Diskkeeper users ..

Anyone uses Diskkeeper in their production environment to defrag their files
? Any pros and cons that you are aware of ? Can you defrag the files while
the databases are active or do we need to do it when SQL is offline ?
Thanks
Hi
Yes, but not with SQL Server running.
Once it has been defragmented, and you manually grow the DBs to a decent
size so that autogrow does not kick, there is very little need to do i again.
Regards
Mike
"Hassan" wrote:

> Anyone uses Diskkeeper in their production environment to defrag their files
> ? Any pros and cons that you are aware of ? Can you defrag the files while
> the databases are active or do we need to do it when SQL is offline ?
> Thanks
>
>

Diskkeeper users ..

Anyone uses Diskkeeper in their production environment to defrag their files
? Any pros and cons that you are aware of ? Can you defrag the files while
the databases are active or do we need to do it when SQL is offline ?
ThanksHi
Yes, but not with SQL Server running.
Once it has been defragmented, and you manually grow the DBs to a decent
size so that autogrow does not kick, there is very little need to do i again
.
Regards
Mike
"Hassan" wrote:

> Anyone uses Diskkeeper in their production environment to defrag their fil
es
> ? Any pros and cons that you are aware of ? Can you defrag the files while
> the databases are active or do we need to do it when SQL is offline ?
> Thanks
>
>

Diskkeeper users ..

Anyone uses Diskkeeper in their production environment to defrag their files
? Any pros and cons that you are aware of ? Can you defrag the files while
the databases are active or do we need to do it when SQL is offline ?
ThanksHi
Yes, but not with SQL Server running.
Once it has been defragmented, and you manually grow the DBs to a decent
size so that autogrow does not kick, there is very little need to do i again.
Regards
Mike
"Hassan" wrote:
> Anyone uses Diskkeeper in their production environment to defrag their files
> ? Any pros and cons that you are aware of ? Can you defrag the files while
> the databases are active or do we need to do it when SQL is offline ?
> Thanks
>
>

disk queuing

I appear to have 100% disk queuing performance problems even when there are
not any users interigating data?
This leads to blocking when users do attempt to run data interegation.
We have a 3Gb processor running 2Gb of Ram
I have watched the performance monitor endlessly and the problem is
intermitant, the CPU usage is barely used
Please can anyone direct me towards the problem?Probably related to checkpoints. Lookup Checkpoint in BooksOnLine for more
details. You can monitor when this happens with Perfmon and the SQL
CheckPoint per Second counter. Or something else is going on with the
server that you are not aware of.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Michael Ayers" <michael.ayers(RemoveThis)@.phonetics.co.uk> wrote in message
news:B5D9F392-3ADF-4B4B-A48F-500398DFC377@.microsoft.com...
>I appear to have 100% disk queuing performance problems even when there are
> not any users interigating data?
> This leads to blocking when users do attempt to run data interegation.
> We have a 3Gb processor running 2Gb of Ram
> I have watched the performance monitor endlessly and the problem is
> intermitant, the CPU usage is barely used
> Please can anyone direct me towards the problem?sql

disk queuing

I appear to have 100% disk queuing performance problems even when there are
not any users interigating data?
This leads to blocking when users do attempt to run data interegation.
We have a 3Gb processor running 2Gb of Ram
I have watched the performance monitor endlessly and the problem is
intermitant, the CPU usage is barely used
Please can anyone direct me towards the problem?
Probably related to checkpoints. Lookup Checkpoint in BooksOnLine for more
details. You can monitor when this happens with Perfmon and the SQL
CheckPoint per Second counter. Or something else is going on with the
server that you are not aware of.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Michael Ayers" <michael.ayers(RemoveThis)@.phonetics.co.uk> wrote in message
news:B5D9F392-3ADF-4B4B-A48F-500398DFC377@.microsoft.com...
>I appear to have 100% disk queuing performance problems even when there are
> not any users interigating data?
> This leads to blocking when users do attempt to run data interegation.
> We have a 3Gb processor running 2Gb of Ram
> I have watched the performance monitor endlessly and the problem is
> intermitant, the CPU usage is barely used
> Please can anyone direct me towards the problem?

disk queuing

I appear to have 100% disk queuing performance problems even when there are
not any users interigating data?
This leads to blocking when users do attempt to run data interegation.
We have a 3Gb processor running 2Gb of Ram
I have watched the performance monitor endlessly and the problem is
intermitant, the CPU usage is barely used
Please can anyone direct me towards the problem?Probably related to checkpoints. Lookup Checkpoint in BooksOnLine for more
details. You can monitor when this happens with Perfmon and the SQL
CheckPoint per Second counter. Or something else is going on with the
server that you are not aware of.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Michael Ayers" <michael.ayers(RemoveThis)@.phonetics.co.uk> wrote in message
news:B5D9F392-3ADF-4B4B-A48F-500398DFC377@.microsoft.com...
>I appear to have 100% disk queuing performance problems even when there are
> not any users interigating data?
> This leads to blocking when users do attempt to run data interegation.
> We have a 3Gb processor running 2Gb of Ram
> I have watched the performance monitor endlessly and the problem is
> intermitant, the CPU usage is barely used
> Please can anyone direct me towards the problem?

