3 GB switch boot.ini

Hello all,
Looking for opinions on setting the 3GB switch in the
boot.ini for a server running WIN2k Standard sp3
with SQL Server 2000 EE sp3a.
There is 3 GB of physical RAM.
TIA,
JoeGo ahead, there is no down side.
--
Hal Berenson, SQL Server MVP
True Mountain Group LLC
"Joe" <Joe.Hellsten@.valero.com> wrote in message
news:03c601c361db$fbd37fe0$a501280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hello all,
> Looking for opinions on setting the 3GB switch in the
> boot.ini for a server running WIN2k Standard sp3
> with SQL Server 2000 EE sp3a.
> There is 3 GB of physical RAM.
>
> TIA,
> Joe

3 Active and 1 Passive Node Cluster in Windows 2003 Server with SQL 2000 SP4

We are looking at setting up the following cluster:
3 Active nodes:
Each server needs to be completely distinct with its own unique
database and its own virtual server and ip. These nodes do not share
the same storage with the other active nodes. Active nodes must only
process for their own db's on the server itself
1 Passive node:
Common backup node for all the active nodes. Cluster service must be
able to transfer the disk ownership from the failed active node to this
one.
Is this possible with Windows 2003 and SQL Server SP4? I'm a little
concerned due to the way you need to apply sp4 to a SQL cluster.
Any advice would be much appreciated
Bill
You are close but are missing some key concepts with SQL clustering. There
are two distinct components involved, nodes and instances. Nodes are the
physical machines that comprise the cluster. Instances are the virtual SQL
servers. A node can host zero or more instances. If you set up a four node
cluster, you can park an instance on each of the three nodes with the fourth
node designated as the first failover node for each instance. As far as the
cluster is concerned, all host nodes are equal so you can allocate the
instances amongst the nodes as you see fit. From the client perspective,
all interaction is with the virtual server (instance) so you don't care
where the instance is actually hosted.
As for storage, you need a storage mechanism that is accessable to all
nodes, typicaly a SAN. The cluster service arbitrates ownership between the
specific nodes so all the resources necessary for any single instance to
function are always together on a single host node. The instance IP address
is one of the unique resources within the virtual server resource group.
As with all service packs, SP4 is cluster-aware, so that if you run the
installer from the node currently hosting an instance, it upgrades the local
binaries on all nodes for that particular instance. You will have to run
the Service Pack separately for each instance, however it is perfectly fine
to run instances at different SP and hotfix levels within a cluster.
FYI, I have built and managed a four-node, three instance cluster like you
have described, up through SP3a + hotfix 9?. I haven't tried SP4 yet but I
don't see any particular problems except for the already resolved AWE issue.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
<bcrenshaw99@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1124814061.497589.15020@.g49g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
> We are looking at setting up the following cluster:
> 3 Active nodes:
> Each server needs to be completely distinct with its own unique
> database and its own virtual server and ip. These nodes do not share
> the same storage with the other active nodes. Active nodes must only
> process for their own db's on the server itself
> 1 Passive node:
> Common backup node for all the active nodes. Cluster service must be
> able to transfer the disk ownership from the failed active node to this
> one.
>
> Is this possible with Windows 2003 and SQL Server SP4? I'm a little
> concerned due to the way you need to apply sp4 to a SQL cluster.
> Any advice would be much appreciated
> Bill
>
|||Sorry, I meant to ask if 3 separate clusters could share a common node?
Node: SQLSRV1
Cluster: SQLCLUST1
Instance: sqlapp1
Node: SQLSRV2
Cluster: SQLCLUST2
Instance: sqlapp2
Node: SQLSRV3
Cluster: SQLCLUST3
Instance: sqlapp3
Node: SQLSRV4
Cluster: SQLCLUST1, SQLCLUST2, SQLCLUST3
Instance: sqlapp1
Instance: sqlapp2
Instance: sqlapp3
|||No. A server can participate in only one cluster. A cluster can support up
to 16 SQL instances and 4 nodes under SQL 2000.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
<bcrenshaw99@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1124831740.683769.184000@.g47g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> Sorry, I meant to ask if 3 separate clusters could share a common node?
> Node: SQLSRV1
> Cluster: SQLCLUST1
> Instance: sqlapp1
>
> Node: SQLSRV2
> Cluster: SQLCLUST2
> Instance: sqlapp2
>
> Node: SQLSRV3
> Cluster: SQLCLUST3
> Instance: sqlapp3
>
> Node: SQLSRV4
> Cluster: SQLCLUST1, SQLCLUST2, SQLCLUST3
> Instance: sqlapp1
> Instance: sqlapp2
> Instance: sqlapp3
>

