Cached Reports

Is it possible to cache a version of a report, meaning say I pass a parameter "CacheReport" which is a boolean. Can I only cache this report when this variable is set to true?I don't believe that's currently a settable option. You can set them to
cache with the first user, on a schedule or have it pull from a snapshot
each time.
"comet61" <comet61@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C6DEDF65-C480-430B-A94C-968107D1AC6C@.microsoft.com...
> Is it possible to cache a version of a report, meaning say I pass a
> parameter "CacheReport" which is a boolean. Can I only cache this report
> when this variable is set to true?

'C.0.6.51'. The expected version is 'C.0.6.43'

Hi all,
We have been using RS for about 3 mos, and just this am when attempting to
access the main web page we get an error message saying:
The version of the report server database is either in a format that is not
valid, or it cannot be read. The found version is 'C.0.6.51'. The expected
version is 'C.0.6.43'. To continue, update the version of the report server
database and verify access rights. (rsInvalidReportServerDatabase)
So my db is a higher version now than my application? Typically I would
restore the db from backup but SNAFU - no backup .. open files and all that
...
Any suggestions on how to re-install the database?
TIA
Edward
ebrooathealthydirections.comThe DB has been upgraded to SP1. You should upgrade your RS to SP1 and then
everything should work for you.
--
-Daniel
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"EB" <ebroo@.healthydirections.com> wrote in message
news:uvGdk6IuFHA.2160@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hi all,
> We have been using RS for about 3 mos, and just this am when attempting to
> access the main web page we get an error message saying:
> The version of the report server database is either in a format that is
> not valid, or it cannot be read. The found version is 'C.0.6.51'. The
> expected version is 'C.0.6.43'. To continue, update the version of the
> report server database and verify access rights.
> (rsInvalidReportServerDatabase)
> So my db is a higher version now than my application? Typically I would
> restore the db from backup but SNAFU - no backup .. open files and all
> that ...
> Any suggestions on how to re-install the database?
> TIA
> Edward
> ebrooathealthydirections.com
>

C drive not big enough

I am installing the X86 Executable version of SQL Server. I copied it to my desktop and clicked RUN. It extracts the files and then the Install Wizard tells me there is not enough space on the C Drive to load the program. I have 23 gigabits of free space and the program only takes about 900 megabits.

Is there a solution to this problem?

Thanks,

Modez

Hi Modez.

Is this Sql 2000 or Sql 2005?

Try creating a 'dummy' text file that is a few hundred mb in size or more (just create some garbage in the file and copy/paste it until the file becomes large enough), then try running the setup. If that works, you can delete the garbage file on completion.

Repost if you continue to have troubles,

HTH

|||

Chad:

It is 2005. I tried making a txt. file and got the same message. Then I tried to download it again and run it from the web site instead of saving it to my desktop but it stills says my C: drive is not big enough.

Do you have any other suggestions?

Thanks,

Modez

Buy SQL Server 2000 or...

