Anyone using the product Polyserve ? Pros and Cons that you want to share...
ThanksOn Feb 13, 8:24 pm, "Hassan" <has...@.hotmail.com> wrote:
> Anyone using the product Polyserve ? Pros and Cons that you want to share...
> Thanks
I am curious to know what you are trying to accomplish with Polyserve.
David A. Bermingham, MCSE, MCSA:Messaging
Director of Product Management - Windows Solutions Marketing
www.steeleye.com|||Consolidation and High Availability/Disaster Recovery
"daveberm" <david.bermingham@.steeleye.com> wrote in message
news:1171420330.935787.226940@.m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 13, 8:24 pm, "Hassan" <has...@.hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Anyone using the product Polyserve ? Pros and Cons that you want to
>> share...
>> Thanks
> I am curious to know what you are trying to accomplish with Polyserve.
> David A. Bermingham, MCSE, MCSA:Messaging
> Director of Product Management - Windows Solutions Marketing
> www.steeleye.com
>
Showing posts with label share. Show all posts
Showing posts with label share. Show all posts
Monday, March 26, 2012
Polls are closed
Hi everybody,
as a followup to the latest post of Louis I created a poll where you an quickly share your experiences with rebooting your server.
The poll can be reached under: http://www.sqlserver2005.de/Polls
Feel free to enter any poll wishes under the feedback site, I will consider to publish them there.
-Jens Suessmeyer
http://www.sqlserver2005.de
First thanks to anyone participating in the survey on my site about "Reasons and how often you reboot your server”.
If you are interested in, the results can be viewed here http://www.sqlserver2005.de/Polls/Results/Poll1.pdf.
Have fun, Jens Suessmeyer.
http://www.sqlserver2005.de
Poll: Followup --> How often do you reboot your server ?
Hi everybody,
as a followup to the latest post of Louis I created a poll where you an quickly share your experiences with rebooting your server.
The poll can be reached under: http://www.sqlserver2005.de/Polls
Feel free to enter any poll wishes under the feedback site, I will consider to publish them there.
-Jens Suessmeyer
http://www.sqlserver2005.de
First thanks to anyone participating in the survey on my site about "Reasons and how often you reboot your server”.
If you are interested in, the results can be viewed here http://www.sqlserver2005.de/Polls/Results/Poll1.pdf.
Have fun, Jens Suessmeyer.
http://www.sqlserver2005.de
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Pls, help. TSQL way, Limit the select of a result set by type and quantity
/*
Thanks in advance for your time and knowledge you would share.
Definition:
I have actions, that are of certain type, and workload of these actions to
process
The request comes as a recordset in request table.
How do I produce a record set that has in it quantity of records less or
equal to request quantities by type
I know that I can open a cursor, use (set rowcount @.memvar) and loop to
accumulate final resultset.
I know that if I define an identity field (or select into temp table with
identity) and count these records by selfjoining
But is there a better non-temp table solution?
Thanks again for your ideas
*/
set nocount on
declare @.work table (orderID int, status int, actionID int, primary key
(orderid, status,actionID))
declare @.actions table (actionID int, actionType int, primary key
(actionID))
declare @.request table (actionType int, RecQty int)
declare @.temp table (rec int identity, actionType int , orderID int, status
int, actionID int)
insert @.request values (1,3) -- deliver at least 3 records of this type
insert @.request values (2,8) -- deliver at least 8 records of this type
insert @.request values (3,3) -- deliver at least 3 records of this type
insert @.actions values (1, 1)
insert @.actions values (2, 1)
insert @.actions values (3, 2)
insert @.actions values (4, 2)
insert @.actions values (5, 2)
insert @.actions values (6, 3)
insert @.work values (1, 1, 1)
insert @.work values (1, 1, 2)
insert @.work values (1, 1, 3)
insert @.work values (2, 1, 1)
insert @.work values (2, 1, 2)
insert @.work values (2, 2, 3)
insert @.work values (2, 2, 4)
insert @.work values (2, 1, 6)
insert @.work values (3, 1, 1)
insert @.work values (3, 3, 2)
insert @.work values (3, 1, 5)
insert @.work values (3, 1, 6)
insert @.work values (4, 1, 1)
insert @.work values (4, 1, 2)
insert @.work values (4, 1, 5)
insert @.work values (4, 1, 6)
insert @.work values (4, 2, 6)
insert @.work values (4, 3, 6)
-- Possible solution
-- Total records
select actionType, count(*) recordcount
from @.actions a
join @.work w on w.actionID= a.actionID
group by actionType
insert @.temp (actionType, orderID, status, actionID)
select a.actionType, orderID, status, w.actionID
from @.actions a
join @.work w on w.actionID= a.actionID
-- This is what I am after, but any way not to use temp table as this would
cause procedure recompiles and this is often called one.