2005 WebForm ReportView Toolbar Page Count Font Color Setting?

I am using RS 2005 ReportViewer in an ASP.NET 2.0 page.
The Toolbar Page Count, "of xx", has a Font Color of White and does not show
up very well on the default Back Color.
It appears to be inheriting it from the StyleSheet Color for BODY. If I
change that Color, the Page Count Color changes to the new color.
Is there a setting for this Page Count Font Color?
I have tried FontColor in the control, but this doesn't work.
I even tried wrapping the control in a TABLE or SPAN but not luck.
Thanks,
DougI did come up with a work around by using some injection in the ReportViewer
Control's Font-Names Property.
Font-Names="Verdana"
becomes
Font-Names="Verdana;color:Black"
Doug
"Douglas J. Badin" <DJBadin@.newsgroups.nospam> wrote in message
news:%23usrNmi4GHA.2264@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>I am using RS 2005 ReportViewer in an ASP.NET 2.0 page.
> The Toolbar Page Count, "of xx", has a Font Color of White and does not
> show up very well on the default Back Color.
> It appears to be inheriting it from the StyleSheet Color for BODY. If I
> change that Color, the Page Count Color changes to the new color.
> Is there a setting for this Page Count Font Color?
> I have tried FontColor in the control, but this doesn't work.
> I even tried wrapping the control in a TABLE or SPAN but not luck.
> Thanks,
> Doug
>

2005 merge replication and database compatibility level setting

Does the database compatibility level setting affect merge replication
performance on 2005?
Thanks.
Yes, but how much is depends on the switches you use. Have a look at this
white paper to see what the improvements could be.
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro.../mergrepl.mspx
Hilary Cotter
Director of Text Mining and Database Strategy
RelevantNOISE.Com - Dedicated to mining blogs for business intelligence.
This posting is my own and doesn't necessarily represent RelevantNoise's
positions, strategies or opinions.
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
"Brett" <johbrett@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:eT0uaMHSGHA.3192@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Does the database compatibility level setting affect merge replication
> performance on 2005?
>
> Thanks.
>
|||Thanks for the reference.
"Hilary Cotter" <hilary.cotter@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:uFCQOIPSGHA.4384@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Yes, but how much is depends on the switches you use. Have a look at this
> white paper to see what the improvements could be.
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro.../mergrepl.mspx
> --
> Hilary Cotter
> Director of Text Mining and Database Strategy
> RelevantNOISE.Com - Dedicated to mining blogs for business intelligence.
> This posting is my own and doesn't necessarily represent RelevantNoise's
> positions, strategies or opinions.
> 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
>
> "Brett" <johbrett@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:eT0uaMHSGHA.3192@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>

2005 Maintenance Plan Best Practices?

Does anyone have a link to resources or suggestions on best practices for
setting up proper maintenance plans with SQL 2005 (Workgroup)?
We have a new 2005 database that we are preparing for production and want to
make sure we cover off all the bases in setting up our maintenance plan.
This will be for an online reservation system that will process approx
300-600 transactions per day. The system needs to be live 24/7/365 or as
near to this as possible.
The initial database is expected to be around 600MB is size with approx 40
tables and grow from there with new transactions.
What we be a good plan for such a system for a starting point? Is a single
daily plan sufficient or should we be setting up multiple plans to handle
backups, tuning, shrinking, etc separately?
Any suggestions/comments would be appreciated.What ever you do don't shrink the database. See here:
http://www.karaszi.com/SQLServer/info_dont_shrink.asp
How often you do backups are dependent on how much data you can afford to
loose. While this is for 2000 the principles still hold true.
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2000/maintain/sqlops0.mspx
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"ML" <schooner@.accesswave.ca> wrote in message
news:%23abfUZG2HHA.728@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Does anyone have a link to resources or suggestions on best practices for
> setting up proper maintenance plans with SQL 2005 (Workgroup)?
> We have a new 2005 database that we are preparing for production and want
> to make sure we cover off all the bases in setting up our maintenance
> plan.
> This will be for an online reservation system that will process approx
> 300-600 transactions per day. The system needs to be live 24/7/365 or as
> near to this as possible.
> The initial database is expected to be around 600MB is size with approx 40
> tables and grow from there with new transactions.
> What we be a good plan for such a system for a starting point? Is a
> single daily plan sufficient or should we be setting up multiple plans to
> handle backups, tuning, shrinking, etc separately?
> Any suggestions/comments would be appreciated.
>
>|||On Aug 6, 1:13 pm, "ML" <schoo...@.accesswave.ca> wrote:
> Does anyone have a link to resources or suggestions on best practices for
> setting up proper maintenance plans with SQL 2005 (Workgroup)?
> We have a new 2005 database that we are preparing for production and want to
> make sure we cover off all the bases in setting up our maintenance plan.
> This will be for an online reservation system that will process approx
> 300-600 transactions per day. The system needs to be live 24/7/365 or as
> near to this as possible.
> The initial database is expected to be around 600MB is size with approx 40
> tables and grow from there with new transactions.
> What we be a good plan for such a system for a starting point? Is a single
> daily plan sufficient or should we be setting up multiple plans to handle
> backups, tuning, shrinking, etc separately?
> Any suggestions/comments would be appreciated.
There is this: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2000/maintain/sqlops4.mspx|||"ML" <schooner@.accesswave.ca> wrote in message
news:%23abfUZG2HHA.728@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Does anyone have a link to resources or suggestions on best practices for
> setting up proper maintenance plans with SQL 2005 (Workgroup)?
> We have a new 2005 database that we are preparing for production and want
> to make sure we cover off all the bases in setting up our maintenance
> plan.
> This will be for an online reservation system that will process approx
> 300-600 transactions per day. The system needs to be live 24/7/365 or as
> near to this as possible.
> The initial database is expected to be around 600MB is size with approx 40
> tables and grow from there with new transactions.
> What we be a good plan for such a system for a starting point? Is a
> single daily plan sufficient or should we be setting up multiple plans to
> handle backups, tuning, shrinking, etc separately?
> Any suggestions/comments would be appreciated.
>
Thank you for the comment so far. I think we will start off with daily full
backups and transaction log backups every 15 mins.
For the database integrity check, is it best to run this before or after a
full backup?
In terms of the other maintenance tasks (rebuild indexes, update statistics,
etc) how often should these typically be run?|||As you probably realize, there are not simple "one size fits all" answers to these question. Reading
up on the subject is what I recommend:
> For the database integrity check, is it best to run this before or after a full backup?
http://blogs.msdn.com/sqlserverstorageengine/archive/2006/07/23/675963.aspx
And other articles on that blog.
> In terms of the other maintenance tasks (rebuild indexes, update statistics, etc) how often should
> these typically be run?
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2000/maintain/ss2kidbp.mspx
Above article hasn't been updated for 2005, but basic concepts still applies.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
"ML" <schooner@.accesswave.ca> wrote in message news:OabaWpN2HHA.1124@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> "ML" <schooner@.accesswave.ca> wrote in message news:%23abfUZG2HHA.728@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> Does anyone have a link to resources or suggestions on best practices for setting up proper
>> maintenance plans with SQL 2005 (Workgroup)?
>> We have a new 2005 database that we are preparing for production and want to make sure we cover
>> off all the bases in setting up our maintenance plan.
>> This will be for an online reservation system that will process approx 300-600 transactions per
>> day. The system needs to be live 24/7/365 or as near to this as possible.
>> The initial database is expected to be around 600MB is size with approx 40 tables and grow from
>> there with new transactions.
>> What we be a good plan for such a system for a starting point? Is a single daily plan sufficient
>> or should we be setting up multiple plans to handle backups, tuning, shrinking, etc separately?
>> Any suggestions/comments would be appreciated.
> Thank you for the comment so far. I think we will start off with daily full backups and
> transaction log backups every 15 mins.
> For the database integrity check, is it best to run this before or after a full backup?
> In terms of the other maintenance tasks (rebuild indexes, update statistics, etc) how often should
> these typically be run?
>

