Handle Error: setup

Showing posts with label setup. Show all posts

Friday, March 30, 2012

Having Some Issues Migrating to a New Server

The Setup: I'm moving a SQL Server 7 Database from a SQL Server sp'd somewhere between 3 and 4 (7.00.1028) to a SQL Server without any service packs. The old machine is a Dell PowerEdge 2400 (about 3 years old) and the new machine is a Dell PowerEdge 2650 with dual gigabit nics (and I have them teamed). Both machines run Windows 2000 Server. Mostly default installation on both the OS and SQL Server.

The Problem: When I restore the database to the new server (and resolve the orphaned login issues, etc.) the server hangs unbelievably. Most of my users can't even connect, much less work in their vb apps. I can ping the machine, but can't run the simplest T-SQL against it.

Any ideas?

Help would be greatly appreaciated.Any information from SQL Server error log, event viewer and any other logs that can help to assess the situation.

Ensure to upgrade to latest service pack on SQL & OS.|||Originally posted by Satya
Any information from SQL Server error log, event viewer and any other logs that can help to assess the situation.

Ensure to upgrade to latest service pack on SQL & OS.

Log showed that SQL Server had been installed before sys tech changed the name of the machine . . . think that may be the problem as log was reporting old name instead of new name. Removed SQL Server and reinstalling . . . we'll see . . .|||If the hostname is changed then you must use SP_DROPSERVER & SP_ADDSERVER to take affect the new name.

Refer to books online for more information.|||Originally posted by Satya
If the hostname is changed then you must use SP_DROPSERVER & SP_ADDSERVER to take affect the new name.

Refer to books online for more information.

Thanks a bunch for the info . . . will let you know if that was the problem.|||Several issues, but the most obvious one to address first is to install SP3 before you start restoring the database. Any hidden reason why it was not done in the first place?|||Originally posted by rdjabarov
Several issues, but the most obvious one to address first is to install SP3 before you start restoring the database. Any hidden reason why it was not done in the first place?

Tech who started the job thought that he could just install it after the db had been restored. I've since brought the current server to sp4 and upgraded the new server to sp4 as well. MS says this should not be a problem (restoring sp3 database to nosp server), but they've given me bad advice before!|||The reason they said it because you certainly can do it. The trick is that you shouldn't ;)|||Originally posted by rdjabarov
The reason they said it because you certainly can do it. The trick is that you shouldn't ;)

No Doubt.|||Trying to restore a database to another server with a prior service pack level is a very bad idea. I've lost lots of hair that way!

MS-SQL 7 sp3 actually changed the structure of some system tables (sysindexes if I remember right, and possibly others). Restoring a post sp3 database to a "gold" server will effectively "lock the box", or at least it did that for me.

-PatP|||Originally posted by Pat Phelan
Trying to restore a database to another server with a prior service pack level is a very bad idea. I've lost lots of hair that way!

MS-SQL 7 sp3 actually changed the structure of some system tables (sysindexes if I remember right, and possibly others). Restoring a post sp3 database to a "gold" server will effectively "lock the box", or at least it did that for me.

-PatP

Sounds exactly like our case here.|||you need to find to get SP3
______________________________
Reza Bashash www.bashash.com|||You can download SP3 for ver.7 from MS homepage or if not search under google.