select r.RecQty,s1.actionType, s1.orderID, s1.status, s1.actionID, count(*)
from @.temp s1
join @.temp s2 on s2.actionType = s1.actiontype and s1.rec >= s2.rec
join @.request r on r.actionType = s1.actionType
group by s1.actionType, s1.orderID, s1.status, s1.actionID, r.RecQty
having count(*) <= r.RecQtyTry that based on the example of the oubs database:
DECLARE @.RANK INT
SET @.rank = 5
select rank=count(*), a1.au_lname, a1.au_fname
from authors a1, authors a2
where a1.au_lname + a1.au_fname >= a2.au_lname + a2.au_fname
group by a1.au_lname, a1.au_fname
HAVING count(*) < @.Rank
To be found on:
http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...b;en-us;Q186133
HTH, Jens SUessmeyer.
http://www.sqlserver2005.de
--
"Farmer" <someone@.somewhere.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:Of0pCjyUFHA.544@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> /*
> Thanks in advance for your time and knowledge you would share.
> Definition:
> I have actions, that are of certain type, and workload of these actions to
> process
> The request comes as a recordset in request table.
> How do I produce a record set that has in it quantity of records less or
> equal to request quantities by type
> I know that I can open a cursor, use (set rowcount @.memvar) and loop to
> accumulate final resultset.
> I know that if I define an identity field (or select into temp table with
> identity) and count these records by selfjoining
> But is there a better non-temp table solution?
> Thanks again for your ideas
> */
> set nocount on
> declare @.work table (orderID int, status int, actionID int, primary key
> (orderid, status,actionID))
> declare @.actions table (actionID int, actionType int, primary key
> (actionID))
> declare @.request table (actionType int, RecQty int)
> declare @.temp table (rec int identity, actionType int , orderID int,
> status int, actionID int)
> insert @.request values (1,3) -- deliver at least 3 records of this type
> insert @.request values (2,8) -- deliver at least 8 records of this type
> insert @.request values (3,3) -- deliver at least 3 records of this type
>
> insert @.actions values (1, 1)
> insert @.actions values (2, 1)
> insert @.actions values (3, 2)
> insert @.actions values (4, 2)
> insert @.actions values (5, 2)
> insert @.actions values (6, 3)
> insert @.work values (1, 1, 1)
> insert @.work values (1, 1, 2)
> insert @.work values (1, 1, 3)
> insert @.work values (2, 1, 1)
> insert @.work values (2, 1, 2)
> insert @.work values (2, 2, 3)
> insert @.work values (2, 2, 4)
> insert @.work values (2, 1, 6)
> insert @.work values (3, 1, 1)
> insert @.work values (3, 3, 2)
> insert @.work values (3, 1, 5)
> insert @.work values (3, 1, 6)
> insert @.work values (4, 1, 1)
> insert @.work values (4, 1, 2)
> insert @.work values (4, 1, 5)
> insert @.work values (4, 1, 6)
> insert @.work values (4, 2, 6)
> insert @.work values (4, 3, 6)
> -- Possible solution
> -- Total records
> select actionType, count(*) recordcount
> from @.actions a
> join @.work w on w.actionID= a.actionID
> group by actionType
> insert @.temp (actionType, orderID, status, actionID)
> select a.actionType, orderID, status, w.actionID
> from @.actions a
> join @.work w on w.actionID= a.actionID
> -- This is what I am after, but any way not to use temp table as this
> would cause procedure recompiles and this is often called one.
> select r.RecQty,s1.actionType, s1.orderID, s1.status, s1.actionID,
> count(*)
> from @.temp s1
> join @.temp s2 on s2.actionType = s1.actiontype and s1.rec >= s2.rec
> join @.request r on r.actionType = s1.actionType
> group by s1.actionType, s1.orderID, s1.status, s1.actionID, r.RecQty
> having count(*) <= r.RecQty
>
Thanks in advance for your time and knowledge you would share.
Definition:
I have actions, that are of certain type, and workload of these actions to
process
The request comes as a recordset in request table.
How do I produce a record set that has in it quantity of records less or
equal to request quantities by type
I know that I can open a cursor, use (set rowcount @.memvar) and loop to
accumulate final resultset.
I know that if I define an identity field (or select into temp table with
identity) and count these records by selfjoining
But is there a better non-temp table solution?
