Disk Fragmentation on W2K Server/SQL Server 2000

Hi, I'm hoping one of you SQL gurus out there will help me with a debate bet
ween myself, a simple Network Admin. and my colleague, an SQL DBA. The W2K/
SQL 2000 box is having performance problems so I was asked to check on it.
Now, in most environments I
have worked in, I took care of the physical server and OS and the DBA/Develo
per types did their own thing. In my current work environment, everyone has
been accustomed to taking care of their own boxes, the DBA included, so the
re are some issues with me
doing my job at all. Anyway, I did a performance analysis of the OS/Hardwar
e and configuration. I also researched the Best Practices for SQL 2000 Serve
r and after a week of collecting metrics, gave the information to the DBA.
There did not appear to be
any disk, memory, paging etc. problems but the one thing that really stood o
ut to me was that the disks were 49% fragmented and the files on those disks
93 and 99% fragmented. Primarily database and log files. Again, I just pr
ovided the info as I do no
t want to step on the DBAs toes. The DBA however, reacted defensively and s
aid that she has *never* defragged an SQL server and in searching through MS
DN, found *no* evidence that there is ever a need to defrag one. Further, t
hat if SQL server could now
find the files in their fragmented state, why was there a problem? If the d
rives were defragged, how would SQL server be able to find the files? She w
as serious. Now, I'm being frowned on as not knowing what I'm talking about.
I'm the newest member of
the team, but not a newbie in the field. I have worked with Microsoft produc
ts now for many years and I know that every Windows box PC or Server needs t
o be defragged and occasionally rebooted as a part of routine maintenace. T
here needs to be a mainten
ance windows for doing so. Having a 99.9% uptime record will not matter when
those drives grind to a halt. What I keep searching for is some reference
from Microsoft or other known expert or publication that will state this as
it pertains to SQL server.
Most of the SQL manuals leave out any OS administration information. Anyone
have any suggestions or comments? Microsoft, are you out there? Please He
lp! TIAmy two cents:
Databases if set up as auto grow and auto shrink, will definitely fragment
disk drives over time. Defragmentation the disks will help improve
performance.
Now, inside a database, there is a page split problem that causes
fragmentation too, It's the DBA's job to reindex tables on a regular basis
to fix index fragmentation. I think you should first get an idea of how the
DBA maintains the index defragmentation, then work on the physical disk
defragmentation. Also there are a lot of other factors affecting database
performance.
Richard
"cdub" <cdub@.newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:29C67933-B2CB-43F3-A498-E8EABD2DB936@.microsoft.com...
> Hi, I'm hoping one of you SQL gurus out there will help me with a debate
between myself, a simple Network Admin. and my colleague, an SQL DBA. The
W2K/SQL 2000 box is having performance problems so I was asked to check on
it. Now, in most environments I have worked in, I took care of the physical
server and OS and the DBA/Developer types did their own thing. In my
current work environment, everyone has been accustomed to taking care of
their own boxes, the DBA included, so there are some issues with me doing my
job at all. Anyway, I did a performance analysis of the OS/Hardware and
configuration. I also researched the Best Practices for SQL 2000 Server and
after a week of collecting metrics, gave the information to the DBA. There
did not appear to be any disk, memory, paging etc. problems but the one
thing that really stood out to me was that the disks were 49% fragmented and
the files on those disks 93 and 99% fragmented. Primarily database and log
files. Again, I just provided the info as I do not want to step on the DBAs
toes. The DBA however, reacted defensively and said that she has *never*
defragged an SQL server and in searching through MSDN, found *no* evidence
that there is ever a need to defrag one. Further, that if SQL server could
