Having SQL Profiler while SQL Express Installed

Dear All,
Is it possible for me to have a SQL profiler install in my local while i hav
e running SQL Express in my machine?
Please advise, thank you.If you have a copy of sql server and want to install the management tools yo
u can install them on a machine regardless of the edition of sql server actu
ally running on the machine. However, I haven't tried running Profiler again
st SQL Express, but I don't see why you can't. But you'll have to actually t
ry that yourself.
Mark
"Connie" <yfchan@.kdu.edu.my> wrote in message news:%23LrYcIUtGHA.1888@.TK2MSF
TNGP03.phx.gbl...
Dear All,
Is it possible for me to have a SQL profiler install in my local while i hav
e running SQL Express in my machine?
Please advise, thank you.

have a problem to browse the data in analysis server

:mad: Dear Sir/Madam,

I have a problem to browse the data in analysis server, it displayed: unspecified error, my os is windows xp with sp1 and sql server2000 installed, Do i need to install AS SP3 on the server, but, what are AS SP3 stand for, any other solution?

Rgds,
chenwhat are AS SP3 stand for, any other solution?AS SP3 would be Analysis Services, Service Pack 3 (http://www.microsoft.com/sql/downloads/2000/sp3.asp)

-PatP

Has anyone used Security Filters?

Dear Anyone,

Has anyone here have ever actually used the Security Filters of a report model? Can you please direct us to some more articles or maybe samples of the subject. The ones that are in Books Online are somewhat limited and does not have any samples.

Thanks,

Joseph

I think Security Filters would be the subject of a great article or FAQ/Wiki/whatever. For me, it causes endless confusion and angst when trying to create report models...not to mention the fact that there is also Model Item Security available within the Management Studio.|||

I will be posting on my blog shortly on this topic.

http://blogs.msdn.com/bobmeyers

|||Your the man BOB!!! |||

FYI: there is a known bug in security filters which will be fixed in Yukon SP1.

