DTS to .net: current

Showing posts with label current. Show all posts

Thursday, March 29, 2012

Duplicate table

Hi,
In my program i need to duplicate a table in a current data base.
I'm thinkin' of reading the data base columns and then rows and so i
create another table
Is there any other easy and fast method with SQL Server 2005, because
my idea is so slow
I'm using VB 2005 Express with SQL Server 2005 Express
Thanks
To duplicate the table columns and data, just:
SELECT * INTO Newtable FROM Oldtable
However this will not copy indexes, access privileges, etc.
To get everything you must script the table to create it, and then add the
data, perhaps with
INSERT INTO NewTable SELECT * FROM Oldtable
Of course, using column names instead of * would be a better practice.
Rick Byham (MSFT)
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Omar Abid" <omar.abid2006@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1181578789.815330.212000@.q69g2000hsb.googlegr oups.com...
> Hi,
> In my program i need to duplicate a table in a current data base.
> I'm thinkin' of reading the data base columns and then rows and so i
> create another table
> Is there any other easy and fast method with SQL Server 2005, because
> my idea is so slow
> I'm using VB 2005 Express with SQL Server 2005 Express
> Thanks
>
|||> INSERT INTO NewTable SELECT * FROM Oldtable
> Of course, using column names instead of * would be a better practice.
And might be necessary, e.g. for IDENTITY/ROWVERSION...
Aaron Bertrand
SQL Server MVP
http://www.sqlblog.com/
http://www.aspfaq.com/5006

Duplicate table

Hi,
In my program i need to duplicate a table in a current data base.
I'm thinkin' of reading the data base columns and then rows and so i
create another table
Is there any other easy and fast method with SQL Server 2005, because
my idea is so slow
I'm using VB 2005 Express with SQL Server 2005 Express
ThanksHi
On Jun 11, 5:19 pm, Omar Abid <omar.abid2...@.gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> In my program i need to duplicate a table in a current data base.
> I'm thinkin' of reading the data base columns and then rows and so i
> create another table
> Is there any other easy and fast method with SQL Server 2005, because
> my idea is so slow
> I'm using VB 2005 Express with SQL Server 2005 Express
> Thanks
If you just want to create copy the data then you could use
SELECT *
INTO #temptable
FROM Mytable
Which will create a new table with the contents of the old table, but
the new table will not have the constraints such as primary or foreign
keys and indexes that the original table had. If you dont want the
table but just the columns use a where clause that will never be
satisfied such as
WHERE 1 = 0
Alternatively you can use SMO see Allen Whites posts in the thread
http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=876099&SiteID=1
John

Duplicate table

Hi,
In my program i need to duplicate a table in a current data base.
I'm thinkin' of reading the data base columns and then rows and so i
create another table
Is there any other easy and fast method with SQL Server 2005, because
my idea is so slow
I'm using VB 2005 Express with SQL Server 2005 Express
Thanks
Hi
On Jun 11, 5:19 pm, Omar Abid <omar.abid2...@.gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> In my program i need to duplicate a table in a current data base.
> I'm thinkin' of reading the data base columns and then rows and so i
> create another table
> Is there any other easy and fast method with SQL Server 2005, because
> my idea is so slow
> I'm using VB 2005 Express with SQL Server 2005 Express
> Thanks
If you just want to create copy the data then you could use
SELECT *
INTO #temptable
FROM Mytable
Which will create a new table with the contents of the old table, but
the new table will not have the constraints such as primary or foreign
keys and indexes that the original table had. If you dont want the
table but just the columns use a where clause that will never be
satisfied such as
WHERE 1 = 0
Alternatively you can use SMO see Allen Whites posts in the thread
http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=876099&SiteID=1
John
sql

Duplicate table

Quote:

Originally Posted by

SELECT * INTO NewTable FROM OldTable|||On 11 juin, 18:54, "Chris.Cheney" <Chris.CheneyXXNOSPA...@.tesco.net>
wrote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by

Omar Abid <omar.abid2...@.gmail.comwrote in news:1181578579.728121.204320
@.g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
>

Quote:

Originally Posted by

>
SELECT * INTO NewTable FROM OldTable

Hi
Thx for your reply I'll try your code and submit the result to you
Omar Abid

Duplicate table

Hi,
In my program i need to duplicate a table in a current data base.
I'm thinkin' of reading the data base columns and then rows and so i
create another table
Is there any other easy and fast method with SQL Server 2005, because
my idea is so slow
I'm using VB 2005 Express with SQL Server 2005 Express
ThanksHi
On Jun 11, 5:19 pm, Omar Abid <omar.abid2...@.gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> In my program i need to duplicate a table in a current data base.
> I'm thinkin' of reading the data base columns and then rows and so i
> create another table
> Is there any other easy and fast method with SQL Server 2005, because
> my idea is so slow
> I'm using VB 2005 Express with SQL Server 2005 Express
> Thanks
If you just want to create copy the data then you could use
SELECT *
INTO #temptable
FROM Mytable
Which will create a new table with the contents of the old table, but
the new table will not have the constraints such as primary or foreign
keys and indexes that the original table had. If you dont want the
table but just the columns use a where clause that will never be
satisfied such as
WHERE 1 = 0
Alternatively you can use SMO see Allen Whites posts in the thread
http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/Sh...876099&SiteID=1
John

Monday, March 26, 2012

Duplicate Process ID

I have a stored procedure that uses cursers. This stored
procedure executed by a user from MTS server. At times,
when I refresh the 'Current Activity' and look
into 'Process Info' window in EM, I see two process ID (ID
54) for the same stored proc. Shouldn't the ID's be unique
and assigned only 1 for this SP ? Would this be a SP
issue ?
It is on Win 2K SQL 2K SP2 (With latest patch before SP3)
Thanks.
That means, the query inside your sp is doing parallel processing. SQL
Server can make use of more than one processor, if available - based on the
query.
More information on parallelism can be found in SQL Sever 2000 Books Online.
You can restrict parallelism by using the MAXDOP hint.
HTH,
Vyas, MVP (SQL Server)
http://vyaskn.tripod.com/
Is .NET important for a database professional?
http://vyaskn.tripod.com/poll.htm
"Dan" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:73ba01c47647$1c37efc0$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
I have a stored procedure that uses cursers. This stored
procedure executed by a user from MTS server. At times,
when I refresh the 'Current Activity' and look
into 'Process Info' window in EM, I see two process ID (ID
54) for the same stored proc. Shouldn't the ID's be unique
and assigned only 1 for this SP ? Would this be a SP
issue ?
It is on Win 2K SQL 2K SP2 (With latest patch before SP3)
Thanks.
|||Thanks.

