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

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...

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.

---

It

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