Network error.

Hi,
I am facing a weird network problem. I am running a SQL 2000 SP2
enterprise edition over a Windows 2003 enterprise edition machine.
I am getting the network error messages (see below) while trying to
connect to the server. However if i am connected to the server before
the problem occurs i can continue running queries from the query
analyzer but cannot use the object browser to view the tables/ views
etc.
The problem is temporarily fixed if i restart the sql server service
but reappears after some times.
Seems to me it is is not a network problem otherwise the connection
would have broken.
Error 1:
[ODBC SQL Server Driver][DBNETLIB]General network error. Check your
network documentation.
Error 2:
[ODBC SQL Server Driver][DBNETLIB]ConnectionRead (recv()).
Any idea why this is happening?
Thanks in advance
Taw.
Consider applying SP4, or at least SP3a, to your SQL 2000 instance.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Taw" <tawfiq.choudhury@.grameenphone.com> wrote in message
news:1185800793.766706.9030@.l70g2000hse.googlegrou ps.com...
> Hi,
> I am facing a weird network problem. I am running a SQL 2000 SP2
> enterprise edition over a Windows 2003 enterprise edition machine.
> I am getting the network error messages (see below) while trying to
> connect to the server. However if i am connected to the server before
> the problem occurs i can continue running queries from the query
> analyzer but cannot use the object browser to view the tables/ views
> etc.
> The problem is temporarily fixed if i restart the sql server service
> but reappears after some times.
> Seems to me it is is not a network problem otherwise the connection
> would have broken.
> Error 1:
> [ODBC SQL Server Driver][DBNETLIB]General network error. Check your
> network documentation.
> Error 2:
> [ODBC SQL Server Driver][DBNETLIB]ConnectionRead (recv()).
> Any idea why this is happening?
> Thanks in advance
> Taw.
>

Network error.

Hi,
I am facing a weird network problem. I am running a SQL 2000 SP2
enterprise edition over a Windows 2003 enterprise edition machine.
I am getting the network error messages (see below) while trying to
connect to the server. However if i am connected to the server before
the problem occurs i can continue running queries from the query
analyzer but cannot use the object browser to view the tables/ views
etc.
The problem is temporarily fixed if i restart the sql server service
but reappears after some times.
Seems to me it is is not a network problem otherwise the connection
would have broken.
Error 1:
[ODBC SQL Server Driver][DBNETLIB]General network error. Check your
network documentation.
Error 2:
[ODBC SQL Server Driver][DBNETLIB]ConnectionRead (recv()).
Any idea why this is happening?
Thanks in advance
Taw.Consider applying SP4, or at least SP3a, to your SQL 2000 instance.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Taw" <tawfiq.choudhury@.grameenphone.com> wrote in message
news:1185800793.766706.9030@.l70g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> Hi,
> I am facing a weird network problem. I am running a SQL 2000 SP2
> enterprise edition over a Windows 2003 enterprise edition machine.
> I am getting the network error messages (see below) while trying to
> connect to the server. However if i am connected to the server before
> the problem occurs i can continue running queries from the query
> analyzer but cannot use the object browser to view the tables/ views
> etc.
> The problem is temporarily fixed if i restart the sql server service
> but reappears after some times.
> Seems to me it is is not a network problem otherwise the connection
> would have broken.
> Error 1:
> [ODBC SQL Server Driver][DBNETLIB]General network error. Check you
r
> network documentation.
> Error 2:
> [ODBC SQL Server Driver][DBNETLIB]ConnectionRead (recv()).
> Any idea why this is happening?
> Thanks in advance
> Taw.
>

Network error.

Hi,
I am facing a weird network problem. I am running a SQL 2000 SP2
enterprise edition over a Windows 2003 enterprise edition machine.
I am getting the network error messages (see below) while trying to
connect to the server. However if i am connected to the server before
the problem occurs i can continue running queries from the query
analyzer but cannot use the object browser to view the tables/ views
etc.
The problem is temporarily fixed if i restart the sql server service
but reappears after some times.
Seems to me it is is not a network problem otherwise the connection
would have broken.
Error 1:
[ODBC SQL Server Driver][DBNETLIB]General network error. Check your
network documentation.
Error 2:
[ODBC SQL Server Driver][DBNETLIB]ConnectionRead (recv()).
Any idea why this is happening?
Thanks in advance
Taw.Consider applying SP4, or at least SP3a, to your SQL 2000 instance.
--
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Taw" <tawfiq.choudhury@.grameenphone.com> wrote in message
news:1185800793.766706.9030@.l70g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> Hi,
> I am facing a weird network problem. I am running a SQL 2000 SP2
> enterprise edition over a Windows 2003 enterprise edition machine.
> I am getting the network error messages (see below) while trying to
> connect to the server. However if i am connected to the server before
> the problem occurs i can continue running queries from the query
> analyzer but cannot use the object browser to view the tables/ views
> etc.
> The problem is temporarily fixed if i restart the sql server service
> but reappears after some times.
> Seems to me it is is not a network problem otherwise the connection
> would have broken.
> Error 1:
> [ODBC SQL Server Driver][DBNETLIB]General network error. Check your
> network documentation.
> Error 2:
> [ODBC SQL Server Driver][DBNETLIB]ConnectionRead (recv()).
> Any idea why this is happening?
> Thanks in advance
> Taw.
>

Network Connection

I installed MSDE on a 2003 server machine in an AD environment. During the
setup I used the disablenetworkprotocols=0 switch to enable network
connections. I also enable mixed mode authentication. However, I still
cannot connect to the server from a XP sp2 machine on the network. (firewall
is disabled) The error returned is sqlserver does not exist or access denied.
I tried connecting via windows autehntication and specifying a SQL account.
Does anyone know why I cannot connect or maybe a site that will help diagnose
the problem?
hi Joe,
Joe Kiaser wrote:
> I installed MSDE on a 2003 server machine in an AD environment.
> During the setup I used the disablenetworkprotocols=0 switch to
> enable network connections. I also enable mixed mode authentication.
> However, I still cannot connect to the server from a XP sp2 machine
> on the network. (firewall is disabled) The error returned is
> sqlserver does not exist or access denied.
>
please have a look at
http://support.microsoft.com/default...06&Product=sql
for some potential causes of this kind of problem..
Andrea Montanari (Microsoft MVP - SQL Server)
http://www.asql.biz/DbaMgr.shtmhttp://italy.mvps.org
DbaMgr2k ver 0.15.0 - DbaMgr ver 0.60.0
(my vb6+sql-dmo little try to provide MS MSDE 1.0 and MSDE 2000 a visual
interface)
-- remove DMO to reply
|||I discoverd it was problem with DNS. <Webserver> was pointing to the wrong
IP so when we tried to connect using <webserver> it would fail. I
discovered this after pinging <webserver> and it returned 120.0.0.21...our
WSUS server. I just updated the DNS to point <webserver> to 120.0.0.23 and
it works flawlessly.
"Andrea Montanari" wrote:

> hi Joe,
> Joe Kiaser wrote:
> please have a look at
> http://support.microsoft.com/default...06&Product=sql
> for some potential causes of this kind of problem..
> --
> Andrea Montanari (Microsoft MVP - SQL Server)
> http://www.asql.biz/DbaMgr.shtmhttp://italy.mvps.org
> DbaMgr2k ver 0.15.0 - DbaMgr ver 0.60.0
> (my vb6+sql-dmo little try to provide MS MSDE 1.0 and MSDE 2000 a visual
> interface)
> -- remove DMO to reply
>
>
sql