>--Original Message--
>That means, the query inside your sp is doing parallel
processing. SQL
>Server can make use of more than one processor, if
available - based on the
>query.
>More information on parallelism can be found in SQL Sever
2000 Books Online.
>You can restrict parallelism by using the MAXDOP hint.
>--
>HTH,
>Vyas, MVP (SQL Server)
>http://vyaskn.tripod.com/
>Is .NET important for a database professional?
>http://vyaskn.tripod.com/poll.htm
>
>"Dan" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message
>news:73ba01c47647$1c37efc0$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
>I have a stored procedure that uses cursers. This stored
>procedure executed by a user from MTS server. At times,
>when I refresh the 'Current Activity' and look
>into 'Process Info' window in EM, I see two process ID (ID
>54) for the same stored proc. Shouldn't the ID's be unique
>and assigned only 1 for this SP ? Would this be a SP
>issue ?
>It is on Win 2K SQL 2K SP2 (With latest patch before SP3)
>Thanks.
>
>.
>

Duplicate Process ID

I have a stored procedure that uses cursers. This stored
procedure executed by a user from MTS server. At times,
when I refresh the 'Current Activity' and look
into 'Process Info' window in EM, I see two process ID (ID
54) for the same stored proc. Shouldn't the ID's be unique
and assigned only 1 for this SP ' Would this be a SP
issue ?
It is on Win 2K SQL 2K SP2 (With latest patch before SP3)
Thanks.That means, the query inside your sp is doing parallel processing. SQL
Server can make use of more than one processor, if available - based on the
query.
More information on parallelism can be found in SQL Sever 2000 Books Online.
You can restrict parallelism by using the MAXDOP hint.
--
HTH,
Vyas, MVP (SQL Server)
http://vyaskn.tripod.com/
Is .NET important for a database professional?
http://vyaskn.tripod.com/poll.htm
"Dan" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:73ba01c47647$1c37efc0$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
I have a stored procedure that uses cursers. This stored
procedure executed by a user from MTS server. At times,
when I refresh the 'Current Activity' and look
into 'Process Info' window in EM, I see two process ID (ID
54) for the same stored proc. Shouldn't the ID's be unique
and assigned only 1 for this SP ' Would this be a SP
issue ?
It is on Win 2K SQL 2K SP2 (With latest patch before SP3)
Thanks.|||Thanks.

>--Original Message--
>That means, the query inside your sp is doing parallel
processing. SQL
>Server can make use of more than one processor, if
available - based on the
>query.
>More information on parallelism can be found in SQL Sever
2000 Books Online.
>You can restrict parallelism by using the MAXDOP hint.
>--
>HTH,
>Vyas, MVP (SQL Server)
>http://vyaskn.tripod.com/
>Is .NET important for a database professional?
>http://vyaskn.tripod.com/poll.htm
>
>"Dan" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message
>news:73ba01c47647$1c37efc0$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
>I have a stored procedure that uses cursers. This stored
>procedure executed by a user from MTS server. At times,
>when I refresh the 'Current Activity' and look
>into 'Process Info' window in EM, I see two process ID (ID
>54) for the same stored proc. Shouldn't the ID's be unique
>and assigned only 1 for this SP ' Would this be a SP
>issue ?
>It is on Win 2K SQL 2K SP2 (With latest patch before SP3)
>Thanks.
>
>.
>

Duplicate Process ID

I have a stored procedure that uses cursers. This stored
procedure executed by a user from MTS server. At times,
when I refresh the 'Current Activity' and look
into 'Process Info' window in EM, I see two process ID (ID
54) for the same stored proc. Shouldn't the ID's be unique
and assigned only 1 for this SP ' Would this be a SP
issue ?
It is on Win 2K SQL 2K SP2 (With latest patch before SP3)
Thanks.That means, the query inside your sp is doing parallel processing. SQL
Server can make use of more than one processor, if available - based on the
query.
More information on parallelism can be found in SQL Sever 2000 Books Online.
You can restrict parallelism by using the MAXDOP hint.
--
HTH,
Vyas, MVP (SQL Server)
http://vyaskn.tripod.com/
Is .NET important for a database professional?
http://vyaskn.tripod.com/poll.htm
"Dan" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:73ba01c47647$1c37efc0$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
I have a stored procedure that uses cursers. This stored
procedure executed by a user from MTS server. At times,
when I refresh the 'Current Activity' and look
into 'Process Info' window in EM, I see two process ID (ID
54) for the same stored proc. Shouldn't the ID's be unique
and assigned only 1 for this SP ' Would this be a SP
issue ?
It is on Win 2K SQL 2K SP2 (With latest patch before SP3)
Thanks.|||Thanks.
>--Original Message--
>That means, the query inside your sp is doing parallel
processing. SQL
>Server can make use of more than one processor, if
available - based on the
>query.
>More information on parallelism can be found in SQL Sever
2000 Books Online.
>You can restrict parallelism by using the MAXDOP hint.
>--
>HTH,
>Vyas, MVP (SQL Server)
>http://vyaskn.tripod.com/
>Is .NET important for a database professional?
>http://vyaskn.tripod.com/poll.htm
>
>"Dan" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message
>news:73ba01c47647$1c37efc0$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
>I have a stored procedure that uses cursers. This stored
>procedure executed by a user from MTS server. At times,
>when I refresh the 'Current Activity' and look
>into 'Process Info' window in EM, I see two process ID (ID
>54) for the same stored proc. Shouldn't the ID's be unique
>and assigned only 1 for this SP ' Would this be a SP
>issue ?
>It is on Win 2K SQL 2K SP2 (With latest patch before SP3)
>Thanks.
>
>.
>

Sunday, March 11, 2012

Dublicates

can someone please explain to me how to append data to current database tables?

If I have infromation from access and want to had the (NEW) information to current SQL tables how to I append without writing over current table information and without creating dups if the infromation currently exists within the table?

I would like to keep the current table information and append anything new only.

ThanksA dup key in a sproc will raise by it's self to the calling sproc..

