new to notifications services and want example of setting up email notifications

I am new to SQL 2005 and want to setup a notification service to email me when a job fails. How do I begin to set that up? Any basic examples I can check out?

This forum is dedicate to SQL Server Notification Services; you'll probably have more luck getting responses in the SQL Server Tools forum (http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowForum.aspx?ForumID=84&SiteID=1) or the microsoft.public.sqlserver.server newsgroup.

HTH...

sql

new to notifications services and want example of setting up email notifications

I am new to SQL 2005 and want to setup a notification service to email me when a job fails. How do I begin to set that up? Any basic examples I can check out?

This forum is dedicate to SQL Server Notification Services; you'll probably have more luck getting responses in the SQL Server Tools forum (http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowForum.aspx?ForumID=84&SiteID=1) or the microsoft.public.sqlserver.server newsgroup.

HTH...

New to Instances: Dont have sa of newly created instance

A new instance has been setup on one of our pilot servers. I do not have th
e
sa password to that instance, and it appears that the group who set up the
instance also removed the built-in/admin group. Am I doomed to never access
this instance?
Should I bring flowers, donoughts AND cookies when begging for the sa
password?I would suggest that you get those that built it to come back and fix it.
The sa password will only help if the thing is running in mixed mode - you
can change this if you are an admin on the windows box by changing the
registry key for LoginMode of the instance (do a search down the
hkey_localmachine\software path) and changing the value to 2, then stopping
and restarting the sql server service.
You could also ask if they set up another admin group before deleting
built-in/admin, and get into it.
Good luck
Mary Bray [SQL Server MVP]
Please reply only to newsgroups
"wxd" <wxd@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:81522A36-6D2E-4532-9593-2E194D8638EF@.microsoft.com...
>A new instance has been setup on one of our pilot servers. I do not have
>the
> sa password to that instance, and it appears that the group who set up the
> instance also removed the built-in/admin group. Am I doomed to never
> access
> this instance?
> Should I bring flowers, donoughts AND cookies when begging for the sa
> password?|||Thank you for the response. Checking on what you wrote, I found the
LoginMode is already set to 2, and my administrator still receives a "failed
login" message when attempting to connect to the instance through Windows
Authentication. I did not think it was possible to lock out the net admin
group?
"Mary Bray" wrote:

> I would suggest that you get those that built it to come back and fix it.
> The sa password will only help if the thing is running in mixed mode - you
> can change this if you are an admin on the windows box by changing the
> registry key for LoginMode of the instance (do a search down the
> hkey_localmachine\software path) and changing the value to 2, then stoppin
g
> and restarting the sql server service.
> You could also ask if they set up another admin group before deleting
> built-in/admin, and get into it.
> Good luck
> --
> Mary Bray [SQL Server MVP]
> Please reply only to newsgroups
> "wxd" <wxd@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:81522A36-6D2E-4532-9593-2E194D8638EF@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||NEVERMIND! Thank you very much for your assistance.
I have found out what this instance is and am discovering that all SQL logic
no longer applies. This is an ACT! installation. ACT! installs an extremel
y
hacked up version of the SQL engine. It is my understanding that the normal
SQL login processes are not present on the server for me to get into this
instance. The company that produces ACT desperately wants people to use
their client vs. any other tool to access their database.
Thank you for your help and insight.
"Mary Bray" wrote:

> I would suggest that you get those that built it to come back and fix it.
> The sa password will only help if the thing is running in mixed mode - you
> can change this if you are an admin on the windows box by changing the
> registry key for LoginMode of the instance (do a search down the
> hkey_localmachine\software path) and changing the value to 2, then stoppin
g
> and restarting the sql server service.
> You could also ask if they set up another admin group before deleting
> built-in/admin, and get into it.
> Good luck
> --
> Mary Bray [SQL Server MVP]
> Please reply only to newsgroups
> "wxd" <wxd@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:81522A36-6D2E-4532-9593-2E194D8638EF@.microsoft.com...
>
>

