from changing SQL, adding/updating
> indexes/statistics to additional hardware or a change of O/S. Windows 2003
> has a improved file system that in turn improves SQL Server performance.

quote:

> could even be the way the tests are being run.
> Without analysing the problem you may not know exacly where the problem(s)
> may occur.
> The latest service pack is 3a, and, as this contains several security

fixes

quote:

> it would be sensible to use this. It would be reasonable to assume any
> system being implemented would be atleast at this level, a system on

Service

quote:

> pack 2 may not be representative.
> John
> "Jo Ratner" <jo_ratner@.NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:riURb.466$jH6.359@.newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> performance
read[QUOTE]
but[QUOTE]
>

MSSQL 2000 Server vulnerability using SQL Server Management Studio

When using SQL 2005 Management Studio Express, you can backup your database to anywhere on the local MSSQL 2000 server, which includes possibly overwriting critical system files. Users do not have this privilege when using Enterprise Manager to backup MSSQL 2000 databases. It appears that SQL 2005 Management Studio is allowing users to execute the extended stored procedure 'xp_availablemedia', but on MSSQL 2000 server only?

This vulnerability appears to allow any user logged into to the MSSQL 2000 server using SQL 2005 Management Studio Express, permission to overwrite any critical system file, when attempting to backup a database. This would be duplicated by logging into the server as a public user, right clicking on database -> tasks -> Back Up -> then 'Add' a new destination directory.

We would like to find out what is the cause of this, as it does not make sense since Enterprise Manger does not show this vulnerability when backing up. How can security be tightened to disallow this access?

Thank you

Have you checked the privilege for that user who has performed this action?

I believe the NetworkService account used by SQLExpress service and if builtin\admin has privileges on SQL Server 2000 instance then it is by default.

|||

Note that NT Authority\Network Service is an ordinary, low-privileged account that by default does not have Administrative privileges in the operating system. Running SQL Server as NT Authority\Network Service is a security best practice precisely because it is a low privileged account that can't take over the host operating system even if a user manages to elevate privileges to run as the service. If you set SQL Server 2005 to run as Network Service during setup, setup.exe grants (on behalf of the administrator performing setup) read and write privileges to the %ProgramFiles%\Microsoft SQL Server directory and its subdirectories to Network Service.

Management Studio doesn't perform impersonation, so operations run as the logged in user on the server. File system operations are not allowed by the operating system if the user does not have privileges to perform the operation in the directory, so to see a directory for backup the logged in user has to have permission in Windows to see the directory. If you log in as SA, you are running as the service account and anything the service account can do, you can do as well. This isn't an elevation of privileges in the classic sense, it is just exposing the power that sysadmins already have in the server (that is, you are not elevating your privileges to be SA if you log in as SA in the first place). For this reason, it is a good idea to perform most maintenance with a lower privilege account, in this case perhaps one that is a member of just the db_backupoperator role in the database.

To tighten up security, run your server as a low-privileged account, grant that account read and write privileges only in a restricted set of directories (that must include the SQL Server binaries and data files), create special logins for common maintenance tasks that only have sufficient privileges to perform those tasks, and avoid logging in as a member of the Administrators group in Windows or as SA in SQL Server.

Hope this helps,
Steve

mssql 2000 server migration

do anyone know how to migrate a mssql 2000 server (running windows 2003) to
another server which is running windows 2003 also, what are the procedures
to do so?
ok thanks
Generally you would install SQL in the same location on server 2 as you did in server 1. ShutDown SQL on both servers and copy of the data directory that contains your mdf and ldf files to the same location on Server2.
This is a very generic answer of course. If you need to change locations and such then it would be more complex.
Make sure that you have the service packs installed also.
Jeff
MCDBA, MCSE+I
sql

mssql 2000 server migration

do anyone know how to migrate a mssql 2000 server (running windows 2003) to
another server which is running windows 2003 also, what are the procedures
to do so?
ok thanksGenerally you would install SQL in the same location on server 2 as you did
in server 1. ShutDown SQL on both servers and copy of the data directory th
at contains your mdf and ldf files to the same location on Server2.
This is a very generic answer of course. If you need to change locations an
d such then it would be more complex.
Make sure that you have the service packs installed also.
Jeff
MCDBA, MCSE+I

MSSQL 2000 Restore - can I roll back Transaction Logs

Not sure if this is possible, but a client wants to now if we can use a
backup we made on 2/24
and then pull transaction out of the database using the daily
transaction log backups to get the database to be an effective copy of
what it looked like on 2/13/06.
We have all the daily transaction logs up to today and the 2/24/06 is
the latest backup we have.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
RegardsNo. You need a full backup as a starting point BEFORE the desired target
date. Transaction logs are write-ahead, I.E. they log new data, not old.
Logs can thus be rolled forward but not backwards.
--
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
<raekwon2112@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1143669384.250415.233980@.z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Not sure if this is possible, but a client wants to now if we can use a
> backup we made on 2/24
> and then pull transaction out of the database using the daily
> transaction log backups to get the database to be an effective copy of
> what it looked like on 2/13/06.
> We have all the daily transaction logs up to today and the 2/24/06 is
> the latest backup we have.
> Any help would be greatly appreciated.
> Regards
>|||Technical correction for the fussy. The logs do contain roll-back
information, but the restore/recovery process is a forward-only one.
--
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Geoff N. Hiten" <SQLCraftsman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:upWIc03UGHA.1572@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> No. You need a full backup as a starting point BEFORE the desired target
> date. Transaction logs are write-ahead, I.E. they log new data, not old.
> Logs can thus be rolled forward but not backwards.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>
> <raekwon2112@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1143669384.250415.233980@.z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> Not sure if this is possible, but a client wants to now if we can use a
>> backup we made on 2/24
>> and then pull transaction out of the database using the daily
>> transaction log backups to get the database to be an effective copy of
>> what it looked like on 2/13/06.
>> We have all the daily transaction logs up to today and the 2/24/06 is
>> the latest backup we have.
>> Any help would be greatly appreciated.
>> Regards
>|||<raekwon2112@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1143669384.250415.233980@.z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Not sure if this is possible, but a client wants to now if we can use a
> backup we made on 2/24
> and then pull transaction out of the database using the daily
> transaction log backups to get the database to be an effective copy of
> what it looked like on 2/13/06.
> We have all the daily transaction logs up to today and the 2/24/06 is
> the latest backup we have.
> Any help would be greatly appreciated.
> Regards
>
See the topic "How to Restore to a Point In Time" in Books Online.
You need to restore the latest full backup dated BEFORE 2/13/06 with NO
RECOVERY option, followed by the sequence of transaction log backups
covering that date.
--
David Portas, SQL Server MVP
Whenever possible please post enough code to reproduce your problem.
Including CREATE TABLE and INSERT statements usually helps.
State what version of SQL Server you are using and specify the content
of any error messages.
SQL Server Books Online:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/library/ms130214(en-US,SQL.90).aspx
--

