Anyone familiar with dashCommerce?

I've installed it on my local machine using SQL Server 2005 Express with no problem. Now I need to install it on the server. I want to use the remote SQL Server 2005 database, but that means installing the scripts manually. I did that and thought it went well, but I'm getting all kinds of errors, so there's a problem of some kind.

I have SQL Server 2005 Express installed. I's be happy enough to use that, but I don't know how to. I tried to install and got an error that I couldn't create a database. I don't want to try to do it manually again, that didn't work very well before.

How do I do this?

Diane

Did you successfully install Express edition on the server? What kind of Sql Server is installed on your remote server? What kind of error are you getting. Without seeing the errors, it is very hard to tell what might be the problem. Post the error here.

Any way to run a invisible trace on Security Audit?

Is there anyway I could run an Audit trace on SQl Server which records SQL Server System Admin Login/Logout , failed login and machine names I don't want the trace window to show on screen however would like a file generated for later viewing. Also due to Firewall issues we have, We don't have SQL tools enabled to connect to that server.Yes, you can configure SQL 2000 Auditing (http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/adminsql/ad_security_2ard.asp), up through the C2 level. Unfortunately there isn't a "cookbook" approach for doing it, you really need to understand what you are doing, and the consequences and benefits of each decision.

-PatP|||I found out . Thanks for reply. C2 auditing however is not needed . I found out that from SQL Profiler , you can script the whole trace as SQL and execute it in ISQLW . This gives back a Trace ID . Next you have to run sp_trace_Setstatus @.traceID, 1 to run it .

Thanks for responding . I appreciate that

Any way to optimize sp_sproc_columns

We just upgraded from SQL 6.5 to SQL 2000. We also have moved SQL Server to
a much beefier machine. Actual data access in our database is much faster,
but we've noticed that the speed of the application itself has slowed down
some because sp_sproc_columns now seems to take quite a bit longer to run
than it did in 6.5. It's really apparent in portions of our app where we
issue several consecutive calls to the DB in rapid succession. We're using
RDO to access the database, and right now changing that is not a viable
option. Does anyone have any ideas how to either tweak sp_sproc_columns, or
replace it with something more efficient?
Thanks in advance,
BrettMaybe you could adapt something like this?
http://www.aspfaq.com/2463
"Brett" <do.not.spam.me.you.jerks.maelstrom1335.NO.s.p.a.m@.swbell.net> wrote
in message news:Om6k29BYDHA.1748@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> We just upgraded from SQL 6.5 to SQL 2000. We also have moved SQL Server
to
> a much beefier machine. Actual data access in our database is much
faster,
> but we've noticed that the speed of the application itself has slowed down
> some because sp_sproc_columns now seems to take quite a bit longer to run
> than it did in 6.5. It's really apparent in portions of our app where we
> issue several consecutive calls to the DB in rapid succession. We're
using
> RDO to access the database, and right now changing that is not a viable
> option. Does anyone have any ideas how to either tweak sp_sproc_columns,
or
> replace it with something more efficient?
> Thanks in advance,
> Brett
>

any point in putting more than 2Gb ram in machine for standard edition ?

if a member server runs 2000 or 2003 with SQL server standard edition is
there any point putting more than 2Gb of ram in the machine ?
i.e i base this on 2Gb being the max for Sql server 200.
thanks for your advice
Scott
Standard edition is limited to 2GB so the additional memory won't be used by
SQL Server directly. However, the OS requires memory too so you should
consider this as well as memory needed by other apps. I usually spec 3GB
for a dedicated SQL Server 2000 running Standard Edition.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"scott" <aintnoapmhere@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:%23T2POP72FHA.632@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> if a member server runs 2000 or 2003 with SQL server standard edition is
> there any point putting more than 2Gb of ram in the machine ?
> i.e i base this on 2Gb being the max for Sql server 200.
> thanks for your advice
> Scott
>
|||"scott" <aintnoapmhere@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:%23T2POP72FHA.632@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> if a member server runs 2000 or 2003 with SQL server standard edition is
> there any point putting more than 2Gb of ram in the machine ?
> i.e i base this on 2Gb being the max for Sql server 200.
> thanks for your advice
> Scott
>
Yes.
Don't forget about the O/S and any other stuff that is going on. Put at
least 3GB in the box. 1 for the O/S and 2 for SQL. ;-)
Rick Sawtell
MCT, MCSD, MCDBA
|||brilliant. many thanks
scott

any point in putting more than 2Gb ram in machine for standard edition ?