New to Instances: Dont have sa of newly created instance

A new instance has been setup on one of our pilot servers. I do not have the
sa password to that instance, and it appears that the group who set up the
instance also removed the built-in/admin group. Am I doomed to never access
this instance?
Should I bring flowers, donoughts AND cookies when begging for the sa
password?
I would suggest that you get those that built it to come back and fix it.
The sa password will only help if the thing is running in mixed mode - you
can change this if you are an admin on the windows box by changing the
registry key for LoginMode of the instance (do a search down the
hkey_localmachine\software path) and changing the value to 2, then stopping
and restarting the sql server service.
You could also ask if they set up another admin group before deleting
built-in/admin, and get into it.
Good luck
Mary Bray [SQL Server MVP]
Please reply only to newsgroups
"wxd" <wxd@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:81522A36-6D2E-4532-9593-2E194D8638EF@.microsoft.com...
>A new instance has been setup on one of our pilot servers. I do not have
>the
> sa password to that instance, and it appears that the group who set up the
> instance also removed the built-in/admin group. Am I doomed to never
> access
> this instance?
> Should I bring flowers, donoughts AND cookies when begging for the sa
> password?
|||Thank you for the response. Checking on what you wrote, I found the
LoginMode is already set to 2, and my administrator still receives a "failed
login" message when attempting to connect to the instance through Windows
Authentication. I did not think it was possible to lock out the net admin
group?
"Mary Bray" wrote:

> I would suggest that you get those that built it to come back and fix it.
> The sa password will only help if the thing is running in mixed mode - you
> can change this if you are an admin on the windows box by changing the
> registry key for LoginMode of the instance (do a search down the
> hkey_localmachine\software path) and changing the value to 2, then stopping
> and restarting the sql server service.
> You could also ask if they set up another admin group before deleting
> built-in/admin, and get into it.
> Good luck
> --
> Mary Bray [SQL Server MVP]
> Please reply only to newsgroups
> "wxd" <wxd@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:81522A36-6D2E-4532-9593-2E194D8638EF@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||NEVERMIND! Thank you very much for your assistance.
I have found out what this instance is and am discovering that all SQL logic
no longer applies. This is an ACT! installation. ACT! installs an extremely
hacked up version of the SQL engine. It is my understanding that the normal
SQL login processes are not present on the server for me to get into this
instance. The company that produces ACT desperately wants people to use
their client vs. any other tool to access their database.
Thank you for your help and insight.
"Mary Bray" wrote:

> I would suggest that you get those that built it to come back and fix it.
> The sa password will only help if the thing is running in mixed mode - you
> can change this if you are an admin on the windows box by changing the
> registry key for LoginMode of the instance (do a search down the
> hkey_localmachine\software path) and changing the value to 2, then stopping
> and restarting the sql server service.
> You could also ask if they set up another admin group before deleting
> built-in/admin, and get into it.
> Good luck
> --
> Mary Bray [SQL Server MVP]
> Please reply only to newsgroups
> "wxd" <wxd@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:81522A36-6D2E-4532-9593-2E194D8638EF@.microsoft.com...
>
>

New SQL server to replace old SQL server

Hi
We are getting ready to replace an old NT old SQL server with a New
Server, New Windows and SQL.
I would like to setup the new server with a new name for testing and
once we have it working rename it to the old server name. There are some
ODBC connections that use the name and I suspect a few other things
setup that way as well.
Does that cause an issue with SQL to rename a server?
Thanks
Will
Hi,
After testing you can rename the sql server with out any issues.
Use:-
SP_DROPserver <servernaem>
Go
SP_ADDSERVER <name>,LOCAL
After this just restart sql server service.
Thanks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
"Will Kubly" <wkubly@.wi.rr.com> wrote in message
news:uf%23cyMnjFHA.3704@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> We are getting ready to replace an old NT old SQL server with a New
> Server, New Windows and SQL.
> I would like to setup the new server with a new name for testing and once
> we have it working rename it to the old server name. There are some ODBC
> connections that use the name and I suspect a few other things setup that
> way as well.
> Does that cause an issue with SQL to rename a server?
> Thanks
> Will

