Having some trouble connecting to a database....

I am doing one of the Microsoft virtual labs "Creating ASP.NET Web Applications with C# - Part 2" using Visual Web Developer Express. I am trying to fill a gridview with database information, but it gives me the error

"An error has occurred 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 settings SQL Server does not allow remote connections. (provider: Named Pipes Provider, error: 40 - Could not open a connection to SQL Server)".

This is on the local machine that I am executing the code.

public void BindGrid(string sortfield) {//Create DataAdapter to fetch data from Prodcuts table SqlDataAdapter myCommand =new SqlDataAdapter("select * from Products", myConnection);//Create dataset and fill it with Product data DataSet ds =new DataSet(); myCommand.Fill(ds,"Products");//Bind Product data to Datagrid DataView Source = ds.Tables["Products"].DefaultView; Source.Sort = sortfield; dgProducts.DataSource = Source; dgProducts.DataBind(); }

It stops on the line "myCommand.Fill(ds, "Products"); and points out the error mentioned earlier. I am not sure what to do...any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks in advance, and I apologize as well if I have not pointed out enough information.

What does your connection string look like?|||

check this link for help:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/914277/en-us

Thanks

|||

First of all, thank you both greatly for responding.

Smalltalk, here is the connection string:

myConnection = new SqlConnection("server=localhost;database=northwind;Trusted_Connection=yes");

Jpazgier, my connections are set at local and remote connections, plus the server is on the same machine, I have no idea why it mentions that error for me.

Thanks again, guys.

|||

Hi GWShane,

Please make sure that the server is the default instance on your machine. If you're using SQL Express, the default name for this instance might be SQLExpress. In this case, you might need to add the instance name to the DataSource like:

myConnection = new SqlConnection("server=localhost\\SQLExpress;database=northwind;Trusted_Connection=yes");

Hardware specification query

Hi
I am specifying some hardware for an application server. It will be running
two SQL applications - both applications will have about 20 users.
Throughput will be relatively low with regards to transactions. Both
software vendors would prefer their own server, but I'd rather keep both on
the same box. Both software vendors state specifically that they need a
seperate array for the transaction logs.
I'm thinking of the following:
Dual Xeon (dual core)
7GB RAM (1 GB for OS, 3GB for App1, 3 GB for App2)
RAID1(2 x 74GB15k SCSI) for OS, RAID5(3x146GB 15k SCSI) for App1 database,
RAID5(3x146GB 15k SCSI) for App2 database, RAID1(2x36GB15k SCSI) for App1
transaction logs, RAID1(2x36GB15k SCSI) for App2 transaction logs.
A couple of questions:
Could both transaction logs sit on the same RAID array without any real
decrease in performance?
Would I be better going RAID 10 for the database files as opposed to RAID 5?
Thanks in advance
Robbie
Robbie,
From your proposal, it looks like you are blessed with adequate resources.
In fact, for two applications, each with about 20 users, you have proposed
an incredibly 'robust' server.
I'd keep the Logs on separate RAID1 arrays for the optimal performance. If
the db size and storage requirements allow, the databases might be faster
and more 'robust' on the same RAID10 array (instead of separate RAID5
arrays).
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
You can't help someone get up a hill without getting a little closer to the
top yourself.
- H. Norman Schwarzkopf
"Robbie Niblock" <robbie@.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:OM95gc49GHA.924@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> I am specifying some hardware for an application server. It will be
> running two SQL applications - both applications will have about 20 users.
> Throughput will be relatively low with regards to transactions. Both
> software vendors would prefer their own server, but I'd rather keep both
> on the same box. Both software vendors state specifically that they need a
> seperate array for the transaction logs.
> I'm thinking of the following:
> Dual Xeon (dual core)
> 7GB RAM (1 GB for OS, 3GB for App1, 3 GB for App2)
> RAID1(2 x 74GB15k SCSI) for OS, RAID5(3x146GB 15k SCSI) for App1 database,
> RAID5(3x146GB 15k SCSI) for App2 database, RAID1(2x36GB15k SCSI) for App1
> transaction logs, RAID1(2x36GB15k SCSI) for App2 transaction logs.
> A couple of questions:
> Could both transaction logs sit on the same RAID array without any real
> decrease in performance?
> Would I be better going RAID 10 for the database files as opposed to RAID
> 5?
> Thanks in advance
> Robbie
>

Hardware specification query

Hi
I am specifying some hardware for an application server. It will be running
two SQL applications - both applications will have about 20 users.
Throughput will be relatively low with regards to transactions. Both
software vendors would prefer their own server, but I'd rather keep both on
the same box. Both software vendors state specifically that they need a
seperate array for the transaction logs.
I'm thinking of the following:
Dual Xeon (dual core)
7GB RAM (1 GB for OS, 3GB for App1, 3 GB for App2)
RAID1(2 x 74GB15k SCSI) for OS, RAID5(3x146GB 15k SCSI) for App1 database,
RAID5(3x146GB 15k SCSI) for App2 database, RAID1(2x36GB15k SCSI) for App1
transaction logs, RAID1(2x36GB15k SCSI) for App2 transaction logs.
A couple of questions:
Could both transaction logs sit on the same RAID array without any real
decrease in performance?
Would I be better going RAID 10 for the database files as opposed to RAID 5?
Thanks in advance
RobbieRobbie,
From your proposal, it looks like you are blessed with adequate resources.
In fact, for two applications, each with about 20 users, you have proposed
an incredibly 'robust' server.
I'd keep the Logs on separate RAID1 arrays for the optimal performance. If
the db size and storage requirements allow, the databases might be faster
and more 'robust' on the same RAID10 array (instead of separate RAID5
arrays).
--
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
You can't help someone get up a hill without getting a little closer to the
top yourself.
- H. Norman Schwarzkopf
"Robbie Niblock" <robbie@.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:OM95gc49GHA.924@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> I am specifying some hardware for an application server. It will be
> running two SQL applications - both applications will have about 20 users.
> Throughput will be relatively low with regards to transactions. Both
> software vendors would prefer their own server, but I'd rather keep both
> on the same box. Both software vendors state specifically that they need a
> seperate array for the transaction logs.
> I'm thinking of the following:
> Dual Xeon (dual core)
> 7GB RAM (1 GB for OS, 3GB for App1, 3 GB for App2)
> RAID1(2 x 74GB15k SCSI) for OS, RAID5(3x146GB 15k SCSI) for App1 database,
> RAID5(3x146GB 15k SCSI) for App2 database, RAID1(2x36GB15k SCSI) for App1
> transaction logs, RAID1(2x36GB15k SCSI) for App2 transaction logs.
> A couple of questions:
> Could both transaction logs sit on the same RAID array without any real
> decrease in performance?
> Would I be better going RAID 10 for the database files as opposed to RAID
> 5?
> Thanks in advance
> Robbie
>

