SQL compact edition: dear

Showing posts with label dear. Show all posts

Friday, March 23, 2012

Point in Time: "Append to Media" Vs "Overwrite an existing media" in SQL Ser

Dear All,

I know the basic defiinition of these two options, but i am not very clear why would someone choose one over another,
currently I am using Append to Media option, and every day backup, I see my backup files growing in size.

can someone give me nice example about these two options,

Thanks,

When you append to the media the previous backups also remain in the backup file. One backup file can contain numerous backups. When you overwrite the backup file is recreated every time so it contains just one file.

WesleyB

Visit my SQL Server weblog @. http://dis4ea.blogspot.com

|||Thanks for your reply.

That means, overwrite backup media will occupy less space, then why would i choose Append to media,

any risk involved in overwriting option ?, becuase every body recommends appending, why not ovewritting.

Thanks,|||

It will definitely use less space.

I do not see the risk of overwriting your backup unless you need a full backup that was taken a couple of days earlier to be accessible. In most cases I suppose you will only be interested in the latest version of your database and not the one you had 3 months ago. For the 'special' occasions where a specific version may be required I would simply take a separate backup.

WesleyB

Visit my SQL Server weblog @. http://dis4ea.blogspot.com

|||

Thanks, your advice is helpful,

but if i want to be able to recover point in time, then I have to go with append to media, along with Transaction long back , RIGHT?

|||

The risk is that if you overwrite the previous backup, and then the current one fails for any reason you are left with no backup for your database. Not a good situation.

What I'd recommend instead, which is a fairly common practice, is to do each backup to a new file which incorporates the current date/time as part of the filename.

That way you always have unique filenames, you can easily prune out old backups, and it's obvious which backup is from what time.

|||

Thanks,

but even if i append to media, and it fails, i will left with no backups , Right?

also for your best suggestion, can you send me sample query or how to do in Enterprise manager.

|||Fahim,
If you are appending to a media daily and if the backup fails today (assumption) then you are atleast left with the backups of previous days since you are appending the previous backups will be present ! but if chose the overwrite option it will overwrite the existing backup file and then will backup the database so if your backup fails due to some reason you are left with no backups for your database.
You can make use of the maintenance plan in sql 2000 to configure backup job and you can specify the number of days to retain the backup file........the backup file will be created with dd/mm/hr format so that it can be deleted by chosing the option "Remove files older than"
http://www.databasejournal.com/features/mssql/article.php/3530486

Friends pls correct me if am wrong Smile

Regards
Deepak
sql

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

Point in time recovery

Dear All,
How do we accomplish point in time recovery with SQL Server database.

For example:
My backup schedule is
Monday - Complete database
Tuesday - transaction log backup
Wednesday-transaction log backup
Thursday - transaction log backup
Friday - Complete database
Saturday - transaction log backup
Sunday - transaction log backup

For complete database backup, I use the below syntax:

BACKUP DATABASE myDB
TO DISK= @.File1
WITH DESCRIPTION = @.Desc

For transaction log backup, I use the below syntax:
BACKUP LOG myDB
TO DISK= @.File1
WITH DESCRIPTION = @.Desc

With this scenario, can I accomplish a point in time recovery? For example, if my database crashes on thursday night. How do i do complete recovery till that time?

Pls guide...

Regards,
qAEasy to do with Enterprise Manager.
Using SQL, this is straight from Books Online:How to restore to a point in time (Transact-SQL)
To restore to a point in time

Execute the RESTORE DATABASE statement using the NORECOVERY clause.

Execute the RESTORE LOG statement to apply each transaction log backup, specifying:
The name of the database to which the transaction log will be applied.

The backup device from where the transaction log backup will be restored.

The RECOVERY and STOPAT clauses. If the transaction log backup does not contain the requested time (for example, if the time specified is beyond the end of the time covered by the transaction log), a warning is generated and the database remains unrecovered.
Examples
This example restores a database to its state as of 10:00 A.M. on July 1, 1998, and illustrates a restore operation involving multiple logs and multiple backup devices.

-- Restore the database backup.
RESTORE DATABASE MyNwind
FROM MyNwind_1, MyNwind_2
WITH NORECOVERY
GO
RESTORE LOG MyNwind
FROM MyNwind_log1
WITH RECOVERY, STOPAT = 'Jul 1, 1998 10:00 AM'
GO
RESTORE LOG MyNwind
FROM MyNwind_log2
WITH RECOVERY, STOPAT = 'Jul 1, 1998 10:00 AM'It pays to read the manual...