But heres an example

USE Northwind
GO

CREATE TABLE myTable99(Col1 int PRIMARY KEY, Col2 char(1))
GO

DECLARE @.Error int, @.Col1 int, @.Col2 char(1)

SELECT @.Col1 = 1, @.Col2 = 'A'

INSERT INTO myTable99(Col1,Col2) SELECT @.Col1, @.Col2

SELECT @.error = @.@.ERROR

SELECT 'Error code: ' + CONVERT(varchar(5),@.Error)

SELECT @.Col2 = 'B'

INSERT INTO myTable99(Col1,Col2) SELECT @.Col1, @.Col2

SELECT @.error = @.@.ERROR

IF @.Error <> 0
BEGIN
UPDATE myTable99 SET Col2 = @.Col2 WHERE Col1 = @.Col1
SELECT @.Error = @.@.ERROR
END

SELECT 'Error code: ' + CONVERT(varchar(5),@.Error)

SELECT * FROM myTable99
GO

DROP TABLE myTable99
GO

Friday, March 9, 2012

dual processor license

We are buying a new db server that will support the future growth of our
company. Our current database load can easily be handled by a single
processor server, but I would like to buy a server that can handle a much
heavier load in the future.
1) I am wondering if I get a dual processor server, can I install a single
processor license of sql server for the time being?
2) Will this only utilize one processor?
3) Can I add an additional processor license in the future as when we need
more processing power?
4) Also, what is the latest projected relase date for SQL Server 2005?
5) Is any pricing availible for this yet?
6) If I get SQL Server 2000 license now, will there be any upgrade options
to 2005 when it is availible?
Any advice is greatly appreciated.
--DanThe SQL Server 2000 Licensing FAQ at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/faq.asp states the following:
Q. Do I have to license all of the processors in a server?
A. You only have to acquire licenses for processors that are
accessible to any copy of the operating system upon which SQL Server 2000 is
installed.
So that should take care of questions 1 through 3. :-) You could physically
remove one of the processors from the new system and run it that way until
you have need, then purchase the second processor license and install the
second processor.
For #4, I believe our official response is in the summer of 2005.
For #5, I don't think any of the pricing decisions have been made yet.
For #6, there's usually some kind of upgrade pricing, but again, I doubt
that decision has been made yet.
--
Sincerely,
Stephen Dybing
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Please reply to the newsgroups only, thanks.
"Dan" <Dan@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6E68F23D-3143-4385-8876-06CF474C7299@.microsoft.com...
> We are buying a new db server that will support the future growth of our
> company. Our current database load can easily be handled by a single
> processor server, but I would like to buy a server that can handle a much
> heavier load in the future.
> 1) I am wondering if I get a dual processor server, can I install a single
> processor license of sql server for the time being?
> 2) Will this only utilize one processor?
> 3) Can I add an additional processor license in the future as when we need
> more processing power?
> 4) Also, what is the latest projected relase date for SQL Server 2005?
> 5) Is any pricing availible for this yet?
> 6) If I get SQL Server 2000 license now, will there be any upgrade options
> to 2005 when it is availible?
> Any advice is greatly appreciated.
> --Dan
begin 666 ts.gif
J1TE&.#EA`0`!`( ``````/___R'Y! $`````+ `````!``$```(!1 `[
`
end|||Just to add a little to the discussion. MS licensing currently allows you
to buy with software assurance. This lets you upgrade to the newest version
when it comes out provided it's in the timeframe provide by the SA license.
"Stephen Dybing [MSFT]" <stephd@.online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:eHlqD#u6EHA.3236@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> The SQL Server 2000 Licensing FAQ at
> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/faq.asp states the following:
> Q. Do I have to license all of the processors in a server?
>
> A. You only have to acquire licenses for processors that are
> accessible to any copy of the operating system upon which SQL Server 2000
is
> installed.
>
>
> So that should take care of questions 1 through 3. :-) You could
physically
> remove one of the processors from the new system and run it that way until
> you have need, then purchase the second processor license and install the
> second processor.
> For #4, I believe our official response is in the summer of 2005.
> For #5, I don't think any of the pricing decisions have been made yet.
> For #6, there's usually some kind of upgrade pricing, but again, I doubt
> that decision has been made yet.
> --
> Sincerely,
> Stephen Dybing
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.
> Please reply to the newsgroups only, thanks.
> "Dan" <Dan@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:6E68F23D-3143-4385-8876-06CF474C7299@.microsoft.com...
> > We are buying a new db server that will support the future growth of our
> > company. Our current database load can easily be handled by a single
> > processor server, but I would like to buy a server that can handle a
much
> > heavier load in the future.
> >
> > 1) I am wondering if I get a dual processor server, can I install a
single
> > processor license of sql server for the time being?
> > 2) Will this only utilize one processor?
> > 3) Can I add an additional processor license in the future as when we
need
> > more processing power?
> > 4) Also, what is the latest projected relase date for SQL Server 2005?
> > 5) Is any pricing availible for this yet?
> > 6) If I get SQL Server 2000 license now, will there be any upgrade
options
> > to 2005 when it is availible?
> >
> > Any advice is greatly appreciated.
> > --Dan
>
>

dual processor license

We are buying a new db server that will support the future growth of our
company. Our current database load can easily be handled by a single
processor server, but I would like to buy a server that can handle a much
heavier load in the future.
1) I am wondering if I get a dual processor server, can I install a single
processor license of sql server for the time being?
2) Will this only utilize one processor?
3) Can I add an additional processor license in the future as when we need
more processing power?
4) Also, what is the latest projected relase date for SQL Server 2005?
5) Is any pricing availible for this yet?
6) If I get SQL Server 2000 license now, will there be any upgrade options
to 2005 when it is availible?
Any advice is greatly appreciated.
--Dan
The SQL Server 2000 Licensing FAQ at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/faq.asp states the following:
Q. Do I have to license all of the processors in a server?
A. You only have to acquire licenses for processors that are
accessible to any copy of the operating system upon which SQL Server 2000 is
installed.
So that should take care of questions 1 through 3. :-) You could physically
remove one of the processors from the new system and run it that way until
you have need, then purchase the second processor license and install the
second processor.
For #4, I believe our official response is in the summer of 2005.
For #5, I don't think any of the pricing decisions have been made yet.
For #6, there's usually some kind of upgrade pricing, but again, I doubt
that decision has been made yet.
Sincerely,
Stephen Dybing
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Please reply to the newsgroups only, thanks.
"Dan" <Dan@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6E68F23D-3143-4385-8876-06CF474C7299@.microsoft.com...
> We are buying a new db server that will support the future growth of our
> company. Our current database load can easily be handled by a single
> processor server, but I would like to buy a server that can handle a much
> heavier load in the future.
> 1) I am wondering if I get a dual processor server, can I install a single
> processor license of sql server for the time being?
> 2) Will this only utilize one processor?
> 3) Can I add an additional processor license in the future as when we need
> more processing power?
> 4) Also, what is the latest projected relase date for SQL Server 2005?
> 5) Is any pricing availible for this yet?
> 6) If I get SQL Server 2000 license now, will there be any upgrade options
> to 2005 when it is availible?
> Any advice is greatly appreciated.
> --Dan
begin 666 ts.gif
J1TE&.#EA`0`!`( ``````/___R'Y! $`````+ `````!``$```(!1 `[
`
end
|||Just to add a little to the discussion. MS licensing currently allows you
to buy with software assurance. This lets you upgrade to the newest version
when it comes out provided it's in the timeframe provide by the SA license.
"Stephen Dybing [MSFT]" <stephd@.online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:eHlqD#u6EHA.3236@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> The SQL Server 2000 Licensing FAQ at
> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/faq.asp states the following:
> Q. Do I have to license all of the processors in a server?
>
> A. You only have to acquire licenses for processors that are
> accessible to any copy of the operating system upon which SQL Server 2000
is
> installed.
>
>
> So that should take care of questions 1 through 3. :-) You could
physically
> remove one of the processors from the new system and run it that way until
> you have need, then purchase the second processor license and install the
> second processor.
> For #4, I believe our official response is in the summer of 2005.
> For #5, I don't think any of the pricing decisions have been made yet.
> For #6, there's usually some kind of upgrade pricing, but again, I doubt
> that decision has been made yet.
> --
> Sincerely,
> Stephen Dybing
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.[vbcol=seagreen]
> Please reply to the newsgroups only, thanks.
> "Dan" <Dan@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:6E68F23D-3143-4385-8876-06CF474C7299@.microsoft.com...
much[vbcol=seagreen]
single[vbcol=seagreen]
need[vbcol=seagreen]
options
>
>