Hardware specification query

Hi
I am specifying some hardware for an application server. It will be running
two SQL applications - both applications will have about 20 users.
Throughput will be relatively low with regards to transactions. Both
software vendors would prefer their own server, but I'd rather keep both on
the same box. Both software vendors state specifically that they need a
seperate array for the transaction logs.
I'm thinking of the following:
Dual Xeon (dual core)
7GB RAM (1 GB for OS, 3GB for App1, 3 GB for App2)
RAID1(2 x 74GB15k SCSI) for OS, RAID5(3x146GB 15k SCSI) for App1 database,
RAID5(3x146GB 15k SCSI) for App2 database, RAID1(2x36GB15k SCSI) for App1
transaction logs, RAID1(2x36GB15k SCSI) for App2 transaction logs.
A couple of questions:
Could both transaction logs sit on the same RAID array without any real
decrease in performance?
Would I be better going RAID 10 for the database files as opposed to RAID 5?
Thanks in advance
RobbieRobbie,
From your proposal, it looks like you are blessed with adequate resources.
In fact, for two applications, each with about 20 users, you have proposed
an incredibly 'robust' server.
I'd keep the Logs on separate RAID1 arrays for the optimal performance. If
the db size and storage requirements allow, the databases might be faster
and more 'robust' on the same RAID10 array (instead of separate RAID5
arrays).
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
You can't help someone get up a hill without getting a little closer to the
top yourself.
- H. Norman Schwarzkopf
"Robbie Niblock" <robbie@.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:OM95gc49GHA.924@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> I am specifying some hardware for an application server. It will be
> running two SQL applications - both applications will have about 20 users.
> Throughput will be relatively low with regards to transactions. Both
> software vendors would prefer their own server, but I'd rather keep both
> on the same box. Both software vendors state specifically that they need a
> seperate array for the transaction logs.
> I'm thinking of the following:
> Dual Xeon (dual core)
> 7GB RAM (1 GB for OS, 3GB for App1, 3 GB for App2)
> RAID1(2 x 74GB15k SCSI) for OS, RAID5(3x146GB 15k SCSI) for App1 database,
> RAID5(3x146GB 15k SCSI) for App2 database, RAID1(2x36GB15k SCSI) for App1
> transaction logs, RAID1(2x36GB15k SCSI) for App2 transaction logs.
> A couple of questions:
> Could both transaction logs sit on the same RAID array without any real
> decrease in performance?
> Would I be better going RAID 10 for the database files as opposed to RAID
> 5?
> Thanks in advance
> Robbie
>