Network Backup

I want to backup up one of my Database running on SQL
Server 2000 on to
another machine on the network. I already have a Database
Maintenace plan
set up which backs up the database on the same box. But
now I want to back
it up on a different machine as a disaster recovery
measure. Under the
Enterprise Managerin SQL Server I only have the option to
back it up on
a device and cant seem to do it over the Network. Anyone
has any ideas on
how to do this without using a 3rd party software?
I was told to just specify the UNC path
(\\servername\share for example) and
make sure the
account used by the sql server service has privileges on
that network share
but when I try to do that the Database Maintanence plan
chucks back with an
error "The complete database backup
directory"\\servername\share" is
invalid. Are you sure this is what you want?"
I havent actually tried clicking YES to that as yet...is
it really an error
message? I have also looked at the following article
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-
us;Q304261
this article talks about turning on
trace flag 1807 to by pass the default setting of not
being able to create a
database file on a mapped or UNC network location.
Im new to SQL Server so havent got a clue where to turn on
these flags from.
Im assuming its a commandline option, but where to do it
from Iam
stuck...will anyone will be able to help me with this?
Thanks in advance
AdnanHi
You can use a UNC as the filename or create a device that uses one.
John
"Adnan" <adnan@.clara.net> wrote in message
news:070f01c354fc$f7dea040$a101280a@.phx.gbl...
> I want to backup up one of my Database running on SQL
> Server 2000 on to
> another machine on the network. I already have a Database
> Maintenace plan
> set up which backs up the database on the same box. But
> now I want to back
> it up on a different machine as a disaster recovery
> measure. Under the
> Enterprise Managerin SQL Server I only have the option to
> back it up on
> a device and cant seem to do it over the Network. Anyone
> has any ideas on
> how to do this without using a 3rd party software?
> I was told to just specify the UNC path
> (\\servername\share for example) and
> make sure the
> account used by the sql server service has privileges on
> that network share
> but when I try to do that the Database Maintanence plan
> chucks back with an
> error "The complete database backup
> directory"\\servername\share" is
> invalid. Are you sure this is what you want?"
> I havent actually tried clicking YES to that as yet...is
> it really an error
> message? I have also looked at the following article
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-
> us;Q304261
> this article talks about turning on
> trace flag 1807 to by pass the default setting of not
> being able to create a
> database file on a mapped or UNC network location.
> Im new to SQL Server so havent got a clue where to turn on
> these flags from.
> Im assuming its a commandline option, but where to do it
> from Iam
> stuck...will anyone will be able to help me with this?
> Thanks in advance
> Adnan
>|||Make sure you set the destination folder on the other server to allow
sharing.
Otherwise, the folder will not appear available for access.
"Adnan" <adnan@.clara.net> wrote in message
news:070f01c354fc$f7dea040$a101280a@.phx.gbl...
> I want to backup up one of my Database running on SQL
> Server 2000 on to
> another machine on the network. I already have a Database
> Maintenace plan
> set up which backs up the database on the same box. But
> now I want to back
> it up on a different machine as a disaster recovery
> measure. Under the
> Enterprise Managerin SQL Server I only have the option to
> back it up on
> a device and cant seem to do it over the Network. Anyone
> has any ideas on
> how to do this without using a 3rd party software?
> I was told to just specify the UNC path
> (\\servername\share for example) and
> make sure the
> account used by the sql server service has privileges on
> that network share
> but when I try to do that the Database Maintanence plan
> chucks back with an
> error "The complete database backup
> directory"\\servername\share" is
> invalid. Are you sure this is what you want?"
> I havent actually tried clicking YES to that as yet...is
> it really an error
> message? I have also looked at the following article
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-
> us;Q304261
> this article talks about turning on
> trace flag 1807 to by pass the default setting of not
> being able to create a
> database file on a mapped or UNC network location.
> Im new to SQL Server so havent got a clue where to turn on
> these flags from.
> Im assuming its a commandline option, but where to do it
> from Iam
> stuck...will anyone will be able to help me with this?
> Thanks in advance
> Adnan
>sql

Network access to Sql Server 2005 Express

I have an application written in VB Express and uses SQL Server 2005 Express that runs on my local machine (name JERRY). I published it onto a CD and installed it on another computer (JKNETWORK) on my home network.

I've already modified SQL Server Configuration Manager to enable TCP/IP and Shared Memory. I have also added sqlservr.exe to the exceptions in the Microsoft firewall exceptions list.

The application opens with a login form that asks for username and password and uses the following connection string:

modUserName = txtUserName.Text

modPassWord = txtPassWord.Text

Dim ConnectionStringMaster As String =

_"Server=jerry\SQLEXPRESS;" & _

"DataBase=master;" & _

"user ID=" & modUserName & ";password=" & modPassWord

This all works great on JERRY but doesn't work from JKNETWORK. I get an error message that contains:

...When connecting to SQL Server 2005, this failure may be caused by the fact that under the default settings SQL Server does not allow remote connections. ....

Can someone help me figure out how to get the remote access to work?

Thanks,

JerryK

Did you enable Remote Connections? If not, see Surface Area Configuraiton tool for more info: http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms161956.aspx.

|||

Hi Greg,

Yes, I did enable Remote Connections on the Surface Area Configuraiton tool. It's set for Local and Remote and with TCP/IP and Named Pipes.

If you have any other ideas, I'd certainly appreciate the help.

Thanks,

JerryK

|||

Can you access sql server on your machine from a remote machine using osql.exe? If so, then it's something with your app. If not, then it's some machine/sql configuration. Are you using winxp sp2? See if the suggestions in this thread can help. http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=192102&SiteID=1

|||

Greg,

I looked at the thread and have this question: What are Server Client Tools, where do I get them from to put them on the client?

I tried copying osql.exe to the client, but it looks like I need more than that because I got an error message about a missing file.

I might add that the server machine (JERRY) is a Window XP Home machine and not the Professional. But, the client machine is Windows XP Professional. Also, MSDE is still on the server machine. Could either of those circumstances have anything to do with it?

Thanks again,

JerryK

|||

Hi Jerry,

Your problem is likely caused by not having SQL Browser turned on and making an Exception for Browser in the firewall. When you are trying to connect to a named instance such as JerryK\sqlexpress, you need to have SQL Browser running on the server in order for the instance name to be recognized unless you are connecting to the server using a specific port number. Since SQL Browser lisents on it's own port, you also have to make the Exception for Browser in the firewall.

Once you've done this, you should be good to go.

Regards,
Mike Wachal
SQL Express

|||

Hi Mike,

I made sure that the browser is turned on and sqlservr.exe is in the exclude list. But, same error is reported. If I turn the Microsoft firewall off, there is no problem. If I turn on the Norton firewall it is ok too.

Are there any other settings related to the Microsoft firewall I should be concerned about?

My home network is a cable modem connected to a LinkSys router. Could there be some conflict here?

Thanks,

JerryK

|||

Jerry,

In addition to sqlservr.exe you need to add %Program Files%\Microsoft SQL Server\90\Shared\sqlbrowser.exe to the exception list.

Check out the following blog for more information: https://blogs.msdn.com/sqlexpress/archive/2005/05/05/415084.aspx

Cheers,
Dan

|||

Thank you Dan. That was the missing piece..

Thanks again,

jerryK

netstat doesnt show me 1433 port LISTENING

Sometimes when I setup ms SQL Server 2000 in a machine and i run
"netstat -na" doesnt show me 1433 port listening, and sometimes it
does. why is that?
thanke
Hi
Check in the server network utility that you are actually using this port,
if you are using a named instance the default is to allocate the port
dynamically.
John
"ing.edmundo" wrote:

> Sometimes when I setup ms SQL Server 2000 in a machine and i run
> "netstat -na" doesnt show me 1433 port listening, and sometimes it
> does. why is that?
> thanke
>

netstat doesnt show me 1433 port LISTENING

Sometimes when I setup ms SQL Server 2000 in a machine and i run
"netstat -na" doesnt show me 1433 port listening, and sometimes it
does. why is that?
thankeHi
Check in the server network utility that you are actually using this port,
if you are using a named instance the default is to allocate the port
dynamically.
John
"ing.edmundo" wrote:

> Sometimes when I setup ms SQL Server 2000 in a machine and i run
> "netstat -na" doesnt show me 1433 port listening, and sometimes it
> does. why is that?
> thanke
>

netstat doesnt show me 1433 port LISTENING

Sometimes when I setup ms SQL Server 2000 in a machine and i run
"netstat -na" doesnt show me 1433 port listening, and sometimes it
does. why is that?
thankeHi
Check in the server network utility that you are actually using this port,
if you are using a named instance the default is to allocate the port
dynamically.
John
"ing.edmundo" wrote:
> Sometimes when I setup ms SQL Server 2000 in a machine and i run
> "netstat -na" doesnt show me 1433 port listening, and sometimes it
> does. why is that?
> thanke
>

Netbios and SQL Server Startup Procedure

Is there any way to configure MS SQL Server 2000 standard/developer to choose
a different name other than the netbios machine name as the "server" identity
during startup.
We are currently haveing issues with the assignment of a netbios alias that
SQL Server 2000 reads on it's startup that is different than the name of the
default instance.
TIA,
Hi
Have you checked out
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...stall_5r8f.asp
John
"Dax Lawless" wrote:

> Is there any way to configure MS SQL Server 2000 standard/developer to choose
> a different name other than the netbios machine name as the "server" identity
> during startup.
> We are currently haveing issues with the assignment of a netbios alias that
> SQL Server 2000 reads on it's startup that is different than the name of the
> default instance.
> TIA,
|||That is interesting, however, that is not actually what is happening. The
machine name is actually staying the same as far as the TCP/IP properties are
concerned. We are simply assigning an alias during the startup sequence of
our failover maintenance software (Legato AAM) for a piece of 3rd party
software to use.
Unfortunately, it seems that SQL Server 2000 is reading this netbios alias
and thinks that the servername and when it compares that name with the name
of the default instance (which is not the alias), it treats the default
instance as a named instance and refuses to start listening at port 1433 as
it should with the default instance (we are not using any named instances in
our SQL Server 2000 configuration).
"John Bell" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi
> Have you checked out
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...stall_5r8f.asp
> John
> "Dax Lawless" wrote:
|||Hi
Have you looked at creating an alias in the client networking utility,
or you may possibly be able to overcome it by adding the name to the
the hosts file?
John

Netbios and SQL Server Startup Procedure

Is there any way to configure MS SQL Server 2000 standard/developer to choose
a different name other than the netbios machine name as the "server" identity
during startup.
We are currently haveing issues with the assignment of a netbios alias that
SQL Server 2000 reads on it's startup that is different than the name of the
default instance.
TIA,Hi
Have you checked ou
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/instsql/in_afterinstall_5r8f.asp
John
"Dax Lawless" wrote:
> Is there any way to configure MS SQL Server 2000 standard/developer to choose
> a different name other than the netbios machine name as the "server" identity
> during startup.
> We are currently haveing issues with the assignment of a netbios alias that
> SQL Server 2000 reads on it's startup that is different than the name of the
> default instance.
> TIA,|||That is interesting, however, that is not actually what is happening. The
machine name is actually staying the same as far as the TCP/IP properties are
concerned. We are simply assigning an alias during the startup sequence of
our failover maintenance software (Legato AAM) for a piece of 3rd party
software to use.
Unfortunately, it seems that SQL Server 2000 is reading this netbios alias
and thinks that the servername and when it compares that name with the name
of the default instance (which is not the alias), it treats the default
instance as a named instance and refuses to start listening at port 1433 as
it should with the default instance (we are not using any named instances in
our SQL Server 2000 configuration).
"John Bell" wrote:
> Hi
> Have you checked out
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/instsql/in_afterinstall_5r8f.asp
> John
> "Dax Lawless" wrote:
> > Is there any way to configure MS SQL Server 2000 standard/developer to choose
> > a different name other than the netbios machine name as the "server" identity
> > during startup.
> >
> > We are currently haveing issues with the assignment of a netbios alias that
> > SQL Server 2000 reads on it's startup that is different than the name of the
> > default instance.
> >
> > TIA,|||Hi
Have you looked at creating an alias in the client networking utility,
or you may possibly be able to overcome it by adding the name to the
the hosts file?
John

Netbios and SQL Server Startup Procedure

Is there any way to configure MS SQL Server 2000 standard/developer to choos
e
a different name other than the netbios machine name as the "server" identit
y
during startup.
We are currently haveing issues with the assignment of a netbios alias that
SQL Server 2000 reads on it's startup that is different than the name of the
default instance.
TIA,Hi
Have you checked out
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d...nstall_5r8f.asp
John
"Dax Lawless" wrote:

> Is there any way to configure MS SQL Server 2000 standard/developer to cho
ose
> a different name other than the netbios machine name as the "server" ident
ity
> during startup.
> We are currently haveing issues with the assignment of a netbios alias tha
t
> SQL Server 2000 reads on it's startup that is different than the name of t
he
> default instance.
> TIA,|||That is interesting, however, that is not actually what is happening. The
machine name is actually staying the same as far as the TCP/IP properties ar
e
concerned. We are simply assigning an alias during the startup sequence of
our failover maintenance software (Legato AAM) for a piece of 3rd party
software to use.
Unfortunately, it seems that SQL Server 2000 is reading this netbios alias
and thinks that the servername and when it compares that name with the name
of the default instance (which is not the alias), it treats the default
instance as a named instance and refuses to start listening at port 1433 as
it should with the default instance (we are not using any named instances in
our SQL Server 2000 configuration).
"John Bell" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi
> Have you checked out
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d...nstall_5r8f.asp
> John
> "Dax Lawless" wrote:
>|||Hi
Have you looked at creating an alias in the client networking utility,
or you may possibly be able to overcome it by adding the name to the
the hosts file?
John

Net 1.1 and 2.0 and SQLServer 2000 and 2005 at one machine

Hi,
we have a VServer with Server 2003.
I'd like to install Software for net 1.1, 2.0 and also SQLServer 2000 and
2005 on it.
Does anybody knows if that's possible without problems. I have a consultant
here (from cognos) who tells me it's not possible. Can't believe that.
Please help.
Thanks,
Uli
Wer nicht fragt, stirbt dumm.
If you don''t ask, you''ll die as a dumba**.
Hello Uli,
I've certainly done 2000 and 2005 on the same physical host before without
implications (other than competing for memory, cpu, etc.) I'm not sure about
Virtual Server, but I can't tell you why it would be any different. Is the
consultant offering any specifics?
Thanks,
Kent Tegels
http://staff.develop.com/ktegels/
|||No.
Only not to run 2000 and 2005 on one system.
But we will go on and try with both on one system.
Thanks a lot.
Uli
Wer nicht fragt, stirbt dumm.
If you don''''t ask, you''''ll die as a dumba**.
"Kent Tegels" wrote:

> Hello Uli,
> I've certainly done 2000 and 2005 on the same physical host before without
> implications (other than competing for memory, cpu, etc.) I'm not sure about
> Virtual Server, but I can't tell you why it would be any different. Is the
> consultant offering any specifics?
> Thanks,
> Kent Tegels
> http://staff.develop.com/ktegels/
>
>
|||Uli formulated the question :
> Hi,

> we have a VServer with Server 2003.

> I'd like to install Software for net 1.1, 2.0 and also SQLServer 2000 and
> 2005 on it.
> Does anybody knows if that's possible without problems. I have a consultant
> here (from cognos) who tells me it's not possible. Can't believe that.

> Please help.

> Thanks,
> Uli
funny you should ask
I am doing exactly what you want to do
be it that I use VirtualPC cause I am still in test
so far everything is working fine
grtz
|||Hi Uli
By requiring .NET Framework 1.1 implies the server is doing more than just
run SQL Server. As Kent says running SQL 2000 and SQL 2005 on a single system
works if you have enough resources, also having both frameworks is possible
see http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/is.../default.aspx,
which implies that if this can't be done the problem is elsewhere or does not
exist!
John
"Uli" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> No.
> Only not to run 2000 and 2005 on one system.
> But we will go on and try with both on one system.
> Thanks a lot.
> Uli
> --
> Wer nicht fragt, stirbt dumm.
> If you don''''t ask, you''''ll die as a dumba**.
>
> "Kent Tegels" wrote:

Net 1.1 and 2.0 and SQLServer 2000 and 2005 at one machine

Hi,
we have a VServer with Server 2003.
I'd like to install Software for net 1.1, 2.0 and also SQLServer 2000 and
2005 on it.
Does anybody knows if that's possible without problems. I have a consultant
here (from cognos) who tells me it's not possible. Can't believe that.
Please help.
Thanks,
Uli
--
Wer nicht fragt, stirbt dumm.
If you don''t ask, you''ll die as a dumba**.Hello Uli,
I've certainly done 2000 and 2005 on the same physical host before without
implications (other than competing for memory, cpu, etc.) I'm not sure about
Virtual Server, but I can't tell you why it would be any different. Is the
consultant offering any specifics?
Thanks,
Kent Tegels
http://staff.develop.com/ktegels/|||No.
Only not to run 2000 and 2005 on one system.
But we will go on and try with both on one system.
Thanks a lot.
Uli
--
Wer nicht fragt, stirbt dumm.
If you don''''t ask, you''''ll die as a dumba**.
"Kent Tegels" wrote:

> Hello Uli,
> I've certainly done 2000 and 2005 on the same physical host before without
> implications (other than competing for memory, cpu, etc.) I'm not sure abo
ut
> Virtual Server, but I can't tell you why it would be any different. Is the
> consultant offering any specifics?
> Thanks,
> Kent Tegels
> http://staff.develop.com/ktegels/
>
>|||Uli formulated the question :
> Hi,

> we have a VServer with Server 2003.

