Advice on SQL 2005 Install

Hello,
I am looking for some advice on installing SQL 2005 x64 Standard on a
new Windows 2003 x64 Standard Dell 2950 Box. We have a Quad 2.6 GHz
with 16 GBs Memory, 5x 73 GB 15k RPM Hard drives.
A couple things we are looking into is the best way to partition the
Raid 5, what we have come up with so far is to create an OS partition,
Backup Partition, Temp DB partition, and Everything else Partition.
We would like to stay with raid 5.
Next is there any to make Windows 2003 STD work better for SQL on a
fresh install?
SQL tips, We have read up on a few such as dedicating processor to the
Temp DB. We use our DB for an in-house sales package (software
designer included), Great Plains, and a CRM program.
Thanks for any help.
Don Graham
Why do you want to partition the drives? That does absolutely nothing for
performance since they are all on the same physical array. By partitioning
the array you now run into a situation where one or more of the partitions
may be too small down the road. And why do you want to stay with Raid 5?
Is 5 disks the max you can have in the box? I don't know who large your dbs
will be or how you will use them but if performance is a goal placing
everything on a single Raid 5 may not be the best option in the long run.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Donnie3iii" <donnie3iii@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1184020787.195967.302410@.e16g2000pri.googlegr oups.com...
> Hello,
> I am looking for some advice on installing SQL 2005 x64 Standard on a
> new Windows 2003 x64 Standard Dell 2950 Box. We have a Quad 2.6 GHz
> with 16 GBs Memory, 5x 73 GB 15k RPM Hard drives.
> A couple things we are looking into is the best way to partition the
> Raid 5, what we have come up with so far is to create an OS partition,
> Backup Partition, Temp DB partition, and Everything else Partition.
> We would like to stay with raid 5.
> Next is there any to make Windows 2003 STD work better for SQL on a
> fresh install?
> SQL tips, We have read up on a few such as dedicating processor to the
> Temp DB. We use our DB for an in-house sales package (software
> designer included), Great Plains, and a CRM program.
> Thanks for any help.
> Don Graham
>
|||On Jul 9, 3:59 pm, "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooos...@.shadhawk.com>
wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> Why do you want to partition the drives? That does absolutely nothing for
> performance since they are all on the same physical array. By partitioning
> the array you now run into a situation where one or more of the partitions
> may be too small down the road. And why do you want to stay with Raid 5?
> Is 5 disks the max you can have in the box? I don't know who large your dbs
> will be or how you will use them but if performance is a goal placing
> everything on a single Raid 5 may not be the best option in the long run.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> "Donnie3iii" <donnie3...@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1184020787.195967.302410@.e16g2000pri.googlegr oups.com...
>
>
>
>
The database size will total around 20-25GB (for now, they grow at a
rate of 7 GBs a year), as for Raid 5 we were going to go with Raid 10
but we went with the 15k drives instead. Our programmer/dbo swears by
Raid 5. We can have up to 8 drives in the box but cost was a
consideration here.
|||Well without knowing more about how you will actually use this server I
can't say whether you will have issues with the Raid 5 or not. But if your
programmer swears by them who am I to say .
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Donnie3iii" <donnie3iii@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1184022630.326849.120520@.j4g2000prf.googlegro ups.com...
> On Jul 9, 3:59 pm, "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooos...@.shadhawk.com>
> wrote:
> The database size will total around 20-25GB (for now, they grow at a
> rate of 7 GBs a year), as for Raid 5 we were going to go with Raid 10
> but we went with the 15k drives instead. Our programmer/dbo swears by
> Raid 5. We can have up to 8 drives in the box but cost was a
> consideration here.
>
|||On Jul 9, 8:04 pm, "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooos...@.shadhawk.com>
wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> Well without knowing more about how you will actually use this server I
> can't say whether you will have issues with the Raid 5 or not. But if your
> programmer swears by them who am I to say .
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> "Donnie3iii" <donnie3...@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1184022630.326849.120520@.j4g2000prf.googlegro ups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
"But if your programmer swears by them who am I to say"
That was my thought as well but the more I look into it the more I
start to disagree. I may go for a raid 1 (OS), Raid 1 (Trans log or
TempDB), and I am not sure for the DB drive. Raid 10 is a little to
expensive.
Overall we have about 25-30 users, it looks like a lot of database
operations for the program are done with stored procedures.
|||You have plenty of cache so hopefully you won't need to do as much I/O on
the data drives. So if you separate the Tran logs fromt he data files you
will have a good start. By the way if price is an issue I would look at
placing the Log files on the same Raid 1 as the OS. As long as you don't
have other apps using the OS drive there isn't much activity and most small
to medium size apps do fine with sharing the logs and OS. That will give you
more drives for the data array.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Donnie3iii" <donnie3iii@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1184081530.969779.121120@.i13g2000prf.googlegr oups.com...
> On Jul 9, 8:04 pm, "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooos...@.shadhawk.com>
> wrote:
> "But if your programmer swears by them who am I to say"
> That was my thought as well but the more I look into it the more I
> start to disagree. I may go for a raid 1 (OS), Raid 1 (Trans log or
> TempDB), and I am not sure for the DB drive. Raid 10 is a little to
> expensive.
> Overall we have about 25-30 users, it looks like a lot of database
> operations for the program are done with stored procedures.
>
|||On Jul 11, 5:38 am, "Rasmus Glibstrup" <ras...@.it-
craft.THIS.REMOVE.dk> wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> I would go fo a tripple RAID 1, one for OS, one for Log and One for DB
> files.
> To begin with I would place the TempDB as any other database, unless your
> applications require much use of TempDB.
> But generally my experience is never to use RAID 5 unless you have a very
> large percentage of reads as opposed to writes on your database. And even
> then I would go for RAID 10.
> Maybe you want to take a look at point 2,3 and 5 in this from MS:http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/bestpractice/storage...
> --
> Rasmus Glibstrup
> MCDBA,MCITP (dba,dev,bi)
> "Donnie3iii" <donnie3...@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1184081530.969779.121120@.i13g2000prf.googlegr oups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Thank you all for the suggestions, I am planning on reconfiguring the
raid and going with either 2 or 3 depending on how much money I can
squeeze out. Thanks!
Don