MSSQL 2000 Restore - can I roll back Transaction Logs

Not sure if this is possible, but a client wants to now if we can use a
backup we made on 2/24
and then pull transaction out of the database using the daily
transaction log backups to get the database to be an effective copy of
what it looked like on 2/13/06.
We have all the daily transaction logs up to today and the 2/24/06 is
the latest backup we have.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Regards
No. You need a full backup as a starting point BEFORE the desired target
date. Transaction logs are write-ahead, I.E. they log new data, not old.
Logs can thus be rolled forward but not backwards.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
<raekwon2112@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1143669384.250415.233980@.z34g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
> Not sure if this is possible, but a client wants to now if we can use a
> backup we made on 2/24
> and then pull transaction out of the database using the daily
> transaction log backups to get the database to be an effective copy of
> what it looked like on 2/13/06.
> We have all the daily transaction logs up to today and the 2/24/06 is
> the latest backup we have.
> Any help would be greatly appreciated.
> Regards
>
|||Technical correction for the fussy. The logs do contain roll-back
information, but the restore/recovery process is a forward-only one.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Geoff N. Hiten" <SQLCraftsman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:upWIc03UGHA.1572@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> No. You need a full backup as a starting point BEFORE the desired target
> date. Transaction logs are write-ahead, I.E. they log new data, not old.
> Logs can thus be rolled forward but not backwards.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>
> <raekwon2112@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1143669384.250415.233980@.z34g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
>
|||<raekwon2112@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1143669384.250415.233980@.z34g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
> Not sure if this is possible, but a client wants to now if we can use a
> backup we made on 2/24
> and then pull transaction out of the database using the daily
> transaction log backups to get the database to be an effective copy of
> what it looked like on 2/13/06.
> We have all the daily transaction logs up to today and the 2/24/06 is
> the latest backup we have.
> Any help would be greatly appreciated.
> Regards
>
See the topic "How to Restore to a Point In Time" in Books Online.
You need to restore the latest full backup dated BEFORE 2/13/06 with NO
RECOVERY option, followed by the sequence of transaction log backups
covering that date.
David Portas, SQL Server MVP
Whenever possible please post enough code to reproduce your problem.
Including CREATE TABLE and INSERT statements usually helps.
State what version of SQL Server you are using and specify the content
of any error messages.
SQL Server Books Online:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/library/ms130214(en-US,SQL.90).aspx

MSSQL 2000 Restore - can I roll back Transaction Logs

Not sure if this is possible, but a client wants to now if we can use a
backup we made on 2/24
and then pull transaction out of the database using the daily
transaction log backups to get the database to be an effective copy of
what it looked like on 2/13/06.
We have all the daily transaction logs up to today and the 2/24/06 is
the latest backup we have.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
RegardsNo. You need a full backup as a starting point BEFORE the desired target
date. Transaction logs are write-ahead, I.E. they log new data, not old.
Logs can thus be rolled forward but not backwards.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
<raekwon2112@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1143669384.250415.233980@.z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Not sure if this is possible, but a client wants to now if we can use a
> backup we made on 2/24
> and then pull transaction out of the database using the daily
> transaction log backups to get the database to be an effective copy of
> what it looked like on 2/13/06.
> We have all the daily transaction logs up to today and the 2/24/06 is
> the latest backup we have.
> Any help would be greatly appreciated.
> Regards
>|||Technical correction for the fussy. The logs do contain roll-back
information, but the restore/recovery process is a forward-only one.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Geoff N. Hiten" <SQLCraftsman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:upWIc03UGHA.1572@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> No. You need a full backup as a starting point BEFORE the desired target
> date. Transaction logs are write-ahead, I.E. they log new data, not old.
> Logs can thus be rolled forward but not backwards.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>
> <raekwon2112@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1143669384.250415.233980@.z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>|||<raekwon2112@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1143669384.250415.233980@.z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Not sure if this is possible, but a client wants to now if we can use a
> backup we made on 2/24
> and then pull transaction out of the database using the daily
> transaction log backups to get the database to be an effective copy of
> what it looked like on 2/13/06.
> We have all the daily transaction logs up to today and the 2/24/06 is
> the latest backup we have.
> Any help would be greatly appreciated.
> Regards
>
See the topic "How to Restore to a Point In Time" in Books Online.
You need to restore the latest full backup dated BEFORE 2/13/06 with NO
RECOVERY option, followed by the sequence of transaction log backups
covering that date.
David Portas, SQL Server MVP
Whenever possible please post enough code to reproduce your problem.
Including CREATE TABLE and INSERT statements usually helps.
State what version of SQL Server you are using and specify the content
of any error messages.
SQL Server Books Online:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/library/ms130214(en-US,SQL.90).aspx
--

MSSQL 2000 on top of MSDE 2000?

Hi,
How does one install MSSQL 2000 on a machine that's already running MSDE 2000? Do i need to unintstall MSDE, or both can be installed seperately??
Is there a way to simply upgrade MSDE into MSSQL 2000?
Thanks!Its easy to upgrade from MSDE to SQL Server, review information from books online from the topic 'How to perform an edition upgrade within SQL Server 2000'sql

MSSQL 2000 on Novell NetWare 5.1

Can we install and use MSSQL 2000 server on a Novell Netware 5.1 Server/Network?RE:
Q1 Can we install and use MSSQL 2000 server on a Novell Netware 5.1 Server/Network?
A1 As long as you are still installing Sql Server on a Windows OS host, using compatible protocols, standard logins, and that is all your application requires, that sort of use should generally be possible and not be all that complex to implement. However, integrating authentication capabilities (in a manner similar to what may be done in a Windows OS domain) is not necessarily always possible (at least, not nearly as easily implemented, and quite possibly not to the same extent, either).

MSSQL 2000 on Cluster Server --> ERROR

Dear
we have a problem when installing MSSQL 2000 on a MS Windows Advanced Server in Cluster
We have a node 1 and a node 2 correct configured
so thats not the problem.
what we did prior to install MSSQL
We did run " comclust " on node 1 ( dos box is open on node 1 ), then we go to node 2 and run " comclust ", we close the dos box on node 2, and then the dos box on node
then we entered the cd in de cd-rom drive from node 1
and we pushed setup.bat
then we configured and aswered all questions correctly.
Also the SQL login name has " domain admin rights "
then we get the message " installing blah blah ... this will take a few minutes "
then after a few minutes we get a message with an error " ERROR: 15457; SEVERITY 0; State 0. "
and installation stops.
I have searched the internet and a thousend message boards about this problem, but non where succesful.
They are saying that this is not an error message but an informational message ...
And that it can be fixed due running reconfigure command in the query annalyzer.
But we can't connect to the sql due no service installed !!
is there someone who can help with this problem.
I really cant see a sollution for this problem.

log:

2003-10-07 15:50:05.13 server SQL server listening on TCP, Shared Memory, Named Pipes.
2003-10-07 15:50:05.13 server SQL server listening on 192.168.0.1:1433, 10.2.101.15:1433, 10.2.101.17:1433, 127.0.0.1:1433.
2003-10-07 15:50:05.14 server SQL Server is ready for client connections
2003-10-07 15:50:05.16 spid5 Starting up database 'tempdb'.
2003-10-07 15:50:05.19 spid4 Warning ******************
2003-10-07 15:50:05.19 spid4 Attempting to change default collation to Latin1_General_CS_AS.
2003-10-07 15:50:07.50 spid4 Clustered index restored for master.sysdatabases.
2003-10-07 15:50:07.53 spid4 Non-clustered index restored for master.sysobjects.
2003-10-07 15:50:07.55 spid4 Non-clustered index restored for master.sysobjects.
2003-10-07 15:50:07.57 spid4 index restored for master.syscolumns.
2003-10-07 15:50:07.58 spid4 index restored for master.systypes.
2003-10-07 15:50:07.58 spid4 index restored for master.sysusers.
2003-10-07 15:50:07.75 spid4 index restored for master.sysproperties.
2003-10-07 15:50:07.75 spid4 index restored for master.sysfulltextcatalogs.
2003-10-07 15:50:07.78 spid4 index restored for master.sysxlogins.
2003-10-07 15:50:07.85 spid4 index restored for master.sysdevices.
2003-10-07 15:50:07.86 spid4 index restored for master.sysservers.
2003-10-07 15:50:07.88 spid4 index restored for master.syslanguages.
2003-10-07 15:50:07.89 spid4 index restored for master.syscharsets.
2003-10-07 15:50:07.89 spid4 index restored for master.sysfilegroups.
2003-10-07 15:50:08.97 spid4 index restored for master.spt_values.
2003-10-07 15:50:08.97 spid4 index restored for master.spt_datatype_info_ext.
2003-10-07 15:50:08.97 spid4 index restored for master.MSreplication_options.
2003-10-07 15:50:08.99 spid4 index restored for master.spt_datatype_info.
2003-10-07 15:50:09.02 spid4 Non-clustered index restored for tempdb.sysobjects.
2003-10-07 15:50:09.02 spid4 Non-clustered index restored for tempdb.sysobjects.
2003-10-07 15:50:09.02 spid4 index restored for tempdb.syscolumns.
2003-10-07 15:50:09.02 spid4 index restored for tempdb.systypes.
2003-10-07 15:50:09.02 spid4 index restored for tempdb.sysusers.
2003-10-07 15:50:09.03 spid4 index restored for tempdb.sysproperties.
2003-10-07 15:50:09.03 spid4 index restored for tempdb.sysfulltextcatalogs.
2003-10-07 15:50:09.03 spid4 index restored for tempdb.sysfilegroups.
2003-10-07 15:50:09.05 spid4 Non-clustered index restored for model.sysobjects.
2003-10-07 15:50:09.05 spid4 Non-clustered index restored for model.sysobjects.
2003-10-07 15:50:09.07 spid4 index restored for model.syscolumns.
2003-10-07 15:50:09.07 spid4 index restored for model.systypes.
2003-10-07 15:50:09.08 spid4 index restored for model.sysusers.
2003-10-07 15:50:09.08 spid4 index restored for model.sysproperties.
2003-10-07 15:50:09.10 spid4 index restored for model.sysfulltextcatalogs.
2003-10-07 15:50:09.10 spid4 index restored for model.sysfilegroups.
2003-10-07 15:50:09.27 spid4 Non-clustered index restored for msdb.sysobjects.
2003-10-07 15:50:09.30 spid4 Non-clustered index restored for msdb.sysobjects.
2003-10-07 15:50:09.35 spid4 index restored for msdb.syscolumns.
2003-10-07 15:50:09.35 spid4 index restored for msdb.systypes.
2003-10-07 15:50:09.38 spid4 index restored for msdb.sysusers.
2003-10-07 15:50:09.38 spid4 index restored for msdb.sysproperties.
2003-10-07 15:50:09.38 spid4 index restored for msdb.sysfulltextcatalogs.
2003-10-07 15:50:09.38 spid4 index restored for msdb.sysfilegroups.
2003-10-07 15:50:09.39 spid4 index restored for msdb.sysjobschedules.
2003-10-07 15:50:09.41 spid4 index restored for msdb.syscategories.
2003-10-07 15:50:09.41 spid4 index restored for msdb.systargetservers.
2003-10-07 15:50:09.41 spid4 index restored for msdb.systargetservergroups.
2003-10-07 15:50:09.42 spid4 index restored for msdb.RTblDatabaseVersion.
2003-10-07 15:50:09.44 spid4 index restored for msdb.sysalerts.
2003-10-07 15:50:09.44 spid4 index restored for msdb.sysoperators.
2003-10-07 15:50:09.44 spid4 index restored for msdb.syscachedcredentials.
2003-10-07 15:50:09.47 spid4 index restored for msdb.logmarkhistory.
2003-10-07 15:50:09.53 spid4 index restored for msdb.RTblNamedObj.
2003-10-07 15:50:09.53 spid4 index restored for msdb.sysdtscategories.
2003-10-07 15:50:09.53 spid4 index restored for msdb.sysdbmaintplan_databases.
2003-10-07 15:50:09.53 spid4 index restored for msdb.mswebtasks.
2003-10-07 15:50:09.55 spid4 index restored for msdb.RTblProps.
2003-10-07 15:50:09.55 spid4 index restored for msdb.RTblRelshipProps.
2003-10-07 15:50:09.55 spid4 index restored for msdb.sysdownloadlist.
2003-10-07 15:50:09.57 spid4 index restored for msdb.sysjobs.
2003-10-07 15:50:09.57 spid4 index restored for msdb.sysjobsteps.
2003-10-07 15:50:09.61 spid4 Non-clustered index restored for pubs.sysobjects.
2003-10-07 15:50:09.61 spid4 Non-clustered index restored for pubs.sysobjects.
2003-10-07 15:50:09.63 spid4 index restored for pubs.syscolumns.
2003-10-07 15:50:09.64 spid4 index restored for pubs.systypes.
2003-10-07 15:50:09.64 spid4 index restored for pubs.sysusers.
2003-10-07 15:50:09.64 spid4 index restored for pubs.sysproperties.
2003-10-07 15:50:09.64 spid4 index restored for pubs.sysfulltextcatalogs.
2003-10-07 15:50:09.64 spid4 index restored for pubs.sysfilegroups.
2003-10-07 15:50:09.67 spid4 index restored for pubs.titleauthor.
2003-10-07 15:50:09.69 spid4 index restored for pubs.stores.
2003-10-07 15:50:09.69 spid4 index restored for pubs.sales.
2003-10-07 15:50:09.71 spid4 index restored for pubs.roysched.
2003-10-07 15:50:09.72 spid4 index restored for pubs.pub_info.
2003-10-07 15:50:09.75 spid4 index restored for pubs.employee.
2003-10-07 15:50:09.78 spid4 index restored for pubs.authors.
2003-10-07 15:50:09.78 spid4 index restored for pubs.publishers.
2003-10-07 15:50:09.80 spid4 index restored for pubs.titles.
2003-10-07 15:50:09.85 spid4 Non-clustered index restored for Northwind.sysobjects.
2003-10-07 15:50:09.85 spid4 Non-clustered index restored for Northwind.sysobjects.
2003-10-07 15:50:09.88 spid4 index restored for Northwind.syscolumns.
2003-10-07 15:50:09.88 spid4 index restored for Northwind.systypes.
2003-10-07 15:50:09.88 spid4 index restored for Northwind.sysusers.
2003-10-07 15:50:09.88 spid4 index restored for Northwind.sysproperties.
2003-10-07 15:50:09.88 spid4 index restored for Northwind.sysfulltextcatalogs.
2003-10-07 15:50:09.89 spid4 index restored for Northwind.sysfilegroups.
2003-10-07 15:50:09.94 spid4 index restored for Northwind.Orders.
2003-10-07 15:50:09.94 spid4 index restored for Northwind.Products.
2003-10-07 15:50:09.96 spid4 index restored for Northwind.CustomerCustomerDemo.
2003-10-07 15:50:09.96 spid4 index restored for Northwind.CustomerDemographics.
2003-10-07 15:50:09.96 spid4 index restored for Northwind.Territories.
2003-10-07 15:50:09.96 spid4 index restored for Northwind.EmployeeTerritories.
2003-10-07 15:50:09.97 spid4 index restored for Northwind.Employees.
2003-10-07 15:50:09.97 spid4 index restored for Northwind.Categories.
2003-10-07 15:50:10.00 spid4 index restored for Northwind.Customers.
2003-10-07 15:50:10.02 spid4 index restored for Northwind.Suppliers.
2003-10-07 15:50:10.57 spid4 Default collation successfully changed.
2003-10-07 15:50:10.57 spid4 Recovery complete.
2003-10-07 15:50:10.57 spid4 Warning: override, autoexec procedures skipped.
2003-10-07 15:50:15.94 spid51 Error: 15457, Severity: 0, State: 1
2003-10-07 15:50:15.94 spid51 Configuration option 'allow updates' changed from 0 to 1. Run the RECONFIGURE statement to install..
2003-10-07 15:50:16.02 spid51 Error: 15457, Severity: 0, State: 1
2003-10-07 15:50:16.02 spid51 Configuration option 'allow updates' changed from 1 to 0. Run the RECONFIGURE statement to install..
2003-10-07 15:50:16.13 spid4 SQL Server is terminating due to 'stop' request from Service Control Manager.

