Backing Up SQL Server

I currently have two SQL servers, one of which is a replicator, and I have decided that it is long past time to start backing up properly. I have looked at a number of solutions but Veritas Backup Exec seems to be a decent product. I was wondering if I could get you opinions on this and any other products there might be out there (keeping in mind I am a small company on a budget). THXWhat types of backups are you talking about? Are you wanting to do database backups, or file backups to a tape device or something? Database backups can be done reliably using the sql tools, tape backups are a different matter.|||If you already have a server with a backup device you can configure the SQL Server to perform its backups to a share on that server. The files will be backed up along with the existing backup on the existing server (hopefully this is still clear).|||Im talking about doing a backup of my database and of the system databases. I was going to backup to a tape (AIT3) drive. I was looking at using Server's backup tool but I didn't know if it could backup hot or not. Once again thanks.|||SQL Server has actually made this very simple for you. Open up Enterprise Manager, and expand the Management folder. Then Right Click on the Database Maintenance Plans icon and select new maintenance plan. Then follow it through. SQL can back up any and all of its database while still serving data and filling requests. Then you can back up the .bak or .trn files dumped to tape after the maintenance plan has completed. Read up on maintenance plans in books online. There is alot of info in there.|||Yea I saw that but then I got to wondering if there was something else to that because I see companies like Veritas and commVolt making these backup packages and I kinda figured if they did that there must be somthing missing from Microsoft's backup, or is there? Thanks, SQLhack|||I have only come across one problem that I couldnt solve with the bundled SQL tools. We had a transaction log that was corrupted and couldnt apply it to our standby server. We actually had to get Lumigent Log Explorer to script it out and then played it forward. But that is another story. The other reason SQL backup solution may not work is for larger databases (100 Gig +) the restore times can be slow. Especially if your site is down during the restore. For the rest of my 6 years of SQL Server experience, database and log dumps copied off the server and backed up to tape have always gotten me out of any problem that hase come along.|||We used Veritas Backup Exec on many NT4 servers, and we upgraded our servers to Win2k, we decided to use Microsoft Backup instead, cause many tech of these sites complains about complexity to manage backup, etc.

backing up sql 2000

I just inherited a couple servers that use Sql 2000 on
them, can u point me where i can find detailed
information on how to backup, or do routine maintenance
on sql 2000?
thanks
rob davisBooks Online (BOL) is always a good place to start. This is installed as pa
rt of the SQL Server Client Tools. It has also been recently updated and ca
n be downloaded for free from -
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...&displaylang=en
Search for the word "backup" and also Database Maintenance Plan Wizard as pl
aces to start.
HTH,
James|||thank you

quote:

---

>--Original Message--
>Books Online (BOL) is always a good place to start.

---

This is installed as part of the SQL Server Client
Tools. It has also been recently updated and can be
downloaded for free from -

quote:

---

>http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?

---

FamilyId=A6F79CB1-A420-445F-8A4B-
BD77A7DA194B&displaylang=en

quote:

---

>Search for the word "backup" and also Database

---

Maintenance Plan Wizard as places to start.

quote:

---

>HTH,
>James
>.
>

---

sql

backing up sql 2000

I just inherited a couple servers that use Sql 2000 on
them, can u point me where i can find detailed
information on how to backup, or do routine maintenance
on sql 2000?
thanks
rob davisBooks Online (BOL) is always a good place to start. This is installed as part of the SQL Server Client Tools. It has also been recently updated and can be downloaded for free from
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=A6F79CB1-A420-445F-8A4B-BD77A7DA194B&displaylang=e
Search for the word "backup" and also Database Maintenance Plan Wizard as places to start
HTH
James|||thank you
>--Original Message--
>Books Online (BOL) is always a good place to start.
This is installed as part of the SQL Server Client
Tools. It has also been recently updated and can be
downloaded for free from -
>http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?
FamilyId=A6F79CB1-A420-445F-8A4B-
BD77A7DA194B&displaylang=en
>Search for the word "backup" and also Database
Maintenance Plan Wizard as places to start.
>HTH,
>James
>.
>

Backing up non-simple SQL Database

Hello.
I am responsible for backing up two Windows 2003 servers, one of which
contains a non-simple SQL database.
The tapedrive is a DLT1 without any automated loading (I must load a new
tape each day by hand).
I am using Microsoft's built in backup software, to backup all the important
data in our office.
I have a tape backup running daily, which automatically frees and relabels
any tape in the drive, then writes all the data in one go.
I am backing up any data from other PCs and from the system state of the
Server without the tape drive onto a hard drive and then backing this data
up on to the tape drive.
This is achieved by using the unamaged switch, like so:
C:\WINDOWS\system32\ntbackup.exe backup @.C:\BackupData\TapeBackup.bks /v:yes
/r:no /rs:no /hc:on /m normal /j "TapeBackup" /p "DLT" /l:s /um
And using task scheduler.
I was also attempting to do this with the SQL database; backing up the
database from within the SQL server (version 8) to the hard drive, and then
backing that up to tape.
The problem is that the backup that SQL server creates is still a database
and because its not "simple" ntbackup refuses to back it up.
I cannot tell SQL server to automatically backup to tape, as I do not know
the label or ID that the tape will have.
So the question is: how can I back up the database to the same tapedrive and
tape as the rest of our data without having to do so manually.
I appear to be using ntbackup in a way that is not really intended, but
cannot understand how to do automated (scheduled) backups without using the
/um switch - because you then need to specify which tape you want to use
somehow.
This would mean having a different schedule for every day of the week, every
week of the month and every month of the year (according to our backup
plan).
As things are currently, I am not backing up the SQL database, which is a
vital part of the business and this cannot be allowed to continue.
I would be very grateful if one of you guys could shed some light on how to
do this.
Thanks.
Lawrence
HI,
U can restore ur database with header and lable in ur backup device.
sql server will detact the tape if ur hardware is RAID 5.
For more information about backup and copy to tape read BOL.
from
Killer
Wi-Surf Support wrote:
> Hello.
> I am responsible for backing up two Windows 2003 servers, one of which
> contains a non-simple SQL database.
> The tapedrive is a DLT1 without any automated loading (I must load a new
> tape each day by hand).
> I am using Microsoft's built in backup software, to backup all the important
> data in our office.
> I have a tape backup running daily, which automatically frees and relabels
> any tape in the drive, then writes all the data in one go.
> I am backing up any data from other PCs and from the system state of the
> Server without the tape drive onto a hard drive and then backing this data
> up on to the tape drive.
> This is achieved by using the unamaged switch, like so:
> C:\WINDOWS\system32\ntbackup.exe backup @.C:\BackupData\TapeBackup.bks /v:yes
> /r:no /rs:no /hc:on /m normal /j "TapeBackup" /p "DLT" /l:s /um
> And using task scheduler.
> I was also attempting to do this with the SQL database; backing up the
> database from within the SQL server (version 8) to the hard drive, and then
> backing that up to tape.
> The problem is that the backup that SQL server creates is still a database
> and because its not "simple" ntbackup refuses to back it up.
> I cannot tell SQL server to automatically backup to tape, as I do not know
> the label or ID that the tape will have.
> So the question is: how can I back up the database to the same tapedrive and
> tape as the rest of our data without having to do so manually.
> I appear to be using ntbackup in a way that is not really intended, but
> cannot understand how to do automated (scheduled) backups without using the
> /um switch - because you then need to specify which tape you want to use
> somehow.
> This would mean having a different schedule for every day of the week, every
> week of the month and every month of the year (according to our backup
> plan).
> As things are currently, I am not backing up the SQL database, which is a
> vital part of the business and this cannot be allowed to continue.
> I would be very grateful if one of you guys could shed some light on how to
> do this.
> Thanks.
> Lawrence
sql

