If I use a workstation connected to a SQL Server 2000, can I remote the SQL Server to copy some external files (mdf & ldf) from other network machine.
I need to do it by programming, under condition:
SQL Server name is provided.
Network paths of mdf & ldf files are provided.You need to detach them using SP_DETACH_DB and copy them to the new location. Also refer to books online for RESTORE ... WITH MOVE topic for more information.
Showing posts with label files. Show all posts
Showing posts with label files. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Does it increase performance to use multiple datafiles for large databases
If you've large databases (above 200GB/file). Does it help to have multiple smaller files (For e.g four 50GB files)? Does it improve performance. Also if a single table (size 200gb) is alloted to a file group which has one datafile. Does it help to have such filegroup with multiple files (fore e.g 4 files of 50GB each). My thought was if SQL Server is looking for certain data (assuming the file is not very fragmented) it is better for SQL Server to load up only the specific file that corresponds to the data, instead of loading up an entire 200gb file.
Moving to engine forum|||In general, the size of the data files does not really matter that much, as SQL Server will not load an entire file. SQL Server uses an offset in a file to go to a particular page (8K chunk of data) that it needs to load.What really matters is the placement of files on disks, and the type of disks you use. If you have a single large file that is backed up by a RAID array, it does not really matter much. However, if you use ordinary (non-RAID) disks, multiple files might help, as you can place different files on different disk. Especially, placing the non-clustered indexes on different disks than clustered indexes will help.
Also, placing tempdb on (one or more) different disks, and placing the log files on different disks will help performance.
If you need more information, could you explain the problem you are trying to solve in a litte bit more detail.
Thanks,
Marcel van der Holst
[MSFT]|||
A lot of this depends on what kind of storage you have, whether is direct attached storage or a SAN, and if its a SAN, what kind of SAN it is. Generally speaking, Microsoft recommends that you have one TempDB file per physical CPU (and dual-core CPUs count as physical CPUs here), and one data file for each physical CPU. Doing this can help with allocation bottlenecks. Some SANs (such as 3PAR) make this somewhat moot, since they spread a file among all of the physical disks. Having multiple small data files can make backups and restores easier to manage.
You want your data files on one set of disks, log files on another set of disks, and TempDB on another set of disks.
Does it increase performance to use multiple datafiles for large databases
If you've large databases (above 200GB/file). Does it help to have multiple smaller files (For e.g four 50GB files)? Does it improve performance. Also if a single table (size 200gb) is alloted to a file group which has one datafile. Does it help to have such filegroup with multiple files (fore e.g 4 files of 50GB each). My thought was if SQL Server is looking for certain data (assuming the file is not very fragmented) it is better for SQL Server to load up only the specific file that corresponds to the data, instead of loading up an entire 200gb file.
Moving to engine forum|||In general, the size of the data files does not really matter that much, as SQL Server will not load an entire file. SQL Server uses an offset in a file to go to a particular page (8K chunk of data) that it needs to load.What really matters is the placement of files on disks, and the type of disks you use. If you have a single large file that is backed up by a RAID array, it does not really matter much. However, if you use ordinary (non-RAID) disks, multiple files might help, as you can place different files on different disk. Especially, placing the non-clustered indexes on different disks than clustered indexes will help.
Also, placing tempdb on (one or more) different disks, and placing the log files on different disks will help performance.
If you need more information, could you explain the problem you are trying to solve in a litte bit more detail.
Thanks,
Marcel van der Holst
[MSFT]|||
A lot of this depends on what kind of storage you have, whether is direct attached storage or a SAN, and if its a SAN, what kind of SAN it is. Generally speaking, Microsoft recommends that you have one TempDB file per physical CPU (and dual-core CPUs count as physical CPUs here), and one data file for each physical CPU. Doing this can help with allocation bottlenecks. Some SANs (such as 3PAR) make this somewhat moot, since they spread a file among all of the physical disks. Having multiple small data files can make backups and restores easier to manage.
You want your data files on one set of disks, log files on another set of disks, and TempDB on another set of disks.
does Internet Explorer generate logs.
Hi,
I have an query.
Does Internet Explorer generate logs files. If so where does the files get generated.
Thanks in advance.
Try www.sysinternals.com filemon to determine where logging is happening.
What kind of log are you looking for? IE logs your internet history in your documents & settings - temporary internet files. IE 7 has it's own log source in Event Viewer.
Depending on your logging needs, you may need a 3rd-party tool.
You may have better luck in a different group, since this isn't really related to Reporting Services.
cheers,
Andrew
does importing a trace file via FN_TRACE_GETTABLE use the tempDB?
i need to look at some large trace files (3 - 8 Gig). The drive that
has the tempDB on is is small..currently has < 2 G of free space on
it.
does the FN_TRACE_GETTABLE() function route the import through the
tempDB?
if so is there a way to avoid this?
I don't want to choke the root drive of the server importing this...I have not seen it being spooled on a simple select into from a trace file
but you might just want to keep an eye on it.
--
Jason Massie
Web: http://statisticsio.com
RSS: http://feeds.feedburner.com/statisticsio
<kent@.kaeservices.com> wrote in message
news:29307ecd-75d3-42e1-ba4a-06d67f0c5c14@.d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>i need to look at some large trace files (3 - 8 Gig). The drive that
> has the tempDB on is is small..currently has < 2 G of free space on
> it.
> does the FN_TRACE_GETTABLE() function route the import through the
> tempDB?
> if so is there a way to avoid this?
> I don't want to choke the root drive of the server importing this...
has the tempDB on is is small..currently has < 2 G of free space on
it.
does the FN_TRACE_GETTABLE() function route the import through the
tempDB?
if so is there a way to avoid this?
I don't want to choke the root drive of the server importing this...I have not seen it being spooled on a simple select into from a trace file
but you might just want to keep an eye on it.
--
Jason Massie
Web: http://statisticsio.com
RSS: http://feeds.feedburner.com/statisticsio
<kent@.kaeservices.com> wrote in message
news:29307ecd-75d3-42e1-ba4a-06d67f0c5c14@.d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>i need to look at some large trace files (3 - 8 Gig). The drive that
> has the tempDB on is is small..currently has < 2 G of free space on
> it.
> does the FN_TRACE_GETTABLE() function route the import through the
> tempDB?
> if so is there a way to avoid this?
> I don't want to choke the root drive of the server importing this...
does importing a trace file via FN_TRACE_GETTABLE use the tempDB?
i need to look at some large trace files (3 - 8 Gig). The drive that
has the tempDB on is is small..currently has < 2 G of free space on
it.
does the FN_TRACE_GETTABLE() function route the import through the
tempDB?
if so is there a way to avoid this?
I don't want to choke the root drive of the server importing this...
I have not seen it being spooled on a simple select into from a trace file
but you might just want to keep an eye on it.
