I have a Windows 2003 server with SQL Server 2000 running on it. The server
is performing dual roles as both a database server and a Primary Domain
Controller. When attempting to add logins for the server, I see the domain
listed twice. This causes any attempt to add a user to fail. I get the
following error:
Error 15401: Windows NT user or group 'DOMAIN\Administrators' not found.
Check the name again.
Does anyone know why this might be happening and how to fix it?
Thank You,
Jason Williard
You can take a look at this kb:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/258025
-oj
"Jason Williard" <jason@.pcsafe.net> wrote in message
news:GZudnS-WBtrKZr7fRVn-uA@.comcast.com...
>I have a Windows 2003 server with SQL Server 2000 running on it. The
>server is performing dual roles as both a database server and a Primary
>Domain Controller. When attempting to add logins for the server, I see the
>domain listed twice. This causes any attempt to add a user to fail. I get
>the following error:
> Error 15401: Windows NT user or group 'DOMAIN\Administrators' not found.
> Check the name again.
>
> Does anyone know why this might be happening and how to fix it?
> Thank You,
> Jason Williard
>
Showing posts with label running. Show all posts
Showing posts with label running. Show all posts
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Duplicate Domains Listed - Unable to Add Logins
I have a Windows 2003 server with SQL Server 2000 running on it. The server
is performing dual roles as both a database server and a Primary Domain
Controller. When attempting to add logins for the server, I see the domain
listed twice. This causes any attempt to add a user to fail. I get the
following error:
Error 15401: Windows NT user or group 'DOMAIN\Administrators' not found.
Check the name again.
Does anyone know why this might be happening and how to fix it?
Thank You,
Jason WilliardYou can take a look at this kb:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/258025
-oj
"Jason Williard" <jason@.pcsafe.net> wrote in message
news:GZudnS-WBtrKZr7fRVn-uA@.comcast.com...
>I have a Windows 2003 server with SQL Server 2000 running on it. The
>server is performing dual roles as both a database server and a Primary
>Domain Controller. When attempting to add logins for the server, I see the
>domain listed twice. This causes any attempt to add a user to fail. I get
>the following error:
> Error 15401: Windows NT user or group 'DOMAIN\Administrators' not found.
> Check the name again.
>
> Does anyone know why this might be happening and how to fix it?
> Thank You,
> Jason Williard
>
is performing dual roles as both a database server and a Primary Domain
Controller. When attempting to add logins for the server, I see the domain
listed twice. This causes any attempt to add a user to fail. I get the
following error:
Error 15401: Windows NT user or group 'DOMAIN\Administrators' not found.
Check the name again.
Does anyone know why this might be happening and how to fix it?
Thank You,
Jason WilliardYou can take a look at this kb:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/258025
-oj
"Jason Williard" <jason@.pcsafe.net> wrote in message
news:GZudnS-WBtrKZr7fRVn-uA@.comcast.com...
>I have a Windows 2003 server with SQL Server 2000 running on it. The
>server is performing dual roles as both a database server and a Primary
>Domain Controller. When attempting to add logins for the server, I see the
>domain listed twice. This causes any attempt to add a user to fail. I get
>the following error:
> Error 15401: Windows NT user or group 'DOMAIN\Administrators' not found.
> Check the name again.
>
> Does anyone know why this might be happening and how to fix it?
> Thank You,
> Jason Williard
>
Duplicate Domains Listed - Unable to Add Logins
I have a Windows 2003 server with SQL Server 2000 running on it. The server
is performing dual roles as both a database server and a Primary Domain
Controller. When attempting to add logins for the server, I see the domain
listed twice. This causes any attempt to add a user to fail. I get the
following error:
Error 15401: Windows NT user or group 'DOMAIN\Administrators' not found.
Check the name again.
Does anyone know why this might be happening and how to fix it?
Thank You,
Jason WilliardYou can take a look at this kb:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/258025
-oj
"Jason Williard" <jason@.pcsafe.net> wrote in message
news:GZudnS-WBtrKZr7fRVn-uA@.comcast.com...
>I have a Windows 2003 server with SQL Server 2000 running on it. The
>server is performing dual roles as both a database server and a Primary
>Domain Controller. When attempting to add logins for the server, I see the
>domain listed twice. This causes any attempt to add a user to fail. I get
>the following error:
> Error 15401: Windows NT user or group 'DOMAIN\Administrators' not found.
> Check the name again.
>
> Does anyone know why this might be happening and how to fix it?
> Thank You,
> Jason Williard
>
is performing dual roles as both a database server and a Primary Domain
Controller. When attempting to add logins for the server, I see the domain
listed twice. This causes any attempt to add a user to fail. I get the
following error:
Error 15401: Windows NT user or group 'DOMAIN\Administrators' not found.
Check the name again.
Does anyone know why this might be happening and how to fix it?
Thank You,
Jason WilliardYou can take a look at this kb:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/258025
-oj
"Jason Williard" <jason@.pcsafe.net> wrote in message
news:GZudnS-WBtrKZr7fRVn-uA@.comcast.com...
>I have a Windows 2003 server with SQL Server 2000 running on it. The
>server is performing dual roles as both a database server and a Primary
>Domain Controller. When attempting to add logins for the server, I see the
>domain listed twice. This causes any attempt to add a user to fail. I get
>the following error:
> Error 15401: Windows NT user or group 'DOMAIN\Administrators' not found.
> Check the name again.
>
> Does anyone know why this might be happening and how to fix it?
> Thank You,
> Jason Williard
>
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
dumptrdate column gone in sql server 2000?
Hello,
I am running an environment that has Sybase and SQL Server 2000, and i've
been using the dumptrdate column from sysdatabases on all SYbase servers, but
it appears that it has been replaced by a Reserved column. Is there an
alternative to this in SQL server? I want to be able to query the database
from command line and see the last transaction log backup time. Viewing it in
taskpad works great, but i really need it in a command line. Any help is
greatly apprciated.
Thanks!
FS
Thanks, i'll give this a try.
"Tibor Karaszi" wrote:
> How about the backup history tables in msdb?
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
>
> "FS" <FS@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:6C600A7F-1076-4603-8517-3EBA33DC518D@.microsoft.com...
>
|||That worked, thanks.
Do you know how to modify the query to give me the last entry only?
so i have 9 databases that i want to generate a report for to list the last
transaction log dump. I tried putting a "where backup_start_date >= '<date
time>'
is there a better way?
"FS" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Thanks, i'll give this a try.
>
> "Tibor Karaszi" wrote:
|||That first select statement worked perfectly. Thank you!
"Tibor Karaszi" wrote:
> Here are a couple of options, depending on how much information you need:
> SELECT database_name, MAX(backup_start_date)
> FROM dbo.backupset
> GROUP BY database_name
> SELECT b1.database_name, *
> FROM dbo.backupset AS b1
> INNER JOIN(
> SELECT database_name, MAX(backup_start_date) AS max_date
> FROM dbo.backupset
> WHERE type = 'L'
> GROUP BY database_name
> ) AS b2
> ON b1.database_name = b2.database_name
> AND b1.backup_start_date = b2.max_date
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
>
> "FS" <FS@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:AEBE819C-493A-4556-AF29-83505FF135E3@.microsoft.com...
>
I am running an environment that has Sybase and SQL Server 2000, and i've
been using the dumptrdate column from sysdatabases on all SYbase servers, but
it appears that it has been replaced by a Reserved column. Is there an
alternative to this in SQL server? I want to be able to query the database
from command line and see the last transaction log backup time. Viewing it in
taskpad works great, but i really need it in a command line. Any help is
greatly apprciated.
Thanks!
FS
Thanks, i'll give this a try.
"Tibor Karaszi" wrote:
> How about the backup history tables in msdb?
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
>
> "FS" <FS@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:6C600A7F-1076-4603-8517-3EBA33DC518D@.microsoft.com...
>
|||That worked, thanks.
Do you know how to modify the query to give me the last entry only?
so i have 9 databases that i want to generate a report for to list the last
transaction log dump. I tried putting a "where backup_start_date >= '<date
time>'
is there a better way?
"FS" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Thanks, i'll give this a try.
>
> "Tibor Karaszi" wrote:
|||That first select statement worked perfectly. Thank you!
"Tibor Karaszi" wrote:
> Here are a couple of options, depending on how much information you need:
> SELECT database_name, MAX(backup_start_date)
> FROM dbo.backupset
> GROUP BY database_name
> SELECT b1.database_name, *
> FROM dbo.backupset AS b1
> INNER JOIN(
> SELECT database_name, MAX(backup_start_date) AS max_date
> FROM dbo.backupset
> WHERE type = 'L'
> GROUP BY database_name
> ) AS b2
> ON b1.database_name = b2.database_name
> AND b1.backup_start_date = b2.max_date
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
>
> "FS" <FS@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:AEBE819C-493A-4556-AF29-83505FF135E3@.microsoft.com...
>
dumptrdate column gone in sql server 2000?
Hello,
I am running an environment that has Sybase and SQL Server 2000, and i've
been using the dumptrdate column from sysdatabases on all SYbase servers, but
it appears that it has been replaced by a Reserved column. Is there an
alternative to this in SQL server? I want to be able to query the database
from command line and see the last transaction log backup time. Viewing it in
taskpad works great, but i really need it in a command line. Any help is
greatly apprciated.
Thanks!
FSHow about the backup history tables in msdb?
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
"FS" <FS@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6C600A7F-1076-4603-8517-3EBA33DC518D@.microsoft.com...
> Hello,
> I am running an environment that has Sybase and SQL Server 2000, and i've
> been using the dumptrdate column from sysdatabases on all SYbase servers, but
> it appears that it has been replaced by a Reserved column. Is there an
> alternative to this in SQL server? I want to be able to query the database
> from command line and see the last transaction log backup time. Viewing it in
> taskpad works great, but i really need it in a command line. Any help is
> greatly apprciated.
> Thanks!
> FS|||Thanks, i'll give this a try.
"Tibor Karaszi" wrote:
> How about the backup history tables in msdb?
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
>
> "FS" <FS@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:6C600A7F-1076-4603-8517-3EBA33DC518D@.microsoft.com...
> > Hello,
> >
> > I am running an environment that has Sybase and SQL Server 2000, and i've
> > been using the dumptrdate column from sysdatabases on all SYbase servers, but
> > it appears that it has been replaced by a Reserved column. Is there an
> > alternative to this in SQL server? I want to be able to query the database
> > from command line and see the last transaction log backup time. Viewing it in
> > taskpad works great, but i really need it in a command line. Any help is
> > greatly apprciated.
> >
> > Thanks!
> > FS
>|||That worked, thanks.
Do you know how to modify the query to give me the last entry only?
so i have 9 databases that i want to generate a report for to list the last
transaction log dump. I tried putting a "where backup_start_date >= '<date
time>'
is there a better way?
"FS" wrote:
> Thanks, i'll give this a try.
>
> "Tibor Karaszi" wrote:
> > How about the backup history tables in msdb?
> >
> > --
> > Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> > http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> > http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
> >
> >
> > "FS" <FS@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:6C600A7F-1076-4603-8517-3EBA33DC518D@.microsoft.com...
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > I am running an environment that has Sybase and SQL Server 2000, and i've
> > > been using the dumptrdate column from sysdatabases on all SYbase servers, but
> > > it appears that it has been replaced by a Reserved column. Is there an
> > > alternative to this in SQL server? I want to be able to query the database
> > > from command line and see the last transaction log backup time. Viewing it in
> > > taskpad works great, but i really need it in a command line. Any help is
> > > greatly apprciated.
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > > FS
> >
> >|||Here are a couple of options, depending on how much information you need:
SELECT database_name, MAX(backup_start_date)
FROM dbo.backupset
GROUP BY database_name
SELECT b1.database_name, *
FROM dbo.backupset AS b1
INNER JOIN(
SELECT database_name, MAX(backup_start_date) AS max_date
FROM dbo.backupset
WHERE type = 'L'
GROUP BY database_name
) AS b2
ON b1.database_name = b2.database_name
AND b1.backup_start_date = b2.max_date
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
"FS" <FS@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:AEBE819C-493A-4556-AF29-83505FF135E3@.microsoft.com...
> That worked, thanks.
> Do you know how to modify the query to give me the last entry only?
> so i have 9 databases that i want to generate a report for to list the last
> transaction log dump. I tried putting a "where backup_start_date >= '<date
> time>'
> is there a better way?
> "FS" wrote:
>> Thanks, i'll give this a try.
>>
>> "Tibor Karaszi" wrote:
>> > How about the backup history tables in msdb?
>> >
>> > --
>> > Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
>> > http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
>> > http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
>> >
>> >
>> > "FS" <FS@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> > news:6C600A7F-1076-4603-8517-3EBA33DC518D@.microsoft.com...
>> > > Hello,
>> > >
>> > > I am running an environment that has Sybase and SQL Server 2000, and i've
>> > > been using the dumptrdate column from sysdatabases on all SYbase servers, but
>> > > it appears that it has been replaced by a Reserved column. Is there an
>> > > alternative to this in SQL server? I want to be able to query the database
>> > > from command line and see the last transaction log backup time. Viewing it in
>> > > taskpad works great, but i really need it in a command line. Any help is
>> > > greatly apprciated.
>> > >
>> > > Thanks!
>> > > FS
>> >
>> >|||That first select statement worked perfectly. Thank you!
"Tibor Karaszi" wrote:
> Here are a couple of options, depending on how much information you need:
> SELECT database_name, MAX(backup_start_date)
> FROM dbo.backupset
> GROUP BY database_name
> SELECT b1.database_name, *
> FROM dbo.backupset AS b1
> INNER JOIN(
> SELECT database_name, MAX(backup_start_date) AS max_date
> FROM dbo.backupset
> WHERE type = 'L'
> GROUP BY database_name
> ) AS b2
> ON b1.database_name = b2.database_name
> AND b1.backup_start_date = b2.max_date
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
>
> "FS" <FS@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:AEBE819C-493A-4556-AF29-83505FF135E3@.microsoft.com...
> > That worked, thanks.
> > Do you know how to modify the query to give me the last entry only?
> > so i have 9 databases that i want to generate a report for to list the last
> > transaction log dump. I tried putting a "where backup_start_date >= '<date
> > time>'
> > is there a better way?
> >
> > "FS" wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks, i'll give this a try.
> >>
> >>
> >> "Tibor Karaszi" wrote:
> >>
> >> > How about the backup history tables in msdb?
