MS SQL Server Memory Supported

We are using SQL 2000 and being moved from old NT Servers having 2 G of RAM to new hardware with Win 2003 installed and 8GB of RAM.
Now can SQL 2000 use more than 2G of RAM on Win2003, if yes do we need to do any settings
Pls advise
Thanks
sanjay
Hello,
Only SQL server 2000 Enterprise Edition support more than 2 GB RAM. Other
editions will support only a
maximum of 2 GB.
If it is Enterprise edition then have a look into the below site to enable
more than 2 GB RAM to SQL server using AWE:-
http://www.sql-server-performance.com/awe_memory.asp
Thanks
Hari
MCDBA
"Sanjay" <Sanjay@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:DFD9B463-7A8F-48BA-BB9B-AB52BB35310F@.microsoft.com...
> We are using SQL 2000 and being moved from old NT Servers having 2 G of
RAM to new hardware with Win 2003 installed and 8GB of RAM.
> Now can SQL 2000 use more than 2G of RAM on Win2003, if yes do we need to
do any settings
> Pls advise
> Thanks
> sanjay

MS SQL Server Memory Supported

We are using SQL 2000 and being moved from old NT Servers having 2 G of RAM to new hardware with Win 2003 installed and 8GB of RAM.
Now can SQL 2000 use more than 2G of RAM on Win2003, if yes do we need to do any settings
Pls advise
Thanks
sanjayHello,
Only SQL server 2000 Enterprise Edition support more than 2 GB RAM. Other
editions will support only a
maximum of 2 GB.
If it is Enterprise edition then have a look into the below site to enable
more than 2 GB RAM to SQL server using AWE:-
http://www.sql-server-performance.com/awe_memory.asp
Thanks
Hari
MCDBA
"Sanjay" <Sanjay@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:DFD9B463-7A8F-48BA-BB9B-AB52BB35310F@.microsoft.com...
> We are using SQL 2000 and being moved from old NT Servers having 2 G of
RAM to new hardware with Win 2003 installed and 8GB of RAM.
> Now can SQL 2000 use more than 2G of RAM on Win2003, if yes do we need to
do any settings
> Pls advise
> Thanks
> sanjaysql

MS SQL Server Memory Supported

We are using SQL 2000 and being moved from old NT Servers having 2 G of RAM
to new hardware with Win 2003 installed and 8GB of RAM.
Now can SQL 2000 use more than 2G of RAM on Win2003, if yes do we need to do
any settings
Pls advise
Thanks
sanjayHello,
Only SQL server 2000 Enterprise Edition support more than 2 GB RAM. Other
editions will support only a
maximum of 2 GB.
If it is Enterprise edition then have a look into the below site to enable
more than 2 GB RAM to SQL server using AWE:-
http://www.sql-server-performance.com/awe_memory.asp
Thanks
Hari
MCDBA
"Sanjay" <Sanjay@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:DFD9B463-7A8F-48BA-BB9B-AB52BB35310F@.microsoft.com...
> We are using SQL 2000 and being moved from old NT Servers having 2 G of
RAM to new hardware with Win 2003 installed and 8GB of RAM.
> Now can SQL 2000 use more than 2G of RAM on Win2003, if yes do we need to
do any settings
> Pls advise
> Thanks
> sanjay

MS SQL Server -

Hello,

I am reverse engineering database requirements for systems at work.
One of the way of identifying old or obselete data is to find out when
was the last time the data was updated/inserted into the field. Would
it be possible to run a query to get last time the data was altered or
modified?

Thanks,

HiteshHi

You would have to maintain your own datetime to record this.

John

"Hitesh" <zerocoo_@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:30ca6fbb.0406141238.564f6037@.posting.google.c om...
> Hello,
> I am reverse engineering database requirements for systems at work.
> One of the way of identifying old or obselete data is to find out when
> was the last time the data was updated/inserted into the field. Would
> it be possible to run a query to get last time the data was altered or
> modified?
> Thanks,
> Hitesh

ms sql mdf database file attached vs created on sql server

Hi all

I have a question concerning sql database mdf files. In the old days I would user a ms access database. This file would be stored with the actual web files and would utilise a dsn connection.

