Hi,
This is my first post here.
I'm running SQL Server 2000 and have a database that cannot be backed
up properly because it "is in the middle of a restore." This is because
of a restore that was started and then stopped.
Users are still able to add data to the database, so I would prefer to
simply stop the restore if possible, rather than run the restore again,
as the backup I have is two days old.
Any help GREATLY appreciated!
thank you,
Brian Honeycutt
Hi,
thanks for the reply.
How would I refresh the EM?
You may be right in that they are connecting to a different SQL
database.
Still, I would like to backup this DB up if possible. But that entails
completing the restore or stopping it somehow.
Any ideas on that?
thanks a lot,
brian
On Dec 15, 9:12 am, "Tibor Karaszi"
<tibor_please.no.email_kara...@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> If the database is really in the middle of a restore, then no-one can connect to the database.
> Perhaps you just didn't refresh EM? Or perhaps those users are working against some other database?
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVPhttp://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asphttp://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
> <brian.honeyc...@.retiregroup.com> wrote in messagenews:1166199871.800873.82680@.j72g2000cwa.go oglegroups.com...
>
>
>
|||<brian.honeycutt@.retiregroup.com> wrote in message
news:1166199871.800873.82680@.j72g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
> Hi,
> This is my first post here.
> I'm running SQL Server 2000 and have a database that cannot be backed
> up properly because it "is in the middle of a restore." This is because
> of a restore that was started and then stopped.
> Users are still able to add data to the database, so I would prefer to
> simply stop the restore if possible, rather than run the restore again,
> as the backup I have is two days old.
Also, just to make sure...
do a restore database foo WITH RECOVERY
(I think you get a different error message if the db hasn't been fully
recovered, but it may be this simple.)
> Any help GREATLY appreciated!
> thank you,
> Brian Honeycutt
>
2012年3月25日星期日
Anyone know how to stop a restore? "Database cannot be opened. It is in the middle of a re
Hi,
This is my first post here.
I'm running SQL Server 2000 and have a database that cannot be backed
up properly because it "is in the middle of a restore." This is because
of a restore that was started and then stopped.
Users are still able to add data to the database, so I would prefer to
simply stop the restore if possible, rather than run the restore again,
as the backup I have is two days old.
Any help GREATLY appreciated!
thank you,
Brian HoneycuttIf the database is really in the middle of a restore, then no-one can connect to the database.
Perhaps you just didn't refresh EM? Or perhaps those users are working against some other database?
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
<brian.honeycutt@.retiregroup.com> wrote in message
news:1166199871.800873.82680@.j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Hi,
> This is my first post here.
> I'm running SQL Server 2000 and have a database that cannot be backed
> up properly because it "is in the middle of a restore." This is because
> of a restore that was started and then stopped.
> Users are still able to add data to the database, so I would prefer to
> simply stop the restore if possible, rather than run the restore again,
> as the backup I have is two days old.
> Any help GREATLY appreciated!
> thank you,
> Brian Honeycutt
>|||Hi,
thanks for the reply.
How would I refresh the EM?
You may be right in that they are connecting to a different SQL
database.
Still, I would like to backup this DB up if possible. But that entails
completing the restore or stopping it somehow.
Any ideas on that?
thanks a lot,
brian
On Dec 15, 9:12 am, "Tibor Karaszi"
<tibor_please.no.email_kara...@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote:
> If the database is really in the middle of a restore, then no-one can connect to the database.
> Perhaps you just didn't refresh EM? Or perhaps those users are working against some other database?
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVPhttp://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asphttp://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
> <brian.honeyc...@.retiregroup.com> wrote in messagenews:1166199871.800873.82680@.j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Hi,
> > This is my first post here.
> > I'm running SQL Server 2000 and have a database that cannot be backed
> > up properly because it "is in the middle of a restore." This is because
> > of a restore that was started and then stopped.
> > Users are still able to add data to the database, so I would prefer to
> > simply stop the restore if possible, rather than run the restore again,
> > as the backup I have is two days old.
> > Any help GREATLY appreciated!
> > thank you,
> > Brian Honeycutt- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -|||> How would I refresh the EM?
Right-click the "Databases" folder and click "Refresh".
It should be find just to execute the RESTORE command again. If the GUI won't let you, try from a
query window.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
<brian.honeycutt@.retiregroup.com> wrote in message
news:1166205293.356794.239060@.n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> Hi,
> thanks for the reply.
> How would I refresh the EM?
> You may be right in that they are connecting to a different SQL
> database.
> Still, I would like to backup this DB up if possible. But that entails
> completing the restore or stopping it somehow.
> Any ideas on that?
> thanks a lot,
> brian
> On Dec 15, 9:12 am, "Tibor Karaszi"
> <tibor_please.no.email_kara...@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote:
>> If the database is really in the middle of a restore, then no-one can connect to the database.
>> Perhaps you just didn't refresh EM? Or perhaps those users are working against some other
>> database?
>> --
>> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server
>> MVPhttp://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asphttp://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>> <brian.honeyc...@.retiregroup.com> wrote in
>> messagenews:1166199871.800873.82680@.j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > Hi,
>> > This is my first post here.
>> > I'm running SQL Server 2000 and have a database that cannot be backed
>> > up properly because it "is in the middle of a restore." This is because
>> > of a restore that was started and then stopped.
>> > Users are still able to add data to the database, so I would prefer to
>> > simply stop the restore if possible, rather than run the restore again,
>> > as the backup I have is two days old.
>> > Any help GREATLY appreciated!
>> > thank you,
>> > Brian Honeycutt- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
>|||<brian.honeycutt@.retiregroup.com> wrote in message
news:1166199871.800873.82680@.j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Hi,
> This is my first post here.
> I'm running SQL Server 2000 and have a database that cannot be backed
> up properly because it "is in the middle of a restore." This is because
> of a restore that was started and then stopped.
> Users are still able to add data to the database, so I would prefer to
> simply stop the restore if possible, rather than run the restore again,
> as the backup I have is two days old.
Also, just to make sure...
do a restore database foo WITH RECOVERY
(I think you get a different error message if the db hasn't been fully
recovered, but it may be this simple.)
> Any help GREATLY appreciated!
> thank you,
> Brian Honeycutt
>sql
This is my first post here.
I'm running SQL Server 2000 and have a database that cannot be backed
up properly because it "is in the middle of a restore." This is because
of a restore that was started and then stopped.
Users are still able to add data to the database, so I would prefer to
simply stop the restore if possible, rather than run the restore again,
as the backup I have is two days old.
Any help GREATLY appreciated!
thank you,
Brian HoneycuttIf the database is really in the middle of a restore, then no-one can connect to the database.
Perhaps you just didn't refresh EM? Or perhaps those users are working against some other database?
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
<brian.honeycutt@.retiregroup.com> wrote in message
news:1166199871.800873.82680@.j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Hi,
> This is my first post here.
> I'm running SQL Server 2000 and have a database that cannot be backed
> up properly because it "is in the middle of a restore." This is because
> of a restore that was started and then stopped.
> Users are still able to add data to the database, so I would prefer to
> simply stop the restore if possible, rather than run the restore again,
> as the backup I have is two days old.
> Any help GREATLY appreciated!
> thank you,
> Brian Honeycutt
>|||Hi,
thanks for the reply.
How would I refresh the EM?
You may be right in that they are connecting to a different SQL
database.
Still, I would like to backup this DB up if possible. But that entails
completing the restore or stopping it somehow.
Any ideas on that?
thanks a lot,
brian
On Dec 15, 9:12 am, "Tibor Karaszi"
<tibor_please.no.email_kara...@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote:
> If the database is really in the middle of a restore, then no-one can connect to the database.
> Perhaps you just didn't refresh EM? Or perhaps those users are working against some other database?
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVPhttp://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asphttp://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
> <brian.honeyc...@.retiregroup.com> wrote in messagenews:1166199871.800873.82680@.j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Hi,
> > This is my first post here.
> > I'm running SQL Server 2000 and have a database that cannot be backed
> > up properly because it "is in the middle of a restore." This is because
> > of a restore that was started and then stopped.
> > Users are still able to add data to the database, so I would prefer to
> > simply stop the restore if possible, rather than run the restore again,
> > as the backup I have is two days old.
> > Any help GREATLY appreciated!
> > thank you,
> > Brian Honeycutt- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -|||> How would I refresh the EM?
Right-click the "Databases" folder and click "Refresh".
It should be find just to execute the RESTORE command again. If the GUI won't let you, try from a
query window.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
<brian.honeycutt@.retiregroup.com> wrote in message
news:1166205293.356794.239060@.n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> Hi,
> thanks for the reply.
> How would I refresh the EM?
> You may be right in that they are connecting to a different SQL
> database.
> Still, I would like to backup this DB up if possible. But that entails
> completing the restore or stopping it somehow.
> Any ideas on that?
> thanks a lot,
> brian
> On Dec 15, 9:12 am, "Tibor Karaszi"
> <tibor_please.no.email_kara...@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote:
>> If the database is really in the middle of a restore, then no-one can connect to the database.
>> Perhaps you just didn't refresh EM? Or perhaps those users are working against some other
>> database?
>> --
>> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server
>> MVPhttp://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asphttp://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>> <brian.honeyc...@.retiregroup.com> wrote in
>> messagenews:1166199871.800873.82680@.j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > Hi,
>> > This is my first post here.
>> > I'm running SQL Server 2000 and have a database that cannot be backed
>> > up properly because it "is in the middle of a restore." This is because
>> > of a restore that was started and then stopped.
>> > Users are still able to add data to the database, so I would prefer to
>> > simply stop the restore if possible, rather than run the restore again,
>> > as the backup I have is two days old.
>> > Any help GREATLY appreciated!
>> > thank you,
>> > Brian Honeycutt- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
>|||<brian.honeycutt@.retiregroup.com> wrote in message
news:1166199871.800873.82680@.j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Hi,
> This is my first post here.
> I'm running SQL Server 2000 and have a database that cannot be backed
> up properly because it "is in the middle of a restore." This is because
> of a restore that was started and then stopped.
> Users are still able to add data to the database, so I would prefer to
> simply stop the restore if possible, rather than run the restore again,
> as the backup I have is two days old.
Also, just to make sure...
do a restore database foo WITH RECOVERY
(I think you get a different error message if the db hasn't been fully
recovered, but it may be this simple.)
> Any help GREATLY appreciated!
> thank you,
> Brian Honeycutt
>sql
Anyone have SQL Sever 2005 developer 64-bit running on Vista 64
Hi,
I have been trying to install SQL 2005 Server Developer Edition 64-bit on Vista 64 all morning.
The setup refuses to install many components.
Has anyone gotten this to work?
jerry
Refused with which error ?
Jens K. Suessmeyer
http://www.sqlserver2005.de
2012年3月20日星期二
Any way to tell what traces are running?
I have a stored proc where I create a SQL trace (using sp_trace_create). I
went onto one of my servers to fire off a trace and noticed that another one
has been running for a few days.
Is there any way to display the traces that are running on a particular
server? I would like to stop the old trace but I can't figure out how
Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks in advance.
TomIt figures - I was looking for this info all day yesterday. Right after
posting this, I finally discovered it.