Jason Massie
Web: http://statisticsio.com
RSS: http://feeds.feedburner.com/statisticsio
<kent@.kaeservices.com> wrote in message
news:29307ecd-75d3-42e1-ba4a-06d67f0c5c14@.d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>i need to look at some large trace files (3 - 8 Gig). The drive that
> has the tempDB on is is small..currently has < 2 G of free space on
> it.
> does the FN_TRACE_GETTABLE() function route the import through the
> tempDB?
> if so is there a way to avoid this?
> I don't want to choke the root drive of the server importing this...
has the tempDB on is is small..currently has < 2 G of free space on
it.
does the FN_TRACE_GETTABLE() function route the import through the
tempDB?
if so is there a way to avoid this?
I don't want to choke the root drive of the server importing this...
I have not seen it being spooled on a simple select into from a trace file
but you might just want to keep an eye on it.
Jason Massie
Web: http://statisticsio.com
RSS: http://feeds.feedburner.com/statisticsio
<kent@.kaeservices.com> wrote in message
news:29307ecd-75d3-42e1-ba4a-06d67f0c5c14@.d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>i need to look at some large trace files (3 - 8 Gig). The drive that
> has the tempDB on is is small..currently has < 2 G of free space on
> it.
> does the FN_TRACE_GETTABLE() function route the import through the
> tempDB?
> if so is there a way to avoid this?
> I don't want to choke the root drive of the server importing this...
Does have as protecting the data of a bank SQL-SERVER?
Does have as protecting the data of a bank SQL-SERVER?
-no, because if the user has access to the files ' * .mdf ', he will simply
be able to enclose them in a server where the user ' sa' doesn't have
password and ready, will have access to the data.
does Sql_Server have safety?
-has, inside of the server of your company, because there ' Administrador'
can protect the accesses and the files, but if somebody has access the this
machine (server), this everything finish (for the safety);
After this chat, was I thinking (?), because it will be then that cannot use
MSACCESS for the database (due to safety), since Sql_server leaves me in the
same position.
I hope sincerely, the result of this chat, be not 100% correct!, because it
reduces like this my deception in relation to the " ALL POWERFUL * "
Sql-Server.Assuming the situation of a bank,
- physical security is just as important as application security. You
should already take the appropriate steps to protect your server physically.
- I do not think you can ever fit a bank's entire database into a removable
storage device for you to attach to another server (which would need just as
large a storage device as the source server)
Do tell, which mainstream database server protects its data files? At the
minimum, you would need to encrypt the contents lest you use a hex editor to
view the data directly, and encryption eats up cpu cycles.
--
Regards
Ray Mond
"Frank Dulk" <fdulk@.bol.com.br> wrote in message
news:e994$ARHEHA.3128@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Does have as protecting the data of a bank SQL-SERVER?
> -no, because if the user has access to the files ' * .mdf ', he will
simply
> be able to enclose them in a server where the user ' sa' doesn't have
> password and ready, will have access to the data.
> does Sql_Server have safety?
> -has, inside of the server of your company, because there ' Administrador'
> can protect the accesses and the files, but if somebody has access the
this
> machine (server), this everything finish (for the safety);
>
> After this chat, was I thinking (?), because it will be then that cannot
use
> MSACCESS for the database (due to safety), since Sql_server leaves me in
the
> same position.
> I hope sincerely, the result of this chat, be not 100% correct!, because
it
> reduces like this my deception in relation to the " ALL POWERFUL * "
> Sql-Server.
>
>
-no, because if the user has access to the files ' * .mdf ', he will simply
be able to enclose them in a server where the user ' sa' doesn't have
password and ready, will have access to the data.
does Sql_Server have safety?
-has, inside of the server of your company, because there ' Administrador'
can protect the accesses and the files, but if somebody has access the this
machine (server), this everything finish (for the safety);
After this chat, was I thinking (?), because it will be then that cannot use
MSACCESS for the database (due to safety), since Sql_server leaves me in the
same position.
I hope sincerely, the result of this chat, be not 100% correct!, because it
reduces like this my deception in relation to the " ALL POWERFUL * "
Sql-Server.Assuming the situation of a bank,
- physical security is just as important as application security. You
should already take the appropriate steps to protect your server physically.
- I do not think you can ever fit a bank's entire database into a removable
storage device for you to attach to another server (which would need just as
large a storage device as the source server)
Do tell, which mainstream database server protects its data files? At the
minimum, you would need to encrypt the contents lest you use a hex editor to
view the data directly, and encryption eats up cpu cycles.
--
Regards
Ray Mond
"Frank Dulk" <fdulk@.bol.com.br> wrote in message
news:e994$ARHEHA.3128@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Does have as protecting the data of a bank SQL-SERVER?
> -no, because if the user has access to the files ' * .mdf ', he will
simply
> be able to enclose them in a server where the user ' sa' doesn't have
> password and ready, will have access to the data.
> does Sql_Server have safety?
> -has, inside of the server of your company, because there ' Administrador'
> can protect the accesses and the files, but if somebody has access the
this
> machine (server), this everything finish (for the safety);
>
> After this chat, was I thinking (?), because it will be then that cannot
use
> MSACCESS for the database (due to safety), since Sql_server leaves me in
the
> same position.
> I hope sincerely, the result of this chat, be not 100% correct!, because
it
> reduces like this my deception in relation to the " ALL POWERFUL * "
> Sql-Server.
>
>
Does have as protecting the data of a bank SQL-SERVER?
Does have as protecting the data of a bank SQL-SERVER?
-no, because if the user has access to the files ' * .mdf ', he will simply
be able to enclose them in a server where the user ' sa' doesn't have
password and ready, will have access to the data.
does Sql_Server have safety?
-has, inside of the server of your company, because there ' Administrador'
can protect the accesses and the files, but if somebody has access the this
machine (server), this everything finish (for the safety);
After this chat, was I thinking (?), because it will be then that cannot use
MSACCESS for the database (due to safety), since Sql_server leaves me in the
same position.
I hope sincerely, the result of this chat, be not 100% correct!, because it
reduces like this my deception in relation to the " ALL POWERFUL * "
Sql-Server.
Assuming the situation of a bank,
- physical security is just as important as application security. You
should already take the appropriate steps to protect your server physically.
- I do not think you can ever fit a bank's entire database into a removable
storage device for you to attach to another server (which would need just as
large a storage device as the source server)
Do tell, which mainstream database server protects its data files? At the
minimum, you would need to encrypt the contents lest you use a hex editor to
view the data directly, and encryption eats up cpu cycles.
Regards
Ray Mond
"Frank Dulk" <fdulk@.bol.com.br> wrote in message
news:e994$ARHEHA.3128@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Does have as protecting the data of a bank SQL-SERVER?
