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

advice on hosting website safely

Hello,

For one of my clients I have built 2 applications. The 1st one is a windows based application that is used for production and employee scheduling. The data for this application is stored in a SQL Express database. The 2nd one is a ASP.NET 2.0 site that contains the clients website and a portal page. The portal page uses forms authentication and redirects a customer to a page that shows the production schedule for this customer. So I have 2 kind of users: local (LAN) and web. Both using the same database.

For test purposes the site is currently hosted on the clients SBS 2003 server (this is the only server). However I don't think it is wise to host the public website on this server. What is the best configuration to host the public website safely? I read about putting a webserver in a DMZ. But I need a connection with the SQL Express server to retrieve the data for the portal section. As well for authenticating the customer and for retrieving the schedule data.

I'm currently using Windows Authentication on the SQL server. Can this still be used when the webserver is in the DMZ?

If I understand it correctly the webserver in the DMZ is not part of the local domain? Also could remote hosting be an option at all?

Any help and advice would be highly appreciated.

Remote hosting would be the 'safest' option. If the box is hacked, the hacker is NOT in your network. Siting in a DMZ 'could' be relatively safe -if you are certain that there are no 'holes' in the firewall.

The public website (application) may be best using Application Pooling security on the IIS box. You can connect to a SQL Server using an IP address instead of a serverName. Use the IP address and the Port in the connection string.

Since a server in a DMZ is not part of the local domain, you cannot use Windows Authentication on the SQL Server.

I suggest that if you were to visit the forums and blogs at www.ASP.NET, you will find folks with a lot of experience with this particular issue.

Advice on connection isssues

I have a SQL server which Authentication is set to Windows only, and all our
software that connects to the server uses 'trusted' connections
My question is if i connect to the server using a VPN , how can i make the
cnnection a trusted source so i can run software from a remote locationMap a drive on the client machine to a share on the SQL Server. This causes
the SQL Server to use those credentials when talking with the specific
client.
The share can contain nothing.
Regards
--
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Peter Newman" <PeterNewman@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:42FF3626-5197-4D5D-95D5-25AAC2640747@.microsoft.com...
> I have a SQL server which Authentication is set to Windows only, and all
our
> software that connects to the server uses 'trusted' connections
> My question is if i connect to the server using a VPN , how can i make the
> cnnection a trusted source so i can run software from a remote location|||Mike,
does this work when connectiing to the SQL server though a VPN ?
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:

> Map a drive on the client machine to a share on the SQL Server. This cause
s
> the SQL Server to use those credentials when talking with the specific
> client.
> The share can contain nothing.
> Regards
> --
> --
> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Zurich, Switzerland
> IM: mike@.epprecht.net
> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
> "Peter Newman" <PeterNewman@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:42FF3626-5197-4D5D-95D5-25AAC2640747@.microsoft.com...
> our
>
>|||When the client establishes a VPN do they authenticate to your DC?
If so, then they should be able to use Windows Authentication. If the user
is never challenged for his credentials,
then the connection is likely to fail with Login failed for user 'null'.
Thanks,
Kevin McDonnell
Microsoft Corporation
This posting is provided AS IS with no warranties, and confers no rights.

AdomdConnection permission problem

I am developing a Windows Form application. On one of the forms I display the results of a query to an Analysis Services database. I create the MDX command text by building a string.

Everything works, but users who do not have permission to access the database encounter and access error. I don't want to give all of the users permission to access the database. I want the application to use the credentials in the connection string. However, when I execute the AdomdCommand, it seems to be using the credentials of the logged on user instead of the "User ID" in the connection string.

How can I get the command to use the credentials in the connection string?

Dim cmdText As String = ""

Dim BdSalesBacklog As Decimal = 0

Dim oAdomdConnection As New AdomdConnection("Data Source=server;Catalog=PortalAnalytics;User ID=user;password=password")

Dim oAdomdCommand As AdomdCommand = New AdomdCommand()

Dim oAdomdReader As AdomdDataReader

Dim period As String = ddlPeriod.Items(0)

oAdomdCommand.CommandType = CommandType.Text

cmdText = "" & _

"SELECT " & _

"{ BNBTime.[" & period & "] } ON COLUMNS , " & _

"{ Measures.[Total Backlog Snapshot] } ON ROWS " & _

"FROM BNB "

oAdomdCommand.CommandText = cmdText

Try

oAdomdConnection.Open()

oAdomdCommand.Connection = oAdomdConnection

oAdomdReader = oAdomdCommand.ExecuteReader()

Catch ex As Exception

MessageBox.Show(Err.Description)

End Try

Do While oAdomdReader.Read()

BdSalesBacklog = oAdomdReader.GetDecimal(1)

Loop

oAdomdReader.Close()

oAdomdConnection.Close()

I called a developer friend of mine and he explained to me that SSAS requires the logged on user to have permissions in a Role in the AS database.

I created an AD group containing the users to whom I want to allow access, and I gave that group membership in a new AS Role. I assigned the role the permissions I wanted the users to have.

My application now works for all the users who need to run it.

Thanks

AdomdConnection permission problem

I am developing a Windows Form application. On one of the forms I display the results of a query to an Analysis Services database. I create the MDX command text by building a string.

Everything works, but users who do not have permission to access the database encounter and access error. I don't want to give all of the users permission to access the database. I want the application to use the credentials in the connection string. However, when I execute the AdomdCommand, it seems to be using the credentials of the logged on user instead of the "User ID" in the connection string.

How can I get the command to use the credentials in the connection string?

Dim cmdText As String = ""

Dim BdSalesBacklog As Decimal = 0

Dim oAdomdConnection As New AdomdConnection("Data Source=server;Catalog=PortalAnalytics;User ID=user;password=password")

Dim oAdomdCommand As AdomdCommand = New AdomdCommand()

Dim oAdomdReader As AdomdDataReader

Dim period As String = ddlPeriod.Items(0)

oAdomdCommand.CommandType = CommandType.Text

cmdText = "" & _

"SELECT " & _

"{ BNBTime.[" & period & "] } ON COLUMNS , " & _

"{ Measures.[Total Backlog Snapshot] } ON ROWS " & _

"FROM BNB "

oAdomdCommand.CommandText = cmdText

Try

oAdomdConnection.Open()

oAdomdCommand.Connection = oAdomdConnection

oAdomdReader = oAdomdCommand.ExecuteReader()

Catch ex As Exception

MessageBox.Show(Err.Description)

End Try

Do While oAdomdReader.Read()

BdSalesBacklog = oAdomdReader.GetDecimal(1)

Loop

oAdomdReader.Close()

oAdomdConnection.Close()

I called a developer friend of mine and he explained to me that SSAS requires the logged on user to have permissions in a Role in the AS database.

I created an AD group containing the users to whom I want to allow access, and I gave that group membership in a new AS Role. I assigned the role the permissions I wanted the users to have.

My application now works for all the users who need to run it.

Thanks

ADO Interop Using MDAC 2.8 On Vista

I am trying to load a project under VS2005 under Windows Vista that references an ADOX wrapper that is looking for version 2.8.0.0. The reference fails because the library is not registered.

I thought maybe installing MDAC 2.8 would solve my problems, but when I run the installer for that, it briefly puts up a dialog that it is extracting files, then it disappears.

Any ideas?

--Bruce

Hi Bruce,

Did you ever get this problem solved? I'm getting a similar problem on a Windows 2000 machine. Whenever we try to do ADOX Interop we get a "Library not registered" exception. We can't replicate this behaviour as it's on a client machine using Terminal Services.

Regards,

Brent

|||

Hi,

Just a note to all, registering the msadox.dll could solve the "Library not registered" problem when trying to use ADOX Interop.

regsvr32 "C:\Program Files\Common Files\System\ado\msadox.dll"

Hope this helps someone.

- Brent

|||

I have found that registering msadox does not help in this case because the msadox version that lives in vista is 6.0, whereas the latest version I have been able to find is 2.8. Does anyone know where the 6.0 version comes from?

Jeff

|||

I have found that MDAC has been replaced by WDAC as this article describes: http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms692897.aspx That is where the 6.0 version comes from. Now I just need to know how to get 2.8 on the system.

|||

Take a look at this link that talks about Redistributing MDAC 28 : http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms693148.aspx

Also can you add "Microsoft ActiveX Data Objects 2.8 Library", "Microsoft ADO Ext 6.0 for DDL and Security" to your project references and see if it helps?

msado28.tlb should be there in \Program Files\Common Files\System\ado location

Hope this helps

|||

Okay, so have any of the above lead to a solution? My problem is that I have this new development laptop with Vista. But my code needs to run on Server 2000/2003 and XP. So how do I get my project to build with a reference to ADOX 2.8 on Vista? Or, if I replace my ADOX 2.8 reference with one to ADOX 6.0, will I be able to install my project on an XP machine?

I'm posting this because I'm not sure if any of the above have actually fixed the problem. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Thanks.

Kenneth.

|||Could you try having your msadox.dll of the lowest version you want create .net metadata dll like:

tlbimp msadox.dll /out:ADOX28.dll

Then put this ADOX28.dll file on your development machine and add reference to it.|||

Okay, so that seems to get me to be able to build if I do this:

using ADOX = ADOX28;

But I don't think that'll help me deploy to XP right?

So I did this on an XP development machine with ADOX installed then moved the resultant output to my Vista development machine:

tlbimp ADOX.dll /namespace:ADOX /asmversion:2.8 /out:ADOX28.dll

So now I can simply do:

using ADOX;

Thanks.

Kenneth.

ADO Interop Using MDAC 2.8 On Vista

I am trying to load a project under VS2005 under Windows Vista that references an ADOX wrapper that is looking for version 2.8.0.0. The reference fails because the library is not registered.

I thought maybe installing MDAC 2.8 would solve my problems, but when I run the installer for that, it briefly puts up a dialog that it is extracting files, then it disappears.

Any ideas?

--Bruce

Hi Bruce,

Did you ever get this problem solved? I'm getting a similar problem on a Windows 2000 machine. Whenever we try to do ADOX Interop we get a "Library not registered" exception. We can't replicate this behaviour as it's on a client machine using Terminal Services.

Regards,

Brent

|||

Hi,

Just a note to all, registering the msadox.dll could solve the "Library not registered" problem when trying to use ADOX Interop.

regsvr32 "C:\Program Files\Common Files\System\ado\msadox.dll"

Hope this helps someone.

- Brent

|||

I have found that registering msadox does not help in this case because the msadox version that lives in vista is 6.0, whereas the latest version I have been able to find is 2.8. Does anyone know where the 6.0 version comes from?

Jeff

|||

I have found that MDAC has been replaced by WDAC as this article describes: http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms692897.aspx That is where the 6.0 version comes from. Now I just need to know how to get 2.8 on the system.

|||

Take a look at this link that talks about Redistributing MDAC 28 : http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms693148.aspx

Also can you add "Microsoft ActiveX Data Objects 2.8 Library", "Microsoft ADO Ext 6.0 for DDL and Security" to your project references and see if it helps?

msado28.tlb should be there in \Program Files\Common Files\System\ado location

Hope this helps

|||

Okay, so have any of the above lead to a solution? My problem is that I have this new development laptop with Vista. But my code needs to run on Server 2000/2003 and XP. So how do I get my project to build with a reference to ADOX 2.8 on Vista? Or, if I replace my ADOX 2.8 reference with one to ADOX 6.0, will I be able to install my project on an XP machine?

I'm posting this because I'm not sure if any of the above have actually fixed the problem. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Thanks.

Kenneth.

|||Could you try having your msadox.dll of the lowest version you want create .net metadata dll like:

tlbimp msadox.dll /out:ADOX28.dll

Then put this ADOX28.dll file on your development machine and add reference to it.|||

Okay, so that seems to get me to be able to build if I do this:

using ADOX = ADOX28;

But I don't think that'll help me deploy to XP right?

So I did this on an XP development machine with ADOX installed then moved the resultant output to my Vista development machine:

tlbimp ADOX.dll /namespace:ADOX /asmversion:2.8 /out:ADOX28.dll

So now I can simply do:

using ADOX;

Thanks.

Kenneth.

ADO Interop Using MDAC 2.8 On Vista

I am trying to load a project under VS2005 under Windows Vista that references an ADOX wrapper that is looking for version 2.8.0.0. The reference fails because the library is not registered.

I thought maybe installing MDAC 2.8 would solve my problems, but when I run the installer for that, it briefly puts up a dialog that it is extracting files, then it disappears.

Any ideas?

--Bruce

Hi Bruce,

Did you ever get this problem solved? I'm getting a similar problem on a Windows 2000 machine. Whenever we try to do ADOX Interop we get a "Library not registered" exception. We can't replicate this behaviour as it's on a client machine using Terminal Services.

Regards,

Brent

|||

Hi,

Just a note to all, registering the msadox.dll could solve the "Library not registered" problem when trying to use ADOX Interop.

regsvr32 "C:\Program Files\Common Files\System\ado\msadox.dll"

Hope this helps someone.

- Brent

|||

I have found that registering msadox does not help in this case because the msadox version that lives in vista is 6.0, whereas the latest version I have been able to find is 2.8. Does anyone know where the 6.0 version comes from?

Jeff

|||

I have found that MDAC has been replaced by WDAC as this article describes: http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms692897.aspx That is where the 6.0 version comes from. Now I just need to know how to get 2.8 on the system.

|||

Take a look at this link that talks about Redistributing MDAC 28 : http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms693148.aspx

Also can you add "Microsoft ActiveX Data Objects 2.8 Library", "Microsoft ADO Ext 6.0 for DDL and Security" to your project references and see if it helps?

msado28.tlb should be there in \Program Files\Common Files\System\ado location

Hope this helps

|||

Okay, so have any of the above lead to a solution? My problem is that I have this new development laptop with Vista. But my code needs to run on Server 2000/2003 and XP. So how do I get my project to build with a reference to ADOX 2.8 on Vista? Or, if I replace my ADOX 2.8 reference with one to ADOX 6.0, will I be able to install my project on an XP machine?

I'm posting this because I'm not sure if any of the above have actually fixed the problem. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Thanks.

Kenneth.

|||Could you try having your msadox.dll of the lowest version you want create .net metadata dll like:

tlbimp msadox.dll /out:ADOX28.dll

Then put this ADOX28.dll file on your development machine and add reference to it.|||

Okay, so that seems to get me to be able to build if I do this:

using ADOX = ADOX28;

But I don't think that'll help me deploy to XP right?

So I did this on an XP development machine with ADOX installed then moved the resultant output to my Vista development machine:

tlbimp ADOX.dll /namespace:ADOX /asmversion:2.8 /out:ADOX28.dll

So now I can simply do:

using ADOX;

Thanks.

Kenneth.

ADO Interop Using MDAC 2.8 On Vista

I am trying to load a project under VS2005 under Windows Vista that references an ADOX wrapper that is looking for version 2.8.0.0. The reference fails because the library is not registered.

I thought maybe installing MDAC 2.8 would solve my problems, but when I run the installer for that, it briefly puts up a dialog that it is extracting files, then it disappears.

Any ideas?

--Bruce

Hi Bruce,

Did you ever get this problem solved? I'm getting a similar problem on a Windows 2000 machine. Whenever we try to do ADOX Interop we get a "Library not registered" exception. We can't replicate this behaviour as it's on a client machine using Terminal Services.

Regards,

Brent

|||

Hi,

Just a note to all, registering the msadox.dll could solve the "Library not registered" problem when trying to use ADOX Interop.

regsvr32 "C:\Program Files\Common Files\System\ado\msadox.dll"

Hope this helps someone.

- Brent

|||

I have found that registering msadox does not help in this case because the msadox version that lives in vista is 6.0, whereas the latest version I have been able to find is 2.8. Does anyone know where the 6.0 version comes from?

Jeff

|||

I have found that MDAC has been replaced by WDAC as this article describes: http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms692897.aspx That is where the 6.0 version comes from. Now I just need to know how to get 2.8 on the system.

|||

Take a look at this link that talks about Redistributing MDAC 28 : http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms693148.aspx

Also can you add "Microsoft ActiveX Data Objects 2.8 Library", "Microsoft ADO Ext 6.0 for DDL and Security" to your project references and see if it helps?

msado28.tlb should be there in \Program Files\Common Files\System\ado location

Hope this helps

|||

Okay, so have any of the above lead to a solution? My problem is that I have this new development laptop with Vista. But my code needs to run on Server 2000/2003 and XP. So how do I get my project to build with a reference to ADOX 2.8 on Vista? Or, if I replace my ADOX 2.8 reference with one to ADOX 6.0, will I be able to install my project on an XP machine?

I'm posting this because I'm not sure if any of the above have actually fixed the problem. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Thanks.

Kenneth.

|||Could you try having your msadox.dll of the lowest version you want create .net metadata dll like:

tlbimp msadox.dll /out:ADOX28.dll

Then put this ADOX28.dll file on your development machine and add reference to it.|||

Okay, so that seems to get me to be able to build if I do this:

using ADOX = ADOX28;

But I don't think that'll help me deploy to XP right?

So I did this on an XP development machine with ADOX installed then moved the resultant output to my Vista development machine:

tlbimp ADOX.dll /namespace:ADOX /asmversion:2.8 /out:ADOX28.dll

So now I can simply do:

using ADOX;

Thanks.

Kenneth.

ADO Interop Access under Vista

I am trying to load a

project under VS2005 under Windows Vista that references an ADOX

wrapper that is looking for version 2.8.0.0. The reference fails

because the library is not registered.

I thought maybe

installing MDAC 2.8 would solve my problems, but when I run the

installer for that, it briefly puts up a dialog that it is extracting

files, then it disappears.

Anyone have any ideas?

--Bruce
Hi,

I would suggest that you look under "Deployment Projects" on MSDN

Here you can choose "Prerequisites" for you application which get installed through an installer.

I had a quick look but as I dont know what language you are using I can only suggest the above.

Regards,
Pace
|||This is not a deployment issue, this is a build issue.

This is an existing C# solution that I am trying to build under VS2005 under Windows Vista. One of the projects references a .NET wrapper around ADOX. When the project loads in VS2005, I get the warning sign over the reference indicating it can't resolve the reference, and I get 'type not registered' errors.

This is a fresh install of Vista RTM and Visual Studio. The project existed before and builds fine under Windows XP.

The properties on the reference refer to v2.8.0.0. Perhaps Vista doesn't have/support this version of MDAC?

When I try to install v2.8 of MDAC under Vista, the installer starts but then abruptly aborts.|||

I actually came across the exact same problem last night with a project that I started in XP and then tried to open in Vista.

I suspect that you are right -- ADOX exists on Vista, but it is version 6.0.6000.16386. I would try removing the reference to ADOX and then adding it back in again with the 6.00 version and see if that solves your problem.

Also, you MIGHT be able to take the 2.8 version from XP -- C:\Program Files\Common Files\System\ado [I believe it is msadox.dll] and copy it to Vista and register it? I haven't tried that so I don't know if it will/won't work.

I'm going to do some additional work on this tonight to see if I can come up with a solution; if you find something, please post!

ADO 2.8 Is there any limitation on number of columns?

Hi,

I'm using ADO 2.8 in a vb.net code. The .Net framework version is 1.1 and windows server 2003.

I'm firing a query that result in 256 columns and few hundred rows. Here is the snapshot of the code

adoRs = New ADODB.Recordset

With adoRs

.CursorLocation = CursorLocationEnum.adUseClient ' adUseClient

.ActiveConnection = adoCn

.CursorType = CursorTypeEnum.adOpenStatic ' adOpenStatic

.LockType = LockTypeEnum.adLockBatchOptimistic ' adLockBatchOptimistic

.Open(strSQL)

End With

The returned record set is empty with all the the 256 columns name. Could anyone shed light why it is returning empty recordset. Is there any limitation on number of columns that a recordset can hold.

Thanks in advance.

With regards

Ganesh

Is it possible for you to try limiting the number of columns?
If it is, you could easily experiment and see whether adding additional columns to the resultset makes it to be empty or not.|||

It doesn't seem like you have a limitation on the number of columns because you do get all the columns back, just the entire recordset is empty. It could mean that the query doesn't return any results. Could you run your query in management studio to verify that it actually returns some rows that you are missing via ADO. If so, please include the query and we would be able to assist you further.

HTH,

|||

The Query return few hundred rows. I have checked that and there is nothing wrong with the query. In .Net 2.0 it returns some data in the recordset and it behaves abnormally.But our present environment is 1.1

With regards

Ganesh

ADO 2.8 Is there any limitation on number of columns?

Hi,

I'm using ADO 2.8 in a vb.net code. The .Net framework version is 1.1 and windows server 2003.

I'm firing a query that result in 256 columns and few hundred rows. Here is the snapshot of the code

adoRs = New ADODB.Recordset

With adoRs

.CursorLocation = CursorLocationEnum.adUseClient ' adUseClient

.ActiveConnection = adoCn

.CursorType = CursorTypeEnum.adOpenStatic ' adOpenStatic

.LockType = LockTypeEnum.adLockBatchOptimistic ' adLockBatchOptimistic

.Open(strSQL)

End With

The returned record set is empty with all the the 256 columns name. Could anyone shed light why it is returning empty recordset. Is there any limitation on number of columns that a recordset can hold.

Thanks in advance.

With regards

Ganesh

Is it possible for you to try limiting the number of columns?
If it is, you could easily experiment and see whether adding additional columns to the resultset makes it to be empty or not.|||

It doesn't seem like you have a limitation on the number of columns because you do get all the columns back, just the entire recordset is empty. It could mean that the query doesn't return any results. Could you run your query in management studio to verify that it actually returns some rows that you are missing via ADO. If so, please include the query and we would be able to assist you further.

HTH,

|||

The Query return few hundred rows. I have checked that and there is nothing wrong with the query. In .Net 2.0 it returns some data in the recordset and it behaves abnormally.But our present environment is 1.1

With regards

Ganesh

Administrator logon rejected with ODBC Drivers error '80040e4d'

I'm running SQL Server 2000 under Windows 2000 Advanced Server.
Authentication is set up as Windows Only. The Administrator account for the
server is set up as an SQL user (this is done by default). I'm using the
following ASP code to log onto a sample database (for which the
Administrator has been granted access):
strConnectionString = "Provider=MSDASQL;DRIVER={SQL Server};" +_
"Server=localhost;database=" + strDBaseName +
";UID=MACHINENAME\Administrator;PWD=password;"
However, I get the following error:
Microsoft OLE DB Provider for ODBC Drivers error '80040e4d'
[Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][SQL Server]Login failed for user
'MACHINENAME\Administrator'. Reason: Not associated with a trusted SQL
Server connection.
I get the same error even if I use Administrator without MACHINENAME. I
even enabled Basic Authentication on the default website, as Microsoft
suggested.
Any ideas why the Administrator is being rejected?
Thanks,
Lisa
Lisa wrote:
> I'm running SQL Server 2000 under Windows 2000 Advanced Server.
> Authentication is set up as Windows Only. The Administrator account
> for the server is set up as an SQL user (this is done by default).
> I'm using the following ASP code to log onto a sample database (for
> which the Administrator has been granted access):
> strConnectionString = "Provider=MSDASQL;DRIVER={SQL Server};" +_
> "Server=localhost;database=" + strDBaseName +
> ";UID=MACHINENAME\Administrator;PWD=password;"
> However, I get the following error:
> Microsoft OLE DB Provider for ODBC Drivers error '80040e4d'
> [Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][SQL Server]Login failed for user
> 'MACHINENAME\Administrator'. Reason: Not associated with a trusted SQL
> Server connection.
> I get the same error even if I use Administrator without MACHINENAME.
> I even enabled Basic Authentication on the default website, as
> Microsoft suggested.
> Any ideas why the Administrator is being rejected?
> Thanks,
> Lisa
You don't want to do it that way. UserID and Password are only for SQL
Authentication, not Windows Authentication. It looks like your IIS
server is running on the same box as SQL Server (not a great idea for
anything but an internal site). If that's the case, you only need to
specify in the connection string that you are using an Trusted
Connection. No password is required.
Add "TrustedConnection=Yes" to the connection string. It automatically
uses the current connection to Windows to authenticate.
David Gugick
Imceda Software
www.imceda.com

Administrator logon rejected with ODBC Drivers error '80040e4d'

I'm running SQL Server 2000 under Windows 2000 Advanced Server.
Authentication is set up as Windows Only. The Administrator account for the
server is set up as an SQL user (this is done by default). I'm using the
following ASP code to log onto a sample database (for which the
Administrator has been granted access):
strConnectionString = "Provider=MSDASQL;DRIVER={SQL Server};" +_
"Server=localhost;database=" + strDBaseName +
";UID=MACHINENAME\Administrator;PWD=password;"
However, I get the following error:
Microsoft OLE DB Provider for ODBC Drivers error '80040e4d'
[Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][SQL Server]Login failed for user
'MACHINENAME\Administrator'. Reason: Not associated with a trusted SQL
Server connection.
I get the same error even if I use Administrator without MACHINENAME. I
even enabled Basic Authentication on the default website, as Microsoft
suggested.
Any ideas why the Administrator is being rejected?
Thanks,
Lisa
Lisa wrote:
> I'm running SQL Server 2000 under Windows 2000 Advanced Server.
> Authentication is set up as Windows Only. The Administrator account
> for the server is set up as an SQL user (this is done by default).
> I'm using the following ASP code to log onto a sample database (for
> which the Administrator has been granted access):
> strConnectionString = "Provider=MSDASQL;DRIVER={SQL Server};" +_
> "Server=localhost;database=" + strDBaseName +
> ";UID=MACHINENAME\Administrator;PWD=password;"
> However, I get the following error:
> Microsoft OLE DB Provider for ODBC Drivers error '80040e4d'
> [Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][SQL Server]Login failed for user
> 'MACHINENAME\Administrator'. Reason: Not associated with a trusted SQL
> Server connection.
> I get the same error even if I use Administrator without MACHINENAME.
> I even enabled Basic Authentication on the default website, as
> Microsoft suggested.
> Any ideas why the Administrator is being rejected?
> Thanks,
> Lisa
You don't want to do it that way. UserID and Password are only for SQL
Authentication, not Windows Authentication. It looks like your IIS
server is running on the same box as SQL Server (not a great idea for
anything but an internal site). If that's the case, you only need to
specify in the connection string that you are using an Trusted
Connection. No password is required.
Add "TrustedConnection=Yes" to the connection string. It automatically
uses the current connection to Windows to authenticate.
David Gugick
Imceda Software
www.imceda.com

Administrator logon rejected with ODBC Drivers error '80040e4d'

I'm running SQL Server 2000 under Windows 2000 Advanced Server.
Authentication is set up as Windows Only. The Administrator account for the
server is set up as an SQL user (this is done by default). I'm using the
following ASP code to log onto a sample database (for which the
Administrator has been granted access):
strConnectionString = "Provider=MSDASQL;DRIVER={SQL Server};" +_
"Server=localhost;database=" + strDBaseName +
";UID=MACHINENAME\Administrator;PWD=password;"
However, I get the following error:
Microsoft OLE DB Provider for ODBC Drivers error '80040e4d'
[Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][SQL Server]Login failed for user
'MACHINENAME\Administrator'. Reason: Not associated with a trusted SQL
Server connection.
I get the same error even if I use Administrator without MACHINENAME. I
even enabled Basic Authentication on the default website, as Microsoft
suggested.
Any ideas why the Administrator is being rejected?
Thanks,
Lisa
Lisa wrote:
> I'm running SQL Server 2000 under Windows 2000 Advanced Server.
> Authentication is set up as Windows Only. The Administrator account
> for the server is set up as an SQL user (this is done by default).
> I'm using the following ASP code to log onto a sample database (for
> which the Administrator has been granted access):
> strConnectionString = "Provider=MSDASQL;DRIVER={SQL Server};" +_
> "Server=localhost;database=" + strDBaseName +
> ";UID=MACHINENAME\Administrator;PWD=password;"
> However, I get the following error:
> Microsoft OLE DB Provider for ODBC Drivers error '80040e4d'
> [Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][SQL Server]Login failed for user
> 'MACHINENAME\Administrator'. Reason: Not associated with a trusted SQL
> Server connection.
> I get the same error even if I use Administrator without MACHINENAME.
> I even enabled Basic Authentication on the default website, as
> Microsoft suggested.
> Any ideas why the Administrator is being rejected?
> Thanks,
> Lisa
You don't want to do it that way. UserID and Password are only for SQL
Authentication, not Windows Authentication. It looks like your IIS
server is running on the same box as SQL Server (not a great idea for
anything but an internal site). If that's the case, you only need to
specify in the connection string that you are using an Trusted
Connection. No password is required.
Add "TrustedConnection=Yes" to the connection string. It automatically
uses the current connection to Windows to authenticate.
David Gugick
Imceda Software
www.imceda.com

Administrator logon rejected with ODBC Drivers error '80040e4d'

I'm running SQL Server 2000 under Windows 2000 Advanced Server.
Authentication is set up as Windows Only. The Administrator account for the
server is set up as an SQL user (this is done by default). I'm using the
following ASP code to log onto a sample database (for which the
Administrator has been granted access):
strConnectionString = "Provider=MSDASQL;DRIVER={SQL Server};" +_
"Server=localhost;database=" + strDBaseName +
" ;UID=MACHINENAME\Administrator;PWD=passw
ord;"
However, I get the following error:
Microsoft OLE DB Provider for ODBC Drivers error '80040e4d'
[Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][SQL Server]Login failed for
user
'MACHINENAME\Administrator'. Reason: Not associated with a trusted SQL
Server connection.
I get the same error even if I use Administrator without MACHINENAME. I
even enabled Basic Authentication on the default website, as Microsoft
suggested.
Any ideas why the Administrator is being rejected?
Thanks,
LisaLisa wrote:
> I'm running SQL Server 2000 under Windows 2000 Advanced Server.
> Authentication is set up as Windows Only. The Administrator account
> for the server is set up as an SQL user (this is done by default).
> I'm using the following ASP code to log onto a sample database (for
> which the Administrator has been granted access):
> strConnectionString = "Provider=MSDASQL;DRIVER={SQL Server};" +_
> "Server=localhost;database=" + strDBaseName +
> " ;UID=MACHINENAME\Administrator;PWD=passw
ord;"
> However, I get the following error:
> Microsoft OLE DB Provider for ODBC Drivers error '80040e4d'
> [Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][SQL Server]Login failed fo
r user
> 'MACHINENAME\Administrator'. Reason: Not associated with a trusted SQL
> Server connection.
> I get the same error even if I use Administrator without MACHINENAME.
> I even enabled Basic Authentication on the default website, as
> Microsoft suggested.
> Any ideas why the Administrator is being rejected?
> Thanks,
> Lisa
You don't want to do it that way. UserID and Password are only for SQL
Authentication, not Windows Authentication. It looks like your IIS
server is running on the same box as SQL Server (not a great idea for
anything but an internal site). If that's the case, you only need to
specify in the connection string that you are using an Trusted
Connection. No password is required.
Add "TrustedConnection=Yes" to the connection string. It automatically
uses the current connection to Windows to authenticate.
David Gugick
Imceda Software
www.imceda.com

Administrating content with integrated security?

