Handle Error: windows

Showing posts with label windows. Show all posts

Friday, March 30, 2012

Having trouble installing SQL Server 2005 SP2

The computer is a Windows 2003 R2 Enterprise 32-bit installed in a Windows
2003 R2 native AD domain/forest, and has WSUS/IIS6 running as well as SQL
Server 2005 standard. When trying to install it fails with the following
event log entry:
Event Type: Error
Event Source: Windows Update Agent
Event Category: Installation
Event ID: 20
Date: 3/8/2007
Time: 10:44:39 AM
User: N/A
Computer: BLACKDOG
Description:
Installation Failure: Windows failed to install the following update with
error 0x80070643: Microsoft SQL Server 2005 Service Pack 2 (KB 921896).
For more information, see Help and Support Center at
http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/events.asp.
Data:
0000: 57 69 6e 33 32 48 52 65 Win32HRe
0008: 73 75 6c 74 3d 30 78 38 sult=0x8
0010: 30 30 37 30 36 34 33 20 0070643
0018: 55 70 64 61 74 65 49 44 UpdateID
0020: 3d 7b 41 37 46 46 45 42 ={A7FFEB
0028: 45 33 2d 41 46 34 43 2d E3-AF4C-
0030: 34 32 38 46 2d 41 34 44 428F-A4D
0038: 38 2d 33 38 41 41 36 46 8-38AA6F
0040: 39 38 35 37 36 32 7d 20 985762}
0048: 52 65 76 69 73 69 6f 6e Revision
0050: 4e 75 6d 62 65 72 3d 31 Number=1
0058: 30 31 20 00 01 .
Any help debugging this would be appreciated.
--
Edward Ray
CCIE Security, CISSP, GCIA Gold, GCIH Gold, MCSE+Security, PEHi, Edward,
I understand that the SQL Server 2005 SP2 failed to be installed on your
Windows 2003 R2 Enterprise Edition running SQL Server 2005 STD. The error
code is 0x80070643.
If I have misunderstood, please let me know.
The error code indicates that fatal error during the installation.
Unfortunately we could not get more information from this message.
Could you please mail me the installation logs ( C:\WINDOWS\Hotfix ) for
further research? My email address is changliw_at_microsoft_dot_com.
If the hotfix logs were not generated, I recommend that you use FileMon amd
RegMon to monitor the SP2 setup progress and mail me the logs for further
research.
Best regards,
Charles Wang
Microsoft Online Community Support
=====================================================Get notification to my posts through email? Please refer to:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/managednewsgroups/default.aspx#notif
ications
If you are using Outlook Express, please make sure you clear the check box
"Tools/Options/Read: Get 300 headers at a time" to see your reply promptly.
Note: The MSDN Managed Newsgroup support offering is for non-urgent issues
where an initial response from the community or a Microsoft Support
Engineer within 1 business day is acceptable. Please note that each follow
up response may take approximately 2 business days as the support
professional working with you may need further investigation to reach the
most efficient resolution. The offering is not appropriate for situations
that require urgent, real-time or phone-based interactions or complex
project analysis and dump analysis issues. Issues of this nature are best
handled working with a dedicated Microsoft Support Engineer by contacting
Microsoft Customer Support Services (CSS) at
http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/support/default.aspx.
======================================================When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via
your newsreader so that others may learn and benefit
from this issue.
======================================================This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
======================================================|||i got this same error. would be very interested to hear any
explanation and/or workaround. i can provide whatever info is needed,
but i already submitted it via the windows crash feedback thing.
many thanks
tim|||As per your request I have sent you the error and filemon logs.
Edward Ray
CCIE Security, CISSP, GCIA Gold, GCIH Gold, MCSE+Security, PE
"Charles Wang[MSFT]" <changliw@.online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:MXO8hufYHHA.2372@.TK2MSFTNGHUB02.phx.gbl...
> Hi, Edward,
> I understand that the SQL Server 2005 SP2 failed to be installed on your
> Windows 2003 R2 Enterprise Edition running SQL Server 2005 STD. The error
> code is 0x80070643.
> If I have misunderstood, please let me know.
> The error code indicates that fatal error during the installation.
> Unfortunately we could not get more information from this message.
> Could you please mail me the installation logs ( C:\WINDOWS\Hotfix ) for
> further research? My email address is changliw_at_microsoft_dot_com.
> If the hotfix logs were not generated, I recommend that you use FileMon
> amd
> RegMon to monitor the SP2 setup progress and mail me the logs for further
> research.
> Best regards,
> Charles Wang
> Microsoft Online Community Support
> =====================================================> Get notification to my posts through email? Please refer to:
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/managednewsgroups/default.aspx#notif
> ications
> If you are using Outlook Express, please make sure you clear the check box
> "Tools/Options/Read: Get 300 headers at a time" to see your reply
> promptly.
>
> Note: The MSDN Managed Newsgroup support offering is for non-urgent issues
> where an initial response from the community or a Microsoft Support
> Engineer within 1 business day is acceptable. Please note that each follow
> up response may take approximately 2 business days as the support
> professional working with you may need further investigation to reach the
> most efficient resolution. The offering is not appropriate for situations
> that require urgent, real-time or phone-based interactions or complex
> project analysis and dump analysis issues. Issues of this nature are best
> handled working with a dedicated Microsoft Support Engineer by contacting
> Microsoft Customer Support Services (CSS) at
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/support/default.aspx.
> ======================================================> When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via
> your newsreader so that others may learn and benefit
> from this issue.
> ======================================================> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> rights.
> ======================================================>
>
>|||Hi, Edward,
Thanks for your email response.
I checked your FileMon log, and found many errors like the following:
5473 11:14:52.094 PM svchost.exe:1680 FASTIO_QUERY_OPEN C:\Program
Files\Microsoft SQL Server\90\DTS\Binn\SRCLIENT.DLL NOT FOUND Attributes:
Error
5474 11:14:52.094 PM svchost.exe:1680 FASTIO_QUERY_OPEN C:\Program
Files\Microsoft SQL Server\90\Tools\binn\SRCLIENT.DLL NOT FOUND Attributes:
Error
5475 11:14:52.094 PM svchost.exe:1680 FASTIO_QUERY_OPEN C:\Program
Files\Microsoft SQL Server\90\Tools\Binn\VSShell\Common7\IDE\SRCLIENT.DLL
NOT FOUND Attributes: Error
Also, from the log:
102 11:14:44.058 PM svchost.exe:1680 FASTIO_DEVICE_CONTROL
C:\WINDOWS\SoftwareDistribution\DataStore\Logs FAILURE IOCTL: 0x4D0008
It indicates that not enough storage is available to process this command.
Could you please check if the files paths are existed and if there is
enough disk space during the setup process?
Best regards,
Charles Wang
Microsoft Online Community Support
=====================================================Get notification to my posts through email? Please refer to:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/managednewsgroups/default.aspx#notif
ications
If you are using Outlook Express, please make sure you clear the check box
"Tools/Options/Read: Get 300 headers at a time" to see your reply promptly.
Note: The MSDN Managed Newsgroup support offering is for non-urgent issues
where an initial response from the community or a Microsoft Support
Engineer within 1 business day is acceptable. Please note that each follow
up response may take approximately 2 business days as the support
professional working with you may need further investigation to reach the
most efficient resolution. The offering is not appropriate for situations
that require urgent, real-time or phone-based interactions or complex
project analysis and dump analysis issues. Issues of this nature are best
handled working with a dedicated Microsoft Support Engineer by contacting
Microsoft Customer Support Services (CSS) at
http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/support/default.aspx.
======================================================When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via
your newsreader so that others may learn and benefit
from this issue.
======================================================This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
======================================================|||Charles, please help!
My problem is almost the same as Edward's. I have tried more than 5 times
to install the Microsoft SQL Server 2005 Express Edition Service pack and
every time I get the message: Updates were unable to be successfully
installed.
I have no error code: none comes up. I also have no hotfix file in the
Windows directory. What is filemon? How do I access it to give you more
info?
My computer has also been running slower since I installed Office 2007, but
I know that's another issue. It freezes if it has been on for awhile, and
programs are slow to open and close. I maintain my computer, I have all the
necessary virus, firewall, spyware, whatever -- so what could be the problem?
My computer is a Dell, about 8 months old, running with XP Media edition.
Thanks for your help. I am getting desperate.
Thanks,
Marla
"Charles Wang[MSFT]" wrote:
> Hi, Edward,
> Thanks for your email response.
> I checked your FileMon log, and found many errors like the following:
> 5473 11:14:52.094 PM svchost.exe:1680 FASTIO_QUERY_OPEN C:\Program
> Files\Microsoft SQL Server\90\DTS\Binn\SRCLIENT.DLL NOT FOUND Attributes:
> Error
> 5474 11:14:52.094 PM svchost.exe:1680 FASTIO_QUERY_OPEN C:\Program
> Files\Microsoft SQL Server\90\Tools\binn\SRCLIENT.DLL NOT FOUND Attributes:
> Error
> 5475 11:14:52.094 PM svchost.exe:1680 FASTIO_QUERY_OPEN C:\Program
> Files\Microsoft SQL Server\90\Tools\Binn\VSShell\Common7\IDE\SRCLIENT.DLL
> NOT FOUND Attributes: Error
> Also, from the log:
> 102 11:14:44.058 PM svchost.exe:1680 FASTIO_DEVICE_CONTROL
> C:\WINDOWS\SoftwareDistribution\DataStore\Logs FAILURE IOCTL: 0x4D0008
> It indicates that not enough storage is available to process this command.
> Could you please check if the files paths are existed and if there is
> enough disk space during the setup process?
> Best regards,
> Charles Wang
> Microsoft Online Community Support
> =====================================================> Get notification to my posts through email? Please refer to:
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/managednewsgroups/default.aspx#notif
> ications
> If you are using Outlook Express, please make sure you clear the check box
> "Tools/Options/Read: Get 300 headers at a time" to see your reply promptly.
>
> Note: The MSDN Managed Newsgroup support offering is for non-urgent issues
> where an initial response from the community or a Microsoft Support
> Engineer within 1 business day is acceptable. Please note that each follow
> up response may take approximately 2 business days as the support
> professional working with you may need further investigation to reach the
> most efficient resolution. The offering is not appropriate for situations
> that require urgent, real-time or phone-based interactions or complex
> project analysis and dump analysis issues. Issues of this nature are best
> handled working with a dedicated Microsoft Support Engineer by contacting
> Microsoft Customer Support Services (CSS) at
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/support/default.aspx.
> ======================================================> When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via
> your newsreader so that others may learn and benefit
> from this issue.
> ======================================================> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
> ======================================================>
>