> -no, because if the user has access to the files ' * .mdf ', he will
simply
> be able to enclose them in a server where the user ' sa' doesn't have
> password and ready, will have access to the data.
> does Sql_Server have safety?
> -has, inside of the server of your company, because there ' Administrador'
> can protect the accesses and the files, but if somebody has access the
this
> machine (server), this everything finish (for the safety);
>
> After this chat, was I thinking (?), because it will be then that cannot
use
> MSACCESS for the database (due to safety), since Sql_server leaves me in
the
> same position.
> I hope sincerely, the result of this chat, be not 100% correct!, because
it
> reduces like this my deception in relation to the " ALL POWERFUL * "
> Sql-Server.
>
>
-no, because if the user has access to the files ' * .mdf ', he will simply
be able to enclose them in a server where the user ' sa' doesn't have
password and ready, will have access to the data.
does Sql_Server have safety?
-has, inside of the server of your company, because there ' Administrador'
can protect the accesses and the files, but if somebody has access the this
machine (server), this everything finish (for the safety);
After this chat, was I thinking (?), because it will be then that cannot use
MSACCESS for the database (due to safety), since Sql_server leaves me in the
same position.
I hope sincerely, the result of this chat, be not 100% correct!, because it
reduces like this my deception in relation to the " ALL POWERFUL * "
Sql-Server.
Assuming the situation of a bank,
- physical security is just as important as application security. You
should already take the appropriate steps to protect your server physically.
- I do not think you can ever fit a bank's entire database into a removable
storage device for you to attach to another server (which would need just as
large a storage device as the source server)
Do tell, which mainstream database server protects its data files? At the
minimum, you would need to encrypt the contents lest you use a hex editor to
view the data directly, and encryption eats up cpu cycles.
Regards
Ray Mond
"Frank Dulk" <fdulk@.bol.com.br> wrote in message
news:e994$ARHEHA.3128@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Does have as protecting the data of a bank SQL-SERVER?
> -no, because if the user has access to the files ' * .mdf ', he will
simply
> be able to enclose them in a server where the user ' sa' doesn't have
> password and ready, will have access to the data.
> does Sql_Server have safety?
> -has, inside of the server of your company, because there ' Administrador'
> can protect the accesses and the files, but if somebody has access the
this
> machine (server), this everything finish (for the safety);
>
> After this chat, was I thinking (?), because it will be then that cannot
use
> MSACCESS for the database (due to safety), since Sql_server leaves me in
the
> same position.
> I hope sincerely, the result of this chat, be not 100% correct!, because
it
> reduces like this my deception in relation to the " ALL POWERFUL * "
> Sql-Server.
>
>
Does have as protecting the data of a bank SQL-SERVER?
Does have as protecting the data of a bank SQL-SERVER?
-no, because if the user has access to the files ' * .mdf ', he will simply
be able to enclose them in a server where the user ' sa' doesn't have
password and ready, will have access to the data.
does Sql_Server have safety?
-has, inside of the server of your company, because there ' Administrador'
can protect the accesses and the files, but if somebody has access the this
machine (server), this everything finish (for the safety);
After this chat, was I thinking (?), because it will be then that cannot use
MSACCESS for the database (due to safety), since Sql_server leaves me in the
same position.
I hope sincerely, the result of this chat, be not 100% correct!, because it
reduces like this my deception in relation to the " ALL POWERFUL * "
Sql-Server.Assuming the situation of a bank,
- physical security is just as important as application security. You
should already take the appropriate steps to protect your server physically.
- I do not think you can ever fit a bank's entire database into a removable
storage device for you to attach to another server (which would need just as
large a storage device as the source server)
Do tell, which mainstream database server protects its data files? At the
minimum, you would need to encrypt the contents lest you use a hex editor to
view the data directly, and encryption eats up cpu cycles.
Regards
Ray Mond
"Frank Dulk" <fdulk@.bol.com.br> wrote in message
news:e994$ARHEHA.3128@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Does have as protecting the data of a bank SQL-SERVER?
> -no, because if the user has access to the files ' * .mdf ', he will
simply
> be able to enclose them in a server where the user ' sa' doesn't have
> password and ready, will have access to the data.
> does Sql_Server have safety?
> -has, inside of the server of your company, because there ' Administrador'
> can protect the accesses and the files, but if somebody has access the
this
> machine (server), this everything finish (for the safety);
>
> After this chat, was I thinking (?), because it will be then that cannot
use
> MSACCESS for the database (due to safety), since Sql_server leaves me in
the
> same position.
> I hope sincerely, the result of this chat, be not 100% correct!, because
it
> reduces like this my deception in relation to the " ALL POWERFUL * "
> Sql-Server.
>
>
-no, because if the user has access to the files ' * .mdf ', he will simply
be able to enclose them in a server where the user ' sa' doesn't have
password and ready, will have access to the data.
does Sql_Server have safety?
-has, inside of the server of your company, because there ' Administrador'
can protect the accesses and the files, but if somebody has access the this
machine (server), this everything finish (for the safety);
After this chat, was I thinking (?), because it will be then that cannot use
MSACCESS for the database (due to safety), since Sql_server leaves me in the
same position.
I hope sincerely, the result of this chat, be not 100% correct!, because it
reduces like this my deception in relation to the " ALL POWERFUL * "
Sql-Server.Assuming the situation of a bank,
- physical security is just as important as application security. You
should already take the appropriate steps to protect your server physically.
- I do not think you can ever fit a bank's entire database into a removable
storage device for you to attach to another server (which would need just as
large a storage device as the source server)
Do tell, which mainstream database server protects its data files? At the
minimum, you would need to encrypt the contents lest you use a hex editor to
view the data directly, and encryption eats up cpu cycles.
Regards
Ray Mond
"Frank Dulk" <fdulk@.bol.com.br> wrote in message
news:e994$ARHEHA.3128@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Does have as protecting the data of a bank SQL-SERVER?
> -no, because if the user has access to the files ' * .mdf ', he will
simply
> be able to enclose them in a server where the user ' sa' doesn't have
> password and ready, will have access to the data.
> does Sql_Server have safety?
> -has, inside of the server of your company, because there ' Administrador'
> can protect the accesses and the files, but if somebody has access the
this
> machine (server), this everything finish (for the safety);
>
> After this chat, was I thinking (?), because it will be then that cannot
use
> MSACCESS for the database (due to safety), since Sql_server leaves me in
the
> same position.
> I hope sincerely, the result of this chat, be not 100% correct!, because
it
> reduces like this my deception in relation to the " ALL POWERFUL * "
> Sql-Server.
>
>
Friday, March 9, 2012
does dbcc checkdb increase size of data files ?
Does DBCC checkdb increase the size of data files ? I have a 300GB database
thats almost full and wanted to know whether the size would grow when I run
DBCC checkdb ?