Monday, March 12, 2012

Pls help me manually remove SQL 2005

Dear all,
I uninstalled SQL 2005 Std on Win 2003 Server, with the intention of
re-installing. However the uninstall somehow went wrong and not everything
was removed. When I try to reinstall a default instance it tells me there is
already one there.
Can anyone point me to a detailed process for completely removing SQL 2005
and its related components and servers (reports, BI etc)?
I would be so grateful - if I don't get this back up by Monday I am doomed!Hi Albert
There are instructions regarding un-installing in the help file {root
path}\Setup Bootstrap\Help\{lang id}\setupsql9.chm. This also tells you
where
to look for the log files to check what has failed.
John
"Albert" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Dear all,
> I uninstalled SQL 2005 Std on Win 2003 Server, with the intention of
> re-installing. However the uninstall somehow went wrong and not everything
> was removed. When I try to reinstall a default instance it tells me there
is
> already one there.
> Can anyone point me to a detailed process for completely removing SQL 2005
> and its related components and servers (reports, BI etc)?
> I would be so grateful - if I don't get this back up by Monday I am doomed![/vbcol
]

Pls help me manually remove SQL 2005

Dear all,
I uninstalled SQL 2005 Std on Win 2003 Server, with the intention of
re-installing. However the uninstall somehow went wrong and not everything
was removed. When I try to reinstall a default instance it tells me there is
already one there.
Can anyone point me to a detailed process for completely removing SQL 2005
and its related components and servers (reports, BI etc)?
I would be so grateful - if I don't get this back up by Monday I am doomed!Hi Albert
There are instructions regarding un-installing in the help file {root
path}\Setup Bootstrap\Help\{lang id}\setupsql9.chm. This also tells you where
to look for the log files to check what has failed.
John
"Albert" wrote:
> Dear all,
> I uninstalled SQL 2005 Std on Win 2003 Server, with the intention of
> re-installing. However the uninstall somehow went wrong and not everything
> was removed. When I try to reinstall a default instance it tells me there is
> already one there.
> Can anyone point me to a detailed process for completely removing SQL 2005
> and its related components and servers (reports, BI etc)?
> I would be so grateful - if I don't get this back up by Monday I am doomed!

Pls help me manually remove SQL 2005

Dear all,
I uninstalled SQL 2005 Std on Win 2003 Server, with the intention of
re-installing. However the uninstall somehow went wrong and not everything
was removed. When I try to reinstall a default instance it tells me there is
already one there.
Can anyone point me to a detailed process for completely removing SQL 2005
and its related components and servers (reports, BI etc)?
I would be so grateful - if I don't get this back up by Monday I am doomed!
Hi Albert
There are instructions regarding un-installing in the help file {root
path}\Setup Bootstrap\Help\{lang id}\setupsql9.chm. This also tells you where
to look for the log files to check what has failed.
John
"Albert" wrote:

> Dear all,
> I uninstalled SQL 2005 Std on Win 2003 Server, with the intention of
> re-installing. However the uninstall somehow went wrong and not everything
> was removed. When I try to reinstall a default instance it tells me there is
> already one there.
> Can anyone point me to a detailed process for completely removing SQL 2005
> and its related components and servers (reports, BI etc)?
> I would be so grateful - if I don't get this back up by Monday I am doomed!

Saturday, February 25, 2012

Please help: SQL Server Saving performance problem.

