Hello All
I've set up a job to backup our financial db and restore it to the same
machine (different files & db name) for reporting. This was to avoid a
blocking issue caused by the front end financial system.
The thing is, the blocking is still there, even when you are reporting
on the mirror database and the blocking process is on the other db!
Is this something to do with the objects having the same names/indexes
in sysobjects? Any ideas on how to resolve it?
Thanks!
PaulThat isn't possible. I suspect you have more to this than you are reporting.
Locks in one db do not affect queries in another unless the query or
transaction is across both dbs. You might want to have a look at these:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/271509
http://www.sql-server-performance.com/sf_block_prevention.asp
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"pdm" <paulusm@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1165263399.585739.293410@.16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
> Hello All
> I've set up a job to backup our financial db and restore it to the same
> machine (different files & db name) for reporting. This was to avoid a
> blocking issue caused by the front end financial system.
> The thing is, the blocking is still there, even when you are reporting
> on the mirror database and the blocking process is on the other db!
> Is this something to do with the objects having the same names/indexes
> in sysobjects? Any ideas on how to resolve it?
> Thanks!
> Paul
>|||You are absolutely right, I was being a dumb-ass
I had the dbname hardcoded in the stored procedures
Thsnks for your time though!
P|||That is the biggest argument to never using the db name in the object
qualifier unless you are actually intending to go cross db in the first
place. You are not the first one to get bit by that and you won't be the
last.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"pdm" <paulusm@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1165316471.090188.94890@.16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
> You are absolutely right, I was being a dumb-ass
> I had the dbname hardcoded in the stored procedures
> Thsnks for your time though!
> P
>
Showing posts with label machine. Show all posts
Showing posts with label machine. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Minimum level of rights for a SQL Server DBA.
Previously, DBAs in our company used to have local machine administrator
access on the SQL Server boxes. As part of tightening server security, those
rights have been taken away from DBAs (in some cases they have been added to
'Power Users' group).
In order to install SQL Server, the account need to be a local machine
administrator (that's given otherwise installation gives error).
But, what type of minimal rights should be given to DBAs on the server
resources to let that person function properly?
When I am talking about resources, I mean rights to write to specific
directories like
* SQL Server programs/tools
* Common DLLs (in C:\Program files\common files...)
* Local backup directories
* Directory for snapshot/transactional replication transfer data.
And right to execute programs/utilities on the server like
* Perfmon (for system tuning/performance monitoring)
* Services (starting/stopping MSSQLSERVER/SQL Agent esp. if there are
dependencies).
Is there anything that is not needed here or, alternatively, is there
anything that I missed?
Another dimension of this issue is the OS login access that is needed to run
the SQL Server services (needed for remote backups and replication).
Any help will be greatly appreciated!
Regards,
MZeeshan
At my last company, I didnt have admin rights... just SA. 90% of the time
it was fine. The other 10% it sucked. Common things I needed someone to hold
my hand on were:
1. Service restarts.
2. Hotfix/ service packs.
3. Set up stuff like Log Shipping where directory access is needed.
4. Wanting to just see how much disk space I had left on my backup drive.
5. Replication Snapshot.
I know you already mentioned alot of these. The problem is that when the DBA
needs these things, alot of time he needs them NOW. Not once he can have
someone come to his desk and log in as Admin. But like I said, 90% of the
time it was fine and I actually would prefer it. SA is usually good enough.
Any less than SA and a DBA cant get his work done.
"MZeeshan" <mzeeshan@.community.nospam> wrote in message
news:CD58C09D-1874-46A3-AA05-344727CA35F3@.microsoft.com...
> Previously, DBAs in our company used to have local machine administrator
> access on the SQL Server boxes. As part of tightening server security,
> those
> rights have been taken away from DBAs (in some cases they have been added
> to
> 'Power Users' group).
> In order to install SQL Server, the account need to be a local machine
> administrator (that's given otherwise installation gives error).
> But, what type of minimal rights should be given to DBAs on the server
> resources to let that person function properly?
> When I am talking about resources, I mean rights to write to specific
> directories like
> * SQL Server programs/tools
> * Common DLLs (in C:\Program files\common files...)
> * Local backup directories
> * Directory for snapshot/transactional replication transfer data.
> And right to execute programs/utilities on the server like
> * Perfmon (for system tuning/performance monitoring)
> * Services (starting/stopping MSSQLSERVER/SQL Agent esp. if there are
> dependencies).
> Is there anything that is not needed here or, alternatively, is there
> anything that I missed?
> Another dimension of this issue is the OS login access that is needed to
> run
> the SQL Server services (needed for remote backups and replication).
> Any help will be greatly appreciated!
> --
> Regards,
> MZeeshan
>
|||Thanks!
Anyone? any other ideas?
Regards,
MZeeshan
"ChrisR" wrote:
> At my last company, I didnt have admin rights... just SA. 90% of the time
> it was fine. The other 10% it sucked. Common things I needed someone to hold
> my hand on were:
> 1. Service restarts.
> 2. Hotfix/ service packs.
> 3. Set up stuff like Log Shipping where directory access is needed.
> 4. Wanting to just see how much disk space I had left on my backup drive.
> 5. Replication Snapshot.
> I know you already mentioned alot of these. The problem is that when the DBA
> needs these things, alot of time he needs them NOW. Not once he can have
> someone come to his desk and log in as Admin. But like I said, 90% of the
> time it was fine and I actually would prefer it. SA is usually good enough.
> Any less than SA and a DBA cant get his work done.
>
> "MZeeshan" <mzeeshan@.community.nospam> wrote in message
> news:CD58C09D-1874-46A3-AA05-344727CA35F3@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||Hi MZeeshan,
If you need OS login access that is needed to run the SQL Server services
(needed for remote backups and replication). I think give DBA local
administrator privilege is necessary.
BTW, you are recommanded using the tools below to ensure the security of
your product server.
Best Practices Analyzer Tool for Microsoft SQL Server 2000 1.0
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...=en&familyid=B
352EB1F-D3CA-44EE-893E-9E07339C1F22&displaylang=en
Since this is a consultation type issue, you can contact Advisory Services
(AS) . Microsoft Advisory Services provides short-term advice and guidance
for problems not covered by Problem Resolution Service as well as requests
for consultative assistance for design, development and deployment issues.
You may call this number to get Advisory Services: (800) 936-5200.
Sincerely yours,
Michael Cheng
Microsoft Online Partner Support
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
================================================== ===
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
access on the SQL Server boxes. As part of tightening server security, those
rights have been taken away from DBAs (in some cases they have been added to
'Power Users' group).
In order to install SQL Server, the account need to be a local machine
administrator (that's given otherwise installation gives error).
But, what type of minimal rights should be given to DBAs on the server
resources to let that person function properly?
When I am talking about resources, I mean rights to write to specific
directories like
* SQL Server programs/tools
* Common DLLs (in C:\Program files\common files...)
* Local backup directories
* Directory for snapshot/transactional replication transfer data.
And right to execute programs/utilities on the server like
* Perfmon (for system tuning/performance monitoring)
* Services (starting/stopping MSSQLSERVER/SQL Agent esp. if there are
dependencies).
Is there anything that is not needed here or, alternatively, is there
anything that I missed?
Another dimension of this issue is the OS login access that is needed to run
the SQL Server services (needed for remote backups and replication).
Any help will be greatly appreciated!
Regards,
MZeeshan
At my last company, I didnt have admin rights... just SA. 90% of the time
it was fine. The other 10% it sucked. Common things I needed someone to hold
my hand on were:
1. Service restarts.
2. Hotfix/ service packs.
3. Set up stuff like Log Shipping where directory access is needed.
4. Wanting to just see how much disk space I had left on my backup drive.
5. Replication Snapshot.
I know you already mentioned alot of these. The problem is that when the DBA
needs these things, alot of time he needs them NOW. Not once he can have
someone come to his desk and log in as Admin. But like I said, 90% of the
time it was fine and I actually would prefer it. SA is usually good enough.
