Duplicated Admin Passwords need to be replaced with unique passwor

We need to change passwords for 4 replicating servers. To date, they've all
shared the same Administrator password and connect using NT authentication.
The servers now need to have unique passwords. 2 servers are members of the
same domain and the other two are members of seperate workgroups. What's the
most secure and efficient setup for replicating servers with unique
passwords? Create a unique administrator rights user on each server and set
SQL to start up as this user on each server and duplicate the user on the
other servers so authentication works? ...
Steven,
I assume you are referring to the agent startup logins? Typically you use a
domain login who is a local administrator - same account for the SQL Server
agent and SQL Server Service. If they are different on each server and
replication is using trusted security, have a look in BOL for the rights
required in replication for the SQL Server Agent in each part of your
topology ("replication, security"), and the entry required in the PAL.
HTH,
Paul Ibison

Dumb SQL 6.5 Question....

I have a mixed environment of mostly SQL 2000 server with a few (3?) SQL 6.5 servers (the ? is there because every now and again, I find a new, undocumented server hiding behind a firewall that some developer just happens to be having an issue with).

Can I install SQL 6.5 client tools alongside SQL 2000 client tools on the same server?

Regards,

hmscottClient tools for 6.5 will live happily with 2K, except in my situation I always had 6.5 already installed, and just added 2K. I am not sure if adding 2K to 6.5 tools would yield the same success.

Dual Nics problems with SQL 2000 Cluster

HI,
I have two Dell Servers(For high avaiablity each machines have three intel gigabit Networkcards,one for heatbeat,two for clients link) with a disk array.I have installed Windows2003 and setup the Cluster,it's worked well,then i installed sql server 2000 E
E on them through many articles(I created tow sql ip address because i have two nics on each servers).When one node fail,the resource can shift to another node,the sql service is still available.Ok,but when one switch of the two seperate network is down,t
he sql service is nolonger avaliable,there is no use for another network cards on each node? Is there any articles for sql server's installation for nodes with three nics?
Another problem is that it take about 3 min for sql resource such as sql ip address,sql network name,sql server etc to transmit from one node to another,obviously it's too long,but i can't solve it.
I hope I 1can describe the phenomenas and i need your help,thank you!
You could use NIC Teaming on the 2 common NICs. The two teamed NICs combine to present a third "NIC" to the o/s with a common IP Address. SQL Server sees this common IP and doesn't complain when either of the physical NICs or switches fails. As your NI
C vendor if they support teaming (you'll need some Teaming software).
|||If I set two networks,one is 172.20.1.*and the other is 172.20.2.*,then which network should I config for the third "NIC" for all clients(they all have two NICs) to link?
|||When 2 NICs are teamed, only one is in use at any one time. You don't set the IP Address of each NIC you set the single IP address of the resulting teamed "NIC". So, you could have say NIC1 and NIC2 as your physical NICs. Then team them and call the re
sult "Public Network Connection" (or something more useful) which would have the IP address "172...". When you set up clustering, the public network will be "Public Network Connection" rather than NIC1 or NIC2. Make sure you set "Public Network Connect
ion" as the highest priority in the network advanced=>advanced settings list.