The following SQL statement displays info on traces running
SELECT * FROM :: fn_trace_getinfo(default)
It seems that when I started the new trace, it was assigned TraceId=1 and
the old trace was bumped to TraceId=2. I then just issued the following to
kill trace 2:
EXEC sp_trace_setstatus 2, 0
EXEC sp_trace_setstatus 2, 2
"TJTODD" <Thxomasx.Toddy@.Siemensx.com> wrote in message
news:#MUmQPzuDHA.1088@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> I have a stored proc where I create a SQL trace (using sp_trace_create).
I
> went onto one of my servers to fire off a trace and noticed that another
one
> has been running for a few days.
> Is there any way to display the traces that are running on a particular
> server? I would like to stop the old trace but I can't figure out how
> Any help would be appreciated.
> Thanks in advance.
> Tom
>|||You can run from QueryAnalyzer statement DBCC TRACESTATUS (-1) , and you will see all traces that have been set
Something like
TraceFlag TraceStatu
1204
Hope it Helps
went onto one of my servers to fire off a trace and noticed that another one
has been running for a few days.
Is there any way to display the traces that are running on a particular
server? I would like to stop the old trace but I can't figure out how
Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks in advance.
TomIt figures - I was looking for this info all day yesterday. Right after
posting this, I finally discovered it.
The following SQL statement displays info on traces running
SELECT * FROM :: fn_trace_getinfo(default)
It seems that when I started the new trace, it was assigned TraceId=1 and
the old trace was bumped to TraceId=2. I then just issued the following to
kill trace 2:
EXEC sp_trace_setstatus 2, 0
EXEC sp_trace_setstatus 2, 2
"TJTODD" <Thxomasx.Toddy@.Siemensx.com> wrote in message
news:#MUmQPzuDHA.1088@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> I have a stored proc where I create a SQL trace (using sp_trace_create).
I
> went onto one of my servers to fire off a trace and noticed that another
one
> has been running for a few days.
> Is there any way to display the traces that are running on a particular
> server? I would like to stop the old trace but I can't figure out how
> Any help would be appreciated.
> Thanks in advance.
> Tom
>|||You can run from QueryAnalyzer statement DBCC TRACESTATUS (-1) , and you will see all traces that have been set
Something like
TraceFlag TraceStatu
1204
Hope it Helps
2012年3月19日星期一
Any way around this error
I get the error (in red) below when I run this stored procedure (I'm not running in my app but in Query Analyzer) -- Please help me fix this
CREATE PROCEDURE dbo.sp_Employee_GetEmployeeLNameFNameEmpID
(
@.facilityID nvarchar(2),
@.companyID nvarchar(2),
@.deptID nvarchar(20),
@.Period int
)
AS
SELECT e.LastName + ',' + e.FirstName + ' - ' + e.EmployeeID AS ListBoxText, e.EmployeeID, e.LastName + ',' + e.FirstName AS FullName FROM Employee e
WHERE e.DeptID = @.deptID AND e.FacilityID = @.facilityID AND e.CompanyID = @.companyID AND e.EmployeeID <> (SELECT ev.EmployeeID FROM EmployeeEval ev
WHERE PeriodID= @.Period)
GO
Server: Msg 512, Level 16, State 1, Procedure sp_Employee_GetEmployeeLNameFNameEmpID, Line 9
Subquery returned more than 1 value. This is not permitted when the subquery follows =, !=, <, <= , >, >= or when the subquery is used as an expression.
WHICH employee do you want from the ev table?
It looks to me like you want a NOT IN instead:
SELECT
e.LastName + ','+ e.FirstName + ' - ' + e.EmployeeID AS ListBoxText,
e.EmployeeID,
e.LastName + ',' + e.FirstName AS FullName
FROM Employee e
WHEREe.DeptID = @.deptID
AND e.FacilityID = @.facilityID
AND e.CompanyID =@.companyID
AND e.EmployeeID NOT IN
(SELECT ev.EmployeeID
FROMEmployeeEval ev
WHERE PeriodID= @.Period)
|||
Sweet worked perfectly -- my book showed the IN part but I didn't know about the NOT IN.
Thanks a million.
2012年3月11日星期日
any tool which can tell the load of each database running on a SQL
is there any tool which can tell the load of each database running on a SQL
Server
Please reply asap
Thanks
Pankaj Jain
_________________________________________
Nagarro Software Pvt. Ltd.
3 Type B, Electronics City,
Sector 18, Gurgaon, India - 122015
http://www.nagarro.com
Phone (+ 91) 124 - 5016775, 2455301, 2455302, 2455303
Extn. 205
Fax (+ 91) 124 - 2455304
"This electronic communication and any accompanying document are intended
only for the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain
confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended
recipient of this message, be aware that any use, review, dissemination,
distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error and/or are not the intended recipient,
please notify the sender and delete it from your system. We do not claim
that this information is complete or accurate and any views expressed in
this message are those of the individual sender."
Check this one: http://www.imceda.com/Coefficient_Description.htm.
Dejan Sarka, SQL Server MVP
Associate Mentor
www.SolidQualityLearning.com
"Pankaj Jain" <pankaj@.nagarro.com> wrote in message
news:eGVlTWnNFHA.2144@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> is there any tool which can tell the load of each database running on a
SQL
> Server
> Please reply asap
> Thanks
> Pankaj Jain
> --
> _________________________________________
> Nagarro Software Pvt. Ltd.
> 3 Type B, Electronics City,
> Sector 18, Gurgaon, India - 122015
> http://www.nagarro.com
> Phone (+ 91) 124 - 5016775, 2455301, 2455302, 2455303
> Extn. 205
> Fax (+ 91) 124 - 2455304
>
> "This electronic communication and any accompanying document are intended
> only for the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain
> confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended
> recipient of this message, be aware that any use, review, dissemination,
> distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you
have
> received this communication in error and/or are not the intended
recipient,
> please notify the sender and delete it from your system. We do not claim
> that this information is complete or accurate and any views expressed in
> this message are those of the individual sender."
>
|||Hi
Thanks but i already saw this and i want some thing that gives me load in
percentage for all the database that exist in the SQL Server at that point
Thanks
Pankaj Jain
"Dejan Sarka" <dejan_please_reply_to_newsgroups.sarka@.avtenta.si > wrote in
message news:OFUFLuoNFHA.1176@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Check this one: http://www.imceda.com/Coefficient_Description.htm.
> --
> Dejan Sarka, SQL Server MVP
> Associate Mentor
> www.SolidQualityLearning.com
> "Pankaj Jain" <pankaj@.nagarro.com> wrote in message
> news:eGVlTWnNFHA.2144@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> SQL
intended[vbcol=seagreen]
contain
> have
> recipient,
>
|||Hi,
Did you mean Load in terms of User connections for each databases, then it
is possible.
Select getdate() as Current_time,DB_NAME(DBID) as DBNAME,COUNT(*) from
Master..sysprocesses
Group BY DB_NAME(DBID)
You can schedule the script to execute using OSQL and save it in a fife.
This will give you the amount of users in each database. If needed you can
schedule this script using SQL Agent to run based on specific interval.
Thanks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
"Pankaj Jain" <pankaj@.nagarro.com> wrote in message
news:uKXIbxoNFHA.2520@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> Thanks but i already saw this and i want some thing that gives me load in
> percentage for all the database that exist in the SQL Server at that point
> Thanks
> Pankaj Jain
>
> "Dejan Sarka" <dejan_please_reply_to_newsgroups.sarka@.avtenta.si > wrote in
> message news:OFUFLuoNFHA.1176@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> intended
> contain
>
Server
Please reply asap
Thanks
Pankaj Jain
_________________________________________
Nagarro Software Pvt. Ltd.
3 Type B, Electronics City,
Sector 18, Gurgaon, India - 122015
http://www.nagarro.com
Phone (+ 91) 124 - 5016775, 2455301, 2455302, 2455303
Extn. 205
Fax (+ 91) 124 - 2455304
"This electronic communication and any accompanying document are intended
only for the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain
confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended
recipient of this message, be aware that any use, review, dissemination,
distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error and/or are not the intended recipient,
please notify the sender and delete it from your system. We do not claim
that this information is complete or accurate and any views expressed in
this message are those of the individual sender."
Check this one: http://www.imceda.com/Coefficient_Description.htm.
Dejan Sarka, SQL Server MVP
Associate Mentor
www.SolidQualityLearning.com
"Pankaj Jain" <pankaj@.nagarro.com> wrote in message
news:eGVlTWnNFHA.2144@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> is there any tool which can tell the load of each database running on a
SQL
> Server
> Please reply asap
> Thanks
> Pankaj Jain
> --
> _________________________________________
> Nagarro Software Pvt. Ltd.
> 3 Type B, Electronics City,
> Sector 18, Gurgaon, India - 122015
> http://www.nagarro.com
> Phone (+ 91) 124 - 5016775, 2455301, 2455302, 2455303
> Extn. 205
> Fax (+ 91) 124 - 2455304
>
> "This electronic communication and any accompanying document are intended
> only for the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain
> confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended
> recipient of this message, be aware that any use, review, dissemination,
> distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you
have
> received this communication in error and/or are not the intended
recipient,
> please notify the sender and delete it from your system. We do not claim
> that this information is complete or accurate and any views expressed in
> this message are those of the individual sender."
>
|||Hi
Thanks but i already saw this and i want some thing that gives me load in
percentage for all the database that exist in the SQL Server at that point
Thanks
Pankaj Jain
"Dejan Sarka" <dejan_please_reply_to_newsgroups.sarka@.avtenta.si > wrote in
message news:OFUFLuoNFHA.1176@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Check this one: http://www.imceda.com/Coefficient_Description.htm.
> --
> Dejan Sarka, SQL Server MVP
> Associate Mentor
> www.SolidQualityLearning.com
> "Pankaj Jain" <pankaj@.nagarro.com> wrote in message
> news:eGVlTWnNFHA.2144@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> SQL
intended[vbcol=seagreen]
contain
> have
> recipient,
>
|||Hi,
Did you mean Load in terms of User connections for each databases, then it
is possible.
Select getdate() as Current_time,DB_NAME(DBID) as DBNAME,COUNT(*) from
Master..sysprocesses
Group BY DB_NAME(DBID)
You can schedule the script to execute using OSQL and save it in a fife.
This will give you the amount of users in each database. If needed you can
schedule this script using SQL Agent to run based on specific interval.
Thanks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
"Pankaj Jain" <pankaj@.nagarro.com> wrote in message
news:uKXIbxoNFHA.2520@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> Thanks but i already saw this and i want some thing that gives me load in
> percentage for all the database that exist in the SQL Server at that point
> Thanks
> Pankaj Jain
>
> "Dejan Sarka" <dejan_please_reply_to_newsgroups.sarka@.avtenta.si > wrote in
> message news:OFUFLuoNFHA.1176@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> intended
> contain
>
2012年3月8日星期四
any simple tool to monitor the execution time of running sql at the database?
as subject
Use Profiler. See SQL Server Books Online for more information.
Also see:
How to identify SQL Server performance issues, by analyzing Profiler output?
http://vyaskn.tripod.com/analyzing_profiler_output.htm
Automating Server Side Tracing in SQL Server
http://vyaskn.tripod.com/server_side...sql_server.htm
HTH,
Vyas, MVP (SQL Server)
http://vyaskn.tripod.com/
"Mullin Yu" <mullin_yu@.ctil.com> wrote in message
news:ePPmY8wlEHA.536@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
as subject
|||Profiler?
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Mullin Yu" <mullin_yu@.ctil.com> wrote in message news:ePPmY8wlEHA.536@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> as subject
>
Use Profiler. See SQL Server Books Online for more information.