Backing up non-simple SQL Database

Hello.
I am responsible for backing up two Windows 2003 servers, one of which
contains a non-simple SQL database.
The tapedrive is a DLT1 without any automated loading (I must load a new
tape each day by hand).
I am using Microsoft's built in backup software, to backup all the important
data in our office.
I have a tape backup running daily, which automatically frees and relabels
any tape in the drive, then writes all the data in one go.
I am backing up any data from other PCs and from the system state of the
Server without the tape drive onto a hard drive and then backing this data
up on to the tape drive.
This is achieved by using the unamaged switch, like so:
C:\WINDOWS\system32\ntbackup.exe backup @.C:\BackupData\TapeBackup.bks /v:yes
/r:no /rs:no /hc:on /m normal /j "TapeBackup" /p "DLT" /l:s /um
And using task scheduler.
I was also attempting to do this with the SQL database; backing up the
database from within the SQL server (version 8) to the hard drive, and then
backing that up to tape.
The problem is that the backup that SQL server creates is still a database
and because its not "simple" ntbackup refuses to back it up.
I cannot tell SQL server to automatically backup to tape, as I do not know
the label or ID that the tape will have.
So the question is: how can I back up the database to the same tapedrive and
tape as the rest of our data without having to do so manually.
I appear to be using ntbackup in a way that is not really intended, but
cannot understand how to do automated (scheduled) backups without using the
/um switch - because you then need to specify which tape you want to use
somehow.
This would mean having a different schedule for every day of the week, every
week of the month and every month of the year (according to our backup
plan).
As things are currently, I am not backing up the SQL database, which is a
vital part of the business and this cannot be allowed to continue.
I would be very grateful if one of you guys could shed some light on how to
do this.
Thanks.
Lawrence
HI,
U can restore ur database with header and lable in ur backup device.
sql server will detact the tape if ur hardware is RAID 5.
For more information about backup and copy to tape read BOL.
from
Killer
Wi-Surf Support wrote:
> Hello.
> I am responsible for backing up two Windows 2003 servers, one of which
> contains a non-simple SQL database.
> The tapedrive is a DLT1 without any automated loading (I must load a new
> tape each day by hand).
> I am using Microsoft's built in backup software, to backup all the important
> data in our office.
> I have a tape backup running daily, which automatically frees and relabels
> any tape in the drive, then writes all the data in one go.
> I am backing up any data from other PCs and from the system state of the
> Server without the tape drive onto a hard drive and then backing this data
> up on to the tape drive.
> This is achieved by using the unamaged switch, like so:
> C:\WINDOWS\system32\ntbackup.exe backup @.C:\BackupData\TapeBackup.bks /v:yes
> /r:no /rs:no /hc:on /m normal /j "TapeBackup" /p "DLT" /l:s /um
> And using task scheduler.
> I was also attempting to do this with the SQL database; backing up the
> database from within the SQL server (version 8) to the hard drive, and then
> backing that up to tape.
> The problem is that the backup that SQL server creates is still a database
> and because its not "simple" ntbackup refuses to back it up.
> I cannot tell SQL server to automatically backup to tape, as I do not know
> the label or ID that the tape will have.
> So the question is: how can I back up the database to the same tapedrive and
> tape as the rest of our data without having to do so manually.
> I appear to be using ntbackup in a way that is not really intended, but
> cannot understand how to do automated (scheduled) backups without using the
> /um switch - because you then need to specify which tape you want to use
> somehow.
> This would mean having a different schedule for every day of the week, every
> week of the month and every month of the year (according to our backup
> plan).
> As things are currently, I am not backing up the SQL database, which is a
> vital part of the business and this cannot be allowed to continue.
> I would be very grateful if one of you guys could shed some light on how to
> do this.
> Thanks.
> Lawrence