Having trouble installing SQL Server 2005 SP1

I'm Having problem installing SQL server 2005 SP1 on Windows 2003 server R2 SP2.

The log file talk about SQL server express but I have SQL server 2005.

03/19/2007 13:49:07.203 ================================================================================
03/19/2007 13:49:07.203 Hotfix package launched
03/19/2007 13:49:32.984 Attempting to install instance: SQL Server Native Client
03/19/2007 13:49:33.000 Attempting to install target: OMNIWEBPACS
03/19/2007 13:49:33.000 Attempting to install file: sqlncli.msi
03/19/2007 13:49:33.015 Attempting to install file: \\OMNIWEBPACS\d$\bc06cd32e1991973c97744b9c4\HotFixSqlncli\Files\sqlncli.msi
03/19/2007 13:49:33.015 Creating MSI install log file at: C:\WINDOWS\Hotfix\Redist9\Logs\Redist9_Hotfix_KB913090_sqlncli.msi.log
03/19/2007 13:49:33.015 Successfully opened registry key: Software\Policies\Microsoft\Windows\Installer
03/19/2007 13:49:33.015 Failed to read registry key: Debug
03/19/2007 13:49:34.062 MSP returned 0: The action completed successfully.
03/19/2007 13:49:34.062 Successfully opened registry key: Software\Policies\Microsoft\Windows\Installer
03/19/2007 13:49:34.062 Failed to read registry key: Debug
03/19/2007 13:49:34.062 Successfully installed file: \\OMNIWEBPACS\d$\bc06cd32e1991973c97744b9c4\HotFixSqlncli\Files\sqlncli.msi
03/19/2007 13:49:34.062 Successfully installed target: OMNIWEBPACS
03/19/2007 13:49:34.062 Successfully installed instance: SQL Server Native Client
03/19/2007 13:49:34.062
03/19/2007 13:49:34.062 Product Status Summary:
03/19/2007 13:49:34.062 Product: SQL Server Native Client
03/19/2007 13:49:34.062 SQL Server Native Client (RTM ) - Success
03/19/2007 13:49:34.062
03/19/2007 13:49:34.062 Product: Setup Support Files
03/19/2007 13:49:34.062 Setup Support Files (RTM ) - Not Applied
03/19/2007 13:49:34.062
03/19/2007 13:49:34.062 Product: Database Services
03/19/2007 13:49:34.062 Database Services (SP1 2047 ENU) - NA
03/19/2007 13:49:34.062 Details: Instances of SQL Server Express cannot be updated by using this Service Pack installer. To update instances of SQL Server Express, use the SQL Server Express Service Pack installer.
03/19/2007 13:49:34.062
03/19/2007 13:49:34.062 Product: Database Services
03/19/2007 13:49:34.062 Database Services (RTM 1399 ENU) - Not Applied
03/19/2007 13:49:34.062
03/19/2007 13:49:34.062 Product: Integration Services
03/19/2007 13:49:34.062 Integration Services (RTM 1399 ENU) - Not Applied
03/19/2007 13:49:34.062
03/19/2007 13:49:34.062 Product: Client Components
03/19/2007 13:49:34.062 Client Components (RTM 1399 ENU) - Not Applied
03/19/2007 13:49:34.062
03/19/2007 13:49:34.062 Product: MSXML 6.0 Parser
03/19/2007 13:49:34.062 MSXML 6.0 Parser (RTM ) - Not Applied
03/19/2007 13:49:34.062
03/19/2007 13:49:34.062 Product: SQLXML4
03/19/2007 13:49:34.062 SQLXML4 (RTM ) - Not Applied
03/19/2007 13:49:34.062
03/19/2007 13:49:34.062 Product: Backward Compatibility
03/19/2007 13:49:34.078 Backward Compatibility (RTM ) - Not Applied
03/19/2007 13:49:34.078
03/19/2007 13:49:34.078 Product: Microsoft SQL Server VSS Writer
03/19/2007 13:49:34.078 Microsoft SQL Server VSS Writer (RTM ) - Not Applied
03/19/2007 13:49:34.078

any Idea?

It means that you take the wrong package to apply. You will need to get the following packages for ENU depending on the processor archiectures.

SQLServer2005SP1-KB913090-x86-ENU.exe

SQLServer2005SP1-KB913090-x64-ENU.exe

SQLServer2005SP1-KB913090-ia64-ENU.exe

having trouble getting reporting services installed properly

Hi,
I am running Windows 2000 and VS 2003.
I installed Reporting Services with service pack 2.
When I type: in http://reportserver/reports I get an access denied 403 error.
When I go into IIS Manager and look for the Report folder properties I can't
find the Reports virtual directory. It does not exist.
So, how is it when I goto http://reportserver/reports I get a 403 error and
not a 404: File not found error.
The service is run as the executable: reportingservicesservice.exe
(discovered this through internet searches) on the machine, but when I search
for it, I can't find the file.
I have created a report and successfully viewed it in the VS 2003 Report
Designer, but the reporting services and Report Manager don't exist.
I do have this directory with lots of files, but I don't seem to have the
start page for Reporting Manaer anywhere on my system.
C:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL\Reporting Services
Could someone please advise.
Thank You
ChrisDid you open the reportning services configuration manager (new with 2005)
and configure the 2 folders. In 2005 it doesnt automatically create the 2
virtual folders, you have to explicitly create them through the configuration
manager.
Go to reporting services configuration (it should be somewhere in your
"START --> All programs") and connect to your report server, and make sure
the virtual directory tabs are green checked. If not set them
"Chris" wrote:
> Hi,
> I am running Windows 2000 and VS 2003.
> I installed Reporting Services with service pack 2.
> When I type: in http://reportserver/reports I get an access denied 403 error.
> When I go into IIS Manager and look for the Report folder properties I can't
> find the Reports virtual directory. It does not exist.
> So, how is it when I goto http://reportserver/reports I get a 403 error and
> not a 404: File not found error.
> The service is run as the executable: reportingservicesservice.exe
> (discovered this through internet searches) on the machine, but when I search
> for it, I can't find the file.
> I have created a report and successfully viewed it in the VS 2003 Report
> Designer, but the reporting services and Report Manager don't exist.
> I do have this directory with lots of files, but I don't seem to have the
> start page for Reporting Manaer anywhere on my system.
> C:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL\Reporting Services
> Could someone please advise.
> Thank You
> Chris|||Hi Nagini,
I am not using SQL Server 2005, I am using SQL Server 2000.
Thanks
Chris
"Nagini Indugula" wrote:
> Did you open the reportning services configuration manager (new with 2005)
> and configure the 2 folders. In 2005 it doesnt automatically create the 2
> virtual folders, you have to explicitly create them through the configuration
> manager.
> Go to reporting services configuration (it should be somewhere in your
> "START --> All programs") and connect to your report server, and make sure
> the virtual directory tabs are green checked. If not set them
> "Chris" wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am running Windows 2000 and VS 2003.
> >
> > I installed Reporting Services with service pack 2.
> >
> > When I type: in http://reportserver/reports I get an access denied 403 error.
> >
> > When I go into IIS Manager and look for the Report folder properties I can't
> > find the Reports virtual directory. It does not exist.
> >
> > So, how is it when I goto http://reportserver/reports I get a 403 error and
> > not a 404: File not found error.
> >
> > The service is run as the executable: reportingservicesservice.exe
> > (discovered this through internet searches) on the machine, but when I search
> > for it, I can't find the file.
> >
> > I have created a report and successfully viewed it in the VS 2003 Report
> > Designer, but the reporting services and Report Manager don't exist.
> >
> > I do have this directory with lots of files, but I don't seem to have the
> > start page for Reporting Manaer anywhere on my system.
> >
> > C:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL\Reporting Services
> >
> > Could someone please advise.
> >
> > Thank You
> >
> > Chris