Dual Log Shipping Restore Jobs

I have 2 SQL server 2000 servers, Server A, and Server B.
Server A is production. It has a log shipping restore job that updates the
database every half hour throughout the day automatically.
Server B is a reporting/test server, that has its log shipped restored
manually every 6 hours.
There is a job on Server A, that copies the transaction logs to a folder on
Server B every half hour.
We are manually restoring the transaction logs for Server B, that are copied
into this folder every 6 hours. So yeah, we have 6 hours worth of half hour t-
logs to restore every 6 hours.
I need to create a job, on server A, that will automatically restore the t-
log every 6 hours on Server B , AND keep its current half-hour log shipping
plan so we won't have to keep manually restoring the t-logs on Server B every
day?
So server A will continue to restore every half hour, and server b will be
restored with a big bulldog t-log file for the last 6 hours.
I hope that ws made clear.
Any insight would be wonderful, thanks in advance.
Message posted via droptable.com
http://www.droptable.com/Uwe/Forums...erver/200510/1
Just a thought, have you considered replication every 30 mintues or so
instead of immediate updating? (I assume you aren't doing this with
immediate updating due to the load or something like that).
Shawn Mason
Shawn Mason
Customer Support
http://www.visualonline.net
"Frank N via droptable.com" <u10790@.uwe> wrote in message
news:5687be0f857c0@.uwe...
>I have 2 SQL server 2000 servers, Server A, and Server B.
> Server A is production. It has a log shipping restore job that updates the
> database every half hour throughout the day automatically.
> Server B is a reporting/test server, that has its log shipped restored
> manually every 6 hours.
> There is a job on Server A, that copies the transaction logs to a folder
> on
> Server B every half hour.
> We are manually restoring the transaction logs for Server B, that are
> copied
> into this folder every 6 hours. So yeah, we have 6 hours worth of half
> hour t-
> logs to restore every 6 hours.
> I need to create a job, on server A, that will automatically restore the
> t-
> log every 6 hours on Server B , AND keep its current half-hour log
> shipping
> plan so we won't have to keep manually restoring the t-logs on Server B
> every
> day?
> So server A will continue to restore every half hour, and server b will be
> restored with a big bulldog t-log file for the last 6 hours.
> I hope that ws made clear.
> Any insight would be wonderful, thanks in advance.
>
> --
> Message posted via droptable.com
> http://www.droptable.com/Uwe/Forums...erver/200510/1

Dual Log Shipping Restore Jobs

I have 2 SQL server 2000 servers, Server A, and Server B.
Server A is production. It has a log shipping restore job that updates the
database every half hour throughout the day automatically.
Server B is a reporting/test server, that has its log shipped restored
manually every 6 hours.
There is a job on Server A, that copies the transaction logs to a folder on
Server B every half hour.
We are manually restoring the transaction logs for Server B, that are copie
d
into this folder every 6 hours. So yeah, we have 6 hours worth of half hour
t-
logs to restore every 6 hours.
I need to create a job, on server A, that will automatically restore the t-
log every 6 hours on Server B , AND keep its current half-hour log shipping
plan so we won't have to keep manually restoring the t-logs on Server B ever
y
day?
So server A will continue to restore every half hour, and server b will be
restored with a big bulldog t-log file for the last 6 hours.
I hope that ws made clear.
Any insight would be wonderful, thanks in advance.
Message posted via droptable.com
http://www.droptable.com/Uwe/Forums...server/200510/1Just a thought, have you considered replication every 30 mintues or so
instead of immediate updating? (I assume you aren't doing this with
immediate updating due to the load or something like that).
Shawn Mason
Shawn Mason
Customer Support
http://www.visualonline.net
"Frank N via droptable.com" <u10790@.uwe> wrote in message
news:5687be0f857c0@.uwe...
>I have 2 SQL server 2000 servers, Server A, and Server B.
> Server A is production. It has a log shipping restore job that updates the
> database every half hour throughout the day automatically.
> Server B is a reporting/test server, that has its log shipped restored
> manually every 6 hours.
> There is a job on Server A, that copies the transaction logs to a folder
> on
> Server B every half hour.
> We are manually restoring the transaction logs for Server B, that are
> copied
> into this folder every 6 hours. So yeah, we have 6 hours worth of half
> hour t-
> logs to restore every 6 hours.
> I need to create a job, on server A, that will automatically restore the
> t-
> log every 6 hours on Server B , AND keep its current half-hour log
> shipping
> plan so we won't have to keep manually restoring the t-logs on Server B
> every
> day?
> So server A will continue to restore every half hour, and server b will be
> restored with a big bulldog t-log file for the last 6 hours.
> I hope that ws made clear.
> Any insight would be wonderful, thanks in advance.
>
> --
> Message posted via droptable.com
> http://www.droptable.com/Uwe/Forum...server/200510/1

