Colleagues,
Does anybody have experience with backing up of MS SQL database on MS
Windows compressed drive? As for me, it is a good possibility to resolve disk
space problems and save some money. I know, that option of compressed backup
will be build in MS SQL 2008 and some 3-rd party products has the
functionality. But what about simple MS SQL backup on Windows compressed
drive?I asked this question a while ago and basically got blasted :)
- Don't let your hardware determin your business requirments.
- You won't actually know how much space is left and might fill the drive.
- backups and restores will table longer - mainly an issue with restores.
And I only was thinking about it for a dev system.
Still, depending on the compisition of your database, you could save a lot.
"Dmitrij Siemieniako" <Dmitrij Siemieniako@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote
in message news:B0303671-D53F-49F7-8F01-ABD501AF8F17@.microsoft.com...
> Colleagues,
> Does anybody have experience with backing up of MS SQL database on MS
> Windows compressed drive? As for me, it is a good possibility to resolve
> disk
> space problems and save some money. I know, that option of compressed
> backup
> will be build in MS SQL 2008 and some 3-rd party products has the
> functionality. But what about simple MS SQL backup on Windows compressed
> drive?
>|||"Jay" <spam@.nospam.org> wrote in message
news:uTFvrDt9HHA.4880@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>I asked this question a while ago and basically got blasted :)
> - Don't let your hardware determin your business requirments.
> - You won't actually know how much space is left and might fill the drive.
> - backups and restores will table longer - mainly an issue with restores.
Depends on what he's suggesting. It's not 100% clear to me.
If he means to run the DB on a compressed drive, then no, that's a bad idea.
If he means backups TO a compressed drive, that's less risky.
And depending on many factors, backups/restores may in fact be faster, much
faster.
He can also look into some of the 3rd party backup solutions that compress
as they backup.
Very handy, especially for larger databases.
> And I only was thinking about it for a dev system.
> Still, depending on the compisition of your database, you could save a
> lot.
> "Dmitrij Siemieniako" <Dmitrij Siemieniako@.discussions.microsoft.com>
> wrote in message
> news:B0303671-D53F-49F7-8F01-ABD501AF8F17@.microsoft.com...
>> Colleagues,
>> Does anybody have experience with backing up of MS SQL database on MS
>> Windows compressed drive? As for me, it is a good possibility to resolve
>> disk
>> space problems and save some money. I know, that option of compressed
>> backup
>> will be build in MS SQL 2008 and some 3-rd party products has the
>> functionality. But what about simple MS SQL backup on Windows compressed
>> drive?
>
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html|||Well, he did say "backing up"
"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" <mooregr_deleteth1s@.greenms.com> wrote in message
news:e7tzrYu9HHA.1484@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> "Jay" <spam@.nospam.org> wrote in message
> news:uTFvrDt9HHA.4880@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>I asked this question a while ago and basically got blasted :)
>> - Don't let your hardware determin your business requirments.
>> - You won't actually know how much space is left and might fill the
>> drive.
>> - backups and restores will table longer - mainly an issue with restores.
> Depends on what he's suggesting. It's not 100% clear to me.
> If he means to run the DB on a compressed drive, then no, that's a bad
> idea.
> If he means backups TO a compressed drive, that's less risky.
> And depending on many factors, backups/restores may in fact be faster,
> much faster.
> He can also look into some of the 3rd party backup solutions that compress
> as they backup.
> Very handy, especially for larger databases.
>
>> And I only was thinking about it for a dev system.
>> Still, depending on the compisition of your database, you could save a
>> lot.
>> "Dmitrij Siemieniako" <Dmitrij Siemieniako@.discussions.microsoft.com>
>> wrote in message
>> news:B0303671-D53F-49F7-8F01-ABD501AF8F17@.microsoft.com...
>> Colleagues,
>> Does anybody have experience with backing up of MS SQL database on MS
>> Windows compressed drive? As for me, it is a good possibility to resolve
>> disk
>> space problems and save some money. I know, that option of compressed
>> backup
>> will be build in MS SQL 2008 and some 3-rd party products has the
>> functionality. But what about simple MS SQL backup on Windows compressed
>> drive?
>>
>
> --
> Greg Moore
> SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
> Email: sql (at) greenms.com
> http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html
>|||Thanks a lot, Jay. So, I'll try to move my backups on compressed drive.
Regards.
Dmitruj
Showing posts with label windows. Show all posts
Showing posts with label windows. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
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
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
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
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
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 MSSQL Server on Windows 2003 Small Business Server
Hi guys, could you please provide me with the best solution to backup my MSSQL Server running on Windows 2003 Small Business Server.
I am currently using software that runs on four client computers and saves data in the Win2k3 SBS.
Where should I start and what is the safest way to back it up.
This is on a Dell Poweredge 1400 Server and will be moved to the new Dell Poweredge 2800 Server once it arrives - operating will be the Same Win2k3 SBS but the edition will be R2 both systems are 32bit
Thanks for your help in advance
Cyberdyne
-=Windows and Networking MOD=-Guys has anybody looked at this? I am bringing it up again, it is time sensitive.
Regards,
Cyberdyne|||http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2000/maintain/sqlbackuprest.mspxsql
Thursday, March 22, 2012
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
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...
>
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
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
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
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Background replication
We are developing a embedded system based on Windows CE 5 and SQL Server CE 3 in C++ where we need to do merge replication in background while the front end application still need to perform operations on the database. A solution would be to run the merge replication on a separate thread while the application thread still can access the database to do inserts and updates. I have been researching if it is possible to access the database with queries during a merge replication, but I can not find an answere. Does anyone have experience of this and generally know if it is possible to implement with SQL Server CE 3 in the native API?
Best regards
Johan Johansson
This article may help you understand the implications of a user trying to access SQL Mobile while merge replication is happening.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnsql90/html/sql2k5mobilesynch.asp
Darren
|||Thanks Darren, this is exactly what I was looking for.