New SQL server to replace old SQL server

Hi
We are getting ready to replace an old NT old SQL server with a New
Server, New Windows and SQL.
I would like to setup the new server with a new name for testing and
once we have it working rename it to the old server name. There are some
ODBC connections that use the name and I suspect a few other things
setup that way as well.
Does that cause an issue with SQL to rename a server?
Thanks
WillHi,
After testing you can rename the sql server with out any issues.
Use:-
SP_DROPserver <servernaem>
Go
SP_ADDSERVER <name>,LOCAL
After this just restart sql server service.
Thanks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
"Will Kubly" <wkubly@.wi.rr.com> wrote in message
news:uf%23cyMnjFHA.3704@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> We are getting ready to replace an old NT old SQL server with a New
> Server, New Windows and SQL.
> I would like to setup the new server with a new name for testing and once
> we have it working rename it to the old server name. There are some ODBC
> connections that use the name and I suspect a few other things setup that
> way as well.
> Does that cause an issue with SQL to rename a server?
> Thanks
> Willsql

New SQL server to replace old SQL server

Hi
We are getting ready to replace an old NT old SQL server with a New
Server, New Windows and SQL.
I would like to setup the new server with a new name for testing and
once we have it working rename it to the old server name. There are some
ODBC connections that use the name and I suspect a few other things
setup that way as well.
Does that cause an issue with SQL to rename a server?
Thanks
WillHi,
After testing you can rename the sql server with out any issues.
Use:-
SP_DROPserver <servernaem>
Go
SP_ADDSERVER <name>,LOCAL
After this just restart sql server service.
Thanks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
"Will Kubly" <wkubly@.wi.rr.com> wrote in message
news:uf%23cyMnjFHA.3704@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> We are getting ready to replace an old NT old SQL server with a New
> Server, New Windows and SQL.
> I would like to setup the new server with a new name for testing and once
> we have it working rename it to the old server name. There are some ODBC
> connections that use the name and I suspect a few other things setup that
> way as well.
> Does that cause an issue with SQL to rename a server?
> Thanks
> Will

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 setup

Hello all,
I am new to MSSQL, our compnay is going to be converting our current
pervasive database to mssql. It is my resposibility to setup the new
hardware.
I heard mention that for performance it is best to split up the drives that
all the data is on. We willl be purchasing a new HP MSA30 disk shelf that
holds 14 drives and I was wondering how it would be best to setup the disks
that will be going in the msa30.
We will also be putting this on a clustered server.
On which Operating system you are planning to build cluster?
you will require shared disk for clustering, read more from below links: -
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro...a05ac9cb4.mspx
http://sql-server-performance.com/sq...stall_main.asp
http://sql-server-performance.com/clustering_intro1.asp
"Romualdt" wrote:

> Hello all,
> I am new to MSSQL, our compnay is going to be converting our current
> pervasive database to mssql. It is my resposibility to setup the new
> hardware.
> I heard mention that for performance it is best to split up the drives that
> all the data is on. We willl be purchasing a new HP MSA30 disk shelf that
> holds 14 drives and I was wondering how it would be best to setup the disks
> that will be going in the msa30.
> We will also be putting this on a clustered server.

New sql server setup

Hello all,
I am new to MSSQL, our compnay is going to be converting our current
pervasive database to mssql. It is my resposibility to setup the new
hardware.
I heard mention that for performance it is best to split up the drives that
all the data is on. We willl be purchasing a new HP MSA30 disk shelf that
holds 14 drives and I was wondering how it would be best to setup the disks
that will be going in the msa30.
We will also be putting this on a clustered server.On which Operating system you are planning to build cluster?
you will require shared disk for clustering, read more from below links: -
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/windowsserver2003/library/ServerHelp/f5abf1f9-1d84-4088-ae54-06da05ac9cb4.mspx
http://sql-server-performance.com/sqlserver2000_clustering_install_main.asp
http://sql-server-performance.com/clustering_intro1.asp
"Romualdt" wrote:
> Hello all,
> I am new to MSSQL, our compnay is going to be converting our current
> pervasive database to mssql. It is my resposibility to setup the new
> hardware.
> I heard mention that for performance it is best to split up the drives that
> all the data is on. We willl be purchasing a new HP MSA30 disk shelf that
> holds 14 drives and I was wondering how it would be best to setup the disks
> that will be going in the msa30.
> We will also be putting this on a clustered server.sql