Thanks in advance

KurtHowdy

Is it possible the install has completed and the service shutdown is part of that?

Cheers

SG|||ok found the sollution , workaround

on technet : PSS ID 318672
Q318672

hope this helps for other users|||This article was previously published under Q318672
BUG #: 236113 (SHILOH_BUGS)
SYMPTOMS
A Microsoft SQL Server 2000 virtual server set up on multiple nodes may fail with this error message:
Setup failed to perform the required operation on the cluster nodes
The Sqlstp.log file will also contain the following error messages.

NOTE: The Sqlstp.log file is located in the %WINDIR% folder of the node from which you run the Virtual Server Setup program.
CThreadPool::RunUntilCompleteHlpr WaitForMultipleObjects returned: 0
CThreadPool::RunUntilCompleteHlpr signaled thread [0xa4]
Thread [0xa4] exit code: [0x0]
CRemoteProcess::RunUntilComplete [0xa8] exit code: 2
Remote process exit code was '2' (NODE2).
...
...
CThreadPool::RunUntilComplete returned 2
CThreadPool::RunUntilComplete execution level=1, need execution: 0
One or more errors occurred while running the remote/unattended setups.

In the preceding error message, identify the remote node that has a remote process exit code of 2. In the preceding example, the remote node is NODE2. On the remote node, open the Sqlstpn.log file located in the %WINDIR% folder, and look for this error message:
13:50:08 Begin Action: ShowDlgInstanceName
13:50:20 End Action: ShowDlgInstanceName
13:50:20 ShowDlgInstanceName returned : -1
13:50:20 ShowDlgInstanceName: GetLastError returned: 50044
13:50:20 End Action DialogShowSdInstanceName
13:50:20 End Action ShowDialogs
13:50:20 Action CleanUpInstall:
13:50:20 StatsGenerate returned: 2
13:50:20 StatsGenerate (0x0,0x1,0xf00000,0x200,1033,0,0x0,0x1000000a,0,0, 0
13:50:20 StatsGenerate -1,cluster)
13:50:20 Installation Failed.

NOTE: You may receive the error message
Setup failed to perform the required operation on the cluster nodes
for causes other than the one described in this article. The only way to confirm if the error message is caused by the problem described in this article is to check the SQL Server setup logs and to compare the error footprint.
CAUSE
A race condition between the Setup program that is running on the first node (the node on which the Virtual Server set up is initiated) and the Setup programs that are running remotely on the other nodes.

The SQL Server 2000 Virtual Server set up involves a main set up process that starts one unattended installation for every node that is part of the virtual server. If the number of the unattended installations is two, or more, the race condition may occur.

WORKAROUND
Install a single node virtual server by running the Setup program on any node of the cluster. For more information, see the "How to install a one-node failover cluster (Setup)" topic in SQL Server 2000 Books Online.
Add the second node to the virtual server by running the Setup program again on the node you used in step 1. For more information, see the "How to add nodes to an existing virtual server (Setup)" topic in SQL Server 2000 Books Online.
Repeat step 2 for any number of nodes that you want to add to the virtual server.
STATUS
Microsoft has confirmed that this is a problem in the Microsoft products that are listed at the beginning of this article.

Additional query words: cluster install fails 50044

Keywords: kbbug KB318672
Technology: kbAudDeveloper kbSQLServ2000Search kbSQLServSearch

MSSQL 2000 memory not being used.

Hi,
I have a quad box with 12 gigs of memory. I can only seem to get up to
6 gigs of memory used. I am having page fault errors and was wondering
why it is page faulting with 6 gigs of memory available. I have tried
using /3GB /PAE and just the /3GB and just the /PAE switches. This is
a Windows 2003 enterprise SP1 server.
If I look at the System Information screen I see that we have total
memory of 12 gigs.
Total Physical Memory 11,519.20 MB
But only 1 gig available for use.
Available Physical Memory 1.07 GB
If I look at the task manager I see I am only using 6 gigs? I am not
the best at math, but things are not adding up here.
Does anybody know the secret sause to getting the server to see the
other 6 gigs?
Much thanks in advance,
John Burris
jburris@.centrisinfo.comjohncburris@.gmail.com wrote:
> Hi,
> I have a quad box with 12 gigs of memory. I can only seem to get up to
> 6 gigs of memory used. I am having page fault errors and was wondering
> why it is page faulting with 6 gigs of memory available. I have tried
> using /3GB /PAE and just the /3GB and just the /PAE switches. This is
> a Windows 2003 enterprise SP1 server.
> If I look at the System Information screen I see that we have total
> memory of 12 gigs.
> Total Physical Memory 11,519.20 MB
> But only 1 gig available for use.
> Available Physical Memory 1.07 GB
> If I look at the task manager I see I am only using 6 gigs? I am not
> the best at math, but things are not adding up here.
> Does anybody know the secret sause to getting the server to see the
> other 6 gigs?
> Much thanks in advance,
> John Burris
> jburris@.centrisinfo.com
>
What SQL service pack are you on? If SP4, have you installed the AWE
hotfix?
Tracy McKibben
MCDBA
http://www.realsqlguy.com

MSSQL 2000 memory not being used.

