Sql ANSI Padding: known

显示标签为“known”的博文。显示所有博文

2012年3月6日星期二

Any reason not to use -ve pkey's?

I have an auto-increment table that I'm thinking of added a "well known"
member to, "(multiple accounts)". The easiest way to do this would be to add
it with a pkey of -1. I could do this by temporarily turning off identity,
adding it manually, and then turning the identity back on.
Any reason I should not do this?
Maury>>>Any reason I should not do this?
None at all. It's application driven - and it's not limited to identities,
either.
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Tom.Moreau
"Maury Markowitz" <MauryMarkowitz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:C8766965-D775-4B73-9D21-6C89E025F994@.microsoft.com...
I have an auto-increment table that I'm thinking of added a "well known"
member to, "(multiple accounts)". The easiest way to do this would be to add
it with a pkey of -1. I could do this by temporarily turning off identity,
adding it manually, and then turning the identity back on.
Any reason I should not do this?
Maury|||"Tom Moreau" wrote:

> None at all. It's application driven - and it's not limited to identities
,
> either.
So I guessed, but I wanted to be sure. Thanks!
Maury|||On 4 Jun, 20:19, Maury Markowitz
<MauryMarkow...@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
> "Tom Moreau" wrote:
> So I guessed, but I wanted to be sure. Thanks!
> Maury
Tom is right. My only doubt is just why you would want to do this? A
surrogate key should be just that. You shouldn't care what its value
is because the value itself should not be relevant outside the
database. If you ascribe a some significance to values in an IDENTITY
column then you will probably have problems later on.
David Portas, SQL Server MVP
Whenever possible please post enough code to reproduce your problem.
Including CREATE TABLE and INSERT statements usually helps.
State what version of SQL Server you are using and specify the content
of any error messages.
SQL Server Books Online:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/library/ms130214(en-US,SQL.90).aspx
--

Any reason not to use -ve pkey's?

I have an auto-increment table that I'm thinking of added a "well known"
member to, "(multiple accounts)". The easiest way to do this would be to add
it with a pkey of -1. I could do this by temporarily turning off identity,
adding it manually, and then turning the identity back on.
Any reason I should not do this?
Maury
>>>Any reason I should not do this?
None at all. It's application driven - and it's not limited to identities,
either.
Tom
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Tom.Moreau
"Maury Markowitz" <MauryMarkowitz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:C8766965-D775-4B73-9D21-6C89E025F994@.microsoft.com...
I have an auto-increment table that I'm thinking of added a "well known"
member to, "(multiple accounts)". The easiest way to do this would be to add
it with a pkey of -1. I could do this by temporarily turning off identity,
adding it manually, and then turning the identity back on.
Any reason I should not do this?
Maury
|||"Tom Moreau" wrote:

> None at all. It's application driven - and it's not limited to identities,
> either.
So I guessed, but I wanted to be sure. Thanks!
Maury
|||On 4 Jun, 20:19, Maury Markowitz
<MauryMarkow...@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
> "Tom Moreau" wrote:
> So I guessed, but I wanted to be sure. Thanks!
> Maury
Tom is right. My only doubt is just why you would want to do this? A
surrogate key should be just that. You shouldn't care what its value
is because the value itself should not be relevant outside the
database. If you ascribe a some significance to values in an IDENTITY
column then you will probably have problems later on.
David Portas, SQL Server MVP
Whenever possible please post enough code to reproduce your problem.
Including CREATE TABLE and INSERT statements usually helps.
State what version of SQL Server you are using and specify the content
of any error messages.
SQL Server Books Online:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/library/ms130214(en-US,SQL.90).aspx

Any reason not to use -ve pkey's?

I have an auto-increment table that I'm thinking of added a "well known"
member to, "(multiple accounts)". The easiest way to do this would be to add
it with a pkey of -1. I could do this by temporarily turning off identity,
adding it manually, and then turning the identity back on.
Any reason I should not do this?
Maury>>Any reason I should not do this?
None at all. It's application driven - and it's not limited to identities,
either.
--
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Tom.Moreau
"Maury Markowitz" <MauryMarkowitz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:C8766965-D775-4B73-9D21-6C89E025F994@.microsoft.com...
I have an auto-increment table that I'm thinking of added a "well known"
member to, "(multiple accounts)". The easiest way to do this would be to add
it with a pkey of -1. I could do this by temporarily turning off identity,
adding it manually, and then turning the identity back on.
Any reason I should not do this?
Maury|||"Tom Moreau" wrote:
> None at all. It's application driven - and it's not limited to identities,
> either.
So I guessed, but I wanted to be sure. Thanks!
Maury|||On 4 Jun, 20:19, Maury Markowitz
<MauryMarkow...@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
> "Tom Moreau" wrote:
> > None at all. It's application driven - and it's not limited to identities,
> > either.
> So I guessed, but I wanted to be sure. Thanks!
> Maury
Tom is right. My only doubt is just why you would want to do this? A
surrogate key should be just that. You shouldn't care what its value
is because the value itself should not be relevant outside the
database. If you ascribe a some significance to values in an IDENTITY
column then you will probably have problems later on.
--
David Portas, SQL Server MVP
Whenever possible please post enough code to reproduce your problem.
Including CREATE TABLE and INSERT statements usually helps.
State what version of SQL Server you are using and specify the content
of any error messages.
SQL Server Books Online:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/library/ms130214(en-US,SQL.90).aspx
--

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

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

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

Any one known SQL to change a sp.....