Hi all,
I just need an opinion -
The organization I work for is considering buying the "full version" of SQL
Server 2000 (we're using MSDE 2000 right now).
The thing is, since we're in 2004, I'm worried that the next big version of
SQL Server could be somewhere around the corner.
(The present version's capabilities are absolutely convenient for our needs
now and as far as I can see in the future.)
Our server is running on Windows 2000, and maybe we'll move to Windows 2003
some time next year.
So here are my questions:
- Is it worth it to invest substantial money in SQL Server 2000 now or
should we cope with MSDE and wait for the next release;
- If we're going with the 2000 version, and since the life cycle of server
products tends to be a bit longer than destop products, how many years from
now is it reasonable to think that it would be supported ?
TIA
Paul Dussault, MCPThe next version is SQL Server 2005 ("Yukon") which Microsoft has announced
for the first half of 2005.
Microsoft's support lifecycle policies are documented here:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=lifecycle
This states that Mainstream Support for SQLServer 2000 will end 31 December
2005. In view of the projected release date of Yukon I wouldn't be surprised
if the end date of the Mainstream Support period was pushed back. Extended
Support ends 31 December 2007.
I would suggest that if SQL2000 meets your requirements and is going to
bring benefits to your organization today then there is no reason to wait.
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
--|||It is expected that Yukon (the next version of SQL Server) will be =
released some time next year. If you need to upgrade to SQL Server it =
might be good to do so now. SQL Server 2000 will probably be supported =
until the version of SQL Server after Yukon is released, so SQL Server =
2000 will probabaly be supported for a while. =20
If you have a database with many users I am guessing that SQL Server =
will probably perform better than MSDE. With that said, I cannot tell =
you what to do. How is MSDE performing for you? You mentioned =
"substancial money" ...do you have to buy a new server, or are you =
talking about license cost? =20
--=20
Keith
"Paul Dussault" <paulduss@.hotmail.com> wrote in message =
news:%23ArQuNDNEHA.2780@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hi all,
>=20
> I just need an opinion -
>=20
> The organization I work for is considering buying the "full version" =
of SQL
> Server 2000 (we're using MSDE 2000 right now).
> The thing is, since we're in 2004, I'm worried that the next big =
version of
> SQL Server could be somewhere around the corner.
> (The present version's capabilities are absolutely convenient for our =
needs
> now and as far as I can see in the future.)
> Our server is running on Windows 2000, and maybe we'll move to Windows =
2003
> some time next year.
>=20
> So here are my questions:
>=20
> - Is it worth it to invest substantial money in SQL Server 2000 now or
> should we cope with MSDE and wait for the next release;
> - If we're going with the 2000 version, and since the life cycle of =
server
> products tends to be a bit longer than destop products, how many years =
from
> now is it reasonable to think that it would be supported ?
>=20
>=20
> TIA
>=20
>=20
> Paul Dussault, MCP
>=20
>|||I'm assuming it's likely that you have a business reason for asking - i.e. M
SDE is struggling to meet your demands? If that's so - then it depends how m
uch your business wants to move forward. If you've properly evaluated SQL2k
then it may be an idea to i
ntroduce a product which has been serviced packed several times and is very
stable rather than waiting for a new product and the development/bedding in
process' you may need.
Julie
http://www.sqlporn.co.uk :o)|||Hi Keith,

> If you have a database with many users I am guessing that SQL Server will
probably perform better than MSDE.
For now we have just a few apps with just a few users. But many more apps
and Web sites are in planning or in development, so we're bound to work with
the full version at one time or another.

> How is MSDE performing for you? You mentioned "substancial money" ...do
you have to buy a new server, or are you talking about license cost?
MSDE is OK right now. And we have a brand new server and it rocks. I
personally think that SQL Server 2000 will be supported for a while; but I
have to sit with management and will have to deal with their perception:
"why should we buy a 3000$ product that is 4 year old, to replace a product
that's working fine and is... free?"
You get the idea... So I'll need all the arguments I can get (and a few
experts opinions could do no harm!) to convince them that it's a worthy
purchase...
Thanks for your input!
Paul Dussault, MCP
Keith
"Paul Dussault" <paulduss@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23ArQuNDNEHA.2780@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hi all,
> I just need an opinion -
> The organization I work for is considering buying the "full version" of
SQL
> Server 2000 (we're using MSDE 2000 right now).
> The thing is, since we're in 2004, I'm worried that the next big version
of
> SQL Server could be somewhere around the corner.
> (The present version's capabilities are absolutely convenient for our
needs
> now and as far as I can see in the future.)
> Our server is running on Windows 2000, and maybe we'll move to Windows
2003
> some time next year.
> So here are my questions:
> - Is it worth it to invest substantial money in SQL Server 2000 now or
> should we cope with MSDE and wait for the next release;
> - If we're going with the 2000 version, and since the life cycle of server
> products tends to be a bit longer than destop products, how many years
from
> now is it reasonable to think that it would be supported ?
>
> TIA
>
> Paul Dussault, MCP
>|||Thanks David,
This kind of data will be helpful.
Paul Dussault, MCP
"David Portas" <REMOVE_BEFORE_REPLYING_dportas@.acm.org> wrote in message
news:luidnetW86CJCwbdRVn-gw@.giganews.com...
> The next version is SQL Server 2005 ("Yukon") which Microsoft has
announced
> for the first half of 2005.
> Microsoft's support lifecycle policies are documented here:
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=lifecycle
> This states that Mainstream Support for SQLServer 2000 will end 31
December
> 2005. In view of the projected release date of Yukon I wouldn't be
surprised
> if the end date of the Mainstream Support period was pushed back. Extended
> Support ends 31 December 2007.
> I would suggest that if SQL2000 meets your requirements and is going to
> bring benefits to your organization today then there is no reason to wait.
> --
> David Portas
> SQL Server MVP
> --
>|||..this maybe somewhere to start?
http://www.teratrax.com/articles/ms...sql_server.html|||Thanks Julie,
This will be a good read for my bosses indeed.
Paul Dussault, MCP
"Julie" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B71D98AC-4EEB-4C1E-AF95-4C17A592B25A@.microsoft.com...
> ..this maybe somewhere to start?
> http://www.teratrax.com/articles/ms...sql_server.html|||Paul,
A tip if you aren't already aware of it:
You can use DBCC CONCURRENCYVIOLATION to monitor how often etc. the performa
nce throttling has kicked in. This
might buy you some time, and perhaps the support plans for SQL2K has been up
dated by the time this reports any
significant throttling...
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
"Paul Dussault" <paulduss@.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:uQ6buGENEHA.3476@.TK2MSFTNGP09.p
hx.gbl...
> Hi Keith,
>
> probably perform better than MSDE.
> For now we have just a few apps with just a few users. But many more apps
> and Web sites are in planning or in development, so we're bound to work wi
th
> the full version at one time or another.
>
> you have to buy a new server, or are you talking about license cost?
> MSDE is OK right now. And we have a brand new server and it rocks. I
> personally think that SQL Server 2000 will be supported for a while; but I
> have to sit with management and will have to deal with their perception:
> "why should we buy a 3000$ product that is 4 year old, to replace a produc
t
> that's working fine and is... free?"
> You get the idea... So I'll need all the arguments I can get (and a few
> experts opinions could do no harm!) to convince them that it's a worthy
> purchase...
> Thanks for your input!
>
> Paul Dussault, MCP
> --
> Keith
>
> "Paul Dussault" <paulduss@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23ArQuNDNEHA.2780@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> SQL
> of
> needs
> 2003
> from
>