Backing up non-simple SQL Database

Hello.
I am responsible for backing up two Windows 2003 servers, one of which
contains a non-simple SQL database.
The tapedrive is a DLT1 without any automated loading (I must load a new
tape each day by hand).
I am using Microsoft's built in backup software, to backup all the important
data in our office.
I have a tape backup running daily, which automatically frees and relabels
any tape in the drive, then writes all the data in one go.
I am backing up any data from other PCs and from the system state of the
Server without the tape drive onto a hard drive and then backing this data
up on to the tape drive.
This is achieved by using the unamaged switch, like so:
C:\WINDOWS\system32\ntbackup.exe backup @.C:\BackupData\TapeBackup.bks /v:yes
/r:no /rs:no /hc:on /m normal /j "TapeBackup" /p "DLT" /l:s /um
And using task scheduler.
I was also attempting to do this with the SQL database; backing up the
database from within the SQL server (version 8) to the hard drive, and then
backing that up to tape.
The problem is that the backup that SQL server creates is still a database
and because its not "simple" ntbackup refuses to back it up.
I cannot tell SQL server to automatically backup to tape, as I do not know
the label or ID that the tape will have.
So the question is: how can I back up the database to the same tapedrive and
tape as the rest of our data without having to do so manually.
I appear to be using ntbackup in a way that is not really intended, but
cannot understand how to do automated (scheduled) backups without using the
/um switch - because you then need to specify which tape you want to use
somehow.
This would mean having a different schedule for every day of the week, every
week of the month and every month of the year (according to our backup
plan).
As things are currently, I am not backing up the SQL database, which is a
vital part of the business and this cannot be allowed to continue.
I would be very grateful if one of you guys could shed some light on how to
do this.
Thanks.
LawrenceHI,
U can restore ur database with header and lable in ur backup device.
sql server will detact the tape if ur hardware is RAID 5.
For more information about backup and copy to tape read BOL.
from
Killer
Wi-Surf Support wrote:
> Hello.
> I am responsible for backing up two Windows 2003 servers, one of which
> contains a non-simple SQL database.
> The tapedrive is a DLT1 without any automated loading (I must load a new
> tape each day by hand).
> I am using Microsoft's built in backup software, to backup all the important
> data in our office.
> I have a tape backup running daily, which automatically frees and relabels
> any tape in the drive, then writes all the data in one go.
> I am backing up any data from other PCs and from the system state of the
> Server without the tape drive onto a hard drive and then backing this data
> up on to the tape drive.
> This is achieved by using the unamaged switch, like so:
> C:\WINDOWS\system32\ntbackup.exe backup @.C:\BackupData\TapeBackup.bks /v:yes
> /r:no /rs:no /hc:on /m normal /j "TapeBackup" /p "DLT" /l:s /um
> And using task scheduler.
> I was also attempting to do this with the SQL database; backing up the
> database from within the SQL server (version 8) to the hard drive, and then
> backing that up to tape.
> The problem is that the backup that SQL server creates is still a database
> and because its not "simple" ntbackup refuses to back it up.
> I cannot tell SQL server to automatically backup to tape, as I do not know
> the label or ID that the tape will have.
> So the question is: how can I back up the database to the same tapedrive and
> tape as the rest of our data without having to do so manually.
> I appear to be using ntbackup in a way that is not really intended, but
> cannot understand how to do automated (scheduled) backups without using the
> /um switch - because you then need to specify which tape you want to use
> somehow.
> This would mean having a different schedule for every day of the week, every
> week of the month and every month of the year (according to our backup
> plan).
> As things are currently, I am not backing up the SQL database, which is a
> vital part of the business and this cannot be allowed to continue.
> I would be very grateful if one of you guys could shed some light on how to
> do this.
> Thanks.
> Lawrence

Backing up non-simple SQL Database

Hello.
I am responsible for backing up two Windows 2003 servers, one of which
contains a non-simple SQL database.
The tapedrive is a DLT1 without any automated loading (I must load a new
tape each day by hand).
I am using Microsoft's built in backup software, to backup all the important
data in our office.
I have a tape backup running daily, which automatically frees and relabels
any tape in the drive, then writes all the data in one go.
I am backing up any data from other PCs and from the system state of the
Server without the tape drive onto a hard drive and then backing this data
up on to the tape drive.
This is achieved by using the unamaged switch, like so:
C:\WINDOWS\system32\ntbackup.exe backup @.C:\BackupData\TapeBackup.bks /v:yes
/r:no /rs:no /hc:on /m normal /j "TapeBackup" /p "DLT" /l:s /um
And using task scheduler.
I was also attempting to do this with the SQL database; backing up the
database from within the SQL server (version 8) to the hard drive, and then
backing that up to tape.
The problem is that the backup that SQL server creates is still a database
and because its not "simple" ntbackup refuses to back it up.
I cannot tell SQL server to automatically backup to tape, as I do not know
the label or ID that the tape will have.
So the question is: how can I back up the database to the same tapedrive and
tape as the rest of our data without having to do so manually.
I appear to be using ntbackup in a way that is not really intended, but
cannot understand how to do automated (scheduled) backups without using the
/um switch - because you then need to specify which tape you want to use
somehow.
This would mean having a different schedule for every day of the week, every
week of the month and every month of the year (according to our backup
plan).
As things are currently, I am not backing up the SQL database, which is a
vital part of the business and this cannot be allowed to continue.
I would be very grateful if one of you guys could shed some light on how to
do this.
Thanks.
LawrenceHI,
U can restore ur database with header and lable in ur backup device.
sql server will detact the tape if ur hardware is RAID 5.
For more information about backup and copy to tape read BOL.
from
Killer
Wi-Surf Support wrote:
> Hello.
> I am responsible for backing up two Windows 2003 servers, one of which
> contains a non-simple SQL database.
> The tapedrive is a DLT1 without any automated loading (I must load a new
> tape each day by hand).
> I am using Microsoft's built in backup software, to backup all the importa
nt
> data in our office.
> I have a tape backup running daily, which automatically frees and relabels
> any tape in the drive, then writes all the data in one go.
> I am backing up any data from other PCs and from the system state of the
> Server without the tape drive onto a hard drive and then backing this data
> up on to the tape drive.
> This is achieved by using the unamaged switch, like so:
> C:\WINDOWS\system32\ntbackup.exe backup @.C:\BackupData\TapeBackup.bks /v:y
es
> /r:no /rs:no /hc:on /m normal /j "TapeBackup" /p "DLT" /l:s /um
> And using task scheduler.
> I was also attempting to do this with the SQL database; backing up the
> database from within the SQL server (version 8) to the hard drive, and the
n
> backing that up to tape.
> The problem is that the backup that SQL server creates is still a database
> and because its not "simple" ntbackup refuses to back it up.
> I cannot tell SQL server to automatically backup to tape, as I do not know
> the label or ID that the tape will have.
> So the question is: how can I back up the database to the same tapedrive a
nd
> tape as the rest of our data without having to do so manually.
> I appear to be using ntbackup in a way that is not really intended, but
> cannot understand how to do automated (scheduled) backups without using th
e
> /um switch - because you then need to specify which tape you want to use
> somehow.
> This would mean having a different schedule for every day of the week, eve
ry
> week of the month and every month of the year (according to our backup
> plan).
> As things are currently, I am not backing up the SQL database, which is a
> vital part of the business and this cannot be allowed to continue.
> I would be very grateful if one of you guys could shed some light on how t
o
> do this.
> Thanks.
> Lawrence