I know this may sound strange (me2) but a developer is convinced that the
SQL server is changing their stored procedure. Would SQL internally for any
reasons change code of a sp to optimize or anything?
CREATE PROCEDURE dbo.pr_Update_tblDepartment_Step1
AS
-- Update records in tblDepartment with changed records in tblTempDept
UPDATE dbo.qry_Update_tblDeparment_Step1
SET strDescription = [qry_Update_tblDeparment_Step1].[Description]
FROM dbo.qry_Update_tblDeparment_Step1
GO
--> CHANGES TO not use the view:
CREATE PROCEDURE dbo.pr_Update_tblDepartment_Step1
AS
-- Update records in tblDepartment with changed records in tblTempDept
UPDATE dbo.tblDepartment
SET strDescription = [qry_Update_tblDeparment_Step1].[Description]
FROM dbo.qry_Update_tblDeparment_Step1
GO
--> For reference here is the view used for the update.
CREATE VIEW dbo.qry_Update_tblDeparment_Step1
AS
SELECT dbo.tblTempDept.Description, dbo.tblDepartment.strDescription,
dbo.tblTempDept.Dept_No, dbo.tblDepartment.strDeptName
FROM dbo.tblTempDept INNER JOIN
dbo.tblDepartment ON dbo.tblTempDept.Dept_No =
dbo.tblDepartment.strDeptName AND
dbo.tblTempDept.Description <>
dbo.tblDepartment.strDescription
No
SQL Server is too 'stupid' to do that. It takes what you give it, stores it,
figures out how to execute it an executes it. Nothing else.
Put a comment line in with a manually incremented version number and see it
that changes. Maybe there is some code in an application that does it.
Regards
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"CD" <mcdye1@.hotmail.REMOVETHIS.com> wrote in message
news:e3rlxqeRFHA.3684@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>I know this may sound strange (me2) but a developer is convinced that the
>SQL server is changing their stored procedure. Would SQL internally for
>any reasons change code of a sp to optimize or anything?
> CREATE PROCEDURE dbo.pr_Update_tblDepartment_Step1
> AS
> -- Update records in tblDepartment with changed records in tblTempDept
> UPDATE dbo.qry_Update_tblDeparment_Step1
> SET strDescription = [qry_Update_tblDeparment_Step1].[Description]
> FROM dbo.qry_Update_tblDeparment_Step1
> GO
> --> CHANGES TO not use the view:
> CREATE PROCEDURE dbo.pr_Update_tblDepartment_Step1
> AS
> -- Update records in tblDepartment with changed records in tblTempDept
> UPDATE dbo.tblDepartment
> SET strDescription = [qry_Update_tblDeparment_Step1].[Description]
> FROM dbo.qry_Update_tblDeparment_Step1
> GO
>
> --> For reference here is the view used for the update.
> CREATE VIEW dbo.qry_Update_tblDeparment_Step1
> AS
> SELECT dbo.tblTempDept.Description, dbo.tblDepartment.strDescription,
> dbo.tblTempDept.Dept_No, dbo.tblDepartment.strDeptName
> FROM dbo.tblTempDept INNER JOIN
> dbo.tblDepartment ON dbo.tblTempDept.Dept_No =
> dbo.tblDepartment.strDeptName AND
> dbo.tblTempDept.Description <>
> dbo.tblDepartment.strDescription
>
>
|||ever investigated database change management?
regards,
Mark Baekdal
http://www.dbghost.com
http://www.innovartis.co.uk
+44 (0)208 241 1762
Build, Comparison and Synchronization from Source Control = Database change
management for SQL Server
"CD" wrote:

> I know this may sound strange (me2) but a developer is convinced that the
> SQL server is changing their stored procedure. Would SQL internally for any
> reasons change code of a sp to optimize or anything?
> CREATE PROCEDURE dbo.pr_Update_tblDepartment_Step1
> AS
> -- Update records in tblDepartment with changed records in tblTempDept
> UPDATE dbo.qry_Update_tblDeparment_Step1
> SET strDescription = [qry_Update_tblDeparment_Step1].[Description]
> FROM dbo.qry_Update_tblDeparment_Step1
> GO
> --> CHANGES TO not use the view:
> CREATE PROCEDURE dbo.pr_Update_tblDepartment_Step1
> AS
> -- Update records in tblDepartment with changed records in tblTempDept
> UPDATE dbo.tblDepartment
> SET strDescription = [qry_Update_tblDeparment_Step1].[Description]
> FROM dbo.qry_Update_tblDeparment_Step1
> GO
>
> --> For reference here is the view used for the update.
> CREATE VIEW dbo.qry_Update_tblDeparment_Step1
> AS
> SELECT dbo.tblTempDept.Description, dbo.tblDepartment.strDescription,
> dbo.tblTempDept.Dept_No, dbo.tblDepartment.strDeptName
> FROM dbo.tblTempDept INNER JOIN
> dbo.tblDepartment ON dbo.tblTempDept.Dept_No =
> dbo.tblDepartment.strDeptName AND
> dbo.tblTempDept.Description <>
> dbo.tblDepartment.strDescription
>
>

2012年2月25日星期六

Any one known SQL to change a sp.....

I know this may sound strange (me2) but a developer is convinced that the
SQL server is changing their stored procedure. Would SQL internally for any
reasons change code of a sp to optimize or anything?
CREATE PROCEDURE dbo.pr_Update_tblDepartment_Step1
AS
-- Update records in tblDepartment with changed records in tblTempDept
UPDATE dbo.qry_Update_tblDeparment_Step1
SET strDescription = [qry_Update_tblDeparment_Step1].[Description]
FROM dbo.qry_Update_tblDeparment_Step1
GO
--> CHANGES TO not use the view:
CREATE PROCEDURE dbo.pr_Update_tblDepartment_Step1
AS
-- Update records in tblDepartment with changed records in tblTempDept
UPDATE dbo.tblDepartment
SET strDescription = [qry_Update_tblDeparment_Step1].[Description]
FROM dbo.qry_Update_tblDeparment_Step1
GO
--> For reference here is the view used for the update.
CREATE VIEW dbo.qry_Update_tblDeparment_Step1
AS
SELECT dbo.tblTempDept.Description, dbo.tblDepartment.strDescription,
dbo.tblTempDept.Dept_No, dbo.tblDepartment.strDeptName
FROM dbo.tblTempDept INNER JOIN
dbo.tblDepartment ON dbo.tblTempDept.Dept_No = dbo.tblDepartment.strDeptName AND
dbo.tblTempDept.Description <>
dbo.tblDepartment.strDescriptionNo
SQL Server is too 'stupid' to do that. It takes what you give it, stores it,
figures out how to execute it an executes it. Nothing else.
Put a comment line in with a manually incremented version number and see it
that changes. Maybe there is some code in an application that does it.
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"CD" <mcdye1@.hotmail.REMOVETHIS.com> wrote in message
news:e3rlxqeRFHA.3684@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>I know this may sound strange (me2) but a developer is convinced that the
>SQL server is changing their stored procedure. Would SQL internally for
>any reasons change code of a sp to optimize or anything?
> CREATE PROCEDURE dbo.pr_Update_tblDepartment_Step1
> AS
> -- Update records in tblDepartment with changed records in tblTempDept
> UPDATE dbo.qry_Update_tblDeparment_Step1
> SET strDescription = [qry_Update_tblDeparment_Step1].[Description]
> FROM dbo.qry_Update_tblDeparment_Step1
> GO
> --> CHANGES TO not use the view:
> CREATE PROCEDURE dbo.pr_Update_tblDepartment_Step1
> AS
> -- Update records in tblDepartment with changed records in tblTempDept
> UPDATE dbo.tblDepartment
> SET strDescription = [qry_Update_tblDeparment_Step1].[Description]
> FROM dbo.qry_Update_tblDeparment_Step1
> GO
>
> --> For reference here is the view used for the update.
> CREATE VIEW dbo.qry_Update_tblDeparment_Step1
> AS
> SELECT dbo.tblTempDept.Description, dbo.tblDepartment.strDescription,
> dbo.tblTempDept.Dept_No, dbo.tblDepartment.strDeptName
> FROM dbo.tblTempDept INNER JOIN
> dbo.tblDepartment ON dbo.tblTempDept.Dept_No => dbo.tblDepartment.strDeptName AND
> dbo.tblTempDept.Description <>
> dbo.tblDepartment.strDescription
>
>|||ever investigated database change management?
regards,
Mark Baekdal
http://www.dbghost.com
http://www.innovartis.co.uk
+44 (0)208 241 1762
Build, Comparison and Synchronization from Source Control = Database change
management for SQL Server
"CD" wrote:
> I know this may sound strange (me2) but a developer is convinced that the
> SQL server is changing their stored procedure. Would SQL internally for any
> reasons change code of a sp to optimize or anything?
> CREATE PROCEDURE dbo.pr_Update_tblDepartment_Step1
> AS
> -- Update records in tblDepartment with changed records in tblTempDept
> UPDATE dbo.qry_Update_tblDeparment_Step1
> SET strDescription = [qry_Update_tblDeparment_Step1].[Description]
> FROM dbo.qry_Update_tblDeparment_Step1
> GO
> --> CHANGES TO not use the view:
> CREATE PROCEDURE dbo.pr_Update_tblDepartment_Step1
> AS
> -- Update records in tblDepartment with changed records in tblTempDept
> UPDATE dbo.tblDepartment
> SET strDescription = [qry_Update_tblDeparment_Step1].[Description]
> FROM dbo.qry_Update_tblDeparment_Step1
> GO
>
> --> For reference here is the view used for the update.
> CREATE VIEW dbo.qry_Update_tblDeparment_Step1
> AS
> SELECT dbo.tblTempDept.Description, dbo.tblDepartment.strDescription,
> dbo.tblTempDept.Dept_No, dbo.tblDepartment.strDeptName
> FROM dbo.tblTempDept INNER JOIN
> dbo.tblDepartment ON dbo.tblTempDept.Dept_No => dbo.tblDepartment.strDeptName AND
> dbo.tblTempDept.Description <>
> dbo.tblDepartment.strDescription
>
>

