About a RS version and previous conditions of use

I own a Windows Small Bussiness 2003 license which includes SQL server 2000
Standard Edition and additionally came with a version of Reporting Services.
I want to learn and use it (Reporting Services) as a beginner but when I
try to install it a message appears indicating that I need to install or
configure previously two products:
a) Visual Studio .Net 2003
b) IIS 5.0
Do I need both of 'em just to begin doing simple reports?
I supposed a simple use like I could obtain through Crystal reports 7.0 or
so on.
Please, help me.
Probably next year we will migrate to a new version of Microsoft SBS
Is it worth to do efforts with the versions I own nowadays or not?
Thanks alot in advance.
--
sanpetusRS 2000 report designer require some copy of VS 2003 to be installed. In the
past VB.net 2003 was the cheapest way to do this (about $100). I don't know
now. Note that the VB 2005 will not work for this.
In RS 2005 it comes with a version of VS 2005 so no additional purchase is
necessary.
RS is a asp.net application and as such it needs IIS. IIS comes with all
servers. It might need to configured though.
Bruce Loehle-Conger
MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
"sanpetus" <sanpetus@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:14FE57B4-A059-4B0F-8539-C9D64CBAA6B6@.microsoft.com...
>I own a Windows Small Bussiness 2003 license which includes SQL server 2000
> Standard Edition and additionally came with a version of Reporting
> Services.
> I want to learn and use it (Reporting Services) as a beginner but when I
> try to install it a message appears indicating that I need to install or
> configure previously two products:
> a) Visual Studio .Net 2003
> b) IIS 5.0
> Do I need both of 'em just to begin doing simple reports?
> I supposed a simple use like I could obtain through Crystal reports 7.0 or
> so on.
> Please, help me.
> Probably next year we will migrate to a new version of Microsoft SBS
> Is it worth to do efforts with the versions I own nowadays or not?
> Thanks alot in advance.
> --
> sanpetus

Ability to import Data into SQL Server Express Edition

I am using SQL Server 2005 Express Edition and Server Mangement Studio
Express. I can connect to the server and create databases/tables just fine
but I can't seem to fine a way to import data into the table. The Data
Transformation wizard does not seem to be in the Management studio. Can
anybody give me some help in how to import data into express edition? Thanks,
Using the SQL 2000 version I use bcp (bulk copy) command line tool.
Don't know if the command is included in the 2005 version.

Ability to import Data into SQL Server Express Edition

I am using SQL Server 2005 Express Edition and Server Mangement Studio
Express. I can connect to the server and create databases/tables just fine
but I can't seem to fine a way to import data into the table. The Data
Transformation wizard does not seem to be in the Management studio. Can
anybody give me some help in how to import data into express edition? Thank
s,Using the SQL 2000 version I use bcp (bulk copy) command line tool.
Don't know if the command is included in the 2005 version.

Ability to import Data into SQL Server Express Edition

I am using SQL Server 2005 Express Edition and Server Mangement Studio
Express. I can connect to the server and create databases/tables just fine
but I can't seem to fine a way to import data into the table. The Data
Transformation wizard does not seem to be in the Management studio. Can
anybody give me some help in how to import data into express edition? Thanks,Using the SQL 2000 version I use bcp (bulk copy) command line tool.
Don't know if the command is included in the 2005 version.