Also, does the maintenance plan under integrity - > check database integrity
issue the DBCC checkdb statement underlying that ? Using SQL 2000
It should not increase the size of your data files, although it could
increase the size of tempdb data files.
Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Mariner, Charlotte, NC
www.mariner-usa.com
(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
community of SQL Server professionals.
www.sqlpass.org
"Hassan" <fatima_ja@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eo2NeSELFHA.3340@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Does DBCC checkdb increase the size of data files ? I have a 300GB
> database
> thats almost full and wanted to know whether the size would grow when I
> run
> DBCC checkdb ?
> Also, does the maintenance plan under integrity - > check database
> integrity
> issue the DBCC checkdb statement underlying that ? Using SQL 2000
>
|||Hi,
In addition to Wayne's post, check database integrity in maintenance plan
issues DBCC checkdb command.
Thanks
Yogish
thats almost full and wanted to know whether the size would grow when I run
DBCC checkdb ?
Also, does the maintenance plan under integrity - > check database integrity
issue the DBCC checkdb statement underlying that ? Using SQL 2000
It should not increase the size of your data files, although it could
increase the size of tempdb data files.
Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Mariner, Charlotte, NC
www.mariner-usa.com
(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
community of SQL Server professionals.
www.sqlpass.org
"Hassan" <fatima_ja@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eo2NeSELFHA.3340@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Does DBCC checkdb increase the size of data files ? I have a 300GB
> database
> thats almost full and wanted to know whether the size would grow when I
> run
> DBCC checkdb ?
> Also, does the maintenance plan under integrity - > check database
> integrity
> issue the DBCC checkdb statement underlying that ? Using SQL 2000
>
|||Hi,
In addition to Wayne's post, check database integrity in maintenance plan
issues DBCC checkdb command.
Thanks
Yogish
does dbcc checkdb increase size of data files ?
Does DBCC checkdb increase the size of data files ? I have a 300GB database
thats almost full and wanted to know whether the size would grow when I run
DBCC checkdb ?
Also, does the maintenance plan under integrity - > check database integrity
issue the DBCC checkdb statement underlying that ? Using SQL 2000It should not increase the size of your data files, although it could
increase the size of tempdb data files.
Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Mariner, Charlotte, NC
www.mariner-usa.com
(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
community of SQL Server professionals.
www.sqlpass.org
"Hassan" <fatima_ja@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eo2NeSELFHA.3340@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Does DBCC checkdb increase the size of data files ? I have a 300GB
> database
> thats almost full and wanted to know whether the size would grow when I
> run
> DBCC checkdb ?
> Also, does the maintenance plan under integrity - > check database
> integrity
> issue the DBCC checkdb statement underlying that ? Using SQL 2000
>|||Hi,
In addition to Wayne's post, check database integrity in maintenance plan
issues DBCC checkdb command.
Thanks
Yogish
thats almost full and wanted to know whether the size would grow when I run
DBCC checkdb ?
Also, does the maintenance plan under integrity - > check database integrity
issue the DBCC checkdb statement underlying that ? Using SQL 2000It should not increase the size of your data files, although it could
increase the size of tempdb data files.
Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Mariner, Charlotte, NC
www.mariner-usa.com
(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
community of SQL Server professionals.
www.sqlpass.org
"Hassan" <fatima_ja@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eo2NeSELFHA.3340@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Does DBCC checkdb increase the size of data files ? I have a 300GB
> database
> thats almost full and wanted to know whether the size would grow when I
> run
> DBCC checkdb ?
> Also, does the maintenance plan under integrity - > check database
> integrity
> issue the DBCC checkdb statement underlying that ? Using SQL 2000
>|||Hi,
In addition to Wayne's post, check database integrity in maintenance plan
issues DBCC checkdb command.
Thanks
Yogish
does dbcc checkdb increase size of data files ?
Does DBCC checkdb increase the size of data files ? I have a 300GB database
thats almost full and wanted to know whether the size would grow when I run
DBCC checkdb ?
Also, does the maintenance plan under integrity - > check database integrity
issue the DBCC checkdb statement underlying that ? Using SQL 2000It should not increase the size of your data files, although it could
increase the size of tempdb data files.
--
Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Mariner, Charlotte, NC
www.mariner-usa.com
(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
community of SQL Server professionals.
www.sqlpass.org
"Hassan" <fatima_ja@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eo2NeSELFHA.3340@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Does DBCC checkdb increase the size of data files ? I have a 300GB
> database
> thats almost full and wanted to know whether the size would grow when I
> run
> DBCC checkdb ?
> Also, does the maintenance plan under integrity - > check database
> integrity
> issue the DBCC checkdb statement underlying that ? Using SQL 2000
>|||Hi,
In addition to Wayne's post, check database integrity in maintenance plan
issues DBCC checkdb command.
--
Thanks
Yogish
thats almost full and wanted to know whether the size would grow when I run
DBCC checkdb ?
Also, does the maintenance plan under integrity - > check database integrity
issue the DBCC checkdb statement underlying that ? Using SQL 2000It should not increase the size of your data files, although it could
increase the size of tempdb data files.
--
Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Mariner, Charlotte, NC
www.mariner-usa.com
(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
community of SQL Server professionals.
www.sqlpass.org
"Hassan" <fatima_ja@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eo2NeSELFHA.3340@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Does DBCC checkdb increase the size of data files ? I have a 300GB
> database
> thats almost full and wanted to know whether the size would grow when I
> run
> DBCC checkdb ?
> Also, does the maintenance plan under integrity - > check database
> integrity
> issue the DBCC checkdb statement underlying that ? Using SQL 2000
>|||Hi,
In addition to Wayne's post, check database integrity in maintenance plan
issues DBCC checkdb command.
--
Thanks
Yogish
Does DB Size decrease when I delete a huge table ?
Hi,
My DB size (Right click on DB Name, Data Files tab, Space Allocated field) was 10914 MB.
I delete a huge table (1.2 million records * 15 columns).
I checked the db size again. It didnt change.
Shouldn't it decrease because I delete a huge table ??The size will only decrease if you use the shrinkdb command.|||Originally posted by rokslide
The size will only decrease if you use the shrinkdb command.
When and why should we use Shrink DB ??|||Originally posted by rokslide
The size will only decrease if you use the shrinkdb command.
Would the deleted data be still on the database physical file ?|||The use of shrinkdb depends on who you talk to,... I really don't have a theory about it except to say that if the database is taking up too much space, shrink it...
As for the data still being in the database file... I would guess (and it's just a guess) that it would still be there but it would be unaccessible via the database. I think the delete would work much like deleting a file off your hard drive, all that is really deleted is the file header information, the data is still there, but you can't access it unless you use a tool to specificly locate the data.
