Hello,
We do loshipping between two servers. Our database in primary server
grew, so we had to add a datafile to the primary database. However, we missed
a point. The directory, in which we created a datafile at primary site does
not exist
in the standby site. As another saying, we forgot to create the directory at
standby
site before adding the datafile to primary site. Now, the standby database
is in suspect mode, and we can not do anything. We tried sp_resetstatus,
creating the directory, and recovering the database again but nothing
changes, however the database becomes suspect again immediately, when we try
to restore the log. Please help.......
Erdinc,
Do a full backup on the primary server and restore that over your DR.
Make sure your path names are the same. Then continue as normal.
Mark Allison, SQL Server MVP
http://www.markallison.co.uk
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Erdinc the logshipping man wrote:
> Hello,
> We do loshipping between two servers. Our database in primary server
> grew, so we had to add a datafile to the primary database. However, we missed
> a point. The directory, in which we created a datafile at primary site does
> not exist
> in the standby site. As another saying, we forgot to create the directory at
> standby
> site before adding the datafile to primary site. Now, the standby database
> is in suspect mode, and we can not do anything. We tried sp_resetstatus,
> creating the directory, and recovering the database again but nothing
> changes, however the database becomes suspect again immediately, when we try
> to restore the log. Please help.......
Showing posts with label servers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label servers. Show all posts
Sunday, March 25, 2012
Database became suspect while logshipping and adding a datafile
Hello,
We do loshipping between two servers. Our database in primary server
grew, so we had to add a datafile to the primary database. However, we missed
a point. The directory, in which we created a datafile at primary site does
not exist
in the standby site. As another saying, we forgot to create the directory at
standby
site before adding the datafile to primary site. Now, the standby database
is in suspect mode, and we can not do anything. We tried sp_resetstatus,
creating the directory, and recovering the database again but nothing
changes, however the database becomes suspect again immediately, when we try
to restore the log. Please help.......Erdinc,
Do a full backup on the primary server and restore that over your DR.
Make sure your path names are the same. Then continue as normal.
--
Mark Allison, SQL Server MVP
http://www.markallison.co.uk
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Erdinc the logshipping man wrote:
> Hello,
> We do loshipping between two servers. Our database in primary server
> grew, so we had to add a datafile to the primary database. However, we missed
> a point. The directory, in which we created a datafile at primary site does
> not exist
> in the standby site. As another saying, we forgot to create the directory at
> standby
> site before adding the datafile to primary site. Now, the standby database
> is in suspect mode, and we can not do anything. We tried sp_resetstatus,
> creating the directory, and recovering the database again but nothing
> changes, however the database becomes suspect again immediately, when we try
> to restore the log. Please help.......|||Thanks for your help. Is not there a way of saving the database before making
a full
restore?
"Mark Allison" wrote:
> Erdinc,
> Do a full backup on the primary server and restore that over your DR.
> Make sure your path names are the same. Then continue as normal.
> --
> Mark Allison, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.markallison.co.uk
> Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
>
> Erdinc the logshipping man wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > We do loshipping between two servers. Our database in primary server
> > grew, so we had to add a datafile to the primary database. However, we missed
> > a point. The directory, in which we created a datafile at primary site does
> > not exist
> > in the standby site. As another saying, we forgot to create the directory at
> > standby
> > site before adding the datafile to primary site. Now, the standby database
> > is in suspect mode, and we can not do anything. We tried sp_resetstatus,
> > creating the directory, and recovering the database again but nothing
> > changes, however the database becomes suspect again immediately, when we try
> > to restore the log. Please help.......
>
We do loshipping between two servers. Our database in primary server
grew, so we had to add a datafile to the primary database. However, we missed
a point. The directory, in which we created a datafile at primary site does
not exist
in the standby site. As another saying, we forgot to create the directory at
standby
site before adding the datafile to primary site. Now, the standby database
is in suspect mode, and we can not do anything. We tried sp_resetstatus,
creating the directory, and recovering the database again but nothing
changes, however the database becomes suspect again immediately, when we try
to restore the log. Please help.......Erdinc,
Do a full backup on the primary server and restore that over your DR.
Make sure your path names are the same. Then continue as normal.
--
Mark Allison, SQL Server MVP
http://www.markallison.co.uk
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Erdinc the logshipping man wrote:
> Hello,
> We do loshipping between two servers. Our database in primary server
> grew, so we had to add a datafile to the primary database. However, we missed
> a point. The directory, in which we created a datafile at primary site does
> not exist
> in the standby site. As another saying, we forgot to create the directory at
> standby
> site before adding the datafile to primary site. Now, the standby database
> is in suspect mode, and we can not do anything. We tried sp_resetstatus,
> creating the directory, and recovering the database again but nothing
> changes, however the database becomes suspect again immediately, when we try
> to restore the log. Please help.......|||Thanks for your help. Is not there a way of saving the database before making
a full
restore?
"Mark Allison" wrote:
> Erdinc,
> Do a full backup on the primary server and restore that over your DR.
> Make sure your path names are the same. Then continue as normal.
> --
> Mark Allison, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.markallison.co.uk
> Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
>
> Erdinc the logshipping man wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > We do loshipping between two servers. Our database in primary server
> > grew, so we had to add a datafile to the primary database. However, we missed
> > a point. The directory, in which we created a datafile at primary site does
> > not exist
> > in the standby site. As another saying, we forgot to create the directory at
> > standby
> > site before adding the datafile to primary site. Now, the standby database
> > is in suspect mode, and we can not do anything. We tried sp_resetstatus,
> > creating the directory, and recovering the database again but nothing
> > changes, however the database becomes suspect again immediately, when we try
> > to restore the log. Please help.......
>
Database became suspect while logshipping and adding a datafile
Hello,
We do loshipping between two servers. Our database in primary server
grew, so we had to add a datafile to the primary database. However, we misse
d
a point. The directory, in which we created a datafile at primary site does
not exist
in the standby site. As another saying, we forgot to create the directory at
standby
site before adding the datafile to primary site. Now, the standby database
is in suspect mode, and we can not do anything. We tried sp_resetstatus,
creating the directory, and recovering the database again but nothing
changes, however the database becomes suspect again immediately, when we try
to restore the log. Please help.......Erdinc,
Do a full backup on the primary server and restore that over your DR.
Make sure your path names are the same. Then continue as normal.
--
Mark Allison, SQL Server MVP
http://www.markallison.co.uk
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Erdinc the logshipping man wrote:
> Hello,
> We do loshipping between two servers. Our database in primary server
> grew, so we had to add a datafile to the primary database. However, we mis
sed
> a point. The directory, in which we created a datafile at primary site do
es
> not exist
> in the standby site. As another saying, we forgot to create the directory
at
> standby
> site before adding the datafile to primary site. Now, the standby database
> is in suspect mode, and we can not do anything. We tried sp_resetstatus,
> creating the directory, and recovering the database again but nothing
> changes, however the database becomes suspect again immediately, when we t
ry
> to restore the log. Please help.......
We do loshipping between two servers. Our database in primary server
grew, so we had to add a datafile to the primary database. However, we misse
d
a point. The directory, in which we created a datafile at primary site does
not exist
in the standby site. As another saying, we forgot to create the directory at
standby
site before adding the datafile to primary site. Now, the standby database
is in suspect mode, and we can not do anything. We tried sp_resetstatus,
creating the directory, and recovering the database again but nothing
changes, however the database becomes suspect again immediately, when we try
to restore the log. Please help.......Erdinc,
Do a full backup on the primary server and restore that over your DR.
Make sure your path names are the same. Then continue as normal.
--
Mark Allison, SQL Server MVP
http://www.markallison.co.uk
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Erdinc the logshipping man wrote:
> Hello,
> We do loshipping between two servers. Our database in primary server
> grew, so we had to add a datafile to the primary database. However, we mis
sed
> a point. The directory, in which we created a datafile at primary site do
es
> not exist
> in the standby site. As another saying, we forgot to create the directory
at
> standby
> site before adding the datafile to primary site. Now, the standby database
> is in suspect mode, and we can not do anything. We tried sp_resetstatus,
> creating the directory, and recovering the database again but nothing
> changes, however the database becomes suspect again immediately, when we t
ry
> to restore the log. Please help.......
Database backups growing exponentially
Hi All.
I'm currently maintaining 4 servers - 1 for public/customers and 3
for backups, development, etc...
I regularly backup the entire SQL database for our public server and
restore it on each of the other servers. Lately, however, the database
backups have grown (in size) incredibly fast - they've gone from about
200MB to 2+ GB in 2 months. (I wasn't entirely surprised by this at
first since our client traffic has drastically increased as well.) The
weird thing, though, is that (on two of the backup servers) when I
restore the backup then use those servers to create a new complete
backup, the new backup is only about 200-300 MB in size.
My assumption is that there's some kind of setting buried deep inside
the sql configuration allowing it to compress or otherwise alter
backups. Does anyone have any ideas/thoughts as to what may be causing
this issue?
We're using SQL Server 7 on Windows 2000 servers.
Thanks in advance.
Gregg
GArpin@.nospam.plan3D.comHi
You are probably appending multiple backups to the same device. The INIT
keyword indicates the backup will overwrite existing backups the NOINIT
keyword indicates that the backup will be appended. See Books online for
more details.
John
<greggarpin@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1112031032.928818.223430@.z14g2000cwz.googlegr oups.com...
> Hi All.
> I'm currently maintaining 4 servers - 1 for public/customers and 3
> for backups, development, etc...
> I regularly backup the entire SQL database for our public server and
> restore it on each of the other servers. Lately, however, the database
> backups have grown (in size) incredibly fast - they've gone from about
> 200MB to 2+ GB in 2 months. (I wasn't entirely surprised by this at
> first since our client traffic has drastically increased as well.) The
> weird thing, though, is that (on two of the backup servers) when I
> restore the backup then use those servers to create a new complete
> backup, the new backup is only about 200-300 MB in size.
> My assumption is that there's some kind of setting buried deep inside
> the sql configuration allowing it to compress or otherwise alter
> backups. Does anyone have any ideas/thoughts as to what may be causing
> this issue?
> We're using SQL Server 7 on Windows 2000 servers.
> Thanks in advance.
> Gregg
> GArpin@.nospam.plan3D.com|||My thoughts too!
Not sure if you're doing the backup via a batch process or the GUI.
I'm going to describe the GUI interface, since that also includes a
scheduler attribute that you may be using.
At the bottom of the "SQLServer Backup" panel, there's a section
called "Overwrite" -- set it to "Overwrite existing media" and
perform a backup.
Item to think about: it also sounds as though you're doing a complete
backup of the database each time. If you wish to retain the historical
sequence of records being added, changed and deleted; you'll need to
select "differential backup" or "transaction log", depending upon your
requirements.
The decision as to which method of backups to use depends upon the
volatility of the data and how important the historical "log" is
versus snap-shots.
Have you also thought of replication to shift the data between the
servers? You are obviously doing a one-way star arrangement (central
master and remote copies, no changes coming back) and replication is a
perfect solution to your needs.sql
Database Backups & Restores: an in-depth knowledge required
I have two servers.
Server A:
Dual 2.8 Xeon Processor
4 GB RAM
SQL Server 2000 Enterprise
Server B
Single 3.0 Xeon Processor
2.5 GB RAM
SQL Server 2000 Standard
I have an identical database on both. The backup file is 1.22 GB, the data
file is 1.44 GB and the log file is 504 KB.
When I restore these databases, the restore on server A takes 2.58 minutes,
but on server B it takes 6.48 minutes (over twice as long).
Similar discrepancies are found when I backup these databases.
I don't understand why!
Studying task manager shows that the CPU usage is minimal and the amount of
memory used is minimal, presumably ruling out the speed of the processors
and the amount of RAM available. If I had multiple data devices then I
could see the Enterprise version being quicker because it could create more
threads for parallel processing, but I don't so this should rule out the
Enterprise/Standard differences. Oh and both servers run on multiple
spindle, fast RAID5+1 disks, and these are identical.
So...what is occurring that actually takes the ~ 3 minutes or ~ 7 minutes?
Many thanks
Griff
What are the server manufacturer and model numbers? What are the FSB
speeds? What are the I/O controller speeds? What is the System:Worker
Queue counter throughput? What are the Physical/Logical disk counter
throughput?
