log backup overwrite: system

Showing posts with label system. Show all posts

Thursday, March 29, 2012

Does SQL server supports Cable Redundancy ?

Does SQL server supports Cable Redundancy. A system having 2 NIC's for LAN
redundancy.
Thanks
AnilG
Hi
As long as both are connected to different segments, yes. That is a windows
limitation.
SQL server will listen on all NICs by default so it does not care. The Os
provides the functionality. The bigger challenge is to get your DNS to
change quick enough otherwise some users will hit the dead IP.
Regards
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Anil Gopu" <AnilGopu@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1682BC47-4E22-4F24-BEAA-2D8C6A771074@.microsoft.com...
> Does SQL server supports Cable Redundancy. A system having 2 NIC's for LAN
> redundancy.
> --
> Thanks
> AnilG
|||Can I know what is meant by different segements. I am basically a VC++
programmer.
Thanks
AnilG
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:

> Hi
> As long as both are connected to different segments, yes. That is a windows
> limitation.
> SQL server will listen on all NICs by default so it does not care. The Os
> provides the functionality. The bigger challenge is to get your DNS to
> change quick enough otherwise some users will hit the dead IP.
> Regards
> --
> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Zurich, Switzerland
> IM: mike@.epprecht.net
> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
> "Anil Gopu" <AnilGopu@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:1682BC47-4E22-4F24-BEAA-2D8C6A771074@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||Hi,
Segments are networks or part of. You might have one segment with a
192.168.1 ip address and the other with 192.168.2 ip address. If you have
two network card in a machine they can be connected to two network segments.
The issue you raised is a Windows issue and depends on how you setup the
cards
kind regards
Greg O
Need to document your databases. Use the first and still the best AGS SQL
Scribe
http://www.ag-software.com
"Anil Gopu" <AnilGopu@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:AE540719-6953-44B3-9DD5-75099EC2D9FB@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Can I know what is meant by different segements. I am basically a VC++
> programmer.
> --
> Thanks
> AnilG
>
> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
|||Cable redundancy is working for Win 2003 server when applied a hotfix as
given in KB : http://support.microsoft.com/default...;en-us;817690.
But we facing the same problem in Win XP SP2. Any clues.
Thanks
AnilG
"GregO" wrote:

> Hi,
> Segments are networks or part of. You might have one segment with a
> 192.168.1 ip address and the other with 192.168.2 ip address. If you have
> two network card in a machine they can be connected to two network segments.
> The issue you raised is a Windows issue and depends on how you setup the
> cards
>
> --
> kind regards
> Greg O
> Need to document your databases. Use the first and still the best AGS SQL
> Scribe
> http://www.ag-software.com
> "Anil Gopu" <AnilGopu@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:AE540719-6953-44B3-9DD5-75099EC2D9FB@.microsoft.com...
>
>

Does SQL server supports Cable Redundancy ?

Does SQL server supports Cable Redundancy. A system having 2 NIC's for LAN
redundancy.
Thanks
AnilGHi
As long as both are connected to different segments, yes. That is a windows
limitation.
SQL server will listen on all NICs by default so it does not care. The Os
provides the functionality. The bigger challenge is to get your DNS to
change quick enough otherwise some users will hit the dead IP.
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Anil Gopu" <AnilGopu@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1682BC47-4E22-4F24-BEAA-2D8C6A771074@.microsoft.com...
> Does SQL server supports Cable Redundancy. A system having 2 NIC's for LAN
> redundancy.
> --
> Thanks
> AnilG|||Can I know what is meant by different segements. I am basically a VC++
programmer.
Thanks
AnilG
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:

> Hi
> As long as both are connected to different segments, yes. That is a window
s
> limitation.
> SQL server will listen on all NICs by default so it does not care. The Os
> provides the functionality. The bigger challenge is to get your DNS to
> change quick enough otherwise some users will hit the dead IP.
> Regards
> --
> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Zurich, Switzerland
> IM: mike@.epprecht.net
> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
> "Anil Gopu" <AnilGopu@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:1682BC47-4E22-4F24-BEAA-2D8C6A771074@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||Hi,
Segments are networks or part of. You might have one segment with a
192.168.1 ip address and the other with 192.168.2 ip address. If you have
two network card in a machine they can be connected to two network segments.
The issue you raised is a Windows issue and depends on how you setup the
cards
kind regards
Greg O
Need to document your databases. Use the first and still the best AGS SQL
Scribe
http://www.ag-software.com
"Anil Gopu" <AnilGopu@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:AE540719-6953-44B3-9DD5-75099EC2D9FB@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Can I know what is meant by different segements. I am basically a VC++
> programmer.
> --
> Thanks
> AnilG
>
> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
>|||Cable redundancy is working for Win 2003 server when applied a hotfix as
given in KB : [url]http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;817690.[/url
]
But we facing the same problem in Win XP SP2. Any clues.
--
Thanks
AnilG
"GregO" wrote:

> Hi,
> Segments are networks or part of. You might have one segment with a
> 192.168.1 ip address and the other with 192.168.2 ip address. If you have
> two network card in a machine they can be connected to two network segment
s.
> The issue you raised is a Windows issue and depends on how you setup the
> cards
>
> --
> kind regards
> Greg O
> Need to document your databases. Use the first and still the best AGS SQL
> Scribe
> http://www.ag-software.com
> "Anil Gopu" <AnilGopu@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:AE540719-6953-44B3-9DD5-75099EC2D9FB@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||I am also having this same problem. How do you get the DNS to change quick
enough, so that the SQL db Admin's don't call me everytime they can not
connect? I have unchecked the "register this connections address in DNS" an
d
it still registers the address in DNS. The server that I am having problems
with is also a DNS server. Any suggestions?
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:

> Hi
> As long as both are connected to different segments, yes. That is a window
s
> limitation.
> SQL server will listen on all NICs by default so it does not care. The Os
> provides the functionality. The bigger challenge is to get your DNS to
> change quick enough otherwise some users will hit the dead IP.
> Regards
> --
> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Zurich, Switzerland
> IM: mike@.epprecht.net
> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
> "Anil Gopu" <AnilGopu@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:1682BC47-4E22-4F24-BEAA-2D8C6A771074@.microsoft.com...
>
>sql

Does SQL server supports Cable Redundancy ?