|||Any details about that bug? Is it already in the support site?sql

Hardware scalability

Dear all,
My company has got a Win 2000 SP3 (PIII 1.2Ghz, 1.5Go RAM) server with SQL
2000 SP3a installed (around 90 databases in which around 10 are used daily
not intensively - total data size : 5.5Go - in which 10% is for daily used
databases). SQL Server is setup to use at most 800Mo of RAM. Transactional
replication is implemented. The server is setup as editor only (distributor
and subscribers are on other powerful servers). All is working fine. Network
load is low (10Mo pikes for I/O). We have got around 20 frequent users on
this server.
We are planning to implement two new databases that should represents a
significant increase in workload (frequent heavy batches processes - 1Go of
data). Moreover, we need to integrate them in the transactional replication
process.
We are wondering if our hardware will be sufficient enough to support this
added workload. Yet, I've not found any rule to deduce hardware requirements
from databases size and use.
Could you give me clues for scaling my server, knowing that I have no
similar test server to make benchmarking? Maybe have you similar systems?
Thanks a lot,
Eric.
Eric,
You're correct there's not much to go on here. However, I would point out
one thing. Sounds like the server infrequently services reasonably short
requests. That indicates that the single processor is probably keeping up
with the requests because its generally only getting one request at a time.
So the responsiveness to the users is acceptable. By integrating heavy
batch processes into the mix, there's a strong likelihood that SQL won't
have an internal scheduler free when a user request is initiated. A mix of
heavy batch or large query, with OLTP on too few processors usually results
in end users waiting on screens.
"itparis" <itparis@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:DF71D8B2-6184-4631-82F3-6FE96FA81514@.microsoft.com...
> Dear all,
> My company has got a Win 2000 SP3 (PIII 1.2Ghz, 1.5Go RAM) server with SQL
> 2000 SP3a installed (around 90 databases in which around 10 are used daily
> not intensively - total data size : 5.5Go - in which 10% is for daily used
> databases). SQL Server is setup to use at most 800Mo of RAM. Transactional
> replication is implemented. The server is setup as editor only
> (distributor
> and subscribers are on other powerful servers). All is working fine.
> Network
> load is low (10Mo pikes for I/O). We have got around 20 frequent users on
> this server.
> We are planning to implement two new databases that should represents a
> significant increase in workload (frequent heavy batches processes - 1Go
> of
> data). Moreover, we need to integrate them in the transactional
> replication
> process.
> We are wondering if our hardware will be sufficient enough to support this
> added workload. Yet, I've not found any rule to deduce hardware
> requirements
> from databases size and use.
> Could you give me clues for scaling my server, knowing that I have no
> similar test server to make benchmarking? Maybe have you similar systems?
> Thanks a lot,
> Eric.
|||"Danny" <someone@.nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:KpdWe.6396$XO6.2458@.trnddc03...
> Eric,
> You're correct there's not much to go on here. However, I would point out
> one thing. Sounds like the server infrequently services reasonably short
> requests. That indicates that the single processor is probably keeping up
> with the requests because its generally only getting one request at a
> time. So the responsiveness to the users is acceptable. By integrating
> heavy batch processes into the mix, there's a strong likelihood that SQL
> won't have an internal scheduler free when a user request is initiated. A
> mix of heavy batch or large query, with OLTP on too few processors usually
> results in end users waiting on screens.
>
I have to agree with Danny on this one. The right answer (as always with
database) is, It depends.
Do you want to optimize your server for general usage, or do you want to
optimize your server to handle the spikes in performance.
For general usage, I would suggest that you add more RAM to the box. 4GB
total and give 2GB to SQL Server. You will still have spikes, most likely
due to the processor running heavy batches, but should otherwise be in
decent shape. On the replication side of the house, depending on the size
of your transactions which are being replicated and how often replication
occurs (immediate, every 15 minutes etc.). You may want to upgrade your NIC
if possible to 100MB or even 1GB.
If you want to optimize to handle the spikes, then more RAM, 2 procs with
higher speeds and larger L2 caches should help out.
You can read up on a lot of the perf counters to watch for at
www.sql-server-performance.com Take a look at McGeHee's article... It's a
great first step...
http://www.sql-server-performance.co...ance_audit.asp
Rick Sawtell
MCT, MCSD, MCDBA
|||The "standard" config for a dedicated and heavy-duty SQLServer
hardware is 2-processors, all the RAM you can get, at least separate
physical drive for log files, generally RAID-5 for the main DBs.
These days with 200gb drives going for a hundred bux you don't need
RAID just to get your storage size up, but it still helps isolate
physical storage concerns. Network-attached storage is even better,
if you have gigahertz networks. And oh yes, Windows2003, makes
hyperthreading work and has better general threading and COM 1.5+.
Click up Dell and configure such a server, betcha can get a couple of
3ghz processors starting around, um, ... $10k? $15k? Depends. Once
you reach blade-scale, adding another processor is cheap.
Let's say a proper current box like this would be around 5x faster
than a single PIII with a single physical disk drive.
J.
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 02:00:07 -0700, "itparis"
<itparis@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>Dear all,
>My company has got a Win 2000 SP3 (PIII 1.2Ghz, 1.5Go RAM) server with SQL
>2000 SP3a installed (around 90 databases in which around 10 are used daily
>not intensively - total data size : 5.5Go - in which 10% is for daily used
>databases). SQL Server is setup to use at most 800Mo of RAM. Transactional
>replication is implemented. The server is setup as editor only (distributor
>and subscribers are on other powerful servers). All is working fine. Network
>load is low (10Mo pikes for I/O). We have got around 20 frequent users on
>this server.
>We are planning to implement two new databases that should represents a
>significant increase in workload (frequent heavy batches processes - 1Go of
>data). Moreover, we need to integrate them in the transactional replication
>process.
>We are wondering if our hardware will be sufficient enough to support this
>added workload. Yet, I've not found any rule to deduce hardware requirements
>from databases size and use.
>Could you give me clues for scaling my server, knowing that I have no
>similar test server to make benchmarking? Maybe have you similar systems?
>Thanks a lot,
>Eric.