Also see:
How to identify SQL Server performance issues, by analyzing Profiler output?
http://vyaskn.tripod.com/analyzing_profiler_output.htm
Automating Server Side Tracing in SQL Server
http://vyaskn.tripod.com/server_side...sql_server.htm
HTH,
Vyas, MVP (SQL Server)
http://vyaskn.tripod.com/
"Mullin Yu" <mullin_yu@.ctil.com> wrote in message
news:ePPmY8wlEHA.536@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
as subject
|||Profiler?
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Mullin Yu" <mullin_yu@.ctil.com> wrote in message news:ePPmY8wlEHA.536@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> as subject
>
any simple tool to monitor the execution time of running sql at the database?
as subjectUse Profiler. See SQL Server Books Online for more information.
Also see:
How to identify SQL Server performance issues, by analyzing Profiler output?
http://vyaskn.tripod.com/analyzing_profiler_output.htm
Automating Server Side Tracing in SQL Server
http://vyaskn.tripod.com/server_side_tracing_in_sql_server.htm
--
HTH,
Vyas, MVP (SQL Server)
http://vyaskn.tripod.com/
"Mullin Yu" <mullin_yu@.ctil.com> wrote in message
news:ePPmY8wlEHA.536@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
as subject|||Profiler?
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Mullin Yu" <mullin_yu@.ctil.com> wrote in message news:ePPmY8wlEHA.536@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> as subject
>
Also see:
How to identify SQL Server performance issues, by analyzing Profiler output?
http://vyaskn.tripod.com/analyzing_profiler_output.htm
Automating Server Side Tracing in SQL Server
http://vyaskn.tripod.com/server_side_tracing_in_sql_server.htm
--
HTH,
Vyas, MVP (SQL Server)
http://vyaskn.tripod.com/
"Mullin Yu" <mullin_yu@.ctil.com> wrote in message
news:ePPmY8wlEHA.536@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
as subject|||Profiler?
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Mullin Yu" <mullin_yu@.ctil.com> wrote in message news:ePPmY8wlEHA.536@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> as subject
>
Any setting that would reduce locking during a SQL script?
I am running an upgrade script to update a database from one release to
another. There are a lot of SQL scripts that run during this process.
While this process is running - there should be no other users accessing the
database.
With this in mind - I am hoping to reduce the amount of locking that occurs.
Since no one else will be accessing the system - I don't need all of the
locks at the granular level (I am fine with table locks). Is there some way
that I could make it so that I get table locks instead of row-level locking?
Thanks in advance.You can specify the TABLOCKX hint to acquire an exclusive table lock. For
example:
INSERT INTO MyTable WITH (TABLOCKX)
SELECT * FROM MyOtherTable WITH (TABLOCKX)
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"TJTODD" <Thxomasx.Toddy@.Siemensx.com> wrote in message
news:%23yBrPIH4DHA.2380@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
the
occurs.
way
locking?
I'm not sure whether it causes locks to escalate, but admin work such as
you're performing is one of it's indended usage scenarios.
You can set a db into single_user by using the alter database command, eg:
alter database [dbname] set single_user
Regards,
Greg Linwood
"TJTODD" <Thxomasx.Toddy@.Siemensx.com> wrote in message
news:%23yBrPIH4DHA.2380@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
the
occurs.
way
locking?
another. There are a lot of SQL scripts that run during this process.
While this process is running - there should be no other users accessing the
database.
With this in mind - I am hoping to reduce the amount of locking that occurs.
Since no one else will be accessing the system - I don't need all of the
locks at the granular level (I am fine with table locks). Is there some way
that I could make it so that I get table locks instead of row-level locking?
Thanks in advance.You can specify the TABLOCKX hint to acquire an exclusive table lock. For
example:
INSERT INTO MyTable WITH (TABLOCKX)
SELECT * FROM MyOtherTable WITH (TABLOCKX)
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"TJTODD" <Thxomasx.Toddy@.Siemensx.com> wrote in message
news:%23yBrPIH4DHA.2380@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
quote:
> I am running an upgrade script to update a database from one release to
> another. There are a lot of SQL scripts that run during this process.
> While this process is running - there should be no other users accessing
the
quote:
> database.
> With this in mind - I am hoping to reduce the amount of locking that
occurs.
quote:
> Since no one else will be accessing the system - I don't need all of the
> locks at the granular level (I am fine with table locks). Is there some
way
quote:
> that I could make it so that I get table locks instead of row-level
locking?
quote:|||One to look at will be setting the database into single user mode.
> Thanks in advance.
>
I'm not sure whether it causes locks to escalate, but admin work such as
you're performing is one of it's indended usage scenarios.
You can set a db into single_user by using the alter database command, eg:
alter database [dbname] set single_user
Regards,
Greg Linwood
"TJTODD" <Thxomasx.Toddy@.Siemensx.com> wrote in message
news:%23yBrPIH4DHA.2380@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
quote:
> I am running an upgrade script to update a database from one release to
> another. There are a lot of SQL scripts that run during this process.
> While this process is running - there should be no other users accessing
the
quote:
> database.
> With this in mind - I am hoping to reduce the amount of locking that
occurs.
quote:
> Since no one else will be accessing the system - I don't need all of the
> locks at the granular level (I am fine with table locks). Is there some
way
quote:
> that I could make it so that I get table locks instead of row-level
locking?
quote:
> Thanks in advance.
>
Any setting that would reduce locking during a SQL script?
I am running an upgrade script to update a database from one release to
another. There are a lot of SQL scripts that run during this process.
While this process is running - there should be no other users accessing the
database.
With this in mind - I am hoping to reduce the amount of locking that occurs.
Since no one else will be accessing the system - I don't need all of the
locks at the granular level (I am fine with table locks). Is there some way
that I could make it so that I get table locks instead of row-level locking?
Thanks in advance.You can specify the TABLOCKX hint to acquire an exclusive table lock. For
example:
INSERT INTO MyTable WITH (TABLOCKX)
SELECT * FROM MyOtherTable WITH (TABLOCKX)
--
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"TJTODD" <Thxomasx.Toddy@.Siemensx.com> wrote in message
news:%23yBrPIH4DHA.2380@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> I am running an upgrade script to update a database from one release to
> another. There are a lot of SQL scripts that run during this process.
> While this process is running - there should be no other users accessing
the
> database.
> With this in mind - I am hoping to reduce the amount of locking that
occurs.
> Since no one else will be accessing the system - I don't need all of the
> locks at the granular level (I am fine with table locks). Is there some
way
> that I could make it so that I get table locks instead of row-level
locking?
> Thanks in advance.
>|||One to look at will be setting the database into single user mode.
I'm not sure whether it causes locks to escalate, but admin work such as
you're performing is one of it's indended usage scenarios.
You can set a db into single_user by using the alter database command, eg:
alter database [dbname] set single_user
Regards,
Greg Linwood
"TJTODD" <Thxomasx.Toddy@.Siemensx.com> wrote in message
news:%23yBrPIH4DHA.2380@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> I am running an upgrade script to update a database from one release to
> another. There are a lot of SQL scripts that run during this process.
> While this process is running - there should be no other users accessing
the
> database.
> With this in mind - I am hoping to reduce the amount of locking that
occurs.
> Since no one else will be accessing the system - I don't need all of the
> locks at the granular level (I am fine with table locks). Is there some
way
> that I could make it so that I get table locks instead of row-level
locking?
> Thanks in advance.
>
another. There are a lot of SQL scripts that run during this process.
While this process is running - there should be no other users accessing the
database.
With this in mind - I am hoping to reduce the amount of locking that occurs.
Since no one else will be accessing the system - I don't need all of the
locks at the granular level (I am fine with table locks). Is there some way
that I could make it so that I get table locks instead of row-level locking?
Thanks in advance.You can specify the TABLOCKX hint to acquire an exclusive table lock. For
example:
INSERT INTO MyTable WITH (TABLOCKX)
SELECT * FROM MyOtherTable WITH (TABLOCKX)
--
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"TJTODD" <Thxomasx.Toddy@.Siemensx.com> wrote in message
news:%23yBrPIH4DHA.2380@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> I am running an upgrade script to update a database from one release to
> another. There are a lot of SQL scripts that run during this process.
> While this process is running - there should be no other users accessing
the
> database.
> With this in mind - I am hoping to reduce the amount of locking that
occurs.
> Since no one else will be accessing the system - I don't need all of the
> locks at the granular level (I am fine with table locks). Is there some
way
> that I could make it so that I get table locks instead of row-level
locking?
> Thanks in advance.
>|||One to look at will be setting the database into single user mode.
I'm not sure whether it causes locks to escalate, but admin work such as
you're performing is one of it's indended usage scenarios.
You can set a db into single_user by using the alter database command, eg:
alter database [dbname] set single_user
Regards,
Greg Linwood
"TJTODD" <Thxomasx.Toddy@.Siemensx.com> wrote in message
news:%23yBrPIH4DHA.2380@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> I am running an upgrade script to update a database from one release to
> another. There are a lot of SQL scripts that run during this process.
> While this process is running - there should be no other users accessing
the
> database.
> With this in mind - I am hoping to reduce the amount of locking that
occurs.
> Since no one else will be accessing the system - I don't need all of the
> locks at the granular level (I am fine with table locks). Is there some
way
> that I could make it so that I get table locks instead of row-level
locking?
> Thanks in advance.
>
Any report runs once and then I have to log back in to my app
We have an asp.net app that calls the report server for our reports. We are
running into an issue we don't even understand why it's happening let alone
fixing it...
You can only run one report and then you have to logout of the app and log
back in to run another report. This is with any of our reports! They all
work but only the first report runs the first time. After that all of the
reports don't work. Logout and log back in and choose another report and it
works...?
Here's our code that is basically the same for every report...
dstDataSet = New DataSet
Dim strSPName As String = "spSRS_Appeal_TaxAgents"
'Passing the parameter to the SQL stored procedure
Dim aryParams(1) As SqlParameter
aryParams(0) = New SqlClient.SqlParameter("@.TaxYear", SqlDbType.Int)
aryParams(0).Value = CType(strTaxYear, Integer)
aryParams(1) = New SqlClient.SqlParameter("@.Cycle", SqlDbType.Int)
aryParams(1).Value = CType(strCycle, Integer)
Try
dstDataSet = SqlHelper.ExecuteDataset(cnnConn, strSPName,
aryParams)
Dim intCount As Integer = dstDataSet.Tables(0).Rows.Count
If intCount < 1 Then
lblInfo.Text = "Report records not found! Canceled operation."
Exit Sub
End If
Catch exn As Exception
lblInfo.Text = "Error. Failed to retrieve records! " & exn.Message
End Try
'Create the URL string to render this report from the SQL report
server
'SPParam is the parameter which is submitted to the SQL sotred
procedures
Dim str1, str2, str3, str4, strURL As String
str1 = "http://tennessee/reportserver?/astransc/AppealTaxAgents"
str2 = "&rs:Command=Render&rs:Format=PDF"
str3 = strTaxYear
str4 = strCycle
Dim strPath As New System.Text.StringBuilder
strPath.Append(str1)
strPath.Append(str2)
strPath.Append("&TaxYear=").Append(str3)
strPath.Append("&Cycle=").Append(str4)
strURL = strPath.ToString
Response.Redirect(strURL)
The report is in PDF format and when the report runs it pops up a form
asking if we want to open, save, or cancel the PDF file...