Buy SQL Server 2000 or...

Hi all,
I just need an opinion -
The organization I work for is considering buying the "full version" of SQL
Server 2000 (we're using MSDE 2000 right now).
The thing is, since we're in 2004, I'm worried that the next big version of
SQL Server could be somewhere around the corner.
(The present version's capabilities are absolutely convenient for our needs
now and as far as I can see in the future.)
Our server is running on Windows 2000, and maybe we'll move to Windows 2003
some time next year.
So here are my questions:
- Is it worth it to invest substantial money in SQL Server 2000 now or
should we cope with MSDE and wait for the next release;
- If we're going with the 2000 version, and since the life cycle of server
products tends to be a bit longer than destop products, how many years from
now is it reasonable to think that it would be supported ?
TIA
Paul Dussault, MCPThe next version is SQL Server 2005 ("Yukon") which Microsoft has announced
for the first half of 2005.
Microsoft's support lifecycle policies are documented here:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=lifecycle
This states that Mainstream Support for SQLServer 2000 will end 31 December
2005. In view of the projected release date of Yukon I wouldn't be surprised
if the end date of the Mainstream Support period was pushed back. Extended
Support ends 31 December 2007.
I would suggest that if SQL2000 meets your requirements and is going to
bring benefits to your organization today then there is no reason to wait.
--
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
--|||It is expected that Yukon (the next version of SQL Server) will be =released some time next year. If you need to upgrade to SQL Server it =might be good to do so now. SQL Server 2000 will probably be supported =until the version of SQL Server after Yukon is released, so SQL Server =2000 will probabaly be supported for a while.
If you have a database with many users I am guessing that SQL Server =will probably perform better than MSDE. With that said, I cannot tell =you what to do. How is MSDE performing for you? You mentioned ="substancial money" ...do you have to buy a new server, or are you =talking about license cost? -- Keith
"Paul Dussault" <paulduss@.hotmail.com> wrote in message =news:%23ArQuNDNEHA.2780@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hi all,
> > I just need an opinion -
> > The organization I work for is considering buying the "full version" =of SQL
> Server 2000 (we're using MSDE 2000 right now).
> The thing is, since we're in 2004, I'm worried that the next big =version of
> SQL Server could be somewhere around the corner.
> (The present version's capabilities are absolutely convenient for our =needs
> now and as far as I can see in the future.)
> Our server is running on Windows 2000, and maybe we'll move to Windows =2003
> some time next year.
> > So here are my questions:
> > - Is it worth it to invest substantial money in SQL Server 2000 now or
> should we cope with MSDE and wait for the next release;
> - If we're going with the 2000 version, and since the life cycle of =server
> products tends to be a bit longer than destop products, how many years =from
> now is it reasonable to think that it would be supported ?
> > > TIA
> > > Paul Dussault, MCP
> >|||Hi Keith,
> If you have a database with many users I am guessing that SQL Server will
probably perform better than MSDE.
For now we have just a few apps with just a few users. But many more apps
and Web sites are in planning or in development, so we're bound to work with
the full version at one time or another.
> How is MSDE performing for you? You mentioned "substancial money" ...do
you have to buy a new server, or are you talking about license cost?
MSDE is OK right now. And we have a brand new server and it rocks. I
personally think that SQL Server 2000 will be supported for a while; but I
have to sit with management and will have to deal with their perception:
"why should we buy a 3000$ product that is 4 year old, to replace a product
that's working fine and is... free?"
You get the idea... So I'll need all the arguments I can get (and a few
experts opinions could do no harm!) to convince them that it's a worthy
purchase...
Thanks for your input!
Paul Dussault, MCP
--
Keith
"Paul Dussault" <paulduss@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23ArQuNDNEHA.2780@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hi all,
> I just need an opinion -
> The organization I work for is considering buying the "full version" of
SQL
> Server 2000 (we're using MSDE 2000 right now).