Hardware scalability

Dear all,
My company has got a Win 2000 SP3 (PIII 1.2Ghz, 1.5Go RAM) server with SQL
2000 SP3a installed (around 90 databases in which around 10 are used daily
not intensively - total data size : 5.5Go - in which 10% is for daily used
databases). SQL Server is setup to use at most 800Mo of RAM. Transactional
replication is implemented. The server is setup as editor only (distributor
and subscribers are on other powerful servers). All is working fine. Network
load is low (10Mo pikes for I/O). We have got around 20 frequent users on
this server.
We are planning to implement two new databases that should represents a
significant increase in workload (frequent heavy batches processes - 1Go of
data). Moreover, we need to integrate them in the transactional replication
process.
We are wondering if our hardware will be sufficient enough to support this
added workload. Yet, I've not found any rule to deduce hardware requirements
from databases size and use.
Could you give me clues for scaling my server, knowing that I have no
similar test server to make benchmarking? Maybe have you similar systems?
Thanks a lot,
Eric.Eric,
You're correct there's not much to go on here. However, I would point out
one thing. Sounds like the server infrequently services reasonably short
requests. That indicates that the single processor is probably keeping up
with the requests because its generally only getting one request at a time.
So the responsiveness to the users is acceptable. By integrating heavy
batch processes into the mix, there's a strong likelihood that SQL won't
have an internal scheduler free when a user request is initiated. A mix of
heavy batch or large query, with OLTP on too few processors usually results
in end users waiting on screens.
"itparis" <itparis@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:DF71D8B2-6184-4631-82F3-6FE96FA81514@.microsoft.com...
> Dear all,
> My company has got a Win 2000 SP3 (PIII 1.2Ghz, 1.5Go RAM) server with SQL
> 2000 SP3a installed (around 90 databases in which around 10 are used daily
> not intensively - total data size : 5.5Go - in which 10% is for daily used
> databases). SQL Server is setup to use at most 800Mo of RAM. Transactional
> replication is implemented. The server is setup as editor only
> (distributor
> and subscribers are on other powerful servers). All is working fine.
> Network
> load is low (10Mo pikes for I/O). We have got around 20 frequent users on
> this server.
> We are planning to implement two new databases that should represents a
> significant increase in workload (frequent heavy batches processes - 1Go
> of
> data). Moreover, we need to integrate them in the transactional
> replication
> process.
> We are wondering if our hardware will be sufficient enough to support this
> added workload. Yet, I've not found any rule to deduce hardware
> requirements
> from databases size and use.
> Could you give me clues for scaling my server, knowing that I have no
> similar test server to make benchmarking? Maybe have you similar systems?
> Thanks a lot,
> Eric.|||"Danny" <someone@.nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:KpdWe.6396$XO6.2458@.trnddc03...
> Eric,
> You're correct there's not much to go on here. However, I would point out
> one thing. Sounds like the server infrequently services reasonably short
> requests. That indicates that the single processor is probably keeping up
> with the requests because its generally only getting one request at a
> time. So the responsiveness to the users is acceptable. By integrating
> heavy batch processes into the mix, there's a strong likelihood that SQL
> won't have an internal scheduler free when a user request is initiated. A
> mix of heavy batch or large query, with OLTP on too few processors usually
> results in end users waiting on screens.
>
I have to agree with Danny on this one. The right answer (as always with
database) is, It depends.
Do you want to optimize your server for general usage, or do you want to
optimize your server to handle the spikes in performance.
For general usage, I would suggest that you add more RAM to the box. 4GB
total and give 2GB to SQL Server. You will still have spikes, most likely
due to the processor running heavy batches, but should otherwise be in
decent shape. On the replication side of the house, depending on the size
of your transactions which are being replicated and how often replication
occurs (immediate, every 15 minutes etc.). You may want to upgrade your NIC
if possible to 100MB or even 1GB.
If you want to optimize to handle the spikes, then more RAM, 2 procs with
higher speeds and larger L2 caches should help out.
You can read up on a lot of the perf counters to watch for at
www.sql-server-performance.com Take a look at McGeHee's article... It's a
great first step...
http://www.sql-server-performance.com/sql_server_performance_audit.asp
Rick Sawtell
MCT, MCSD, MCDBA|||The "standard" config for a dedicated and heavy-duty SQLServer
hardware is 2-processors, all the RAM you can get, at least separate
physical drive for log files, generally RAID-5 for the main DBs.
These days with 200gb drives going for a hundred bux you don't need
RAID just to get your storage size up, but it still helps isolate
physical storage concerns. Network-attached storage is even better,
if you have gigahertz networks. And oh yes, Windows2003, makes
hyperthreading work and has better general threading and COM 1.5+.
Click up Dell and configure such a server, betcha can get a couple of
3ghz processors starting around, um, ... $10k? $15k? Depends. Once
you reach blade-scale, adding another processor is cheap.
Let's say a proper current box like this would be around 5x faster
than a single PIII with a single physical disk drive.
J.
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 02:00:07 -0700, "itparis"
<itparis@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>Dear all,
>My company has got a Win 2000 SP3 (PIII 1.2Ghz, 1.5Go RAM) server with SQL
>2000 SP3a installed (around 90 databases in which around 10 are used daily
>not intensively - total data size : 5.5Go - in which 10% is for daily used
>databases). SQL Server is setup to use at most 800Mo of RAM. Transactional
>replication is implemented. The server is setup as editor only (distributor
>and subscribers are on other powerful servers). All is working fine. Network
>load is low (10Mo pikes for I/O). We have got around 20 frequent users on
>this server.
>We are planning to implement two new databases that should represents a
>significant increase in workload (frequent heavy batches processes - 1Go of
>data). Moreover, we need to integrate them in the transactional replication
>process.
>We are wondering if our hardware will be sufficient enough to support this
>added workload. Yet, I've not found any rule to deduce hardware requirements
>from databases size and use.
>Could you give me clues for scaling my server, knowing that I have no
>similar test server to make benchmarking? Maybe have you similar systems?
>Thanks a lot,
>Eric.