Does SQL server supports Cable Redundancy. A system having 2 NIC's for LAN
redundancy.
--
Thanks
AnilGHi
As long as both are connected to different segments, yes. That is a windows
limitation.
SQL server will listen on all NICs by default so it does not care. The Os
provides the functionality. The bigger challenge is to get your DNS to
change quick enough otherwise some users will hit the dead IP.
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Anil Gopu" <AnilGopu@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1682BC47-4E22-4F24-BEAA-2D8C6A771074@.microsoft.com...
> Does SQL server supports Cable Redundancy. A system having 2 NIC's for LAN
> redundancy.
> --
> Thanks
> AnilG|||Can I know what is meant by different segements. I am basically a VC++
programmer.
--
Thanks
AnilG
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
> Hi
> As long as both are connected to different segments, yes. That is a windows
> limitation.
> SQL server will listen on all NICs by default so it does not care. The Os
> provides the functionality. The bigger challenge is to get your DNS to
> change quick enough otherwise some users will hit the dead IP.
> Regards
> --
> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Zurich, Switzerland
> IM: mike@.epprecht.net
> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
> "Anil Gopu" <AnilGopu@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:1682BC47-4E22-4F24-BEAA-2D8C6A771074@.microsoft.com...
> > Does SQL server supports Cable Redundancy. A system having 2 NIC's for LAN
> > redundancy.
> >
> > --
> > Thanks
> > AnilG
>
>|||Hi,
Segments are networks or part of. You might have one segment with a
192.168.1 ip address and the other with 192.168.2 ip address. If you have
two network card in a machine they can be connected to two network segments.
The issue you raised is a Windows issue and depends on how you setup the
cards
kind regards
Greg O
Need to document your databases. Use the first and still the best AGS SQL
Scribe
http://www.ag-software.com
"Anil Gopu" <AnilGopu@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:AE540719-6953-44B3-9DD5-75099EC2D9FB@.microsoft.com...
> Can I know what is meant by different segements. I am basically a VC++
> programmer.
> --
> Thanks
> AnilG
>
> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
>> Hi
>> As long as both are connected to different segments, yes. That is a
>> windows
>> limitation.
>> SQL server will listen on all NICs by default so it does not care. The Os
>> provides the functionality. The bigger challenge is to get your DNS to
>> change quick enough otherwise some users will hit the dead IP.
>> Regards
>> --
>> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>> Zurich, Switzerland
>> IM: mike@.epprecht.net
>> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
>> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
>> "Anil Gopu" <AnilGopu@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:1682BC47-4E22-4F24-BEAA-2D8C6A771074@.microsoft.com...
>> > Does SQL server supports Cable Redundancy. A system having 2 NIC's for
>> > LAN
>> > redundancy.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Thanks
>> > AnilG
>>|||Cable redundancy is working for Win 2003 server when applied a hotfix as
given in KB : http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;817690.
But we facing the same problem in Win XP SP2. Any clues.
--
Thanks
AnilG
"GregO" wrote:
> Hi,
> Segments are networks or part of. You might have one segment with a
> 192.168.1 ip address and the other with 192.168.2 ip address. If you have
> two network card in a machine they can be connected to two network segments.
> The issue you raised is a Windows issue and depends on how you setup the
> cards
>
> --
> kind regards
> Greg O
> Need to document your databases. Use the first and still the best AGS SQL
> Scribe
> http://www.ag-software.com
> "Anil Gopu" <AnilGopu@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:AE540719-6953-44B3-9DD5-75099EC2D9FB@.microsoft.com...
> > Can I know what is meant by different segements. I am basically a VC++
> > programmer.
> >
> > --
> > Thanks
> > AnilG
> >
> >
> > "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
> >
> >> Hi
> >>
> >> As long as both are connected to different segments, yes. That is a
> >> windows
> >> limitation.
> >> SQL server will listen on all NICs by default so it does not care. The Os
> >> provides the functionality. The bigger challenge is to get your DNS to
> >> change quick enough otherwise some users will hit the dead IP.
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> --
> >> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> >> Zurich, Switzerland
> >>
> >> IM: mike@.epprecht.net
> >>
> >> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> >>
> >> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
> >>
> >> "Anil Gopu" <AnilGopu@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1682BC47-4E22-4F24-BEAA-2D8C6A771074@.microsoft.com...
> >> > Does SQL server supports Cable Redundancy. A system having 2 NIC's for
> >> > LAN
> >> > redundancy.
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Thanks
> >> > AnilG
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>|||I am also having this same problem. How do you get the DNS to change quick
enough, so that the SQL db Admin's don't call me everytime they can not
connect? I have unchecked the "register this connections address in DNS" and
it still registers the address in DNS. The server that I am having problems
with is also a DNS server. Any suggestions?
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
> Hi
> As long as both are connected to different segments, yes. That is a windows
> limitation.
> SQL server will listen on all NICs by default so it does not care. The Os
> provides the functionality. The bigger challenge is to get your DNS to
> change quick enough otherwise some users will hit the dead IP.
> Regards
> --
> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Zurich, Switzerland
> IM: mike@.epprecht.net
> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
> "Anil Gopu" <AnilGopu@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:1682BC47-4E22-4F24-BEAA-2D8C6A771074@.microsoft.com...
> > Does SQL server supports Cable Redundancy. A system having 2 NIC's for LAN
> > redundancy.
> >
> > --
> > Thanks
> > AnilG
>
>

Monday, March 19, 2012

does not install SQL Query Analyzer

Hi,

I am developing and application in pocket pc windows mobile 2003. I have added a reference to System.Data.SqlServerCe.dll but when i deploy the application query analyzer doesnt seem to install. Any help please?

cheers,

michael

Hi,

Sorry... for info I am using CS VS2005 and SQL Mobile.