now find the files in their fragmented state, why was there a problem? If
the drives were defragged, how would SQL server be able to find the files?
She was serious. Now, I'm being frowned on as not knowing what I'm talking
about. I'm the newest member of the team, but not a newbie in the field. I
have worked with Microsoft products now for many years and I know that every
Windows box PC or Server needs to be defragged and occasionally rebooted as
a part of routine maintenace. There needs to be a maintenance windows for
doing so. Having a 99.9% uptime record will not matter when those drives
grind to a halt. What I keep searching for is some reference from Microsoft
or other known expert or publication that will state this as it pertains to
SQL server. Most of the SQL manuals leave out any OS administration
information. Anyone have any suggestions or comments? Microsoft, are you
out there? Please Help! TIA|||I agree with Richard. I've seen SQL performance affected by fragmentation
and auto-grow. The best way to handle it is usually to plan the size of the
database you need, defrag first, and then allocate the space that you need.
Christian Smith
"Richard Ding" <dingr@.cleanharbors.com> wrote in message
news:uEp2zCo8DHA.2656@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> my two cents:
> Databases if set up as auto grow and auto shrink, will definitely fragment
> disk drives over time. Defragmentation the disks will help improve
> performance.
> Now, inside a database, there is a page split problem that causes
> fragmentation too, It's the DBA's job to reindex tables on a regular basis
> to fix index fragmentation. I think you should first get an idea of how
the
> DBA maintains the index defragmentation, then work on the physical disk
> defragmentation. Also there are a lot of other factors affecting database
> performance.
>
> Richard
> "cdub" <cdub@.newsguy.com> wrote in message
> news:29C67933-B2CB-43F3-A498-E8EABD2DB936@.microsoft.com...
> between myself, a simple Network Admin. and my colleague, an SQL DBA. The
> W2K/SQL 2000 box is having performance problems so I was asked to check on
> it. Now, in most environments I have worked in, I took care of the
physical
> server and OS and the DBA/Developer types did their own thing. In my
> current work environment, everyone has been accustomed to taking care of
> their own boxes, the DBA included, so there are some issues with me doing
my
> job at all. Anyway, I did a performance analysis of the OS/Hardware and
> configuration. I also researched the Best Practices for SQL 2000 Server
and
> after a week of collecting metrics, gave the information to the DBA.
There
> did not appear to be any disk, memory, paging etc. problems but the one
> thing that really stood out to me was that the disks were 49% fragmented
and
> the files on those disks 93 and 99% fragmented. Primarily database and
log
> files. Again, I just provided the info as I do not want to step on the
DBAs
> toes. The DBA however, reacted defensively and said that she has *never*
> defragged an SQL server and in searching through MSDN, found *no* evidence
> that there is ever a need to defrag one. Further, that if SQL server
could
> now find the files in their fragmented state, why was there a problem? If
> the drives were defragged, how would SQL server be able to find the files?
> She was serious. Now, I'm being frowned on as not knowing what I'm talking
> about. I'm the newest member of the team, but not a newbie in the field.
I
> have worked with Microsoft products now for many years and I know that
every
> Windows box PC or Server needs to be defragged and occasionally rebooted
as
> a part of routine maintenace. There needs to be a maintenance windows for
> doing so. Having a 99.9% uptime record will not matter when those drives
> grind to a halt. What I keep searching for is some reference from
Microsoft
> or other known expert or publication that will state this as it pertains
to
> SQL server. Most of the SQL manuals leave out any OS administration
> information. Anyone have any suggestions or comments? Microsoft, are you
> out there? Please Help! TIA
>sql