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> >> > http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> >> > http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > "FS" <FS@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:6C600A7F-1076-4603-8517-3EBA33DC518D@.microsoft.com...
> >> > > Hello,
> >> > >
> >> > > I am running an environment that has Sybase and SQL Server 2000, and i've
> >> > > been using the dumptrdate column from sysdatabases on all SYbase servers, but
> >> > > it appears that it has been replaced by a Reserved column. Is there an
> >> > > alternative to this in SQL server? I want to be able to query the database
> >> > > from command line and see the last transaction log backup time. Viewing it in
> >> > > taskpad works great, but i really need it in a command line. Any help is
> >> > > greatly apprciated.
> >> > >
> >> > > Thanks!
> >> > > FS
> >> >
> >> >
>
I am running an environment that has Sybase and SQL Server 2000, and i've
been using the dumptrdate column from sysdatabases on all SYbase servers, but
it appears that it has been replaced by a Reserved column. Is there an
alternative to this in SQL server? I want to be able to query the database
from command line and see the last transaction log backup time. Viewing it in
taskpad works great, but i really need it in a command line. Any help is
greatly apprciated.
Thanks!
FSHow about the backup history tables in msdb?
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
"FS" <FS@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6C600A7F-1076-4603-8517-3EBA33DC518D@.microsoft.com...
> Hello,
> I am running an environment that has Sybase and SQL Server 2000, and i've
> been using the dumptrdate column from sysdatabases on all SYbase servers, but
> it appears that it has been replaced by a Reserved column. Is there an
> alternative to this in SQL server? I want to be able to query the database
> from command line and see the last transaction log backup time. Viewing it in
> taskpad works great, but i really need it in a command line. Any help is
> greatly apprciated.
> Thanks!
> FS|||Thanks, i'll give this a try.
"Tibor Karaszi" wrote:
> How about the backup history tables in msdb?
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
>
> "FS" <FS@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:6C600A7F-1076-4603-8517-3EBA33DC518D@.microsoft.com...
> > Hello,
> >
> > I am running an environment that has Sybase and SQL Server 2000, and i've
> > been using the dumptrdate column from sysdatabases on all SYbase servers, but
> > it appears that it has been replaced by a Reserved column. Is there an
> > alternative to this in SQL server? I want to be able to query the database
> > from command line and see the last transaction log backup time. Viewing it in
> > taskpad works great, but i really need it in a command line. Any help is
> > greatly apprciated.
> >
> > Thanks!
> > FS
>|||That worked, thanks.
Do you know how to modify the query to give me the last entry only?
so i have 9 databases that i want to generate a report for to list the last
transaction log dump. I tried putting a "where backup_start_date >= '<date
time>'
is there a better way?
"FS" wrote:
> Thanks, i'll give this a try.
>
> "Tibor Karaszi" wrote:
> > How about the backup history tables in msdb?
> >
> > --
> > Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> > http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> > http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
> >
> >
> > "FS" <FS@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:6C600A7F-1076-4603-8517-3EBA33DC518D@.microsoft.com...
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > I am running an environment that has Sybase and SQL Server 2000, and i've
> > > been using the dumptrdate column from sysdatabases on all SYbase servers, but
> > > it appears that it has been replaced by a Reserved column. Is there an
> > > alternative to this in SQL server? I want to be able to query the database
> > > from command line and see the last transaction log backup time. Viewing it in
> > > taskpad works great, but i really need it in a command line. Any help is
> > > greatly apprciated.
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > > FS
> >
> >|||Here are a couple of options, depending on how much information you need:
SELECT database_name, MAX(backup_start_date)
FROM dbo.backupset
GROUP BY database_name
SELECT b1.database_name, *
FROM dbo.backupset AS b1
INNER JOIN(
SELECT database_name, MAX(backup_start_date) AS max_date
FROM dbo.backupset
WHERE type = 'L'
GROUP BY database_name
) AS b2
ON b1.database_name = b2.database_name
AND b1.backup_start_date = b2.max_date
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
"FS" <FS@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:AEBE819C-493A-4556-AF29-83505FF135E3@.microsoft.com...
> That worked, thanks.
> Do you know how to modify the query to give me the last entry only?
> so i have 9 databases that i want to generate a report for to list the last
> transaction log dump. I tried putting a "where backup_start_date >= '<date
> time>'
> is there a better way?
> "FS" wrote:
>> Thanks, i'll give this a try.
>>
>> "Tibor Karaszi" wrote:
>> > How about the backup history tables in msdb?
>> >
>> > --
>> > Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
>> > http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
>> > http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
>> >
>> >
>> > "FS" <FS@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> > news:6C600A7F-1076-4603-8517-3EBA33DC518D@.microsoft.com...
>> > > Hello,
>> > >
>> > > I am running an environment that has Sybase and SQL Server 2000, and i've
>> > > been using the dumptrdate column from sysdatabases on all SYbase servers, but
>> > > it appears that it has been replaced by a Reserved column. Is there an
>> > > alternative to this in SQL server? I want to be able to query the database
>> > > from command line and see the last transaction log backup time. Viewing it in
>> > > taskpad works great, but i really need it in a command line. Any help is
>> > > greatly apprciated.
>> > >
>> > > Thanks!
>> > > FS
>> >
>> >|||That first select statement worked perfectly. Thank you!
"Tibor Karaszi" wrote:
> Here are a couple of options, depending on how much information you need:
> SELECT database_name, MAX(backup_start_date)
> FROM dbo.backupset
> GROUP BY database_name
> SELECT b1.database_name, *
> FROM dbo.backupset AS b1
> INNER JOIN(
> SELECT database_name, MAX(backup_start_date) AS max_date
> FROM dbo.backupset
> WHERE type = 'L'
> GROUP BY database_name
> ) AS b2
> ON b1.database_name = b2.database_name
> AND b1.backup_start_date = b2.max_date
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
>
> "FS" <FS@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:AEBE819C-493A-4556-AF29-83505FF135E3@.microsoft.com...
> > That worked, thanks.
> > Do you know how to modify the query to give me the last entry only?
> > so i have 9 databases that i want to generate a report for to list the last
> > transaction log dump. I tried putting a "where backup_start_date >= '<date
> > time>'
> > is there a better way?
> >
> > "FS" wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks, i'll give this a try.
> >>
> >>
> >> "Tibor Karaszi" wrote:
> >>
> >> > How about the backup history tables in msdb?
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> >> > http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> >> > http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > "FS" <FS@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:6C600A7F-1076-4603-8517-3EBA33DC518D@.microsoft.com...
> >> > > Hello,
> >> > >
> >> > > I am running an environment that has Sybase and SQL Server 2000, and i've
> >> > > been using the dumptrdate column from sysdatabases on all SYbase servers, but
> >> > > it appears that it has been replaced by a Reserved column. Is there an
> >> > > alternative to this in SQL server? I want to be able to query the database
> >> > > from command line and see the last transaction log backup time. Viewing it in
> >> > > taskpad works great, but i really need it in a command line. Any help is
> >> > > greatly apprciated.
> >> > >
> >> > > Thanks!
> >> > > FS
> >> >
> >> >
>
dumptrdate column gone in sql server 2000?
Hello,
I am running an environment that has Sybase and SQL Server 2000, and i've
been using the dumptrdate column from sysdatabases on all SYbase servers, bu
t
it appears that it has been replaced by a Reserved column. Is there an
alternative to this in SQL server? I want to be able to query the database
from command line and see the last transaction log backup time. Viewing it i
n
taskpad works great, but i really need it in a command line. Any help is
greatly apprciated.
Thanks!
FSHow about the backup history tables in msdb?
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
"FS" <FS@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6C600A7F-1076-4603-8517-3EBA33DC518D@.microsoft.com...
> Hello,
> I am running an environment that has Sybase and SQL Server 2000, and i've
> been using the dumptrdate column from sysdatabases on all SYbase servers,
but
> it appears that it has been replaced by a Reserved column. Is there an
> alternative to this in SQL server? I want to be able to query the database
> from command line and see the last transaction log backup time. Viewing it
in
> taskpad works great, but i really need it in a command line. Any help is
> greatly apprciated.
> Thanks!
> FS|||Thanks, i'll give this a try.
"Tibor Karaszi" wrote:
> How about the backup history tables in msdb?
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
>
> "FS" <FS@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:6C600A7F-1076-4603-8517-3EBA33DC518D@.microsoft.com...
>|||That worked, thanks.
Do you know how to modify the query to give me the last entry only?
so i have 9 databases that i want to generate a report for to list the last
transaction log dump. I tried putting a "where backup_start_date >= '<date
time>'
is there a better way?
"FS" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Thanks, i'll give this a try.
>
> "Tibor Karaszi" wrote:
>|||Here are a couple of options, depending on how much information you need:
SELECT database_name, MAX(backup_start_date)
FROM dbo.backupset
GROUP BY database_name
SELECT b1.database_name, *
FROM dbo.backupset AS b1
INNER JOIN(
SELECT database_name, MAX(backup_start_date) AS max_date
FROM dbo.backupset
WHERE type = 'L'
GROUP BY database_name
) AS b2
ON b1.database_name = b2.database_name
AND b1.backup_start_date = b2.max_date
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
"FS" <FS@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:AEBE819C-493A-4556-AF29-83505FF135E3@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> That worked, thanks.
> Do you know how to modify the query to give me the last entry only?
> so i have 9 databases that i want to generate a report for to list the las
t
> transaction log dump. I tried putting a "where backup_start_date >= '<date
> time>'
> is there a better way?
> "FS" wrote:
>|||That first select statement worked perfectly. Thank you!
"Tibor Karaszi" wrote:
> Here are a couple of options, depending on how much information you need:
> SELECT database_name, MAX(backup_start_date)
> FROM dbo.backupset
> GROUP BY database_name
> SELECT b1.database_name, *
> FROM dbo.backupset AS b1
> INNER JOIN(
> SELECT database_name, MAX(backup_start_date) AS max_date
> FROM dbo.backupset
> WHERE type = 'L'
> GROUP BY database_name
> ) AS b2
> ON b1.database_name = b2.database_name
> AND b1.backup_start_date = b2.max_date
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
>
> "FS" <FS@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:AEBE819C-493A-4556-AF29-83505FF135E3@.microsoft.com...
>
I am running an environment that has Sybase and SQL Server 2000, and i've
been using the dumptrdate column from sysdatabases on all SYbase servers, bu
t
it appears that it has been replaced by a Reserved column. Is there an
alternative to this in SQL server? I want to be able to query the database
from command line and see the last transaction log backup time. Viewing it i
n
taskpad works great, but i really need it in a command line. Any help is
greatly apprciated.
Thanks!
FSHow about the backup history tables in msdb?
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
"FS" <FS@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6C600A7F-1076-4603-8517-3EBA33DC518D@.microsoft.com...
> Hello,
> I am running an environment that has Sybase and SQL Server 2000, and i've
> been using the dumptrdate column from sysdatabases on all SYbase servers,
but
> it appears that it has been replaced by a Reserved column. Is there an
> alternative to this in SQL server? I want to be able to query the database
> from command line and see the last transaction log backup time. Viewing it
in
> taskpad works great, but i really need it in a command line. Any help is
> greatly apprciated.
> Thanks!
> FS|||Thanks, i'll give this a try.
"Tibor Karaszi" wrote:
> How about the backup history tables in msdb?
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
>
> "FS" <FS@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:6C600A7F-1076-4603-8517-3EBA33DC518D@.microsoft.com...
>|||That worked, thanks.
Do you know how to modify the query to give me the last entry only?
so i have 9 databases that i want to generate a report for to list the last
transaction log dump. I tried putting a "where backup_start_date >= '<date
time>'
is there a better way?
"FS" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Thanks, i'll give this a try.
>
> "Tibor Karaszi" wrote:
>|||Here are a couple of options, depending on how much information you need:
SELECT database_name, MAX(backup_start_date)
FROM dbo.backupset
GROUP BY database_name
SELECT b1.database_name, *
FROM dbo.backupset AS b1
INNER JOIN(
SELECT database_name, MAX(backup_start_date) AS max_date
FROM dbo.backupset
WHERE type = 'L'
GROUP BY database_name
) AS b2
ON b1.database_name = b2.database_name
AND b1.backup_start_date = b2.max_date
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
"FS" <FS@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:AEBE819C-493A-4556-AF29-83505FF135E3@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> That worked, thanks.
> Do you know how to modify the query to give me the last entry only?
> so i have 9 databases that i want to generate a report for to list the las
t
> transaction log dump. I tried putting a "where backup_start_date >= '<date
> time>'
> is there a better way?
> "FS" wrote:
>|||That first select statement worked perfectly. Thank you!
"Tibor Karaszi" wrote:
> Here are a couple of options, depending on how much information you need:
> SELECT database_name, MAX(backup_start_date)
> FROM dbo.backupset
> GROUP BY database_name
> SELECT b1.database_name, *
> FROM dbo.backupset AS b1
> INNER JOIN(
> SELECT database_name, MAX(backup_start_date) AS max_date
> FROM dbo.backupset
> WHERE type = 'L'
> GROUP BY database_name
> ) AS b2
> ON b1.database_name = b2.database_name
> AND b1.backup_start_date = b2.max_date
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
>
> "FS" <FS@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:AEBE819C-493A-4556-AF29-83505FF135E3@.microsoft.com...
>
Dumping Sql after an exception
Does anyone have a code snippet for dumping the actual sql a command would be running?
What do you mean by "dumping" ? You can kill the session..
|||No I mean like getting the actual SQL it was trying to execute.
|||If you know the spid you can do DBCC INPUTBUFFER(spid) to see what the spid is executing.
dumping backups to share in different domain
Hi,
I have a sql server running in domain abc.com. de sqlserver and the sqlagent
services are running on their own useraccounts SqlServerServ@.abc.com and
SqlAgentServ@.abc.com. This server is in our own server room which we use to
host servers on our own domain 123.com.
the following task needs to be done:
make backups of the databases in sqlserver.abc.com to the file share on
fileserver.123.com by creating jobs in sqlagent.