Hardware spec

Hi
We are in the process of going live on two SQL applications. I am evaluating
hardware requirements and would like to see if I am on the right track.
2 SQL apps. There will be about 15 users on both and down the line we will
be implementing a web interface to both DBs. Database A vendor wants 4GB RAM
and Database B vendor wants about 2GB.
I am going down the following route:
IBM server with 2 x Dual Core Xeon CPUs (3.00GHz each)
8GB RAM
ServeRAID8k adapter (DB compatible)
6 x 146GB 15k SCSI (1 x RAID 1 Array - 2 x 146GB , 1 x RAID 5EE - 4 x 146GB)
Windows 2003 Server Enterprise
2 x SQL 2005 Standard CPU license
(Incase anyone if wondering what RAID 5EE is - it's a fancy version of RAID
5 with hotswap).
I am going to configure the operating system and programs on the RAID 1
array (c:\) and the SQL databases on the RAID 5EE. I will be creating two
SQL instances (DB1 and DB2). I'll restrict the RAM on DB1 to 4GB and the RAM
on DB2 to 2GB). There should be plenty of spare for the OS.
Am I barking up the wrong tree? Would I be better splitting the RAID5EE into
two seperate RAID 1 Arrays so the each DB exists on a seperate array?
This might seem overkill, but performance (and future expansion) is
extremely important.
Thanks in advance.
RobbieHi
It is not clear why you want two SQL server instances! They will require
more resource than a single instance even if you specify the maximum amount
of memory.
In general if you can afford it try and get Raid 10 rather than 5, you may
save some money by buying smaller discs for the OS. It would also be better
to split your data and log files onto separate disc arrays, rather than
separate the each instance onto two disc arrays (if you absolutely need two
instances!).
You don't say if you are buying 10K or 15K discs or how much cache is on the
discs.
Check out http://www.sql-server-performance.com including
http://www.sql-server-performance.com/jc_system_storage_configuration.asp
John
"Robbie Niblock" wrote:
> Hi
> We are in the process of going live on two SQL applications. I am evaluating
> hardware requirements and would like to see if I am on the right track.
> 2 SQL apps. There will be about 15 users on both and down the line we will
> be implementing a web interface to both DBs. Database A vendor wants 4GB RAM
> and Database B vendor wants about 2GB.
> I am going down the following route:
> IBM server with 2 x Dual Core Xeon CPUs (3.00GHz each)
> 8GB RAM
> ServeRAID8k adapter (DB compatible)
> 6 x 146GB 15k SCSI (1 x RAID 1 Array - 2 x 146GB , 1 x RAID 5EE - 4 x 146GB)
> Windows 2003 Server Enterprise
> 2 x SQL 2005 Standard CPU license
>
> (Incase anyone if wondering what RAID 5EE is - it's a fancy version of RAID
> 5 with hotswap).
> I am going to configure the operating system and programs on the RAID 1
> array (c:\) and the SQL databases on the RAID 5EE. I will be creating two
> SQL instances (DB1 and DB2). I'll restrict the RAM on DB1 to 4GB and the RAM
> on DB2 to 2GB). There should be plenty of spare for the OS.
> Am I barking up the wrong tree? Would I be better splitting the RAID5EE into
> two seperate RAID 1 Arrays so the each DB exists on a seperate array?
> This might seem overkill, but performance (and future expansion) is
> extremely important.
> Thanks in advance.
> Robbie
>
>|||You didn't mention the db sizes, average query, average frequency of query,
etc.
So far, it all sounds good -in fact, a very nice box.
If you are only running SQL Server on the box, the OS only needs 1 GB of
memory -that could allow more for either instance.
If you are really concerned about ''safety', putting the databases on Raid
1's would provide a level of redundency -as well as better separation of the
two Vendors' data, thinking backups, administrative uses, etc.
Licenses. A single EE license 'might' provide you more options for Growth,
expansion, and 'high availability'. (And it allows multiple instances)
Depending upon your VL agreement, it may not be much more than 2 Standard
editions.
--
Arnie Rowland*
"To be successful, your heart must accompany your knowledge."
"Robbie Niblock" <robbie@.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:OsLaYnppGHA.148@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> We are in the process of going live on two SQL applications. I am
> evaluating hardware requirements and would like to see if I am on the
> right track.
> 2 SQL apps. There will be about 15 users on both and down the line we will
> be implementing a web interface to both DBs. Database A vendor wants 4GB
> RAM and Database B vendor wants about 2GB.
> I am going down the following route:
> IBM server with 2 x Dual Core Xeon CPUs (3.00GHz each)
> 8GB RAM
> ServeRAID8k adapter (DB compatible)
> 6 x 146GB 15k SCSI (1 x RAID 1 Array - 2 x 146GB , 1 x RAID 5EE - 4 x
> 146GB)
> Windows 2003 Server Enterprise
> 2 x SQL 2005 Standard CPU license
>
> (Incase anyone if wondering what RAID 5EE is - it's a fancy version of
> RAID 5 with hotswap).
> I am going to configure the operating system and programs on the RAID 1
> array (c:\) and the SQL databases on the RAID 5EE. I will be creating two
> SQL instances (DB1 and DB2). I'll restrict the RAM on DB1 to 4GB and the
> RAM on DB2 to 2GB). There should be plenty of spare for the OS.
> Am I barking up the wrong tree? Would I be better splitting the RAID5EE
> into two seperate RAID 1 Arrays so the each DB exists on a seperate array?
> This might seem overkill, but performance (and future expansion) is
> extremely important.
> Thanks in advance.
> Robbie
>|||Thanks for the response. We are using 15k disks - 8mb buffer.
I was thinking two instances because the two DBs require different
collation.
Thanks
"John Bell" <jbellnewsposts@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9BDD41CE-F8B9-45B6-8AC6-66D92FBB1EB6@.microsoft.com...
> Hi
> It is not clear why you want two SQL server instances! They will require
> more resource than a single instance even if you specify the maximum
> amount
> of memory.
> In general if you can afford it try and get Raid 10 rather than 5, you may
> save some money by buying smaller discs for the OS. It would also be
> better
> to split your data and log files onto separate disc arrays, rather than
> separate the each instance onto two disc arrays (if you absolutely need
> two
> instances!).
> You don't say if you are buying 10K or 15K discs or how much cache is on
> the
> discs.
> Check out http://www.sql-server-performance.com including
> http://www.sql-server-performance.com/jc_system_storage_configuration.asp
> John
> "Robbie Niblock" wrote:
>> Hi
>> We are in the process of going live on two SQL applications. I am
>> evaluating
>> hardware requirements and would like to see if I am on the right track.
>> 2 SQL apps. There will be about 15 users on both and down the line we
>> will
>> be implementing a web interface to both DBs. Database A vendor wants 4GB
>> RAM
>> and Database B vendor wants about 2GB.
>> I am going down the following route:
>> IBM server with 2 x Dual Core Xeon CPUs (3.00GHz each)
>> 8GB RAM
>> ServeRAID8k adapter (DB compatible)
>> 6 x 146GB 15k SCSI (1 x RAID 1 Array - 2 x 146GB , 1 x RAID 5EE - 4 x
>> 146GB)
>> Windows 2003 Server Enterprise
>> 2 x SQL 2005 Standard CPU license
>>
>> (Incase anyone if wondering what RAID 5EE is - it's a fancy version of
>> RAID
>> 5 with hotswap).
>> I am going to configure the operating system and programs on the RAID 1
>> array (c:\) and the SQL databases on the RAID 5EE. I will be creating two
>> SQL instances (DB1 and DB2). I'll restrict the RAM on DB1 to 4GB and the
>> RAM
>> on DB2 to 2GB). There should be plenty of spare for the OS.
>> Am I barking up the wrong tree? Would I be better splitting the RAID5EE
>> into
>> two seperate RAID 1 Arrays so the each DB exists on a seperate array?
>> This might seem overkill, but performance (and future expansion) is
>> extremely important.
>> Thanks in advance.
>> Robbie
>>|||Thanks for your input.
Surely though I can have multiple instances with SQL Standard?
Robbie
"Arnie Rowland" <arnie@.1568.com> wrote in message
news:eJaO4AqpGHA.3324@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> You didn't mention the db sizes, average query, average frequency of
> query, etc.
> So far, it all sounds good -in fact, a very nice box.
> If you are only running SQL Server on the box, the OS only needs 1 GB of
> memory -that could allow more for either instance.
> If you are really concerned about ''safety', putting the databases on Raid
> 1's would provide a level of redundency -as well as better separation of
> the two Vendors' data, thinking backups, administrative uses, etc.
> Licenses. A single EE license 'might' provide you more options for Growth,
> expansion, and 'high availability'. (And it allows multiple instances)
> Depending upon your VL agreement, it may not be much more than 2 Standard
> editions.
> --
> Arnie Rowland*
> "To be successful, your heart must accompany your knowledge."
>
> "Robbie Niblock" <robbie@.nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:OsLaYnppGHA.148@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> Hi
>> We are in the process of going live on two SQL applications. I am
>> evaluating hardware requirements and would like to see if I am on the
>> right track.
>> 2 SQL apps. There will be about 15 users on both and down the line we
>> will be implementing a web interface to both DBs. Database A vendor wants
>> 4GB RAM and Database B vendor wants about 2GB.
>> I am going down the following route:
>> IBM server with 2 x Dual Core Xeon CPUs (3.00GHz each)
>> 8GB RAM
>> ServeRAID8k adapter (DB compatible)
>> 6 x 146GB 15k SCSI (1 x RAID 1 Array - 2 x 146GB , 1 x RAID 5EE - 4 x
>> 146GB)
>> Windows 2003 Server Enterprise
>> 2 x SQL 2005 Standard CPU license
>>
>> (Incase anyone if wondering what RAID 5EE is - it's a fancy version of
>> RAID 5 with hotswap).
>> I am going to configure the operating system and programs on the RAID 1
>> array (c:\) and the SQL databases on the RAID 5EE. I will be creating two
>> SQL instances (DB1 and DB2). I'll restrict the RAM on DB1 to 4GB and the
>> RAM on DB2 to 2GB). There should be plenty of spare for the OS.
>> Am I barking up the wrong tree? Would I be better splitting the RAID5EE
>> into two seperate RAID 1 Arrays so the each DB exists on a seperate
>> array?
>> This might seem overkill, but performance (and future expansion) is
>> extremely important.
>> Thanks in advance.
>> Robbie
>|||Of course you can, I didn't mean to imply otherwise.
You indicated that you were buying 2 SQL Standard Edition CPU licenses. I
was trying to suggest that 2 EE license may be all you need for this
situation.
And my comment about separation the 2 Vendors data is related to
SarBox/HIPPA issues. It may not be necessary in your situation.
--
Arnie Rowland*
"To be successful, your heart must accompany your knowledge."
"Robbie Niblock" <robbie@.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:etJDJLqpGHA.3584@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Thanks for your input.
> Surely though I can have multiple instances with SQL Standard?
> Robbie
> "Arnie Rowland" <arnie@.1568.com> wrote in message
> news:eJaO4AqpGHA.3324@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> You didn't mention the db sizes, average query, average frequency of
>> query, etc.
>> So far, it all sounds good -in fact, a very nice box.
>> If you are only running SQL Server on the box, the OS only needs 1 GB of
>> memory -that could allow more for either instance.
>> If you are really concerned about ''safety', putting the databases on
>> Raid 1's would provide a level of redundency -as well as better
>> separation of the two Vendors' data, thinking backups, administrative
>> uses, etc.
>> Licenses. A single EE license 'might' provide you more options for
>> Growth, expansion, and 'high availability'. (And it allows multiple
>> instances) Depending upon your VL agreement, it may not be much more than
>> 2 Standard editions.
>> --
>> Arnie Rowland*
>> "To be successful, your heart must accompany your knowledge."
>>
>> "Robbie Niblock" <robbie@.nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:OsLaYnppGHA.148@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> Hi
>> We are in the process of going live on two SQL applications. I am
>> evaluating hardware requirements and would like to see if I am on the
>> right track.
>> 2 SQL apps. There will be about 15 users on both and down the line we
>> will be implementing a web interface to both DBs. Database A vendor
>> wants 4GB RAM and Database B vendor wants about 2GB.
>> I am going down the following route:
>> IBM server with 2 x Dual Core Xeon CPUs (3.00GHz each)
>> 8GB RAM
>> ServeRAID8k adapter (DB compatible)
>> 6 x 146GB 15k SCSI (1 x RAID 1 Array - 2 x 146GB , 1 x RAID 5EE - 4 x
>> 146GB)
>> Windows 2003 Server Enterprise
>> 2 x SQL 2005 Standard CPU license
>>
>> (Incase anyone if wondering what RAID 5EE is - it's a fancy version of
>> RAID 5 with hotswap).
>> I am going to configure the operating system and programs on the RAID 1
>> array (c:\) and the SQL databases on the RAID 5EE. I will be creating
>> two SQL instances (DB1 and DB2). I'll restrict the RAM on DB1 to 4GB and
>> the RAM on DB2 to 2GB). There should be plenty of spare for the OS.
>> Am I barking up the wrong tree? Would I be better splitting the RAID5EE
>> into two seperate RAID 1 Arrays so the each DB exists on a seperate
>> array?
>> This might seem overkill, but performance (and future expansion) is
>> extremely important.
>> Thanks in advance.
>> Robbie
>>
>|||OK - sorry if I picked it up wrong :o)
I don't think going Enterprise Ed is going to benefit us and it is a massive
price increase.
Thanks for your help.
"Arnie Rowland" <arnie@.1568.com> wrote in message
news:%23nC16VqpGHA.1440@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Of course you can, I didn't mean to imply otherwise.
> You indicated that you were buying 2 SQL Standard Edition CPU licenses. I
