Need Your Thoughts

I currently have an Access application that I have been working with for a
couple of years now, it is growing in size rapidly. I am thinking that I
need to be planning to take it to the next level.
Is SQL Server an appropriate thought?
Never have dealt with it before, but I have been reading a little about it.
I kinda like the thought of how it deals with records rather than Jet.
Is it appropriate to think about a web based interface to share the database
or is that thought total wrong?
I think this will be a new learning curve for me but thats alright, I thrive
on challenges.
If someone could take a few moments and en-lighten me with their thoughts it
would greatly be appriciated.
Thanks
David WI would pick Microsoft SQL Server over MSAccess any day of the w. I
can't think of any situation where I would prefer to use MSAccess. SQL
Server is a proper multi-user RDBMS (relational database management
system). It was designed like that from the ground up. Using a web
server as a front end to a SQL database is very common. There would be
literally millions of applications that do this. Companies like Barnes
& Noble (http://www.barnesandnoble.com/), Home Shopping Network
(http://www.hsn.com/) & Radio Shack (http://www.radioshack.com/) all do
this exact thing.
*mike hodgson*
http://sqlnerd.blogspot.com
David W wrote:

>I currently have an Access application that I have been working with for a
>couple of years now, it is growing in size rapidly. I am thinking that I
>need to be planning to take it to the next level.
>Is SQL Server an appropriate thought?
>Never have dealt with it before, but I have been reading a little about it.
>I kinda like the thought of how it deals with records rather than Jet.
>Is it appropriate to think about a web based interface to share the databas
e
>or is that thought total wrong?
>I think this will be a new learning curve for me but thats alright, I thriv
e
>on challenges.
>If someone could take a few moments and en-lighten me with their thoughts i
t
>would greatly be appriciated.
>Thanks
>David W
>
>|||>> I currently have an Access application that I have been working with for
a couple of years now, it is growing in size rapidly. <<
LOL!!n Welcome to developer and DBA hell! ACCESS sucks and does not
scale.
Good and probably true if the app is any good.
Yes, or another SQL product, depending on other issues.
It will be a lot of UN-learning.

Need to understand writing to the Eventlog.

SQL2K
SP4
Howdy all. Im trying to have info written to the Eventlog when a deadlock
occurs, and growing frustrated trying to understand. My original
understanding was that I should RClick the server/ all tasks/ Manage
messages/ 1205 in the Error number/ Find/ Edit/ check Always write to
Eventlog/ OK/ OK.
I took those actions and purposely generated some deadlocks to no avail.
Then I found out what I really need to do is start SQL server by doing
"sqlservr -c -T1204" as instructed in
http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...b;en-us;169960.
Is this the only way? I really dont want to have to bounce all my production
boxes to accomplish this task.
TIA, ChrisR.You don't need to use -T1204 or run sqlsrvr -c -T1204 in order to log the
event in the app eventlog. The trace flag is to log a deadlock graph.
To log the deadlock in the app eventlog, it's sufficient to change the
logging behavior of error 1205 to 'Always write to eventlog'. This is the
same as executing the following:
EXEC sp_altermessage 1205, 'with_log', 'true'
But my experience is that after you have made that change, you need to
recycle the SQL Server instance. I have never had luck not recycling the SQL
instance, and I don't know whether this is a bug or a feature by design.
Linchi
"ChrisR" wrote:

> SQL2K
> SP4
> Howdy all. Im trying to have info written to the Eventlog when a deadlock
> occurs, and growing frustrated trying to understand. My original
> understanding was that I should RClick the server/ all tasks/ Manage
> messages/ 1205 in the Error number/ Find/ Edit/ check Always write to
> Eventlog/ OK/ OK.
> I took those actions and purposely generated some deadlocks to no avail.
> Then I found out what I really need to do is start SQL server by doing
> "sqlservr -c -T1204" as instructed in
> http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...b;en-us;169960.
> Is this the only way? I really dont want to have to bounce all my producti
on
> boxes to accomplish this task.
> TIA, ChrisR.
>|||Perfect, thanks.
"Linchi Shea" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> You don't need to use -T1204 or run sqlsrvr -c -T1204 in order to log the
> event in the app eventlog. The trace flag is to log a deadlock graph.
> To log the deadlock in the app eventlog, it's sufficient to change the
> logging behavior of error 1205 to 'Always write to eventlog'. This is the
> same as executing the following:
> EXEC sp_altermessage 1205, 'with_log', 'true'
> But my experience is that after you have made that change, you need to
> recycle the SQL Server instance. I have never had luck not recycling the S
QL
> instance, and I don't know whether this is a bug or a feature by design.
> Linchi
> "ChrisR" wrote:
>

Need to understand writing to the Eventlog.

SQL2K
SP4
Howdy all. Im trying to have info written to the Eventlog when a deadlock
occurs, and growing frustrated trying to understand. My original
understanding was that I should RClick the server/ all tasks/ Manage
messages/ 1205 in the Error number/ Find/ Edit/ check Always write to
Eventlog/ OK/ OK.
I took those actions and purposely generated some deadlocks to no avail.
Then I found out what I really need to do is start SQL server by doing
"sqlservr -c -T1204" as instructed in
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;169960.
Is this the only way? I really dont want to have to bounce all my production
boxes to accomplish this task.
TIA, ChrisR.You don't need to use -T1204 or run sqlsrvr -c -T1204 in order to log the
event in the app eventlog. The trace flag is to log a deadlock graph.
To log the deadlock in the app eventlog, it's sufficient to change the
logging behavior of error 1205 to 'Always write to eventlog'. This is the
same as executing the following:
EXEC sp_altermessage 1205, 'with_log', 'true'
But my experience is that after you have made that change, you need to
recycle the SQL Server instance. I have never had luck not recycling the SQL
instance, and I don't know whether this is a bug or a feature by design.
Linchi
"ChrisR" wrote:
> SQL2K
> SP4
> Howdy all. Im trying to have info written to the Eventlog when a deadlock
> occurs, and growing frustrated trying to understand. My original
> understanding was that I should RClick the server/ all tasks/ Manage
> messages/ 1205 in the Error number/ Find/ Edit/ check Always write to
> Eventlog/ OK/ OK.
> I took those actions and purposely generated some deadlocks to no avail.
> Then I found out what I really need to do is start SQL server by doing
> "sqlservr -c -T1204" as instructed in
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;169960.
> Is this the only way? I really dont want to have to bounce all my production
> boxes to accomplish this task.
> TIA, ChrisR.
>|||Perfect, thanks.
"Linchi Shea" wrote:
> You don't need to use -T1204 or run sqlsrvr -c -T1204 in order to log the
> event in the app eventlog. The trace flag is to log a deadlock graph.
> To log the deadlock in the app eventlog, it's sufficient to change the
> logging behavior of error 1205 to 'Always write to eventlog'. This is the
> same as executing the following:
> EXEC sp_altermessage 1205, 'with_log', 'true'
> But my experience is that after you have made that change, you need to
> recycle the SQL Server instance. I have never had luck not recycling the SQL
> instance, and I don't know whether this is a bug or a feature by design.
> Linchi
> "ChrisR" wrote:
> > SQL2K
> > SP4
> >
> > Howdy all. Im trying to have info written to the Eventlog when a deadlock
> > occurs, and growing frustrated trying to understand. My original
> > understanding was that I should RClick the server/ all tasks/ Manage
> > messages/ 1205 in the Error number/ Find/ Edit/ check Always write to
> > Eventlog/ OK/ OK.
> > I took those actions and purposely generated some deadlocks to no avail.
> > Then I found out what I really need to do is start SQL server by doing
> > "sqlservr -c -T1204" as instructed in
> > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;169960.
> >
> > Is this the only way? I really dont want to have to bounce all my production
> > boxes to accomplish this task.
> >
> > TIA, ChrisR.
> >