dual processor license

dual processor benefit

Currently running SQL 2K on a W2K sp3 box with one P3 1.2 processor.
Current db size is 62 gigabytes.
Our situation: We use Meditech hospital software which has it's own db
structure (mumps). Nightly, most of the data that is entered into the
"live" system is replicated to the SQL database. We recently upgraded the
Meditech software and now their SQL consultant is telling us that we should
be installing a second processor because their initial load program (in
which the program compares data in the Meditech system and the SQL to verify
it's all there) is taxing the CPU at >40%.
My question: Does SQL 2000 effectively utilize a second CPU or is it, as we
believe, something in the newer Meditech software that's causing the
problem?
Hi,
To directly answer your question: Yes SQL Server can utilize the processors
effectively.
But, CPU usage aprx. 40% is nothing, unless it is causing other issues on
the server. And if there were no other changes made to the server, its the
application that is causing the extra load.
hth
DeeJay Puar
"pdwight" wrote:

> Currently running SQL 2K on a W2K sp3 box with one P3 1.2 processor.
> Current db size is 62 gigabytes.
> Our situation: We use Meditech hospital software which has it's own db
> structure (mumps). Nightly, most of the data that is entered into the
> "live" system is replicated to the SQL database. We recently upgraded the
> Meditech software and now their SQL consultant is telling us that we should
> be installing a second processor because their initial load program (in
> which the program compares data in the Meditech system and the SQL to verify
> it's all there) is taxing the CPU at >40%.
> My question: Does SQL 2000 effectively utilize a second CPU or is it, as we
> believe, something in the newer Meditech software that's causing the
> problem?
>
>
|||40% proc utilization is not high... If the batch + users run it up, you
may wish to get another processor... One of the big reasons to go multi proc
is to allow SQL to service 2 connections concurrently, and therefore no
single long running thing will block the processor queue...
Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Mariner, Charlotte, NC
www.mariner-usa.com
(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
community of SQL Server professionals.
www.sqlpass.org
"pdwight" <paulc@.mmcwm.com> wrote in message
news:OE6ogW$KFHA.2952@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Currently running SQL 2K on a W2K sp3 box with one P3 1.2 processor.
> Current db size is 62 gigabytes.
> Our situation: We use Meditech hospital software which has it's own db
> structure (mumps). Nightly, most of the data that is entered into the
> "live" system is replicated to the SQL database. We recently upgraded the
> Meditech software and now their SQL consultant is telling us that we
> should be installing a second processor because their initial load program
> (in which the program compares data in the Meditech system and the SQL to
> verify it's all there) is taxing the CPU at >40%.
> My question: Does SQL 2000 effectively utilize a second CPU or is it, as
> we believe, something in the newer Meditech software that's causing the
> problem?
>

dual processor benefit

Currently running SQL 2K on a W2K sp3 box with one P3 1.2 processor.
Current db size is 62 gigabytes.
Our situation: We use Meditech hospital software which has it's own db
structure (mumps). Nightly, most of the data that is entered into the
"live" system is replicated to the SQL database. We recently upgraded the
Meditech software and now their SQL consultant is telling us that we should
be installing a second processor because their initial load program (in
which the program compares data in the Meditech system and the SQL to verify
it's all there) is taxing the CPU at >40%.
My question: Does SQL 2000 effectively utilize a second CPU or is it, as we
believe, something in the newer Meditech software that's causing the
problem?Hi,
To directly answer your question: Yes SQL Server can utilize the processors
effectively.
But, CPU usage aprx. 40% is nothing, unless it is causing other issues on
the server. And if there were no other changes made to the server, its the
application that is causing the extra load.
hth
DeeJay Puar
"pdwight" wrote:

> Currently running SQL 2K on a W2K sp3 box with one P3 1.2 processor.
> Current db size is 62 gigabytes.
> Our situation: We use Meditech hospital software which has it's own db
> structure (mumps). Nightly, most of the data that is entered into the
> "live" system is replicated to the SQL database. We recently upgraded the
> Meditech software and now their SQL consultant is telling us that we shoul
d
> be installing a second processor because their initial load program (in
> which the program compares data in the Meditech system and the SQL to veri
fy
> it's all there) is taxing the CPU at >40%.
> My question: Does SQL 2000 effectively utilize a second CPU or is it, as
we
> believe, something in the newer Meditech software that's causing the
> problem?
>
>|||40% proc utilization is not high... If the batch + users run it up, you
may wish to get another processor... One of the big reasons to go multi proc
is to allow SQL to service 2 connections concurrently, and therefore no
single long running thing will block the processor queue...
Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Mariner, Charlotte, NC
www.mariner-usa.com
(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
community of SQL Server professionals.
www.sqlpass.org
"pdwight" <paulc@.mmcwm.com> wrote in message
news:OE6ogW$KFHA.2952@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Currently running SQL 2K on a W2K sp3 box with one P3 1.2 processor.
> Current db size is 62 gigabytes.
> Our situation: We use Meditech hospital software which has it's own db
> structure (mumps). Nightly, most of the data that is entered into the
> "live" system is replicated to the SQL database. We recently upgraded the
> Meditech software and now their SQL consultant is telling us that we
> should be installing a second processor because their initial load program
> (in which the program compares data in the Meditech system and the SQL to
> verify it's all there) is taxing the CPU at >40%.
> My question: Does SQL 2000 effectively utilize a second CPU or is it, as
> we believe, something in the newer Meditech software that's causing the
> problem?
>

dual processor benefit

Currently running SQL 2K on a W2K sp3 box with one P3 1.2 processor.
Current db size is 62 gigabytes.
Our situation: We use Meditech hospital software which has it's own db
structure (mumps). Nightly, most of the data that is entered into the
"live" system is replicated to the SQL database. We recently upgraded the
Meditech software and now their SQL consultant is telling us that we should
be installing a second processor because their initial load program (in
which the program compares data in the Meditech system and the SQL to verify
it's all there) is taxing the CPU at >40%.
My question: Does SQL 2000 effectively utilize a second CPU or is it, as we
believe, something in the newer Meditech software that's causing the
problem?Hi,
To directly answer your question: Yes SQL Server can utilize the processors
effectively.
But, CPU usage aprx. 40% is nothing, unless it is causing other issues on
the server. And if there were no other changes made to the server, its the
application that is causing the extra load.
hth
DeeJay Puar
"pdwight" wrote:
> Currently running SQL 2K on a W2K sp3 box with one P3 1.2 processor.
> Current db size is 62 gigabytes.
> Our situation: We use Meditech hospital software which has it's own db
> structure (mumps). Nightly, most of the data that is entered into the
> "live" system is replicated to the SQL database. We recently upgraded the
> Meditech software and now their SQL consultant is telling us that we should
> be installing a second processor because their initial load program (in
> which the program compares data in the Meditech system and the SQL to verify
> it's all there) is taxing the CPU at >40%.
> My question: Does SQL 2000 effectively utilize a second CPU or is it, as we
> believe, something in the newer Meditech software that's causing the
> problem?
>
>|||40% proc utilization is not high... If the batch + users run it up, you
may wish to get another processor... One of the big reasons to go multi proc
is to allow SQL to service 2 connections concurrently, and therefore no
single long running thing will block the processor queue...
--
Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Mariner, Charlotte, NC
www.mariner-usa.com
(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
community of SQL Server professionals.
www.sqlpass.org
"pdwight" <paulc@.mmcwm.com> wrote in message
news:OE6ogW$KFHA.2952@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Currently running SQL 2K on a W2K sp3 box with one P3 1.2 processor.
> Current db size is 62 gigabytes.
> Our situation: We use Meditech hospital software which has it's own db
> structure (mumps). Nightly, most of the data that is entered into the
> "live" system is replicated to the SQL database. We recently upgraded the
> Meditech software and now their SQL consultant is telling us that we
> should be installing a second processor because their initial load program
> (in which the program compares data in the Meditech system and the SQL to
> verify it's all there) is taxing the CPU at >40%.
> My question: Does SQL 2000 effectively utilize a second CPU or is it, as
> we believe, something in the newer Meditech software that's causing the
> problem?
>