> I'd like to install Software for net 1.1, 2.0 and also SQLServer 2000 and
> 2005 on it.
> Does anybody knows if that's possible without problems. I have a consultan
t
> here (from cognos) who tells me it's not possible. Can't believe that.

> Please help.

> Thanks,
> Uli
funny you should ask
I am doing exactly what you want to do
be it that I use VirtualPC cause I am still in test
so far everything is working fine
grtz|||Hi Uli
By requiring .NET Framework 1.1 implies the server is doing more than just
run SQL Server. As Kent says running SQL 2000 and SQL 2005 on a single syste
m
works if you have enough resources, also having both frameworks is possible
see [url]http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/06/03/CLRInsideOut/default.aspx,[/url
]
which implies that if this can't be done the problem is elsewhere or does no
t
exist!
John
"Uli" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> No.
> Only not to run 2000 and 2005 on one system.
> But we will go on and try with both on one system.
> Thanks a lot.
> Uli
> --
> Wer nicht fragt, stirbt dumm.
> If you don''''t ask, you''''ll die as a dumba**.
>
> "Kent Tegels" wrote:
>sql

Net 1.1 and 2.0 and SQLServer 2000 and 2005 at one machine

Hi,
we have a VServer with Server 2003.
I'd like to install Software for net 1.1, 2.0 and also SQLServer 2000 and
2005 on it.
Does anybody knows if that's possible without problems. I have a consultant
here (from cognos) who tells me it's not possible. Can't believe that.
Please help.
Thanks,
Uli
--
Wer nicht fragt, stirbt dumm.
If you don''t ask, you''ll die as a dumba**.Hello Uli,
I've certainly done 2000 and 2005 on the same physical host before without
implications (other than competing for memory, cpu, etc.) I'm not sure about
Virtual Server, but I can't tell you why it would be any different. Is the
consultant offering any specifics?
Thanks,
Kent Tegels
http://staff.develop.com/ktegels/|||No.
Only not to run 2000 and 2005 on one system.
But we will go on and try with both on one system.
Thanks a lot.
Uli
--
Wer nicht fragt, stirbt dumm.
If you don''''t ask, you''''ll die as a dumba**.
"Kent Tegels" wrote:
> Hello Uli,
> I've certainly done 2000 and 2005 on the same physical host before without
> implications (other than competing for memory, cpu, etc.) I'm not sure about
> Virtual Server, but I can't tell you why it would be any different. Is the
> consultant offering any specifics?
> Thanks,
> Kent Tegels
> http://staff.develop.com/ktegels/
>
>|||Uli formulated the question :
> Hi,
> we have a VServer with Server 2003.
> I'd like to install Software for net 1.1, 2.0 and also SQLServer 2000 and
> 2005 on it.
> Does anybody knows if that's possible without problems. I have a consultant
> here (from cognos) who tells me it's not possible. Can't believe that.
> Please help.
> Thanks,
> Uli
funny you should ask
I am doing exactly what you want to do
be it that I use VirtualPC cause I am still in test
so far everything is working fine
grtz|||Hi Uli
By requiring .NET Framework 1.1 implies the server is doing more than just
run SQL Server. As Kent says running SQL 2000 and SQL 2005 on a single system
works if you have enough resources, also having both frameworks is possible
see http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/06/03/CLRInsideOut/default.aspx,
which implies that if this can't be done the problem is elsewhere or does not
exist!
John
"Uli" wrote:
> No.
> Only not to run 2000 and 2005 on one system.
> But we will go on and try with both on one system.
> Thanks a lot.
> Uli
> --
> Wer nicht fragt, stirbt dumm.
> If you don''''t ask, you''''ll die as a dumba**.
>
> "Kent Tegels" wrote:
> > Hello Uli,
> >
> > I've certainly done 2000 and 2005 on the same physical host before without
> > implications (other than competing for memory, cpu, etc.) I'm not sure about
> > Virtual Server, but I can't tell you why it would be any different. Is the
> > consultant offering any specifics?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Kent Tegels
> > http://staff.develop.com/ktegels/
> >
> >
> >

Need URGENT help.

