New to replication, advice needed

hi,
our app works in a multi tier model to provide inet connectivity
now a customer wants to be able to keep working even if the inet is down or
the main server is down
so the obvious solution is to use replication
so:
1) what is the best place to start understanding what is involved
2) all relations are now by the use of integer PK's, some of them are auto
generated, does this has to change?
3) can i have only selected tables replicated?
4) can i have only a subset of rows of a table replicated?
tia!
Marc
1. BOL, www.replicationanswers.com, go for merge replication
2. N
3. Y
4. Y
Hope this will help
-Ravi Lobo
"Marc Antheunis" wrote:

> hi,
> our app works in a multi tier model to provide inet connectivity
> now a customer wants to be able to keep working even if the inet is down or
> the main server is down
> so the obvious solution is to use replication
> so:
> 1) what is the best place to start understanding what is involved
> 2) all relations are now by the use of integer PK's, some of them are auto
> generated, does this has to change?
> 3) can i have only selected tables replicated?
> 4) can i have only a subset of rows of a table replicated?
> tia!
> Marc
>
>
|||1) Well there's my book. Query Replication Tutorials on the web
2) No, not for one way transactional replication. With merge replication DRI
is maintained but another tracking column is added - a guid column.
3) Yes, for transactional replication all tables must have a pk, with merge
they don't require a pk.
4) Yes, as long as there is a criteria to filter it by you can replicate a
subset of rows - this is called horizontal partitioning or horizontal
filtering.
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"Marc Antheunis" <ask_me@.ask.me> wrote in message
news:uCKSLCKJFHA.2956@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> hi,
> our app works in a multi tier model to provide inet connectivity
> now a customer wants to be able to keep working even if the inet is down
or
> the main server is down
> so the obvious solution is to use replication
> so:
> 1) what is the best place to start understanding what is involved
> 2) all relations are now by the use of integer PK's, some of them are auto
> generated, does this has to change?
> 3) can i have only selected tables replicated?
> 4) can i have only a subset of rows of a table replicated?
> tia!
> Marc
>
|||Hi Hilary!
i just phoned the biggest IT related book store in belgium but they don't
sell your book
awaiting an answer from them if it is availabel in belgium
i'll try to collect some ideas and post some to the point questions
thx
marc
"Hilary Cotter" <hilary.cotter@.gmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:eXyQEfLJFHA.3928@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> 1) Well there's my book. Query Replication Tutorials on the web
> 2) No, not for one way transactional replication. With merge replication
> DRI
> is maintained but another tracking column is added - a guid column.
> 3) Yes, for transactional replication all tables must have a pk, with
> merge
> they don't require a pk.
> 4) Yes, as long as there is a criteria to filter it by you can replicate a
> subset of rows - this is called horizontal partitioning or horizontal
> filtering.
> --
> Hilary Cotter
> Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
> Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
> http://www.indexserverfaq.com
> "Marc Antheunis" <ask_me@.ask.me> wrote in message
> news:uCKSLCKJFHA.2956@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> or
>
|||You can get it from Amazon.com or you can order it by following this link:
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"Marc Antheunis" <ask_me@.ask.me> wrote in message
news:uCCa01LJFHA.1860@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi Hilary!
> i just phoned the biggest IT related book store in belgium but they don't
> sell your book
> awaiting an answer from them if it is availabel in belgium
> i'll try to collect some ideas and post some to the point questions
> thx
> marc
>
> "Hilary Cotter" <hilary.cotter@.gmail.com> schreef in bericht
> news:eXyQEfLJFHA.3928@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
a[vbcol=seagreen]
down
>

New to CE and need some advice.

Hello,

I am new to the CE OS, SQL CE and mobile computing in general. I have been developing database applications using MS products ever since Windows 3.11 and Visual Basic 1.0. I have used MS Access and SQL Server since they were first released. But, I have never worked with Windows CE or any of the mobile OSs or with SQL CE or SQL Mobile.

We now have a project that requires us to develop a database application on handheld devices using the CE 4.2 and CE 5.0 OSs.We will be using CF 2.0, VS 2005 and SQL 2005 for our development environment.

My questions are:

1. Which version of mobile SQL will allow us to best develop for both the CE 4.2 and 5.0 OSs usinf VS 2005? I have done a lot of reading online and it's pretty confusing. There are quite a number of different versions out there. It seems some work with 4.2 and some with 5.0. Is there a version that will work for both?

2. Is SQL CE 3.0 (Sql 2005 Mobile) available for other than Laptop and Tablet use? When i finaly got to the download page for this version there was verbiage there that suggested it was not available for smart devices.

3. What is a good source of info to resolve these questions? I am using the MSDN areas for CE and SQL Mobile but haven't really found what I need to get started. Any suggestions on forums, books, articles, blogs, etc... would be greatly appreciated.

I know these are very broad questions but I want to get some advice from the experienced before going to far here.

1: SQL Compact Edition (3.1 aka 3.0.5300) does have support for CE 4.2 via this hotfix: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/934386/en-us

Support for CE 5.0 is built in the SDK:

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=E9AA3F8D-363D-49F3-AE89-64E1D149E09B&displaylang=en

2: SQL CE 3.0 (SQL Server 2005 Mobile) is only licensed for Windows CE based devices and Tablet PC use.

SQL Compact Edition (3.1) is licensed for use on Windows CE and Win32 platforms.

3: The overview posts at the top of this forum is probably a good starting point.

|||

Thanks for the reply and the info Erik. That's what I neede to know.

I am now going though the "Creating a Mobile Application with SQL Server Mobile " SQL Server Mobile tutorial. I had a problem with the snapshot_agent user not being able to log in in order to run the SQL Server Snapshot Agent. But I found that if I add this user to the SQL Agent users group it works fine.

I have the replication setup and working and I am to the point now where I am creating the application in VS 2005. When I try to add a data connection I don't see "Microsoft SQL Server Mobile Edition" as one of the choices for Data Source. I have a reference to System.Data.SqlServerCe and I have put the "Using System.Data.SqlServerCe" directive in place. Any idea why this dtata source type wouldn't be available?