Thanks again for your ideas
*/
set nocount on
declare @.work table (orderID int, status int, actionID int, primary key
(orderid, status,actionID))
declare @.actions table (actionID int, actionType int, primary key
(actionID))
declare @.request table (actionType int, RecQty int)
declare @.temp table (rec int identity, actionType int , orderID int, status
int, actionID int)
insert @.request values (1,3) -- deliver at least 3 records of this type
insert @.request values (2,8) -- deliver at least 8 records of this type
insert @.request values (3,3) -- deliver at least 3 records of this type
insert @.actions values (1, 1)
insert @.actions values (2, 1)
insert @.actions values (3, 2)
insert @.actions values (4, 2)
insert @.actions values (5, 2)
insert @.actions values (6, 3)
insert @.work values (1, 1, 1)
insert @.work values (1, 1, 2)
insert @.work values (1, 1, 3)
insert @.work values (2, 1, 1)
insert @.work values (2, 1, 2)
insert @.work values (2, 2, 3)
insert @.work values (2, 2, 4)
insert @.work values (2, 1, 6)
insert @.work values (3, 1, 1)
insert @.work values (3, 3, 2)
insert @.work values (3, 1, 5)
insert @.work values (3, 1, 6)
insert @.work values (4, 1, 1)
insert @.work values (4, 1, 2)
insert @.work values (4, 1, 5)
insert @.work values (4, 1, 6)
insert @.work values (4, 2, 6)
insert @.work values (4, 3, 6)
-- Possible solution
-- Total records
select actionType, count(*) recordcount
from @.actions a
join @.work w on w.actionID= a.actionID
group by actionType
insert @.temp (actionType, orderID, status, actionID)
select a.actionType, orderID, status, w.actionID
from @.actions a
join @.work w on w.actionID= a.actionID
-- This is what I am after, but any way not to use temp table as this would
cause procedure recompiles and this is often called one.
select r.RecQty,s1.actionType, s1.orderID, s1.status, s1.actionID, count(*)
from @.temp s1
join @.temp s2 on s2.actionType = s1.actiontype and s1.rec >= s2.rec
join @.request r on r.actionType = s1.actionType
group by s1.actionType, s1.orderID, s1.status, s1.actionID, r.RecQty
having count(*) <= r.RecQtyTry that based on the example of the oubs database:
DECLARE @.RANK INT
SET @.rank = 5
select rank=count(*), a1.au_lname, a1.au_fname
from authors a1, authors a2
where a1.au_lname + a1.au_fname >= a2.au_lname + a2.au_fname
group by a1.au_lname, a1.au_fname
HAVING count(*) < @.Rank
To be found on:
http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...b;en-us;Q186133
HTH, Jens SUessmeyer.
http://www.sqlserver2005.de
--
"Farmer" <someone@.somewhere.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:Of0pCjyUFHA.544@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> /*
> Thanks in advance for your time and knowledge you would share.
> Definition:
> I have actions, that are of certain type, and workload of these actions to
> process
> The request comes as a recordset in request table.
> How do I produce a record set that has in it quantity of records less or
> equal to request quantities by type
> I know that I can open a cursor, use (set rowcount @.memvar) and loop to
> accumulate final resultset.
> I know that if I define an identity field (or select into temp table with
> identity) and count these records by selfjoining
> But is there a better non-temp table solution?
> Thanks again for your ideas
> */
> set nocount on
> declare @.work table (orderID int, status int, actionID int, primary key
> (orderid, status,actionID))
> declare @.actions table (actionID int, actionType int, primary key
> (actionID))
> declare @.request table (actionType int, RecQty int)
> declare @.temp table (rec int identity, actionType int , orderID int,
> status int, actionID int)
> insert @.request values (1,3) -- deliver at least 3 records of this type
> insert @.request values (2,8) -- deliver at least 8 records of this type
> insert @.request values (3,3) -- deliver at least 3 records of this type
>
> insert @.actions values (1, 1)
> insert @.actions values (2, 1)
> insert @.actions values (3, 2)
> insert @.actions values (4, 2)
> insert @.actions values (5, 2)
> insert @.actions values (6, 3)
> insert @.work values (1, 1, 1)
> insert @.work values (1, 1, 2)
> insert @.work values (1, 1, 3)
> insert @.work values (2, 1, 1)
> insert @.work values (2, 1, 2)
> insert @.work values (2, 2, 3)
> insert @.work values (2, 2, 4)
> insert @.work values (2, 1, 6)
> insert @.work values (3, 1, 1)
> insert @.work values (3, 3, 2)
> insert @.work values (3, 1, 5)
> insert @.work values (3, 1, 6)
> insert @.work values (4, 1, 1)
> insert @.work values (4, 1, 2)
> insert @.work values (4, 1, 5)
> insert @.work values (4, 1, 6)
> insert @.work values (4, 2, 6)
> insert @.work values (4, 3, 6)
> -- Possible solution
> -- Total records
> select actionType, count(*) recordcount
> from @.actions a
> join @.work w on w.actionID= a.actionID
> group by actionType
> insert @.temp (actionType, orderID, status, actionID)
> select a.actionType, orderID, status, w.actionID
> from @.actions a
> join @.work w on w.actionID= a.actionID
> -- This is what I am after, but any way not to use temp table as this
> would cause procedure recompiles and this is often called one.
> select r.RecQty,s1.actionType, s1.orderID, s1.status, s1.actionID,
> count(*)
> from @.temp s1
> join @.temp s2 on s2.actionType = s1.actiontype and s1.rec >= s2.rec
> join @.request r on r.actionType = s1.actionType
> group by s1.actionType, s1.orderID, s1.status, s1.actionID, r.RecQty
> having count(*) <= r.RecQty
>
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Please share advice about upgrading to SQL 2005
I'm about to start using SQL 2005 on new hardware. I'm sure I'm not alone.
I thought perhaps people here might share their experiences about upgrading
to 2005 (whether on new hardware or not), and what tips they'd give to
others. Invariably, something goes wrong in the course of a major database
upgrade, and I'm wondering what those things have been for people here.
Are you running side-by-side (another instance) or upgrading an
existing 2K instance? I've been running side-by-side on my workstation
since Nov. and have noticed almost no issues.
Also - are you using clustering at all? Don't run a 2K & 2005 on the
same cluster. We've had some issues with that & saw in a Microsoft
sponsored class that was a no-no. Other than that, we love 2005. The
upgrade advisor seems to work well too.
HK wrote:
> I'm about to start using SQL 2005 on new hardware. I'm sure I'm not alone.
> I thought perhaps people here might share their experiences about upgrading
> to 2005 (whether on new hardware or not), and what tips they'd give to
> others. Invariably, something goes wrong in the course of a major database
> upgrade, and I'm wondering what those things have been for people here.
|||I'll pull a development database, that has good data, from 2000, attach it
to the new hardware that is running 2005, and make it live for production.
The client application connection strings will change, of course. No
clustering is involved at this moment.
How do you start the Upgrade Advisor? I haven't tried that. The
UI/documentation is, thus far, very lousy for a new version that is 5 years
along. I didn't know there was one.
"Corey Bunch" <unc27932@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1141686052.211469.242010@.z34g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Are you running side-by-side (another instance) or upgrading an
> existing 2K instance? I've been running side-by-side on my workstation
> since Nov. and have noticed almost no issues.
> Also - are you using clustering at all? Don't run a 2K & 2005 on the
> same cluster. We've had some issues with that & saw in a Microsoft
> sponsored class that was a no-no. Other than that, we love 2005. The
> upgrade advisor seems to work well too.
> HK wrote:
alone.[vbcol=seagreen]
upgrading[vbcol=seagreen]
database
>
|||SQL 2005 Upgrade Advisor is a separate download:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...DisplayLang=en
*mike hodgson*
http://sqlnerd.blogspot.com
HK wrote:
>I'll pull a development database, that has good data, from 2000, attach it
>to the new hardware that is running 2005, and make it live for production.
>The client application connection strings will change, of course. No
>clustering is involved at this moment.
>How do you start the Upgrade Advisor? I haven't tried that. The
>UI/documentation is, thus far, very lousy for a new version that is 5 years
>along. I didn't know there was one.
>
>"Corey Bunch" <unc27932@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1141686052.211469.242010@.z34g2000cwc.googleg roups.com...
>
>alone.
>
>upgrading
>
>database
>
>
>
|||Assuming no syntax errors are present that aren't supported in 2005,
then I think you should be fine. Although, I think it leaves it in 80
(2000) compatability mode if you restore/attach. You might want to go
check the db options after you've done it and try & push it up to 2005.
The upgrade advisor is a must though. Try the link that Mike sent.
I thought perhaps people here might share their experiences about upgrading
to 2005 (whether on new hardware or not), and what tips they'd give to
others. Invariably, something goes wrong in the course of a major database
upgrade, and I'm wondering what those things have been for people here.
Are you running side-by-side (another instance) or upgrading an
existing 2K instance? I've been running side-by-side on my workstation
since Nov. and have noticed almost no issues.
Also - are you using clustering at all? Don't run a 2K & 2005 on the
same cluster. We've had some issues with that & saw in a Microsoft
sponsored class that was a no-no. Other than that, we love 2005. The
upgrade advisor seems to work well too.
HK wrote:
> I'm about to start using SQL 2005 on new hardware. I'm sure I'm not alone.
> I thought perhaps people here might share their experiences about upgrading
> to 2005 (whether on new hardware or not), and what tips they'd give to
> others. Invariably, something goes wrong in the course of a major database
> upgrade, and I'm wondering what those things have been for people here.
|||I'll pull a development database, that has good data, from 2000, attach it
to the new hardware that is running 2005, and make it live for production.
The client application connection strings will change, of course. No
clustering is involved at this moment.
How do you start the Upgrade Advisor? I haven't tried that. The
UI/documentation is, thus far, very lousy for a new version that is 5 years
along. I didn't know there was one.
"Corey Bunch" <unc27932@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1141686052.211469.242010@.z34g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Are you running side-by-side (another instance) or upgrading an
> existing 2K instance? I've been running side-by-side on my workstation
> since Nov. and have noticed almost no issues.
> Also - are you using clustering at all? Don't run a 2K & 2005 on the
> same cluster. We've had some issues with that & saw in a Microsoft
> sponsored class that was a no-no. Other than that, we love 2005. The
> upgrade advisor seems to work well too.
> HK wrote:
alone.[vbcol=seagreen]
upgrading[vbcol=seagreen]
database
>
|||SQL 2005 Upgrade Advisor is a separate download:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...DisplayLang=en
*mike hodgson*
http://sqlnerd.blogspot.com
HK wrote:
>I'll pull a development database, that has good data, from 2000, attach it
>to the new hardware that is running 2005, and make it live for production.
>The client application connection strings will change, of course. No
>clustering is involved at this moment.
>How do you start the Upgrade Advisor? I haven't tried that. The
>UI/documentation is, thus far, very lousy for a new version that is 5 years
>along. I didn't know there was one.
>
>"Corey Bunch" <unc27932@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1141686052.211469.242010@.z34g2000cwc.googleg roups.com...
>
>alone.
>
>upgrading
>
>database
>
>
>
|||Assuming no syntax errors are present that aren't supported in 2005,
then I think you should be fine. Although, I think it leaves it in 80
(2000) compatability mode if you restore/attach. You might want to go
check the db options after you've done it and try & push it up to 2005.
The upgrade advisor is a must though. Try the link that Mike sent.
Please share advice about upgrading to SQL 2005
I'm about to start using SQL 2005 on new hardware. I'm sure I'm not alone.
I thought perhaps people here might share their experiences about upgrading
to 2005 (whether on new hardware or not), and what tips they'd give to
others. Invariably, something goes wrong in the course of a major database
upgrade, and I'm wondering what those things have been for people here.Are you running side-by-side (another instance) or upgrading an
existing 2K instance? I've been running side-by-side on my workstation
since Nov. and have noticed almost no issues.
Also - are you using clustering at all? Don't run a 2K & 2005 on the
same cluster. We've had some issues with that & saw in a Microsoft
sponsored class that was a no-no. Other than that, we love 2005. The
upgrade advisor seems to work well too.
HK wrote:
> I'm about to start using SQL 2005 on new hardware. I'm sure I'm not alone
.
> I thought perhaps people here might share their experiences about upgradin
g
> to 2005 (whether on new hardware or not), and what tips they'd give to
> others. Invariably, something goes wrong in the course of a major databa
se
> upgrade, and I'm wondering what those things have been for people here.|||I'll pull a development database, that has good data, from 2000, attach it
to the new hardware that is running 2005, and make it live for production.
The client application connection strings will change, of course. No
clustering is involved at this moment.
How do you start the Upgrade Advisor? I haven't tried that. The
UI/documentation is, thus far, very lousy for a new version that is 5 years
along. I didn't know there was one.
"Corey Bunch" <unc27932@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1141686052.211469.242010@.z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Are you running side-by-side (another instance) or upgrading an
> existing 2K instance? I've been running side-by-side on my workstation
> since Nov. and have noticed almost no issues.
> Also - are you using clustering at all? Don't run a 2K & 2005 on the
> same cluster. We've had some issues with that & saw in a Microsoft
> sponsored class that was a no-no. Other than that, we love 2005. The
> upgrade advisor seems to work well too.
> HK wrote:
alone.[vbcol=seagreen]
upgrading[vbcol=seagreen]
database[vbcol=seagreen]
>|||SQL 2005 Upgrade Advisor is a separate download:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...&DisplayLang=en
*mike hodgson*
http://sqlnerd.blogspot.com
HK wrote:
>I'll pull a development database, that has good data, from 2000, attach it
>to the new hardware that is running 2005, and make it live for production.
>The client application connection strings will change, of course. No
>clustering is involved at this moment.
>How do you start the Upgrade Advisor? I haven't tried that. The
>UI/documentation is, thus far, very lousy for a new version that is 5 years
>along. I didn't know there was one.
>
>"Corey Bunch" <unc27932@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1141686052.211469.242010@.z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
>alone.
>
>upgrading
>
>database
>
>
>|||Assuming no syntax errors are present that aren't supported in 2005,
then I think you should be fine. Although, I think it leaves it in 80
(2000) compatability mode if you restore/attach. You might want to go
check the db options after you've done it and try & push it up to 2005.
The upgrade advisor is a must though. Try the link that Mike sent.
I thought perhaps people here might share their experiences about upgrading
to 2005 (whether on new hardware or not), and what tips they'd give to
others. Invariably, something goes wrong in the course of a major database
upgrade, and I'm wondering what those things have been for people here.Are you running side-by-side (another instance) or upgrading an
existing 2K instance? I've been running side-by-side on my workstation
since Nov. and have noticed almost no issues.
Also - are you using clustering at all? Don't run a 2K & 2005 on the
same cluster. We've had some issues with that & saw in a Microsoft
sponsored class that was a no-no. Other than that, we love 2005. The
upgrade advisor seems to work well too.
HK wrote:
> I'm about to start using SQL 2005 on new hardware. I'm sure I'm not alone
.
> I thought perhaps people here might share their experiences about upgradin
g
> to 2005 (whether on new hardware or not), and what tips they'd give to
> others. Invariably, something goes wrong in the course of a major databa
se
> upgrade, and I'm wondering what those things have been for people here.|||I'll pull a development database, that has good data, from 2000, attach it
to the new hardware that is running 2005, and make it live for production.
The client application connection strings will change, of course. No
clustering is involved at this moment.