Best regards
Johan
Monday, March 19, 2012
Back up of Encryption Keys and changing Windows Service Identity
I need to change windows server identity for the report service but I get
following error for this operation
ReportServicesConfigUI.WMIProvider.WMIProviderException: Key not valid for
use in specified state. (Exception from HRESULT: 0x8009000B)
at
ReportServicesConfigUI.WMIProvider.RSReportServerAdmin.ThrowOnError(ManagementBaseObject
mo)
at
ReportServicesConfigUI.WMIProvider.RSReportServerAdmin.BackupEncryptionKey(Byte[]&
encryptedBytes, String password)
What is a solution for this?
Thanks,
ShimonOn Dec 10, 8:11 pm, "Shimon Sim" <shimonsim...@.community.nospam>
wrote:
> I need to change windows server identity for the report service but I get
> following error for this operation
> ReportServicesConfigUI.WMIProvider.WMIProviderException: Key not valid for
> use in specified state. (Exception from HRESULT: 0x8009000B)
> at
> ReportServicesConfigUI.WMIProvider.RSReportServerAdmin.ThrowOnError(ManagementBaseObject
> mo)
> at
> ReportServicesConfigUI.WMIProvider.RSReportServerAdmin.BackupEncryptionKey(Byte[]&
> encryptedBytes, String password)
> What is a solution for this?
> Thanks,
> Shimon
This link might be helpful.
http://www.developmentnow.com/g/115_2007_5_0_0_973220/Report-Server-Windows-Service-MSSQLSERVER.htm
Regards,
Enrique Martinez
Sr. Software Consultant
following error for this operation
ReportServicesConfigUI.WMIProvider.WMIProviderException: Key not valid for
use in specified state. (Exception from HRESULT: 0x8009000B)
at
ReportServicesConfigUI.WMIProvider.RSReportServerAdmin.ThrowOnError(ManagementBaseObject
mo)
at
ReportServicesConfigUI.WMIProvider.RSReportServerAdmin.BackupEncryptionKey(Byte[]&
encryptedBytes, String password)
What is a solution for this?
Thanks,
ShimonOn Dec 10, 8:11 pm, "Shimon Sim" <shimonsim...@.community.nospam>
wrote:
> I need to change windows server identity for the report service but I get
> following error for this operation
> ReportServicesConfigUI.WMIProvider.WMIProviderException: Key not valid for
> use in specified state. (Exception from HRESULT: 0x8009000B)
> at
> ReportServicesConfigUI.WMIProvider.RSReportServerAdmin.ThrowOnError(ManagementBaseObject
> mo)
> at
> ReportServicesConfigUI.WMIProvider.RSReportServerAdmin.BackupEncryptionKey(Byte[]&
> encryptedBytes, String password)
> What is a solution for this?
> Thanks,
> Shimon
This link might be helpful.
http://www.developmentnow.com/g/115_2007_5_0_0_973220/Report-Server-Windows-Service-MSSQLSERVER.htm
Regards,
Enrique Martinez
Sr. Software Consultant
Sunday, March 11, 2012
AWE? / Windows 2003 R2 x64 / SQL Server 2000 x86 / 8GB RAM
We had to install SQL 2000 on a 64-bit Intel x64 server. We quickly
learned that SQL 2000 x64 can only be installed on 64-bit Intel
Itanium (IA64) servers, so were forced to install the 32bit x86
version.
When running a 64-bit version of Windows 2003 with 8gb of RAM, we no
longer need to set the /3GB and /PAE switches because all of the
memory is addressable on the 64-bit platform.
Now that we are running 32-bit SQL Server 2000 Enterprise x86 on 64bit
Windows 2003 R2 Enterprise x64, do we need to enable AWE in SQL Server
like we had to on 32-bit Windows?
Here's how we did it on 32bit SQL:
http://www.sql-server-performance.com/awe_memory.asp
It appears that AWE is only required/supported on 32-bit OS:
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/editions/64bit/sql64bitadvantages.mspx
AWE is a set of memory management extensions to the Microsoft Win32?
API that allows applications to address memory beyond the 4GB
limitation. Using AWE, applications can acquire physical memory as
nonpaged memory, and then dynamically map views of the nonpaged memory
to the 32-bit address space.
32 it SQL Server is 32 bit. In order of a 32 bit app to see more than 2 or 3 GB memory, it need to
use the AWE extensions. So, yes, you need to sp_configure your 32 bit SQL Server to use AWE.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
<mikemiller.innova@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1176395603.695552.226090@.b75g2000hsg.googlegr oups.com...
We had to install SQL 2000 on a 64-bit Intel x64 server. We quickly
learned that SQL 2000 x64 can only be installed on 64-bit Intel
Itanium (IA64) servers, so were forced to install the 32bit x86
version.
When running a 64-bit version of Windows 2003 with 8gb of RAM, we no
longer need to set the /3GB and /PAE switches because all of the
memory is addressable on the 64-bit platform.
Now that we are running 32-bit SQL Server 2000 Enterprise x86 on 64bit
Windows 2003 R2 Enterprise x64, do we need to enable AWE in SQL Server
like we had to on 32-bit Windows?
Here's how we did it on 32bit SQL:
http://www.sql-server-performance.com/awe_memory.asp
It appears that AWE is only required/supported on 32-bit OS:
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/editions/64bit/sql64bitadvantages.mspx
AWE is a set of memory management extensions to the Microsoft Win32?
API that allows applications to address memory beyond the 4GB
limitation. Using AWE, applications can acquire physical memory as
nonpaged memory, and then dynamically map views of the nonpaged memory
to the 32-bit address space.
learned that SQL 2000 x64 can only be installed on 64-bit Intel
Itanium (IA64) servers, so were forced to install the 32bit x86
version.
When running a 64-bit version of Windows 2003 with 8gb of RAM, we no
longer need to set the /3GB and /PAE switches because all of the
memory is addressable on the 64-bit platform.
Now that we are running 32-bit SQL Server 2000 Enterprise x86 on 64bit
Windows 2003 R2 Enterprise x64, do we need to enable AWE in SQL Server
like we had to on 32-bit Windows?
Here's how we did it on 32bit SQL:
http://www.sql-server-performance.com/awe_memory.asp
It appears that AWE is only required/supported on 32-bit OS:
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/editions/64bit/sql64bitadvantages.mspx
AWE is a set of memory management extensions to the Microsoft Win32?
API that allows applications to address memory beyond the 4GB
limitation. Using AWE, applications can acquire physical memory as
nonpaged memory, and then dynamically map views of the nonpaged memory
to the 32-bit address space.