Thanks.

|||

You need to have the "Smart Device Programmability" VS setup option enabled. It is also a good idea to install VS 2005 SP1 and then add these "SQL Compact" tools for VS 2005 sp1:

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=877C0ADC-0347-4A47-B842-58FB71D159AC&displaylang=en

|||

Erik,

Thanks for all the help. I really need to get this working.

Ok, I' m not sure where to set the "Smart Device programmability" option. I went to Add/Remove software in control panel and ran the VS 2005 Change/Remove option. I ran the Add/Remove components and repair/reinstall options and don't see the Smart Device progrmmability option.

I downloaded VS 2005 SP1 and installed it. that went ok.

I treid to install the SQL Compact tools for VS 2005 SP 1 ad it says that the patch can not be installed because the program to be upgraded is either missing or the wrong version.

Any other suggestions on this?

|||Under the feature tree, expand Visual C# or Visual Basic, there you will see "Smart Device Programmability"|||

Ok, I have reinstalled VS 2005 with "Smart Device Programmability" in place. I installed VS 2005 SP1 and the SQL CE Tools for VS 2005. Everything installed correctly. I was able to create and test the connection to the replication database file with no problem. However, when I try to create a new data source from the connection I get the following error.

Error creating new data source:

Could not get type information for 'app.appdataset'

After several internet and MS Knowledgebase searches I have found very little concerning this error. Several people are however having the same problem and I've tried all the fixes I've found but no luck. These include:

1. Making sure no tables are named like C# reserved words. The table names are "MembershipData" and "FlightData".

2. making sure that their are no extraneous characters in the connection string.

3. I have seen two references to logging in as a different user on the computer and this fixing the problem. I have tried this but it didn't help. I would also like to understand why this would solve the problem, if it did, so users could be set up correctly in the first place.

I hate to feel like I have to be lead through this process step-by-step but I don't know what else to do.

Thanks again,

Rick

|||Please refer to this (recently published) checklist: http://blogs.msdn.com/stevelasker/archive/2007/08/07/configuring-visual-studio-2005-for-use-wtih-sql-server-2005-compact-edition.aspx|||

Thanks Erik,

That's exactly what I needed. I have every thing running now except for merge replication through IIS. I'm sure that's an IIS configuration problem that I just have to work on.

Thanks again.

Rick

New to CE and need some advice.

Hello,

I am new to the CE OS, SQL CE and mobile computing in general. I have been developing database applications using MS products ever since Windows 3.11 and Visual Basic 1.0. I have used MS Access and SQL Server since they were first released. But, I have never worked with Windows CE or any of the mobile OSs or with SQL CE or SQL Mobile.

We now have a project that requires us to develop a database application on handheld devices using the CE 4.2 and CE 5.0 OSs.We will be using CF 2.0, VS 2005 and SQL 2005 for our development environment.

My questions are:

1. Which version of mobile SQL will allow us to best develop for both the CE 4.2 and 5.0 OSs usinf VS 2005? I have done a lot of reading online and it's pretty confusing. There are quite a number of different versions out there. It seems some work with 4.2 and some with 5.0. Is there a version that will work for both?

2. Is SQL CE 3.0 (Sql 2005 Mobile) available for other than Laptop and Tablet use? When i finaly got to the download page for this version there was verbiage there that suggested it was not available for smart devices.

3. What is a good source of info to resolve these questions? I am using the MSDN areas for CE and SQL Mobile but haven't really found what I need to get started. Any suggestions on forums, books, articles, blogs, etc... would be greatly appreciated.

I know these are very broad questions but I want to get some advice from the experienced before going to far here.

1: SQL Compact Edition (3.1 aka 3.0.5300) does have support for CE 4.2 via this hotfix: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/934386/en-us

Support for CE 5.0 is built in the SDK:

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=E9AA3F8D-363D-49F3-AE89-64E1D149E09B&displaylang=en

2: SQL CE 3.0 (SQL Server 2005 Mobile) is only licensed for Windows CE based devices and Tablet PC use.

SQL Compact Edition (3.1) is licensed for use on Windows CE and Win32 platforms.

3: The overview posts at the top of this forum is probably a good starting point.

|||

Thanks for the reply and the info Erik. That's what I neede to know.

I am now going though the "Creating a Mobile Application with SQL Server Mobile " SQL Server Mobile tutorial. I had a problem with the snapshot_agent user not being able to log in in order to run the SQL Server Snapshot Agent. But I found that if I add this user to the SQL Agent users group it works fine.

I have the replication setup and working and I am to the point now where I am creating the application in VS 2005. When I try to add a data connection I don't see "Microsoft SQL Server Mobile Edition" as one of the choices for Data Source. I have a reference to System.Data.SqlServerCe and I have put the "Using System.Data.SqlServerCe" directive in place. Any idea why this dtata source type wouldn't be available?

Thanks.

|||

You need to have the "Smart Device Programmability" VS setup option enabled. It is also a good idea to install VS 2005 SP1 and then add these "SQL Compact" tools for VS 2005 sp1:

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=877C0ADC-0347-4A47-B842-58FB71D159AC&displaylang=en

|||

Erik,

Thanks for all the help. I really need to get this working.

Ok, I' m not sure where to set the "Smart Device programmability" option. I went to Add/Remove software in control panel and ran the VS 2005 Change/Remove option. I ran the Add/Remove components and repair/reinstall options and don't see the Smart Device progrmmability option.

I downloaded VS 2005 SP1 and installed it. that went ok.

I treid to install the SQL Compact tools for VS 2005 SP 1 ad it says that the patch can not be installed because the program to be upgraded is either missing or the wrong version.

Any other suggestions on this?

|||

Under the feature tree, expand Visual C# or Visual Basic, there you will see "Smart Device Programmability"|||

Ok, I have reinstalled VS 2005 with "Smart Device Programmability" in place. I installed VS 2005 SP1 and the SQL CE Tools for VS 2005. Everything installed correctly. I was able to create and test the connection to the replication database file with no problem. However, when I try to create a new data source from the connection I get the following error.