Any less than SA and a DBA cant get his work done.
"MZeeshan" <mzeeshan@.community.nospam> wrote in message
news:CD58C09D-1874-46A3-AA05-344727CA35F3@.microsoft.com...
> Previously, DBAs in our company used to have local machine administrator
> access on the SQL Server boxes. As part of tightening server security,
> those
> rights have been taken away from DBAs (in some cases they have been added
> to
> 'Power Users' group).
> In order to install SQL Server, the account need to be a local machine
> administrator (that's given otherwise installation gives error).
> But, what type of minimal rights should be given to DBAs on the server
> resources to let that person function properly?
> When I am talking about resources, I mean rights to write to specific
> directories like
> * SQL Server programs/tools
> * Common DLLs (in C:\Program files\common files...)
> * Local backup directories
> * Directory for snapshot/transactional replication transfer data.
> And right to execute programs/utilities on the server like
> * Perfmon (for system tuning/performance monitoring)
> * Services (starting/stopping MSSQLSERVER/SQL Agent esp. if there are
> dependencies).
> Is there anything that is not needed here or, alternatively, is there
> anything that I missed?
> Another dimension of this issue is the OS login access that is needed to
> run
> the SQL Server services (needed for remote backups and replication).
> Any help will be greatly appreciated!
> --
> Regards,
> MZeeshan
>
|||Thanks!
Anyone? any other ideas?
Regards,
MZeeshan
"ChrisR" wrote:
> At my last company, I didnt have admin rights... just SA. 90% of the time
> it was fine. The other 10% it sucked. Common things I needed someone to hold
> my hand on were:
> 1. Service restarts.
> 2. Hotfix/ service packs.
> 3. Set up stuff like Log Shipping where directory access is needed.
> 4. Wanting to just see how much disk space I had left on my backup drive.
> 5. Replication Snapshot.
> I know you already mentioned alot of these. The problem is that when the DBA
> needs these things, alot of time he needs them NOW. Not once he can have
> someone come to his desk and log in as Admin. But like I said, 90% of the
> time it was fine and I actually would prefer it. SA is usually good enough.
> Any less than SA and a DBA cant get his work done.
>
> "MZeeshan" <mzeeshan@.community.nospam> wrote in message
> news:CD58C09D-1874-46A3-AA05-344727CA35F3@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||Hi MZeeshan,
If you need OS login access that is needed to run the SQL Server services
(needed for remote backups and replication). I think give DBA local
administrator privilege is necessary.
BTW, you are recommanded using the tools below to ensure the security of
your product server.
Best Practices Analyzer Tool for Microsoft SQL Server 2000 1.0
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...=en&familyid=B
352EB1F-D3CA-44EE-893E-9E07339C1F22&displaylang=en
Since this is a consultation type issue, you can contact Advisory Services
(AS) . Microsoft Advisory Services provides short-term advice and guidance
for problems not covered by Problem Resolution Service as well as requests
for consultative assistance for design, development and deployment issues.
You may call this number to get Advisory Services: (800) 936-5200.
Sincerely yours,
Michael Cheng
Microsoft Online Partner Support
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
================================================== ===
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Minimum level of rights for a SQL Server DBA.
Previously, DBAs in our company used to have local machine administrator
access on the SQL Server boxes. As part of tightening server security, those
rights have been taken away from DBAs (in some cases they have been added to
'Power Users' group).
In order to install SQL Server, the account need to be a local machine
administrator (that's given otherwise installation gives error).
But, what type of minimal rights should be given to DBAs on the server
resources to let that person function properly?
When I am talking about resources, I mean rights to write to specific
directories like
* SQL Server programs/tools
* Common DLLs (in C:\Program files\common files...)
* Local backup directories
* Directory for snapshot/transactional replication transfer data.
And right to execute programs/utilities on the server like
* Perfmon (for system tuning/performance monitoring)
* Services (starting/stopping MSSQLSERVER/SQL Agent esp. if there are
dependencies).
Is there anything that is not needed here or, alternatively, is there
anything that I missed?
Another dimension of this issue is the OS login access that is needed to run
the SQL Server services (needed for remote backups and replication).
Any help will be greatly appreciated!
--
Regards,
MZeeshanAt my last company, I didnt have admin rights... just SA. 90% of the time
it was fine. The other 10% it sucked. Common things I needed someone to hold
my hand on were:
1. Service restarts.
2. Hotfix/ service packs.
3. Set up stuff like Log Shipping where directory access is needed.
4. Wanting to just see how much disk space I had left on my backup drive.
5. Replication Snapshot.
I know you already mentioned alot of these. The problem is that when the DBA
needs these things, alot of time he needs them NOW. Not once he can have
someone come to his desk and log in as Admin. But like I said, 90% of the
time it was fine and I actually would prefer it. SA is usually good enough.
Any less than SA and a DBA cant get his work done.
"MZeeshan" <mzeeshan@.community.nospam> wrote in message
news:CD58C09D-1874-46A3-AA05-344727CA35F3@.microsoft.com...
> Previously, DBAs in our company used to have local machine administrator
> access on the SQL Server boxes. As part of tightening server security,
> those
> rights have been taken away from DBAs (in some cases they have been added
> to
> 'Power Users' group).
> In order to install SQL Server, the account need to be a local machine
> administrator (that's given otherwise installation gives error).
> But, what type of minimal rights should be given to DBAs on the server
> resources to let that person function properly?
> When I am talking about resources, I mean rights to write to specific
> directories like
> * SQL Server programs/tools
> * Common DLLs (in C:\Program files\common files...)
> * Local backup directories
> * Directory for snapshot/transactional replication transfer data.
> And right to execute programs/utilities on the server like
> * Perfmon (for system tuning/performance monitoring)
> * Services (starting/stopping MSSQLSERVER/SQL Agent esp. if there are
> dependencies).
> Is there anything that is not needed here or, alternatively, is there
> anything that I missed?
> Another dimension of this issue is the OS login access that is needed to
> run
> the SQL Server services (needed for remote backups and replication).
> Any help will be greatly appreciated!
> --
> Regards,
> MZeeshan
>|||Thanks!
Anyone? any other ideas?
--
Regards,
MZeeshan
"ChrisR" wrote:
> At my last company, I didnt have admin rights... just SA. 90% of the time
> it was fine. The other 10% it sucked. Common things I needed someone to hold
> my hand on were:
> 1. Service restarts.
> 2. Hotfix/ service packs.
> 3. Set up stuff like Log Shipping where directory access is needed.
> 4. Wanting to just see how much disk space I had left on my backup drive.
> 5. Replication Snapshot.
> I know you already mentioned alot of these. The problem is that when the DBA
> needs these things, alot of time he needs them NOW. Not once he can have
> someone come to his desk and log in as Admin. But like I said, 90% of the
> time it was fine and I actually would prefer it. SA is usually good enough.
> Any less than SA and a DBA cant get his work done.
>
> "MZeeshan" <mzeeshan@.community.nospam> wrote in message
> news:CD58C09D-1874-46A3-AA05-344727CA35F3@.microsoft.com...
> > Previously, DBAs in our company used to have local machine administrator
> > access on the SQL Server boxes. As part of tightening server security,
> > those
> > rights have been taken away from DBAs (in some cases they have been added
> > to
> > 'Power Users' group).
> >
> > In order to install SQL Server, the account need to be a local machine
> > administrator (that's given otherwise installation gives error).
> >
> > But, what type of minimal rights should be given to DBAs on the server
> > resources to let that person function properly?