Dual CPU w/Dual Core or single core with dual CPU

Hello everyone,
I am about to replace my current SQL server that is running a dual 1.2ghz
Itanium 64 cpu. We just hate the lack of support for the Itanium. We are
looking at a 2.8 dual core/dual cpu machine or a single core 3.4ghz dual cpu
machine. Which should perform the best for SQL server? Both machines have
2mb cache.
Thanks,
NickYou might want to look at the dual core AMD boxes. You can probably get 2
dual core CPU's for less than what you think and you can run SQL2005 64 bit
edition on them.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Nick" <nsocha@.prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:uMnG3ckFGHA.2064@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hello everyone,
> I am about to replace my current SQL server that is running a dual 1.2ghz
> Itanium 64 cpu. We just hate the lack of support for the Itanium. We are
> looking at a 2.8 dual core/dual cpu machine or a single core 3.4ghz dual
> cpu machine. Which should perform the best for SQL server? Both machines
> have 2mb cache.
> Thanks,
> Nick
>|||Thanks for the reply.
I have heard great things about the dual core AMD, but I am still wondering
if the 2.8 dual core/dual cpu will outperform a single core /dual cpu 3.4'
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:%23OR3QsrFGHA.4036@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> You might want to look at the dual core AMD boxes. You can probably get 2
> dual core CPU's for less than what you think and you can run SQL2005 64
> bit edition on them.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "Nick" <nsocha@.prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:uMnG3ckFGHA.2064@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> Hello everyone,
>> I am about to replace my current SQL server that is running a dual 1.2ghz
>> Itanium 64 cpu. We just hate the lack of support for the Itanium. We are
>> looking at a 2.8 dual core/dual cpu machine or a single core 3.4ghz dual
>> cpu machine. Which should perform the best for SQL server? Both machines
>> have 2mb cache.
>> Thanks,
>> Nick
>|||Even though the dual cores are almost the same as two individual processors
there is a difference. Of coarse you would have to test under your exact
conditions but I would be very surprised if the 2.8GHZ processors (dual core
or dual procs) would perform as well as two 3.4GHZ ones. All other things
equal a faster proc will beat a slower one.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Nick" <nsocha@.prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:e3ORd7rFGHA.3684@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Thanks for the reply.
> I have heard great things about the dual core AMD, but I am still
> wondering if the 2.8 dual core/dual cpu will outperform a single core
> /dual cpu 3.4'
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:%23OR3QsrFGHA.4036@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> You might want to look at the dual core AMD boxes. You can probably get 2
>> dual core CPU's for less than what you think and you can run SQL2005 64
>> bit edition on them.
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>>
>> "Nick" <nsocha@.prodigy.net> wrote in message
>> news:uMnG3ckFGHA.2064@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> Hello everyone,
>> I am about to replace my current SQL server that is running a dual
>> 1.2ghz Itanium 64 cpu. We just hate the lack of support for the Itanium.
>> We are looking at a 2.8 dual core/dual cpu machine or a single core
>> 3.4ghz dual cpu machine. Which should perform the best for SQL server?
>> Both machines have 2mb cache.
>> Thanks,
>> Nick
>>
>|||Thanks for the replies. I am leaning towards the 3.4 single cores.
Nick
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:uXO8yQsFGHA.2012@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Even though the dual cores are almost the same as two individual
> processors there is a difference. Of coarse you would have to test under
> your exact conditions but I would be very surprised if the 2.8GHZ
> processors (dual core or dual procs) would perform as well as two 3.4GHZ
> ones. All other things equal a faster proc will beat a slower one.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "Nick" <nsocha@.prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:e3ORd7rFGHA.3684@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> Thanks for the reply.
>> I have heard great things about the dual core AMD, but I am still
>> wondering if the 2.8 dual core/dual cpu will outperform a single core
>> /dual cpu 3.4'
>> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
>> news:%23OR3QsrFGHA.4036@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> You might want to look at the dual core AMD boxes. You can probably get
>> 2 dual core CPU's for less than what you think and you can run SQL2005
>> 64 bit edition on them.
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>>
>> "Nick" <nsocha@.prodigy.net> wrote in message
>> news:uMnG3ckFGHA.2064@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> Hello everyone,
>> I am about to replace my current SQL server that is running a dual
>> 1.2ghz Itanium 64 cpu. We just hate the lack of support for the
>> Itanium. We are looking at a 2.8 dual core/dual cpu machine or a single
>> core 3.4ghz dual cpu machine. Which should perform the best for SQL
>> server? Both machines have 2mb cache.
>> Thanks,
>> Nick
>>
>>
>|||Are you queries compute intensive? Is your CPU a bottleneck? There is no
way to answer this as a generic configuration. It all depends upon what you
are doing on the system. Just because a processor is dual core doesn't mean
you get the equivalent of 2 processors. You get more processing capacity on
a single die, but it doesn't double.
"Nick" <nsocha@.prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:uMnG3ckFGHA.2064@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hello everyone,
> I am about to replace my current SQL server that is running a dual 1.2ghz
> Itanium 64 cpu. We just hate the lack of support for the Itanium. We are
> looking at a 2.8 dual core/dual cpu machine or a single core 3.4ghz dual
> cpu machine. Which should perform the best for SQL server? Both machines
> have 2mb cache.
> Thanks,
> Nick
>|||Nick wrote:
> Hello everyone,
> I am about to replace my current SQL server that is running a dual 1.2ghz
> Itanium 64 cpu. We just hate the lack of support for the Itanium. We are
> looking at a 2.8 dual core/dual cpu machine or a single core 3.4ghz dual cpu
> machine. Which should perform the best for SQL server? Both machines have
> 2mb cache.
you need to look at your machines usage. the 2 slower dual cores will
give you 4 processors instead of 2. the 2 additional processors might
benefit your system or, as in my case, could seriously degrade
performance of parallel queries. i went from dual cpu to dual
hyperthreaded cpu's and had to limit queries to 1 processor because a
few parallel queries ran much slower on the 4 faster processors than the
2 slower processors.|||Nick,
I am a little confused now as to what you originally meant.
>> Itanium. We are looking at a 2.8 dual core/dual cpu machine or a
>> single core 3.4ghz dual cpu machine. Which should perform the best for
>> SQL
Is the 2.8 two dual core procs or a single dual core proc? If it is indeed
two dual cores then you basically have 4 processors vs the two of the
3.4GHZ. So that would probably be my choice if you have multiple concurrent
users or lots of parallel queries.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Nick" <nsocha@.prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:OCIDZRtFGHA.1396@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Thanks for the replies. I am leaning towards the 3.4 single cores.
> Nick
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:uXO8yQsFGHA.2012@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> Even though the dual cores are almost the same as two individual
>> processors there is a difference. Of coarse you would have to test under
>> your exact conditions but I would be very surprised if the 2.8GHZ
>> processors (dual core or dual procs) would perform as well as two 3.4GHZ
>> ones. All other things equal a faster proc will beat a slower one.
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>>
>> "Nick" <nsocha@.prodigy.net> wrote in message
>> news:e3ORd7rFGHA.3684@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> Thanks for the reply.
>> I have heard great things about the dual core AMD, but I am still
>> wondering if the 2.8 dual core/dual cpu will outperform a single core
>> /dual cpu 3.4'
>> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
>> news:%23OR3QsrFGHA.4036@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> You might want to look at the dual core AMD boxes. You can probably get
>> 2 dual core CPU's for less than what you think and you can run SQL2005
>> 64 bit edition on them.
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>>
>> "Nick" <nsocha@.prodigy.net> wrote in message
>> news:uMnG3ckFGHA.2064@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> Hello everyone,
>> I am about to replace my current SQL server that is running a dual
>> 1.2ghz Itanium 64 cpu. We just hate the lack of support for the
>> Itanium. We are looking at a 2.8 dual core/dual cpu machine or a
>> single core 3.4ghz dual cpu machine. Which should perform the best for
>> SQL server? Both machines have 2mb cache.
>> Thanks,
>> Nick
>>
>>
>>
>|||You may be surprised, as the Intel 2.8Ghz Dual Cores have 2x2MB of L2 cache,
no L3 cache and 800Mhz FSB, where the 3.4Ghz have only 1MB of L2 cache, and
up to 8MB L3 cache, it has only a maximum of 667Mhz FSB. In addition each
of the Dual Core processors can be hyper-threaded, resulting in 8 Virtual
CPU's versus only the 4 Virtual CPU's the 3.4Ghz will produce, thus handling
twice as many threads simultaneously as the 3.4Ghz - and after all, the
speed difference is only 600Mhz, only slightly faster than the first PIII's.
--
Star Fleet Admiral Q @. your service!
Google is your friend!
http://www.google.com
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:uXO8yQsFGHA.2012@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Even though the dual cores are almost the same as two individual
> processors there is a difference. Of coarse you would have to test under
> your exact conditions but I would be very surprised if the 2.8GHZ
> processors (dual core or dual procs) would perform as well as two 3.4GHZ
> ones. All other things equal a faster proc will beat a slower one.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "Nick" <nsocha@.prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:e3ORd7rFGHA.3684@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> Thanks for the reply.
>> I have heard great things about the dual core AMD, but I am still
>> wondering if the 2.8 dual core/dual cpu will outperform a single core
>> /dual cpu 3.4'
>> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
>> news:%23OR3QsrFGHA.4036@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> You might want to look at the dual core AMD boxes. You can probably get
>> 2 dual core CPU's for less than what you think and you can run SQL2005
>> 64 bit edition on them.
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>>
>> "Nick" <nsocha@.prodigy.net> wrote in message
>> news:uMnG3ckFGHA.2064@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> Hello everyone,
>> I am about to replace my current SQL server that is running a dual
>> 1.2ghz Itanium 64 cpu. We just hate the lack of support for the
>> Itanium. We are looking at a 2.8 dual core/dual cpu machine or a single