> was trying to suggest that 2 EE license may be all you need for this
> situation.
> And my comment about separation the 2 Vendors data is related to
> SarBox/HIPPA issues. It may not be necessary in your situation.
> --
> Arnie Rowland*
> "To be successful, your heart must accompany your knowledge."
>
> "Robbie Niblock" <robbie@.nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:etJDJLqpGHA.3584@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> Thanks for your input.
>> Surely though I can have multiple instances with SQL Standard?
>> Robbie
>> "Arnie Rowland" <arnie@.1568.com> wrote in message
>> news:eJaO4AqpGHA.3324@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> You didn't mention the db sizes, average query, average frequency of
>> query, etc.
>> So far, it all sounds good -in fact, a very nice box.
>> If you are only running SQL Server on the box, the OS only needs 1 GB of
>> memory -that could allow more for either instance.
>> If you are really concerned about ''safety', putting the databases on
>> Raid 1's would provide a level of redundency -as well as better
>> separation of the two Vendors' data, thinking backups, administrative
>> uses, etc.
>> Licenses. A single EE license 'might' provide you more options for
>> Growth, expansion, and 'high availability'. (And it allows multiple
>> instances) Depending upon your VL agreement, it may not be much more
>> than 2 Standard editions.
>> --
>> Arnie Rowland*
>> "To be successful, your heart must accompany your knowledge."
>>
>> "Robbie Niblock" <robbie@.nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:OsLaYnppGHA.148@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> Hi
>> We are in the process of going live on two SQL applications. I am
>> evaluating hardware requirements and would like to see if I am on the
>> right track.
>> 2 SQL apps. There will be about 15 users on both and down the line we
>> will be implementing a web interface to both DBs. Database A vendor
>> wants 4GB RAM and Database B vendor wants about 2GB.
>> I am going down the following route:
>> IBM server with 2 x Dual Core Xeon CPUs (3.00GHz each)
>> 8GB RAM
>> ServeRAID8k adapter (DB compatible)
>> 6 x 146GB 15k SCSI (1 x RAID 1 Array - 2 x 146GB , 1 x RAID 5EE - 4 x
>> 146GB)
>> Windows 2003 Server Enterprise
>> 2 x SQL 2005 Standard CPU license
>>
>> (Incase anyone if wondering what RAID 5EE is - it's a fancy version of
>> RAID 5 with hotswap).
>> I am going to configure the operating system and programs on the RAID 1
>> array (c:\) and the SQL databases on the RAID 5EE. I will be creating
>> two SQL instances (DB1 and DB2). I'll restrict the RAM on DB1 to 4GB
>> and the RAM on DB2 to 2GB). There should be plenty of spare for the OS.
>> Am I barking up the wrong tree? Would I be better splitting the RAID5EE
>> into two seperate RAID 1 Arrays so the each DB exists on a seperate
>> array?
>> This might seem overkill, but performance (and future expansion) is
>> extremely important.
>> Thanks in advance.
>> Robbie
>>
>>
>|||You may want to consider two more smaller drives as well, if you are
looking for best bang for the buck. One for the windows swap file, one
for TempDB. It's cheap and gives a nice performance boost.
Robbie Niblock wrote:
> OK - sorry if I picked it up wrong :o)
> I don't think going Enterprise Ed is going to benefit us and it is a massive
> price increase.
> Thanks for your help.
>
> "Arnie Rowland" <arnie@.1568.com> wrote in message
> news:%23nC16VqpGHA.1440@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> > Of course you can, I didn't mean to imply otherwise.
> >
> > You indicated that you were buying 2 SQL Standard Edition CPU licenses. I
> > was trying to suggest that 2 EE license may be all you need for this
> > situation.
> >
> > And my comment about separation the 2 Vendors data is related to
> > SarBox/HIPPA issues. It may not be necessary in your situation.
> >
> > --
> > Arnie Rowland*
> > "To be successful, your heart must accompany your knowledge."
> >
> >
> >
> > "Robbie Niblock" <robbie@.nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:etJDJLqpGHA.3584@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> >> Thanks for your input.
> >>
> >> Surely though I can have multiple instances with SQL Standard?
> >>
> >> Robbie
> >>
> >> "Arnie Rowland" <arnie@.1568.com> wrote in message
> >> news:eJaO4AqpGHA.3324@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> >> You didn't mention the db sizes, average query, average frequency of
> >> query, etc.
> >>
> >> So far, it all sounds good -in fact, a very nice box.
> >>
> >> If you are only running SQL Server on the box, the OS only needs 1 GB of
> >> memory -that could allow more for either instance.
> >>
> >> If you are really concerned about ''safety', putting the databases on
> >> Raid 1's would provide a level of redundency -as well as better
> >> separation of the two Vendors' data, thinking backups, administrative
> >> uses, etc.
> >>
> >> Licenses. A single EE license 'might' provide you more options for
> >> Growth, expansion, and 'high availability'. (And it allows multiple
> >> instances) Depending upon your VL agreement, it may not be much more
> >> than 2 Standard editions.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Arnie Rowland*
> >> "To be successful, your heart must accompany your knowledge."
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> "Robbie Niblock" <robbie@.nospam.com> wrote in message
> >> news:OsLaYnppGHA.148@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> >> Hi
> >>
> >> We are in the process of going live on two SQL applications. I am
> >> evaluating hardware requirements and would like to see if I am on the
> >> right track.
> >>
> >> 2 SQL apps. There will be about 15 users on both and down the line we
> >> will be implementing a web interface to both DBs. Database A vendor
> >> wants 4GB RAM and Database B vendor wants about 2GB.
> >>
> >> I am going down the following route:
> >>
> >> IBM server with 2 x Dual Core Xeon CPUs (3.00GHz each)
> >> 8GB RAM
> >> ServeRAID8k adapter (DB compatible)
> >> 6 x 146GB 15k SCSI (1 x RAID 1 Array - 2 x 146GB , 1 x RAID 5EE - 4 x
> >> 146GB)
> >> Windows 2003 Server Enterprise
> >> 2 x SQL 2005 Standard CPU license
> >>
> >>
> >> (Incase anyone if wondering what RAID 5EE is - it's a fancy version of
> >> RAID 5 with hotswap).
> >>
> >> I am going to configure the operating system and programs on the RAID 1
> >> array (c:\) and the SQL databases on the RAID 5EE. I will be creating
> >> two SQL instances (DB1 and DB2). I'll restrict the RAM on DB1 to 4GB
> >> and the RAM on DB2 to 2GB). There should be plenty of spare for the OS.
> >>
> >> Am I barking up the wrong tree? Would I be better splitting the RAID5EE
> >> into two seperate RAID 1 Arrays so the each DB exists on a seperate
> >> array?
> >>
> >> This might seem overkill, but performance (and future expansion) is
> >> extremely important.
> >>
> >> Thanks in advance.
> >>
> >> Robbie