I have noted when designing with vwd 2005 express it allows you to use 2 methods of creating a mdf database. You can either create it as an attachment mdf or you can create it directly using sql manager.

My question is, if you create the mdf database as an attachement file can you store it in the same manner as if you where using a ms access database, meaning can you store it with the web site's files so it uses the file storage allocated size and then create a connection similar to a dsn (but for sql) to the isp's sql engine or does it have to be uploaded to the isp' s sql server.

The reason for this question is some of my customers do not want to pay the extra cost to have an sql allocation, however I do not want to go back to using old asp methods to create advanced sites as I prefer using stored procedures.

Any help will be appreciated

Hi,

you can attach your .mdf file (SQL Server Express) to a database (Attaching a .mdf file when you don't have the .ldf file available). However I think the hosting company will charge your customers for attaching it. To my knowledge you don't have a replacement available like DSN.

Grz, Kris.

|||

Hi there,

My first website I did using Visual Studio I used an sql express database. Most hosting companys only use SQL server so you'll have to do some changes to your express database to get it hosted. So it doesnt really matter which way you design your database.

The hosting company will usually place your database on a separate secure server where you'll be able to access through SQL Server Manager once you have a static IP address. I'm not sure which hosting company you use but I live in Ireland and the best company here for windows hosting iswww.blacknight.ie

I use the standard windows hosting which allows you have up to 16 websites and 16 SQL server databases. An excellent company.

I recommend if you are going to use this a lot, upgrade your package to Visual Studio pro and this includes SQL Server Developer edition which allows you to create a SQL Server 2005 database which makes it easier when you go to publish your application.

Hope this is some use to you.

Anthony

|||

Hi Kris

So what you are saying is you can attach a database to an sql server without having to import it directly. Which means the database can run externally from the sql server. My hosting company I think offers it for free if you are attaching and they have a control panel which makes it user friendly to do this by yourself. I will contact them again to verify. www.sahost.co.za

|||

Hi,

about 1,5 years ago I tried out a free hosting for ASP.NET 2.0 where you could upload a .mdf file to and in their admin pages they provided such an attach procedure. Unfortunately I don't remember their name.

Grz, Kris.

MS SQL copy new and modified rows from TABLE1 to TABLE2

Hello,

I have 2 tables, Table1 and Table2. I have copied all data from Table1
to Table2.
However Table1 is dynamic it has new rows added and some old rows
modified everyday or every other day...
How can I continue to keep Table2 up to date without always having to
copy everything from Table1?

Basically from now on I would only like to copy new rows or modified
rows in Table1 to Table2 and skip rows that are already present and
have not been modified in Table1. I would like to not do anything for
any rows that were removed in Table1 and continue to keep a copy of
them in Table2.

Is using a DTS package the best way to automate this update of Table2
to make sure Table2 is always up-to-date with Table1?

Thanks for any help or advise :-)

YasYas (yasar1@.gmail.com) writes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by

I have 2 tables, Table1 and Table2. I have copied all data from Table1
to Table2.
However Table1 is dynamic it has new rows added and some old rows
modified everyday or every other day...
How can I continue to keep Table2 up to date without always having to
copy everything from Table1?
>
Basically from now on I would only like to copy new rows or modified
rows in Table1 to Table2 and skip rows that are already present and
have not been modified in Table1. I would like to not do anything for
any rows that were removed in Table1 and continue to keep a copy of
them in Table2.
>
>
Is using a DTS package the best way to automate this update of Table2
to make sure Table2 is always up-to-date with Table1?

The first question is why do you want to do this in the first place? It
seems funny that you would want to have two identical tables in the same
database? Or ar the tables in different databases on different servers?

