Help on sql server 2005 express

I'm using sql server 2005 express edition on a HP Pavillon machine with windows vista

when I conect the computer to a network the database engine spends about 30 minutes in a query an when is not conected it takes only one second.

What mast i do to correct this problem ?

Thanks

Max.

SQL Server 2005 Express is designed for local connection. For remote connection, you need to purchase SQL Server 2005.

Help Needed on Hardware Setup

I have been tasked with setting up a brand new PowerEdge 2650 for
SharePoint, SQL 2000 and Windows 2003. This server has 5 physical disks,
all 73GB, 2GB of RAM and a 3.06Ghz Xeon processor.
My question is in regards to the best possible RAID setup for SQL
performance as well as retaining as much disk space as possible.
If I read the docs correctly SQL is best suited to have the tempdb,
application files and log files all on separate physical disks.
I cannot find a way to do this without losing a lot of my available disk
space.
The way I see it, as well as my SQL admin, there are 3 factors to consider.
1. Speed (performance), 2. Reliability 3. Capacity.
If I configure everything in one big RAID 5 array I would have excellent
reliability, and have (73x4) 292GB free for data, probably 270GB after
application installations.
If I configure disk 1 for OS and apps, disk 2 for log files and disks 3,4
and 5 for data I would have 219GB available for data with no redundancy, if
I add RAID 5 across those 3 disks I would get 146GB useable space,
dramatically less than the 292GB from the other config.
A third option is to create a 10GB (or 20GB) partition on disk 1, mirror
that to disk 2 and configure all 5 disks in a RAID 5 configuration. The
problem with this is that I can only use 63GB of each disk, giving me 315GB
minus parity drive, for a total useable size of 252GB. However, I don't
think this configuration would give me much of a performance gain in SQL.
So my questions are this : what would you recommend, taking into account
that this machine will be running W2k3, SQL 2000 and SharePoint 2003. The
server will have about 50GB of local data *eventually*, and will be indexing
around 150GB of data residing on a NAS device.
Also, I have heard that SharePoint doesn't really tax SQL that bad and that
I'm over-analyzing the problem. Just set it up as one big RAID 5 and be
done with it. Thought?
Sorry for the long post.Hi,
Follow the below URL which gives idea on What RAID Levels
to choose for SQL Boxes and why so. Of Course More replies
to come from experts.
http://www.sql-server-performance.com/q&a38.asp
HTH
THIRUMAL REDDY MARAM
System Admin / SQL DBA
>--Original Message--
>I have been tasked with setting up a brand new PowerEdge
2650 for
>SharePoint, SQL 2000 and Windows 2003. This server has 5
physical disks,
>all 73GB, 2GB of RAM and a 3.06Ghz Xeon processor.
>My question is in regards to the best possible RAID setup
for SQL
>performance as well as retaining as much disk space as
possible.
>If I read the docs correctly SQL is best suited to have
the tempdb,
>application files and log files all on separate physical
disks.
>I cannot find a way to do this without losing a lot of my
available disk
>space.
>The way I see it, as well as my SQL admin, there are 3
factors to consider.
>1. Speed (performance), 2. Reliability 3. Capacity.
>If I configure everything in one big RAID 5 array I would
have excellent
>reliability, and have (73x4) 292GB free for data,
probably 270GB after
>application installations.
>If I configure disk 1 for OS and apps, disk 2 for log
files and disks 3,4
>and 5 for data I would have 219GB available for data with
no redundancy, if
>I add RAID 5 across those 3 disks I would get 146GB
useable space,
>dramatically less than the 292GB from the other config.
>A third option is to create a 10GB (or 20GB) partition on
disk 1, mirror
>that to disk 2 and configure all 5 disks in a RAID 5
configuration. The
>problem with this is that I can only use 63GB of each
disk, giving me 315GB
>minus parity drive, for a total useable size of 252GB.
However, I don't
>think this configuration would give me much of a
performance gain in SQL.
>So my questions are this : what would you recommend,
taking into account
>that this machine will be running W2k3, SQL 2000 and
SharePoint 2003. The
>server will have about 50GB of local data *eventually*,
and will be indexing
>around 150GB of data residing on a NAS device.
>Also, I have heard that SharePoint doesn't really tax SQL
that bad and that
>I'm over-analyzing the problem. Just set it up as one
big RAID 5 and be
>done with it. Thought?
>Sorry for the long post.
>
>.
>|||Every case is unique per the Budget , Scope, SLAs etc... to come up with teh
right configuration.
It also depends upon the Access Patterns, Number of Data files and groups,
Index and TempDB Placement.
I would recommend that you start at the MSFT Operations guide at
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default.asp?url=/technet/prodtechnol/sql/maintain/operate/opsguide/default.asp
And look at Chapter 6, which talks about Capacity Planning.
--
HTH
Satish Balusa
Corillian Corp.
"cyberpunk" <blah@.anon.com> wrote in message
news:eONEAKr3DHA.1404@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> I have been tasked with setting up a brand new PowerEdge 2650 for
> SharePoint, SQL 2000 and Windows 2003. This server has 5 physical disks,
> all 73GB, 2GB of RAM and a 3.06Ghz Xeon processor.
> My question is in regards to the best possible RAID setup for SQL
> performance as well as retaining as much disk space as possible.
> If I read the docs correctly SQL is best suited to have the tempdb,
> application files and log files all on separate physical disks.
> I cannot find a way to do this without losing a lot of my available disk
> space.
> The way I see it, as well as my SQL admin, there are 3 factors to
consider.
> 1. Speed (performance), 2. Reliability 3. Capacity.
> If I configure everything in one big RAID 5 array I would have excellent
> reliability, and have (73x4) 292GB free for data, probably 270GB after
> application installations.
> If I configure disk 1 for OS and apps, disk 2 for log files and disks 3,4
> and 5 for data I would have 219GB available for data with no redundancy,
if
> I add RAID 5 across those 3 disks I would get 146GB useable space,
> dramatically less than the 292GB from the other config.
> A third option is to create a 10GB (or 20GB) partition on disk 1, mirror
> that to disk 2 and configure all 5 disks in a RAID 5 configuration. The
> problem with this is that I can only use 63GB of each disk, giving me
315GB
> minus parity drive, for a total useable size of 252GB. However, I don't
> think this configuration would give me much of a performance gain in SQL.
> So my questions are this : what would you recommend, taking into account
> that this machine will be running W2k3, SQL 2000 and SharePoint 2003. The
> server will have about 50GB of local data *eventually*, and will be
indexing
> around 150GB of data residing on a NAS device.
> Also, I have heard that SharePoint doesn't really tax SQL that bad and
that
> I'm over-analyzing the problem. Just set it up as one big RAID 5 and be
> done with it. Thought?
> Sorry for the long post.
>

