SQL Remove Old Backups: following

Showing posts with label following. Show all posts

Sunday, March 25, 2012

32 GB of Memory

Accroding to the following Article:
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=274750
Note The maximum amount of memory that can be supported on Windows Server
2003 is 4 GB. However, Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition supports 32 GB
of physical RAM. Windows Server 2003 Datacenter Edition supports 64 GB of
physical RAM by using the Physical Address Extensions (PAE) feature. You can
use the 3 GB switch that is in the Boot.ini file with Microsoft Windows
Server 2003, Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition, or with
Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Datacenter Edition.
This statement is a bit confusing. I am going to be upgrading our servers
from SP3a to SP4. I am planning to implement this on windows server 2003
Enterprise Edition. Will I be able to allocate 32 GB of memory to this
server. If so what steps do I take. Also will there be any limitations.
Also if there is any other documentation regarding this. Let me know.
In BOOT.INI add the /PAE switch and do not use the /3GB switch. Reboot.
In SQL Server, run:
sp_configure 'awe enabled', 1
go
reconfigure with override
go
sp_configure 'min server memory (MB)', 30720
go
reconfigure with override
go
Stop and start SQL Server.
Tom
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Tom.Moreau
"JDS" <JDS@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9449E5A9-D31E-4C5B-86C8-86B5E3686AFC@.microsoft.com...
Accroding to the following Article:
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=274750
Note The maximum amount of memory that can be supported on Windows Server
2003 is 4 GB. However, Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition supports 32 GB
of physical RAM. Windows Server 2003 Datacenter Edition supports 64 GB of
physical RAM by using the Physical Address Extensions (PAE) feature. You can
use the 3 GB switch that is in the Boot.ini file with Microsoft Windows
Server 2003, Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition, or with
Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Datacenter Edition.
This statement is a bit confusing. I am going to be upgrading our servers
from SP3a to SP4. I am planning to implement this on windows server 2003
Enterprise Edition. Will I be able to allocate 32 GB of memory to this
server. If so what steps do I take. Also will there be any limitations.
Also if there is any other documentation regarding this. Let me know.
|||Tom
> sp_configure 'min server memory (MB)', 30720
Should it be max memory?
JDS
In addition to Tom's suggestion do not forget to download hotfix for SP4
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899761
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:ujghB0KyHHA.5592@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> In BOOT.INI add the /PAE switch and do not use the /3GB switch. Reboot.
> In SQL Server, run:
> sp_configure 'awe enabled', 1
> go
> reconfigure with override
> go
> sp_configure 'min server memory (MB)', 30720
> go
> reconfigure with override
> go
> Stop and start SQL Server.
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Tom.Moreau
>
> "JDS" <JDS@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:9449E5A9-D31E-4C5B-86C8-86B5E3686AFC@.microsoft.com...
> Accroding to the following Article:
> http://support.microsoft.com/?id=274750
> Note The maximum amount of memory that can be supported on Windows Server
> 2003 is 4 GB. However, Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition supports 32
> GB
> of physical RAM. Windows Server 2003 Datacenter Edition supports 64 GB of
> physical RAM by using the Physical Address Extensions (PAE) feature. You
> can
> use the 3 GB switch that is in the Boot.ini file with Microsoft Windows
> Server 2003, Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition, or with
> Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Datacenter Edition.
>
> This statement is a bit confusing. I am going to be upgrading our servers
> from SP3a to SP4. I am planning to implement this on windows server 2003
> Enterprise Edition. Will I be able to allocate 32 GB of memory to this
> server. If so what steps do I take. Also will there be any limitations.
> Also if there is any other documentation regarding this. Let me know.
>
|||Correct. Looks like my cut and paste missed the mark. :-(
Tom
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Tom.Moreau
"Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> wrote in message
news:ORxSH0QyHHA.988@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
Tom
> sp_configure 'min server memory (MB)', 30720
Should it be max memory?
JDS
In addition to Tom's suggestion do not forget to download hotfix for SP4
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899761
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:ujghB0KyHHA.5592@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> In BOOT.INI add the /PAE switch and do not use the /3GB switch. Reboot.
> In SQL Server, run:
> sp_configure 'awe enabled', 1
> go
> reconfigure with override
> go
> sp_configure 'min server memory (MB)', 30720
> go
> reconfigure with override
> go
> Stop and start SQL Server.
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Tom.Moreau
>
> "JDS" <JDS@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:9449E5A9-D31E-4C5B-86C8-86B5E3686AFC@.microsoft.com...
> Accroding to the following Article:
> http://support.microsoft.com/?id=274750
> Note The maximum amount of memory that can be supported on Windows Server
> 2003 is 4 GB. However, Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition supports 32
> GB
> of physical RAM. Windows Server 2003 Datacenter Edition supports 64 GB of
> physical RAM by using the Physical Address Extensions (PAE) feature. You
> can
> use the 3 GB switch that is in the Boot.ini file with Microsoft Windows
> Server 2003, Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition, or with
> Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Datacenter Edition.
>
> This statement is a bit confusing. I am going to be upgrading our servers
> from SP3a to SP4. I am planning to implement this on windows server 2003
> Enterprise Edition. Will I be able to allocate 32 GB of memory to this
> server. If so what steps do I take. Also will there be any limitations.
> Also if there is any other documentation regarding this. Let me know.
>
|||What makes me more confused is your mention of "I am going to be
upgrading our servers from SP3a to SP4. ", any specific reason you
mentioned it, because you can allocate 32 GB of memory even if you are
on SP3a. Also you should be aware of Hot Add memory
Also just to add to Tom's reply, make sure you apply hotfix on SP4 for
AWE:
899761FIX: Not all memory is available when AWE is enabled on a
computer that is running a 32-bit version of SQL Server 2000 SP4
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;899761
|||Is it possible to take advantage of the additional memory on Windows Server
2000 Enterprise edition or 2003 only?
"dinu_babu@.hotmail.com" wrote:

> What makes me more confused is your mention of "I am going to be
> upgrading our servers from SP3a to SP4. ", any specific reason you
> mentioned it, because you can allocate 32 GB of memory even if you are
> on SP3a. Also you should be aware of Hot Add memory
> Also just to add to Tom's reply, make sure you apply hotfix on SP4 for
> AWE:
> 899761FIX: Not all memory is available when AWE is enabled on a
> computer that is running a 32-bit version of SQL Server 2000 SP4
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;899761
>
>

32 GB of Memory

Accroding to the following Article:
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=274750
Note The maximum amount of memory that can be supported on Windows Server
2003 is 4 GB. However, Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition supports 32 GB
of physical RAM. Windows Server 2003 Datacenter Edition supports 64 GB of
physical RAM by using the Physical Address Extensions (PAE) feature. You can
use the 3 GB switch that is in the Boot.ini file with Microsoft Windows
Server 2003, Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition, or with
Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Datacenter Edition.
This statement is a bit confusing. I am going to be upgrading our servers
from SP3a to SP4. I am planning to implement this on windows server 2003
Enterprise Edition. Will I be able to allocate 32 GB of memory to this
server. If so what steps do I take. Also will there be any limitations.
Also if there is any other documentation regarding this. Let me know.In BOOT.INI add the /PAE switch and do not use the /3GB switch. Reboot.
In SQL Server, run:
sp_configure 'awe enabled', 1
go
reconfigure with override
go
sp_configure 'min server memory (MB)', 30720
go
reconfigure with override
go
Stop and start SQL Server.
--
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Tom.Moreau
"JDS" <JDS@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9449E5A9-D31E-4C5B-86C8-86B5E3686AFC@.microsoft.com...
Accroding to the following Article:
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=274750
Note The maximum amount of memory that can be supported on Windows Server
2003 is 4 GB. However, Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition supports 32 GB
of physical RAM. Windows Server 2003 Datacenter Edition supports 64 GB of
physical RAM by using the Physical Address Extensions (PAE) feature. You can
use the 3 GB switch that is in the Boot.ini file with Microsoft Windows
Server 2003, Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition, or with
Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Datacenter Edition.
This statement is a bit confusing. I am going to be upgrading our servers
from SP3a to SP4. I am planning to implement this on windows server 2003
Enterprise Edition. Will I be able to allocate 32 GB of memory to this
server. If so what steps do I take. Also will there be any limitations.
Also if there is any other documentation regarding this. Let me know.|||Tom
> sp_configure 'min server memory (MB)', 30720
Should it be max memory?
JDS
In addition to Tom's suggestion do not forget to download hotfix for SP4
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899761
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:ujghB0KyHHA.5592@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> In BOOT.INI add the /PAE switch and do not use the /3GB switch. Reboot.
> In SQL Server, run:
> sp_configure 'awe enabled', 1
> go
> reconfigure with override
> go
> sp_configure 'min server memory (MB)', 30720
> go
> reconfigure with override
> go
> Stop and start SQL Server.
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Tom.Moreau
>
> "JDS" <JDS@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:9449E5A9-D31E-4C5B-86C8-86B5E3686AFC@.microsoft.com...
> Accroding to the following Article:
> http://support.microsoft.com/?id=274750
> Note The maximum amount of memory that can be supported on Windows Server
> 2003 is 4 GB. However, Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition supports 32
> GB
> of physical RAM. Windows Server 2003 Datacenter Edition supports 64 GB of
> physical RAM by using the Physical Address Extensions (PAE) feature. You
> can
> use the 3 GB switch that is in the Boot.ini file with Microsoft Windows
> Server 2003, Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition, or with
> Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Datacenter Edition.
>
> This statement is a bit confusing. I am going to be upgrading our servers
> from SP3a to SP4. I am planning to implement this on windows server 2003
> Enterprise Edition. Will I be able to allocate 32 GB of memory to this
> server. If so what steps do I take. Also will there be any limitations.
> Also if there is any other documentation regarding this. Let me know.
>|||Correct. Looks like my cut and paste missed the mark. :-(
--
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Tom.Moreau
"Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> wrote in message
news:ORxSH0QyHHA.988@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
Tom
> sp_configure 'min server memory (MB)', 30720
Should it be max memory?
JDS
In addition to Tom's suggestion do not forget to download hotfix for SP4
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899761
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:ujghB0KyHHA.5592@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> In BOOT.INI add the /PAE switch and do not use the /3GB switch. Reboot.
> In SQL Server, run:
> sp_configure 'awe enabled', 1
> go
> reconfigure with override
> go
> sp_configure 'min server memory (MB)', 30720
> go
> reconfigure with override
> go
> Stop and start SQL Server.
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Tom.Moreau
>
> "JDS" <JDS@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:9449E5A9-D31E-4C5B-86C8-86B5E3686AFC@.microsoft.com...
> Accroding to the following Article:
> http://support.microsoft.com/?id=274750
> Note The maximum amount of memory that can be supported on Windows Server
> 2003 is 4 GB. However, Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition supports 32
> GB
> of physical RAM. Windows Server 2003 Datacenter Edition supports 64 GB of
> physical RAM by using the Physical Address Extensions (PAE) feature. You
> can
> use the 3 GB switch that is in the Boot.ini file with Microsoft Windows
> Server 2003, Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition, or with
> Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Datacenter Edition.
>
> This statement is a bit confusing. I am going to be upgrading our servers
> from SP3a to SP4. I am planning to implement this on windows server 2003
> Enterprise Edition. Will I be able to allocate 32 GB of memory to this
> server. If so what steps do I take. Also will there be any limitations.
> Also if there is any other documentation regarding this. Let me know.
>|||What makes me more confused is your mention of "I am going to be
upgrading our servers from SP3a to SP4. ", any specific reason you
mentioned it, because you can allocate 32 GB of memory even if you are
on SP3a. Also you should be aware of Hot Add memory
Also just to add to Tom's reply, make sure you apply hotfix on SP4 for
AWE:
899761 FIX: Not all memory is available when AWE is enabled on a
computer that is running a 32-bit version of SQL Server 2000 SP4
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;899761|||Is it possible to take advantage of the additional memory on Windows Server
2000 Enterprise edition or 2003 only?
"dinu_babu@.hotmail.com" wrote:
> What makes me more confused is your mention of "I am going to be
> upgrading our servers from SP3a to SP4. ", any specific reason you
> mentioned it, because you can allocate 32 GB of memory even if you are
> on SP3a. Also you should be aware of Hot Add memory
> Also just to add to Tom's reply, make sure you apply hotfix on SP4 for
> AWE:
> 899761 FIX: Not all memory is available when AWE is enabled on a
> computer that is running a 32-bit version of SQL Server 2000 SP4
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;899761
>
>