> The thing is, since we're in 2004, I'm worried that the next big version
of
> SQL Server could be somewhere around the corner.
> (The present version's capabilities are absolutely convenient for our
needs
> now and as far as I can see in the future.)
> Our server is running on Windows 2000, and maybe we'll move to Windows
2003
> some time next year.
> So here are my questions:
> - Is it worth it to invest substantial money in SQL Server 2000 now or
> should we cope with MSDE and wait for the next release;
> - If we're going with the 2000 version, and since the life cycle of server
> products tends to be a bit longer than destop products, how many years
from
> now is it reasonable to think that it would be supported ?
>
> TIA
>
> Paul Dussault, MCP
>|||Thanks David,
This kind of data will be helpful.
Paul Dussault, MCP
"David Portas" <REMOVE_BEFORE_REPLYING_dportas@.acm.org> wrote in message
news:luidnetW86CJCwbdRVn-gw@.giganews.com...
> The next version is SQL Server 2005 ("Yukon") which Microsoft has
announced
> for the first half of 2005.
> Microsoft's support lifecycle policies are documented here:
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=lifecycle
> This states that Mainstream Support for SQLServer 2000 will end 31
December
> 2005. In view of the projected release date of Yukon I wouldn't be
surprised
> if the end date of the Mainstream Support period was pushed back. Extended
> Support ends 31 December 2007.
> I would suggest that if SQL2000 meets your requirements and is going to
> bring benefits to your organization today then there is no reason to wait.
> --
> David Portas
> SQL Server MVP
> --
>|||Thanks Julie,
This will be a good read for my bosses indeed.
Paul Dussault, MCP
"Julie" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B71D98AC-4EEB-4C1E-AF95-4C17A592B25A@.microsoft.com...
> ..this maybe somewhere to start?
> http://www.teratrax.com/articles/msde_vs_sql_server.html|||Paul,
A tip if you aren't already aware of it:
You can use DBCC CONCURRENCYVIOLATION to monitor how often etc. the performance throttling has kicked in. This
might buy you some time, and perhaps the support plans for SQL2K has been updated by the time this reports any
significant throttling...
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
"Paul Dussault" <paulduss@.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:uQ6buGENEHA.3476@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hi Keith,
> > If you have a database with many users I am guessing that SQL Server will
> probably perform better than MSDE.
> For now we have just a few apps with just a few users. But many more apps
> and Web sites are in planning or in development, so we're bound to work with
> the full version at one time or another.
> > How is MSDE performing for you? You mentioned "substancial money" ...do
> you have to buy a new server, or are you talking about license cost?
> MSDE is OK right now. And we have a brand new server and it rocks. I
> personally think that SQL Server 2000 will be supported for a while; but I
> have to sit with management and will have to deal with their perception:
> "why should we buy a 3000$ product that is 4 year old, to replace a product
> that's working fine and is... free?"
> You get the idea... So I'll need all the arguments I can get (and a few
> experts opinions could do no harm!) to convince them that it's a worthy
> purchase...
> Thanks for your input!
>
> Paul Dussault, MCP
> --
> Keith
>
> "Paul Dussault" <paulduss@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23ArQuNDNEHA.2780@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I just need an opinion -
> >
> > The organization I work for is considering buying the "full version" of
> SQL
> > Server 2000 (we're using MSDE 2000 right now).
> > The thing is, since we're in 2004, I'm worried that the next big version
> of
> > SQL Server could be somewhere around the corner.
> > (The present version's capabilities are absolutely convenient for our
> needs
> > now and as far as I can see in the future.)
> > Our server is running on Windows 2000, and maybe we'll move to Windows
> 2003
> > some time next year.
> >
> > So here are my questions:
> >
> > - Is it worth it to invest substantial money in SQL Server 2000 now or
> > should we cope with MSDE and wait for the next release;
> > - If we're going with the 2000 version, and since the life cycle of server
> > products tends to be a bit longer than destop products, how many years
> from
> > now is it reasonable to think that it would be supported ?
> >
> >
> > TIA
> >
> >
> > Paul Dussault, MCP
> >
> >
>

Buy SQL Server 2000 or...