> >
> > When I am talking about resources, I mean rights to write to specific
> > directories like
> > * SQL Server programs/tools
> > * Common DLLs (in C:\Program files\common files...)
> > * Local backup directories
> > * Directory for snapshot/transactional replication transfer data.
> >
> > And right to execute programs/utilities on the server like
> >
> > * Perfmon (for system tuning/performance monitoring)
> > * Services (starting/stopping MSSQLSERVER/SQL Agent esp. if there are
> > dependencies).
> >
> > Is there anything that is not needed here or, alternatively, is there
> > anything that I missed?
> >
> > Another dimension of this issue is the OS login access that is needed to
> > run
> > the SQL Server services (needed for remote backups and replication).
> >
> > Any help will be greatly appreciated!
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> > MZeeshan
> >
>
>|||Hi MZeeshan,
If you need OS login access that is needed to run the SQL Server services
(needed for remote backups and replication). I think give DBA local
administrator privilege is necessary.
BTW, you are recommanded using the tools below to ensure the security of
your product server.
Best Practices Analyzer Tool for Microsoft SQL Server 2000 1.0
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?displayla%20ng=en&familyid=B
352EB1F-D3CA-44EE-893E-9E07339C1F22&displaylang=en
Since this is a consultation type issue, you can contact Advisory Services
(AS) . Microsoft Advisory Services provides short-term advice and guidance
for problems not covered by Problem Resolution Service as well as requests
for consultative assistance for design, development and deployment issues.
You may call this number to get Advisory Services: (800) 936-5200.
Sincerely yours,
Michael Cheng
Microsoft Online Partner Support
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
=====================================================
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
access on the SQL Server boxes. As part of tightening server security, those
rights have been taken away from DBAs (in some cases they have been added to
'Power Users' group).
In order to install SQL Server, the account need to be a local machine
administrator (that's given otherwise installation gives error).
But, what type of minimal rights should be given to DBAs on the server
resources to let that person function properly?
When I am talking about resources, I mean rights to write to specific
directories like
* SQL Server programs/tools
* Common DLLs (in C:\Program files\common files...)
* Local backup directories
* Directory for snapshot/transactional replication transfer data.
And right to execute programs/utilities on the server like
* Perfmon (for system tuning/performance monitoring)
* Services (starting/stopping MSSQLSERVER/SQL Agent esp. if there are
dependencies).
Is there anything that is not needed here or, alternatively, is there
anything that I missed?
Another dimension of this issue is the OS login access that is needed to run
the SQL Server services (needed for remote backups and replication).
Any help will be greatly appreciated!
--
Regards,
MZeeshanAt my last company, I didnt have admin rights... just SA. 90% of the time
it was fine. The other 10% it sucked. Common things I needed someone to hold
my hand on were:
1. Service restarts.
2. Hotfix/ service packs.
3. Set up stuff like Log Shipping where directory access is needed.
4. Wanting to just see how much disk space I had left on my backup drive.
5. Replication Snapshot.
I know you already mentioned alot of these. The problem is that when the DBA
needs these things, alot of time he needs them NOW. Not once he can have
someone come to his desk and log in as Admin. But like I said, 90% of the
time it was fine and I actually would prefer it. SA is usually good enough.
Any less than SA and a DBA cant get his work done.
"MZeeshan" <mzeeshan@.community.nospam> wrote in message
news:CD58C09D-1874-46A3-AA05-344727CA35F3@.microsoft.com...
> Previously, DBAs in our company used to have local machine administrator
> access on the SQL Server boxes. As part of tightening server security,
> those
> rights have been taken away from DBAs (in some cases they have been added
> to
> 'Power Users' group).
> In order to install SQL Server, the account need to be a local machine
> administrator (that's given otherwise installation gives error).
> But, what type of minimal rights should be given to DBAs on the server
> resources to let that person function properly?
> When I am talking about resources, I mean rights to write to specific
> directories like
> * SQL Server programs/tools
> * Common DLLs (in C:\Program files\common files...)
> * Local backup directories
> * Directory for snapshot/transactional replication transfer data.
> And right to execute programs/utilities on the server like
> * Perfmon (for system tuning/performance monitoring)
> * Services (starting/stopping MSSQLSERVER/SQL Agent esp. if there are
> dependencies).
> Is there anything that is not needed here or, alternatively, is there
> anything that I missed?
> Another dimension of this issue is the OS login access that is needed to
> run
> the SQL Server services (needed for remote backups and replication).
> Any help will be greatly appreciated!
> --
> Regards,
> MZeeshan
>|||Thanks!
Anyone? any other ideas?
--
Regards,
MZeeshan
"ChrisR" wrote:
> At my last company, I didnt have admin rights... just SA. 90% of the time
> it was fine. The other 10% it sucked. Common things I needed someone to hold
> my hand on were:
> 1. Service restarts.
> 2. Hotfix/ service packs.
> 3. Set up stuff like Log Shipping where directory access is needed.
> 4. Wanting to just see how much disk space I had left on my backup drive.
> 5. Replication Snapshot.
> I know you already mentioned alot of these. The problem is that when the DBA
> needs these things, alot of time he needs them NOW. Not once he can have
> someone come to his desk and log in as Admin. But like I said, 90% of the
> time it was fine and I actually would prefer it. SA is usually good enough.
> Any less than SA and a DBA cant get his work done.
>
> "MZeeshan" <mzeeshan@.community.nospam> wrote in message
> news:CD58C09D-1874-46A3-AA05-344727CA35F3@.microsoft.com...
> > Previously, DBAs in our company used to have local machine administrator
> > access on the SQL Server boxes. As part of tightening server security,
> > those
> > rights have been taken away from DBAs (in some cases they have been added
> > to
> > 'Power Users' group).
> >
> > In order to install SQL Server, the account need to be a local machine
> > administrator (that's given otherwise installation gives error).
> >
> > But, what type of minimal rights should be given to DBAs on the server
> > resources to let that person function properly?
> >
> > When I am talking about resources, I mean rights to write to specific
> > directories like
> > * SQL Server programs/tools
> > * Common DLLs (in C:\Program files\common files...)
> > * Local backup directories
> > * Directory for snapshot/transactional replication transfer data.
> >
> > And right to execute programs/utilities on the server like
> >
> > * Perfmon (for system tuning/performance monitoring)
> > * Services (starting/stopping MSSQLSERVER/SQL Agent esp. if there are
> > dependencies).
> >
> > Is there anything that is not needed here or, alternatively, is there
> > anything that I missed?
> >
> > Another dimension of this issue is the OS login access that is needed to
> > run
> > the SQL Server services (needed for remote backups and replication).
> >
> > Any help will be greatly appreciated!
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> > MZeeshan
> >
>
>|||Hi MZeeshan,
If you need OS login access that is needed to run the SQL Server services
(needed for remote backups and replication). I think give DBA local
administrator privilege is necessary.
BTW, you are recommanded using the tools below to ensure the security of
your product server.
Best Practices Analyzer Tool for Microsoft SQL Server 2000 1.0
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?displayla%20ng=en&familyid=B
352EB1F-D3CA-44EE-893E-9E07339C1F22&displaylang=en
Since this is a consultation type issue, you can contact Advisory Services
(AS) . Microsoft Advisory Services provides short-term advice and guidance
for problems not covered by Problem Resolution Service as well as requests
for consultative assistance for design, development and deployment issues.
You may call this number to get Advisory Services: (800) 936-5200.
Sincerely yours,
Michael Cheng
Microsoft Online Partner Support
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
=====================================================
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Minimum level of rights for a SQL Server DBA.
Previously, DBAs in our company used to have local machine administrator
access on the SQL Server boxes. As part of tightening server security, those
rights have been taken away from DBAs (in some cases they have been added to
'Power Users' group).
In order to install SQL Server, the account need to be a local machine
administrator (that's given otherwise installation gives error).