New sql server setup

Hello all,
I am new to MSSQL, our compnay is going to be converting our current
pervasive database to mssql. It is my resposibility to setup the new
hardware.
I heard mention that for performance it is best to split up the drives that
all the data is on. We willl be purchasing a new HP MSA30 disk shelf that
holds 14 drives and I was wondering how it would be best to setup the disks
that will be going in the msa30.
We will also be putting this on a clustered server.On which Operating system you are planning to build cluster?
you will require shared disk for clustering, read more from below links: -
f5abf1f9-1d84-4088-ae54-06da05ac9cb4.mspx" target="_blank">http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...da05ac9cb4.mspx
http://sql-server-performance.com/s...nstall_main.asp
http://sql-server-performance.com/clustering_intro1.asp
"Romualdt" wrote:

> Hello all,
> I am new to MSSQL, our compnay is going to be converting our current
> pervasive database to mssql. It is my resposibility to setup the new
> hardware.
> I heard mention that for performance it is best to split up the drives tha
t
> all the data is on. We willl be purchasing a new HP MSA30 disk shelf that
> holds 14 drives and I was wondering how it would be best to setup the disk
s
> that will be going in the msa30.
> We will also be putting this on a clustered server.

New Setup Question

Hi there, a client asked me to make some recommendations as to the hardware setup for a new SQL 2000 setup. They will be importing a 9 gig sql 7 DB...

Specifically I'm looking for Optimal Raid configurations and Memory. Initially I was going to recommend a dual CPU machine with a raid 5 for the DAta, and rain 1 for the transaction logs. Is that still the recommended choice.

Also if they wanted to do a fail ever cluster I assume they are going to have to add an additional CPU license if the backup machine was a single CPU?Please provide more info about transactions nature. For high level of concurent transactions with high activity on writes RAID5 is not appropriate choise.

New setup of MySQL on my machine....

Hello friends, I am a begginer in MySQL. Kindly guide me how can I
install and run MySQL server on my machine (Runnig Wnidows XP
professional and SQL server 2000). Is it neccessary to remove SQL
server from the machine before installing MySQL and what version of IIS
is required? Kindly help me in this regard, it will be appreciated.
Thanks in advance.This is an MSSQL (Microsoft SQL Server) group, so I guess you will get
a better response in a MySQL forum.

Simon

New server setup and RAID recommendation

I have a database that is around 2 to 4 GB.
If I were to estimate some numbers like 4x growth or
even 10x, the database size could reach 40GB.
The new server will be running SQL Server 2005.

I am not sure which configuration option to take.
I've gathered some information from different places:

Configuration #1:
OS - Raid1 2x36GB
Logs - Raid1 2x36GB
Data - Raid 5 4x73GB

Configuration #2:
OS - Raid1 2x36GB
Logs - Raid5 (not sure how many drives)
Data - Raid5 (not sure how many drives)

Now if I am using a separate RAID array disks
for the database's transaction log, should I also put the
TempDB in this RAID also?

Here's the configuration I am thinking of right now.
Please give me your comments:

OS - Raid1 2x36GB
Logs & TempDB - Raid5 3x36GB = 2x36GB usable space
Data - Raid5 3x73GB = 2x73GB usable space

If you have other configurations you recommend please let
me know.

Thank youFor the install and forget about I want protection and speed at a low
cost use RAID 5 for everything.

Now if you want the best performance and protect for the type of work
being done use the follow.

For the system files and executables, reading binaries doesn't really
put much overhead on the servers, so it is not a major concern. Any
RAID level could be used.

For data files, RAID 1 is preferable because it gives the best tradeoff
between performance, protection and cost. Because it is 100 percent
redundant, it both protects the data and the availability of your
system. Availability is the reason that you for using RAID with a
database, and even the loss of a small internal database can bring down
the database server. In this case, you will not lose any data but the
users will have to live without your system. If performance and
security are your major factors then RAID 10 should be used. No matter
what RAID level is used each RAID array should have as many physical
disks in the array as the controller will support. This allows reads
and writes to be performed simultaneously on each physical drive in the
array, significantly boosting disk I/O.

Log files, by their nature, are mostly written to, which means that
often RAID 1 is your best choice for performance. As with the
database files if performance and security are your major issues RAID
10 should be used.