Hello-
I am trying to restore a large sized database (100+ GB) on a machine that
didn't have database in the beginning, so its a create DB + restore operation.
Below is the machine configuration:
Machine Configuration: quad processor (Pentium 3 Xeon)
Memory: 2 GB
HDD: Fiber Array Channel with separate controllers.
Version: SQL Server 2000/SP3 (Standard Version)
OS: Windows 2003/SP1 (sp presence is a guess).
I understand the process will take some time to create database first before
starting restoration. So far, its been running for over 2 1/2 hours without
any sign of restoration (I have kept STATS=1 for getting any indication of
restoration start).
Now, I have three(3) questions:
1. What should be the approximate DB creation time in such type of
environment? 3-4 hours'
2. How come I know if there is a problem? Currently the restore process has
wait type of ASYNC_IO_COMPLETION with very large wait time.
3. Can upgrading to Enterprise version help parallelize ANY workload (here
db creation/restoration) across all processers? OR this is only true in some
instances say index rebuild?
Thanks in advance!!!
--
Regards,
MZeeshanHi
Fist SQL Server has to create the DB and allocate all the pages for the data
and log. This can take the longest.
Once this is done, the restore can really happen.
A 100GB DB can take anything between 30 minutes and 10 hours to create,
depending on the IO performance of the disk subsystem.
Regards
--
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"MZeeshan" <mzeeshan@.community.nospam> wrote in message
news:188596EB-FD62-48DA-94D7-8922B40770E6@.microsoft.com...
> Hello-
> I am trying to restore a large sized database (100+ GB) on a machine that
> didn't have database in the beginning, so its a create DB + restore
> operation.
> Below is the machine configuration:
> Machine Configuration: quad processor (Pentium 3 Xeon)
> Memory: 2 GB
> HDD: Fiber Array Channel with separate controllers.
> Version: SQL Server 2000/SP3 (Standard Version)
> OS: Windows 2003/SP1 (sp presence is a guess).
> I understand the process will take some time to create database first
> before
> starting restoration. So far, its been running for over 2 1/2 hours
> without
> any sign of restoration (I have kept STATS=1 for getting any indication of
> restoration start).
> Now, I have three(3) questions:
> 1. What should be the approximate DB creation time in such type of
> environment? 3-4 hours'
> 2. How come I know if there is a problem? Currently the restore process
> has
> wait type of ASYNC_IO_COMPLETION with very large wait time.
> 3. Can upgrading to Enterprise version help parallelize ANY workload (here
> db creation/restoration) across all processers? OR this is only true in
> some
> instances say index rebuild?
> Thanks in advance!!!
> --
> Regards,
> MZeeshan|||Thanks!
Yes, it took just around 5 hours to create the database and currently in
restoration phase.
About my last question: Have you ever noticed any visible improvement in any
system when license is upgraded from Standard to Enterprise?
Database creation, backup/restoration and index rebuilds are some of the
common activities happening on this box.
--
Regards,
MZeeshan
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
> Hi
> Fist SQL Server has to create the DB and allocate all the pages for the data
> and log. This can take the longest.
> Once this is done, the restore can really happen.
> A 100GB DB can take anything between 30 minutes and 10 hours to create,
> depending on the IO performance of the disk subsystem.
> Regards
> --
> --
> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Zurich, Switzerland
> IM: mike@.epprecht.net
> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
> "MZeeshan" <mzeeshan@.community.nospam> wrote in message
> news:188596EB-FD62-48DA-94D7-8922B40770E6@.microsoft.com...
> > Hello-
> >
> > I am trying to restore a large sized database (100+ GB) on a machine that
> > didn't have database in the beginning, so its a create DB + restore
> > operation.
> >
> > Below is the machine configuration:
> >
> > Machine Configuration: quad processor (Pentium 3 Xeon)
> > Memory: 2 GB
> > HDD: Fiber Array Channel with separate controllers.
> > Version: SQL Server 2000/SP3 (Standard Version)
> > OS: Windows 2003/SP1 (sp presence is a guess).
> >
> > I understand the process will take some time to create database first
> > before
> > starting restoration. So far, its been running for over 2 1/2 hours
> > without
> > any sign of restoration (I have kept STATS=1 for getting any indication of
> > restoration start).
> >
> > Now, I have three(3) questions:
> >
> > 1. What should be the approximate DB creation time in such type of
> > environment? 3-4 hours'
> >
> > 2. How come I know if there is a problem? Currently the restore process
> > has
> > wait type of ASYNC_IO_COMPLETION with very large wait time.
> >
> > 3. Can upgrading to Enterprise version help parallelize ANY workload (here
> > db creation/restoration) across all processers? OR this is only true in
> > some
> > instances say index rebuild?
> >
> > Thanks in advance!!!
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> > MZeeshan
>
>|||Those operations generally do not get helped by parallelism due to their IO
loads.
Getting the fastest disk subsystem, and configuring it correctly, does more
to help than STD/EE editions upgrade.
Regards--
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"MZeeshan" <mzeeshan@.community.nospam> wrote in message
news:63CEA9B1-B957-4CBE-97A4-726B6AD0E3FF@.microsoft.com...
> Thanks!
> Yes, it took just around 5 hours to create the database and currently in
> restoration phase.
> About my last question: Have you ever noticed any visible improvement in
> any
> system when license is upgraded from Standard to Enterprise?
> Database creation, backup/restoration and index rebuilds are some of the
> common activities happening on this box.
> --
> Regards,
> MZeeshan
>
> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
>> Hi
>> Fist SQL Server has to create the DB and allocate all the pages for the
>> data
>> and log. This can take the longest.
>> Once this is done, the restore can really happen.
>> A 100GB DB can take anything between 30 minutes and 10 hours to create,
>> depending on the IO performance of the disk subsystem.
>> Regards
>> --
>> --
>> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>> Zurich, Switzerland
>> IM: mike@.epprecht.net
>> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
>> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
>> "MZeeshan" <mzeeshan@.community.nospam> wrote in message
>> news:188596EB-FD62-48DA-94D7-8922B40770E6@.microsoft.com...
>> > Hello-
>> >
>> > I am trying to restore a large sized database (100+ GB) on a machine
>> > that
>> > didn't have database in the beginning, so its a create DB + restore
>> > operation.
>> >
>> > Below is the machine configuration:
>> >
>> > Machine Configuration: quad processor (Pentium 3 Xeon)
>> > Memory: 2 GB
>> > HDD: Fiber Array Channel with separate controllers.
>> > Version: SQL Server 2000/SP3 (Standard Version)
>> > OS: Windows 2003/SP1 (sp presence is a guess).
>> >
>> > I understand the process will take some time to create database first
>> > before
>> > starting restoration. So far, its been running for over 2 1/2 hours
>> > without
>> > any sign of restoration (I have kept STATS=1 for getting any indication
>> > of
>> > restoration start).
>> >
>> > Now, I have three(3) questions:
>> >
>> > 1. What should be the approximate DB creation time in such type of
>> > environment? 3-4 hours'
>> >
>> > 2. How come I know if there is a problem? Currently the restore process
>> > has
>> > wait type of ASYNC_IO_COMPLETION with very large wait time.
>> >
>> > 3. Can upgrading to Enterprise version help parallelize ANY workload
>> > (here
>> > db creation/restoration) across all processers? OR this is only true in
>> > some
>> > instances say index rebuild?
>> >
>> > Thanks in advance!!!
>> >
>> > --
>> > Regards,
>> > MZeeshan
>>|||This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--=_NextPart_000_0595_01C56968.94534E90
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Also, not only do you have to wait for all data files and transaction log
files to be created and zeroed out, SQL Server will first run a BACKUP
VERIFICATION and you will first have to wait for SQL Server to read through
the backup file first. The file read itself can take minutes to hours
depending on size, disk throughput, and backup file multiplexing.
If you need fast recovery, you should consider backing up to multiple files
per backup. This will allow you to run parallel read operations for the
verification and actual restore phases; however, the raw database creation
will still be solely dependent on the disk subsystem throughput.
If you also need fast backup times, consider multiple data files per
filegroup. This will allow SQL Server to run parallel operations for the
backup process.
An alternative to these methods would be to use one of several 3rd-party
backup tools. Lightspeed by Imceda would be a good candidate.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message
news:eVKp0GXaFHA.2996@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
Those operations generally do not get helped by parallelism due to their
IO
loads.
Getting the fastest disk subsystem, and configuring it correctly, does
more
to help than STD/EE editions upgrade.
Regards--
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"MZeeshan" <mzeeshan@.community.nospam> wrote in message
news:63CEA9B1-B957-4CBE-97A4-726B6AD0E3FF@.microsoft.com...
> Thanks!
>
> Yes, it took just around 5 hours to create the database and currently in
> restoration phase.
>
> About my last question: Have you ever noticed any visible improvement in
> any
> system when license is upgraded from Standard to Enterprise?
>
> Database creation, backup/restoration and index rebuilds are some of the
> common activities happening on this box.
>
> --
> Regards,
> MZeeshan
>
>
> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> Fist SQL Server has to create the DB and allocate all the pages for the
>> data
>> and log. This can take the longest.
>>
>> Once this is done, the restore can really happen.
>>
>> A 100GB DB can take anything between 30 minutes and 10 hours to create,
>> depending on the IO performance of the disk subsystem.
>>
>> Regards
>> --
>> --
>> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>> Zurich, Switzerland
>>
>> IM: mike@.epprecht.net
>>
>> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
>>
>> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
>>
>> "MZeeshan" <mzeeshan@.community.nospam> wrote in message
>> news:188596EB-FD62-48DA-94D7-8922B40770E6@.microsoft.com...
>> > Hello-
>> >
>> > I am trying to restore a large sized database (100+ GB) on a machine
>> > that
>> > didn't have database in the beginning, so its a create DB + restore
>> > operation.
>> >
>> > Below is the machine configuration:
>> >
>> > Machine Configuration: quad processor (Pentium 3 Xeon)
>> > Memory: 2 GB
>> > HDD: Fiber Array Channel with separate controllers.
>> > Version: SQL Server 2000/SP3 (Standard Version)
>> > OS: Windows 2003/SP1 (sp presence is a guess).
>> >
>> > I understand the process will take some time to create database first
>> > before
>> > starting restoration. So far, its been running for over 2 1/2 hours
>> > without
>> > any sign of restoration (I have kept STATS=1 for getting any
indication
>> > of
>> > restoration start).
>> >
>> > Now, I have three(3) questions:
>> >
>> > 1. What should be the approximate DB creation time in such type of
>> > environment? 3-4 hours'
>> >
>> > 2. How come I know if there is a problem? Currently the restore
process
>> > has
>> > wait type of ASYNC_IO_COMPLETION with very large wait time.
>> >
>> > 3. Can upgrading to Enterprise version help parallelize ANY workload
>> > (here
>> > db creation/restoration) across all processers? OR this is only true
in
>> > some
>> > instances say index rebuild?
>> >
>> > Thanks in advance!!!
>> >
>> > --
>> > Regards,
>> > MZeeshan
>>
>>
>>
--=_NextPart_000_0595_01C56968.94534E90
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
&

