Sql ANSI Padding: transaction

显示标签为“transaction”的博文。显示所有博文

2012年3月27日星期二

anyone knows the anatomy to the transaction logs

how can i retrieve information from that very consuming tlogs.
Its consuming a lot of space maybe we can make relevant info from it
thanks,
Jose de Jesus Jr. Mcp,Mcdba
Data Architect
Sykes Asia (Manila philippines)
MCP #2324787Lumigent Log Explorer can help you on that.
HTH, Jens Suessmeyer.|||thanks but thats not what i need.
do you dig deep into to the logs
thanks,
Jose de Jesus Jr. Mcp,Mcdba
Data Architect
Sykes Asia (Manila philippines)
MCP #2324787
"Jens" wrote:

> Lumigent Log Explorer can help you on that.
> HTH, Jens Suessmeyer.
>|||What do you want to do ? Look at the feature list of lumigent, perhaps
it=B4ll fit your needs.
http://www.lumigent.com/products/le_sql.html
HTH, Jens Suessmeyer.|||i want to generate reports from it without using
the log explorer
--
thanks,
Jose de Jesus Jr. Mcp,Mcdba
Data Architect
Sykes Asia (Manila philippines)
MCP #2324787
"Jens" wrote:

> What do you want to do ? Look at the feature list of lumigent, perhaps
> it′ll fit your needs.
> http://www.lumigent.com/products/le_sql.html
> HTH, Jens Suessmeyer.
>|||SQL Server doesn't provide any features for reporting from the logs.
You'd have to use third party tools for that. Logs are generally
unsuitable for business reporting requirements because any useful data
they contain is lost each time you do a log backup (which you should be
doing regularly if you are in Full Recovery mode). If you need to log
historical data then the transaction logs are not the way to do it.
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
--|||Hi Jose,
The details of the log are not released by Microsoft. The companies that
have products which read the log have done so by cracking the logs structure
themselves. Therefore you would be very (VERY) lucky if any of them are
willing to let you know what it is, as this is big money for them.
David right though even if you could read it reporting from it would not be
a good idea
kind regards
Greg O
Need to document your databases. Use the first and still the best AGS SQL
Scribe
http://www.ag-software.com
"Jose G. de Jesus Jr MCP, MCDBA" <Email me> wrote in message
news:B42E3821-F9FC-4A1B-B87C-AD2698EBAB4D@.microsoft.com...
> how can i retrieve information from that very consuming tlogs.
> Its consuming a lot of space maybe we can make relevant info from it
>
> --
> thanks,
> --
> Jose de Jesus Jr. Mcp,Mcdba
> Data Architect
> Sykes Asia (Manila philippines)
> MCP #2324787|||thanks for the input guys
--
thanks,
Jose de Jesus Jr. Mcp,Mcdba
Data Architect
Sykes Asia (Manila philippines)
MCP #2324787
"Jose G. de Jesus Jr MCP, MCDBA" wrote:

> how can i retrieve information from that very consuming tlogs.
> Its consuming a lot of space maybe we can make relevant info from it
>
> --
> thanks,
> --
> Jose de Jesus Jr. Mcp,Mcdba
> Data Architect
> Sykes Asia (Manila philippines)
> MCP #2324787|||You can manage (but not entirely limit) the amount of space consumed by the
transaction logs by configuring the database recovery model and scheduling
transaction log backups / truncates.
"Jose G. de Jesus Jr MCP, MCDBA" <Email me> wrote in message
news:B42E3821-F9FC-4A1B-B87C-AD2698EBAB4D@.microsoft.com...
> how can i retrieve information from that very consuming tlogs.
> Its consuming a lot of space maybe we can make relevant info from it
>
> --
> thanks,
> --
> Jose de Jesus Jr. Mcp,Mcdba
> Data Architect
> Sykes Asia (Manila philippines)
> MCP #2324787

2012年3月8日星期四

Any side effects from backing up DB and log at the same time?

Hi,
Do you know of any other possible dangers, apart from transaction log backup
not being made and waiting for the full DB backup to complete, when letting
the transaction log backup run during the full DB backup?
What else besides the failing transaction log backup can happen when making
the backup during the time the database is in simple recovery mode?
-- Many, thanks. Oskar.
in simple rm t-log backup useless
"Oskar" <Oskar@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:4B5DCB3A-80B3-4E06-9633-9E6886BD9273@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> Do you know of any other possible dangers, apart from transaction log
> backup
> not being made and waiting for the full DB backup to complete, when
> letting
> the transaction log backup run during the full DB backup?
> What else besides the failing transaction log backup can happen when
> making
> the backup during the time the database is in simple recovery mode?
> -- Many, thanks. Oskar.

Any side effects from backing up DB and log at the same time?

Hi,
Do you know of any other possible dangers, apart from transaction log backup
not being made and waiting for the full DB backup to complete, when letting
the transaction log backup run during the full DB backup?
What else besides the failing transaction log backup can happen when making
the backup during the time the database is in simple recovery mode?
-- Many, thanks. Oskar.in simple rm t-log backup useless
"Oskar" <Oskar@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:4B5DCB3A-80B3-4E06-9633-9E6886BD9273@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> Do you know of any other possible dangers, apart from transaction log
> backup
> not being made and waiting for the full DB backup to complete, when
> letting
> the transaction log backup run during the full DB backup?
> What else besides the failing transaction log backup can happen when
> making
> the backup during the time the database is in simple recovery mode?
> -- Many, thanks. Oskar.

Any side effects from backing up DB and log at the same time?

Hi,
Do you know of any other possible dangers, apart from transaction log backup
not being made and waiting for the full DB backup to complete, when letting
the transaction log backup run during the full DB backup?
What else besides the failing transaction log backup can happen when making
the backup during the time the database is in simple recovery mode?
-- Many, thanks. Oskar.in simple rm t-log backup useless
"Oskar" <Oskar@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:4B5DCB3A-80B3-4E06-9633-9E6886BD9273@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> Do you know of any other possible dangers, apart from transaction log
> backup
> not being made and waiting for the full DB backup to complete, when
> letting
> the transaction log backup run during the full DB backup?
> What else besides the failing transaction log backup can happen when
> making
> the backup during the time the database is in simple recovery mode?
> -- Many, thanks. Oskar.

2012年2月16日星期四

Any experience with really large, high transaction databases?

Most of my experience is with what I consider small, low transaction rate
databases. For example, the largest table in one DB has fewer than 100,000
rows (other tables have far fewer rows) with anywhere from 1 to 15 people
posting queries and updates at any given time. SQL Server handles this just
fine.
We are beginning to design a database for a new project. We haven't
determined how big the tables will be but at peak usage will have perhaps
100 people logged on at a time. There is pressure to use Oracle because of a
belief that SQL Server will not be up to the demands.
Solid, unbiased comparisons between Oracle and SQL Server are hard to come
by. Does anyone here have experience with large systems that would show what
SQL Server is really capable of?
Much obliged.I can't give out many proprietary details but we are a SQL Server shop and
we handle databases > 1 TB with over 1000 simultaneous connections.
IMHO, your bottleneck is going to be the architecture and design of the
database and application, and more importantly hardware. You will not be
bound by the vendor choice.
--
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)
"Geoff Pennington" <Geoffrey.Pennington@.tma.osd.mil.nospam> wrote in message
news:eJtzZ#dZEHA.3092@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Most of my experience is with what I consider small, low transaction rate
> databases. For example, the largest table in one DB has fewer than 100,000
> rows (other tables have far fewer rows) with anywhere from 1 to 15 people
> posting queries and updates at any given time. SQL Server handles this
just
> fine.
> We are beginning to design a database for a new project. We haven't
> determined how big the tables will be but at peak usage will have perhaps
> 100 people logged on at a time. There is pressure to use Oracle because of
a
> belief that SQL Server will not be up to the demands.
> Solid, unbiased comparisons between Oracle and SQL Server are hard to come
> by. Does anyone here have experience with large systems that would show
what
> SQL Server is really capable of?
> Much obliged.
>|||100 concurrent users is piddly these days for SQL Server. Three years ago I
was doing over 100 Million Inserts / Updates or Deletes against a db with
over 1 Billion rows on what would be considered an obsolete box these days
with no problem what so ever. Here are some links but these are for VLDB's.
We are talking thousands of trans per second and up with Terabyte db's.
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techinfo/administration/2000/scalability.asp
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Geoff Pennington" <Geoffrey.Pennington@.tma.osd.mil.nospam> wrote in message
news:eJtzZ%23dZEHA.3092@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Most of my experience is with what I consider small, low transaction rate
> databases. For example, the largest table in one DB has fewer than 100,000
> rows (other tables have far fewer rows) with anywhere from 1 to 15 people
> posting queries and updates at any given time. SQL Server handles this
just
> fine.
> We are beginning to design a database for a new project. We haven't
> determined how big the tables will be but at peak usage will have perhaps
> 100 people logged on at a time. There is pressure to use Oracle because of
a
> belief that SQL Server will not be up to the demands.
> Solid, unbiased comparisons between Oracle and SQL Server are hard to come
> by. Does anyone here have experience with large systems that would show
what
> SQL Server is really capable of?
> Much obliged.
>|||Geoff,
The best example I can think of is Monster.com. They use SQL Server for
their entire jobs database, and get a lot more traffic than 100 people
logged on at a time!
One of the reasons, IMO, Oracle is often considered to be "more scalable"
than SQL Server is that companies tend to buy cheaper servers to run SQL
Server than to run Oracle. For instance, a recent employer of mine based
their entire product on SQL Server and our servers were dual Xeons with 2 gb
of RAM. The servers ran without too many problems, but management would
never spend a cent to upgrade them when we did have issues.
A consultant was hired for a totally new project and convinced management to
take it forward with Oracle. A pair of servers was purchased (QA and
Production), each with 8 Itanium processors and 64 gb of RAM. This, for an
unproven product that was making no money.
Why? Because for some reason, due to the way SQL Server is marketed vs. the
way Oracle is marketed, it's assumed that Oracle "should" sit on a huge
server whereas SQL Server will do better on a glorified desktop box. I'm
not sure how to best convince people of the truth... Good luck!
"Geoff Pennington" <Geoffrey.Pennington@.tma.osd.mil.nospam> wrote in message
news:eJtzZ%23dZEHA.3092@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Most of my experience is with what I consider small, low transaction rate
> databases. For example, the largest table in one DB has fewer than 100,000
> rows (other tables have far fewer rows) with anywhere from 1 to 15 people
> posting queries and updates at any given time. SQL Server handles this
just
> fine.
> We are beginning to design a database for a new project. We haven't
> determined how big the tables will be but at peak usage will have perhaps
> 100 people logged on at a time. There is pressure to use Oracle because of
a
> belief that SQL Server will not be up to the demands.
> Solid, unbiased comparisons between Oracle and SQL Server are hard to come
> by. Does anyone here have experience with large systems that would show
what
> SQL Server is really capable of?
> Much obliged.
>|||I agree with Aaron here, the architecture and design are key. We have over
1TB of data here and tables with over 1 billion records (horizontally
partitioned.) SQL Server can handle the workload if the project is done
correctly. Make sure to note if you don't have the enterprise version of
SQL you can't use more than 2 gigs of memory.
-John Oakes
"Aaron [SQL Server MVP]" <ten.xoc@.dnartreb.noraa> wrote in message
news:ui$E6CeZEHA.3304@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> I can't give out many proprietary details but we are a SQL Server shop and
> we handle databases > 1 TB with over 1000 simultaneous connections.
> IMHO, your bottleneck is going to be the architecture and design of the
> database and application, and more importantly hardware. You will not be
> bound by the vendor choice.
> --
> http://www.aspfaq.com/
> (Reverse address to reply.)
>
>
> "Geoff Pennington" <Geoffrey.Pennington@.tma.osd.mil.nospam> wrote in
message
> news:eJtzZ#dZEHA.3092@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > Most of my experience is with what I consider small, low transaction
rate
> > databases. For example, the largest table in one DB has fewer than
100,000
> > rows (other tables have far fewer rows) with anywhere from 1 to 15
people
> > posting queries and updates at any given time. SQL Server handles this
> just
> > fine.
> >
> > We are beginning to design a database for a new project. We haven't
> > determined how big the tables will be but at peak usage will have
perhaps
> > 100 people logged on at a time. There is pressure to use Oracle because
of
> a
> > belief that SQL Server will not be up to the demands.
> >
> > Solid, unbiased comparisons between Oracle and SQL Server are hard to
come
> > by. Does anyone here have experience with large systems that would show
> what
> > SQL Server is really capable of?
> >
> > Much obliged.
> >
> >
>|||Thanks Adam - Monster.com is a good example. Could you tell me how you know
they use SQL Server?
I wonder if the reason everyone thinks of SQL Server as being lower end is
two-fold: (1) it is cheaper to get a SQL license, and (2) Oracle has always
been associated with large servers, while MS is associated with the desktop.
"Adam Machanic" <amachanic@.hotmail._removetoemail_.com> wrote in message
news:eQZjlOeZEHA.2776@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Geoff,
> The best example I can think of is Monster.com. They use SQL Server for
> their entire jobs database, and get a lot more traffic than 100 people
> logged on at a time!
> One of the reasons, IMO, Oracle is often considered to be "more scalable"
> than SQL Server is that companies tend to buy cheaper servers to run SQL
> Server than to run Oracle. For instance, a recent employer of mine based
> their entire product on SQL Server and our servers were dual Xeons with 2
gb
> of RAM. The servers ran without too many problems, but management would
> never spend a cent to upgrade them when we did have issues.
> A consultant was hired for a totally new project and convinced management
to
> take it forward with Oracle. A pair of servers was purchased (QA and
> Production), each with 8 Itanium processors and 64 gb of RAM. This, for
an
> unproven product that was making no money.
> Why? Because for some reason, due to the way SQL Server is marketed vs.
the
> way Oracle is marketed, it's assumed that Oracle "should" sit on a huge
> server whereas SQL Server will do better on a glorified desktop box. I'm
> not sure how to best convince people of the truth... Good luck!
>
> "Geoff Pennington" <Geoffrey.Pennington@.tma.osd.mil.nospam> wrote in
message
> news:eJtzZ%23dZEHA.3092@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > Most of my experience is with what I consider small, low transaction
rate
> > databases. For example, the largest table in one DB has fewer than
100,000
> > rows (other tables have far fewer rows) with anywhere from 1 to 15
people
> > posting queries and updates at any given time. SQL Server handles this
> just
> > fine.
> >
> > We are beginning to design a database for a new project. We haven't
> > determined how big the tables will be but at peak usage will have
perhaps
> > 100 people logged on at a time. There is pressure to use Oracle because
of
> a
> > belief that SQL Server will not be up to the demands.
> >
> > Solid, unbiased comparisons between Oracle and SQL Server are hard to
come
> > by. Does anyone here have experience with large systems that would show
> what
> > SQL Server is really capable of?
> >
> > Much obliged.
> >
> >
>|||"Geoff Pennington" <Geoffrey.Pennington@.tma.osd.mil.nospam> wrote in message
news:%23RVJG9eZEHA.912@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Thanks Adam - Monster.com is a good example. Could you tell me how you
know
> they use SQL Server?
I interviewed there last year for a data architect position.|||There are many larger sites with lots of users that use SQL Server.