The programmer who wrote this doesn't have this issue on his machine.
However, on the test server this is occuring to us. In fact the programmer
asked for assistance because on his machine it on a rare occasion would not
create the PDF file but he couldn't find a cause for it. On our test server
it occurs like clock work. Log in, run one report (any of them) and then no
other report including the one you just called won't work until you log back
in....
In looking at the report server logs the subsequent requests are not even
making it to the report server? Any ideas? We were wondering if there was
something about the response.redirect? I can take the string created by
the code type it into a url address and it works every time?
Thanks,
KevinI have somewhat figured out what is occuring...
The viewstate is being clobbered when this is occuring (not entirely sure
how but suspect it is occuring because the redirect does not physically
change the page I am on, only creates a do you want to open, save, cancel
this PDF file dialog box). I can only assume that the response.redirect is
the cause now. I am going to figure out a way to accomplish this task.
Kevin
"Kevin" wrote:
> We have an asp.net app that calls the report server for our reports. We are
> running into an issue we don't even understand why it's happening let alone
> fixing it...
> You can only run one report and then you have to logout of the app and log
> back in to run another report. This is with any of our reports! They all
> work but only the first report runs the first time. After that all of the
> reports don't work. Logout and log back in and choose another report and it
> works...?
> Here's our code that is basically the same for every report...
> dstDataSet = New DataSet
> Dim strSPName As String = "spSRS_Appeal_TaxAgents"
> 'Passing the parameter to the SQL stored procedure
> Dim aryParams(1) As SqlParameter
> aryParams(0) = New SqlClient.SqlParameter("@.TaxYear", SqlDbType.Int)
> aryParams(0).Value = CType(strTaxYear, Integer)
> aryParams(1) = New SqlClient.SqlParameter("@.Cycle", SqlDbType.Int)
> aryParams(1).Value = CType(strCycle, Integer)
> Try
> dstDataSet = SqlHelper.ExecuteDataset(cnnConn, strSPName,
> aryParams)
> Dim intCount As Integer = dstDataSet.Tables(0).Rows.Count
> If intCount < 1 Then
> lblInfo.Text = "Report records not found! Canceled operation."
> Exit Sub
> End If
> Catch exn As Exception
> lblInfo.Text = "Error. Failed to retrieve records! " & exn.Message
> End Try
> 'Create the URL string to render this report from the SQL report
> server
> 'SPParam is the parameter which is submitted to the SQL sotred
> procedures
> Dim str1, str2, str3, str4, strURL As String
> str1 = "http://tennessee/reportserver?/astransc/AppealTaxAgents"
> str2 = "&rs:Command=Render&rs:Format=PDF"
> str3 = strTaxYear
> str4 = strCycle
> Dim strPath As New System.Text.StringBuilder
> strPath.Append(str1)
> strPath.Append(str2)
> strPath.Append("&TaxYear=").Append(str3)
> strPath.Append("&Cycle=").Append(str4)
> strURL = strPath.ToString
> Response.Redirect(strURL)
> The report is in PDF format and when the report runs it pops up a form
> asking if we want to open, save, or cancel the PDF file...
> The programmer who wrote this doesn't have this issue on his machine.
> However, on the test server this is occuring to us. In fact the programmer
> asked for assistance because on his machine it on a rare occasion would not
> create the PDF file but he couldn't find a cause for it. On our test server
> it occurs like clock work. Log in, run one report (any of them) and then no
> other report including the one you just called won't work until you log back
> in....
> In looking at the report server logs the subsequent requests are not even
> making it to the report server? Any ideas? We were wondering if there was
> something about the response.redirect? I can take the string created by
> the code type it into a url address and it works every time?
> Thanks,
> Kevin
running into an issue we don't even understand why it's happening let alone
fixing it...
You can only run one report and then you have to logout of the app and log
back in to run another report. This is with any of our reports! They all
work but only the first report runs the first time. After that all of the
reports don't work. Logout and log back in and choose another report and it
works...?
Here's our code that is basically the same for every report...
dstDataSet = New DataSet
Dim strSPName As String = "spSRS_Appeal_TaxAgents"
'Passing the parameter to the SQL stored procedure
Dim aryParams(1) As SqlParameter
aryParams(0) = New SqlClient.SqlParameter("@.TaxYear", SqlDbType.Int)
aryParams(0).Value = CType(strTaxYear, Integer)
aryParams(1) = New SqlClient.SqlParameter("@.Cycle", SqlDbType.Int)
aryParams(1).Value = CType(strCycle, Integer)
Try
dstDataSet = SqlHelper.ExecuteDataset(cnnConn, strSPName,
aryParams)
Dim intCount As Integer = dstDataSet.Tables(0).Rows.Count
If intCount < 1 Then
lblInfo.Text = "Report records not found! Canceled operation."
Exit Sub
End If
Catch exn As Exception
lblInfo.Text = "Error. Failed to retrieve records! " & exn.Message
End Try
'Create the URL string to render this report from the SQL report
server
'SPParam is the parameter which is submitted to the SQL sotred
procedures
Dim str1, str2, str3, str4, strURL As String
str1 = "http://tennessee/reportserver?/astransc/AppealTaxAgents"
str2 = "&rs:Command=Render&rs:Format=PDF"
str3 = strTaxYear
str4 = strCycle
Dim strPath As New System.Text.StringBuilder
strPath.Append(str1)
strPath.Append(str2)
strPath.Append("&TaxYear=").Append(str3)
strPath.Append("&Cycle=").Append(str4)
strURL = strPath.ToString
Response.Redirect(strURL)
The report is in PDF format and when the report runs it pops up a form
asking if we want to open, save, or cancel the PDF file...
The programmer who wrote this doesn't have this issue on his machine.
However, on the test server this is occuring to us. In fact the programmer
asked for assistance because on his machine it on a rare occasion would not
create the PDF file but he couldn't find a cause for it. On our test server
it occurs like clock work. Log in, run one report (any of them) and then no
other report including the one you just called won't work until you log back
in....
In looking at the report server logs the subsequent requests are not even
making it to the report server? Any ideas? We were wondering if there was
something about the response.redirect? I can take the string created by
the code type it into a url address and it works every time?
Thanks,
KevinI have somewhat figured out what is occuring...
The viewstate is being clobbered when this is occuring (not entirely sure
how but suspect it is occuring because the redirect does not physically
change the page I am on, only creates a do you want to open, save, cancel
this PDF file dialog box). I can only assume that the response.redirect is
the cause now. I am going to figure out a way to accomplish this task.
Kevin
"Kevin" wrote:
> We have an asp.net app that calls the report server for our reports. We are
> running into an issue we don't even understand why it's happening let alone
> fixing it...
> You can only run one report and then you have to logout of the app and log
> back in to run another report. This is with any of our reports! They all
> work but only the first report runs the first time. After that all of the
> reports don't work. Logout and log back in and choose another report and it
> works...?
> Here's our code that is basically the same for every report...
> dstDataSet = New DataSet
> Dim strSPName As String = "spSRS_Appeal_TaxAgents"
> 'Passing the parameter to the SQL stored procedure
> Dim aryParams(1) As SqlParameter
> aryParams(0) = New SqlClient.SqlParameter("@.TaxYear", SqlDbType.Int)
> aryParams(0).Value = CType(strTaxYear, Integer)
> aryParams(1) = New SqlClient.SqlParameter("@.Cycle", SqlDbType.Int)
> aryParams(1).Value = CType(strCycle, Integer)
> Try
> dstDataSet = SqlHelper.ExecuteDataset(cnnConn, strSPName,
> aryParams)
> Dim intCount As Integer = dstDataSet.Tables(0).Rows.Count
> If intCount < 1 Then
> lblInfo.Text = "Report records not found! Canceled operation."
> Exit Sub
> End If
> Catch exn As Exception
> lblInfo.Text = "Error. Failed to retrieve records! " & exn.Message
> End Try
> 'Create the URL string to render this report from the SQL report
> server
> 'SPParam is the parameter which is submitted to the SQL sotred
> procedures
> Dim str1, str2, str3, str4, strURL As String
> str1 = "http://tennessee/reportserver?/astransc/AppealTaxAgents"
> str2 = "&rs:Command=Render&rs:Format=PDF"
> str3 = strTaxYear
> str4 = strCycle
> Dim strPath As New System.Text.StringBuilder
> strPath.Append(str1)
> strPath.Append(str2)
> strPath.Append("&TaxYear=").Append(str3)
> strPath.Append("&Cycle=").Append(str4)
> strURL = strPath.ToString
> Response.Redirect(strURL)
> The report is in PDF format and when the report runs it pops up a form
> asking if we want to open, save, or cancel the PDF file...
> The programmer who wrote this doesn't have this issue on his machine.
> However, on the test server this is occuring to us. In fact the programmer
> asked for assistance because on his machine it on a rare occasion would not
> create the PDF file but he couldn't find a cause for it. On our test server
> it occurs like clock work. Log in, run one report (any of them) and then no
> other report including the one you just called won't work until you log back
> in....
> In looking at the report server logs the subsequent requests are not even
> making it to the report server? Any ideas? We were wondering if there was
> something about the response.redirect? I can take the string created by
> the code type it into a url address and it works every time?
> Thanks,
> Kevin
2012年3月6日星期二
Any problems with SQL Server 7 on Win 2003 server?
Are there any known problems with running SQL Server 7 on Win 2003
Server?
Thanks,
--
BillI don't believe it is supported on Win2003. You can certainly run SQL 2000
though.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Bill Todd" <no@.no.com> wrote in message
news:rkutc05gvq269u7h3ajlvhqgo15ovuvu9f@.
4ax.com...
> Are there any known problems with running SQL Server 7 on Win 2003
> Server?
> Thanks,
> --
> Bill|||As Andrew stated, it is an unsupported configuration. Plus, SQL Server 7.0
is a bit long in the tooth.
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)
"Bill Todd" <no@.no.com> wrote in message
news:rkutc05gvq269u7h3ajlvhqgo15ovuvu9f@.
4ax.com...
> Are there any known problems with running SQL Server 7 on Win 2003
> Server?
> Thanks,
> --
> Bill|||What is the estimated ship date for SQL Server 2005?
Unfortunately upgrading everything at once is not always possible for
small businesses. The goal is to get current without getting
bankrupt.<g>
Thanks for you help and insight.
--
Bill|||I would go the other way first, if you can. Update the things that run your
apps (SQL Server) and then the OS. It's easier, imho, to get the bugs out
of the app migration first, THEN test an OS upgrade. If you go the other
way it's very difficult to backtrack.
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)
"Bill Todd" <no@.no.com> wrote in message
news:ft6uc0d7aluvok902gu3j8hjo7eeuqf37o@.
4ax.com...
> What is the estimated ship date for SQL Server 2005?
> Unfortunately upgrading everything at once is not always possible for
> small businesses. The goal is to get current without getting
> bankrupt.<g>
> Thanks for you help and insight.
> --
> Bill|||(Plus, you'll never be in unsupported territory.)
> I would go the other way first, if you can. Update the things that run
your
> apps (SQL Server) and then the OS. It's easier, imho, to get the bugs out
> of the app migration first, THEN test an OS upgrade. If you go the other
> way it's very difficult to backtrack.|||No one explains what the problem is between the two. Why is is not compatibl
e would have been a good question. Does it run? Yes it can be loaded. I have
client apps that can not use SQL 2000 (they aren't rewritting the code). I
was in an emergency situati
on that I had to load SQL 7 to get the system back on line ASAP with the new
server they replaced (didn't have time to line MS pockets, yet). All the s
ervice packs loaded OK and the serices ran. I connected my clients with name
d pipes, and the data flowe
d. It has worked flawlessly for weeks, but I'm not doing alot of processing
with it, just data collecting. Sooner than later I will have to get the guru
s to rewrite the code on their app, but I was in a situation to where I had
to use SQL 7 like it or not
. Do I recommend using it, no. but it works in a bind.