Dear Sir,
I have a program to write 30000 record to the database every minute
during daily operation. The program complete to save 30000 records in 30
sconds under normal sitaution. At night, all store data will be backup to
another table and truncate the table. But after running the program several
days, I find that the program need take about 3-5 minutes to save 30000
records completely even the table is empty. Actaully, all external
sitautions is unchanged such as number of user to access the table, the
amount of read data...etc. The performance is down so much. Then I need
shut down the SQK Server Service and then start it again. Then , it will
fine again.
WHy? How can I make sure that the saving can finish withthin 1 minute?
--
Regards,
Anthony LamJust a thought...
Could it be an autogrow kicking in, which leads to the load wait?
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"AA" <anthony@.jadeflex.com> wrote in message news:OrolLuXPEHA.1160@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Dear Sir,
> I have a program to write 30000 record to the database every minute
> during daily operation. The program complete to save 30000 records in 30
> sconds under normal sitaution. At night, all store data will be backup to
> another table and truncate the table. But after running the program several
> days, I find that the program need take about 3-5 minutes to save 30000
> records completely even the table is empty. Actaully, all external
> sitautions is unchanged such as number of user to access the table, the
> amount of read data...etc. The performance is down so much. Then I need
> shut down the SQK Server Service and then start it again. Then , it will
> fine again.
> WHy? How can I make sure that the saving can finish withthin 1 minute?
> --
> Regards,
> Anthony Lam
>|||yes, autogrow for the db and log without restrict.
"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> ¦b¶l¥ó
news:uJJf6AYPEHA.272@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl ¤¤¼¶¼g...
> Just a thought...
> Could it be an autogrow kicking in, which leads to the load wait?
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>
> "AA" <anthony@.jadeflex.com> wrote in message
news:OrolLuXPEHA.1160@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > Dear Sir,
> > I have a program to write 30000 record to the database every minute
> > during daily operation. The program complete to save 30000 records in 30
> > sconds under normal sitaution. At night, all store data will be backup
to
> > another table and truncate the table. But after running the program
several
> > days, I find that the program need take about 3-5 minutes to save 30000
> > records completely even the table is empty. Actaully, all external
> > sitautions is unchanged such as number of user to access the table, the
> > amount of read data...etc. The performance is down so much. Then I
need
> > shut down the SQK Server Service and then start it again. Then , it will
> > fine again.
> > WHy? How can I make sure that the saving can finish withthin 1 minute?
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> >
> > Anthony Lam
> >
> >
>|||So that could potentially be the reason. Growing a file takes time, and new inserts are blocked until the
autogrow is finished. I'd consider pre-allocating storage.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"AA" <anthony@.jadeflex.com> wrote in message news:epXeBhgPEHA.1048@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> yes, autogrow for the db and log without restrict.
> "Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> ¦b¶l¥ó
> news:uJJf6AYPEHA.272@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl ¤¤¼¶¼g...
> > Just a thought...
> >
> > Could it be an autogrow kicking in, which leads to the load wait?
> >
> > --
> > Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> > http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> > http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
> >
> >
> > "AA" <anthony@.jadeflex.com> wrote in message
> news:OrolLuXPEHA.1160@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > > Dear Sir,
> > > I have a program to write 30000 record to the database every minute
> > > during daily operation. The program complete to save 30000 records in 30
> > > sconds under normal sitaution. At night, all store data will be backup
> to
> > > another table and truncate the table. But after running the program
> several
> > > days, I find that the program need take about 3-5 minutes to save 30000
> > > records completely even the table is empty. Actaully, all external
> > > sitautions is unchanged such as number of user to access the table, the
> > > amount of read data...etc. The performance is down so much. Then I
> need
> > > shut down the SQK Server Service and then start it again. Then , it will
> > > fine again.
> > > WHy? How can I make sure that the saving can finish withthin 1 minute?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Anthony Lam
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>

Please help: SQL Server Saving performance problem.

Please help.

Dear Friends
I am facing a strange problem. I am using the merge
replication from two offices for my database and the
current changes are showing perfectly on both the end but
for last two days change the database if diffrent some
information is in the Site one database which is updated
locally and some information is in site two which was
updated locally at site two.
Please suggest how the same data will be refelected in
both the database.
Your earlier reply would be a great help.
Best regard
Sharad
Sharad,
not sure I follow you completely, but it seems what you are talking about is
conflict resolution, where two computers involved in merge replication
change the same data before synchronizing. By default the publisher will win
conflicts with the subscriber, and if you have more than one subscriber the
first one to synchronize takes on the priority of the publisher. If such a
conflict has occurred then you can see it in the system conflict tables -
"conflict_..." and "....conflicts" or in the related graphical interface -
conflict viewer (right-click on the publication and select view
conflicts).There are more advanced setups involving priority numbers,
conflict resolution routines and custom resolvers - details in BOL.
HTH,
Paul Ibison
|||Dear Pual
Thanks for your reply. but it is not a conflict as i do
not see anything in the option of view conflict but the
data in the two database is diffrent. to give you clear
idea.
I have a table Sales which is having fields one two three
and four
The one and two is feeded and updated by Server1
The Three and four is updated by Server2
Now in both the server i can see that the updation done
by the local user is showing in respective server but not
in the replicated server like the infromation of one and
two is not there in the server2
I hope i have put the query right now.
Please help
Best regards
Sharad

>--Original Message--
>Sharad,
>not sure I follow you completely, but it seems what you
are talking about is
>conflict resolution, where two computers involved in
merge replication
>change the same data before synchronizing. By default
the publisher will win
>conflicts with the subscriber, and if you have more than
one subscriber the
>first one to synchronize takes on the priority of the
publisher. If such a
>conflict has occurred then you can see it in the system
conflict tables -
>"conflict_..." and "....conflicts" or in the related
graphical interface -
>conflict viewer (right-click on the publication and
select view
>conflicts).There are more advanced setups involving
priority numbers,
>conflict resolution routines and custom resolvers -
details in BOL.
>HTH,
>Paul Ibison
>
>.
>

Monday, February 20, 2012

Please help! SQL Server2000 Performance in RAID0.

Dear All,
I have a high end server that OS isWin20000 Server is RAID0 with three
SCSI 30G Harddisk (10000rpm). Intel CPU 3.GHz with 2G RAM.
Also, I have a pc that is 1.7G Hz with a 40G IDE (7200 rpm), 1G RAM. The pc
also install SQL Server 2000.
I install MSSQL 2000 in both High end server and the pc.
I try to write the same set of data to Both SQL Server, the writing speed
of High end server is slower than my pc that just a single IDE 40G harddisk,
Intel 1.7GHz.
Why'
Actaully in the High end server, when I monitor to the CPU, Memory in the
system monitor, all are really ok. CPU utilization is really low and the
Memory is enough.
So, I am really no idea to solve it.
Actually, when I create the logical drive in RAID 0, It allows me to set
the Strip size. I just select it by default size.
What is the meaning of "Strip size"? How to determine that value?
Is that reason to make the writing speed so slow?
It make me very surprised. Any suggestion?
--
Regards,
Anthony LamFirst, you're not comparing apples to apples. Different
things have different overhead, and that all ties back to
configuration too.
RAID 0 is an odd choice for SQL Server ... RAID 1, RAID
10, or RAID 5 are common (depending on usage), but not
plain RAID 0. SO that may be part of it.
Beyond that, you should format the disks with 64k clusters
at a low level as well as in NTFS. That will make the
data disks optimized for SQL Server.
>--Original Message--
>Dear All,
> I have a high end server that OS isWin20000 Server is
RAID0 with three
>SCSI 30G Harddisk (10000rpm). Intel CPU 3.GHz with 2G
RAM.
>Also, I have a pc that is 1.7G Hz with a 40G IDE (7200
rpm), 1G RAM. The pc
>also install SQL Server 2000.
>I install MSSQL 2000 in both High end server and the pc.
>I try to write the same set of data to Both SQL Server,
the writing speed
>of High end server is slower than my pc that just a
single IDE 40G harddisk,
>Intel 1.7GHz.
>Why'
>Actaully in the High end server, when I monitor to the
CPU, Memory in the
>system monitor, all are really ok. CPU utilization is
really low and the
>Memory is enough.
>So, I am really no idea to solve it.
>Actually, when I create the logical drive in RAID 0, It
allows me to set
>the Strip size. I just select it by default size.
>What is the meaning of "Strip size"? How to determine
that value?
>Is that reason to make the writing speed so slow?
>It make me very surprised. Any suggestion?
>--
>Regards,
>Anthony Lam
>
>.
>