Dual Log Shipping Restore Jobs

I have 2 SQL server 2000 servers, Server A, and Server B.
Server A is production. It has a log shipping restore job that updates the
database every half hour throughout the day automatically.
Server B is a reporting/test server, that has its log shipped restored
manually every 6 hours.
There is a job on Server A, that copies the transaction logs to a folder on
Server B every half hour.
We are manually restoring the transaction logs for Server B, that are copied
into this folder every 6 hours. So yeah, we have 6 hours worth of half hour t-
logs to restore every 6 hours.
I need to create a job, on server A, that will automatically restore the t-
log every 6 hours on Server B , AND keep its current half-hour log shipping
plan so we won't have to keep manually restoring the t-logs on Server B every
day?
So server A will continue to restore every half hour, and server b will be
restored with a big bulldog t-log file for the last 6 hours.
I hope that ws made clear.
Any insight would be wonderful, thanks in advance.
--
Message posted via SQLMonster.com
http://www.sqlmonster.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/sql-server/200510/1Just a thought, have you considered replication every 30 mintues or so
instead of immediate updating? (I assume you aren't doing this with
immediate updating due to the load or something like that).
Shawn Mason
--
Shawn Mason
Customer Support
http://www.visualonline.net
"Frank N via SQLMonster.com" <u10790@.uwe> wrote in message
news:5687be0f857c0@.uwe...
>I have 2 SQL server 2000 servers, Server A, and Server B.
> Server A is production. It has a log shipping restore job that updates the
> database every half hour throughout the day automatically.
> Server B is a reporting/test server, that has its log shipped restored
> manually every 6 hours.
> There is a job on Server A, that copies the transaction logs to a folder
> on
> Server B every half hour.
> We are manually restoring the transaction logs for Server B, that are
> copied
> into this folder every 6 hours. So yeah, we have 6 hours worth of half
> hour t-
> logs to restore every 6 hours.
> I need to create a job, on server A, that will automatically restore the
> t-
> log every 6 hours on Server B , AND keep its current half-hour log
> shipping
> plan so we won't have to keep manually restoring the t-logs on Server B
> every
> day?
> So server A will continue to restore every half hour, and server b will be
> restored with a big bulldog t-log file for the last 6 hours.
> I hope that ws made clear.
> Any insight would be wonderful, thanks in advance.
>
> --
> Message posted via SQLMonster.com
> http://www.sqlmonster.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/sql-server/200510/1

Dual Core Processor

We are in process of moving to 64 bit HP servers with sql2005 standard
edition. We were just wondering which is better option, to get a server with
2 dual core processor or to get a srver with just 4 processor? How does
SQL2005 handle the hypertheading of dual processor?
Thanks,
CarlosDual core processors and hyperthreaded processors are totally different
things. Hyperthreading actually adds a "virtual" core, and is not leveraged
very well by SQL Server. Multicore processors, on the other hand, actually
behave like multiple processors -- two cores gives you two processors worth
of power. The great thing in terms of SQL Server licensing is that you only
need to pay per socket, rather than per core. So buying two dual core
processors will save you a substantial amount of money over buying four
single-core processors. And now you can buy quad-core processors, so why
not just get ONE of those?
Adam Machanic
SQL Server MVP - http://sqlblog.com
Author, "Expert SQL Server 2005 Development"
http://www.apress.com/book/bookDisplay.html?bID=10220
"Carlos" <carlosarango@.SQLserver.com> wrote in message
news:EB6E4323-8944-476E-A01B-D85B158BBB3F@.microsoft.com...
> We are in process of moving to 64 bit HP servers with sql2005 standard
> edition. We were just wondering which is better option, to get a server
> with
> 2 dual core processor or to get a srver with just 4 processor? How does
> SQL2005 handle the hypertheading of dual processor?
> Thanks,
> Carlos|||Thanks Adam, that makes sense
"Adam Machanic" wrote:
> Dual core processors and hyperthreaded processors are totally different
> things. Hyperthreading actually adds a "virtual" core, and is not leveraged
> very well by SQL Server. Multicore processors, on the other hand, actually
> behave like multiple processors -- two cores gives you two processors worth
> of power. The great thing in terms of SQL Server licensing is that you only
> need to pay per socket, rather than per core. So buying two dual core
> processors will save you a substantial amount of money over buying four
> single-core processors. And now you can buy quad-core processors, so why
> not just get ONE of those?
>
> --
> Adam Machanic
> SQL Server MVP - http://sqlblog.com
> Author, "Expert SQL Server 2005 Development"
> http://www.apress.com/book/bookDisplay.html?bID=10220
>
> "Carlos" <carlosarango@.SQLserver.com> wrote in message
> news:EB6E4323-8944-476E-A01B-D85B158BBB3F@.microsoft.com...
> > We are in process of moving to 64 bit HP servers with sql2005 standard
> > edition. We were just wondering which is better option, to get a server
> > with
> > 2 dual core processor or to get a srver with just 4 processor? How does
> > SQL2005 handle the hypertheading of dual processor?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Carlos
>

Dual Core Processor

We are in process of moving to 64 bit HP servers with sql2005 standard edition. We were just wondering which is better option, to get a server with 2 dual core processor or to get a srver with just 4 processor? How does SQL2005 handle the hypertheading of dual processor?