"Bill Todd" wrote:
> Are there any known problems with running SQL Server 7 on Win 2003
> Server?
> Thanks,
> --
> Bill
>|||I don't think it is a problem with compatibility per say. SQL Server 7.0
came out before Win2003 and they will not add new functionality to 7.0 since
2000 is the current product. I am sure there are aspects of Win2003 that
7.0 knows nothing about and never will. I have never seen anything that
stated you can not get 7.0 to run but as was stated it is unsupported. So
if you have any problems at all your on your own<g>.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"lesman" <lesman@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E4841986-2E66-41F7-B79D-659B1DC1FE0E@.microsoft.com...
> No one explains what the problem is between the two. Why is is not
compatible would have been a good question. Does it run? Yes it can be
loaded. I have client apps that can not use SQL 2000 (they aren't rewritting
the code). I was in an emergency situation that I had to load SQL 7 to get
the system back on line ASAP with the new server they replaced (didn't have
time to line MS pockets, yet). All the service packs loaded OK and the
serices ran. I connected my clients with named pipes, and the data flowed.
It has worked flawlessly for weeks, but I'm not doing alot of processing
with it, just data collecting. Sooner than later I will have to get the
gurus to rewrite the code on their app, but I was in a situation to where I
had to use SQL 7 like it or not. Do I recommend using it, no. but it works
in a bind.[vbcol=seagreen]
> "Bill Todd" wrote:
>|||> No one explains what the problem is between the two. Why is is not
> compatible would have been a good question.
Nobody said it wasn't compatible. They said it wasn't supported.
> I have client apps that can not use SQL 2000 (they aren't rewritting the
> code).
Can you give an example of something that works in 7.0 and not in 2000? How
about 2000 with the db in 7.0 compat mode?
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)|||I agree. That is the safe way and I do not want to run an unsupported
combination, just in case...
. Thanks for your help.
--
Bill
Server?
Thanks,
--
BillI don't believe it is supported on Win2003. You can certainly run SQL 2000
though.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Bill Todd" <no@.no.com> wrote in message
news:rkutc05gvq269u7h3ajlvhqgo15ovuvu9f@.
4ax.com...
> Are there any known problems with running SQL Server 7 on Win 2003
> Server?
> Thanks,
> --
> Bill|||As Andrew stated, it is an unsupported configuration. Plus, SQL Server 7.0
is a bit long in the tooth.
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)
"Bill Todd" <no@.no.com> wrote in message
news:rkutc05gvq269u7h3ajlvhqgo15ovuvu9f@.
4ax.com...
> Are there any known problems with running SQL Server 7 on Win 2003
> Server?
> Thanks,
> --
> Bill|||What is the estimated ship date for SQL Server 2005?
Unfortunately upgrading everything at once is not always possible for
small businesses. The goal is to get current without getting
bankrupt.<g>
Thanks for you help and insight.
--
Bill|||I would go the other way first, if you can. Update the things that run your
apps (SQL Server) and then the OS. It's easier, imho, to get the bugs out
of the app migration first, THEN test an OS upgrade. If you go the other
way it's very difficult to backtrack.
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)
"Bill Todd" <no@.no.com> wrote in message
news:ft6uc0d7aluvok902gu3j8hjo7eeuqf37o@.
4ax.com...
> What is the estimated ship date for SQL Server 2005?
> Unfortunately upgrading everything at once is not always possible for
> small businesses. The goal is to get current without getting
> bankrupt.<g>
> Thanks for you help and insight.
> --
> Bill|||(Plus, you'll never be in unsupported territory.)
> I would go the other way first, if you can. Update the things that run
your
> apps (SQL Server) and then the OS. It's easier, imho, to get the bugs out
> of the app migration first, THEN test an OS upgrade. If you go the other
> way it's very difficult to backtrack.|||No one explains what the problem is between the two. Why is is not compatibl
e would have been a good question. Does it run? Yes it can be loaded. I have
client apps that can not use SQL 2000 (they aren't rewritting the code). I
was in an emergency situati
on that I had to load SQL 7 to get the system back on line ASAP with the new
server they replaced (didn't have time to line MS pockets, yet). All the s
ervice packs loaded OK and the serices ran. I connected my clients with name
d pipes, and the data flowe
d. It has worked flawlessly for weeks, but I'm not doing alot of processing
with it, just data collecting. Sooner than later I will have to get the guru
s to rewrite the code on their app, but I was in a situation to where I had
to use SQL 7 like it or not
. Do I recommend using it, no. but it works in a bind.
"Bill Todd" wrote:
> Are there any known problems with running SQL Server 7 on Win 2003
> Server?
> Thanks,
> --
> Bill
>|||I don't think it is a problem with compatibility per say. SQL Server 7.0
came out before Win2003 and they will not add new functionality to 7.0 since
2000 is the current product. I am sure there are aspects of Win2003 that
7.0 knows nothing about and never will. I have never seen anything that
stated you can not get 7.0 to run but as was stated it is unsupported. So
if you have any problems at all your on your own<g>.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"lesman" <lesman@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E4841986-2E66-41F7-B79D-659B1DC1FE0E@.microsoft.com...
> No one explains what the problem is between the two. Why is is not
compatible would have been a good question. Does it run? Yes it can be
loaded. I have client apps that can not use SQL 2000 (they aren't rewritting
the code). I was in an emergency situation that I had to load SQL 7 to get
the system back on line ASAP with the new server they replaced (didn't have
time to line MS pockets, yet). All the service packs loaded OK and the
serices ran. I connected my clients with named pipes, and the data flowed.
It has worked flawlessly for weeks, but I'm not doing alot of processing
with it, just data collecting. Sooner than later I will have to get the
gurus to rewrite the code on their app, but I was in a situation to where I
had to use SQL 7 like it or not. Do I recommend using it, no. but it works
in a bind.[vbcol=seagreen]
> "Bill Todd" wrote:
>|||> No one explains what the problem is between the two. Why is is not
> compatible would have been a good question.
Nobody said it wasn't compatible. They said it wasn't supported.
> I have client apps that can not use SQL 2000 (they aren't rewritting the
> code).
Can you give an example of something that works in 7.0 and not in 2000? How
about 2000 with the db in 7.0 compat mode?
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)|||I agree. That is the safe way and I do not want to run an unsupported
combination, just in case...
. Thanks for your help.--
Bill
Any problems with SQL Server 7 on Win 2003 server?
Are there any known problems with running SQL Server 7 on Win 2003
Server?
Thanks,
--
BillI don't believe it is supported on Win2003. You can certainly run SQL 2000
though.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Bill Todd" <no@.no.com> wrote in message
news:rkutc05gvq269u7h3ajlvhqgo15ovuvu9f@.4ax.com...
> Are there any known problems with running SQL Server 7 on Win 2003
> Server?
> Thanks,
> --
> Bill|||As Andrew stated, it is an unsupported configuration. Plus, SQL Server 7.0
is a bit long in the tooth.
--
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)
"Bill Todd" <no@.no.com> wrote in message
news:rkutc05gvq269u7h3ajlvhqgo15ovuvu9f@.4ax.com...
> Are there any known problems with running SQL Server 7 on Win 2003
> Server?
> Thanks,
> --
> Bill|||What is the estimated ship date for SQL Server 2005?
Unfortunately upgrading everything at once is not always possible for
small businesses. The goal is to get current without getting
bankrupt.<g>
Thanks for you help and insight.
--
Bill|||I would go the other way first, if you can. Update the things that run your
apps (SQL Server) and then the OS. It's easier, imho, to get the bugs out
of the app migration first, THEN test an OS upgrade. If you go the other
way it's very difficult to backtrack.
--
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)
"Bill Todd" <no@.no.com> wrote in message
news:ft6uc0d7aluvok902gu3j8hjo7eeuqf37o@.4ax.com...
> What is the estimated ship date for SQL Server 2005?
> Unfortunately upgrading everything at once is not always possible for
> small businesses. The goal is to get current without getting
> bankrupt.<g>
> Thanks for you help and insight.
> --
> Bill|||(Plus, you'll never be in unsupported territory.)
> I would go the other way first, if you can. Update the things that run
your
> apps (SQL Server) and then the OS. It's easier, imho, to get the bugs out
> of the app migration first, THEN test an OS upgrade. If you go the other
> way it's very difficult to backtrack.|||No one explains what the problem is between the two. Why is is not compatible would have been a good question. Does it run? Yes it can be loaded. I have client apps that can not use SQL 2000 (they aren't rewritting the code). I was in an emergency situation that I had to load SQL 7 to get the system back on line ASAP with the new server they replaced (didn't have time to line MS pockets, yet). All the service packs loaded OK and the serices ran. I connected my clients with named pipes, and the data flowed. It has worked flawlessly for weeks, but I'm not doing alot of processing with it, just data collecting. Sooner than later I will have to get the gurus to rewrite the code on their app, but I was in a situation to where I had to use SQL 7 like it or not. Do I recommend using it, no. but it works in a bind.
"Bill Todd" wrote:
> Are there any known problems with running SQL Server 7 on Win 2003
> Server?
> Thanks,
> --
> Bill
>|||I don't think it is a problem with compatibility per say. SQL Server 7.0
came out before Win2003 and they will not add new functionality to 7.0 since
2000 is the current product. I am sure there are aspects of Win2003 that
7.0 knows nothing about and never will. I have never seen anything that
stated you can not get 7.0 to run but as was stated it is unsupported. So
if you have any problems at all your on your own<g>.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"lesman" <lesman@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E4841986-2E66-41F7-B79D-659B1DC1FE0E@.microsoft.com...
> No one explains what the problem is between the two. Why is is not
compatible would have been a good question. Does it run? Yes it can be
loaded. I have client apps that can not use SQL 2000 (they aren't rewritting
the code). I was in an emergency situation that I had to load SQL 7 to get
the system back on line ASAP with the new server they replaced (didn't have
time to line MS pockets, yet). All the service packs loaded OK and the
serices ran. I connected my clients with named pipes, and the data flowed.
It has worked flawlessly for weeks, but I'm not doing alot of processing
with it, just data collecting. Sooner than later I will have to get the
gurus to rewrite the code on their app, but I was in a situation to where I
had to use SQL 7 like it or not. Do I recommend using it, no. but it works
in a bind.
> "Bill Todd" wrote:
> > Are there any known problems with running SQL Server 7 on Win 2003
> > Server?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > --
> > Bill
> >|||> No one explains what the problem is between the two. Why is is not
> compatible would have been a good question.
Nobody said it wasn't compatible. They said it wasn't supported.
> I have client apps that can not use SQL 2000 (they aren't rewritting the
> code).
Can you give an example of something that works in 7.0 and not in 2000? How
about 2000 with the db in 7.0 compat mode?
--
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)|||Hi Bill,
Based on my testing, the codes like
Provider=SQLOLEDB; Data Source=Server, 6500; Initial Catalog=pubs; User
ID=sa; Password=;
could run well on my machine. So would you please follow my suggestions in
the previous post to configure port and then try it in Access again?
