32bit SQL 2000 to 64bit SQL 2005

We detached a 32bit 2000 db and attached it to 64 bit 2005 server.

We have an Itanium server will all the bells and whistle's, but when we run the loadrunner, the cpu max's at 100%. Even a sp_who2 spikes the CPU.

I ran the dbcc for stats and reindex, I also recompiled all procs.

I've tried it in both the 8.0 and 9.0 compatibility modes with almost no difference.

Can we attach a 32bit 2000 db on a 64 bit server?

Any other suggestions for me to take a look at?

We are suppose to have our POC by EOD, so your help would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

Susan

Still having same issues.

|||Attaching a 32 bit database to a 64 bit server is supported. Can you look in the SQL log and see if it reports any errors?sql

3 Node W2K3 SQL 2005 Cluster

All,
I've setup a Windows 2003 Enterprise Edition cluster of 3 nodes.
Everything is attached to a san (CX500).
Just installed SQL 2005 and all works fine.
Is it possible to have this cluster with 2 active nodes and 1 passive
node?
i've setup a drive (r:\) and it's online but only avaiable from 1
resource. the other nodes sees it but can't access it. I want to setup
a cluster where 2 nodes can access the drive (to share sql databases)
and 1 node access it when it failovers..
is this a good setup or not? should i use 2 or 4 nodes instead of 3?
Or is it possible to add a SQL cluster resources to the same storage?
Also is it possible to setup a load balanced sql 2005 cluster? where i
can have 3 active nodes load balanced and also failover when 1 node
goes down?
Hope someone can help me out..
Thanx in advance.

> Is it possible to have this cluster with 2 active nodes and 1 passive
> node?
Yes, but not in the way you want, you can create another SQL instance and
run this on the other node. Still this instance has its own databases and
its own disks.

> i've setup a drive (r:\) and it's online but only avaiable from 1
> resource. the other nodes sees it but can't access it. I want to setup
> a cluster where 2 nodes can access the drive (to share sql databases)
> and 1 node access it when it failovers..
No, at any given time only ONE node can access a disk ( the node where the
cluster resource group is online ). You may not access an NTFS volume from
more than one server at any given time. This is an NTFS limitation. Hence
clustering is called "shared nothing" cluster model.

> Also is it possible to setup a load balanced sql 2005 cluster? where i
> can have 3 active nodes load balanced and also failover when 1 node
> goes down?
Same as above, you can have multiple instances running, but each of these
instances have their own disks and databases.

> Hope someone can help me out..
> Thanx in advance.
>
Rgds,
Edwin.

2005 install ques re owner of database?

Hello -
I just installed Sql Server 2005 on a company server. I copied and attached
database mdf and ldf files. The database runs okay with my application on
my developer machine. I just started setting up security on the server and
it is indicating the owner of the database is "MyOrganization"\MyName. My
login name (user name) on the network is MyName. I tried to change to change
the Owner of the database under Files and I'm getting the message:
...The login 'MyName' does not exist on this server.
How can I fix this?
Any help will be greatly appreciated!
--
SandyHow do you connect to the company server? If you connect via SQL login, then
execute the below should do it (assuming the sql login is part of sysadmin).
exec <the_database_name>..sp_changedbowner 'the_sql_login'
If you're login as a NT user/acct and is part of the administrators group,
your NT user name is implicitly granted permission. If you really want to
use your NT user name/acct as the db_owner, you will have to explicitly add
your NT acct to sql sysadmin role.
e.g.
create login [domain\nt_acct] from windows;
exec sp_addsrvrolemember 'domain\nt_acct', 'sysadmin'
then you can change dbowner
exec <the_database_name>..sp_changedbowner 'domain\nt_acct'
-oj
"Sandy" <Sandy@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:CCFAE0DB-7208-4189-B9B4-F5A3B1EDCD0B@.microsoft.com...
> Hello -
> I just installed Sql Server 2005 on a company server. I copied and
> attached
> database mdf and ldf files. The database runs okay with my application on
> my developer machine. I just started setting up security on the server
> and
> it is indicating the owner of the database is "MyOrganization"\MyName. My
> login name (user name) on the network is MyName. I tried to change to
> change
> the Owner of the database under Files and I'm getting the message:
> ...The login 'MyName' does not exist on this server.
> How can I fix this?
> Any help will be greatly appreciated!
> --
> Sandy

