new to sql and need some help. connectivity problems.

hi guy
i've installed sql on a dedicated box for the purpose of using it for mom and sms but the only problem is when i go to install sms or mom on the other boxes it doesnt see the sql server. however if i start the mom setup process on the sql box it sees the sql sever
i have installed the client tools on both the sms and mom boxes and configured them point to the sql server over tcp/ip and the named pipe but to no avail. i also added a data source to the odbc console thinking that may help but no it didnt
what i've done so fa
installed sql with integrated windows authenticatio
added it to a
got the Microsoft SQL Server 2000 Books Online from the ms sit
gone and purchased the ms sql server 2000 administration guid
started to read both books and am now scared of sql server 200
are there some connectivity tools that would help in troubleshooting this or am i barking up the wrong tree
i have used sms and mom extensively before but this is my first attempt at sql
cheer
dDid you install SQL Server or MSDE? Basically, on the client, you use SQL Server's "Client Network Utility"
and on the server, you use "Server Network Utility" to configure the connectivity. If you have MSDE, it
doesn't have network access turned on by default, and you won't have an icon for SNU, but it is there and the
name of the exe file is: svrnetcn.exe.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"dave" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1AFB725A-1AF3-47BC-808B-198916327FCA@.microsoft.com...
> hi guys
> i've installed sql on a dedicated box for the purpose of using it for mom and sms but the only problem is
when i go to install sms or mom on the other boxes it doesnt see the sql server. however if i start the mom
setup process on the sql box it sees the sql sever.
> i have installed the client tools on both the sms and mom boxes and configured them point to the sql server
over tcp/ip and the named pipe but to no avail. i also added a data source to the odbc console thinking that
may help but no it didnt.
> what i've done so far
> installed sql with integrated windows authentication
> added it to ad
> got the Microsoft SQL Server 2000 Books Online from the ms site
> gone and purchased the ms sql server 2000 administration guide
> started to read both books and am now scared of sql server 2000
> are there some connectivity tools that would help in troubleshooting this or am i barking up the wrong tree?
> i have used sms and mom extensively before but this is my first attempt at sql.
> cheers
> d

new to sql and need some help. connectivity problems.

hi guys
i've installed sql on a dedicated box for the purpose of using it for mom and sms but the only problem is when i go to install sms or mom on the other boxes it doesnt see the sql server. however if i start the mom setup process on the sql box it sees the
sql sever.
i have installed the client tools on both the sms and mom boxes and configured them point to the sql server over tcp/ip and the named pipe but to no avail. i also added a data source to the odbc console thinking that may help but no it didnt.
what i've done so far
installed sql with integrated windows authentication
added it to ad
got the Microsoft SQL Server 2000 Books Online from the ms site
gone and purchased the ms sql server 2000 administration guide
started to read both books and am now scared of sql server 2000
are there some connectivity tools that would help in troubleshooting this or am i barking up the wrong tree?
i have used sms and mom extensively before but this is my first attempt at sql.
cheers
d
Did you install SQL Server or MSDE? Basically, on the client, you use SQL Server's "Client Network Utility"
and on the server, you use "Server Network Utility" to configure the connectivity. If you have MSDE, it
doesn't have network access turned on by default, and you won't have an icon for SNU, but it is there and the
name of the exe file is: svrnetcn.exe.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"dave" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1AFB725A-1AF3-47BC-808B-198916327FCA@.microsoft.com...
> hi guys
> i've installed sql on a dedicated box for the purpose of using it for mom and sms but the only problem is
when i go to install sms or mom on the other boxes it doesnt see the sql server. however if i start the mom
setup process on the sql box it sees the sql sever.
> i have installed the client tools on both the sms and mom boxes and configured them point to the sql server
over tcp/ip and the named pipe but to no avail. i also added a data source to the odbc console thinking that
may help but no it didnt.
> what i've done so far
> installed sql with integrated windows authentication
> added it to ad
> got the Microsoft SQL Server 2000 Books Online from the ms site
> gone and purchased the ms sql server 2000 administration guide
> started to read both books and am now scared of sql server 2000
> are there some connectivity tools that would help in troubleshooting this or am i barking up the wrong tree?
> i have used sms and mom extensively before but this is my first attempt at sql.
> cheers
> d

new to sql and need some help. connectivity problems.