Disk Queue Length always high, even with no requests...

I was working on my server this weekend trying to figure out why I'm
having the problems some of my users are reporting.
After I got done running a dbcc dbreindex, I noticed my average disk
queue length (even over several hours) was a solid 4.337. The perfmon
would show disk IO in large spikes (into the 400s) several times per
polling intraval (1:40 according to perfmon).
This is a bit odd to me, as the system does nothing but serve the SQL
database. Nobody but myself was attached to it.
So, I grabbed process explorer from sysinternals. I was watching the
disk i/o in that, and according to it, the program causing the disk i/o
spikes is csrss.exe (required by windows).
This machine is not connected to the outside world, just to our lan.
However I guess it's possible a virus made it's way to the machine.
But I'm not entirely sure that's the problem.
At any rate. What can I do to get rid of that high of a disk i/o? I've
monitored it before and never seen a steady 4.337 (steady, unwavering)
I/O reading.. especially with nobody on, let alone 30 users.Ahh, system specs just in case
2GB ECC RAM (Tossing in 2 more GB for the sake of it).
RAID1: 160GB Mirror Array
AMD X2 4400+ Toledo Core.
All this machine does is serve up a 7GB MSSQL db to about 17 machines.
However, most of these users are not active throughout the day.
I realize the mirror array is not the best way to do it. But we are
more concerned with data safety than speed. (for the most part).
I'm just trying to narrow down why my average disk queue length is
currently in the 4's with nobody on.|||Alright,
We can nix this topic. I came in this morning and the averages were
under 1. It must have been in a grow op or something when it was in
the 4's constantly.

Disk Queue Length always high, even with no requests...

I was working on my server this weekend trying to figure out why I'm
having the problems some of my users are reporting.
After I got done running a dbcc dbreindex, I noticed my average disk
queue length (even over several hours) was a solid 4.337. The perfmon
would show disk IO in large spikes (into the 400s) several times per
polling intraval (1:40 according to perfmon).
This is a bit odd to me, as the system does nothing but serve the SQL
database. Nobody but myself was attached to it.
So, I grabbed process explorer from sysinternals. I was watching the
disk i/o in that, and according to it, the program causing the disk i/o
spikes is csrss.exe (required by windows).
This machine is not connected to the outside world, just to our lan.
However I guess it's possible a virus made it's way to the machine.
But I'm not entirely sure that's the problem.
At any rate. What can I do to get rid of that high of a disk i/o? I've
monitored it before and never seen a steady 4.337 (steady, unwavering)
I/O reading.. especially with nobody on, let alone 30 users.Ahh, system specs just in case
2GB ECC RAM (Tossing in 2 more GB for the sake of it).
RAID1: 160GB Mirror Array
AMD X2 4400+ Toledo Core.
All this machine does is serve up a 7GB MSSQL db to about 17 machines.
However, most of these users are not active throughout the day.
I realize the mirror array is not the best way to do it. But we are
more concerned with data safety than speed. (for the most part).
I'm just trying to narrow down why my average disk queue length is
currently in the 4's with nobody on.|||Alright,
We can nix this topic. I came in this morning and the averages were
under 1. It must have been in a grow op or something when it was in
the 4's constantly.

Disk controller vs another disk

Hi,
Since I added a couple databases and a lot of users to my SQL server, I
notice that my disk queue lenght is now too high and I need to add disk(s) t
o
increase performance. My server is configured in a clustered environment and
the data is on a SAN. The SAN use RAID1 for my partition and the controller
of the disk has a 128mb cache. I have 125 databases on this server for a
total of 80GO of data.
I had a discussion with someone in the ''hardware team'' and he said that
if we change the controller card for a card that will have 1GB of cache, it
will be better than add another disk in term of performance. I searched on
the web and in some newsgroups and I found nothing that suggest this kind of
thing. What is your opinion ?"TheOne" <TheOne@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:692914A2-F957-4E00-809E-DDB3BFFC878B@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> Since I added a couple databases and a lot of users to my SQL server, I
> notice that my disk queue lenght is now too high and I need to add disk(s)
> to
> increase performance. My server is configured in a clustered environment
> and
> the data is on a SAN. The SAN use RAID1 for my partition and the
> controller
> of the disk has a 128mb cache. I have 125 databases on this server for a
> total of 80GO of data.
> I had a discussion with someone in the ''hardware team'' and he said that
> if we change the controller card for a card that will have 1GB of cache,
> it
> will be better than add another disk in term of performance. I searched on
> the web and in some newsgroups and I found nothing that suggest this kind
> of
> thing. What is your opinion ?
Impossible to tell without testing. He's right that the remedy for for IO
contention and disk queuing is as likely to be adding memory as adding
disks. The reason is that better caching will reduce the number of IO's
needed by the workload. But adding cache between the server and disk by
adding it on the controller is generally vastly more expensive than simply
adding more memory to the server.
David|||TheOne,
Additional cache is good, but as always ... "your results may vary". It is
very difficult to estimate cacheing performance. Why not do both? Add a new
controller and see if it makes a difference. If not, add a disk drives to
the SAN.
-- Bill
"TheOne" <TheOne@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:692914A2-F957-4E00-809E-DDB3BFFC878B@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> Since I added a couple databases and a lot of users to my SQL server, I
> notice that my disk queue lenght is now too high and I need to add disk(s)
> to
> increase performance. My server is configured in a clustered environment
> and
> the data is on a SAN. The SAN use RAID1 for my partition and the
> controller
> of the disk has a 128mb cache. I have 125 databases on this server for a
> total of 80GO of data.
> I had a discussion with someone in the ''hardware team'' and he said that
> if we change the controller card for a card that will have 1GB of cache,
> it
> will be better than add another disk in term of performance. I searched on
> the web and in some newsgroups and I found nothing that suggest this kind
> of
> thing. What is your opinion ?