---

Also, not only do you have to wait =for all data files and transaction log files to be created and zeroed out, SQL Server =will first run a BACKUP VERIFICATION and you will first have to wait for SQL =Server to read through the backup file first. The file read itself can =take minutes to hours depending on size, disk throughput, and =backup file multiplexing.
If you need fast recovery, you should =consider backing up to multiple files per backup. This will allow you to =run parallel read operations for the verification and actual restore phases; =however, the raw database creation will still be solely dependent on the =disk subsystem throughput.
If you also need fast backup times, =consider multiple data files per filegroup. This will allow SQL Server to =run parallel operations for the backup process.
An alternative to these methods would =be to use one of several 3rd-party backup tools. Lightspeed by Imceda =would be a good candidate.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
--
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote in =message news:eVKp0GXaFHA.2996=@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...Those operations generally do not get helped by parallelism due to their IO loads.Getting the fastest disk subsystem, and configuring =it correctly, does more to help than STD/EE editions upgrade.Regards-- --Mike = Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVPZurich, SwitzerlandIM: =mike@.epprecht.netMVP =Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvpBlog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/<=/A>"MZeeshan" Thanks!>> Yes, it took just around 5 hours to create the = database and currently in> restoration phase.>> =About my last question: Have you ever noticed any visible improvement in => any> system when license is upgraded from Standard to Enterprise?>> Database creation, backup/restoration and =index rebuilds are some of the> common activities happening on this box.>> -- > Regards,> MZeeshan>>> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:>> Hi>> Fist SQL Server =has to create the DB and allocate all the pages for the > =data> and log. This can take the longest.>> Once this =is done, the restore can really happen.>> A 100GB DB can =take anything between 30 minutes and 10 hours to create,> =depending on the IO performance of the disk subsystem.>> Regards> -- > --> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft =SQL Server MVP> Zurich, Switzerland>> IM: =mike@.epprecht.net>&g=t;> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp>> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/<=/A>>> "MZeeshan" news:188=596EB-FD62-48DA-94D7-8922B40770E6@.microsoft.com...> > Hello-> >> > I am trying to restore a =large sized database (100+ GB) on a machine > > =that> > didn't have database in the beginning, so its a create DB + restore> > operation.> >> > =Below is the machine configuration:> >> > Machine Configuration: quad processor (Pentium 3 Xeon)> > =Memory: 2 GB> > HDD: Fiber Array Channel with separate controllers.> > Version: SQL Server 2000/SP3 (Standard Version)> > OS: Windows 2003/SP1 (sp presence is a guess).> >> > I understand the process =will take some time to create database first> > before> => starting restoration. So far, its been running for over 2 1/2 hours> > without> > any sign of =restoration (I have kept STATS=3D1 for getting any indication > > =of> > restoration start).> >> > Now, I have = three(3) questions:> >> > 1. What should =be the approximate DB creation time in such type of> > =environment? 3-4 hours'> >> > 2. How come I know if there =is a problem? Currently the restore process> > =has> > wait type of ASYNC_IO_COMPLETION with very large wait =time.> >> > 3. Can upgrading to Enterprise version help =parallelize ANY workload > > (here> > db =creation/restoration) across all processers? OR this is only true in> > some> > instances say index rebuild?> >> > Thanks in advance!!!> =>> > -- > > Regards,> > MZeeshan>>> =

---

--=_NextPart_000_0595_01C56968.94534E90--|||This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--=_NextPart_000_0024_01C569A2.12FAEC60
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
ANthonys suggestion of using striped backups to improve restore speed is =a great idea...
And in response to your third question, you will not see an difference =in backup/restore speeds if you upgrade to Enterprise Edition.
-- 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
"Anthony Thomas" <ALThomas@.kc.rr.com> wrote in message =news:eSs5dLZaFHA.3184@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
Also, not only do you have to wait for all data files and transaction =log files to be created and zeroed out, SQL Server will first run a =BACKUP VERIFICATION and you will first have to wait for SQL Server to =read through the backup file first. The file read itself can take =minutes to hours depending on size, disk throughput, and backup file =multiplexing.
If you need fast recovery, you should consider backing up to multiple =files per backup. This will allow you to run parallel read operations =for the verification and actual restore phases; however, the raw =database creation will still be solely dependent on the disk subsystem =throughput.
If you also need fast backup times, consider multiple data files per =filegroup. This will allow SQL Server to run parallel operations for =the backup process.
An alternative to these methods would be to use one of several =3rd-party backup tools. Lightspeed by Imceda would be a good candidate.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
-- "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message =news:eVKp0GXaFHA.2996@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
Those operations generally do not get helped by parallelism due to =their IO loads.
Getting the fastest disk subsystem, and configuring it correctly, =does more to help than STD/EE editions upgrade.
Regards-- --
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"MZeeshan" <mzeeshan@.community.nospam> wrote in message news:63CEA9B1-B957-4CBE-97A4-726B6AD0E3FF@.microsoft.com...
> Thanks!
>
> Yes, it took just around 5 hours to create the database and =currently in
> restoration phase.
>
> About my last question: Have you ever noticed any visible =improvement in > any
> system when license is upgraded from Standard to Enterprise?
>
> Database creation, backup/restoration and index rebuilds are some =of the
> common activities happening on this box.
>
> -- > Regards,
> MZeeshan
>
>
> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> Fist SQL Server has to create the DB and allocate all the pages =for the >> data
>> and log. This can take the longest.
>>
>> Once this is done, the restore can really happen.
>>
>> A 100GB DB can take anything between 30 minutes and 10 hours to =create,
>> depending on the IO performance of the disk subsystem.
>>
>> Regards
>> -- >> --
>> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>> Zurich, Switzerland
>>
>> IM: mike@.epprecht.net
>>
>> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
>>
>> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
>>
>> "MZeeshan" <mzeeshan@.community.nospam> wrote in message
>> news:188596EB-FD62-48DA-94D7-8922B40770E6@.microsoft.com...
>> > Hello-
>> >
>> > I am trying to restore a large sized database (100+ GB) on a =machine >> > that
>> > didn't have database in the beginning, so its a create DB + =restore
>> > operation.
>> >
>> > Below is the machine configuration:
>> >
>> > Machine Configuration: quad processor (Pentium 3 Xeon)
>> > Memory: 2 GB
>> > HDD: Fiber Array Channel with separate controllers.
>> > Version: SQL Server 2000/SP3 (Standard Version)
>> > OS: Windows 2003/SP1 (sp presence is a guess).
>> >
>> > I understand the process will take some time to create database =first
>> > before
>> > starting restoration. So far, its been running for over 2 1/2 =hours
>> > without
>> > any sign of restoration (I have kept STATS=3D1 for getting any =indication >> > of
>> > restoration start).
>> >
>> > Now, I have three(3) questions:
>> >
>> > 1. What should be the approximate DB creation time in such type =of
>> > environment? 3-4 hours'
>> >
>> > 2. How come I know if there is a problem? Currently the restore =process
>> > has
>> > wait type of ASYNC_IO_COMPLETION with very large wait time.
>> >
>> > 3. Can upgrading to Enterprise version help parallelize ANY =workload >> > (here
>> > db creation/restoration) across all processers? OR this is only =true in
>> > some
>> > instances say index rebuild?
>> >
>> > Thanks in advance!!!
>> >
>> > -- >> > Regards,
>> > MZeeshan
>>
>>
>>
--=_NextPart_000_0024_01C569A2.12FAEC60
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
&

---

ANthonys suggestion of using striped =backups to improve restore speed is a great idea...
And in response to your third question, =you will not see an difference in backup/restore speeds if you upgrade to =Enterprise Edition.
-- Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVPMariner, =Charlotte, NChttp://www.mariner-usa.com">www.mariner-usa.com(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it'scommunity of SQL Server professionals.http://www.sqlpass.org">www.sqlpass.org
"Anthony Thomas" wrote in =message news:eSs5dLZaFHA.3184=@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
Also, not only do you have to wait =for all data files and transaction log files to be created and zeroed out, SQL =Server will first run a BACKUP VERIFICATION and you will first have to wait for =SQL Server to read through the backup file first. The file read itself can =take minutes to hours depending on size, disk throughput, and =backup file multiplexing.

If you need fast recovery, you =should consider backing up to multiple files per backup. This will allow you to =run parallel read operations for the verification and actual restore =phases; however, the raw database creation will still be solely dependent on =the disk subsystem throughput.

If you also need fast backup times, =consider multiple data files per filegroup. This will allow SQL Server to =run parallel operations for the backup process.

An alternative to these methods =would be to use one of several 3rd-party backup tools. Lightspeed =by Imceda would be a good candidate.