How do you start the Upgrade Advisor? I haven't tried that. The
UI/documentation is, thus far, very lousy for a new version that is 5 years
along. I didn't know there was one.
"Corey Bunch" <unc27932@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1141686052.211469.242010@.z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Are you running side-by-side (another instance) or upgrading an
> existing 2K instance? I've been running side-by-side on my workstation
> since Nov. and have noticed almost no issues.
> Also - are you using clustering at all? Don't run a 2K & 2005 on the
> same cluster. We've had some issues with that & saw in a Microsoft
> sponsored class that was a no-no. Other than that, we love 2005. The
> upgrade advisor seems to work well too.
> HK wrote:
alone.[vbcol=seagreen]
upgrading[vbcol=seagreen]
database[vbcol=seagreen]
>|||SQL 2005 Upgrade Advisor is a separate download:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...&DisplayLang=en
*mike hodgson*
http://sqlnerd.blogspot.com
HK wrote:
>I'll pull a development database, that has good data, from 2000, attach it
>to the new hardware that is running 2005, and make it live for production.
>The client application connection strings will change, of course. No
>clustering is involved at this moment.
>How do you start the Upgrade Advisor? I haven't tried that. The
>UI/documentation is, thus far, very lousy for a new version that is 5 years
>along. I didn't know there was one.
>
>"Corey Bunch" <unc27932@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1141686052.211469.242010@.z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
>alone.
>
>upgrading
>
>database
>
>
>|||Assuming no syntax errors are present that aren't supported in 2005,
then I think you should be fine. Although, I think it leaves it in 80
(2000) compatability mode if you restore/attach. You might want to go
check the db options after you've done it and try & push it up to 2005.
The upgrade advisor is a must though. Try the link that Mike sent.
Please share advice about upgrading to SQL 2005
I'm about to start using SQL 2005 on new hardware. I'm sure I'm not alone.
I thought perhaps people here might share their experiences about upgrading
to 2005 (whether on new hardware or not), and what tips they'd give to
others. Invariably, something goes wrong in the course of a major database
upgrade, and I'm wondering what those things have been for people here.Are you running side-by-side (another instance) or upgrading an
existing 2K instance? I've been running side-by-side on my workstation
since Nov. and have noticed almost no issues.
Also - are you using clustering at all? Don't run a 2K & 2005 on the
same cluster. We've had some issues with that & saw in a Microsoft
sponsored class that was a no-no. Other than that, we love 2005. The
upgrade advisor seems to work well too.
HK wrote:
> I'm about to start using SQL 2005 on new hardware. I'm sure I'm not alone.
> I thought perhaps people here might share their experiences about upgrading
> to 2005 (whether on new hardware or not), and what tips they'd give to
> others. Invariably, something goes wrong in the course of a major database
> upgrade, and I'm wondering what those things have been for people here.|||I'll pull a development database, that has good data, from 2000, attach it
to the new hardware that is running 2005, and make it live for production.
The client application connection strings will change, of course. No
clustering is involved at this moment.
How do you start the Upgrade Advisor? I haven't tried that. The
UI/documentation is, thus far, very lousy for a new version that is 5 years
along. I didn't know there was one.
"Corey Bunch" <unc27932@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1141686052.211469.242010@.z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Are you running side-by-side (another instance) or upgrading an
> existing 2K instance? I've been running side-by-side on my workstation
> since Nov. and have noticed almost no issues.
> Also - are you using clustering at all? Don't run a 2K & 2005 on the
> same cluster. We've had some issues with that & saw in a Microsoft
> sponsored class that was a no-no. Other than that, we love 2005. The
> upgrade advisor seems to work well too.
> HK wrote:
> > I'm about to start using SQL 2005 on new hardware. I'm sure I'm not
alone.
> > I thought perhaps people here might share their experiences about
upgrading
> > to 2005 (whether on new hardware or not), and what tips they'd give to
> > others. Invariably, something goes wrong in the course of a major
database
> > upgrade, and I'm wondering what those things have been for people here.
>|||This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--020908040403080301030804
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
SQL 2005 Upgrade Advisor is a separate download:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=451fbf81-ab07-4ccb-a18b-da38f6bcf484&DisplayLang=en
--
*mike hodgson*
http://sqlnerd.blogspot.com
HK wrote:
>I'll pull a development database, that has good data, from 2000, attach it
>to the new hardware that is running 2005, and make it live for production.
>The client application connection strings will change, of course. No
>clustering is involved at this moment.
>How do you start the Upgrade Advisor? I haven't tried that. The
>UI/documentation is, thus far, very lousy for a new version that is 5 years
>along. I didn't know there was one.
>
>"Corey Bunch" <unc27932@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1141686052.211469.242010@.z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
>>Are you running side-by-side (another instance) or upgrading an
>>existing 2K instance? I've been running side-by-side on my workstation
>>since Nov. and have noticed almost no issues.