Hi,
I have a quad box with 12 gigs of memory. I can only seem to get up to
6 gigs of memory used. I am having page fault errors and was wondering
why it is page faulting with 6 gigs of memory available. I have tried
using /3GB /PAE and just the /3GB and just the /PAE switches. This is
a Windows 2003 enterprise SP1 server.
If I look at the System Information screen I see that we have total
memory of 12 gigs.
Total Physical Memory11,519.20 MB
But only 1 gig available for use.
Available Physical Memory1.07 GB
If I look at the task manager I see I am only using 6 gigs? I am not
the best at math, but things are not adding up here.
Does anybody know the secret sause to getting the server to see the
other 6 gigs?
Much thanks in advance,
John Burris
jburris@.centrisinfo.com
johncburris@.gmail.com wrote:
> Hi,
> I have a quad box with 12 gigs of memory. I can only seem to get up to
> 6 gigs of memory used. I am having page fault errors and was wondering
> why it is page faulting with 6 gigs of memory available. I have tried
> using /3GB /PAE and just the /3GB and just the /PAE switches. This is
> a Windows 2003 enterprise SP1 server.
> If I look at the System Information screen I see that we have total
> memory of 12 gigs.
> Total Physical Memory11,519.20 MB
> But only 1 gig available for use.
> Available Physical Memory1.07 GB
> If I look at the task manager I see I am only using 6 gigs? I am not
> the best at math, but things are not adding up here.
> Does anybody know the secret sause to getting the server to see the
> other 6 gigs?
> Much thanks in advance,
> John Burris
> jburris@.centrisinfo.com
>
What SQL service pack are you on? If SP4, have you installed the AWE
hotfix?
Tracy McKibben
MCDBA
http://www.realsqlguy.com

MSSQL 2000 memory not being used.

MSSQL 2000 memory leaks

Hi,
I have one application in two different companies with MSSQL2000 running on Windows2000 Server and Windows2003 Server.
It seems that memory needed for MSSQL2000 as displayed in task manager is increased every day.
Does anybody knows anything regarding memory leaks in MSSQL2000?

How can I find what version of service pack have I installed in a MSSQL2000 server machine?

Regards,
ManolisSQL Server is designed to take up as much memory as it needs. See the article titled "Server Memory Options" in BOL.|||SQL 2000 is sensistive to "Memory Pressure" where other applications request memory from the host operating system. As other apps request more memory, SQL 2000 will free up some of the memory that it is using. In general though, SQL 2000 will tend to "camp" on memory until it percieves pressure from other applications, so it has a reputation as a "memory hog" that I don't feel is justified.

To find your present patch level, execute:SELECT ServerProperty('ProductLevel')-PatP|||Link http://www.sqljunkies.com/Article/7F8518F9-FDAA-4FF3-8FC5-25E8946C8D0C.scuk to investigate & resolve the performance issues.

mssql 2000 kill all user connection for restore

i need a sql statment or procedure to kill all user connection to one database.
And Deny new connection for a little time.
So i can a restore this database from a dump.

I can this do only in exclusiv modus. without any other connection.

Can anybody help me??

thanks and best regards from Berlin, Germanydeclare @.l_spid varchar(4)
,@.l_hostname varchar(20)
,@.dbname varchar(256)

select @.dbname = 'YOUR DATABASE NAME HERE'
declare kill_cursor scroll cursor
for
select convert(varchar(4), spid), hostname from master..sysprocesses with (nolock)
where db_name(dbid) = @.dbname

open kill_cursor
select @.@.cursor_rows

fetch next from kill_cursor into
@.l_spid
,@.l_hostname
while (@.@.fetch_status = 0 )
begin
select @.l_hostname Killed
exec ( 'kill ' + @.l_spid)
fetch next from kill_cursor into
@.l_spid
,@.l_hostname
end
close kill_cursor
deallocate kill_cursor
RESTORE STATEMENT HERE|||thanks i can use the code in my procedure.

Cu ... trapezz|||alter database DBName
set SINGLE_USER with rollback immediate|||I prefer

ALTER DATABASE dbName SET SINGLE_USER WITH ROLLBACK IMMEDIATE

MSSQL 2000 Installation problem.

Hello there!
I am trying to install MS SQL 2000 Server on Windows 2003.
My problem is that when i run the autorun (autorun run well) and after i click SQL Server 200. Components and Install Database Server the autorun close normaly but doesn open the installation, dont open any new process, Nothing else happens, I tried to find the sqlstp.log file but with no success, There is no such a file in my computer, and i tryed also the event viwer too but it doesnt catched anything...

Any ideas?
Thanks to all who can help me.

Another thing, when i try to run directly setupsql.exe it says

Windows cannot open this program since it has been disabled.

I remember that the windows version is NOT the webbased edition, it is the enterprise edition.

|||i received this same error message with web edition. rebuilt my server to std edition and it worked fine.|||

Refer

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;826961

MSSQL 2000 Installation problem.

Any ideas?
Thanks to all who can help me.

Another thing, when i try to run directly setupsql.exe it says

Windows cannot open this program since it has been disabled.

I remember that the windows version is NOT the webbased edition, it is the enterprise edition.

|||i received this same error message with web edition. rebuilt my server to std edition and it worked fine.|||