Help Needed on Hardware Setup

I have been tasked with setting up a brand new PowerEdge 2650 for
SharePoint, SQL 2000 and Windows 2003. This server has 5 physical disks,
all 73GB, 2GB of RAM and a 3.06Ghz Xeon processor.
My question is in regards to the best possible RAID setup for SQL
performance as well as retaining as much disk space as possible.
If I read the docs correctly SQL is best suited to have the tempdb,
application files and log files all on separate physical disks.
I cannot find a way to do this without losing a lot of my available disk
space.
The way I see it, as well as my SQL admin, there are 3 factors to consider.
1. Speed (performance), 2. Reliability 3. Capacity.
If I configure everything in one big RAID 5 array I would have excellent
reliability, and have (73x4) 292GB free for data, probably 270GB after
application installations.
If I configure disk 1 for OS and apps, disk 2 for log files and disks 3,4
and 5 for data I would have 219GB available for data with no redundancy, if
I add RAID 5 across those 3 disks I would get 146GB useable space,
dramatically less than the 292GB from the other config.
A third option is to create a 10GB (or 20GB) partition on disk 1, mirror
that to disk 2 and configure all 5 disks in a RAID 5 configuration. The
problem with this is that I can only use 63GB of each disk, giving me 315GB
minus parity drive, for a total useable size of 252GB. However, I don't
think this configuration would give me much of a performance gain in SQL.
So my questions are this : what would you recommend, taking into account
that this machine will be running W2k3, SQL 2000 and SharePoint 2003. The
server will have about 50GB of local data *eventually*, and will be indexing
around 150GB of data residing on a NAS device.
Also, I have heard that SharePoint doesn't really tax SQL that bad and that
I'm over-analyzing the problem. Just set it up as one big RAID 5 and be
done with it. Thought?
Sorry for the long post.Every case is unique per the Budget , Scope, SLAs etc... to come up with teh
right configuration.
It also depends upon the Access Patterns, Number of Data files and groups,
Index and TempDB Placement.
I would recommend that you start at the MSFT Operations guide at
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/tr...ide/default.asp
And look at Chapter 6, which talks about Capacity Planning.
HTH
Satish Balusa
Corillian Corp.
"cyberpunk" <blah@.anon.com> wrote in message
news:eONEAKr3DHA.1404@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...