If the tables are on the same server, a trigger would be the best way
to do it.

If tbe tables are on different server, triggers are still possible, but
if the remote server is unavailable, this would cause the operation on
the source table to fail. In this case, replication may be a way to go.

--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se
Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...oads/books.mspx
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodin...ions/books.mspx|||On 16 Aug, 13:46, Erland Sommarskog <esq...@.sommarskog.sewrote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by

The first question is why do you want to do this in the first place? It
seems funny that you would want to have two identical tables in the same
database? Or ar the tables in different databases on different servers?

Hi, sorry perhaps I should have been a bit more clear. Well, Table2 is
essentially a Master table that will have a record of all users that
were ever added to Table1. So even if at a later date userA and userB
were removed from Table1, a record of UserA and UserB will always be
there in Table2.

So yes right now Table1 and 2 are identical and that seems
pointless...however soon Table2 will be different in that it will have
a record of rows that are no longer present in Table1. I'm keeping
track of them via another method which checks if a row has been
removed from Table1 if so it adds the date of removal to a column of
that row in Table2. This is why I dont want to update Table2 if a row
is removed in Table1...only if a new row is added or an existing one
modified.

I hope that explains what I'm trying to do :-) can I still use
Triggers to do this?

Quote:

Originally Posted by

If the tables are on the same server, a trigger would be the best way
to do it.

Yes, they are on the same server and in the same Database.|||Yas (yasar1@.gmail.com) writes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by

Hi, sorry perhaps I should have been a bit more clear. Well, Table2 is
essentially a Master table that will have a record of all users that
were ever added to Table1. So even if at a later date userA and userB
were removed from Table1, a record of UserA and UserB will always be
there in Table2.
>
So yes right now Table1 and 2 are identical and that seems
pointless...however soon Table2 will be different in that it will have
a record of rows that are no longer present in Table1. I'm keeping
track of them via another method which checks if a row has been
removed from Table1 if so it adds the date of removal to a column of
that row in Table2. This is why I dont want to update Table2 if a row
is removed in Table1...only if a new row is added or an existing one
modified.
>
I hope that explains what I'm trying to do :-) can I still use
Triggers to do this?

Since the tables are in the same database, triggers is definitely the
way to go.

--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se
Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...oads/books.mspx
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodin...ions/books.mspx|||On 16 Aug, 15:16, Erland Sommarskog <esq...@.sommarskog.sewrote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by

Yas (yas...@.gmail.com) writes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by

Hi, sorry perhaps I should have been a bit more clear. Well, Table2 is
essentially a Master table that will have a record of all users that
were ever added to Table1. So even if at a later date userA and userB
were removed from Table1, a record of UserA and UserB will always be
there in Table2.

>

Quote:

Originally Posted by

So yes right now Table1 and 2 are identical and that seems
pointless...however soon Table2 will be different in that it will have
a record of rows that are no longer present in Table1. I'm keeping
track of them via another method which checks if a row has been
removed from Table1 if so it adds the date of removal to a column of
that row in Table2. This is why I dont want to update Table2 if a row
is removed in Table1...only if a new row is added or an existing one
modified.

>

Quote:

Originally Posted by

I hope that explains what I'm trying to do :-) can I still use
Triggers to do this?

>
Since the tables are in the same database, triggers is definitely the
way to go.
>

Thanks. This is what I'm trying to do now... do you know how I can
refer to the row that has just been added or modified?

In Table1 I have...

CREATE TRIGGER (tr_updateMaster) ON dbo.Table2
FOR INSERT, UPDATE
AS
Here I would like to put something like...
Insert into Table2 new row + 2 extra columns (status and date)
AND/OR
Update modified row in dbo.Table2 with different values in Table1

Thanks again :-)|||On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 08:13:47 -0700, Yas <yasar1@.gmail.comwrote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by

Quote:

Originally Posted by

>Since the tables are in the same database, triggers is definitely the
>way to go.
>>

>
>Thanks. This is what I'm trying to do now... do you know how I can
>refer to the row that has just been added or modified?