Refer

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;826961

MS-SQL 2000 Enterprise clustered installation fails

Hi everyone,
I have problem installing MS-SQL 2000 enterprise on Windows Server 2003 Ent.
cluster. The message I'm getting is "Setup failed to perform required
operations on the cluster nodes." The only thing "cluster.log" says in
regards of the MS-SQL is that "the virtual SQL server name can't be found.
Now, that's not the first time I'm doing this installation. Often I got in
the same problem, but by relaxing the local Policy (we are running very
restrictive GPO) usually resolved the problem. Therefore, I thing the problem
comes from the GPO restrictions. Also, I'm using the same domain account
used to install MSCS and I had no issues there.
My question is, what's the best way to approach this problem and what are
the MS-SQL requirements (in terms account permissions)?
The install account must be an admin on all nodes.
The MS task scheduler must be enabled on all nodes. <-- this is likely the
problem.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"kkantchev@.hotmail.com" <kkantchevhotmailcom@.discussions.microsoft.com>
wrote in message news:370B4F33-07E5-43A2-B4F3-4D0F485809AC@.microsoft.com...
> Hi everyone,
> I have problem installing MS-SQL 2000 enterprise on Windows Server 2003
> Ent.
> cluster. The message I'm getting is "Setup failed to perform required
> operations on the cluster nodes." The only thing "cluster.log" says in
> regards of the MS-SQL is that "the virtual SQL server name can't be found.
> Now, that's not the first time I'm doing this installation. Often I got in
> the same problem, but by relaxing the local Policy (we are running very
> restrictive GPO) usually resolved the problem. Therefore, I thing the
> problem
> comes from the GPO restrictions. Also, I'm using the same domain account
> used to install MSCS and I had no issues there.
> My question is, what's the best way to approach this problem and what are
> the MS-SQL requirements (in terms account permissions)?
|||Are you, or the cluster service account, also a Domain Admin? If not, then
you will need to have your Domain Admins create Domain Local Groups before
the installation.
Check out the installation logs; they contain the point of failure and
specifics about why it failed.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/910228/en-us
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143702.aspx
Good luck.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas

"Geoff N. Hiten" <SQLCraftsman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:OsZVE65SHHA.2256@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> The install account must be an admin on all nodes.
> The MS task scheduler must be enabled on all nodes. <-- this is likely
the
> problem.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>
> "kkantchev@.hotmail.com" <kkantchevhotmailcom@.discussions.microsoft.com>
> wrote in message
news:370B4F33-07E5-43A2-B4F3-4D0F485809AC@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
found.[vbcol=seagreen]
in[vbcol=seagreen]
account[vbcol=seagreen]
are
>
sql

MSSQL 2000 Does not Install

Dear Community,

I have recently downloaded the MSSQL 2000 Evaluation package from microsoft website,but i can't get it to install.I run the autorun normally,but when i select the option install database server nothing happens.I am trying to install it on Windows XP Service Pack 2 Edition 5.1....As this would help,in 3-4 hours of computer inactivity,i see the setup loader but nothing happens,it says not responding.

Thanks in advance,

Dimitris.

I believe you cannot install MS sql server 2000 in windows XP only client components can be installed......but you can install sql server 2005 in windows XP with SP2........you can download that and install as the support for sql 2000 is getting over by April 2008 and then only extended support is available........

MSSQL 2000 Developer Edition limit of connection ?

J.H wrote:
> Dear All,
> I've been searching the MSDN web for the MSSQL 2000 Developer connection
> limit.
> However, could not find any authentic documentation that says MSSQL 2000
> Developer
> connection information.
> With MSSQL 2000 Developer Edition, do we have any limitation of connection
> direct to
> database? We do have user connecting to this database through http/asp, an
d
> plus user connecting direct to database by 1433. However those users conne
ct
> direct to database by
> 1433 getting low performance, slow, sometimes got disconnection from the
> MSSQL 2000
> Developer Edition that we have.
> Our server is single Xeon enabled hyperthreading 2 logical map to 1 physic
al
> (this is another
> factor for slow performance), this server has MSSQL 2000 Developer Edition
> installed.
> Thanks for any input,
> JH
There is no connection limit specific to Dev Edition.
Make sure that you enable only 1 logical processor per physical
processor in SQL Server.
Note that Developer Edition is licensed for development and testing use
only.
David Portas, SQL Server MVP
Whenever possible please post enough code to reproduce your problem.
Including CREATE TABLE and INSERT statements usually helps.
State what version of SQL Server you are using and specify the content
of any error messages.
SQL Server Books Online:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/library/ms130214(en-US,SQL.90).aspx
--Hi David,
Is there any explaination why it is fast on clients that access from
HTTP/ASAP page and
slown performance/disconnection on client accessig database through ODBC
1433?
Thanks for any input,
JH
"David Portas" <REMOVE_BEFORE_REPLYING_dportas@.acm.org> wrote in message
news:1150828951.963023.188820@.g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> J.H wrote:
connection[vbcol=seagreen]
and[vbcol=seagreen]
connect[vbcol=seagreen]
physical[vbcol=seagreen]
Edition[vbcol=seagreen]
> There is no connection limit specific to Dev Edition.
> Make sure that you enable only 1 logical processor per physical
> processor in SQL Server.
> Note that Developer Edition is licensed for development and testing use
> only.
> --
> David Portas, SQL Server MVP
> Whenever possible please post enough code to reproduce your problem.
> Including CREATE TABLE and INSERT statements usually helps.
> State what version of SQL Server you are using and specify the content
> of any error messages.
> SQL Server Books Online:
> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/library/ms130214(en-US,SQL.90).aspx
> --
>|||Dear All,
I've been searching the MSDN web for the MSSQL 2000 Developer connection
limit.
However, could not find any authentic documentation that says MSSQL 2000
Developer
connection information.
With MSSQL 2000 Developer Edition, do we have any limitation of connection
direct to
database? We do have user connecting to this database through http/asp, and
plus user connecting direct to database by 1433. However those users connect
direct to database by
1433 getting low performance, slow, sometimes got disconnection from the
MSSQL 2000
Developer Edition that we have.
Our server is single Xeon enabled hyperthreading 2 logical map to 1 physical
(this is another
factor for slow performance), this server has MSSQL 2000 Developer Edition
installed.
Thanks for any input,
JH|||J.H wrote:
> Dear All,
> I've been searching the MSDN web for the MSSQL 2000 Developer connection
> limit.
> However, could not find any authentic documentation that says MSSQL 2000
> Developer
> connection information.
> With MSSQL 2000 Developer Edition, do we have any limitation of connection
> direct to
> database? We do have user connecting to this database through http/asp, an
d
> plus user connecting direct to database by 1433. However those users conne
ct
> direct to database by
> 1433 getting low performance, slow, sometimes got disconnection from the
> MSSQL 2000
> Developer Edition that we have.
> Our server is single Xeon enabled hyperthreading 2 logical map to 1 physic
al
> (this is another
> factor for slow performance), this server has MSSQL 2000 Developer Edition
> installed.
> Thanks for any input,
> JH
There is no connection limit specific to Dev Edition.
Make sure that you enable only 1 logical processor per physical
processor in SQL Server.
Note that Developer Edition is licensed for development and testing use
only.
David Portas, SQL Server MVP
Whenever possible please post enough code to reproduce your problem.
Including CREATE TABLE and INSERT statements usually helps.
State what version of SQL Server you are using and specify the content
of any error messages.
SQL Server Books Online:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/library/ms130214(en-US,SQL.90).aspx
--|||Hi David,
Is there any explaination why it is fast on clients that access from
HTTP/ASAP page and
slown performance/disconnection on client accessig database through ODBC
1433?
Thanks for any input,
JH
"David Portas" <REMOVE_BEFORE_REPLYING_dportas@.acm.org> wrote in message
news:1150828951.963023.188820@.g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> J.H wrote:
connection[vbcol=seagreen]
and[vbcol=seagreen]
connect[vbcol=seagreen]
physical[vbcol=seagreen]
Edition[vbcol=seagreen]
> There is no connection limit specific to Dev Edition.
> Make sure that you enable only 1 logical processor per physical
> processor in SQL Server.
> Note that Developer Edition is licensed for development and testing use
> only.
> --
> David Portas, SQL Server MVP
> Whenever possible please post enough code to reproduce your problem.
> Including CREATE TABLE and INSERT statements usually helps.
> State what version of SQL Server you are using and specify the content
> of any error messages.
> SQL Server Books Online:
> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/library/ms130214(en-US,SQL.90).aspx
> --
>

MSSQL 2000 Developer Edition limit of connection ?