32 it SQL Server is 32 bit. In order of a 32 bit app to see more than 2 or 3 GB memory, it need to
use the AWE extensions. So, yes, you need to sp_configure your 32 bit SQL Server to use AWE.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
<mikemiller.innova@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1176395603.695552.226090@.b75g2000hsg.googlegr oups.com...
We had to install SQL 2000 on a 64-bit Intel x64 server. We quickly
learned that SQL 2000 x64 can only be installed on 64-bit Intel
Itanium (IA64) servers, so were forced to install the 32bit x86
version.
When running a 64-bit version of Windows 2003 with 8gb of RAM, we no
longer need to set the /3GB and /PAE switches because all of the
memory is addressable on the 64-bit platform.
Now that we are running 32-bit SQL Server 2000 Enterprise x86 on 64bit
Windows 2003 R2 Enterprise x64, do we need to enable AWE in SQL Server
like we had to on 32-bit Windows?
Here's how we did it on 32bit SQL:
http://www.sql-server-performance.com/awe_memory.asp
It appears that AWE is only required/supported on 32-bit OS:
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/editions/64bit/sql64bitadvantages.mspx
AWE is a set of memory management extensions to the Microsoft Win32?
API that allows applications to address memory beyond the 4GB
limitation. Using AWE, applications can acquire physical memory as
nonpaged memory, and then dynamically map views of the nonpaged memory
to the 32-bit address space.
AWE? / Windows 2003 R2 x64 / SQL Server 2000 x86 / 8GB RAM
We had to install SQL 2000 on a 64-bit Intel x64 server. We quickly learned that SQL 2000 x64 can only be installed on 64-bit Intel Itanium (IA64) servers, so were forced to install the 32bit x86 version.
When running a 64-bit version of Windows 2003 with 8gb of RAM, we no longer need to set the /3GB and /PAE switches because all of the memory is addressable on the 64-bit platform.
Now that we are running 32-bit SQL Server 2000 Enterprise x86 on 64bit Windows 2003 R2 Enterprise x64, do we need to enable AWE in SQL Server like we had to on 32-bit Windows?
Here's how we did it on 32bit SQL:
http://www.sql-server-performance.com/awe_memory.asp
It appears that AWE is only required/supported on 32-bit OS:
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/editio...advantages.mspx AWE is a set of memory management extensions to the Microsoft Win32 API that allows applications to address memory beyond the 4GB limitation. Using AWE, applications can acquire physical memory as nonpaged memory, and then dynamically map views of the nonpaged memory to the 32-bit address space.32 it SQL Server is 32 bit. In order of a 32 bit app to see more than 2 or 3
GB memory, it need to
use the AWE extensions. So, yes, you need to sp_configure your 32 bit SQL Se
rver to use AWE.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
<mikemiller.innova@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1176395603.695552.226090@.b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
We had to install SQL 2000 on a 64-bit Intel x64 server. We quickly
learned that SQL 2000 x64 can only be installed on 64-bit Intel
Itanium (IA64) servers, so were forced to install the 32bit x86
version.
When running a 64-bit version of Windows 2003 with 8gb of RAM, we no
longer need to set the /3GB and /PAE switches because all of the
memory is addressable on the 64-bit platform.
Now that we are running 32-bit SQL Server 2000 Enterprise x86 on 64bit
Windows 2003 R2 Enterprise x64, do we need to enable AWE in SQL Server
like we had to on 32-bit Windows?
Here's how we did it on 32bit SQL:
http://www.sql-server-performance.com/awe_memory.asp
It appears that AWE is only required/supported on 32-bit OS:
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/editio...advantages.mspx
AWE is a set of memory management extensions to the Microsoft Win32?
API that allows applications to address memory beyond the 4GB
limitation. Using AWE, applications can acquire physical memory as
nonpaged memory, and then dynamically map views of the nonpaged memory
to the 32-bit address space.
When running a 64-bit version of Windows 2003 with 8gb of RAM, we no longer need to set the /3GB and /PAE switches because all of the memory is addressable on the 64-bit platform.
Now that we are running 32-bit SQL Server 2000 Enterprise x86 on 64bit Windows 2003 R2 Enterprise x64, do we need to enable AWE in SQL Server like we had to on 32-bit Windows?
Here's how we did it on 32bit SQL:
http://www.sql-server-performance.com/awe_memory.asp
It appears that AWE is only required/supported on 32-bit OS:
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/editio...advantages.mspx AWE is a set of memory management extensions to the Microsoft Win32 API that allows applications to address memory beyond the 4GB limitation. Using AWE, applications can acquire physical memory as nonpaged memory, and then dynamically map views of the nonpaged memory to the 32-bit address space.32 it SQL Server is 32 bit. In order of a 32 bit app to see more than 2 or 3
GB memory, it need to
use the AWE extensions. So, yes, you need to sp_configure your 32 bit SQL Se
rver to use AWE.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
<mikemiller.innova@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1176395603.695552.226090@.b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
We had to install SQL 2000 on a 64-bit Intel x64 server. We quickly
learned that SQL 2000 x64 can only be installed on 64-bit Intel
Itanium (IA64) servers, so were forced to install the 32bit x86
version.
When running a 64-bit version of Windows 2003 with 8gb of RAM, we no
longer need to set the /3GB and /PAE switches because all of the
memory is addressable on the 64-bit platform.
Now that we are running 32-bit SQL Server 2000 Enterprise x86 on 64bit
Windows 2003 R2 Enterprise x64, do we need to enable AWE in SQL Server
like we had to on 32-bit Windows?
Here's how we did it on 32bit SQL:
http://www.sql-server-performance.com/awe_memory.asp
It appears that AWE is only required/supported on 32-bit OS:
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/editio...advantages.mspx
AWE is a set of memory management extensions to the Microsoft Win32?
API that allows applications to address memory beyond the 4GB
limitation. Using AWE, applications can acquire physical memory as
nonpaged memory, and then dynamically map views of the nonpaged memory
to the 32-bit address space.
AWE, /3gb and /pae stuff
Hi all,
I'm running under Windows Server 2000 datacenter sp4 with sql server 2000 Sp4
on 16GB Ram.
I enabled the /PAE in the boot.ini file and also enabled the AWE and set the SLQ Server maximum memory to 6144.
Do I need to include the /3GB switch in the boot.ini file?
I'm a little bit confused with the article found on the site. http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/274750
Here are the lines.
Use of the /PAE switch in the Boot.ini and the AWE enable option in SQL Server allows SQL Server 2000 to utilize more than 4 GB memory. Without the /PAE switch SQL Server can only utilize up to 3 GB of memory. or-Use of the /3GB switch in the Boot.ini file allows SQL Server 2000 to use up to 3 GB of available memory.Regards,
Larry
Hi Larry,
As you're running 16GB of RAM, you need to include the /PAE and /3GB switch in boot.ini.
Have a look at http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/server/PAE/pae_os.mspx and http://www.sql-server-performance.com/awe_memory.asp
Cheers,
Rob
|||The /3GB switch allows SQL Server to use an additional 1GB for the database engine purposes -procedure caches, various internal caching needs, etc.
The PAE memory (above 2GB that is not accessed by the /3GB) is used ONLY for data caching.
You most likely want both.
|||But carefully watch your memory usage when you use 3GB, if misused it might cause system instability because of kernel memory starvation.
Check out the link here with more information about these subjects.
WesleyB
Visit my SQL Server weblog @. http://dis4ea.blogspot.com
AWE working?
Hi all,
This is a question related to AWE settings. I am on windows 2003 ent version with SQL Server 2005 std version. I have configured SQL Server to use AWE and min memery as 22G and max as 26G (I have 32G in total as physical memory). I do see the message in log as "Windows Address ... Enabled", but when I am using performance monitor to view total memory in kb for SQL Server, it never starts at 22G (usually at 1G). And I doubt why? The account I am running SQL Server is an admin account, so it can definitely locked down the pages in memory. Also, I do think AWE is working somehow, after several hours in running, the total memory will up to 8, 9 or 11G. So, apparently, it is over 2G per process limitation. I still want to know.
1. Is my AWE setting working?
2. If not, how to fix that?
3. How to confirm how many memory is actaully using by SQL Server?
Thanks,
NIng
(The comment below assumes 32 bit OS and 32 bit SQL Server.)
1. Since you see that SQL Server's memory usage grows up to 11GB, it is obvious that AWE is working. SQL Server only requests memory from the OS as it is needed -once allocated, it usually keeps it.
2. Nothing to do
3. Performance Monitor, as you are using, indicates SQL Server's memory usage. For more detailed memory usage analysis, you can look at the various SQL Server Memory counters in Performance Monitor, and you can use some the the system functions that will give you memory data. Look at the System Views. (Click on Database, Views, System Views.) Try:
SELECT * FROM sys.dm_os_performance_counter
Looking specifically at the SQL Server Memory Manager objects.
|||Are you sure this is by design?My performance is awful after I have upgraded. SQL Server 2000 used to locked the memory as it starts, so the production server (4 cpus and 32 G memory) was doing a lot better than my development server with (1cpu and 2G memory). However, after upgrade, the performance level of the production server is awful. For example, a query need 9 seconds on test server used to run only 2 seconds on live server. Now it needs 8 seconds ...
|||
After upgrading, it is NECESSARY to rebuild ALL the indexes, and update the statistics. If you have not done that, your performace will often be signicantly worse.
And even then, some queries will run faster on SQL 2005, and some (albeit few) will run slower. It may be necessary to 'revise' queries that are signicantly slower in order to use the new ways that SQL 2005 produces execution plans.
AWE upper memory limit
Hi,
I have a question that I hope someone can help me with.
I am running SQL Server 2005 on a Windows 2003 Standard edition (x32). I have 6GB of memory in it but have realised that Windows can't use more than 4GB (I have enabled /PAE and /3GB in the boot.ini).
My question is:
Can SQL Server make use of the extra memory I have in the server? Otherwise I guess it is pointless having more than 4GB in there.
Thank you for your help!
Kind Regards
Stefan Ghose
Hello Stefan -
The way memory is used between 32-bit processors, the various Windows operating systems and SQL Server can be confusing. Because of 32-bit architectures and software design decisions, the first 2GB of RAM in a Windows 2000 or 2003 server is directly addressable by applications like SQL Server. That means that query plans, memory buffers and the like all go in this space. No changes are needed in any configurations, either at the OS or SQL Server level.
With the /3GB switch turned on in the BOOT.INI file, SQL Server increases this base limit to 3GB. This is great for SQL Server, but if you have other apps on your server, it can starve the OS, leaving only 1GB for all operations. Experts are divided on whether this is a good thing. I turn it on when the box is dedicated to SQL Server, and watch for errors in the event logs. If I see memory or I/O errors, or if the box becomes unstable in testing, I turn it off.
If you have 4GB in your server as you've indicated, that's all you need to do. Inside of SQL Server, I also recommend setting a floor and ceiling limit of 3GB, so it doesn't have to dynamically manage the RAM. That just saves a few ops, which is always a good thing. Again, I only do this if SQL Server is the only app on the box.
If you have over 4GB of RAM on the server, SQL Server needs a few things to use it. First, you have to enable the /PAE switch in the BOOT.INI file. Next, you need to set the SQL Server to use AWE memory. With these two things configured, the server will use the space above 4GB as a read-ahead buffer. It doesn't help much with query plans and those sorts of base memory operations, but it will speed up large queries.
Buck Woody
|||Thanks Buck!!
That was just what I was looking for... another thing... since I already have enabled AWE on my SQL server do I need to do anything with Max memory usage? Or can I just leave it at its default value?
Kind Regards
Stefan Ghose
|||The default is fine - you have it dynamic, I assume?Thursday, March 8, 2012
AWE questions
We are looking to take advantage of AWE in a single instance of SQL Server
2000 Enterprise running on a Windows 2000 Advanced Server. The cluster will
have 8GB of physical memory. I would like Sql Server to use 7GB and leave
1 GB for the O/S. If I understand the documentation correctly we need to do
the following:
1. Add "/pae /3gb /awe" to the boot.ini (I believe "/pae" is
necessary and the others are optional)
2. Make sure the sql server startup account is either an administrator
or has the Windows 2000 lock pages in memory privilege.