Error creating new data source:

Could not get type information for 'app.appdataset'

After several internet and MS Knowledgebase searches I have found very little concerning this error. Several people are however having the same problem and I've tried all the fixes I've found but no luck. These include:

1. Making sure no tables are named like C# reserved words. The table names are "MembershipData" and "FlightData".

2. making sure that their are no extraneous characters in the connection string.

3. I have seen two references to logging in as a different user on the computer and this fixing the problem. I have tried this but it didn't help. I would also like to understand why this would solve the problem, if it did, so users could be set up correctly in the first place.

I hate to feel like I have to be lead through this process step-by-step but I don't know what else to do.

Thanks again,

Rick

|||Please refer to this (recently published) checklist: http://blogs.msdn.com/stevelasker/archive/2007/08/07/configuring-visual-studio-2005-for-use-wtih-sql-server-2005-compact-edition.aspx

|||

Thanks Erik,

That's exactly what I needed. I have every thing running now except for merge replication through IIS. I'm sure that's an IIS configuration problem that I just have to work on.

Thanks again.

Rick

sql

New SQL Server Setup - 32 or 64bit windows 2003?

Hi folks,
Just wondering if anyone can offer me any advice on a new SQL server
setup I am putting together. We are trying to squeeze as much
performance out of a new server as possible.
We are looking at getting a DL380 with a quad core xeon, 4gb ram and
looking to run windows 2003 server standard r2 edition. The question
is whether to go with the 32 bit
version of windows or the 64bit version. We will be running SQL 2000
in 32 bit mode anyway so is there really any benfit in running the 64
bit version of windows? One supplier has mentioned
that it isn't really worth it unless we are running with at least 8gb
of RAM in the machine. Anyone any ideas?
On the disk arrangements I am looking at the following setup. 2 x
72gb SAS drives RAID 1 running the system, 2 x 72gb SAS drives RAID 1
running the log files and then 3 x 146gb SAS drives
running the datafiles running RAID 5. What do you think? Is this
suitable?
Any tips or ideas greatfully received!
Thanks in advance
Hi
If you have 64bit processors that are are supported SQL Server, then using
64bit all the way through is going to give you better performance. I am not
sure why you rule out 64bit SQL Server?
John
"Fox1977" wrote:

> Hi folks,
> Just wondering if anyone can offer me any advice on a new SQL server
> setup I am putting together. We are trying to squeeze as much
> performance out of a new server as possible.
> We are looking at getting a DL380 with a quad core xeon, 4gb ram and
> looking to run windows 2003 server standard r2 edition. The question
> is whether to go with the 32 bit
> version of windows or the 64bit version. We will be running SQL 2000
> in 32 bit mode anyway so is there really any benfit in running the 64
> bit version of windows? One supplier has mentioned
> that it isn't really worth it unless we are running with at least 8gb
> of RAM in the machine. Anyone any ideas?
> On the disk arrangements I am looking at the following setup. 2 x
> 72gb SAS drives RAID 1 running the system, 2 x 72gb SAS drives RAID 1
> running the log files and then 3 x 146gb SAS drives
> running the datafiles running RAID 5. What do you think? Is this
> suitable?
> Any tips or ideas greatfully received!
> Thanks in advance
>
|||On 12 Mar, 08:48, John Bell <jbellnewspo...@.hotmail.com> wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi
> If you have 64bit processors that are are supported SQL Server, then using
> 64bit all the way through is going to give you better performance. I am not
> sure why you rule out 64bit SQL Server?
> John
> "Fox1977" wrote:
>
>
Thanks John,
We have decided to take the plunge and go with x64 for server and SQL

New SQL Server Setup - 32 or 64bit windows 2003?

Hi folks,
Just wondering if anyone can offer me any advice on a new SQL server
setup I am putting together. We are trying to squeeze as much
performance out of a new server as possible.
We are looking at getting a DL380 with a quad core xeon, 4gb ram and
looking to run windows 2003 server standard r2 edition. The question
is whether to go with the 32 bit
version of windows or the 64bit version. We will be running SQL 2000
in 32 bit mode anyway so is there really any benfit in running the 64
bit version of windows? One supplier has mentioned
that it isn't really worth it unless we are running with at least 8gb
of RAM in the machine. Anyone any ideas?
On the disk arrangements I am looking at the following setup. 2 x
72gb SAS drives RAID 1 running the system, 2 x 72gb SAS drives RAID 1
running the log files and then 3 x 146gb SAS drives
running the datafiles running RAID 5. What do you think? Is this
suitable?
Any tips or ideas greatfully received!
Thanks in advanceHi
If you have 64bit processors that are are supported SQL Server, then using
64bit all the way through is going to give you better performance. I am not
sure why you rule out 64bit SQL Server?
John
"Fox1977" wrote:
> Hi folks,
> Just wondering if anyone can offer me any advice on a new SQL server
> setup I am putting together. We are trying to squeeze as much
> performance out of a new server as possible.
> We are looking at getting a DL380 with a quad core xeon, 4gb ram and
> looking to run windows 2003 server standard r2 edition. The question
> is whether to go with the 32 bit
> version of windows or the 64bit version. We will be running SQL 2000
> in 32 bit mode anyway so is there really any benfit in running the 64
> bit version of windows? One supplier has mentioned
> that it isn't really worth it unless we are running with at least 8gb
> of RAM in the machine. Anyone any ideas?
> On the disk arrangements I am looking at the following setup. 2 x
> 72gb SAS drives RAID 1 running the system, 2 x 72gb SAS drives RAID 1
> running the log files and then 3 x 146gb SAS drives
> running the datafiles running RAID 5. What do you think? Is this
> suitable?
> Any tips or ideas greatfully received!
> Thanks in advance
>|||On 12 Mar, 08:48, John Bell <jbellnewspo...@.hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hi
> If you have 64bit processors that are are supported SQL Server, then using
> 64bit all the way through is going to give you better performance. I am not
> sure why you rule out 64bit SQL Server?
> John
> "Fox1977" wrote:
> > Hi folks,
> > Just wondering if anyone can offer me any advice on a new SQL server
> > setup I am putting together. We are trying to squeeze as much
> > performance out of a new server as possible.
> > We are looking at getting a DL380 with a quad core xeon, 4gb ram and
> > looking to run windows 2003 server standard r2 edition. The question
> > is whether to go with the 32 bit
> > version of windows or the 64bit version. We will be running SQL 2000
> > in 32 bit mode anyway so is there really any benfit in running the 64
> > bit version of windows? One supplier has mentioned
> > that it isn't really worth it unless we are running with at least 8gb
> > of RAM in the machine. Anyone any ideas?
> > On the disk arrangements I am looking at the following setup. 2 x
> > 72gb SAS drives RAID 1 running the system, 2 x 72gb SAS drives RAID 1
> > running the log files and then 3 x 146gb SAS drives
> > running the datafiles running RAID 5. What do you think? Is this
> > suitable?
> > Any tips or ideas greatfully received!
> > Thanks in advance
Thanks John,
We have decided to take the plunge and go with x64 for server and SQL