What can not be done:
Make a trust between abc.com and 123.com since both companies don't trust
each other.
extra info.
sqlserver.abc.com
sql server 2000 standard SP3 running on
windows 2000 Standard edition (patches unknown)
this box happens to be the DC for abc.com as well (it's a test enviorment)
fileserver.123.com
windows 2000 standard edition (patches unknown)
this box is not the DC for 123.com
a share is create \\fileserver\DBbackups
and a user called SQLbackup@.123.com which has full rights to this share
What is the best way to go arround:
1) try and make the backups work using SQLbackup@.123.com
2) or try and give SQLAgentServ@.abc.com access to the fileshare on
fileserver.123.com
Is any of these two option possible at all?
are there better solutions with this setup?(we cannot change the domain
setup and memberships, and we cannot at extra boxes)
Kind regards
Edward Dortland
please reply to newsgroup ONLYSuggestions:
Install FTP server on fileserver.123.com, then
1. Do local backup on abc.com
2. Transfer these backups to fileserver.123.com using -s:filename option.
OR try this one (not sure if it will work).
1. Create LOCAL account SQLAgentServ on both computers with same password.
From Log shipping:
"Local Network Account
You can use SQL Server to start under a locally-created network account. In
the situation where there is network access required by a SQL Server
process, which is the case if you have configured SQL Server to use log
shipping, you can use network pass-through security. With pass-through
security, all machines that will be accessed by SQL Server must have the
same network account with the same password and appropriate permissions,
configured locally. Additionally, when the SQL Server process requests
resources from the second computer, traditional network security is bypassed
if the same account (under which the requesting SQL Server service is
started) exists with the same password. As long the account on the second
computer is configured with enough permission to carry out the task that is
requested by calling SQL Server, the task will be successful. "
2. Try to do backup.
HTH
Igor Raytsin
"Edward Dortland" <edwardNOSPAMMMM@.solsol.nl> wrote in message
news:104jovuket4qk0f@.corp.supernews.com...
> Hi,
> I have a sql server running in domain abc.com. de sqlserver and the
sqlagent
> services are running on their own useraccounts SqlServerServ@.abc.com and
> SqlAgentServ@.abc.com. This server is in our own server room which we use
to
> host servers on our own domain 123.com.
> the following task needs to be done:
> make backups of the databases in sqlserver.abc.com to the file share on
> fileserver.123.com by creating jobs in sqlagent.
> What can not be done:
> Make a trust between abc.com and 123.com since both companies don't trust
> each other.
> extra info.
> sqlserver.abc.com
> sql server 2000 standard SP3 running on
> Windows 2000 Standard edition (patches unknown)
> this box happens to be the DC for abc.com as well (it's a test enviorment)
> fileserver.123.com
> Windows 2000 standard edition (patches unknown)
> this box is not the DC for 123.com
> a share is create \\fileserver\DBbackups
> and a user called SQLbackup@.123.com which has full rights to this share
> What is the best way to go arround:
> 1) try and make the backups work using SQLbackup@.123.com
> 2) or try and give SQLAgentServ@.abc.com access to the fileshare on
> fileserver.123.com
> Is any of these two option possible at all?
> are there better solutions with this setup?(we cannot change the domain
> setup and memberships, and we cannot at extra boxes)
> Kind regards
>
> Edward Dortland
> please reply to newsgroup ONLY
>
>
I have a sql server running in domain abc.com. de sqlserver and the sqlagent
services are running on their own useraccounts SqlServerServ@.abc.com and
SqlAgentServ@.abc.com. This server is in our own server room which we use to
host servers on our own domain 123.com.
the following task needs to be done:
make backups of the databases in sqlserver.abc.com to the file share on
fileserver.123.com by creating jobs in sqlagent.
What can not be done:
Make a trust between abc.com and 123.com since both companies don't trust
each other.
extra info.
sqlserver.abc.com
sql server 2000 standard SP3 running on
windows 2000 Standard edition (patches unknown)
this box happens to be the DC for abc.com as well (it's a test enviorment)
fileserver.123.com
windows 2000 standard edition (patches unknown)
this box is not the DC for 123.com
a share is create \\fileserver\DBbackups
and a user called SQLbackup@.123.com which has full rights to this share
What is the best way to go arround:
1) try and make the backups work using SQLbackup@.123.com
2) or try and give SQLAgentServ@.abc.com access to the fileshare on
fileserver.123.com
Is any of these two option possible at all?
are there better solutions with this setup?(we cannot change the domain
setup and memberships, and we cannot at extra boxes)
Kind regards
Edward Dortland
please reply to newsgroup ONLYSuggestions:
Install FTP server on fileserver.123.com, then
1. Do local backup on abc.com
2. Transfer these backups to fileserver.123.com using -s:filename option.
OR try this one (not sure if it will work).
1. Create LOCAL account SQLAgentServ on both computers with same password.
From Log shipping:
"Local Network Account
You can use SQL Server to start under a locally-created network account. In
the situation where there is network access required by a SQL Server
process, which is the case if you have configured SQL Server to use log
shipping, you can use network pass-through security. With pass-through
security, all machines that will be accessed by SQL Server must have the
same network account with the same password and appropriate permissions,
configured locally. Additionally, when the SQL Server process requests
resources from the second computer, traditional network security is bypassed
if the same account (under which the requesting SQL Server service is
started) exists with the same password. As long the account on the second
computer is configured with enough permission to carry out the task that is
requested by calling SQL Server, the task will be successful. "
2. Try to do backup.
HTH
Igor Raytsin
"Edward Dortland" <edwardNOSPAMMMM@.solsol.nl> wrote in message
news:104jovuket4qk0f@.corp.supernews.com...
> Hi,
> I have a sql server running in domain abc.com. de sqlserver and the
sqlagent
> services are running on their own useraccounts SqlServerServ@.abc.com and
> SqlAgentServ@.abc.com. This server is in our own server room which we use
to
> host servers on our own domain 123.com.
> the following task needs to be done:
> make backups of the databases in sqlserver.abc.com to the file share on
> fileserver.123.com by creating jobs in sqlagent.
> What can not be done:
> Make a trust between abc.com and 123.com since both companies don't trust
> each other.
> extra info.
> sqlserver.abc.com
> sql server 2000 standard SP3 running on
> Windows 2000 Standard edition (patches unknown)
> this box happens to be the DC for abc.com as well (it's a test enviorment)
> fileserver.123.com
> Windows 2000 standard edition (patches unknown)
> this box is not the DC for 123.com
> a share is create \\fileserver\DBbackups
> and a user called SQLbackup@.123.com which has full rights to this share
> What is the best way to go arround:
> 1) try and make the backups work using SQLbackup@.123.com
> 2) or try and give SQLAgentServ@.abc.com access to the fileshare on
> fileserver.123.com
> Is any of these two option possible at all?
> are there better solutions with this setup?(we cannot change the domain
> setup and memberships, and we cannot at extra boxes)
> Kind regards
>
> Edward Dortland
> please reply to newsgroup ONLY
>
>
dumping backups to share in different domain
Hi,
I have a sql server running in domain abc.com. de sqlserver and the sqlagent
services are running on their own useraccounts SqlServerServ@.abc.com and
SqlAgentServ@.abc.com. This server is in our own server room which we use to
host servers on our own domain 123.com.
the following task needs to be done:
make backups of the databases in sqlserver.abc.com to the file share on
fileserver.123.com by creating jobs in sqlagent.
What can not be done:
Make a trust between abc.com and 123.com since both companies don't trust
each other.
extra info.
sqlserver.abc.com
sql server 2000 standard SP3 running on
windows 2000 Standard edition (patches unknown)
this box happens to be the DC for abc.com as well (it's a test enviorment)
fileserver.123.com
windows 2000 standard edition (patches unknown)
this box is not the DC for 123.com
a share is create \\fileserver\DBbackups
and a user called SQLbackup@.123.com which has full rights to this share
What is the best way to go arround:
1) try and make the backups work using SQLbackup@.123.com
2) or try and give SQLAgentServ@.abc.com access to the fileshare on
fileserver.123.com
Is any of these two option possible at all?
are there better solutions with this setup?(we cannot change the domain
setup and memberships, and we cannot at extra boxes)
Kind regards
Edward Dortland
please reply to newsgroup ONLYSuggestions:
Install FTP server on fileserver.123.com, then
1. Do local backup on abc.com
2. Transfer these backups to fileserver.123.com using -s:filename option.
OR try this one (not sure if it will work).
1. Create LOCAL account SQLAgentServ on both computers with same password.
From Log shipping:
"Local Network Account
You can use SQL Server to start under a locally-created network account. In
the situation where there is network access required by a SQL Server
process, which is the case if you have configured SQL Server to use log
shipping, you can use network pass-through security. With pass-through
security, all machines that will be accessed by SQL Server must have the
same network account with the same password and appropriate permissions,
configured locally. Additionally, when the SQL Server process requests
resources from the second computer, traditional network security is bypassed
if the same account (under which the requesting SQL Server service is
started) exists with the same password. As long the account on the second
computer is configured with enough permission to carry out the task that is
requested by calling SQL Server, the task will be successful. "
2. Try to do backup.
HTH
Igor Raytsin
"Edward Dortland" <edwardNOSPAMMMM@.solsol.nl> wrote in message
news:104jovuket4qk0f@.corp.supernews.com...
> Hi,
> I have a sql server running in domain abc.com. de sqlserver and the
sqlagent
> services are running on their own useraccounts SqlServerServ@.abc.com and
> SqlAgentServ@.abc.com. This server is in our own server room which we use
to
> host servers on our own domain 123.com.
> the following task needs to be done:
> make backups of the databases in sqlserver.abc.com to the file share on
> fileserver.123.com by creating jobs in sqlagent.
> What can not be done:
> Make a trust between abc.com and 123.com since both companies don't trust
> each other.
> extra info.
> sqlserver.abc.com
> sql server 2000 standard SP3 running on
> windows 2000 Standard edition (patches unknown)
> this box happens to be the DC for abc.com as well (it's a test enviorment)
> fileserver.123.com
> windows 2000 standard edition (patches unknown)
> this box is not the DC for 123.com
> a share is create \\fileserver\DBbackups
> and a user called SQLbackup@.123.com which has full rights to this share
> What is the best way to go arround:
> 1) try and make the backups work using SQLbackup@.123.com
> 2) or try and give SQLAgentServ@.abc.com access to the fileshare on
> fileserver.123.com
> Is any of these two option possible at all?
> are there better solutions with this setup?(we cannot change the domain
> setup and memberships, and we cannot at extra boxes)
> Kind regards
>
> Edward Dortland
> please reply to newsgroup ONLY
>
>sql
I have a sql server running in domain abc.com. de sqlserver and the sqlagent
services are running on their own useraccounts SqlServerServ@.abc.com and
SqlAgentServ@.abc.com. This server is in our own server room which we use to
host servers on our own domain 123.com.
the following task needs to be done:
make backups of the databases in sqlserver.abc.com to the file share on
fileserver.123.com by creating jobs in sqlagent.
What can not be done:
Make a trust between abc.com and 123.com since both companies don't trust
each other.
extra info.
sqlserver.abc.com
sql server 2000 standard SP3 running on
windows 2000 Standard edition (patches unknown)
this box happens to be the DC for abc.com as well (it's a test enviorment)
fileserver.123.com
windows 2000 standard edition (patches unknown)
this box is not the DC for 123.com
a share is create \\fileserver\DBbackups
and a user called SQLbackup@.123.com which has full rights to this share
What is the best way to go arround:
1) try and make the backups work using SQLbackup@.123.com
2) or try and give SQLAgentServ@.abc.com access to the fileshare on
fileserver.123.com
Is any of these two option possible at all?
are there better solutions with this setup?(we cannot change the domain
setup and memberships, and we cannot at extra boxes)
Kind regards
Edward Dortland
please reply to newsgroup ONLYSuggestions:
Install FTP server on fileserver.123.com, then
1. Do local backup on abc.com
2. Transfer these backups to fileserver.123.com using -s:filename option.
OR try this one (not sure if it will work).
1. Create LOCAL account SQLAgentServ on both computers with same password.
From Log shipping:
"Local Network Account
You can use SQL Server to start under a locally-created network account. In
the situation where there is network access required by a SQL Server
process, which is the case if you have configured SQL Server to use log
shipping, you can use network pass-through security. With pass-through
security, all machines that will be accessed by SQL Server must have the
same network account with the same password and appropriate permissions,
configured locally. Additionally, when the SQL Server process requests
resources from the second computer, traditional network security is bypassed
if the same account (under which the requesting SQL Server service is
started) exists with the same password. As long the account on the second
computer is configured with enough permission to carry out the task that is
requested by calling SQL Server, the task will be successful. "
2. Try to do backup.
HTH
Igor Raytsin
"Edward Dortland" <edwardNOSPAMMMM@.solsol.nl> wrote in message
news:104jovuket4qk0f@.corp.supernews.com...
> Hi,
> I have a sql server running in domain abc.com. de sqlserver and the
sqlagent
> services are running on their own useraccounts SqlServerServ@.abc.com and
> SqlAgentServ@.abc.com. This server is in our own server room which we use
to
> host servers on our own domain 123.com.
> the following task needs to be done:
> make backups of the databases in sqlserver.abc.com to the file share on
> fileserver.123.com by creating jobs in sqlagent.
> What can not be done:
> Make a trust between abc.com and 123.com since both companies don't trust
> each other.
> extra info.
> sqlserver.abc.com
> sql server 2000 standard SP3 running on
> windows 2000 Standard edition (patches unknown)
> this box happens to be the DC for abc.com as well (it's a test enviorment)
> fileserver.123.com
> windows 2000 standard edition (patches unknown)
> this box is not the DC for 123.com
> a share is create \\fileserver\DBbackups
> and a user called SQLbackup@.123.com which has full rights to this share
> What is the best way to go arround:
> 1) try and make the backups work using SQLbackup@.123.com
> 2) or try and give SQLAgentServ@.abc.com access to the fileshare on
> fileserver.123.com
> Is any of these two option possible at all?
> are there better solutions with this setup?(we cannot change the domain
> setup and memberships, and we cannot at extra boxes)
> Kind regards
>
> Edward Dortland
> please reply to newsgroup ONLY
>
>sql
DUMP TRANSACTION
I am running SQL 2000 SP4. I see the DUMP TRANSACTION command in BOL and
other Microsoft documentation but it doesn't seem to work. Is it still
supported. The command I am using is DUMP TRANSACTION WITH NO_LOG.
Rom Reis,
If you want to truncate the inactive portion of the Transaction Log of your
database, in SQL SERVER 2000 you use the following statement:
Backup Log DBNAME with TRUNCATE_ONLY
The " Dump Transaction " is a 6.x SQL Version Command.
Best Regards,
Paulo Conde?a.
"Tom Reis" wrote:
> I am running SQL 2000 SP4. I see the DUMP TRANSACTION command in BOL and
> other Microsoft documentation but it doesn't seem to work. Is it still
> supported. The command I am using is DUMP TRANSACTION WITH NO_LOG.