Sincerely,


Anthony Thomas

--
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote in =message news:eVKp0GXaFHA.2996=@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...Those operations generally do not get helped by parallelism due to their =IO loads.Getting the fastest disk subsystem, and =configuring it correctly, does more to help than STD/EE editions upgrade.Regards-- =--Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVPZurich, SwitzerlandIM: =mike@.epprecht.netMVP =Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvpBlog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/<=/A>"MZeeshan" Thanks!>> Yes, it took just around 5 hours to create =the database and currently in> restoration phase.>> =About my last question: Have you ever noticed any visible improvement in => any> system when license is upgraded from Standard to Enterprise?>> Database creation, backup/restoration =and index rebuilds are some of the> common activities happening on this = box.>> -- > Regards,> MZeeshan>>> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:>> Hi>> Fist SQL =Server has to create the DB and allocate all the pages for the > data> and log. This can take the =longest.>> Once this is done, the restore can really =happen.>> A 100GB DB can take anything between 30 minutes and 10 hours to create,> depending on the IO performance of the disk subsystem.>> Regards> -- => --> Mike Epprecht, =Microsoft SQL Server MVP> Zurich, Switzerland>> =IM: mike@.epprecht.net>&g=t;> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp>> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/<=/A>>> "MZeeshan" news:188=596EB-FD62-48DA-94D7-8922B40770E6@.microsoft.com...> > Hello-> >> > I am trying to restore =a large sized database (100+ GB) on a machine > > =that> > didn't have database in the beginning, so its a create DB + restore> > operation.> >> => Below is the machine configuration:> >> > =Machine Configuration: quad processor (Pentium 3 Xeon)> > =Memory: 2 GB> > HDD: Fiber Array Channel with separate controllers.> > Version: SQL Server 2000/SP3 (Standard = Version)> > OS: Windows 2003/SP1 (sp presence is a guess).> >> > I understand the process =will take some time to create database first> > =before> > starting restoration. So far, its been running for over 2 1/2 hours> > without> > any sign of =restoration (I have kept STATS=3D1 for getting any indication > > of> > restoration start).> >> => Now, I have three(3) questions:> >> > 1. =What should be the approximate DB creation time in such type =of> > environment? 3-4 hours'> >> > 2. How =come I know if there is a problem? Currently the restore =process> > has> > wait type of ASYNC_IO_COMPLETION with very =large wait time.> >> > 3. Can upgrading to =Enterprise version help parallelize ANY workload > > =(here> > db creation/restoration) across all processers? OR this is only =true in> > some> > instances say index rebuild?> >> > Thanks in advance!!!> >> > -- > > Regards,> > =MZeeshan>>>

---

--=_NextPart_000_0024_01C569A2.12FAEC60--

Need URGENT help.

Hello-
I am trying to restore a large sized database (100+ GB) on a machine that
didn't have database in the beginning, so its a create DB + restore operatio
n.
Below is the machine configuration:
Machine Configuration: quad processor (Pentium 3 Xeon)
Memory: 2 GB
HDD: Fiber Array Channel with separate controllers.
Version: SQL Server 2000/SP3 (Standard Version)
OS: Windows 2003/SP1 (sp presence is a guess).
I understand the process will take some time to create database first before
starting restoration. So far, its been running for over 2 1/2 hours without
any sign of restoration (I have kept STATS=1 for getting any indication of
restoration start).
Now, I have three(3) questions:
1. What should be the approximate DB creation time in such type of
environment? 3-4 hours'
2. How come I know if there is a problem? Currently the restore process has
wait type of ASYNC_IO_COMPLETION with very large wait time.
3. Can upgrading to Enterprise version help parallelize ANY workload (here
db creation/restoration) across all processers? OR this is only true in some
instances say index rebuild?
Thanks in advance!!!
Regards,
MZeeshanHi
Fist SQL Server has to create the DB and allocate all the pages for the data
and log. This can take the longest.
Once this is done, the restore can really happen.
A 100GB DB can take anything between 30 minutes and 10 hours to create,
depending on the IO performance of the disk subsystem.
Regards
--
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"MZeeshan" <mzeeshan@.community.nospam> wrote in message
news:188596EB-FD62-48DA-94D7-8922B40770E6@.microsoft.com...
> Hello-
> I am trying to restore a large sized database (100+ GB) on a machine that
> didn't have database in the beginning, so its a create DB + restore
> operation.
> Below is the machine configuration:
> Machine Configuration: quad processor (Pentium 3 Xeon)
> Memory: 2 GB
> HDD: Fiber Array Channel with separate controllers.
> Version: SQL Server 2000/SP3 (Standard Version)
> OS: Windows 2003/SP1 (sp presence is a guess).
> I understand the process will take some time to create database first
> before
> starting restoration. So far, its been running for over 2 1/2 hours
> without
> any sign of restoration (I have kept STATS=1 for getting any indication of
> restoration start).
> Now, I have three(3) questions:
> 1. What should be the approximate DB creation time in such type of
> environment? 3-4 hours'
> 2. How come I know if there is a problem? Currently the restore process
> has
> wait type of ASYNC_IO_COMPLETION with very large wait time.
> 3. Can upgrading to Enterprise version help parallelize ANY workload (here
> db creation/restoration) across all processers? OR this is only true in
> some
> instances say index rebuild?
> Thanks in advance!!!
> --
> Regards,
> MZeeshan|||Thanks!
Yes, it took just around 5 hours to create the database and currently in
restoration phase.
About my last question: Have you ever noticed any visible improvement in any
system when license is upgraded from Standard to Enterprise?
Database creation, backup/restoration and index rebuilds are some of the
common activities happening on this box.
Regards,
MZeeshan
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:

> Hi
> Fist SQL Server has to create the DB and allocate all the pages for the da
ta
> and log. This can take the longest.
> Once this is done, the restore can really happen.
> A 100GB DB can take anything between 30 minutes and 10 hours to create,
> depending on the IO performance of the disk subsystem.
> Regards
> --
> --
> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Zurich, Switzerland
> IM: mike@.epprecht.net
> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
> "MZeeshan" <mzeeshan@.community.nospam> wrote in message
> news:188596EB-FD62-48DA-94D7-8922B40770E6@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||Those operations generally do not get helped by parallelism due to their IO
loads.
Getting the fastest disk subsystem, and configuring it correctly, does more
to help than STD/EE editions upgrade.
Regards--
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"MZeeshan" <mzeeshan@.community.nospam> wrote in message
news:63CEA9B1-B957-4CBE-97A4-726B6AD0E3FF@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Thanks!
> Yes, it took just around 5 hours to create the database and currently in
> restoration phase.
> About my last question: Have you ever noticed any visible improvement in
> any
> system when license is upgraded from Standard to Enterprise?
> Database creation, backup/restoration and index rebuilds are some of the
> common activities happening on this box.
> --
> Regards,
> MZeeshan
>
> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
>|||Also, not only do you have to wait for all data files and transaction log
files to be created and zeroed out, SQL Server will first run a BACKUP
VERIFICATION and you will first have to wait for SQL Server to read through
the backup file first. The file read itself can take minutes to hours
depending on size, disk throughput, and backup file multiplexing.
If you need fast recovery, you should consider backing up to multiple files
per backup. This will allow you to run parallel read operations for the
verification and actual restore phases; however, the raw database creation
will still be solely dependent on the disk subsystem throughput.
If you also need fast backup times, consider multiple data files per
filegroup. This will allow SQL Server to run parallel operations for the
backup process.
An alternative to these methods would be to use one of several 3rd-party
backup tools. Lightspeed by Imceda would be a good candidate.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message
news:eVKp0GXaFHA.2996@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
Those operations generally do not get helped by parallelism due to their
IO
loads.
Getting the fastest disk subsystem, and configuring it correctly, does
more
to help than STD/EE editions upgrade.
Regards--
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"MZeeshan" <mzeeshan@.community.nospam> wrote in message
news:63CEA9B1-B957-4CBE-97A4-726B6AD0E3FF@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Thanks!
> Yes, it took just around 5 hours to create the database and currently in
> restoration phase.
> About my last question: Have you ever noticed any visible improvement in
> any
> system when license is upgraded from Standard to Enterprise?
> Database creation, backup/restoration and index rebuilds are some of the
> common activities happening on this box.
> --
> Regards,
> MZeeshan
>
> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
>
indication[vbcol=seagreen]
process[vbcol=seagreen]
in[vbcol=seagreen]|||ANthonys suggestion of using striped backups to improve restore speed is a g
reat idea...
And in response to your third question, you will not see an difference in ba
ckup/restore speeds if you upgrade to Enterprise Edition.
--
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
"Anthony Thomas" <ALThomas@.kc.rr.com> wrote in message news:eSs5dLZaFHA.3184
@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
Also, not only do you have to wait for all data files and transaction log fi
les to be created and zeroed out, SQL Server will first run a BACKUP VERIFIC
ATION and you will first have to wait for SQL Server to read through the bac
kup file first. The file read itself can take minutes to hours depending on
size, disk throughput, and backup file multiplexing.
If you need fast recovery, you should consider backing up to multiple files
per backup. This will allow you to run parallel read operations for the ver
ification and actual restore phases; however, the raw database creation will
still be solely dependent on the disk subsystem throughput.
If you also need fast backup times, consider multiple data files per filegro
up. This will allow SQL Server to run parallel operations for the backup pr
ocess.
An alternative to these methods would be to use one of several 3rd-party bac
kup tools. Lightspeed by Imceda would be a good candidate.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
--
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message news:eVKp0GXa
FHA.2996@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
Those operations generally do not get helped by parallelism due to their IO
loads.
Getting the fastest disk subsystem, and configuring it correctly, does more
to help than STD/EE editions upgrade.
Regards--
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"MZeeshan" <mzeeshan@.community.nospam> wrote in message
news:63CEA9B1-B957-4CBE-97A4-726B6AD0E3FF@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Thanks!
> Yes, it took just around 5 hours to create the database and currently in
> restoration phase.
> About my last question: Have you ever noticed any visible improvement in
> any
> system when license is upgraded from Standard to Enterprise?
> Database creation, backup/restoration and index rebuilds are some of the
> common activities happening on this box.
> --
> Regards,
> MZeeshan
>
> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
>

Need URGENT help.