Disk controller vs another disk

Hi,
Since I added a couple databases and a lot of users to my SQL server, I
notice that my disk queue lenght is now too high and I need to add disk(s) to
increase performance. My server is configured in a clustered environment and
the data is on a SAN. The SAN use RAID1 for my partition and the controller
of the disk has a 128mb cache. I have 125 databases on this server for a
total of 80GO of data.
I had a discussion with someone in the ''hardware team'' and he said that
if we change the controller card for a card that will have 1GB of cache, it
will be better than add another disk in term of performance. I searched on
the web and in some newsgroups and I found nothing that suggest this kind of
thing. What is your opinion ?
"TheOne" <TheOne@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:692914A2-F957-4E00-809E-DDB3BFFC878B@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> Since I added a couple databases and a lot of users to my SQL server, I
> notice that my disk queue lenght is now too high and I need to add disk(s)
> to
> increase performance. My server is configured in a clustered environment
> and
> the data is on a SAN. The SAN use RAID1 for my partition and the
> controller
> of the disk has a 128mb cache. I have 125 databases on this server for a
> total of 80GO of data.
> I had a discussion with someone in the ''hardware team'' and he said that
> if we change the controller card for a card that will have 1GB of cache,
> it
> will be better than add another disk in term of performance. I searched on
> the web and in some newsgroups and I found nothing that suggest this kind
> of
> thing. What is your opinion ?
Impossible to tell without testing. He's right that the remedy for for IO
contention and disk queuing is as likely to be adding memory as adding
disks. The reason is that better caching will reduce the number of IO's
needed by the workload. But adding cache between the server and disk by
adding it on the controller is generally vastly more expensive than simply
adding more memory to the server.
David
|||TheOne,
Additional cache is good, but as always ... "your results may vary". It is
very difficult to estimate cacheing performance. Why not do both? Add a new
controller and see if it makes a difference. If not, add a disk drives to
the SAN.
-- Bill
"TheOne" <TheOne@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:692914A2-F957-4E00-809E-DDB3BFFC878B@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> Since I added a couple databases and a lot of users to my SQL server, I
> notice that my disk queue lenght is now too high and I need to add disk(s)
> to
> increase performance. My server is configured in a clustered environment
> and
> the data is on a SAN. The SAN use RAID1 for my partition and the
> controller
> of the disk has a 128mb cache. I have 125 databases on this server for a
> total of 80GO of data.
> I had a discussion with someone in the ''hardware team'' and he said that
> if we change the controller card for a card that will have 1GB of cache,
> it
> will be better than add another disk in term of performance. I searched on
> the web and in some newsgroups and I found nothing that suggest this kind
> of
> thing. What is your opinion ?