But, what type of minimal rights should be given to DBAs on the server
resources to let that person function properly?
When I am talking about resources, I mean rights to write to specific
directories like
* SQL Server programs/tools
* Common DLLs (in C:\Program files\common files...)
* Local backup directories
* Directory for snapshot/transactional replication transfer data.
And right to execute programs/utilities on the server like
* Perfmon (for system tuning/performance monitoring)
* Services (starting/stopping MSSQLSERVER/SQL Agent esp. if there are
dependencies).
Is there anything that is not needed here or, alternatively, is there
anything that I missed?
Another dimension of this issue is the OS login access that is needed to run
the SQL Server services (needed for remote backups and replication).
Any help will be greatly appreciated!
Regards,
MZeeshanAt my last company, I didnt have admin rights... just SA. 90% of the time
it was fine. The other 10% it sucked. Common things I needed someone to hold
my hand on were:
1. Service restarts.
2. Hotfix/ service packs.
3. Set up stuff like Log Shipping where directory access is needed.
4. Wanting to just see how much disk space I had left on my backup drive.
5. Replication Snapshot.
I know you already mentioned alot of these. The problem is that when the DBA
needs these things, alot of time he needs them NOW. Not once he can have
someone come to his desk and log in as Admin. But like I said, 90% of the
time it was fine and I actually would prefer it. SA is usually good enough.
Any less than SA and a DBA cant get his work done.
"MZeeshan" <mzeeshan@.community.nospam> wrote in message
news:CD58C09D-1874-46A3-AA05-344727CA35F3@.microsoft.com...
> Previously, DBAs in our company used to have local machine administrator
> access on the SQL Server boxes. As part of tightening server security,
> those
> rights have been taken away from DBAs (in some cases they have been added
> to
> 'Power Users' group).
> In order to install SQL Server, the account need to be a local machine
> administrator (that's given otherwise installation gives error).
> But, what type of minimal rights should be given to DBAs on the server
> resources to let that person function properly?
> When I am talking about resources, I mean rights to write to specific
> directories like
> * SQL Server programs/tools
> * Common DLLs (in C:\Program files\common files...)
> * Local backup directories
> * Directory for snapshot/transactional replication transfer data.
> And right to execute programs/utilities on the server like
> * Perfmon (for system tuning/performance monitoring)
> * Services (starting/stopping MSSQLSERVER/SQL Agent esp. if there are
> dependencies).
> Is there anything that is not needed here or, alternatively, is there
> anything that I missed?
> Another dimension of this issue is the OS login access that is needed to
> run
> the SQL Server services (needed for remote backups and replication).
> Any help will be greatly appreciated!
> --
> Regards,
> MZeeshan
>|||Thanks!
Anyone? any other ideas?
--
Regards,
MZeeshan
"ChrisR" wrote:
> At my last company, I didnt have admin rights... just SA. 90% of the time
> it was fine. The other 10% it sucked. Common things I needed someone to ho
ld
> my hand on were:
> 1. Service restarts.
> 2. Hotfix/ service packs.
> 3. Set up stuff like Log Shipping where directory access is needed.
> 4. Wanting to just see how much disk space I had left on my backup drive.
> 5. Replication Snapshot.
> I know you already mentioned alot of these. The problem is that when the D
BA
> needs these things, alot of time he needs them NOW. Not once he can have
> someone come to his desk and log in as Admin. But like I said, 90% of the
> time it was fine and I actually would prefer it. SA is usually good enough
.
> Any less than SA and a DBA cant get his work done.
>
> "MZeeshan" <mzeeshan@.community.nospam> wrote in message
> news:CD58C09D-1874-46A3-AA05-344727CA35F3@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||Hi MZeeshan,
If you need OS login access that is needed to run the SQL Server services
(needed for remote backups and replication). I think give DBA local
administrator privilege is necessary.
BTW, you are recommanded using the tools below to ensure the security of
your product server.
Best Practices Analyzer Tool for Microsoft SQL Server 2000 1.0
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...g=en&familyid=B
352EB1F-D3CA-44EE-893E-9E07339C1F22&displaylang=en
Since this is a consultation type issue, you can contact Advisory Services
(AS) . Microsoft Advisory Services provides short-term advice and guidance
for problems not covered by Problem Resolution Service as well as requests
for consultative assistance for design, development and deployment issues.
You may call this number to get Advisory Services: (800) 936-5200.
Sincerely yours,
Michael Cheng
Microsoft Online Partner Support
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
========================================
=============
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
access on the SQL Server boxes. As part of tightening server security, those
rights have been taken away from DBAs (in some cases they have been added to
'Power Users' group).
In order to install SQL Server, the account need to be a local machine
administrator (that's given otherwise installation gives error).
But, what type of minimal rights should be given to DBAs on the server
resources to let that person function properly?
When I am talking about resources, I mean rights to write to specific
directories like
* SQL Server programs/tools
* Common DLLs (in C:\Program files\common files...)
* Local backup directories
* Directory for snapshot/transactional replication transfer data.
And right to execute programs/utilities on the server like
* Perfmon (for system tuning/performance monitoring)
* Services (starting/stopping MSSQLSERVER/SQL Agent esp. if there are
dependencies).
Is there anything that is not needed here or, alternatively, is there
anything that I missed?
Another dimension of this issue is the OS login access that is needed to run
the SQL Server services (needed for remote backups and replication).
Any help will be greatly appreciated!
Regards,
MZeeshanAt my last company, I didnt have admin rights... just SA. 90% of the time
it was fine. The other 10% it sucked. Common things I needed someone to hold
my hand on were:
1. Service restarts.
2. Hotfix/ service packs.
3. Set up stuff like Log Shipping where directory access is needed.
4. Wanting to just see how much disk space I had left on my backup drive.
5. Replication Snapshot.
I know you already mentioned alot of these. The problem is that when the DBA
needs these things, alot of time he needs them NOW. Not once he can have
someone come to his desk and log in as Admin. But like I said, 90% of the
time it was fine and I actually would prefer it. SA is usually good enough.
Any less than SA and a DBA cant get his work done.
"MZeeshan" <mzeeshan@.community.nospam> wrote in message
news:CD58C09D-1874-46A3-AA05-344727CA35F3@.microsoft.com...
> Previously, DBAs in our company used to have local machine administrator
> access on the SQL Server boxes. As part of tightening server security,
> those
> rights have been taken away from DBAs (in some cases they have been added
> to
> 'Power Users' group).
> In order to install SQL Server, the account need to be a local machine
> administrator (that's given otherwise installation gives error).
> But, what type of minimal rights should be given to DBAs on the server
> resources to let that person function properly?
> When I am talking about resources, I mean rights to write to specific
> directories like
> * SQL Server programs/tools
> * Common DLLs (in C:\Program files\common files...)
> * Local backup directories
> * Directory for snapshot/transactional replication transfer data.
> And right to execute programs/utilities on the server like
> * Perfmon (for system tuning/performance monitoring)
> * Services (starting/stopping MSSQLSERVER/SQL Agent esp. if there are
> dependencies).
> Is there anything that is not needed here or, alternatively, is there
> anything that I missed?
> Another dimension of this issue is the OS login access that is needed to
> run
> the SQL Server services (needed for remote backups and replication).
> Any help will be greatly appreciated!
> --
> Regards,
> MZeeshan
>|||Thanks!
Anyone? any other ideas?
--
Regards,
MZeeshan
"ChrisR" wrote:
> At my last company, I didnt have admin rights... just SA. 90% of the time
> it was fine. The other 10% it sucked. Common things I needed someone to ho
ld
> my hand on were:
> 1. Service restarts.
> 2. Hotfix/ service packs.
> 3. Set up stuff like Log Shipping where directory access is needed.
> 4. Wanting to just see how much disk space I had left on my backup drive.