>
>
|||"Tom Reis" <reistom@.cdnet.cod.edu> wrote in message
news:%23aWjbJZCHHA.4892@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>I am running SQL 2000 SP4. I see the DUMP TRANSACTION command in BOL and
>other Microsoft documentation but it doesn't seem to work. Is it still
>supported. The command I am using is DUMP TRANSACTION WITH NO_LOG.
DUMP TRANSACTION is still supported, but is deprecated. Define "doesn't
seem to work". Does the equivalent BACKUP command do anything differently?
sql
other Microsoft documentation but it doesn't seem to work. Is it still
supported. The command I am using is DUMP TRANSACTION WITH NO_LOG.
Rom Reis,
If you want to truncate the inactive portion of the Transaction Log of your
database, in SQL SERVER 2000 you use the following statement:
Backup Log DBNAME with TRUNCATE_ONLY
The " Dump Transaction " is a 6.x SQL Version Command.
Best Regards,
Paulo Conde?a.
"Tom Reis" wrote:
> I am running SQL 2000 SP4. I see the DUMP TRANSACTION command in BOL and
> other Microsoft documentation but it doesn't seem to work. Is it still
> supported. The command I am using is DUMP TRANSACTION WITH NO_LOG.
>
>
|||"Tom Reis" <reistom@.cdnet.cod.edu> wrote in message
news:%23aWjbJZCHHA.4892@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>I am running SQL 2000 SP4. I see the DUMP TRANSACTION command in BOL and
>other Microsoft documentation but it doesn't seem to work. Is it still
>supported. The command I am using is DUMP TRANSACTION WITH NO_LOG.
DUMP TRANSACTION is still supported, but is deprecated. Define "doesn't
seem to work". Does the equivalent BACKUP command do anything differently?
sql
DUMP TRANSACTION
I am running SQL 2000 SP4. I see the DUMP TRANSACTION command in BOL and
other Microsoft documentation but it doesn't seem to work. Is it still
supported. The command I am using is DUMP TRANSACTION WITH NO_LOG.Rom Reis,
If you want to truncate the inactive portion of the Transaction Log of your
database, in SQL SERVER 2000 you use the following statement:
Backup Log DBNAME with TRUNCATE_ONLY
The " Dump Transaction " is a 6.x SQL Version Command.
Best Regards,
Paulo Condeça.
"Tom Reis" wrote:
> I am running SQL 2000 SP4. I see the DUMP TRANSACTION command in BOL and
> other Microsoft documentation but it doesn't seem to work. Is it still
> supported. The command I am using is DUMP TRANSACTION WITH NO_LOG.
>
>|||"Tom Reis" <reistom@.cdnet.cod.edu> wrote in message
news:%23aWjbJZCHHA.4892@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>I am running SQL 2000 SP4. I see the DUMP TRANSACTION command in BOL and
>other Microsoft documentation but it doesn't seem to work. Is it still
>supported. The command I am using is DUMP TRANSACTION WITH NO_LOG.
DUMP TRANSACTION is still supported, but is deprecated. Define "doesn't
seem to work". Does the equivalent BACKUP command do anything differently?
other Microsoft documentation but it doesn't seem to work. Is it still
supported. The command I am using is DUMP TRANSACTION WITH NO_LOG.Rom Reis,
If you want to truncate the inactive portion of the Transaction Log of your
database, in SQL SERVER 2000 you use the following statement:
Backup Log DBNAME with TRUNCATE_ONLY
The " Dump Transaction " is a 6.x SQL Version Command.
Best Regards,
Paulo Condeça.
"Tom Reis" wrote:
> I am running SQL 2000 SP4. I see the DUMP TRANSACTION command in BOL and
> other Microsoft documentation but it doesn't seem to work. Is it still
> supported. The command I am using is DUMP TRANSACTION WITH NO_LOG.
>
>|||"Tom Reis" <reistom@.cdnet.cod.edu> wrote in message
news:%23aWjbJZCHHA.4892@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>I am running SQL 2000 SP4. I see the DUMP TRANSACTION command in BOL and
>other Microsoft documentation but it doesn't seem to work. Is it still
>supported. The command I am using is DUMP TRANSACTION WITH NO_LOG.
DUMP TRANSACTION is still supported, but is deprecated. Define "doesn't
seem to work". Does the equivalent BACKUP command do anything differently?
DUMP TRANSACTION
I am running SQL 2000 SP4. I see the DUMP TRANSACTION command in BOL and
other Microsoft documentation but it doesn't seem to work. Is it still
supported. The command I am using is DUMP TRANSACTION WITH NO_LOG.Rom Reis,
If you want to truncate the inactive portion of the Transaction Log of your
database, in SQL SERVER 2000 you use the following statement:
Backup Log DBNAME with TRUNCATE_ONLY
The " Dump Transaction " is a 6.x SQL Version Command.
Best Regards,
Paulo Conde?a.
"Tom Reis" wrote:
> I am running SQL 2000 SP4. I see the DUMP TRANSACTION command in BOL and
> other Microsoft documentation but it doesn't seem to work. Is it still
> supported. The command I am using is DUMP TRANSACTION WITH NO_LOG.
>
>|||"Tom Reis" <reistom@.cdnet.cod.edu> wrote in message
news:%23aWjbJZCHHA.4892@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>I am running SQL 2000 SP4. I see the DUMP TRANSACTION command in BOL and
>other Microsoft documentation but it doesn't seem to work. Is it still
>supported. The command I am using is DUMP TRANSACTION WITH NO_LOG.
DUMP TRANSACTION is still supported, but is deprecated. Define "doesn't
seem to work". Does the equivalent BACKUP command do anything differently?
other Microsoft documentation but it doesn't seem to work. Is it still
supported. The command I am using is DUMP TRANSACTION WITH NO_LOG.Rom Reis,
If you want to truncate the inactive portion of the Transaction Log of your
database, in SQL SERVER 2000 you use the following statement:
Backup Log DBNAME with TRUNCATE_ONLY
The " Dump Transaction " is a 6.x SQL Version Command.
Best Regards,
Paulo Conde?a.
"Tom Reis" wrote:
> I am running SQL 2000 SP4. I see the DUMP TRANSACTION command in BOL and
> other Microsoft documentation but it doesn't seem to work. Is it still
> supported. The command I am using is DUMP TRANSACTION WITH NO_LOG.
>
>|||"Tom Reis" <reistom@.cdnet.cod.edu> wrote in message
news:%23aWjbJZCHHA.4892@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>I am running SQL 2000 SP4. I see the DUMP TRANSACTION command in BOL and
>other Microsoft documentation but it doesn't seem to work. Is it still
>supported. The command I am using is DUMP TRANSACTION WITH NO_LOG.
DUMP TRANSACTION is still supported, but is deprecated. Define "doesn't
seem to work". Does the equivalent BACKUP command do anything differently?
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Dumb permissions question
Hi
I'm running SQL Server 2000 on a Windows 2003 SBS server. Much to my
horror I notice that that the SQL data directory has permissions set
for:
Domain\Administrator (full accesss)
Domain\Administrators (full accesss)
Authenticated users (read,list, read). I guess this isn't a good idea
at all!
What are the optimum permissions here (I can't seem to get a straight
answer). Do I set it for the SQL service to have full control only (at
the moment MSSQLSERVER service is logging on using
Domain\Administrator). Do I change this account? What about the other
SQL Server related services? Please also note I am also using Backup
Exec 9 to backup the databases.
Any suggestions you may have will be greatly appreciated!
Many thanks
Alex<postings@.alexshirley.com> wrote in message
news:1133285607.162678.51170@.g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Hi
> I'm running SQL Server 2000 on a Windows 2003 SBS server. Much to my
> horror I notice that that the SQL data directory has permissions set
> for:
> Domain\Administrator (full accesss)
> Domain\Administrators (full accesss)
> Authenticated users (read,list, read). I guess this isn't a good idea
> at all!
> What are the optimum permissions here (I can't seem to get a straight
> answer). Do I set it for the SQL service to have full control only (at
> the moment MSSQLSERVER service is logging on using
> Domain\Administrator). Do I change this account? What about the other
> SQL Server related services? Please also note I am also using Backup
> Exec 9 to backup the databases.
> Any suggestions you may have will be greatly appreciated!
> Many thanks
> Alex
On my SQL Server 2000 database running on Windows 2003 standard server, the
permissions on the SQL data directory are just for Domain\Administrators,
full access. The MSSQLServer service is set to use the local system account.
If your authenticated users have access then you should be able to revoke
that without problem.
I don't know where Backup Exec fits into the picture - I don't use it - but
it shouldn't be backing up the files directly so it shouldn't need any
permissions on the folder.
Hope this is useful.
--
Brian Cryer
www.cryer.co.uk/brian|||Great, thanks for your help Brian...!
Alex
-->
Brian Cryer wrote:
> <postings@.alexshirley.com> wrote in message
> news:1133285607.162678.51170@.g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> On my SQL Server 2000 database running on Windows 2003 standard server, th
e
> permissions on the SQL data directory are just for Domain\Administrators,
> full access. The MSSQLServer service is set to use the local system accoun
t.
> If your authenticated users have access then you should be able to revoke
> that without problem.
> I don't know where Backup Exec fits into the picture - I don't use it - bu
t
> it shouldn't be backing up the files directly so it shouldn't need any
> permissions on the folder.
> Hope this is useful.
> --
> Brian Cryer
> www.cryer.co.uk/brian
I'm running SQL Server 2000 on a Windows 2003 SBS server. Much to my
horror I notice that that the SQL data directory has permissions set
for:
Domain\Administrator (full accesss)
Domain\Administrators (full accesss)
Authenticated users (read,list, read). I guess this isn't a good idea
at all!
What are the optimum permissions here (I can't seem to get a straight
answer). Do I set it for the SQL service to have full control only (at
the moment MSSQLSERVER service is logging on using
Domain\Administrator). Do I change this account? What about the other
SQL Server related services? Please also note I am also using Backup
Exec 9 to backup the databases.
Any suggestions you may have will be greatly appreciated!
Many thanks
Alex<postings@.alexshirley.com> wrote in message
news:1133285607.162678.51170@.g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Hi
> I'm running SQL Server 2000 on a Windows 2003 SBS server. Much to my
> horror I notice that that the SQL data directory has permissions set
> for:
> Domain\Administrator (full accesss)
> Domain\Administrators (full accesss)
> Authenticated users (read,list, read). I guess this isn't a good idea
> at all!
> What are the optimum permissions here (I can't seem to get a straight
> answer). Do I set it for the SQL service to have full control only (at
> the moment MSSQLSERVER service is logging on using
> Domain\Administrator). Do I change this account? What about the other
> SQL Server related services? Please also note I am also using Backup
> Exec 9 to backup the databases.
> Any suggestions you may have will be greatly appreciated!
> Many thanks
> Alex
On my SQL Server 2000 database running on Windows 2003 standard server, the
permissions on the SQL data directory are just for Domain\Administrators,
full access. The MSSQLServer service is set to use the local system account.
If your authenticated users have access then you should be able to revoke
that without problem.
I don't know where Backup Exec fits into the picture - I don't use it - but
it shouldn't be backing up the files directly so it shouldn't need any
permissions on the folder.
Hope this is useful.
--
Brian Cryer
www.cryer.co.uk/brian|||Great, thanks for your help Brian...!
Alex
-->
Brian Cryer wrote:
> <postings@.alexshirley.com> wrote in message
> news:1133285607.162678.51170@.g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> On my SQL Server 2000 database running on Windows 2003 standard server, th
e
> permissions on the SQL data directory are just for Domain\Administrators,
> full access. The MSSQLServer service is set to use the local system accoun
t.
> If your authenticated users have access then you should be able to revoke
> that without problem.
> I don't know where Backup Exec fits into the picture - I don't use it - bu
t
> it shouldn't be backing up the files directly so it shouldn't need any
> permissions on the folder.
> Hope this is useful.
> --
> Brian Cryer
> www.cryer.co.uk/brian
Dumb permissions question
Hi
I'm running SQL Server 2000 on a Windows 2003 SBS server. Much to my
horror I notice that that the SQL data directory has permissions set
for:
Domain\Administrator (full accesss)
Domain\Administrators (full accesss)
Authenticated users (read,list, read). I guess this isn't a good idea
at all!
What are the optimum permissions here (I can't seem to get a straight
answer). Do I set it for the SQL service to have full control only (at
the moment MSSQLSERVER service is logging on using
Domain\Administrator). Do I change this account? What about the other
SQL Server related services? Please also note I am also using Backup
Exec 9 to backup the databases.
Any suggestions you may have will be greatly appreciated!
Many thanks
Alex
<postings@.alexshirley.com> wrote in message
news:1133285607.162678.51170@.g14g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
> Hi
> I'm running SQL Server 2000 on a Windows 2003 SBS server. Much to my
> horror I notice that that the SQL data directory has permissions set
> for:
> Domain\Administrator (full accesss)
> Domain\Administrators (full accesss)
> Authenticated users (read,list, read). I guess this isn't a good idea
> at all!
> What are the optimum permissions here (I can't seem to get a straight
> answer). Do I set it for the SQL service to have full control only (at
> the moment MSSQLSERVER service is logging on using
> Domain\Administrator). Do I change this account? What about the other
> SQL Server related services? Please also note I am also using Backup
> Exec 9 to backup the databases.
> Any suggestions you may have will be greatly appreciated!
> Many thanks
> Alex
On my SQL Server 2000 database running on Windows 2003 standard server, the
permissions on the SQL data directory are just for Domain\Administrators,
full access. The MSSQLServer service is set to use the local system account.
If your authenticated users have access then you should be able to revoke
that without problem.
I don't know where Backup Exec fits into the picture - I don't use it - but
it shouldn't be backing up the files directly so it shouldn't need any
permissions on the folder.
Hope this is useful.
Brian Cryer
www.cryer.co.uk/brian
|||Great, thanks for your help Brian...!
Alex
-->
Brian Cryer wrote:
> <postings@.alexshirley.com> wrote in message
> news:1133285607.162678.51170@.g14g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
> On my SQL Server 2000 database running on Windows 2003 standard server, the
> permissions on the SQL data directory are just for Domain\Administrators,
> full access. The MSSQLServer service is set to use the local system account.
> If your authenticated users have access then you should be able to revoke
> that without problem.