Disk controller vs another disk

Hi,
Since I added a couple databases and a lot of users to my SQL server, I
notice that my disk queue lenght is now too high and I need to add disk(s) to
increase performance. My server is configured in a clustered environment and
the data is on a SAN. The SAN use RAID1 for my partition and the controller
of the disk has a 128mb cache. I have 125 databases on this server for a
total of 80GO of data.
I had a discussion with someone in the ''hardware team'' and he said that
if we change the controller card for a card that will have 1GB of cache, it
will be better than add another disk in term of performance. I searched on
the web and in some newsgroups and I found nothing that suggest this kind of
thing. What is your opinion ?"TheOne" <TheOne@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:692914A2-F957-4E00-809E-DDB3BFFC878B@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> Since I added a couple databases and a lot of users to my SQL server, I
> notice that my disk queue lenght is now too high and I need to add disk(s)
> to
> increase performance. My server is configured in a clustered environment
> and
> the data is on a SAN. The SAN use RAID1 for my partition and the
> controller
> of the disk has a 128mb cache. I have 125 databases on this server for a
> total of 80GO of data.
> I had a discussion with someone in the ''hardware team'' and he said that
> if we change the controller card for a card that will have 1GB of cache,
> it
> will be better than add another disk in term of performance. I searched on
> the web and in some newsgroups and I found nothing that suggest this kind
> of
> thing. What is your opinion ?
Impossible to tell without testing. He's right that the remedy for for IO
contention and disk queuing is as likely to be adding memory as adding
disks. The reason is that better caching will reduce the number of IO's
needed by the workload. But adding cache between the server and disk by
adding it on the controller is generally vastly more expensive than simply
adding more memory to the server.
David|||TheOne,
Additional cache is good, but as always ... "your results may vary". It is
very difficult to estimate cacheing performance. Why not do both? Add a new
controller and see if it makes a difference. If not, add a disk drives to
the SAN.
-- Bill
"TheOne" <TheOne@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:692914A2-F957-4E00-809E-DDB3BFFC878B@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> Since I added a couple databases and a lot of users to my SQL server, I
> notice that my disk queue lenght is now too high and I need to add disk(s)
> to
> increase performance. My server is configured in a clustered environment
> and
> the data is on a SAN. The SAN use RAID1 for my partition and the
> controller
> of the disk has a 128mb cache. I have 125 databases on this server for a
> total of 80GO of data.
> I had a discussion with someone in the ''hardware team'' and he said that
> if we change the controller card for a card that will have 1GB of cache,
> it
> will be better than add another disk in term of performance. I searched on
> the web and in some newsgroups and I found nothing that suggest this kind
> of
> thing. What is your opinion ?

disconnecting all users

How can I disconnect all other users from a SQL Server database, except for the one that issues the command
Go to www.dbmaint.com and look for the Utility stored procedures there...
Tibor has a proc that will kill all users connected to a particular
database...You can change it to execlude the spid it runs under, OR simply
move to another db..
Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Mariner, Charlotte, NC
www.mariner-usa.com
(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
community of SQL Server professionals.
www.sqlpass.org
"Craig HB" <CraigHB@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C97A47BF-E76C-4EAD-BA49-41496FB5E104@.microsoft.com...
> How can I disconnect all other users from a SQL Server database, except
for the one that issues the command
|||Try this:
use yourdb
go
alter database yourdb
set single_user with rollback immediate
----
Need SQL Server Examples check out my website at
http://www.geocities.com/sqlserverexamples
"Craig HB" <CraigHB@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C97A47BF-E76C-4EAD-BA49-41496FB5E104@.microsoft.com...
> How can I disconnect all other users from a SQL Server database, except
for the one that issues the command
|||ALTER DATABASE YourDatabase SET SINGLE_USER WITH ROLLBACK IMMEDIATE
GO
USE YourDatabase
GO
... You've now set it to single user mode and then you've become that single
user.
"Craig HB" <CraigHB@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C97A47BF-E76C-4EAD-BA49-41496FB5E104@.microsoft.com...
> How can I disconnect all other users from a SQL Server database, except
for the one that issues the command
|||those Utility stored procedures are really useful
thanks for letting me know about them
- Craig

disconnecting all users

How can I disconnect all other users from a SQL Server database, except for
the one that issues the commandGo to www.dbmaint.com and look for the Utility stored procedures there...
Tibor has a proc that will kill all users connected to a particular
database...You can change it to execlude the spid it runs under, OR simply
move to another db..
Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Mariner, Charlotte, NC
www.mariner-usa.com
(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
community of SQL Server professionals.
www.sqlpass.org
"Craig HB" <CraigHB@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C97A47BF-E76C-4EAD-BA49-41496FB5E104@.microsoft.com...
> How can I disconnect all other users from a SQL Server database, except
for the one that issues the command|||Try this:
use yourdb
go
alter database yourdb
set single_user with rollback immediate
----
----
--
Need SQL Server Examples check out my website at
http://www.geocities.com/sqlserverexamples
"Craig HB" <CraigHB@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C97A47BF-E76C-4EAD-BA49-41496FB5E104@.microsoft.com...
> How can I disconnect all other users from a SQL Server database, except
for the one that issues the command|||ALTER DATABASE YourDatabase SET SINGLE_USER WITH ROLLBACK IMMEDIATE
GO
USE YourDatabase
GO
... You've now set it to single user mode and then you've become that singl
e
user.
"Craig HB" <CraigHB@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C97A47BF-E76C-4EAD-BA49-41496FB5E104@.microsoft.com...
> How can I disconnect all other users from a SQL Server database, except
for the one that issues the command|||those Utility stored procedures are really useful
thanks for letting me know about them
- Craig