New SQL Server Install Advice

I have a new Dell PowerEdge 2800 running windows 2003. I have 2 RAID
containers as the machine has a PERC 4 controller. The machine has x2 73GB
SCSI and x4 146GB SCSI HDD.
Container 1
--
The OS C drive (partition of 12GB) is in RAID 1 and so is E drive which has
56GB free.
Container 2
--
A D drive for Data I created and also L for Log which I assigned as dynamic
drives.
Is this setup Ok for running SQL2000. The Data files will reside in D and
the Log files will reside in L. Is this Ok for the read/write access that
occurs when SQL is accessed?
Please help.
skcI assume there is at least one processor and some memory on the server as
well.
It will work. It depends on what performance, capacity, and availability
you are needing.
"Skc" <Skc@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:46CDFADB-7AC6-4719-B0A8-8154D6977397@.microsoft.com...
>I have a new Dell PowerEdge 2800 running windows 2003. I have 2 RAID
> containers as the machine has a PERC 4 controller. The machine has x2
> 73GB
> SCSI and x4 146GB SCSI HDD.
> Container 1
> --
> The OS C drive (partition of 12GB) is in RAID 1 and so is E drive which
> has
> 56GB free.
> Container 2
> --
> A D drive for Data I created and also L for Log which I assigned as
> dynamic
> drives.
> Is this setup Ok for running SQL2000. The Data files will reside in D and
> the Log files will reside in L. Is this Ok for the read/write access that
> occurs when SQL is accessed?
> Please help.
> skc|||Xeon 2.8 x2 and 2GB RAM.
We want max. performance. Is this OK?
Furthermore, I installed SQL2000 and it came with 4 CDs:
1> SQL 2000 Standard (Personal)
2> SQL 2000 Standard
3> SP4
4> Reporting Tools
I installed Disk #1, asked me no product key, I selected 5 CALS from the
dropdown (which was how many I bought) and that was it. I have the SQL
Service running and the SQL Tools (enterprise manager). What is the
difference between the 2 Cds mentioned above?
In Enterprise Manager, when I right-click the (local) Server, it says I have
Microsoft SQL Server Std Edition installed. This is very odd, I hope I have
done this right as it did not ask for a serial product key or anything.
Please verify the above it OK.
"Danny" wrote:

> I assume there is at least one processor and some memory on the server as
> well.
> It will work. It depends on what performance, capacity, and availability
> you are needing.
> "Skc" <Skc@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:46CDFADB-7AC6-4719-B0A8-8154D6977397@.microsoft.com...
>
>

New SQL Server Install Advice

I have a new Dell PowerEdge 2800 running windows 2003. I have 2 RAID
containers as the machine has a PERC 4 controller. The machine has x2 73GB
SCSI and x4 146GB SCSI HDD.
Container 1
The OS C drive (partition of 12GB) is in RAID 1 and so is E drive which has
56GB free.
Container 2
A D drive for Data I created and also L for Log which I assigned as dynamic
drives.
Is this setup Ok for running SQL2000. The Data files will reside in D and
the Log files will reside in L. Is this Ok for the read/write access that
occurs when SQL is accessed?
Please help.
skc
I assume there is at least one processor and some memory on the server as
well.
It will work. It depends on what performance, capacity, and availability
you are needing.
"Skc" <Skc@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:46CDFADB-7AC6-4719-B0A8-8154D6977397@.microsoft.com...
>I have a new Dell PowerEdge 2800 running windows 2003. I have 2 RAID
> containers as the machine has a PERC 4 controller. The machine has x2
> 73GB
> SCSI and x4 146GB SCSI HDD.
> Container 1
> --
> The OS C drive (partition of 12GB) is in RAID 1 and so is E drive which
> has
> 56GB free.
> Container 2
> --
> A D drive for Data I created and also L for Log which I assigned as
> dynamic
> drives.
> Is this setup Ok for running SQL2000. The Data files will reside in D and
> the Log files will reside in L. Is this Ok for the read/write access that
> occurs when SQL is accessed?
> Please help.
> skc
|||Xeon 2.8 x2 and 2GB RAM.
We want max. performance. Is this OK?
Furthermore, I installed SQL2000 and it came with 4 CDs:
1> SQL 2000 Standard (Personal)
2> SQL 2000 Standard
3> SP4
4> Reporting Tools
I installed Disk #1, asked me no product key, I selected 5 CALS from the
dropdown (which was how many I bought) and that was it. I have the SQL
Service running and the SQL Tools (enterprise manager). What is the
difference between the 2 Cds mentioned above?
In Enterprise Manager, when I right-click the (local) Server, it says I have
Microsoft SQL Server Std Edition installed. This is very odd, I hope I have
done this right as it did not ask for a serial product key or anything.
Please verify the above it OK.
"Danny" wrote:

> I assume there is at least one processor and some memory on the server as
> well.
> It will work. It depends on what performance, capacity, and availability
> you are needing.
> "Skc" <Skc@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:46CDFADB-7AC6-4719-B0A8-8154D6977397@.microsoft.com...
>
>