Backing up databases in a mirror configuration

I have a user database maintance plan with subplans for full and
transaction log backups deployed to both the Principal and Mirror
servers. Each subplan has its own schedule.
Obviously, the principal server executes a successfully backup, while
the mirror copy fails. This generates errors that are picked up by
MOM and also from the jobs themselves.
In order to eliminate these errors, I emplyed a method that prevents
the jobs from running if the server is hosting the mirror copy (note
that all the databases on the server are mirrored):
1) Remove the schedule from the job that runs the SSIS package - job
name 'User Databases.Full Database Backup'
2) Create a new job called 'User Databases.Full Database Backup Status
Check' that checks for the read/write and online status of the
databases and executes the job in step one if they are online
3) Add a schedule to the job 'User Databases.Full Database Backup
Status Check' with the same details as that removed in step 1
I have a big problem with this approach: if any of the databases are
the mirror, then the entire backup subplan is not run - even if some
of the databases are the principal on the same server - it's an all or
nothing approach since the databases checked in step 2 may not
necessarily match the list of databases defined in the subplan.
Clearly, I'd like the checking step to only be affected by the
databases defined in the subplan, but I cannot think of a way of
interrogating the subplan details using SQL code to determine this.
Ideally, I would like to edit the maintenance plan's list of databases
to only include databases that are the principal on that server and to
do it each time the job is executed - maybe using the two job approach
as described above.
I would like some advice on a way to do this or whether I am barking
up the wrong tree and should try a different angle - perhaps defining
my own backup process (I really want to avoid doing this). Clearly,
if the maintenance plan could detect the fact that the database is a
mirror copy and just skip it, the whole use goes away, but it does
not.
Thanks> I would like some advice on a way to do this or whether I am barking
> up the wrong tree and should try a different angle - perhaps defining
> my own backup process (I really want to avoid doing this).
This is what you would have to do. Maint plans are for simpler installations, and conditionally
handling a mirrored database *inside* a backup task is not available. Consider wishing this at
connect.microsoft.com.
Another options is to have one backup task per database, and have a TSQL task before each which
check the mirroring catalog views and if a mirror, moves to the next database instead. A bit messy,
but should be doable.
Having your own scripts for performing a backup isn't difficult, though. You can still use the maint
plan to remove old backup files. (Google for how to generate the backup command with a time stamp in
the file name and you will find examples...)
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
"Viracochas" <warmtea@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1179742488.051578.275990@.b40g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>I have a user database maintance plan with subplans for full and
> transaction log backups deployed to both the Principal and Mirror
> servers. Each subplan has its own schedule.
> Obviously, the principal server executes a successfully backup, while
> the mirror copy fails. This generates errors that are picked up by
> MOM and also from the jobs themselves.
> In order to eliminate these errors, I emplyed a method that prevents
> the jobs from running if the server is hosting the mirror copy (note
> that all the databases on the server are mirrored):
> 1) Remove the schedule from the job that runs the SSIS package - job
> name 'User Databases.Full Database Backup'
> 2) Create a new job called 'User Databases.Full Database Backup Status
> Check' that checks for the read/write and online status of the
> databases and executes the job in step one if they are online
> 3) Add a schedule to the job 'User Databases.Full Database Backup
> Status Check' with the same details as that removed in step 1
> I have a big problem with this approach: if any of the databases are
> the mirror, then the entire backup subplan is not run - even if some
> of the databases are the principal on the same server - it's an all or
> nothing approach since the databases checked in step 2 may not
> necessarily match the list of databases defined in the subplan.
> Clearly, I'd like the checking step to only be affected by the
> databases defined in the subplan, but I cannot think of a way of
> interrogating the subplan details using SQL code to determine this.
> Ideally, I would like to edit the maintenance plan's list of databases
> to only include databases that are the principal on that server and to
> do it each time the job is executed - maybe using the two job approach
> as described above.
> I would like some advice on a way to do this or whether I am barking
> up the wrong tree and should try a different angle - perhaps defining
> my own backup process (I really want to avoid doing this). Clearly,
> if the maintenance plan could detect the fact that the database is a
> mirror copy and just skip it, the whole use goes away, but it does
> not.
> Thanks
>|||On 21 May, 13:43, "Tibor Karaszi"
<tibor_please.no.email_kara...@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote:
> > I would like some advice on a way to do this or whether I am barking
> > up the wrong tree and should try a different angle - perhaps defining
> > my own backup process (I really want to avoid doing this).
> This is what you would have to do. Maint plans are for simpler installations, and conditionally
> handling a mirrored database *inside* a backup task is not available. Consider wishing this at
> connect.microsoft.com.
> Another options is to have one backup task per database, and have a TSQL task before each which
> check the mirroring catalog views and if a mirror, moves to the next database instead. A bit messy,
> but should be doable.
> Having your own scripts for performing a backup isn't difficult, though. You can still use the maint
> plan to remove old backup files. (Google for how to generate the backup command with a time stamp in
> the file name and you will find examples...)
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVPhttp://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asphttp://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
> "Viracochas" <warm...@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1179742488.051578.275990@.b40g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Thanks for the feedback. I feared there was no easy way, though it
won't be too difficult to set it up.

Backing up and restoring SQL Server

I want to reformat my servers harddrive and install a newer operating
system (Win 2003). I am running SQL Server 2000 with about 10
databases. What is the best way to backup and restore SQL Server for
this so I don't lose anything.
Thanks,
RickRick (rick@.abasoftware.com) writes:
> I want to reformat my servers harddrive and install a newer operating
> system (Win 2003). I am running SQL Server 2000 with about 10
> databases. What is the best way to backup and restore SQL Server for
> this so I don't lose anything.

Look at http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...kb;EN-US;224071.

--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se

Books Online for SQL Server SP3 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techin.../2000/books.asp

Backing up a database to a remote shared folder

We are using SQL 2K with sp4 on W2K servers but they are in windows workgroup
not domain. The SQL service is started by the local system account. I am
having a hard time trying to back up a database to a remote shared folder
located in another W2K server in the same windows workgroup. I believe it is
an authentication/permission issue. I am aware that SQL server looks at
network shared folder differently than the way Windows see but don't know
how to get around it under the workgroup setup. If it is under domain setup,
I have no problem.
Any help on this is very much appreciated.
Wingman
The account that SQL Server runs under must have permissions to that share.
Make sure you use UNC for the path and not a mapped drive.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Wingman" <Wingman@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:45312278-0845-433D-8F7D-2139BD2B0523@.microsoft.com...
> We are using SQL 2K with sp4 on W2K servers but they are in windows
> workgroup
> not domain. The SQL service is started by the local system account. I am
> having a hard time trying to back up a database to a remote shared folder
> located in another W2K server in the same windows workgroup. I believe it
> is
> an authentication/permission issue. I am aware that SQL server looks at
> network shared folder differently than the way Windows see but don't know
> how to get around it under the workgroup setup. If it is under domain
> setup,
> I have no problem.
> Any help on this is very much appreciated.
> Wingman
|||Yep, I know about the UNC part but how do I assign the local account that run
SQL server to that share under the WorkGroup envirnoment. I am not very
familar with the Windows Workgroup setup. From the computer that I have the
shared folder, I can't see any user account from other computers. I believe
it is because of the Workgroup setup but then again it may be just my
inexperience in this area. Please advise.
Wingman
"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:

> The account that SQL Server runs under must have permissions to that share.
> Make sure you use UNC for the path and not a mapped drive.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "Wingman" <Wingman@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:45312278-0845-433D-8F7D-2139BD2B0523@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||You'd have to create an account with same name and password as the service account on that other
machine.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Wingman" <Wingman@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6075EA91-4D10-4E03-A3D1-3BB693F750D6@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Yep, I know about the UNC part but how do I assign the local account that run
> SQL server to that share under the WorkGroup envirnoment. I am not very
> familar with the Windows Workgroup setup. From the computer that I have the
> shared folder, I can't see any user account from other computers. I believe
> it is because of the Workgroup setup but then again it may be just my
> inexperience in this area. Please advise.
> Wingman
> "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
|||I am not sure if you can use the local service account or not in a workgroup
for this. You could set the permissions on the share to allow everyone to
read and write to it but that would obviously allow anyone with access to
that workgroup to access that share. Maybe someone with more experience in
WorkGroups can pipe in.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Wingman" <Wingman@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6075EA91-4D10-4E03-A3D1-3BB693F750D6@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Yep, I know about the UNC part but how do I assign the local account that
> run
> SQL server to that share under the WorkGroup envirnoment. I am not very
> familar with the Windows Workgroup setup. From the computer that I have
> the
> shared folder, I can't see any user account from other computers. I
> believe
> it is because of the Workgroup setup but then again it may be just my
> inexperience in this area. Please advise.
> Wingman
> "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
|||Yep, this does it. Thanks!!!
"Tibor Karaszi" wrote:

> You'd have to create an account with same name and password as the service account on that other
> machine.
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
> Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
>
> "Wingman" <Wingman@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:6075EA91-4D10-4E03-A3D1-3BB693F750D6@.microsoft.com...
>
sql

Backing up a database to a remote shared folder

We are using SQL 2K with sp4 on W2K servers but they are in windows workgrou
p
not domain. The SQL service is started by the local system account. I am
having a hard time trying to back up a database to a remote shared folder
located in another W2K server in the same windows workgroup. I believe it i
s
an authentication/permission issue. I am aware that SQL server looks at
network shared folder differently than the way Windows see but don't know
how to get around it under the workgroup setup. If it is under domain setup
,
I have no problem.
Any help on this is very much appreciated.
WingmanThe account that SQL Server runs under must have permissions to that share.
Make sure you use UNC for the path and not a mapped drive.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Wingman" <Wingman@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:45312278-0845-433D-8F7D-2139BD2B0523@.microsoft.com...
> We are using SQL 2K with sp4 on W2K servers but they are in windows
> workgroup
> not domain. The SQL service is started by the local system account. I am
> having a hard time trying to back up a database to a remote shared folder
> located in another W2K server in the same windows workgroup. I believe it
> is
> an authentication/permission issue. I am aware that SQL server looks at
> network shared folder differently than the way Windows see but don't know
> how to get around it under the workgroup setup. If it is under domain
> setup,
> I have no problem.
> Any help on this is very much appreciated.
> Wingman|||Yep, I know about the UNC part but how do I assign the local account that ru
n
SQL server to that share under the WorkGroup envirnoment. I am not very
familar with the Windows Workgroup setup. From the computer that I have the
shared folder, I can't see any user account from other computers. I believe
it is because of the Workgroup setup but then again it may be just my
inexperience in this area. Please advise.
Wingman
"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:

> The account that SQL Server runs under must have permissions to that share
.
> Make sure you use UNC for the path and not a mapped drive.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "Wingman" <Wingman@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:45312278-0845-433D-8F7D-2139BD2B0523@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||You'd have to create an account with same name and password as the service a
ccount on that other
machine.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Wingman" <Wingman@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6075EA91-4D10-4E03-A3D1-3BB693F750D6@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Yep, I know about the UNC part but how do I assign the local account that
run
> SQL server to that share under the WorkGroup envirnoment. I am not very
> familar with the Windows Workgroup setup. From the computer that I have t
he
> shared folder, I can't see any user account from other computers. I belie
ve
> it is because of the Workgroup setup but then again it may be just my
> inexperience in this area. Please advise.
> Wingman
> "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
>|||I am not sure if you can use the local service account or not in a workgroup
for this. You could set the permissions on the share to allow everyone to
read and write to it but that would obviously allow anyone with access to
that workgroup to access that share. Maybe someone with more experience in
WorkGroups can pipe in.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Wingman" <Wingman@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6075EA91-4D10-4E03-A3D1-3BB693F750D6@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Yep, I know about the UNC part but how do I assign the local account that
> run
> SQL server to that share under the WorkGroup envirnoment. I am not very
> familar with the Windows Workgroup setup. From the computer that I have
> the
> shared folder, I can't see any user account from other computers. I
> believe
> it is because of the Workgroup setup but then again it may be just my
> inexperience in this area. Please advise.
> Wingman
> "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
>|||Yep, this does it. Thanks!!!
"Tibor Karaszi" wrote:

> You'd have to create an account with same name and password as the service
account on that other
> machine.
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
> Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
>
> "Wingman" <Wingman@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:6075EA91-4D10-4E03-A3D1-3BB693F750D6@.microsoft.com...
>