hi guys
i've installed sql on a dedicated box for the purpose of using it for mom an
d sms but the only problem is when i go to install sms or mom on the other b
oxes it doesnt see the sql server. however if i start the mom setup process
on the sql box it sees the
sql sever.
i have installed the client tools on both the sms and mom boxes and configur
ed them point to the sql server over tcp/ip and the named pipe but to no ava
il. i also added a data source to the odbc console thinking that may help bu
t no it didnt.
what i've done so far
installed sql with integrated windows authentication
added it to ad
got the Microsoft SQL Server 2000 Books Online from the ms site
gone and purchased the ms sql server 2000 administration guide
started to read both books and am now scared of sql server 2000
are there some connectivity tools that would help in troubleshooting this or
am i barking up the wrong tree?
i have used sms and mom extensively before but this is my first attempt at s
ql.
cheers
dDid you install SQL Server or MSDE? Basically, on the client, you use SQL Se
rver's "Client Network Utility"
and on the server, you use "Server Network Utility" to configure the connect
ivity. If you have MSDE, it
doesn't have network access turned on by default, and you won't have an icon
for SNU, but it is there and the
name of the exe file is: svrnetcn.exe.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"dave" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1AFB725A-1AF3-47BC-808B-198916327FCA@.microsoft.com...
> hi guys
> i've installed sql on a dedicated box for the purpose of using it for mom and sms
but the only problem is
when i go to install sms or mom on the other boxes it doesnt see the sql ser
ver. however if i start the mom
setup process on the sql box it sees the sql sever.
> i have installed the client tools on both the sms and mom boxes and configured the
m point to the sql server
over tcp/ip and the named pipe but to no avail. i also added a data source t
o the odbc console thinking that
may help but no it didnt.
> what i've done so far
> installed sql with integrated windows authentication
> added it to ad
> got the Microsoft SQL Server 2000 Books Online from the ms site
> gone and purchased the ms sql server 2000 administration guide
> started to read both books and am now scared of sql server 2000
> are there some connectivity tools that would help in troubleshooting this
or am i barking up the wrong tree?
> i have used sms and mom extensively before but this is my first attempt at
sql.
> cheers
> d

New SQL Server.....

I have just goten in my gruby little hands a brand spanking new server to run SQL on. Im talking about a beast of a box with 8 processers and 16 gig of ram. Im loading SQL server enterprise on it and have been raised with a question. The server peps here, "it profesionals" seem to think that i need to keep 2 processors free for the os. from everything that i have read threw my studies of SQL i have seen that that is crap, that SQL will give the os its resources as it needs them. Any thoughts on this and or any Microsoft articles that prove your positions? Any help would be great here thanx
JimFirst have some respect and wash your hands!

Now... If this server is ONLY used for MSSQL server then reserving 2 processers for the OS is stupid. If you run allot of jobs or have software, other than MSQL stuff, running then reserve 1 processer AFTER seeing the remaining 7 running at 100% utilization 100% of the time. You can alter the cpu affinity at any time.

If you follow the recommendations I would be you would see the 2 OS cpus peg 100% about 0.000001% of the time and idle the remaining 99.999999% of the time!

I would ask the "professionals" to defend their point.|||Originally posted by Paul Young
First have some respect and wash your hands!

Now... If this server is ONLY used for MSSQL server then reserving 2 processers for the OS is stupid. If you run allot of jobs or have software, other than MSQL stuff, running then reserve 1 processer AFTER seeing the remaining 7 running at 100% utilization 100% of the time. You can alter the cpu affinity at any time.

If you follow the recommendations I would be you would see the 2 OS cpus peg 100% about 0.000001% of the time and idle the remaining 99.999999% of the time!

I would ask the "professionals" to defend their point.