Hardware scalability

Dear all,
My company has got a Win 2000 SP3 (PIII 1.2Ghz, 1.5Go RAM) server with SQL
2000 SP3a installed (around 90 databases in which around 10 are used daily
not intensively - total data size : 5.5Go - in which 10% is for daily used
databases). SQL Server is setup to use at most 800Mo of RAM. Transactional
replication is implemented. The server is setup as editor only (distributor
and subscribers are on other powerful servers). All is working fine. Network
load is low (10Mo pikes for I/O). We have got around 20 frequent users on
this server.
We are planning to implement two new databases that should represents a
significant increase in workload (frequent heavy batches processes - 1Go of
data). Moreover, we need to integrate them in the transactional replication
process.
We are wondering if our hardware will be sufficient enough to support this
added workload. Yet, I've not found any rule to deduce hardware requirements
from databases size and use.
Could you give me clues for scaling my server, knowing that I have no
similar test server to make benchmarking? Maybe have you similar systems?
Thanks a lot,
Eric.Eric,
You're correct there's not much to go on here. However, I would point out
one thing. Sounds like the server infrequently services reasonably short
requests. That indicates that the single processor is probably keeping up
with the requests because its generally only getting one request at a time.
So the responsiveness to the users is acceptable. By integrating heavy
batch processes into the mix, there's a strong likelihood that SQL won't
have an internal scheduler free when a user request is initiated. A mix of
heavy batch or large query, with OLTP on too few processors usually results
in end users waiting on screens.
"itparis" <itparis@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:DF71D8B2-6184-4631-82F3-6FE96FA81514@.microsoft.com...
> Dear all,
> My company has got a Win 2000 SP3 (PIII 1.2Ghz, 1.5Go RAM) server with SQL
> 2000 SP3a installed (around 90 databases in which around 10 are used daily
> not intensively - total data size : 5.5Go - in which 10% is for daily used
> databases). SQL Server is setup to use at most 800Mo of RAM. Transactional
> replication is implemented. The server is setup as editor only
> (distributor
> and subscribers are on other powerful servers). All is working fine.
> Network
> load is low (10Mo pikes for I/O). We have got around 20 frequent users on
> this server.
> We are planning to implement two new databases that should represents a
> significant increase in workload (frequent heavy batches processes - 1Go
> of
> data). Moreover, we need to integrate them in the transactional
> replication
> process.
> We are wondering if our hardware will be sufficient enough to support this
> added workload. Yet, I've not found any rule to deduce hardware
> requirements
> from databases size and use.
> Could you give me clues for scaling my server, knowing that I have no
> similar test server to make benchmarking? Maybe have you similar systems?
> Thanks a lot,
> Eric.|||"Danny" <someone@.nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:KpdWe.6396$XO6.2458@.trnddc03...
> Eric,
> You're correct there's not much to go on here. However, I would point out
> one thing. Sounds like the server infrequently services reasonably short
> requests. That indicates that the single processor is probably keeping up
> with the requests because its generally only getting one request at a
> time. So the responsiveness to the users is acceptable. By integrating
> heavy batch processes into the mix, there's a strong likelihood that SQL
> won't have an internal scheduler free when a user request is initiated. A
> mix of heavy batch or large query, with OLTP on too few processors usually
> results in end users waiting on screens.
>
I have to agree with Danny on this one. The right answer (as always with
database) is, It depends.
Do you want to optimize your server for general usage, or do you want to
optimize your server to handle the spikes in performance.
For general usage, I would suggest that you add more RAM to the box. 4GB
total and give 2GB to SQL Server. You will still have spikes, most likely
due to the processor running heavy batches, but should otherwise be in
decent shape. On the replication side of the house, depending on the size
of your transactions which are being replicated and how often replication
occurs (immediate, every 15 minutes etc.). You may want to upgrade your NIC
if possible to 100MB or even 1GB.
If you want to optimize to handle the spikes, then more RAM, 2 procs with
higher speeds and larger L2 caches should help out.
You can read up on a lot of the perf counters to watch for at
www.sql-server-performance.com Take a look at McGeHee's article... It's a
great first step...
http://www.sql-server-performance.c...mance_audit.asp
Rick Sawtell
MCT, MCSD, MCDBA|||The "standard" config for a dedicated and heavy-duty SQLServer
hardware is 2-processors, all the RAM you can get, at least separate
physical drive for log files, generally RAID-5 for the main DBs.
These days with 200gb drives going for a hundred bux you don't need
RAID just to get your storage size up, but it still helps isolate
physical storage concerns. Network-attached storage is even better,
if you have gigahertz networks. And oh yes, Windows2003, makes
hyperthreading work and has better general threading and COM 1.5+.
Click up Dell and configure such a server, betcha can get a couple of
3ghz processors starting around, um, ... $10k? $15k? Depends. Once
you reach blade-scale, adding another processor is cheap.
Let's say a proper current box like this would be around 5x faster
than a single PIII with a single physical disk drive.
J.
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 02:00:07 -0700, "itparis"
<itparis@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>Dear all,
>My company has got a Win 2000 SP3 (PIII 1.2Ghz, 1.5Go RAM) server with SQL
>2000 SP3a installed (around 90 databases in which around 10 are used daily
>not intensively - total data size : 5.5Go - in which 10% is for daily used
>databases). SQL Server is setup to use at most 800Mo of RAM. Transactional
>replication is implemented. The server is setup as editor only (distributor
>and subscribers are on other powerful servers). All is working fine. Networ
k
>load is low (10Mo pikes for I/O). We have got around 20 frequent users on
>this server.
>We are planning to implement two new databases that should represents a
>significant increase in workload (frequent heavy batches processes - 1Go of
>data). Moreover, we need to integrate them in the transactional replication
>process.
>We are wondering if our hardware will be sufficient enough to support this
>added workload. Yet, I've not found any rule to deduce hardware requirement
s
>from databases size and use.
>Could you give me clues for scaling my server, knowing that I have no
>similar test server to make benchmarking? Maybe have you similar systems?
>Thanks a lot,
>Eric.