Please help! SQL Server2000 Performance

Dear all,
I have a high end server that OS isWin20000 Server is RAID0 with three
SCSI 30G Harddisk (10000rpm). Intel CPU 3.GHz with 2G RAM.
Also, I have a pc that is 1.7G Hz with a 40G IDE (7200 rpm), 1G RAM. The pc
also install SQL Server 2000.
I install MSSQL 2000 in both High end server and the pc.
I try to write the same set of data to Both SQL Server, the writing speed
of High end server is slower than my pc that just a single IDE 40G harddisk,
Intel 1.7GHz.
Why'
It make me very surprised. Any suggestion?
--
Regards,
Anthony LamAre you 100% certain that you have RAID0 and not RAID5?
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
Archive at:
http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&as_ugroup=microsoft.public.sqlserver
"AA" <anthony@.jadeflex.com> wrote in message
news:OThRpq8vDHA.2352@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Dear all,
> I have a high end server that OS isWin20000 Server is RAID0 with three
> SCSI 30G Harddisk (10000rpm). Intel CPU 3.GHz with 2G RAM.
> Also, I have a pc that is 1.7G Hz with a 40G IDE (7200 rpm), 1G RAM. The
pc
> also install SQL Server 2000.
> I install MSSQL 2000 in both High end server and the pc.
> I try to write the same set of data to Both SQL Server, the writing speed
> of High end server is slower than my pc that just a single IDE 40G
harddisk,
> Intel 1.7GHz.
> Why'
> It make me very surprised. Any suggestion?
> --
> Regards,
> Anthony Lam
>|||Try running the System Monitor utility & try to identify where the
bottleneck is on your server. You can find it under Start / Programs / Admin
Tools / System Monitor.
You might get some useful information from a simple trace on CPU, Memory &
Physical Disk queues..
How are you submitting your workloads to these machines? Are you logged on
to the console of both machines individually, or are you sending commands to
the server from the PC (using the network) perhaps?
Then there are many database settings which might be in play as well.
This might give you a few extra ideas though..
HTH
Regards,
Greg Linwood
SQL Server MVP
"AA" <anthony@.jadeflex.com> wrote in message
news:OThRpq8vDHA.2352@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Dear all,
> I have a high end server that OS isWin20000 Server is RAID0 with three
> SCSI 30G Harddisk (10000rpm). Intel CPU 3.GHz with 2G RAM.
> Also, I have a pc that is 1.7G Hz with a 40G IDE (7200 rpm), 1G RAM. The
pc
> also install SQL Server 2000.
> I install MSSQL 2000 in both High end server and the pc.
> I try to write the same set of data to Both SQL Server, the writing speed
> of High end server is slower than my pc that just a single IDE 40G
harddisk,
> Intel 1.7GHz.
> Why'
> It make me very surprised. Any suggestion?
> --
> Regards,
> Anthony Lam
>|||Actaully, when I monitor to the CPU, Memory ...in the system monitor, all
are really ok. CPU utilization is really low and the Memory is enough.
So, I am really no idea to solve it.
Actually, when I create the RAID 0, It allows me to set the Strip size. I
just select default size.
What is the meaning of "Strip size"? How to determine that value?
Is that reason to make the writing speed so slow?
Anthony
"Greg Linwood" <g_linwoodremovethisbeforeemailingme@.hotmail.com> ¦b¶l¥ó
news:eOEkbb9vDHA.2448@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl ¤¤¼¶¼g...
> Try running the System Monitor utility & try to identify where the
> bottleneck is on your server. You can find it under Start / Programs /
Admin
> Tools / System Monitor.
> You might get some useful information from a simple trace on CPU, Memory &
> Physical Disk queues..
> How are you submitting your workloads to these machines? Are you logged on
> to the console of both machines individually, or are you sending commands
to
> the server from the PC (using the network) perhaps?
> Then there are many database settings which might be in play as well.
> This might give you a few extra ideas though..
> HTH
> Regards,
> Greg Linwood
> SQL Server MVP
> "AA" <anthony@.jadeflex.com> wrote in message
> news:OThRpq8vDHA.2352@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > Dear all,
> > I have a high end server that OS isWin20000 Server is RAID0 with
three
> > SCSI 30G Harddisk (10000rpm). Intel CPU 3.GHz with 2G RAM.
> > Also, I have a pc that is 1.7G Hz with a 40G IDE (7200 rpm), 1G RAM.
The
> pc
> > also install SQL Server 2000.
> > I install MSSQL 2000 in both High end server and the pc.
> > I try to write the same set of data to Both SQL Server, the writing
speed
> > of High end server is slower than my pc that just a single IDE 40G
> harddisk,
> > Intel 1.7GHz.
> >
> > Why'
> > It make me very surprised. Any suggestion?
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> >
> > Anthony Lam
> >
> >
>|||Hi - sorry I've missed answering this earlier.