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"Griff" <Howling@.The.Moon> wrote in message
news:%23wUo43l8EHA.1564@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
I have two servers.
Server A:
Dual 2.8 Xeon Processor
4 GB RAM
SQL Server 2000 Enterprise
Server B
Single 3.0 Xeon Processor
2.5 GB RAM
SQL Server 2000 Standard
I have an identical database on both. The backup file is 1.22 GB, the data
file is 1.44 GB and the log file is 504 KB.
When I restore these databases, the restore on server A takes 2.58 minutes,
but on server B it takes 6.48 minutes (over twice as long).
Similar discrepancies are found when I backup these databases.
I don't understand why!
Studying task manager shows that the CPU usage is minimal and the amount of
memory used is minimal, presumably ruling out the speed of the processors
and the amount of RAM available. If I had multiple data devices then I
could see the Enterprise version being quicker because it could create more
threads for parallel processing, but I don't so this should rule out the
Enterprise/Standard differences. Oh and both servers run on multiple
spindle, fast RAID5+1 disks, and these are identical.
So...what is occurring that actually takes the ~ 3 minutes or ~ 7 minutes?
Many thanks
Griff
|||
> What are the server manufacturer and model numbers? What are the FSB
> speeds? What are the I/O controller speeds? What is the System:Worker
> Queue counter throughput? What are the Physical/Logical disk counter
> throughput?
Gosh !
Not sure I can provide these answers. I know that they're both using RAID
5+1 10,000 RMP disks with independent raid controllers. The only
significant difference between the two could be the FSB (one is 800, other
is likely to be 533, but not sure how to identify this).
Whilst I could spend time providing these statistics, I may be more
profitable if I could identify what the real bottle-necks really are (if all
the ones you've mentioned, then in which order) and would they account for a
doubling of time?
Thanks
Griff
|||Well perhaps it's your specs
btw u can run CPUZ to identify bus speeds etc.
If the machines have same quality of equipment and are configured similarly
then I would suggest your ram and dual CPU vs single CPU
If you run the profiler on them as they are backing perhaps you will see
something like mem utilisation etc.
Another thought is how much are the files fragmented the dbs arent huge but
there may be a degree of fragmentation on the file system which slows things
down.
Also how are you restoring from Server A to Server B?
"Griff" <Howling@.The.Moon> wrote in message
news:%23wUo43l8EHA.1564@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> I have two servers.
> Server A:
> Dual 2.8 Xeon Processor
> 4 GB RAM
> SQL Server 2000 Enterprise
> Server B
> Single 3.0 Xeon Processor
> 2.5 GB RAM
> SQL Server 2000 Standard
> I have an identical database on both. The backup file is 1.22 GB, the
data
> file is 1.44 GB and the log file is 504 KB.
> When I restore these databases, the restore on server A takes 2.58
minutes,
> but on server B it takes 6.48 minutes (over twice as long).
> Similar discrepancies are found when I backup these databases.
> I don't understand why!
> Studying task manager shows that the CPU usage is minimal and the amount
of
> memory used is minimal, presumably ruling out the speed of the processors
> and the amount of RAM available. If I had multiple data devices then I
> could see the Enterprise version being quicker because it could create
more
> threads for parallel processing, but I don't so this should rule out the
> Enterprise/Standard differences. Oh and both servers run on multiple
> spindle, fast RAID5+1 disks, and these are identical.
> So...what is occurring that actually takes the ~ 3 minutes or ~ 7
minutes?
> Many thanks
> Griff
>
>
|||Well, you asked for possibilities, these are only a few, and they were
static, physical configuration differences. Then you have the runtime
environment differences.
I guess my point is that you are trying to compare apples to oranges. If
you run the backups several times in a row, over and over, on both boxes,
and then average out the times, do you then still see the same magnitude of
difference?
I would be concerned if you were running two identical servers with the
identical work load, but, in this case, you are running under very different
circumstances and it is these differences that will add up to what you are
experiencing.
Howerver, I suspect that the larger server has more robust subsystem
components. CPU speed is only one criterion you look at one analyzing a
server's performance. Moreover, what is the memory bus speed and flavor of
memory? DDR at 2800 or higher vs. only a PC 233. Obviously, they are
probably very similar, but I hope you get my point.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"Griff" <Howling@.The.Moon> wrote in message
news:O$1a2Xm8EHA.3236@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> What are the server manufacturer and model numbers? What are the FSB
> speeds? What are the I/O controller speeds? What is the System:Worker
> Queue counter throughput? What are the Physical/Logical disk counter
> throughput?
Gosh !
Not sure I can provide these answers. I know that they're both using RAID
5+1 10,000 RMP disks with independent raid controllers. The only
significant difference between the two could be the FSB (one is 800, other
is likely to be 533, but not sure how to identify this).
Whilst I could spend time providing these statistics, I may be more
profitable if I could identify what the real bottle-necks really are (if all
the ones you've mentioned, then in which order) and would they account for a
doubling of time?
Thanks
Griff
|||Got the latest version of CPU-Z
The slow machine...it won't report the BUS speeds (in fact, it reports very
little).
As for how I restore...I just use Enterprise Manager and do it from there.
Griff
|||Griff,
What I was referring to was where is the backup device you're restoring
from?
If one is local (ie on disk) and the other is over the network then you will
see slower restores.
TBH I suspect the single CPU job is not upto the same performance and you
are realising this in what you're doing.
evan
"Griff" <Howling@.The.Moon> wrote in message
news:edUZHjn8EHA.3640@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Got the latest version of CPU-Z
> The slow machine...it won't report the BUS speeds (in fact, it reports
very
> little).
> As for how I restore...I just use Enterprise Manager and do it from there.
> Griff
>
|||> What I was referring to was where is the backup device you're restoring
> from?
> If one is local (ie on disk) and the other is over the network then you
will
> see slower restores.
Oh, sorry. Everything is local...I tried to make the two tests as
identical as possible
> TBH I suspect the single CPU job is not upto the same performance and you
> are realising this in what you're doing.
Okay. Thanks for your help with this Evan
Griff
Server A:
Dual 2.8 Xeon Processor
4 GB RAM
SQL Server 2000 Enterprise
Server B
Single 3.0 Xeon Processor
2.5 GB RAM
SQL Server 2000 Standard
I have an identical database on both. The backup file is 1.22 GB, the data
file is 1.44 GB and the log file is 504 KB.
When I restore these databases, the restore on server A takes 2.58 minutes,
but on server B it takes 6.48 minutes (over twice as long).
Similar discrepancies are found when I backup these databases.
I don't understand why!
Studying task manager shows that the CPU usage is minimal and the amount of
memory used is minimal, presumably ruling out the speed of the processors
and the amount of RAM available. If I had multiple data devices then I
could see the Enterprise version being quicker because it could create more
threads for parallel processing, but I don't so this should rule out the
Enterprise/Standard differences. Oh and both servers run on multiple
spindle, fast RAID5+1 disks, and these are identical.
So...what is occurring that actually takes the ~ 3 minutes or ~ 7 minutes?
Many thanks
Griff
What are the server manufacturer and model numbers? What are the FSB
speeds? What are the I/O controller speeds? What is the System:Worker
Queue counter throughput? What are the Physical/Logical disk counter
throughput?
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"Griff" <Howling@.The.Moon> wrote in message
news:%23wUo43l8EHA.1564@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
I have two servers.
Server A:
Dual 2.8 Xeon Processor
4 GB RAM
SQL Server 2000 Enterprise
Server B
Single 3.0 Xeon Processor
2.5 GB RAM
SQL Server 2000 Standard
I have an identical database on both. The backup file is 1.22 GB, the data
file is 1.44 GB and the log file is 504 KB.
When I restore these databases, the restore on server A takes 2.58 minutes,
but on server B it takes 6.48 minutes (over twice as long).
Similar discrepancies are found when I backup these databases.
I don't understand why!
Studying task manager shows that the CPU usage is minimal and the amount of
memory used is minimal, presumably ruling out the speed of the processors
and the amount of RAM available. If I had multiple data devices then I
could see the Enterprise version being quicker because it could create more
threads for parallel processing, but I don't so this should rule out the
Enterprise/Standard differences. Oh and both servers run on multiple
spindle, fast RAID5+1 disks, and these are identical.
So...what is occurring that actually takes the ~ 3 minutes or ~ 7 minutes?
Many thanks
Griff
|||
> What are the server manufacturer and model numbers? What are the FSB
> speeds? What are the I/O controller speeds? What is the System:Worker
> Queue counter throughput? What are the Physical/Logical disk counter
> throughput?
Gosh !
Not sure I can provide these answers. I know that they're both using RAID
5+1 10,000 RMP disks with independent raid controllers. The only
significant difference between the two could be the FSB (one is 800, other
is likely to be 533, but not sure how to identify this).
Whilst I could spend time providing these statistics, I may be more
profitable if I could identify what the real bottle-necks really are (if all
the ones you've mentioned, then in which order) and would they account for a
doubling of time?
Thanks
Griff
|||Well perhaps it's your specs
btw u can run CPUZ to identify bus speeds etc.
If the machines have same quality of equipment and are configured similarly
then I would suggest your ram and dual CPU vs single CPU
If you run the profiler on them as they are backing perhaps you will see
something like mem utilisation etc.
Another thought is how much are the files fragmented the dbs arent huge but
there may be a degree of fragmentation on the file system which slows things
down.
Also how are you restoring from Server A to Server B?
"Griff" <Howling@.The.Moon> wrote in message
news:%23wUo43l8EHA.1564@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> I have two servers.
> Server A:
> Dual 2.8 Xeon Processor
> 4 GB RAM
> SQL Server 2000 Enterprise
> Server B
> Single 3.0 Xeon Processor
> 2.5 GB RAM
> SQL Server 2000 Standard
> I have an identical database on both. The backup file is 1.22 GB, the
data
> file is 1.44 GB and the log file is 504 KB.
> When I restore these databases, the restore on server A takes 2.58
minutes,
> but on server B it takes 6.48 minutes (over twice as long).
> Similar discrepancies are found when I backup these databases.
> I don't understand why!
> Studying task manager shows that the CPU usage is minimal and the amount
of
> memory used is minimal, presumably ruling out the speed of the processors
> and the amount of RAM available. If I had multiple data devices then I
> could see the Enterprise version being quicker because it could create
more
> threads for parallel processing, but I don't so this should rule out the
> Enterprise/Standard differences. Oh and both servers run on multiple
> spindle, fast RAID5+1 disks, and these are identical.
> So...what is occurring that actually takes the ~ 3 minutes or ~ 7
minutes?
> Many thanks
> Griff
>
>
|||Well, you asked for possibilities, these are only a few, and they were
static, physical configuration differences. Then you have the runtime
environment differences.
I guess my point is that you are trying to compare apples to oranges. If
you run the backups several times in a row, over and over, on both boxes,
and then average out the times, do you then still see the same magnitude of
difference?
I would be concerned if you were running two identical servers with the
identical work load, but, in this case, you are running under very different
circumstances and it is these differences that will add up to what you are
experiencing.
Howerver, I suspect that the larger server has more robust subsystem
components. CPU speed is only one criterion you look at one analyzing a
server's performance. Moreover, what is the memory bus speed and flavor of
memory? DDR at 2800 or higher vs. only a PC 233. Obviously, they are
probably very similar, but I hope you get my point.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"Griff" <Howling@.The.Moon> wrote in message
news:O$1a2Xm8EHA.3236@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> What are the server manufacturer and model numbers? What are the FSB
> speeds? What are the I/O controller speeds? What is the System:Worker
> Queue counter throughput? What are the Physical/Logical disk counter
> throughput?
Gosh !
Not sure I can provide these answers. I know that they're both using RAID
5+1 10,000 RMP disks with independent raid controllers. The only
significant difference between the two could be the FSB (one is 800, other
is likely to be 533, but not sure how to identify this).
Whilst I could spend time providing these statistics, I may be more
profitable if I could identify what the real bottle-necks really are (if all
the ones you've mentioned, then in which order) and would they account for a
doubling of time?
Thanks
Griff
|||Got the latest version of CPU-Z
The slow machine...it won't report the BUS speeds (in fact, it reports very
little).
As for how I restore...I just use Enterprise Manager and do it from there.
Griff
|||Griff,
What I was referring to was where is the backup device you're restoring
from?
If one is local (ie on disk) and the other is over the network then you will
see slower restores.