2005 install - Can you specify a directory for the data and one for the logs?

Hi,
I am setting up a template.ini file that I am going to use for some
unattended installs of SQL Server 2005. I believe using the
'INSTALLSQLDATADIR' I can get the system databases setup with their
data files and log in the directory I specify. Is there a way to
specify a location for the logs and a location for the data files?I don't think so. There is really not much a need for that either.
Linchi
"Paul T." wrote:
> Hi,
> I am setting up a template.ini file that I am going to use for some
> unattended installs of SQL Server 2005. I believe using the
> 'INSTALLSQLDATADIR' I can get the system databases setup with their
> data files and log in the directory I specify. Is there a way to
> specify a location for the logs and a location for the data files?
>|||Most people split their user databases so that the log is on one
physical drive and the logs are on another so that I/O is distributed
and so that if they do not lose both the log and data file if a drive
goes, why not do that with the system databases too?|||Paul T. wrote:
> Most people split their user databases so that the log is on one
> physical drive and the logs are on another so that I/O is distributed
> and so that if they do not lose both the log and data file if a drive
> goes, why not do that with the system databases too?
>
Your system tables should have very little I/O against them, and good
backups will protect you from losing them...
Tracy McKibben
MCDBA
http://www.realsqlguy.com

2005 - direct modifications to systems catalogs

In 2000 there was a server level setting you could change in EM, to allow direct modifications to systems catalogs.
in 2005 I would like to update some sids in sysusers tables, do I also need to find and set this option firstmy bad, I forgot you cannot make changes directly to system tables in SQL Server 2005 anymore|||we're about to port our databases from SQL 2000 to SQL 2005. If we can't modify directly the system tables, how are we going to proceed is log suspend on startup cases? What we usually do is to perform a bypass recovery by altering the sysdatabases table and truncating the log. Have you guys experienced this using SQL 2005?|||you can restore a 2000 backup to a 2005 server - that's the easiest way to bring a db from 2000 to 2005 imo.|||Can you not use sp_changeuserslogin or drop and re-create users to achieve what you need rather than modifying system tables?|||actually, its not about porting the database from SQL 2000 to SQL 2005 and not about changing users whatsoever; its on how to go about a log suspend database on startup that can't be recovered due to insufficient logspace. :)|||In SQL 2005 modification to system tables is disabled, but still it is possible only by using DAC - see my blog: http://sqlserver-qa.net/blogs/tools/archive/2007/04/24/sql-server-2005-ad-hoc-updates-to-system-catalogs-are-not-allowed.aspx