32 GB of Memory

Accroding to the following Article:
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=274750
Note The maximum amount of memory that can be supported on Windows Server
2003 is 4 GB. However, Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition supports 32 GB
of physical RAM. Windows Server 2003 Datacenter Edition supports 64 GB of
physical RAM by using the Physical Address Extensions (PAE) feature. You can
use the 3 GB switch that is in the Boot.ini file with Microsoft Windows
Server 2003, Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition, or with
Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Datacenter Edition.
This statement is a bit confusing. I am going to be upgrading our servers
from SP3a to SP4. I am planning to implement this on windows server 2003
Enterprise Edition. Will I be able to allocate 32 GB of memory to this
server. If so what steps do I take. Also will there be any limitations.
Also if there is any other documentation regarding this. Let me know.In BOOT.INI add the /PAE switch and do not use the /3GB switch. Reboot.
In SQL Server, run:
sp_configure 'awe enabled', 1
go
reconfigure with override
go
sp_configure 'min server memory (MB)', 30720
go
reconfigure with override
go
Stop and start SQL Server.
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Tom.Moreau
"JDS" <JDS@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9449E5A9-D31E-4C5B-86C8-86B5E3686AFC@.microsoft.com...
Accroding to the following Article:
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=274750
Note The maximum amount of memory that can be supported on Windows Server
2003 is 4 GB. However, Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition supports 32 GB
of physical RAM. Windows Server 2003 Datacenter Edition supports 64 GB of
physical RAM by using the Physical Address Extensions (PAE) feature. You can
use the 3 GB switch that is in the Boot.ini file with Microsoft Windows
Server 2003, Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition, or with
Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Datacenter Edition.
This statement is a bit confusing. I am going to be upgrading our servers
from SP3a to SP4. I am planning to implement this on windows server 2003
Enterprise Edition. Will I be able to allocate 32 GB of memory to this
server. If so what steps do I take. Also will there be any limitations.
Also if there is any other documentation regarding this. Let me know.|||Tom
> sp_configure 'min server memory (MB)', 30720
Should it be max memory?
JDS
In addition to Tom's suggestion do not forget to download hotfix for SP4
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899761
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:ujghB0KyHHA.5592@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> In BOOT.INI add the /PAE switch and do not use the /3GB switch. Reboot.
> In SQL Server, run:
> sp_configure 'awe enabled', 1
> go
> reconfigure with override
> go
> sp_configure 'min server memory (MB)', 30720
> go
> reconfigure with override
> go
> Stop and start SQL Server.
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Tom.Moreau
>
> "JDS" <JDS@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:9449E5A9-D31E-4C5B-86C8-86B5E3686AFC@.microsoft.com...
> Accroding to the following Article:
> http://support.microsoft.com/?id=274750
> Note The maximum amount of memory that can be supported on Windows Server
> 2003 is 4 GB. However, Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition supports 32
> GB
> of physical RAM. Windows Server 2003 Datacenter Edition supports 64 GB of
> physical RAM by using the Physical Address Extensions (PAE) feature. You
> can
> use the 3 GB switch that is in the Boot.ini file with Microsoft Windows
> Server 2003, Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition, or with
> Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Datacenter Edition.
>
> This statement is a bit confusing. I am going to be upgrading our servers
> from SP3a to SP4. I am planning to implement this on windows server 2003
> Enterprise Edition. Will I be able to allocate 32 GB of memory to this
> server. If so what steps do I take. Also will there be any limitations.
> Also if there is any other documentation regarding this. Let me know.
>|||Correct. Looks like my cut and paste missed the mark. :-(
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Tom.Moreau
"Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> wrote in message
news:ORxSH0QyHHA.988@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
Tom
> sp_configure 'min server memory (MB)', 30720
Should it be max memory?
JDS
In addition to Tom's suggestion do not forget to download hotfix for SP4
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899761
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:ujghB0KyHHA.5592@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> In BOOT.INI add the /PAE switch and do not use the /3GB switch. Reboot.
> In SQL Server, run:
> sp_configure 'awe enabled', 1
> go
> reconfigure with override
> go
> sp_configure 'min server memory (MB)', 30720
> go
> reconfigure with override
> go
> Stop and start SQL Server.
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Tom.Moreau
>
> "JDS" <JDS@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:9449E5A9-D31E-4C5B-86C8-86B5E3686AFC@.microsoft.com...
> Accroding to the following Article:
> http://support.microsoft.com/?id=274750
> Note The maximum amount of memory that can be supported on Windows Server
> 2003 is 4 GB. However, Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition supports 32
> GB
> of physical RAM. Windows Server 2003 Datacenter Edition supports 64 GB of
> physical RAM by using the Physical Address Extensions (PAE) feature. You
> can
> use the 3 GB switch that is in the Boot.ini file with Microsoft Windows
> Server 2003, Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition, or with
> Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Datacenter Edition.
>
> This statement is a bit confusing. I am going to be upgrading our servers
> from SP3a to SP4. I am planning to implement this on windows server 2003
> Enterprise Edition. Will I be able to allocate 32 GB of memory to this
> server. If so what steps do I take. Also will there be any limitations.
> Also if there is any other documentation regarding this. Let me know.
>|||What makes me more confused is your mention of "I am going to be
upgrading our servers from SP3a to SP4. ", any specific reason you
mentioned it, because you can allocate 32 GB of memory even if you are
on SP3a. Also you should be aware of Hot Add memory
Also just to add to Tom's reply, make sure you apply hotfix on SP4 for
AWE:
899761 FIX: Not all memory is available when AWE is enabled on a
computer that is running a 32-bit version of SQL Server 2000 SP4
http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...kb;EN-US;899761|||Is it possible to take advantage of the additional memory on Windows Server
2000 Enterprise edition or 2003 only?
"dinu_babu@.hotmail.com" wrote:

> What makes me more confused is your mention of "I am going to be
> upgrading our servers from SP3a to SP4. ", any specific reason you
> mentioned it, because you can allocate 32 GB of memory even if you are
> on SP3a. Also you should be aware of Hot Add memory
> Also just to add to Tom's reply, make sure you apply hotfix on SP4 for
> AWE:
> 899761 FIX: Not all memory is available when AWE is enabled on a
> computer that is running a 32-bit version of SQL Server 2000 SP4
> http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...kb;EN-US;899761
>
>

Thursday, March 22, 2012

3086/3600 = 0.0 .... WHY Should be 0.857

I have a float field in a table ... when I try and add the result of the following division ... 3086/3600 ... to that field it displays as 0.0.

Can anyone explain why?

Does anyone know how to get around this and get 0.857 into that field instead.

I have tried changing the data type to Decimal(20,2) but this has had no effect.

Any suggestions would be very much appreciated.Solved it ... just do

3086 / CAST(3600 AS FLOAT)

and case solved :)|||Hi , Try this

select 3086/3600.00

will give u the desired result...

Cheers
Gola Munjal
Originally posted by briansy
I have a float field in a table ... when I try and add the result of the following division ... 3086/3600 ... to that field it displays as 0.0.