TBH I suspect the single CPU job is not upto the same performance and you
are realising this in what you're doing.
evan
"Griff" <Howling@.The.Moon> wrote in message
news:edUZHjn8EHA.3640@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Got the latest version of CPU-Z
> The slow machine...it won't report the BUS speeds (in fact, it reports
very
> little).
> As for how I restore...I just use Enterprise Manager and do it from there.
> Griff
>
|||> What I was referring to was where is the backup device you're restoring
> from?
> If one is local (ie on disk) and the other is over the network then you
will
> see slower restores.
Oh, sorry. Everything is local...I tried to make the two tests as
identical as possible
> TBH I suspect the single CPU job is not upto the same performance and you
> are realising this in what you're doing.
Okay. Thanks for your help with this Evan
Griff
Database Backups & Restores: an in-depth knowledge required
I have two servers.
Server A:
Dual 2.8 Xeon Processor
4 GB RAM
SQL Server 2000 Enterprise
Server B
Single 3.0 Xeon Processor
2.5 GB RAM
SQL Server 2000 Standard
I have an identical database on both. The backup file is 1.22 GB, the data
file is 1.44 GB and the log file is 504 KB.
When I restore these databases, the restore on server A takes 2.58 minutes,
but on server B it takes 6.48 minutes (over twice as long).
Similar discrepancies are found when I backup these databases.
I don't understand why!
Studying task manager shows that the CPU usage is minimal and the amount of
memory used is minimal, presumably ruling out the speed of the processors
and the amount of RAM available. If I had multiple data devices then I
could see the Enterprise version being quicker because it could create more
threads for parallel processing, but I don't so this should rule out the
Enterprise/Standard differences. Oh and both servers run on multiple
spindle, fast RAID5+1 disks, and these are identical.
So...what is occurring that actually takes the ~ 3 minutes or ~ 7 minutes?
Many thanks
GriffWhat are the server manufacturer and model numbers? What are the FSB
speeds? What are the I/O controller speeds? What is the System:Worker
Queue counter throughput? What are the Physical/Logical disk counter
throughput?
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"Griff" <Howling@.The.Moon> wrote in message
news:%23wUo43l8EHA.1564@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
I have two servers.
Server A:
Dual 2.8 Xeon Processor
4 GB RAM
SQL Server 2000 Enterprise
Server B
Single 3.0 Xeon Processor
2.5 GB RAM
SQL Server 2000 Standard
I have an identical database on both. The backup file is 1.22 GB, the data
file is 1.44 GB and the log file is 504 KB.
When I restore these databases, the restore on server A takes 2.58 minutes,
but on server B it takes 6.48 minutes (over twice as long).
Similar discrepancies are found when I backup these databases.
I don't understand why!
Studying task manager shows that the CPU usage is minimal and the amount of
memory used is minimal, presumably ruling out the speed of the processors
and the amount of RAM available. If I had multiple data devices then I
could see the Enterprise version being quicker because it could create more
threads for parallel processing, but I don't so this should rule out the
Enterprise/Standard differences. Oh and both servers run on multiple
spindle, fast RAID5+1 disks, and these are identical.
So...what is occurring that actually takes the ~ 3 minutes or ~ 7 minutes?
Many thanks
Griff|||> What are the server manufacturer and model numbers? What are the FSB
> speeds? What are the I/O controller speeds? What is the System:Worker
> Queue counter throughput? What are the Physical/Logical disk counter
> throughput?
Gosh !
Not sure I can provide these answers. I know that they're both using RAID
5+1 10,000 RMP disks with independent raid controllers. The only
significant difference between the two could be the FSB (one is 800, other
is likely to be 533, but not sure how to identify this).
Whilst I could spend time providing these statistics, I may be more
profitable if I could identify what the real bottle-necks really are (if all
the ones you've mentioned, then in which order) and would they account for a
doubling of time?
Thanks
Griff|||Well perhaps it's your specs
btw u can run CPUZ to identify bus speeds etc.
If the machines have same quality of equipment and are configured similarly
then I would suggest your ram and dual CPU vs single CPU
If you run the profiler on them as they are backing perhaps you will see
something like mem utilisation etc.
Another thought is how much are the files fragmented the dbs arent huge but
there may be a degree of fragmentation on the file system which slows things
down.
Also how are you restoring from Server A to Server B?
"Griff" <Howling@.The.Moon> wrote in message
news:%23wUo43l8EHA.1564@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> I have two servers.
> Server A:
> Dual 2.8 Xeon Processor
> 4 GB RAM
> SQL Server 2000 Enterprise
> Server B
> Single 3.0 Xeon Processor
> 2.5 GB RAM
> SQL Server 2000 Standard
> I have an identical database on both. The backup file is 1.22 GB, the
data
> file is 1.44 GB and the log file is 504 KB.
> When I restore these databases, the restore on server A takes 2.58
minutes,
> but on server B it takes 6.48 minutes (over twice as long).
> Similar discrepancies are found when I backup these databases.
> I don't understand why!
> Studying task manager shows that the CPU usage is minimal and the amount
of
> memory used is minimal, presumably ruling out the speed of the processors
> and the amount of RAM available. If I had multiple data devices then I
> could see the Enterprise version being quicker because it could create
more
> threads for parallel processing, but I don't so this should rule out the
> Enterprise/Standard differences. Oh and both servers run on multiple
> spindle, fast RAID5+1 disks, and these are identical.
> So...what is occurring that actually takes the ~ 3 minutes or ~ 7
minutes?
> Many thanks
> Griff
>
>|||Well, you asked for possibilities, these are only a few, and they were
static, physical configuration differences. Then you have the runtime
environment differences.
I guess my point is that you are trying to compare apples to oranges. If
you run the backups several times in a row, over and over, on both boxes,
and then average out the times, do you then still see the same magnitude of
difference?
I would be concerned if you were running two identical servers with the
identical work load, but, in this case, you are running under very different
circumstances and it is these differences that will add up to what you are
experiencing.
Howerver, I suspect that the larger server has more robust subsystem
components. CPU speed is only one criterion you look at one analyzing a
server's performance. Moreover, what is the memory bus speed and flavor of
memory? DDR at 2800 or higher vs. only a PC 233. Obviously, they are
probably very similar, but I hope you get my point.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"Griff" <Howling@.The.Moon> wrote in message
news:O$1a2Xm8EHA.3236@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> What are the server manufacturer and model numbers? What are the FSB
> speeds? What are the I/O controller speeds? What is the System:Worker
> Queue counter throughput? What are the Physical/Logical disk counter
> throughput?
Gosh !
Not sure I can provide these answers. I know that they're both using RAID
5+1 10,000 RMP disks with independent raid controllers. The only
significant difference between the two could be the FSB (one is 800, other
is likely to be 533, but not sure how to identify this).
Whilst I could spend time providing these statistics, I may be more
profitable if I could identify what the real bottle-necks really are (if all
the ones you've mentioned, then in which order) and would they account for a
doubling of time?
Thanks
Griff|||Got the latest version of CPU-Z
The slow machine...it won't report the BUS speeds (in fact, it reports very
little).
As for how I restore...I just use Enterprise Manager and do it from there.
Griff|||Griff,
What I was referring to was where is the backup device you're restoring
from?
If one is local (ie on disk) and the other is over the network then you will
see slower restores.
TBH I suspect the single CPU job is not upto the same performance and you
are realising this in what you're doing.
evan
"Griff" <Howling@.The.Moon> wrote in message
news:edUZHjn8EHA.3640@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Got the latest version of CPU-Z
> The slow machine...it won't report the BUS speeds (in fact, it reports
very
> little).
> As for how I restore...I just use Enterprise Manager and do it from there.
> Griff
>|||> What I was referring to was where is the backup device you're restoring
> from?
> If one is local (ie on disk) and the other is over the network then you
will
> see slower restores.
Oh, sorry. Everything is local...I tried to make the two tests as
identical as possible
> TBH I suspect the single CPU job is not upto the same performance and you
> are realising this in what you're doing.
Okay. Thanks for your help with this Evan
Griffsql
Server A:
Dual 2.8 Xeon Processor
4 GB RAM
SQL Server 2000 Enterprise
Server B
Single 3.0 Xeon Processor
2.5 GB RAM
SQL Server 2000 Standard
I have an identical database on both. The backup file is 1.22 GB, the data
file is 1.44 GB and the log file is 504 KB.
When I restore these databases, the restore on server A takes 2.58 minutes,
but on server B it takes 6.48 minutes (over twice as long).
Similar discrepancies are found when I backup these databases.
I don't understand why!
Studying task manager shows that the CPU usage is minimal and the amount of
memory used is minimal, presumably ruling out the speed of the processors
and the amount of RAM available. If I had multiple data devices then I
could see the Enterprise version being quicker because it could create more
threads for parallel processing, but I don't so this should rule out the
Enterprise/Standard differences. Oh and both servers run on multiple
spindle, fast RAID5+1 disks, and these are identical.
So...what is occurring that actually takes the ~ 3 minutes or ~ 7 minutes?
Many thanks
GriffWhat are the server manufacturer and model numbers? What are the FSB
speeds? What are the I/O controller speeds? What is the System:Worker
Queue counter throughput? What are the Physical/Logical disk counter
throughput?
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"Griff" <Howling@.The.Moon> wrote in message
news:%23wUo43l8EHA.1564@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
I have two servers.
Server A:
Dual 2.8 Xeon Processor
4 GB RAM
SQL Server 2000 Enterprise
Server B
Single 3.0 Xeon Processor
2.5 GB RAM
SQL Server 2000 Standard
I have an identical database on both. The backup file is 1.22 GB, the data
file is 1.44 GB and the log file is 504 KB.
When I restore these databases, the restore on server A takes 2.58 minutes,
but on server B it takes 6.48 minutes (over twice as long).
Similar discrepancies are found when I backup these databases.
I don't understand why!
Studying task manager shows that the CPU usage is minimal and the amount of
memory used is minimal, presumably ruling out the speed of the processors
and the amount of RAM available. If I had multiple data devices then I
could see the Enterprise version being quicker because it could create more
threads for parallel processing, but I don't so this should rule out the
Enterprise/Standard differences. Oh and both servers run on multiple
spindle, fast RAID5+1 disks, and these are identical.
So...what is occurring that actually takes the ~ 3 minutes or ~ 7 minutes?
Many thanks
Griff|||> What are the server manufacturer and model numbers? What are the FSB
> speeds? What are the I/O controller speeds? What is the System:Worker
> Queue counter throughput? What are the Physical/Logical disk counter
> throughput?
Gosh !
Not sure I can provide these answers. I know that they're both using RAID
5+1 10,000 RMP disks with independent raid controllers. The only
significant difference between the two could be the FSB (one is 800, other
is likely to be 533, but not sure how to identify this).
Whilst I could spend time providing these statistics, I may be more
profitable if I could identify what the real bottle-necks really are (if all
the ones you've mentioned, then in which order) and would they account for a
doubling of time?
Thanks
Griff|||Well perhaps it's your specs
btw u can run CPUZ to identify bus speeds etc.
If the machines have same quality of equipment and are configured similarly
then I would suggest your ram and dual CPU vs single CPU
If you run the profiler on them as they are backing perhaps you will see
something like mem utilisation etc.
Another thought is how much are the files fragmented the dbs arent huge but
there may be a degree of fragmentation on the file system which slows things
down.
Also how are you restoring from Server A to Server B?
"Griff" <Howling@.The.Moon> wrote in message
news:%23wUo43l8EHA.1564@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> I have two servers.
> Server A:
> Dual 2.8 Xeon Processor
> 4 GB RAM
> SQL Server 2000 Enterprise
> Server B
> Single 3.0 Xeon Processor
> 2.5 GB RAM
> SQL Server 2000 Standard
> I have an identical database on both. The backup file is 1.22 GB, the
data
> file is 1.44 GB and the log file is 504 KB.
> When I restore these databases, the restore on server A takes 2.58
minutes,
> but on server B it takes 6.48 minutes (over twice as long).
> Similar discrepancies are found when I backup these databases.
> I don't understand why!
> Studying task manager shows that the CPU usage is minimal and the amount
of
> memory used is minimal, presumably ruling out the speed of the processors
> and the amount of RAM available. If I had multiple data devices then I
> could see the Enterprise version being quicker because it could create
more
> threads for parallel processing, but I don't so this should rule out the
> Enterprise/Standard differences. Oh and both servers run on multiple
> spindle, fast RAID5+1 disks, and these are identical.