Monday, March 19, 2012

Hardware/RAID Optimum Setup

I need some help with configuring SQL2K on a brand new machine.
The machine has 6 disks. RAIDx is required (I know more or less nothing
about RAID). My database has one table in particular which is hammered
non-stop.
So, I put the table that is used incessantly on one disk, the transaction
log on another and the data file on another. Does this make sense and what
options would that give me for RAID ?
Thanks
FrankNormally I would give a detailed answer to this but home
time here and I give a life to somebody.
Email me on peternolan67REMOVETHIS@.hotmail.com, nd I wil
go through all the options, rather than the best, its more
a case of the best for your circumstances.
Peter
MCDBA
"A politician needs the ability to foretell what is going
to happen tomorrow, next week, next month, and next year.
And to have the ability afterwards to explain why it
didn't happen."
Winston Churchill
>--Original Message--
>I need some help with configuring SQL2K on a brand new
machine.
>The machine has 6 disks. RAIDx is required (I know more
or less nothing
>about RAID). My database has one table in particular
which is hammered
>non-stop.
>So, I put the table that is used incessantly on one disk,
the transaction
>log on another and the data file on another. Does this
make sense and what
>options would that give me for RAID ?
>Thanks
>Frank
>
>.
>|||Hi Frank
Is your database and OLTP or an OLAP system?
The strategy for RAID is highly dependent on you query types.
Yours sincerely
Thomas Kejser
M.Sc, MCDBA
"Frank Ashley" <aa@.aa.com> wrote in message
news:O9woh4y9EHA.3260@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>I need some help with configuring SQL2K on a brand new machine.
> The machine has 6 disks. RAIDx is required (I know more or less nothing
> about RAID). My database has one table in particular which is hammered
> non-stop.
> So, I put the table that is used incessantly on one disk, the transaction
> log on another and the data file on another. Does this make sense and what
> options would that give me for RAID ?
> Thanks
> Frank
>|||Its OLTP
Thanks
Frank
"Thomas Kejser" <thomas@.kejser.org> wrote in message
news:OhLA5I09EHA.3236@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Hi Frank
> Is your database and OLTP or an OLAP system?
> The strategy for RAID is highly dependent on you query types.
>
> --
> Yours sincerely
> Thomas Kejser
> M.Sc, MCDBA
>
> "Frank Ashley" <aa@.aa.com> wrote in message
> news:O9woh4y9EHA.3260@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>>I need some help with configuring SQL2K on a brand new machine.
>> The machine has 6 disks. RAIDx is required (I know more or less nothing
>> about RAID). My database has one table in particular which is hammered
>> non-stop.
>> So, I put the table that is used incessantly on one disk, the transaction
>> log on another and the data file on another. Does this make sense and
>> what options would that give me for RAID ?
>> Thanks
>> Frank
>>
>|||"Frank Ashley" <aa@.aa.com> wrote in message
news:O9woh4y9EHA.3260@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>I need some help with configuring SQL2K on a brand new machine.
> The machine has 6 disks. RAIDx is required (I know more or less nothing
> about RAID). My database has one table in particular which is hammered
> non-stop.
> So, I put the table that is used incessantly on one disk, the transaction
> log on another and the data file on another. Does this make sense and what
> options would that give me for RAID ?
> Thanks
> Frank
>
A quick search through the NG will give you this answer. Here it is again
however...
RAID Levels and SQL Server:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/optimsql/odp_tun_1_87jm.asp
Comparing Different Implementations of RAID Levels:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/optimsql/odp_tun_1_79pv.asp
Rick Sawtell
MCT, MCSD, MCDBA

Monday, March 12, 2012

Hardware Setup

I am new to SQL and over the next year we will be implementing a SQL server
for an imaging application and a CRM package and I already have a few other
small packages using MSDE that could take advantage of a SQL server. Is it
best to have one large SQL
server for your network or have many different boxes. I realize that by onl
y having one box you put all of you eggs in one basket although if you have
several you need several different copies of the software and lots of hardwa
re which drives the cost up
. We are a growing 100 person company and we need to prepare for the future
. Is it not advisable to say build a quad processor box with lots of RAM an
d Disk and purchase the Processor version of either Standard or Enterprise a
nd let several apps take ad
vantage of the SQL server? Is it dependent on the apps whether or not you c
ould do this? Any pointers or information would be greatly appreciated....
ThanksMike,
There are pro's and con's to everything and this is no exception but in
general I feel that you will be better off going with one server vs.
several. This will simplify maintenance, lower costs and will be easier to
expand later on. This is especially true if none of the apps that will run
on the box require a huge amount of resources all the time. This way the
different apps can share the larger resource pool (memory, cpu's etc) more
efficiently and take advantage of their individual peaks without sacrificing
performance.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Mike" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:371D39BD-DCF1-47B0-9E08-292128DA8EFE@.microsoft.com...
> I am new to SQL and over the next year we will be implementing a SQL
server for an imaging application and a CRM package and I already have a few
other small packages using MSDE that could take advantage of a SQL server.
Is it best to have one large SQL server for your network or have many
different boxes. I realize that by only having one box you put all of you
eggs in one basket although if you have several you need several different
copies of the software and lots of hardware which drives the cost up. We
are a growing 100 person company and we need to prepare for the future. Is
it not advisable to say build a quad processor box with lots of RAM and Disk
and purchase the Processor version of either Standard or Enterprise and let
several apps take advantage of the SQL server? Is it dependent on the apps
whether or not you could do this? Any pointers or information would be
greatly appreciated....
> Thanks