Hello-
I am trying to restore a large sized database (100+ GB) on a machine that
didn't have database in the beginning, so its a create DB + restore operation.
Below is the machine configuration:
Machine Configuration: quad processor (Pentium 3 Xeon)
Memory: 2 GB
HDD: Fiber Array Channel with separate controllers.
Version: SQL Server 2000/SP3 (Standard Version)
OS: Windows 2003/SP1 (sp presence is a guess).
I understand the process will take some time to create database first before
starting restoration. So far, its been running for over 2 1/2 hours without
any sign of restoration (I have kept STATS=1 for getting any indication of
restoration start).
Now, I have three(3) questions:
1. What should be the approximate DB creation time in such type of
environment? 3-4 hours?
2. How come I know if there is a problem? Currently the restore process has
wait type of ASYNC_IO_COMPLETION with very large wait time.
3. Can upgrading to Enterprise version help parallelize ANY workload (here
db creation/restoration) across all processers? OR this is only true in some
instances say index rebuild?
Thanks in advance!!!
Regards,
MZeeshan
Hi
Fist SQL Server has to create the DB and allocate all the pages for the data
and log. This can take the longest.
Once this is done, the restore can really happen.
A 100GB DB can take anything between 30 minutes and 10 hours to create,
depending on the IO performance of the disk subsystem.
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"MZeeshan" <mzeeshan@.community.nospam> wrote in message
news:188596EB-FD62-48DA-94D7-8922B40770E6@.microsoft.com...
> Hello-
> I am trying to restore a large sized database (100+ GB) on a machine that
> didn't have database in the beginning, so its a create DB + restore
> operation.
> Below is the machine configuration:
> Machine Configuration: quad processor (Pentium 3 Xeon)
> Memory: 2 GB
> HDD: Fiber Array Channel with separate controllers.
> Version: SQL Server 2000/SP3 (Standard Version)
> OS: Windows 2003/SP1 (sp presence is a guess).
> I understand the process will take some time to create database first
> before
> starting restoration. So far, its been running for over 2 1/2 hours
> without
> any sign of restoration (I have kept STATS=1 for getting any indication of
> restoration start).
> Now, I have three(3) questions:
> 1. What should be the approximate DB creation time in such type of
> environment? 3-4 hours?
> 2. How come I know if there is a problem? Currently the restore process
> has
> wait type of ASYNC_IO_COMPLETION with very large wait time.
> 3. Can upgrading to Enterprise version help parallelize ANY workload (here
> db creation/restoration) across all processers? OR this is only true in
> some
> instances say index rebuild?
> Thanks in advance!!!
> --
> Regards,
> MZeeshan
|||Thanks!
Yes, it took just around 5 hours to create the database and currently in
restoration phase.
About my last question: Have you ever noticed any visible improvement in any
system when license is upgraded from Standard to Enterprise?
Database creation, backup/restoration and index rebuilds are some of the
common activities happening on this box.
Regards,
MZeeshan
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:

> Hi
> Fist SQL Server has to create the DB and allocate all the pages for the data
> and log. This can take the longest.
> Once this is done, the restore can really happen.
> A 100GB DB can take anything between 30 minutes and 10 hours to create,
> depending on the IO performance of the disk subsystem.
> Regards
> --
> --
> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Zurich, Switzerland
> IM: mike@.epprecht.net
> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
> "MZeeshan" <mzeeshan@.community.nospam> wrote in message
> news:188596EB-FD62-48DA-94D7-8922B40770E6@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||Those operations generally do not get helped by parallelism due to their IO
loads.
Getting the fastest disk subsystem, and configuring it correctly, does more
to help than STD/EE editions upgrade.
Regards--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"MZeeshan" <mzeeshan@.community.nospam> wrote in message
news:63CEA9B1-B957-4CBE-97A4-726B6AD0E3FF@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Thanks!
> Yes, it took just around 5 hours to create the database and currently in
> restoration phase.
> About my last question: Have you ever noticed any visible improvement in
> any
> system when license is upgraded from Standard to Enterprise?
> Database creation, backup/restoration and index rebuilds are some of the
> common activities happening on this box.
> --
> Regards,
> MZeeshan
>
> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
|||Also, not only do you have to wait for all data files and transaction log
files to be created and zeroed out, SQL Server will first run a BACKUP
VERIFICATION and you will first have to wait for SQL Server to read through
the backup file first. The file read itself can take minutes to hours
depending on size, disk throughput, and backup file multiplexing.
If you need fast recovery, you should consider backing up to multiple files
per backup. This will allow you to run parallel read operations for the
verification and actual restore phases; however, the raw database creation
will still be solely dependent on the disk subsystem throughput.
If you also need fast backup times, consider multiple data files per
filegroup. This will allow SQL Server to run parallel operations for the
backup process.
An alternative to these methods would be to use one of several 3rd-party
backup tools. Lightspeed by Imceda would be a good candidate.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas

"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message
news:eVKp0GXaFHA.2996@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
Those operations generally do not get helped by parallelism due to their
IO
loads.
Getting the fastest disk subsystem, and configuring it correctly, does
more
to help than STD/EE editions upgrade.
Regards--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"MZeeshan" <mzeeshan@.community.nospam> wrote in message
news:63CEA9B1-B957-4CBE-97A4-726B6AD0E3FF@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Thanks!
> Yes, it took just around 5 hours to create the database and currently in
> restoration phase.
> About my last question: Have you ever noticed any visible improvement in
> any
> system when license is upgraded from Standard to Enterprise?
> Database creation, backup/restoration and index rebuilds are some of the
> common activities happening on this box.
> --
> Regards,
> MZeeshan
>
> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
indication[vbcol=seagreen]
process[vbcol=seagreen]
in[vbcol=seagreen]
|||ANthonys suggestion of using striped backups to improve restore speed is a great idea...
And in response to your third question, you will not see an difference in backup/restore speeds if you upgrade to Enterprise Edition.
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
"Anthony Thomas" <ALThomas@.kc.rr.com> wrote in message news:eSs5dLZaFHA.3184@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
Also, not only do you have to wait for all data files and transaction log files to be created and zeroed out, SQL Server will first run a BACKUP VERIFICATION and you will first have to wait for SQL Server to read through the backup file first. The file read itself can take minutes to hours depending on size, disk throughput, and backup file multiplexing.
If you need fast recovery, you should consider backing up to multiple files per backup. This will allow you to run parallel read operations for the verification and actual restore phases; however, the raw database creation will still be solely dependent on the disk subsystem throughput.
If you also need fast backup times, consider multiple data files per filegroup. This will allow SQL Server to run parallel operations for the backup process.
An alternative to these methods would be to use one of several 3rd-party backup tools. Lightspeed by Imceda would be a good candidate.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas

"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message news:eVKp0GXaFHA.2996@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
Those operations generally do not get helped by parallelism due to their IO
loads.
Getting the fastest disk subsystem, and configuring it correctly, does more
to help than STD/EE editions upgrade.
Regards--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"MZeeshan" <mzeeshan@.community.nospam> wrote in message
news:63CEA9B1-B957-4CBE-97A4-726B6AD0E3FF@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Thanks!
> Yes, it took just around 5 hours to create the database and currently in
> restoration phase.
> About my last question: Have you ever noticed any visible improvement in
> any
> system when license is upgraded from Standard to Enterprise?
> Database creation, backup/restoration and index rebuilds are some of the
> common activities happening on this box.
> --
> Regards,
> MZeeshan
>
> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote: