显示标签为“edition”的博文。显示所有博文
显示标签为“edition”的博文。显示所有博文

2012年3月25日星期日

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6日星期二

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

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

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

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

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

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

2012年2月25日星期六

any issues with sql2k on win2k3?

we're about to upgrade from
win2000, sql2000 sp3a standard edition, dual p3 900mhz, 2gb ram
to
win2003, sql2000 sp3a standard edition, dual xeon 3ghz hyperthreaded,
2gb ram
the only issue i could find at microsoft was the sql install issue
where win2003 wants sql sp3. any other issues to watch for?
do some people claim better performance by limiting sql server to use
only the two physical processors instead of the two physical processors
and the two logical processors?
"ch" <ch@.dontemailme.com> wrote in message
news:41A36D56.E36EF4A7@.dontemailme.com...
> we're about to upgrade from
> win2000, sql2000 sp3a standard edition, dual p3 900mhz, 2gb ram
> to
> win2003, sql2000 sp3a standard edition, dual xeon 3ghz hyperthreaded,
> 2gb ram
> the only issue i could find at microsoft was the sql install issue
> where win2003 wants sql sp3. any other issues to watch for?
I think you're covered, operating systems are comparable? In otherwords,
Windows 2000 Standard and Windows 2003 Standard?

> do some people claim better performance by limiting sql server to use
> only the two physical processors instead of the two physical processors
> and the two logical processors?
I prefer not to tinker with processor settings, rather allow the operating
system to manage the processors. in addition, Windows Server 2003 and SQL
Server 2000 does a fairly good job of dynamic memory and interfacing with
the processors. You could always run some benchmarks as there are always
certain situations, applications, etc where manual intervention may be
warranted.
Steve

any issues with sql2k on win2k3?

we're about to upgrade from
win2000, sql2000 sp3a standard edition, dual p3 900mhz, 2gb ram
to
win2003, sql2000 sp3a standard edition, dual xeon 3ghz hyperthreaded,
2gb ram
the only issue i could find at microsoft was the sql install issue
where win2003 wants sql sp3. any other issues to watch for?
do some people claim better performance by limiting sql server to use
only the two physical processors instead of the two physical processors
and the two logical processors?"ch" <ch@.dontemailme.com> wrote in message
news:41A36D56.E36EF4A7@.dontemailme.com...
> we're about to upgrade from
> win2000, sql2000 sp3a standard edition, dual p3 900mhz, 2gb ram
> to
> win2003, sql2000 sp3a standard edition, dual xeon 3ghz hyperthreaded,
> 2gb ram
> the only issue i could find at microsoft was the sql install issue
> where win2003 wants sql sp3. any other issues to watch for?
I think you're covered, operating systems are comparable? In otherwords,
Windows 2000 Standard and Windows 2003 Standard?

> do some people claim better performance by limiting sql server to use
> only the two physical processors instead of the two physical processors
> and the two logical processors?
I prefer not to tinker with processor settings, rather allow the operating
system to manage the processors. in addition, Windows Server 2003 and SQL
Server 2000 does a fairly good job of dynamic memory and interfacing with
the processors. You could always run some benchmarks as there are always
certain situations, applications, etc where manual intervention may be
warranted.
Steve

any issues with sql2k on win2k3?

we're about to upgrade from
win2000, sql2000 sp3a standard edition, dual p3 900mhz, 2gb ram
to
win2003, sql2000 sp3a standard edition, dual xeon 3ghz hyperthreaded,
2gb ram
the only issue i could find at microsoft was the sql install issue
where win2003 wants sql sp3. any other issues to watch for?
do some people claim better performance by limiting sql server to use
only the two physical processors instead of the two physical processors
and the two logical processors?"ch" <ch@.dontemailme.com> wrote in message
news:41A36D56.E36EF4A7@.dontemailme.com...
> we're about to upgrade from
> win2000, sql2000 sp3a standard edition, dual p3 900mhz, 2gb ram
> to
> win2003, sql2000 sp3a standard edition, dual xeon 3ghz hyperthreaded,
> 2gb ram
> the only issue i could find at microsoft was the sql install issue
> where win2003 wants sql sp3. any other issues to watch for?
I think you're covered, operating systems are comparable? In otherwords,
Windows 2000 Standard and Windows 2003 Standard?
> do some people claim better performance by limiting sql server to use
> only the two physical processors instead of the two physical processors
> and the two logical processors?
I prefer not to tinker with processor settings, rather allow the operating
system to manage the processors. in addition, Windows Server 2003 and SQL
Server 2000 does a fairly good job of dynamic memory and interfacing with
the processors. You could always run some benchmarks as there are always
certain situations, applications, etc where manual intervention may be
warranted.
Steve

2012年2月18日星期六

Any help on this SMO request?