> 5. Replication Snapshot.
> I know you already mentioned alot of these. The problem is that when the D
BA
> needs these things, alot of time he needs them NOW. Not once he can have
> someone come to his desk and log in as Admin. But like I said, 90% of the
> time it was fine and I actually would prefer it. SA is usually good enough
.
> Any less than SA and a DBA cant get his work done.
>
> "MZeeshan" <mzeeshan@.community.nospam> wrote in message
> news:CD58C09D-1874-46A3-AA05-344727CA35F3@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||Hi MZeeshan,
If you need OS login access that is needed to run the SQL Server services
(needed for remote backups and replication). I think give DBA local
administrator privilege is necessary.
BTW, you are recommanded using the tools below to ensure the security of
your product server.
Best Practices Analyzer Tool for Microsoft SQL Server 2000 1.0
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...g=en&familyid=B
352EB1F-D3CA-44EE-893E-9E07339C1F22&displaylang=en
Since this is a consultation type issue, you can contact Advisory Services
(AS) . Microsoft Advisory Services provides short-term advice and guidance
for problems not covered by Problem Resolution Service as well as requests
for consultative assistance for design, development and deployment issues.
You may call this number to get Advisory Services: (800) 936-5200.
Sincerely yours,
Michael Cheng
Microsoft Online Partner Support
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
========================================
=============
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Monday, March 19, 2012
Min & Max Memory in 2005
Is there a best practice for setting the Minimum and Maximum Memory settings
in SQL Server 2005 on a dedicated SQL Server machine. With SQL Server 2000
we set the minimum and maximum memory to be the same value on our large
clustered SQL Server machines. This seemed to work very well. Is the same
true for 2005?
My experience so far has been you should at least set the max server
memory if you are beyond 2GB range, regardless of x86 or x64.
Note...if you are running x64 and have more than once instance, you
will also should to set it for ALL instances if you have more than one
on the box (or cluster in an active/active situation)...otherwise, the
most greedy instance wins out, creating memory pressure on the OS as
well...or so it goes from my experience. SQL will give up memory when
it recieves the out memory messages from the OS, but in the few times
I tested it during our initial deployment, the memory starvation of
one instance created massive slow downs in performance.
On Jun 15, 9:44 am, "Cgal" <cgalle...@.newsgroups.nospam> wrote:
> Is there a best practice for setting the Minimum and Maximum Memory settings
> in SQL Server 2005 on a dedicated SQL Server machine. With SQL Server 2000
> we set the minimum and maximum memory to be the same value on our large
> clustered SQL Server machines. This seemed to work very well. Is the same
> true for 2005?
|||Setting the min and max to the same basically fixes your memory at that
point and doesn't leave room for the OS to share if needed. In general leave
the min at 0 (default) and set the MAX to a value to always leave some for
the OS. Most systems will work fine with MAX at the default if you are not
using AWE but there may be times when you simply want to leave x amount of
memory for the OS and any other apps running on the server. If you are using
AWE and 32 bit you must set it to some value less than MAX because it is not
dynamic and will starve the OS.How much you leave depends on how much you
have and what you are doing.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Cgal" <cgallelli@.newsgroups.nospam> wrote in message
news:%23AqYlN1rHHA.4768@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Is there a best practice for setting the Minimum and Maximum Memory
> settings in SQL Server 2005 on a dedicated SQL Server machine. With SQL
> Server 2000 we set the minimum and maximum memory to be the same value on
> our large clustered SQL Server machines. This seemed to work very well.
> Is the same true for 2005?
>
in SQL Server 2005 on a dedicated SQL Server machine. With SQL Server 2000
we set the minimum and maximum memory to be the same value on our large
clustered SQL Server machines. This seemed to work very well. Is the same
true for 2005?
My experience so far has been you should at least set the max server
memory if you are beyond 2GB range, regardless of x86 or x64.
Note...if you are running x64 and have more than once instance, you
will also should to set it for ALL instances if you have more than one
on the box (or cluster in an active/active situation)...otherwise, the
most greedy instance wins out, creating memory pressure on the OS as
well...or so it goes from my experience. SQL will give up memory when
it recieves the out memory messages from the OS, but in the few times
I tested it during our initial deployment, the memory starvation of
one instance created massive slow downs in performance.
On Jun 15, 9:44 am, "Cgal" <cgalle...@.newsgroups.nospam> wrote:
> Is there a best practice for setting the Minimum and Maximum Memory settings
> in SQL Server 2005 on a dedicated SQL Server machine. With SQL Server 2000
> we set the minimum and maximum memory to be the same value on our large
> clustered SQL Server machines. This seemed to work very well. Is the same
> true for 2005?
|||Setting the min and max to the same basically fixes your memory at that
point and doesn't leave room for the OS to share if needed. In general leave
the min at 0 (default) and set the MAX to a value to always leave some for
the OS. Most systems will work fine with MAX at the default if you are not
using AWE but there may be times when you simply want to leave x amount of
memory for the OS and any other apps running on the server. If you are using
AWE and 32 bit you must set it to some value less than MAX because it is not
dynamic and will starve the OS.How much you leave depends on how much you
have and what you are doing.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Cgal" <cgallelli@.newsgroups.nospam> wrote in message
news:%23AqYlN1rHHA.4768@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Is there a best practice for setting the Minimum and Maximum Memory
> settings in SQL Server 2005 on a dedicated SQL Server machine. With SQL
> Server 2000 we set the minimum and maximum memory to be the same value on
> our large clustered SQL Server machines. This seemed to work very well.
> Is the same true for 2005?
>
Min & Max Memory in 2005
Is there a best practice for setting the Minimum and Maximum Memory settings
in SQL Server 2005 on a dedicated SQL Server machine. With SQL Server 2000
we set the minimum and maximum memory to be the same value on our large
clustered SQL Server machines. This seemed to work very well. Is the same
true for 2005?My experience so far has been you should at least set the max server
memory if you are beyond 2GB range, regardless of x86 or x64.
Note...if you are running x64 and have more than once instance, you
will also should to set it for ALL instances if you have more than one
on the box (or cluster in an active/active situation)...otherwise, the
most greedy instance wins out, creating memory pressure on the OS as
well...or so it goes from my experience. SQL will give up memory when
it recieves the out memory messages from the OS, but in the few times
I tested it during our initial deployment, the memory starvation of
one instance created massive slow downs in performance.
On Jun 15, 9:44 am, "Cgal" <cgalle...@.newsgroups.nospam> wrote:
> Is there a best practice for setting the Minimum and Maximum Memory settings
> in SQL Server 2005 on a dedicated SQL Server machine. With SQL Server 2000
> we set the minimum and maximum memory to be the same value on our large
> clustered SQL Server machines. This seemed to work very well. Is the same
> true for 2005?|||Setting the min and max to the same basically fixes your memory at that
point and doesn't leave room for the OS to share if needed. In general leave
the min at 0 (default) and set the MAX to a value to always leave some for
the OS. Most systems will work fine with MAX at the default if you are not
using AWE but there may be times when you simply want to leave x amount of
memory for the OS and any other apps running on the server. If you are using
AWE and 32 bit you must set it to some value less than MAX because it is not
dynamic and will starve the OS.How much you leave depends on how much you
have and what you are doing.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Cgal" <cgallelli@.newsgroups.nospam> wrote in message
news:%23AqYlN1rHHA.4768@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Is there a best practice for setting the Minimum and Maximum Memory
> settings in SQL Server 2005 on a dedicated SQL Server machine. With SQL
> Server 2000 we set the minimum and maximum memory to be the same value on
> our large clustered SQL Server machines. This seemed to work very well.
> Is the same true for 2005?