3. In query analyzer:
sp_configure 'show advanced options', 1
RECONFIGURE
GO
sp_configure 'awe enabled', 1
RECONFIGURE
GO
sp_configure 'max server memory', 7168
RECONFIGURE
GO
4. Reboot Server
MarkYou don't need the /awe switch but other than you are right :-)
Also, note this KB about AWE + cluster failover Pending Timeout
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;329914
--
HTH
Jasper Smith (SQL Server MVP)
I support PASS - the definitive, global
community for SQL Server professionals -
http://www.sqlpass.org
"Mark Sullivan" <msullivan@.getconnected.com> wrote in message
news:eDBCz8RuDHA.2360@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
We are looking to take advantage of AWE in a single instance of SQL Server
2000 Enterprise running on a Windows 2000 Advanced Server. The cluster will
have 8GB of physical memory. I would like Sql Server to use 7GB and leave
1 GB for the O/S. If I understand the documentation correctly we need to do
the following:
1. Add "/pae /3gb /awe" to the boot.ini (I believe "/pae" is
necessary and the others are optional)
2. Make sure the sql server startup account is either an administrator
or has the Windows 2000 lock pages in memory privilege.
3. In query analyzer:
sp_configure 'show advanced options', 1
RECONFIGURE
GO
sp_configure 'awe enabled', 1
RECONFIGURE
GO
sp_configure 'max server memory', 7168
RECONFIGURE
GO
4. Reboot Server
Mark|||Thanks for the reply. Has AWE been a positive experience?
Ken
2000 Enterprise running on a Windows 2000 Advanced Server. The cluster will
have 8GB of physical memory. I would like Sql Server to use 7GB and leave
1 GB for the O/S. If I understand the documentation correctly we need to do
the following:
1. Add "/pae /3gb /awe" to the boot.ini (I believe "/pae" is
necessary and the others are optional)
2. Make sure the sql server startup account is either an administrator
or has the Windows 2000 lock pages in memory privilege.
3. In query analyzer:
sp_configure 'show advanced options', 1
RECONFIGURE
GO
sp_configure 'awe enabled', 1
RECONFIGURE
GO
sp_configure 'max server memory', 7168
RECONFIGURE
GO
4. Reboot Server
MarkYou don't need the /awe switch but other than you are right :-)
Also, note this KB about AWE + cluster failover Pending Timeout
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;329914
--
HTH
Jasper Smith (SQL Server MVP)
I support PASS - the definitive, global
community for SQL Server professionals -
http://www.sqlpass.org
"Mark Sullivan" <msullivan@.getconnected.com> wrote in message
news:eDBCz8RuDHA.2360@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
We are looking to take advantage of AWE in a single instance of SQL Server
2000 Enterprise running on a Windows 2000 Advanced Server. The cluster will
have 8GB of physical memory. I would like Sql Server to use 7GB and leave
1 GB for the O/S. If I understand the documentation correctly we need to do
the following:
1. Add "/pae /3gb /awe" to the boot.ini (I believe "/pae" is
necessary and the others are optional)
2. Make sure the sql server startup account is either an administrator
or has the Windows 2000 lock pages in memory privilege.
3. In query analyzer:
sp_configure 'show advanced options', 1
RECONFIGURE
GO
sp_configure 'awe enabled', 1
RECONFIGURE
GO
sp_configure 'max server memory', 7168
RECONFIGURE
GO
4. Reboot Server
Mark|||Thanks for the reply. Has AWE been a positive experience?
Ken
AWE question (Geoff N. Hiten)
Hello
We have windows 2003 server (8GB) with SQL Server 2004(sp4) +one small
application installed on it.
We also have \3gb parameter in the boot.ini
It is a cluster Active/Passive
What would you recommenf to insttall a hotfix to Passive first and then
Active or it does not matter?
Is it any problems installing a hotfix? What is about lock pages in memory?
And running AWE enabling on Passive first also?
Geoff , how much memory to give to SQL SERVER if small application is using
about 50MB AND SQL SERVER 2.7gb?
Thanks
Alex,
There is no SQL 2004. I am guessing since you mention SP4, that is SQL
2000, since SQL 2005 is only at SP2 for now.
Hotfixes install to all nodes on a cluster for a particular instance. You
need to start the install from the node that is currently hosting the
instance. You must grant lock pages in memory to the SQL service account in
order to get AWE to work. AWE is a setting for the SQL instance, so it will
take effect whichever node hosts that instance.
For an 8GB system, I would start by setting SQL at 6GB and see how free
memory looks. You may be able to inch it up a bit, but it is better to
leave a little extra free memory than to run out. The only down side is
with SQL 2000 you have to stop and restart the service to enact an AWE
memory change.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Alex" <test@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ehk91SwkHHA.4248@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Hello
> We have windows 2003 server (8GB) with SQL Server 2004(sp4) +one small
> application installed on it.
> We also have \3gb parameter in the boot.ini
>
> It is a cluster Active/Passive
> What would you recommenf to insttall a hotfix to Passive first and then
> Active or it does not matter?
> Is it any problems installing a hotfix? What is about lock pages in
> memory?
> And running AWE enabling on Passive first also?
>
> Geoff , how much memory to give to SQL SERVER if small application is
> using about 50MB AND SQL SERVER 2.7gb?
> Thanks
>
>
|||Thank you Geoff N. Hiten
Yes , we are using SQL Server 2000(SP4).
Please take alook at the follwing list and tell me whether it looks good to
you.
a) SQL node1 --(Active) has 8GB
b) SQL node1 --(Passive) has 8GB
1) Install hotfix from(http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899761) on SQL1 node
(Active)
2) Install hotfix from(http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899761) on SQL2 node
(Passive)
3) Grant 'lock pages in memory' on on SQL1 node (Active)
4) Grant 'lock pages in memory' on on SQL1 node (Passive)
5) Enabling AWE on SQL1 node (Active)--set to 6GB
6) Enabling AWE on SQL1 node (Passive)--set to 6GB
Thanks you again
"Geoff N. Hiten" <SQLCraftsman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:OZ4pcewkHHA.4904@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Alex,
> There is no SQL 2004. I am guessing since you mention SP4, that is SQL
> 2000, since SQL 2005 is only at SP2 for now.