Dear All,
I've been searching the MSDN web for the MSSQL 2000 Developer connection
limit.
However, could not find any authentic documentation that says MSSQL 2000
Developer
connection information.
With MSSQL 2000 Developer Edition, do we have any limitation of connection
direct to
database? We do have user connecting to this database through http/asp, and
plus user connecting direct to database by 1433. However those users connect
direct to database by
1433 getting low performance, slow, sometimes got disconnection from the
MSSQL 2000
Developer Edition that we have.
Our server is single Xeon enabled hyperthreading 2 logical map to 1 physical
(this is another
factor for slow performance), this server has MSSQL 2000 Developer Edition
installed.
Thanks for any input,
JHJ.H wrote:
> Dear All,
> I've been searching the MSDN web for the MSSQL 2000 Developer connection
> limit.
> However, could not find any authentic documentation that says MSSQL 2000
> Developer
> connection information.
> With MSSQL 2000 Developer Edition, do we have any limitation of connection
> direct to
> database? We do have user connecting to this database through http/asp, and
> plus user connecting direct to database by 1433. However those users connect
> direct to database by
> 1433 getting low performance, slow, sometimes got disconnection from the
> MSSQL 2000
> Developer Edition that we have.
> Our server is single Xeon enabled hyperthreading 2 logical map to 1 physical
> (this is another
> factor for slow performance), this server has MSSQL 2000 Developer Edition
> installed.
> Thanks for any input,
> JH
There is no connection limit specific to Dev Edition.
Make sure that you enable only 1 logical processor per physical
processor in SQL Server.
Note that Developer Edition is licensed for development and testing use
only.
--
David Portas, SQL Server MVP
Whenever possible please post enough code to reproduce your problem.
Including CREATE TABLE and INSERT statements usually helps.
State what version of SQL Server you are using and specify the content
of any error messages.
SQL Server Books Online:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/library/ms130214(en-US,SQL.90).aspx
--|||Hi David,
Is there any explaination why it is fast on clients that access from
HTTP/ASAP page and
slown performance/disconnection on client accessig database through ODBC
1433?
Thanks for any input,
JH
"David Portas" <REMOVE_BEFORE_REPLYING_dportas@.acm.org> wrote in message
news:1150828951.963023.188820@.g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> J.H wrote:
> > Dear All,
> >
> > I've been searching the MSDN web for the MSSQL 2000 Developer connection
> > limit.
> > However, could not find any authentic documentation that says MSSQL 2000
> > Developer
> > connection information.
> >
> > With MSSQL 2000 Developer Edition, do we have any limitation of
connection
> > direct to
> > database? We do have user connecting to this database through http/asp,
and
> > plus user connecting direct to database by 1433. However those users
connect
> > direct to database by
> > 1433 getting low performance, slow, sometimes got disconnection from the
> > MSSQL 2000
> > Developer Edition that we have.
> >
> > Our server is single Xeon enabled hyperthreading 2 logical map to 1
physical
> > (this is another
> > factor for slow performance), this server has MSSQL 2000 Developer
Edition
> > installed.
> >
> > Thanks for any input,
> > JH
> There is no connection limit specific to Dev Edition.
> Make sure that you enable only 1 logical processor per physical
> processor in SQL Server.
> Note that Developer Edition is licensed for development and testing use
> only.
> --
> David Portas, SQL Server MVP
> Whenever possible please post enough code to reproduce your problem.
> Including CREATE TABLE and INSERT statements usually helps.
> State what version of SQL Server you are using and specify the content
> of any error messages.
> SQL Server Books Online:
> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/library/ms130214(en-US,SQL.90).aspx
> --
>

MSSQL 2000 Developer connection limit & boolean connection

MSSQL 2000 DB Migration to Microsoft SQL 2005

Hi,
We're building new machine Windows 2003 with MSSQL 2005 server.
We have current machine running Windows 2000 with MSSQL 2000.
How do we migrate the MSSQL2000 database to MSSQL 2005 server?
A) My way: inplace upgrade (i know this one will 99% work!)[vbcol=seagreen]
w/MSSQL2000[vbcol=seagreen]
B) Another way: backup the MSSQL DB from Windows2000 and restore to
Windows2005 with MSSQL2005? work?
C) Detach and attach the database from MSSQL2000 and attach to MSSQL2005 ?
work?
Any other way which will guarantee work best?
Thanks for any input!!
J.H
"J.H" <jpthsd@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%239XXAO1aHHA.4616@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> We're building new machine Windows 2003 with MSSQL 2005 server.
> We have current machine running Windows 2000 with MSSQL 2000.
> How do we migrate the MSSQL2000 database to MSSQL 2005 server?
> A) My way: inplace upgrade (i know this one will 99% work!)
> w/MSSQL2000
> B) Another way: backup the MSSQL DB from Windows2000 and restore to
> Windows2005 with MSSQL2005? work?
This will work.
I would do this.
That way if something "goes wrong" you still have your original 2000 DB and
a backup.
However, no matter WHAT choice you make, make sure to to test your
application thoroughly.
There shouldn't be any gotchas, but you never know.

> C) Detach and attach the database from MSSQL2000 and attach to MSSQL2005 ?
> work?
>
> Any other way which will guarantee work best?
> Thanks for any input!!
> J.H
>
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting
Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com
|||I did attach/dettach for all my database. Now working wothout any problems.
Don't forget to change compatibility level to 9 after attaching database.
Ramunas
"J.H" <jpthsd@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%239XXAO1aHHA.4616@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> We're building new machine Windows 2003 with MSSQL 2005 server.
> We have current machine running Windows 2000 with MSSQL 2000.
> How do we migrate the MSSQL2000 database to MSSQL 2005 server?
> A) My way: inplace upgrade (i know this one will 99% work!)
> w/MSSQL2000
> B) Another way: backup the MSSQL DB from Windows2000 and restore to
> Windows2005 with MSSQL2005? work?
> C) Detach and attach the database from MSSQL2000 and attach to MSSQL2005 ?
> work?
>
> Any other way which will guarantee work best?
> Thanks for any input!!
> J.H
>
sql