Disconnected application and replication

Hi
We have a situation where the sql server backend is on the server but
several laptop users need to disconnect and still be able to use the data.
Can we have copies of say sql express on each laptop which can replicate
data with the sql server when connected and still make the data available
while disconnected from the server? Will this work, specially when the app
front end will be in vb.net?
Thanks
RegardsJohn,
yes - this can work. You'd have a merge publication and pull subscriptions,
activated by your vb.net application.
Cheers,
Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com
(recommended sql server 2000 replication book:
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)|||Or you could have the sync managed by Windows Synchronization Manager or
task scheduler. SQL Server Express does not ship with a scheduler. I would
also have a look at SQL Server Everywhere edition - due out this summer.
Hilary Cotter
Director of Text Mining and Database Strategy
RelevantNOISE.Com - Dedicated to mining blogs for business intelligence.
This posting is my own and doesn't necessarily represent RelevantNoise's
positions, strategies or opinions.
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"Paul Ibison" <Paul.Ibison@.Pygmalion.Com> wrote in message
news:umptsNFZGHA.4144@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> John,
> yes - this can work. You'd have a merge publication and pull
> subscriptions, activated by your vb.net application.
> Cheers,
> Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com
> (recommended sql server 2000 replication book:
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)
>|||Ok, but is it the best/recommended way? I mean what do other people do in
this situation?
Thanks
Regards
"Paul Ibison" <Paul.Ibison@.Pygmalion.Com> wrote in message
news:umptsNFZGHA.4144@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> John,
> yes - this can work. You'd have a merge publication and pull
> subscriptions, activated by your vb.net application.
> Cheers,
> Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com
> (recommended sql server 2000 replication book:
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)
>|||It depends on your requirements. The question is do you want the app to
manage the sync, or do you want it done externally.
If you want the app to manage the sync use the activeX merge control. If you
do not use WSM or task scheduler. WSM has a rich set of functionality for
controlling the sync. If you choose to use task scheduler you will have to
have it instantiate the activeX control to do the sync.
Hilary Cotter
Director of Text Mining and Database Strategy
RelevantNOISE.Com - Dedicated to mining blogs for business intelligence.
This posting is my own and doesn't necessarily represent RelevantNoise's
positions, strategies or opinions.
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"John" <John@.nospam.infovis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:uGU3ovHZGHA.4944@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Ok, but is it the best/recommended way? I mean what do other people do in
> this situation?
> Thanks
> Regards
> "Paul Ibison" <Paul.Ibison@.Pygmalion.Com> wrote in message
> news:umptsNFZGHA.4144@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>

Disconnected application and replication

Hi
We have a situation where the sql server backend is on the server but
several laptop users need to disconnect and still be able to use the data.
Can we have copies of say sql express on each laptop which can replicate
data with the sql server when connected and still make the data available
while disconnected from the server? Will this work, specially when the app
front end will be in vb.net?
Thanks
RegardsJohn,
yes - this can work. You'd have a merge publication and pull subscriptions,
activated by your vb.net application.
Cheers,
Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com
(recommended sql server 2000 replication book:
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)|||Or you could have the sync managed by Windows Synchronization Manager or
task scheduler. SQL Server Express does not ship with a scheduler. I would
also have a look at SQL Server Everywhere edition - due out this summer.
--
Hilary Cotter
Director of Text Mining and Database Strategy
RelevantNOISE.Com - Dedicated to mining blogs for business intelligence.
This posting is my own and doesn't necessarily represent RelevantNoise's
positions, strategies or opinions.
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"Paul Ibison" <Paul.Ibison@.Pygmalion.Com> wrote in message
news:umptsNFZGHA.4144@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> John,
> yes - this can work. You'd have a merge publication and pull
> subscriptions, activated by your vb.net application.
> Cheers,
> Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com
> (recommended sql server 2000 replication book:
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)
>|||Ok, but is it the best/recommended way? I mean what do other people do in
this situation?
Thanks
Regards
"Paul Ibison" <Paul.Ibison@.Pygmalion.Com> wrote in message
news:umptsNFZGHA.4144@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> John,
> yes - this can work. You'd have a merge publication and pull
> subscriptions, activated by your vb.net application.
> Cheers,
> Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com
> (recommended sql server 2000 replication book:
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)
>|||It depends on your requirements. The question is do you want the app to
manage the sync, or do you want it done externally.
If you want the app to manage the sync use the activeX merge control. If you
do not use WSM or task scheduler. WSM has a rich set of functionality for
controlling the sync. If you choose to use task scheduler you will have to
have it instantiate the activeX control to do the sync.
--
Hilary Cotter
Director of Text Mining and Database Strategy
RelevantNOISE.Com - Dedicated to mining blogs for business intelligence.
This posting is my own and doesn't necessarily represent RelevantNoise's
positions, strategies or opinions.
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"John" <John@.nospam.infovis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:uGU3ovHZGHA.4944@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Ok, but is it the best/recommended way? I mean what do other people do in
> this situation?
> Thanks
> Regards
> "Paul Ibison" <Paul.Ibison@.Pygmalion.Com> wrote in message
> news:umptsNFZGHA.4144@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> John,
>> yes - this can work. You'd have a merge publication and pull
>> subscriptions, activated by your vb.net application.
>> Cheers,
>> Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com
>> (recommended sql server 2000 replication book:
>> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)
>