Sincerely yours,
Mingqing Cheng
Microsoft Developer Community Support
---
Introduction to Yukon! - http://www.microsoft.com/sql/yukon
This posting is provided "as is" with no warranties and confers no rights.
Please reply to newsgroups only, many thanks!|||I agree. That is the safe way and I do not want to run an unsupported
combination, just in case... :). Thanks for your help.
--
Bill
Server?
Thanks,
--
BillI don't believe it is supported on Win2003. You can certainly run SQL 2000
though.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Bill Todd" <no@.no.com> wrote in message
news:rkutc05gvq269u7h3ajlvhqgo15ovuvu9f@.4ax.com...
> Are there any known problems with running SQL Server 7 on Win 2003
> Server?
> Thanks,
> --
> Bill|||As Andrew stated, it is an unsupported configuration. Plus, SQL Server 7.0
is a bit long in the tooth.
--
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)
"Bill Todd" <no@.no.com> wrote in message
news:rkutc05gvq269u7h3ajlvhqgo15ovuvu9f@.4ax.com...
> Are there any known problems with running SQL Server 7 on Win 2003
> Server?
> Thanks,
> --
> Bill|||What is the estimated ship date for SQL Server 2005?
Unfortunately upgrading everything at once is not always possible for
small businesses. The goal is to get current without getting
bankrupt.<g>
Thanks for you help and insight.
--
Bill|||I would go the other way first, if you can. Update the things that run your
apps (SQL Server) and then the OS. It's easier, imho, to get the bugs out
of the app migration first, THEN test an OS upgrade. If you go the other
way it's very difficult to backtrack.
--
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)
"Bill Todd" <no@.no.com> wrote in message
news:ft6uc0d7aluvok902gu3j8hjo7eeuqf37o@.4ax.com...
> What is the estimated ship date for SQL Server 2005?
> Unfortunately upgrading everything at once is not always possible for
> small businesses. The goal is to get current without getting
> bankrupt.<g>
> Thanks for you help and insight.
> --
> Bill|||(Plus, you'll never be in unsupported territory.)
> I would go the other way first, if you can. Update the things that run
your
> apps (SQL Server) and then the OS. It's easier, imho, to get the bugs out
> of the app migration first, THEN test an OS upgrade. If you go the other
> way it's very difficult to backtrack.|||No one explains what the problem is between the two. Why is is not compatible would have been a good question. Does it run? Yes it can be loaded. I have client apps that can not use SQL 2000 (they aren't rewritting the code). I was in an emergency situation that I had to load SQL 7 to get the system back on line ASAP with the new server they replaced (didn't have time to line MS pockets, yet). All the service packs loaded OK and the serices ran. I connected my clients with named pipes, and the data flowed. It has worked flawlessly for weeks, but I'm not doing alot of processing with it, just data collecting. Sooner than later I will have to get the gurus to rewrite the code on their app, but I was in a situation to where I had to use SQL 7 like it or not. Do I recommend using it, no. but it works in a bind.
"Bill Todd" wrote:
> Are there any known problems with running SQL Server 7 on Win 2003
> Server?
> Thanks,
> --
> Bill
>|||I don't think it is a problem with compatibility per say. SQL Server 7.0
came out before Win2003 and they will not add new functionality to 7.0 since
2000 is the current product. I am sure there are aspects of Win2003 that
7.0 knows nothing about and never will. I have never seen anything that
stated you can not get 7.0 to run but as was stated it is unsupported. So
if you have any problems at all your on your own<g>.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"lesman" <lesman@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E4841986-2E66-41F7-B79D-659B1DC1FE0E@.microsoft.com...
> No one explains what the problem is between the two. Why is is not
compatible would have been a good question. Does it run? Yes it can be
loaded. I have client apps that can not use SQL 2000 (they aren't rewritting
the code). I was in an emergency situation that I had to load SQL 7 to get
the system back on line ASAP with the new server they replaced (didn't have
time to line MS pockets, yet). All the service packs loaded OK and the
serices ran. I connected my clients with named pipes, and the data flowed.
It has worked flawlessly for weeks, but I'm not doing alot of processing
with it, just data collecting. Sooner than later I will have to get the
gurus to rewrite the code on their app, but I was in a situation to where I
had to use SQL 7 like it or not. Do I recommend using it, no. but it works
in a bind.
> "Bill Todd" wrote:
> > Are there any known problems with running SQL Server 7 on Win 2003
> > Server?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > --
> > Bill
> >|||> No one explains what the problem is between the two. Why is is not
> compatible would have been a good question.
Nobody said it wasn't compatible. They said it wasn't supported.
> I have client apps that can not use SQL 2000 (they aren't rewritting the
> code).
Can you give an example of something that works in 7.0 and not in 2000? How
about 2000 with the db in 7.0 compat mode?
--
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)|||Hi Bill,
Based on my testing, the codes like
Provider=SQLOLEDB; Data Source=Server, 6500; Initial Catalog=pubs; User
ID=sa; Password=;
could run well on my machine. So would you please follow my suggestions in
the previous post to configure port and then try it in Access again?
Sincerely yours,
Mingqing Cheng
Microsoft Developer Community Support
---
Introduction to Yukon! - http://www.microsoft.com/sql/yukon
This posting is provided "as is" with no warranties and confers no rights.
Please reply to newsgroups only, many thanks!|||I agree. That is the safe way and I do not want to run an unsupported
combination, just in case... :). Thanks for your help.
--
Bill
Any problems with SQL Server 7 on Win 2003 server?
Are there any known problems with running SQL Server 7 on Win 2003
Server?
Thanks,
Bill
I don't believe it is supported on Win2003. You can certainly run SQL 2000
though.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Bill Todd" <no@.no.com> wrote in message
news:rkutc05gvq269u7h3ajlvhqgo15ovuvu9f@.4ax.com...
> Are there any known problems with running SQL Server 7 on Win 2003
> Server?
> Thanks,
> --
> Bill
|||As Andrew stated, it is an unsupported configuration. Plus, SQL Server 7.0
is a bit long in the tooth.
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)
"Bill Todd" <no@.no.com> wrote in message
news:rkutc05gvq269u7h3ajlvhqgo15ovuvu9f@.4ax.com...
> Are there any known problems with running SQL Server 7 on Win 2003
> Server?
> Thanks,
> --
> Bill
|||What is the estimated ship date for SQL Server 2005?
Unfortunately upgrading everything at once is not always possible for
small businesses. The goal is to get current without getting
bankrupt.<g>
Thanks for you help and insight.
Bill
|||I would go the other way first, if you can. Update the things that run your
apps (SQL Server) and then the OS. It's easier, imho, to get the bugs out
of the app migration first, THEN test an OS upgrade. If you go the other
way it's very difficult to backtrack.
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)
"Bill Todd" <no@.no.com> wrote in message
news:ft6uc0d7aluvok902gu3j8hjo7eeuqf37o@.4ax.com...
> What is the estimated ship date for SQL Server 2005?
> Unfortunately upgrading everything at once is not always possible for
> small businesses. The goal is to get current without getting
> bankrupt.<g>
> Thanks for you help and insight.
> --
> Bill
|||(Plus, you'll never be in unsupported territory.)
> I would go the other way first, if you can. Update the things that run
your
> apps (SQL Server) and then the OS. It's easier, imho, to get the bugs out
> of the app migration first, THEN test an OS upgrade. If you go the other
> way it's very difficult to backtrack.
|||No one explains what the problem is between the two. Why is is not compatible would have been a good question. Does it run? Yes it can be loaded. I have client apps that can not use SQL 2000 (they aren't rewritting the code). I was in an emergency situati
on that I had to load SQL 7 to get the system back on line ASAP with the new server they replaced (didn't have time to line MS pockets, yet). All the service packs loaded OK and the serices ran. I connected my clients with named pipes, and the data flowe
d. It has worked flawlessly for weeks, but I'm not doing alot of processing with it, just data collecting. Sooner than later I will have to get the gurus to rewrite the code on their app, but I was in a situation to where I had to use SQL 7 like it or not
. Do I recommend using it, no. but it works in a bind.
"Bill Todd" wrote:
> Are there any known problems with running SQL Server 7 on Win 2003
> Server?
> Thanks,
> --
> Bill
>
|||I don't think it is a problem with compatibility per say. SQL Server 7.0
came out before Win2003 and they will not add new functionality to 7.0 since
2000 is the current product. I am sure there are aspects of Win2003 that
7.0 knows nothing about and never will. I have never seen anything that
stated you can not get 7.0 to run but as was stated it is unsupported. So
if you have any problems at all your on your own<g>.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"lesman" <lesman@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E4841986-2E66-41F7-B79D-659B1DC1FE0E@.microsoft.com...
> No one explains what the problem is between the two. Why is is not
compatible would have been a good question. Does it run? Yes it can be
loaded. I have client apps that can not use SQL 2000 (they aren't rewritting
the code). I was in an emergency situation that I had to load SQL 7 to get
the system back on line ASAP with the new server they replaced (didn't have
time to line MS pockets, yet). All the service packs loaded OK and the
serices ran. I connected my clients with named pipes, and the data flowed.
It has worked flawlessly for weeks, but I'm not doing alot of processing
with it, just data collecting. Sooner than later I will have to get the
gurus to rewrite the code on their app, but I was in a situation to where I
had to use SQL 7 like it or not. Do I recommend using it, no. but it works
in a bind.[vbcol=seagreen]
> "Bill Todd" wrote:
|||> No one explains what the problem is between the two. Why is is not
> compatible would have been a good question.
Nobody said it wasn't compatible. They said it wasn't supported.
> I have client apps that can not use SQL 2000 (they aren't rewritting the
> code).
Can you give an example of something that works in 7.0 and not in 2000? How
about 2000 with the db in 7.0 compat mode?
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)
|||I agree. That is the safe way and I do not want to run an unsupported
combination, just in case.... Thanks for your help.
Bill
Server?
Thanks,
Bill
I don't believe it is supported on Win2003. You can certainly run SQL 2000
though.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Bill Todd" <no@.no.com> wrote in message
news:rkutc05gvq269u7h3ajlvhqgo15ovuvu9f@.4ax.com...
> Are there any known problems with running SQL Server 7 on Win 2003
> Server?
> Thanks,
> --
> Bill
|||As Andrew stated, it is an unsupported configuration. Plus, SQL Server 7.0
is a bit long in the tooth.
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)
"Bill Todd" <no@.no.com> wrote in message
news:rkutc05gvq269u7h3ajlvhqgo15ovuvu9f@.4ax.com...
> Are there any known problems with running SQL Server 7 on Win 2003
> Server?
> Thanks,
> --
> Bill
|||What is the estimated ship date for SQL Server 2005?
Unfortunately upgrading everything at once is not always possible for
small businesses. The goal is to get current without getting
bankrupt.<g>
Thanks for you help and insight.
Bill
|||I would go the other way first, if you can. Update the things that run your
apps (SQL Server) and then the OS. It's easier, imho, to get the bugs out
of the app migration first, THEN test an OS upgrade. If you go the other
way it's very difficult to backtrack.
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)
"Bill Todd" <no@.no.com> wrote in message
news:ft6uc0d7aluvok902gu3j8hjo7eeuqf37o@.4ax.com...
> What is the estimated ship date for SQL Server 2005?
> Unfortunately upgrading everything at once is not always possible for
> small businesses. The goal is to get current without getting
> bankrupt.<g>
> Thanks for you help and insight.