Can anyone explain why?

Does anyone know how to get around this and get 0.857 into that field instead.

I have tried changing the data type to Decimal(20,2) but this has had no effect.

Any suggestions would be very much appreciated.

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

3 questions

1) Which one of the following is NOT a SQL Server page type?
Index, Table, Data, Text /Image, Global Allocation MAP,
2) Which one of the following is a characteristic of a Keyset-Driven Cursor?
Order is Dynamic. , Values are Dynamic., Membership is Dynamic., Keyset is built in memory, Usage of the tempdb database is reduced.
3) Which one of the following situations benefits LEAST from parallel execution?
1) Extensive aggregation in a large corporate billing application
2) Large groups of small transactions in an OLTP application
3) Multiple joins in a decision support system
4)Large sorts in a data warehouse reporting application
5)Small groups of large queries in an OLAP application
What do you think the answers are?
David G.
|||1) Which one of the following is NOT a SQL Server page type?
Global Allocation MAP
2) Which one of the following is a characteristic of a Keyset-Driven Cursor?
Values are Dynamic
3) Which one of the following situations benefits LEAST from parallel
execution?
Large groups of small transactions in an OLTP application
-- Original Message --
From: "David Gugick" <davidg-nospam@.imceda.com>
Newsgroups: microsoft.public.sqlserver.clients
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 6:11 PM
Subject: Re: 3 questions

> What do you think the answers are?
> --
> David G.
>
"David Gugick" <davidg-nospam@.imceda.com> wrote in message
news:OatMxPrHFHA.3500@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> What do you think the answers are?
> --
> David G.
>
|||John wrote:
> 1) Which one of the following is NOT a SQL Server page type?
> Global Allocation MAP
I think the answer to this one is a table (see Pages and Extents in BOL)

> 2) Which one of the following is a characteristic of a Keyset-Driven
> Cursor?
> Values are Dynamic
I agree with you on this one.

> 3) Which one of the following situations benefits LEAST from parallel
> execution?
> Large groups of small transactions in an OLTP application
I agree with you on this one as well.
David Gugick
Imceda Software
www.imceda.com
sql

Monday, March 19, 2012

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
>

2nd Post - Problem installing SQL Server 2005 Express SP2

Hi,

I started applying "SQL server Express with advanced tools SP2" and had to stop on following items which I'm not too sure about what I must understand from step "Existing components". Those three items listed were:

- "SQL Server DataBase Services 9.1.2047.00"

=> which I can check

- "Reporting Services 9.1.2047.00"

=> which I can check

- Workstation components and development tools 9.1.2047.00

=> which is simply disabled?

If I then look at the details of that last item, I can see the following warning:

Name: Microsoft SQL Server 2005 Tools

Reason: Your upgrade is blocked. For more information about upgrade support, see the "Version and Edition Upgrades" and "Hardware and Software Requirements" topics in SQL Server 2005 Setup Help or SQL Server 2005 Books Online.

Edition check:

Your upgrade is blocked because of edition upgrade rules. For more information about edition upgrades, see the Version and Edition Upgrades topic in SQL Server 2005 Setup Help or SQL Server 2005 Books Online.

Now, following the suggestion of one person answering previous thread,

"If you're not sure if you have tools from another edition, you can check by going to Add/Remove Program, selecting the Microsoft SQL Server 2005 entry and clicking Change..."

I followed suggestion and got following result:

DEVELOPPEMENT

The following components are installed on this server

SQLEXPRESS

Database Engine

[Version: 9.1.2047.00 Edition: Express Edition Patch level: 9.1.2047 Language: Anglais (états-Unis)]

Reporting Services

[Version: 9.1.2047.00 Edition: Express Edition Patch level: 9.1.2047 Language: Anglais (états-Unis)]

Common components

Workstation Components

[Version: 9.1.2047.00 Edition: Express Edition Patch level: 9.1.2047 Language: Anglais (états-Unis)]

Looking at the results, everything seems to be normal. Only Express Edition, all same level which should be SP1. What step should I take to be able to upgrade to SP2 properly?

Thanks in advance,

Stphane

P.S.

From "Add/Remove Programs" I have, all listed, the following SQL Server installed programs:

- Microsoft SQL Server 2005

- Microsoft SQL Server 2005 Backward compatibility

- Microsoft SQL Server 2005 Books Online (English) (July 2006)

- Microsoft SQL Server 2005 Compact Edition (ENU)

- Microsoft SQL Server 2005 Compact Edition Books Online (ENU)

- Microsoft SQL Server 2005 Compact Edition Developer Software Development Kit (ENU)

- Microsoft SQL Server 2005 Compact Edition Tools for Visual Studio 2005 (ENU)

- Microsoft SQL Server Management Studio Express

- Microsoft SQL Server Native Client

- Microsoft SQL Setup Support Files (English)

- Microsoft SQL Server VSS Writer

Hi,

make sure you are applying the same language SP as the base installation. Cross language updates are not supported.

HTH, Jens K. Suessmeyer.

http://www.sqlserver2005.de
|||

Hi Jens,

Today, following your note, I downloaded again same SP2 install program from following link:

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=5B5528B9-13E1-4DB9-A3FC-82116D598C3D&displaylang=en

I then compared the downloaded program with the one I originaly used to apply SP2 and could verify that they were the same. As a conclusion, I can conclude that I was using SP2 English language version, same language my current setup is using. So, if I'm OK, I think that the language might not be the issue of my problem. Any other hint?

Thanks for your help, hope to hear back!

Stphane

|||

Hi Stephane,

Missed your response in the other thread, sorry.

I can see that your tools are from the Express Edition, but that still may be mis-leading. Did you ever installed the Express Edition Toolkit? Since the tools are shared, each flavor of Express (Express -> Express Advanced -> Express Toolkit) contains a super-set of the tools from the previous flavor. If you installed the Express Edition Toolkit then you will need to install the Express Edition Toolkit SP2 update to update the Workstation Components. The report in Add/Remove Program can't tell the difference between the three flavors of the tools in Express, so it shows them all as Express Edition.

If you want to check the actual flavor of the tools before you download the Toolkit update (but what would be the fun of that!) You can do so in the registry at HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Microsoft SQL Server\90\Tools\Setup. Look at the Edition Type value and it will show the actual flavor that installed the tools.

Mike

|||

Hi,

Many thanks for follow-up! I really appreciate. Lots of infos in your reply! Let's start.

Yes, I have the Express Edition Toolkit SP1 currently installed on my machine. For the registry value you refer to:

"You can do so in the registry at HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Microsoft SQL Server\90\Tools\Setup. Look at the Edition Type..."

The value I get from registry is the following: "Express Edition Toolkit".

As a conclusion, should I understand that I must apply the "Express Edition Toolkit SP2" before applying the "SQL Server 2005 Express with advanced Services SP2"?

Many thanks again for your help,

Stphane

|||

Hi again,

I'm still stuck with my problem. Following explanations from Mike, a question still remain:

Starting from the fact that I originally applied SP1 with success using following sequence:

SQL Server 2005 Express Edition with advanced services SP1

SQL Server 2005 Express Edition Toolkit SP1

and that I could verify, following Mike's suggestion, that all SQL Server Software found in registry (HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Microsoft SQL Server\90...) are listed (vs Edition type) as Express editions:

==> Should I apply the "Express Edition Toolkit SP2" before applying the "SQL Server 2005 Express with advanced Services SP2"?

Many thanks for your support,

Stphane

|||

Hi everyone,

For follow-up of this discussion, please read following thread:

http://forums.microsoft.com/forums/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=1307730&SiteID=1

Stphane

2nd Post - Problem installing SQL Server 2005 Express SP2

Hi,

- "SQL Server DataBase Services 9.1.2047.00"

=> which I can check

- "Reporting Services 9.1.2047.00"

=> which I can check

- Workstation components and development tools 9.1.2047.00

=> which is simply disabled?

If I then look at the details of that last item, I can see the following warning:

Name: Microsoft SQL Server 2005 Tools

Edition check:

Now, following the suggestion of one person answering previous thread,

"If you're not sure if you have tools from another edition, you can check by going to Add/Remove Program, selecting the Microsoft SQL Server 2005 entry and clicking Change..."

I followed suggestion and got following result:

DEVELOPPEMENT

The following components are installed on this server

SQLEXPRESS

Database Engine

[Version: 9.1.2047.00 Edition: Express Edition Patch level: 9.1.2047 Language: Anglais (états-Unis)]

Reporting Services

[Version: 9.1.2047.00 Edition: Express Edition Patch level: 9.1.2047 Language: Anglais (états-Unis)]

Common components

Workstation Components

[Version: 9.1.2047.00 Edition: Express Edition Patch level: 9.1.2047 Language: Anglais (états-Unis)]

Looking at the results, everything seems to be normal. Only Express Edition, all same level which should be SP1. What step should I take to be able to upgrade to SP2 properly?

Thanks in advance,

Stphane

P.S.

From "Add/Remove Programs" I have, all listed, the following SQL Server installed programs:

- Microsoft SQL Server 2005

- Microsoft SQL Server 2005 Backward compatibility

- Microsoft SQL Server 2005 Books Online (English) (July 2006)

- Microsoft SQL Server 2005 Compact Edition (ENU)

- Microsoft SQL Server 2005 Compact Edition Books Online (ENU)

- Microsoft SQL Server 2005 Compact Edition Developer Software Development Kit (ENU)

- Microsoft SQL Server 2005 Compact Edition Tools for Visual Studio 2005 (ENU)

- Microsoft SQL Server Management Studio Express

- Microsoft SQL Server Native Client

- Microsoft SQL Setup Support Files (English)

- Microsoft SQL Server VSS Writer

Hi,

make sure you are applying the same language SP as the base installation. Cross language updates are not supported.

HTH, Jens K. Suessmeyer.

http://www.sqlserver2005.de|||

Hi Jens,

Today, following your note, I downloaded again same SP2 install program from following link:

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=5B5528B9-13E1-4DB9-A3FC-82116D598C3D&displaylang=en

Thanks for your help, hope to hear back!

Stphane

|||

Hi Stephane,

Missed your response in the other thread, sorry.

Mike

|||

Hi,

Many thanks for follow-up! I really appreciate. Lots of infos in your reply! Let's start.

Yes, I have the Express Edition Toolkit SP1 currently installed on my machine. For the registry value you refer to:

"You can do so in the registry at HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Microsoft SQL Server\90\Tools\Setup. Look at the Edition Type..."

The value I get from registry is the following: "Express Edition Toolkit".

As a conclusion, should I understand that I must apply the "Express Edition Toolkit SP2" before applying the "SQL Server 2005 Express with advanced Services SP2"?

Many thanks again for your help,

Stphane

|||

Hi again,

I'm still stuck with my problem. Following explanations from Mike, a question still remain:

Starting from the fact that I originally applied SP1 with success using following sequence:

SQL Server 2005 Express Edition with advanced services SP1

SQL Server 2005 Express Edition Toolkit SP1

==> Should I apply the "Express Edition Toolkit SP2" before applying the "SQL Server 2005 Express with advanced Services SP2"?

Many thanks for your support,

Stphane

|||

Hi everyone,

For follow-up of this discussion, please read following thread:

http://forums.microsoft.com/forums/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=1307730&SiteID=1

Stphane

2nd Post - Problem installing SQL Server 2005 Express SP2

Hi,

- "SQL Server DataBase Services 9.1.2047.00"

=> which I can check

- "Reporting Services 9.1.2047.00"

=> which I can check

- Workstation components and development tools 9.1.2047.00

=> which is simply disabled?

If I then look at the details of that last item, I can see the following warning:

Name: Microsoft SQL Server 2005 Tools

Edition check:

Now, following the suggestion of one person answering previous thread,

"If you're not sure if you have tools from another edition, you can check by going to Add/Remove Program, selecting the Microsoft SQL Server 2005 entry and clicking Change..."

I followed suggestion and got following result:

DEVELOPPEMENT

The following components are installed on this server

SQLEXPRESS

Database Engine

[Version: 9.1.2047.00 Edition: Express Edition Patch level: 9.1.2047 Language: Anglais (états-Unis)]

Reporting Services

[Version: 9.1.2047.00 Edition: Express Edition Patch level: 9.1.2047 Language: Anglais (états-Unis)]

Common components

Workstation Components

[Version: 9.1.2047.00 Edition: Express Edition Patch level: 9.1.2047 Language: Anglais (états-Unis)]

Looking at the results, everything seems to be normal. Only Express Edition, all same level which should be SP1. What step should I take to be able to upgrade to SP2 properly?

Thanks in advance,

Stphane

P.S.

From "Add/Remove Programs" I have, all listed, the following SQL Server installed programs:

- Microsoft SQL Server 2005

- Microsoft SQL Server 2005 Backward compatibility

- Microsoft SQL Server 2005 Books Online (English) (July 2006)

- Microsoft SQL Server 2005 Compact Edition (ENU)

- Microsoft SQL Server 2005 Compact Edition Books Online (ENU)

- Microsoft SQL Server 2005 Compact Edition Developer Software Development Kit (ENU)

- Microsoft SQL Server 2005 Compact Edition Tools for Visual Studio 2005 (ENU)

- Microsoft SQL Server Management Studio Express

- Microsoft SQL Server Native Client

- Microsoft SQL Setup Support Files (English)

- Microsoft SQL Server VSS Writer

Hi,

make sure you are applying the same language SP as the base installation. Cross language updates are not supported.

HTH, Jens K. Suessmeyer.

http://www.sqlserver2005.de|||

Hi Jens,

Today, following your note, I downloaded again same SP2 install program from following link:

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=5B5528B9-13E1-4DB9-A3FC-82116D598C3D&displaylang=en

Thanks for your help, hope to hear back!

Stphane

|||

Hi Stephane,

Missed your response in the other thread, sorry.

Mike

|||

Hi,

Many thanks for follow-up! I really appreciate. Lots of infos in your reply! Let's start.

Yes, I have the Express Edition Toolkit SP1 currently installed on my machine. For the registry value you refer to:

"You can do so in the registry at HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Microsoft SQL Server\90\Tools\Setup. Look at the Edition Type..."

The value I get from registry is the following: "Express Edition Toolkit".

As a conclusion, should I understand that I must apply the "Express Edition Toolkit SP2" before applying the "SQL Server 2005 Express with advanced Services SP2"?

Many thanks again for your help,

Stphane

|||

Hi again,

I'm still stuck with my problem. Following explanations from Mike, a question still remain:

Starting from the fact that I originally applied SP1 with success using following sequence:

SQL Server 2005 Express Edition with advanced services SP1

SQL Server 2005 Express Edition Toolkit SP1

==> Should I apply the "Express Edition Toolkit SP2" before applying the "SQL Server 2005 Express with advanced Services SP2"?

Many thanks for your support,

Stphane

|||

Hi everyone,

For follow-up of this discussion, please read following thread:

http://forums.microsoft.com/forums/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=1307730&SiteID=1

Stphane

Sunday, March 11, 2012

2K Tranaction Log Recovery with Corrupt Backup

I am looking to clarify my understanding of how the SQL Server 2000 recovery
processes works in full recovery mode.
Given the following backup strategy
12/1/2006 8:00 PM FULL BACKUP
12/2/2006 12:00 AM TRANSACTION LOG BACKUP
12/2/2006 06:00 AM TRANSACTION LOG BACKUP
12/2/2006 12:00 PM TRANSACTION LOG BACKUP
12/2/2006 06:00 PM TRANSACTION LOG BACKUP
12/2/2006 8:00 PM FULL BACKUP {Corrupt Backup}
12/3/2006 12:00 AM TRANSACTION LOG BACKUP
12/3/2006 06:00 AM TRANSACTION LOG BACKUP
If I wanted to restore the database to 12/3/2006 06:00:AM would I be able to
?
I'm questioning if it would be possible because the FULL backup would break
the Transaction Log chain. Doesn't the transaction log get truncated during
a full backup?Correct - the full backup on 12/2/06 8.00PM also backups up part of the
transaction log that will exist nowhere else in the log backup chain. You
will only be able to restore to the 12/2/06 6.00PM log backup.
Paul Randal
Lead Program Manager, Microsoft SQL Server Storage Engine
http://blogs.msdn.com/sqlserverstor...ne/default.aspx
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"C RAMSEY" <C RAMSEY@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D730CB8B-925E-488E-A843-3075EF6E93C6@.microsoft.com...
>I am looking to clarify my understanding of how the SQL Server 2000
>recovery
> processes works in full recovery mode.
> Given the following backup strategy
> 12/1/2006 8:00 PM FULL BACKUP
> 12/2/2006 12:00 AM TRANSACTION LOG BACKUP
> 12/2/2006 06:00 AM TRANSACTION LOG BACKUP
> 12/2/2006 12:00 PM TRANSACTION LOG BACKUP
> 12/2/2006 06:00 PM TRANSACTION LOG BACKUP
> 12/2/2006 8:00 PM FULL BACKUP {Corrupt Backup}
> 12/3/2006 12:00 AM TRANSACTION LOG BACKUP
> 12/3/2006 06:00 AM TRANSACTION LOG BACKUP
> If I wanted to restore the database to 12/3/2006 06:00:AM would I be able
> to?
> I'm questioning if it would be possible because the FULL backup would
> break
> the Transaction Log chain. Doesn't the transaction log get truncated
> during
> a full backup?
>|||After I posted the message I did a test of the process.
I was able to restore data that was changed after 12/3/2006 6:00 AM.
So I'm a little confused. Because it acted as if there was no break in the
transaction log chain.
My test was to restore the backup as a new database on the same instance. I
inserted a record and created a log backup at 10:00AM. Then I copied the
good backup from last night to another folder. Next I open the last night
backup and deleted data from it to make it an invalid backup. Then I
restored the previous day backup and all transaction logs up to the 10:00 AM
transaction log backup. I queried the table in the new database and the dat
a
was there.
"Paul S Randal [MS]" wrote:

> Correct - the full backup on 12/2/06 8.00PM also backups up part of the
> transaction log that will exist nowhere else in the log backup chain. You
> will only be able to restore to the 12/2/06 6.00PM log backup.
> --
> Paul Randal
> Lead Program Manager, Microsoft SQL Server Storage Engine
> http://blogs.msdn.com/sqlserverstor...ne/default.aspx
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights
.
> "C RAMSEY" <C RAMSEY@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:D730CB8B-925E-488E-A843-3075EF6E93C6@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||I completed an additional test were I insterted some records into a table an
d
backed up the database after each record as inserted.
Backup sequence was Full, Tran, Tran, Full, Tran, Tran
I then restored
Full, Tran, Tran, Tran, Tran
And all the data was recovered.
--Carlton
"C RAMSEY" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> After I posted the message I did a test of the process.
> I was able to restore data that was changed after 12/3/2006 6:00 AM.
> So I'm a little confused. Because it acted as if there was no break in the
> transaction log chain.
> My test was to restore the backup as a new database on the same instance.
I
> inserted a record and created a log backup at 10:00AM. Then I copied the
> good backup from last night to another folder. Next I open the last night
> backup and deleted data from it to make it an invalid backup. Then I
> restored the previous day backup and all transaction logs up to the 10:00
AM
> transaction log backup. I queried the table in the new database and the d
ata
> was there.
>
> "Paul S Randal [MS]" wrote:
>|||Paul,
I respectfully disagree here... The full backup does include some log record
s, but it doesn't remove
those log records from the ldf file (it doesn't truncate the log). Thanks to
this, the chain of log
backups is unaffected by intermediate database backups.
We can confirm this by looking at the LastLSN and FirstLSN eported by RESTOR
E HEADERONLY. Below is a
script that show this, and also confirms that you don't need to restore an i
ntermediate database
backup.
I know that I brought this up with someone in the dev team years ago, wanted
a confirmation that
this is a supported, not just some lucky fluke. I did get such a confirmatio
n. Knowing who you are,
I'm of course a bit worried now...
BOL does confirm in an example that you can skip an intermediate database ba
ckup:
ms-help://MS.SQLCC.v9/MS.SQLSVR.v9.en/udb9/html/9b12be51-5469-46f9-8e86-e938
e10aa3a1.htm
See "Alternative 2: Restore the database by using an earlier full database b
ackup".
However that same BOL topic has below statement at the top:
"The immediately previous full database backup or differential database back
up must be restored
first."
The two contradicts each other, and I believ (and hope) that the example is
the correct one and the
statement immediate above should be corrected.
--DROP DATABASE test
CREATE DATABASE test
GO
CREATE TABLE test..t(c1 int identity)
BACKUP DATABASE test TO DISK = 'C:\test.bak' WITH INIT
INSERT INTO test..t DEFAULT VALUES
BACKUP LOG test TO DISK = 'C:\test.bak'
INSERT INTO test..t DEFAULT VALUES
BACKUP LOG test TO DISK = 'C:\test.bak'
INSERT INTO test..t DEFAULT VALUES
BACKUP DATABASE test TO DISK = 'C:\test.bak'
INSERT INTO test..t DEFAULT VALUES
BACKUP LOG test TO DISK = 'C:\test.bak'
INSERT INTO test..t DEFAULT VALUES
BACKUP LOG test TO DISK = 'C:\test.bak'
--Check out LastLSN and FirstLSN below
RESTORE HEADERONLY FROM DISK = 'C:\test.bak'
--Try the restore:
RESTORE DATABASE test FROM DISK = 'C:\test.bak' WITH FILE = 1, NORECOVERY, R
EPLACE
RESTORE LOG test FROM DISK = 'C:\test.bak' WITH FILE = 2, NORECOVERY
RESTORE LOG test FROM DISK = 'C:\test.bak' WITH FILE = 3, NORECOVERY
RESTORE LOG test FROM DISK = 'C:\test.bak' WITH FILE = 5, NORECOVERY
RESTORE LOG test FROM DISK = 'C:\test.bak' WITH FILE = 6, RECOVERY
--DROP DATABASE test
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Paul S Randal [MS]" <prandal@.online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:OLLX$P5HHHA.4896@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Correct - the full backup on 12/2/06 8.00PM also backups up part of the tr
ansaction log that will
> exist nowhere else in the log backup chain. You will only be able to resto
re to the 12/2/06 6.00PM
> log backup.
> --
> Paul Randal
> Lead Program Manager, Microsoft SQL Server Storage Engine
> http://blogs.msdn.com/sqlserverstor...ne/default.aspx
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights
.
>

2-Dimensional reports.

I have a number of reports to implement that have the following
characteristics:
1) column headers come from database tables - these are normally 4 to 10
items. These tables consist of 1 text field and a record-id field.
2) rows come from other tables according to specified selection criteria.
3) Row summaries based on some calculations are included in a last column
4) group and final calculations are required.
I've implemented one report using a multi-join SQL statement with a GROUP BY
statement and a CUBE statement, putting the results into a Grid report. This
worked except that the final total also shows details that I don't want on
the report. I've been able to blank out the rows for these entries, but
wasn't able to get rid of the rows themselves in the report, so that the
Final total follows a number of blank lines after the last Group-level
subtotal.
Is there any technique that would allow me to use a Table-report and fill in
the column headers from one DataSet in an extensible manner, and then fill in
the row data from a different dataset?You should be able to use aggregates from another data set in the headers of
a table. You say =First(Fields!Header.Value, "headerdataset").
--
Brian Welcker
Group Program Manager
SQL Server Reporting Services
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Altair" <Altair@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6CA5C7DE-E2D2-4968-A070-9B47D2354518@.microsoft.com...
>I have a number of reports to implement that have the following
> characteristics:
> 1) column headers come from database tables - these are normally 4 to 10
> items. These tables consist of 1 text field and a record-id field.
> 2) rows come from other tables according to specified selection criteria.
> 3) Row summaries based on some calculations are included in a last column
> 4) group and final calculations are required.
> I've implemented one report using a multi-join SQL statement with a GROUP
> BY
> statement and a CUBE statement, putting the results into a Grid report.
> This
> worked except that the final total also shows details that I don't want on
> the report. I've been able to blank out the rows for these entries, but
> wasn't able to get rid of the rows themselves in the report, so that the
> Final total follows a number of blank lines after the last Group-level
> subtotal.
> Is there any technique that would allow me to use a Table-report and fill
> in
> the column headers from one DataSet in an extensible manner, and then fill
> in
> the row data from a different dataset?|||In trying your suggestion, I only get the first element from the dataset.
I've not been successfull, in trying to populate the rest of the column
headers with successive values from the header dataset. From what I've found
in the documentation, there are First(), and a Last() aggregate functions,
but nothing to allow you to iterate through the values.
"Brian Welcker [MSFT]" wrote:
> You should be able to use aggregates from another data set in the headers of
> a table. You say =First(Fields!Header.Value, "headerdataset").
> --
> Brian Welcker
> Group Program Manager
> SQL Server Reporting Services
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
> "Altair" <Altair@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:6CA5C7DE-E2D2-4968-A070-9B47D2354518@.microsoft.com...
> >I have a number of reports to implement that have the following
> > characteristics:
> > 1) column headers come from database tables - these are normally 4 to 10
> > items. These tables consist of 1 text field and a record-id field.
> > 2) rows come from other tables according to specified selection criteria.
> > 3) Row summaries based on some calculations are included in a last column
> > 4) group and final calculations are required.
> >
> > I've implemented one report using a multi-join SQL statement with a GROUP
> > BY
> > statement and a CUBE statement, putting the results into a Grid report.
> > This
> > worked except that the final total also shows details that I don't want on
> > the report. I've been able to blank out the rows for these entries, but
> > wasn't able to get rid of the rows themselves in the report, so that the
> > Final total follows a number of blank lines after the last Group-level
> > subtotal.
> >
> > Is there any technique that would allow me to use a Table-report and fill
> > in
> > the column headers from one DataSet in an extensible manner, and then fill
> > in
> > the row data from a different dataset?
>
>

2601 Error When Creating or Altering a SPROC SS2005

I get the following error(in profiler) when creating or altering a stored
procedure (or view) in SS2005: "Error: 2601, Severity: 14, State: 1"
To duplicate create a table (table1) start profiler, add errors and
warnings, start the trace, create the proc below
create procedure test
As
select * from table1
select * from table1
go
The number of exceptions you see in the profiler trace is the same as the
number of columns on table1. Is this some kind of database engine problem
where the engine is trying to insert/update sys.sql_dependencies?I could not reproduce this, whether or not the table exists. All I get is a couple of error 208
(object doesn't exist).
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
<hpux9@.nospam.nospam> wrote in message news:D1E3C6C5-C624-41C1-A328-86357444DE45@.microsoft.com...
>I get the following error(in profiler) when creating or altering a stored
> procedure (or view) in SS2005: "Error: 2601, Severity: 14, State: 1"
> To duplicate create a table (table1) start profiler, add errors and
> warnings, start the trace, create the proc below
> create procedure test
> As
> select * from table1
> select * from table1
> go
> The number of exceptions you see in the profiler trace is the same as the
> number of columns on table1. Is this some kind of database engine problem
> where the engine is trying to insert/update sys.sql_dependencies?
>|||Tibor,
Thanks for the reply. I went back and tested this and it happens in my
production version:
9.00.1399.06 RTM Enterprise Edition (64-bit)
But it does not happen in my development version:
9.00.2047.00 SP1 Developer Edition
Fixed in SP1, or x86 vs x64 bug? I'll try to get the PRD upgraded to SP1
and see if it goes away.
Thanks
"Tibor Karaszi" wrote:
> I could not reproduce this, whether or not the table exists. All I get is a couple of error 208
> (object doesn't exist).
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>
> <hpux9@.nospam.nospam> wrote in message news:D1E3C6C5-C624-41C1-A328-86357444DE45@.microsoft.com...
> >I get the following error(in profiler) when creating or altering a stored
> > procedure (or view) in SS2005: "Error: 2601, Severity: 14, State: 1"
> >
> > To duplicate create a table (table1) start profiler, add errors and
> > warnings, start the trace, create the proc below
> >
> > create procedure test
> > As
> > select * from table1
> > select * from table1
> > go
> >
> > The number of exceptions you see in the profiler trace is the same as the
> > number of columns on table1. Is this some kind of database engine problem
> > where the engine is trying to insert/update sys.sql_dependencies?
> >
> >
>
>|||Upgraded to:
9.00.2047.00 SP1 Enterprise Edition (64-bit)
Still has the same issue. Can anyone else duplicate this issue?
Thanks
"hpux9@.nospam.nospam" wrote:
> Tibor,
> Thanks for the reply. I went back and tested this and it happens in my
> production version:
> 9.00.1399.06 RTM Enterprise Edition (64-bit)
> But it does not happen in my development version:
> 9.00.2047.00 SP1 Developer Edition
> Fixed in SP1, or x86 vs x64 bug? I'll try to get the PRD upgraded to SP1
> and see if it goes away.
> Thanks
> "Tibor Karaszi" wrote:
> > I could not reproduce this, whether or not the table exists. All I get is a couple of error 208
> > (object doesn't exist).
> >
> > --
> > Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> > http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> > http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
> >
> >
> > <hpux9@.nospam.nospam> wrote in message news:D1E3C6C5-C624-41C1-A328-86357444DE45@.microsoft.com...
> > >I get the following error(in profiler) when creating or altering a stored
> > > procedure (or view) in SS2005: "Error: 2601, Severity: 14, State: 1"
> > >
> > > To duplicate create a table (table1) start profiler, add errors and
> > > warnings, start the trace, create the proc below
> > >
> > > create procedure test
> > > As
> > > select * from table1
> > > select * from table1
> > > go
> > >
> > > The number of exceptions you see in the profiler trace is the same as the
> > > number of columns on table1. Is this some kind of database engine problem
> > > where the engine is trying to insert/update sys.sql_dependencies?
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >

Thursday, March 8, 2012

24-hour time format

I need to display a datetime in the following format:
31-10-2006 23:15:05 (day, month year with 24-hour time format).
I have tried this:
=Format(Fields!Date_Logged.Value,"dd-MM-yyyy hh:mm:ss")
but it shows the hour as 8:00 for AM and 8:00 for PM. I do NOT want to use
AM and PM (I know that would be 'tt' at the end), because I live in Denmark,
where 24-hours is used. How do I get the 24-hour hours to show?
Thanks in advance for any tips.You are very close. Just put the following in the format code exactly as I
have here:
MM/dd/yy HH:mm:ss
Also, although you can use the expression like you have done below, you
don't need to. Just put the expression code is, no = sign, no quotes.
Same thing for formatting numbers. I use this quite a bit
#,##0
The canned formats don't have this which I prefer.
Bruce Loehle-Conger
MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
"yogi bear" <yogi bear@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:DC1A6B4A-00FB-4617-9098-28BB2830E957@.microsoft.com...
>I need to display a datetime in the following format:
> 31-10-2006 23:15:05 (day, month year with 24-hour time format).
> I have tried this:
> =Format(Fields!Date_Logged.Value,"dd-MM-yyyy hh:mm:ss")
> but it shows the hour as 8:00 for AM and 8:00 for PM. I do NOT want to use
> AM and PM (I know that would be 'tt' at the end), because I live in
> Denmark,
> where 24-hours is used. How do I get the 24-hour hours to show?
> Thanks in advance for any tips.
>

Tuesday, March 6, 2012

2005: Database cannot be opened

Hello,
Could you explain me please the following error:

"Database 'DemoDotNET' cannot be opened due to inaccessible files or
insufficient memory or disk space. (Microsoft SQL Server, Error: 945)"

I have checked: free disk space is large enough, I have much enough
memory, other files in the directory are accessible.

Here is tail of ERRORLOG:

2006-06-12 21:19:55.68 Logon Error: 18456, Severity: 14, State:
16.
2006-06-12 21:19:55.68 Logon Login failed for user 'PC\Robert'.
[CLIENT: <local machine>]
2006-06-12 21:20:43.39 Server Server resumed execution after
being idle 1 seconds: user activity awakened the server. This is an
informational message only. No user action is required.

Please help to solve this.
Thank you.
/RAM/R.A.M. (r_ahimsa_m@.poczta.onet.pl) writes:
> "Database 'DemoDotNET' cannot be opened due to inaccessible files or
> insufficient memory or disk space. (Microsoft SQL Server, Error: 945)"
> I have checked: free disk space is large enough, I have much enough
> memory, other files in the directory are accessible.

Or there is some file for DemoDotNET which is located somewhere where
you don't think it is.

Unfortunately, with the information at hand it's impossible to say. You
could at least have posted the part of the error log where this message
appears. Or tell us when you get this error. Does it happen at startup?
Do you try to attach the database? Something else?

And, not the least, you did not tell us which version of SQL Server
you are using.

--
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|||On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 21:36:15 +0000 (UTC), Erland Sommarskog
<esquel@.sommarskog.se> wrote:

>R.A.M. (r_ahimsa_m@.poczta.onet.pl) writes:
>> "Database 'DemoDotNET' cannot be opened due to inaccessible files or
>> insufficient memory or disk space. (Microsoft SQL Server, Error: 945)"
>>
>> I have checked: free disk space is large enough, I have much enough
>> memory, other files in the directory are accessible.
>Or there is some file for DemoDotNET which is located somewhere where
>you don't think it is.
>Unfortunately, with the information at hand it's impossible to say. You
>could at least have posted the part of the error log where this message
>appears. Or tell us when you get this error. Does it happen at startup?
>Do you try to attach the database? Something else?
>And, not the least, you did not tell us which version of SQL Server
>you are using.

I am using SQL Server 2005.
In directory of the database I have files: DemoDotNET.mdf,
DemoDotNET_log.ldf.
I got the error when I try to see properties of database, or script
database or open in C#.NET or VB program.|||R.A.M. (r_ahimsa_m@.poczta.onet.pl) writes:
> I am using SQL Server 2005.
> In directory of the database I have files: DemoDotNET.mdf,
> DemoDotNET_log.ldf.
> I got the error when I try to see properties of database, or script
> database or open in C#.NET or VB program.

If you do

SELECT name, physical_name
FROM sys.master_files
where database_id = db_id('DemoDotNet')

does physical_name agree with the files you see in Explorer?

If they do, my suspicion is that the log file has been tampered with,
and is not usable.

--
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

2005: cannot to connect from .NET

Hello,
Could you help me please to solve the prblem with connecting to SQL Server
from .NET development environment?
I have the following error:

"An error has occured while establishing a connection to the server. When
connecting to SQL Server 2005, this failure may be caused by the fact that
under the default setting SQL Server does not allow remote connections.
(provider: Named Pipes Provider, error: 40 - Could nott open a connection to
SQL Server)

Please help. I changed option for remote connections but it doesn't help.
/RAM/RAM (r_ahimsa_m@.poczta.onet.pl) writes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by

Could you help me please to solve the prblem with connecting to SQL Server
from .NET development environment?
I have the following error:
>
"An error has occured while establishing a connection to the server.
When connecting to SQL Server 2005, this failure may be caused by the
fact that under the default setting SQL Server does not allow remote
connections. (provider: Named Pipes Provider, error: 40 - Could nott
open a connection to SQL Server)
>
Please help. I changed option for remote connections but it doesn't help.

Does the server accept connection from Named Pipes? Check this in
the SQL Server Configuration Manager.

Have you tried to connect over TCP/IP.

Also check firewalls etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by

the SQL Server Configuration Manager.

Yes

Quote:

Originally Posted by

Have you tried to connect over TCP/IP.

I am configuring data source. The message is displayed in Visual Web
Developer, the problem is not in source code.|||RAM (r_ahimsa_m@.poczta.onet.pl) writes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by

Quote:

Originally Posted by

>Does the server accept connection from Named Pipes? Check this in
>the SQL Server Configuration Manager.

>
Yes

And client and server agree on the name of the pipe?

Quote:

Originally Posted by

Quote:

Originally Posted by

>Have you tried to connect over TCP/IP.

>
I am configuring data source. The message is displayed in Visual Web
Developer, the problem is not in source code.

Eh? Whether you configure a data source, have a program, or connect from
a tool like SSMS has nothing do with it. You can still set up the connection
to use TCP/IP. Usually TCP/IP is preferrable over named pipes.

Sorry, but I can't help more, because know next to nothing about your
machines. Are client and server on the same machine or different? Is the
instance a named instance or a default instance?

Did you check that the SQL Server Browser service is running and accepts
remote connections?

--
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|||I have noticed something interesting.
The problem occurs when I am configuring data source control. The connection
string is taken from web.config:
<add name="MIMMagazynDemo" connectionString="Data Source=localhost;Initial
Catalog=MIMMagazynDemo;Integrated Security=True"
providerName="System.Data.SqlClient" />

I have noticed that the problem do not exist when I change localhost to
PC\SQLEXPRESS (PC is name of my computer).

Could you explain me why? Thank you!

/RAM/|||RAM (r_ahimsa_m@.poczta.onet.pl) writes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by

I have noticed something interesting.
The problem occurs when I am configuring data source control. The
connection string is taken from web.config:
><add name="MIMMagazynDemo" connectionString="Data Source=localhost;Initial
Catalog=MIMMagazynDemo;Integrated Security=True"
providerName="System.Data.SqlClient" />
>
I have noticed that the problem do not exist when I change localhost to
PC\SQLEXPRESS (PC is name of my computer).
>
Could you explain me why? Thank you!

SQL Server permits you to install several instances on the same machine.
One of these instances can be a default instances, all other instances
must be named.

When you refer to a default instance, you refer only to the machine name,
or, if you are on the machine itself, you can use ".", "localhost" or
"(local)" instead.

When you refer to a named instance, you must also include the instance
name separated from the machine name with a backslash, for instance
MYSERVER\MY2NDINSTANCE.

By default, SQL Server Express is installed as a named instance as
SQLEXPRESS, and thus "localhost" alone will not work on a machine that
only has SQL Express.

Uzytkownik "Erland Sommarskog" <esquel@.sommarskog.senapisal w wiadomosci
news:Xns98189D268B5C9Yazorman@.127.0.0.1...

Quote:

Originally Posted by

RAM (r_ahimsa_m@.poczta.onet.pl) writes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by

>I have noticed something interesting.
>The problem occurs when I am configuring data source control. The
>connection string is taken from web.config:
>><add name="MIMMagazynDemo" connectionString="Data Source=localhost;Initial
>Catalog=MIMMagazynDemo;Integrated Security=True"
>providerName="System.Data.SqlClient" />
>>
>I have noticed that the problem do not exist when I change localhost to
>PC\SQLEXPRESS (PC is name of my computer).
>>
>Could you explain me why? Thank you!