Disconnected app with sql server compact

Hi
I am developing an app in vb.net 2008 with sql server 2000 backend. I also
need disconnected version of the app for laptop users who would connect off
and on with LAN and thereby with the company sql server 2000. I am wondering
if I can use sql server compact 3.5 for local caching when laptops are
disconnected. My question is; how would my app use views and stored
procedures in disconnected mode as sql server compact does not support
either of these. Any help to clarify this would be appreciated.
Thanks
Regards
The local Compact Edition database could be used for data caching. You could
write your own managed code to access it but as you found, there is no
support for SPs or Views. Your only other alternative would be to use the
Express edition on the client system which does support SPs and Views. In
either case you would want to use one of the various synchronization
paradigms to keep the two databases in sync.
____________________________________
William (Bill) Vaughn
Author, Mentor, Consultant, Dad, Grandpa
Microsoft MVP
INETA Speaker
www.betav.com
www.betav.com/blog/billva
Please reply only to the newsgroup so that others can benefit.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
__________________________________
Visit www.hitchhikerguides.net to get more information on my latest book:
Hitchhiker's Guide to Visual Studio and SQL Server (7th Edition)
and Hitchhiker's Guide to SQL Server 2005 Compact Edition (EBook)
------
"John" <John@.nospam.infovis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:O5clkypMIHA.4480@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> I am developing an app in vb.net 2008 with sql server 2000 backend. I also
> need disconnected version of the app for laptop users who would connect
> off and on with LAN and thereby with the company sql server 2000. I am
> wondering if I can use sql server compact 3.5 for local caching when
> laptops are disconnected. My question is; how would my app use views and
> stored procedures in disconnected mode as sql server compact does not
> support either of these. Any help to clarify this would be appreciated.
> Thanks
> Regards
>
|||Like Bill V said, the main point is that you'd need to synchronize your
data. since there aren't views or stored procs, there's no way to do it
directly. You can create a backgroun thread or other mechanism to determine
when you are connected to the network, and when you are, flip a flag and
then use your DALC to talk directly to the big sql server.
You can mimick views (although not anything close to the real thing) by
filling a datatable with a query that corresponds to what the view was.
Although I'm not going to even touch the stored proc vs dynamic sql debate,
I can say that much of the benefit of using stored procs diminishes when
you're using a local db like Compact Edition in this manner.
You can also just bypass CE altogether. Pull down the data from sql server
into a dataset that contains everything you need to work with, interact with
that local data, buy some persistence by saving it to XML using writexml and
then when you're connected again, you can just run your Update() on the full
sql server. There's a ton of tradeoffs here so don't take this is a
recommendation, rather it's just a statement saying if you only need a
local cache of data, you don't necessarily need Compact Edition at all.
If it were mine though, i'd do as Mr Vaughn says and use it w/
synchronization.
"John" <John@.nospam.infovis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:O5clkypMIHA.4480@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> I am developing an app in vb.net 2008 with sql server 2000 backend. I also
> need disconnected version of the app for laptop users who would connect
> off and on with LAN and thereby with the company sql server 2000. I am
> wondering if I can use sql server compact 3.5 for local caching when
> laptops are disconnected. My question is; how would my app use views and
> stored procedures in disconnected mode as sql server compact does not
> support either of these. Any help to clarify this would be appreciated.
> Thanks
> Regards
>

Disconnected app with sql server compact

Hi
I am developing an app in vb.net 2008 with sql server 2000 backend. I also
need disconnected version of the app for laptop users who would connect off
and on with LAN and thereby with the company sql server 2000. I am wondering
if I can use sql server compact 3.5 for local caching when laptops are
disconnected. My question is; how would my app use views and stored
procedures in disconnected mode as sql server compact does not support
either of these. Any help to clarify this would be appreciated.
Thanks
Regards
If you want to use views and stored procedures, then SQL Server Compact is
not an option. However, you can use SQL Server Express, which supports
procedural T-SQL.
HTH,
Plamen Ratchev
http://www.SQLStudio.com
|||The local Compact Edition database could be used for data caching. You could
write your own managed code to access it but as you found, there is no
support for SPs or Views. Your only other alternative would be to use the
Express edition on the client system which does support SPs and Views. In
either case you would want to use one of the various synchronization
paradigms to keep the two databases in sync.
____________________________________
William (Bill) Vaughn
Author, Mentor, Consultant, Dad, Grandpa
Microsoft MVP
INETA Speaker
www.betav.com
www.betav.com/blog/billva
Please reply only to the newsgroup so that others can benefit.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
__________________________________
Visit www.hitchhikerguides.net to get more information on my latest book:
Hitchhiker's Guide to Visual Studio and SQL Server (7th Edition)
and Hitchhiker's Guide to SQL Server 2005 Compact Edition (EBook)
------
"John" <John@.nospam.infovis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:O5clkypMIHA.4480@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> I am developing an app in vb.net 2008 with sql server 2000 backend. I also
> need disconnected version of the app for laptop users who would connect
> off and on with LAN and thereby with the company sql server 2000. I am
> wondering if I can use sql server compact 3.5 for local caching when
> laptops are disconnected. My question is; how would my app use views and
> stored procedures in disconnected mode as sql server compact does not
> support either of these. Any help to clarify this would be appreciated.
> Thanks
> Regards
>
|||Like Bill V said, the main point is that you'd need to synchronize your
data. since there aren't views or stored procs, there's no way to do it
directly. You can create a backgroun thread or other mechanism to determine
when you are connected to the network, and when you are, flip a flag and
then use your DALC to talk directly to the big sql server.
You can mimick views (although not anything close to the real thing) by
filling a datatable with a query that corresponds to what the view was.
Although I'm not going to even touch the stored proc vs dynamic sql debate,
I can say that much of the benefit of using stored procs diminishes when
you're using a local db like Compact Edition in this manner.
You can also just bypass CE altogether. Pull down the data from sql server
into a dataset that contains everything you need to work with, interact with
that local data, buy some persistence by saving it to XML using writexml and
then when you're connected again, you can just run your Update() on the full
sql server. There's a ton of tradeoffs here so don't take this is a
recommendation, rather it's just a statement saying if you only need a
local cache of data, you don't necessarily need Compact Edition at all.
If it were mine though, i'd do as Mr Vaughn says and use it w/
synchronization.
"John" <John@.nospam.infovis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:O5clkypMIHA.4480@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> I am developing an app in vb.net 2008 with sql server 2000 backend. I also
> need disconnected version of the app for laptop users who would connect
> off and on with LAN and thereby with the company sql server 2000. I am
> wondering if I can use sql server compact 3.5 for local caching when
> laptops are disconnected. My question is; how would my app use views and
> stored procedures in disconnected mode as sql server compact does not
> support either of these. Any help to clarify this would be appreciated.
> Thanks
> Regards
>