> --
> Bill
|||(Plus, you'll never be in unsupported territory.)
> I would go the other way first, if you can. Update the things that run
your
> apps (SQL Server) and then the OS. It's easier, imho, to get the bugs out
> of the app migration first, THEN test an OS upgrade. If you go the other
> way it's very difficult to backtrack.
|||No one explains what the problem is between the two. Why is is not compatible would have been a good question. Does it run? Yes it can be loaded. I have client apps that can not use SQL 2000 (they aren't rewritting the code). I was in an emergency situati
on that I had to load SQL 7 to get the system back on line ASAP with the new server they replaced (didn't have time to line MS pockets, yet). All the service packs loaded OK and the serices ran. I connected my clients with named pipes, and the data flowe
d. It has worked flawlessly for weeks, but I'm not doing alot of processing with it, just data collecting. Sooner than later I will have to get the gurus to rewrite the code on their app, but I was in a situation to where I had to use SQL 7 like it or not
. Do I recommend using it, no. but it works in a bind.
"Bill Todd" wrote:
> Are there any known problems with running SQL Server 7 on Win 2003
> Server?
> Thanks,
> --
> Bill
>
|||I don't think it is a problem with compatibility per say. SQL Server 7.0
came out before Win2003 and they will not add new functionality to 7.0 since
2000 is the current product. I am sure there are aspects of Win2003 that
7.0 knows nothing about and never will. I have never seen anything that
stated you can not get 7.0 to run but as was stated it is unsupported. So
if you have any problems at all your on your own<g>.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"lesman" <lesman@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E4841986-2E66-41F7-B79D-659B1DC1FE0E@.microsoft.com...
> No one explains what the problem is between the two. Why is is not
compatible would have been a good question. Does it run? Yes it can be
loaded. I have client apps that can not use SQL 2000 (they aren't rewritting
the code). I was in an emergency situation that I had to load SQL 7 to get
the system back on line ASAP with the new server they replaced (didn't have
time to line MS pockets, yet). All the service packs loaded OK and the
serices ran. I connected my clients with named pipes, and the data flowed.
It has worked flawlessly for weeks, but I'm not doing alot of processing
with it, just data collecting. Sooner than later I will have to get the
gurus to rewrite the code on their app, but I was in a situation to where I
had to use SQL 7 like it or not. Do I recommend using it, no. but it works
in a bind.[vbcol=seagreen]
> "Bill Todd" wrote:
|||> No one explains what the problem is between the two. Why is is not
> compatible would have been a good question.
Nobody said it wasn't compatible. They said it wasn't supported.
> I have client apps that can not use SQL 2000 (they aren't rewritting the
> code).
Can you give an example of something that works in 7.0 and not in 2000? How
about 2000 with the db in 7.0 compat mode?
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)
|||I agree. That is the safe way and I do not want to run an unsupported
combination, just in case...
. Thanks for your help.Bill
2012年2月25日星期六
Any Issues With Windows 2003 SP1?
Hi,
Does anybody know of any issues with Windows 2003 SP1?
We have a Standard SQL Server 2000 with SP3 running on Windows 2003.
Lee Aholima
DBA and IT Support
YES!
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;899599
"dayfive" <dayfive@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6FA46E11-7EB7-4EBC-9160-51411A87A8F3@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> Does anybody know of any issues with Windows 2003 SP1?
> We have a Standard SQL Server 2000 with SP3 running on Windows 2003.
> --
> Lee Aholima
> DBA and IT Support
>
Does anybody know of any issues with Windows 2003 SP1?
We have a Standard SQL Server 2000 with SP3 running on Windows 2003.
Lee Aholima
DBA and IT Support
YES!
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;899599
"dayfive" <dayfive@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6FA46E11-7EB7-4EBC-9160-51411A87A8F3@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> Does anybody know of any issues with Windows 2003 SP1?
> We have a Standard SQL Server 2000 with SP3 running on Windows 2003.
> --
> Lee Aholima
> DBA and IT Support
>
Any Issues With Windows 2003 SP1?
Hi,
Does anybody know of any issues with Windows 2003 SP1?
We have a Standard SQL Server 2000 with SP3 running on Windows 2003.
Lee Aholima
DBA and IT SupportYES!
http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...kb;en-us;899599
"dayfive" <dayfive@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6FA46E11-7EB7-4EBC-9160-51411A87A8F3@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> Does anybody know of any issues with Windows 2003 SP1?
> We have a Standard SQL Server 2000 with SP3 running on Windows 2003.
> --
> Lee Aholima
> DBA and IT Support
>
Does anybody know of any issues with Windows 2003 SP1?
We have a Standard SQL Server 2000 with SP3 running on Windows 2003.
Lee Aholima
DBA and IT SupportYES!
http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...kb;en-us;899599
"dayfive" <dayfive@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6FA46E11-7EB7-4EBC-9160-51411A87A8F3@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> Does anybody know of any issues with Windows 2003 SP1?
> We have a Standard SQL Server 2000 with SP3 running on Windows 2003.
> --
> Lee Aholima
> DBA and IT Support
>
Any Issues With Windows 2003 SP1?
Hi,
Does anybody know of any issues with Windows 2003 SP1?
We have a Standard SQL Server 2000 with SP3 running on Windows 2003.
--
Lee Aholima
DBA and IT SupportYES!
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;899599
"dayfive" <dayfive@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6FA46E11-7EB7-4EBC-9160-51411A87A8F3@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> Does anybody know of any issues with Windows 2003 SP1?
> We have a Standard SQL Server 2000 with SP3 running on Windows 2003.
> --
> Lee Aholima
> DBA and IT Support
>
Does anybody know of any issues with Windows 2003 SP1?
We have a Standard SQL Server 2000 with SP3 running on Windows 2003.
--
Lee Aholima
DBA and IT SupportYES!
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;899599
"dayfive" <dayfive@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6FA46E11-7EB7-4EBC-9160-51411A87A8F3@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> Does anybody know of any issues with Windows 2003 SP1?
> We have a Standard SQL Server 2000 with SP3 running on Windows 2003.
> --
> Lee Aholima
> DBA and IT Support
>
Any issues with running SQL Server 2000 Standard Edt. on a 4GB server?
Hi,
we have a project where my company and another company is using the same sql
server, the problem is that the sql server crashes approximately every 3-4
days, with something that looks like memory related issues where we get the
following errors in the eventlog just before it crashes:
17120 : SQL Server could not spawn process_loginread thread.
The other company is using some COM objects (asphttp from
www.serverobjects.com) from some stored procedures to call a website(these
are called several thousand times a day) and I think that is the problem
since i can crash my own sql server and several other development sql
servers with calling this COM object through storedprocedues several
thousand times with what looks like a memory leak as sql server uses more
and more memory the more times these stored procedures are called... the
other company of course say that they have been using this product for years
without problems.
Now the other company insists that there is problems with having 4GB memory
in the server and running the standard edition of sql server 2000. We are
not using /3GB switch in boot.ini and yes we know that standard edition of
sql server can only use 2GB max.
Anyone experienced any problems like this before on a similar setup, that
too much ram will kill sql server? because i sure haven't.
Server specs:
Dual 3Ghz Xeon, 4GB ram, Mirrored Raid, HP/compaq branded server running
windows server 2003 standard edition.
SQL Server 2000 standard edition with the latest service packHi
The COM object is leaking the memory and not SQL. SQL can't control it as it
is running in process. Tell them to run the test on their machine a few
million times in a loop and watch their server fall over.
I have seen this many times and it does not matter how much RAM you have.
Regards
Mike
"T. Schmidt" wrote:
> Hi,
> we have a project where my company and another company is using the same sql
> server, the problem is that the sql server crashes approximately every 3-4
> days, with something that looks like memory related issues where we get the
> following errors in the eventlog just before it crashes:
> 17120 : SQL Server could not spawn process_loginread thread.
> The other company is using some COM objects (asphttp from
> www.serverobjects.com) from some stored procedures to call a website(these
> are called several thousand times a day) and I think that is the problem
> since i can crash my own sql server and several other development sql
> servers with calling this COM object through storedprocedues several
> thousand times with what looks like a memory leak as sql server uses more
> and more memory the more times these stored procedures are called... the
> other company of course say that they have been using this product for years
> without problems.
> Now the other company insists that there is problems with having 4GB memory
> in the server and running the standard edition of sql server 2000. We are
> not using /3GB switch in boot.ini and yes we know that standard edition of
> sql server can only use 2GB max.
> Anyone experienced any problems like this before on a similar setup, that
> too much ram will kill sql server? because i sure haven't.
> Server specs:
> Dual 3Ghz Xeon, 4GB ram, Mirrored Raid, HP/compaq branded server running
> windows server 2003 standard edition.
> SQL Server 2000 standard edition with the latest service pack
>
>
>|||I tried using another com object(w3socket www.dimac.net) that does the same
thing and called the stored procedure 100.000 times, and sql server didn't
use anymore memory during the test. I did the same thing with the com object
i suspect leaking and could see that sql servers private bytes was rising
slowly but steadily. That has to be a good indication of a leak wouldn't you
say?
I used process explorer from system internals to monitor sql server.
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message
news:04F273D3-1FEE-4B6A-A7F8-9AC074D79ECE@.microsoft.com...
> Hi
> The COM object is leaking the memory and not SQL. SQL can't control it as
it
> is running in process. Tell them to run the test on their machine a few
> million times in a loop and watch their server fall over.
> I have seen this many times and it does not matter how much RAM you have.
> Regards
> Mike
> "T. Schmidt" wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > we have a project where my company and another company is using the same
sql
> > server, the problem is that the sql server crashes approximately every
3-4
> > days, with something that looks like memory related issues where we get
the
> > following errors in the eventlog just before it crashes:
> >
> > 17120 : SQL Server could not spawn process_loginread thread.
> >
> > The other company is using some COM objects (asphttp from
> > www.serverobjects.com) from some stored procedures to call a
website(these
> > are called several thousand times a day) and I think that is the problem
> > since i can crash my own sql server and several other development sql
> > servers with calling this COM object through storedprocedues several
> > thousand times with what looks like a memory leak as sql server uses
more
> > and more memory the more times these stored procedures are called... the
> > other company of course say that they have been using this product for
years
> > without problems.
> >
> > Now the other company insists that there is problems with having 4GB
memory
> > in the server and running the standard edition of sql server 2000. We
are
> > not using /3GB switch in boot.ini and yes we know that standard edition
of
> > sql server can only use 2GB max.
> >
> > Anyone experienced any problems like this before on a similar setup,
that
> > too much ram will kill sql server? because i sure haven't.
> >
> > Server specs:
> >
> > Dual 3Ghz Xeon, 4GB ram, Mirrored Raid, HP/compaq branded server running
> > windows server 2003 standard edition.
> >
> > SQL Server 2000 standard edition with the latest service pack
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
we have a project where my company and another company is using the same sql
server, the problem is that the sql server crashes approximately every 3-4
days, with something that looks like memory related issues where we get the
following errors in the eventlog just before it crashes:
17120 : SQL Server could not spawn process_loginread thread.
The other company is using some COM objects (asphttp from
www.serverobjects.com) from some stored procedures to call a website(these
are called several thousand times a day) and I think that is the problem
since i can crash my own sql server and several other development sql
servers with calling this COM object through storedprocedues several
thousand times with what looks like a memory leak as sql server uses more
and more memory the more times these stored procedures are called... the
other company of course say that they have been using this product for years
without problems.