Any one known SQL to change a sp.....

I know this may sound strange (me2) but a developer is convinced that the
SQL server is changing their stored procedure. Would SQL internally for any
reasons change code of a sp to optimize or anything?
CREATE PROCEDURE dbo.pr_Update_tblDepartment_Step1
AS
-- Update records in tblDepartment with changed records in tblTempDept
UPDATE dbo.qry_Update_tblDeparment_Step1
SET strDescription = [qry_Update_tblDeparment_Step1].[Description]
FROM dbo.qry_Update_tblDeparment_Step1
GO
--> CHANGES TO not use the view:
CREATE PROCEDURE dbo.pr_Update_tblDepartment_Step1
AS
-- Update records in tblDepartment with changed records in tblTempDept
UPDATE dbo.tblDepartment
SET strDescription = [qry_Update_tblDeparment_Step1].[Description]
FROM dbo.qry_Update_tblDeparment_Step1
GO
--> For reference here is the view used for the update.
CREATE VIEW dbo.qry_Update_tblDeparment_Step1
AS
SELECT dbo.tblTempDept.Description, dbo.tblDepartment.strDescription,
dbo.tblTempDept.Dept_No, dbo.tblDepartment.strDeptName
FROM dbo.tblTempDept INNER JOIN
dbo.tblDepartment ON dbo.tblTempDept.Dept_No =
dbo.tblDepartment.strDeptName AND
dbo.tblTempDept.Description <>
dbo.tblDepartment.strDescriptionNo
SQL Server is too 'stupid' to do that. It takes what you give it, stores it,
figures out how to execute it an executes it. Nothing else.
Put a comment line in with a manually incremented version number and see it
that changes. Maybe there is some code in an application that does it.
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"CD" <mcdye1@.hotmail.REMOVETHIS.com> wrote in message
news:e3rlxqeRFHA.3684@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>I know this may sound strange (me2) but a developer is convinced that the
>SQL server is changing their stored procedure. Would SQL internally for
>any reasons change code of a sp to optimize or anything?
> CREATE PROCEDURE dbo.pr_Update_tblDepartment_Step1
> AS
> -- Update records in tblDepartment with changed records in tblTempDept
> UPDATE dbo.qry_Update_tblDeparment_Step1
> SET strDescription = [qry_Update_tblDeparment_Step1].[Description
]
> FROM dbo.qry_Update_tblDeparment_Step1
> GO
> --> CHANGES TO not use the view:
> CREATE PROCEDURE dbo.pr_Update_tblDepartment_Step1
> AS
> -- Update records in tblDepartment with changed records in tblTempDept
> UPDATE dbo.tblDepartment
> SET strDescription = [qry_Update_tblDeparment_Step1].[Description
]
> FROM dbo.qry_Update_tblDeparment_Step1
> GO
>
> --> For reference here is the view used for the update.
> CREATE VIEW dbo.qry_Update_tblDeparment_Step1
> AS
> SELECT dbo.tblTempDept.Description, dbo.tblDepartment.strDescription,
> dbo.tblTempDept.Dept_No, dbo.tblDepartment.strDeptName
> FROM dbo.tblTempDept INNER JOIN
> dbo.tblDepartment ON dbo.tblTempDept.Dept_No =
> dbo.tblDepartment.strDeptName AND
> dbo.tblTempDept.Description <>
> dbo.tblDepartment.strDescription
>
>|||ever investigated database change management?
regards,
Mark Baekdal
http://www.dbghost.com
http://www.innovartis.co.uk
+44 (0)208 241 1762
Build, Comparison and Synchronization from Source Control = Database change
management for SQL Server
"CD" wrote:

> I know this may sound strange (me2) but a developer is convinced that the
> SQL server is changing their stored procedure. Would SQL internally for a
ny
> reasons change code of a sp to optimize or anything?
> CREATE PROCEDURE dbo.pr_Update_tblDepartment_Step1
> AS
> -- Update records in tblDepartment with changed records in tblTempDept
> UPDATE dbo.qry_Update_tblDeparment_Step1
> SET strDescription = [qry_Update_tblDeparment_Step1].[Descriptio
n]
> FROM dbo.qry_Update_tblDeparment_Step1
> GO
> --> CHANGES TO not use the view:
> CREATE PROCEDURE dbo.pr_Update_tblDepartment_Step1
> AS
> -- Update records in tblDepartment with changed records in tblTempDept
> UPDATE dbo.tblDepartment
> SET strDescription = [qry_Update_tblDeparment_Step1].[Descriptio
n]
> FROM dbo.qry_Update_tblDeparment_Step1
> GO
>
> --> For reference here is the view used for the update.
> CREATE VIEW dbo.qry_Update_tblDeparment_Step1
> AS
> SELECT dbo.tblTempDept.Description, dbo.tblDepartment.strDescription,
> dbo.tblTempDept.Dept_No, dbo.tblDepartment.strDeptName
> FROM dbo.tblTempDept INNER JOIN
> dbo.tblDepartment ON dbo.tblTempDept.Dept_No =
> dbo.tblDepartment.strDeptName AND
> dbo.tblTempDept.Description <>
> dbo.tblDepartment.strDescription
>
>

Any known probs SQL2000 und Server 2003

Hello out there,
we plan to move our MSSQL2000 database to a Win 2003 server. Any reasons,
not to do so? Anything, we should be aware of?
Thank you!
Bernd
We moved dozens of servers with no problems.
"Bernd Maierhofer (dato)" <bernd.maierhofer@.dato.at> wrote in message
news:Op1fE1SHEHA.3444@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Hello out there,
> we plan to move our MSSQL2000 database to a Win 2003 server. Any reasons,
> not to do so? Anything, we should be aware of?
> Thank you!
> Bernd
>
|||If you use distributed transactions - it needs additional configuration.
If two are not in same domain you need to disable rpc security.
I cannot remmeber links now - search MS KB.
Bojidar Alexandrov

Any known probs SQL2000 und Server 2003

Hello out there,
we plan to move our MSSQL2000 database to a Win 2003 server. Any reasons,
not to do so? Anything, we should be aware of?
Thank you!
BerndWe moved dozens of servers with no problems.
"Bernd Maierhofer (dato)" <bernd.maierhofer@.dato.at> wrote in message
news:Op1fE1SHEHA.3444@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Hello out there,
> we plan to move our MSSQL2000 database to a Win 2003 server. Any reasons,
> not to do so? Anything, we should be aware of?
> Thank you!
> Bernd
>|||If you use distributed transactions - it needs additional configuration.
If two are not in same domain you need to disable rpc security.
I cannot remmeber links now - search MS KB.
Bojidar Alexandrov

Any known probs SQL2000 und Server 2003

Hello out there,
we plan to move our MSSQL2000 database to a Win 2003 server. Any reasons,
not to do so? Anything, we should be aware of?
Thank you!
BerndWe moved dozens of servers with no problems.
"Bernd Maierhofer (dato)" <bernd.maierhofer@.dato.at> wrote in message
news:Op1fE1SHEHA.3444@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Hello out there,
> we plan to move our MSSQL2000 database to a Win 2003 server. Any reasons,
> not to do so? Anything, we should be aware of?
> Thank you!
> Bernd
>|||If you use distributed transactions - it needs additional configuration.
If two are not in same domain you need to disable rpc security.
I cannot remmeber links now - search MS KB.
Bojidar Alexandrov