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Having Problem While Importing a Text File

Hello everbody,
Our system is using Sql Server 2000 on Windows XP / Windows 2000
We have a text file needs to be imported into Sql Server 2000 as a
table.
But we are facing a problem which is,
Sql Server claims that it has a character size limit ( which is 8060 )
so it cant procceed the import operation if the text file has a record
bigger then 8060.
The records , in the text file, have a size bigger then 8060. So we
wont be able to import the text file.
On the other hand it is said that Sql Server 2005 can get a record
bigger then 8060 but
again we couldnt be able to perform the task.

As a result, i urgently need to know that how may i import the text
file which has a record bigger then 8060 characters.?
Any help is appreciated
thanks a lot!!

Tunc Ovacikpanic attack (tunc.ovacik@.gmail.com) writes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by

Our system is using Sql Server 2000 on Windows XP / Windows 2000
We have a text file needs to be imported into Sql Server 2000 as a
table.
But we are facing a problem which is,
Sql Server claims that it has a character size limit ( which is 8060 )
so it cant procceed the import operation if the text file has a record
bigger then 8060.
The records , in the text file, have a size bigger then 8060. So we
wont be able to import the text file.
On the other hand it is said that Sql Server 2005 can get a record
bigger then 8060 but
again we couldnt be able to perform the task.
>
As a result, i urgently need to know that how may i import the text
file which has a record bigger then 8060 characters.?
Any help is appreciated
thanks a lot!!

How do you import the file? BCP, BULK INSERT or DTS?

Could you post the CREATE TABLE statement for the table in question?

Quote:

Originally Posted by

The records , in the text file, have a size bigger then 8060. So we
wont be able to import the text file.
On the other hand it is said that Sql Server 2005 can get a record
bigger then 8060 but
again we couldnt be able to perform the task.
>
As a result, i urgently need to know that how may i import the text
file which has a record bigger then 8060 characters.?
Any help is appreciated

-- SNIP --

Good day,

If you're using a large data-type for a column (such as varchar(max),
nvarchar(max), varbinary(max), text, image, & xml), you can go beyond
the 8060 limit.

Alternatively, if you aren't using large data-types, you can vertically
partition the table so some of the columns would be in one table while
the other set of columns would be in another table.

Hope this helps.

Regards,
N.I.T.I.N.|||Erland Sommarskog wrote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by

panic attack (tunc.ovacik@.gmail.com) writes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by

As a result, i urgently need to know that how may i import the text
file which has a record bigger then 8060 characters.?
Any help is appreciated
thanks a lot!!

>
How do you import the file? BCP, BULK INSERT or DTS?
>
Could you post the CREATE TABLE statement for the table in question?
>
>
--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se
>
Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...oads/books.mspx
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodin...ions/books.mspx

hi again...
thanks for your concern... i really appreciated...
we are importing the text file by using DTS
here is the create table statement used by DTS :

CREATE TABLE [nwind].[dbo].[DDD] (
[Col001] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col002] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col003] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col004] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col005] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col006] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col007] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col008] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col009] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col010] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col011] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col012] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col013] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col014] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col015] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col016] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col017] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col018] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col019] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col020] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col021] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col022] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col023] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col024] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col025] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col026] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col027] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col028] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col029] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col030] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col031] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col032] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col033] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col034] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col035] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col036] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col037] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col038] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col039] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col040] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col041] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col042] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col043] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col044] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col045] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col046] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col047] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col048] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col049] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col050] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col051] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col052] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col053] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col054] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col055] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col056] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col057] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col058] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col059] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col060] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col061] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col062] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col063] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col064] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col065] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col066] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col067] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col068] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col069] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col070] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col071] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col072] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col073] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col074] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col075] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col076] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col077] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col078] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col079] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col080] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col081] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col082] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col083] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col084] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col085] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col086] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col087] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col088] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col089] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col090] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col091] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col092] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col093] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col094] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col095] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col096] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col097] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col098] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col099] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col100] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col101] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col102] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col103] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col104] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col105] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col106] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col107] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col108] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col109] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col110] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col111] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col112] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col113] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col114] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col115] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col116] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col117] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col118] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col119] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col120] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col121] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col122] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col123] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col124] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col125] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col126] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col127] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col128] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col129] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col130] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col131] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col132] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col133] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col134] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col135] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col136] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col137] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col138] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col139] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col140] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col141] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col142] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col143] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col144] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col145] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col146] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col147] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col148] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col149] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col150] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col151] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col152] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col153] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col154] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col155] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col156] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col157] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col158] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col159] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col160] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col161] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col162] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col163] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col164] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col165] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col166] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col167] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col168] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col169] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col170] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col171] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col172] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col173] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col174] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col175] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col176] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col177] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col178] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col179] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col180] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col181] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col182] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col183] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col184] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col185] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col186] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col187] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col188] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col189] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col190] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col191] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col192] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col193] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col194] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col195] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col196] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col197] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col198] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col199] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col200] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col201] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col202] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col203] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col204] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col205] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col206] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col207] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col208] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col209] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col210] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col211] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col212] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col213] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col214] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col215] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col216] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col217] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col218] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col219] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col220] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col221] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col222] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col223] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col224] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col225] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col226] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col227] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col228] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col229] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col230] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col231] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col232] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col233] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col234] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col235] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col236] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col237] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col238] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col239] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col240] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col241] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col242] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col243] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col244] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col245] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col246] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col247] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col248] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col249] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col250] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col251] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col252] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col253] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col254] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col255] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col256] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col257] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col258] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col259] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col260] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col261] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col262] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col263] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col264] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col265] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col266] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col267] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col268] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col269] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col270] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col271] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col272] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col273] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col274] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col275] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col276] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col277] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col278] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col279] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col280] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col281] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col282] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col283] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col284] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col285] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col286] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col287] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col288] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col289] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col290] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col291] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col292] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col293] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col294] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col295] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col296] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col297] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col298] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col299] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col300] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col301] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col302] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col303] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col304] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col305] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col306] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col307] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col308] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col309] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col310] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col311] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col312] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col313] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col314] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col315] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col316] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col317] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col318] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col319] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col320] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col321] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col322] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col323] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col324] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col325] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col326] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col327] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col328] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col329] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col330] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col331] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col332] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col333] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col334] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col335] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col336] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col337] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col338] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col339] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col340] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col341] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col342] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col343] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col344] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col345] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col346] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col347] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col348] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col349] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col350] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col351] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col352] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col353] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col354] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col355] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col356] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col357] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col358] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col359] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col360] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col361] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col362] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col363] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col364] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col365] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col366] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col367] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col368] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col369] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col370] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col371] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col372] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col373] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col374] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col375] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col376] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col377] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col378] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col379] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col380] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col381] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col382] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col383] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col384] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col385] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col386] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col387] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col388] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col389] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col390] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col391] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col392] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col393] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col394] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col395] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col396] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col397] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col398] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col399] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col400] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col401] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col402] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col403] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col404] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col405] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col406] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col407] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col408] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col409] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col410] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col411] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col412] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col413] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col414] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col415] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col416] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col417] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col418] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col419] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col420] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col421] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col422] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col423] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col424] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col425] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col426] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col427] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col428] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col429] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col430] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col431] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col432] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col433] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col434] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col435] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col436] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col437] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col438] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col439] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col440] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col441] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col442] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col443] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col444] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col445] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col446] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col447] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col448] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col449] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col450] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col451] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col452] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col453] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col454] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col455] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col456] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col457] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col458] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col459] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col460] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col461] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col462] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col463] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col464] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col465] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col466] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col467] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col468] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col469] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col470] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col471] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col472] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col473] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col474] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col475] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col476] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col477] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col478] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col479] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col480] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col481] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col482] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col483] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col484] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col485] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col486] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col487] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col488] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col489] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col490] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col491] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col492] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col493] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col494] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col495] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col496] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col497] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col498] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col499] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col500] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col501] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col502] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col503] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col504] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col505] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col506] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col507] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col508] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col509] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col510] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col511] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col512] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col513] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col514] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col515] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col516] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col517] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col518] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col519] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col520] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col521] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col522] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col523] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col524] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col525] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col526] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col527] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col528] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col529] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col530] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col531] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col532] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col533] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col534] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col535] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col536] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col537] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col538] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col539] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col540] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col541] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col542] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col543] varchar (255) NULL
)