Thank you.

michael

|||

Query Analyzer 3.0 should deploy automatically if you are building and deploying a DEBUG build in VS2005 given your reference to System.Data.SqlServerCe.dll version 2.0. You can also just grab the dev tools CAB and install it to your device/emulator to save time. it is located (depending on your device's WinCE kernel) at:

<drive:>\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio 8\SmartDevices\SDK\SQL Server\Mobile\v3.0\wce400\armv4\sqlce30.dev.ENU.ppc.wce4.armv4.CAB

C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio 8\SmartDevices\SDK\SQL Server\Mobile\v3.0\wce500\<device CPU architecture>\

Darren

Does not allow remote connections

I have installed SQL Server 2005 Std on an XP system for development using VS 2005. When I try to
connect to the DB via Server Management Studio, I get the message that "... does not allow remote
connections".
When I launch Surface Area Configuration and select the Surface Area Configuration for Services and
Connections, I see only 4 services listed: Analysis, Reporting, Integration and SQL Server Browser.
There is no Database Engine Service listed!
Have I installed incorrectly?
TIA LarsHello,
Please check if the following folder exist:
%programfiles%\Microsoft sql server\mssql.1\mssql\data
If it does not exist, it seems the database engine is not installed, you
may want to go to Add/Remove program to install this component.
Best Regards,
Peter Yang
MCSE2000/2003, MCSA, MCDBA
Microsoft Online Partner Support
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
=====================================================
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
>NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 01:47:30 -0600
>From: larzeb <larzeb@.community.nospam>
>Newsgroups: microsoft.public.sqlserver.server
>Subject: Does not allow remote connections
>Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 23:47:23 -0800
>Message-ID: <oeb212ljn7hj2gqd0b795dkcd0mqv6qf3h@.4ax.com>
>X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 3.1/32.783
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Lines: 11
>X-Trace:
sv3-PjJxXeuzs9DydzPoFbzAokDHiY6O/KXDzjV8O7hEwxj/ljIdWbzP3wItPsTOueQ5nFw/SN8L
okMLvDY!lpKWpYf6RQBHuNvVXmwxsNoiCv3bMHVGU73LWN6CN48tFv9p/w4z0jbRyZAA6ZBcpvbv
WXA=>X-Complaints-To: abuse@.giganews.com
>X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
>X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
>X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your
complaint properly
>X-Postfilter: 1.3.32
>Path:
TK2MSFTNGXA03.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP08.phx.gbl!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-onli
ne.de!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.gigan
ews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
>Xref: TK2MSFTNGXA03.phx.gbl microsoft.public.sqlserver.server:423971
>X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.sqlserver.server
>I have installed SQL Server 2005 Std on an XP system for development using
VS 2005. When I try to
>connect to the DB via Server Management Studio, I get the message that
"... does not allow remote
>connections".
>When I launch Surface Area Configuration and select the Surface Area
Configuration for Services and
>Connections, I see only 4 services listed: Analysis, Reporting,
Integration and SQL Server Browser.
>There is no Database Engine Service listed!
>Have I installed incorrectly?
>TIA Lars
>

Does not allow remote connections

I have installed SQL Server 2005 Std on an XP system for development using VS 2005. When I try to
connect to the DB via Server Management Studio, I get the message that "... does not allow remote
connections".
When I launch Surface Area Configuration and select the Surface Area Configuration for Services and
Connections, I see only 4 services listed: Analysis, Reporting, Integration and SQL Server Browser.
There is no Database Engine Service listed!
Have I installed incorrectly?
TIA Lars
Hello,
Please check if the following folder exist:
%programfiles%\Microsoft sql server\mssql.1\mssql\data
If it does not exist, it seems the database engine is not installed, you
may want to go to Add/Remove program to install this component.
Best Regards,
Peter Yang
MCSE2000/2003, MCSA, MCDBA
Microsoft Online Partner Support
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
================================================== ===
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
--
>NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 01:47:30 -0600
>From: larzeb <larzeb@.community.nospam>
>Newsgroups: microsoft.public.sqlserver.server
>Subject: Does not allow remote connections
>Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 23:47:23 -0800
>Message-ID: <oeb212ljn7hj2gqd0b795dkcd0mqv6qf3h@.4ax.com>
>X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 3.1/32.783
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Lines: 11
>X-Trace:
sv3-PjJxXeuzs9DydzPoFbzAokDHiY6O/KXDzjV8O7hEwxj/ljIdWbzP3wItPsTOueQ5nFw/SN8L
okMLvDY!lpKWpYf6RQBHuNvVXmwxsNoiCv3bMHVGU73LWN6CN4 8tFv9p/w4z0jbRyZAA6ZBcpvbv
WXA=
>X-Complaints-To: abuse@.giganews.com
>X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
>X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
>X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your
complaint properly
>X-Postfilter: 1.3.32
>Path:
TK2MSFTNGXA03.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP08.phx.gbl!newsfee d00.sul.t-online.de!t-onli
ne.de!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.d ca.giganews.com!nntp.gigan
ews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!news.giganew s.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
>Xref: TK2MSFTNGXA03.phx.gbl microsoft.public.sqlserver.server:423971
>X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.sqlserver.server
>I have installed SQL Server 2005 Std on an XP system for development using
VS 2005. When I try to
>connect to the DB via Server Management Studio, I get the message that
"... does not allow remote
>connections".
>When I launch Surface Area Configuration and select the Surface Area
Configuration for Services and
>Connections, I see only 4 services listed: Analysis, Reporting,
Integration and SQL Server Browser.
>There is no Database Engine Service listed!
>Have I installed incorrectly?
>TIA Lars
>