Any known issues with AWE and Windows 2003

Heard there are issues with AWE and Windows 2003 and SP1 for Windows fixes
it. Does anyone know more or a KB article ?I am not sure, but we are currently experinceing performance issues
since going to SP1. See my post in this group, Too Much RAM SQL Server
2000?|||Note: watch out with Windows 2003 SP1 and a busy SQL Server...this one just
hit us pretty good:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;899599
Darian Miller
"Hassan" <fatima_ja@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23pWXnzFbFHA.1660@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Heard there are issues with AWE and Windows 2003 and SP1 for Windows fixes
> it. Does anyone know more or a KB article ?
>|||Hi
Darian, how busy was your SQL Server to have this problem?
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Darian Miller" <darianmiller@.online.nospam> wrote in message
news:elshGJHbFHA.3848@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Note: watch out with Windows 2003 SP1 and a busy SQL Server...this one
> just
> hit us pretty good:
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;899599
> Darian Miller
>
> "Hassan" <fatima_ja@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23pWXnzFbFHA.1660@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>> Heard there are issues with AWE and Windows 2003 and SP1 for Windows
>> fixes
>> it. Does anyone know more or a KB article ?
>>
>|||We're still documenting the deal, but the 'security feature' actually seems
to cause a lot of increased traffic due to the many retry attempts. (We're
in the 3-500 batch requests/second range normally.)
Basically it appears that the client makes a successful connection to the
server and the connection is immediately forcibly dropped by the server
causing "General Network Error" on DBNETLIB ConnectionWrite (send())
The errors were coming in what we thought was fairly randomly but apparently
was based on peak levels set by this security feature. If the server thinks
the source is attempting a denial of service attack then it decides to drop
the network traffic, without notice of any kind (no event logging.) What I
would think it should do is if it thinks a source is attempting a denial of
service, then it should block all packets from the source, not just a few of
the peak ones, and it should document that it has automatically stepped in
to "save the day"... Much more difficult to track down they way it is
currently implemented. We were on the phone with Microsoft for over 8 hours
over the past two days on this particular problem and they didn't come
across the solution - we had to find it and tell them about it.
If you have SQL Server on a Windows 2003 Server with SP1, then I'd suggest
setting the registry setting referenced in the knowledge based article,
especially since it's highly likely that your SQL Server is protected from
outside connections to begin with.
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\Tcpip\Parameters
Add DWORD: SynAttackProtect, value 0
I'm mainly just venting...but it's ludicrous to have this sort of 'feature'
implemented the way it is. Security needs to be a focus, but goodness sakes
you need to have some common sense about it. What's the point of dropping
'some' packets if it's a suspected DOS attack? They might have their
reasons, but there is no reason to not have a log entry stating that they
intentionally dropped network traffic. A simple "Suspected
denial-of-service attack detected, taking corrective action" would have
saved many hours of work.
Time for a drink! :)
Darian Miller
darian
@.
darianmiller
.com
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message
news:%23EMfUSHbFHA.720@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> Darian, how busy was your SQL Server to have this problem?
> Regards
> --
> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Zurich, Switzerland
> IM: mike@.epprecht.net
> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
> "Darian Miller" <darianmiller@.online.nospam> wrote in message
> news:elshGJHbFHA.3848@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > Note: watch out with Windows 2003 SP1 and a busy SQL Server...this one
> > just
> > hit us pretty good:
> > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;899599
> >
> > Darian Miller
> >
> >
> > "Hassan" <fatima_ja@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:%23pWXnzFbFHA.1660@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> >> Heard there are issues with AWE and Windows 2003 and SP1 for Windows
> >> fixes
> >> it. Does anyone know more or a KB article ?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>|||Here are a few:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;895575
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;838765
Adrian
"Hassan" <fatima_ja@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23pWXnzFbFHA.1660@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Heard there are issues with AWE and Windows 2003 and SP1 for Windows fixes
> it. Does anyone know more or a KB article ?
>|||Hi
Very interesting. Thanks for sharing this, I think you have saved many
people a lot of time.
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Darian Miller" <darianmiller@.online.nospam> wrote in message
news:%23A65roHbFHA.3040@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> We're still documenting the deal, but the 'security feature' actually
> seems
> to cause a lot of increased traffic due to the many retry attempts.
> (We're
> in the 3-500 batch requests/second range normally.)
> Basically it appears that the client makes a successful connection to the
> server and the connection is immediately forcibly dropped by the server
> causing "General Network Error" on DBNETLIB ConnectionWrite (send())
> The errors were coming in what we thought was fairly randomly but
> apparently
> was based on peak levels set by this security feature. If the server
> thinks
> the source is attempting a denial of service attack then it decides to
> drop
> the network traffic, without notice of any kind (no event logging.) What
> I
> would think it should do is if it thinks a source is attempting a denial
> of
> service, then it should block all packets from the source, not just a few
> of
> the peak ones, and it should document that it has automatically stepped in
> to "save the day"... Much more difficult to track down they way it is
> currently implemented. We were on the phone with Microsoft for over 8
> hours
> over the past two days on this particular problem and they didn't come
> across the solution - we had to find it and tell them about it.
> If you have SQL Server on a Windows 2003 Server with SP1, then I'd suggest
> setting the registry setting referenced in the knowledge based article,
> especially since it's highly likely that your SQL Server is protected from
> outside connections to begin with.
> HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\Tcpip\Parameters
> Add DWORD: SynAttackProtect, value 0
> I'm mainly just venting...but it's ludicrous to have this sort of
> 'feature'
> implemented the way it is. Security needs to be a focus, but goodness
> sakes
> you need to have some common sense about it. What's the point of dropping
> 'some' packets if it's a suspected DOS attack? They might have their
> reasons, but there is no reason to not have a log entry stating that they
> intentionally dropped network traffic. A simple "Suspected
> denial-of-service attack detected, taking corrective action" would have
> saved many hours of work.
> Time for a drink! :)
> Darian Miller
>
> darian
> @.
> darianmiller
> .com
> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message
> news:%23EMfUSHbFHA.720@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> Hi
>> Darian, how busy was your SQL Server to have this problem?
>> Regards
>> --
>> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>> Zurich, Switzerland
>> IM: mike@.epprecht.net
>> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
>> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
>> "Darian Miller" <darianmiller@.online.nospam> wrote in message
>> news:elshGJHbFHA.3848@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> > Note: watch out with Windows 2003 SP1 and a busy SQL Server...this one
>> > just
>> > hit us pretty good:
>> > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;899599
>> >
>> > Darian Miller
>> >
>> >
>> > "Hassan" <fatima_ja@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:%23pWXnzFbFHA.1660@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>> >> Heard there are issues with AWE and Windows 2003 and SP1 for Windows
>> >> fixes