disabled fields, such as Upload File, in Report Manager

When I open Report Manager through IE on server 2003 installed with reporting
service and login as an admin through remote desktop connection, I can see
all the features but disabled. I can not Upload File, Add New Data Source
etc.. What is wrong? Please help.See what role-based security you have.
At the "Home" folder, go to Properties --> Security and see the roles
assigned to the admin. If you don't have "Content Manager" role
assigned to you, you can not upload the files.
Shang wrote:
> When I open Report Manager through IE on server 2003 installed with reporting
> service and login as an admin through remote desktop connection, I can see
> all the features but disabled. I can not Upload File, Add New Data Source
> etc.. What is wrong? Please help.|||Well, what i m used to do to upload rdls, is -
1 - go to the properties of reports virtual folder under IIS
2 - click directory security tab
3 - click edit button
4 - turn of anoymous access
it works for me|||I agree, it seems like the website has anonymous turned on. When anonymous
is turned on, even logged in as administrator does not give you the
administrators rights to do things in RS. This is because with anonymous
turned on everybody is treated the same, because they are anonymous.
--
Bruce Loehle-Conger
MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
"Techotsav" <Utsav.Verma@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1134195509.900311.33640@.o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Well, what i m used to do to upload rdls, is -
> 1 - go to the properties of reports virtual folder under IIS
> 2 - click directory security tab
> 3 - click edit button
> 4 - turn of anoymous access
> it works for me
>|||Hi Bruce,
Having similar problem.
Fresh install of Windows 2003 Standard, and IIS, SP1
Fresh Install of SQL 2005 w/ Reporting Services
Fresh install of Visual Studio 2005
Can not create new folder etc... Logged on as user with Administrative
privileges or Local Administrator or Domain Administrator, no difference?
Thanx in advance,
Greg Rowland|||Hi Siva,
It is Content Manager role for the admin login. Anonymous access is disabled
and Integrated Windows authentication is checked.
The server 2003 is just installed with IS6.0 and reporting services only.
Any hints?
"siva.jasthi@.gmail.com" wrote:
> See what role-based security you have.
> At the "Home" folder, go to Properties --> Security and see the roles
> assigned to the admin. If you don't have "Content Manager" role
> assigned to you, you can not upload the files.
>
> Shang wrote:
> > When I open Report Manager through IE on server 2003 installed with reporting
> > service and login as an admin through remote desktop connection, I can see
> > all the features but disabled. I can not Upload File, Add New Data Source
> > etc.. What is wrong? Please help.
>|||Greg,
Please inform me of any possible solutions since we share a similar problem.
"Greg Rowland" wrote:
> Hi Bruce,
>
> Having similar problem.
> Fresh install of Windows 2003 Standard, and IIS, SP1
> Fresh Install of SQL 2005 w/ Reporting Services
> Fresh install of Visual Studio 2005
>
> Can not create new folder etc... Logged on as user with Administrative
> privileges or Local Administrator or Domain Administrator, no difference?
>
>
> Thanx in advance,
>
> Greg Rowland
>
>
>|||I found a change to http://localhost/reports instead of
http://computername/reports
made the difference. But why?
"Greg Rowland" wrote:
> OK
>
>

disable the BULTIN/admin then SQL Agent topped!

when i disabled the BULTIN/admin user in SQL 2000
i could start SQL Server service, but i couldn't start SQL Agent Service
does anyone know how to slove this prob
I also wanna know is it suitable to disable the BULTIN/admin user in SQL 200
than| when i disabled the BULTIN/admin user in SQL 2000,
i could start SQL Server service, but i couldn't start SQL Agent Service.
| does anyone know how to slove this prob?
I also wanna know is it suitable to disable the BULTIN/admin user in SQL
2000
|
| thanx
|
--
Checkout these articles:
PRB: SQL Server Agent Does Not Start and Displays Error 18456
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=237604
INF: How to Impede Windows NT Administrators from Administering
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=263712
Hope this helps,
--
Eric Cárdenas
SQL Server support|||thanx a lot, the article helps a lot.

disable local admin rights in sql server

Can I disable local admin right in SQL Server?
What is the affect if I could do that?
Your response would be greatly appreaciated,
CulamYou can remove the builtin\administrators group from SQL
Server. However, under some scenarios, this can cause
problems. Whether you get problems or not depends. The
following article has a more information section with links
to some issues that could come up:
INF: How to impede Windows NT administrators from
administering a clustered instance of SQL Server
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=263712
-Sue
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 14:49:06 -0800, "culam"
<culam@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>Can I disable local admin right in SQL Server?
>What is the affect if I could do that?
>Your response would be greatly appreaciated,
>Culam|||Thank you Sue!
"Sue Hoegemeier" wrote:

> You can remove the builtin\administrators group from SQL
> Server. However, under some scenarios, this can cause
> problems. Whether you get problems or not depends. The
> following article has a more information section with links
> to some issues that could come up:
> INF: How to impede Windows NT administrators from
> administering a clustered instance of SQL Server
> http://support.microsoft.com/?id=263712
> -Sue
> On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 14:49:06 -0800, "culam"
> <culam@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>|||Is it also possible to limit local admin rights to an MSDE SQL SERVER instan
ce?
"Sue Hoegemeier" wrote:

> You can remove the builtin\administrators group from SQL
> Server. However, under some scenarios, this can cause
> problems. Whether you get problems or not depends. The
> following article has a more information section with links
> to some issues that could come up:
> INF: How to impede Windows NT administrators from
> administering a clustered instance of SQL Server
> http://support.microsoft.com/?id=263712
> -Sue
> On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 14:49:06 -0800, "culam"
> <culam@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>