Does that make sense? Can anyone else offer more advise??|||Originally posted by rokslide
The use of shrinkdb depends on who you talk to,... I really don't have a theory about it except to say that if the database is taking up too much space, shrink it...
As for the data still being in the database file... I would guess (and it's just a guess) that it would still be there but it would be unaccessible via the database. I think the delete would work much like deleting a file off your hard drive, all that is really deleted is the file header information, the data is still there, but you can't access it unless you use a tool to specificly locate the data.
Does that make sense? Can anyone else offer more advise??
Can u give a quick example of how I use ShrinkDB ?|||Originally posted by forXLDB
Can u give a quick example of how I use ShrinkDB ?
How do I know what size to reduce to ?
(If the size doesnt decrease even after deleting tables, how do i know what must be the exact size occupied by all the tables)...
I would have deleted and created lots of huge files involving around a million records atleast 10 times..
and above all, does the size effect the sql server performance in any way ?|||straight from the books online
This example decreases the size of the files in the UserDB user database to allow 10 percent free space in the files of UserDB.
DBCC SHRINKDATABASE (UserDB, 10)
GO
or you can do it through the EM|||Originally posted by rokslide
straight from the books online
or you can do it through the EM
i just did use for another test database, it shrunk more than half the size...
thx anyway !!1
Still looking for the answer on any performance degradation if the db file size is more ?|||Guessing once again I would say that it shouldn't affect the speed to any great extent,.. fragmentation of the database file would... there are some commands/functions that you can use to find out this kinda stuff but I have never used them so I can't really help alot I'm sorry.|||Originally posted by rokslide
Guessing once again I would say that it shouldn't affect the speed to any great extent,.. fragmentation of the database file would... there are some commands/functions that you can use to find out this kinda stuff but I have never used them so I can't really help alot I'm sorry.
thx again...
lemme know any functions !!!|||Since the log file takes the big size of the database, you can use the following script to reduce the file size:
USE DatabaseName
GO
DBCC SHRINKFILE ('DatabaseName_Log', Size)
GO
Here "Size" is the number of MB, i.e., if you put 100, that means the file will be shrinked to 100 MB.|||Since you are already working in em - when you right click on the database go to all task ->shrink database ->files... Under database file, look at the data file and log file. What is the current size/space used ? Are you backing up the database/transaction log ? What is the recovery model ?
What is the performance issue ?|||You can use "dbcc showcontig" to display fragmentation info. Yes performance will be affected - you need to either drop/recreate the indexes, use dbcc dbreindex or dbcc indexdefrag. Since you deleted so many records (more than half), fragmentation is a good start for performance issues.|||Do you have access to Books Online (BOL) ?|||An addition to rnealejr's post on dbcc indexdefrag and recreating indexes. If you have tables with a large amount of data input or modification take a good look at the indexes. If you use a non-seed value for your index then increasing the fillfactor number can help to reduce fragmentation in the future. I.E if your customer table uses first four characters of the name plus the zipcode for a customerID then you would be inserting new records into the middle of the table frequently. Once the fillfactor is used up then the next record inserted will create a new page and now your data is getting fragmented which does impact performance as mentioned be other posters.
Now that you've opened this pandoras box, you could spend a week in BOL learning how to tweak each tables index based on usage, calculating how many records fit on a page, use of varchar over char, benifits/penalties of seed indexes...............|||Originally posted by rnealejr
Do you have access to Books Online (BOL) ?
Yes. I can read BOL
My DB size (Right click on DB Name, Data Files tab, Space Allocated field) was 10914 MB.
I delete a huge table (1.2 million records * 15 columns).
I checked the db size again. It didnt change.
Shouldn't it decrease because I delete a huge table ??The size will only decrease if you use the shrinkdb command.|||Originally posted by rokslide
The size will only decrease if you use the shrinkdb command.
When and why should we use Shrink DB ??|||Originally posted by rokslide
The size will only decrease if you use the shrinkdb command.
Would the deleted data be still on the database physical file ?|||The use of shrinkdb depends on who you talk to,... I really don't have a theory about it except to say that if the database is taking up too much space, shrink it...
As for the data still being in the database file... I would guess (and it's just a guess) that it would still be there but it would be unaccessible via the database. I think the delete would work much like deleting a file off your hard drive, all that is really deleted is the file header information, the data is still there, but you can't access it unless you use a tool to specificly locate the data.
Does that make sense? Can anyone else offer more advise??|||Originally posted by rokslide
The use of shrinkdb depends on who you talk to,... I really don't have a theory about it except to say that if the database is taking up too much space, shrink it...
As for the data still being in the database file... I would guess (and it's just a guess) that it would still be there but it would be unaccessible via the database. I think the delete would work much like deleting a file off your hard drive, all that is really deleted is the file header information, the data is still there, but you can't access it unless you use a tool to specificly locate the data.
Does that make sense? Can anyone else offer more advise??
Can u give a quick example of how I use ShrinkDB ?|||Originally posted by forXLDB
Can u give a quick example of how I use ShrinkDB ?
How do I know what size to reduce to ?
(If the size doesnt decrease even after deleting tables, how do i know what must be the exact size occupied by all the tables)...
I would have deleted and created lots of huge files involving around a million records atleast 10 times..
and above all, does the size effect the sql server performance in any way ?|||straight from the books online
This example decreases the size of the files in the UserDB user database to allow 10 percent free space in the files of UserDB.
DBCC SHRINKDATABASE (UserDB, 10)
GO
or you can do it through the EM|||Originally posted by rokslide
straight from the books online
or you can do it through the EM
i just did use for another test database, it shrunk more than half the size...
thx anyway !!1
Still looking for the answer on any performance degradation if the db file size is more ?|||Guessing once again I would say that it shouldn't affect the speed to any great extent,.. fragmentation of the database file would... there are some commands/functions that you can use to find out this kinda stuff but I have never used them so I can't really help alot I'm sorry.|||Originally posted by rokslide
Guessing once again I would say that it shouldn't affect the speed to any great extent,.. fragmentation of the database file would... there are some commands/functions that you can use to find out this kinda stuff but I have never used them so I can't really help alot I'm sorry.
thx again...
lemme know any functions !!!|||Since the log file takes the big size of the database, you can use the following script to reduce the file size:
USE DatabaseName
GO
DBCC SHRINKFILE ('DatabaseName_Log', Size)
GO
Here "Size" is the number of MB, i.e., if you put 100, that means the file will be shrinked to 100 MB.|||Since you are already working in em - when you right click on the database go to all task ->shrink database ->files... Under database file, look at the data file and log file. What is the current size/space used ? Are you backing up the database/transaction log ? What is the recovery model ?