>> >> it. Does anyone know more or a KB article ?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>|||"Darian Miller" <darianmiller@.online.nospam> wrote in message
news:elshGJHbFHA.3848@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Note: watch out with Windows 2003 SP1 and a busy SQL Server...this one
just
> hit us pretty good:
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;899599
Thanks for that tip. We have a high-volume SQL instance where we're seeing
behavior similar to what the KB article describes. We're not running with
any OS service pack, but we do apply the monthly patches. I wonder if the
DOS-preventing "security feature" has been included in any of those.|||Yes, I believe it has been included in a security fix. If you've seen these
messages, apply the registry setting and they go away immediately after a
restart.
"Karen Collins" <kcollins5@.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:eL3p4TNbFHA.3040@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> "Darian Miller" <darianmiller@.online.nospam> wrote in message
> news:elshGJHbFHA.3848@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > Note: watch out with Windows 2003 SP1 and a busy SQL Server...this one
> just
> > hit us pretty good:
> > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;899599
>
> Thanks for that tip. We have a high-volume SQL instance where we're
seeing
> behavior similar to what the KB article describes. We're not running with
> any OS service pack, but we do apply the monthly patches. I wonder if the
> DOS-preventing "security feature" has been included in any of those.
>|||I hope so!
Darian
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message
news:ehVr8SLbFHA.2124@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> Very interesting. Thanks for sharing this, I think you have saved many
> people a lot of time.
> Regards
> --
> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Zurich, Switzerland
> IM: mike@.epprecht.net
> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
> "Darian Miller" <darianmiller@.online.nospam> wrote in message
> news:%23A65roHbFHA.3040@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> > We're still documenting the deal, but the 'security feature' actually
> > seems
> > to cause a lot of increased traffic due to the many retry attempts.
> > (We're
> > in the 3-500 batch requests/second range normally.)
> >
> > Basically it appears that the client makes a successful connection to
the
> > server and the connection is immediately forcibly dropped by the server
> > causing "General Network Error" on DBNETLIB ConnectionWrite (send())
> >
> > The errors were coming in what we thought was fairly randomly but
> > apparently
> > was based on peak levels set by this security feature. If the server
> > thinks
> > the source is attempting a denial of service attack then it decides to
> > drop
> > the network traffic, without notice of any kind (no event logging.)
What
> > I
> > would think it should do is if it thinks a source is attempting a denial
> > of
> > service, then it should block all packets from the source, not just a
few
> > of
> > the peak ones, and it should document that it has automatically stepped
in
> > to "save the day"... Much more difficult to track down they way it is
> > currently implemented. We were on the phone with Microsoft for over 8
> > hours
> > over the past two days on this particular problem and they didn't come
> > across the solution - we had to find it and tell them about it.
> >
> > If you have SQL Server on a Windows 2003 Server with SP1, then I'd
suggest
> > setting the registry setting referenced in the knowledge based article,
> > especially since it's highly likely that your SQL Server is protected
from
> > outside connections to begin with.
> >
> > HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\Tcpip\Parameters
> > Add DWORD: SynAttackProtect, value 0
> >
> > I'm mainly just venting...but it's ludicrous to have this sort of
> > 'feature'
> > implemented the way it is. Security needs to be a focus, but goodness
> > sakes
> > you need to have some common sense about it. What's the point of
dropping
> > 'some' packets if it's a suspected DOS attack? They might have their
> > reasons, but there is no reason to not have a log entry stating that
they
> > intentionally dropped network traffic. A simple "Suspected
> > denial-of-service attack detected, taking corrective action" would have
> > saved many hours of work.
> >
> > Time for a drink! :)
> >
> > Darian Miller
> >
> >
> >
> > darian
> > @.
> > darianmiller
> > .com
> >
> > "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message
> > news:%23EMfUSHbFHA.720@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> >> Hi
> >>
> >> Darian, how busy was your SQL Server to have this problem?
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> --
> >> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> >> Zurich, Switzerland
> >>
> >> IM: mike@.epprecht.net
> >>
> >> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> >>
> >> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
> >>
> >> "Darian Miller" <darianmiller@.online.nospam> wrote in message
> >> news:elshGJHbFHA.3848@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> >> > Note: watch out with Windows 2003 SP1 and a busy SQL Server...this
one
> >> > just
> >> > hit us pretty good:
> >> > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;899599
> >> >
> >> > Darian Miller
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > "Hassan" <fatima_ja@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:%23pWXnzFbFHA.1660@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> >> >> Heard there are issues with AWE and Windows 2003 and SP1 for Windows
> >> >> fixes
> >> >> it. Does anyone know more or a KB article ?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>|||So with all these issues with Win2K3, what does MS have to say ? Do
companies move forward on Win2K3 ?
"Adrian Zajkeskovic" <azajkeskovic@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MNednY37e_KSPTrfRVn-1A@.rogers.com...
> Here are a few:
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;895575
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;838765
> Adrian
>
> "Hassan" <fatima_ja@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23pWXnzFbFHA.1660@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > Heard there are issues with AWE and Windows 2003 and SP1 for Windows
fixes
> > it. Does anyone know more or a KB article ?
> >
> >
>|||Actually, a PAE fix for Win2K3 has also been released as part of a Security
Hotfix Critical Update:
Microsoft Security Bulletin MS04-032
Security Update for Microsoft Windows (840987)
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/ms04-032.mspx
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
--
"Hassan" <fatima_ja@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OuOCc4VbFHA.2420@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
So with all these issues with Win2K3, what does MS have to say ? Do
companies move forward on Win2K3 ?
"Adrian Zajkeskovic" <azajkeskovic@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MNednY37e_KSPTrfRVn-1A@.rogers.com...
> Here are a few:
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;895575
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;838765
> Adrian
>
> "Hassan" <fatima_ja@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23pWXnzFbFHA.1660@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > Heard there are issues with AWE and Windows 2003 and SP1 for Windows
fixes
> > it. Does anyone know more or a KB article ?
> >
> >
>|||The issues with w2k3 at very small compared to NT 4.0 and w2k.
We found that most of the 'issues' with w2k3 are NT 4.0 MCSE's not
understanding security.
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Hassan" <fatima_ja@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OuOCc4VbFHA.2420@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> So with all these issues with Win2K3, what does MS have to say ? Do
> companies move forward on Win2K3 ?
> "Adrian Zajkeskovic" <azajkeskovic@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:MNednY37e_KSPTrfRVn-1A@.rogers.com...
>> Here are a few:
>> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;895575
>> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;838765
>> Adrian
>>
>> "Hassan" <fatima_ja@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:%23pWXnzFbFHA.1660@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>> > Heard there are issues with AWE and Windows 2003 and SP1 for Windows
> fixes
>> > it. Does anyone know more or a KB article ?
>> >
>> >
>>
>