and DTS is reporting an error like this :
"
Error at destination for row number 13024. Errors encountered so far
in this task: 1.
The statement has been terminated.
Cannot create a row of size 9997 which is greater than the allowable
maximum of 8060.
"
i also tried "nvarchar" , "ntext" ect. but none of them worked. :((
if you need any further information about the proccess please let me
know
i will respond/answer as soon as possible.
thanks a lot again...

Tunc Ovacik|||panic attack (tunc.ovacik@.gmail.com) writes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by

CREATE TABLE [nwind].[dbo].[DDD] (
[Col001] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col002] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col003] varchar (255) NULL,
>...
[Col543] varchar (255) NULL
)

The table appears somewhat funny. Does the table really reflect your
business rules? 255 * 543 is 138465 and with a maximum row size of
8060 in SQL Server, this is not like to turn out well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by

i also tried "nvarchar" , "ntext" ect. but none of them worked. :((

If you tried 543 ntext columns, I can understand why that fails. A ntext
column has a 16-byte point which is in the the row, and the real data is
elsewhere. 543 * 16 is 8688, so you can't have all those text pointers
on a single row.

Does your input file really have 543 input fields?

Quote:

Originally Posted by

Erland Sommarskog wrote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by

panic attack (tunc.ovacik@.gmail.com) writes:

-- SNIP --

Quote:

Originally Posted by

CREATE TABLE [nwind].[dbo].[DDD] (
[Col001] varchar (255) NULL,

-- SNIP --

Quote:

Originally Posted by

[Col543] varchar (255) NULL
)

-- SNIP --

Hi!

I know I said earlier that you could use long data types, and the table
you're trying to create is in accordance with my statement earlier.
However, I should have added that each column stores a pointer in the
row and the actual data is stored in a different location. If you add
up the sizes of the pointers along with other row data they should be
below the ~8K limit too. I guess I should be more accurate when I say
something in future like those people who speak legal-ese. The DDL
query was really funny to look at, and it's the first time I ever used
the "read more" link on Google Groups.

I would suggest that you partition your tables vertically so you have
some of the columns in one table and the other columns in another table
(...or perhaps more than 2 tables, depending on the sizes... I'm not
really good at the math).

N.I.T.I.N.

PS: I hope I never have to deal with such a monstrosity - a table that
has so many columns. I once had to deal with 36 columns and that was
too much for me as a developer (that was before my days as a DBA). I
split it up into 3 tables though people may say it is less efficient to
have 3 queries instead of one (remember the days when people said you
should use assembly language as the code is smaller & faster?).

PPS: No offence to assembly language developers in the last 'PS'. I
totally respect people who still use assembly, but for me it's just a
little too much source code to think straight - I'd spend a whole hour
doing something that I could do in 15 minutes with VB, Java or C# (when
equipped with the right IDE, of course!).|||ofcourse it has 543 columns :)))
the data includes records for about 6 years, 20 quarters and 60 months
back data and for each period it has 6 parameters and some other
columns info(text).
so if you do the math;
(6 * 6) + ( 20 * 6 ) + ( 60 * 6 ) = 516 columns.

and if you add the other columns the result is 543
as i said i tried various types to get the data in to SQL
nvarchar , varchar , ntext etc.
but none of them worked out.

what do you think Erland? do we have a chance to get over this problem?
or it is not possible to get the data into SQL Server 2000?

NOTE : By the way there is another data that we are importing to Sql
Server 2000.
and it has 124 columns. no problems occur while getting the data into
Sql Server 2000. if we apply the same logic as you did ,
124 * 255 = 31620
so it is also bigger than 8060. but we are doing the operation without
any problems.
it seems that there is a contradiction doesnt it?

what about SQL Server 2005? is there any limitation at sql server 2005
about the row size?

Tunc

Erland Sommarskog wrote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by

panic attack (tunc.ovacik@.gmail.com) writes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by

CREATE TABLE [nwind].[dbo].[DDD] (
[Col001] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col002] varchar (255) NULL,
[Col003] varchar (255) NULL,
...
[Col543] varchar (255) NULL
)

>
The table appears somewhat funny. Does the table really reflect your
business rules? 255 * 543 is 138465 and with a maximum row size of
8060 in SQL Server, this is not like to turn out well.
>

Quote:

Originally Posted by

i also tried "nvarchar" , "ntext" ect. but none of them worked. :((

>
If you tried 543 ntext columns, I can understand why that fails. A ntext
column has a 16-byte point which is in the the row, and the real data is
elsewhere. 543 * 16 is 8688, so you can't have all those text pointers
on a single row.
>
Does your input file really have 543 input fields?
>
>
>
>
--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se
>
Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...oads/books.mspx
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodin...ions/books.mspx

|||hi again...
partitioning the table is one of the solvation but for our production
system unfortunately it is not proper for use. :((
cause we have lots of clients and if we partition the tables for our
each client there are gonna be enourmus number of tables, so it is not
possible to deal with those number of tables right now...

hence, we need to get the data at once, in one table.
perhaps we can union some columns into one column. but again there will
be some leck of use of the data while manipulating it.
as you can see it seems not good... :((

i hope that erland may advise another solvation about the problem.
or we may upgrade the database to sql server 2005 if it is gonna help
us getting the data into one table without any problems.

i really appreciated for your help.
thanks a lot.
best regards.

Tunc

NiTiN yazdi:

Quote:

Originally Posted by

panic attack wrote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by

Erland Sommarskog wrote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by

panic attack (tunc.ovacik@.gmail.com) writes:

>
-- SNIP --
>

Quote:

Originally Posted by

CREATE TABLE [nwind].[dbo].[DDD] (
[Col001] varchar (255) NULL,

>
-- SNIP --
>

Quote:

Originally Posted by

[Col543] varchar (255) NULL
)

>
-- SNIP --
>
>
Hi!
>
I know I said earlier that you could use long data types, and the table
you're trying to create is in accordance with my statement earlier.
However, I should have added that each column stores a pointer in the
row and the actual data is stored in a different location. If you add
up the sizes of the pointers along with other row data they should be
below the ~8K limit too. I guess I should be more accurate when I say
something in future like those people who speak legal-ese. The DDL
query was really funny to look at, and it's the first time I ever used
the "read more" link on Google Groups.
>
I would suggest that you partition your tables vertically so you have
some of the columns in one table and the other columns in another table
(...or perhaps more than 2 tables, depending on the sizes... I'm not
really good at the math).
>
N.I.T.I.N.
>
PS: I hope I never have to deal with such a monstrosity - a table that
has so many columns. I once had to deal with 36 columns and that was
too much for me as a developer (that was before my days as a DBA). I
split it up into 3 tables though people may say it is less efficient to
have 3 queries instead of one (remember the days when people said you
should use assembly language as the code is smaller & faster?).
>
PPS: No offence to assembly language developers in the last 'PS'. I
totally respect people who still use assembly, but for me it's just a
little too much source code to think straight - I'd spend a whole hour
doing something that I could do in 15 minutes with VB, Java or C# (when
equipped with the right IDE, of course!).

|||panic attack (tunc.ovacik@.gmail.com) writes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by

ofcourse it has 543 columns :)))
the data includes records for about 6 years, 20 quarters and 60 months
back data and for each period it has 6 parameters and some other
columns info(text).
so if you do the math;
(6 * 6) + ( 20 * 6 ) + ( 60 * 6 ) = 516 columns.