Does not allow remote connections

I have installed SQL Server 2005 Std on an XP system for development using V
S 2005. When I try to
connect to the DB via Server Management Studio, I get the message that "...
does not allow remote
connections".
When I launch Surface Area Configuration and select the Surface Area Configu
ration for Services and
Connections, I see only 4 services listed: Analysis, Reporting, Integration
and SQL Server Browser.
There is no Database Engine Service listed!
Have I installed incorrectly?
TIA LarsHello,
Please check if the following folder exist:
%programfiles%\Microsoft sql server\mssql.1\mssql\data
If it does not exist, it seems the database engine is not installed, you
may want to go to Add/Remove program to install this component.
Best Regards,
Peter Yang
MCSE2000/2003, MCSA, MCDBA
Microsoft Online Partner Support
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
========================================
=============
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
--
>NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 01:47:30 -0600
>From: larzeb <larzeb@.community.nospam>
>Newsgroups: microsoft.public.sqlserver.server
>Subject: Does not allow remote connections
>Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 23:47:23 -0800
>Message-ID: <oeb212ljn7hj2gqd0b795dkcd0mqv6qf3h@.4ax.com>
>X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 3.1/32.783
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Lines: 11
>X-Trace:
sv3-PjJxXeuzs9DydzPoFbzAokDHiY6O/KXDzjV8O7hEwxj/ljIdWbzP3wItPsTOueQ5nFw/SN8L
okMLvDY!lpKWpYf6RQBHuNvVXmwxsNoiCv3bMHVG
U73LWN6CN48tFv9p/w4z0jbRyZAA6ZBcpvbv
WXA=
>X-Complaints-To: abuse@.giganews.com
>X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
>X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
>X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your
complaint properly
>X-Postfilter: 1.3.32
>Path:
TK2MSFTNGXA03.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP08.phx.gbl!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-onli
ne.de!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.gigan
ews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
>Xref: TK2MSFTNGXA03.phx.gbl microsoft.public.sqlserver.server:423971
>X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.sqlserver.server
>I have installed SQL Server 2005 Std on an XP system for development using
VS 2005. When I try to
>connect to the DB via Server Management Studio, I get the message that
"... does not allow remote
>connections".
>When I launch Surface Area Configuration and select the Surface Area
Configuration for Services and
>Connections, I see only 4 services listed: Analysis, Reporting,
Integration and SQL Server Browser.
>There is no Database Engine Service listed!
>Have I installed incorrectly?
>TIA Lars
>

Friday, March 9, 2012

Does displaying the estimated execution plan change anything?

Generally I would think that having a query in query analyzer and displaying
the estimated execution plan would not change anything in the system but ran
across an interesting problem today that makes me think otherwise.
On SQL Server 2000 sp3a, I have a table with 300,000 rows in it. The table
is basically a bulk insert from the SQL Error logs with an Identity column
for the primary key and int colums added for flaging error records and such.
A SQL job calls a store procedure that truncates the table and reloads it.
After that it does an update table set errorflag = 1 where logtext like
'%error%'
I found the job in an executing state for several days and investigated.
The wait time was 0, there was no blocking, and the cpu was increasing. I
killed the job and started manually trouble shooting.
The execution or just generating the estimated plan for the update statement
would never return. I cut the update statement down to just update table
set errorflag = 1 and got the same hung state. I could do selects on the
table. Next I displayed an estimated plan for update table set errorflag = 1 where pk < 20000. The returned immediately. After that everything
worked. I could display plans and run updates. So something in the system
changed.
Any ideas what?
DannyWild guess: Perhaps statistics were updated and/or created when you looked at the plan, so the
following query had a better plan?
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Danny" <nomailbox@.nowhere.com> wrote in message news:Lg2ig.18341$9c7.5231@.trnddc06...
> Generally I would think that having a query in query analyzer and displaying the estimated
> execution plan would not change anything in the system but ran across an interesting problem today
> that makes me think otherwise.
> On SQL Server 2000 sp3a, I have a table with 300,000 rows in it. The table is basically a bulk
> insert from the SQL Error logs with an Identity column for the primary key and int colums added
> for flaging error records and such.
> A SQL job calls a store procedure that truncates the table and reloads it. After that it does an
> update table set errorflag = 1 where logtext like '%error%'
> I found the job in an executing state for several days and investigated. The wait time was 0,
> there was no blocking, and the cpu was increasing. I killed the job and started manually trouble
> shooting.
> The execution or just generating the estimated plan for the update statement would never return.
> I cut the update statement down to just update table set errorflag = 1 and got the same hung
> state. I could do selects on the table. Next I displayed an estimated plan for update table set
> errorflag = 1 where pk < 20000. The returned immediately. After that everything worked. I could
> display plans and run updates. So something in the system changed.
> Any ideas what?
> Danny
>

Does displaying the estimated execution plan change anything?