New Server Setup

I am trying to install two new SQL 2000 servers, but need them to be
mirrored. I had asked the question a while back and it was suggested i use
Virtual servers , which to be honest i havent found much on how it would
work. Can anybody explain how this can be done or recomend some reading
material that i may look at
The reason for the mirroring is , we deal with electronic payments and if
one server goes down i dont want ant intruption in service to our clients. I
suppose im trying to replicate the way the old Novell mirrored servers work.
Also i would want a rthird off site server kept in the loop and updated
In SQL 2000, you can use fail-over clustering to provide high-availability.
This feature is implemented in conjunction with OS clustering and is
described in detail in the Books Online. Be aware that the OS and hardware
requirements necessitate careful planning. All hardware must be MSCS HCL
certified.
SQL 2005 introduces a database mirroring feature, which is essentially a
software solution. This feature is scheduled to be released in the first
half of this year but can also be enabled for evaluation purposes in the
current release by using a trace flag.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Peter Newman" <PeterNewman@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:803B26A4-D2AA-4707-B61A-64ED12EFD180@.microsoft.com...
>I am trying to install two new SQL 2000 servers, but need them to be
> mirrored. I had asked the question a while back and it was suggested i
> use
> Virtual servers , which to be honest i havent found much on how it would
> work. Can anybody explain how this can be done or recomend some reading
> material that i may look at
> The reason for the mirroring is , we deal with electronic payments and if
> one server goes down i dont want ant intruption in service to our clients.
> I
> suppose im trying to replicate the way the old Novell mirrored servers
> work.
> Also i would want a rthird off site server kept in the loop and updated
>

New Server Setup

I am trying to install two new SQL 2000 servers, but need them to be
mirrored. I had asked the question a while back and it was suggested i use
Virtual servers , which to be honest i havent found much on how it would
work. Can anybody explain how this can be done or recomend some reading
material that i may look at
The reason for the mirroring is , we deal with electronic payments and if
one server goes down i dont want ant intruption in service to our clients. I
suppose im trying to replicate the way the old Novell mirrored servers work.
Also i would want a rthird off site server kept in the loop and updatedIn SQL 2000, you can use fail-over clustering to provide high-availability.
This feature is implemented in conjunction with OS clustering and is
described in detail in the Books Online. Be aware that the OS and hardware
requirements necessitate careful planning. All hardware must be MSCS HCL
certified.
SQL 2005 introduces a database mirroring feature, which is essentially a
software solution. This feature is scheduled to be released in the first
half of this year but can also be enabled for evaluation purposes in the
current release by using a trace flag.
--
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Peter Newman" <PeterNewman@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:803B26A4-D2AA-4707-B61A-64ED12EFD180@.microsoft.com...
>I am trying to install two new SQL 2000 servers, but need them to be
> mirrored. I had asked the question a while back and it was suggested i
> use
> Virtual servers , which to be honest i havent found much on how it would
> work. Can anybody explain how this can be done or recomend some reading
> material that i may look at
> The reason for the mirroring is , we deal with electronic payments and if
> one server goes down i dont want ant intruption in service to our clients.
> I
> suppose im trying to replicate the way the old Novell mirrored servers
> work.
> Also i would want a rthird off site server kept in the loop and updated
>

New Server Setup

I am trying to install two new SQL 2000 servers, but need them to be
mirrored. I had asked the question a while back and it was suggested i use
Virtual servers , which to be honest i havent found much on how it would
work. Can anybody explain how this can be done or recomend some reading
material that i may look at
The reason for the mirroring is , we deal with electronic payments and if
one server goes down i dont want ant intruption in service to our clients. I
suppose im trying to replicate the way the old Novell mirrored servers work.
Also i would want a rthird off site server kept in the loop and updatedIn SQL 2000, you can use fail-over clustering to provide high-availability.
This feature is implemented in conjunction with OS clustering and is
described in detail in the Books Online. Be aware that the OS and hardware
requirements necessitate careful planning. All hardware must be MSCS HCL
certified.
SQL 2005 introduces a database mirroring feature, which is essentially a
software solution. This feature is scheduled to be released in the first
half of this year but can also be enabled for evaluation purposes in the
current release by using a trace flag.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Peter Newman" <PeterNewman@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:803B26A4-D2AA-4707-B61A-64ED12EFD180@.microsoft.com...
>I am trying to install two new SQL 2000 servers, but need them to be
> mirrored. I had asked the question a while back and it was suggested i
> use
> Virtual servers , which to be honest i havent found much on how it would
> work. Can anybody explain how this can be done or recomend some reading
> material that i may look at
> The reason for the mirroring is , we deal with electronic payments and if
> one server goes down i dont want ant intruption in service to our clients.
> I
> suppose im trying to replicate the way the old Novell mirrored servers
> work.
> Also i would want a rthird off site server kept in the loop and updated
>