> Hotfixes install to all nodes on a cluster for a particular instance. You
> need to start the install from the node that is currently hosting the
> instance. You must grant lock pages in memory to the SQL service account
> in order to get AWE to work. AWE is a setting for the SQL instance, so it
> will take effect whichever node hosts that instance.
> For an 8GB system, I would start by setting SQL at 6GB and see how free
> memory looks. You may be able to inch it up a bit, but it is better to
> leave a little extra free memory than to run out. The only down side is
> with SQL 2000 you have to stop and restart the service to enact an AWE
> memory change.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>
>
> "Alex" <test@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ehk91SwkHHA.4248@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>
We have windows 2003 server (8GB) with SQL Server 2004(sp4) +one small
application installed on it.
We also have \3gb parameter in the boot.ini
It is a cluster Active/Passive
What would you recommenf to insttall a hotfix to Passive first and then
Active or it does not matter?
Is it any problems installing a hotfix? What is about lock pages in memory?
And running AWE enabling on Passive first also?
Geoff , how much memory to give to SQL SERVER if small application is using
about 50MB AND SQL SERVER 2.7gb?
Thanks
Alex,
There is no SQL 2004. I am guessing since you mention SP4, that is SQL
2000, since SQL 2005 is only at SP2 for now.
Hotfixes install to all nodes on a cluster for a particular instance. You
need to start the install from the node that is currently hosting the
instance. You must grant lock pages in memory to the SQL service account in
order to get AWE to work. AWE is a setting for the SQL instance, so it will
take effect whichever node hosts that instance.
For an 8GB system, I would start by setting SQL at 6GB and see how free
memory looks. You may be able to inch it up a bit, but it is better to
leave a little extra free memory than to run out. The only down side is
with SQL 2000 you have to stop and restart the service to enact an AWE
memory change.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Alex" <test@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ehk91SwkHHA.4248@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Hello
> We have windows 2003 server (8GB) with SQL Server 2004(sp4) +one small
> application installed on it.
> We also have \3gb parameter in the boot.ini
>
> It is a cluster Active/Passive
> What would you recommenf to insttall a hotfix to Passive first and then
> Active or it does not matter?
> Is it any problems installing a hotfix? What is about lock pages in
> memory?
> And running AWE enabling on Passive first also?
>
> Geoff , how much memory to give to SQL SERVER if small application is
> using about 50MB AND SQL SERVER 2.7gb?
> Thanks
>
>
|||Thank you Geoff N. Hiten
Yes , we are using SQL Server 2000(SP4).
Please take alook at the follwing list and tell me whether it looks good to
you.
a) SQL node1 --(Active) has 8GB
b) SQL node1 --(Passive) has 8GB
1) Install hotfix from(http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899761) on SQL1 node
(Active)
2) Install hotfix from(http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899761) on SQL2 node
(Passive)
3) Grant 'lock pages in memory' on on SQL1 node (Active)
4) Grant 'lock pages in memory' on on SQL1 node (Passive)
5) Enabling AWE on SQL1 node (Active)--set to 6GB
6) Enabling AWE on SQL1 node (Passive)--set to 6GB
Thanks you again
"Geoff N. Hiten" <SQLCraftsman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:OZ4pcewkHHA.4904@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Alex,
> There is no SQL 2004. I am guessing since you mention SP4, that is SQL
> 2000, since SQL 2005 is only at SP2 for now.
> Hotfixes install to all nodes on a cluster for a particular instance. You
> need to start the install from the node that is currently hosting the
> instance. You must grant lock pages in memory to the SQL service account
> in order to get AWE to work. AWE is a setting for the SQL instance, so it
> will take effect whichever node hosts that instance.
> For an 8GB system, I would start by setting SQL at 6GB and see how free
> memory looks. You may be able to inch it up a bit, but it is better to
> leave a little extra free memory than to run out. The only down side is
> with SQL 2000 you have to stop and restart the service to enact an AWE
> memory change.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>
>
> "Alex" <test@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ehk91SwkHHA.4248@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>
AWE question (Geoff N. Hiten)
Hello
We have windows 2003 server (8GB) with SQL Server 2004(sp4) +one small
application installed on it.
We also have \3gb parameter in the boot.ini
It is a cluster Active/Passive
What would you recommenf to insttall a hotfix to Passive first and then
Active or it does not matter?
Is it any problems installing a hotfix? What is about lock pages in memory?
And running AWE enabling on Passive first also?
Geoff , how much memory to give to SQL SERVER if small application is using
about 50MB AND SQL SERVER 2.7gb?
ThanksAlex,
There is no SQL 2004. I am guessing since you mention SP4, that is SQL
2000, since SQL 2005 is only at SP2 for now.
Hotfixes install to all nodes on a cluster for a particular instance. You
need to start the install from the node that is currently hosting the
instance. You must grant lock pages in memory to the SQL service account in
order to get AWE to work. AWE is a setting for the SQL instance, so it will
take effect whichever node hosts that instance.
For an 8GB system, I would start by setting SQL at 6GB and see how free
memory looks. You may be able to inch it up a bit, but it is better to
leave a little extra free memory than to run out. The only down side is
with SQL 2000 you have to stop and restart the service to enact an AWE
memory change.
--
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Alex" <test@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ehk91SwkHHA.4248@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Hello
> We have windows 2003 server (8GB) with SQL Server 2004(sp4) +one small
> application installed on it.
> We also have \3gb parameter in the boot.ini
>
> It is a cluster Active/Passive
> What would you recommenf to insttall a hotfix to Passive first and then
> Active or it does not matter?
> Is it any problems installing a hotfix? What is about lock pages in
> memory?
> And running AWE enabling on Passive first also?
>
> Geoff , how much memory to give to SQL SERVER if small application is
> using about 50MB AND SQL SERVER 2.7gb?
> Thanks
>
>|||Thank you Geoff N. Hiten
Yes , we are using SQL Server 2000(SP4).