Backing up a database to a remote shared folder

We are using SQL 2K with sp4 on W2K servers but they are in windows workgroup
not domain. The SQL service is started by the local system account. I am
having a hard time trying to back up a database to a remote shared folder
located in another W2K server in the same windows workgroup. I believe it is
an authentication/permission issue. I am aware that SQL server looks at
network shared folder differently than the way Windows see but don't know
how to get around it under the workgroup setup. If it is under domain setup,
I have no problem.
Any help on this is very much appreciated.
WingmanThe account that SQL Server runs under must have permissions to that share.
Make sure you use UNC for the path and not a mapped drive.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Wingman" <Wingman@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:45312278-0845-433D-8F7D-2139BD2B0523@.microsoft.com...
> We are using SQL 2K with sp4 on W2K servers but they are in windows
> workgroup
> not domain. The SQL service is started by the local system account. I am
> having a hard time trying to back up a database to a remote shared folder
> located in another W2K server in the same windows workgroup. I believe it
> is
> an authentication/permission issue. I am aware that SQL server looks at
> network shared folder differently than the way Windows see but don't know
> how to get around it under the workgroup setup. If it is under domain
> setup,
> I have no problem.
> Any help on this is very much appreciated.
> Wingman|||Yep, I know about the UNC part but how do I assign the local account that run
SQL server to that share under the WorkGroup envirnoment. I am not very
familar with the Windows Workgroup setup. From the computer that I have the
shared folder, I can't see any user account from other computers. I believe
it is because of the Workgroup setup but then again it may be just my
inexperience in this area. Please advise.
Wingman
"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
> The account that SQL Server runs under must have permissions to that share.
> Make sure you use UNC for the path and not a mapped drive.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "Wingman" <Wingman@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:45312278-0845-433D-8F7D-2139BD2B0523@.microsoft.com...
> > We are using SQL 2K with sp4 on W2K servers but they are in windows
> > workgroup
> > not domain. The SQL service is started by the local system account. I am
> > having a hard time trying to back up a database to a remote shared folder
> > located in another W2K server in the same windows workgroup. I believe it
> > is
> > an authentication/permission issue. I am aware that SQL server looks at
> > network shared folder differently than the way Windows see but don't know
> > how to get around it under the workgroup setup. If it is under domain
> > setup,
> > I have no problem.
> >
> > Any help on this is very much appreciated.
> >
> > Wingman
>
>|||You'd have to create an account with same name and password as the service account on that other
machine.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Wingman" <Wingman@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6075EA91-4D10-4E03-A3D1-3BB693F750D6@.microsoft.com...
> Yep, I know about the UNC part but how do I assign the local account that run
> SQL server to that share under the WorkGroup envirnoment. I am not very
> familar with the Windows Workgroup setup. From the computer that I have the
> shared folder, I can't see any user account from other computers. I believe
> it is because of the Workgroup setup but then again it may be just my
> inexperience in this area. Please advise.
> Wingman
> "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
>> The account that SQL Server runs under must have permissions to that share.
>> Make sure you use UNC for the path and not a mapped drive.
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>>
>> "Wingman" <Wingman@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:45312278-0845-433D-8F7D-2139BD2B0523@.microsoft.com...
>> > We are using SQL 2K with sp4 on W2K servers but they are in windows
>> > workgroup
>> > not domain. The SQL service is started by the local system account. I am
>> > having a hard time trying to back up a database to a remote shared folder
>> > located in another W2K server in the same windows workgroup. I believe it
>> > is
>> > an authentication/permission issue. I am aware that SQL server looks at
>> > network shared folder differently than the way Windows see but don't know
>> > how to get around it under the workgroup setup. If it is under domain
>> > setup,
>> > I have no problem.
>> >
>> > Any help on this is very much appreciated.
>> >
>> > Wingman
>>|||I am not sure if you can use the local service account or not in a workgroup
for this. You could set the permissions on the share to allow everyone to
read and write to it but that would obviously allow anyone with access to
that workgroup to access that share. Maybe someone with more experience in
WorkGroups can pipe in.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Wingman" <Wingman@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6075EA91-4D10-4E03-A3D1-3BB693F750D6@.microsoft.com...
> Yep, I know about the UNC part but how do I assign the local account that
> run
> SQL server to that share under the WorkGroup envirnoment. I am not very
> familar with the Windows Workgroup setup. From the computer that I have
> the
> shared folder, I can't see any user account from other computers. I
> believe
> it is because of the Workgroup setup but then again it may be just my
> inexperience in this area. Please advise.
> Wingman
> "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
>> The account that SQL Server runs under must have permissions to that
>> share.
>> Make sure you use UNC for the path and not a mapped drive.
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>>
>> "Wingman" <Wingman@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:45312278-0845-433D-8F7D-2139BD2B0523@.microsoft.com...
>> > We are using SQL 2K with sp4 on W2K servers but they are in windows
>> > workgroup
>> > not domain. The SQL service is started by the local system account. I
>> > am
>> > having a hard time trying to back up a database to a remote shared
>> > folder
>> > located in another W2K server in the same windows workgroup. I believe
>> > it
>> > is
>> > an authentication/permission issue. I am aware that SQL server looks
>> > at
>> > network shared folder differently than the way Windows see but don't
>> > know
>> > how to get around it under the workgroup setup. If it is under domain
>> > setup,
>> > I have no problem.
>> >
>> > Any help on this is very much appreciated.
>> >
>> > Wingman
>>|||Yep, this does it. Thanks!!!
"Tibor Karaszi" wrote:
> You'd have to create an account with same name and password as the service account on that other
> machine.
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
> Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
>
> "Wingman" <Wingman@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:6075EA91-4D10-4E03-A3D1-3BB693F750D6@.microsoft.com...
> > Yep, I know about the UNC part but how do I assign the local account that run
> > SQL server to that share under the WorkGroup envirnoment. I am not very
> > familar with the Windows Workgroup setup. From the computer that I have the
> > shared folder, I can't see any user account from other computers. I believe
> > it is because of the Workgroup setup but then again it may be just my
> > inexperience in this area. Please advise.
> >
> > Wingman
> >
> > "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
> >
> >> The account that SQL Server runs under must have permissions to that share.
> >> Make sure you use UNC for the path and not a mapped drive.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> >>
> >>
> >> "Wingman" <Wingman@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >> news:45312278-0845-433D-8F7D-2139BD2B0523@.microsoft.com...
> >> > We are using SQL 2K with sp4 on W2K servers but they are in windows
> >> > workgroup
> >> > not domain. The SQL service is started by the local system account. I am
> >> > having a hard time trying to back up a database to a remote shared folder
> >> > located in another W2K server in the same windows workgroup. I believe it
> >> > is
> >> > an authentication/permission issue. I am aware that SQL server looks at
> >> > network shared folder differently than the way Windows see but don't know
> >> > how to get around it under the workgroup setup. If it is under domain
> >> > setup,
> >> > I have no problem.
> >> >
> >> > Any help on this is very much appreciated.
> >> >
> >> > Wingman
> >>
> >>
> >>
>

Backing up 6 SQL servers over a LAN

We are looking at a backup solution for our 6 SQL7 servers. Oh yes - by that I mean we don't have a backup at the moment...lol

Well - thing is we want to use something like a Dell Powervault 122T tape auto-loader. This means backup up our data over the LAN.

The databases range from 130MB to 120GB and I am wondering if a backup over the LAN is a good idea - we have 100MB LAN using cascaded netgear switches - so no real 'backbone' to speak of...

Is it advisable to attach the tape loader to the SQL server with the largest DB and then pull in the rest? Or, should we use separate tape drives for each SQL server?

Yes, it depends on requirements but getting those is like blood from a stone...so I am looking for something that will do the job and offer a little flexabilty...

I am inclined to think that without a good backbone on the network doing a backup this way is going to take forever?

Many thanksIMHO, the real question is how much through put can you get at the time you do your backups, what software you are using (mainly what types of backups does it support) and how many tape drives you will be writing to at once.

One solution woulds be for each sql server to write a backup locally and retain for one or two days. Then your backup software only needs to scrape the file off the server.

Another solution would be to add a 2nd NIC to the SQL and Tape Host servers creating a private network. At least you wouldn't be competing for network resources.

If this tape unit will be backing up other servers, Application , File & Prinet etc. I would NOT hang it off of a SQL server, I feel that a File and Print server or Domain controler would be a better choice as these servers tend to have spare cycles for such things.