What is the performance issue ?|||You can use "dbcc showcontig" to display fragmentation info. Yes performance will be affected - you need to either drop/recreate the indexes, use dbcc dbreindex or dbcc indexdefrag. Since you deleted so many records (more than half), fragmentation is a good start for performance issues.|||Do you have access to Books Online (BOL) ?|||An addition to rnealejr's post on dbcc indexdefrag and recreating indexes. If you have tables with a large amount of data input or modification take a good look at the indexes. If you use a non-seed value for your index then increasing the fillfactor number can help to reduce fragmentation in the future. I.E if your customer table uses first four characters of the name plus the zipcode for a customerID then you would be inserting new records into the middle of the table frequently. Once the fillfactor is used up then the next record inserted will create a new page and now your data is getting fragmented which does impact performance as mentioned be other posters.
Now that you've opened this pandoras box, you could spend a week in BOL learning how to tweak each tables index based on usage, calculating how many records fit on a page, use of varchar over char, benifits/penalties of seed indexes...............|||Originally posted by rnealejr
Do you have access to Books Online (BOL) ?
Yes. I can read BOL
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Does Alocating Database files affect Table size?
I am having an issue with allocated sizes verse actual
data and index sizes in some of my large fact tables.
These tables are recreated once a week with a default fill
factor size of 95%. These tables never receive any
insert, update, or delete transactions running against
them.
I have several different RAID arrays that I am using for
performance and maintenance issues. On my data and index
arrays, through enterprise manager, I have allocated 80%
of the disk space to my databases. This was done so that
fields would not have to grow.
My question is because I have allocated a fix size to my
database files does this mean the my tables will receive
this allocated space? In other words does this allocated
space get distributed amongst existing tables in a
database or is it pooled in some way?
Thanks,
Jonathan Lacefield
MCDBAWhen you allocated a fix size of your db or log file, the file grows with
empty space to that size, you shall also disable automatically file grow
since you have allocated all the space that will be ever needed or set it to
0.
Yes as data is added to the table they will be place on the empty space
allocated to the file, Once the the file is full no more data will be able
to be added.
Yovan Fernandez
P.S
If you have 2 dbs on the same disk and yor disk zise is 40GB
you have to remember you cannot allocate 80% of 40GB to each DB.
"Jonathan Lacefield" <jonathan.lacefield@.solutionbuilders.com> wrote in
message news:00fe01c376e4$97c929f0$a101280a@.phx.gbl...
> I am having an issue with allocated sizes verse actual
> data and index sizes in some of my large fact tables.
> These tables are recreated once a week with a default fill
> factor size of 95%. These tables never receive any
> insert, update, or delete transactions running against
> them.
> I have several different RAID arrays that I am using for
> performance and maintenance issues. On my data and index
> arrays, through enterprise manager, I have allocated 80%
> of the disk space to my databases. This was done so that
> fields would not have to grow.
> My question is because I have allocated a fix size to my
> database files does this mean the my tables will receive
> this allocated space? In other words does this allocated
> space get distributed amongst existing tables in a
> database or is it pooled in some way?
> Thanks,
> Jonathan Lacefield
> MCDBA
data and index sizes in some of my large fact tables.
These tables are recreated once a week with a default fill
factor size of 95%. These tables never receive any
insert, update, or delete transactions running against
them.
I have several different RAID arrays that I am using for
performance and maintenance issues. On my data and index
arrays, through enterprise manager, I have allocated 80%
of the disk space to my databases. This was done so that
fields would not have to grow.
My question is because I have allocated a fix size to my
database files does this mean the my tables will receive
this allocated space? In other words does this allocated
space get distributed amongst existing tables in a
database or is it pooled in some way?
Thanks,
Jonathan Lacefield
MCDBAWhen you allocated a fix size of your db or log file, the file grows with
empty space to that size, you shall also disable automatically file grow
since you have allocated all the space that will be ever needed or set it to
0.
Yes as data is added to the table they will be place on the empty space
allocated to the file, Once the the file is full no more data will be able
to be added.
Yovan Fernandez
P.S
If you have 2 dbs on the same disk and yor disk zise is 40GB
you have to remember you cannot allocate 80% of 40GB to each DB.
"Jonathan Lacefield" <jonathan.lacefield@.solutionbuilders.com> wrote in
message news:00fe01c376e4$97c929f0$a101280a@.phx.gbl...
> I am having an issue with allocated sizes verse actual
> data and index sizes in some of my large fact tables.
> These tables are recreated once a week with a default fill
> factor size of 95%. These tables never receive any
> insert, update, or delete transactions running against
> them.
> I have several different RAID arrays that I am using for
> performance and maintenance issues. On my data and index
> arrays, through enterprise manager, I have allocated 80%
> of the disk space to my databases. This was done so that
> fields would not have to grow.
> My question is because I have allocated a fix size to my
> database files does this mean the my tables will receive
> this allocated space? In other words does this allocated
> space get distributed amongst existing tables in a
> database or is it pooled in some way?
> Thanks,
> Jonathan Lacefield
> MCDBA
Friday, February 17, 2012
Document properties
Can somebody point me to where I can learn how to query the properties
of files stored in an image field. I'm having troubles finding that
documentation. I'm using SQL 2005.
Larry Brown wrote:
> Hi,
> In Office documents for example, you have document properties like
> Doc_Author, or other properties that may have been created by the user who
> wrote the doc.
> In SQL Server 2005, it is possible to search into these properties
> (equivalent of Index Server ALL property). But is there any way to get the
> list of properties with their values ? Meaning to know that the value has
> been found in one property rather than in another ?
> Is there any difference if I use Sharepoint, Services or Portal ?
> My problem is that I'm using not only Office iFilter with document
> properties, but two other iFilters that I created for indexing PDF and
> another format specific to my company, with Index Server. Both these
> iFilters manage document properties, including possibility to create custom
> properties...
> Looks like I will have to do some programming...
> Many thanks in advance
Hello,
Its not possible.
Simon Sabin
SQL Server MVP
http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/simons
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Can somebody point me to where I can learn how to query the properties
> of files stored in an image field. I'm having troubles finding that
> documentation. I'm using SQL 2005.
> Larry Brown wrote:
|||So Larry was mistaken?
"In SQL Server 2005, it is possible to search into these properties
(equivalent of Index Server ALL property)."
|||You can query them if they are emitted by the iFilter. The best way to
determine if they are emitted is to run them through filtdump accessible
from the platform sdk.
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
<ddaiker@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1166470714.092854.303040@.79g2000cws.googlegro ups.com...
> Can somebody point me to where I can learn how to query the properties
> of files stored in an image field. I'm having troubles finding that
> documentation. I'm using SQL 2005.
> Larry Brown wrote:
>
|||It is possible to search on properties which are embedded in the document
and accessible through the iFilter-for example the summary properties in
office documents. For some documents, i.e. some pdf properties they are
actually stored in the file system and when you push them into the database
they remain in the file system and don't travel with the document itself.