New PULL setup problems

I have read & read & read and cannot seem to find the answer to my issue.
I have several publications on SQL-01 with Transactional Replication from one db to another, running well.
Now I have a new reporting Sql Server - SQL-02.
I set the Distributor up, and created the reporting db to be replicated to.
I want to PULL the db from SQL-01 to the db on SQL-02. I want the Distributor on the new box, SQL-02 to be used. Since the publication already exists on SQL-01, isn't it just a matter of PULLING the subscription to SQL-02?
The publication job is setup to use SA, but I continually get
"Error 8198: Could not obtain information about Windows NT group Domain\SQL02Notif'
What am I missing?
To use the distribution database on the subscriber you will have to
1) enable the subscriber for replication
2) go to tools, replication, configure publishers, subscribers, distributor on the subscriber and click on the publisher tab. And then click on the publisher tab, and enable the remote publisher to use this distributor. Click on the three ellipses to the right of your publisher and disable the administrative link password.
3) connect to your publisher and disable replication. Then recreate it and configure it to use the remote distributor on the subscriber.
4) recreate your publication and pull subscription.
Your error sounds like your pull subscription does not have rights to access the snapshot share. Either add the account that the SQL Agent account runs under on the subscriber to the local admin group on the publisher, or change the snapshot share to a folder which the SQL Agent account on the subscriber can access.
"JLS" <jlshoop@.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:%23a3jTrxnEHA.648@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
I have read & read & read and cannot seem to find the answer to my issue.
I have several publications on SQL-01 with Transactional Replication from one db to another, running well.
Now I have a new reporting Sql Server - SQL-02.
I set the Distributor up, and created the reporting db to be replicated to.
I want to PULL the db from SQL-01 to the db on SQL-02. I want the Distributor on the new box, SQL-02 to be used. Since the publication already exists on SQL-01, isn't it just a matter of PULLING the subscription to SQL-02?
The publication job is setup to use SA, but I continually get
"Error 8198: Could not obtain information about Windows NT group Domain\SQL02Notif'
What am I missing?
|||# 3 - connect to your publisher and disable replication.
What if I have multiple publications of 1 table going here & 1 table going there and want these publications to continue to use the distributor on the publishing server?
Is that ok?
For instance; 1 publication publishes only 1 table from database a to database b on the same server and uses this server as the distributor.
Then the publication I am now trying to Pull & have the distributor be remote, will pull multiple tables from database a to the database on the remote server.
Any problems with that?
The disable replication concerned me, I don't want to affect any of the other publications by setting up the new publication to run at the remote distributor & pull subscription.
I sure hope I am making sense....
"Hilary Cotter" <hilary.cotter@.gmail.com> wrote in message news:e%23ah21xnEHA.3680@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
To use the distribution database on the subscriber you will have to
1) enable the subscriber for replication
2) go to tools, replication, configure publishers, subscribers, distributor on the subscriber and click on the publisher tab. And then click on the publisher tab, and enable the remote publisher to use this distributor. Click on the three ellipses to the right of your publisher and disable the administrative link password.
3) connect to your publisher and disable replication. Then recreate it and configure it to use the remote distributor on the subscriber.
4) recreate your publication and pull subscription.
Your error sounds like your pull subscription does not have rights to access the snapshot share. Either add the account that the SQL Agent account runs under on the subscriber to the local admin group on the publisher, or change the snapshot share to a folder which the SQL Agent account on the subscriber can access.
"JLS" <jlshoop@.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:%23a3jTrxnEHA.648@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
I have read & read & read and cannot seem to find the answer to my issue.
I have several publications on SQL-01 with Transactional Replication from one db to another, running well.
Now I have a new reporting Sql Server - SQL-02.
I set the Distributor up, and created the reporting db to be replicated to.
I want to PULL the db from SQL-01 to the db on SQL-02. I want the Distributor on the new box, SQL-02 to be used. Since the publication already exists on SQL-01, isn't it just a matter of PULLING the subscription to SQL-02?
The publication job is setup to use SA, but I continually get
"Error 8198: Could not obtain information about Windows NT group Domain\SQL02Notif'
What am I missing?
|||Basically you are hosed. Existing publications on the publisher will have to be migrated to the new distributor.
Why do you want to use a remote distributor? If it is to offload the extra processing from the new publication subscription you might want to consider remote activation.
For plain pull subscriptions that distributor on the subscriber will only contain historical information. It won't contain the transactions and commands to be replicated.
Perhaps at this point you could tell us exactly what you are trying to accomplish so we can consider all the options available to you.
"JLS" <jlshoop@.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:O%23kH290nEHA.2300@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
# 3 - connect to your publisher and disable replication.
What if I have multiple publications of 1 table going here & 1 table going there and want these publications to continue to use the distributor on the publishing server?
Is that ok?
For instance; 1 publication publishes only 1 table from database a to database b on the same server and uses this server as the distributor.
Then the publication I am now trying to Pull & have the distributor be remote, will pull multiple tables from database a to the database on the remote server.
Any problems with that?
The disable replication concerned me, I don't want to affect any of the other publications by setting up the new publication to run at the remote distributor & pull subscription.
I sure hope I am making sense....