That sounds like 516 rows rows to me. Not 516 columns. At least with a
proper data model. Or this a staging table?

Quote:

Originally Posted by

what do you think Erland? do we have a chance to get over this problem?
or it is not possible to get the data into SQL Server 2000?

As NiTiN said, you will have to split the table in two vertically. Note
that it does not have to affect queries, as you can construct views that
combine them. You would then have to use a format file to make it possible
to only selected columns.

Quote:

Originally Posted by

No. What matters is the actual row size, not the possible max.

Quote:

Originally Posted by

what about SQL Server 2005? is there any limitation at sql server 2005
about the row size?

No. SQL 2005 is yet another option. SQL 2005 permits rows to span multiple
pages.

--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se
Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...oads/books.mspx
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodin...ions/books.mspx|||thanks for your fast answers.
there is one last thing that i need to ask...!!
now i decided to partition the data vertically
at this point there is one thing i need to ask...

now here is the case :

after partitioning the table it is gonna look like this:

table 1
---------------
column1 column2 ... column250
record1 record2 ... record250

table2
----------------
column1 column2 ... column250
record1 record2 ... record250

at this point i need to combine these tables( mentioned above)
vertically right?

how am i gonna do the combine operation after partitioning the table
into 2 or 3?

i tried to combine them by using "UNION" operator but i guess it works
for combining the tables horizontally.

thanks a lot
best regards.

tunc ovacik

Erland Sommarskog yazdi:

Quote:

Originally Posted by

panic attack (tunc.ovacik@.gmail.com) writes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by

>
That sounds like 516 rows rows to me. Not 516 columns. At least with a
proper data model. Or this a staging table?
>

Quote:

Originally Posted by

what do you think Erland? do we have a chance to get over this problem?
or it is not possible to get the data into SQL Server 2000?

>
As NiTiN said, you will have to split the table in two vertically. Note
that it does not have to affect queries, as you can construct views that
combine them. You would then have to use a format file to make it possible
to only selected columns.
>

Quote:

Originally Posted by

>
No. What matters is the actual row size, not the possible max.
>

Quote:

Originally Posted by

what about SQL Server 2005? is there any limitation at sql server 2005
about the row size?

>
No. SQL 2005 is yet another option. SQL 2005 permits rows to span multiple
pages.
>
--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se
>
Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...oads/books.mspx
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodin...ions/books.mspx

|||On 4 Aug 2006 01:17:45 -0700, "panic attack" <tunc.ovacik@.gmail.com>
wrote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by

>partitioning the table is one of the solvation but for our production
>system unfortunately it is not proper for use. :((
>cause we have lots of clients and if we partition the tables for our
>each client there are gonna be enourmus number of tables, so it is not
>possible to deal with those number of tables right now...

The idea was not to partition the table by client, but to normalize it
so that the time periods are rows, not columns (for one example.)

My suggestion is to define multiple staging tables, each with a subset
of the columns. All would have to include the key column(s), then
each would include a different part of the rest. One data import for
each table, of course, selective on columns. Then when the data is
in, JOIN on the keys.

Roy Harvey
Beacon Falls, CT|||panic attack (tunc.ovacik@.gmail.com) writes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by

thanks for your fast answers.
there is one last thing that i need to ask...!!
now i decided to partition the data vertically
at this point there is one thing i need to ask...
>
now here is the case :
>
after partitioning the table it is gonna look like this:
>
table 1
---------------
column1 column2 ... column250
record1 record2 ... record250
>
>
table2
----------------
column1 column2 ... column250
record1 record2 ... record250
>
at this point i need to combine these tables( mentioned above)
vertically right?
>
how am i gonna do the combine operation after partitioning the table
into 2 or 3?

Hopefully there is a key in the data you import. Else you are in dire
straits. Say that columns 1 and 2 are the keys. Then you could define
a view as:

CREATE VIEW united AS
SELECT a.col1, a.col2, ... a.col250,
b.col251, ... b.col543
FROM tbl1 a
JOIN tbl2 b ON a.col1 = b.col1
AND a.col2 = b.col2
--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se
Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...oads/books.mspx
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodin...ions/books.mspxsql

Monday, March 26, 2012

HAving a problem

I am using Windows 2003 server. When iI try to start the sql service using a user account I get an error and cannot start service. When I us a local system account I have no problems. Any ideas on why this is happenning. Thanks.Can you post the error? Are you trying to use domain account,and if yes, - is DC available?

having a contractor develop SSIS packages and security issues

Hi Guys,

I will have a constractor for 3 months developing ssis packages for me.

Obviously, his Windows account will be deleted when he leaves.

My question his. under which securoty context should he develop packages so they will still work and still be accessible after his departure. Assuming we do not want to use any password to either have his packages running or have his packages accessible by other developers from the development environment.

Most of all we do not want ANY job failure due to "encryption issues" after his departure

Thanks

Philippe

In a shared enviornment, I like to use package passwords myself. I use a password in development and when we had them off to a client or to production support, they assign a new password to the package. dtutil.exe can do this quickly for you if you generate a batch file.

This may help you to with that type of strategy if you're interested:

http://whiteknighttechnology.com/cs/blogs/brian_knight/archive/2005/12/19/34.aspx

-- Brian Knight

|||

If you store your packages to SQL Server, than you can use roles to grant and deny access to the packages. This is also a great approach if you wish to automatically execute packages because the integrations with Agent, the DTS Subsystem, and proxy accounts is all seamless.

I have an article here about SSIS security :

http://www.windowsitpro.com/Article/ArticleID/46723/46723.html

Friday, March 23, 2012

Have to install to c:\ ?

I'm having a hard time with installation of SQL 2005 on Windows Server 2000. I'm trying to put everything on d:\ but I think it is failing as a result. Is there anything I should know about this?

Thanks in advance. -GregAs a follow up on this, as soon as I installed everything to C:\ everything worked stellarly. In listening to the traffic here, it appears 98% of SSRS users are using a non-distributed configuration. While the product supports installing its components on different machines (ie, Database on one box, IIS on anohter box, SQL Srvr on partition A, SSRS Web bits on partition B etc), I am guessing this process will not be well-documented and supported until a subsequent release.

Have to install to c:\ ?

I'm having a hard time with installation of SQL 2005 on Windows Server 2000. I'm trying to put everything on d:\ but I think it is failing as a result. Is there anything I should know about this?

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

Have a bet .... curious on input :)

So I have a person who is adamant in tell me that SQL Server does not run on windows XP.

Now, I have already done all the research on this (i.e. sql server 2000 product page / requirements) and know the answer, but they insist on asking the question, so here it is .....

'Will SQL Server run on Windows XP'

A simple YES or NO will suffice; however, if you want to explain the answer (if it requires one ;) ), please feel free.

YES and NO . Depends on what version of SQL Server you want to install. MSDE/SQL Server Express work. Also is the Developer Edition of SQL Server. But with the Enterprise Edition I think you're out of luck... it won't install.|||

Mike's right... it's a little trickier than Yes/No. :)

Here is the SQL Server 2005 Enterprise Edition page:

http://www.microsoft.com/sql/editions/enterprise/sysreqs.mspx

You can see that XP is not supported for the Enterprise SKU, but it is supported for the Standard SKU (as with Workgroup and Express SKU's). The standard SKU page is found here if you need proof for your bet. :)

http://www.microsoft.com/sql/editions/standard/sysreqs.mspx

Thanks,
Sam Lester (MSFT)

|||

i'm well aware of this as its covered in the product information page.

However, this person claims that 'SQL Server' automatically states you are talking about the Enterprise / Standard Editions wihch do not run on XP. My point is that 'SQL Server' without stating which edition is vague and the statement SQL Server WILL NOT run on XP is invalid because SQL Server is not a product but a product family. If one is talking about SQL Server without specifying, it would be talking about hte family of products.

If the question were ' Does SQL Server - Enterprise Edition run on XP', I would agree the answer is no. I would also agree 'Does SQL Server Developer run on XP, I would agree that answer is yes. However, if the ONLY question posed is 'Does SQL Server on XP', I would argue the answer is yes (with the above clarification attached to that. The statement 'SQL Server 2000 does NOT run on XP' would be false for the reason that SQL Server (without specificying which edition) is a general statement about the product family and that is incorrect as parts of the family DO run on XP.

I apologize for the splitting of hairs, but I was just curious on other people's take on this one.

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

Has anyone resolved [sqsrvres] StartResourceService: StartService?