New SQL Server Install Advice

I have a new Dell PowerEdge 2800 running windows 2003. I have 2 RAID
containers as the machine has a PERC 4 controller. The machine has x2 73GB
SCSI and x4 146GB SCSI HDD.
Container 1
--
The OS C drive (partition of 12GB) is in RAID 1 and so is E drive which has
56GB free.
Container 2
--
A D drive for Data I created and also L for Log which I assigned as dynamic
drives.
Is this setup Ok for running SQL2000. The Data files will reside in D and
the Log files will reside in L. Is this Ok for the read/write access that
occurs when SQL is accessed?
Please help.
skcI assume there is at least one processor and some memory on the server as
well.
It will work. It depends on what performance, capacity, and availability
you are needing.
"Skc" <Skc@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:46CDFADB-7AC6-4719-B0A8-8154D6977397@.microsoft.com...
>I have a new Dell PowerEdge 2800 running windows 2003. I have 2 RAID
> containers as the machine has a PERC 4 controller. The machine has x2
> 73GB
> SCSI and x4 146GB SCSI HDD.
> Container 1
> --
> The OS C drive (partition of 12GB) is in RAID 1 and so is E drive which
> has
> 56GB free.
> Container 2
> --
> A D drive for Data I created and also L for Log which I assigned as
> dynamic
> drives.
> Is this setup Ok for running SQL2000. The Data files will reside in D and
> the Log files will reside in L. Is this Ok for the read/write access that
> occurs when SQL is accessed?
> Please help.
> skc|||Xeon 2.8 x2 and 2GB RAM.
We want max. performance. Is this OK?
Furthermore, I installed SQL2000 and it came with 4 CDs:
1> SQL 2000 Standard (Personal)
2> SQL 2000 Standard
3> SP4
4> Reporting Tools
I installed Disk #1, asked me no product key, I selected 5 CALS from the
dropdown (which was how many I bought) and that was it. I have the SQL
Service running and the SQL Tools (enterprise manager). What is the
difference between the 2 Cds mentioned above?
In Enterprise Manager, when I right-click the (local) Server, it says I have
Microsoft SQL Server Std Edition installed. This is very odd, I hope I have
done this right as it did not ask for a serial product key or anything.
Please verify the above it OK.
"Danny" wrote:
> I assume there is at least one processor and some memory on the server as
> well.
> It will work. It depends on what performance, capacity, and availability
> you are needing.
> "Skc" <Skc@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:46CDFADB-7AC6-4719-B0A8-8154D6977397@.microsoft.com...
> >I have a new Dell PowerEdge 2800 running windows 2003. I have 2 RAID
> > containers as the machine has a PERC 4 controller. The machine has x2
> > 73GB
> > SCSI and x4 146GB SCSI HDD.
> >
> > Container 1
> > --
> > The OS C drive (partition of 12GB) is in RAID 1 and so is E drive which
> > has
> > 56GB free.
> >
> > Container 2
> > --
> > A D drive for Data I created and also L for Log which I assigned as
> > dynamic
> > drives.
> >
> > Is this setup Ok for running SQL2000. The Data files will reside in D and
> > the Log files will reside in L. Is this Ok for the read/write access that
> > occurs when SQL is accessed?
> >
> > Please help.
> >
> > skc
>
>