> So...what is occurring that actually takes the ~ 3 minutes or ~ 7
minutes?
> Many thanks
> Griff
>
>|||Well, you asked for possibilities, these are only a few, and they were
static, physical configuration differences. Then you have the runtime
environment differences.
I guess my point is that you are trying to compare apples to oranges. If
you run the backups several times in a row, over and over, on both boxes,
and then average out the times, do you then still see the same magnitude of
difference?
I would be concerned if you were running two identical servers with the
identical work load, but, in this case, you are running under very different
circumstances and it is these differences that will add up to what you are
experiencing.
Howerver, I suspect that the larger server has more robust subsystem
components. CPU speed is only one criterion you look at one analyzing a
server's performance. Moreover, what is the memory bus speed and flavor of
memory? DDR at 2800 or higher vs. only a PC 233. Obviously, they are
probably very similar, but I hope you get my point.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"Griff" <Howling@.The.Moon> wrote in message
news:O$1a2Xm8EHA.3236@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> What are the server manufacturer and model numbers? What are the FSB
> speeds? What are the I/O controller speeds? What is the System:Worker
> Queue counter throughput? What are the Physical/Logical disk counter
> throughput?
Gosh !
Not sure I can provide these answers. I know that they're both using RAID
5+1 10,000 RMP disks with independent raid controllers. The only
significant difference between the two could be the FSB (one is 800, other
is likely to be 533, but not sure how to identify this).
Whilst I could spend time providing these statistics, I may be more
profitable if I could identify what the real bottle-necks really are (if all
the ones you've mentioned, then in which order) and would they account for a
doubling of time?
Thanks
Griff|||Got the latest version of CPU-Z
The slow machine...it won't report the BUS speeds (in fact, it reports very
little).
As for how I restore...I just use Enterprise Manager and do it from there.
Griff|||Griff,
What I was referring to was where is the backup device you're restoring
from?
If one is local (ie on disk) and the other is over the network then you will
see slower restores.
TBH I suspect the single CPU job is not upto the same performance and you
are realising this in what you're doing.
evan
"Griff" <Howling@.The.Moon> wrote in message
news:edUZHjn8EHA.3640@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Got the latest version of CPU-Z
> The slow machine...it won't report the BUS speeds (in fact, it reports
very
> little).
> As for how I restore...I just use Enterprise Manager and do it from there.
> Griff
>|||> What I was referring to was where is the backup device you're restoring
> from?
> If one is local (ie on disk) and the other is over the network then you
will
> see slower restores.
Oh, sorry. Everything is local...I tried to make the two tests as
identical as possible
> TBH I suspect the single CPU job is not upto the same performance and you
> are realising this in what you're doing.
Okay. Thanks for your help with this Evan
Griffsql
Database Backups & Restores: an in-depth knowledge required
I have two servers.
Server A:
Dual 2.8 Xeon Processor
4 GB RAM
SQL Server 2000 Enterprise
Server B
Single 3.0 Xeon Processor
2.5 GB RAM
SQL Server 2000 Standard
I have an identical database on both. The backup file is 1.22 GB, the data
file is 1.44 GB and the log file is 504 KB.
When I restore these databases, the restore on server A takes 2.58 minutes,
but on server B it takes 6.48 minutes (over twice as long).
Similar discrepancies are found when I backup these databases.
I don't understand why!
Studying task manager shows that the CPU usage is minimal and the amount of
memory used is minimal, presumably ruling out the speed of the processors
and the amount of RAM available. If I had multiple data devices then I
could see the Enterprise version being quicker because it could create more
threads for parallel processing, but I don't so this should rule out the
Enterprise/Standard differences. Oh and both servers run on multiple
spindle, fast RAID5+1 disks, and these are identical.
So...what is occurring that actually takes the ~ 3 minutes or ~ 7 minutes?
Many thanks
GriffWhat are the server manufacturer and model numbers? What are the FSB
speeds? What are the I/O controller speeds? What is the System:Worker
Queue counter throughput? What are the Physical/Logical disk counter
throughput?
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"Griff" <Howling@.The.Moon> wrote in message
news:%23wUo43l8EHA.1564@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
I have two servers.
Server A:
Dual 2.8 Xeon Processor
4 GB RAM
SQL Server 2000 Enterprise
Server B
Single 3.0 Xeon Processor
2.5 GB RAM
SQL Server 2000 Standard
I have an identical database on both. The backup file is 1.22 GB, the data
file is 1.44 GB and the log file is 504 KB.
When I restore these databases, the restore on server A takes 2.58 minutes,
but on server B it takes 6.48 minutes (over twice as long).
Similar discrepancies are found when I backup these databases.
I don't understand why!
Studying task manager shows that the CPU usage is minimal and the amount of
memory used is minimal, presumably ruling out the speed of the processors
and the amount of RAM available. If I had multiple data devices then I
could see the Enterprise version being quicker because it could create more
threads for parallel processing, but I don't so this should rule out the
Enterprise/Standard differences. Oh and both servers run on multiple
spindle, fast RAID5+1 disks, and these are identical.
So...what is occurring that actually takes the ~ 3 minutes or ~ 7 minutes?
Many thanks
Griff|||
> What are the server manufacturer and model numbers? What are the FSB
> speeds? What are the I/O controller speeds? What is the System:Worker
> Queue counter throughput? What are the Physical/Logical disk counter
> throughput?
Gosh !
Not sure I can provide these answers. I know that they're both using RAID
5+1 10,000 RMP disks with independent raid controllers. The only
significant difference between the two could be the FSB (one is 800, other
is likely to be 533, but not sure how to identify this).
Whilst I could spend time providing these statistics, I may be more
profitable if I could identify what the real bottle-necks really are (if all
the ones you've mentioned, then in which order) and would they account for a
doubling of time?
Thanks
Griff|||Well perhaps it's your specs
btw u can run CPUZ to identify bus speeds etc.
If the machines have same quality of equipment and are configured similarly
then I would suggest your ram and dual CPU vs single CPU
If you run the profiler on them as they are backing perhaps you will see
something like mem utilisation etc.
Another thought is how much are the files fragmented the dbs arent huge but
there may be a degree of fragmentation on the file system which slows things
down.
Also how are you restoring from Server A to Server B?
"Griff" <Howling@.The.Moon> wrote in message
news:%23wUo43l8EHA.1564@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> I have two servers.
> Server A:
> Dual 2.8 Xeon Processor
> 4 GB RAM
> SQL Server 2000 Enterprise
> Server B
> Single 3.0 Xeon Processor
> 2.5 GB RAM
> SQL Server 2000 Standard
> I have an identical database on both. The backup file is 1.22 GB, the
data
> file is 1.44 GB and the log file is 504 KB.
> When I restore these databases, the restore on server A takes 2.58
minutes,
> but on server B it takes 6.48 minutes (over twice as long).
> Similar discrepancies are found when I backup these databases.
> I don't understand why!
> Studying task manager shows that the CPU usage is minimal and the amount
of
> memory used is minimal, presumably ruling out the speed of the processors
> and the amount of RAM available. If I had multiple data devices then I
> could see the Enterprise version being quicker because it could create
more
> threads for parallel processing, but I don't so this should rule out the
> Enterprise/Standard differences. Oh and both servers run on multiple
> spindle, fast RAID5+1 disks, and these are identical.
> So...what is occurring that actually takes the ~ 3 minutes or ~ 7
minutes?
> Many thanks
> Griff
>
>|||Well, you asked for possibilities, these are only a few, and they were
static, physical configuration differences. Then you have the runtime
environment differences.
I guess my point is that you are trying to compare apples to oranges. If
you run the backups several times in a row, over and over, on both boxes,
and then average out the times, do you then still see the same magnitude of
difference?
I would be concerned if you were running two identical servers with the
identical work load, but, in this case, you are running under very different
circumstances and it is these differences that will add up to what you are
experiencing.
Howerver, I suspect that the larger server has more robust subsystem
components. CPU speed is only one criterion you look at one analyzing a
server's performance. Moreover, what is the memory bus speed and flavor of
memory? DDR at 2800 or higher vs. only a PC 233. Obviously, they are
probably very similar, but I hope you get my point.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"Griff" <Howling@.The.Moon> wrote in message
news:O$1a2Xm8EHA.3236@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> What are the server manufacturer and model numbers? What are the FSB
> speeds? What are the I/O controller speeds? What is the System:Worker
> Queue counter throughput? What are the Physical/Logical disk counter
> throughput?
Gosh !
Not sure I can provide these answers. I know that they're both using RAID
5+1 10,000 RMP disks with independent raid controllers. The only
significant difference between the two could be the FSB (one is 800, other
is likely to be 533, but not sure how to identify this).
Whilst I could spend time providing these statistics, I may be more
profitable if I could identify what the real bottle-necks really are (if all
the ones you've mentioned, then in which order) and would they account for a
doubling of time?
Thanks
Griff|||Got the latest version of CPU-Z
The slow machine...it won't report the BUS speeds (in fact, it reports very
little).
As for how I restore...I just use Enterprise Manager and do it from there.
Griff|||Griff,
What I was referring to was where is the backup device you're restoring
from?
If one is local (ie on disk) and the other is over the network then you will
see slower restores.
TBH I suspect the single CPU job is not upto the same performance and you
are realising this in what you're doing.
evan
"Griff" <Howling@.The.Moon> wrote in message
news:edUZHjn8EHA.3640@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Got the latest version of CPU-Z
> The slow machine...it won't report the BUS speeds (in fact, it reports
very
> little).
> As for how I restore...I just use Enterprise Manager and do it from there.
> Griff
>|||> What I was referring to was where is the backup device you're restoring
> from?
> If one is local (ie on disk) and the other is over the network then you
will
> see slower restores.
Oh, sorry. Everything is local...I tried to make the two tests as
identical as possible
> TBH I suspect the single CPU job is not upto the same performance and you
> are realising this in what you're doing.
Okay. Thanks for your help with this Evan
Griff
Server A:
Dual 2.8 Xeon Processor
4 GB RAM
SQL Server 2000 Enterprise
Server B
Single 3.0 Xeon Processor
2.5 GB RAM
SQL Server 2000 Standard
I have an identical database on both. The backup file is 1.22 GB, the data
file is 1.44 GB and the log file is 504 KB.
When I restore these databases, the restore on server A takes 2.58 minutes,
but on server B it takes 6.48 minutes (over twice as long).
Similar discrepancies are found when I backup these databases.
I don't understand why!
Studying task manager shows that the CPU usage is minimal and the amount of
memory used is minimal, presumably ruling out the speed of the processors
and the amount of RAM available. If I had multiple data devices then I
could see the Enterprise version being quicker because it could create more
threads for parallel processing, but I don't so this should rule out the
Enterprise/Standard differences. Oh and both servers run on multiple
spindle, fast RAID5+1 disks, and these are identical.
So...what is occurring that actually takes the ~ 3 minutes or ~ 7 minutes?
Many thanks
GriffWhat are the server manufacturer and model numbers? What are the FSB
speeds? What are the I/O controller speeds? What is the System:Worker
Queue counter throughput? What are the Physical/Logical disk counter
throughput?
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"Griff" <Howling@.The.Moon> wrote in message
news:%23wUo43l8EHA.1564@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
I have two servers.
Server A:
Dual 2.8 Xeon Processor
4 GB RAM
SQL Server 2000 Enterprise
Server B
Single 3.0 Xeon Processor
2.5 GB RAM
SQL Server 2000 Standard
I have an identical database on both. The backup file is 1.22 GB, the data
file is 1.44 GB and the log file is 504 KB.
When I restore these databases, the restore on server A takes 2.58 minutes,
but on server B it takes 6.48 minutes (over twice as long).
Similar discrepancies are found when I backup these databases.
I don't understand why!
Studying task manager shows that the CPU usage is minimal and the amount of
memory used is minimal, presumably ruling out the speed of the processors
and the amount of RAM available. If I had multiple data devices then I
could see the Enterprise version being quicker because it could create more
threads for parallel processing, but I don't so this should rule out the
Enterprise/Standard differences. Oh and both servers run on multiple
spindle, fast RAID5+1 disks, and these are identical.
So...what is occurring that actually takes the ~ 3 minutes or ~ 7 minutes?