Disconnected app with sql server compact

Hi
I am developing an app in vb.net 2008 with sql server 2000 backend. I also
need disconnected version of the app for laptop users who would connect off
and on with LAN and thereby with the company sql server 2000. I am wondering
if I can use sql server compact 3.5 for local caching when laptops are
disconnected. My question is; how would my app use views and stored
procedures in disconnected mode as sql server compact does not support
either of these. Any help to clarify this would be appreciated.
Thanks
RegardsIf you want to use views and stored procedures, then SQL Server Compact is
not an option. However, you can use SQL Server Express, which supports
procedural T-SQL.
HTH,
Plamen Ratchev
http://www.SQLStudio.com|||The local Compact Edition database could be used for data caching. You could
write your own managed code to access it but as you found, there is no
support for SPs or Views. Your only other alternative would be to use the
Express edition on the client system which does support SPs and Views. In
either case you would want to use one of the various synchronization
paradigms to keep the two databases in sync.
--
____________________________________
William (Bill) Vaughn
Author, Mentor, Consultant, Dad, Grandpa
Microsoft MVP
INETA Speaker
www.betav.com
www.betav.com/blog/billva
Please reply only to the newsgroup so that others can benefit.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
__________________________________
Visit www.hitchhikerguides.net to get more information on my latest book:
Hitchhiker's Guide to Visual Studio and SQL Server (7th Edition)
and Hitchhiker's Guide to SQL Server 2005 Compact Edition (EBook)
------
"John" <John@.nospam.infovis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:O5clkypMIHA.4480@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> I am developing an app in vb.net 2008 with sql server 2000 backend. I also
> need disconnected version of the app for laptop users who would connect
> off and on with LAN and thereby with the company sql server 2000. I am
> wondering if I can use sql server compact 3.5 for local caching when
> laptops are disconnected. My question is; how would my app use views and
> stored procedures in disconnected mode as sql server compact does not
> support either of these. Any help to clarify this would be appreciated.
> Thanks
> Regards
>|||Like Bill V said, the main point is that you'd need to synchronize your
data. since there aren't views or stored procs, there's no way to do it
directly. You can create a backgroun thread or other mechanism to determine
when you are connected to the network, and when you are, flip a flag and
then use your DALC to talk directly to the big sql server.
You can mimick views (although not anything close to the real thing) by
filling a datatable with a query that corresponds to what the view was.
Although I'm not going to even touch the stored proc vs dynamic sql debate,
I can say that much of the benefit of using stored procs diminishes when
you're using a local db like Compact Edition in this manner.
You can also just bypass CE altogether. Pull down the data from sql server
into a dataset that contains everything you need to work with, interact with
that local data, buy some persistence by saving it to XML using writexml and
then when you're connected again, you can just run your Update() on the full
sql server. There's a ton of tradeoffs here so don't take this is a
recommendation, rather it's just a statement saying if you only need a
local cache of data, you don't necessarily need Compact Edition at all.
If it were mine though, i'd do as Mr Vaughn says and use it w/
synchronization.
"John" <John@.nospam.infovis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:O5clkypMIHA.4480@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> I am developing an app in vb.net 2008 with sql server 2000 backend. I also
> need disconnected version of the app for laptop users who would connect
> off and on with LAN and thereby with the company sql server 2000. I am
> wondering if I can use sql server compact 3.5 for local caching when
> laptops are disconnected. My question is; how would my app use views and
> stored procedures in disconnected mode as sql server compact does not
> support either of these. Any help to clarify this would be appreciated.
> Thanks
> Regards
>