The best way to see this is to put a value for the keyword metatag of an
html,. store it in an image datatype column and then search on the keyword
value. You will get a hit.
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
"ddaiker" <ddaiker@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1166473176.174934.179730@.f1g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
> So Larry was mistaken?
> "In SQL Server 2005, it is possible to search into these properties
> (equivalent of Index Server ALL property)."
>
|||Hello Hilary,
But you can't do search for a specific value in a specific property, like
you can with index server
Simon Sabin
SQL Server MVP
http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/simons
[vbcol=seagreen]
> You can query them if they are emitted by the iFilter. The best way to
> determine if they are emitted is to run them through filtdump
> accessible from the platform sdk.
> Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
> http://www.indexserverfaq.com
> <ddaiker@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1166470714.092854.303040@.79g2000cws.googlegro ups.com...
of files stored in an image field. I'm having troubles finding that
documentation. I'm using SQL 2005.
Larry Brown wrote:
> Hi,
> In Office documents for example, you have document properties like
> Doc_Author, or other properties that may have been created by the user who
> wrote the doc.
> In SQL Server 2005, it is possible to search into these properties
> (equivalent of Index Server ALL property). But is there any way to get the
> list of properties with their values ? Meaning to know that the value has
> been found in one property rather than in another ?
> Is there any difference if I use Sharepoint, Services or Portal ?
> My problem is that I'm using not only Office iFilter with document
> properties, but two other iFilters that I created for indexing PDF and
> another format specific to my company, with Index Server. Both these
> iFilters manage document properties, including possibility to create custom
> properties...
> Looks like I will have to do some programming...
> Many thanks in advance
Hello,
Its not possible.
Simon Sabin
SQL Server MVP
http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/simons
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Can somebody point me to where I can learn how to query the properties
> of files stored in an image field. I'm having troubles finding that
> documentation. I'm using SQL 2005.
> Larry Brown wrote:
|||So Larry was mistaken?
"In SQL Server 2005, it is possible to search into these properties
(equivalent of Index Server ALL property)."
|||You can query them if they are emitted by the iFilter. The best way to
determine if they are emitted is to run them through filtdump accessible
from the platform sdk.
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
<ddaiker@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1166470714.092854.303040@.79g2000cws.googlegro ups.com...
> Can somebody point me to where I can learn how to query the properties
> of files stored in an image field. I'm having troubles finding that
> documentation. I'm using SQL 2005.
> Larry Brown wrote:
>
|||It is possible to search on properties which are embedded in the document
and accessible through the iFilter-for example the summary properties in
office documents. For some documents, i.e. some pdf properties they are
actually stored in the file system and when you push them into the database
they remain in the file system and don't travel with the document itself.
The best way to see this is to put a value for the keyword metatag of an
html,. store it in an image datatype column and then search on the keyword
value. You will get a hit.
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
"ddaiker" <ddaiker@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1166473176.174934.179730@.f1g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
> So Larry was mistaken?
> "In SQL Server 2005, it is possible to search into these properties
> (equivalent of Index Server ALL property)."
>
|||Hello Hilary,
But you can't do search for a specific value in a specific property, like
you can with index server
Simon Sabin
SQL Server MVP
http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/simons
[vbcol=seagreen]
> You can query them if they are emitted by the iFilter. The best way to
> determine if they are emitted is to run them through filtdump
> accessible from the platform sdk.
> Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
> http://www.indexserverfaq.com
> <ddaiker@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1166470714.092854.303040@.79g2000cws.googlegro ups.com...
Document Map
Is there any way to control the width of the document map? Is there a
setting in any of the configuration files? Thanks.I think the document map settings are automatic... However the end user can
change the width by dragging with the mouse..( but I do not think you can
change the width settings on the fly, or even as a visible attribute in the
dev environment..)
Although I haven't checked you might be able to set them directly in the RDL.
--
Wayne Snyder MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Mariner, Charlotte, NC
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server ( PASS) and it''s
community of SQL Professionals.
"PD" wrote:
> Is there any way to control the width of the document map? Is there a
> setting in any of the configuration files? Thanks.
setting in any of the configuration files? Thanks.I think the document map settings are automatic... However the end user can
change the width by dragging with the mouse..( but I do not think you can
change the width settings on the fly, or even as a visible attribute in the
dev environment..)
Although I haven't checked you might be able to set them directly in the RDL.
--
Wayne Snyder MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Mariner, Charlotte, NC
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server ( PASS) and it''s
community of SQL Professionals.
"PD" wrote:
> Is there any way to control the width of the document map? Is there a
> setting in any of the configuration files? Thanks.
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Docs files in FTDATA
Hi,
I have a SQL Server 2000 cluster, sp 3 in w2k.
When the catalog is reindexed, some documents appears in FTDATA folder. If I
delete the documents, then they reappear in the next indexing.
I'm thinking about to schedule a batch that cleanup this folder, because I
have the FTDATA in the Quorum drive, with no much free space.
Why this is? How can I avoid it?
qwalgrande
What do you mean by documents? Can you open these documents in Word or
notepad?
These documents will be extracted by the indexing process, but on my non
clustered system they are cleaned up.
Some files will remain which are used my mssearch to track where it is in
the indexing process. You shouldn't touch these files.
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
"qwalgrande" <qwalgrande*nospam*@.yahoo.es> wrote in message
news:6131ACD4-A717-48D6-AC63-4F2FE43B7CA5@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I have a SQL Server 2000 cluster, sp 3 in w2k.
> When the catalog is reindexed, some documents appears in FTDATA folder. If
I
> delete the documents, then they reappear in the next indexing.
> I'm thinking about to schedule a batch that cleanup this folder, because I
> have the FTDATA in the Quorum drive, with no much free space.
> Why this is? How can I avoid it?
> --
> qwalgrande
|||one more point - exactly which subdirectory of ftdata do these files exist
in.
It could be possible that they are eithre configuration files or the actual
index/catalog files themselves.
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
"Hilary Cotter" <hilary.cotter@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:%238ZUxJKoEHA.2340@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> What do you mean by documents? Can you open these documents in Word or
> notepad?
> These documents will be extracted by the indexing process, but on my non
> clustered system they are cleaned up.
> Some files will remain which are used my mssearch to track where it is in
> the indexing process. You shouldn't touch these files.
> --
> Hilary Cotter
> Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
>
> "qwalgrande" <qwalgrande*nospam*@.yahoo.es> wrote in message
> news:6131ACD4-A717-48D6-AC63-4F2FE43B7CA5@.microsoft.com...
If[vbcol=seagreen]
> I
I
>
|||Hello, Hilary.
I will try to explain it better. These "documents" are the documents that I
had inserted in my indexed image column. In the population, the documents
"pass" for the folder and quickly disappear, but a few documents stay in the
folder and don't cleaned up.