A Timeout Occurs When a Database Is Automatically Expanding

Article ID : 305635
Last Review : December 2, 2005
Revision : 3.1
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/305635/
I have SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition and have the some reported issue
in the above article, the article says that it applies to Standard Edition,
does it mean that itâ's not the same problem I have?
Hope some one can answer me quickly..
ThanksThe article applies to all SQL 2000 editions. Timeout's occur on the client
side and it can take time for SQL Server to expand files regardless of the
SQL Server 2000 edition.
--
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Murad Hashem" <Murad Hashem@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:87A2DAEE-5CEA-44C8-BFDD-B726955FADE8@.microsoft.com...
> Article ID : 305635
> Last Review : December 2, 2005
> Revision : 3.1
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/305635/
> I have SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition and have the some reported issue
> in the above article, the article says that it applies to Standard
> Edition,
> does it mean that it's not the same problem I have?
> Hope some one can answer me quickly..
> Thanks
>|||Murad
As an aside to your existing problem. You would be better off controlling
the growth of your database manually.
Auto grow is good as a fall back but a better way is to monitor your
database growth and anticpate your growth requirements before they occurr.
That way you can allocate an amount of extra space that will be sufficiant
for 9 to 12 months (disk space allowing of course) rather than a typical 10%
(or similar) that people tend to use for auto grow.
Databases using auto grow typically tend to grow more regularly than
databases that are monitored and manually increased. This can mean
fragmentation at the disk level, that can lead to bad performance. Also if
you do it manually you can schedule it at a quite time, not in the middle of
your business day, which always seems to happen with autogrow. Doing outside
your main business hours will reduce the impact on your users.
Another thing is to have an archive strategy for all your databases. I work
for a large bank and we will not let a database go into production if it does
not have an archive strategy. Do this with your systems and after the first
year or two, you rarely (or in some cases never) have to expand your
databases again.
HTH
John
"Murad Hashem" wrote:
> Article ID : 305635
> Last Review : December 2, 2005
> Revision : 3.1
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/305635/
> I have SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition and have the some reported issue
> in the above article, the article says that it applies to Standard Edition,
> does it mean that itâ's not the same problem I have?
> Hope some one can answer me quickly..
> Thanks
>

A Timeout Occurs When a Database Is Automatically Expanding

Article ID : 305635
Last Review : December 2, 2005
Revision : 3.1
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/305635/
I have SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition and have the some reported issue
in the above article, the article says that it applies to Standard Edition,
does it mean that it’s not the same problem I have?
Hope some one can answer me quickly..
Thanks
The article applies to all SQL 2000 editions. Timeout's occur on the client
side and it can take time for SQL Server to expand files regardless of the
SQL Server 2000 edition.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Murad Hashem" <Murad Hashem@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:87A2DAEE-5CEA-44C8-BFDD-B726955FADE8@.microsoft.com...
> Article ID : 305635
> Last Review : December 2, 2005
> Revision : 3.1
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/305635/
> I have SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition and have the some reported issue
> in the above article, the article says that it applies to Standard
> Edition,
> does it mean that it's not the same problem I have?
> Hope some one can answer me quickly..
> Thanks
>
|||Murad
As an aside to your existing problem. You would be better off controlling
the growth of your database manually.
Auto grow is good as a fall back but a better way is to monitor your
database growth and anticpate your growth requirements before they occurr.
That way you can allocate an amount of extra space that will be sufficiant
for 9 to 12 months (disk space allowing of course) rather than a typical 10%
(or similar) that people tend to use for auto grow.
Databases using auto grow typically tend to grow more regularly than
databases that are monitored and manually increased. This can mean
fragmentation at the disk level, that can lead to bad performance. Also if
you do it manually you can schedule it at a quite time, not in the middle of
your business day, which always seems to happen with autogrow. Doing outside
your main business hours will reduce the impact on your users.
Another thing is to have an archive strategy for all your databases. I work
for a large bank and we will not let a database go into production if it does
not have an archive strategy. Do this with your systems and after the first
year or two, you rarely (or in some cases never) have to expand your
databases again.
HTH
John
"Murad Hashem" wrote:

> Article ID : 305635
> Last Review : December 2, 2005
> Revision : 3.1
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/305635/
> I have SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition and have the some reported issue
> in the above article, the article says that it applies to Standard Edition,
> does it mean that it’s not the same problem I have?
> Hope some one can answer me quickly..
> Thanks
>