Advice on SQL 2005 Install

Hello,
I am looking for some advice on installing SQL 2005 x64 Standard on a
new Windows 2003 x64 Standard Dell 2950 Box. We have a Quad 2.6 GHz
with 16 GBs Memory, 5x 73 GB 15k RPM Hard drives.
A couple things we are looking into is the best way to partition the
Raid 5, what we have come up with so far is to create an OS partition,
Backup Partition, Temp DB partition, and Everything else Partition.
We would like to stay with raid 5.
Next is there any to make Windows 2003 STD work better for SQL on a
fresh install?
SQL tips, We have read up on a few such as dedicating processor to the
Temp DB. We use our DB for an in-house sales package (software
designer included), Great Plains, and a CRM program.
Thanks for any help.
Don GrahamWhy do you want to partition the drives? That does absolutely nothing for
performance since they are all on the same physical array. By partitioning
the array you now run into a situation where one or more of the partitions
may be too small down the road. And why do you want to stay with Raid 5?
Is 5 disks the max you can have in the box? I don't know who large your dbs
will be or how you will use them but if performance is a goal placing
everything on a single Raid 5 may not be the best option in the long run.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Donnie3iii" <donnie3iii@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1184020787.195967.302410@.e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> Hello,
> I am looking for some advice on installing SQL 2005 x64 Standard on a
> new Windows 2003 x64 Standard Dell 2950 Box. We have a Quad 2.6 GHz
> with 16 GBs Memory, 5x 73 GB 15k RPM Hard drives.
> A couple things we are looking into is the best way to partition the
> Raid 5, what we have come up with so far is to create an OS partition,
> Backup Partition, Temp DB partition, and Everything else Partition.
> We would like to stay with raid 5.
> Next is there any to make Windows 2003 STD work better for SQL on a
> fresh install?
> SQL tips, We have read up on a few such as dedicating processor to the
> Temp DB. We use our DB for an in-house sales package (software
> designer included), Great Plains, and a CRM program.
> Thanks for any help.
> Don Graham
>|||On Jul 9, 3:59 pm, "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooos...@.shadhawk.com>
wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> Why do you want to partition the drives? That does absolutely nothing for
> performance since they are all on the same physical array. By partitioning
> the array you now run into a situation where one or more of the partitions
> may be too small down the road. And why do you want to stay with Raid 5?
> Is 5 disks the max you can have in the box? I don't know who large your db
s
> will be or how you will use them but if performance is a goal placing
> everything on a single Raid 5 may not be the best option in the long run.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> "Donnie3iii" <donnie3...@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1184020787.195967.302410@.e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
The database size will total around 20-25GB (for now, they grow at a
rate of 7 GBs a year), as for Raid 5 we were going to go with Raid 10
but we went with the 15k drives instead. Our programmer/dbo swears by
Raid 5. We can have up to 8 drives in the box but cost was a
consideration here.|||Well without knowing more about how you will actually use this server I
can't say whether you will have issues with the Raid 5 or not. But if your
programmer swears by them who am I to say .
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Donnie3iii" <donnie3iii@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1184022630.326849.120520@.j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 9, 3:59 pm, "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooos...@.shadhawk.com>
> wrote:
> The database size will total around 20-25GB (for now, they grow at a
> rate of 7 GBs a year), as for Raid 5 we were going to go with Raid 10
> but we went with the 15k drives instead. Our programmer/dbo swears by
> Raid 5. We can have up to 8 drives in the box but cost was a
> consideration here.
>|||On Jul 9, 8:04 pm, "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooos...@.shadhawk.com>
wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> Well without knowing more about how you will actually use this server I
> can't say whether you will have issues with the Raid 5 or not. But if you
r
> programmer swears by them who am I to say .
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> "Donnie3iii" <donnie3...@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1184022630.326849.120520@.j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
"But if your programmer swears by them who am I to say"
That was my thought as well but the more I look into it the more I
start to disagree. I may go for a raid 1 (OS), Raid 1 (Trans log or
TempDB), and I am not sure for the DB drive. Raid 10 is a little to
expensive.
Overall we have about 25-30 users, it looks like a lot of database
operations for the program are done with stored procedures.|||You have plenty of cache so hopefully you won't need to do as much I/O on
the data drives. So if you separate the Tran logs fromt he data files you
will have a good start. By the way if price is an issue I would look at
placing the Log files on the same Raid 1 as the OS. As long as you don't
have other apps using the OS drive there isn't much activity and most small
to medium size apps do fine with sharing the logs and OS. That will give you
more drives for the data array.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Donnie3iii" <donnie3iii@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1184081530.969779.121120@.i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 9, 8:04 pm, "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooos...@.shadhawk.com>
> wrote:
> "But if your programmer swears by them who am I to say"
> That was my thought as well but the more I look into it the more I
> start to disagree. I may go for a raid 1 (OS), Raid 1 (Trans log or
> TempDB), and I am not sure for the DB drive. Raid 10 is a little to
> expensive.
> Overall we have about 25-30 users, it looks like a lot of database
> operations for the program are done with stored procedures.
>|||I would go fo a tripple RAID 1, one for OS, one for Log and One for DB
files.
To begin with I would place the TempDB as any other database, unless your
applications require much use of TempDB.
But generally my experience is never to use RAID 5 unless you have a very
large percentage of reads as opposed to writes on your database. And even
then I would go for RAID 10.
Maybe you want to take a look at point 2,3 and 5 in this from MS:
[url]http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/bestpractice/storage-top-10.mspx[
/url]
Rasmus Glibstrup
MCDBA,MCITP (dba,dev,bi)
"Donnie3iii" <donnie3iii@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1184081530.969779.121120@.i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 9, 8:04 pm, "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooos...@.shadhawk.com>
> wrote:
> "But if your programmer swears by them who am I to say"
> That was my thought as well but the more I look into it the more I
> start to disagree. I may go for a raid 1 (OS), Raid 1 (Trans log or
> TempDB), and I am not sure for the DB drive. Raid 10 is a little to
> expensive.
> Overall we have about 25-30 users, it looks like a lot of database
> operations for the program are done with stored procedures.
>|||On Jul 11, 5:38 am, "Rasmus Glibstrup" <ras...@.it-
craft.THIS.REMOVE.dk> wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> I would go fo a tripple RAID 1, one for OS, one for Log and One for DB
> files.
> To begin with I would place the TempDB as any other database, unless your
> applications require much use of TempDB.
> But generally my experience is never to use RAID 5 unless you have a very
> large percentage of reads as opposed to writes on your database. And even
> then I would go for RAID 10.
> Maybe you want to take a look at point 2,3 and 5 in this from MS:http://www.micr
osoft.com/te...tice/storage...
> --
> Rasmus Glibstrup
> MCDBA,MCITP (dba,dev,bi)
> "Donnie3iii" <donnie3...@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1184081530.969779.121120@.i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Thank you all for the suggestions, I am planning on reconfiguring the
raid and going with either 2 or 3 depending on how much money I can
squeeze out. Thanks!
Don

Advice on SQL 2005 Install

Hello,
I am looking for some advice on installing SQL 2005 x64 Standard on a
new Windows 2003 x64 Standard Dell 2950 Box. We have a Quad 2.6 GHz
with 16 GBs Memory, 5x 73 GB 15k RPM Hard drives.
A couple things we are looking into is the best way to partition the
Raid 5, what we have come up with so far is to create an OS partition,
Backup Partition, Temp DB partition, and Everything else Partition.
We would like to stay with raid 5.
Next is there any to make Windows 2003 STD work better for SQL on a
fresh install?
SQL tips, We have read up on a few such as dedicating processor to the
Temp DB. We use our DB for an in-house sales package (software
designer included), Great Plains, and a CRM program.
Thanks for any help.
Don GrahamWhy do you want to partition the drives? That does absolutely nothing for
performance since they are all on the same physical array. By partitioning
the array you now run into a situation where one or more of the partitions
may be too small down the road. And why do you want to stay with Raid 5?
Is 5 disks the max you can have in the box? I don't know who large your dbs
will be or how you will use them but if performance is a goal placing
everything on a single Raid 5 may not be the best option in the long run.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Donnie3iii" <donnie3iii@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1184020787.195967.302410@.e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> Hello,
> I am looking for some advice on installing SQL 2005 x64 Standard on a
> new Windows 2003 x64 Standard Dell 2950 Box. We have a Quad 2.6 GHz
> with 16 GBs Memory, 5x 73 GB 15k RPM Hard drives.
> A couple things we are looking into is the best way to partition the
> Raid 5, what we have come up with so far is to create an OS partition,
> Backup Partition, Temp DB partition, and Everything else Partition.
> We would like to stay with raid 5.
> Next is there any to make Windows 2003 STD work better for SQL on a
> fresh install?
> SQL tips, We have read up on a few such as dedicating processor to the
> Temp DB. We use our DB for an in-house sales package (software
> designer included), Great Plains, and a CRM program.
> Thanks for any help.
> Don Graham
>|||On Jul 9, 3:59 pm, "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooos...@.shadhawk.com>
wrote:
> Why do you want to partition the drives? That does absolutely nothing for
> performance since they are all on the same physical array. By partitioning
> the array you now run into a situation where one or more of the partitions
> may be too small down the road. And why do you want to stay with Raid 5?
> Is 5 disks the max you can have in the box? I don't know who large your dbs
> will be or how you will use them but if performance is a goal placing
> everything on a single Raid 5 may not be the best option in the long run.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> "Donnie3iii" <donnie3...@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1184020787.195967.302410@.e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> > Hello,
> > I am looking for some advice on installing SQL 2005 x64 Standard on a
> > new Windows 2003 x64 Standard Dell 2950 Box. We have a Quad 2.6 GHz
> > with 16 GBs Memory, 5x 73 GB 15k RPM Hard drives.
> > A couple things we are looking into is the best way to partition the
> > Raid 5, what we have come up with so far is to create an OS partition,
> > Backup Partition, Temp DB partition, and Everything else Partition.
> > We would like to stay with raid 5.
> > Next is there any to make Windows 2003 STD work better for SQL on a
> > fresh install?
> > SQL tips, We have read up on a few such as dedicating processor to the
> > Temp DB. We use our DB for an in-house sales package (software
> > designer included), Great Plains, and a CRM program.
> > Thanks for any help.
> > Don Graham
The database size will total around 20-25GB (for now, they grow at a
rate of 7 GBs a year), as for Raid 5 we were going to go with Raid 10
but we went with the 15k drives instead. Our programmer/dbo swears by
Raid 5. We can have up to 8 drives in the box but cost was a
consideration here.|||Well without knowing more about how you will actually use this server I
can't say whether you will have issues with the Raid 5 or not. But if your
programmer swears by them who am I to say :).
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Donnie3iii" <donnie3iii@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1184022630.326849.120520@.j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 9, 3:59 pm, "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooos...@.shadhawk.com>
> wrote:
>> Why do you want to partition the drives? That does absolutely nothing
>> for
>> performance since they are all on the same physical array. By
>> partitioning
>> the array you now run into a situation where one or more of the
>> partitions
>> may be too small down the road. And why do you want to stay with Raid 5?
>> Is 5 disks the max you can have in the box? I don't know who large your
>> dbs
>> will be or how you will use them but if performance is a goal placing
>> everything on a single Raid 5 may not be the best option in the long run.
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>> "Donnie3iii" <donnie3...@.gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1184020787.195967.302410@.e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>> > Hello,
>> > I am looking for some advice on installing SQL 2005 x64 Standard on a
>> > new Windows 2003 x64 Standard Dell 2950 Box. We have a Quad 2.6 GHz
>> > with 16 GBs Memory, 5x 73 GB 15k RPM Hard drives.
>> > A couple things we are looking into is the best way to partition the
>> > Raid 5, what we have come up with so far is to create an OS partition,
>> > Backup Partition, Temp DB partition, and Everything else Partition.
>> > We would like to stay with raid 5.
>> > Next is there any to make Windows 2003 STD work better for SQL on a
>> > fresh install?
>> > SQL tips, We have read up on a few such as dedicating processor to the
>> > Temp DB. We use our DB for an in-house sales package (software
>> > designer included), Great Plains, and a CRM program.
>> > Thanks for any help.
>> > Don Graham
> The database size will total around 20-25GB (for now, they grow at a
> rate of 7 GBs a year), as for Raid 5 we were going to go with Raid 10
> but we went with the 15k drives instead. Our programmer/dbo swears by
> Raid 5. We can have up to 8 drives in the box but cost was a
> consideration here.
>|||On Jul 9, 8:04 pm, "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooos...@.shadhawk.com>
wrote:
> Well without knowing more about how you will actually use this server I
> can't say whether you will have issues with the Raid 5 or not. But if your
> programmer swears by them who am I to say :).
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> "Donnie3iii" <donnie3...@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1184022630.326849.120520@.j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> > On Jul 9, 3:59 pm, "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooos...@.shadhawk.com>
> > wrote:
> >> Why do you want to partition the drives? That does absolutely nothing
> >> for
> >> performance since they are all on the same physical array. By
> >> partitioning
> >> the array you now run into a situation where one or more of the
> >> partitions
> >> may be too small down the road. And why do you want to stay with Raid 5?
> >> Is 5 disks the max you can have in the box? I don't know who large your
> >> dbs
> >> will be or how you will use them but if performance is a goal placing
> >> everything on a single Raid 5 may not be the best option in the long run.
> >> --
> >> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> >> "Donnie3iii" <donnie3...@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>news:1184020787.195967.302410@.e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> >> > Hello,
> >> > I am looking for some advice on installing SQL 2005 x64 Standard on a
> >> > new Windows 2003 x64 Standard Dell 2950 Box. We have a Quad 2.6 GHz
> >> > with 16 GBs Memory, 5x 73 GB 15k RPM Hard drives.
> >> > A couple things we are looking into is the best way to partition the
> >> > Raid 5, what we have come up with so far is to create an OS partition,
> >> > Backup Partition, Temp DB partition, and Everything else Partition.
> >> > We would like to stay with raid 5.
> >> > Next is there any to make Windows 2003 STD work better for SQL on a
> >> > fresh install?
> >> > SQL tips, We have read up on a few such as dedicating processor to the
> >> > Temp DB. We use our DB for an in-house sales package (software
> >> > designer included), Great Plains, and a CRM program.
> >> > Thanks for any help.
> >> > Don Graham
> > The database size will total around 20-25GB (for now, they grow at a
> > rate of 7 GBs a year), as for Raid 5 we were going to go with Raid 10
> > but we went with the 15k drives instead. Our programmer/dbo swears by
> > Raid 5. We can have up to 8 drives in the box but cost was a
> > consideration here.
"But if your programmer swears by them who am I to say"
That was my thought as well but the more I look into it the more I
start to disagree. I may go for a raid 1 (OS), Raid 1 (Trans log or
TempDB), and I am not sure for the DB drive. Raid 10 is a little to
expensive.
Overall we have about 25-30 users, it looks like a lot of database
operations for the program are done with stored procedures.|||You have plenty of cache so hopefully you won't need to do as much I/O on
the data drives. So if you separate the Tran logs fromt he data files you
will have a good start. By the way if price is an issue I would look at
placing the Log files on the same Raid 1 as the OS. As long as you don't
have other apps using the OS drive there isn't much activity and most small
to medium size apps do fine with sharing the logs and OS. That will give you
more drives for the data array.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Donnie3iii" <donnie3iii@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1184081530.969779.121120@.i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 9, 8:04 pm, "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooos...@.shadhawk.com>
> wrote:
>> Well without knowing more about how you will actually use this server I
>> can't say whether you will have issues with the Raid 5 or not. But if
>> your
>> programmer swears by them who am I to say :).