>>Also - are you using clustering at all? Don't run a 2K & 2005 on the
>>same cluster. We've had some issues with that & saw in a Microsoft
>>sponsored class that was a no-no. Other than that, we love 2005. The
>>upgrade advisor seems to work well too.
>>HK wrote:
>>
>>I'm about to start using SQL 2005 on new hardware. I'm sure I'm not
>>
>alone.
>
>>I thought perhaps people here might share their experiences about
>>
>upgrading
>
>>to 2005 (whether on new hardware or not), and what tips they'd give to
>>others. Invariably, something goes wrong in the course of a major
>>
>database
>
>>upgrade, and I'm wondering what those things have been for people here.
>>
>
>
--020908040403080301030804
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<tt>SQL 2005 Upgrade Advisor is a separate download:<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://links.10026.com/?link=http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=451fbf81-ab07-4ccb-a18b-da38f6bcf484&DisplayLang=en</a><br>">http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=451fbf81-ab07-4ccb-a18b-da38f6bcf484&DisplayLang=en">http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=451fbf81-ab07-4ccb-a18b-da38f6bcf484&DisplayLang=en</a><br>
</tt>
<div class="moz-signature">
<title></title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; ">
<p><span lang="en-au"><font face="Tahoma" size="2">--<br>
</font></span> <b><span lang="en-au"><font face="Tahoma" size="2">mike
hodgson</font></span></b><span lang="en-au"><br>
<font face="Tahoma" size="2"><a href="http://links.10026.com/?link=http://sqlnerd.blogspot.com</a></font></span>">http://sqlnerd.blogspot.com">http://sqlnerd.blogspot.com</a></font></span>
</p>
</div>
<br>
<br>
HK wrote:
<blockquote cite="midm04Pf.1448$pV5.620@.tornado.socal.rr.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I'll pull a development database, that has good data, from 2000, attach it
to the new hardware that is running 2005, and make it live for production.
The client application connection strings will change, of course. No
clustering is involved at this moment.
How do you start the Upgrade Advisor? I haven't tried that. The
UI/documentation is, thus far, very lousy for a new version that is 5 years
along. I didn't know there was one.
"Corey Bunch" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://links.10026.com/?link=mailto:unc27932@.yahoo.com"><unc27932@.yahoo.com></a> wrote in message
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://links.10026.com/?link=news:1141686052.211469.242010@.z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com">news:1141686052.211469.242010@.z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com</a>...
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Are you running side-by-side (another instance) or upgrading an
existing 2K instance? I've been running side-by-side on my workstation
since Nov. and have noticed almost no issues.
Also - are you using clustering at all? Don't run a 2K & 2005 on the
same cluster. We've had some issues with that & saw in a Microsoft
sponsored class that was a no-no. Other than that, we love 2005. The
upgrade advisor seems to work well too.
HK wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I'm about to start using SQL 2005 on new hardware. I'm sure I'm not
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!-->alone.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I thought perhaps people here might share their experiences about
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!-->upgrading
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">to 2005 (whether on new hardware or not), and what tips they'd give to
others. Invariably, something goes wrong in the course of a major
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!-->database
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">upgrade, and I'm wondering what those things have been for people here.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!-->
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>
--020908040403080301030804--|||Assuming no syntax errors are present that aren't supported in 2005,
then I think you should be fine. Although, I think it leaves it in 80
(2000) compatability mode if you restore/attach. You might want to go
check the db options after you've done it and try & push it up to 2005.
The upgrade advisor is a must though. Try the link that Mike sent.
I thought perhaps people here might share their experiences about upgrading
to 2005 (whether on new hardware or not), and what tips they'd give to
others. Invariably, something goes wrong in the course of a major database
upgrade, and I'm wondering what those things have been for people here.Are you running side-by-side (another instance) or upgrading an
existing 2K instance? I've been running side-by-side on my workstation
since Nov. and have noticed almost no issues.
Also - are you using clustering at all? Don't run a 2K & 2005 on the
same cluster. We've had some issues with that & saw in a Microsoft
sponsored class that was a no-no. Other than that, we love 2005. The
upgrade advisor seems to work well too.
HK wrote:
> I'm about to start using SQL 2005 on new hardware. I'm sure I'm not alone.
> I thought perhaps people here might share their experiences about upgrading
> to 2005 (whether on new hardware or not), and what tips they'd give to
> others. Invariably, something goes wrong in the course of a major database
> upgrade, and I'm wondering what those things have been for people here.|||I'll pull a development database, that has good data, from 2000, attach it
to the new hardware that is running 2005, and make it live for production.
The client application connection strings will change, of course. No
clustering is involved at this moment.
How do you start the Upgrade Advisor? I haven't tried that. The
UI/documentation is, thus far, very lousy for a new version that is 5 years
along. I didn't know there was one.
"Corey Bunch" <unc27932@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1141686052.211469.242010@.z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Are you running side-by-side (another instance) or upgrading an
> existing 2K instance? I've been running side-by-side on my workstation
> since Nov. and have noticed almost no issues.