A Timeout Occurs When a Database Is Automatically Expanding

Article ID : 305635
Last Review : December 2, 2005
Revision : 3.1
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/305635/
I have SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition and have the some reported issue
in the above article, the article says that it applies to Standard Edition,
does it mean that it’s not the same problem I have?
Hope some one can answer me quickly..
ThanksThe article applies to all SQL 2000 editions. Timeout's occur on the client
side and it can take time for SQL Server to expand files regardless of the
SQL Server 2000 edition.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Murad Hashem" <Murad Hashem@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:87A2DAEE-5CEA-44C8-BFDD-B726955FADE8@.microsoft.com...
> Article ID : 305635
> Last Review : December 2, 2005
> Revision : 3.1
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/305635/
> I have SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition and have the some reported issue
> in the above article, the article says that it applies to Standard
> Edition,
> does it mean that it's not the same problem I have?
> Hope some one can answer me quickly..
> Thanks
>|||Murad
As an aside to your existing problem. You would be better off controlling
the growth of your database manually.
Auto grow is good as a fall back but a better way is to monitor your
database growth and anticpate your growth requirements before they occurr.
That way you can allocate an amount of extra space that will be sufficiant
for 9 to 12 months (disk space allowing of course) rather than a typical 10%
(or similar) that people tend to use for auto grow.
Databases using auto grow typically tend to grow more regularly than
databases that are monitored and manually increased. This can mean
fragmentation at the disk level, that can lead to bad performance. Also if
you do it manually you can schedule it at a quite time, not in the middle of
your business day, which always seems to happen with autogrow. Doing outside
your main business hours will reduce the impact on your users.
Another thing is to have an archive strategy for all your databases. I work
for a large bank and we will not let a database go into production if it doe
s
not have an archive strategy. Do this with your systems and after the first
year or two, you rarely (or in some cases never) have to expand your
databases again.
HTH
John
"Murad Hashem" wrote:

> Article ID : 305635
> Last Review : December 2, 2005
> Revision : 3.1
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/305635/
> I have SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition and have the some reported issue
> in the above article, the article says that it applies to Standard Edition
,
> does it mean that it’s not the same problem I have?
> Hope some one can answer me quickly..
> Thanks
>

a strange issue after installing SP3a (SP3a Issue)

when installing "SQL Server Service Pack 3a" on my "SQL Server Personal
Edition", something strange happened to the windows view data in the Tables
and Views, they are showing RightToLeft!!!!?
how can i fix this? and why did it happen?
please help. and if possible email me the solution to ay_tech@.yahoo.com
Thanks!
Ayman
--
Message posted via http://www.sqlmonster.comWould Any One help plese on the Issue ?
--
Message posted via http://www.sqlmonster.com|||On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 11:05:43 GMT, Ayman AM via SQLMonster.com wrote:
>when installing "SQL Server Service Pack 3a" on my "SQL Server Personal
>Edition", something strange happened to the windows view data in the Tables
>and Views, they are showing RightToLeft!!!!?
>how can i fix this? and why did it happen?
Hi Ayman,
Is this in Enterprise Manager?
Try this: when displaying tables or views, select "Details" from the
"View" menu (I hope that's the English equivalent - I'm using a Dutch
verwion of Windows). Check the left-most heading above the list of table
names - my guess is that you'll find an upward pointing arrowhead in it,
denoting reverse sort on table- or view-name. Click this header once to
select normal sort (the arrowhead will change to point down). Then, use
the "View" menu again to restore your favorite setting (I think, from your
message, that you're using large pictograms - I always have the details
view selected, but that's just personal preference).
Best, Hugo
--
(Remove _NO_ and _SPAM_ to get my e-mail address)

A significant part of sql server process memory has been paged out

On a SQL Server 2005 x64 Standard Edition cluster I get the error listed below and then the SQL server service restarts. The SQL server is unavailable for 5-10 minutes during that time. Any ideas?

Error:

A significant part of sql server process memory has been paged out. This may result in a performance degradation. Duration: 647 seconds. Working set (KB): 11907776, committed (KB): 28731732, memory utilization: 41%%.

This means that Windows has decided to move SQL Server memory out of RAM and stored it in disk until it's needed again. This article has some more information on how to avoid this:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/918483/en-us

You also mentioned that SQL Server has restarted after this. Could you please post the last 10 lines or so of errorlog when this occurred?

Thanks,

Fabricio.

|||

I did look at that article but I don't think that will work for SQL Standard Edition.