I have a two tier application with a .net client that access data from a SQL
Server. Depending on what windows user group the user belong to I want them
to get different data. The solution I would like to have is one where a could
change only in the database and nothing in the client and still get different
users to get different data.
There is only one table that should differ for different the users. One
solution would therefore be to overload the table, i.e. create one table for
each user all with the same name but with different owners. Because the
client doesn't explicitly state the owner of the object it would get the
table owned by the user running the client.
This solution would lead to far to many identical copies of the table and
for each new user at the company you would have to create a new table on the
server. A better solution would be if it were possible to connect tables to
server roles and if the client would get access the table that is connected
to the server role that the user belongs to. To me, it seems this solution is
not possible because SQL Server will identify the table with the user and
never try with the role.
Regards,
Joeluse a trigger or a view on the table to match the user with a column to
select only the rows that pertain to them (current_user)
"Joel" <Joel@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:64B7A8C1-FF4A-4CF4-B3B7-8BE713D61E68@.microsoft.com...
>I have a two tier application with a .net client that access data from a
>SQL
> Server. Depending on what windows user group the user belong to I want
> them
> to get different data. The solution I would like to have is one where a
> could
> change only in the database and nothing in the client and still get
> different
> users to get different data.
> There is only one table that should differ for different the users. One
> solution would therefore be to overload the table, i.e. create one table
> for
> each user all with the same name but with different owners. Because the
> client doesn't explicitly state the owner of the object it would get the
> table owned by the user running the client.
> This solution would lead to far to many identical copies of the table and
> for each new user at the company you would have to create a new table on
> the
> server. A better solution would be if it were possible to connect tables
> to
> server roles and if the client would get access the table that is
> connected
> to the server role that the user belongs to. To me, it seems this solution
> is
> not possible because SQL Server will identify the table with the user and
> never try with the role.
> Regards,
> Joel

admin realted questions

Hi

Few questions more newbie kind of things hope you can help out:

1- SQL 2000 on Windows 2000 ( and XP ), how can I utilize performance
monitoring tools on a daily basis to detect workload, usage and keep
it in a text file as a base line. What are thye most important parms
to set? Is perf monitor is part of SQL server or part of win2k or both
exacyly same?

2- Current activity in EM, has process info, locks/P ID and lock
Object. When these things can be really useful? Do I have to watch
them manually or is the a way to set it up? Is scripts do the better
job?

3- how can I see how much physical mem sql server used? how is the
process and memeory utilization? Can I set alarm if it goes very up I
get inform. How

4- Some basic scripts but important for daily DB check?

Thankssoalvajavab1@.yahoo.com (David McGeorge) wrote in message news:<bc907f76.0407271400.4e764384@.posting.google.com>...
> Hi
> Few questions more newbie kind of things hope you can help out:
> 1- SQL 2000 on Windows 2000 ( and XP ), how can I utilize performance
> monitoring tools on a daily basis to detect workload, usage and keep
> it in a text file as a base line. What are thye most important parms
> to set? Is perf monitor is part of SQL server or part of win2k or both
> exacyly same?

Performance monitor is an operating system tool, and it has numerous
counters for monitoring MSSQL. Check out "Monitoring Server
Performance and Activity" in Books Online for information about it,
and other tools such as Profiler. You might also find this helpful:

http://www.sql-server-performance.com/q&a84.asp

>
> 2- Current activity in EM, has process info, locks/P ID and lock
> Object. When these things can be really useful? Do I have to watch
> them manually or is the a way to set it up? Is scripts do the better
> job?

When one process is blocking another, you can use this information to
see what's going on, although personally I prefer sp_who2 for that
purpose.

>
> 3- how can I see how much physical mem sql server used? how is the
> process and memeory utilization? Can I set alarm if it goes very up I
> get inform. How

Performance Monitor can tell you the memory used by any process,
including MSSQL, and you can set alerts based on a threshold, either
from Perfmon itself or from the SQL Server Agent alerts dialogue. Note
that MSSQL will take all the memory on the server by default (unless
you configure it not to) - this is not a bad thing, unless you have
other applications running on the same server.

> 4- Some basic scripts but important for daily DB check?

Probably the easiest way to get going quickly is to create a
maintenance plan in Enterprise Manager. The plan can backup your
databases and/or perform integrity checks on them.

Simon