>
in SQL Server 2005 on a dedicated SQL Server machine. With SQL Server 2000
we set the minimum and maximum memory to be the same value on our large
clustered SQL Server machines. This seemed to work very well. Is the same
true for 2005?My experience so far has been you should at least set the max server
memory if you are beyond 2GB range, regardless of x86 or x64.
Note...if you are running x64 and have more than once instance, you
will also should to set it for ALL instances if you have more than one
on the box (or cluster in an active/active situation)...otherwise, the
most greedy instance wins out, creating memory pressure on the OS as
well...or so it goes from my experience. SQL will give up memory when
it recieves the out memory messages from the OS, but in the few times
I tested it during our initial deployment, the memory starvation of
one instance created massive slow downs in performance.
On Jun 15, 9:44 am, "Cgal" <cgalle...@.newsgroups.nospam> wrote:
> Is there a best practice for setting the Minimum and Maximum Memory settings
> in SQL Server 2005 on a dedicated SQL Server machine. With SQL Server 2000
> we set the minimum and maximum memory to be the same value on our large
> clustered SQL Server machines. This seemed to work very well. Is the same
> true for 2005?|||Setting the min and max to the same basically fixes your memory at that
point and doesn't leave room for the OS to share if needed. In general leave
the min at 0 (default) and set the MAX to a value to always leave some for
the OS. Most systems will work fine with MAX at the default if you are not
using AWE but there may be times when you simply want to leave x amount of
memory for the OS and any other apps running on the server. If you are using
AWE and 32 bit you must set it to some value less than MAX because it is not
dynamic and will starve the OS.How much you leave depends on how much you
have and what you are doing.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Cgal" <cgallelli@.newsgroups.nospam> wrote in message
news:%23AqYlN1rHHA.4768@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Is there a best practice for setting the Minimum and Maximum Memory
> settings in SQL Server 2005 on a dedicated SQL Server machine. With SQL
> Server 2000 we set the minimum and maximum memory to be the same value on
> our large clustered SQL Server machines. This seemed to work very well.
> Is the same true for 2005?
>
Min & Max Memory in 2005
Is there a best practice for setting the Minimum and Maximum Memory settings
in SQL Server 2005 on a dedicated SQL Server machine. With SQL Server 2000
we set the minimum and maximum memory to be the same value on our large
clustered SQL Server machines. This seemed to work very well. Is the same
true for 2005?My experience so far has been you should at least set the max server
memory if you are beyond 2GB range, regardless of x86 or x64.
Note...if you are running x64 and have more than once instance, you
will also should to set it for ALL instances if you have more than one
on the box (or cluster in an active/active situation)...otherwise, the
most greedy instance wins out, creating memory pressure on the OS as
well...or so it goes from my experience. SQL will give up memory when
it recieves the out memory messages from the OS, but in the few times
I tested it during our initial deployment, the memory starvation of
one instance created massive slow downs in performance.
On Jun 15, 9:44 am, "Cgal" <cgalle...@.newsgroups.nospam> wrote:
> Is there a best practice for setting the Minimum and Maximum Memory settin
gs
> in SQL Server 2005 on a dedicated SQL Server machine. With SQL Server 200
0
> we set the minimum and maximum memory to be the same value on our large
> clustered SQL Server machines. This seemed to work very well. Is the sam
e
> true for 2005?|||Setting the min and max to the same basically fixes your memory at that
point and doesn't leave room for the OS to share if needed. In general leave
the min at 0 (default) and set the MAX to a value to always leave some for
the OS. Most systems will work fine with MAX at the default if you are not
using AWE but there may be times when you simply want to leave x amount of
memory for the OS and any other apps running on the server. If you are using
AWE and 32 bit you must set it to some value less than MAX because it is not
dynamic and will starve the OS.How much you leave depends on how much you
have and what you are doing.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Cgal" <cgallelli@.newsgroups.nospam> wrote in message
news:%23AqYlN1rHHA.4768@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Is there a best practice for setting the Minimum and Maximum Memory
> settings in SQL Server 2005 on a dedicated SQL Server machine. With SQL
> Server 2000 we set the minimum and maximum memory to be the same value on
> our large clustered SQL Server machines. This seemed to work very well.
> Is the same true for 2005?
>
in SQL Server 2005 on a dedicated SQL Server machine. With SQL Server 2000
we set the minimum and maximum memory to be the same value on our large
clustered SQL Server machines. This seemed to work very well. Is the same
true for 2005?My experience so far has been you should at least set the max server
memory if you are beyond 2GB range, regardless of x86 or x64.
Note...if you are running x64 and have more than once instance, you
will also should to set it for ALL instances if you have more than one
on the box (or cluster in an active/active situation)...otherwise, the
most greedy instance wins out, creating memory pressure on the OS as
well...or so it goes from my experience. SQL will give up memory when
it recieves the out memory messages from the OS, but in the few times
I tested it during our initial deployment, the memory starvation of
one instance created massive slow downs in performance.
On Jun 15, 9:44 am, "Cgal" <cgalle...@.newsgroups.nospam> wrote:
> Is there a best practice for setting the Minimum and Maximum Memory settin
gs
> in SQL Server 2005 on a dedicated SQL Server machine. With SQL Server 200
0
> we set the minimum and maximum memory to be the same value on our large
> clustered SQL Server machines. This seemed to work very well. Is the sam
e
> true for 2005?|||Setting the min and max to the same basically fixes your memory at that
point and doesn't leave room for the OS to share if needed. In general leave
the min at 0 (default) and set the MAX to a value to always leave some for
the OS. Most systems will work fine with MAX at the default if you are not
using AWE but there may be times when you simply want to leave x amount of
memory for the OS and any other apps running on the server. If you are using
AWE and 32 bit you must set it to some value less than MAX because it is not
dynamic and will starve the OS.How much you leave depends on how much you
have and what you are doing.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Cgal" <cgallelli@.newsgroups.nospam> wrote in message
news:%23AqYlN1rHHA.4768@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Is there a best practice for setting the Minimum and Maximum Memory
> settings in SQL Server 2005 on a dedicated SQL Server machine. With SQL
> Server 2000 we set the minimum and maximum memory to be the same value on
> our large clustered SQL Server machines. This seemed to work very well.
> Is the same true for 2005?
>
Monday, February 20, 2012
Migrating to SQL Server 2005 on same machine
I'm planning a migration from SQL Server 2000 to SQL Server 2005. To do thi
s
migration I have the contraint that I can't buy new machines. So I'm trying
to determine what options I have. First let me set the stage a little. For
a given SQL Server production machine I may have from 10-50
databases/application running. So I'm looking at the following options. Ar
e
there others? What are the risks of each of these. If you were me which wa
y
would you go, consider the constraint above.
Option 1: Upgrade In Place - This option would upgrade all database to from
SQL Server 2000 to SQL server 2005 at the same time by SQL Server machine.
Option 2: Run a named instance of SQL Server 2005 - This option would
install a named instance of SQL Server 2005 on the same machine that is
running the default instance of SQL Server 2000. Databases would be migrate
d
one at a time, or a handful at a time, until all database have been migrated
.
Once all databases have been migrated, SQL Server 2000 would be shutdown.
What are your opinions of how successful would each of these options be?
What are this risks of each option? Does running two instanances of
different versions of SQL Server cause any issue?If you have only one machine , I would recommend install SQL as a named
instance, and when you migrate all of the databases and test them
thouroughly you can stop SQL Server 2000.
Regards
Amish Shah
s
migration I have the contraint that I can't buy new machines. So I'm trying
to determine what options I have. First let me set the stage a little. For
a given SQL Server production machine I may have from 10-50
databases/application running. So I'm looking at the following options. Ar
e
there others? What are the risks of each of these. If you were me which wa
y
would you go, consider the constraint above.
Option 1: Upgrade In Place - This option would upgrade all database to from
SQL Server 2000 to SQL server 2005 at the same time by SQL Server machine.