Im with u on this one. When i set this thing up its gona go full throtel :)
thanx
any more feed back would also be nice
Regards Jim

new sql server

Our multiinstance multidatabase box (ML 350 4 GB RAM W2003 SE and SQL2000 SE
SP4) will be replaces and a research is going for new sql server. Optionally
wed like to have high avaiability of all instances and databases. Any advice
for hw , database sw (to stay with mssql2000 or to go for 2005) , ha solutio
n
, 32 or 64 architecture and etc. is appreciatedIn my opinion you should start your research by focusing only on the future:
SQL Server 2005 64-bit (of couse including 64-bit hardware and Windows).
Regarding High availability look in BOL for Failover Clustering and Database
Mirroring and see which one is better for your specific implementation.
Ben Nevarez, MCDBA, OCP
Database Administrator
"Eli Milkova" wrote:

> Our multiinstance multidatabase box (ML 350 4 GB RAM W2003 SE and SQL2000
SE
> SP4) will be replaces and a research is going for new sql server. Optional
ly
> wed like to have high avaiability of all instances and databases. Any advi
ce
> for hw , database sw (to stay with mssql2000 or to go for 2005) , ha solut
ion
> , 32 or 64 architecture and etc. is appreciated|||Currently we have 30+ databases all shape and size and I doubt they all be
sertified for 64 bit SQL SERVER. I think its not so simple as just use copy
database wizard, right?
"Ben Nevarez" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> In my opinion you should start your research by focusing only on the futur
e:
> SQL Server 2005 64-bit (of couse including 64-bit hardware and Windows).
> Regarding High availability look in BOL for Failover Clustering and Databa
se
> Mirroring and see which one is better for your specific implementation.
> Ben Nevarez, MCDBA, OCP
> Database Administrator
>
> "Eli Milkova" wrote:
>|||You would need to ask your application vendor if SQL Server 2005 is
supported (it does not matter if it is 32-bit or 64-bit). Then you can creat
e
a test environment where you can start testing those applications. Because
some vendors are going to take a long time to move to SQL Server 2005, at
least in my case, I think I will be running both SQL Server 2000 and 2005 fo
r
a long time.
Ben Nevarez, MCDBA, OCP
Database Administrator
"Eli Milkova" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Currently we have 30+ databases all shape and size and I doubt they all be
> sertified for 64 bit SQL SERVER. I think its not so simple as just use cop
y
> database wizard, right?
> "Ben Nevarez" wrote:
>|||With only 30 databases, testing should not be an unreasonable process. You
can use Developer Edition to build a test platform and see if the your
applications are SQL 2005 compliant. Worst case, you may need to put some
databases in 8.0 compatibality mode. You don't need to test for 64-bit
compatibility, since all editions should perform identically. Also, all
editions are on-disk compatible and interchangable.
As for the upgrade process, yes it is almost as easy as the copy database
wizard. I prefer backup/restore since that leaves the original system
intact. Note that you can backup from a SQL 2000 system and restore to a
SQL 2005 server, but you cannot go the in the other direction. The only
complex part is matching up the logins and transferring the scheduled jobs.
Again, decent testing should reveal most of these problems.
There are numerous licensing and performance advantages to using SQL 2005,
especially on the AMD64/EMT64 platform. I would start with a conversion
plan and an estimated cluster solution and see if management agrees.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Eli Milkova" <EliMilkova@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:FD47031D-49E3-4031-8C14-C685F6AA5277@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Currently we have 30+ databases all shape and size and I doubt they all be
> sertified for 64 bit SQL SERVER. I think its not so simple as just use
> copy
> database wizard, right?
> "Ben Nevarez" wrote:
>|||msql cluster environment requires expensive cluster hardware and does not
protect on db level. Since we have two DCs I find data mirroring with sql
server 2005 32/64b very attractive but I wonder how mirror will perform with
few instances and dozen databases in each instance.
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:

> With only 30 databases, testing should not be an unreasonable process. Yo
u
> can use Developer Edition to build a test platform and see if the your
> applications are SQL 2005 compliant. Worst case, you may need to put some
> databases in 8.0 compatibality mode. You don't need to test for 64-bit
> compatibility, since all editions should perform identically. Also, all
> editions are on-disk compatible and interchangable.
> As for the upgrade process, yes it is almost as easy as the copy database
> wizard. I prefer backup/restore since that leaves the original system
> intact. Note that you can backup from a SQL 2000 system and restore to a
> SQL 2005 server, but you cannot go the in the other direction. The only
> complex part is matching up the logins and transferring the scheduled jobs
.
> Again, decent testing should reveal most of these problems.
> There are numerous licensing and performance advantages to using SQL 2005,
> especially on the AMD64/EMT64 platform. I would start with a conversion
> plan and an estimated cluster solution and see if management agrees.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>
>
> "Eli Milkova" <EliMilkova@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:FD47031D-49E3-4031-8C14-C685F6AA5277@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||The answer is "it depends".
Mirroring works at the database level so it would have to be set up for each
DB. If you run it in full synchronous mode you will need up to 40% more
server capacity on each end of the mirror to handle the extra load AND the
system will be more unstable at very high loads. If you are willing to deal
with a less stringent scenario, you can save a lot of money.
Clustering is a lot less expensive than it used to be. You can cluster with
Standard Edition SQL 2005 with two nodes, shich cuts your licensing costs
dramatically. There is also some very good and reasonably priced clustering
hardware on the market today. I have built dual-proc dual-core clusters for
~$35-40K including all OS and SQL Licenses. Quad-proc versions run about
$100K.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Eli Milkova" <EliMilkova@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E9112291-7D4D-445F-B92F-D05318E89B24@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> msql cluster environment requires expensive cluster hardware and does not
> protect on db level. Since we have two DCs I find data mirroring with sql
> server 2005 32/64b very attractive but I wonder how mirror will perform
> with
> few instances and dozen databases in each instance.
>
> "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
>sql