One additional thing to consider is RESTORE time. If your main SQL server goes down and a restore from tape is required can you afford the time to wait for the restore?

Any strategy would be better than nothing!|||I like the idea of it having it's own little network...

It is likely to be a single tape autoloader. The network is simply a load of cascaded switches so a server at the top being backed up to a server at the bottom could take ages...

Perhaps dumping to disk and then backing these files up using the dedicated network is the soution until we have a proper network...|||I have seen cascaded hubs, I am assuming you mean hubs not switches, do okay PROVIDED there is little traffic. This may not be your case when you start your backups.

If backing up takes to long or causes to much traffic then this might be an argument to upgrade the network architecture.|||Originally posted by Paul Young
I have seen cascaded hubs, I am assuming you mean hubs not switches, do okay PROVIDED there is little traffic. This may not be your case when you start your backups.

If backing up takes to long or causes to much traffic then this might be an argument to upgrade the network architecture.

No - these are switches - the uplink from one is connected to a port on another...there is a hub in there somehwere but no idea where yet!

awe settings.

SQL2K Ent SP3a Win2k SP3
I've recently enabled awe memory on 2 of our servers.
Everything seems to be going OK, AWE memory counters
are active in performance monitor and the sql serror log
shows awe memory enabled on startup.
My question is, is the above information enough to know that
awe is working correctly? If not, what other things can be looked
at?
TIA.see
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q274750#6
--
BR,
Mark Broadbent mcdba,mcse+i
_________________________
"Stressed" <k@.c.co.uk> wrote in message
news:%23oI0KZzVDHA.2164@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> SQL2K Ent SP3a Win2k SP3
> I've recently enabled awe memory on 2 of our servers.
> Everything seems to be going OK, AWE memory counters
> are active in performance monitor and the sql serror log
> shows awe memory enabled on startup.
> My question is, is the above information enough to know that
> awe is working correctly? If not, what other things can be looked
> at?
> TIA.
>
>|||Also, when SQL Server starts you should see a line time in
the event log that says:
"Address Windowing Extensions enabled."
Ron
>--Original Message--
>see
>http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-
us;Q274750#6
>--
>BR,
>Mark Broadbent mcdba,mcse+i
>_________________________
>"Stressed" <k@.c.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:%23oI0KZzVDHA.2164@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> SQL2K Ent SP3a Win2k SP3
>> I've recently enabled awe memory on 2 of our servers.
>> Everything seems to be going OK, AWE memory counters
>> are active in performance monitor and the sql serror log
>> shows awe memory enabled on startup.
>> My question is, is the above information enough to know
that
>> awe is working correctly? If not, what other things can
be looked
>> at?
>> TIA.
>>
>>
>
>.
>

AWE Memory

Hello
We have 2 servers in a cluster environment with 12 GB each. We install
SQL server 2000 in them and use the switches /3GB /PAE and use AWE enable
option. We allocated 7GB for SQL along with enough room for the OS and other
apps currently running on that box. My question is, when I check the Task
manager, it only shows that SQL uses 150Kb for memory although you can see
under memory counters that 7.5 is been used. Why can we not see SQL using
more that 150KB? is there anything wrong in our setting? Below are the Store
procedures used to enable AWE and allocate 7GB.
SP_CONFIGURE 'show advanced options', 1
RECONFIGURE
GO
SP_CONFIGURE 'awe enabled', 1
RECONFIGURE
GO
SP_CONFIGURE 'max server memory', 7168
RECONFIGURE
GO
Thanks
Firstly... if you have AWE, you dont need /3GB switch
Now coming to your question: SQL Server when its started it starts
taking memory from 1KB and grows as the resources need more memory...
and once it reaches min server memory, it will never go back to less
than Min Server memory..until you restart the SQL again.
And by configuring 7GB as Max Server memory, you are limiting the SQL
to not consume more than that...
And incase in some scenerio where SQL has any amount of memory and if
OS need some of that.. it will release that memory only if SQL doesnt
need that at that point of time.
So if you see that SQL is using only 150KB, then dont be alarmed.. its
expected behaviour
|||Task manager isn't AWE/PAE aware. Use performance monitor.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Dario" <Dario@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:CF884EB2-F09C-4412-8FC9-547CFC6844CC@.microsoft.com...
> Hello
> We have 2 servers in a cluster environment with 12 GB each. We install
> SQL server 2000 in them and use the switches /3GB /PAE and use AWE enable
> option. We allocated 7GB for SQL along with enough room for the OS and other
> apps currently running on that box. My question is, when I check the Task
> manager, it only shows that SQL uses 150Kb for memory although you can see
> under memory counters that 7.5 is been used. Why can we not see SQL using
> more that 150KB? is there anything wrong in our setting? Below are the Store
> procedures used to enable AWE and allocate 7GB.
> SP_CONFIGURE 'show advanced options', 1
> RECONFIGURE
> GO
> SP_CONFIGURE 'awe enabled', 1
> RECONFIGURE
> GO
> SP_CONFIGURE 'max server memory', 7168
> RECONFIGURE
> GO
> Thanks
>
>

AWE Memory

Hello
We have 2 servers in a cluster environment with 12 GB each. We install
SQL server 2000 in them and use the switches /3GB /PAE and use AWE enable
option. We allocated 7GB for SQL along with enough room for the OS and other
apps currently running on that box. My question is, when I check the Task
manager, it only shows that SQL uses 150Kb for memory although you can see
under memory counters that 7.5 is been used. Why can we not see SQL using
more that 150KB? is there anything wrong in our setting? Below are the Store
procedures used to enable AWE and allocate 7GB.
SP_CONFIGURE 'show advanced options', 1
RECONFIGURE
GO
SP_CONFIGURE 'awe enabled', 1
RECONFIGURE
GO
SP_CONFIGURE 'max server memory', 7168
RECONFIGURE
GO
ThanksFirstly... if you have AWE, you dont need /3GB switch
Now coming to your question: SQL Server when its started it starts
taking memory from 1KB and grows as the resources need more memory...
and once it reaches min server memory, it will never go back to less
than Min Server memory..until you restart the SQL again.
And by configuring 7GB as Max Server memory, you are limiting the SQL
to not consume more than that...
And incase in some scenerio where SQL has any amount of memory and if
OS need some of that.. it will release that memory only if SQL doesnt
need that at that point of time.
So if you see that SQL is using only 150KB, then dont be alarmed.. its
expected behaviour|||Task manager isn't AWE/PAE aware. Use performance monitor.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Dario" <Dario@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:CF884EB2-F09C-4412-8FC9-547CFC6844CC@.microsoft.com...
> Hello
> We have 2 servers in a cluster environment with 12 GB each. We install
> SQL server 2000 in them and use the switches /3GB /PAE and use AWE enable
> option. We allocated 7GB for SQL along with enough room for the OS and other
> apps currently running on that box. My question is, when I check the Task
> manager, it only shows that SQL uses 150Kb for memory although you can see
> under memory counters that 7.5 is been used. Why can we not see SQL using
> more that 150KB? is there anything wrong in our setting? Below are the Store
> procedures used to enable AWE and allocate 7GB.
> SP_CONFIGURE 'show advanced options', 1
> RECONFIGURE
> GO
> SP_CONFIGURE 'awe enabled', 1
> RECONFIGURE
> GO
> SP_CONFIGURE 'max server memory', 7168
> RECONFIGURE
> GO
> Thanks
>
>