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>> "Donnie3iii" <donnie3...@.gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1184022630.326849.120520@.j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> > On Jul 9, 3:59 pm, "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooos...@.shadhawk.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >> Why do you want to partition the drives? That does absolutely nothing
>> >> for
>> >> performance since they are all on the same physical array. By
>> >> partitioning
>> >> the array you now run into a situation where one or more of the
>> >> partitions
>> >> may be too small down the road. And why do you want to stay with Raid
>> >> 5?
>> >> Is 5 disks the max you can have in the box? I don't know who large
>> >> your
>> >> dbs
>> >> will be or how you will use them but if performance is a goal placing
>> >> everything on a single Raid 5 may not be the best option in the long
>> >> run.
>> >> --
>> >> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>> >> "Donnie3iii" <donnie3...@.gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >>news:1184020787.195967.302410@.e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>> >> > Hello,
>> >> > I am looking for some advice on installing SQL 2005 x64 Standard on
>> >> > a
>> >> > new Windows 2003 x64 Standard Dell 2950 Box. We have a Quad 2.6 GHz
>> >> > with 16 GBs Memory, 5x 73 GB 15k RPM Hard drives.
>> >> > A couple things we are looking into is the best way to partition the
>> >> > Raid 5, what we have come up with so far is to create an OS
>> >> > partition,
>> >> > Backup Partition, Temp DB partition, and Everything else Partition.
>> >> > We would like to stay with raid 5.
>> >> > Next is there any to make Windows 2003 STD work better for SQL on a
>> >> > fresh install?
>> >> > SQL tips, We have read up on a few such as dedicating processor to
>> >> > the
>> >> > Temp DB. We use our DB for an in-house sales package (software
>> >> > designer included), Great Plains, and a CRM program.
>> >> > Thanks for any help.
>> >> > Don Graham
>> > The database size will total around 20-25GB (for now, they grow at a
>> > rate of 7 GBs a year), as for Raid 5 we were going to go with Raid 10
>> > but we went with the 15k drives instead. Our programmer/dbo swears by
>> > Raid 5. We can have up to 8 drives in the box but cost was a
>> > consideration here.
> "But if your programmer swears by them who am I to say"
> That was my thought as well but the more I look into it the more I
> start to disagree. I may go for a raid 1 (OS), Raid 1 (Trans log or
> TempDB), and I am not sure for the DB drive. Raid 10 is a little to
> expensive.
> Overall we have about 25-30 users, it looks like a lot of database
> operations for the program are done with stored procedures.
>|||I would go fo a tripple RAID 1, one for OS, one for Log and One for DB
files.
To begin with I would place the TempDB as any other database, unless your
applications require much use of TempDB.
But generally my experience is never to use RAID 5 unless you have a very
large percentage of reads as opposed to writes on your database. And even
then I would go for RAID 10.
Maybe you want to take a look at point 2,3 and 5 in this from MS:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/bestpractice/storage-top-10.mspx
--
Rasmus Glibstrup
MCDBA,MCITP (dba,dev,bi)
"Donnie3iii" <donnie3iii@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1184081530.969779.121120@.i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 9, 8:04 pm, "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooos...@.shadhawk.com>
> wrote:
>> Well without knowing more about how you will actually use this server I
>> can't say whether you will have issues with the Raid 5 or not. But if
>> your
>> programmer swears by them who am I to say :).
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>> "Donnie3iii" <donnie3...@.gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1184022630.326849.120520@.j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> > On Jul 9, 3:59 pm, "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooos...@.shadhawk.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >> Why do you want to partition the drives? That does absolutely nothing
>> >> for
>> >> performance since they are all on the same physical array. By
>> >> partitioning
>> >> the array you now run into a situation where one or more of the
>> >> partitions
>> >> may be too small down the road. And why do you want to stay with Raid
>> >> 5?
>> >> Is 5 disks the max you can have in the box? I don't know who large
>> >> your
>> >> dbs
>> >> will be or how you will use them but if performance is a goal placing
>> >> everything on a single Raid 5 may not be the best option in the long
>> >> run.
>> >> --
>> >> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>> >> "Donnie3iii" <donnie3...@.gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >>news:1184020787.195967.302410@.e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>> >> > Hello,
>> >> > I am looking for some advice on installing SQL 2005 x64 Standard on
>> >> > a
>> >> > new Windows 2003 x64 Standard Dell 2950 Box. We have a Quad 2.6 GHz
>> >> > with 16 GBs Memory, 5x 73 GB 15k RPM Hard drives.
>> >> > A couple things we are looking into is the best way to partition the
>> >> > Raid 5, what we have come up with so far is to create an OS
>> >> > partition,
>> >> > Backup Partition, Temp DB partition, and Everything else Partition.
>> >> > We would like to stay with raid 5.
>> >> > Next is there any to make Windows 2003 STD work better for SQL on a
>> >> > fresh install?
>> >> > SQL tips, We have read up on a few such as dedicating processor to
>> >> > the
>> >> > Temp DB. We use our DB for an in-house sales package (software
>> >> > designer included), Great Plains, and a CRM program.
>> >> > Thanks for any help.
>> >> > Don Graham
>> > The database size will total around 20-25GB (for now, they grow at a
>> > rate of 7 GBs a year), as for Raid 5 we were going to go with Raid 10
>> > but we went with the 15k drives instead. Our programmer/dbo swears by
>> > Raid 5. We can have up to 8 drives in the box but cost was a
>> > consideration here.
> "But if your programmer swears by them who am I to say"
> That was my thought as well but the more I look into it the more I
> start to disagree. I may go for a raid 1 (OS), Raid 1 (Trans log or
> TempDB), and I am not sure for the DB drive. Raid 10 is a little to
> expensive.
> Overall we have about 25-30 users, it looks like a lot of database
> operations for the program are done with stored procedures.
>|||On Jul 11, 5:38 am, "Rasmus Glibstrup" <ras...@.it-
craft.THIS.REMOVE.dk> wrote:
> I would go fo a tripple RAID 1, one for OS, one for Log and One for DB
> files.
> To begin with I would place the TempDB as any other database, unless your
> applications require much use of TempDB.
> But generally my experience is never to use RAID 5 unless you have a very
> large percentage of reads as opposed to writes on your database. And even
> then I would go for RAID 10.
> Maybe you want to take a look at point 2,3 and 5 in this from MS:http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/bestpractice/storage...
> --
> Rasmus Glibstrup
> MCDBA,MCITP (dba,dev,bi)
> "Donnie3iii" <donnie3...@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1184081530.969779.121120@.i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> > On Jul 9, 8:04 pm, "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooos...@.shadhawk.com>
> > wrote:
> >> Well without knowing more about how you will actually use this server I
> >> can't say whether you will have issues with the Raid 5 or not. But if
> >> your
> >> programmer swears by them who am I to say :).
> >> --
> >> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> >> "Donnie3iii" <donnie3...@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>news:1184022630.326849.120520@.j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> >> > On Jul 9, 3:59 pm, "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooos...@.shadhawk.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> Why do you want to partition the drives? That does absolutely nothing
> >> >> for
> >> >> performance since they are all on the same physical array. By
> >> >> partitioning
> >> >> the array you now run into a situation where one or more of the
> >> >> partitions
> >> >> may be too small down the road. And why do you want to stay with Raid
> >> >> 5?
> >> >> Is 5 disks the max you can have in the box? I don't know who large
> >> >> your
> >> >> dbs
> >> >> will be or how you will use them but if performance is a goal placing
> >> >> everything on a single Raid 5 may not be the best option in the long
> >> >> run.
> >> >> --
> >> >> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> >> >> "Donnie3iii" <donnie3...@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >>news:1184020787.195967.302410@.e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> >> >> > Hello,
> >> >> > I am looking for some advice on installing SQL 2005 x64 Standard on
> >> >> > a
> >> >> > new Windows 2003 x64 Standard Dell 2950 Box. We have a Quad 2.6 GHz
> >> >> > with 16 GBs Memory, 5x 73 GB 15k RPM Hard drives.
> >> >> > A couple things we are looking into is the best way to partition the
> >> >> > Raid 5, what we have come up with so far is to create an OS
> >> >> > partition,
> >> >> > Backup Partition, Temp DB partition, and Everything else Partition.
> >> >> > We would like to stay with raid 5.
> >> >> > Next is there any to make Windows 2003 STD work better for SQL on a
> >> >> > fresh install?
> >> >> > SQL tips, We have read up on a few such as dedicating processor to
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > Temp DB. We use our DB for an in-house sales package (software
> >> >> > designer included), Great Plains, and a CRM program.
> >> >> > Thanks for any help.
> >> >> > Don Graham
> >> > The database size will total around 20-25GB (for now, they grow at a
> >> > rate of 7 GBs a year), as for Raid 5 we were going to go with Raid 10
> >> > but we went with the 15k drives instead. Our programmer/dbo swears by
> >> > Raid 5. We can have up to 8 drives in the box but cost was a
> >> > consideration here.
> > "But if your programmer swears by them who am I to say"
> > That was my thought as well but the more I look into it the more I
> > start to disagree. I may go for a raid 1 (OS), Raid 1 (Trans log or
> > TempDB), and I am not sure for the DB drive. Raid 10 is a little to
> > expensive.
> > Overall we have about 25-30 users, it looks like a lot of database
> > operations for the program are done with stored procedures.
Thank you all for the suggestions, I am planning on reconfiguring the
raid and going with either 2 or 3 depending on how much money I can
squeeze out. Thanks!
Don