> I don't know where Backup Exec fits into the picture - I don't use it - but
> it shouldn't be backing up the files directly so it shouldn't need any
> permissions on the folder.
> Hope this is useful.
> --
> Brian Cryer
> www.cryer.co.uk/brian
I'm running SQL Server 2000 on a Windows 2003 SBS server. Much to my
horror I notice that that the SQL data directory has permissions set
for:
Domain\Administrator (full accesss)
Domain\Administrators (full accesss)
Authenticated users (read,list, read). I guess this isn't a good idea
at all!
What are the optimum permissions here (I can't seem to get a straight
answer). Do I set it for the SQL service to have full control only (at
the moment MSSQLSERVER service is logging on using
Domain\Administrator). Do I change this account? What about the other
SQL Server related services? Please also note I am also using Backup
Exec 9 to backup the databases.
Any suggestions you may have will be greatly appreciated!
Many thanks
Alex
<postings@.alexshirley.com> wrote in message
news:1133285607.162678.51170@.g14g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
> Hi
> I'm running SQL Server 2000 on a Windows 2003 SBS server. Much to my
> horror I notice that that the SQL data directory has permissions set
> for:
> Domain\Administrator (full accesss)
> Domain\Administrators (full accesss)
> Authenticated users (read,list, read). I guess this isn't a good idea
> at all!
> What are the optimum permissions here (I can't seem to get a straight
> answer). Do I set it for the SQL service to have full control only (at
> the moment MSSQLSERVER service is logging on using
> Domain\Administrator). Do I change this account? What about the other
> SQL Server related services? Please also note I am also using Backup
> Exec 9 to backup the databases.
> Any suggestions you may have will be greatly appreciated!
> Many thanks
> Alex
On my SQL Server 2000 database running on Windows 2003 standard server, the
permissions on the SQL data directory are just for Domain\Administrators,
full access. The MSSQLServer service is set to use the local system account.
If your authenticated users have access then you should be able to revoke
that without problem.
I don't know where Backup Exec fits into the picture - I don't use it - but
it shouldn't be backing up the files directly so it shouldn't need any
permissions on the folder.
Hope this is useful.
Brian Cryer
www.cryer.co.uk/brian
|||Great, thanks for your help Brian...!
Alex
-->
Brian Cryer wrote:
> <postings@.alexshirley.com> wrote in message
> news:1133285607.162678.51170@.g14g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
> On my SQL Server 2000 database running on Windows 2003 standard server, the
> permissions on the SQL data directory are just for Domain\Administrators,
> full access. The MSSQLServer service is set to use the local system account.
> If your authenticated users have access then you should be able to revoke
> that without problem.
> I don't know where Backup Exec fits into the picture - I don't use it - but
> it shouldn't be backing up the files directly so it shouldn't need any
> permissions on the folder.
> Hope this is useful.
> --
> Brian Cryer
> www.cryer.co.uk/brian
Dumb permissions question
Hi
I'm running SQL Server 2000 on a Windows 2003 SBS server. Much to my
horror I notice that that the SQL data directory has permissions set
for:
Domain\Administrator (full accesss)
Domain\Administrators (full accesss)
Authenticated users (read,list, read). I guess this isn't a good idea
at all!
What are the optimum permissions here (I can't seem to get a straight
answer). Do I set it for the SQL service to have full control only (at
the moment MSSQLSERVER service is logging on using
Domain\Administrator). Do I change this account? What about the other
SQL Server related services? Please also note I am also using Backup
Exec 9 to backup the databases.
Any suggestions you may have will be greatly appreciated!
Many thanks
Alex<postings@.alexshirley.com> wrote in message
news:1133285607.162678.51170@.g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Hi
> I'm running SQL Server 2000 on a Windows 2003 SBS server. Much to my
> horror I notice that that the SQL data directory has permissions set
> for:
> Domain\Administrator (full accesss)
> Domain\Administrators (full accesss)
> Authenticated users (read,list, read). I guess this isn't a good idea
> at all!
> What are the optimum permissions here (I can't seem to get a straight
> answer). Do I set it for the SQL service to have full control only (at
> the moment MSSQLSERVER service is logging on using
> Domain\Administrator). Do I change this account? What about the other
> SQL Server related services? Please also note I am also using Backup
> Exec 9 to backup the databases.
> Any suggestions you may have will be greatly appreciated!
> Many thanks
> Alex
On my SQL Server 2000 database running on Windows 2003 standard server, the
permissions on the SQL data directory are just for Domain\Administrators,
full access. The MSSQLServer service is set to use the local system account.
If your authenticated users have access then you should be able to revoke
that without problem.
I don't know where Backup Exec fits into the picture - I don't use it - but
it shouldn't be backing up the files directly so it shouldn't need any
permissions on the folder.
Hope this is useful.
--
Brian Cryer
www.cryer.co.uk/brian|||Great, thanks for your help Brian...!
Alex
-->
Brian Cryer wrote:
> <postings@.alexshirley.com> wrote in message
> news:1133285607.162678.51170@.g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Hi
> >
> > I'm running SQL Server 2000 on a Windows 2003 SBS server. Much to my
> > horror I notice that that the SQL data directory has permissions set
> > for:
> > Domain\Administrator (full accesss)
> > Domain\Administrators (full accesss)
> > Authenticated users (read,list, read). I guess this isn't a good idea
> > at all!
> >
> > What are the optimum permissions here (I can't seem to get a straight
> > answer). Do I set it for the SQL service to have full control only (at
> > the moment MSSQLSERVER service is logging on using
> > Domain\Administrator). Do I change this account? What about the other
> > SQL Server related services? Please also note I am also using Backup
> > Exec 9 to backup the databases.
> >
> > Any suggestions you may have will be greatly appreciated!
> >
> > Many thanks
> >
> > Alex
> On my SQL Server 2000 database running on Windows 2003 standard server, the
> permissions on the SQL data directory are just for Domain\Administrators,
> full access. The MSSQLServer service is set to use the local system account.
> If your authenticated users have access then you should be able to revoke
> that without problem.
> I don't know where Backup Exec fits into the picture - I don't use it - but
> it shouldn't be backing up the files directly so it shouldn't need any
> permissions on the folder.
> Hope this is useful.
> --
> Brian Cryer
> www.cryer.co.uk/brian
I'm running SQL Server 2000 on a Windows 2003 SBS server. Much to my
horror I notice that that the SQL data directory has permissions set
for:
Domain\Administrator (full accesss)
Domain\Administrators (full accesss)
Authenticated users (read,list, read). I guess this isn't a good idea
at all!
What are the optimum permissions here (I can't seem to get a straight
answer). Do I set it for the SQL service to have full control only (at
the moment MSSQLSERVER service is logging on using
Domain\Administrator). Do I change this account? What about the other
SQL Server related services? Please also note I am also using Backup
Exec 9 to backup the databases.
Any suggestions you may have will be greatly appreciated!
Many thanks
Alex<postings@.alexshirley.com> wrote in message
news:1133285607.162678.51170@.g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Hi
> I'm running SQL Server 2000 on a Windows 2003 SBS server. Much to my
> horror I notice that that the SQL data directory has permissions set
> for:
> Domain\Administrator (full accesss)
> Domain\Administrators (full accesss)
> Authenticated users (read,list, read). I guess this isn't a good idea
> at all!
> What are the optimum permissions here (I can't seem to get a straight
> answer). Do I set it for the SQL service to have full control only (at
> the moment MSSQLSERVER service is logging on using
> Domain\Administrator). Do I change this account? What about the other
> SQL Server related services? Please also note I am also using Backup
> Exec 9 to backup the databases.
> Any suggestions you may have will be greatly appreciated!
> Many thanks
> Alex
On my SQL Server 2000 database running on Windows 2003 standard server, the
permissions on the SQL data directory are just for Domain\Administrators,
full access. The MSSQLServer service is set to use the local system account.
If your authenticated users have access then you should be able to revoke
that without problem.
I don't know where Backup Exec fits into the picture - I don't use it - but
it shouldn't be backing up the files directly so it shouldn't need any
permissions on the folder.
Hope this is useful.
--
Brian Cryer
www.cryer.co.uk/brian|||Great, thanks for your help Brian...!
Alex
-->
Brian Cryer wrote:
> <postings@.alexshirley.com> wrote in message
> news:1133285607.162678.51170@.g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Hi
> >
> > I'm running SQL Server 2000 on a Windows 2003 SBS server. Much to my
> > horror I notice that that the SQL data directory has permissions set
> > for:
> > Domain\Administrator (full accesss)
> > Domain\Administrators (full accesss)
> > Authenticated users (read,list, read). I guess this isn't a good idea
> > at all!
> >
> > What are the optimum permissions here (I can't seem to get a straight
> > answer). Do I set it for the SQL service to have full control only (at
> > the moment MSSQLSERVER service is logging on using
> > Domain\Administrator). Do I change this account? What about the other
> > SQL Server related services? Please also note I am also using Backup
> > Exec 9 to backup the databases.
> >
> > Any suggestions you may have will be greatly appreciated!
> >
> > Many thanks
> >
> > Alex
> On my SQL Server 2000 database running on Windows 2003 standard server, the
> permissions on the SQL data directory are just for Domain\Administrators,
> full access. The MSSQLServer service is set to use the local system account.
> If your authenticated users have access then you should be able to revoke
> that without problem.
> I don't know where Backup Exec fits into the picture - I don't use it - but
> it shouldn't be backing up the files directly so it shouldn't need any
> permissions on the folder.
> Hope this is useful.
> --
> Brian Cryer
> www.cryer.co.uk/brian
Dual Quad Core - CPU settings?
I have a IBM Dual Quad Core CPU system running SQL 2000 and all
SP/Updates. I'm seeing a log of blocking because of a vendors app that I
have no control over, causes the CPU Cores to run around 50% during the
extended periods of blocking. System is using 3.2GB of the 4GB (Windows
2003 Std, SQL 2000 Std CPU Licenses) and SQL is set to not use CPU Core
0 (actually, it was set to use all cores, but it has not made any
performance difference by not allowing access to Core 0 - this is a
Domain Controller and normally shows 3% load across all cores).
Should I limit the access to Cores to just 4-7 (second CPU) or just Core
0/4 and not the others, or should I just allow all cores?
Also, with Win 2003 Std and SQL 2000 Std (CPU licenses), should I be
using AWE or PAE modes? I'm currently setup for the default startup
mode.
Thanks - sorry for the ramble, been a long night.
--
Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@.rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)You really seem to have underpowered the system when it comes to memory
compared to CPU's. SQL 2000 Std edition can only use 2GB of memory and the
server only has 4GB total anyway. The server is obviously being used for
more than SQL if 3.2GB is being used. If you want more memory you need to
move to either Enterprise Edition of SQL Server or upgrade to 2005 Std. I
don't recall what Win2003 Std supports but I believe it is only 4GB so you
should consider upgrading that as well.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors
"Leythos" <void@.nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.21768b1c15ad1052989a7d@.adfree.Usenet.com...
>I have a IBM Dual Quad Core CPU system running SQL 2000 and all
> SP/Updates. I'm seeing a log of blocking because of a vendors app that I
> have no control over, causes the CPU Cores to run around 50% during the
> extended periods of blocking. System is using 3.2GB of the 4GB (Windows
> 2003 Std, SQL 2000 Std CPU Licenses) and SQL is set to not use CPU Core
> 0 (actually, it was set to use all cores, but it has not made any
> performance difference by not allowing access to Core 0 - this is a
> Domain Controller and normally shows 3% load across all cores).
> Should I limit the access to Cores to just 4-7 (second CPU) or just Core
> 0/4 and not the others, or should I just allow all cores?
> Also, with Win 2003 Std and SQL 2000 Std (CPU licenses), should I be
> using AWE or PAE modes? I'm currently setup for the default startup
> mode.
> Thanks - sorry for the ramble, been a long night.
>
> --
> Leythos
> - Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
> - Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
> drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
> spam999free@.rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)|||In article <OH#AjM1CIHA.1168@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>,
sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com says...
> You really seem to have underpowered the system when it comes to memory
> compared to CPU's. SQL 2000 Std edition can only use 2GB of memory and the
> server only has 4GB total anyway. The server is obviously being used for
> more than SQL if 3.2GB is being used. If you want more memory you need to
> move to either Enterprise Edition of SQL Server or upgrade to 2005 Std. I
> don't recall what Win2003 Std supports but I believe it is only 4GB so you
> should consider upgrading that as well.
Yea, I'm stuck - the database app vendor suggested a single CPU, and we
moved from a Dual Xeon 2Ghz machine to this Dual Quad Core system and
believed it would help.
I bought Sql 2005 and CPU licenses and then downgraded to SQL 2000
because the app didn't convert to 2005 (tried to do a restore and it
didn't go well - schema security screwed it).
So, I'm stuck with bad stored proc's and block each other, which is
where I'm sure the real issue lies, but I don't have rights/permission
to change the vendors code.
In the old days there was speculation that Hyper Threading cause the
system to run slower, but, in testing I was seeing about 30% increase
using HT enabled under Xeon CPU's on a quality server. So, I've got Dual
Quad Core CPU's now, and I don't have the option to play - so I was
wondering if I should be only using some cores or just the second CPU's
cores (instead of all 0-7 cores, use cores 4-7 so that I'm hitting just
the one CPU)...
What about AWE/PAE modes on Win 2003 Std with SQL 2000 Std?
--
Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@.rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)|||You should not have an issue with allowing SQL Server to use all the
available cores. But make sure to set the MAXDOP to something less than max.
I would start with 4 or maybe even 2. When you upgraded to 2005 did you try
the db in 80 compatibility mode? That can make a difference in app
compatibility or not. PAE is ignored on Win2003 Std and SQL2000 Std will
only ever use 2GB regardless of the OS. SQL2005 will use all that the OS can
offer.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors
"Leythos" <void@.nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.2176da90b52cdb30989a7f@.adfree.Usenet.com...
> In article <OH#AjM1CIHA.1168@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>,
> sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com says...
>> You really seem to have underpowered the system when it comes to memory
>> compared to CPU's. SQL 2000 Std edition can only use 2GB of memory and
>> the
>> server only has 4GB total anyway. The server is obviously being used for
>> more than SQL if 3.2GB is being used. If you want more memory you need to
>> move to either Enterprise Edition of SQL Server or upgrade to 2005 Std. I
>> don't recall what Win2003 Std supports but I believe it is only 4GB so
>> you
>> should consider upgrading that as well.