Thanks,

CarlosWe are in process of moving to 64 bit HP servers with sql2005 standard edition. We were just wondering which is better option, to get a server with 2 dual core processor or to get a srver with just 4 processor? How does SQL2005 handle the hypertheading of dual processor?

Thanks,

Carlos
How about a Quad processor?

First; it will reduce the load on the mother board's Memory Bus. AMD's data-sheet on 4-core mention that "competitors" (Intel) behave more like two duo-core processors on the same backplane, but I'm not sure how far that goes but it implies that performance wise (at the hardware layer) that Intel 2-Core is similar to two 2-Core processors.

Second; Microsoft only counts it as a single CPU. So; anything licensed (from MS) by CPU will save substantially on licensing fees.

I don't have the link, so here's the quote:

SQL Server Multicore Licensing Policy
Published: August 1, 2005

Multicore processors, which consist of multiple processing execution
units or "cores" on one chip, promise to boost computing power, allowing
servers, workstations, and PCs to perform more functions simultaneously.
By the end of 2006, Intel expects more than 80 percent of its server
products to be shipping with multicore technology. Because most
server-side software is licensed "per processor," it has caused
confusion among some software vendors regarding whether to charge their
customers "per processor" or "per core."

Microsoft has been driving thought leadership in this area by charging
the same amount per processor, regardless of how many cores are in the
processor. Microsoft was the first database vendor to make this
announcement, in October of 2004, and continues to be the only vendor to
date that has taken this position. This strategy is based on the belief
that multicore processors are a natural extension of Moore's Law (that
the number of transistors on a chip doubles about every one to two
years), and that the benefits should be passed on directly to customers.

For example, if you are using SQL Server Enterprise Edition on a
four-processor server with dual-core processors, using all eight cores
(two cores x four processors), you will require only four processor
licenses. That can mean substantial savings for customers of Microsoft
compared to its competitors.

Dual Core Processor

We are in process of moving to 64 bit HP servers with sql2005 standard
edition. We were just wondering which is better option, to get a server with
2 dual core processor or to get a srver with just 4 processor? How does
SQL2005 handle the hypertheading of dual processor?
Thanks,
Carlos
Dual core processors and hyperthreaded processors are totally different
things. Hyperthreading actually adds a "virtual" core, and is not leveraged
very well by SQL Server. Multicore processors, on the other hand, actually
behave like multiple processors -- two cores gives you two processors worth
of power. The great thing in terms of SQL Server licensing is that you only
need to pay per socket, rather than per core. So buying two dual core
processors will save you a substantial amount of money over buying four
single-core processors. And now you can buy quad-core processors, so why
not just get ONE of those?

Adam Machanic
SQL Server MVP - http://sqlblog.com
Author, "Expert SQL Server 2005 Development"
http://www.apress.com/book/bookDisplay.html?bID=10220
"Carlos" <carlosarango@.SQLserver.com> wrote in message
news:EB6E4323-8944-476E-A01B-D85B158BBB3F@.microsoft.com...
> We are in process of moving to 64 bit HP servers with sql2005 standard
> edition. We were just wondering which is better option, to get a server
> with
> 2 dual core processor or to get a srver with just 4 processor? How does
> SQL2005 handle the hypertheading of dual processor?
> Thanks,
> Carlos
|||Thanks Adam, that makes sense
"Adam Machanic" wrote:

> Dual core processors and hyperthreaded processors are totally different
> things. Hyperthreading actually adds a "virtual" core, and is not leveraged
> very well by SQL Server. Multicore processors, on the other hand, actually
> behave like multiple processors -- two cores gives you two processors worth
> of power. The great thing in terms of SQL Server licensing is that you only
> need to pay per socket, rather than per core. So buying two dual core
> processors will save you a substantial amount of money over buying four
> single-core processors. And now you can buy quad-core processors, so why
> not just get ONE of those?
>
> --
> Adam Machanic
> SQL Server MVP - http://sqlblog.com
> Author, "Expert SQL Server 2005 Development"
> http://www.apress.com/book/bookDisplay.html?bID=10220
>
> "Carlos" <carlosarango@.SQLserver.com> wrote in message
> news:EB6E4323-8944-476E-A01B-D85B158BBB3F@.microsoft.com...
>

Dual Core Processor

We are in process of moving to 64 bit HP servers with sql2005 standard
edition. We were just wondering which is better option, to get a server with
2 dual core processor or to get a srver with just 4 processor? How does
SQL2005 handle the hypertheading of dual processor?
Thanks,
CarlosDual core processors and hyperthreaded processors are totally different
things. Hyperthreading actually adds a "virtual" core, and is not leveraged
very well by SQL Server. Multicore processors, on the other hand, actually
behave like multiple processors -- two cores gives you two processors worth
of power. The great thing in terms of SQL Server licensing is that you only
need to pay per socket, rather than per core. So buying two dual core
processors will save you a substantial amount of money over buying four
single-core processors. And now you can buy quad-core processors, so why
not just get ONE of those?
Adam Machanic
SQL Server MVP - http://sqlblog.com
Author, "Expert SQL Server 2005 Development"
http://www.apress.com/book/bookDisplay.html?bID=10220
"Carlos" <carlosarango@.SQLserver.com> wrote in message
news:EB6E4323-8944-476E-A01B-D85B158BBB3F@.microsoft.com...
> We are in process of moving to 64 bit HP servers with sql2005 standard
> edition. We were just wondering which is better option, to get a server
> with
> 2 dual core processor or to get a srver with just 4 processor? How does
> SQL2005 handle the hypertheading of dual processor?
> Thanks,
> Carlos|||Thanks Adam, that makes sense
"Adam Machanic" wrote:

> Dual core processors and hyperthreaded processors are totally different
> things. Hyperthreading actually adds a "virtual" core, and is not leverag
ed
> very well by SQL Server. Multicore processors, on the other hand, actuall
y
> behave like multiple processors -- two cores gives you two processors wort
h
> of power. The great thing in terms of SQL Server licensing is that you on
ly
> need to pay per socket, rather than per core. So buying two dual core
> processors will save you a substantial amount of money over buying four
> single-core processors. And now you can buy quad-core processors, so why
> not just get ONE of those?
>
> --
> Adam Machanic
> SQL Server MVP - http://sqlblog.com
> Author, "Expert SQL Server 2005 Development"
> http://www.apress.com/book/bookDisplay.html?bID=10220
>
> "Carlos" <carlosarango@.SQLserver.com> wrote in message
> news:EB6E4323-8944-476E-A01B-D85B158BBB3F@.microsoft.com...
>

Dual Core CPUs and SQL Server 2000

I need to configure and purchase two new servers running SQL 2000 Enterprise
Edition on Windows 2003 Enterprise Edition each equipped with 2 processors.
I'm wondering if anyone has experience with or knowledge of using dual core
Intel Xeon Processors with SQL Server, and if there are definite improvements
over single core higher clocked processors. I'm trying to decide whether to
configure the servers with two 2.8Ghz Dual Core Xeon processors or two 3.4Ghz
single core processors.
Thanks.
Hi
You may want to read this
http://www.sql-server-performance.com/jc_processor.asp although not
specifically about dual core I would expect dual core to be the akin to using
more than one processor.
John
"Marks70" wrote:

> I need to configure and purchase two new servers running SQL 2000 Enterprise
> Edition on Windows 2003 Enterprise Edition each equipped with 2 processors.
> I'm wondering if anyone has experience with or knowledge of using dual core
> Intel Xeon Processors with SQL Server, and if there are definite improvements
> over single core higher clocked processors. I'm trying to decide whether to
> configure the servers with two 2.8Ghz Dual Core Xeon processors or two 3.4Ghz
> single core processors.
> Thanks.