Adressing memory above 1,7 Gb in SQL

Hi everyone,
We are using W2k3 standard x 64 edition in combination with SQL2000 standard
edition.
W2k with SQL2000 systems are also in use.
These machines have 4Gb of RAM, but i can't seem to get SQL to use more than
1,7Gb.
Tried the /3Gb switch in boot.ini en AWE enabled in sp_configure.
Nothing works, am i doing something strange or wrong ?
Rob
How do you check the memory used ? Performance monitor or Task Manager?
Task Manager will show you a wrong value if you use more than 2 Gb of
RAM.
Also how much memory is used by other Apps and/or OS.
Markus
|||Hi Rob,
Unfortunately SQL 2000 Standard Edition has a limit of 2GB worth of memory.
You can check the Maximum Capacity Specifications here:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...ar_ts_8dbn.asp
Let me know if I can help any further.
Adam J Warne, MCDBA
"Rob Vos" wrote:

> Hi everyone,
> We are using W2k3 standard x 64 edition in combination with SQL2000 standard
> edition.
> W2k with SQL2000 systems are also in use.
> These machines have 4Gb of RAM, but i can't seem to get SQL to use more than
> 1,7Gb.
> Tried the /3Gb switch in boot.ini en AWE enabled in sp_configure.
> Nothing works, am i doing something strange or wrong ?
> --
> Rob
|||Thanks Adam. Now i need to get back to my supplier, he sold me 4 Gb system
with SQL standard.
Rob
"Adam Warne" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi Rob,
> Unfortunately SQL 2000 Standard Edition has a limit of 2GB worth of memory.
> You can check the Maximum Capacity Specifications here:
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...ar_ts_8dbn.asp
> Let me know if I can help any further.
> --
> Adam J Warne, MCDBA
>
> "Rob Vos" wrote:

Adressing memory above 1,7 Gb in SQL

Hi everyone,
We are using W2k3 standard x 64 edition in combination with SQL2000 standard
edition.
W2k with SQL2000 systems are also in use.
These machines have 4Gb of RAM, but i can't seem to get SQL to use more than
1,7Gb.
Tried the /3Gb switch in boot.ini en AWE enabled in sp_configure.
Nothing works, am i doing something strange or wrong ?
--
RobHow do you check the memory used ? Performance monitor or Task Manager?
Task Manager will show you a wrong value if you use more than 2 Gb of
RAM.
Also how much memory is used by other Apps and/or OS.
Markus|||Hi Rob,
Unfortunately SQL 2000 Standard Edition has a limit of 2GB worth of memory.
You can check the Maximum Capacity Specifications here:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/architec/8_ar_ts_8dbn.asp
Let me know if I can help any further.
--
Adam J Warne, MCDBA
"Rob Vos" wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> We are using W2k3 standard x 64 edition in combination with SQL2000 standard
> edition.
> W2k with SQL2000 systems are also in use.
> These machines have 4Gb of RAM, but i can't seem to get SQL to use more than
> 1,7Gb.
> Tried the /3Gb switch in boot.ini en AWE enabled in sp_configure.
> Nothing works, am i doing something strange or wrong ?
> --
> Rob|||Thanks Adam. Now i need to get back to my supplier, he sold me 4 Gb system
with SQL standard.
--
Rob
"Adam Warne" wrote:
> Hi Rob,
> Unfortunately SQL 2000 Standard Edition has a limit of 2GB worth of memory.
> You can check the Maximum Capacity Specifications here:
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/architec/8_ar_ts_8dbn.asp
> Let me know if I can help any further.
> --
> Adam J Warne, MCDBA
>
> "Rob Vos" wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > We are using W2k3 standard x 64 edition in combination with SQL2000 standard
> > edition.
> > W2k with SQL2000 systems are also in use.
> >
> > These machines have 4Gb of RAM, but i can't seem to get SQL to use more than
> > 1,7Gb.
> >
> > Tried the /3Gb switch in boot.ini en AWE enabled in sp_configure.
> >
> > Nothing works, am i doing something strange or wrong ?
> >
> > --
> > Rob

Adressing memory above 1,7 Gb in SQL

Hi everyone,
We are using W2k3 standard x 64 edition in combination with SQL2000 standard
edition.
W2k with SQL2000 systems are also in use.
These machines have 4Gb of RAM, but i can't seem to get SQL to use more than
1,7Gb.
Tried the /3Gb switch in boot.ini en AWE enabled in sp_configure.
Nothing works, am i doing something strange or wrong ?
RobHow do you check the memory used ? Performance monitor or Task Manager?
Task Manager will show you a wrong value if you use more than 2 Gb of
RAM.
Also how much memory is used by other Apps and/or OS.
Markus|||Hi Rob,
Unfortunately SQL 2000 Standard Edition has a limit of 2GB worth of memory.
You can check the Maximum Capacity Specifications here:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d...br />
8dbn.asp
Let me know if I can help any further.
Adam J Warne, MCDBA
"Rob Vos" wrote:

> Hi everyone,
> We are using W2k3 standard x 64 edition in combination with SQL2000 standa
rd
> edition.
> W2k with SQL2000 systems are also in use.
> These machines have 4Gb of RAM, but i can't seem to get SQL to use more th
an
> 1,7Gb.
> Tried the /3Gb switch in boot.ini en AWE enabled in sp_configure.
> Nothing works, am i doing something strange or wrong ?
> --
> Rob|||Thanks Adam. Now i need to get back to my supplier, he sold me 4 Gb system
with SQL standard.
Rob
"Adam Warne" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi Rob,
> Unfortunately SQL 2000 Standard Edition has a limit of 2GB worth of memory
.
> You can check the Maximum Capacity Specifications here:
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d... />
s_8dbn.asp
> Let me know if I can help any further.
> --
> Adam J Warne, MCDBA
>
> "Rob Vos" wrote:
>

ADODB Vesion 7.0.3300.0 in vb.net

Hi,

I have developed an application in vb.net 2005 Standard Edition and is running fine in my local machine. The executed version of the same application i tried to run in other machine and getting an error as follows :-

" Unable to install application. The application requires the assembly ADODB Version 7.0.3300.0 be installed in the global assembly cache (GAC) first "

Can you somebody help me to solve this problem.

Thanks

Saju John

http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=174626&SiteID=1

HTH

|||I was able to solve this without resorting to the bootstrap loader by adding a reference to the adodb resource in my Studio project, then selecting this reference, and changing it's 'Copy Local' property to true.

ADODB Vesion 7.0.3300.0 in vb.net

Hi,

I have developed an application in vb.net 2005 Standard Edition and is running fine in my local machine. The executed version of the same application i tried to run in other machine and getting an error as follows :-

" Unable to install application. The application requires the assembly ADODB Version 7.0.3300.0 be installed in the global assembly cache (GAC) first "

Can you somebody help me to solve this problem.

Thanks

Saju John

http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=174626&SiteID=1

HTH

|||I was able to solve this without resorting to the bootstrap loader by adding a reference to the adodb resource in my Studio project, then selecting this reference, and changing it's 'Copy Local' property to true.

ADODB Vesion 7.0.3300.0 in vb.net

Hi,

I have developed an application in vb.net 2005 Standard Edition and is running fine in my local machine. The executed version of the same application i tried to run in other machine and getting an error as follows :-

" Unable to install application. The application requires the assembly ADODB Version 7.0.3300.0 be installed in the global assembly cache (GAC) first "

Can you somebody help me to solve this problem.

Thanks

Saju John

http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=174626&SiteID=1

HTH

|||I was able to solve this without resorting to the bootstrap loader by adding a reference to the adodb resource in my Studio project, then selecting this reference, and changing it's 'Copy Local' property to true.

ADO.NET SP throws ArgumentException after migrating to SQL 2005 Standard - UPDATE 2 - FIXED

I just migrated a database from SQL 2000 Developer Edition on W2k Server to a production machine running SQL 2005 Standard on W2k3 Server Standard. A Web Service was also migrated from .NET 1.1 on the development machine to .NET 2.0 on the production machine.

Since the migration, a stored procedure that worked on SQL 2000/.NET 1.1 now throws a System.ArgumentException: "No mapping exists from object type System.RuntimeType to a known managed proider native type."

This occurs with a date value - the stored procedure is filled from XML data the Web Service receives from the client program by a generic subroutine that recognizes the applicable table names and primary key column names, selecting the appropriate stored procedure to use, but may or may not have data to update for each field. I have tried explicitly setting the SQLDBType for the parameter as the parametercollection is filled, but still get the ArgumentException. I also tried changing the parameter type to varchar(20), and having the stored procedure convert it to datetime, but still got the exception.

I know the ultimate solution will probably be to build the data Web Service within SQL 2005, but what can I do to get this working until I have time for that conversion?

Thanks for any help.

Darrell Escola

UPDATE - I was able to use the stored procedures to manually update the database using data that should have passed through the web service, so the problem is within the web service on .NET 2.0 - I think 2.0 is much stricter on data types than was 1.1. The SPs create dynamic SQL that is then executed - I know this is not the best security, hence my eventual interest in creating an end-point within SQL 2005 to handle the data in a more secure manner.

Darrell

|||

I finally got the web service to update through the stored procedure. I was able to access the stored procedure by specifically casting the data types for each parameter using a subroutine similar to that shown below, but the web service was still throwing an exception on the output value type, which I use to get the actual primary key value for the new record, so the off-line client can properly map its dependent records to the proper key value before inserting those dependent records:

Dim newID As SQLTypes.SQLInt32

I added a subroutine to determine the data type for each column used in the update:

Private Sub AddSPParameter(ByRef cmd as SQLClient.SQLCommand, ByVal paramName as String, ByVal fieldValue as Object)

If paramName = "<stringColName1>" Or paramName = "<stringColName...>" Then

cmd.Parameters.AddWithValue(Ctype(Cstr(fieldValue), SQLTypes.SQLString).DbType = DbType.String

ElseIf paramName = "<otherTypeColName1>" Or paramName.IndexOf("...") > 0 Or paramName.EndsWith("...") Then

cmd.Parameters.AddWithValue(Ctype(Cstr(fieldValue), SQLTypes.SQL<otherType>).DbType = DbType.<otherType>

ElseIf ...

End If

This subroutine determines the column data type by matches on the column name, and then explicitly casting the parameter value to the applicable database data type.

I also had to explicitly cast the Return Value:

cmd.Parameters.AddWithValue("@.ReturnValue", Ctype(0, SQLTypes.SQLInt32)).DbType = SqlDbType.Int

cmd.Parameters("@.ReturnValue").Direction = ParameterDirection.ReturnValue

Lesson learned: Explicitly type all data values used.

Darrell

ADO.NET SP throws ArgumentException after migrating to SQL 2005 Standard

I just migrated a database from SQL 2000 Developer Edition on W2k Server to a production machine running SQL 2005 Standard on W2k3 Server Standard. A Web Service was also migrated from .NET 1.1 on the development machine to .NET 2.0 on the production machine.

Since the migration, a stored procedure that worked on SQL 2000/.NET 1.1 now throws a System.ArgumentException: "No mapping exists from object type System.RuntimeType to a known managed proider native type."

This occurs with a date value - the stored procedure is filled from XML data the Web Service receives from the client program by a generic subroutine that recognizes the applicable table names and primary key column names, selecting the appropriate stored procedure to use, but may or may not have data to update for each field. I have tried explicitly setting the SQLDBType for the parameter as the parametercollection is filled, but still get the ArgumentException. I also tried changing the parameter type to varchar(20), and having the stored procedure convert it to datetime, but still got the exception.

I know the ultimate solution will probably be to build the data Web Service within SQL 2005, but what can I do to get this working until I have time for that conversion?

Thanks for any help.

Darrell Escola

UPDATE - I was able to use the stored procedures to manually update the database using data that should have passed through the web service, so the problem is within the web service on .NET 2.0 - I think 2.0 is much stricter on data types than was 1.1. The SPs create dynamic SQL that is then executed - I know this is not the best security, hence my eventual interest in creating an end-point within SQL 2005 to handle the data in a more secure manner.

Darrell

|||

I finally got the web service to update through the stored procedure. I was able to access the stored procedure by specifically casting the data types for each parameter using a subroutine similar to that shown below, but the web service was still throwing an exception on the output value type, which I use to get the actual primary key value for the new record, so the off-line client can properly map its dependent records to the proper key value before inserting those dependent records:

Dim newID As SQLTypes.SQLInt32

I added a subroutine to determine the data type for each column used in the update:

Private Sub AddSPParameter(ByRef cmd as SQLClient.SQLCommand, ByVal paramName as String, ByVal fieldValue as Object)

If paramName = "<stringColName1>" Or paramName = "<stringColName...>" Then

cmd.Parameters.AddWithValue(Ctype(Cstr(fieldValue), SQLTypes.SQLString).DbType = DbType.String

ElseIf paramName = "<otherTypeColName1>" Or paramName.IndexOf("...") > 0 Or paramName.EndsWith("...") Then

cmd.Parameters.AddWithValue(Ctype(Cstr(fieldValue), SQLTypes.SQL<otherType>).DbType = DbType.<otherType>

ElseIf ...

End If

This subroutine determines the column data type by matches on the column name, and then explicitly casting the parameter value to the applicable database data type.

I also had to explicitly cast the Return Value:

cmd.Parameters.AddWithValue("@.ReturnValue", Ctype(0, SQLTypes.SQLInt32)).DbType = SqlDbType.Int

cmd.Parameters("@.ReturnValue").Direction = ParameterDirection.ReturnValue

Lesson learned: Explicitly type all data values used.

Darrell

ADO.NET cannot connect to SQL2k, but Query Analyzer does

I have an ADO.NET (.NET 2.0) application that throws a connection exception when trying to connect to a SQL 2000 Standard server (despite what the message says about 2k5, which I assume is generic):

System.Data.SqlClient.SqlException: An error has occurred while establishing a connection to the server. When connecting to SQL Server 2005, this failure may be caused by the fact that under the default settings SQL Server does not allow remote connections. (provider: Named Pipes Provider, error: 40 - Could not open a connection to SQL Server)
at System.Data.SqlClient.SqlInternalConnection.OnError(SqlException exception, Boolean breakConnection)
at System.Data.SqlClient.TdsParser.ThrowExceptionAndWarning(TdsParserStateObject stateObj)
at System.Data.SqlClient.TdsParser.Connect(Boolean& useFailoverPartner, Boolean& failoverDemandDone, String host, String failoverPartner, String protocol, SqlInternalConnectionTds connHandler, Int64 timerExpire, Boolean encrypt, Boolean trustServerCert, Boolean integratedSecurity, SqlConnection owningObject, Boolean aliasLookup)
at System.Data.SqlClient.SqlInternalConnectionTds.OpenLoginEnlist(SqlConnection owningObject, SqlConnectionString connectionOptions, String newPassword, Boolean redirectedUserInstance)
at System.Data.SqlClient.SqlInternalConnectionTds..ctor(DbConnectionPoolIdentity identity, SqlConnectionString connectionOptions, Object providerInfo, String newPassword, SqlConnection owningObject, Boolean redirectedUserInstance)
at System.Data.SqlClient.SqlConnectionFactory.CreateConnection(DbConnectionOptions options, Object poolGroupProviderInfo, DbConnectionPool pool, DbConnection owningConnection)
at System.Data.ProviderBase.DbConnectionFactory.CreatePooledConnection(DbConnection owningConnection, DbConnectionPool pool, DbConnectionOptions options)
at System.Data.ProviderBase.DbConnectionPool.CreateObject(DbConnection owningObject)
at System.Data.ProviderBase.DbConnectionPool.UserCreateRequest(DbConnection owningObject)
at System.Data.ProviderBase.DbConnectionPool.GetConnection(DbConnection owningObject)
at System.Data.ProviderBase.DbConnectionFactory.GetConnection(DbConnection owningConnection)
at System.Data.ProviderBase.DbConnectionClosed.OpenConnection(DbConnection outerConnection, DbConnectionFactory connectionFactory)
at System.Data.SqlClient.SqlConnection.Open()
at System.Data.Common.DbDataAdapter.FillInternal(DataSet dataset, DataTable[] datatables, Int32 startRecord, Int32 maxRecords, String srcTable, IDbCommand command, CommandBehavior behavior)
at System.Data.Common.DbDataAdapter.Fill(DataSet dataSet, Int32 startRecord, Int32 maxRecords, String srcTable, IDbCommand command, CommandBehavior behavior)
at System.Data.Common.DbDataAdapter.Fill(DataSet dataSet)

The strange thing is that I can connect just fine to this server (and run the stored procedure in question) using Query Analyzer from the client machine. I have double- and tripple-checked the credentials (and had someone else look too) and they are correct. I also checked telnet to port 1433 and it doesn't fail to connect. Ping is shut down at the firewall.

The connection string looks like this (basically):

Data Source=10.0.0.137;Initial Catalog=XXXXXX;uid=xxxxx;pwd=xxxxx

This is conecting to a remote instance across a couple firewalls. Both machines are Windows Server 2003. I don't have much more information about the SQL 2000 server machine, but the client machine is running plain vanilla server 2k3 with no third party software firewalls or a/v.

Has anyone run into this before? I know Query Analyzer and ADO.NET user different connection methods, but the permissions shouldn't be any different, right?

Thanks in advance.

--
Jeremy Wadsack
Seven Simple Machines
http://7simplemachines.com/This seems to have resolved itself. Here's my speculation on what happened.

Note that the original error message explicitly states a named-pipe connection. (Named Pipes Provider, error: 40 - Could not open a connection to SQL Server) This requires that the firewall allow both TCP port 1433 and UDP port 1434. However, I believe our firewalls were only set to allow the TCP port. It's odd that the ADO.NET 2.0 provider seems to default to named pipes when the connection string is an IP number. I have no idea what changed (we did rebuild it, but with no updates to the connection details) and I am guessing that it's now using IP connection.

Sorry I can't provide a better resolution for anyone else who may run into this.

--
Jeremy Wadsack
Seven Simple Machines
http://7simplemachines.com/|||unluckily, this has also been plaguing me. i'm just using sql server developer edition with allowed remote connections

ADO.NET cannot connect to SQL2k, but Query Analyzer does

I have an ADO.NET (.NET 2.0) application that throws a connection exception when trying to connect to a SQL 2000 Standard server (despite what the message says about 2k5, which I assume is generic):

System.Data.SqlClient.SqlException: An error has occurred while establishing a connection to the server. When connecting to SQL Server 2005, this failure may be caused by the fact that under the default settings SQL Server does not allow remote connections. (provider: Named Pipes Provider, error: 40 - Could not open a connection to SQL Server)
at System.Data.SqlClient.SqlInternalConnection.OnError(SqlException exception, Boolean breakConnection)
at System.Data.SqlClient.TdsParser.ThrowExceptionAndWarning(TdsParserStateObject stateObj)
at System.Data.SqlClient.TdsParser.Connect(Boolean& useFailoverPartner, Boolean& failoverDemandDone, String host, String failoverPartner, String protocol, SqlInternalConnectionTds connHandler, Int64 timerExpire, Boolean encrypt, Boolean trustServerCert, Boolean integratedSecurity, SqlConnection owningObject, Boolean aliasLookup)
at System.Data.SqlClient.SqlInternalConnectionTds.OpenLoginEnlist(SqlConnection owningObject, SqlConnectionString connectionOptions, String newPassword, Boolean redirectedUserInstance)
at System.Data.SqlClient.SqlInternalConnectionTds..ctor(DbConnectionPoolIdentity identity, SqlConnectionString connectionOptions, Object providerInfo, String newPassword, SqlConnection owningObject, Boolean redirectedUserInstance)
at System.Data.SqlClient.SqlConnectionFactory.CreateConnection(DbConnectionOptions options, Object poolGroupProviderInfo, DbConnectionPool pool, DbConnection owningConnection)
at System.Data.ProviderBase.DbConnectionFactory.CreatePooledConnection(DbConnection owningConnection, DbConnectionPool pool, DbConnectionOptions options)
at System.Data.ProviderBase.DbConnectionPool.CreateObject(DbConnection owningObject)
at System.Data.ProviderBase.DbConnectionPool.UserCreateRequest(DbConnection owningObject)
at System.Data.ProviderBase.DbConnectionPool.GetConnection(DbConnection owningObject)
at System.Data.ProviderBase.DbConnectionFactory.GetConnection(DbConnection owningConnection)
at System.Data.ProviderBase.DbConnectionClosed.OpenConnection(DbConnection outerConnection, DbConnectionFactory connectionFactory)
at System.Data.SqlClient.SqlConnection.Open()
at System.Data.Common.DbDataAdapter.FillInternal(DataSet dataset, DataTable[] datatables, Int32 startRecord, Int32 maxRecords, String srcTable, IDbCommand command, CommandBehavior behavior)
at System.Data.Common.DbDataAdapter.Fill(DataSet dataSet, Int32 startRecord, Int32 maxRecords, String srcTable, IDbCommand command, CommandBehavior behavior)
at System.Data.Common.DbDataAdapter.Fill(DataSet dataSet)

The strange thing is that I can connect just fine to this server (and run the stored procedure in question) using Query Analyzer from the client machine. I have double- and tripple-checked the credentials (and had someone else look too) and they are correct. I also checked telnet to port 1433 and it doesn't fail to connect. Ping is shut down at the firewall.

The connection string looks like this (basically):

Data Source=10.0.0.137;Initial Catalog=XXXXXX;uid=xxxxx;pwd=xxxxx

This is conecting to a remote instance across a couple firewalls. Both machines are Windows Server 2003. I don't have much more information about the SQL 2000 server machine, but the client machine is running plain vanilla server 2k3 with no third party software firewalls or a/v.

Has anyone run into this before? I know Query Analyzer and ADO.NET user different connection methods, but the permissions shouldn't be any different, right?

Thanks in advance.

--
Jeremy Wadsack
Seven Simple Machines
http://7simplemachines.com/This seems to have resolved itself. Here's my speculation on what happened.

Note that the original error message explicitly states a named-pipe connection. (Named Pipes Provider, error: 40 - Could not open a connection to SQL Server) This requires that the firewall allow both TCP port 1433 and UDP port 1434. However, I believe our firewalls were only set to allow the TCP port. It's odd that the ADO.NET 2.0 provider seems to default to named pipes when the connection string is an IP number. I have no idea what changed (we did rebuild it, but with no updates to the connection details) and I am guessing that it's now using IP connection.

Sorry I can't provide a better resolution for anyone else who may run into this.

--
Jeremy Wadsack
Seven Simple Machines
http://7simplemachines.com/|||unluckily, this has also been plaguing me. i'm just using sql server developer edition with allowed remote connections

ADO initialization fails on W2003

OVERVIEW:
ADO initialization fails on W2003 Server, Standard Edition.
This is a new system.
This is the first time this app has been compiled or run on this system.
The app runs fine on all other servers I've tried it on.
What should I check?
Is anyone else able to run ADO routines against OLE 5.2?
Thanks,
Brad.
DETAILS:
OLE32.dll v.5.2.3790.250
OLEAUT32.dll v.5.2.3790.0
Tracing into the code, I get into
_WStrAsg("", "'ISAUTOINCREMENT'");
which calls SysReAllocStringLen. This fails with an access violation.
SysReAllocStringLen is a call into OLEAUT32.dll.
All the OLE32 dll look to be updated. They are newer than anything
on any of my XP systems.
I have a new test project that uses ADODB and it *doesn't* fail.
Yes, it does go through the same code just as nice as you could want.
The same app is deployed an running on dozens of other systems.
None are as new as this one.
So my guess is that it has to be something about the way the new
system is set up.
My next step is to start tearing down a copy of my project. But I'm
not terribly hopeful.
Thanks,
Brad.Long shot but is the bad project compiled on the same library as the working
one. Also, have you updated to the latest mdac + fixes.
-oj
"Brad White" <bwhite at inebraska . com> wrote in message
news:OQLP18vDFHA.2540@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> OVERVIEW:
> ADO initialization fails on W2003 Server, Standard Edition.
> This is a new system.
> This is the first time this app has been compiled or run on this system.
> The app runs fine on all other servers I've tried it on.
> What should I check?
> Is anyone else able to run ADO routines against OLE 5.2?
> Thanks,
> Brad.
> DETAILS:
> OLE32.dll v.5.2.3790.250
> OLEAUT32.dll v.5.2.3790.0
> Tracing into the code, I get into
> _WStrAsg("", "'ISAUTOINCREMENT'");
> which calls SysReAllocStringLen. This fails with an access violation.
> SysReAllocStringLen is a call into OLEAUT32.dll.
> All the OLE32 dll look to be updated. They are newer than anything
> on any of my XP systems.
> I have a new test project that uses ADODB and it *doesn't* fail.
> Yes, it does go through the same code just as nice as you could want.
> The same app is deployed an running on dozens of other systems.
> None are as new as this one.
> So my guess is that it has to be something about the way the new
> system is set up.
> My next step is to start tearing down a copy of my project. But I'm
> not terribly hopeful.
> --
> Thanks,
> Brad.
>
>
>|||Thanks for the reply.
The first thing I checked was MDAC, and yes it is 2.8.
I thought last night that perhaps it is a 2003 thing,
but no, we have had installations for months on 2003 Server
with no problems.
Same libraries. Tried the debug versions of the libraries in both exe's
with same results.
"oj" <nospam_ojngo@.home.com> wrote in message
news:uMArKKwDFHA.2032@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Long shot but is the bad project compiled on the same library as the
working
> one. Also, have you updated to the latest mdac + fixes.
> --
> -oj
>
> "Brad White" <bwhite at inebraska . com> wrote in message
> news:OQLP18vDFHA.2540@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>|||Brad,
Perhaps, reinstall the package?
-oj
"Brad White" <bwhite at inebraska . com> wrote in message
news:%23LzC%23$3DFHA.3924@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Thanks for the reply.
> The first thing I checked was MDAC, and yes it is 2.8.
> I thought last night that perhaps it is a 2003 thing,
> but no, we have had installations for months on 2003 Server
> with no problems.
> Same libraries. Tried the debug versions of the libraries in both exe's
> with same results.
> --
> "oj" <nospam_ojngo@.home.com> wrote in message
> news:uMArKKwDFHA.2032@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> working
>|||"oj" <nospam_ojngo@.home.com> wrote in message
news:u34aoVAEFHA.3732@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Brad,
> Perhaps, reinstall the package?
>
Thanks for the reply.
The way it was acting reminded me of memory corruption,
but I couldn't see how that could be since no custom code
had run yet.
Turns out it was an unrelated dll improperly installed.
Reinstalling that to solve another problem, solved this problem.
It wasn't an ADO thing or WideStr thing at all.
--
Brad White