Hardware Setup

I am new to SQL and over the next year we will be implementing a SQL server for an imaging application and a CRM package and I already have a few other small packages using MSDE that could take advantage of a SQL server. Is it best to have one large SQL
server for your network or have many different boxes. I realize that by only having one box you put all of you eggs in one basket although if you have several you need several different copies of the software and lots of hardware which drives the cost up
. We are a growing 100 person company and we need to prepare for the future. Is it not advisable to say build a quad processor box with lots of RAM and Disk and purchase the Processor version of either Standard or Enterprise and let several apps take ad
vantage of the SQL server? Is it dependent on the apps whether or not you could do this? Any pointers or information would be greatly appreciated....
Thanks
Mike,
There are pro's and con's to everything and this is no exception but in
general I feel that you will be better off going with one server vs.
several. This will simplify maintenance, lower costs and will be easier to
expand later on. This is especially true if none of the apps that will run
on the box require a huge amount of resources all the time. This way the
different apps can share the larger resource pool (memory, cpu's etc) more
efficiently and take advantage of their individual peaks without sacrificing
performance.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Mike" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:371D39BD-DCF1-47B0-9E08-292128DA8EFE@.microsoft.com...
> I am new to SQL and over the next year we will be implementing a SQL
server for an imaging application and a CRM package and I already have a few
other small packages using MSDE that could take advantage of a SQL server.
Is it best to have one large SQL server for your network or have many
different boxes. I realize that by only having one box you put all of you
eggs in one basket although if you have several you need several different
copies of the software and lots of hardware which drives the cost up. We
are a growing 100 person company and we need to prepare for the future. Is
it not advisable to say build a quad processor box with lots of RAM and Disk
and purchase the Processor version of either Standard or Enterprise and let
several apps take advantage of the SQL server? Is it dependent on the apps
whether or not you could do this? Any pointers or information would be
greatly appreciated....
> Thanks

Hardware Setup

I am new to SQL and over the next year we will be implementing a SQL server for an imaging application and a CRM package and I already have a few other small packages using MSDE that could take advantage of a SQL server. Is it best to have one large SQL server for your network or have many different boxes. I realize that by only having one box you put all of you eggs in one basket although if you have several you need several different copies of the software and lots of hardware which drives the cost up. We are a growing 100 person company and we need to prepare for the future. Is it not advisable to say build a quad processor box with lots of RAM and Disk and purchase the Processor version of either Standard or Enterprise and let several apps take advantage of the SQL server? Is it dependent on the apps whether or not you could do this? Any pointers or information would be greatly appreciated...
ThanksMike,
There are pro's and con's to everything and this is no exception but in
general I feel that you will be better off going with one server vs.
several. This will simplify maintenance, lower costs and will be easier to
expand later on. This is especially true if none of the apps that will run
on the box require a huge amount of resources all the time. This way the
different apps can share the larger resource pool (memory, cpu's etc) more
efficiently and take advantage of their individual peaks without sacrificing
performance.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Mike" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:371D39BD-DCF1-47B0-9E08-292128DA8EFE@.microsoft.com...
> I am new to SQL and over the next year we will be implementing a SQL
server for an imaging application and a CRM package and I already have a few
other small packages using MSDE that could take advantage of a SQL server.
Is it best to have one large SQL server for your network or have many
different boxes. I realize that by only having one box you put all of you
eggs in one basket although if you have several you need several different
copies of the software and lots of hardware which drives the cost up. We
are a growing 100 person company and we need to prepare for the future. Is
it not advisable to say build a quad processor box with lots of RAM and Disk
and purchase the Processor version of either Standard or Enterprise and let
several apps take advantage of the SQL server? Is it dependent on the apps
whether or not you could do this? Any pointers or information would be
greatly appreciated....
> Thanks

Friday, March 30, 2012

Having Some Issues Migrating to a New Server

Monday, March 19, 2012

Hardware/RAID Optimum Setup

Hardware/RAID Optimum Setup

Hardware/RAID Optimum Setup

Monday, March 12, 2012

Hardware Setup

Hardware Setup

Hardware Setup

Handle Error

Blog Archive

About Me