New Database Server Advice

We are looking to upgrade our database server to gain additional speed.
I've come up with an idea of what we should get but wanted to get advice
from some experts to make sure my assumptions are accurate. Basically I
don't want to spend a bunch of my boss's money and not see any results. :-)
We are using MS SQL 2K on Window Server 2003
Our current server is a Zeon 3Ghz with 4G RAM
We have two main databases each about 25Gigs
The OS runs on one partition and the entire database runs on a single
partition (part of a Serial ATA RAID)
From my research mostly using perfmon, the bottle neck is always the disk,
we commonly have items queued and when the queue increases performance is
noticeably down. CPU speed has never been an issue. Therefore in a new
server I believe we should:
1. Use the maximum amount of RAM the server supports
2. Partition the databases by putting larger more active tables on they're
own physical drive as well as a sperate drive for SQL logs.
If this seems reasonable, I have a couple questions:
1. Is there a large performance difference between a SCSI RAID and Serial
ATA raid?
2. To evaluate disk systems should I look at drive RPM's, seek time, and
transfer rates? Am I missing something with this?
3. In addition to using separate drives when partitioning the database,
should I try to have separate interfaces to the motherboard. i.e. would it
make more sense to have two SCSI interfaces each with two drives instead of
one SCSI interface with four drives (from a performance standpoint) (Does
this logic apply to SATA systems?)
As a side note: I use the profiler tool with the SQLProfilerTuning Template,
then the index tuning wizard with default settings to generate our indexes.
If there is more I should be doing here, please let me know.
Any advice on any part of this is appreciated!1) Performace of disks has many factors, including the type of PCI bus the
card sits on, drive rpm, drive cache, I/O card cache, etc.
2) See 1 above. Get the maximum I/O card cache the card can have.
3) More interfaces is better up to the point where they exist on the same
PCI bus and saturate it.
4) More spindles is almost always better.
5) Go for at least 2 cores, preferably 4 or more. Do NOT enable
hyperthreading if you get CPUs that have it.
6) Avoid RAID 5 if possible for anything that has high writes, which always
includes tempdb and all transaction logs.
7) I avoid ITW. Have seen too many bad things come out of it.
--
Kevin G. Boles
TheSQLGuru
Indicium Resources, Inc.
"Bishop" <nospam@.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Ogk%235o1NIHA.3516@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> We are looking to upgrade our database server to gain additional speed.
> I've come up with an idea of what we should get but wanted to get advice
> from some experts to make sure my assumptions are accurate. Basically I
> don't want to spend a bunch of my boss's money and not see any results.
> :-)
> We are using MS SQL 2K on Window Server 2003
> Our current server is a Zeon 3Ghz with 4G RAM
> We have two main databases each about 25Gigs
> The OS runs on one partition and the entire database runs on a single
> partition (part of a Serial ATA RAID)
> From my research mostly using perfmon, the bottle neck is always the disk,
> we commonly have items queued and when the queue increases performance is
> noticeably down. CPU speed has never been an issue. Therefore in a new
> server I believe we should:
> 1. Use the maximum amount of RAM the server supports
> 2. Partition the databases by putting larger more active tables on they're
> own physical drive as well as a sperate drive for SQL logs.
> If this seems reasonable, I have a couple questions:
> 1. Is there a large performance difference between a SCSI RAID and Serial
> ATA raid?
> 2. To evaluate disk systems should I look at drive RPM's, seek time, and
> transfer rates? Am I missing something with this?
> 3. In addition to using separate drives when partitioning the database,
> should I try to have separate interfaces to the motherboard. i.e. would
> it make more sense to have two SCSI interfaces each with two drives
> instead of one SCSI interface with four drives (from a performance
> standpoint) (Does this logic apply to SATA systems?)
> As a side note: I use the profiler tool with the SQLProfilerTuning
> Template, then the index tuning wizard with default settings to generate
> our indexes. If there is more I should be doing here, please let me know.
> Any advice on any part of this is appreciated!
>|||Thank You, this will give me plenty to look into!
Any thoughts on if ECC memory is really worth the money. I have several
servers that don't use ECC memory that get hit hard and never have problems?
"TheSQLGuru" <kgboles@.earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:13ldpj8nb3i5nf0@.corp.supernews.com...
> 1) Performace of disks has many factors, including the type of PCI bus the
> card sits on, drive rpm, drive cache, I/O card cache, etc.
> 2) See 1 above. Get the maximum I/O card cache the card can have.
> 3) More interfaces is better up to the point where they exist on the same
> PCI bus and saturate it.
> 4) More spindles is almost always better.
> 5) Go for at least 2 cores, preferably 4 or more. Do NOT enable
> hyperthreading if you get CPUs that have it.
> 6) Avoid RAID 5 if possible for anything that has high writes, which
> always includes tempdb and all transaction logs.
> 7) I avoid ITW. Have seen too many bad things come out of it.
> --
> Kevin G. Boles
> TheSQLGuru
> Indicium Resources, Inc.
>
> "Bishop" <nospam@.nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:Ogk%235o1NIHA.3516@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> We are looking to upgrade our database server to gain additional speed.
>> I've come up with an idea of what we should get but wanted to get advice
>> from some experts to make sure my assumptions are accurate. Basically I
>> don't want to spend a bunch of my boss's money and not see any results.
>> :-)
>> We are using MS SQL 2K on Window Server 2003
>> Our current server is a Zeon 3Ghz with 4G RAM
>> We have two main databases each about 25Gigs
>> The OS runs on one partition and the entire database runs on a single
>> partition (part of a Serial ATA RAID)
>> From my research mostly using perfmon, the bottle neck is always the
>> disk, we commonly have items queued and when the queue increases
>> performance is noticeably down. CPU speed has never been an issue.
>> Therefore in a new server I believe we should:
>> 1. Use the maximum amount of RAM the server supports
>> 2. Partition the databases by putting larger more active tables on
>> they're own physical drive as well as a sperate drive for SQL logs.
>> If this seems reasonable, I have a couple questions:
>> 1. Is there a large performance difference between a SCSI RAID and Serial
>> ATA raid?
>> 2. To evaluate disk systems should I look at drive RPM's, seek time, and
>> transfer rates? Am I missing something with this?
>> 3. In addition to using separate drives when partitioning the database,
>> should I try to have separate interfaces to the motherboard. i.e. would
>> it make more sense to have two SCSI interfaces each with two drives
>> instead of one SCSI interface with four drives (from a performance
>> standpoint) (Does this logic apply to SATA systems?)
>> As a side note: I use the profiler tool with the SQLProfilerTuning
>> Template, then the index tuning wizard with default settings to generate
>> our indexes. If there is more I should be doing here, please let me know.
>> Any advice on any part of this is appreciated!
>|||I think ECC memory is more about keeping your data integrity. If you
consider that important it is indeed worth the money. :-)
--
Kevin G. Boles
TheSQLGuru
Indicium Resources, Inc.
"Bishop" <nospam@.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:uWbQ%23H4NIHA.4656@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Thank You, this will give me plenty to look into!
> Any thoughts on if ECC memory is really worth the money. I have several
> servers that don't use ECC memory that get hit hard and never have
> problems?
> "TheSQLGuru" <kgboles@.earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:13ldpj8nb3i5nf0@.corp.supernews.com...
>> 1) Performace of disks has many factors, including the type of PCI bus
>> the card sits on, drive rpm, drive cache, I/O card cache, etc.
>> 2) See 1 above. Get the maximum I/O card cache the card can have.
>> 3) More interfaces is better up to the point where they exist on the same
>> PCI bus and saturate it.
>> 4) More spindles is almost always better.
>> 5) Go for at least 2 cores, preferably 4 or more. Do NOT enable
>> hyperthreading if you get CPUs that have it.
>> 6) Avoid RAID 5 if possible for anything that has high writes, which
>> always includes tempdb and all transaction logs.
>> 7) I avoid ITW. Have seen too many bad things come out of it.
>> --
>> Kevin G. Boles
>> TheSQLGuru
>> Indicium Resources, Inc.
>>
>> "Bishop" <nospam@.nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:Ogk%235o1NIHA.3516@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> We are looking to upgrade our database server to gain additional speed.
>> I've come up with an idea of what we should get but wanted to get advice
>> from some experts to make sure my assumptions are accurate. Basically I
>> don't want to spend a bunch of my boss's money and not see any results.
>> :-)
>> We are using MS SQL 2K on Window Server 2003
>> Our current server is a Zeon 3Ghz with 4G RAM
>> We have two main databases each about 25Gigs
>> The OS runs on one partition and the entire database runs on a single
>> partition (part of a Serial ATA RAID)
>> From my research mostly using perfmon, the bottle neck is always the
>> disk, we commonly have items queued and when the queue increases
>> performance is noticeably down. CPU speed has never been an issue.
>> Therefore in a new server I believe we should:
>> 1. Use the maximum amount of RAM the server supports
>> 2. Partition the databases by putting larger more active tables on
>> they're own physical drive as well as a sperate drive for SQL logs.
>> If this seems reasonable, I have a couple questions:
>> 1. Is there a large performance difference between a SCSI RAID and
>> Serial ATA raid?
>> 2. To evaluate disk systems should I look at drive RPM's, seek time, and
>> transfer rates? Am I missing something with this?
>> 3. In addition to using separate drives when partitioning the database,
>> should I try to have separate interfaces to the motherboard. i.e. would
>> it make more sense to have two SCSI interfaces each with two drives
>> instead of one SCSI interface with four drives (from a performance
>> standpoint) (Does this logic apply to SATA systems?)
>> As a side note: I use the profiler tool with the SQLProfilerTuning
>> Template, then the index tuning wizard with default settings to generate
>> our indexes. If there is more I should be doing here, please let me
>> know.
>> Any advice on any part of this is appreciated!
>>
>