Hardware general question about sql

Dear folks,
Nowadays, we have got an Active-Active cluster for to attend our business as
usual. Each node own the following main features:
-8 processors xeon 700 Mhz
-8 Gb RAM
-RAID 5 (up to 400 gb ) 12 disks approx.
-OS 32 bit (Advanced Server)
-Sql2000k with sp3
-Quorum disk have 36,6 GB
-Our growing per w is almost 50 gb.
-Databases are forty.
The above configuration was bough five years ago, so that, which could be a
good migration of this hardware?
We are thinking over to buy Itanium but we don't know if TCO is good with
such growing of data.
Maybe a good solution will be buy 64-bit hardware and by the moment to
install our sql2000k and within six months or so (when SP1 for sql server
2005 is released) move the data to that version.
Any input will be greatly.
Regards,Enric wrote:
> Dear folks,
> Nowadays, we have got an Active-Active cluster for to attend our
> business as usual. Each node own the following main features:
> -8 processors xeon 700 Mhz
> -8 Gb RAM
> -RAID 5 (up to 400 gb ) 12 disks approx.
> -OS 32 bit (Advanced Server)
> -Sql2000k with sp3
> -Quorum disk have 36,6 GB
> -Our growing per w is almost 50 gb.
> -Databases are forty.
> The above configuration was bough five years ago, so that, which
> could be a good migration of this hardware?
> We are thinking over to buy Itanium but we don't know if TCO is good
> with such growing of data.
> Maybe a good solution will be buy 64-bit hardware and by the moment to
> install our sql2000k and within six months or so (when SP1 for sql
> server 2005 is released) move the data to that version.
> Any input will be greatly.
> Regards,
What hardware issues, if any, are you currently having? Assuming your
queries are performance tuned (which should always be the first order of
business when it comes to performance), you need to determine where the
hardware is failing you. Are you CPU bound? Disk bound? Memory bound?
50GB of growth per w is significant. Could you have meant 50MB /
w? Given that you only have 400GB of disk, 50GB / w doesn't leave
you much time.
You have a powerful, but older server. You could probably get better
performance out of a modern 4-way Xeon server. Since SQL 2005 will run
on 64-bit AMD and x86 boxes, I might consider waiting for that version
and skip Itanium.
If you determine that you are disk bound, you may want to consider using
a SAN or a different RAID implementation. It sounds like you have RAID 5
for everything (data, logs, temdb). You will normally get much better
performance using a RAID 1+0 array for data, and RAID 1+0 or RAID 1
arrays for log files and tempdb. Unless activity is low during log
backups and full backups, you may want to consider backing up to an
array that's different than the data array.
David Gugick
Quest Software
www.imceda.com
www.quest.com|||If you're not experiencing any problems with your current set-up, and the SW
side is fully optimized, then IMHO you don't really have to change anything.
ML

Hardening SQL Server

Dear All,
i'm newbie security and was wondering how can i harden my sql serer
2000 or generally any sql server.
thanx for ur gr8 helpStart with
http://vyaskn.tripod.com/ sql_serve...r />
.htm#Step1
--administaiting best practices
http://vyaskn.tripod.com/sql_server...t_practices.htm --sec
urity
best practices
<Eng.Rana@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147672459.741897.234530@.i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Dear All,
> i'm newbie security and was wondering how can i harden my sql serer
> 2000 or generally any sql server.
> thanx for ur gr8 help
>|||You can find some security links, checklists at:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...n/sp3sec00.mspx
-Sue
On 14 May 2006 22:54:19 -0700, Eng.Rana@.gmail.com wrote:

>Dear All,
>i'm newbie security and was wondering how can i harden my sql serer
>2000 or generally any sql server.
>thanx for ur gr8 help

HardDisk very busy while access SQL db

Dear all:
I'm using IIS6 + ASP + SQL2000sp3a. And between these month, when I connect
to my website, the harddisk will very busy, so my website become very slow.
But after HD read finished, the website will work fine.
I'm using virutal server, and another website work fine because it not
access sql server. I think its DB's problem.
Is there any method to check my db? Should I defrag my db or fix it'
Thank you very much for your read and reply!Fragmentation might be contributing to the performance problem, but there
are also many other problems as well. Performance tuning is a big topic & it
would be hard to suggest any one thing as being the most likely fix for your
problem given the limited info you've given here.
You need to follow a basic performance tuning approach - check high level
system metrics such as cpu, memory, disk queues etc. Then you make further
assumptions based on your observations & perhaps perform deeper system
analysis or go to the sql server performance tuning tools - such as SQL
Profiler. You might determine that large tables are being scanned or there
are concurrency / blocking issues.
The SQL Profiler also provides an out of the box performance tuning template
which is worth looking at. Long running query filtering from Profiler can
often reveal as single or small group of problem queries.
Ultimately, you may even have a hardware resource issue.
You might find some interesting material on
http://www.sql-server-performance.com
HTH
Regards,
Greg Linwood
SQL Server MVP
"Come2" <come2@.ms76.url.com.tw> wrote in message
news:#NWpd4ExDHA.2308@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Dear all:
> I'm using IIS6 + ASP + SQL2000sp3a. And between these month, when I
connect
> to my website, the harddisk will very busy, so my website become very
slow.
> But after HD read finished, the website will work fine.
> I'm using virutal server, and another website work fine because it not
> access sql server. I think its DB's problem.
> Is there any method to check my db? Should I defrag my db or fix it'
> Thank you very much for your read and reply!
>

hardcoding password instead of showing password box everytime

Dear all
Everytime, when my aspx application connect with the reports, it will also
show the password box for the input of username and password, however, can we
avoid it to show the password box? I want to implicity hardcoding the
username and password into the aspx and i don't want to show the password box
in the IEYou can use stored credentials for the data sources. In report manager, go
to the properties page of the report, click on the data sources tab and
specify a user name / pwd and click apply to store these credentials.
-- Robert
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Joe" <Joe@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:81E41716-A88F-4C3B-B785-6012F6767E9D@.microsoft.com...
> Dear all
> Everytime, when my aspx application connect with the reports, it will also
> show the password box for the input of username and password, however, can
> we
> avoid it to show the password box? I want to implicity hardcoding the
> username and password into the aspx and i don't want to show the password
> box
> in the IE
>|||No the password prompt is from I.E. it ask from the domain user password to
see whether it have the right to see the reports or not, not the data sources
password
"Robert Bruckner [MSFT]" wrote:
> You can use stored credentials for the data sources. In report manager, go
> to the properties page of the report, click on the data sources tab and
> specify a user name / pwd and click apply to store these credentials.
>
> -- Robert
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
> "Joe" <Joe@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:81E41716-A88F-4C3B-B785-6012F6767E9D@.microsoft.com...
> > Dear all
> > Everytime, when my aspx application connect with the reports, it will also
> > show the password box for the input of username and password, however, can
> > we
> > avoid it to show the password box? I want to implicity hardcoding the
> > username and password into the aspx and i don't want to show the password
> > box
> > in the IE
> >
>
>

Hard Drive Space and Disk Caching

Dear friends
I have what may be a basic question to most folks here. Does SQL manage disk caching across partitions or hard drives for greatest efficiency
Basically I have a small C drive partition reserved for basic operating systems stuff. All program and data files, including SQL and databases are on the much larger D and E drives. Would there ever be an issue of the C drive not being large enough and causing SQL to slow down or not perform as well
Someone told me that all disk caching happens on the C drive, which doesn't make sense to me. It seems to me that SQL would be smart enough to use other physical drive resources as needed. They are encouraging us to use Partition Magic to expand the size of our C drive (which currently has about 1 Gig available, to be expanded to between 5 and 10 Gig)
Does this seem like good advice?I do not understand what they are saying - by definition caching is =holding data locally for fast access, SQL Server holds data in memory =having read it from disc. What drive letter is utterly irrelevant to it =(and from a data management perspective the whole concept of drive =letters is horrid!)
SQL Server caching is fine across any drive letter - it cares little =about such things. I have one system where C is getting really tight =(due to successive service packs and fixes) but all the SQL server =stuff, pagefile etc is elsewhere and we have noticed no performance =problems.
Mike John
"Kevin" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message =news:4376A82B-AC21-463C-BCDD-B124FE980C98@.microsoft.com...
> Dear friends,
> > I have what may be a basic question to most folks here. Does SQL =manage disk caching across partitions or hard drives for greatest =efficiency?
> > Basically I have a small C drive partition reserved for basic =operating systems stuff. All program and data files, including SQL and =databases are on the much larger D and E drives. Would there ever be an =issue of the C drive not being large enough and causing SQL to slow down =or not perform as well?
> > Someone told me that all disk caching happens on the C drive, which =doesn't make sense to me. It seems to me that SQL would be smart enough =to use other physical drive resources as needed. They are encouraging =us to use Partition Magic to expand the size of our C drive (which =currently has about 1 Gig available, to be expanded to between 5 and 10 =Gig).
> > Does this seem like good advice?|||Kevin,
First off sql servers cache is a memory based cache not a disk one. The
cache your thinking of is the OS cache or virtual memory. A properly tuned
Sql Server will not use this cache at all. And yes it is usually on the c:
drive. Second it sounds like your drives are all logical drives on the same
physical hard drive. If this is the case it doesn't matter since it is all
the same physical drive. Having multiple logical partitions is more of a
hindrance than a help in that case.
--
Andrew J. Kelly
SQL Server MVP
"Kevin" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:4376A82B-AC21-463C-BCDD-B124FE980C98@.microsoft.com...
> Dear friends,
> I have what may be a basic question to most folks here. Does SQL manage
disk caching across partitions or hard drives for greatest efficiency?
> Basically I have a small C drive partition reserved for basic operating
systems stuff. All program and data files, including SQL and databases are
on the much larger D and E drives. Would there ever be an issue of the C
drive not being large enough and causing SQL to slow down or not perform as
well?
> Someone told me that all disk caching happens on the C drive, which
doesn't make sense to me. It seems to me that SQL would be smart enough to
use other physical drive resources as needed. They are encouraging us to
use Partition Magic to expand the size of our C drive (which currently has
about 1 Gig available, to be expanded to between 5 and 10 Gig).
> Does this seem like good advice?|||Dear Andriew and Mike,
Thank you both for your responses. It seems to me, from them, that we do not have an immediate need to re-partition our hard drive.
I did wonder what you had in mind Andrew, though, when you said:
"Having multiple logical partitions is more of a hindrance than a help in that case."
Pardon my naivete. Thanks!
In Peace,
K.|||Two things that I see often. One is that by having several logical drives
it tends to give the impression there are multiple physical drives. For
someone not familiar with the hardware they may make assumptions that are
wrong based on this. The other is that by having multiple logical
partitions you effectively limit how much space you have in each. Where as
if it was all one logical partition you don't have to worry about running
out of room until you hit the disk limit, not the partition limit. Hope
that helps.
--
Andrew J. Kelly
SQL Server MVP
"Kevin" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:41D04118-B9C2-45BD-8D81-1179187976F6@.microsoft.com...
> Dear Andriew and Mike,
> Thank you both for your responses. It seems to me, from them, that we do
not have an immediate need to re-partition our hard drive.
> I did wonder what you had in mind Andrew, though, when you said:
> "Having multiple logical partitions is more of a hindrance than a help in
that case."
> Pardon my naivete. Thanks!
> In Peace,
> K.
>