Note SQL Server 2005 Enterprise Edition is the only edition that is designed to use lock pages in memory.

|||

In that case, try to identify what's causing Windows to page SQL Server out to disk. SQL Server tries to fill up the available memory on the machine. When you have other apps running on the same machine, they may use a lot of memory and push SQL Server out to the swap file. SQL Server will detect this and trim its memory, but in some rare cases it can't release enough memory or can't release fast enough and may end up being swapped out. This message is to notify you that such event happened and that SQL Server's memory is being fetched from disk, causing some temporary slowness.

Please, let me know if you need help figuring out what app is using memory on the machine.

Thanks,

Fabricio.

|||

I believe the KB article is incorrect stating it’s only valid for x64 Enterprise Edition. I encountered the same problem you reported and the Lock Pages In Memory policy work just fine with x64 standard edition.

|||

This article explains the problem I was having:

http://blogs.technet.com/askperf/archive/2007/05/18/sql-and-the-working-set.aspx

The system was running Windows 2003 SP1. Have upgraded to Windows 2003 SP2 and have not had the problem since.

|||

Kmoskal,

The KB article is correct. Only SQL Server Enterprise will lock pages in memory. You may set the priviledge with any other edition, but it will have no effect in SQL Server. I guess you just have been lucky (and SQL Server has been doing a great job keeping itself in RAM) :-)

Thanks,

Fabricio.

A previous restore operation was interrupted and did not complete processing on file

Hi

I am new to Forum. So not sure if i am posting my problem uner the right topic.

We have a sql server 2005 enterprise edition 4 way cluster on windows 2003 advance server.

I am logshipping these database to a different server at a different location.

My logshipping went fine until one the cluster server failed and the server instance failed over to another node.

The backup that happened around that time got copied over to the secondary by the copy job.

The log file that got copied to the secondary server tried restoring and i think it failed int he middle of restoring it.

(You would think that the sql would knoe if the backup is in complete and will move on to the next file. Not sure what happened there.)

There is no indication of the *.TUF file in the directory where i have the log files.

I tried restoring it manually and i got the following error

Msg 4319, Level 16, State 3, Line 1

A previous restore operation was interrupted and did not complete processing on file 'sessionlog1'. Either restore the backup set that was interrupted or restart the restore sequence.

Msg 3013, Level 16, State 1, Line 1

RESTORE LOG is terminating abnormally.

I looked in the msdb..log_shipping_secondary_databases and looked for the last file that it restored and tried restoring it again with the following restore command by removing and adding some of the keywords that you see after the "WITH" clause.

MSFT do not recommand to use continne_after_error unless its absolutley necessary. I stilll get the above error.

restore log sessiondata

from disk = 'I:\sql13qasm\logs\sessiondata\sessiondata_20070901124516.trn'

with restart, CONTINUE_AFTER_ERROR, norecovery

When i add the restart int he with clause,

The restart-checkpoint file 'J:\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL.5\MSSQL\Backup\sessiondata.CKP' was not found. The RESTORE command will continue from the beginning as if RESTART had not been specified.

Msg 4319, Level 16, State 1, Line 1

A previous restore operation was interrupted and did not complete processing on file 'sessionlog1'. Either restore the backup set that was interrupted or restart the restore sequence.

Msg 3013, Level 16, State 1, Line 1

RESTORE LOG is terminating abnormally.

I checked it the backup directory and i can't locate the .CKP file.

Does anyone ever come accross this issue?

Is there anyother way i could recover this DB in a standby or norecovery mode.

Any kind of help to resolve this issue (beside copy the full backup and redo the whole log-shipping process again) would be appreciated. sicne my primary and secondary server are totally ina different location, i need to ship a tape, if i need a full backup. This is the 3rd time its happening on that cluster. its frustrating to ship a tape everytime this happens.

I think the log backup chain has been broken. Try doing a differential and log backup and restoring those on the secondary. If that doesn't work I think you'll need to go the full backup route again.

I'm not an expert on log shipping though - maybe someone else can chime in here?

|||

I can't take a differential now, since full back job happened already, after the failure.

:-S