quote:

---

> I have been tasked with setting up a brand new PowerEdge 2650 for
> SharePoint, SQL 2000 and Windows 2003. This server has 5 physical disks,
> all 73GB, 2GB of RAM and a 3.06Ghz Xeon processor.
> My question is in regards to the best possible RAID setup for SQL
> performance as well as retaining as much disk space as possible.
> If I read the docs correctly SQL is best suited to have the tempdb,
> application files and log files all on separate physical disks.
> I cannot find a way to do this without losing a lot of my available disk
> space.
> The way I see it, as well as my SQL admin, there are 3 factors to

---

consider.

quote:

---

> 1. Speed (performance), 2. Reliability 3. Capacity.
> If I configure everything in one big RAID 5 array I would have excellent
> reliability, and have (73x4) 292GB free for data, probably 270GB after
> application installations.
> If I configure disk 1 for OS and apps, disk 2 for log files and disks 3,4
> and 5 for data I would have 219GB available for data with no redundancy,

---

if

quote:

---

> I add RAID 5 across those 3 disks I would get 146GB useable space,
> dramatically less than the 292GB from the other config.
> A third option is to create a 10GB (or 20GB) partition on disk 1, mirror
> that to disk 2 and configure all 5 disks in a RAID 5 configuration. The
> problem with this is that I can only use 63GB of each disk, giving me

---

315GB

quote:

---

> minus parity drive, for a total useable size of 252GB. However, I don't
> think this configuration would give me much of a performance gain in SQL.
> So my questions are this : what would you recommend, taking into account
> that this machine will be running W2k3, SQL 2000 and SharePoint 2003. The
> server will have about 50GB of local data *eventually*, and will be

---

indexing

quote:

---

> around 150GB of data residing on a NAS device.
> Also, I have heard that SharePoint doesn't really tax SQL that bad and

---

that

quote:

---

> I'm over-analyzing the problem. Just set it up as one big RAID 5 and be
> done with it. Thought?
> Sorry for the long post.
>

---

Help Needed Disadter Recovery!

Our c drive has failed on our SQL Server following a major system crash!

We are going to have to re-install Windows and SQL Server.

Our backup failed last night.

When we re-install Windows we going to be able to see the drives in with our .mdf and .ldf file on them.

After we re-install sql server 2000 will we be able to run sp_dbattach to re-connect the mdf and ldf files?

Please help!

SimonYou will be able to atach database but if you had replication going on it will fail.

Help Needed

Greetings,

I have sql server 2000 sp3 on windows 2000 server. On one
of the database we have with 40 GB data. It have more than
100 GB of free space in the filegroup. I tried to shrink
that file using DBCC SHRINKFILE('FILENAME') and it gave
me following error

Server: Msg 3140, Level 16, State 3, Line 1
Could not adjust the space allocation for
file 'dbfile_Dat'.
DBCC execution completed. If DBCC printed error messages,
contact your system administrator.

here the space is adequate

Can anyone help me with this?
Any help would be appreciated

TIA(pankaj_wolfhunter@.yahoo.co.in) writes:
> I have sql server 2000 sp3 on windows 2000 server. On one
> of the database we have with 40 GB data. It have more than
> 100 GB of free space in the filegroup. I tried to shrink
> that file using DBCC SHRINKFILE('FILENAME') and it gave
> me following error
> Server: Msg 3140, Level 16, State 3, Line 1
> Could not adjust the space allocation for
> file 'dbfile_Dat'.
> DBCC execution completed. If DBCC printed error messages,
> contact your system administrator.