MSSQL 2000 DB Migration to Microsoft SQL 2005

Hi,
We're building new machine Windows 2003 with MSSQL 2005 server.
We have current machine running Windows 2000 with MSSQL 2000.
How do we migrate the MSSQL2000 database to MSSQL 2005 server?
A) My way: inplace upgrade (i know this one will 99% work!)
>> installing new Windows 2003R2 with MSSQL2000 w/SP4
>> restore the MSSQL2000 database file to the new machine Windows2003R2
w/MSSQL2000
>> doing inplace upgrade on Windows2003R2 w/MSSQL2000 /wSP4 >> MSSQL2005
B) Another way: backup the MSSQL DB from Windows2000 and restore to
Windows2005 with MSSQL2005? work?
C) Detach and attach the database from MSSQL2000 and attach to MSSQL2005 ?
work?
Any other way which will guarantee work best?
Thanks for any input!!
J.H"J.H" <jpthsd@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%239XXAO1aHHA.4616@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> We're building new machine Windows 2003 with MSSQL 2005 server.
> We have current machine running Windows 2000 with MSSQL 2000.
> How do we migrate the MSSQL2000 database to MSSQL 2005 server?
> A) My way: inplace upgrade (i know this one will 99% work!)
>> installing new Windows 2003R2 with MSSQL2000 w/SP4
>> restore the MSSQL2000 database file to the new machine Windows2003R2
> w/MSSQL2000
>> doing inplace upgrade on Windows2003R2 w/MSSQL2000 /wSP4 >> MSSQL2005
> B) Another way: backup the MSSQL DB from Windows2000 and restore to
> Windows2005 with MSSQL2005? work?
This will work.
I would do this.
That way if something "goes wrong" you still have your original 2000 DB and
a backup.
However, no matter WHAT choice you make, make sure to to test your
application thoroughly.
There shouldn't be any gotchas, but you never know.
> C) Detach and attach the database from MSSQL2000 and attach to MSSQL2005 ?
> work?
>
> Any other way which will guarantee work best?
> Thanks for any input!!
> J.H
>
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting
Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com|||I did attach/dettach for all my database. Now working wothout any problems.
Don't forget to change compatibility level to 9 after attaching database.
Ramunas
"J.H" <jpthsd@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%239XXAO1aHHA.4616@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> We're building new machine Windows 2003 with MSSQL 2005 server.
> We have current machine running Windows 2000 with MSSQL 2000.
> How do we migrate the MSSQL2000 database to MSSQL 2005 server?
> A) My way: inplace upgrade (i know this one will 99% work!)
> >> installing new Windows 2003R2 with MSSQL2000 w/SP4
> >> restore the MSSQL2000 database file to the new machine Windows2003R2
> w/MSSQL2000
> >> doing inplace upgrade on Windows2003R2 w/MSSQL2000 /wSP4 >> MSSQL2005
> B) Another way: backup the MSSQL DB from Windows2000 and restore to
> Windows2005 with MSSQL2005? work?
> C) Detach and attach the database from MSSQL2000 and attach to MSSQL2005 ?
> work?
>
> Any other way which will guarantee work best?
> Thanks for any input!!
> J.H
>

MSSQL 2000 DB Migration to Microsoft SQL 2005

Hi,
We're building new machine Windows 2003 with MSSQL 2005 server.
We have current machine running Windows 2000 with MSSQL 2000.
How do we migrate the MSSQL2000 database to MSSQL 2005 server?
A) My way: inplace upgrade (i know this one will 99% work!)[vbcol=seagreen]
w/MSSQL2000[vbcol=seagreen]
B) Another way: backup the MSSQL DB from Windows2000 and restore to
Windows2005 with MSSQL2005? work?
C) Detach and attach the database from MSSQL2000 and attach to MSSQL2005 ?
work?
Any other way which will guarantee work best?
Thanks for any input!!
J.H"J.H" <jpthsd@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%239XXAO1aHHA.4616@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> We're building new machine Windows 2003 with MSSQL 2005 server.
> We have current machine running Windows 2000 with MSSQL 2000.
> How do we migrate the MSSQL2000 database to MSSQL 2005 server?
> A) My way: inplace upgrade (i know this one will 99% work!)
> w/MSSQL2000
> B) Another way: backup the MSSQL DB from Windows2000 and restore to
> Windows2005 with MSSQL2005? work?
This will work.
I would do this.
That way if something "goes wrong" you still have your original 2000 DB and
a backup.
However, no matter WHAT choice you make, make sure to to test your
application thoroughly.
There shouldn't be any gotchas, but you never know.

> C) Detach and attach the database from MSSQL2000 and attach to MSSQL2005 ?
> work?
>
> Any other way which will guarantee work best?
> Thanks for any input!!
> J.H
>
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting
Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com|||I did attach/dettach for all my database. Now working wothout any problems.
Don't forget to change compatibility level to 9 after attaching database.
Ramunas
"J.H" <jpthsd@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%239XXAO1aHHA.4616@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> We're building new machine Windows 2003 with MSSQL 2005 server.
> We have current machine running Windows 2000 with MSSQL 2000.
> How do we migrate the MSSQL2000 database to MSSQL 2005 server?
> A) My way: inplace upgrade (i know this one will 99% work!)
> w/MSSQL2000
> B) Another way: backup the MSSQL DB from Windows2000 and restore to
> Windows2005 with MSSQL2005? work?
> C) Detach and attach the database from MSSQL2000 and attach to MSSQL2005 ?
> work?
>
> Any other way which will guarantee work best?
> Thanks for any input!!
> J.H
>

MSSQL 2000 connection problem, please help

Explanation:
After attaching MSSQL 2000 SP3 server into domain,
Local Admin and SA cannot login into MSSQL
EM and QA are not working.
"Change the MSSQLServer service account to be a domain account. Make this
domain account a member of the
Local Administrators group on the machine." - Tried, but no chance.
Hi
If SA can't login and you have not changed the password, it means that SQL
Server is not running. Check in control panel > services and also check the
NT event log to see what the failures are.
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/
"Djangar S." <snapplefor@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23HeSsEDnFHA.320@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Explanation:
> After attaching MSSQL 2000 SP3 server into domain,
> Local Admin and SA cannot login into MSSQL
> EM and QA are not working.
>
>
> "Change the MSSQLServer service account to be a domain account. Make this
> domain account a member of the
> Local Administrators group on the machine." - Tried, but no chance.
>
|||It is running, I have another applications witch constantly using SQL
Server.
Any ideas?
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message
news:%23DjkpWDnFHA.3380@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> If SA can't login and you have not changed the password, it means that SQL
> Server is not running. Check in control panel > services and also check
> the NT event log to see what the failures are.
> 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/
> "Djangar S." <snapplefor@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23HeSsEDnFHA.320@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>
|||Hi,
What is the exact error message you are getting when trying to connect using
SA?
Thanks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
"Djangar S." <snapplefor@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23nD$t4DnFHA.1996@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> It is running, I have another applications witch constantly using SQL
> Server.
> Any ideas?
>
>
> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message
> news:%23DjkpWDnFHA.3380@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>

Friday, March 30, 2012

Blog Archive

About Me