Read up on the INSERTED and DELETED virtual tables that are available
to triggers.

Roy Harvey
Beacon Falls, CT|||On 16 Aug, 17:48, Roy Harvey <roy_har...@.snet.netwrote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 08:13:47 -0700, Yas <yas...@.gmail.comwrote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by

Quote:

Originally Posted by

Since the tables are in the same database, triggers is definitely the
way to go.

>

Quote:

Originally Posted by

Thanks. This is what I'm trying to do now... do you know how I can
refer to the row that has just been added or modified?

>
Read up on the INSERTED and DELETED virtual tables that are available
to triggers.

Hi I'm trying the following for INSERT trigger attached to Table1 but
it doesn't seem to work in that it doesn't insert the new rows into
Table2 from Table1

CREATE TRIGGER my_Trigger ON [dbo].[Table2]
FOR INSERT
AS

INSERT INTO
Table2(STATUS,attribute15,email,lastname1,lastname 2,name,company,startDate)
SELECT 'Active' AS STATUS, b.Attribute15, b.email, b.lastname1,
b.lastname2, b.name,
b.company, b.startDate
FROM Inserted b LEFT OUTER JOIN
Table2 a ON b.Attribute15 = a.Attribute15
WHERE a.Attribute15 IS NULL
GO

The syntax according to MS SQL server is correct but nothing happens
when a new row is inserted into Table1.

The idea here is basically when a new row is inserted in Table1, the
above insert command is run and the new row copied over to Table2

Any help?

Thanks in advance|||Yas (yasar1@.gmail.com) writes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by

CREATE TRIGGER my_Trigger ON [dbo].[Table2]
FOR INSERT
AS
>
INSERT INTO
Table2(STATUS,attribute15,email,lastname1,lastname 2,name,company,startDate)
SELECT 'Active' AS STATUS, b.Attribute15, b.email, b.lastname1,
b.lastname2, b.name,
b.company, b.startDate
FROM Inserted b LEFT OUTER JOIN
Table2 a ON b.Attribute15 = a.Attribute15
WHERE a.Attribute15 IS NULL
GO
>
The syntax according to MS SQL server is correct but nothing happens
when a new row is inserted into Table1.

Well, the code you posted is a trigger on Table2, so...

--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se
Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...oads/books.mspx
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodin...ions/books.mspx|||On 16 Aug, 22:58, Erland Sommarskog <esq...@.sommarskog.sewrote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by

Yas (yas...@.gmail.com) writes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by

CREATE TRIGGER my_Trigger ON [dbo].[Table2]
FOR INSERT
AS

>

Quote:

Originally Posted by

INSERT INTO
Table2(STATUS,attribute15,email,lastname1,lastname 2,name,company,startDate)
SELECT 'Active' AS STATUS, b.Attribute15, b.email, b.lastname1,
b.lastname2, b.name,
b.company, b.startDate
FROM Inserted b LEFT OUTER JOIN
Table2 a ON b.Attribute15 = a.Attribute15
WHERE a.Attribute15 IS NULL
GO

>

Quote:

Originally Posted by

The syntax according to MS SQL server is correct but nothing happens
when a new row is inserted into Table1.

>
Well, the code you posted is a trigger on Table2, so...
>

DOH!!! what a silly mistake. :-) do you think apart from that its fine
for inserting new rows into Table2 from Table1 trigger?

Thanks agian|||Yas (yasar1@.gmail.com) writes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by

DOH!!! what a silly mistake. :-)

It's often that when you work with something you are not really confident
that you look for the difficult mistakes and overlook the simple typos.

Quote:

Originally Posted by

do you think apart from that its fine
for inserting new rows into Table2 from Table1 trigger?

Looks good to me. I would have used NOT EXISTS rather than the LEFT JOIN,
as I think that expresses more clearly what is going on. But that's a matter
of taste.