Please take alook at the follwing list and tell me whether it looks good to
you.
a) SQL node1 --(Active) has 8GB
b) SQL node1 --(Passive) has 8GB
1) Install hotfix from(http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899761) on SQL1 node
(Active)
2) Install hotfix from(http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899761) on SQL2 node
(Passive)
3) Grant 'lock pages in memory' on on SQL1 node (Active)
4) Grant 'lock pages in memory' on on SQL1 node (Passive)
5) Enabling AWE on SQL1 node (Active)--set to 6GB
6) Enabling AWE on SQL1 node (Passive)--set to 6GB
Thanks you again
"Geoff N. Hiten" <SQLCraftsman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:OZ4pcewkHHA.4904@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Alex,
> There is no SQL 2004. I am guessing since you mention SP4, that is SQL
> 2000, since SQL 2005 is only at SP2 for now.
> Hotfixes install to all nodes on a cluster for a particular instance. You
> need to start the install from the node that is currently hosting the
> instance. You must grant lock pages in memory to the SQL service account
> in order to get AWE to work. AWE is a setting for the SQL instance, so it
> will take effect whichever node hosts that instance.
> For an 8GB system, I would start by setting SQL at 6GB and see how free
> memory looks. You may be able to inch it up a bit, but it is better to
> leave a little extra free memory than to run out. The only down side is
> with SQL 2000 you have to stop and restart the service to enact an AWE
> memory change.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>
>
> "Alex" <test@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ehk91SwkHHA.4248@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Hello
>> We have windows 2003 server (8GB) with SQL Server 2004(sp4) +one small
>> application installed on it.
>> We also have \3gb parameter in the boot.ini
>>
>> It is a cluster Active/Passive
>> What would you recommenf to insttall a hotfix to Passive first and then
>> Active or it does not matter?
>> Is it any problems installing a hotfix? What is about lock pages in
>> memory?
>> And running AWE enabling on Passive first also?
>>
>> Geoff , how much memory to give to SQL SERVER if small application is
>> using about 50MB AND SQL SERVER 2.7gb?
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>
We have windows 2003 server (8GB) with SQL Server 2004(sp4) +one small
application installed on it.
We also have \3gb parameter in the boot.ini
It is a cluster Active/Passive
What would you recommenf to insttall a hotfix to Passive first and then
Active or it does not matter?
Is it any problems installing a hotfix? What is about lock pages in memory?
And running AWE enabling on Passive first also?
Geoff , how much memory to give to SQL SERVER if small application is using
about 50MB AND SQL SERVER 2.7gb?
ThanksAlex,
There is no SQL 2004. I am guessing since you mention SP4, that is SQL
2000, since SQL 2005 is only at SP2 for now.
Hotfixes install to all nodes on a cluster for a particular instance. You
need to start the install from the node that is currently hosting the
instance. You must grant lock pages in memory to the SQL service account in
order to get AWE to work. AWE is a setting for the SQL instance, so it will
take effect whichever node hosts that instance.
For an 8GB system, I would start by setting SQL at 6GB and see how free
memory looks. You may be able to inch it up a bit, but it is better to
leave a little extra free memory than to run out. The only down side is
with SQL 2000 you have to stop and restart the service to enact an AWE
memory change.
--
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Alex" <test@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ehk91SwkHHA.4248@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Hello
> We have windows 2003 server (8GB) with SQL Server 2004(sp4) +one small
> application installed on it.
> We also have \3gb parameter in the boot.ini
>
> It is a cluster Active/Passive
> What would you recommenf to insttall a hotfix to Passive first and then
> Active or it does not matter?
> Is it any problems installing a hotfix? What is about lock pages in
> memory?
> And running AWE enabling on Passive first also?
>
> Geoff , how much memory to give to SQL SERVER if small application is
> using about 50MB AND SQL SERVER 2.7gb?
> Thanks
>
>|||Thank you Geoff N. Hiten
Yes , we are using SQL Server 2000(SP4).
Please take alook at the follwing list and tell me whether it looks good to
you.
a) SQL node1 --(Active) has 8GB
b) SQL node1 --(Passive) has 8GB
1) Install hotfix from(http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899761) on SQL1 node
(Active)
2) Install hotfix from(http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899761) on SQL2 node
(Passive)
3) Grant 'lock pages in memory' on on SQL1 node (Active)
4) Grant 'lock pages in memory' on on SQL1 node (Passive)
5) Enabling AWE on SQL1 node (Active)--set to 6GB
6) Enabling AWE on SQL1 node (Passive)--set to 6GB
Thanks you again
"Geoff N. Hiten" <SQLCraftsman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:OZ4pcewkHHA.4904@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Alex,
> There is no SQL 2004. I am guessing since you mention SP4, that is SQL
> 2000, since SQL 2005 is only at SP2 for now.
> Hotfixes install to all nodes on a cluster for a particular instance. You
> need to start the install from the node that is currently hosting the
> instance. You must grant lock pages in memory to the SQL service account
> in order to get AWE to work. AWE is a setting for the SQL instance, so it
> will take effect whichever node hosts that instance.
> For an 8GB system, I would start by setting SQL at 6GB and see how free
> memory looks. You may be able to inch it up a bit, but it is better to
> leave a little extra free memory than to run out. The only down side is
> with SQL 2000 you have to stop and restart the service to enact an AWE
> memory change.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>
>
> "Alex" <test@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ehk91SwkHHA.4248@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Hello
>> We have windows 2003 server (8GB) with SQL Server 2004(sp4) +one small
>> application installed on it.
>> We also have \3gb parameter in the boot.ini
>>
>> It is a cluster Active/Passive
>> What would you recommenf to insttall a hotfix to Passive first and then
>> Active or it does not matter?
>> Is it any problems installing a hotfix? What is about lock pages in
>> memory?
>> And running AWE enabling on Passive first also?
>>
>> Geoff , how much memory to give to SQL SERVER if small application is
>> using about 50MB AND SQL SERVER 2.7gb?
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>
AWE question (Geoff N. Hiten)
Hello
We have windows 2003 server (8GB) with SQL Server 2004(sp4) +one small
application installed on it.
We also have \3gb parameter in the boot.ini
It is a cluster Active/Passive
What would you recommenf to insttall a hotfix to Passive first and then
Active or it does not matter?
Is it any problems installing a hotfix? What is about lock pages in memory?
And running AWE enabling on Passive first also?
Geoff , how much memory to give to SQL SERVER if small application is using
about 50MB AND SQL SERVER 2.7gb?