new sql server

Our multiinstance multidatabase box (ML 350 4 GB RAM W2003 SE and SQL2000 SE
SP4) will be replaces and a research is going for new sql server. Optionally
wed like to have high avaiability of all instances and databases. Any advice
for hw , database sw (to stay with mssql2000 or to go for 2005) , ha solution
, 32 or 64 architecture and etc. is appreciatedIn my opinion you should start your research by focusing only on the future:
SQL Server 2005 64-bit (of couse including 64-bit hardware and Windows).
Regarding High availability look in BOL for Failover Clustering and Database
Mirroring and see which one is better for your specific implementation.
Ben Nevarez, MCDBA, OCP
Database Administrator
"Eli Milkova" wrote:
> Our multiinstance multidatabase box (ML 350 4 GB RAM W2003 SE and SQL2000 SE
> SP4) will be replaces and a research is going for new sql server. Optionally
> wed like to have high avaiability of all instances and databases. Any advice
> for hw , database sw (to stay with mssql2000 or to go for 2005) , ha solution
> , 32 or 64 architecture and etc. is appreciated|||Currently we have 30+ databases all shape and size and I doubt they all be
sertified for 64 bit SQL SERVER. I think its not so simple as just use copy
database wizard, right?
"Ben Nevarez" wrote:
> In my opinion you should start your research by focusing only on the future:
> SQL Server 2005 64-bit (of couse including 64-bit hardware and Windows).
> Regarding High availability look in BOL for Failover Clustering and Database
> Mirroring and see which one is better for your specific implementation.
> Ben Nevarez, MCDBA, OCP
> Database Administrator
>
> "Eli Milkova" wrote:
> > Our multiinstance multidatabase box (ML 350 4 GB RAM W2003 SE and SQL2000 SE
> > SP4) will be replaces and a research is going for new sql server. Optionally
> > wed like to have high avaiability of all instances and databases. Any advice
> > for hw , database sw (to stay with mssql2000 or to go for 2005) , ha solution
> > , 32 or 64 architecture and etc. is appreciated|||You would need to ask your application vendor if SQL Server 2005 is
supported (it does not matter if it is 32-bit or 64-bit). Then you can create
a test environment where you can start testing those applications. Because
some vendors are going to take a long time to move to SQL Server 2005, at
least in my case, I think I will be running both SQL Server 2000 and 2005 for
a long time.
Ben Nevarez, MCDBA, OCP
Database Administrator
"Eli Milkova" wrote:
> Currently we have 30+ databases all shape and size and I doubt they all be
> sertified for 64 bit SQL SERVER. I think its not so simple as just use copy
> database wizard, right?
> "Ben Nevarez" wrote:
> >
> > In my opinion you should start your research by focusing only on the future:
> > SQL Server 2005 64-bit (of couse including 64-bit hardware and Windows).
> >
> > Regarding High availability look in BOL for Failover Clustering and Database
> > Mirroring and see which one is better for your specific implementation.
> >
> > Ben Nevarez, MCDBA, OCP
> > Database Administrator
> >
> >
> > "Eli Milkova" wrote:
> >
> > > Our multiinstance multidatabase box (ML 350 4 GB RAM W2003 SE and SQL2000 SE
> > > SP4) will be replaces and a research is going for new sql server. Optionally
> > > wed like to have high avaiability of all instances and databases. Any advice
> > > for hw , database sw (to stay with mssql2000 or to go for 2005) , ha solution
> > > , 32 or 64 architecture and etc. is appreciated|||With only 30 databases, testing should not be an unreasonable process. You
can use Developer Edition to build a test platform and see if the your
applications are SQL 2005 compliant. Worst case, you may need to put some
databases in 8.0 compatibality mode. You don't need to test for 64-bit
compatibility, since all editions should perform identically. Also, all
editions are on-disk compatible and interchangable.
As for the upgrade process, yes it is almost as easy as the copy database
wizard. I prefer backup/restore since that leaves the original system
intact. Note that you can backup from a SQL 2000 system and restore to a
SQL 2005 server, but you cannot go the in the other direction. The only
complex part is matching up the logins and transferring the scheduled jobs.
Again, decent testing should reveal most of these problems.
There are numerous licensing and performance advantages to using SQL 2005,
especially on the AMD64/EMT64 platform. I would start with a conversion
plan and an estimated cluster solution and see if management agrees.
--
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Eli Milkova" <EliMilkova@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:FD47031D-49E3-4031-8C14-C685F6AA5277@.microsoft.com...
> Currently we have 30+ databases all shape and size and I doubt they all be
> sertified for 64 bit SQL SERVER. I think its not so simple as just use
> copy
> database wizard, right?
> "Ben Nevarez" wrote:
>> In my opinion you should start your research by focusing only on the
>> future:
>> SQL Server 2005 64-bit (of couse including 64-bit hardware and Windows).
>> Regarding High availability look in BOL for Failover Clustering and
>> Database
>> Mirroring and see which one is better for your specific implementation.
>> Ben Nevarez, MCDBA, OCP
>> Database Administrator
>>
>> "Eli Milkova" wrote:
>> > Our multiinstance multidatabase box (ML 350 4 GB RAM W2003 SE and
>> > SQL2000 SE
>> > SP4) will be replaces and a research is going for new sql server.
>> > Optionally
>> > wed like to have high avaiability of all instances and databases. Any
>> > advice
>> > for hw , database sw (to stay with mssql2000 or to go for 2005) , ha
>> > solution
>> > , 32 or 64 architecture and etc. is appreciated|||msql cluster environment requires expensive cluster hardware and does not
protect on db level. Since we have two DCs I find data mirroring with sql
server 2005 32/64b very attractive but I wonder how mirror will perform with
few instances and dozen databases in each instance.
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
> With only 30 databases, testing should not be an unreasonable process. You