This is quite rudimentary analysis, but if you're observations re memory &
cpu are correct, then it suggests that you've got a i/o bound performance
problem. Sorting this type of problem out can be confusing at first as the
root cause can be in a few places & not necessarily at the hardware layer.
First, you may have a physical design problem - something simple such as a
poorly chosen clustered index which causes page splits during the insert
operations (page splits can cause excessive i/o). Then again, it could be at
the hardware configuration level such as disk configuration. There are a
variety of potential problems in this area, including stripe size.
Before launching much further into analysis with RAID configuration, can you
confirm that you're actually using hardware raid? Or are you using Windows
raid? You didn't give much info about what raid you're using. I'm
suspecting hardware raid, given that you're not seeing high cpu utilization,
but the whole picture changes if you're using WIndows raid (generally not a
good idea). Hardware raid nearly always out performs software raid.
Stripe size is the number of blocks in each stripe accross the striped set
of disks. This is commonly referred to in either pure # of blocks & also kb.
The ideal stripe size depends on various things, including number, speed &
size of disk spindles, controller cache & perhaps most importantly useage
patterns. This is too much of a complex topic for me to easily summarise for
you in a single post, so I suggest that you do some research, but my
experience is that anything from 8k - 64k (commony default for Windows &
many controllers) is good for SQL Server. 64k is an allocation size for SQL
Server which is often good for data acquisition type applications as table
spaces are written in 64k "extents'.
HTH
Regards,
Greg Linwood
SQL Server MVP
"AA" <anthony_lam@.iname.com> wrote in message
news:uB67YRAwDHA.2880@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Actaully, when I monitor to the CPU, Memory ...in the system monitor, all
> are really ok. CPU utilization is really low and the Memory is enough.
> So, I am really no idea to solve it.
> Actually, when I create the RAID 0, It allows me to set the Strip size. I
> just select default size.
> What is the meaning of "Strip size"? How to determine that value?
> Is that reason to make the writing speed so slow?
> Anthony
>
> "Greg Linwood" <g_linwoodremovethisbeforeemailingme@.hotmail.com> ¦b¶l¥ó
> news:eOEkbb9vDHA.2448@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl ¤¤¼¶¼g...
> > Try running the System Monitor utility & try to identify where the
> > bottleneck is on your server. You can find it under Start / Programs /
> Admin
> > Tools / System Monitor.
> >
> > You might get some useful information from a simple trace on CPU, Memory
&
> > Physical Disk queues..
> >
> > How are you submitting your workloads to these machines? Are you logged
on
> > to the console of both machines individually, or are you sending
commands
> to
> > the server from the PC (using the network) perhaps?
> >
> > Then there are many database settings which might be in play as well.
> >
> > This might give you a few extra ideas though..
> >
> > HTH
> >
> > Regards,
> > Greg Linwood
> > SQL Server MVP
> >
> > "AA" <anthony@.jadeflex.com> wrote in message
> > news:OThRpq8vDHA.2352@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > > Dear all,
> > > I have a high end server that OS isWin20000 Server is RAID0 with
> three
> > > SCSI 30G Harddisk (10000rpm). Intel CPU 3.GHz with 2G RAM.
> > > Also, I have a pc that is 1.7G Hz with a 40G IDE (7200 rpm), 1G RAM.
> The
> > pc
> > > also install SQL Server 2000.
> > > I install MSSQL 2000 in both High end server and the pc.
> > > I try to write the same set of data to Both SQL Server, the writing
> speed
> > > of High end server is slower than my pc that just a single IDE 40G
> > harddisk,
> > > Intel 1.7GHz.
> > >
> > > Why'
> > > It make me very surprised. Any suggestion?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Anthony Lam
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>

Friday, March 23, 2012

Point in Time: "Append to Media" Vs "Overwrite an existing media" in SQL Ser

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

Point in time recovery

Monday, March 12, 2012

Pls help me manually remove SQL 2005

Pls help me manually remove SQL 2005

Pls help me manually remove SQL 2005

Saturday, February 25, 2012

Please help: SQL Server Saving performance problem.

Please help: SQL Server Saving performance problem.

Please help: SQL Server Saving performance problem.

Please help.

Monday, February 20, 2012

Please help! SQL Server2000 Performance in RAID0.

Please help! SQL Server2000 Performance

SQL compact edition

Blog Archive

About Me