Option 2: Run a named instance of SQL Server 2005 - This option would
install a named instance of SQL Server 2005 on the same machine that is
running the default instance of SQL Server 2000. Databases would be migrate
d
one at a time, or a handful at a time, until all database have been migrated
.
Once all databases have been migrated, SQL Server 2000 would be shutdown.
What are your opinions of how successful would each of these options be?
What are this risks of each option? Does running two instanances of
different versions of SQL Server cause any issue?If you have only one machine , I would recommend install SQL as a named
instance, and when you migrate all of the databases and test them
thouroughly you can stop SQL Server 2000.
Regards
Amish Shah
Migrating to SQL Server 2005 on same machine
I'm planning a migration from SQL Server 2000 to SQL Server 2005. To do this
migration I have the contraint that I can't buy new machines. So I'm trying
to determine what options I have. First let me set the stage a little. For
a given SQL Server production machine I may have from 10-50
databases/application running. So I'm looking at the following options. Are
there others? What are the risks of each of these. If you were me which way
would you go, consider the constraint above.
Option 1: Upgrade In Place - This option would upgrade all database to from
SQL Server 2000 to SQL server 2005 at the same time by SQL Server machine.
Option 2: Run a named instance of SQL Server 2005 - This option would
install a named instance of SQL Server 2005 on the same machine that is
running the default instance of SQL Server 2000. Databases would be migrated
one at a time, or a handful at a time, until all database have been migrated.
Once all databases have been migrated, SQL Server 2000 would be shutdown.
What are your opinions of how successful would each of these options be?
What are this risks of each option? Does running two instanances of
different versions of SQL Server cause any issue?If you have only one machine , I would recommend install SQL as a named
instance, and when you migrate all of the databases and test them
thouroughly you can stop SQL Server 2000.
Regards
Amish Shah
migration I have the contraint that I can't buy new machines. So I'm trying
to determine what options I have. First let me set the stage a little. For
a given SQL Server production machine I may have from 10-50
databases/application running. So I'm looking at the following options. Are
there others? What are the risks of each of these. If you were me which way
would you go, consider the constraint above.
Option 1: Upgrade In Place - This option would upgrade all database to from
SQL Server 2000 to SQL server 2005 at the same time by SQL Server machine.
Option 2: Run a named instance of SQL Server 2005 - This option would
install a named instance of SQL Server 2005 on the same machine that is
running the default instance of SQL Server 2000. Databases would be migrated
one at a time, or a handful at a time, until all database have been migrated.
Once all databases have been migrated, SQL Server 2000 would be shutdown.
What are your opinions of how successful would each of these options be?
What are this risks of each option? Does running two instanances of
different versions of SQL Server cause any issue?If you have only one machine , I would recommend install SQL as a named
instance, and when you migrate all of the databases and test them
thouroughly you can stop SQL Server 2000.
Regards
Amish Shah
migrating to 2005 troubles :(
hey guys
just to do a test run i wanted to migrate the northwind database from
2000 to 2005
when i do a backup and try to restore on the new machine ... i receive
this message
i know its probably something trivial ... but can anyone give me a
hand with this ?
TITLE: Microsoft SQL Server Management Studio
Restore failed for Server 'NAMECLapps\ins1'.
(Microsoft.SqlServer.Smo)
For help, click:
[url]http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink?ProdName=Microsoft+SQL+Server&ProdVer=9.00. 2047.00&EvtSrc=Microsoft.SqlServer.Management.Smo. ExceptionTemplates.FailedOperationExceptionText&Ev tID=Restore+Server&LinkId=20476[/url]
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
System.Data.SqlClient.SqlError: Cannot use file 'C:\test\northwnd.mdf'
for clustered server. Only formatted files on which the cluster
resource of the server has a dependency can be used.
(Microsoft.SqlServer.Smo)
For help, click: [url]http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink?ProdName=Microsoft+SQL+Server&ProdVer=9.00. 2047.00&LinkId=20476[/url]
You can't put a user db on the local drive of a cluster. It must be one of
the drives in the cluster resource group.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
<glombica@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1185286074.533480.16750@.m3g2000hsh.googlegrou ps.com...
> hey guys
> just to do a test run i wanted to migrate the northwind database from
> 2000 to 2005
> when i do a backup and try to restore on the new machine ... i receive
> this message
> i know its probably something trivial ... but can anyone give me a
> hand with this ?
>
> TITLE: Microsoft SQL Server Management Studio
> --
> Restore failed for Server 'NAMECLapps\ins1'.
> (Microsoft.SqlServer.Smo)
> For help, click:
> [url]http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink?ProdName=Microsoft+SQL+Server&ProdVer=9.00. 2047.00&EvtSrc=Microsoft.SqlServer.Management.Smo. ExceptionTemplates.FailedOperationExceptionText&Ev tID=Restore+Server&LinkId=20476[/url]
> --
> ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
> System.Data.SqlClient.SqlError: Cannot use file 'C:\test\northwnd.mdf'
> for clustered server. Only formatted files on which the cluster
> resource of the server has a dependency can be used.
> (Microsoft.SqlServer.Smo)
> For help, click:
> [url]http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink?ProdName=Microsoft+SQL+Server&ProdVer=9.00. 2047.00&LinkId=20476[/url]
>
just to do a test run i wanted to migrate the northwind database from
2000 to 2005
when i do a backup and try to restore on the new machine ... i receive
this message
i know its probably something trivial ... but can anyone give me a
hand with this ?
TITLE: Microsoft SQL Server Management Studio
Restore failed for Server 'NAMECLapps\ins1'.
(Microsoft.SqlServer.Smo)
For help, click:
[url]http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink?ProdName=Microsoft+SQL+Server&ProdVer=9.00. 2047.00&EvtSrc=Microsoft.SqlServer.Management.Smo. ExceptionTemplates.FailedOperationExceptionText&Ev tID=Restore+Server&LinkId=20476[/url]
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
System.Data.SqlClient.SqlError: Cannot use file 'C:\test\northwnd.mdf'
for clustered server. Only formatted files on which the cluster
resource of the server has a dependency can be used.
(Microsoft.SqlServer.Smo)
For help, click: [url]http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink?ProdName=Microsoft+SQL+Server&ProdVer=9.00. 2047.00&LinkId=20476[/url]
You can't put a user db on the local drive of a cluster. It must be one of
the drives in the cluster resource group.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
<glombica@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1185286074.533480.16750@.m3g2000hsh.googlegrou ps.com...
> hey guys
> just to do a test run i wanted to migrate the northwind database from
> 2000 to 2005
> when i do a backup and try to restore on the new machine ... i receive
> this message
> i know its probably something trivial ... but can anyone give me a
> hand with this ?
>
> TITLE: Microsoft SQL Server Management Studio
> --
> Restore failed for Server 'NAMECLapps\ins1'.
> (Microsoft.SqlServer.Smo)
> For help, click:
> [url]http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink?ProdName=Microsoft+SQL+Server&ProdVer=9.00. 2047.00&EvtSrc=Microsoft.SqlServer.Management.Smo. ExceptionTemplates.FailedOperationExceptionText&Ev tID=Restore+Server&LinkId=20476[/url]
> --
> ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
> System.Data.SqlClient.SqlError: Cannot use file 'C:\test\northwnd.mdf'
> for clustered server. Only formatted files on which the cluster
> resource of the server has a dependency can be used.
> (Microsoft.SqlServer.Smo)
> For help, click:
> [url]http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink?ProdName=Microsoft+SQL+Server&ProdVer=9.00. 2047.00&LinkId=20476[/url]
>
migrating to 2005 troubles :(
hey guys
just to do a test run i wanted to migrate the northwind database from
2000 to 2005
when i do a backup and try to restore on the new machine ... i receive
this message
i know its probably something trivial ... but can anyone give me a
hand with this ?