> Yea, I'm stuck - the database app vendor suggested a single CPU, and we
> moved from a Dual Xeon 2Ghz machine to this Dual Quad Core system and
> believed it would help.
> I bought Sql 2005 and CPU licenses and then downgraded to SQL 2000
> because the app didn't convert to 2005 (tried to do a restore and it
> didn't go well - schema security screwed it).
> So, I'm stuck with bad stored proc's and block each other, which is
> where I'm sure the real issue lies, but I don't have rights/permission
> to change the vendors code.
> In the old days there was speculation that Hyper Threading cause the
> system to run slower, but, in testing I was seeing about 30% increase
> using HT enabled under Xeon CPU's on a quality server. So, I've got Dual
> Quad Core CPU's now, and I don't have the option to play - so I was
> wondering if I should be only using some cores or just the second CPU's
> cores (instead of all 0-7 cores, use cores 4-7 so that I'm hitting just
> the one CPU)...
> What about AWE/PAE modes on Win 2003 Std with SQL 2000 Std?
> --
> Leythos
> - Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
> - Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
> drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
> spam999free@.rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)|||In article <egVTKn2CIHA.1208@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>,
sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com says...
> You should not have an issue with allowing SQL Server to use all the
> available cores. But make sure to set the MAXDOP to something less than max.
> I would start with 4 or maybe even 2.
I hate to sound ignorant, but MAXDOP?
> When you upgraded to 2005 did you try
> the db in 80 compatibility mode? That can make a difference in app
> compatibility or not.
Yes, all DB were in 80 mode, but, the dang schema permissions cause
massive problems. The same Vendors app installed native on 2005 didn't
have a problem and I've done a few of them that work fine, but the ones
we've moved from 2000 to 2005 all have schema permission problems.
> PAE is ignored on Win2003 Std and SQL2000 Std will
> only ever use 2GB regardless of the OS. SQL2005 will use all that the OS can
> offer.
Yea, that's what I thought, SQL Store is using 1.75GB currently. I could
try limiting it to 1.4GB to free up memory for the server itself, since
it's a AD controller. I can't believe that it needs more than 1GB for
the store when all of the blocking is based on a single sproc that is
being called 600+ times by 4 users, it's an update of some type, but I
have not looked directly at their code, just the blocking showing all
the time.
--
Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@.rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)|||As a note, I've set the Max Query Plan option to 3 from 5 and set max
memory from FULL to 1.4GB and CPU load has gone from 50% to 17% and
users are not reporting any loss of application performance - they are
not reporting any increase yet.
Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@.rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)|||MAXDOP stands for MAX Degree of Parallelism. Please refer to BooksOnLine
for more details. I don't know what schema permission issues you had but I
am willing to bet they were minor and had to do with the fact the logins,
users and schemas has mismatches. If it works from scratch it should work
with an upgrade. Have a look at these to see if they help:
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/columnists/cBunch/movingyouruserswiththeirdatabases.asp
Moving Users
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=246133 How To Transfer Logins and
Passwords Between SQL Servers
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=298897 Mapping Logins & SIDs after a
Restore
http://www.dbmaint.com/SyncSqlLogins.asp Utility to map logins to users
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=168001 User Logon and/or Permission
Errors After Restoring Dump
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=240872 How to Resolve Permission Issues
When a Database Is Moved Between SQL Servers
> Yea, that's what I thought, SQL Store is using 1.75GB currently. I could
> try limiting it to 1.4GB to free up memory for the server itself, since
> it's a AD controller.
You have at least 4GB right? SQL will only use 2GB max so why would you
want to limit it even more?
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors
"Leythos" <void@.nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.2176ed223bb957aa989a83@.adfree.Usenet.com...
> In article <egVTKn2CIHA.1208@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>,
> sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com says...
>> You should not have an issue with allowing SQL Server to use all the
>> available cores. But make sure to set the MAXDOP to something less than
>> max.
>> I would start with 4 or maybe even 2.
> I hate to sound ignorant, but MAXDOP?
>> When you upgraded to 2005 did you try
>> the db in 80 compatibility mode? That can make a difference in app
>> compatibility or not.
> Yes, all DB were in 80 mode, but, the dang schema permissions cause
> massive problems. The same Vendors app installed native on 2005 didn't
> have a problem and I've done a few of them that work fine, but the ones
> we've moved from 2000 to 2005 all have schema permission problems.
>> PAE is ignored on Win2003 Std and SQL2000 Std will
>> only ever use 2GB regardless of the OS. SQL2005 will use all that the OS
>> can
>> offer.
> Yea, that's what I thought, SQL Store is using 1.75GB currently. I could
> try limiting it to 1.4GB to free up memory for the server itself, since
> it's a AD controller. I can't believe that it needs more than 1GB for
> the store when all of the blocking is based on a single sproc that is
> being called 600+ times by 4 users, it's an update of some type, but I
> have not looked directly at their code, just the blocking showing all
> the time.
> --
> Leythos
> - Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
> - Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
> drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
> spam999free@.rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)|||In article <#M0PNZ3CIHA.4584@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl>,
sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com says...
> MAXDOP stands for MAX Degree of Parallelism. Please refer to BooksOnLine
> for more details. I don't know what schema permission issues you had but I
> am willing to bet they were minor and had to do with the fact the logins,
> users and schemas has mismatches. If it works from scratch it should work
> with an upgrade. Have a look at these to see if they help:
> http://www.sqlservercentral.com/columnists/cBunch/movingyouruserswiththeirdatabases.asp
> Moving Users
> http://support.microsoft.com/?id=246133 How To Transfer Logins and
> Passwords Between SQL Servers
> http://support.microsoft.com/?id=298897 Mapping Logins & SIDs after a
> Restore
> http://www.dbmaint.com/SyncSqlLogins.asp Utility to map logins to users
> http://support.microsoft.com/?id=168001 User Logon and/or Permission
> Errors After Restoring Dump
> http://support.microsoft.com/?id=240872 How to Resolve Permission Issues
> When a Database Is Moved Between SQL Servers
> > Yea, that's what I thought, SQL Store is using 1.75GB currently. I could
> > try limiting it to 1.4GB to free up memory for the server itself, since
> > it's a AD controller.
> You have at least 4GB right? SQL will only use 2GB max so why would you
> want to limit it even more?
Yes, IBM 3800 series with 4GB RAM and 4 additional used as fail-over
RAM. I've never seen the RAM in use exceed 3.3GB, in fact I've never
seen a Windows Std server use more than 3.3GB on anything.
I was worried about the 2GB limit for apps and wondered if allowing it
to run (auto) at 1.78GB left enough for the OS and server functions -
that's why I limited it to 1.4GB - this was a shotgun move (sorry, I
know it's not professional, but sometimes you have to just try
something).
--
Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@.rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)|||> Yes, IBM 3800 series with 4GB RAM and 4 additional used as fail-over
> RAM. I've never seen the RAM in use exceed 3.3GB, in fact I've never
> seen a Windows Std server use more than 3.3GB on anything.
Some motherboards or chipsets will not use all 4GB as you would expect. They
simply can't address 4GB or they will hide some of the memory to be used for
specific memory calls such as onboard video etc. I suspect that is what you
are seeing here and in reality you are using all the available memory. You
are most likely paging to disk a lot as well. I would find out what else
other than SQL Server is using the memory and see if you can address that.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors
"Leythos" <void@.nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.2176fd277dd6df39989a88@.adfree.Usenet.com...
> In article <#M0PNZ3CIHA.4584@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl>,
> sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com says...
>> MAXDOP stands for MAX Degree of Parallelism. Please refer to BooksOnLine
>> for more details. I don't know what schema permission issues you had but
>> I
>> am willing to bet they were minor and had to do with the fact the logins,
>> users and schemas has mismatches. If it works from scratch it should work
>> with an upgrade. Have a look at these to see if they help:
>> http://www.sqlservercentral.com/columnists/cBunch/movingyouruserswiththeirdatabases.asp
>> Moving Users
>> http://support.microsoft.com/?id=246133 How To Transfer Logins and
>> Passwords Between SQL Servers
>> http://support.microsoft.com/?id=298897 Mapping Logins & SIDs after a
>> Restore
>> http://www.dbmaint.com/SyncSqlLogins.asp Utility to map logins to
>> users
>> http://support.microsoft.com/?id=168001 User Logon and/or Permission
>> Errors After Restoring Dump
>> http://support.microsoft.com/?id=240872 How to Resolve Permission
>> Issues
>> When a Database Is Moved Between SQL Servers
>> > Yea, that's what I thought, SQL Store is using 1.75GB currently. I
>> > could
>> > try limiting it to 1.4GB to free up memory for the server itself, since
>> > it's a AD controller.
>> You have at least 4GB right? SQL will only use 2GB max so why would you
>> want to limit it even more?
> Yes, IBM 3800 series with 4GB RAM and 4 additional used as fail-over
> RAM. I've never seen the RAM in use exceed 3.3GB, in fact I've never
> seen a Windows Std server use more than 3.3GB on anything.
> I was worried about the 2GB limit for apps and wondered if allowing it
> to run (auto) at 1.78GB left enough for the OS and server functions -
> that's why I limited it to 1.4GB - this was a shotgun move (sorry, I
> know it's not professional, but sometimes you have to just try
> something).
> --
> Leythos
> - Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
> - Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
> drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
> spam999free@.rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)|||In article <MPG.21768b1c15ad1052989a7d@.adfree.Usenet.com>,
void@.nowhere.lan says...
> I have a IBM Dual Quad Core CPU system running SQL 2000 and all
> SP/Updates. I'm seeing a log of blocking because of a vendors app that I
> have no control over, causes the CPU Cores to run around 50% during the
> extended periods of blocking. System is using 3.2GB of the 4GB (Windows
> 2003 Std, SQL 2000 Std CPU Licenses) and SQL is set to not use CPU Core
> 0 (actually, it was set to use all cores, but it has not made any
> performance difference by not allowing access to Core 0 - this is a
> Domain Controller and normally shows 3% load across all cores).
> Should I limit the access to Cores to just 4-7 (second CPU) or just Core
> 0/4 and not the others, or should I just allow all cores?
> Also, with Win 2003 Std and SQL 2000 Std (CPU licenses), should I be
> using AWE or PAE modes? I'm currently setup for the default startup
> mode.
> Thanks - sorry for the ramble, been a long night.
Well, it's been a full day and I've found that changing the setting from
5 to 3 made all the difference in the world. So, a crappy coded Proc
(that I have no control over), caused massive blocking and now, it's
fine again.
I should point out that a typical back of this server took 6+ hours
normally, now it takes under 3 hours. Users have found a little
improvement in performance (DB App), but the server is no longer showing
a load and all functions are responsive.
--
Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@.rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)|||Something doesn't connect. Typically, if you see massive blocking, your CPU
consunption should go down because these processes are being blocked and are
not doing anything. And I'd expect to see CPU usage go up when you have
resolved blocking.
Linchi
"Leythos" wrote:
> As a note, I've set the Max Query Plan option to 3 from 5 and set max
> memory from FULL to 1.4GB and CPU load has gone from 50% to 17% and
> users are not reporting any loss of application performance - they are
> not reporting any increase yet.
>
> --
> Leythos
> - Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
> - Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
> drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
> spam999free@.rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
>|||In article <E7A06FE9-A2D7-433F-9DC4-9AF34EA25F2B@.microsoft.com>,
LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com says...
> Something doesn't connect. Typically, if you see massive blocking, your CPU
> consunption should go down because these processes are being blocked and are
> not doing anything. And I'd expect to see CPU usage go up when you have
> resolved blocking.
The same 600+ updates now don't consume CPU time and don't cause
blocking that I can see (at least not during production periods where it
was causing blocking).
So, it's just looking good now.
--
Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@.rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)|||What setting are you referring to that you changed from 5 to 3? As I have
said all along I think you have issues with MAXDOP and need to reduce the
parallelism.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors
"Leythos" <void@.nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.2176f66415ad1f61989a85@.adfree.Usenet.com...
> As a note, I've set the Max Query Plan option to 3 from 5 and set max
> memory from FULL to 1.4GB and CPU load has gone from 50% to 17% and
> users are not reporting any loss of application performance - they are
> not reporting any increase yet.
>
> --
> Leythos
> - Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
> - Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
> drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
> spam999free@.rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)|||In article <ObHjn3NDIHA.4360@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl>,
sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com says...
> What setting are you referring to that you changed from 5 to 3? As I have
> said all along I think you have issues with MAXDOP and need to reduce the
> parallelism.
Yea, this is SQL 2000, and the max query plan option was set for 5,
changing it to 3 cleaned up the lack of proper coding from the vendors
app.
Thanks.
--
Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@.rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)|||I don't have a 2000 instance to look at right now but I don't remember a
setting called that. Are you referring to the parallel query plan cost
option? If so then again I suggest you change the MAXDOP instead.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors
"Leythos" <void@.nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.2179ea0474b0e377989ac3@.adfree.Usenet.com...
> In article <ObHjn3NDIHA.4360@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl>,
> sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com says...
>> What setting are you referring to that you changed from 5 to 3? As I
>> have
>> said all along I think you have issues with MAXDOP and need to reduce the
>> parallelism.
> Yea, this is SQL 2000, and the max query plan option was set for 5,
> changing it to 3 cleaned up the lack of proper coding from the vendors
> app.
> Thanks.
> --
> Leythos
> - Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
> - Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
> drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
> spam999free@.rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)|||In article <#nSn#ZbDIHA.5980@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>,
sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com says...
> I don't have a 2000 instance to look at right now but I don't remember a
> setting called that. Are you referring to the parallel query plan cost
> option? If so then again I suggest you change the MAXDOP instead.
I've looked all around and only see MAXDOP in SQL 2005 and as a query
hint when the option is specified.
I do not have permission to edit any of the vendors code, so I've used
the Memory/CPU settings tabs to adjust what can be run in parallel.
If you have a setting, in SQL 2000, that applies to ALL proc's without
having to edit any of the code, just changing SQL settings, then I would
love to see it - thanks.
--
Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@.rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)|||MAXDOP is not a SQL2005 specific setting. It is there in 2000 as well. Again
I don't have an instance of 2000 so I am going from memory here but if you
right click on the server in EM and choose properties there should be a
Processor tab. On that tab there should be a dropdown box (I believe) to
choose the maximum number of processors that can be used in parallel. It
will be set to 0 by default. You can also change or see this in
sp_configure. It is the "max degree of parallelism" option. You can see more
details in BOL under max degree of parallelism. If you set it here it
affects everything on the server. You can also specify a hint at a statement
level but that is not what you want.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors
"Leythos" <void@.nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.217ac0fd1c33cfbc989ad6@.adfree.Usenet.com...