"Hilary Cotter" <hilary.cotter@.gmail.com> wrote in message news:e%23ah21xnEHA.3680@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
To use the distribution database on the subscriber you will have to
1) enable the subscriber for replication
2) go to tools, replication, configure publishers, subscribers, distributor on the subscriber and click on the publisher tab. And then click on the publisher tab, and enable the remote publisher to use this distributor. Click on the three ellipses to the right of your publisher and disable the administrative link password.
3) connect to your publisher and disable replication. Then recreate it and configure it to use the remote distributor on the subscriber.
4) recreate your publication and pull subscription.
Your error sounds like your pull subscription does not have rights to access the snapshot share. Either add the account that the SQL Agent account runs under on the subscriber to the local admin group on the publisher, or change the snapshot share to a folder which the SQL Agent account on the subscriber can access.
"JLS" <jlshoop@.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:%23a3jTrxnEHA.648@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
I have read & read & read and cannot seem to find the answer to my issue.
I have several publications on SQL-01 with Transactional Replication from one db to another, running well.
Now I have a new reporting Sql Server - SQL-02.
I set the Distributor up, and created the reporting db to be replicated to.
I want to PULL the db from SQL-01 to the db on SQL-02. I want the Distributor on the new box, SQL-02 to be used. Since the publication already exists on SQL-01, isn't it just a matter of PULLING the subscription to SQL-02?
The publication job is setup to use SA, but I continually get
"Error 8198: Could not obtain information about Windows NT group Domain\SQL02Notif'
What am I missing?
|||I have a new server which will serve as the reporting server. I want to replicate all the transactions from my ERP database to a database on the reporting server to offload this activity on the production server.
I don't have to use a remote distributor. I am new to this and basically feeling my way around to find the absolute best solution. (I, for one, am anxiously awaiting the book release)
From what I have read thus far, it was suggested that running the Distributor & Pulling the subscription would result in better performance for both boxes.
Overall my goal is to enhance performance on the production server, the OLTP system. I thought replicating to a reporting server would be a significant step in accomplishing this task.
If you had 2 servers, 1 for production transactions and 1 for reporting, what would be your choices?
The other thing is that I am still experiencing the 8198 error message.
The publication job is setup to use SA, but I continually get
"Error 8198: Could not obtain information about Windows NT group Domain\SQL02Notif'
I added the accounts on both boxes to the local admins group, therefore, they have access to everything on that box. I'm really stuck on this one!
"Hilary Cotter" <hilary.cotter@.gmail.com> wrote in message news:%23Rt9Vx3nEHA.1296@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
Basically you are hosed. Existing publications on the publisher will have to be migrated to the new distributor.
Why do you want to use a remote distributor? If it is to offload the extra processing from the new publication subscription you might want to consider remote activation.
For plain pull subscriptions that distributor on the subscriber will only contain historical information. It won't contain the transactions and commands to be replicated.
Perhaps at this point you could tell us exactly what you are trying to accomplish so we can consider all the options available to you.
"JLS" <jlshoop@.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:O%23kH290nEHA.2300@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
# 3 - connect to your publisher and disable replication.
What if I have multiple publications of 1 table going here & 1 table going there and want these publications to continue to use the distributor on the publishing server?
Is that ok?
For instance; 1 publication publishes only 1 table from database a to database b on the same server and uses this server as the distributor.
Then the publication I am now trying to Pull & have the distributor be remote, will pull multiple tables from database a to the database on the remote server.
Any problems with that?
The disable replication concerned me, I don't want to affect any of the other publications by setting up the new publication to run at the remote distributor & pull subscription.
I sure hope I am making sense....
"Hilary Cotter" <hilary.cotter@.gmail.com> wrote in message news:e%23ah21xnEHA.3680@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
To use the distribution database on the subscriber you will have to
1) enable the subscriber for replication
2) go to tools, replication, configure publishers, subscribers, distributor on the subscriber and click on the publisher tab. And then click on the publisher tab, and enable the remote publisher to use this distributor. Click on the three ellipses to the right of your publisher and disable the administrative link password.
3) connect to your publisher and disable replication. Then recreate it and configure it to use the remote distributor on the subscriber.
4) recreate your publication and pull subscription.
Your error sounds like your pull subscription does not have rights to access the snapshot share. Either add the account that the SQL Agent account runs under on the subscriber to the local admin group on the publisher, or change the snapshot share to a folder which the SQL Agent account on the subscriber can access.
"JLS" <jlshoop@.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:%23a3jTrxnEHA.648@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
I have read & read & read and cannot seem to find the answer to my issue.
I have several publications on SQL-01 with Transactional Replication from one db to another, running well.
Now I have a new reporting Sql Server - SQL-02.
I set the Distributor up, and created the reporting db to be replicated to.
I want to PULL the db from SQL-01 to the db on SQL-02. I want the Distributor on the new box, SQL-02 to be used. Since the publication already exists on SQL-01, isn't it just a matter of PULLING the subscription to SQL-02?
The publication job is setup to use SA, but I continually get
"Error 8198: Could not obtain information about Windows NT group Domain\SQL02Notif'
What am I missing?