>> core 3.4ghz dual cpu machine. Which should perform the best for SQL
>> server? Both machines have 2mb cache.
>> Thanks,
>> Nick
>>
>>
>|||Well I am assuming it's apples to apples. Either two single core procs or
one dual core proc and he stated the cache was the same. But after
re-reading it I am not sure what he said now.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Admiral Q" <Star_Fleet_Admiral_Q(No_Spam)@.(Spam_Not)hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:uLE5EZxFGHA.3064@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> You may be surprised, as the Intel 2.8Ghz Dual Cores have 2x2MB of L2
> cache, no L3 cache and 800Mhz FSB, where the 3.4Ghz have only 1MB of L2
> cache, and up to 8MB L3 cache, it has only a maximum of 667Mhz FSB. In
> addition each of the Dual Core processors can be hyper-threaded, resulting
> in 8 Virtual CPU's versus only the 4 Virtual CPU's the 3.4Ghz will
> produce, thus handling twice as many threads simultaneously as the
> 3.4Ghz - and after all, the speed difference is only 600Mhz, only slightly
> faster than the first PIII's.
> --
> Star Fleet Admiral Q @. your service!
> Google is your friend!
> http://www.google.com
>
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:uXO8yQsFGHA.2012@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> Even though the dual cores are almost the same as two individual
>> processors there is a difference. Of coarse you would have to test under
>> your exact conditions but I would be very surprised if the 2.8GHZ
>> processors (dual core or dual procs) would perform as well as two 3.4GHZ
>> ones. All other things equal a faster proc will beat a slower one.
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>>
>> "Nick" <nsocha@.prodigy.net> wrote in message
>> news:e3ORd7rFGHA.3684@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> Thanks for the reply.
>> I have heard great things about the dual core AMD, but I am still
>> wondering if the 2.8 dual core/dual cpu will outperform a single core
>> /dual cpu 3.4'
>> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
>> news:%23OR3QsrFGHA.4036@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> You might want to look at the dual core AMD boxes. You can probably get
>> 2 dual core CPU's for less than what you think and you can run SQL2005
>> 64 bit edition on them.
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>>
>> "Nick" <nsocha@.prodigy.net> wrote in message
>> news:uMnG3ckFGHA.2064@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> Hello everyone,
>> I am about to replace my current SQL server that is running a dual
>> 1.2ghz Itanium 64 cpu. We just hate the lack of support for the
>> Itanium. We are looking at a 2.8 dual core/dual cpu machine or a
>> single core 3.4ghz dual cpu machine. Which should perform the best for
>> SQL server? Both machines have 2mb cache.
>> Thanks,
>> Nick
>>
>>
>>
>|||HI Guys,
to clarify, I am looking at either a machine running 2.8ghz, with both Dual
Core as well as Dual CPU (so 2 Dual CORE cpu's) OR just a regular Dual CPU
setup with 3.8ghz XEONS
Both systems have 800mhz frontside bus and 2MB of cache.
My original message said I was looking at a 3.4ghz machine but I have now
changed that to a 3.8.....
I have read conflicting stories of which is better. I do not think my
application will really take advantage of dual core.
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:%23ucQN9yFGHA.3532@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Well I am assuming it's apples to apples. Either two single core procs or
> one dual core proc and he stated the cache was the same. But after
> re-reading it I am not sure what he said now.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "Admiral Q" <Star_Fleet_Admiral_Q(No_Spam)@.(Spam_Not)hotmail.com> wrote in
> message news:uLE5EZxFGHA.3064@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> You may be surprised, as the Intel 2.8Ghz Dual Cores have 2x2MB of L2
>> cache, no L3 cache and 800Mhz FSB, where the 3.4Ghz have only 1MB of L2
>> cache, and up to 8MB L3 cache, it has only a maximum of 667Mhz FSB. In
>> addition each of the Dual Core processors can be hyper-threaded,
>> resulting in 8 Virtual CPU's versus only the 4 Virtual CPU's the 3.4Ghz
>> will produce, thus handling twice as many threads simultaneously as the
>> 3.4Ghz - and after all, the speed difference is only 600Mhz, only
>> slightly faster than the first PIII's.
>> --
>> Star Fleet Admiral Q @. your service!
>> Google is your friend!
>> http://www.google.com
>>
>> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
>> news:uXO8yQsFGHA.2012@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> Even though the dual cores are almost the same as two individual
>> processors there is a difference. Of coarse you would have to test
>> under your exact conditions but I would be very surprised if the 2.8GHZ
>> processors (dual core or dual procs) would perform as well as two 3.4GHZ
>> ones. All other things equal a faster proc will beat a slower one.
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>>
>> "Nick" <nsocha@.prodigy.net> wrote in message
>> news:e3ORd7rFGHA.3684@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> Thanks for the reply.
>> I have heard great things about the dual core AMD, but I am still
>> wondering if the 2.8 dual core/dual cpu will outperform a single core
>> /dual cpu 3.4'
>> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
>> news:%23OR3QsrFGHA.4036@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> You might want to look at the dual core AMD boxes. You can probably
>> get 2 dual core CPU's for less than what you think and you can run
>> SQL2005 64 bit edition on them.
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>>
>> "Nick" <nsocha@.prodigy.net> wrote in message
>> news:uMnG3ckFGHA.2064@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> Hello everyone,
>> I am about to replace my current SQL server that is running a dual
>> 1.2ghz Itanium 64 cpu. We just hate the lack of support for the
>> Itanium. We are looking at a 2.8 dual core/dual cpu machine or a
>> single core 3.4ghz dual cpu machine. Which should perform the best
>> for SQL server? Both machines have 2mb cache.
>> Thanks,
>> Nick
>>
>>
>>
>>
>|||HI Guys,
to clarify, I am looking at either a machine running 2.8ghz, with both Dual
Core as well as Dual CPU (so 2 Dual CORE cpu's) OR just a regular Dual CPU
setup with 3.8ghz XEONS
Both systems have 800mhz frontside bus and 2MB of cache.
My original message said I was looking at a 3.4ghz machine but I have now
changed that to a 3.8.....
I have read conflicting stories of which is better. I do not think my
application will really take advantage of dual core.
"ch" <ch@.dontemailme.com> wrote in message
news:43C5801B.189260D2@.dontemailme.com...
> Nick wrote:
>> Hello everyone,
>> I am about to replace my current SQL server that is running a dual 1.2ghz
>> Itanium 64 cpu. We just hate the lack of support for the Itanium. We are
>> looking at a 2.8 dual core/dual cpu machine or a single core 3.4ghz dual
>> cpu
>> machine. Which should perform the best for SQL server? Both machines have
>> 2mb cache.
>
> you need to look at your machines usage. the 2 slower dual cores will
> give you 4 processors instead of 2. the 2 additional processors might
> benefit your system or, as in my case, could seriously degrade
> performance of parallel queries. i went from dual cpu to dual
> hyperthreaded cpu's and had to limit queries to 1 processor because a
> few parallel queries ran much slower on the 4 faster processors than the
> 2 slower processors.|||Ok then what will your work load be like? If you have lots of concurrent
activity or lots of activity that can benefit from parallel processing the 4
procs (two dual cores) would most likely be better than the 2 single core
faster procs. But if it is only one or two concurrent users at a time and
they don't benefit much from parallel operations the faster procs may suite
you better.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Nick" <nsocha@.prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:uVHAb23FGHA.312@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> HI Guys,
> to clarify, I am looking at either a machine running 2.8ghz, with both
> Dual Core as well as Dual CPU (so 2 Dual CORE cpu's) OR just a regular
> Dual CPU setup with 3.8ghz XEONS
> Both systems have 800mhz frontside bus and 2MB of cache.
> My original message said I was looking at a 3.4ghz machine but I have now
> changed that to a 3.8.....
> I have read conflicting stories of which is better. I do not think my
> application will really take advantage of dual core.
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:%23ucQN9yFGHA.3532@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> Well I am assuming it's apples to apples. Either two single core procs
>> or one dual core proc and he stated the cache was the same. But after
>> re-reading it I am not sure what he said now.
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>>
>> "Admiral Q" <Star_Fleet_Admiral_Q(No_Spam)@.(Spam_Not)hotmail.com> wrote
>> in message news:uLE5EZxFGHA.3064@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> You may be surprised, as the Intel 2.8Ghz Dual Cores have 2x2MB of L2
>> cache, no L3 cache and 800Mhz FSB, where the 3.4Ghz have only 1MB of L2
>> cache, and up to 8MB L3 cache, it has only a maximum of 667Mhz FSB. In
>> addition each of the Dual Core processors can be hyper-threaded,
>> resulting in 8 Virtual CPU's versus only the 4 Virtual CPU's the 3.4Ghz
>> will produce, thus handling twice as many threads simultaneously as the
>> 3.4Ghz - and after all, the speed difference is only 600Mhz, only
>> slightly faster than the first PIII's.
>> --
>> Star Fleet Admiral Q @. your service!
>> Google is your friend!
>> http://www.google.com
>>
>> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
>> news:uXO8yQsFGHA.2012@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> Even though the dual cores are almost the same as two individual
>> processors there is a difference. Of coarse you would have to test
>> under your exact conditions but I would be very surprised if the 2.8GHZ
>> processors (dual core or dual procs) would perform as well as two
>> 3.4GHZ ones. All other things equal a faster proc will beat a slower
>> one.
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>>
>> "Nick" <nsocha@.prodigy.net> wrote in message
>> news:e3ORd7rFGHA.3684@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> Thanks for the reply.
>> I have heard great things about the dual core AMD, but I am still
>> wondering if the 2.8 dual core/dual cpu will outperform a single core
>> /dual cpu 3.4'
>> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
>> news:%23OR3QsrFGHA.4036@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> You might want to look at the dual core AMD boxes. You can probably
>> get 2 dual core CPU's for less than what you think and you can run
>> SQL2005 64 bit edition on them.
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>>
>> "Nick" <nsocha@.prodigy.net> wrote in message
>> news:uMnG3ckFGHA.2064@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>>> Hello everyone,
>>> I am about to replace my current SQL server that is running a dual
>>> 1.2ghz Itanium 64 cpu. We just hate the lack of support for the
>>> Itanium. We are looking at a 2.8 dual core/dual cpu machine or a
>>> single core 3.4ghz dual cpu machine. Which should perform the best
>>> for SQL server? Both machines have 2mb cache.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Nick
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Wednesday, March 7, 2012