>
SQL Server permits you to install several instances on the same machine.
One of these instances can be a default instances, all other instances
must be named.
>
When you refer to a default instance, you refer only to the machine name,
or, if you are on the machine itself, you can use ".", "localhost" or
"(local)" instead.
>
When you refer to a named instance, you must also include the instance
name separated from the machine name with a backslash, for instance
MYSERVER\MY2NDINSTANCE.
>
By default, SQL Server Express is installed as a named instance as
SQLEXPRESS, and thus "localhost" alone will not work on a machine that
only has SQL Express.
>
--
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

Saturday, February 25, 2012

2005 SP2 - Install failed error 29537

Hi,
We installed SP2 on SQL 2005 base a week ago. Everything seems to work and
no errors are being reported, but it failed as per the following summary. I
did not stop any services prior to installing and rebooted after the
installation.
Time: 04/27/2007 16:47:24.552
KB Number: KB921896
Machine: SQL
OS Version: Microsoft Windows Server 2003 family, Standard Edition Service
Pack 1 (Build 3790)
Package Language: 1033 (ENU)
Package Platform: x64
Package SP Level: 2
Package Version: 3042
Command-line parameters specified:
Cluster Installation: No
**********************************************************************************
Prerequisites Check & Status
SQLSupport: Passed
**********************************************************************************
Products Detected Language Level Patch Level
Platform Edition
Setup Support Files ENU 9.00.1399.06
x64
Database Services (MSSQLSERVER) ENU RTM 2005.090.1399.00
x64 STANDARD
Notification Services ENU RTM 9.00.1399.00
x64 STANDARD
Integration Services ENU RTM 9.00.1399.00
x64 STANDARD
SQL Server Native Client ENU 9.00.1399.06
x64
Client Components ENU RTM 9.00.1399.06
x64 STANDARD
MSXML 6.0 Parser ENU 6.00.3888.0
x64
SQLXML4 ENU 9.00.1399.06
x64
Backward Compatibility ENU 8.05.1054
x64
Microsoft SQL Server VSS Writer ENU 9.00.1399.06
x64
**********************************************************************************
Products Disqualified & Reason
Product Reason
**********************************************************************************
Processes Locking Files
Process Name Feature Type User Name
PID
MSSQLSERVER SQL Server Native Client Service
1472
SQLSERVERAGENT SQL Server Native Client Service
1932
msftesql Database Services Service
1672
SQLBrowser Database Services Service
1548
MsDtsServer Integration Services Service
1252
**********************************************************************************
Product Installation Status
Product : Setup Support Files
Product Version (Previous): 1399
Product Version (Final) : 3042
Status : Success
Log File : C:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\90\Setup
Bootstrap\LOG\Hotfix\Redist9_Hotfix_KB921896_SqlSupport.msi.log
Error Number : 0
Error Description :
----
Product : Database Services (MSSQLSERVER)
Product Version (Previous): 1399
Product Version (Final) :
Status : Failure
Log File : C:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\90\Setup
Bootstrap\LOG\Hotfix\SQL9_Hotfix_KB921896_sqlrun_sql.msp.log
Error Number : 29537
Error Description : MSP Error: 29537 SQL Server Setup has
encountered the following problem: [Microsoft][SQL Native Client][SQL
Server]CREATE DATABASE failed. Some file names listed could not be created.
Check related errors.. To continue, correct the problem, and then run SQL
Server Setup again.
----
Product : Notification Services
Product Version (Previous): 1399
Product Version (Final) : 3042
Status : Success
Log File : C:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\90\Setup
Bootstrap\LOG\Hotfix\NS9_Hotfix_KB921896_sqlrun_ns.msp.log
Error Number : 0
Error Description :
----
Product : Integration Services
Product Version (Previous): 1399
Product Version (Final) : 3042
Status : Success
Log File : C:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\90\Setup
Bootstrap\LOG\Hotfix\DTS9_Hotfix_KB921896_sqlrun_dts.msp.log
Error Number : 0
Error Description :
----
Product : SQL Server Native Client
Product Version (Previous): 1399
Product Version (Final) : 3042
Status : Success
Log File : C:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\90\Setup
Bootstrap\LOG\Hotfix\Redist9_Hotfix_KB921896_sqlncli.msi.log
Error Number : 0
Error Description :
----
Product : Client Components
Product Version (Previous): 1399
Product Version (Final) : 3042
Status : Success
Log File : C:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\90\Setup
Bootstrap\LOG\Hotfix\SQLTools9_Hotfix_KB921896_sqlrun_tools.msp.log
Error Number : 0
Error Description :
----
Product : MSXML 6.0 Parser
Product Version (Previous): 3888
Product Version (Final) : 6.10.1129.0
Status : Success
Log File : C:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\90\Setup
Bootstrap\LOG\Hotfix\Redist9_Hotfix_KB921896_msxml6.msi.log
Error Number : 0
Error Description :
----
Product : SQLXML4
Product Version (Previous): 1399
Product Version (Final) : 3042
Status : Success
Log File : C:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\90\Setup
Bootstrap\LOG\Hotfix\Redist9_Hotfix_KB921896_sqlxml4.msi.log
Error Number : 0
Error Description :
----
Product : Backward Compatibility
Product Version (Previous): 1054
Product Version (Final) : 2004
Status : Success
Log File : C:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\90\Setup
Bootstrap\LOG\Hotfix\Redist9_Hotfix_KB921896_SQLServer2005_BC.msi.log
Error Number : 0
Error Description :
----
Product : Microsoft SQL Server VSS Writer
Product Version (Previous): 1399
Product Version (Final) : 3042
Status : Success
Log File : C:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\90\Setup
Bootstrap\LOG\Hotfix\Redist9_Hotfix_KB921896_SqlWriter.msi.log
Error Number : 0
Error Description :
----
**********************************************************************************
Summary
One or more products failed to install, see above for details
Exit Code Returned: 29537Hi
"Adr" wrote:
> Hi,
> We installed SP2 on SQL 2005 base a week ago. Everything seems to work and
> no errors are being reported, but it failed as per the following summary. I
> did not stop any services prior to installing and rebooted after the
> installation.
> Time: 04/27/2007 16:47:24.552
> KB Number: KB921896
> Machine: SQL
> OS Version: Microsoft Windows Server 2003 family, Standard Edition Service
> Pack 1 (Build 3790)
> Package Language: 1033 (ENU)
> Package Platform: x64
> Package SP Level: 2
> Package Version: 3042
> Command-line parameters specified:
> Cluster Installation: No
> ----
> Product : Database Services (MSSQLSERVER)
> Product Version (Previous): 1399
> Product Version (Final) :
> Status : Failure
> Log File : C:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\90\Setup
> Bootstrap\LOG\Hotfix\SQL9_Hotfix_KB921896_sqlrun_sql.msp.log
> Error Number : 29537
> Error Description : MSP Error: 29537 SQL Server Setup has
> encountered the following problem: [Microsoft][SQL Native Client][SQL
> Server]CREATE DATABASE failed. Some file names listed could not be created.
> Check related errors.. To continue, correct the problem, and then run SQL
> Server Setup again.
> ----
**********************************************************************************
> Summary
> One or more products failed to install, see above for details
> Exit Code Returned: 29537
>
Did you look in C:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\90\Setup
Bootstrap\LOG\Hotfix\SQL9_Hotfix_KB921896_sqlrun_sql.msp.log ?
John|||Yes, you are referring to the 10MB logfile that is mostly greek? AT the
end, it has this if it helps. I can email the file to someone if necessary.
Thanks for reviewing my post!
MSI (s) (64:1C) [16:40:58:422]: Product: Microsoft SQL Server 2005 (64-bit)
- Update 'Service Pack 2 for SQL Server Database Services 2005 (64-bit) ENU
(KB921896)' could not be installed. Error code 1603. Additional information
is available in the log file C:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\90\Setup
Bootstrap\LOG\Hotfix\SQL9_Hotfix_KB921896_sqlrun_sql.msp.log.
MSI (s) (64:1C) [16:40:58:422]: Note: 1: 1729
MSI (s) (64:1C) [16:40:58:422]: Transforming table Error.
MSI (s) (64:1C) [16:40:58:422]: Note: 1: 2262 2: Error 3: -2147287038
MSI (s) (64:1C) [16:40:58:438]: Transforming table Error.
MSI (s) (64:1C) [16:40:58:438]: Transforming table Error.
MSI (s) (64:1C) [16:40:58:438]: Note: 1: 2262 2: Error 3: -2147287038
MSI (s) (64:1C) [16:40:58:438]: Transforming table Error.
MSI (s) (64:1C) [16:40:58:438]: Note: 1: 2262 2: Error 3: -2147287038
MSI (s) (64:1C) [16:40:58:438]: Transforming table Error.
MSI (s) (64:1C) [16:40:58:438]: Note: 1: 2262 2: Error 3: -2147287038
MSI (s) (64:1C) [16:40:58:438]: Transforming table Error.
MSI (s) (64:1C) [16:40:58:438]: Note: 1: 2262 2: Error 3: -2147287038