TITLE: Microsoft SQL Server Management Studio
--
Restore failed for Server 'NAMECLapps\ins1'.
(Microsoft.SqlServer.Smo)
For help, click:
http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink?ProdName=Microsoft+SQL+Server&ProdVer=9.00.2047.00&EvtSrc=Microsoft.SqlServer.Management.Smo.ExceptionTemplates.FailedOperationExceptionText&EvtID=Restore+Server&LinkId=20476
--
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
System.Data.SqlClient.SqlError: Cannot use file 'C:\test\northwnd.mdf'
for clustered server. Only formatted files on which the cluster
resource of the server has a dependency can be used.
(Microsoft.SqlServer.Smo)
For help, click: http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink?ProdName=Microsoft+SQL+Server&ProdVer=9.00.2047.00&LinkId=20476You can't put a user db on the local drive of a cluster. It must be one of
the drives in the cluster resource group.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
<glombica@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1185286074.533480.16750@.m3g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> hey guys
> just to do a test run i wanted to migrate the northwind database from
> 2000 to 2005
> when i do a backup and try to restore on the new machine ... i receive
> this message
> i know its probably something trivial ... but can anyone give me a
> hand with this ?
>
> TITLE: Microsoft SQL Server Management Studio
> --
> Restore failed for Server 'NAMECLapps\ins1'.
> (Microsoft.SqlServer.Smo)
> For help, click:
> http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink?ProdName=Microsoft+SQL+Server&ProdVer=9.00.2047.00&EvtSrc=Microsoft.SqlServer.Management.Smo.ExceptionTemplates.FailedOperationExceptionText&EvtID=Restore+Server&LinkId=20476
> --
> ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
> System.Data.SqlClient.SqlError: Cannot use file 'C:\test\northwnd.mdf'
> for clustered server. Only formatted files on which the cluster
> resource of the server has a dependency can be used.
> (Microsoft.SqlServer.Smo)
> For help, click:
> http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink?ProdName=Microsoft+SQL+Server&ProdVer=9.00.2047.00&LinkId=20476
>
just to do a test run i wanted to migrate the northwind database from
2000 to 2005
when i do a backup and try to restore on the new machine ... i receive
this message
i know its probably something trivial ... but can anyone give me a
hand with this ?
TITLE: Microsoft SQL Server Management Studio
--
Restore failed for Server 'NAMECLapps\ins1'.
(Microsoft.SqlServer.Smo)
For help, click:
http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink?ProdName=Microsoft+SQL+Server&ProdVer=9.00.2047.00&EvtSrc=Microsoft.SqlServer.Management.Smo.ExceptionTemplates.FailedOperationExceptionText&EvtID=Restore+Server&LinkId=20476
--
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
System.Data.SqlClient.SqlError: Cannot use file 'C:\test\northwnd.mdf'
for clustered server. Only formatted files on which the cluster
resource of the server has a dependency can be used.
(Microsoft.SqlServer.Smo)
For help, click: http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink?ProdName=Microsoft+SQL+Server&ProdVer=9.00.2047.00&LinkId=20476You can't put a user db on the local drive of a cluster. It must be one of
the drives in the cluster resource group.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
<glombica@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1185286074.533480.16750@.m3g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> hey guys
> just to do a test run i wanted to migrate the northwind database from
> 2000 to 2005
> when i do a backup and try to restore on the new machine ... i receive
> this message
> i know its probably something trivial ... but can anyone give me a
> hand with this ?
>
> TITLE: Microsoft SQL Server Management Studio
> --
> Restore failed for Server 'NAMECLapps\ins1'.
> (Microsoft.SqlServer.Smo)
> For help, click:
> http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink?ProdName=Microsoft+SQL+Server&ProdVer=9.00.2047.00&EvtSrc=Microsoft.SqlServer.Management.Smo.ExceptionTemplates.FailedOperationExceptionText&EvtID=Restore+Server&LinkId=20476
> --
> ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
> System.Data.SqlClient.SqlError: Cannot use file 'C:\test\northwnd.mdf'
> for clustered server. Only formatted files on which the cluster
> resource of the server has a dependency can be used.
> (Microsoft.SqlServer.Smo)
> For help, click:
> http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink?ProdName=Microsoft+SQL+Server&ProdVer=9.00.2047.00&LinkId=20476
>
migrating to 2005 troubles :(
hey guys
just to do a test run i wanted to migrate the northwind database from
2000 to 2005
when i do a backup and try to restore on the new machine ... i receive
this message
i know its probably something trivial ... but can anyone give me a
hand with this ?
TITLE: Microsoft SQL Server Management Studio
--
Restore failed for Server 'NAMECLapps\ins1'.
(Microsoft.SqlServer.Smo)
For help, click:
http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink?Prod...er&LinkId=20476
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
System.Data.SqlClient.SqlError: Cannot use file 'C:\test\northwnd.mdf'
for clustered server. Only formatted files on which the cluster
resource of the server has a dependency can be used.
(Microsoft.SqlServer.Smo)
For help, click: http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink?Prod...00&LinkId=20476You can't put a user db on the local drive of a cluster. It must be one of
the drives in the cluster resource group.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
<glombica@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1185286074.533480.16750@.m3g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> hey guys
> just to do a test run i wanted to migrate the northwind database from
> 2000 to 2005
> when i do a backup and try to restore on the new machine ... i receive
> this message
> i know its probably something trivial ... but can anyone give me a
> hand with this ?
>
> TITLE: Microsoft SQL Server Management Studio
> --
> Restore failed for Server 'NAMECLapps\ins1'.
> (Microsoft.SqlServer.Smo)
> For help, click:
> http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink?Prod...er&LinkId=20476
> --
> ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
> System.Data.SqlClient.SqlError: Cannot use file 'C:\test\northwnd.mdf'
> for clustered server. Only formatted files on which the cluster
> resource of the server has a dependency can be used.
> (Microsoft.SqlServer.Smo)
> For help, click:
> http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink?Prod...
0&LinkId=20476
>
just to do a test run i wanted to migrate the northwind database from
2000 to 2005
when i do a backup and try to restore on the new machine ... i receive
this message
i know its probably something trivial ... but can anyone give me a
hand with this ?
TITLE: Microsoft SQL Server Management Studio
--
Restore failed for Server 'NAMECLapps\ins1'.
(Microsoft.SqlServer.Smo)
For help, click:
http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink?Prod...er&LinkId=20476
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
System.Data.SqlClient.SqlError: Cannot use file 'C:\test\northwnd.mdf'
for clustered server. Only formatted files on which the cluster
resource of the server has a dependency can be used.
(Microsoft.SqlServer.Smo)
For help, click: http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink?Prod...00&LinkId=20476You can't put a user db on the local drive of a cluster. It must be one of
the drives in the cluster resource group.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
<glombica@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1185286074.533480.16750@.m3g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> hey guys
> just to do a test run i wanted to migrate the northwind database from
> 2000 to 2005
> when i do a backup and try to restore on the new machine ... i receive
> this message
> i know its probably something trivial ... but can anyone give me a
> hand with this ?
>
> TITLE: Microsoft SQL Server Management Studio
> --
> Restore failed for Server 'NAMECLapps\ins1'.
> (Microsoft.SqlServer.Smo)
> For help, click:
> http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink?Prod...er&LinkId=20476
> --
> ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
> System.Data.SqlClient.SqlError: Cannot use file 'C:\test\northwnd.mdf'
> for clustered server. Only formatted files on which the cluster
> resource of the server has a dependency can be used.
> (Microsoft.SqlServer.Smo)
> For help, click:
> http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink?Prod...
0&LinkId=20476
>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)