Hello all,
I am working with a 2 node SQL Server 2000 cluster on Windows Server 2003.
Each node is a primary node for one of two SQL instances (Active/Active).
Everything worked fine until I applied the latest SQL Server service pack
(MS03-031). When I try to move a group (disks and SQL resources) from a
primary node to the secondary node the disks transfer fine but the SQL Server
service fails to start and the group goes back to its original owner after 3
tries. The following errors are in the event log. Any ideas? -Phil
[sqsrvres] StartResourceService: StartService (MSSQL$Inst1) failed. Error:
41d
[sqsrvres] OnlineThread: ResUtilsStartResourceService failed (status 41d)
[sqsrvres] OnlineThread: Error 41d bringing resource online.
Error 41d corresponds to message:
The service did not respond to the start or control request in a timely
fashion.
So the problem seems the sql service itself is unable to start on the other
node. To troubleshoot further you will need to
1- check app + sys logs for any other clues, what errors do you see when
attempting to start the MSSQL$Inst1
do you see that the MSSQL$Inst1 started but then shut down? Are there any
errors stating some dll could not be loaded? Or do you only see the errors
you reported?
2. check the sql error logs(c:\program files\microsoft sql
server\mssql$INST1\LOG\errorlog), if SQL Server started a new errorlog file
should have created during this time. Was one created, if so check for any
errors
3. Check for: "The application failed to initialize properly" error when
starting SQL - ID: 326571.KB.EN-US
4. can you start sql on from a command prompt on the second node? To do
this you will need to fail over to node2, bring online the network name and
sql disks, now run (sql resource would still be offline/failed state)
c:\program files\microsoft sql server\mssql$INST\binn\sqlservr -iINST -c
Fany Vargas
Microsoft Corporation
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Are you secure? For information about the Strategic Technology Protection
Program and to order your FREE Security Tool Kit, please visit
http://www.microsoft.com/security.
Microsoft highly recommends that users with Internet access update their
Microsoft software to better protect against viruses and security
vulnerabilities. The easiest way to do this is to visit the following
websites:
http://www.microsoft.com/protect
http://www.microsoft.com/security/guidance/default.mspx
sql

Has anyone resolved [sqsrvres] StartResourceService: StartService?

Hello all,
I am working with a 2 node SQL Server 2000 cluster on Windows Server 2003.
Each node is a primary node for one of two SQL instances (Active/Active).
Everything worked fine until I applied the latest SQL Server service pack
(MS03-031). When I try to move a group (disks and SQL resources) from a
primary node to the secondary node the disks transfer fine but the SQL Server
service fails to start and the group goes back to its original owner after 3
tries. The following errors are in the event log. Any ideas? -Phil
[sqsrvres] StartResourceService: StartService (MSSQL$Inst1) failed. Error:
41d
[sqsrvres] OnlineThread: ResUtilsStartResourceService failed (status 41d)
[sqsrvres] OnlineThread: Error 41d bringing resource online.Error 41d corresponds to message:
The service did not respond to the start or control request in a timely
fashion.
So the problem seems the sql service itself is unable to start on the other
node. To troubleshoot further you will need to
1- check app + sys logs for any other clues, what errors do you see when
attempting to start the MSSQL$Inst1
do you see that the MSSQL$Inst1 started but then shut down? Are there any
errors stating some dll could not be loaded? Or do you only see the errors
you reported?
2. check the sql error logs(c:\program files\microsoft sql
server\mssql$INST1\LOG\errorlog), if SQL Server started a new errorlog file
should have created during this time. Was one created, if so check for any
errors
3. Check for: "The application failed to initialize properly" error when
starting SQL - ID: 326571.KB.EN-US
4. can you start sql on from a command prompt on the second node? To do
this you will need to fail over to node2, bring online the network name and
sql disks, now run (sql resource would still be offline/failed state)
c:\program files\microsoft sql server\mssql$INST\binn\sqlservr -iINST -c
Fany Vargas
Microsoft Corporation
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Are you secure? For information about the Strategic Technology Protection
Program and to order your FREE Security Tool Kit, please visit
http://www.microsoft.com/security.
Microsoft highly recommends that users with Internet access update their
Microsoft software to better protect against viruses and security
vulnerabilities. The easiest way to do this is to visit the following
websites:
http://www.microsoft.com/protect
http://www.microsoft.com/security/guidance/default.mspx

Monday, March 12, 2012

Hardware requirements

I am going to buy a new server that will be running Windows 2003 Server,
Exchange 2003 & SQL 2000. I was looking at a server with dual Xeon 3.6Ghz
processors with 2GB RAM & RAID 5 but I was told that I should use RAID 1
instead of RAID 5. Is this true that RAID 1 will work better with this setup
or am I being mis-informed and why would RAID 1 be better than RAID 5?
How about the processor's and RAM?
Thanks,
ScottWell you need to keep the following in mind:
1. One I/O per logical read is required on all RAIDS (0,1,10,5)
2. For each logical write, the following applies:
RAID 1: 2 I/Os.
RAID 5: 4 I/Os.
Based on the analysis of requirements that you have done (or should do!),
you can decide what is the most appropriate. Typically, a database
transaction log is put on a RAID 1 since 95%+ of all transactions of a
transaction log are WRITEs and you do not want to go for a RAID 5 if
possible. Cost wise RAID 1 will cost you more. Now, if you should have
Exchange and SQL on the same box is another topic but ultimately it depends
on the load you are expecting on the server. I personally don't like running
anything else on a SQL Server machine. Also keep in mind that SQL Server 200
0
Standard will not use more than 2 GBs of ram.
The decision you will make can be critical for your business and I suggest
you read on Capacity planning in SQL Server Administrator Companion
(MicrosoftPress).
Sasan
"Scott A" wrote:

> I am going to buy a new server that will be running Windows 2003 Server,
> Exchange 2003 & SQL 2000. I was looking at a server with dual Xeon 3.6Ghz
> processors with 2GB RAM & RAID 5 but I was told that I should use RAID 1
> instead of RAID 5. Is this true that RAID 1 will work better with this set
up
> or am I being mis-informed and why would RAID 1 be better than RAID 5?
> How about the processor's and RAM?
> Thanks,
> Scott|||Thanks Susan. I forgot to add that we have about 70 users on Exchange and ou
r
new SQL database will have 5-10 users on at any given time. Does this make a
difference at all?
Thanks,
Scott
"Sasan Saidi" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Well you need to keep the following in mind:
> 1. One I/O per logical read is required on all RAIDS (0,1,10,5)
> 2. For each logical write, the following applies:
> RAID 1: 2 I/Os.
> RAID 5: 4 I/Os.
> Based on the analysis of requirements that you have done (or should do!),
> you can decide what is the most appropriate. Typically, a database
> transaction log is put on a RAID 1 since 95%+ of all transactions of a
> transaction log are WRITEs and you do not want to go for a RAID 5 if
> possible. Cost wise RAID 1 will cost you more. Now, if you should have
> Exchange and SQL on the same box is another topic but ultimately it depend
s
> on the load you are expecting on the server. I personally don't like runni
ng
> anything else on a SQL Server machine. Also keep in mind that SQL Server 2
000
> Standard will not use more than 2 GBs of ram.
> The decision you will make can be critical for your business and I suggest
> you read on Capacity planning in SQL Server Administrator Companion
> (MicrosoftPress).
> Sasan
>
> "Scott A" wrote:
>

Hardware requirements

quote:

> I would like to know what are the suggested hardware
> requirements for a Windows 2000 server box with SQL 2000
> working in a very much busy environment.

|||All together now...
"It Depends"
Seriously, you need to define just what 'busy' means. Batch
requests/second, transactions, client connections, database size and
throughput are all part of the mix. Most of the major server vendors have
tools to 'estimate' the size of a host server for SQL. They do a failrly
good job as long as your situation is not too unusual. Without a lot more
information I cannot give even a wild guess as to what you need.
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
"Ricardo Bruno" <ricardo_bruno@.btsincusa.com> wrote in message
news:424401c3e435$7ef63490$a101280a@.phx.gbl...

quote:

> I would like to know what are the suggested hardware
> requirements for a Windows 2000 server box with SQL 2000
> working in a very much busy environment.

|||Ricardo,
It is a loaded question.
It is very hard to give any recommendation or suggestions based ont eh
information you have given.
Please check out the Operations Guide put together by Microsoft at the
following link.
Look at Chapter 6 which deals with Capacity planning. This is a good start.
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/tr...ide/default.asp
HTH
Satish Balusa
Corillian Corp.
"Ricardo Bruno" <ricardo_bruno@.btsincusa.com> wrote in message
news:424401c3e435$7ef63490$a101280a@.phx.gbl...

quote:

> I would like to know what are the suggested hardware
> requirements for a Windows 2000 server box with SQL 2000
> working in a very much busy environment.

Hardware requirements

I am going to buy a new server that will be running Windows 2003 Server,
Exchange 2003 & SQL 2000. I was looking at a server with dual Xeon 3.6Ghz
processors with 2GB RAM & RAID 5 but I was told that I should use RAID 1
instead of RAID 5. Is this true that RAID 1 will work better with this setup
or am I being mis-informed and why would RAID 1 be better than RAID 5?
How about the processor's and RAM?
Thanks,
Scott
Well you need to keep the following in mind:
1. One I/O per logical read is required on all RAIDS (0,1,10,5)
2. For each logical write, the following applies:
RAID 1: 2 I/Os.
RAID 5: 4 I/Os.
Based on the analysis of requirements that you have done (or should do!),
you can decide what is the most appropriate. Typically, a database
transaction log is put on a RAID 1 since 95%+ of all transactions of a
transaction log are WRITEs and you do not want to go for a RAID 5 if
possible. Cost wise RAID 1 will cost you more. Now, if you should have
Exchange and SQL on the same box is another topic but ultimately it depends
on the load you are expecting on the server. I personally don't like running
anything else on a SQL Server machine. Also keep in mind that SQL Server 2000
Standard will not use more than 2 GBs of ram.
The decision you will make can be critical for your business and I suggest
you read on Capacity planning in SQL Server Administrator Companion
(MicrosoftPress).
Sasan
"Scott A" wrote:

> I am going to buy a new server that will be running Windows 2003 Server,
> Exchange 2003 & SQL 2000. I was looking at a server with dual Xeon 3.6Ghz
> processors with 2GB RAM & RAID 5 but I was told that I should use RAID 1
> instead of RAID 5. Is this true that RAID 1 will work better with this setup
> or am I being mis-informed and why would RAID 1 be better than RAID 5?
> How about the processor's and RAM?
> Thanks,
> Scott
|||Thanks Susan. I forgot to add that we have about 70 users on Exchange and our
new SQL database will have 5-10 users on at any given time. Does this make a
difference at all?
Thanks,
Scott
"Sasan Saidi" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Well you need to keep the following in mind:
> 1. One I/O per logical read is required on all RAIDS (0,1,10,5)
> 2. For each logical write, the following applies:
> RAID 1: 2 I/Os.
> RAID 5: 4 I/Os.
> Based on the analysis of requirements that you have done (or should do!),
> you can decide what is the most appropriate. Typically, a database
> transaction log is put on a RAID 1 since 95%+ of all transactions of a
> transaction log are WRITEs and you do not want to go for a RAID 5 if
> possible. Cost wise RAID 1 will cost you more. Now, if you should have
> Exchange and SQL on the same box is another topic but ultimately it depends
> on the load you are expecting on the server. I personally don't like running
> anything else on a SQL Server machine. Also keep in mind that SQL Server 2000
> Standard will not use more than 2 GBs of ram.
> The decision you will make can be critical for your business and I suggest
> you read on Capacity planning in SQL Server Administrator Companion
> (MicrosoftPress).
> Sasan
>
> "Scott A" wrote:

Hardware requirements

I am going to buy a new server that will be running Windows 2003 Server,
Exchange 2003 & SQL 2000. I was looking at a server with dual Xeon 3.6Ghz
processors with 2GB RAM & RAID 5 but I was told that I should use RAID 1
instead of RAID 5. Is this true that RAID 1 will work better with this setup
or am I being mis-informed and why would RAID 1 be better than RAID 5?
How about the processor's and RAM?
Thanks,
ScottWell you need to keep the following in mind:
1. One I/O per logical read is required on all RAIDS (0,1,10,5)
2. For each logical write, the following applies:
RAID 1: 2 I/Os.
RAID 5: 4 I/Os.
Based on the analysis of requirements that you have done (or should do!),
you can decide what is the most appropriate. Typically, a database
transaction log is put on a RAID 1 since 95%+ of all transactions of a
transaction log are WRITEs and you do not want to go for a RAID 5 if
possible. Cost wise RAID 1 will cost you more. Now, if you should have
Exchange and SQL on the same box is another topic but ultimately it depends
on the load you are expecting on the server. I personally don't like running
anything else on a SQL Server machine. Also keep in mind that SQL Server 2000
Standard will not use more than 2 GBs of ram.
The decision you will make can be critical for your business and I suggest
you read on Capacity planning in SQL Server Administrator Companion
(MicrosoftPress).
Sasan
"Scott A" wrote:
> I am going to buy a new server that will be running Windows 2003 Server,
> Exchange 2003 & SQL 2000. I was looking at a server with dual Xeon 3.6Ghz
> processors with 2GB RAM & RAID 5 but I was told that I should use RAID 1
> instead of RAID 5. Is this true that RAID 1 will work better with this setup
> or am I being mis-informed and why would RAID 1 be better than RAID 5?
> How about the processor's and RAM?
> Thanks,
> Scott|||Thanks Susan. I forgot to add that we have about 70 users on Exchange and our
new SQL database will have 5-10 users on at any given time. Does this make a
difference at all?
Thanks,
Scott
"Sasan Saidi" wrote:
> Well you need to keep the following in mind:
> 1. One I/O per logical read is required on all RAIDS (0,1,10,5)
> 2. For each logical write, the following applies:
> RAID 1: 2 I/Os.
> RAID 5: 4 I/Os.
> Based on the analysis of requirements that you have done (or should do!),
> you can decide what is the most appropriate. Typically, a database
> transaction log is put on a RAID 1 since 95%+ of all transactions of a
> transaction log are WRITEs and you do not want to go for a RAID 5 if
> possible. Cost wise RAID 1 will cost you more. Now, if you should have
> Exchange and SQL on the same box is another topic but ultimately it depends
> on the load you are expecting on the server. I personally don't like running
> anything else on a SQL Server machine. Also keep in mind that SQL Server 2000
> Standard will not use more than 2 GBs of ram.
> The decision you will make can be critical for your business and I suggest
> you read on Capacity planning in SQL Server Administrator Companion
> (MicrosoftPress).
> Sasan
>
> "Scott A" wrote:
> > I am going to buy a new server that will be running Windows 2003 Server,
> > Exchange 2003 & SQL 2000. I was looking at a server with dual Xeon 3.6Ghz
> > processors with 2GB RAM & RAID 5 but I was told that I should use RAID 1
> > instead of RAID 5. Is this true that RAID 1 will work better with this setup
> > or am I being mis-informed and why would RAID 1 be better than RAID 5?
> >
> > How about the processor's and RAM?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Scott

Hardware requirements

I would like to know what are the suggested hardware
requirements for a Windows 2000 server box with SQL 2000
working in a very much busy environment.This question is so broad I doubt anyone could respond with a good answer.
You would need to perform some baseline testing with hardware to see how
your app performs then purchase appropriately.
-Lars
"Ricardo Bruno" <ricardo_bruno@.btsincusa.com> wrote in message
news:424401c3e435$7ef63490$a101280a@.phx.gbl...
> I would like to know what are the suggested hardware
> requirements for a Windows 2000 server box with SQL 2000
> working in a very much busy environment.|||All together now...
"It Depends"
Seriously, you need to define just what 'busy' means. Batch
requests/second, transactions, client connections, database size and
throughput are all part of the mix. Most of the major server vendors have
tools to 'estimate' the size of a host server for SQL. They do a failrly
good job as long as your situation is not too unusual. Without a lot more
information I cannot give even a wild guess as to what you need.
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
"Ricardo Bruno" <ricardo_bruno@.btsincusa.com> wrote in message
news:424401c3e435$7ef63490$a101280a@.phx.gbl...
> I would like to know what are the suggested hardware
> requirements for a Windows 2000 server box with SQL 2000
> working in a very much busy environment.|||Ricardo,
It is a loaded question.
It is very hard to give any recommendation or suggestions based ont eh
information you have given.
Please check out the Operations Guide put together by Microsoft at the
following link.
Look at Chapter 6 which deals with Capacity planning. This is a good start.
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default.asp?url=/technet/prodtechnol/sql/maintain/operate/opsguide/default.asp
HTH
Satish Balusa
Corillian Corp.
"Ricardo Bruno" <ricardo_bruno@.btsincusa.com> wrote in message
news:424401c3e435$7ef63490$a101280a@.phx.gbl...
> I would like to know what are the suggested hardware
> requirements for a Windows 2000 server box with SQL 2000
> working in a very much busy environment.