Any known issues with AWE and Windows 2003

Any issues with Windows 2000 service pack 4 with sql server?

Does anyone know if there are known issues with SQL when
upgrading a windows 2000 server to service pack 4?Nothing specific that I have seen so far.
--
HTH
Jasper Smith (SQL Server MVP)
I support PASS - the definitive, global
community for SQL Server professionals -
http://www.sqlpass.org
"Jdent" <jdent@.shentel.net> wrote in message
news:01f201c3b38a$aed48d50$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
Does anyone know if there are known issues with SQL when
upgrading a windows 2000 server to service pack 4?

订阅：博文 (Atom)

2012年3月6日星期二

Any reason not to use -ve pkey's?

Any reason not to use -ve pkey's?

Any reason not to use -ve pkey's?

Any problems with SQL Server 7 on Win 2003 server?

Any problems with SQL Server 7 on Win 2003 server?

Any problems with SQL Server 7 on Win 2003 server?

Any one known SQL to change a sp.....

2012年2月25日星期六

Any one known SQL to change a sp.....

Any one known SQL to change a sp.....

Any known probs SQL2000 und Server 2003

Any known probs SQL2000 und Server 2003

Any known probs SQL2000 und Server 2003

Any known issues with AWE and Windows 2003

Any known issues with AWE and Windows 2003

Any known issues with AWE and Windows 2003

Any issues with Windows 2000 service pack 4 with sql server?

Sql ANSI Padding

Blog Archive

About Me