If I understand this correctly, the database file is 140 GB, of which 100 GB
is unused, and you want to shrink the file to 40 GB?

Did you try specifying a target size:

DBCC SHRINKFILE('dbfile_Dat', 42000)

--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se

Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...oads/books.mspx
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodin...ions/books.mspx

Help me: SQL Server 2005 Enterprise Setup Error

I have my computer clean with windows 2000 server SP4

then I install Visual Studio.NET 2005 Professional (With SQL Server 2005 Express Edition) - Everything is OK!

after that i try to install SQL Server 2005 Enterprise Edition, but I get an error message at the begining as following:

Title: setup.exe - Entry Point Not Found

Content: The procedure entry point _encode_pointer could not be located in the dynamic link library MSVCR80.dll

so, is there anybody can help me to solve this problem? thanks!

You may want to post this in the setup section - they have a lot more information there and might have this question answered already.

Help me: SQL Server 2005 Enterprise Setup Error

I have my computer clean with windows 2000 server SP4

then I install Visual Studio.NET 2005 Professional (With SQL Server 2005 Express Edition) - Everything is OK!

after that i try to install SQL Server 2005 Enterprise Edition, but I get an error message at the begining as following:

Title: setup.exe - Entry Point Not Found

Content: The procedure entry point _encode_pointer could not be located in the dynamic link library MSVCR80.dll

so, is there anybody can help me to solve this problem? thanks!

You may want to post this in the setup section - they have a lot more information there and might have this question answered already.

Help me please about username and password

How to set user and password connect to Database server from other program
when Sql server 2000 authentication by Windows ?
And How Change Windows authentication to Sql server authentication.
To connect via a different user and password you have to modify the
connection string that you are connecting with, but thats only valid
for SQL Server Authentication.You can=B4t specify the Windows user and
password as though this is Integrated Authentication. As you didn=B4t
state how (with which program etc) you are connecting its hard to give
you a suggestion for that, but if you are using the .NET Framework you
could start a new thread and impersonate the thread as a special
Windows user, then you could use impersonation even you are logged on
with a different user.
HTH, jens Suessmeyer.

Help me please about username and password

How to set user and password connect to Database server from other program
when Sql server 2000 authentication by Windows ?
And How Change Windows authentication to Sql server authentication.To connect via a different user and password you have to modify the
connection string that you are connecting with, but thats only valid
for SQL Server Authentication.You can=B4t specify the Windows user and
password as though this is Integrated Authentication. As you didn=B4t
state how (with which program etc) you are connecting its hard to give
you a suggestion for that, but if you are using the .NET Framework you
could start a new thread and impersonate the thread as a special
Windows user, then you could use impersonation even you are logged on
with a different user.
HTH, jens Suessmeyer.

help me in connection

I am using sql server and c# (windows application)>>

the task is to retrieve records from table in the database and view it in page load , with the abilty to choose the records >>

this means that select range >>> e.g. from 3 to 7 (this can done by textbox)

so how can i do this >>

then I shall have two search buttons ( by name and by id) >> how can I implement that >>>

the last thing is to do the validation for every thing i can validate how I can do this >>>

thank u at the beginning for help me

adorer:

I am using sql server and c# (windows application)>>

Since you are writing a Windows application, and these forums are for ASP.NET, you should post your question on theMSDN forums.

|||

SqlConnection cn =

new SqlConnection("User ID=sa;password=;Initial Catalog=Training;Data Source=local");

cn.Open();

DataSet ds =

new DataSet();

SqlDataAdapter da =

new SqlDataAdapter("select * from Students where ID = '"+ textBox1.Text + "'", cn);

da.Fill(ds, "Students");

dataGrid1.DataSource = ds;

cn.Close();

does this do the task