> can use Developer Edition to build a test platform and see if the your
> applications are SQL 2005 compliant. Worst case, you may need to put some
> databases in 8.0 compatibality mode. You don't need to test for 64-bit
> compatibility, since all editions should perform identically. Also, all
> editions are on-disk compatible and interchangable.
> As for the upgrade process, yes it is almost as easy as the copy database
> wizard. I prefer backup/restore since that leaves the original system
> intact. Note that you can backup from a SQL 2000 system and restore to a
> SQL 2005 server, but you cannot go the in the other direction. The only
> complex part is matching up the logins and transferring the scheduled jobs.
> Again, decent testing should reveal most of these problems.
> There are numerous licensing and performance advantages to using SQL 2005,
> especially on the AMD64/EMT64 platform. I would start with a conversion
> plan and an estimated cluster solution and see if management agrees.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>
>
> "Eli Milkova" <EliMilkova@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:FD47031D-49E3-4031-8C14-C685F6AA5277@.microsoft.com...
> > Currently we have 30+ databases all shape and size and I doubt they all be
> > sertified for 64 bit SQL SERVER. I think its not so simple as just use
> > copy
> > database wizard, right?
> >
> > "Ben Nevarez" wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> In my opinion you should start your research by focusing only on the
> >> future:
> >> SQL Server 2005 64-bit (of couse including 64-bit hardware and Windows).
> >>
> >> Regarding High availability look in BOL for Failover Clustering and
> >> Database
> >> Mirroring and see which one is better for your specific implementation.
> >>
> >> Ben Nevarez, MCDBA, OCP
> >> Database Administrator
> >>
> >>
> >> "Eli Milkova" wrote:
> >>
> >> > Our multiinstance multidatabase box (ML 350 4 GB RAM W2003 SE and
> >> > SQL2000 SE
> >> > SP4) will be replaces and a research is going for new sql server.
> >> > Optionally
> >> > wed like to have high avaiability of all instances and databases. Any
> >> > advice
> >> > for hw , database sw (to stay with mssql2000 or to go for 2005) , ha
> >> > solution
> >> > , 32 or 64 architecture and etc. is appreciated
>
>|||The answer is "it depends".
Mirroring works at the database level so it would have to be set up for each
DB. If you run it in full synchronous mode you will need up to 40% more
server capacity on each end of the mirror to handle the extra load AND the
system will be more unstable at very high loads. If you are willing to deal
with a less stringent scenario, you can save a lot of money.
Clustering is a lot less expensive than it used to be. You can cluster with
Standard Edition SQL 2005 with two nodes, shich cuts your licensing costs
dramatically. There is also some very good and reasonably priced clustering
hardware on the market today. I have built dual-proc dual-core clusters for
~$35-40K including all OS and SQL Licenses. Quad-proc versions run about
$100K.
--
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Eli Milkova" <EliMilkova@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E9112291-7D4D-445F-B92F-D05318E89B24@.microsoft.com...
> msql cluster environment requires expensive cluster hardware and does not
> protect on db level. Since we have two DCs I find data mirroring with sql
> server 2005 32/64b very attractive but I wonder how mirror will perform
> with
> few instances and dozen databases in each instance.
>
> "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
>> With only 30 databases, testing should not be an unreasonable process.
>> You
>> can use Developer Edition to build a test platform and see if the your
>> applications are SQL 2005 compliant. Worst case, you may need to put
>> some
>> databases in 8.0 compatibality mode. You don't need to test for 64-bit
>> compatibility, since all editions should perform identically. Also, all
>> editions are on-disk compatible and interchangable.
>> As for the upgrade process, yes it is almost as easy as the copy database
>> wizard. I prefer backup/restore since that leaves the original system
>> intact. Note that you can backup from a SQL 2000 system and restore to a
>> SQL 2005 server, but you cannot go the in the other direction. The only
>> complex part is matching up the logins and transferring the scheduled
>> jobs.
>> Again, decent testing should reveal most of these problems.
>> There are numerous licensing and performance advantages to using SQL
>> 2005,
>> especially on the AMD64/EMT64 platform. I would start with a conversion
>> plan and an estimated cluster solution and see if management agrees.
>> --
>> Geoff N. Hiten
>> Senior Database Administrator
>> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>>
>>
>> "Eli Milkova" <EliMilkova@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:FD47031D-49E3-4031-8C14-C685F6AA5277@.microsoft.com...
>> > Currently we have 30+ databases all shape and size and I doubt they all
>> > be
>> > sertified for 64 bit SQL SERVER. I think its not so simple as just use
>> > copy
>> > database wizard, right?
>> >
>> > "Ben Nevarez" wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> In my opinion you should start your research by focusing only on the
>> >> future:
>> >> SQL Server 2005 64-bit (of couse including 64-bit hardware and
>> >> Windows).
>> >>
>> >> Regarding High availability look in BOL for Failover Clustering and
>> >> Database
>> >> Mirroring and see which one is better for your specific
>> >> implementation.
>> >>
>> >> Ben Nevarez, MCDBA, OCP
>> >> Database Administrator
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "Eli Milkova" wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Our multiinstance multidatabase box (ML 350 4 GB RAM W2003 SE and
>> >> > SQL2000 SE
>> >> > SP4) will be replaces and a research is going for new sql server.
>> >> > Optionally
>> >> > wed like to have high avaiability of all instances and databases.
>> >> > Any
>> >> > advice
>> >> > for hw , database sw (to stay with mssql2000 or to go for 2005) , ha
>> >> > solution
>> >> > , 32 or 64 architecture and etc. is appreciated
>>