The directory is FTDATA, no subdirectories. I have tried in a nonclustered
server too, whit the same result. Could you help me?
Thanks in advanced.
"Hilary Cotter" wrote:
> one more point - exactly which subdirectory of ftdata do these files exist
> in.
> It could be possible that they are eithre configuration files or the actual
> index/catalog files themselves.
> --
> Hilary Cotter
> Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
>
> "Hilary Cotter" <hilary.cotter@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%238ZUxJKoEHA.2340@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> If
> I
>
>
|||qwalgrande,
The behavior you are seeing is by design, except for the document files not
being deleted, I *believe* has be acknowledged as a bug by Microsoft and may
(or may not) be fixed in the next Service Pack (SP4) for SQL Sever 2000.
This issue was discovered about a year ago on this newsgroup and the
non-delete of the files acknowledged as a bug by Microsoft, but alas we were
not provided with an actual bug number for tracking purposes. Hopefully,
this will be addressed in the next Service Pack (SP4) for SQL Sever 2000.
Regards,
John
"qwalgrande" <qwalgrande*nospam*@.yahoo.es> wrote in message
news:054B35B9-15F1-4BDF-A193-D03638EA71CC@.microsoft.com...
> Hello, Hilary.
> I will try to explain it better. These "documents" are the documents that
I
> had inserted in my indexed image column. In the population, the documents
> "pass" for the folder and quickly disappear, but a few documents stay in
the[vbcol=seagreen]
> folder and don't cleaned up.
> The directory is FTDATA, no subdirectories. I have tried in a nonclustered
> server too, whit the same result. Could you help me?
> Thanks in advanced.
> "Hilary Cotter" wrote:
exist[vbcol=seagreen]
actual[vbcol=seagreen]
non[vbcol=seagreen]
in[vbcol=seagreen]
folder.[vbcol=seagreen]
because[vbcol=seagreen]
I have a SQL Server 2000 cluster, sp 3 in w2k.
When the catalog is reindexed, some documents appears in FTDATA folder. If I
delete the documents, then they reappear in the next indexing.
I'm thinking about to schedule a batch that cleanup this folder, because I
have the FTDATA in the Quorum drive, with no much free space.
Why this is? How can I avoid it?
qwalgrande
What do you mean by documents? Can you open these documents in Word or
notepad?
These documents will be extracted by the indexing process, but on my non
clustered system they are cleaned up.
Some files will remain which are used my mssearch to track where it is in
the indexing process. You shouldn't touch these files.
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
"qwalgrande" <qwalgrande*nospam*@.yahoo.es> wrote in message
news:6131ACD4-A717-48D6-AC63-4F2FE43B7CA5@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I have a SQL Server 2000 cluster, sp 3 in w2k.
> When the catalog is reindexed, some documents appears in FTDATA folder. If
I
> delete the documents, then they reappear in the next indexing.
> I'm thinking about to schedule a batch that cleanup this folder, because I
> have the FTDATA in the Quorum drive, with no much free space.
> Why this is? How can I avoid it?
> --
> qwalgrande
|||one more point - exactly which subdirectory of ftdata do these files exist
in.
It could be possible that they are eithre configuration files or the actual
index/catalog files themselves.
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
"Hilary Cotter" <hilary.cotter@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:%238ZUxJKoEHA.2340@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> What do you mean by documents? Can you open these documents in Word or
> notepad?
> These documents will be extracted by the indexing process, but on my non
> clustered system they are cleaned up.
> Some files will remain which are used my mssearch to track where it is in
> the indexing process. You shouldn't touch these files.
> --
> Hilary Cotter
> Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
>
> "qwalgrande" <qwalgrande*nospam*@.yahoo.es> wrote in message
> news:6131ACD4-A717-48D6-AC63-4F2FE43B7CA5@.microsoft.com...
If[vbcol=seagreen]
> I
I
>
|||Hello, Hilary.
I will try to explain it better. These "documents" are the documents that I
had inserted in my indexed image column. In the population, the documents
"pass" for the folder and quickly disappear, but a few documents stay in the
folder and don't cleaned up.
The directory is FTDATA, no subdirectories. I have tried in a nonclustered
server too, whit the same result. Could you help me?
Thanks in advanced.
"Hilary Cotter" wrote:
> one more point - exactly which subdirectory of ftdata do these files exist
> in.
> It could be possible that they are eithre configuration files or the actual
> index/catalog files themselves.
> --
> Hilary Cotter
> Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
>
> "Hilary Cotter" <hilary.cotter@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%238ZUxJKoEHA.2340@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> If
> I
>
>
|||qwalgrande,
The behavior you are seeing is by design, except for the document files not
being deleted, I *believe* has be acknowledged as a bug by Microsoft and may
(or may not) be fixed in the next Service Pack (SP4) for SQL Sever 2000.
This issue was discovered about a year ago on this newsgroup and the
non-delete of the files acknowledged as a bug by Microsoft, but alas we were
not provided with an actual bug number for tracking purposes. Hopefully,
this will be addressed in the next Service Pack (SP4) for SQL Sever 2000.
Regards,
John
"qwalgrande" <qwalgrande*nospam*@.yahoo.es> wrote in message
news:054B35B9-15F1-4BDF-A193-D03638EA71CC@.microsoft.com...
> Hello, Hilary.
> I will try to explain it better. These "documents" are the documents that
I
> had inserted in my indexed image column. In the population, the documents
> "pass" for the folder and quickly disappear, but a few documents stay in
the[vbcol=seagreen]
> folder and don't cleaned up.
> The directory is FTDATA, no subdirectories. I have tried in a nonclustered
> server too, whit the same result. Could you help me?
> Thanks in advanced.
> "Hilary Cotter" wrote:
exist[vbcol=seagreen]
actual[vbcol=seagreen]
non[vbcol=seagreen]
in[vbcol=seagreen]
folder.[vbcol=seagreen]
because[vbcol=seagreen]
Do you use the Reporting Services configuration files and if so, how?
Wondering if I could get some feedback from 'you All' on how you use the Reporting Services configuration files.
Specifically, I'm interested in -
1) Have you ever made changes to the configuration files? (Yes/No; if Yes - how often?)
2) What if any operations you commonly do in the files? (list)
3) Do you script or otherwise have automated solutions for updating these files? (Yes/No; if Yes - in what scenarios; if No - did you try to?)
Any other feedback about the configuration files is also welcome.
Thanks,
-Lukasz
Anyone doing this?
-Lukasz
|||1) Yes. Depending on the requirements.
2)
- Changing web.config to use Forms Authentication
- adding encryption keys to share session cookies with other ASP.NET sites
- adding policies for using custom assemblies
- registering custom extensions: Authentication, Authorisation, Data delivery etc...
3) never used any automation, always manual.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)