--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se
Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...oads/books.mspx
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodin...ions/books.mspx|||On 17 Aug, 08:11, Erland Sommarskog <esq...@.sommarskog.sewrote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by

Yas(yas...@.gmail.com) writes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by

DOH!!! what a silly mistake. :-)

>
It's often that when you work with something you are not really confident
that you look for the difficult mistakes and overlook the simple typos.
>

Quote:

Originally Posted by

do you think apart from that its fine
for inserting new rows into Table2 from Table1 trigger?

>
Looks good to me. I would have used NOT EXISTS rather than the LEFT JOIN,
as I think that expresses more clearly what is going on. But that's a matter
of taste.
>

Thanks for all your advise and help! by the way do you if there is a
way to edit/change a Trigger once it has been created in MS SQL?

Yas|||On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 19:47:32 -0700, Yas wrote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by

>On 17 Aug, 08:11, Erland Sommarskog <esq...@.sommarskog.sewrote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by

>Yas(yas...@.gmail.com) writes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by

DOH!!! what a silly mistake. :-)

>>
>It's often that when you work with something you are not really confident
>that you look for the difficult mistakes and overlook the simple typos.
>>

Quote:

Originally Posted by

do you think apart from that its fine
for inserting new rows into Table2 from Table1 trigger?

>>
>Looks good to me. I would have used NOT EXISTS rather than the LEFT JOIN,
>as I think that expresses more clearly what is going on. But that's a matter
>of taste.
>>

>
>Thanks for all your advise and help! by the way do you if there is a
>way to edit/change a Trigger once it has been created in MS SQL?

Hi Yas,

Yes. Simply use ALTER TRIGGER instead of CREATE TRIGGER.

--
Hugo Kornelis, SQL Server MVP
My SQL Server blog: http://sqlblog.com/blogs/hugo_kornelis|||On 17 Aug, 09:11, Erland Sommarskog <esq...@.sommarskog.sewrote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by

Yas(yas...@.gmail.com) writes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by

DOH!!! what a silly mistake. :-)

>
It's often that when you work with something you are not really confident
that you look for the difficult mistakes and overlook the simple typos.
>

Quote:

Originally Posted by

do you think apart from that its fine
for inserting new rows into Table2 from Table1 trigger?

>
Looks good to me. I would have used NOT EXISTS rather than the LEFT JOIN,
as I think that expresses more clearly what is going on. But that's a matter
of taste.

Thanks. Just out of curiosity how would you modify the above to use
NOT EXISTS ?

cheers
Yas|||On Aug 16, 2:14 pm, Yas <yas...@.gmail.comwrote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by

On 16 Aug, 13:46, Erland Sommarskog <esq...@.sommarskog.sewrote:
>

Quote:

Originally Posted by

The first question is why do you want to do this in the first place? It
seems funny that you would want to have two identical tables in the same
database? Or ar the tables in different databases on different servers?

>
Hi, sorry perhaps I should have been a bit more clear. Well, Table2 is
essentially a Master table that will have a record of all users that
were ever added to Table1. So even if at a later date userA and userB
were removed from Table1, a record of UserA and UserB will always be
there in Table2.
>
So yes right now Table1 and 2 are identical and that seems
pointless...however soon Table2 will be different in that it will have
a record of rows that are no longer present in Table1. I'm keeping
track of them via another method which checks if a row has been
removed from Table1 if so it adds the date of removal to a column of
that row in Table2. This is why I dont want to update Table2 if a row
is removed in Table1...only if a new row is added or an existing one
modified.
>
I hope that explains what I'm trying to do :-) can I still use
Triggers to do this?
>

Quote:

Originally Posted by

If the tables are on the same server, a trigger would be the best way
to do it.

>
Yes, they are on the same server and in the same Database.