Disconnected app with sql server compact

Hi
I am developing an app in vb.net 2008 with sql server 2000 backend. I also
need disconnected version of the app for laptop users who would connect off
and on with LAN and thereby with the company sql server 2000. I am wondering
if I can use sql server compact 3.5 for local caching when laptops are
disconnected. My question is; how would my app use views and stored
procedures in disconnected mode as sql server compact does not support
either of these. Any help to clarify this would be appreciated.
Thanks
RegardsIf you want to use views and stored procedures, then SQL Server Compact is
not an option. However, you can use SQL Server Express, which supports
procedural T-SQL.
HTH,
Plamen Ratchev
http://www.SQLStudio.com|||The local Compact Edition database could be used for data caching. You could
write your own managed code to access it but as you found, there is no
support for SPs or Views. Your only other alternative would be to use the
Express edition on the client system which does support SPs and Views. In
either case you would want to use one of the various synchronization
paradigms to keep the two databases in sync.
____________________________________
William (Bill) Vaughn
Author, Mentor, Consultant, Dad, Grandpa
Microsoft MVP
INETA Speaker
www.betav.com
www.betav.com/blog/billva
Please reply only to the newsgroup so that others can benefit.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
__________________________________
Visit www.hitchhikerguides.net to get more information on my latest book:
Hitchhiker's Guide to Visual Studio and SQL Server (7th Edition)
and Hitchhiker's Guide to SQL Server 2005 Compact Edition (EBook)
----
---
"John" <John@.nospam.infovis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:O5clkypMIHA.4480@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> I am developing an app in vb.net 2008 with sql server 2000 backend. I also
> need disconnected version of the app for laptop users who would connect
> off and on with LAN and thereby with the company sql server 2000. I am
> wondering if I can use sql server compact 3.5 for local caching when
> laptops are disconnected. My question is; how would my app use views and
> stored procedures in disconnected mode as sql server compact does not
> support either of these. Any help to clarify this would be appreciated.
> Thanks
> Regards
>|||Like Bill V said, the main point is that you'd need to synchronize your
data. since there aren't views or stored procs, there's no way to do it
directly. You can create a backgroun thread or other mechanism to determine
when you are connected to the network, and when you are, flip a flag and
then use your DALC to talk directly to the big sql server.
You can mimick views (although not anything close to the real thing) by
filling a datatable with a query that corresponds to what the view was.
Although I'm not going to even touch the stored proc vs dynamic sql debate,
I can say that much of the benefit of using stored procs diminishes when
you're using a local db like Compact Edition in this manner.
You can also just bypass CE altogether. Pull down the data from sql server
into a dataset that contains everything you need to work with, interact with
that local data, buy some persistence by saving it to XML using writexml and
then when you're connected again, you can just run your Update() on the full
sql server. There's a ton of tradeoffs here so don't take this is a
recommendation, rather it's just a statement saying if you only need a
local cache of data, you don't necessarily need Compact Edition at all.
If it were mine though, i'd do as Mr Vaughn says and use it w/
synchronization.
"John" <John@.nospam.infovis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:O5clkypMIHA.4480@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> I am developing an app in vb.net 2008 with sql server 2000 backend. I also
> need disconnected version of the app for laptop users who would connect
> off and on with LAN and thereby with the company sql server 2000. I am
> wondering if I can use sql server compact 3.5 for local caching when
> laptops are disconnected. My question is; how would my app use views and
> stored procedures in disconnected mode as sql server compact does not
> support either of these. Any help to clarify this would be appreciated.
> Thanks
> Regards
>

disconnect users from a database

I need to be able to drop all user from one database in script...can someon
e point me in the right direction or if its really simple, tell me how?you have to select the spid 's from sysprocesses table that related to db yo
u want and then run kill (spid) command for that spid's.
I think there are some sample scripts to do that on the web like www.databasejorna
l.com etc..
"Jamie Elliott" wrote:

> I need to be able to drop all user from one database in script...can someone poin
t me in the right direction or if its really simple, tell me how?|||Hi,
Did you meant to drop the users or disconnect all users from database.
Disconnenct all users in a database:-
alter database <dbname> set single_user with rollback immediate
Drop the users:-
sp_dropuser <user_name>
You could write a script based on sysusers table.
select 'sp_dropuser ' +name +char(10)+'go' from sysusers where uid>4
Execute the below script with text result and copy the result and paste in a
new window to drop all users apart from system created users.
The drop user will fail if the user owns any object. In that case you have
to change the object owner using sp_changeobjectowner system procedure
(See books online)
Thanks
Hari
MCDBA
"Jamie Elliott" <JamieElliott@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:126F63B8-31B4-4F21-9903-6489C4F862F3@.microsoft.com...
> I need to be able to drop all user from one database in script...can
someone point me in the right direction or if its really simple, tell me
how?