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >|||On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 10:55:06 -0700, "Arnie Rowland" <arnie@.1568.com>
wrote:
>You indicated that you were buying 2 SQL Standard Edition CPU licenses. I
>was trying to suggest that 2 EE license may be all you need for this
>situation.
According to the documentation, Standard Edition supports up to 16
named instances, while EE supports up to 50. Would not a single SD
licence cover both instances, since it is all running on one box? Or
is the licensing different? I could not find anything on this at the
MS site.
Roy|||Hi
If they are not vastly different collations, then you may want to see if one
application can be converted.
Having the faster discs will help, if your cabinet allows it add more drives
if you can, as suggested for tempdb (which you will have 2 off!!!) and the
windows swap file.
You will need to do some sizing to see if you can reduce the disc capacity
may save some money, increasing the number of spindles in your raid stripes
will also help performance. With all these discs you may not have enough
slots!!!
John
"Robbie Niblock" wrote:
> Thanks for the response. We are using 15k disks - 8mb buffer.
> I was thinking two instances because the two DBs require different
> collation.
> Thanks
>
> "John Bell" <jbellnewsposts@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9BDD41CE-F8B9-45B6-8AC6-66D92FBB1EB6@.microsoft.com...
> > Hi
> >
> > It is not clear why you want two SQL server instances! They will require
> > more resource than a single instance even if you specify the maximum
> > amount
> > of memory.
> >
> > In general if you can afford it try and get Raid 10 rather than 5, you may
> > save some money by buying smaller discs for the OS. It would also be
> > better
> > to split your data and log files onto separate disc arrays, rather than
> > separate the each instance onto two disc arrays (if you absolutely need
> > two
> > instances!).
> >
> > You don't say if you are buying 10K or 15K discs or how much cache is on
> > the
> > discs.
> >
> > Check out http://www.sql-server-performance.com including
> > http://www.sql-server-performance.com/jc_system_storage_configuration.asp
> >
> > John
> >
> > "Robbie Niblock" wrote:
> >
> >> Hi
> >>
> >> We are in the process of going live on two SQL applications. I am
> >> evaluating
> >> hardware requirements and would like to see if I am on the right track.
> >>
> >> 2 SQL apps. There will be about 15 users on both and down the line we
> >> will
> >> be implementing a web interface to both DBs. Database A vendor wants 4GB
> >> RAM
> >> and Database B vendor wants about 2GB.
> >>
> >> I am going down the following route:
> >>
> >> IBM server with 2 x Dual Core Xeon CPUs (3.00GHz each)
> >> 8GB RAM
> >> ServeRAID8k adapter (DB compatible)
> >> 6 x 146GB 15k SCSI (1 x RAID 1 Array - 2 x 146GB , 1 x RAID 5EE - 4 x
> >> 146GB)
> >> Windows 2003 Server Enterprise
> >> 2 x SQL 2005 Standard CPU license
> >>
> >>
> >> (Incase anyone if wondering what RAID 5EE is - it's a fancy version of
> >> RAID
> >> 5 with hotswap).
> >>
> >> I am going to configure the operating system and programs on the RAID 1
> >> array (c:\) and the SQL databases on the RAID 5EE. I will be creating two
> >> SQL instances (DB1 and DB2). I'll restrict the RAM on DB1 to 4GB and the
> >> RAM
> >> on DB2 to 2GB). There should be plenty of spare for the OS.
> >>
> >> Am I barking up the wrong tree? Would I be better splitting the RAID5EE
> >> into
> >> two seperate RAID 1 Arrays so the each DB exists on a seperate array?
> >>
> >> This might seem overkill, but performance (and future expansion) is
> >> extremely important.
> >>
> >> Thanks in advance.
> >>
> >> Robbie
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>|||This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--000101070106040008010608
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Roy Harvey wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 10:55:06 -0700, "Arnie Rowland" <arnie@.1568.com>
> wrote:
>
>> You indicated that you were buying 2 SQL Standard Edition CPU licenses. I
>> was trying to suggest that 2 EE license may be all you need for this
>> situation.
> According to the documentation, Standard Edition supports up to 16
> named instances, while EE supports up to 50. Would not a single SD
> licence cover both instances, since it is all running on one box? Or
> is the licensing different? I could not find anything on this at the
> MS site.
> Roy
>
The licensing is not so much about the instances, but number of
processors. In this case Robbie has chosen a DUAL proc. server, so he
needs 2 processor licenses - no matter what version of SQL server he
chooses (of course assuming he is licensing per processor).
The only think about the configuration I'd change, is the RAID 5 array.
Instead of one RAID 5 array for both databae and logfiles, I'd create 2
RAID1 arrays and then have my database on one array and logs on the
other one. You don't mention anything about database sizes, so it's
difficult to say if this configuration will give you enough space though.
Regards
Steen Schlüter Persson
Databaseadministrator / Systemadministrator
--000101070106040008010608
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Roy Harvey wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid0a4db2dsg8gqei78rim48v64h94opr8vcv@.4ax.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 10:55:06 -0700, "Arnie Rowland" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://links.10026.com/?link=mailto:arnie@.1568.com"><arnie@.1568.com></a>
wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">You indicated that you were buying 2 SQL Standard Edition CPU licenses. I
was trying to suggest that 2 EE license may be all you need for this
situation.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!-->
According to the documentation, Standard Edition supports up to 16
named instances, while EE supports up to 50. Would not a single SD
licence cover both instances, since it is all running on one box? Or
is the licensing different? I could not find anything on this at the
MS site.
Roy
</pre>
</blockquote>
<font size="-1"><font face="Arial">The licensing is not so much about
the instances, but number of processors. In this case Robbie has chosen
a DUAL proc. server, so he needs 2 processor licenses - no matter what
version of SQL server he chooses (of course assuming he is licensing
per processor).<br>
<br>
The only think about the configuration I'd change, is the RAID 5 array.
Instead of one RAID 5 array for both databae and logfiles, I'd create 2
RAID1 arrays and then have my database on one array and logs on the
other one. You don't mention anything about database sizes, so it's
difficult to say if this configuration will give you enough space
though.<br>
<br>
<br>
-- <br>
Regards<br>
Steen Schlüter Persson<br>
Databaseadministrator / Systemadministrator<br>
</font></font>
</body>
</html>
--000101070106040008010608--