Dual Core CPUs and SQL Server 2000

I need to configure and purchase two new servers running SQL 2000 Enterprise
Edition on Windows 2003 Enterprise Edition each equipped with 2 processors.
I'm wondering if anyone has experience with or knowledge of using dual core
Intel Xeon Processors with SQL Server, and if there are definite improvements
over single core higher clocked processors. I'm trying to decide whether to
configure the servers with two 2.8Ghz Dual Core Xeon processors or two 3.4Ghz
single core processors.
Thanks.Hi
You may want to read this
http://www.sql-server-performance.com/jc_processor.asp although not
specifically about dual core I would expect dual core to be the akin to using
more than one processor.
John
"Marks70" wrote:
> I need to configure and purchase two new servers running SQL 2000 Enterprise
> Edition on Windows 2003 Enterprise Edition each equipped with 2 processors.
> I'm wondering if anyone has experience with or knowledge of using dual core
> Intel Xeon Processors with SQL Server, and if there are definite improvements
> over single core higher clocked processors. I'm trying to decide whether to
> configure the servers with two 2.8Ghz Dual Core Xeon processors or two 3.4Ghz
> single core processors.
> Thanks.

Dual Core CPUs and SQL Server 2000

I need to configure and purchase two new servers running SQL 2000 Enterprise
Edition on Windows 2003 Enterprise Edition each equipped with 2 processors.
I'm wondering if anyone has experience with or knowledge of using dual core
Intel Xeon Processors with SQL Server, and if there are definite improvement
s
over single core higher clocked processors. I'm trying to decide whether to
configure the servers with two 2.8Ghz Dual Core Xeon processors or two 3.4Gh
z
single core processors.
Thanks.Hi
You may want to read this
http://www.sql-server-performance.com/jc_processor.asp although not
specifically about dual core I would expect dual core to be the akin to usin
g
more than one processor.
John
"Marks70" wrote:

> I need to configure and purchase two new servers running SQL 2000 Enterpri
se
> Edition on Windows 2003 Enterprise Edition each equipped with 2 processors
.
> I'm wondering if anyone has experience with or knowledge of using dual cor
e
> Intel Xeon Processors with SQL Server, and if there are definite improveme
nts
> over single core higher clocked processors. I'm trying to decide whether t
o
> configure the servers with two 2.8Ghz Dual Core Xeon processors or two 3.4
Ghz
> single core processors.
> Thanks.

DTS: migrating many, multiple, new databases regularly

I am looking for some advice on best ways to use DTS between our various test database servers.

I need to test an application against MS SQL Server 2000/2005 and Oracle 9i/10g. This includes creating new databases,logins etc on each server. And also means I need to recreate all my test data again at least twice; on Oracle and MS SQL Server(i.e I can backup and restore my databases between MS SQL and Oracle versions). I am looking to for a better way to achieve this and am here looking for some advice on the best way.

DTS (tried only on MS SQL 2000 so far) does seem to help however, one problem I have come across is mapping tables. The application creates little over 200 tables, although the schema remains over all remains identical, but with slight differences. E.g different name formats. For instance. a table on SQL2000 is called "Table" whereas Oracle calls is "TABLE". This means, on the DTS wizard I need to drop down and select the correct table name for each table.

What could be other possible and efficient ways to achieve this? Also, I need to do this for around 10 multiple databases and not just one database. I will also need to be doing this frequently, if not regularly as I will be creating new test databases and test data.

Any inputs will be appreciated. Thank you.

i think DTS or SSIS of sql server 2005 (the true ETL Tool with much more advanced features than DTS) can handle this problem. If you want to create your own automated script then you can configure LinkedServer from your staging server and fetch the data.

Madhu

|||Thanks for the reply Madhu.

I am quite inexperienced and still learning a lot of things. I have only used DTS a few times. SSIS? Havent really heard of it before!
If I was to use DTS to transfer data from my MS SQL200 database to Oracle 9i/10g and SQL2005, what would be an easy way to map these 200 tables rather than going and selecting the correct table from destination database?

Thanks once again.|||

if DTS is the ETL tool of SQL Server 2000 , SSIS is enhanced , Feature rich ETL tool in SQL Server 2005. Here only name is not changed, there are lot of enhancement as far as the features are concerned. If you wnat to transfer the data from SQL Server 2000 to 2005 then you must create SSIS not DTS. I am not sure about transporing to oracle. But you can configure Linkedserver to oracle/sql server and you can create synonyms in sql server 2005 which will be as good as you are accessing the object from your own database.

Madhu

|||

N

There is alot information available on the SQL Server books online about SSIS,make sure you have downloaded the latest update from Microsoft.

Look at this blog http://sqljunkies.com/WebLog/donald_farmer/archive/2005/03/13/8819.aspx that helps.

http://www.developer.com/db/article.php/3635316

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/aa336312.aspx

|||Thanks again Madhu.
This is useful. However, just as I mentioned in my previous post
-I purely need to copy the test data from my 200 tables that the application has created to or fro Oracle server/SQL Server; as the requirement is for
-copying many such databases and not just one database
-the application should be able to run independently on each server. as we not not bother about the server, we need a solution so that we do not need to create test data twice on each database SQL and Oracle databases.
-this is going to again be regular thing that I should be able to do as I will need to create new type of test data move it to other type of server (may it be Oracle or SQL) and test the application on both these databases.
Secondly, I have tried DTS - and what I need is a way to be able to map the tables. The wizard does not recognize the same table names with different cases. like A_Table and A_TABLE(oracle's table)|||Satya, Thanks for the links. They look very useful.

DTS/ SQL Agent question

We're having to install new SQL servers on a new naming convention. We
know the changes we have to make on the applications that hit the SQL boxes.
However, we are not sure what DTS or SQL Agent jobs would need to be
changed.
Is there a way that we can search the DTS & SQL Agent jobs for a literal
that would refer to our old SQL server name and could identify & change
it to run on the new one?
Or,
is there a way to pass a parameter into the DTS or the Agent jobs that
would point them to the new server?
We're running Windows 2000, SQL 2000. We'll be moving to Windows 2003
and SQL 2000.
Any ideas appreciated.
Thanks,
BCFor the agent jobs, you can script them out and search through the SQL that
is created. For DTS, you could probably save it as a VB file and search
through that.
Hope this helps!
Chuck Heinzelman
MCSD, MCDBA
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server (www.sqlpass.org)
This posting is not an endoresment of any product.
Information is provided as-is, and carries no warranties - either express or
implied.
Please respond in newsgroups only.
"Blasting Cap" <goober@.christian.net> wrote in message
news:OtNNUaXaGHA.4780@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> We're having to install new SQL servers on a new naming convention. We
> know the changes we have to make on the applications that hit the SQL
> boxes.
> However, we are not sure what DTS or SQL Agent jobs would need to be
> changed.
> Is there a way that we can search the DTS & SQL Agent jobs for a literal
> that would refer to our old SQL server name and could identify & change it
> to run on the new one?
> Or,
> is there a way to pass a parameter into the DTS or the Agent jobs that
> would point them to the new server?
> We're running Windows 2000, SQL 2000. We'll be moving to Windows 2003 and
> SQL 2000.
> Any ideas appreciated.
> Thanks,
> BC

DTS/ SQL Agent question

We're having to install new SQL servers on a new naming convention. We
know the changes we have to make on the applications that hit the SQL boxes.
However, we are not sure what DTS or SQL Agent jobs would need to be
changed.
Is there a way that we can search the DTS & SQL Agent jobs for a literal
that would refer to our old SQL server name and could identify & change
it to run on the new one?
Or,
is there a way to pass a parameter into the DTS or the Agent jobs that
would point them to the new server?
We're running Windows 2000, SQL 2000. We'll be moving to Windows 2003
and SQL 2000.
Any ideas appreciated.
Thanks,
BCFor the agent jobs, you can script them out and search through the SQL that
is created. For DTS, you could probably save it as a VB file and search
through that.
Hope this helps!
Chuck Heinzelman
MCSD, MCDBA
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server (www.sqlpass.org)
This posting is not an endoresment of any product.
Information is provided as-is, and carries no warranties - either express or
implied.
Please respond in newsgroups only.
"Blasting Cap" <goober@.christian.net> wrote in message
news:OtNNUaXaGHA.4780@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> We're having to install new SQL servers on a new naming convention. We
> know the changes we have to make on the applications that hit the SQL
> boxes.
> However, we are not sure what DTS or SQL Agent jobs would need to be
> changed.
> Is there a way that we can search the DTS & SQL Agent jobs for a literal
> that would refer to our old SQL server name and could identify & change it
> to run on the new one?
> Or,
> is there a way to pass a parameter into the DTS or the Agent jobs that
> would point them to the new server?
> We're running Windows 2000, SQL 2000. We'll be moving to Windows 2003 and
> SQL 2000.
> Any ideas appreciated.
> Thanks,
> BC

DTS/ SQL Agent question

We're having to install new SQL servers on a new naming convention. We
know the changes we have to make on the applications that hit the SQL boxes.
However, we are not sure what DTS or SQL Agent jobs would need to be
changed.
Is there a way that we can search the DTS & SQL Agent jobs for a literal
that would refer to our old SQL server name and could identify & change
it to run on the new one?
Or,
is there a way to pass a parameter into the DTS or the Agent jobs that
would point them to the new server?
We're running Windows 2000, SQL 2000. We'll be moving to Windows 2003
and SQL 2000.
Any ideas appreciated.
Thanks,
BCFor the agent jobs, you can script them out and search through the SQL that
is created. For DTS, you could probably save it as a VB file and search
through that.
Hope this helps!
--
Chuck Heinzelman
MCSD, MCDBA
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server (www.sqlpass.org)
This posting is not an endoresment of any product.
Information is provided as-is, and carries no warranties - either express or
implied.
Please respond in newsgroups only.
"Blasting Cap" <goober@.christian.net> wrote in message
news:OtNNUaXaGHA.4780@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> We're having to install new SQL servers on a new naming convention. We
> know the changes we have to make on the applications that hit the SQL
> boxes.
> However, we are not sure what DTS or SQL Agent jobs would need to be
> changed.
> Is there a way that we can search the DTS & SQL Agent jobs for a literal
> that would refer to our old SQL server name and could identify & change it
> to run on the new one?
> Or,
> is there a way to pass a parameter into the DTS or the Agent jobs that
> would point them to the new server?
> We're running Windows 2000, SQL 2000. We'll be moving to Windows 2003 and
> SQL 2000.
> Any ideas appreciated.
> Thanks,
> BC

DTS Versus Linked Servers

Hello Everyone,
Is it usually faster to transfer data using DTS or over a Linked Server?
Thank you.
Scott
It all depends on what are you transferring. In my experience:
-. For small number of records and ad-hoc transfers, linked server does the
trick
-. For import jobs with transformation, extraction and load, that need to be
performed regularly, DTS may be your candidate
-. For massive amount of data to be transferrend to single tables, BCP out
to text files and BCP in to the target server is faster than linked server or
DTS.
"Scott Yu" wrote:

> Hello Everyone,
> Is it usually faster to transfer data using DTS or over a Linked Server?
> Thank you.
> Scott

DTS Versus Linked Servers

Hello Everyone,
Is it usually faster to transfer data using DTS or over a Linked Server?
Thank you.
ScottIt all depends on what are you transferring. In my experience:
-. For small number of records and ad-hoc transfers, linked server does the
trick
-. For import jobs with transformation, extraction and load, that need to be
performed regularly, DTS may be your candidate
-. For massive amount of data to be transferrend to single tables, BCP out
to text files and BCP in to the target server is faster than linked server o
r
DTS.
"Scott Yu" wrote:

> Hello Everyone,
> Is it usually faster to transfer data using DTS or over a Linked Server?
> Thank you.
> Scott

DTS Versus Linked Servers

Hello Everyone,
Is it usually faster to transfer data using DTS or over a Linked Server?
Thank you.
ScottIt all depends on what are you transferring. In my experience:
-. For small number of records and ad-hoc transfers, linked server does the
trick
-. For import jobs with transformation, extraction and load, that need to be
performed regularly, DTS may be your candidate
-. For massive amount of data to be transferrend to single tables, BCP out
to text files and BCP in to the target server is faster than linked server or
DTS.
"Scott Yu" wrote:
> Hello Everyone,
> Is it usually faster to transfer data using DTS or over a Linked Server?
> Thank you.
> Scott