Many thanks
Griff|||
> What are the server manufacturer and model numbers? What are the FSB
> speeds? What are the I/O controller speeds? What is the System:Worker
> Queue counter throughput? What are the Physical/Logical disk counter
> throughput?
Gosh !
Not sure I can provide these answers. I know that they're both using RAID
5+1 10,000 RMP disks with independent raid controllers. The only
significant difference between the two could be the FSB (one is 800, other
is likely to be 533, but not sure how to identify this).
Whilst I could spend time providing these statistics, I may be more
profitable if I could identify what the real bottle-necks really are (if all
the ones you've mentioned, then in which order) and would they account for a
doubling of time?
Thanks
Griff|||Well perhaps it's your specs
btw u can run CPUZ to identify bus speeds etc.
If the machines have same quality of equipment and are configured similarly
then I would suggest your ram and dual CPU vs single CPU
If you run the profiler on them as they are backing perhaps you will see
something like mem utilisation etc.
Another thought is how much are the files fragmented the dbs arent huge but
there may be a degree of fragmentation on the file system which slows things
down.
Also how are you restoring from Server A to Server B?
"Griff" <Howling@.The.Moon> wrote in message
news:%23wUo43l8EHA.1564@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> I have two servers.
> Server A:
> Dual 2.8 Xeon Processor
> 4 GB RAM
> SQL Server 2000 Enterprise
> Server B
> Single 3.0 Xeon Processor
> 2.5 GB RAM
> SQL Server 2000 Standard
> I have an identical database on both. The backup file is 1.22 GB, the
data
> file is 1.44 GB and the log file is 504 KB.
> When I restore these databases, the restore on server A takes 2.58
minutes,
> but on server B it takes 6.48 minutes (over twice as long).
> Similar discrepancies are found when I backup these databases.
> I don't understand why!
> Studying task manager shows that the CPU usage is minimal and the amount
of
> memory used is minimal, presumably ruling out the speed of the processors
> and the amount of RAM available. If I had multiple data devices then I
> could see the Enterprise version being quicker because it could create
more
> threads for parallel processing, but I don't so this should rule out the
> Enterprise/Standard differences. Oh and both servers run on multiple
> spindle, fast RAID5+1 disks, and these are identical.
> So...what is occurring that actually takes the ~ 3 minutes or ~ 7
minutes?
> Many thanks
> Griff
>
>|||Well, you asked for possibilities, these are only a few, and they were
static, physical configuration differences. Then you have the runtime
environment differences.
I guess my point is that you are trying to compare apples to oranges. If
you run the backups several times in a row, over and over, on both boxes,
and then average out the times, do you then still see the same magnitude of
difference?
I would be concerned if you were running two identical servers with the
identical work load, but, in this case, you are running under very different
circumstances and it is these differences that will add up to what you are
experiencing.
Howerver, I suspect that the larger server has more robust subsystem
components. CPU speed is only one criterion you look at one analyzing a
server's performance. Moreover, what is the memory bus speed and flavor of
memory? DDR at 2800 or higher vs. only a PC 233. Obviously, they are
probably very similar, but I hope you get my point.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"Griff" <Howling@.The.Moon> wrote in message
news:O$1a2Xm8EHA.3236@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> What are the server manufacturer and model numbers? What are the FSB
> speeds? What are the I/O controller speeds? What is the System:Worker
> Queue counter throughput? What are the Physical/Logical disk counter
> throughput?
Gosh !
Not sure I can provide these answers. I know that they're both using RAID
5+1 10,000 RMP disks with independent raid controllers. The only
significant difference between the two could be the FSB (one is 800, other
is likely to be 533, but not sure how to identify this).
Whilst I could spend time providing these statistics, I may be more
profitable if I could identify what the real bottle-necks really are (if all
the ones you've mentioned, then in which order) and would they account for a
doubling of time?
Thanks
Griff|||Got the latest version of CPU-Z
The slow machine...it won't report the BUS speeds (in fact, it reports very
little).
As for how I restore...I just use Enterprise Manager and do it from there.
Griff|||Griff,
What I was referring to was where is the backup device you're restoring
from?
If one is local (ie on disk) and the other is over the network then you will
see slower restores.
TBH I suspect the single CPU job is not upto the same performance and you
are realising this in what you're doing.
evan
"Griff" <Howling@.The.Moon> wrote in message
news:edUZHjn8EHA.3640@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Got the latest version of CPU-Z
> The slow machine...it won't report the BUS speeds (in fact, it reports
very
> little).
> As for how I restore...I just use Enterprise Manager and do it from there.
> Griff
>|||> What I was referring to was where is the backup device you're restoring
> from?
> If one is local (ie on disk) and the other is over the network then you
will
> see slower restores.
Oh, sorry. Everything is local...I tried to make the two tests as
identical as possible
> TBH I suspect the single CPU job is not upto the same performance and you
> are realising this in what you're doing.
Okay. Thanks for your help with this Evan
Griff
Thursday, March 22, 2012
database backup question
I have a maintanence plan on all of my SQL servers, both SQl 2000 and SQL
2005. My question is, do I need to backup the Master. MDB, Model and tempdb,
databases or can I exclude them from my plan?
They are system databases. So you should backup them when major changes are
made on the SQL Server Instance.
For example you should backup your "master" database when you create new
logins, linked servers etc. You should backup your "msdb" when you create
new jobs... And "model" if you made changes on the model database which is
the kinda template database...
You do not need to backup tempdb as it will be deleted and recreated
everytime your SQL Server service starts...
I encourage you to take a look at the following link to learn more about
Backing Up and Restoring System Databases:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms190190.aspx
P.S.
You do not need to backup system databases regularly as your user databases
and do not include these system databases in your regular backup maintanence
plan. You don't need this...
Ekrem nsoy
"Mike" <Iseeyoulooking@.move.com> wrote in message
news:uYQV%233YPIHA.5400@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>I have a maintanence plan on all of my SQL servers, both SQl 2000 and SQL
>2005. My question is, do I need to backup the Master. MDB, Model and
>tempdb, databases or can I exclude them from my plan?
>
|||On Dec 13, 3:42 pm, "Mike" <Iseeyoulook...@.move.com> wrote:
> I have a maintanence plan on all of my SQL servers, both SQl 2000 and SQL
> 2005. My question is, do I need to backup the Master. MDB, Model and tempdb,
> databases or can I exclude them from my plan?
You can exclude the tempdb because there is no way to restore it
anyway. The tempdb just as its name implies is temporary and is being
created by the server each time that the service starts.
Model database will only be modified if you modify it. This
database is used as a model for the server to create databases. If
you want each new database to have some objects in it, then you create
it in Model database and then each time that you'll create a new
database, you'll have those objects in the new database. If you
create objects in the model database, then you can backup the model
database. In other cases I don't see a reason to do it.
Master and MSDB store important data about logins, server's
configuration, databases' location and configuration (master) and jobs
and DTS packages (MSDB). Those databases should be backed up on a
regular basis.
Adi
sql
2005. My question is, do I need to backup the Master. MDB, Model and tempdb,
databases or can I exclude them from my plan?
They are system databases. So you should backup them when major changes are
made on the SQL Server Instance.
For example you should backup your "master" database when you create new
logins, linked servers etc. You should backup your "msdb" when you create
new jobs... And "model" if you made changes on the model database which is
the kinda template database...
You do not need to backup tempdb as it will be deleted and recreated
everytime your SQL Server service starts...
I encourage you to take a look at the following link to learn more about
Backing Up and Restoring System Databases:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms190190.aspx
P.S.
You do not need to backup system databases regularly as your user databases
and do not include these system databases in your regular backup maintanence
plan. You don't need this...
Ekrem nsoy
"Mike" <Iseeyoulooking@.move.com> wrote in message
news:uYQV%233YPIHA.5400@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>I have a maintanence plan on all of my SQL servers, both SQl 2000 and SQL
>2005. My question is, do I need to backup the Master. MDB, Model and
>tempdb, databases or can I exclude them from my plan?
>
|||On Dec 13, 3:42 pm, "Mike" <Iseeyoulook...@.move.com> wrote:
> I have a maintanence plan on all of my SQL servers, both SQl 2000 and SQL
> 2005. My question is, do I need to backup the Master. MDB, Model and tempdb,
> databases or can I exclude them from my plan?
You can exclude the tempdb because there is no way to restore it
anyway. The tempdb just as its name implies is temporary and is being
created by the server each time that the service starts.
Model database will only be modified if you modify it. This
database is used as a model for the server to create databases. If
you want each new database to have some objects in it, then you create
it in Model database and then each time that you'll create a new
database, you'll have those objects in the new database. If you
create objects in the model database, then you can backup the model
database. In other cases I don't see a reason to do it.
Master and MSDB store important data about logins, server's
configuration, databases' location and configuration (master) and jobs
and DTS packages (MSDB). Those databases should be backed up on a
regular basis.
Adi
sql
database backup question
I have a maintanence plan on all of my SQL servers, both SQl 2000 and SQL
2005. My question is, do I need to backup the Master. MDB, Model and tempdb,
databases or can I exclude them from my plan?They are system databases. So you should backup them when major changes are
made on the SQL Server Instance.
For example you should backup your "master" database when you create new
logins, linked servers etc. You should backup your "msdb" when you create
new jobs... And "model" if you made changes on the model database which is
the kinda template database...
You do not need to backup tempdb as it will be deleted and recreated
everytime your SQL Server service starts...
I encourage you to take a look at the following link to learn more about
Backing Up and Restoring System Databases:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms190190.aspx
P.S.
You do not need to backup system databases regularly as your user databases
and do not include these system databases in your regular backup maintanence
plan. You don't need this...
Ekrem nsoy
"Mike" <Iseeyoulooking@.move.com> wrote in message
news:uYQV%233YPIHA.5400@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>I have a maintanence plan on all of my SQL servers, both SQl 2000 and SQL
>2005. My question is, do I need to backup the Master. MDB, Model and
>tempdb, databases or can I exclude them from my plan?
>|||On Dec 13, 3:42 pm, "Mike" <Iseeyoulook...@.move.com> wrote:
> I have a maintanence plan on all of my SQL servers, both SQl 2000 and SQL
> 2005. My question is, do I need to backup the Master. MDB, Model and tempd
b,
> databases or can I exclude them from my plan?
You can exclude the tempdb because there is no way to restore it
anyway. The tempdb just as its name implies is temporary and is being
created by the server each time that the service starts.
Model database will only be modified if you modify it. This
database is used as a model for the server to create databases. If
you want each new database to have some objects in it, then you create
it in Model database and then each time that you'll create a new
database, you'll have those objects in the new database. If you
create objects in the model database, then you can backup the model
database. In other cases I don't see a reason to do it.
Master and MSDB store important data about logins, server's
configuration, databases' location and configuration (master) and jobs
and DTS packages (MSDB). Those databases should be backed up on a
regular basis.
Adi
2005. My question is, do I need to backup the Master. MDB, Model and tempdb,
databases or can I exclude them from my plan?They are system databases. So you should backup them when major changes are
made on the SQL Server Instance.
For example you should backup your "master" database when you create new
logins, linked servers etc. You should backup your "msdb" when you create
new jobs... And "model" if you made changes on the model database which is
the kinda template database...
You do not need to backup tempdb as it will be deleted and recreated
everytime your SQL Server service starts...
I encourage you to take a look at the following link to learn more about
Backing Up and Restoring System Databases:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms190190.aspx
P.S.
You do not need to backup system databases regularly as your user databases
and do not include these system databases in your regular backup maintanence
plan. You don't need this...
Ekrem nsoy
"Mike" <Iseeyoulooking@.move.com> wrote in message
news:uYQV%233YPIHA.5400@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>I have a maintanence plan on all of my SQL servers, both SQl 2000 and SQL
>2005. My question is, do I need to backup the Master. MDB, Model and
>tempdb, databases or can I exclude them from my plan?
>|||On Dec 13, 3:42 pm, "Mike" <Iseeyoulook...@.move.com> wrote:
> I have a maintanence plan on all of my SQL servers, both SQl 2000 and SQL
> 2005. My question is, do I need to backup the Master. MDB, Model and tempd
b,
> databases or can I exclude them from my plan?
You can exclude the tempdb because there is no way to restore it
anyway. The tempdb just as its name implies is temporary and is being
created by the server each time that the service starts.