ThanksAlex,
There is no SQL 2004. I am guessing since you mention SP4, that is SQL
2000, since SQL 2005 is only at SP2 for now.
Hotfixes install to all nodes on a cluster for a particular instance. You
need to start the install from the node that is currently hosting the
instance. You must grant lock pages in memory to the SQL service account in
order to get AWE to work. AWE is a setting for the SQL instance, so it will
take effect whichever node hosts that instance.
For an 8GB system, I would start by setting SQL at 6GB and see how free
memory looks. You may be able to inch it up a bit, but it is better to
leave a little extra free memory than to run out. The only down side is
with SQL 2000 you have to stop and restart the service to enact an AWE
memory change.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Alex" <test@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ehk91SwkHHA.4248@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Hello
> We have windows 2003 server (8GB) with SQL Server 2004(sp4) +one small
> application installed on it.
> We also have \3gb parameter in the boot.ini
>
> It is a cluster Active/Passive
> What would you recommenf to insttall a hotfix to Passive first and then
> Active or it does not matter?
> Is it any problems installing a hotfix? What is about lock pages in
> memory?
> And running AWE enabling on Passive first also?
>
> Geoff , how much memory to give to SQL SERVER if small application is
> using about 50MB AND SQL SERVER 2.7gb?
> Thanks
>
>|||Thank you Geoff N. Hiten
Yes , we are using SQL Server 2000(SP4).
Please take alook at the follwing list and tell me whether it looks good to
you.
a) SQL node1 --(Active) has 8GB
b) SQL node1 --(Passive) has 8GB
1) Install hotfix from(http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899761) on SQL1 node
(Active)
2) Install hotfix from(http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899761) on SQL2 node
(Passive)
3) Grant 'lock pages in memory' on on SQL1 node (Active)
4) Grant 'lock pages in memory' on on SQL1 node (Passive)
5) Enabling AWE on SQL1 node (Active)--set to 6GB
6) Enabling AWE on SQL1 node (Passive)--set to 6GB
Thanks you again
"Geoff N. Hiten" <SQLCraftsman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:OZ4pcewkHHA.4904@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Alex,
> There is no SQL 2004. I am guessing since you mention SP4, that is SQL
> 2000, since SQL 2005 is only at SP2 for now.
> Hotfixes install to all nodes on a cluster for a particular instance. You
> need to start the install from the node that is currently hosting the
> instance. You must grant lock pages in memory to the SQL service account
> in order to get AWE to work. AWE is a setting for the SQL instance, so it
> will take effect whichever node hosts that instance.
> For an 8GB system, I would start by setting SQL at 6GB and see how free
> memory looks. You may be able to inch it up a bit, but it is better to
> leave a little extra free memory than to run out. The only down side is
> with SQL 2000 you have to stop and restart the service to enact an AWE
> memory change.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>
>
> "Alex" <test@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ehk91SwkHHA.4248@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>
We have windows 2003 server (8GB) with SQL Server 2004(sp4) +one small
application installed on it.
We also have \3gb parameter in the boot.ini
It is a cluster Active/Passive
What would you recommenf to insttall a hotfix to Passive first and then
Active or it does not matter?
Is it any problems installing a hotfix? What is about lock pages in memory?
And running AWE enabling on Passive first also?
Geoff , how much memory to give to SQL SERVER if small application is using
about 50MB AND SQL SERVER 2.7gb?
ThanksAlex,
There is no SQL 2004. I am guessing since you mention SP4, that is SQL
2000, since SQL 2005 is only at SP2 for now.
Hotfixes install to all nodes on a cluster for a particular instance. You
need to start the install from the node that is currently hosting the
instance. You must grant lock pages in memory to the SQL service account in
order to get AWE to work. AWE is a setting for the SQL instance, so it will
take effect whichever node hosts that instance.
For an 8GB system, I would start by setting SQL at 6GB and see how free
memory looks. You may be able to inch it up a bit, but it is better to
leave a little extra free memory than to run out. The only down side is
with SQL 2000 you have to stop and restart the service to enact an AWE
memory change.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Alex" <test@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ehk91SwkHHA.4248@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Hello
> We have windows 2003 server (8GB) with SQL Server 2004(sp4) +one small
> application installed on it.
> We also have \3gb parameter in the boot.ini
>
> It is a cluster Active/Passive
> What would you recommenf to insttall a hotfix to Passive first and then
> Active or it does not matter?
> Is it any problems installing a hotfix? What is about lock pages in
> memory?
> And running AWE enabling on Passive first also?
>
> Geoff , how much memory to give to SQL SERVER if small application is
> using about 50MB AND SQL SERVER 2.7gb?
> Thanks
>
>|||Thank you Geoff N. Hiten
Yes , we are using SQL Server 2000(SP4).
Please take alook at the follwing list and tell me whether it looks good to
you.
a) SQL node1 --(Active) has 8GB
b) SQL node1 --(Passive) has 8GB
1) Install hotfix from(http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899761) on SQL1 node
(Active)
2) Install hotfix from(http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899761) on SQL2 node
(Passive)
3) Grant 'lock pages in memory' on on SQL1 node (Active)
4) Grant 'lock pages in memory' on on SQL1 node (Passive)
5) Enabling AWE on SQL1 node (Active)--set to 6GB
6) Enabling AWE on SQL1 node (Passive)--set to 6GB
Thanks you again
"Geoff N. Hiten" <SQLCraftsman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:OZ4pcewkHHA.4904@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Alex,
> There is no SQL 2004. I am guessing since you mention SP4, that is SQL
> 2000, since SQL 2005 is only at SP2 for now.
> Hotfixes install to all nodes on a cluster for a particular instance. You
> need to start the install from the node that is currently hosting the
> instance. You must grant lock pages in memory to the SQL service account
> in order to get AWE to work. AWE is a setting for the SQL instance, so it
> will take effect whichever node hosts that instance.
> For an 8GB system, I would start by setting SQL at 6GB and see how free
> memory looks. You may be able to inch it up a bit, but it is better to
> leave a little extra free memory than to run out. The only down side is
> with SQL 2000 you have to stop and restart the service to enact an AWE
> memory change.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>
>
> "Alex" <test@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ehk91SwkHHA.4248@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)