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

AdventureWorks Install

I am using sqlserver 2005 express edition and have downloaded the
AdventureWorksDB.msi. I have installed it and it created 3 files:
AdventureWorks.mdf (~ 2MB), AdventureWorks_Data.mdf (~ 164MB) and
AdventureWorks_log.idf (~1MB). When I added the database to the sqlserver,
no tables appear under system tables. Is there something I am missing here?
No, it's normal in SQL Server 2005. System tables are hidden and you can't
see or modify them directly.
Regards
Pawel Potasinski
Uytkownik "Richard" <rich_a_wms@.yahoo.com> napisa w wiadomoci
news:u4xAciayHHA.748@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>I am using sqlserver 2005 express edition and have downloaded the
> AdventureWorksDB.msi. I have installed it and it created 3 files:
> AdventureWorks.mdf (~ 2MB), AdventureWorks_Data.mdf (~ 164MB) and
> AdventureWorks_log.idf (~1MB). When I added the database to the sqlserver,
> no tables appear under system tables. Is there something I am missing
> here?
>
>
|||I have another DB (storeDB) on the server and I am able to see all the
tables under Databases > System Databases > storeDB > Tables > System
Tables, but I am unable to see the System Tables under AdventureWorks. I am
going through the tutorial and it's asking me to create the following query:
SELECT * FROM Production.Product;
GO
and I receive this error message:
Msg 208, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Invalid object name 'Production.Product'.
I have a connection the AdventureWorks DB. I'm obviously new to SQL Server
2005.
Any help would be appreciated.
Regards, Richard
"Pawel Potasinski" <pawel.potasinski@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:OLCmDdcyHHA.1776@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

> No, it's normal in SQL Server 2005. System tables are hidden and you can't
> see or modify them directly.
> --
> Regards
> Pawel Potasinski
>
> Uytkownik "Richard" <rich_a_wms@.yahoo.com> napisa w wiadomoci
> news:u4xAciayHHA.748@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
|||On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 12:53:50 -0700, Richard wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> I have another DB (storeDB) on the server and I am able to see all the
> tables under Databases > System Databases > storeDB > Tables > System
> Tables, but I am unable to see the System Tables under AdventureWorks. I am
> going through the tutorial and it's asking me to create the following query:
> SELECT * FROM Production.Product;
> GO
> and I receive this error message:
> Msg 208, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Invalid object name 'Production.Product'.
> I have a connection the AdventureWorks DB. I'm obviously new to SQL Server
> 2005.
> Any help would be appreciated.
> Regards, Richard
> "Pawel Potasinski" <pawel.potasinski@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:OLCmDdcyHHA.1776@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
Looks like a permissions issue. If you are just testing, make your account
you log in as a Server Role of Sysadmin (God-level rights).
Chuck Lathrope
www.sqlwebpedia.com
|||Thanks, I changed permissions, but I still can't see the tables. The strange
thing is that there are 3 files in the Data folder under the MSSQL folder
for AdventureWorks: AdventureWorks.mdf (~ 2MB), AdventureWorks_Data.mdf (~
164MB) and AdventureWorks_log.idf (~1MB). The other DB's on the server only
have 2 files (.mdf and .idf) for each database. There are no _Data.mdf
files.
Regards, Richard
"Chuck Lathrope" <computerguy_chuck@.fixmehotmail.com> wrote in message
news:rugaxfto4xox$.1xm17ldm6wy7j$.dlg@.40tude.net.. .
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 12:53:50 -0700, Richard wrote:
>
> Looks like a permissions issue. If you are just testing, make your account
> you log in as a Server Role of Sysadmin (God-level rights).
> Chuck Lathrope
> www.sqlwebpedia.com

AdventureWorks Install

I am using sqlserver 2005 express edition and have downloaded the
AdventureWorksDB.msi. I have installed it and it created 3 files:
AdventureWorks.mdf (~ 2MB), AdventureWorks_Data.mdf (~ 164MB) and
AdventureWorks_log.idf (~1MB). When I added the database to the sqlserver,
no tables appear under system tables. Is there something I am missing here?No, it's normal in SQL Server 2005. System tables are hidden and you can't
see or modify them directly.
--
Regards
Pawel Potasinski
U¿ytkownik "Richard" <rich_a_wms@.yahoo.com> napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
news:u4xAciayHHA.748@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>I am using sqlserver 2005 express edition and have downloaded the
> AdventureWorksDB.msi. I have installed it and it created 3 files:
> AdventureWorks.mdf (~ 2MB), AdventureWorks_Data.mdf (~ 164MB) and
> AdventureWorks_log.idf (~1MB). When I added the database to the sqlserver,
> no tables appear under system tables. Is there something I am missing
> here?
>
>|||I have another DB (storeDB) on the server and I am able to see all the
tables under Databases > System Databases > storeDB > Tables > System
Tables, but I am unable to see the System Tables under AdventureWorks. I am
going through the tutorial and it's asking me to create the following query:
SELECT * FROM Production.Product;
GO
and I receive this error message:
Msg 208, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Invalid object name 'Production.Product'.
I have a connection the AdventureWorks DB. I'm obviously new to SQL Server
2005.
Any help would be appreciated.
Regards, Richard
"Pawel Potasinski" <pawel.potasinski@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:OLCmDdcyHHA.1776@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> No, it's normal in SQL Server 2005. System tables are hidden and you can't
> see or modify them directly.
> --
> Regards
> Pawel Potasinski
>
> U¿ytkownik "Richard" <rich_a_wms@.yahoo.com> napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
> news:u4xAciayHHA.748@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>I am using sqlserver 2005 express edition and have downloaded the
>> AdventureWorksDB.msi. I have installed it and it created 3 files:
>> AdventureWorks.mdf (~ 2MB), AdventureWorks_Data.mdf (~ 164MB) and
>> AdventureWorks_log.idf (~1MB). When I added the database to the
>> sqlserver,
>> no tables appear under system tables. Is there something I am missing
>> here?
>>
>|||On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 12:53:50 -0700, Richard wrote:
> I have another DB (storeDB) on the server and I am able to see all the
> tables under Databases > System Databases > storeDB > Tables > System
> Tables, but I am unable to see the System Tables under AdventureWorks. I am
> going through the tutorial and it's asking me to create the following query:
> SELECT * FROM Production.Product;
> GO
> and I receive this error message:
> Msg 208, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Invalid object name 'Production.Product'.
> I have a connection the AdventureWorks DB. I'm obviously new to SQL Server
> 2005.
> Any help would be appreciated.
> Regards, Richard
> "Pawel Potasinski" <pawel.potasinski@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:OLCmDdcyHHA.1776@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> No, it's normal in SQL Server 2005. System tables are hidden and you can't
>> see or modify them directly.
>> --
>> Regards
>> Pawel Potasinski
>>
>> U¿ytkownik "Richard" <rich_a_wms@.yahoo.com> napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
>> news:u4xAciayHHA.748@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>I am using sqlserver 2005 express edition and have downloaded the
>> AdventureWorksDB.msi. I have installed it and it created 3 files:
>> AdventureWorks.mdf (~ 2MB), AdventureWorks_Data.mdf (~ 164MB) and
>> AdventureWorks_log.idf (~1MB). When I added the database to the
>> sqlserver,
>> no tables appear under system tables. Is there something I am missing
>> here?
>>
>>
Looks like a permissions issue. If you are just testing, make your account
you log in as a Server Role of Sysadmin (God-level rights).
Chuck Lathrope
www.sqlwebpedia.com|||Thanks, I changed permissions, but I still can't see the tables. The strange
thing is that there are 3 files in the Data folder under the MSSQL folder
for AdventureWorks: AdventureWorks.mdf (~ 2MB), AdventureWorks_Data.mdf (~
164MB) and AdventureWorks_log.idf (~1MB). The other DB's on the server only
have 2 files (.mdf and .idf) for each database. There are no _Data.mdf
files.
Regards, Richard
"Chuck Lathrope" <computerguy_chuck@.fixmehotmail.com> wrote in message
news:rugaxfto4xox$.1xm17ldm6wy7j$.dlg@.40tude.net...
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 12:53:50 -0700, Richard wrote:
>> I have another DB (storeDB) on the server and I am able to see all the
>> tables under Databases > System Databases > storeDB > Tables > System
>> Tables, but I am unable to see the System Tables under AdventureWorks. I
>> am
>> going through the tutorial and it's asking me to create the following
>> query:
>> SELECT * FROM Production.Product;
>> GO
>> and I receive this error message:
>> Msg 208, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
>> Invalid object name 'Production.Product'.
>> I have a connection the AdventureWorks DB. I'm obviously new to SQL
>> Server
>> 2005.
>> Any help would be appreciated.
>> Regards, Richard
>> "Pawel Potasinski" <pawel.potasinski@.gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:OLCmDdcyHHA.1776@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> No, it's normal in SQL Server 2005. System tables are hidden and you
>> can't
>> see or modify them directly.
>> --
>> Regards
>> Pawel Potasinski
>>
>> U¿ytkownik "Richard" <rich_a_wms@.yahoo.com> napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
>> news:u4xAciayHHA.748@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>I am using sqlserver 2005 express edition and have downloaded the
>> AdventureWorksDB.msi. I have installed it and it created 3 files:
>> AdventureWorks.mdf (~ 2MB), AdventureWorks_Data.mdf (~ 164MB) and
>> AdventureWorks_log.idf (~1MB). When I added the database to the
>> sqlserver,
>> no tables appear under system tables. Is there something I am missing
>> here?
>>
>>
> Looks like a permissions issue. If you are just testing, make your account
> you log in as a Server Role of Sysadmin (God-level rights).
> Chuck Lathrope
> www.sqlwebpedia.com

AdventureWorks Install

I am using sqlserver 2005 express edition and have downloaded the
AdventureWorksDB.msi. I have installed it and it created 3 files:
AdventureWorks.mdf (~ 2MB), AdventureWorks_Data.mdf (~ 164MB) and
AdventureWorks_log.idf (~1MB). When I added the database to the sqlserver,
no tables appear under system tables. Is there something I am missing here?No, it's normal in SQL Server 2005. System tables are hidden and you can't
see or modify them directly.
Regards
Pawel Potasinski
Uytkownik "Richard" <rich_a_wms@.yahoo.com> napisa w wiadomoci
news:u4xAciayHHA.748@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>I am using sqlserver 2005 express edition and have downloaded the
> AdventureWorksDB.msi. I have installed it and it created 3 files:
> AdventureWorks.mdf (~ 2MB), AdventureWorks_Data.mdf (~ 164MB) and
> AdventureWorks_log.idf (~1MB). When I added the database to the sqlserver,
> no tables appear under system tables. Is there something I am missing
> here?
>
>|||I have another DB (storeDB) on the server and I am able to see all the
tables under Databases > System Databases > storeDB > Tables > System
Tables, but I am unable to see the System Tables under AdventureWorks. I am
going through the tutorial and it's asking me to create the following query:
SELECT * FROM Production.Product;
GO
and I receive this error message:
Msg 208, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Invalid object name 'Production.Product'.
I have a connection the AdventureWorks DB. I'm obviously new to SQL Server
2005.
Any help would be appreciated.
Regards, Richard
"Pawel Potasinski" <pawel.potasinski@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:OLCmDdcyHHA.1776@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

> No, it's normal in SQL Server 2005. System tables are hidden and you can't
> see or modify them directly.
> --
> Regards
> Pawel Potasinski
>
> Uytkownik "Richard" <rich_a_wms@.yahoo.com> napisa w wiadomoci
> news:u4xAciayHHA.748@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>|||On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 12:53:50 -0700, Richard wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> I have another DB (storeDB) on the server and I am able to see all the
> tables under Databases > System Databases > storeDB > Tables > System
> Tables, but I am unable to see the System Tables under AdventureWorks. I a
m
> going through the tutorial and it's asking me to create the following quer
y:
> SELECT * FROM Production.Product;
> GO
> and I receive this error message:
> Msg 208, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Invalid object name 'Production.Product'.
> I have a connection the AdventureWorks DB. I'm obviously new to SQL Server
> 2005.
> Any help would be appreciated.
> Regards, Richard
> "Pawel Potasinski" <pawel.potasinski@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:OLCmDdcyHHA.1776@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>
Looks like a permissions issue. If you are just testing, make your account
you log in as a Server Role of Sysadmin (God-level rights).
Chuck Lathrope
www.sqlwebpedia.com|||Thanks, I changed permissions, but I still can't see the tables. The strange
thing is that there are 3 files in the Data folder under the MSSQL folder
for AdventureWorks: AdventureWorks.mdf (~ 2MB), AdventureWorks_Data.mdf (~
164MB) and AdventureWorks_log.idf (~1MB). The other DB's on the server only
have 2 files (.mdf and .idf) for each database. There are no _Data.mdf
files.
Regards, Richard
"Chuck Lathrope" <computerguy_chuck@.fixmehotmail.com> wrote in message
news:rugaxfto4xox$.1xm17ldm6wy7j$.dlg@.40tude.net...
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 12:53:50 -0700, Richard wrote:
>
> Looks like a permissions issue. If you are just testing, make your account
> you log in as a Server Role of Sysadmin (God-level rights).
> Chuck Lathrope
> www.sqlwebpedia.com

AdventureWorks database question

How can I install theAdventureWorks database on my box where C:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\90\Tools\Samples\ is missing? My SQL 2005 is currently without AdventureWorks OLT. I downloaded the Enterprise trial before uninstalling SQL2005Express. Please help. Thanks.

It looks like the AdventureWorks database can be downloadedhere.

HTH,
Ryan

|||

As I did the following:

exec

sp_attach_db @.dbname=N'AdventureWorks', @.filename1=N'C:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL.1\MSSQL\Data\AdventureWorks_Data.mdf', @.filename2=N'C:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL.1\MSSQL\Data\AdventureWorks_log.ldf'

Here's what came back:

Msg 1813, Level 16, State 2, Line 1

Could not open new database 'AdventureWorks'. CREATE DATABASE is aborted.

Msg 602, Level 21, State 50, Line 1

Could not find row in sysindexes for database ID 24, object ID 1, index ID 1. Run DBCC CHECKTABLE on sysindexes.

What's wrong here?

Any help is greatly appreciated.

|||

Find instawdb.sql and execute it. This will open "SQL server manegament studio. Enter localhost for servername then click connect. On the sql editor toolbar click execute. wait until get the message "database installed succesfully" in the status bar.

|||

When I do that I get the following error messages:

Microsoft SQL Server 2000 - 8.00.194 (Intel X86)

Aug 6 2000 00:57:48

Copyright (c) 1988-2000 Microsoft Corporation

Personal Edition on Windows NT 5.1 (Build 2600: Service Pack 2)

*** Dropping Database

Msg 208, Level 16, State 1, Line 2

Invalid object name 'master.sys.databases'.

*** Creating Database

Msg 208, Level 16, State 1, Line 5

Invalid object name 'master.sys.master_files'.

Msg 102, Level 15, State 6, Line 11

Incorrect syntax near 'CHECKSUM'.

Msg 911, Level 16, State 1, Line 2

Could not locate entry in sysdatabases for database 'AdventureWorksDW'. No entry found with that name. Make sure that the name is entered correctly.

*** Creating DDL Trigger for Database

Msg 170, Level 15, State 1, Line 9

Line 9: Incorrect syntax near 'max'.

Msg 156, Level 15, State 1, Procedure ddlDatabaseTriggerLog, Line 3

Incorrect syntax near the keyword 'DATABASE'.

Msg 195, Level 15, State 10, Procedure ddlDatabaseTriggerLog, Line 14

'EVENTDATA' is not a recognized function name.

Msg 170, Level 15, State 1, Procedure ddlDatabaseTriggerLog, Line 15

Line 15: Incorrect syntax near '.'.

Msg 170, Level 15, State 1, Procedure ddlDatabaseTriggerLog, Line 16

Line 16: Incorrect syntax near '.'.

Msg 170, Level 15, State 1, Procedure ddlDatabaseTriggerLog, Line 17

Line 17: Incorrect syntax near '.'.

Msg 170, Level 15, State 1, Procedure ddlDatabaseTriggerLog, Line 25

Line 25: Incorrect syntax near 'max'.

Msg 170, Level 15, State 1, Procedure ddlDatabaseTriggerLog, Line 44

Line 44: Incorrect syntax near '.'.

*** Creating Tables

Msg 2714, Level 16, State 6, Line 2

There is already an object named 'AdventureWorksDWBuildVersion' in the database.

Msg 170, Level 15, State 1, Line 80

Line 80: Incorrect syntax near 'max'.

*** Loading Data

Msg 208, Level 16, State 1, Line 6

Invalid object name 'master.sys.master_files'.

Msg 1779, Level 16, State 0, Line 2

Table 'DimAccount' already has a primary key defined on it.

Msg 1750, Level 16, State 0, Line 2

Could not create constraint. See previous errors.

Msg 1913, Level 16, State 1, Line 2

There is already an index on table 'DimAccount' named 'AK_DimAccount_AccountCodeAlternateKey'.

*** Creating Foreign Key Constraints

Msg 2714, Level 16, State 4, Line 2

There is already an object named 'FK_DimAccount_DimAccount' in the database.

Msg 1750, Level 16, State 0, Line 2

Could not create constraint. See previous errors.

*** Creating Table Views

Msg 170, Level 15, State 1, Procedure vDMPrep, Line 48

Line 48: Incorrect syntax near ';'.

Msg 170, Level 15, State 1, Procedure vTimeSeries, Line 41

Line 41: Incorrect syntax near ';'.

Msg 170, Level 15, State 1, Procedure vTargetMail, Line 62

Line 62: Incorrect syntax near ';'.

Msg 208, Level 16, State 1, Procedure vAssocSeqOrders, Line 7

Invalid object name 'dbo.vDMPrep'.

Msg 170, Level 15, State 1, Procedure vAssocSeqLineItems, Line 12

Line 12: Incorrect syntax near ';'.

*** Creating Functions

Msg 2714, Level 16, State 5, Procedure udfMinimumDate, Line 15

There is already an object named 'udfMinimumDate' in the database.

*** Disabling DDL Trigger for Database

Msg 156, Level 15, State 1, Line 2

Incorrect syntax near the keyword 'TRIGGER'.

*** Changing File Growth Values for Database

Msg 911, Level 16, State 1, Line 2

Could not locate entry in sysdatabases for database 'AdventureWorksDW'. No entry found with that name. Make sure that the name is entered correctly.

*** Shrinking Database

Msg 2520, Level 16, State 12, Line 2

Could not find database 'AdventureWorksDW'. Check sysdatabases.

DBCC execution completed. If DBCC printed error messages, contact your system administrator.

And on that download link none of those will install either, they installation stops with an error.

AdventureWorks Database not showing up management studio express

After installing the Adventure works database samples they do NOT show up in Management Studio Express?

I have done a clean install of SQL Server Express 2005 SP1 with Advanced services.

The database samples only install as physical files, they are not attached to the SQL Server process. If you want to use them, go in the SSMS and right click on the Database node, choose All Tasks and click Attach database.. Locate the MDF File and the LDF File and click Apply (or OK). SQL Server will attach the databases to the SQL Server process and you can access the data.

HTH, Jens Suessmeyer.

http://www.sqlserver2005.de
|||I found this not quite accurat. The Attach is in the Object Explorer window under the sqlexpress datebase, right click Databases (nt Database) then click Attach. The window which opens should show the AdventureWorks database without having to browse. This required action is not mentioned in the tutorial.

AdventureWorks Database not showing up management studio express

After installing the Adventure works database samples they do NOT show up in Management Studio Express?

I have done a clean install of SQL Server Express 2005 SP1 with Advanced services.

The database samples only install as physical files, they are not attached to the SQL Server process. If you want to use them, go in the SSMS and right click on the Database node, choose All Tasks and click Attach database.. Locate the MDF File and the LDF File and click Apply (or OK). SQL Server will attach the databases to the SQL Server process and you can access the data.

HTH, Jens Suessmeyer.

http://www.sqlserver2005.de
|||I found this not quite accurat. The Attach is in the Object Explorer window under the sqlexpress datebase, right click Databases (nt Database) then click Attach. The window which opens should show the AdventureWorks database without having to browse. This required action is not mentioned in the tutorial.sql

AdventureWorks database not seen by Management Studio Express CTP

When I install AdventureWorks.db for SQL Express, it runs without errors. The database files (data and logs) are in the SQL Express 2005 data directory. However, I can not see the database in Managment Studio Express CTP. I've tried repairing and uninstall/install again. Does not help.

I have SQL Express 2005 cleanly installed. I have the pubs and Northwinds databases cleanly installed. (I was able to execute the queries that came for installing these). I can see both pubs and Northwinds in Management Studio Express CTP.

Any suggestions?

You won′t be able to see them if you don′t have permissions to the database itself, did you connect to database with the same credentials as you connected as you executed the queries that you mentioned ?

HTH, Jens Suessmeyer.

http://www.sqlserver2005.de
|||

Yes, I did connect with the same credentials.

Also, the AdventureWorks did not come with a query like the pubs and Northwind databases. It just comes as a self-installing file. So I didn't have to open it in Mgmt Studio and execute it. It just installs and says it was successful when done.

|||

You must attach the files to an instance of SQL Server Express.

Execute the following script to identify the directory where the master database file is located.

select physical_name from sys.database_files where name = 'master'

Then, execute a similar script to attach the files.

exec sp_attach_db @.dbname=N'AdventureWorks', @.filename1=N'c:\Programas\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL.1\MSSQL\DATA\AdventureWorks_Data.mdf', @.filename2=N'c:\Programas\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL.1\MSSQL\DATA\AdventureWorks_log.ldf'

Regards.

|||I did all above and still did not see it in the list.|||

hi,

you mean you executed the attach statement with no exception raised and you can't see the database in the list of registered databases even after a refresh of the list (rx click the database node, refresh)?

regards

|||

Hi there.

When you start SQL Management Studio Express, right click on Databases and click add in the Attach Databases window that opens. This will open the directory tree on your system and it will default to the Data directory where the AdventureWorks database is installed by default. You should see it in the window. Select it and click OK. It will then appear in the Attach Databases window so click OK again.

You may have to refresh the Object Explorer window, and then the database will show up in your list of databases. Hope that helps.

Graham.

AdventureWorks database not seen by Management Studio Express CTP

When I install AdventureWorks.db for SQL Express, it runs without errors. The database files (data and logs) are in the SQL Express 2005 data directory. However, I can not see the database in Managment Studio Express CTP. I've tried repairing and uninstall/install again. Does not help.

I have SQL Express 2005 cleanly installed. I have the pubs and Northwinds databases cleanly installed. (I was able to execute the queries that came for installing these). I can see both pubs and Northwinds in Management Studio Express CTP.

Any suggestions?

You won′t be able to see them if you don′t have permissions to the database itself, did you connect to database with the same credentials as you connected as you executed the queries that you mentioned ?

HTH, Jens Suessmeyer.

http://www.sqlserver2005.de
|||

Yes, I did connect with the same credentials.

Also, the AdventureWorks did not come with a query like the pubs and Northwind databases. It just comes as a self-installing file. So I didn't have to open it in Mgmt Studio and execute it. It just installs and says it was successful when done.

|||

You must attach the files to an instance of SQL Server Express.

Execute the following script to identify the directory where the master database file is located.

select physical_name from sys.database_files where name = 'master'

Then, execute a similar script to attach the files.

exec sp_attach_db @.dbname=N'AdventureWorks', @.filename1=N'c:\Programas\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL.1\MSSQL\DATA\AdventureWorks_Data.mdf', @.filename2=N'c:\Programas\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL.1\MSSQL\DATA\AdventureWorks_log.ldf'

Regards.

|||I did all above and still did not see it in the list.|||

hi,

you mean you executed the attach statement with no exception raised and you can't see the database in the list of registered databases even after a refresh of the list (rx click the database node, refresh)?

regards

|||

Hi there.

When you start SQL Management Studio Express, right click on Databases and click add in the Attach Databases window that opens. This will open the directory tree on your system and it will default to the Data directory where the AdventureWorks database is installed by default. You should see it in the window. Select it and click OK. It will then appear in the Attach Databases window so click OK again.

You may have to refresh the Object Explorer window, and then the database will show up in your list of databases. Hope that helps.

Graham.

AdventureWorks database

It is not automatically installed. You must specifically select it during a
custom install.
You might be able to get it now by just reinstalling the tools and making
sure you choose the sample databases. Otherwise you can download it from
here
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=E719ECF7-9F46-4312-AF89-6AD8702E4E6E&displaylang=en
HTH
Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
http://sqlblog.com
"Alan T" <alanpltseNOSPAM@.yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:ucBHEhvLHHA.780@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Is this database 'AdventureWorks' comes with SQL 2005?
> I read the book 'Mastering Microsoft SQL Server 2005' by Sybex says this
> comes with SQL Server 2005. But I cannot find that in the Management
> Studio.
>
Alan T wrote:
> Thanks.
> I downloaded the 'SqlServerSamples.msi' and installed it.
> However, I looked thro' the Samples folder cannot find the AdventureWorks
> database.
You should download AdventureWorksDB.msi or AdventureWorksDBCI.msi
Razvan
|||Yes, the SqlServerSamples.msi is code samples. There are separate downloads
for the sample databases, which you can see in the link I gave you are
larger files than the Samples download. You can choose to download AW in
either a case-sensitive collation or case-INsensitive.
HTH
Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
http://sqlblog.com
"Razvan Socol" <rsocol@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1167832817.697717.13790@.48g2000cwx.googlegrou ps.com...
> Alan T wrote:
> You should download AdventureWorksDB.msi or AdventureWorksDBCI.msi
> Razvan
>

Adventure Works DB Samples with Express 2005 SQL Server

Downloaded the file for the Adventure Works DB Sample. Which folder do I need to install it in to have show up in SQL Server Express 2005?

You can put it in any folder you want to (normally in the usual data folder you are using, by default this is located somehwere in the programe files , microsoft SQL Server directory. But you have to attach the database using the sp_attachdb procedure or use the GUI to attach the database, right click on the server --> attach database and you are done.

HTH, Jens Suessmeyer.

http://www.sqlserver2005.de

|||You can attach DB's in the Management Studio Express then?|||Should be able to, right click on the Databases folder, if it is not listed try All Tasks|||did you get this to work ?I have attached the database and still could not get the report designer towork with the database.

Adomd.net and ClickOnce

We need to install ADOMD.NET on client workstations and would like to install it via ClickOnce. Has anyone built a ClickOnce Bootstrapper Prerequisite Package for SQLServer2005_ADOMD.MSI?

Also, when running SQLServer2005_ADOMD.MSI on a client workstation manually, we receive an error stating that an updated version of MSXML 6.0 must be installed as a prerequisite. We run the MSXML6.MSI (11/7/2005) found in the SS05 November 2005 Feature Pack and then run SQLServer2005_ADOMD.MSI and everything is fine. This workstation already has Version 2.0 of the .NET Framework installed on it. Isn't MSXML 6.0 a prerequisite for installing V 2.0 of the .NET framework?

If we need to install the updated version of MSXML 6.0 prior to installing ADOMD.NET, has anyone built a ClickOnce Bootstrapper Prerequisite Package for the updated version of MSXML 6.0?

We realize these components might be part of the SQL Server 2005 Express Edition Prerequisite Package that is available, but would like to avoid an additional 35 mg download if at all possible.

Thanks in advance for your help.

Dont know much about ClickOnce.

Some answers for you:

You are right ADOMD.NET requires MSXML6 to be present. If it is not installed the setup will prompt you.

.NET framework does not include the MSXML 6 component.

I doubt ADOMD.NET is part of SQL Express installation package.

Edward.
--
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

Administrative Install

I am looking at attempting to create a deployable installation of the SQL client tools only. anyone know an easy way to do this?
Steve
"STEVE SCHNEIDER" <SSCHNE@.NOSPAM.millerwelds.com> wrote in message
news:evweJL6KEHA.3932@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> I am looking at attempting to create a deployable installation of the SQL
client tools only. anyone know an easy way to do this?
I do not know about an easy way, however, you could use a product like WISE
to create an installation package.
Steve
|||As far as I know there is not away to deploy an installation of the SQL
Server client tools, except by running setup from the SQL Server CD or
using the sqlcli.bat on the CD.
Rand
This posting is provided "as is" with no warranties and confers no rights.