> In article <#nSn#ZbDIHA.5980@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>,
> sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com says...
>> I don't have a 2000 instance to look at right now but I don't remember a
>> setting called that. Are you referring to the parallel query plan cost
>> option? If so then again I suggest you change the MAXDOP instead.
> I've looked all around and only see MAXDOP in SQL 2005 and as a query
> hint when the option is specified.
> I do not have permission to edit any of the vendors code, so I've used
> the Memory/CPU settings tabs to adjust what can be run in parallel.
> If you have a setting, in SQL 2000, that applies to ALL proc's without
> having to edit any of the code, just changing SQL settings, then I would
> love to see it - thanks.
> --
> Leythos
> - Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
> - Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
> drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
> spam999free@.rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)|||In article <OxdtLgcDIHA.4752@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>,
sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com says...
> MAXDOP is not a SQL2005 specific setting. It is there in 2000 as well. Again
> I don't have an instance of 2000 so I am going from memory here but if you
> right click on the server in EM and choose properties there should be a
> Processor tab. On that tab there should be a dropdown box (I believe) to
> choose the maximum number of processors that can be used in parallel. It
> will be set to 0 by default. You can also change or see this in
> sp_configure. It is the "max degree of parallelism" option. You can see more
> details in BOL under max degree of parallelism. If you set it here it
> affects everything on the server. You can also specify a hint at a statement
> level but that is not what you want.
Thanks for your time - somehow I seem to have missed this when looking
in those areas. I will check again.
--
Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@.rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)|||Just a small point, the hint is MAXDOP but the configuration setting
is called "max degree of parallelism". If type that into the SQL
Server 2000 Books On Line index you will find more information.
Roy Harvey
Beacon Falls, CT
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 07:21:49 -0400, Leythos <void@.nowhere.lan> wrote:
>In article <OxdtLgcDIHA.4752@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>,
>sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com says...
>> MAXDOP is not a SQL2005 specific setting. It is there in 2000 as well. Again
>> I don't have an instance of 2000 so I am going from memory here but if you
>> right click on the server in EM and choose properties there should be a
>> Processor tab. On that tab there should be a dropdown box (I believe) to
>> choose the maximum number of processors that can be used in parallel. It
>> will be set to 0 by default. You can also change or see this in
>> sp_configure. It is the "max degree of parallelism" option. You can see more
>> details in BOL under max degree of parallelism. If you set it here it
>> affects everything on the server. You can also specify a hint at a statement
>> level but that is not what you want.
>Thanks for your time - somehow I seem to have missed this when looking
>in those areas. I will check again.
SP/Updates. I'm seeing a log of blocking because of a vendors app that I
have no control over, causes the CPU Cores to run around 50% during the
extended periods of blocking. System is using 3.2GB of the 4GB (Windows
2003 Std, SQL 2000 Std CPU Licenses) and SQL is set to not use CPU Core
0 (actually, it was set to use all cores, but it has not made any
performance difference by not allowing access to Core 0 - this is a
Domain Controller and normally shows 3% load across all cores).
Should I limit the access to Cores to just 4-7 (second CPU) or just Core
0/4 and not the others, or should I just allow all cores?
Also, with Win 2003 Std and SQL 2000 Std (CPU licenses), should I be
using AWE or PAE modes? I'm currently setup for the default startup
mode.
Thanks - sorry for the ramble, been a long night.
--
Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@.rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)You really seem to have underpowered the system when it comes to memory
compared to CPU's. SQL 2000 Std edition can only use 2GB of memory and the
server only has 4GB total anyway. The server is obviously being used for
more than SQL if 3.2GB is being used. If you want more memory you need to
move to either Enterprise Edition of SQL Server or upgrade to 2005 Std. I
don't recall what Win2003 Std supports but I believe it is only 4GB so you
should consider upgrading that as well.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors
"Leythos" <void@.nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.21768b1c15ad1052989a7d@.adfree.Usenet.com...
>I have a IBM Dual Quad Core CPU system running SQL 2000 and all
> SP/Updates. I'm seeing a log of blocking because of a vendors app that I
> have no control over, causes the CPU Cores to run around 50% during the
> extended periods of blocking. System is using 3.2GB of the 4GB (Windows
> 2003 Std, SQL 2000 Std CPU Licenses) and SQL is set to not use CPU Core
> 0 (actually, it was set to use all cores, but it has not made any
> performance difference by not allowing access to Core 0 - this is a
> Domain Controller and normally shows 3% load across all cores).
> Should I limit the access to Cores to just 4-7 (second CPU) or just Core
> 0/4 and not the others, or should I just allow all cores?
> Also, with Win 2003 Std and SQL 2000 Std (CPU licenses), should I be
> using AWE or PAE modes? I'm currently setup for the default startup
> mode.
> Thanks - sorry for the ramble, been a long night.
>
> --
> Leythos
> - Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
> - Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
> drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
> spam999free@.rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)|||In article <OH#AjM1CIHA.1168@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>,
sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com says...
> You really seem to have underpowered the system when it comes to memory
> compared to CPU's. SQL 2000 Std edition can only use 2GB of memory and the
> server only has 4GB total anyway. The server is obviously being used for
> more than SQL if 3.2GB is being used. If you want more memory you need to
> move to either Enterprise Edition of SQL Server or upgrade to 2005 Std. I
> don't recall what Win2003 Std supports but I believe it is only 4GB so you
> should consider upgrading that as well.
Yea, I'm stuck - the database app vendor suggested a single CPU, and we
moved from a Dual Xeon 2Ghz machine to this Dual Quad Core system and
believed it would help.
I bought Sql 2005 and CPU licenses and then downgraded to SQL 2000
because the app didn't convert to 2005 (tried to do a restore and it
didn't go well - schema security screwed it).
So, I'm stuck with bad stored proc's and block each other, which is
where I'm sure the real issue lies, but I don't have rights/permission
to change the vendors code.
In the old days there was speculation that Hyper Threading cause the
system to run slower, but, in testing I was seeing about 30% increase
using HT enabled under Xeon CPU's on a quality server. So, I've got Dual
Quad Core CPU's now, and I don't have the option to play - so I was
wondering if I should be only using some cores or just the second CPU's
cores (instead of all 0-7 cores, use cores 4-7 so that I'm hitting just
the one CPU)...
What about AWE/PAE modes on Win 2003 Std with SQL 2000 Std?
--
Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@.rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)|||You should not have an issue with allowing SQL Server to use all the
available cores. But make sure to set the MAXDOP to something less than max.
I would start with 4 or maybe even 2. When you upgraded to 2005 did you try
the db in 80 compatibility mode? That can make a difference in app
compatibility or not. PAE is ignored on Win2003 Std and SQL2000 Std will
only ever use 2GB regardless of the OS. SQL2005 will use all that the OS can
offer.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors
"Leythos" <void@.nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.2176da90b52cdb30989a7f@.adfree.Usenet.com...
> In article <OH#AjM1CIHA.1168@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>,
> sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com says...
>> You really seem to have underpowered the system when it comes to memory
>> compared to CPU's. SQL 2000 Std edition can only use 2GB of memory and
>> the
>> server only has 4GB total anyway. The server is obviously being used for
>> more than SQL if 3.2GB is being used. If you want more memory you need to
>> move to either Enterprise Edition of SQL Server or upgrade to 2005 Std. I
>> don't recall what Win2003 Std supports but I believe it is only 4GB so
>> you
>> should consider upgrading that as well.
> Yea, I'm stuck - the database app vendor suggested a single CPU, and we
> moved from a Dual Xeon 2Ghz machine to this Dual Quad Core system and
> believed it would help.
> I bought Sql 2005 and CPU licenses and then downgraded to SQL 2000
> because the app didn't convert to 2005 (tried to do a restore and it
> didn't go well - schema security screwed it).
> So, I'm stuck with bad stored proc's and block each other, which is
> where I'm sure the real issue lies, but I don't have rights/permission
> to change the vendors code.
> In the old days there was speculation that Hyper Threading cause the
> system to run slower, but, in testing I was seeing about 30% increase
> using HT enabled under Xeon CPU's on a quality server. So, I've got Dual
> Quad Core CPU's now, and I don't have the option to play - so I was
> wondering if I should be only using some cores or just the second CPU's
> cores (instead of all 0-7 cores, use cores 4-7 so that I'm hitting just
> the one CPU)...
> What about AWE/PAE modes on Win 2003 Std with SQL 2000 Std?
> --
> Leythos
> - Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
> - Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
> drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
> spam999free@.rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)|||In article <egVTKn2CIHA.1208@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>,
sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com says...
> You should not have an issue with allowing SQL Server to use all the
> available cores. But make sure to set the MAXDOP to something less than max.
> I would start with 4 or maybe even 2.
I hate to sound ignorant, but MAXDOP?
> When you upgraded to 2005 did you try
> the db in 80 compatibility mode? That can make a difference in app
> compatibility or not.
Yes, all DB were in 80 mode, but, the dang schema permissions cause
massive problems. The same Vendors app installed native on 2005 didn't
have a problem and I've done a few of them that work fine, but the ones
we've moved from 2000 to 2005 all have schema permission problems.
> PAE is ignored on Win2003 Std and SQL2000 Std will
> only ever use 2GB regardless of the OS. SQL2005 will use all that the OS can
> offer.
Yea, that's what I thought, SQL Store is using 1.75GB currently. I could
try limiting it to 1.4GB to free up memory for the server itself, since
it's a AD controller. I can't believe that it needs more than 1GB for
the store when all of the blocking is based on a single sproc that is
being called 600+ times by 4 users, it's an update of some type, but I
have not looked directly at their code, just the blocking showing all
the time.
--
Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@.rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)|||As a note, I've set the Max Query Plan option to 3 from 5 and set max
memory from FULL to 1.4GB and CPU load has gone from 50% to 17% and
users are not reporting any loss of application performance - they are
not reporting any increase yet.
Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@.rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)|||MAXDOP stands for MAX Degree of Parallelism. Please refer to BooksOnLine
for more details. I don't know what schema permission issues you had but I
am willing to bet they were minor and had to do with the fact the logins,
users and schemas has mismatches. If it works from scratch it should work
with an upgrade. Have a look at these to see if they help:
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/columnists/cBunch/movingyouruserswiththeirdatabases.asp
Moving Users
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=246133 How To Transfer Logins and
Passwords Between SQL Servers
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=298897 Mapping Logins & SIDs after a
Restore
http://www.dbmaint.com/SyncSqlLogins.asp Utility to map logins to users
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=168001 User Logon and/or Permission
Errors After Restoring Dump
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=240872 How to Resolve Permission Issues
When a Database Is Moved Between SQL Servers
> Yea, that's what I thought, SQL Store is using 1.75GB currently. I could
> try limiting it to 1.4GB to free up memory for the server itself, since
> it's a AD controller.
You have at least 4GB right? SQL will only use 2GB max so why would you
want to limit it even more?
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors
"Leythos" <void@.nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.2176ed223bb957aa989a83@.adfree.Usenet.com...
> In article <egVTKn2CIHA.1208@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>,
> sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com says...
>> You should not have an issue with allowing SQL Server to use all the
>> available cores. But make sure to set the MAXDOP to something less than
>> max.
>> I would start with 4 or maybe even 2.
> I hate to sound ignorant, but MAXDOP?
>> When you upgraded to 2005 did you try
>> the db in 80 compatibility mode? That can make a difference in app
>> compatibility or not.
> Yes, all DB were in 80 mode, but, the dang schema permissions cause
> massive problems. The same Vendors app installed native on 2005 didn't
> have a problem and I've done a few of them that work fine, but the ones
> we've moved from 2000 to 2005 all have schema permission problems.
>> PAE is ignored on Win2003 Std and SQL2000 Std will
>> only ever use 2GB regardless of the OS. SQL2005 will use all that the OS
>> can
>> offer.
> Yea, that's what I thought, SQL Store is using 1.75GB currently. I could
> try limiting it to 1.4GB to free up memory for the server itself, since
> it's a AD controller. I can't believe that it needs more than 1GB for
> the store when all of the blocking is based on a single sproc that is
> being called 600+ times by 4 users, it's an update of some type, but I
> have not looked directly at their code, just the blocking showing all
> the time.
> --
> Leythos
> - Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
> - Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
> drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
> spam999free@.rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)|||In article <#M0PNZ3CIHA.4584@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl>,
sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com says...
> MAXDOP stands for MAX Degree of Parallelism. Please refer to BooksOnLine
> for more details. I don't know what schema permission issues you had but I
> am willing to bet they were minor and had to do with the fact the logins,
> users and schemas has mismatches. If it works from scratch it should work
> with an upgrade. Have a look at these to see if they help:
> http://www.sqlservercentral.com/columnists/cBunch/movingyouruserswiththeirdatabases.asp
> Moving Users
> http://support.microsoft.com/?id=246133 How To Transfer Logins and
> Passwords Between SQL Servers
> http://support.microsoft.com/?id=298897 Mapping Logins & SIDs after a
> Restore
> http://www.dbmaint.com/SyncSqlLogins.asp Utility to map logins to users
> http://support.microsoft.com/?id=168001 User Logon and/or Permission
> Errors After Restoring Dump
> http://support.microsoft.com/?id=240872 How to Resolve Permission Issues
> When a Database Is Moved Between SQL Servers
> > Yea, that's what I thought, SQL Store is using 1.75GB currently. I could
> > try limiting it to 1.4GB to free up memory for the server itself, since
> > it's a AD controller.
> You have at least 4GB right? SQL will only use 2GB max so why would you
> want to limit it even more?
Yes, IBM 3800 series with 4GB RAM and 4 additional used as fail-over
RAM. I've never seen the RAM in use exceed 3.3GB, in fact I've never
seen a Windows Std server use more than 3.3GB on anything.
I was worried about the 2GB limit for apps and wondered if allowing it
to run (auto) at 1.78GB left enough for the OS and server functions -
that's why I limited it to 1.4GB - this was a shotgun move (sorry, I
know it's not professional, but sometimes you have to just try
something).
--
Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@.rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)|||> Yes, IBM 3800 series with 4GB RAM and 4 additional used as fail-over
> RAM. I've never seen the RAM in use exceed 3.3GB, in fact I've never
> seen a Windows Std server use more than 3.3GB on anything.