Model database will only be modified if you modify it. This
database is used as a model for the server to create databases. If
you want each new database to have some objects in it, then you create
it in Model database and then each time that you'll create a new
database, you'll have those objects in the new database. If you
create objects in the model database, then you can backup the model
database. In other cases I don't see a reason to do it.
Master and MSDB store important data about logins, server's
configuration, databases' location and configuration (master) and jobs
and DTS packages (MSDB). Those databases should be backed up on a
regular basis.
Adi
database backup question
I have a maintanence plan on all of my SQL servers, both SQl 2000 and SQL
2005. My question is, do I need to backup the Master. MDB, Model and tempdb,
databases or can I exclude them from my plan?They are system databases. So you should backup them when major changes are
made on the SQL Server Instance.
For example you should backup your "master" database when you create new
logins, linked servers etc. You should backup your "msdb" when you create
new jobs... And "model" if you made changes on the model database which is
the kinda template database...
You do not need to backup tempdb as it will be deleted and recreated
everytime your SQL Server service starts...
I encourage you to take a look at the following link to learn more about
Backing Up and Restoring System Databases:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms190190.aspx
P.S.
You do not need to backup system databases regularly as your user databases
and do not include these system databases in your regular backup maintanence
plan. You don't need this...
--
Ekrem Önsoy
"Mike" <Iseeyoulooking@.move.com> wrote in message
news:uYQV%233YPIHA.5400@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>I have a maintanence plan on all of my SQL servers, both SQl 2000 and SQL
>2005. My question is, do I need to backup the Master. MDB, Model and
>tempdb, databases or can I exclude them from my plan?
>|||On Dec 13, 3:42 pm, "Mike" <Iseeyoulook...@.move.com> wrote:
> I have a maintanence plan on all of my SQL servers, both SQl 2000 and SQL
> 2005. My question is, do I need to backup the Master. MDB, Model and tempdb,
> databases or can I exclude them from my plan?
You can exclude the tempdb because there is no way to restore it
anyway. The tempdb just as its name implies is temporary and is being
created by the server each time that the service starts.
Model database will only be modified if you modify it. This
database is used as a model for the server to create databases. If
you want each new database to have some objects in it, then you create
it in Model database and then each time that you'll create a new
database, you'll have those objects in the new database. If you
create objects in the model database, then you can backup the model
database. In other cases I don't see a reason to do it.
Master and MSDB store important data about logins, server's
configuration, databases' location and configuration (master) and jobs
and DTS packages (MSDB). Those databases should be backed up on a
regular basis.
Adi
2005. My question is, do I need to backup the Master. MDB, Model and tempdb,
databases or can I exclude them from my plan?They are system databases. So you should backup them when major changes are
made on the SQL Server Instance.
For example you should backup your "master" database when you create new
logins, linked servers etc. You should backup your "msdb" when you create
new jobs... And "model" if you made changes on the model database which is
the kinda template database...
You do not need to backup tempdb as it will be deleted and recreated
everytime your SQL Server service starts...
I encourage you to take a look at the following link to learn more about
Backing Up and Restoring System Databases:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms190190.aspx
P.S.
You do not need to backup system databases regularly as your user databases
and do not include these system databases in your regular backup maintanence
plan. You don't need this...
--
Ekrem Önsoy
"Mike" <Iseeyoulooking@.move.com> wrote in message
news:uYQV%233YPIHA.5400@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>I have a maintanence plan on all of my SQL servers, both SQl 2000 and SQL
>2005. My question is, do I need to backup the Master. MDB, Model and
>tempdb, databases or can I exclude them from my plan?
>|||On Dec 13, 3:42 pm, "Mike" <Iseeyoulook...@.move.com> wrote:
> I have a maintanence plan on all of my SQL servers, both SQl 2000 and SQL
> 2005. My question is, do I need to backup the Master. MDB, Model and tempdb,
> databases or can I exclude them from my plan?
You can exclude the tempdb because there is no way to restore it
anyway. The tempdb just as its name implies is temporary and is being
created by the server each time that the service starts.
Model database will only be modified if you modify it. This
database is used as a model for the server to create databases. If
you want each new database to have some objects in it, then you create
it in Model database and then each time that you'll create a new
database, you'll have those objects in the new database. If you
create objects in the model database, then you can backup the model
database. In other cases I don't see a reason to do it.
Master and MSDB store important data about logins, server's
configuration, databases' location and configuration (master) and jobs
and DTS packages (MSDB). Those databases should be backed up on a
regular basis.
Adi
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Database back-up
Hi there,
What we basically want is seperating the development and production
servers. I need to transfer all the data to the new server from the
existing server.
My question is that what's a good way to transfer schema, tables and
data from one SQL Server to another. I have tried export option in the
enterprise manager, but I guess it doesn't transfer things like pk,
relationships etc or does it?
Once I have all data on the other server, I can set up a Trans
Replication, so that I get same data on both servers.
Thanks in advance.
Regards,
Ricky Singh
--
Posted via http://dbforums.comYou could create backups of your main databases and restore them into other
environments. Make sure you desensitize info like credit card numbers etc.
--
HTH,
Vyas, MVP (SQL Server)
http://vyaskn.tripod.com/
What hardware is your SQL Server running on?
http://vyaskn.tripod.com/poll.htm
"Ricky_Singh" <member32195@.dbforums.com> wrote in message
news:3059366.1057005218@.dbforums.com...
Hi there,
What we basically want is seperating the development and production
servers. I need to transfer all the data to the new server from the
existing server.
My question is that what's a good way to transfer schema, tables and
data from one SQL Server to another. I have tried export option in the
enterprise manager, but I guess it doesn't transfer things like pk,
relationships etc or does it?
Once I have all data on the other server, I can set up a Trans
Replication, so that I get same data on both servers.
Thanks in advance.
Regards,
Ricky Singh
--
Posted via http://dbforums.com|||Originally posted by Quentin Ran
> IMO backing up and then restore on the new machine is a easy,
> convenient
> way.
> Quentin
> Thanks for the replies. I m a newbie on SQL Server. Can I back-up
> using Tools-Backup database on enterprise manager and then save the
> file over WAN' I was trying doing that but cudn't see the mapped
> network drive over the WAN!!
>
> "Ricky_Singh" wrote in message
> news:3059366.1057005218@.dbforums.com"]news:3059366.1057005218@.d-
> bforums.com[/url]...
> > Hi there,
> > What we basically want is seperating the development and
> production
> > servers. I need to transfer all the data to the new server from
> the
> > existing server.
> > My question is that what's a good way to transfer schema, tables
> and
> > data from one SQL Server to another. I have tried export option
> in the
> > enterprise manager, but I guess it doesn't transfer things like
> pk,
> > relationships etc or does it?
> > Once I have all data on the other server, I can set up a
> Trans
> > Replication, so that I get same data on both servers.
> > Thanks in advance.
> > Regards,
> > Ricky Singh
> > --
> Posted via
http://dbforums.com/http://dbforums.com
Posted via http://dbforums.com|||Ricky,
I never tried that. I believe you can backup to a mapped LAN drive. If you
have this option, you can then transfer the file over to the WAN site.
Quentin
"Ricky_Singh" <member32195@.dbforums.com> wrote in message
news:3059937.1057009483@.dbforums.com...
> Originally posted by Quentin Ran
> > IMO backing up and then restore on the new machine is a easy,
> > convenient
> > way.
> >
> > Quentin
> >
> > Thanks for the replies. I m a newbie on SQL Server. Can I back-up
> > using Tools-Backup database on enterprise manager and then save the
> > file over WAN' I was trying doing that but cudn't see the mapped
> > network drive over the WAN!!
> >
> >
> > "Ricky_Singh" wrote in message
> > news:3059366.1057005218@.dbforums.com"]news:3059366.1057005218@.d-
> > bforums.com[/url]...
> > > Hi there,
> > > What we basically want is seperating the development and
> > production
> > > servers. I need to transfer all the data to the new server from
> > the
> > > existing server.
> > > My question is that what's a good way to transfer schema, tables
> > and
> > > data from one SQL Server to another. I have tried export option
> > in the
> > > enterprise manager, but I guess it doesn't transfer things like
> > pk,
> > > relationships etc or does it?
> > > Once I have all data on the other server, I can set up a
> > Trans
> > > Replication, so that I get same data on both servers.
> > > Thanks in advance.
> > > Regards,
> > > Ricky Singh
> > > --
> > Posted via
> http://dbforums.com/http://dbforums.com
>
> --
> Posted via http://dbforums.com|||Originally posted by Quentin Ran
> Ricky,
> I never tried that. I believe you can backup to a mapped LAN
> drive. If you
> have this option, you can then transfer the file over to the WAN site.
> Quentin
> Thanks a lot Quentin, I ll try that. Another question I have is that
> if I make a copy of the database file, Can I use that copy for restore
> at another SQL Server location.
> Thanks again!!
> "Ricky_Singh" wrote in message
> news:3059937.1057009483@.dbforums.com"]news:3059937.1057009483@.d-
> bforums.com[/url]...
> > Originally posted by Quentin Ran
> > > IMO backing up and then restore on the new machine is a
> easy,
> > > convenient
> > > way.
> > >
> > > Quentin
> > >
> > > Thanks for the replies. I m a newbie on SQL Server. Can I
> back-up
> > > using Tools-Backup database on enterprise manager and then
> save the
> > > file over WAN' I was trying doing that but cudn't see the
> mapped
> > > network drive over the WAN!!
> > >
> > >
> > > "Ricky_Singh" wrote in message
> > > news:3059366.1057005218@.dbforums.com"]news:3059366.1057-
> 005218@.dbforums.com[/url]"]news:3059366.1057005218@.d-"]news-
> :3059366.1057005218@.d-[/url]
> > > bforums.com[/url]...
> > > > Hi there,
> > > > What we basically want is seperating the development
> and
> > > production
> > > > servers. I need to transfer all the data to the new server
> from
> > > the
> > > > existing server.
> > > > My question is that what's a good way to transfer schema,
> tables
> > > and
> > > > data from one SQL Server to another. I have tried export
> option
> > > in the
> > > > enterprise manager, but I guess it doesn't transfer things
> like
> > > pk,
> > > > relationships etc or does it?
> > > > Once I have all data on the other server, I can set up
> a
> > > Trans
> > > > Replication, so that I get same data on both servers.
> > > > Thanks in advance.
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Ricky Singh
> > > > --
> > > Posted via
> > http://dbforums.com/http://dbforums.com"]http://dbfor-
> ums.com/http://dbforums.com[/url]
> > --
> Posted via
http://dbforums.com/http://dbforums.com
Posted via http://dbforums.com|||Certainly.
"Ricky_Singh" <member32195@.dbforums.com> wrote in message
news:3062421.1057073733@.dbforums.com...
> Originally posted by Quentin Ran
> > Ricky,
> >
> > I never tried that. I believe you can backup to a mapped LAN
> > drive. If you
> > have this option, you can then transfer the file over to the WAN site.
> >
> > Quentin
> >
> > Thanks a lot Quentin, I ll try that. Another question I have is that
> > if I make a copy of the database file, Can I use that copy for restore
> > at another SQL Server location.
> > Thanks again!!
> >
> > "Ricky_Singh" wrote in message
> > news:3059937.1057009483@.dbforums.com"]news:3059937.1057009483@.d-
> > bforums.com[/url]...
> > > Originally posted by Quentin Ran
> > > > IMO backing up and then restore on the new machine is a
> > easy,
> > > > convenient
> > > > way.
> > > >
> > > > Quentin
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for the replies. I m a newbie on SQL Server. Can I
> > back-up
> > > > using Tools-Backup database on enterprise manager and then
> > save the
> > > > file over WAN' I was trying doing that but cudn't see the
> > mapped
> > > > network drive over the WAN!!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Ricky_Singh" wrote in message
> > > > news:3059366.1057005218@.dbforums.com"]news:3059366.1057-
> > 005218@.dbforums.com[/url]"]news:3059366.1057005218@.d-"]news-
> > :3059366.1057005218@.d-[/url]
> > > > bforums.com[/url]...
> > > > > Hi there,
> > > > > What we basically want is seperating the development
> > and
> > > > production
> > > > > servers. I need to transfer all the data to the new server
> > from
> > > > the
> > > > > existing server.