Hard Drive Space and Disk Caching

Dear friends,
I have what may be a basic question to most folks here. Does SQL manage dis
k caching across partitions or hard drives for greatest efficiency?
Basically I have a small C drive partition reserved for basic operating syst
ems stuff. All program and data files, including SQL and databases are on t
he much larger D and E drives. Would there ever be an issue of the C drive
not being large enough and
causing SQL to slow down or not perform as well?
Someone told me that all disk caching happens on the C drive, which doesn't
make sense to me. It seems to me that SQL would be smart enough to use othe
r physical drive resources as needed. They are encouraging us to use Partit
ion Magic to expand the siz
e of our C drive (which currently has about 1 Gig available, to be expanded
to between 5 and 10 Gig).
Does this seem like good advice?I do not understand what they are saying - by definition caching is =
holding data locally for fast access, SQL Server holds data in memory =
having read it from disc. What drive letter is utterly irrelevant to it =
(and from a data management perspective the whole concept of drive =
letters is horrid!)=20
SQL Server caching is fine across any drive letter - it cares little =
about such things. I have one system where C is getting really tight =
(due to successive service packs and fixes) but all the SQL server =
stuff, pagefile etc is elsewhere and we have noticed no performance =
problems.
Mike John
"Kevin" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message =
news:4376A82B-AC21-463C-BCDD-B124FE980C98@.microsoft.com...
> Dear friends,
>=20
> I have what may be a basic question to most folks here. Does SQL =
manage disk caching across partitions or hard drives for greatest =
efficiency?
>=20
> Basically I have a small C drive partition reserved for basic =
operating systems stuff. All program and data files, including SQL and =
databases are on the much larger D and E drives. Would there ever be an =
issue of the C drive not being large enough and causing SQL to slow down =
or not perform as well?
>=20
> Someone told me that all disk caching happens on the C drive, which =
doesn't make sense to me. It seems to me that SQL would be smart enough =
to use other physical drive resources as needed. They are encouraging =
us to use Partition Magic to expand the size of our C drive (which =
currently has about 1 Gig available, to be expanded to between 5 and 10 =
Gig).
>=20
> Does this seem like good advice?|||Kevin,
First off sql servers cache is a memory based cache not a disk one. The
cache your thinking of is the OS cache or virtual memory. A properly tuned
Sql Server will not use this cache at all. And yes it is usually on the c:
drive. Second it sounds like your drives are all logical drives on the same
physical hard drive. If this is the case it doesn't matter since it is all
the same physical drive. Having multiple logical partitions is more of a
hindrance than a help in that case.
Andrew J. Kelly
SQL Server MVP
"Kevin" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:4376A82B-AC21-463C-BCDD-B124FE980C98@.microsoft.com...
> Dear friends,
> I have what may be a basic question to most folks here. Does SQL manage
disk caching across partitions or hard drives for greatest efficiency?
> Basically I have a small C drive partition reserved for basic operating
systems stuff. All program and data files, including SQL and databases are
on the much larger D and E drives. Would there ever be an issue of the C
drive not being large enough and causing SQL to slow down or not perform as
well?
> Someone told me that all disk caching happens on the C drive, which
doesn't make sense to me. It seems to me that SQL would be smart enough to
use other physical drive resources as needed. They are encouraging us to
use Partition Magic to expand the size of our C drive (which currently has
about 1 Gig available, to be expanded to between 5 and 10 Gig).
> Does this seem like good advice?|||Dear Andriew and Mike,
Thank you both for your responses. It seems to me, from them, that we do no
t have an immediate need to re-partition our hard drive.
I did wonder what you had in mind Andrew, though, when you said:
"Having multiple logical partitions is more of a hindrance than a help in th
at case."
Pardon my naivete. Thanks!
In Peace,
K.|||Two things that I see often. One is that by having several logical drives
it tends to give the impression there are multiple physical drives. For
someone not familiar with the hardware they may make assumptions that are
wrong based on this. The other is that by having multiple logical
partitions you effectively limit how much space you have in each. Where as
if it was all one logical partition you don't have to worry about running
out of room until you hit the disk limit, not the partition limit. Hope
that helps.
Andrew J. Kelly
SQL Server MVP
"Kevin" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:41D04118-B9C2-45BD-8D81-1179187976F6@.microsoft.com...
> Dear Andriew and Mike,
> Thank you both for your responses. It seems to me, from them, that we do
not have an immediate need to re-partition our hard drive.
> I did wonder what you had in mind Andrew, though, when you said:
> "Having multiple logical partitions is more of a hindrance than a help in
that case."
> Pardon my naivete. Thanks!
> In Peace,
> K.
>