Some motherboards or chipsets will not use all 4GB as you would expect. They
simply can't address 4GB or they will hide some of the memory to be used for
specific memory calls such as onboard video etc. I suspect that is what you
are seeing here and in reality you are using all the available memory. You
are most likely paging to disk a lot as well. I would find out what else
other than SQL Server is using the memory and see if you can address that.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors
"Leythos" <void@.nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.2176fd277dd6df39989a88@.adfree.Usenet.com...
> In article <#M0PNZ3CIHA.4584@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl>,
> sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com says...
>> MAXDOP stands for MAX Degree of Parallelism. Please refer to BooksOnLine
>> for more details. I don't know what schema permission issues you had but
>> I
>> am willing to bet they were minor and had to do with the fact the logins,
>> users and schemas has mismatches. If it works from scratch it should work
>> with an upgrade. Have a look at these to see if they help:
>> http://www.sqlservercentral.com/columnists/cBunch/movingyouruserswiththeirdatabases.asp
>> Moving Users
>> http://support.microsoft.com/?id=246133 How To Transfer Logins and
>> Passwords Between SQL Servers
>> http://support.microsoft.com/?id=298897 Mapping Logins & SIDs after a
>> Restore
>> http://www.dbmaint.com/SyncSqlLogins.asp Utility to map logins to
>> users
>> http://support.microsoft.com/?id=168001 User Logon and/or Permission
>> Errors After Restoring Dump
>> http://support.microsoft.com/?id=240872 How to Resolve Permission
>> Issues
>> When a Database Is Moved Between SQL Servers
>> > Yea, that's what I thought, SQL Store is using 1.75GB currently. I
>> > could
>> > try limiting it to 1.4GB to free up memory for the server itself, since
>> > it's a AD controller.
>> You have at least 4GB right? SQL will only use 2GB max so why would you
>> want to limit it even more?
> Yes, IBM 3800 series with 4GB RAM and 4 additional used as fail-over
> RAM. I've never seen the RAM in use exceed 3.3GB, in fact I've never
> seen a Windows Std server use more than 3.3GB on anything.
> I was worried about the 2GB limit for apps and wondered if allowing it
> to run (auto) at 1.78GB left enough for the OS and server functions -
> that's why I limited it to 1.4GB - this was a shotgun move (sorry, I
> know it's not professional, but sometimes you have to just try
> something).
> --
> Leythos
> - Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
> - Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
> drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
> spam999free@.rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)|||In article <MPG.21768b1c15ad1052989a7d@.adfree.Usenet.com>,
void@.nowhere.lan says...
> I have a IBM Dual Quad Core CPU system running SQL 2000 and all
> SP/Updates. I'm seeing a log of blocking because of a vendors app that I
> have no control over, causes the CPU Cores to run around 50% during the
> extended periods of blocking. System is using 3.2GB of the 4GB (Windows
> 2003 Std, SQL 2000 Std CPU Licenses) and SQL is set to not use CPU Core
> 0 (actually, it was set to use all cores, but it has not made any
> performance difference by not allowing access to Core 0 - this is a
> Domain Controller and normally shows 3% load across all cores).
> Should I limit the access to Cores to just 4-7 (second CPU) or just Core
> 0/4 and not the others, or should I just allow all cores?
> Also, with Win 2003 Std and SQL 2000 Std (CPU licenses), should I be
> using AWE or PAE modes? I'm currently setup for the default startup
> mode.
> Thanks - sorry for the ramble, been a long night.
Well, it's been a full day and I've found that changing the setting from
5 to 3 made all the difference in the world. So, a crappy coded Proc
(that I have no control over), caused massive blocking and now, it's
fine again.
I should point out that a typical back of this server took 6+ hours
normally, now it takes under 3 hours. Users have found a little
improvement in performance (DB App), but the server is no longer showing
a load and all functions are responsive.
--
Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@.rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)|||Something doesn't connect. Typically, if you see massive blocking, your CPU
consunption should go down because these processes are being blocked and are
not doing anything. And I'd expect to see CPU usage go up when you have
resolved blocking.
Linchi
"Leythos" wrote:
> As a note, I've set the Max Query Plan option to 3 from 5 and set max
> memory from FULL to 1.4GB and CPU load has gone from 50% to 17% and
> users are not reporting any loss of application performance - they are
> not reporting any increase yet.
>
> --
> Leythos
> - Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
> - Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
> drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
> spam999free@.rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
>|||In article <E7A06FE9-A2D7-433F-9DC4-9AF34EA25F2B@.microsoft.com>,
LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com says...
> Something doesn't connect. Typically, if you see massive blocking, your CPU
> consunption should go down because these processes are being blocked and are
> not doing anything. And I'd expect to see CPU usage go up when you have
> resolved blocking.
The same 600+ updates now don't consume CPU time and don't cause
blocking that I can see (at least not during production periods where it
was causing blocking).
So, it's just looking good now.
--
Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@.rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)|||What setting are you referring to that you changed from 5 to 3? As I have
said all along I think you have issues with MAXDOP and need to reduce the
parallelism.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors
"Leythos" <void@.nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.2176f66415ad1f61989a85@.adfree.Usenet.com...
> As a note, I've set the Max Query Plan option to 3 from 5 and set max
> memory from FULL to 1.4GB and CPU load has gone from 50% to 17% and
> users are not reporting any loss of application performance - they are
> not reporting any increase yet.
>
> --
> Leythos
> - Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
> - Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
> drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
> spam999free@.rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)|||In article <ObHjn3NDIHA.4360@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl>,
sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com says...
> What setting are you referring to that you changed from 5 to 3? As I have
> said all along I think you have issues with MAXDOP and need to reduce the
> parallelism.
Yea, this is SQL 2000, and the max query plan option was set for 5,
changing it to 3 cleaned up the lack of proper coding from the vendors
app.
Thanks.
--
Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@.rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)|||I don't have a 2000 instance to look at right now but I don't remember a
setting called that. Are you referring to the parallel query plan cost
option? If so then again I suggest you change the MAXDOP instead.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors
"Leythos" <void@.nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.2179ea0474b0e377989ac3@.adfree.Usenet.com...
> In article <ObHjn3NDIHA.4360@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl>,
> sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com says...
>> What setting are you referring to that you changed from 5 to 3? As I
>> have
>> said all along I think you have issues with MAXDOP and need to reduce the
>> parallelism.
> Yea, this is SQL 2000, and the max query plan option was set for 5,
> changing it to 3 cleaned up the lack of proper coding from the vendors
> app.
> Thanks.
> --
> Leythos
> - Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
> - Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
> drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
> spam999free@.rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)|||In article <#nSn#ZbDIHA.5980@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>,
sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com says...
> I don't have a 2000 instance to look at right now but I don't remember a
> setting called that. Are you referring to the parallel query plan cost
> option? If so then again I suggest you change the MAXDOP instead.
I've looked all around and only see MAXDOP in SQL 2005 and as a query
hint when the option is specified.
I do not have permission to edit any of the vendors code, so I've used
the Memory/CPU settings tabs to adjust what can be run in parallel.
If you have a setting, in SQL 2000, that applies to ALL proc's without
having to edit any of the code, just changing SQL settings, then I would
love to see it - thanks.
--
Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@.rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)|||MAXDOP is not a SQL2005 specific setting. It is there in 2000 as well. Again
I don't have an instance of 2000 so I am going from memory here but if you
right click on the server in EM and choose properties there should be a
Processor tab. On that tab there should be a dropdown box (I believe) to
choose the maximum number of processors that can be used in parallel. It
will be set to 0 by default. You can also change or see this in
sp_configure. It is the "max degree of parallelism" option. You can see more
details in BOL under max degree of parallelism. If you set it here it
affects everything on the server. You can also specify a hint at a statement
level but that is not what you want.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors
"Leythos" <void@.nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.217ac0fd1c33cfbc989ad6@.adfree.Usenet.com...
> In article <#nSn#ZbDIHA.5980@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>,
> sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com says...
>> I don't have a 2000 instance to look at right now but I don't remember a
>> setting called that. Are you referring to the parallel query plan cost
>> option? If so then again I suggest you change the MAXDOP instead.
> I've looked all around and only see MAXDOP in SQL 2005 and as a query
> hint when the option is specified.
> I do not have permission to edit any of the vendors code, so I've used
> the Memory/CPU settings tabs to adjust what can be run in parallel.
> If you have a setting, in SQL 2000, that applies to ALL proc's without
> having to edit any of the code, just changing SQL settings, then I would
> love to see it - thanks.
> --
> Leythos
> - Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
> - Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
> drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
> spam999free@.rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)|||In article <OxdtLgcDIHA.4752@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>,
sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com says...
> MAXDOP is not a SQL2005 specific setting. It is there in 2000 as well. Again
> I don't have an instance of 2000 so I am going from memory here but if you
> right click on the server in EM and choose properties there should be a
> Processor tab. On that tab there should be a dropdown box (I believe) to
> choose the maximum number of processors that can be used in parallel. It
> will be set to 0 by default. You can also change or see this in
> sp_configure. It is the "max degree of parallelism" option. You can see more
> details in BOL under max degree of parallelism. If you set it here it
> affects everything on the server. You can also specify a hint at a statement
> level but that is not what you want.
Thanks for your time - somehow I seem to have missed this when looking
in those areas. I will check again.
--
Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@.rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)|||Just a small point, the hint is MAXDOP but the configuration setting
is called "max degree of parallelism". If type that into the SQL
Server 2000 Books On Line index you will find more information.
Roy Harvey
Beacon Falls, CT
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 07:21:49 -0400, Leythos <void@.nowhere.lan> wrote:
>In article <OxdtLgcDIHA.4752@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>,
>sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com says...
>> MAXDOP is not a SQL2005 specific setting. It is there in 2000 as well. Again
>> I don't have an instance of 2000 so I am going from memory here but if you
>> right click on the server in EM and choose properties there should be a
>> Processor tab. On that tab there should be a dropdown box (I believe) to
>> choose the maximum number of processors that can be used in parallel. It
>> will be set to 0 by default. You can also change or see this in
>> sp_configure. It is the "max degree of parallelism" option. You can see more
>> details in BOL under max degree of parallelism. If you set it here it
>> affects everything on the server. You can also specify a hint at a statement
>> level but that is not what you want.
>Thanks for your time - somehow I seem to have missed this when looking
>in those areas. I will check again.
Dual processors?
One of my customers just plugged in a second processor on a sql server 2000
running on a dell (dual Xeon at 2G). Does the simple fact of plugging in a
second processor increase the speed of sql server standard on that machine?
I'm not sure its that simple.
Any insight would be appreciated.
BobSQL will use the second processor, provided the OS accepts and uses it.
Whether that speeds up SQL depends on what resource is limiting SQL
performance. If the system was running over 80% CPU usage, he will likely
see some noticable speed improvement. As has been said before in this
forum, you first have to identify the performance limiting factor(s) I.E.
the bottlenecks, in your system before you can determine whether adding
resource X will make it faster. This applies whether X is memory, RAM, disk
capacity/speed, CPU speed/count, or network bandwidth.
--
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Bob" <bdufour@.sgiims.com> wrote in message
news:OASJaP0BGHA.1288@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> One of my customers just plugged in a second processor on a sql server
> 2000 running on a dell (dual Xeon at 2G). Does the simple fact of plugging
> in a second processor increase the speed of sql server standard on that
> machine? I'm not sure its that simple.
> Any insight would be appreciated.
> Bob
>|||On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 17:05:40 -0500, "Bob" <bdufour@.sgiims.com> wrote:
>One of my customers just plugged in a second processor on a sql server 2000
>running on a dell (dual Xeon at 2G). Does the simple fact of plugging in a
>second processor increase the speed of sql server standard on that machine?
>I'm not sure its that simple.
Did you say on the other thread that you are running Windows 2000?
Windows Server 2003 supports threads better and is probably better
overall for multiprocessor systems.
Josh|||Bob wrote:
> One of my customers just plugged in a second processor on a sql
> server 2000 running on a dell (dual Xeon at 2G). Does the simple fact
> of plugging in a second processor increase the speed of sql server
> standard on that machine? I'm not sure its that simple.
> Any insight would be appreciated.
> Bob
Not only should it increase speed, but it will require you puchase
another CPU license if you are using the CPU licensing model.
To be sure, check to make sure SQL Server is using both processors. You
can do this from the server properties in SQL EM.
David Gugick
Quest Software
www.imceda.com
www.quest.com
running on a dell (dual Xeon at 2G). Does the simple fact of plugging in a
second processor increase the speed of sql server standard on that machine?
I'm not sure its that simple.
Any insight would be appreciated.
BobSQL will use the second processor, provided the OS accepts and uses it.
Whether that speeds up SQL depends on what resource is limiting SQL
performance. If the system was running over 80% CPU usage, he will likely
see some noticable speed improvement. As has been said before in this
forum, you first have to identify the performance limiting factor(s) I.E.
the bottlenecks, in your system before you can determine whether adding
resource X will make it faster. This applies whether X is memory, RAM, disk
capacity/speed, CPU speed/count, or network bandwidth.
--
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Bob" <bdufour@.sgiims.com> wrote in message
news:OASJaP0BGHA.1288@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> One of my customers just plugged in a second processor on a sql server
> 2000 running on a dell (dual Xeon at 2G). Does the simple fact of plugging
> in a second processor increase the speed of sql server standard on that
> machine? I'm not sure its that simple.
> Any insight would be appreciated.
> Bob
>|||On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 17:05:40 -0500, "Bob" <bdufour@.sgiims.com> wrote:
>One of my customers just plugged in a second processor on a sql server 2000
>running on a dell (dual Xeon at 2G). Does the simple fact of plugging in a
>second processor increase the speed of sql server standard on that machine?
>I'm not sure its that simple.
Did you say on the other thread that you are running Windows 2000?
Windows Server 2003 supports threads better and is probably better
overall for multiprocessor systems.
Josh|||Bob wrote:
> One of my customers just plugged in a second processor on a sql
> server 2000 running on a dell (dual Xeon at 2G). Does the simple fact
> of plugging in a second processor increase the speed of sql server
> standard on that machine? I'm not sure its that simple.
> Any insight would be appreciated.
> Bob
Not only should it increase speed, but it will require you puchase
another CPU license if you are using the CPU licensing model.
To be sure, check to make sure SQL Server is using both processors. You
can do this from the server properties in SQL EM.
David Gugick
Quest Software
www.imceda.com
www.quest.com
Friday, March 9, 2012
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?
>
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?
>
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?
>
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?
>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)