Now the other company insists that there is problems with having 4GB memory
in the server and running the standard edition of sql server 2000. We are
not using /3GB switch in boot.ini and yes we know that standard edition of
sql server can only use 2GB max.
Anyone experienced any problems like this before on a similar setup, that
too much ram will kill sql server? because i sure haven't.
Server specs:
Dual 3Ghz Xeon, 4GB ram, Mirrored Raid, HP/compaq branded server running
windows server 2003 standard edition.
SQL Server 2000 standard edition with the latest service packHi
The COM object is leaking the memory and not SQL. SQL can't control it as it
is running in process. Tell them to run the test on their machine a few
million times in a loop and watch their server fall over.
I have seen this many times and it does not matter how much RAM you have.
Regards
Mike
"T. Schmidt" wrote:
> Hi,
> we have a project where my company and another company is using the same sql
> server, the problem is that the sql server crashes approximately every 3-4
> days, with something that looks like memory related issues where we get the
> following errors in the eventlog just before it crashes:
> 17120 : SQL Server could not spawn process_loginread thread.
> The other company is using some COM objects (asphttp from
> www.serverobjects.com) from some stored procedures to call a website(these
> are called several thousand times a day) and I think that is the problem
> since i can crash my own sql server and several other development sql
> servers with calling this COM object through storedprocedues several
> thousand times with what looks like a memory leak as sql server uses more
> and more memory the more times these stored procedures are called... the
> other company of course say that they have been using this product for years
> without problems.
> Now the other company insists that there is problems with having 4GB memory
> in the server and running the standard edition of sql server 2000. We are
> not using /3GB switch in boot.ini and yes we know that standard edition of
> sql server can only use 2GB max.
> Anyone experienced any problems like this before on a similar setup, that
> too much ram will kill sql server? because i sure haven't.
> Server specs:
> Dual 3Ghz Xeon, 4GB ram, Mirrored Raid, HP/compaq branded server running
> windows server 2003 standard edition.
> SQL Server 2000 standard edition with the latest service pack
>
>
>|||I tried using another com object(w3socket www.dimac.net) that does the same
thing and called the stored procedure 100.000 times, and sql server didn't
use anymore memory during the test. I did the same thing with the com object
i suspect leaking and could see that sql servers private bytes was rising
slowly but steadily. That has to be a good indication of a leak wouldn't you
say?
I used process explorer from system internals to monitor sql server.
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message
news:04F273D3-1FEE-4B6A-A7F8-9AC074D79ECE@.microsoft.com...
> Hi
> The COM object is leaking the memory and not SQL. SQL can't control it as
it
> is running in process. Tell them to run the test on their machine a few
> million times in a loop and watch their server fall over.
> I have seen this many times and it does not matter how much RAM you have.
> Regards
> Mike
> "T. Schmidt" wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > we have a project where my company and another company is using the same
sql
> > server, the problem is that the sql server crashes approximately every
3-4
> > days, with something that looks like memory related issues where we get
the
> > following errors in the eventlog just before it crashes:
> >
> > 17120 : SQL Server could not spawn process_loginread thread.
> >
> > The other company is using some COM objects (asphttp from
> > www.serverobjects.com) from some stored procedures to call a
website(these
> > are called several thousand times a day) and I think that is the problem
> > since i can crash my own sql server and several other development sql
> > servers with calling this COM object through storedprocedues several
> > thousand times with what looks like a memory leak as sql server uses
more
> > and more memory the more times these stored procedures are called... the
> > other company of course say that they have been using this product for
years
> > without problems.
> >
> > Now the other company insists that there is problems with having 4GB
memory
> > in the server and running the standard edition of sql server 2000. We
are
> > not using /3GB switch in boot.ini and yes we know that standard edition
of
> > sql server can only use 2GB max.
> >
> > Anyone experienced any problems like this before on a similar setup,
that
> > too much ram will kill sql server? because i sure haven't.
> >
> > Server specs:
> >
> > Dual 3Ghz Xeon, 4GB ram, Mirrored Raid, HP/compaq branded server running
> > windows server 2003 standard edition.
> >
> > SQL Server 2000 standard edition with the latest service pack
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
2012年2月23日星期四
Any ideas, please...
I have create a database, login, role, user at a named instance of MSDE by
running the following scropt:
CREATE DATABASE [testdb_vg]
USE Master
EXEC SP_ADDLOGIN @.loginame = 'test_login', @.passwd = 'psw'
USE [testdb_vg]
EXEC SP_ADDROLE [test_role]
GRANT CREATE TABLE TO [test_role]
EXEC SP_ADDUSER [test_login], [test_user], [test_role]
Then I run SQL Analyser and try to connect to the database using SQL
Authentication:
user: test_user
password: psw
and I am getting message:
Unable to connect to server SSSSSS\NNNN
Message: 18452, level 16, state 1,
[Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][SQL Server] Login for user "test_user".
Reason: not associated with a trusted SQL Server connection
with other SQL server instance it works OK?!Are you sure MSDE is set up to use both SQL Server and Windows
authentication? Sounds like it is set to Windows authentication only...
"Vlad Gonchar" <VladG@.Frogware.com> wrote in message
news:#QRC#M5eDHA.560@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> I have create a database, login, role, user at a named instance of MSDE by
> running the following scropt:
> CREATE DATABASE [testdb_vg]
> USE Master
> EXEC SP_ADDLOGIN @.loginame = 'test_login', @.passwd = 'psw'
> USE [testdb_vg]
> EXEC SP_ADDROLE [test_role]
> GRANT CREATE TABLE TO [test_role]
> EXEC SP_ADDUSER [test_login], [test_user], [test_role]
> Then I run SQL Analyser and try to connect to the database using SQL
> Authentication:
> user: test_user
> password: psw
> and I am getting message:
> Unable to connect to server SSSSSS\NNNN
> Message: 18452, level 16, state 1,
> [Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][SQL Server] Login for user
"test_user".
> Reason: not associated with a trusted SQL Server connection
> with other SQL server instance it works OK?!
>|||See the section that starts with "Another way to change the security mode
after installation..." in
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=285097
"Vlad Gonchar" <VladG@.Frogware.com> wrote in message
news:#QRC#M5eDHA.560@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> I have create a database, login, role, user at a named instance of MSDE by
> running the following scropt:
> CREATE DATABASE [testdb_vg]
> USE Master
> EXEC SP_ADDLOGIN @.loginame = 'test_login', @.passwd = 'psw'
> USE [testdb_vg]
> EXEC SP_ADDROLE [test_role]
> GRANT CREATE TABLE TO [test_role]
> EXEC SP_ADDUSER [test_login], [test_user], [test_role]
> Then I run SQL Analyser and try to connect to the database using SQL
> Authentication:
> user: test_user
> password: psw
> and I am getting message:
> Unable to connect to server SSSSSS\NNNN
> Message: 18452, level 16, state 1,
> [Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][SQL Server] Login for user
"test_user".
> Reason: not associated with a trusted SQL Server connection
> with other SQL server instance it works OK?!
>|||In my case MSDE was set up to use Windows authentication only...|||is there any SQL query way to recognize what the mode is for an instance of
SQL Server?
running the following scropt:
CREATE DATABASE [testdb_vg]
USE Master
EXEC SP_ADDLOGIN @.loginame = 'test_login', @.passwd = 'psw'
USE [testdb_vg]
EXEC SP_ADDROLE [test_role]
GRANT CREATE TABLE TO [test_role]
EXEC SP_ADDUSER [test_login], [test_user], [test_role]
Then I run SQL Analyser and try to connect to the database using SQL
Authentication:
user: test_user
password: psw
and I am getting message:
Unable to connect to server SSSSSS\NNNN
Message: 18452, level 16, state 1,
[Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][SQL Server] Login for user "test_user".
Reason: not associated with a trusted SQL Server connection
with other SQL server instance it works OK?!Are you sure MSDE is set up to use both SQL Server and Windows
authentication? Sounds like it is set to Windows authentication only...
"Vlad Gonchar" <VladG@.Frogware.com> wrote in message
news:#QRC#M5eDHA.560@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> I have create a database, login, role, user at a named instance of MSDE by
> running the following scropt:
> CREATE DATABASE [testdb_vg]
> USE Master
> EXEC SP_ADDLOGIN @.loginame = 'test_login', @.passwd = 'psw'
> USE [testdb_vg]
> EXEC SP_ADDROLE [test_role]
> GRANT CREATE TABLE TO [test_role]
> EXEC SP_ADDUSER [test_login], [test_user], [test_role]
> Then I run SQL Analyser and try to connect to the database using SQL
> Authentication:
> user: test_user
> password: psw
> and I am getting message:
> Unable to connect to server SSSSSS\NNNN
> Message: 18452, level 16, state 1,
> [Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][SQL Server] Login for user
"test_user".
> Reason: not associated with a trusted SQL Server connection
> with other SQL server instance it works OK?!
>|||See the section that starts with "Another way to change the security mode
after installation..." in
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=285097
"Vlad Gonchar" <VladG@.Frogware.com> wrote in message
news:#QRC#M5eDHA.560@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> I have create a database, login, role, user at a named instance of MSDE by
> running the following scropt:
> CREATE DATABASE [testdb_vg]
> USE Master
> EXEC SP_ADDLOGIN @.loginame = 'test_login', @.passwd = 'psw'
> USE [testdb_vg]
> EXEC SP_ADDROLE [test_role]
> GRANT CREATE TABLE TO [test_role]
> EXEC SP_ADDUSER [test_login], [test_user], [test_role]
> Then I run SQL Analyser and try to connect to the database using SQL
> Authentication:
> user: test_user
> password: psw
> and I am getting message:
> Unable to connect to server SSSSSS\NNNN
> Message: 18452, level 16, state 1,
> [Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][SQL Server] Login for user
"test_user".
> Reason: not associated with a trusted SQL Server connection
> with other SQL server instance it works OK?!
>|||In my case MSDE was set up to use Windows authentication only...|||is there any SQL query way to recognize what the mode is for an instance of
SQL Server?
2012年2月18日星期六
Any help welcomed
Hello all,
I have a SQL 2000 database running on a clustered server. The server domain has recently been changed and may/may not be the cause of my problem. The problem arising is that whenever I backup my database using Enterprise Manager or Query analyser the operation is said to have completed successfully (although looking at the progress bar - which doesn't show the blue status bars moving - this suggestes different). The backup will not then restore or indeed any other backup will not restore, and the database is left in a loading state and never moves away from this.
Any help or suggestions will be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
Richardhttp://support.microsoft.com/newsgroups/default.aspx?NewsGroup=microsoft.public.sqlserver. mseq&SLCID=US&ICP=GSS3&sd=GN&id=fh;en-us;newsgroups
go to clustering
I have a SQL 2000 database running on a clustered server. The server domain has recently been changed and may/may not be the cause of my problem. The problem arising is that whenever I backup my database using Enterprise Manager or Query analyser the operation is said to have completed successfully (although looking at the progress bar - which doesn't show the blue status bars moving - this suggestes different). The backup will not then restore or indeed any other backup will not restore, and the database is left in a loading state and never moves away from this.
Any help or suggestions will be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
Richardhttp://support.microsoft.com/newsgroups/default.aspx?NewsGroup=microsoft.public.sqlserver. mseq&SLCID=US&ICP=GSS3&sd=GN&id=fh;en-us;newsgroups
go to clustering
订阅：
博文 (Atom)