2005 DB backwards-compatible to 2000?

I've attached an SQL2000 db to an SQL2005 Std installation and am curious if
that process can go the other way. Can you detach from 2005 and attach to
2000 without any issues?
Earl wrote:
> Can you detach from 2005 and attach to
> 2000 without any issues?
No. One cannot attach a higher version database to a lower version SQL
Server. The 2005 file format is incompatible with SQL Server 2000.
If you have to migrate backwards, use SSIS to copy the objects and data from
SQL Server 2005 to SQL Server 2000.
Message posted via droptable.com
http://www.droptable.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/sql-server/200612/1
|||No, You can not do that because of architectural changes.
Thanks
Hari
"Earl" <brikshoe@.newsgroups.nospam> wrote in message
news:%23ye9a5kHHHA.3540@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> I've attached an SQL2000 db to an SQL2005 Std installation and am curious
> if that process can go the other way. Can you detach from 2005 and attach
> to 200use of 0 without any issues?
>
|||Ahhh, thanks Chris and Hari. Tis' the answer I need.
"Chris O'C via droptable.com" <u29189@.uwe> wrote in message
news:6aacc6ece6f0b@.uwe...
> Earl wrote:
> No. One cannot attach a higher version database to a lower version SQL
> Server. The 2005 file format is incompatible with SQL Server 2000.
> If you have to migrate backwards, use SSIS to copy the objects and data
> from
> SQL Server 2005 to SQL Server 2000.
> --
> Message posted via droptable.com
> http://www.droptable.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/sql-server/200612/1
>

2005 DB backwards-compatible to 2000?

I've attached an SQL2000 db to an SQL2005 Std installation and am curious if
that process can go the other way. Can you detach from 2005 and attach to
2000 without any issues?Earl wrote:
> Can you detach from 2005 and attach to
> 2000 without any issues?
No. One cannot attach a higher version database to a lower version SQL
Server. The 2005 file format is incompatible with SQL Server 2000.
If you have to migrate backwards, use SSIS to copy the objects and data from
SQL Server 2005 to SQL Server 2000.
Message posted via droptable.com
http://www.droptable.com/Uwe/Forum...server/200612/1|||No, You can not do that because of architectural changes.
Thanks
Hari
"Earl" <brikshoe@.newsgroups.nospam> wrote in message
news:%23ye9a5kHHHA.3540@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> I've attached an SQL2000 db to an SQL2005 Std installation and am curious
> if that process can go the other way. Can you detach from 2005 and attach
> to 200use of 0 without any issues?
>|||Ahhh, thanks Chris and Hari. Tis' the answer I need.
"Chris O'C via droptable.com" <u29189@.uwe> wrote in message
news:6aacc6ece6f0b@.uwe...
> Earl wrote:
> No. One cannot attach a higher version database to a lower version SQL
> Server. The 2005 file format is incompatible with SQL Server 2000.
> If you have to migrate backwards, use SSIS to copy the objects and data
> from
> SQL Server 2005 to SQL Server 2000.
> --
> Message posted via droptable.com
> http://www.droptable.com/Uwe/Forum...server/200612/1
>

2005 DB backwards-compatible to 2000?

I've attached an SQL2000 db to an SQL2005 Std installation and am curious if
that process can go the other way. Can you detach from 2005 and attach to
2000 without any issues?Earl wrote:
> Can you detach from 2005 and attach to
> 2000 without any issues?
No. One cannot attach a higher version database to a lower version SQL
Server. The 2005 file format is incompatible with SQL Server 2000.
If you have to migrate backwards, use SSIS to copy the objects and data from
SQL Server 2005 to SQL Server 2000.
--
Message posted via SQLMonster.com
http://www.sqlmonster.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/sql-server/200612/1|||No, You can not do that because of architectural changes.
Thanks
Hari
"Earl" <brikshoe@.newsgroups.nospam> wrote in message
news:%23ye9a5kHHHA.3540@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> I've attached an SQL2000 db to an SQL2005 Std installation and am curious
> if that process can go the other way. Can you detach from 2005 and attach
> to 200use of 0 without any issues?
>|||Ahhh, thanks Chris and Hari. Tis' the answer I need.
"Chris O'C via SQLMonster.com" <u29189@.uwe> wrote in message
news:6aacc6ece6f0b@.uwe...
> Earl wrote:
>> Can you detach from 2005 and attach to
>> 2000 without any issues?
> No. One cannot attach a higher version database to a lower version SQL
> Server. The 2005 file format is incompatible with SQL Server 2000.
> If you have to migrate backwards, use SSIS to copy the objects and data
> from
> SQL Server 2005 to SQL Server 2000.
> --
> Message posted via SQLMonster.com
> http://www.sqlmonster.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/sql-server/200612/1
>