New Database Server Advice

We are looking to upgrade our database server to gain additional speed.
I've come up with an idea of what we should get but wanted to get advice
from some experts to make sure my assumptions are accurate. Basically I
don't want to spend a bunch of my boss's money and not see any results. :-)
We are using MS SQL 2K on Window Server 2003
Our current server is a Zeon 3Ghz with 4G RAM
We have two main databases each about 25Gigs
The OS runs on one partition and the entire database runs on a single
partition (part of a Serial ATA RAID)
From my research mostly using perfmon, the bottle neck is always the disk,
we commonly have items queued and when the queue increases performance is
noticeably down. CPU speed has never been an issue. Therefore in a new
server I believe we should:
1. Use the maximum amount of RAM the server supports
2. Partition the databases by putting larger more active tables on they're
own physical drive as well as a sperate drive for SQL logs.
If this seems reasonable, I have a couple questions:
1. Is there a large performance difference between a SCSI RAID and Serial
ATA raid?
2. To evaluate disk systems should I look at drive RPM's, seek time, and
transfer rates? Am I missing something with this?
3. In addition to using separate drives when partitioning the database,
should I try to have separate interfaces to the motherboard. i.e. would it
make more sense to have two SCSI interfaces each with two drives instead of
one SCSI interface with four drives (from a performance standpoint) (Does
this logic apply to SATA systems?)
As a side note: I use the profiler tool with the SQLProfilerTuning Template,
then the index tuning wizard with default settings to generate our indexes.
If there is more I should be doing here, please let me know.
Any advice on any part of this is appreciated!
1) Performace of disks has many factors, including the type of PCI bus the
card sits on, drive rpm, drive cache, I/O card cache, etc.
2) See 1 above. Get the maximum I/O card cache the card can have.
3) More interfaces is better up to the point where they exist on the same
PCI bus and saturate it.
4) More spindles is almost always better.
5) Go for at least 2 cores, preferably 4 or more. Do NOT enable
hyperthreading if you get CPUs that have it.
6) Avoid RAID 5 if possible for anything that has high writes, which always
includes tempdb and all transaction logs.
7) I avoid ITW. Have seen too many bad things come out of it.
Kevin G. Boles
TheSQLGuru
Indicium Resources, Inc.
"Bishop" <nospam@.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Ogk%235o1NIHA.3516@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> We are looking to upgrade our database server to gain additional speed.
> I've come up with an idea of what we should get but wanted to get advice
> from some experts to make sure my assumptions are accurate. Basically I
> don't want to spend a bunch of my boss's money and not see any results.
> :-)
> We are using MS SQL 2K on Window Server 2003
> Our current server is a Zeon 3Ghz with 4G RAM
> We have two main databases each about 25Gigs
> The OS runs on one partition and the entire database runs on a single
> partition (part of a Serial ATA RAID)
> From my research mostly using perfmon, the bottle neck is always the disk,
> we commonly have items queued and when the queue increases performance is
> noticeably down. CPU speed has never been an issue. Therefore in a new
> server I believe we should:
> 1. Use the maximum amount of RAM the server supports
> 2. Partition the databases by putting larger more active tables on they're
> own physical drive as well as a sperate drive for SQL logs.
> If this seems reasonable, I have a couple questions:
> 1. Is there a large performance difference between a SCSI RAID and Serial
> ATA raid?
> 2. To evaluate disk systems should I look at drive RPM's, seek time, and
> transfer rates? Am I missing something with this?
> 3. In addition to using separate drives when partitioning the database,
> should I try to have separate interfaces to the motherboard. i.e. would
> it make more sense to have two SCSI interfaces each with two drives
> instead of one SCSI interface with four drives (from a performance
> standpoint) (Does this logic apply to SATA systems?)
> As a side note: I use the profiler tool with the SQLProfilerTuning
> Template, then the index tuning wizard with default settings to generate
> our indexes. If there is more I should be doing here, please let me know.
> Any advice on any part of this is appreciated!
>
|||Thank You, this will give me plenty to look into!
Any thoughts on if ECC memory is really worth the money. I have several
servers that don't use ECC memory that get hit hard and never have problems?
"TheSQLGuru" <kgboles@.earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:13ldpj8nb3i5nf0@.corp.supernews.com...
> 1) Performace of disks has many factors, including the type of PCI bus the
> card sits on, drive rpm, drive cache, I/O card cache, etc.
> 2) See 1 above. Get the maximum I/O card cache the card can have.
> 3) More interfaces is better up to the point where they exist on the same
> PCI bus and saturate it.
> 4) More spindles is almost always better.
> 5) Go for at least 2 cores, preferably 4 or more. Do NOT enable
> hyperthreading if you get CPUs that have it.
> 6) Avoid RAID 5 if possible for anything that has high writes, which
> always includes tempdb and all transaction logs.
> 7) I avoid ITW. Have seen too many bad things come out of it.
> --
> Kevin G. Boles
> TheSQLGuru
> Indicium Resources, Inc.
>
> "Bishop" <nospam@.nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:Ogk%235o1NIHA.3516@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>
|||I think ECC memory is more about keeping your data integrity. If you
consider that important it is indeed worth the money. :-)
Kevin G. Boles
TheSQLGuru
Indicium Resources, Inc.
"Bishop" <nospam@.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:uWbQ%23H4NIHA.4656@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Thank You, this will give me plenty to look into!
> Any thoughts on if ECC memory is really worth the money. I have several
> servers that don't use ECC memory that get hit hard and never have
> problems?
> "TheSQLGuru" <kgboles@.earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:13ldpj8nb3i5nf0@.corp.supernews.com...
>