AWE Memory

Hello
We have 2 servers in a cluster environment with 12 GB each. We install
SQL server 2000 in them and use the switches /3GB /PAE and use AWE enable
option. We allocated 7GB for SQL along with enough room for the OS and other
apps currently running on that box. My question is, when I check the Task
manager, it only shows that SQL uses 150Kb for memory although you can see
under memory counters that 7.5 is been used. Why can we not see SQL using
more that 150KB? is there anything wrong in our setting? Below are the Store
procedures used to enable AWE and allocate 7GB.
SP_CONFIGURE 'show advanced options', 1
RECONFIGURE
GO
SP_CONFIGURE 'awe enabled', 1
RECONFIGURE
GO
SP_CONFIGURE 'max server memory', 7168
RECONFIGURE
GO
ThanksFirstly... if you have AWE, you dont need /3GB switch
Now coming to your question: SQL Server when its started it starts
taking memory from 1KB and grows as the resources need more memory...
and once it reaches min server memory, it will never go back to less
than Min Server memory..until you restart the SQL again.
And by configuring 7GB as Max Server memory, you are limiting the SQL
to not consume more than that...
And incase in some scenerio where SQL has any amount of memory and if
OS need some of that.. it will release that memory only if SQL doesnt
need that at that point of time.
So if you see that SQL is using only 150KB, then dont be alarmed.. its
expected behaviour|||Task manager isn't AWE/PAE aware. Use performance monitor.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Dario" <Dario@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:CF884EB2-F09C-4412-8FC9-547CFC6844CC@.microsoft.com...
> Hello
> We have 2 servers in a cluster environment with 12 GB each. We instal
l
> SQL server 2000 in them and use the switches /3GB /PAE and use AWE enable
> option. We allocated 7GB for SQL along with enough room for the OS and oth
er
> apps currently running on that box. My question is, when I check the Task
> manager, it only shows that SQL uses 150Kb for memory although you can see
> under memory counters that 7.5 is been used. Why can we not see SQL using
> more that 150KB? is there anything wrong in our setting? Below are the Sto
re
> procedures used to enable AWE and allocate 7GB.
> SP_CONFIGURE 'show advanced options', 1
> RECONFIGURE
> GO
> SP_CONFIGURE 'awe enabled', 1
> RECONFIGURE
> GO
> SP_CONFIGURE 'max server memory', 7168
> RECONFIGURE
> GO
> Thanks
>
>

AWE and Perfmon Counters

We have enabled AWE on our SQL 2000/Win 2003 Ent servers and are now having
problems seeing true memory utilization by SQL Server. For example, Task
Manager shows SQL only using 174,712 k when it has been configured to 13gb.
Not to mention perfmon memory object is not reporting accurately either.
With that said, is this a known issue and what is the work around? I want
to be able to guage if we need more than 16gb on this box.
Thanks!
MichaelTask manager cannot count higher than 2GB of memory. The performance
monitor counters will give accurate memory usage. Another quick and dirty
way is to look at Page File usage. AWE usage shows up as page file
committment.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"BATMAN" <BATMAN@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:48B6C39B-8DB3-4B20-B487-935ADF37D952@.microsoft.com...
> We have enabled AWE on our SQL 2000/Win 2003 Ent servers and are now
> having
> problems seeing true memory utilization by SQL Server. For example, Task
> Manager shows SQL only using 174,712 k when it has been configured to
> 13gb.
> Not to mention perfmon memory object is not reporting accurately either.
> With that said, is this a known issue and what is the work around? I want
> to be able to guage if we need more than 16gb on this box.
> Thanks!
> Michael
>

AWE and Perfmon Counters

We have enabled AWE on our SQL 2000/Win 2003 Ent servers and are now having
problems seeing true memory utilization by SQL Server. For example, Task
Manager shows SQL only using 174,712 k when it has been configured to 13gb.
Not to mention perfmon memory object is not reporting accurately either.
With that said, is this a known issue and what is the work around? I want
to be able to guage if we need more than 16gb on this box.
Thanks!
Michael
Task manager cannot count higher than 2GB of memory. The performance
monitor counters will give accurate memory usage. Another quick and dirty
way is to look at Page File usage. AWE usage shows up as page file
committment.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"BATMAN" <BATMAN@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:48B6C39B-8DB3-4B20-B487-935ADF37D952@.microsoft.com...
> We have enabled AWE on our SQL 2000/Win 2003 Ent servers and are now
> having
> problems seeing true memory utilization by SQL Server. For example, Task
> Manager shows SQL only using 174,712 k when it has been configured to
> 13gb.
> Not to mention perfmon memory object is not reporting accurately either.
> With that said, is this a known issue and what is the work around? I want
> to be able to guage if we need more than 16gb on this box.
> Thanks!
> Michael
>

avoid a server from being linked?

i say
that the server can listen
TCP/uid+pwd connections
but it reject links from remote sql servers
--
atte,
Hernán Castelo
SGA - UTN - FRBAI am not sure what you are asking but it sound like you want to prevent a
SQL server from being used a s a linked server. If this is the question, I
am not sure that you can do this. As long as a user has a valid method to
connect then a linked server can be created.
Rand
This posting is provided "as is" with no warranties and confers no rights.|||excuse me for my english!
exactly
that is what i wanted to know...
--
atte,
Hernán Castelo
SGA - UTN - FRBA
"Rand Boyd [MSFT]" <rboyd@.onlinemicrosoft.com> escribió en el mensaje
news:lwrz76K0EHA.3028@.cpmsftngxa10.phx.gbl...
> I am not sure what you are asking but it sound like you want to prevent a
> SQL server from being used a s a linked server. If this is the question, I
> am not sure that you can do this. As long as a user has a valid method to
> connect then a linked server can be created.
> Rand
> This posting is provided "as is" with no warranties and confers no rights.
>