Generally I would think that having a query in query analyzer and displaying
the estimated execution plan would not change anything in the system but ran
across an interesting problem today that makes me think otherwise.
On SQL Server 2000 sp3a, I have a table with 300,000 rows in it. The table
is basically a bulk insert from the SQL Error logs with an Identity column
for the primary key and int colums added for flaging error records and such.
A SQL job calls a store procedure that truncates the table and reloads it.
After that it does an update table set errorflag = 1 where logtext like
'%error%'
I found the job in an executing state for several days and investigated.
The wait time was 0, there was no blocking, and the cpu was increasing. I
killed the job and started manually trouble shooting.
The execution or just generating the estimated plan for the update statement
would never return. I cut the update statement down to just update table
set errorflag = 1 and got the same hung state. I could do selects on the
table. Next I displayed an estimated plan for update table set errorflag =
1 where pk < 20000. The returned immediately. After that everything
worked. I could display plans and run updates. So something in the system
changed.
Any ideas what?
DannyWild guess: Perhaps statistics were updated and/or created when you looked a
t the plan, so the
following query had a better plan?
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Danny" <nomailbox@.nowhere.com> wrote in message news:Lg2ig.18341$9c7.5231@.trnddc06...[vbcol
=seagreen]
> Generally I would think that having a query in query analyzer and displayi
ng the estimated
> execution plan would not change anything in the system but ran across an i
nteresting problem today
> that makes me think otherwise.
> On SQL Server 2000 sp3a, I have a table with 300,000 rows in it. The tabl
e is basically a bulk
> insert from the SQL Error logs with an Identity column for the primary key
and int colums added
> for flaging error records and such.
> A SQL job calls a store procedure that truncates the table and reloads it.
After that it does an
> update table set errorflag = 1 where logtext like '%error%'
> I found the job in an executing state for several days and investigated. T
he wait time was 0,
> there was no blocking, and the cpu was increasing. I killed the job and s
tarted manually trouble
> shooting.
> The execution or just generating the estimated plan for the update stateme
nt would never return.
> I cut the update statement down to just update table set errorflag = 1 and
got the same hung
> state. I could do selects on the table. Next I displayed an estimated pl
an for update table set
> errorflag = 1 where pk < 20000. The returned immediately. After that eve
rything worked. I could
> display plans and run updates. So something in the system changed.
> Any ideas what?
> Danny
>[/vbcol]

Friday, February 24, 2012

does "with (nolock)" absolutely guarantee no locks are taken?

I need to run a few short-running queries against a production system. I need to be absolutely certain that SS doesn't take out any locks on the table as a result.

Does "with (nolock)" absolutely guarantee this? I've read BOL on the topic and I understand isolation level read-uncommitted. But I want to validate that there's not any undocumented behavior in SS that might violate the documentation (which clearly states that no shared locks are issued).

Thanks!

You're talking two different things.

with (nolock) is a HINT. That means there is a possibility that SS will override it.

SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL is a command. AFAIK, SS won't override this.

|||SQL Server honors the read uncommitted hint. It is however possible that you might get some error due to the dirty read behavior. The transaction isolation level is recommended if you do not want to specify hint on every table that you query and it is for the session. You can also set it in the tools option so it is always automatic. Note that this does affect behavior of any query since you will be reading uncommitted data i.e., perform dirty reads. In SQL Server 2005, you can use the READ COMMITTED SNAPSHOT option at the database level or the new snapshot isoaltion level which uses versioning mechanism to provide consistent view of data without taking locks.|||

The answer I am about to give is not likely to be pertinent to your question since you state short running, but just in case since you were so adament about NO LOCKS :) There is one tiny exception to the nolock/read uncommitted isolation level, in that it does take a shared schema lock so other users cannot drop/alter the table while your query is running. in 2005, run this:

create table testLocks
(
testLockId int,
bigValue char(8000) default (replicate('*',8000))
)

insert into testLocks(testLockId)
select 1
go 1000

set transaction isolation level read uncommitted
select * from testLocks
cross join testLocks as t2
-

Then on another connection run this (that query will return 1000000 16KB rows, so it will take a while :)

select login_name,
case des.transaction_isolation_level
when 0 then 'Unspecified' when 1 then 'ReadUncomitted'
when 2 then 'ReadCommitted' when 3 then 'Repeatable'
when 4 then 'Serializable' when 5 then 'Snapshot'
end as transaction_isolation_level,
request_session_id, resource_type, resource_subtype, request_mode,
request_type, request_status, request_owner_type,
case when resource_type = 'object' then object_name(resource_associated_entity_id)
when resource_type = 'database' then db_name(resource_associated_entity_id)
when resource_type in ('key','page') then
(select object_name(object_id) from sys.partitions
where hobt_id = resource_associated_entity_id)
else cast(resource_associated_entity_id as varchar(20))
end
from sys.dm_tran_locks dtl
left outer join sys.dm_exec_sessions des
on dtl.request_session_id = des.session_id
where request_session_id <> @.@.spid

On my 3Ghz, 512 MB machine running Express Edition (on a Media Center PC) I got two rows, one of which was the shared schema lock, the other was a bulk operation lock, likely in Tempdb trying to build these rows. Unless you are dropping and creating rows, this is unlikely to be a concern.

|||If you perform insert/update in a transaction that has isolation level READ UNCOMMITTED it will anyhow acquire X locks. I suppose your short transaction are read-only though.|||We all kind of forgot about that one huh? Good point :)|||

thanks everyone for your very helpful information.

|||sorry I should have mentioned that I'm only running queries

does "with (nolock)" absolutely guarantee no locks are taken?

I need to run a few short-running queries against a production system. I need to be absolutely certain that SS doesn't take out any locks on the table as a result.

Thanks!

You're talking two different things.

with (nolock) is a HINT. That means there is a possibility that SS will override it.

SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL is a command. AFAIK, SS won't override this.

create table testLocks
(
testLockId int,
bigValue char(8000) default (replicate('*',8000))
)

insert into testLocks(testLockId)
select 1
go 1000

set transaction isolation level read uncommitted
select * from testLocks
cross join testLocks as t2
-

Then on another connection run this (that query will return 1000000 16KB rows, so it will take a while :)

thanks everyone for your very helpful information.

|||sorry I should have mentioned that I'm only running queries

Friday, February 17, 2012

Document Search for CMS

I have a database which stores documents (e.g. policies and guidelines)
in our content management system. The follow relationships exist:

Documents (1-to-Many) LinkTableKeywordLink (Many-to-1) Keywords

Documents (1-to-Many) LinkTableAttachments (Many-to-1) Attachments

Documents (1-to-Many) LookUpSubjects

Documents (1-to-Many) LookUpDocType

When the user conducts a search I want the SQL to check if the string
they enter is present in:

* the Title, Author, Summary fields of Documents OR
* the Title or Path of the Attachments
* the Keywords that are links OR
* the Subject that is linked OR
* the DocType that is linked.