> > > > > My question is that what's a good way to transfer schema,
> > tables
> > > > and
> > > > > data from one SQL Server to another. I have tried export
> > option
> > > > in the
> > > > > enterprise manager, but I guess it doesn't transfer things
> > like
> > > > pk,
> > > > > relationships etc or does it?
> > > > > Once I have all data on the other server, I can set up
> > a
> > > > Trans
> > > > > Replication, so that I get same data on both servers.
> > > > > Thanks in advance.
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > Ricky Singh
> > > > > --
> > > > Posted via
> > > http://dbforums.com/http://dbforums.com"]http://dbfor-
> > ums.com/http://dbforums.com[/url]
> > > --
> > Posted via
> http://dbforums.com/http://dbforums.com
>
> --
> Posted via http://dbforums.com|||Originally posted by Quentin Ran
> Certainly.
> The problem I m facing is that when I try to back-up the server, I am
> unable to see the mapped network drive. I see a dialog box with the
> server name and the drives on that server, but no mapped drives.
> Thanks for the help.
> "Ricky_Singh" wrote in message
> news:3062421.1057073733@.dbforums.com"]news:3062421.1057073733@.d-
> bforums.com[/url]...
> > Originally posted by Quentin Ran
> > > Ricky,
> > >
> > > I never tried that. I believe you can backup to a mapped
> LAN
> > > drive. If you
> > > have this option, you can then transfer the file over to the
> WAN site.
> > >
> > > Quentin
> > >
> > > Thanks a lot Quentin, I ll try that. Another question I have
> is that
> > > if I make a copy of the database file, Can I use that copy for
> restore
> > > at another SQL Server location.
> > > Thanks again!!
> > >
> > > "Ricky_Singh" wrote in message
> > > news:3059937.1057009483@.dbforums.com"]news:3059937.1057-
> 009483@.dbforums.com[/url]"]news:3059937.1057009483@.d-"]news-
> :3059937.1057009483@.d-[/url]
> > > bforums.com[/url]...
> > > > Originally posted by Quentin Ran
> > > > > IMO backing up and then restore on the new machine is
> a
> > > easy,
> > > > > convenient
> > > > > way.
> > > > >
> > > > > Quentin
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for the replies. I m a newbie on SQL Server. Can
> I
> > > back-up
> > > > > using Tools-Backup database on enterprise manager and
> then
> > > save the
> > > > > file over WAN' I was trying doing that but cudn't see
> the
> > > mapped
> > > > > network drive over the WAN!!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "Ricky_Singh" wrote in message
> > > > > news:3059366.1057005218@.dbforums.com"]news:3059366.-
> 1057005218@.dbforums.com[/url]"]news:3059366.1057-"]news:305-
> 9366.1057-[/url]
> > > 005218@.dbforums.com[/url]"]news:3059366.1057005218@.-
> d-news:3059366.1057005218@.d-"]news-
> > > :3059366.1057005218@.d-[/url]
> > > > > bforums.com[/url]...
> > > > > > Hi there,
> > > > > > What we basically want is seperating the
> development
> > > and
> > > > > production
> > > > > > servers. I need to transfer all the data to the new
> server
> > > from
> > > > > the
> > > > > > existing server.
> > > > > > My question is that what's a good way to transfer
> schema,
> > > tables
> > > > > and
> > > > > > data from one SQL Server to another. I have tried
> export
> > > option
> > > > > in the
> > > > > > enterprise manager, but I guess it doesn't transfer
> things
> > > like
> > > > > pk,
> > > > > > relationships etc or does it?
> > > > > > Once I have all data on the other server, I can set
> up
> > > a
> > > > > Trans
> > > > > > Replication, so that I get same data on both
> servers.
> > > > > > Thanks in advance.
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > Ricky Singh
> > > > > > --
> > > > > Posted via
> > > > http://dbforums.com/http://dbforums.com"]http://d-
> bforums.com/http://dbforums.com[/url]"]http://dbfor-/"]http-
> ://dbfor-[/url]
> > > ums.com/http://dbforums.com[/url]"]http://dbforums.-
> com[/url][/url]
> > > > --
> > > Posted via
> > http://dbforums.com/http://dbforums.com"]http://dbfor-
> ums.com/http://dbforums.com[/url]
> > --
> Posted via
http://dbforums.com/http://dbforums.com
Posted via http://dbforums.comsql
What we basically want is seperating the development and production
servers. I need to transfer all the data to the new server from the
existing server.
My question is that what's a good way to transfer schema, tables and
data from one SQL Server to another. I have tried export option in the
enterprise manager, but I guess it doesn't transfer things like pk,
relationships etc or does it?
Once I have all data on the other server, I can set up a Trans
Replication, so that I get same data on both servers.
Thanks in advance.
Regards,
Ricky Singh
--
Posted via http://dbforums.comYou could create backups of your main databases and restore them into other
environments. Make sure you desensitize info like credit card numbers etc.
--
HTH,
Vyas, MVP (SQL Server)
http://vyaskn.tripod.com/
What hardware is your SQL Server running on?
http://vyaskn.tripod.com/poll.htm
"Ricky_Singh" <member32195@.dbforums.com> wrote in message
news:3059366.1057005218@.dbforums.com...
Hi there,
What we basically want is seperating the development and production
servers. I need to transfer all the data to the new server from the
existing server.
My question is that what's a good way to transfer schema, tables and
data from one SQL Server to another. I have tried export option in the
enterprise manager, but I guess it doesn't transfer things like pk,
relationships etc or does it?
Once I have all data on the other server, I can set up a Trans
Replication, so that I get same data on both servers.
Thanks in advance.
Regards,
Ricky Singh
--
Posted via http://dbforums.com|||Originally posted by Quentin Ran
> IMO backing up and then restore on the new machine is a easy,
> convenient
> way.
> Quentin
> Thanks for the replies. I m a newbie on SQL Server. Can I back-up
> using Tools-Backup database on enterprise manager and then save the
> file over WAN' I was trying doing that but cudn't see the mapped
> network drive over the WAN!!
>
> "Ricky_Singh" wrote in message
> news:3059366.1057005218@.dbforums.com"]news:3059366.1057005218@.d-
> bforums.com[/url]...
> > Hi there,
> > What we basically want is seperating the development and
> production
> > servers. I need to transfer all the data to the new server from
> the
> > existing server.
> > My question is that what's a good way to transfer schema, tables
> and
> > data from one SQL Server to another. I have tried export option
> in the
> > enterprise manager, but I guess it doesn't transfer things like
> pk,
> > relationships etc or does it?
> > Once I have all data on the other server, I can set up a
> Trans
> > Replication, so that I get same data on both servers.
> > Thanks in advance.
> > Regards,
> > Ricky Singh
> > --
> Posted via
http://dbforums.com/http://dbforums.com
Posted via http://dbforums.com|||Ricky,
I never tried that. I believe you can backup to a mapped LAN drive. If you
have this option, you can then transfer the file over to the WAN site.
Quentin
"Ricky_Singh" <member32195@.dbforums.com> wrote in message
news:3059937.1057009483@.dbforums.com...
> Originally posted by Quentin Ran
> > IMO backing up and then restore on the new machine is a easy,
> > convenient
> > way.
> >
> > Quentin
> >
> > Thanks for the replies. I m a newbie on SQL Server. Can I back-up
> > using Tools-Backup database on enterprise manager and then save the
> > file over WAN' I was trying doing that but cudn't see the mapped
> > network drive over the WAN!!
> >
> >
> > "Ricky_Singh" wrote in message
> > news:3059366.1057005218@.dbforums.com"]news:3059366.1057005218@.d-
> > bforums.com[/url]...
> > > Hi there,
> > > What we basically want is seperating the development and
> > production
> > > servers. I need to transfer all the data to the new server from
> > the
> > > existing server.
> > > My question is that what's a good way to transfer schema, tables
> > and
> > > data from one SQL Server to another. I have tried export option
> > in the
> > > enterprise manager, but I guess it doesn't transfer things like
> > pk,
> > > relationships etc or does it?
> > > Once I have all data on the other server, I can set up a
> > Trans
> > > Replication, so that I get same data on both servers.
> > > Thanks in advance.
> > > Regards,
> > > Ricky Singh
> > > --
> > Posted via
> http://dbforums.com/http://dbforums.com
>
> --
> Posted via http://dbforums.com|||Originally posted by Quentin Ran
> Ricky,
> I never tried that. I believe you can backup to a mapped LAN
> drive. If you
> have this option, you can then transfer the file over to the WAN site.
> Quentin
> Thanks a lot Quentin, I ll try that. Another question I have is that
> if I make a copy of the database file, Can I use that copy for restore
> at another SQL Server location.
> Thanks again!!
> "Ricky_Singh" wrote in message
> news:3059937.1057009483@.dbforums.com"]news:3059937.1057009483@.d-
> bforums.com[/url]...
> > Originally posted by Quentin Ran
> > > IMO backing up and then restore on the new machine is a
> easy,
> > > convenient
> > > way.
> > >
> > > Quentin
> > >
> > > Thanks for the replies. I m a newbie on SQL Server. Can I
> back-up
> > > using Tools-Backup database on enterprise manager and then
> save the
> > > file over WAN' I was trying doing that but cudn't see the
> mapped
> > > network drive over the WAN!!
> > >
> > >
> > > "Ricky_Singh" wrote in message
> > > news:3059366.1057005218@.dbforums.com"]news:3059366.1057-
> 005218@.dbforums.com[/url]"]news:3059366.1057005218@.d-"]news-
> :3059366.1057005218@.d-[/url]
> > > bforums.com[/url]...
> > > > Hi there,
> > > > What we basically want is seperating the development
> and
> > > production
> > > > servers. I need to transfer all the data to the new server
> from
> > > the
> > > > existing server.
> > > > My question is that what's a good way to transfer schema,
> tables
> > > and
> > > > data from one SQL Server to another. I have tried export
> option
> > > in the
> > > > enterprise manager, but I guess it doesn't transfer things
> like
> > > pk,
> > > > relationships etc or does it?
> > > > Once I have all data on the other server, I can set up
> a
> > > Trans
> > > > Replication, so that I get same data on both servers.
> > > > Thanks in advance.
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Ricky Singh
> > > > --
> > > Posted via
> > http://dbforums.com/http://dbforums.com"]http://dbfor-
> ums.com/http://dbforums.com[/url]
> > --
> Posted via
http://dbforums.com/http://dbforums.com
Posted via http://dbforums.com|||Certainly.
"Ricky_Singh" <member32195@.dbforums.com> wrote in message
news:3062421.1057073733@.dbforums.com...
> Originally posted by Quentin Ran
> > Ricky,
> >
> > I never tried that. I believe you can backup to a mapped LAN
> > drive. If you
> > have this option, you can then transfer the file over to the WAN site.
> >
> > Quentin
> >
> > Thanks a lot Quentin, I ll try that. Another question I have is that
> > if I make a copy of the database file, Can I use that copy for restore
> > at another SQL Server location.
> > Thanks again!!
> >
> > "Ricky_Singh" wrote in message
> > news:3059937.1057009483@.dbforums.com"]news:3059937.1057009483@.d-
> > bforums.com[/url]...
> > > Originally posted by Quentin Ran
> > > > IMO backing up and then restore on the new machine is a
> > easy,
> > > > convenient
> > > > way.
> > > >
> > > > Quentin
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for the replies. I m a newbie on SQL Server. Can I
> > back-up
> > > > using Tools-Backup database on enterprise manager and then
> > save the
> > > > file over WAN' I was trying doing that but cudn't see the
> > mapped
> > > > network drive over the WAN!!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Ricky_Singh" wrote in message
> > > > news:3059366.1057005218@.dbforums.com"]news:3059366.1057-
> > 005218@.dbforums.com[/url]"]news:3059366.1057005218@.d-"]news-
> > :3059366.1057005218@.d-[/url]
> > > > bforums.com[/url]...
> > > > > Hi there,
> > > > > What we basically want is seperating the development
> > and
> > > > production
> > > > > servers. I need to transfer all the data to the new server
> > from
> > > > the
> > > > > existing server.
> > > > > My question is that what's a good way to transfer schema,
> > tables
> > > > and
> > > > > data from one SQL Server to another. I have tried export
> > option
> > > > in the
> > > > > enterprise manager, but I guess it doesn't transfer things
> > like
> > > > pk,
> > > > > relationships etc or does it?