if a member server runs 2000 or 2003 with SQL server standard edition is
there any point putting more than 2Gb of ram in the machine ?
i.e i base this on 2Gb being the max for Sql server 200.
thanks for your advice
ScottStandard edition is limited to 2GB so the additional memory won't be used by
SQL Server directly. However, the OS requires memory too so you should
consider this as well as memory needed by other apps. I usually spec 3GB
for a dedicated SQL Server 2000 running Standard Edition.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"scott" <aintnoapmhere@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:%23T2POP72FHA.632@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> if a member server runs 2000 or 2003 with SQL server standard edition is
> there any point putting more than 2Gb of ram in the machine ?
> i.e i base this on 2Gb being the max for Sql server 200.
> thanks for your advice
> Scott
>|||"scott" <aintnoapmhere@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:%23T2POP72FHA.632@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> if a member server runs 2000 or 2003 with SQL server standard edition is
> there any point putting more than 2Gb of ram in the machine ?
> i.e i base this on 2Gb being the max for Sql server 200.
> thanks for your advice
> Scott
>
Yes.
Don't forget about the O/S and any other stuff that is going on. Put at
least 3GB in the box. 1 for the O/S and 2 for SQL. ;-)
Rick Sawtell
MCT, MCSD, MCDBA|||brilliant. many thanks
scott

any point in putting more than 2Gb ram in machine for standard edition ?

if a member server runs 2000 or 2003 with SQL server standard edition is
there any point putting more than 2Gb of ram in the machine ?
i.e i base this on 2Gb being the max for Sql server 200.
thanks for your advice
ScottStandard edition is limited to 2GB so the additional memory won't be used by
SQL Server directly. However, the OS requires memory too so you should
consider this as well as memory needed by other apps. I usually spec 3GB
for a dedicated SQL Server 2000 running Standard Edition.
--
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"scott" <aintnoapmhere@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:%23T2POP72FHA.632@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> if a member server runs 2000 or 2003 with SQL server standard edition is
> there any point putting more than 2Gb of ram in the machine ?
> i.e i base this on 2Gb being the max for Sql server 200.
> thanks for your advice
> Scott
>|||"scott" <aintnoapmhere@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:%23T2POP72FHA.632@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> if a member server runs 2000 or 2003 with SQL server standard edition is
> there any point putting more than 2Gb of ram in the machine ?
> i.e i base this on 2Gb being the max for Sql server 200.
> thanks for your advice
> Scott
>
Yes.
Don't forget about the O/S and any other stuff that is going on. Put at
least 3GB in the box. 1 for the O/S and 2 for SQL. ;-)
Rick Sawtell
MCT, MCSD, MCDBA|||brilliant. many thanks
scott

Any Distributed Data failure

Scenario:
I have one windows server 2003 and 2 windows XP clients on one machine by virtual pc.
All pings to each other.
The 2 windows XP clients are joining a domain in the server.
They have administrator accounts and administrative privilages on each other.

On each windows there is SQL2000 with SP3 using windows authentication.
Each MSSQLServer and other SQL Services log in by the administrator domain account and has the domain account of the other windows in sysadmin role.

Both XP SQL Servers are linked to each other.

MSDTC is running on all servers with allowing every available option by Services Components.

Firewalls are off in all servers.

Although, neither distributed transactions work giving this error:
"Server: Msg 7391, Level 16, State 1, Line 7
The operation could not be performed because the OLE DB provider 'SQLOLEDB' was unable to begin a distributed transaction."

Also Snapshot agent in replication cannot start.

My Question is: Is there something to do with RPC and how?
Please help...

Thanks.I found the answer in:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/841251

Thanks