My evaluation copy ran-out and I uninstlaled the previous and installed anothrer evaluation edition. The installation was successful. I created a SSIS package importing a tale from Oracle 10G XE to the SQL 2005 on my machine. I saved the package on the server. The SSIS service is working but when I try to refresh the node, I get this message. The help linl leads to no where:

--

TITLE: Microsoft SQL Server Management Studio

Failed to retrieve data for this request. (Microsoft.SqlServer.SmoEnum)

For help, click: http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink?ProdName=Microsoft+SQL+Server&LinkId=20476


ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

Login timeout expired
An error has occurred while establishing a connection to the server. When connecting to SQL Server 2005, this failure may be caused by the fact that under the default settings SQL Server does not allow remote connections.
TCP Provider: No connection could be made because the target machine actively refused it. (Microsoft SQL Native Client)

Login timeout expired
An error has occurred while establishing a connection to the server. When connecting to SQL Server 2005, this failure may be caused by the fact that under the default settings SQL Server does not allow remote connections.
TCP Provider: No connection could be made because the target machine actively refused it. (Microsoft SQL Native Client)

My efforts so far:

I have verified the items in the Surface area screen, everythign looks good.

SSIS service has started.

Both teh Network Server TCP/IP dynmaic port and the SQL Client TCP/IP dynamic port are the same.

I have no problem logging in to any of the services. But I get this message.

I tried to create a package from Visual Studio, but that also did not succeed.

In my previous set up, I created perhaps 1/ 2 dozen different packages.

I am puzzzled.

I appreciate if some one could throw some light.

If you could get the function call stack when the error occurs, that would help diagnose the problem. At the bottom of the exception message box, there is a little icon with a tooltip like "technical details" which displays this information.

Also, if you could provide more specific steps to reproduce the problem, that would help too. Are you using SSIS when you get this problem, or some Management Studio UI that uses SSIS, like the Copy Database Wizard? You can get more specific SSIS configuration help in the SSIS forum here: http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowForum.aspx?ForumID=80&SiteID=1

Thanks,
Steve

Any good webcast for Data cleansing

I have sql server 2005 developer edition and vs2005 team system.
I want's to use data cleansing feature.i.e.
Integration Services Advanced Transforms Includes data mining, text mining, and data cleansing

Can please some body points me to any good webcast about using this feature

I just know about this document:

http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/Search/Search.aspx?words=data+reader&searchKey=&lcid=1033&searchscope=forumscope&siteid=1&ForumID=80&ForumGroupID=-1

2012年2月11日星期六

anti-virus on sql server box?

hi!

i am using sql 2005 with sp1 standard edition.

i have a question regarding the antivirus software. Is it ok to install anti-virus software on the sql server box? what are the issues involved if we install anti-virus software on the sql server box?
I heard, it causes some performance and other issues.

Is there anything we need to take care of .if we decide to install anti-virus software on the sql server box?

Can anybody share experience on this?

Thanks

Personally, I am very much against installing anti-virus software on a SQL Server box, for performance reasons. You see conflicting advice from Microsoft about this. The Perf people say no, and the security people say yes. If you decide to run AV on your SQL Server, make sure to exclude the data and log files from the scanning.|||

Generally speaking, it is not a good idea to have anti-virus products on a SQL Server.

Consider that anti-virus products protect the computer from user activities in the Workstation service.

On a SQL Server, there 'should' not be any user activities in the Workstation service.

|||I disagree with the other posts here.

ALWAYS run anti-virus on ALL machines on the network, servers and pcs, with current virus defs.

On SQL server, exclude the data and log directories from the scanning and virus protection.

Many viruses will infect all machines on the entire network, and if you don't have AV on ALL machines, when you remove it from all your PCs, it will hide on your SQL server box until it infects the entire network again and again and again. I know because this has happened to me, with more than one customer who has the same "performance" concerns.
|||Yes, I agree with Tlom. There are several approaches, defined by the policy of the companies which way you can take if you secure SQL Server. You can either exclude the data file and directories or exclude the appropuiate MDF / LDF extensions (which assumes that you are using these extensions with your files) I prefer the extensions exclusion which will makes it even not possible to inject a virus in the data directories of SQL Server.

Jens K. Suessmeyer.

http://www.sqlserver2005.de

|||Thank you everyone for your replies. I really appreciate it.

So if you exclude the data and log files, are there any performance issues and other issues like communication/blocking etc ?

Thanks
|||

I hope this will help you:

Guidelines for choosing antivirus software to run on the computers that are running SQL Server

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/309422/en-us