> > > > > Once I have all data on the other server, I can set up
> > a
> > > > Trans
> > > > > Replication, so that I get same data on both servers.
> > > > > Thanks in advance.
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > Ricky Singh
> > > > > --
> > > > Posted via
> > > http://dbforums.com/http://dbforums.com"]http://dbfor-
> > ums.com/http://dbforums.com[/url]
> > > --
> > Posted via
> http://dbforums.com/http://dbforums.com
>
> --
> Posted via http://dbforums.com|||Originally posted by Quentin Ran
> Certainly.
> The problem I m facing is that when I try to back-up the server, I am
> unable to see the mapped network drive. I see a dialog box with the
> server name and the drives on that server, but no mapped drives.
> Thanks for the help.
> "Ricky_Singh" wrote in message
> news:3062421.1057073733@.dbforums.com"]news:3062421.1057073733@.d-
> bforums.com[/url]...
> > Originally posted by Quentin Ran
> > > Ricky,
> > >
> > > I never tried that. I believe you can backup to a mapped
> LAN
> > > drive. If you
> > > have this option, you can then transfer the file over to the
> WAN site.
> > >
> > > Quentin
> > >
> > > Thanks a lot Quentin, I ll try that. Another question I have
> is that
> > > if I make a copy of the database file, Can I use that copy for
> restore
> > > at another SQL Server location.
> > > Thanks again!!
> > >
> > > "Ricky_Singh" wrote in message
> > > news:3059937.1057009483@.dbforums.com"]news:3059937.1057-
> 009483@.dbforums.com[/url]"]news:3059937.1057009483@.d-"]news-
> :3059937.1057009483@.d-[/url]
> > > bforums.com[/url]...
> > > > Originally posted by Quentin Ran
> > > > > IMO backing up and then restore on the new machine is
> a
> > > easy,
> > > > > convenient
> > > > > way.
> > > > >
> > > > > Quentin
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for the replies. I m a newbie on SQL Server. Can
> I
> > > back-up
> > > > > using Tools-Backup database on enterprise manager and
> then
> > > save the
> > > > > file over WAN' I was trying doing that but cudn't see
> the
> > > mapped
> > > > > network drive over the WAN!!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "Ricky_Singh" wrote in message
> > > > > news:3059366.1057005218@.dbforums.com"]news:3059366.-
> 1057005218@.dbforums.com[/url]"]news:3059366.1057-"]news:305-
> 9366.1057-[/url]
> > > 005218@.dbforums.com[/url]"]news:3059366.1057005218@.-
> d-news:3059366.1057005218@.d-"]news-
> > > :3059366.1057005218@.d-[/url]
> > > > > bforums.com[/url]...
> > > > > > Hi there,
> > > > > > What we basically want is seperating the
> development
> > > and
> > > > > production
> > > > > > servers. I need to transfer all the data to the new
> server
> > > from
> > > > > the
> > > > > > existing server.
> > > > > > My question is that what's a good way to transfer
> schema,
> > > tables
> > > > > and
> > > > > > data from one SQL Server to another. I have tried
> export
> > > option
> > > > > in the
> > > > > > enterprise manager, but I guess it doesn't transfer
> things
> > > like
> > > > > pk,
> > > > > > relationships etc or does it?
> > > > > > Once I have all data on the other server, I can set
> up
> > > a
> > > > > Trans
> > > > > > Replication, so that I get same data on both
> servers.
> > > > > > Thanks in advance.
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > Ricky Singh
> > > > > > --
> > > > > Posted via
> > > > http://dbforums.com/http://dbforums.com"]http://d-
> bforums.com/http://dbforums.com[/url]"]http://dbfor-/"]http-
> ://dbfor-[/url]
> > > ums.com/http://dbforums.com[/url]"]http://dbforums.-
> com[/url][/url]
> > > > --
> > > Posted via
> > http://dbforums.com/http://dbforums.com"]http://dbfor-
> ums.com/http://dbforums.com[/url]
> > --
> Posted via
http://dbforums.com/http://dbforums.com
Posted via http://dbforums.comsql
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Database access by machines running SQL Servers 2005 32-bit and 64-bit
Hello
We have 1 machine running SQL Server 2005 x64 (64 bit). The other machine is backing this SQL Server up. It is a 32-bit machine, so it requires (?) a 32-bit version of SQL Server 2005.
Would this back-up machine work correctly on a database previously managed by a 64-bit machine and vice versa.
Thank you!
Yes, in terms of connection and administration you won′t feel any difference. But you only can install 32bit software on a 32bit system.HTH, Jens K. Suessmeyer.
http://www.sqlserver2005.de|||
If my DEV box is 32 bit and my PROD box is 64 bit:
can I deploy (or migrate) from DEV to PROD. The DEV box would have the 32bit SQL Server and the PROD would have the 64 bit SQL server. But if I deploy what I wrote and created there on 32 bit will it run on the 64 bit?
CLR stored procedures?|||No, the things that were developed on the DEv machine can be deployed without any problem on the production machine as from your description. On the Prod system the 64bit framework will take care of the assemblies.
HTH, Jens K. Suessmeyer.
http://www.sqlserver2005.de
Database Access across servers or Firewall Issue
Hi All,
I am facing a strange issue with accessing data from SQL server 2000. We are using SQL Server authentication for connecting to SQL Server 2000 and ADO .Net SQL client in the application. The problem here is, we have databases installed in one of the servers in some other office location that is in different state but on same domain. We do development from two locations that is one from Virtual Machines hosted on servers where Database Servers are located and on our local desktops in India.
Now when I developed a test client in Virtual Machines which will call a web service to get datasetof some data and show them in DataGrid. When I run the test client in debug mode from Visual Studio 2003, then I am getting data in the DataGrid. Even when I just run the exe from Virtual Machine still I am getting data.
But when I copy debug folder of the test client to the local desktop in India and when I run the Test client I am not getting any data loaded on to the DataGrid. I am getting an empty dataset when I am running from the local desktop.
Also I have converted the VS2003 project to VS2005 and when I run the application from Local Desktop then I am getting the data loaded fine. I could not understand what is the problem, what is the difference between accessing data from VS2003 and VS2005 using webservice.
Is this a firewall issue or I am missing any thing here. The webservice method I am calling to get data is actually returning dataset when I am calling this method directly from the browser also and even through application in virtual machine.
I am still not able to come to terms with this problem. This is severely affecting our deployment. Please help us resolve this problem. Please let me know if you need more information.
Thanks,
Venkatesh
Hi Venkatesh,
From what I understand, you have 3 components in your application system. There's the SQL Server, some client code, and a web service.
The SQL Server is in the same domain as the Virtual Machines that you are developing in. Your local desktops in India are in the same domain or a different domain than the SQL Server machine?
Since you are using SQL Server user authentication, the cross domain connectivity should not be an issue. You can verify this by running osql.exe or Query Analyzer tool on your local desktop connecting to the SQL Server machine using the same SQL Server user credentials as your client application.
As for the test client not seeing any data from the web service, I think it would help if you can mention how the web service is connecting to SQL Server and how the ADO.Net application is retrieving data from the web service. I can see the web service using ADO.Net (SqlClient) to connect to the backend SQL Server. Then, some front end client application built using the web service's WSDL document.
I think it will help people understand your application setup and provide possible solutions, if you can specify:
What is the web service using to connect to SQL Server (SqlClient)? Is the web service running on the same machine as SQL Server? If the web service is running on a different machine, is there a connectivity issue between the web service and SQL Server? Is the web service connected to SQL Server using SQL User credentials or Integrated authentication? Does the client application require to send user credentials to connect to the web service?|||Sorry for the delay in response,
1. Web Service has Business Logic DLL reference which uses SQLClient ADO .Net commands to connect to database.
2. Web Service and SQL Server are on different servers but on the same domain.
3. There is no connectivity issue between the two machines because when I access same WebService through Web Browser, it works fine.
4. Web Service is connecting to SQL Server using SQL User credentials.
5. The User credentials are configured through WebService's Web.Config file.
I really have no clue about this issue. The issue just lies between the Windows Client and Web Service. Because when I access WebService directly through Web Browser then the Web Method is returning data, that means Web Service is getting the data fine but it is not able to give it to the Client.
FYI this issue occurs only on Windows 2003 Server if I install the same service on Windows 2000 server it works fine.
Anyhelp will be greatly appreciated.
Database Access across servers or Firewall Issue
Hi All,
I am facing a strange issue with accessing data from SQL server 2000. We are using SQL Server authentication for connecting to SQL Server 2000 and ADO .Net SQL client in the application. The problem here is, we have databases installed in one of the servers in some other office location that is in different state but on same domain. We do development from two locations that is one from Virtual Machines hosted on servers where Database Servers are located and on our local desktops in India.
Now when I developed a test client in Virtual Machines which will call a web service to get datasetof some data and show them in DataGrid. When I run the test client in debug mode from Visual Studio 2003, then I am getting data in the DataGrid. Even when I just run the exe from Virtual Machine still I am getting data.
But when I copy debug folder of the test client to the local desktop in India and when I run the Test client I am not getting any data loaded on to the DataGrid. I am getting an empty dataset when I am running from the local desktop.
Also I have converted the VS2003 project to VS2005 and when I run the application from Local Desktop then I am getting the data loaded fine. I could not understand what is the problem, what is the difference between accessing data from VS2003 and VS2005 using webservice.
Is this a firewall issue or I am missing any thing here. The webservice method I am calling to get data is actually returning dataset when I am calling this method directly from the browser also and even through application in virtual machine.
I am still not able to come to terms with this problem. This is severely affecting our deployment. Please help us resolve this problem. Please let me know if you need more information.
Thanks,
Venkatesh
Hi Venkatesh,
From what I understand, you have 3 components in your application system. There's the SQL Server, some client code, and a web service.
The SQL Server is in the same domain as the Virtual Machines that you are developing in. Your local desktops in India are in the same domain or a different domain than the SQL Server machine?
Since you are using SQL Server user authentication, the cross domain connectivity should not be an issue. You can verify this by running osql.exe or Query Analyzer tool on your local desktop connecting to the SQL Server machine using the same SQL Server user credentials as your client application.
As for the test client not seeing any data from the web service, I think it would help if you can mention how the web service is connecting to SQL Server and how the ADO.Net application is retrieving data from the web service. I can see the web service using ADO.Net (SqlClient) to connect to the backend SQL Server. Then, some front end client application built using the web service's WSDL document.
I think it will help people understand your application setup and provide possible solutions, if you can specify:
What is the web service using to connect to SQL Server (SqlClient)? Is the web service running on the same machine as SQL Server? If the web service is running on a different machine, is there a connectivity issue between the web service and SQL Server? Is the web service connected to SQL Server using SQL User credentials or Integrated authentication? Does the client application require to send user credentials to connect to the web service?|||Sorry for the delay in response,
1. Web Service has Business Logic DLL reference which uses SQLClient ADO .Net commands to connect to database.
2. Web Service and SQL Server are on different servers but on the same domain.
3. There is no connectivity issue between the two machines because when I access same WebService through Web Browser, it works fine.
4. Web Service is connecting to SQL Server using SQL User credentials.
5. The User credentials are configured through WebService's Web.Config file.
I really have no clue about this issue. The issue just lies between the Windows Client and Web Service. Because when I access WebService directly through Web Browser then the Web Method is returning data, that means Web Service is getting the data fine but it is not able to give it to the Client.
FYI this issue occurs only on Windows 2003 Server if I install the same service on Windows 2000 server it works fine.
Anyhelp will be greatly appreciated.
Database Access
Dear All,
I Have two SQL Server ABC and XYZ and i have changed the SA password of both the servers.
I have added link server on the both the servers.
When i execute a link server query in a SQL Query Analyser on either server it works, but when i use the same query in a job, then it fails.
So anyone can help in the above problem.
Regards,
VinayakThe sql server service accout needs to be granted authority|||Hello,
Can u help me in the same.......
I Have two SQL Server ABC and XYZ and i have changed the SA password of both the servers.
I have added link server on the both the servers.
When i execute a link server query in a SQL Query Analyser on either server it works, but when i use the same query in a job, then it fails.
So anyone can help in the above problem.
Regards,
VinayakThe sql server service accout needs to be granted authority|||Hello,
Can u help me in the same.......
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)