> Also - are you using clustering at all? Don't run a 2K & 2005 on the
> same cluster. We've had some issues with that & saw in a Microsoft
> sponsored class that was a no-no. Other than that, we love 2005. The
> upgrade advisor seems to work well too.
> HK wrote:
> > I'm about to start using SQL 2005 on new hardware. I'm sure I'm not
alone.
> > I thought perhaps people here might share their experiences about
upgrading
> > to 2005 (whether on new hardware or not), and what tips they'd give to
> > others. Invariably, something goes wrong in the course of a major
database
> > upgrade, and I'm wondering what those things have been for people here.
>|||This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--020908040403080301030804
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
SQL 2005 Upgrade Advisor is a separate download:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=451fbf81-ab07-4ccb-a18b-da38f6bcf484&DisplayLang=en
--
*mike hodgson*
http://sqlnerd.blogspot.com
HK wrote:
>I'll pull a development database, that has good data, from 2000, attach it
>to the new hardware that is running 2005, and make it live for production.
>The client application connection strings will change, of course. No
>clustering is involved at this moment.
>How do you start the Upgrade Advisor? I haven't tried that. The
>UI/documentation is, thus far, very lousy for a new version that is 5 years
>along. I didn't know there was one.
>
>"Corey Bunch" <unc27932@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1141686052.211469.242010@.z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
>>Are you running side-by-side (another instance) or upgrading an
>>existing 2K instance? I've been running side-by-side on my workstation
>>since Nov. and have noticed almost no issues.
>>Also - are you using clustering at all? Don't run a 2K & 2005 on the
>>same cluster. We've had some issues with that & saw in a Microsoft
>>sponsored class that was a no-no. Other than that, we love 2005. The
>>upgrade advisor seems to work well too.
>>HK wrote:
>>
>>I'm about to start using SQL 2005 on new hardware. I'm sure I'm not
>>
>alone.
>
>>I thought perhaps people here might share their experiences about
>>
>upgrading
>
>>to 2005 (whether on new hardware or not), and what tips they'd give to
>>others. Invariably, something goes wrong in the course of a major
>>
>database
>
>>upgrade, and I'm wondering what those things have been for people here.
>>
>
>
--020908040403080301030804
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<tt>SQL 2005 Upgrade Advisor is a separate download:<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://links.10026.com/?link=http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=451fbf81-ab07-4ccb-a18b-da38f6bcf484&DisplayLang=en</a><br>">http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=451fbf81-ab07-4ccb-a18b-da38f6bcf484&DisplayLang=en">http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=451fbf81-ab07-4ccb-a18b-da38f6bcf484&DisplayLang=en</a><br>
</tt>
<div class="moz-signature">
<title></title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; ">
<p><span lang="en-au"><font face="Tahoma" size="2">--<br>
</font></span> <b><span lang="en-au"><font face="Tahoma" size="2">mike
hodgson</font></span></b><span lang="en-au"><br>
<font face="Tahoma" size="2"><a href="http://links.10026.com/?link=http://sqlnerd.blogspot.com</a></font></span>">http://sqlnerd.blogspot.com">http://sqlnerd.blogspot.com</a></font></span>
</p>
</div>
<br>
<br>
HK wrote:
<blockquote cite="midm04Pf.1448$pV5.620@.tornado.socal.rr.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I'll pull a development database, that has good data, from 2000, attach it
to the new hardware that is running 2005, and make it live for production.
The client application connection strings will change, of course. No
clustering is involved at this moment.
How do you start the Upgrade Advisor? I haven't tried that. The
UI/documentation is, thus far, very lousy for a new version that is 5 years
along. I didn't know there was one.
"Corey Bunch" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://links.10026.com/?link=mailto:unc27932@.yahoo.com"><unc27932@.yahoo.com></a> wrote in message
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://links.10026.com/?link=news:1141686052.211469.242010@.z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com">news:1141686052.211469.242010@.z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com</a>...
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Are you running side-by-side (another instance) or upgrading an
existing 2K instance? I've been running side-by-side on my workstation
since Nov. and have noticed almost no issues.
Also - are you using clustering at all? Don't run a 2K & 2005 on the
same cluster. We've had some issues with that & saw in a Microsoft
sponsored class that was a no-no. Other than that, we love 2005. The
upgrade advisor seems to work well too.
HK wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I'm about to start using SQL 2005 on new hardware. I'm sure I'm not
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!-->alone.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I thought perhaps people here might share their experiences about
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!-->upgrading
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">to 2005 (whether on new hardware or not), and what tips they'd give to
others. Invariably, something goes wrong in the course of a major
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!-->database
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">upgrade, and I'm wondering what those things have been for people here.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!-->
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>
--020908040403080301030804--|||Assuming no syntax errors are present that aren't supported in 2005,
then I think you should be fine. Although, I think it leaves it in 80
(2000) compatability mode if you restore/attach. You might want to go
check the db options after you've done it and try & push it up to 2005.
The upgrade advisor is a must though. Try the link that Mike sent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)