New Publication Error

Hi All,
A couple of months ago, I setup a transactional replication between 2
servers. In the last week, the publisher stopped replicating to the
subscriber for some unknown reason. When I was troubleshooting the problem,
I tried to add a new publication and I received the error attached in the
screenshot.
I ran the DBCC CHECKDB on that DB and the results were ok.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Regards,
JN
Can't see the screenshot using the web interface to the newsgroup. Can you
post up the error message for us...
Cheers,
Paul Ibison
|||Sure thing...Error as follows:
"New Publication Wizard encountered one or more errors while retrieving the
list of databases on the 'servername'. The list of databases may not be
complete.
Additional Information:
An exception occured while executing a T-SQL statement or batch
(Microsoft.SqlServer.ConnectionInfo)
The operating system returned error 21 (The device is not ready) to SQL
server during a read at offset 0x000000614d2000 in
file F:\TST\TSTDAT.mdf (not sure what this DB is?). Addtional messages
in the SQL Server error log and system event log my provide more detail.
This is a severe system level error condition that threatens database
integrity and must be corrected
immediatly. Complete a full database consistency check (DBCC CHECKDB).
This error can be caused by many factors; for
more information, SQL Server Books Online (MS SQL Error: 823)"
"Paul Ibison" <Paul.Ibison@.Pygmalion.Com> wrote in message
news:D538F184-0AC3-4CD2-AC4D-0029B4E0ED7E@.microsoft.com...
> Can't see the screenshot using the web interface to the newsgroup. Can you
> post up the error message for us...
> Cheers,
> Paul Ibison
>
|||I'd look to see what database the file F:\TST\TSTDAT.mdf corresponds to, then
run DBCC CHECKDB on this database. The info should be in sysaltfiles.
HTH,
Paul Ibison