Is this possible in one SQL query. I have tried the following:

SELECT DISTINCT Documents.Document, Documents.Title,Priority

FROM Documents,
Attachments,Keywords,LinkTableAttachments,LinkTabl eKeywordLink

WHERE
((Documents.Document=LinkTableAttachments.Document ID and
LinkTableAttachments.AttachmentID=Attachments.Id) OR
(Documents.Document=LinkTableKeywordLink.DocumentI D and
LinkTableKeywordLink.KeywordID=Keywords.Id))

AND (Documents.Title Like '%SEARCHSTRING%' OR Documents.Author Like
'%SEARCHSTRING%' OR Documents.Summary Like '%SEARCHSTRING%' OR
Keywords.Keyword Like '%SEARCHSTRING%' OR DocType.DocType Like
'%SEARCHSTRING%' OR Attachments.AttachmentTitle Like '%SEARCHSTRING%'
OR Attachments.Path like '%SEARCHSTRING%' or Subjects.Subject Like
'%SEARCHSTRING%')

AND StartDate<=getDate() and ReviewDate>getDate() order by Title

but this causes, perhaps understandably, a timeout error.

Any thoughts?

Thanks!
Steve(StevePBurgess@.gmail.com) writes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by

Is this possible in one SQL query. I have tried the following:
>
SELECT DISTINCT Documents.Document, Documents.Title,Priority
>
FROM Documents,
Attachments,Keywords,LinkTableAttachments,LinkTabl eKeywordLink
>
WHERE
((Documents.Document=LinkTableAttachments.Document ID and
LinkTableAttachments.AttachmentID=Attachments.Id) OR
(Documents.Document=LinkTableKeywordLink.DocumentI D and
LinkTableKeywordLink.KeywordID=Keywords.Id))
>
AND (Documents.Title Like '%SEARCHSTRING%' OR Documents.Author Like
'%SEARCHSTRING%' OR Documents.Summary Like '%SEARCHSTRING%' OR
Keywords.Keyword Like '%SEARCHSTRING%' OR DocType.DocType Like
'%SEARCHSTRING%' OR Attachments.AttachmentTitle Like '%SEARCHSTRING%'
OR Attachments.Path like '%SEARCHSTRING%' or Subjects.Subject Like
'%SEARCHSTRING%')
>
AND StartDate<=getDate() and ReviewDate>getDate() order by Title
>
>
but this causes, perhaps understandably, a timeout error.

The most crucial is probably the date conditions. This is a difficult
one there are two dates. But a start at least is make sure that the
query is parameterised, so the last line:

AND StartDate <= @.now and ReviewDate @.now order by Title

And with parameter I don't mean that you do "SELECT @.now = getdate()"
just before the query. You need it to pass @.now as a parameter to a
stored procedure or a parameterised query. Then the optimzer will
look at the value to determine how selective an index might be and
use it. If you use an unknown value, the optimizer will assume that 30%
of the rows will match, which is far too many,

If the search columns should are indexed, you should distinguish between
"starts with" and "contains" for the indexes to be useful. That is, only
include % first the search string, if the user actually wants "conatins",
because indexes are only good for starting values.

Adjust the application to have no timeout (= 0) or a very long timeout,
because in some cases the user may need to do searches that take a very long
time.

Finally, drop the DISTINCT, and use the EXISTS predicate to get from
the subtables. That is more efficient,since there no need to sort
the result to weed out the duplicates.

--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se
Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...oads/books.mspx
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodin...ions/books.mspx|||Hi - and thanks for the feedback.

If I run the query with against just one of the 1-many-many-1 table
relationships it works perfectly. The issue, I think, is having two
OR-ed together. When running against one set (e.g. just keywords and
not attachments) the search is very quick.

Best wishes,
Steve

Erland Sommarskog wrote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by

>
The most crucial is probably the date conditions. This is a difficult
one there are two dates. But a start at least is make sure that the
query is parameterised, so the last line:
>
AND StartDate <= @.now and ReviewDate @.now order by Title
>
And with parameter I don't mean that you do "SELECT @.now = getdate()"
just before the query. You need it to pass @.now as a parameter to a
stored procedure or a parameterised query. Then the optimzer will
look at the value to determine how selective an index might be and
use it. If you use an unknown value, the optimizer will assume that 30%
of the rows will match, which is far too many,
>
>
If the search columns should are indexed, you should distinguish between
"starts with" and "contains" for the indexes to be useful. That is, only
include % first the search string, if the user actually wants "conatins",
because indexes are only good for starting values.
>
Adjust the application to have no timeout (= 0) or a very long timeout,
because in some cases the user may need to do searches that take a very long
time.
>
Finally, drop the DISTINCT, and use the EXISTS predicate to get from
the subtables. That is more efficient,since there no need to sort
the result to weed out the duplicates.
>
>
--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se
>
Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...oads/books.mspx
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodin...ions/books.mspx

|||(StevePBurgess@.gmail.com) writes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by

Hi - and thanks for the feedback.
>
If I run the query with against just one of the 1-many-many-1 table
relationships it works perfectly. The issue, I think, is having two
OR-ed together. When running against one set (e.g. just keywords and
not attachments) the search is very quick.

The more tables you throw into the mix, the more tables there are to search.

If you want me or anyone else to say somehting more useful, we would need to
see:

o CREATE TABLE and INDEX statements for the tables.
o The fast query (and repeat the slow while you are it).
o The output from SET STATISTICS PROFILE ON when you run the two from
a query tool. This output is very wide, so put in an attachment if
possible.
o Which version of SQL Server you are running.

Quote:

Originally Posted by

If you want me or anyone else to say somehting more useful, we would need to
see:
>
o CREATE TABLE and INDEX statements for the tables.
o The fast query (and repeat the slow while you are it).
o The output from SET STATISTICS PROFILE ON when you run the two from
a query tool. This output is very wide, so put in an attachment if
possible.
o Which version of SQL Server you are running.
>

Hi. Thanks. The question was really about whether the SQL is valid
(given the relationships that are defined) and/or whether it could be
written more efficiently.