MSI (s) (64:1C) [16:40:58:454]: Transforming table Error.
MSI (s) (64:1C) [16:40:58:454]: Transforming table Error.
MSI (s) (64:1C) [16:40:58:454]: Note: 1: 2262 2: Error 3: -2147287038
MSI (s) (64:1C) [16:40:58:454]: Transforming table Error.
MSI (s) (64:1C) [16:40:58:454]: Note: 1: 2262 2: Error 3: -2147287038
MSI (s) (64:1C) [16:40:58:454]: Transforming table Error.
MSI (s) (64:1C) [16:40:58:454]: Note: 1: 2262 2: Error 3: -2147287038
MSI (s) (64:1C) [16:40:58:454]: Product: Microsoft SQL Server 2005 (64-bit)
-- Configuration failed.
MSI (s) (64:1C) [16:40:58:454]: Attempting to delete file
C:\WINDOWS\Installer\3e7f1.msp
MSI (s) (64:1C) [16:40:58:454]: Unable to delete the file. LastError = 32
MSI (s) (64:1C) [16:40:58:470]: Cleaning up uninstalled install packages, if
any exist
MSI (s) (64:1C) [16:40:58:470]: Post-install cleanup: removing installer
file 'C:\WINDOWS\Installer\3e7f1.msp'
MSI (s) (64:1C) [16:40:58:486]: MainEngineThread is returning 1603
MSI (s) (64:18) [16:40:58:486]: Destroying RemoteAPI object.
MSI (s) (64:70) [16:40:58:486]: Custom Action Manager thread ending.
=== Logging stopped: 4/27/2007 16:40:58 ===MSI (c) (84:18) [16:40:58:535]: Decrementing counter to disable shutdown. If
counter >= 0, shutdown will be denied. Counter after decrement: -1
MSI (c) (84:18) [16:40:58:535]: MainEngineThread is returning 1603
=== Verbose logging stopped: 4/27/2007 16:40:58 ==="John Bell" wrote:
> Hi
> "Adr" wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > We installed SP2 on SQL 2005 base a week ago. Everything seems to work and
> > no errors are being reported, but it failed as per the following summary. I
> > did not stop any services prior to installing and rebooted after the
> > installation.
> >
> > Time: 04/27/2007 16:47:24.552
> > KB Number: KB921896
> > Machine: SQL
> > OS Version: Microsoft Windows Server 2003 family, Standard Edition Service
> > Pack 1 (Build 3790)
> > Package Language: 1033 (ENU)
> > Package Platform: x64
> > Package SP Level: 2
> > Package Version: 3042
> > Command-line parameters specified:
> > Cluster Installation: No
> > ----
> > Product : Database Services (MSSQLSERVER)
> > Product Version (Previous): 1399
> > Product Version (Final) :
> > Status : Failure
> > Log File : C:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\90\Setup
> > Bootstrap\LOG\Hotfix\SQL9_Hotfix_KB921896_sqlrun_sql.msp.log
> > Error Number : 29537
> > Error Description : MSP Error: 29537 SQL Server Setup has
> > encountered the following problem: [Microsoft][SQL Native Client][SQL
> > Server]CREATE DATABASE failed. Some file names listed could not be created.
> > Check related errors.. To continue, correct the problem, and then run SQL
> > Server Setup again.
> > ----
> **********************************************************************************
> > Summary
> > One or more products failed to install, see above for details
> > Exit Code Returned: 29537
> >
> >
> Did you look in C:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\90\Setup
> Bootstrap\LOG\Hotfix\SQL9_Hotfix_KB921896_sqlrun_sql.msp.log ?
> John
>|||Hi
"Adr" wrote:
> Yes, you are referring to the 10MB logfile that is mostly greek? AT the
> end, it has this if it helps. I can email the file to someone if necessary.
> Thanks for reviewing my post!
> MSI (s) (64:1C) [16:40:58:422]: Product: Microsoft SQL Server 2005 (64-bit)
> - Update 'Service Pack 2 for SQL Server Database Services 2005 (64-bit) ENU
> (KB921896)' could not be installed. Error code 1603. Additional information
> is available in the log file C:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\90\Setup
> Bootstrap\LOG\Hotfix\SQL9_Hotfix_KB921896_sqlrun_sql.msp.log.
> MSI (s) (64:1C) [16:40:58:422]: Note: 1: 1729
> MSI (s) (64:1C) [16:40:58:422]: Transforming table Error.
> MSI (s) (64:1C) [16:40:58:422]: Note: 1: 2262 2: Error 3: -2147287038
> MSI (s) (64:1C) [16:40:58:438]: Transforming table Error.
> MSI (s) (64:1C) [16:40:58:438]: Transforming table Error.
> MSI (s) (64:1C) [16:40:58:438]: Note: 1: 2262 2: Error 3: -2147287038
> MSI (s) (64:1C) [16:40:58:438]: Transforming table Error.
> MSI (s) (64:1C) [16:40:58:438]: Note: 1: 2262 2: Error 3: -2147287038
> MSI (s) (64:1C) [16:40:58:438]: Transforming table Error.
> MSI (s) (64:1C) [16:40:58:438]: Note: 1: 2262 2: Error 3: -2147287038
> MSI (s) (64:1C) [16:40:58:438]: Transforming table Error.
> MSI (s) (64:1C) [16:40:58:438]: Note: 1: 2262 2: Error 3: -2147287038
> MSI (s) (64:1C) [16:40:58:454]: Transforming table Error.
> MSI (s) (64:1C) [16:40:58:454]: Transforming table Error.
> MSI (s) (64:1C) [16:40:58:454]: Note: 1: 2262 2: Error 3: -2147287038
> MSI (s) (64:1C) [16:40:58:454]: Transforming table Error.
> MSI (s) (64:1C) [16:40:58:454]: Note: 1: 2262 2: Error 3: -2147287038
> MSI (s) (64:1C) [16:40:58:454]: Transforming table Error.
> MSI (s) (64:1C) [16:40:58:454]: Note: 1: 2262 2: Error 3: -2147287038
> MSI (s) (64:1C) [16:40:58:454]: Product: Microsoft SQL Server 2005 (64-bit)
> -- Configuration failed.
> MSI (s) (64:1C) [16:40:58:454]: Attempting to delete file
> C:\WINDOWS\Installer\3e7f1.msp
> MSI (s) (64:1C) [16:40:58:454]: Unable to delete the file. LastError = 32
> MSI (s) (64:1C) [16:40:58:470]: Cleaning up uninstalled install packages, if
> any exist
> MSI (s) (64:1C) [16:40:58:470]: Post-install cleanup: removing installer
> file 'C:\WINDOWS\Installer\3e7f1.msp'
> MSI (s) (64:1C) [16:40:58:486]: MainEngineThread is returning 1603
> MSI (s) (64:18) [16:40:58:486]: Destroying RemoteAPI object.
> MSI (s) (64:70) [16:40:58:486]: Custom Action Manager thread ending.
> === Logging stopped: 4/27/2007 16:40:58 ===> MSI (c) (84:18) [16:40:58:535]: Decrementing counter to disable shutdown. If
> counter >= 0, shutdown will be denied. Counter after decrement: -1
> MSI (c) (84:18) [16:40:58:535]: MainEngineThread is returning 1603
> === Verbose logging stopped: 4/27/2007 16:40:58 ===> "John Bell" wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > "Adr" wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > We installed SP2 on SQL 2005 base a week ago. Everything seems to work and
> > > no errors are being reported, but it failed as per the following summary. I
> > > did not stop any services prior to installing and rebooted after the
> > > installation.
> > >
> > > Time: 04/27/2007 16:47:24.552
> > > KB Number: KB921896
> > > Machine: SQL
> > > OS Version: Microsoft Windows Server 2003 family, Standard Edition Service
> > > Pack 1 (Build 3790)
> > > Package Language: 1033 (ENU)
> > > Package Platform: x64
> > > Package SP Level: 2
> > > Package Version: 3042
> > > Command-line parameters specified:
> > > Cluster Installation: No
> > > ----
> > > Product : Database Services (MSSQLSERVER)
> > > Product Version (Previous): 1399
> > > Product Version (Final) :
> > > Status : Failure
> > > Log File : C:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\90\Setup
> > > Bootstrap\LOG\Hotfix\SQL9_Hotfix_KB921896_sqlrun_sql.msp.log
> > > Error Number : 29537
> > > Error Description : MSP Error: 29537 SQL Server Setup has
> > > encountered the following problem: [Microsoft][SQL Native Client][SQL
> > > Server]CREATE DATABASE failed. Some file names listed could not be created.
> > > Check related errors.. To continue, correct the problem, and then run SQL
> > > Server Setup again.
> > > ----
> > **********************************************************************************
> > > Summary
> > > One or more products failed to install, see above for details
> > > Exit Code Returned: 29537
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Did you look in C:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\90\Setup
> > Bootstrap\LOG\Hotfix\SQL9_Hotfix_KB921896_sqlrun_sql.msp.log ?
> >
> > John
I am not sure what that error refers to.
Although your problem is not reporting services the reply bu Jeremy to this
post has good advice you may want to try out
http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=519115&SiteID=1
otherwise you should call PSS.
John

Sunday, March 25, 2012

32 GB of Memory

32 GB of Memory

32 GB of Memory

Thursday, March 22, 2012

3086/3600 = 0.0 .... WHY Should be 0.857

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

3 questions

Monday, March 19, 2012

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

2nd Post - Problem installing SQL Server 2005 Express SP2

2nd Post - Problem installing SQL Server 2005 Express SP2

2nd Post - Problem installing SQL Server 2005 Express SP2

Sunday, March 11, 2012

2K Tranaction Log Recovery with Corrupt Backup

2K Tranaction Log Recovery with Corrupt Backup

2-Dimensional reports.

2601 Error When Creating or Altering a SPROC SS2005

2601 Error When Creating or Altering a SPROC SS2005

Thursday, March 8, 2012

24-hour time format

Tuesday, March 6, 2012

2005: Database cannot be opened

2005: cannot to connect from .NET

Saturday, February 25, 2012

2005 SP2 - Install failed error 29537

SQL Remove Old Backups

Blog Archive

About Me