Couldn't you just use one table and add column use as a DELETED flag
to logically delete a user so the physical row is still there?|||On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 01:29:46 -0700, Yas <yasar1@.gmail.comwrote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by

INSERT INTO
Table2(STATUS,attribute15,email,lastname1,lastname 2,name,company,startDate)
SELECT 'Active' AS STATUS, b.Attribute15, b.email, b.lastname1,
b.lastname2, b.name,
b.company, b.startDate
FROM Inserted b LEFT OUTER JOIN
Table2 a ON b.Attribute15 = a.Attribute15
WHERE a.Attribute15 IS NULL

Quote:

Originally Posted by

>Just out of curiosity how would you modify the above to use
>NOT EXISTS ?

INSERT INTO Table2
(STATUS,attribute15,email,
lastname1,lastname2,name,
company,startDate)
SELECT 'Active' AS STATUS, b.Attribute15, b.email,
b.lastname1, b.lastname2, b.name,
b.company, b.startDate
FROM Inserted b
WHERE NOT EXISTS
(SELECT * FROM Table2 a
WHERE b.Attribute15 = a.Attribute15)

Roy Harvey
Beacon Falls, CT

MS Search

We have problem on our 2 original sql instances in a 4-node cluster.
Both the 2 old instances get one warning and one error message in the
event log.
This is the warning message for one of the instances:
****
Source:Microsoft Search
Category:Gatherer
Event ID:3055
Description:
The Gatherer property mapping file cannot be opened. Error: 80070002.
The default values are being used. You may have to copy the property
mapping file from the setup CD, or reinstall the application.
****
Here comes the error message for the same instance:
****
Source:Microsoft Search
Category:Gatherer
Event ID:10006
Description:
An error occured during the online operation for instance <SQL Server
Fulltext (Inst2)>: 80070002 - The system cannot find the file
specified
****
The service Microsoft Search is running, it's the cluster resource
that freak out. Since the full text is not used we removed the
resources from the clustergroups. without them it all works as it
should.
We have 2 new sql instances and they run the SQL Server Fulltext in
the cluster on whatewer node of the 4 witch the group is moved to. The
account used for sql is the same in all 4 instances and it's in the
administators group on all 4 nodes. The same goes fore the account
that runs the cluster.
What I would like to know is what file is the event message pointing
to? We can't se anything odd.
What is the default values?
If I copy it from the install CD, what directory?
If I reinstall, what will I have to reinstall?
In both cases. what about servicepack and hotfixes after?
/Peter
Hello Peter,
Please refer to the following Knowledge Base article concerning this issue:
304282 PRB: Full Text Resource Fails to Come Online on a Cluster with
"Event ID
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=304282
Regards,
Farooq Mahmud [MS SQL Support]
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Are you secure? For information about the Strategic Technology Protection
Program and to order your FREE Security Tool Kit, please visit
http://www.microsoft.com/security.
|||Hi there Farooq!
I have checked out that article already.
Since we have 2 instances that work we compare them with each other.
We found no differenses. That's why I ask the questions about
reinstalling from the CD.
I.E how to do the part I quote, what about the reinstall from CD or
rebuild. Where can I find the steps, and if I take it from the CD what
about SP and hotfixes? I hope you can help me.
"
From Knowledge Base-artikel - 304282
MORE INFORMATION
If the files in the FTDATA folder are replaced, corrupted, or deleted,
or if the FTDATA folder itself is deleted, the SQL Server Fulltext
cluster resource may have to be rebuilt to be restored to a stable
state.
"
/Peter
On Tue, 11 May 2004 13:08:15 GMT, farooqm@.online.microsoft.com (Farooq
Mahmud [MS]) wrotc:

>Hello Peter,
>Please refer to the following Knowledge Base article concerning this issue:
>304282 PRB: Full Text Resource Fails to Come Online on a Cluster with
>"Event ID
>http://support.microsoft.com/?id=304282
>Regards,
>Farooq Mahmud [MS SQL Support]
>This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
>Are you secure? For information about the Strategic Technology Protection
>Program and to order your FREE Security Tool Kit, please visit
>http://www.microsoft.com/security.