Document Management - SQL Server 2005

I am researching a server for ProSystem fx Document Management.
System requirements break down the servers 40+ GB drive like this:
c:\ system = 10 GB
d:\ log files = 10 GB
e:\SQL DB = 15 GB
Would c, d and e be one RAID 5 array?
This is my first SQL server, so I'm learning as I go forward.
Thank you for your thoughts!First off 40GB is pretty small these days and doesn't go very far. It's hard
to say what you need without a lot more info. How much and what kind of
activity do you expect? Is it mostly reads or a lot of writes as well? You
generally want to separate your log files from your data files if you have
lots of writes or the transactions are large. But placing them all one
physical Raid drive and separating them into smaller logical drives does
nothing for performance and limits what can fit in any single partition.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Gene" <Gene@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1CCE910E-6419-472C-AA98-00B249AF4579@.microsoft.com...
>I am researching a server for ProSystem fx Document Management.
> System requirements break down the servers 40+ GB drive like this:
> c:\ system = 10 GB
> d:\ log files = 10 GB
> e:\SQL DB = 15 GB
> Would c, d and e be one RAID 5 array?
> This is my first SQL server, so I'm learning as I go forward.
> Thank you for your thoughts!
>
>
>|||Thank you, Andrew,
I really suspected that would be the case. The drive sizes I mentioned were
the minimum recommended sizes for the specific document management program
I'm researching.
Just as a hypothetical, would it be appropriate to mirror the system drive
and put the log and SQL drives each on three or more drives using RAID 5?
In other words:
c:\ system - mirrored (pagefile.sys here, as well)
d:\ log - RAID 5 (three drives+)
e:\ SQL DB - RAID 5 (three drives+)
Or is there a better approach? Obviously, I've never configured a SQL server
before but do want good performance... I'm not sure if I can answer your
read/write question at this point. Let's say 50/50.
I appreciate any direction you can offer.
"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
> First off 40GB is pretty small these days and doesn't go very far. It's hard
> to say what you need without a lot more info. How much and what kind of
> activity do you expect? Is it mostly reads or a lot of writes as well? You
> generally want to separate your log files from your data files if you have
> lots of writes or the transactions are large. But placing them all one
> physical Raid drive and separating them into smaller logical drives does
> nothing for performance and limits what can fit in any single partition.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> "Gene" <Gene@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:1CCE910E-6419-472C-AA98-00B249AF4579@.microsoft.com...
> >I am researching a server for ProSystem fx Document Management.
> >
> > System requirements break down the servers 40+ GB drive like this:
> >
> > c:\ system = 10 GB
> > d:\ log files = 10 GB
> > e:\SQL DB = 15 GB
> >
> > Would c, d and e be one RAID 5 array?
> >
> > This is my first SQL server, so I'm learning as I go forward.
> >
> > Thank you for your thoughts!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>|||RAID 5 has a sever penalty for writes and as such is the worst to put Log
files on. Raid 1 or 10 is great for log files. What you go with really
depends a lot on what you are going to do. 50 / 50 is a lot of writes in
relation to reads but if you only do 5 transactions a second it doesn't
matter as much as if it were 500 or 5000 a second. I would go with a Raid 1
for the OS / Swap file and a Raid 1 for the Logs. Then either a 4 disk Raid
5 or a 4 disk Raid 10 if your controller supports it. A Raid 10 will usually
outperform a comparable Raid 5 for heavy write operations.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Gene" <Gene@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8ED269A3-AAF6-4712-85D6-15A5B62C5DCB@.microsoft.com...
> Thank you, Andrew,
> I really suspected that would be the case. The drive sizes I mentioned
> were
> the minimum recommended sizes for the specific document management program
> I'm researching.
> Just as a hypothetical, would it be appropriate to mirror the system drive
> and put the log and SQL drives each on three or more drives using RAID 5?
> In other words:
> c:\ system - mirrored (pagefile.sys here, as well)
> d:\ log - RAID 5 (three drives+)
> e:\ SQL DB - RAID 5 (three drives+)
> Or is there a better approach? Obviously, I've never configured a SQL
> server
> before but do want good performance... I'm not sure if I can answer your
> read/write question at this point. Let's say 50/50.
> I appreciate any direction you can offer.
>
> "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
>> First off 40GB is pretty small these days and doesn't go very far. It's
>> hard
>> to say what you need without a lot more info. How much and what kind of
>> activity do you expect? Is it mostly reads or a lot of writes as well?
>> You
>> generally want to separate your log files from your data files if you
>> have
>> lots of writes or the transactions are large. But placing them all one
>> physical Raid drive and separating them into smaller logical drives does
>> nothing for performance and limits what can fit in any single partition.
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>> "Gene" <Gene@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:1CCE910E-6419-472C-AA98-00B249AF4579@.microsoft.com...
>> >I am researching a server for ProSystem fx Document Management.
>> >
>> > System requirements break down the servers 40+ GB drive like this:
>> >
>> > c:\ system = 10 GB
>> > d:\ log files = 10 GB
>> > e:\SQL DB = 15 GB
>> >
>> > Would c, d and e be one RAID 5 array?
>> >
>> > This is my first SQL server, so I'm learning as I go forward.
>> >
>> > Thank you for your thoughts!
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>|||Thanks a bunch Andrew. That's very helpful and exactly what I need to know.
"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
> RAID 5 has a sever penalty for writes and as such is the worst to put Log
> files on. Raid 1 or 10 is great for log files. What you go with really
> depends a lot on what you are going to do. 50 / 50 is a lot of writes in
> relation to reads but if you only do 5 transactions a second it doesn't
> matter as much as if it were 500 or 5000 a second. I would go with a Raid 1
> for the OS / Swap file and a Raid 1 for the Logs. Then either a 4 disk Raid
> 5 or a 4 disk Raid 10 if your controller supports it. A Raid 10 will usually
> outperform a comparable Raid 5 for heavy write operations.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> "Gene" <Gene@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:8ED269A3-AAF6-4712-85D6-15A5B62C5DCB@.microsoft.com...
> > Thank you, Andrew,
> >
> > I really suspected that would be the case. The drive sizes I mentioned
> > were
> > the minimum recommended sizes for the specific document management program
> > I'm researching.
> >
> > Just as a hypothetical, would it be appropriate to mirror the system drive
> > and put the log and SQL drives each on three or more drives using RAID 5?
> >
> > In other words:
> >
> > c:\ system - mirrored (pagefile.sys here, as well)
> > d:\ log - RAID 5 (three drives+)
> > e:\ SQL DB - RAID 5 (three drives+)
> >
> > Or is there a better approach? Obviously, I've never configured a SQL
> > server
> > before but do want good performance... I'm not sure if I can answer your
> > read/write question at this point. Let's say 50/50.
> >
> > I appreciate any direction you can offer.
> >
> >
> >
> > "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
> >
> >> First off 40GB is pretty small these days and doesn't go very far. It's
> >> hard
> >> to say what you need without a lot more info. How much and what kind of
> >> activity do you expect? Is it mostly reads or a lot of writes as well?
> >> You
> >> generally want to separate your log files from your data files if you
> >> have
> >> lots of writes or the transactions are large. But placing them all one
> >> physical Raid drive and separating them into smaller logical drives does
> >> nothing for performance and limits what can fit in any single partition.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> >>
> >> "Gene" <Gene@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1CCE910E-6419-472C-AA98-00B249AF4579@.microsoft.com...
> >> >I am researching a server for ProSystem fx Document Management.
> >> >
> >> > System requirements break down the servers 40+ GB drive like this:
> >> >
> >> > c:\ system = 10 GB
> >> > d:\ log files = 10 GB
> >> > e:\SQL DB = 15 GB
> >> >
> >> > Would c, d and e be one RAID 5 array?
> >> >
> >> > This is my first SQL server, so I'm learning as I go forward.
> >> >
> >> > Thank you for your thoughts!
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>