Dell.com, CareerBuilder.com, Barnes & Nobles etc...
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Geoff Pennington" <Geoffrey.Pennington@.tma.osd.mil.nospam> wrote in message
news:%23RVJG9eZEHA.912@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Thanks Adam - Monster.com is a good example. Could you tell me how you
know
> they use SQL Server?
> I wonder if the reason everyone thinks of SQL Server as being lower end is
> two-fold: (1) it is cheaper to get a SQL license, and (2) Oracle has
always
> been associated with large servers, while MS is associated with the
desktop.
>
> "Adam Machanic" <amachanic@.hotmail._removetoemail_.com> wrote in message
> news:eQZjlOeZEHA.2776@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > Geoff,
> >
> > The best example I can think of is Monster.com. They use SQL Server for
> > their entire jobs database, and get a lot more traffic than 100 people
> > logged on at a time!
> >
> > One of the reasons, IMO, Oracle is often considered to be "more
scalable"
> > than SQL Server is that companies tend to buy cheaper servers to run SQL
> > Server than to run Oracle. For instance, a recent employer of mine
based
> > their entire product on SQL Server and our servers were dual Xeons with
2
> gb
> > of RAM. The servers ran without too many problems, but management would
> > never spend a cent to upgrade them when we did have issues.
> >
> > A consultant was hired for a totally new project and convinced
management
> to
> > take it forward with Oracle. A pair of servers was purchased (QA and
> > Production), each with 8 Itanium processors and 64 gb of RAM. This, for
> an
> > unproven product that was making no money.
> >
> > Why? Because for some reason, due to the way SQL Server is marketed vs.
> the
> > way Oracle is marketed, it's assumed that Oracle "should" sit on a huge
> > server whereas SQL Server will do better on a glorified desktop box.
I'm
> > not sure how to best convince people of the truth... Good luck!
> >
> >
> > "Geoff Pennington" <Geoffrey.Pennington@.tma.osd.mil.nospam> wrote in
> message
> > news:eJtzZ%23dZEHA.3092@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > > Most of my experience is with what I consider small, low transaction
> rate
> > > databases. For example, the largest table in one DB has fewer than
> 100,000
> > > rows (other tables have far fewer rows) with anywhere from 1 to 15
> people
> > > posting queries and updates at any given time. SQL Server handles this
> > just
> > > fine.
> > >
> > > We are beginning to design a database for a new project. We haven't
> > > determined how big the tables will be but at peak usage will have
> perhaps
> > > 100 people logged on at a time. There is pressure to use Oracle
because
> of
> > a
> > > belief that SQL Server will not be up to the demands.
> > >
> > > Solid, unbiased comparisons between Oracle and SQL Server are hard to
> come
> > > by. Does anyone here have experience with large systems that would
show
> > what
> > > SQL Server is really capable of?
> > >
> > > Much obliged.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>|||SQL Server is not a punk anymore.
many of the ORACLE Folks still think of SQL Server as SQL Server 6.5.
if you want a Non-Biased opinion check out the TPC site.
www.tpc.org
The results speak for themselves (SQL Server can DEFINATELY Hold it's own AS
Can ORACLE and DB2).
Greg Jackson
PDX, Oregon|||We HAVE had performance issues. HOWEVER every one of them were
"Architectural" in nature.
Cheers
Greg Jackson
PDX, Oregon|||Thanks in particular for the TPC link, the references to companies that are
using SQL Server for large apps, and to everyone for pointing out the
importance of design. I was also able to find some case-study "success
stories" of companies using SQL Server. Now we'll see how the argument
proceeeds on my project...
"Geoff Pennington" <Geoffrey.Pennington@.tma.osd.mil.nospam> wrote in message
news:eJtzZ%23dZEHA.3092@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Most of my experience is with what I consider small, low transaction rate
> databases. For example, the largest table in one DB has fewer than 100,000
> rows (other tables have far fewer rows) with anywhere from 1 to 15 people
> posting queries and updates at any given time. SQL Server handles this
just
> fine.
> We are beginning to design a database for a new project. We haven't
> determined how big the tables will be but at peak usage will have perhaps
> 100 people logged on at a time. There is pressure to use Oracle because of
a
> belief that SQL Server will not be up to the demands.
> Solid, unbiased comparisons between Oracle and SQL Server are hard to come
> by. Does anyone here have experience with large systems that would show
what
> SQL Server is really capable of?
> Much obliged.
>

订阅：博文 (Atom)

2012年3月27日星期二

anyone knows the anatomy to the transaction logs

2012年3月8日星期四

Any side effects from backing up DB and log at the same time?

Any side effects from backing up DB and log at the same time?

Any side effects from backing up DB and log at the same time?

2012年2月16日星期四

Any experience with really large, high transaction databases?

Any experience with really large, high transaction databases?

Any experience with really large, high transaction databases?

Sql ANSI Padding

Blog Archive

About Me