Dual Authentication with web and rs farm using remote sql server

I am having a problem with users being prompted to authenticate twice within
an application. I know this is related to the current design but for
scalability and isolation I want to keep the infrastructure design as is.
Currently I have two IIS 6 2k3 servers in an NLB. I have a web application
installed on this which is a front end for running reports. I then have two
IIS 6 2k3 servers running sql 2000 RS in an NLB farm. Finally there is a
Clustered SQL 2000 server where the application database and RS databases
exist. The application requires Basic w/SSL at the website level. This is
the first authentication. When the users go to run a report the first report
goes to the RS Farm and the users are authenticated once again. Once they
have authenticated by the web farm and the RS farm they no longer have to
authenticate but I'm trying to get it to a SSO.
From my experience, if I try using Integrated authentication then the UN and
Pass doesn't get passed onto the sql server and they cannot authenticate to
access the app database. If I try using integrated ont he RS farm I have an
issue where the UN and pass doesn't get passed to sql there. Based on what I
am seeing the fact that it requires 2 logons, 1 per farm, actually makes
sense but I would think this would be the most scalable and isolated design
you could have so it seems to me that there should just be a way for the SSO.
I would like to be able to do this at an admin or infrastructure design
level as the application is from a third party vendor and I don't want to try
and get them to recode anything. Any help would be appreciated.The problem was with Windows 2003 SP1 and IIS6.
Had to disable loopback check and then change RS to using Integrated
authentication. After that I was able to get in locally to /reports
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;896861
"Chris Fauver" wrote:
> I am having a problem with users being prompted to authenticate twice within
> an application. I know this is related to the current design but for
> scalability and isolation I want to keep the infrastructure design as is.
> Currently I have two IIS 6 2k3 servers in an NLB. I have a web application
> installed on this which is a front end for running reports. I then have two
> IIS 6 2k3 servers running sql 2000 RS in an NLB farm. Finally there is a
> Clustered SQL 2000 server where the application database and RS databases
> exist. The application requires Basic w/SSL at the website level. This is
> the first authentication. When the users go to run a report the first report
> goes to the RS Farm and the users are authenticated once again. Once they
> have authenticated by the web farm and the RS farm they no longer have to
> authenticate but I'm trying to get it to a SSO.
> From my experience, if I try using Integrated authentication then the UN and
> Pass doesn't get passed onto the sql server and they cannot authenticate to
> access the app database. If I try using integrated ont he RS farm I have an
> issue where the UN and pass doesn't get passed to sql there. Based on what I
> am seeing the fact that it requires 2 logons, 1 per farm, actually makes
> sense but I would think this would be the most scalable and isolated design
> you could have so it seems to me that there should just be a way for the SSO.
>
> I would like to be able to do this at an admin or infrastructure design
> level as the application is from a third party vendor and I don't want to try
> and get them to recode anything. Any help would be appreciated.

Thursday, March 29, 2012

Duplicate table

Duplicate table

Duplicate table

Duplicate table

Duplicate table

Duplicate table

Monday, March 26, 2012

Duplicate Process ID

Duplicate Process ID

Duplicate Process ID

Sunday, March 11, 2012

Dublicates

Friday, March 9, 2012

dual processor license

dual processor license

dual processor license

dual processor benefit

dual processor benefit

dual processor benefit

Dual CPU w/Dual Core or single core with dual CPU

Dual CPU w/Dual Core or single core with dual CPU

Dual CPU w/Dual Core or single core with dual CPU

Wednesday, March 7, 2012

Dual Authentication with web and rs farm using remote sql server

DTS to .net

Blog Archive

About Me