Hardware requirement

Hi !
We have a sql server 2000, IIS and windows 2000 op-sys.
1133 Mhz cpu, 512 Mb RAM, raid5 scsi disk.
One prod database size 1164 Mb
Two test databases size 45 Mb
The server have 4 user in production and 1 programmer.
Is this server to small ?
If yes, what should we upgrade ?
Regards Jan RockstedtConsidering that your database and number of users is within the limitations
for MSDE (2GB data, 5 concurrent users), and MSDE is designed to run on a
desktop machine, I would say that your server might be overspec'd rather
than underspec'd.
Do you have any performance issues with it?
--
Jacco Schalkwijk
SQL Server MVP
"Jan" <_NO_SPAM_@.telia.com> wrote in message
news:O2LAncL8DHA.1548@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Hi !
> We have a sql server 2000, IIS and windows 2000 op-sys.
> 1133 Mhz cpu, 512 Mb RAM, raid5 scsi disk.
> One prod database size 1164 Mb
> Two test databases size 45 Mb
> The server have 4 user in production and 1 programmer.
> Is this server to small ?
> If yes, what should we upgrade ?
> Regards Jan Rockstedt
>|||I have problem with the RAM.
The server is allocating 560 Mb of 512 Mb, and using the swap file.
Is the any recomendation of memory alocating in SQL server 2000 ?
//Jan
Jacco Schalkwijk wrote:
> Considering that your database and number of users is within the
> limitations for MSDE (2GB data, 5 concurrent users), and MSDE is
> designed to run on a desktop machine, I would say that your server
> might be overspec'd rather than underspec'd.
> Do you have any performance issues with it?
>
> "Jan" <_NO_SPAM_@.telia.com> wrote in message
> news:O2LAncL8DHA.1548@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>> Hi !
>> We have a sql server 2000, IIS and windows 2000 op-sys.
>> 1133 Mhz cpu, 512 Mb RAM, raid5 scsi disk.
>> One prod database size 1164 Mb
>> Two test databases size 45 Mb
>> The server have 4 user in production and 1 programmer.
>> Is this server to small ?
>> If yes, what should we upgrade ?
>> Regards Jan Rockstedt|||F.Y.I the sql server i configure:
Dynamically configure SQL server memory
Minimum 41 MB
Maximum 388 MB
Minimum query memory (KB) 1024
Jan wrote:
> I have problem with the RAM.
> The server is allocating 560 Mb of 512 Mb, and using the swap file.
> Is the any recomendation of memory alocating in SQL server 2000 ?
> //Jan
> Jacco Schalkwijk wrote:
>> Considering that your database and number of users is within the
>> limitations for MSDE (2GB data, 5 concurrent users), and MSDE is
>> designed to run on a desktop machine, I would say that your server
>> might be overspec'd rather than underspec'd.
>> Do you have any performance issues with it?
>>
>> "Jan" <_NO_SPAM_@.telia.com> wrote in message
>> news:O2LAncL8DHA.1548@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>> Hi !
>> We have a sql server 2000, IIS and windows 2000 op-sys.
>> 1133 Mhz cpu, 512 Mb RAM, raid5 scsi disk.
>> One prod database size 1164 Mb
>> Two test databases size 45 Mb
>> The server have 4 user in production and 1 programmer.
>> Is this server to small ?
>> If yes, what should we upgrade ?
>> Regards Jan Rockstedt|||If you want to avoid having the server use the page file (I guess that's
mostly IIS that does that) you can limit SQL Server to 340 MB or less, or
you can buy some more memory. Memeory is quiet cheap these days.
--
Jacco Schalkwijk
SQL Server MVP
"Jan" <_NO_SPAM_@.telia.com> wrote in message
news:OUgXrrU8DHA.2316@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> F.Y.I the sql server i configure:
> Dynamically configure SQL server memory
> Minimum 41 MB
> Maximum 388 MB
> Minimum query memory (KB) 1024
> Jan wrote:
> > I have problem with the RAM.
> > The server is allocating 560 Mb of 512 Mb, and using the swap file.
> >
> > Is the any recomendation of memory alocating in SQL server 2000 ?
> >
> > //Jan
> >
> > Jacco Schalkwijk wrote:
> >> Considering that your database and number of users is within the
> >> limitations for MSDE (2GB data, 5 concurrent users), and MSDE is
> >> designed to run on a desktop machine, I would say that your server
> >> might be overspec'd rather than underspec'd.
> >>
> >> Do you have any performance issues with it?
> >>
> >>
> >> "Jan" <_NO_SPAM_@.telia.com> wrote in message
> >> news:O2LAncL8DHA.1548@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> >> Hi !
> >>
> >> We have a sql server 2000, IIS and windows 2000 op-sys.
> >> 1133 Mhz cpu, 512 Mb RAM, raid5 scsi disk.
> >>
> >> One prod database size 1164 Mb
> >> Two test databases size 45 Mb
> >>
> >> The server have 4 user in production and 1 programmer.
> >>
> >> Is this server to small ?
> >> If yes, what should we upgrade ?
> >>
> >> Regards Jan Rockstedt
>
>

Friday, March 9, 2012

Hardware Configuration - Need Advice

We have a web app currently being hosted on a RAID 5 with four disks, 2 GB
RAM, Xenon 3.2 processor. Also running Windows 2003 Server Standard Ed. and
SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition. Our database is about 4GB and at most we
have 10 concurrent users hitting our server, with a mix of read and write
operations. Both the OS and our DB are on the same machine. I am aware that
having both IIS and SQL Server on the same box is not the ideal
configuration, but it has suited our needs given the load.
We are looking to private license our software to one other company, which
would entail the licensee having their own seperate db, but running in the
same instance of SQL Server. At a minimum, I'm thinking we would move SQL
Server onto its own dedicated machine, keeping the current RAID 5 config.
Perhaps this would not be sufficient?
What I'm looking for is some indication as to whether or not the proposed
platform could handle an increased user load, say 20 times what is now (200
concurrent users). This is primarily an OLTP db used for ACH processing,
with several reporting features. I'm fully aware that the application design
itself, along with query tuning, indexing, etc is equally important as the
hardware, but need some guidance on the hardware itself.
What I'm looking for are some general guidelines to follow given this
scenario. Thanks in advance.
Eric there is no way to answer that without knowing a lot more of what your
current system is doing and how the hardware is holding up now. Do you do 1
transaction per second or 1 thousand? What are the disk Queues, processor
queues etc. like now?
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Eric" <Eric@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3C2BC87F-5505-4DD6-9E79-A053B86527BA@.microsoft.com...
> We have a web app currently being hosted on a RAID 5 with four disks, 2 GB
> RAM, Xenon 3.2 processor. Also running Windows 2003 Server Standard Ed.
> and
> SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition. Our database is about 4GB and at most
> we
> have 10 concurrent users hitting our server, with a mix of read and write
> operations. Both the OS and our DB are on the same machine. I am aware
> that
> having both IIS and SQL Server on the same box is not the ideal
> configuration, but it has suited our needs given the load.
> We are looking to private license our software to one other company, which
> would entail the licensee having their own seperate db, but running in the
> same instance of SQL Server. At a minimum, I'm thinking we would move SQL
> Server onto its own dedicated machine, keeping the current RAID 5 config.
> Perhaps this would not be sufficient?
> What I'm looking for is some indication as to whether or not the proposed
> platform could handle an increased user load, say 20 times what is now
> (200
> concurrent users). This is primarily an OLTP db used for ACH processing,
> with several reporting features. I'm fully aware that the application
> design
> itself, along with query tuning, indexing, etc is equally important as the
> hardware, but need some guidance on the hardware itself.
> What I'm looking for are some general guidelines to follow given this
> scenario. Thanks in advance.

Friday, March 30, 2012

Having trouble installing SQL Server 2005 SP2

Having trouble installing SQL Server 2005 SP1

having trouble getting reporting services installed properly

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Having Problem While Importing a Text File

Monday, March 26, 2012

HAving a problem

having a contractor develop SSIS packages and security issues

Friday, March 23, 2012

Have to install to c:\ ?

Have to install to c:\ ?

have a problem to browse the data in analysis server

Have a bet .... curious on input :)

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

Has anyone resolved [sqsrvres] StartResourceService: StartService?

Has anyone resolved [sqsrvres] StartResourceService: StartService?

Monday, March 12, 2012

Hardware requirements

Hardware requirements

Hardware requirements

Hardware requirements

Hardware requirements

Hardware requirement

Friday, March 9, 2012

Hardware Configuration - Need Advice

Handle Error

Blog Archive

About Me