Document Management - SQL Server 2005

Tuesday, February 14, 2012

Do you see this problem ?

using System;
using System.Data;
using System.Configuration;
using System.Web;
using System.Web.Security;
using System.Web.UI;
using System.Web.UI.WebControls;
using System.Web.UI.WebControls.WebParts;
using System.Web.UI.HtmlControls;
using System.Data.SqlClient;

public partial class _Default : System.Web.UI.Page
{
private string _connectionString = ConfigurationSettings.AppSettings["ConnectionString"];

protected void Page_Load(object sender, System.EventArgs e)
{
if (!(Page.IsPostBack))
GetData();
}

#region Web Form Designer generated code
override protected void OnInit(EventArgs e)
{
//
// CODEGEN: This call is required by the ASP.NET Web Form Designer.
//
InitializeComponent();
base.OnInit(e);
}

///
/// Required method for Designer support - do not modify
/// the contents of this method with the code editor.
///
private void InitializeComponent()
{

}
#endregion

private void GetData()
{
SqlConnection connection = null;
SqlCommand command = null;
SqlDataReader reader = null;
SqlParameter parameter = null;

try
{
connection = new SqlConnection(_connectionString);
connection.Open();
command = new SqlCommand("select * from nametable where id = @.id", connection);
parameter = new SqlParameter("@.id", SqlDbType.Int);
parameter.Value = 1;
command.Parameters.Add(parameter);
reader = command.ExecuteReader(CommandBehavior.CloseConnection);

if (reader.HasRows)
{
reader.Read();

nameTextBox.Text = Convert.ToString(reader["name"]);
}
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
// throw;
}
finally
{
if (reader != null)
((IDisposable)reader).Dispose();

if (connection != null)
{
if (connection.State == ConnectionState.Open)
connection.Close();

connection.Dispose();
}
}
}

private void UpdateData()
{
SqlConnection connection = null;
SqlCommand command = null;
SqlParameter parameter = null;

try
{
connection = new SqlConnection(_connectionString);
connection.Open();
command = new SqlCommand("update nametable set Name.name = @.Name where id = @.id", connection);
parameter = new SqlParameter("@.Name", SqlDbType.VarChar);
parameter.Value = nameTextBox.Text;
command.Parameters.Add(parameter);
parameter = new SqlParameter("@.id", SqlDbType.Int);
parameter.Value = 1;
command.Parameters.Add(parameter);

command.ExecuteNonQuery();
}
catch (Exception ex)
{

finally
{
if (connection != null)
{
if (connection.State == ConnectionState.Open)
connection.Close();

connection.Dispose();
}
}

protected void TextBox1_TextChanged(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
Label1.Text = nameTextBox.Text;
}
protected void updateButton_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
UpdateData();
}
}

*** i keep getting this stupid message : Error1} expected *** pls help as i cant see where this needs to go..

your catch block in the UpdateData method has an unclosed open bracket.

Thursday, March 29, 2012

Does SQL server supports Cable Redundancy ?

Does SQL server supports Cable Redundancy ?

Does SQL server supports Cable Redundancy ?

Monday, March 19, 2012

does not install SQL Query Analyzer

Does not allow remote connections

Does not allow remote connections

Does not allow remote connections

Friday, March 9, 2012

Does displaying the estimated execution plan change anything?

Does displaying the estimated execution plan change anything?

Friday, February 24, 2012

does "with (nolock)" absolutely guarantee no locks are taken?

does "with (nolock)" absolutely guarantee no locks are taken?

Friday, February 17, 2012

Document Search for CMS

Document Management - SQL Server 2005

Document Management - SQL Server 2005

Tuesday, February 14, 2012

Do you see this problem ?

log backup overwrite

Blog Archive

About Me