New Database Server Advice

We are looking to upgrade our database server to gain additional speed.
I've come up with an idea of what we should get but wanted to get advice
from some experts to make sure my assumptions are accurate. Basically I
don't want to spend a bunch of my boss's money and not see any results. :-)
We are using MS SQL 2K on Window Server 2003
Our current server is a Zeon 3Ghz with 4G RAM
We have two main databases each about 25Gigs
The OS runs on one partition and the entire database runs on a single
partition (part of a Serial ATA RAID)
From my research mostly using perfmon, the bottle neck is always the disk,
we commonly have items queued and when the queue increases performance is
noticeably down. CPU speed has never been an issue. Therefore in a new
server I believe we should:
1. Use the maximum amount of RAM the server supports
2. Partition the databases by putting larger more active tables on they're
own physical drive as well as a sperate drive for SQL logs.
If this seems reasonable, I have a couple questions:
1. Is there a large performance difference between a SCSI RAID and Serial
ATA raid?
2. To evaluate disk systems should I look at drive RPM's, seek time, and
transfer rates? Am I missing something with this?
3. In addition to using separate drives when partitioning the database,
should I try to have separate interfaces to the motherboard. i.e. would it
make more sense to have two SCSI interfaces each with two drives instead of
one SCSI interface with four drives (from a performance standpoint) (Does
this logic apply to SATA systems?)
As a side note: I use the profiler tool with the SQLProfilerTuning Template,
then the index tuning wizard with default settings to generate our indexes.
If there is more I should be doing here, please let me know.
Any advice on any part of this is appreciated!1) Performace of disks has many factors, including the type of PCI bus the
card sits on, drive rpm, drive cache, I/O card cache, etc.
2) See 1 above. Get the maximum I/O card cache the card can have.
3) More interfaces is better up to the point where they exist on the same
PCI bus and saturate it.
4) More spindles is almost always better.
5) Go for at least 2 cores, preferably 4 or more. Do NOT enable
hyperthreading if you get CPUs that have it.
6) Avoid RAID 5 if possible for anything that has high writes, which always
includes tempdb and all transaction logs.
7) I avoid ITW. Have seen too many bad things come out of it.
Kevin G. Boles
TheSQLGuru
Indicium Resources, Inc.
"Bishop" <nospam@.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Ogk%235o1NIHA.3516@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> We are looking to upgrade our database server to gain additional speed.
> I've come up with an idea of what we should get but wanted to get advice
> from some experts to make sure my assumptions are accurate. Basically I
> don't want to spend a bunch of my boss's money and not see any results.
> :-)
> We are using MS SQL 2K on Window Server 2003
> Our current server is a Zeon 3Ghz with 4G RAM
> We have two main databases each about 25Gigs
> The OS runs on one partition and the entire database runs on a single
> partition (part of a Serial ATA RAID)
> From my research mostly using perfmon, the bottle neck is always the disk,
> we commonly have items queued and when the queue increases performance is
> noticeably down. CPU speed has never been an issue. Therefore in a new
> server I believe we should:
> 1. Use the maximum amount of RAM the server supports
> 2. Partition the databases by putting larger more active tables on they're
> own physical drive as well as a sperate drive for SQL logs.
> If this seems reasonable, I have a couple questions:
> 1. Is there a large performance difference between a SCSI RAID and Serial
> ATA raid?
> 2. To evaluate disk systems should I look at drive RPM's, seek time, and
> transfer rates? Am I missing something with this?
> 3. In addition to using separate drives when partitioning the database,
> should I try to have separate interfaces to the motherboard. i.e. would
> it make more sense to have two SCSI interfaces each with two drives
> instead of one SCSI interface with four drives (from a performance
> standpoint) (Does this logic apply to SATA systems?)
> As a side note: I use the profiler tool with the SQLProfilerTuning
> Template, then the index tuning wizard with default settings to generate
> our indexes. If there is more I should be doing here, please let me know.
> Any advice on any part of this is appreciated!
>|||Thank You, this will give me plenty to look into!
Any thoughts on if ECC memory is really worth the money. I have several
servers that don't use ECC memory that get hit hard and never have problems?
"TheSQLGuru" <kgboles@.earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:13ldpj8nb3i5nf0@.corp.supernews.com...
> 1) Performace of disks has many factors, including the type of PCI bus the
> card sits on, drive rpm, drive cache, I/O card cache, etc.
> 2) See 1 above. Get the maximum I/O card cache the card can have.
> 3) More interfaces is better up to the point where they exist on the same
> PCI bus and saturate it.
> 4) More spindles is almost always better.
> 5) Go for at least 2 cores, preferably 4 or more. Do NOT enable
> hyperthreading if you get CPUs that have it.
> 6) Avoid RAID 5 if possible for anything that has high writes, which
> always includes tempdb and all transaction logs.
> 7) I avoid ITW. Have seen too many bad things come out of it.
> --
> Kevin G. Boles
> TheSQLGuru
> Indicium Resources, Inc.
>
> "Bishop" <nospam@.nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:Ogk%235o1NIHA.3516@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>|||I think ECC memory is more about keeping your data integrity. If you
consider that important it is indeed worth the money. :-)
Kevin G. Boles
TheSQLGuru
Indicium Resources, Inc.
"Bishop" <nospam@.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:uWbQ%23H4NIHA.4656@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Thank You, this will give me plenty to look into!
> Any thoughts on if ECC memory is really worth the money. I have several
> servers that don't use ECC memory that get hit hard and never have
> problems?
> "TheSQLGuru" <kgboles@.earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:13ldpj8nb3i5nf0@.corp.supernews.com...
>