Hardware spec

Hi
We are in the process of going live on two SQL applications. I am evaluating
hardware requirements and would like to see if I am on the right track.
2 SQL apps. There will be about 15 users on both and down the line we will
be implementing a web interface to both DBs. Database A vendor wants 4GB RAM
and Database B vendor wants about 2GB.
I am going down the following route:
IBM server with 2 x Dual Core Xeon CPUs (3.00GHz each)
8GB RAM
ServeRAID8k adapter (DB compatible)
6 x 146GB 15k SCSI (1 x RAID 1 Array - 2 x 146GB , 1 x RAID 5EE - 4 x 146GB)
Windows 2003 Server Enterprise
2 x SQL 2005 Standard CPU license
(Incase anyone if wondering what RAID 5EE is - it's a fancy version of RAID
5 with hotswap).
I am going to configure the operating system and programs on the RAID 1
array (c:\) and the SQL databases on the RAID 5EE. I will be creating two
SQL instances (DB1 and DB2). I'll restrict the RAM on DB1 to 4GB and the RAM
on DB2 to 2GB). There should be plenty of spare for the OS.
Am I barking up the wrong tree? Would I be better splitting the RAID5EE into
two seperate RAID 1 Arrays so the each DB exists on a seperate array?
This might seem overkill, but performance (and future expansion) is
extremely important.
Thanks in advance.
RobbieHi
It is not clear why you want two SQL server instances! They will require
more resource than a single instance even if you specify the maximum amount
of memory.
In general if you can afford it try and get Raid 10 rather than 5, you may
save some money by buying smaller discs for the OS. It would also be better
to split your data and log files onto separate disc arrays, rather than
separate the each instance onto two disc arrays (if you absolutely need two
instances!).
You don't say if you are buying 10K or 15K discs or how much cache is on the
discs.
Check out http://www.sql-server-performance.com including
http://www.sql-server-performance.c...nfiguration.asp
John
"Robbie Niblock" wrote:

> Hi
> We are in the process of going live on two SQL applications. I am evaluati
ng
> hardware requirements and would like to see if I am on the right track.
> 2 SQL apps. There will be about 15 users on both and down the line we will
> be implementing a web interface to both DBs. Database A vendor wants 4GB R
AM
> and Database B vendor wants about 2GB.
> I am going down the following route:
> IBM server with 2 x Dual Core Xeon CPUs (3.00GHz each)
> 8GB RAM
> ServeRAID8k adapter (DB compatible)
> 6 x 146GB 15k SCSI (1 x RAID 1 Array - 2 x 146GB , 1 x RAID 5EE - 4 x 146G
B)
> Windows 2003 Server Enterprise
> 2 x SQL 2005 Standard CPU license
>
> (Incase anyone if wondering what RAID 5EE is - it's a fancy version of RAI
D
> 5 with hotswap).
> I am going to configure the operating system and programs on the RAID 1
> array (c:\) and the SQL databases on the RAID 5EE. I will be creating two
> SQL instances (DB1 and DB2). I'll restrict the RAM on DB1 to 4GB and the R
AM
> on DB2 to 2GB). There should be plenty of spare for the OS.
> Am I barking up the wrong tree? Would I be better splitting the RAID5EE in
to
> two seperate RAID 1 Arrays so the each DB exists on a seperate array?
> This might seem overkill, but performance (and future expansion) is
> extremely important.
> Thanks in advance.
> Robbie
>
>|||You didn't mention the db sizes, average query, average frequency of query,
etc.
So far, it all sounds good -in fact, a very nice box.
If you are only running SQL Server on the box, the OS only needs 1 GB of
memory -that could allow more for either instance.
If you are really concerned about ''safety', putting the databases on Raid
1's would provide a level of redundency -as well as better separation of the
two Vendors' data, thinking backups, administrative uses, etc.
Licenses. A single EE license 'might' provide you more options for Growth,
expansion, and 'high availability'. (And it allows multiple instances)
Depending upon your VL agreement, it may not be much more than 2 Standard
editions.
Arnie Rowland*
"To be successful, your heart must accompany your knowledge."
"Robbie Niblock" <robbie@.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:OsLaYnppGHA.148@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> We are in the process of going live on two SQL applications. I am
> evaluating hardware requirements and would like to see if I am on the
> right track.
> 2 SQL apps. There will be about 15 users on both and down the line we will
> be implementing a web interface to both DBs. Database A vendor wants 4GB
> RAM and Database B vendor wants about 2GB.
> I am going down the following route:
> IBM server with 2 x Dual Core Xeon CPUs (3.00GHz each)
> 8GB RAM
> ServeRAID8k adapter (DB compatible)
> 6 x 146GB 15k SCSI (1 x RAID 1 Array - 2 x 146GB , 1 x RAID 5EE - 4 x
> 146GB)
> Windows 2003 Server Enterprise
> 2 x SQL 2005 Standard CPU license
>
> (Incase anyone if wondering what RAID 5EE is - it's a fancy version of
> RAID 5 with hotswap).
> I am going to configure the operating system and programs on the RAID 1
> array (c:\) and the SQL databases on the RAID 5EE. I will be creating two
> SQL instances (DB1 and DB2). I'll restrict the RAM on DB1 to 4GB and the
> RAM on DB2 to 2GB). There should be plenty of spare for the OS.
> Am I barking up the wrong tree? Would I be better splitting the RAID5EE
> into two seperate RAID 1 Arrays so the each DB exists on a seperate array?
> This might seem overkill, but performance (and future expansion) is
> extremely important.
> Thanks in advance.
> Robbie
>|||Thanks for the response. We are using 15k disks - 8mb buffer.
I was thinking two instances because the two DBs require different
collation.
Thanks
"John Bell" <jbellnewsposts@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9BDD41CE-F8B9-45B6-8AC6-66D92FBB1EB6@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi
> It is not clear why you want two SQL server instances! They will require
> more resource than a single instance even if you specify the maximum
> amount
> of memory.
> In general if you can afford it try and get Raid 10 rather than 5, you may
> save some money by buying smaller discs for the OS. It would also be
> better
> to split your data and log files onto separate disc arrays, rather than
> separate the each instance onto two disc arrays (if you absolutely need
> two
> instances!).
> You don't say if you are buying 10K or 15K discs or how much cache is on
> the
> discs.
> Check out http://www.sql-server-performance.com including
> http://www.sql-server-performance.c...nfiguration.asp
> John
> "Robbie Niblock" wrote:
>|||Thanks for your input.
Surely though I can have multiple instances with SQL Standard?
Robbie
"Arnie Rowland" <arnie@.1568.com> wrote in message
news:eJaO4AqpGHA.3324@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> You didn't mention the db sizes, average query, average frequency of
> query, etc.
> So far, it all sounds good -in fact, a very nice box.
> If you are only running SQL Server on the box, the OS only needs 1 GB of
> memory -that could allow more for either instance.
> If you are really concerned about ''safety', putting the databases on Raid
> 1's would provide a level of redundency -as well as better separation of
> the two Vendors' data, thinking backups, administrative uses, etc.
> Licenses. A single EE license 'might' provide you more options for Growth,
> expansion, and 'high availability'. (And it allows multiple instances)
> Depending upon your VL agreement, it may not be much more than 2 Standard
> editions.
> --
> Arnie Rowland*
> "To be successful, your heart must accompany your knowledge."
>
> "Robbie Niblock" <robbie@.nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:OsLaYnppGHA.148@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>|||Of course you can, I didn't mean to imply otherwise.
You indicated that you were buying 2 SQL Standard Edition CPU licenses. I
was trying to suggest that 2 EE license may be all you need for this
situation.
And my comment about separation the 2 Vendors data is related to
SarBox/HIPPA issues. It may not be necessary in your situation.
Arnie Rowland*
"To be successful, your heart must accompany your knowledge."
"Robbie Niblock" <robbie@.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:etJDJLqpGHA.3584@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Thanks for your input.
> Surely though I can have multiple instances with SQL Standard?
> Robbie
> "Arnie Rowland" <arnie@.1568.com> wrote in message
> news:eJaO4AqpGHA.3324@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>|||OK - sorry if I picked it up wrong :o)
I don't think going Enterprise Ed is going to benefit us and it is a massive
price increase.
Thanks for your help.
"Arnie Rowland" <arnie@.1568.com> wrote in message
news:%23nC16VqpGHA.1440@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Of course you can, I didn't mean to imply otherwise.
> You indicated that you were buying 2 SQL Standard Edition CPU licenses. I
> was trying to suggest that 2 EE license may be all you need for this
> situation.
> And my comment about separation the 2 Vendors data is related to
> SarBox/HIPPA issues. It may not be necessary in your situation.
> --
> Arnie Rowland*
> "To be successful, your heart must accompany your knowledge."
>
> "Robbie Niblock" <robbie@.nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:etJDJLqpGHA.3584@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>|||You may want to consider two more smaller drives as well, if you are
looking for best bang for the buck. One for the windows swap file, one
for TempDB. It's cheap and gives a nice performance boost.
Robbie Niblock wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> OK - sorry if I picked it up wrong :o)
> I don't think going Enterprise Ed is going to benefit us and it is a massi
ve
> price increase.
> Thanks for your help.
>
> "Arnie Rowland" <arnie@.1568.com> wrote in message
> news:%23nC16VqpGHA.1440@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...|||On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 10:55:06 -0700, "Arnie Rowland" <arnie@.1568.com>
wrote:

>You indicated that you were buying 2 SQL Standard Edition CPU licenses. I
>was trying to suggest that 2 EE license may be all you need for this
>situation.
According to the documentation, Standard Edition supports up to 16
named instances, while EE supports up to 50. Would not a single SD
licence cover both instances, since it is all running on one box? Or
is the licensing different? I could not find anything on this at the
MS site.
Roy|||Hi
If they are not vastly different collations, then you may want to see if one
application can be converted.
Having the faster discs will help, if your cabinet allows it add more drives
if you can, as suggested for tempdb (which you will have 2 off!!!) and the
windows swap file.
You will need to do some sizing to see if you can reduce the disc capacity
may save some money, increasing the number of spindles in your raid stripes
will also help performance. With all these discs you may not have enough
slots!!!
John
"Robbie Niblock" wrote:

> Thanks for the response. We are using 15k disks - 8mb buffer.
> I was thinking two instances because the two DBs require different
> collation.
> Thanks
>
> "John Bell" <jbellnewsposts@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9BDD41CE-F8B9-45B6-8AC6-66D92FBB1EB6@.microsoft.com...
>
>