Hi all,
I just need an opinion -
The organization I work for is considering buying the "full version" of SQL
Server 2000 (we're using MSDE 2000 right now).
The thing is, since we're in 2004, I'm worried that the next big version of
SQL Server could be somewhere around the corner.
(The present version's capabilities are absolutely convenient for our needs
now and as far as I can see in the future.)
Our server is running on Windows 2000, and maybe we'll move to Windows 2003
some time next year.
So here are my questions:
- Is it worth it to invest substantial money in SQL Server 2000 now or
should we cope with MSDE and wait for the next release;
- If we're going with the 2000 version, and since the life cycle of server
products tends to be a bit longer than destop products, how many years from
now is it reasonable to think that it would be supported ?
TIA
Paul Dussault, MCP
The next version is SQL Server 2005 ("Yukon") which Microsoft has announced
for the first half of 2005.
Microsoft's support lifecycle policies are documented here:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=lifecycle
This states that Mainstream Support for SQLServer 2000 will end 31 December
2005. In view of the projected release date of Yukon I wouldn't be surprised
if the end date of the Mainstream Support period was pushed back. Extended
Support ends 31 December 2007.
I would suggest that if SQL2000 meets your requirements and is going to
bring benefits to your organization today then there is no reason to wait.
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
|||It is expected that Yukon (the next version of SQL Server) will be =
released some time next year. If you need to upgrade to SQL Server it =
might be good to do so now. SQL Server 2000 will probably be supported =
until the version of SQL Server after Yukon is released, so SQL Server =
2000 will probabaly be supported for a while. =20
If you have a database with many users I am guessing that SQL Server =
will probably perform better than MSDE. With that said, I cannot tell =
you what to do. How is MSDE performing for you? You mentioned =
"substancial money" ...do you have to buy a new server, or are you =
talking about license cost? =20
--=20
Keith
"Paul Dussault" <paulduss@.hotmail.com> wrote in message =
news:%23ArQuNDNEHA.2780@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hi all,
>=20
> I just need an opinion -
>=20
> The organization I work for is considering buying the "full version" =
of SQL
> Server 2000 (we're using MSDE 2000 right now).
> The thing is, since we're in 2004, I'm worried that the next big =
version of
> SQL Server could be somewhere around the corner.
> (The present version's capabilities are absolutely convenient for our =
needs
> now and as far as I can see in the future.)
> Our server is running on Windows 2000, and maybe we'll move to Windows =
2003
> some time next year.
>=20
> So here are my questions:
>=20
> - Is it worth it to invest substantial money in SQL Server 2000 now or
> should we cope with MSDE and wait for the next release;
> - If we're going with the 2000 version, and since the life cycle of =
server
> products tends to be a bit longer than destop products, how many years =
from
> now is it reasonable to think that it would be supported ?
>=20
>=20
> TIA
>=20
>=20
> Paul Dussault, MCP
>=20
>
|||I'm assuming it's likely that you have a business reason for asking - i.e. MSDE is struggling to meet your demands? If that's so - then it depends how much your business wants to move forward. If you've properly evaluated SQL2k then it may be an idea to i
ntroduce a product which has been serviced packed several times and is very stable rather than waiting for a new product and the development/bedding in process' you may need.
Julie
http://www.sqlporn.co.uk :o)
|||Hi Keith,

> If you have a database with many users I am guessing that SQL Server will
probably perform better than MSDE.
For now we have just a few apps with just a few users. But many more apps
and Web sites are in planning or in development, so we're bound to work with
the full version at one time or another.

> How is MSDE performing for you? You mentioned "substancial money" ...do
you have to buy a new server, or are you talking about license cost?
MSDE is OK right now. And we have a brand new server and it rocks. I
personally think that SQL Server 2000 will be supported for a while; but I
have to sit with management and will have to deal with their perception:
"why should we buy a 3000$ product that is 4 year old, to replace a product
that's working fine and is... free?"
You get the idea... So I'll need all the arguments I can get (and a few
experts opinions could do no harm!) to convince them that it's a worthy
purchase...
Thanks for your input!
Paul Dussault, MCP
Keith
"Paul Dussault" <paulduss@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23ArQuNDNEHA.2780@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hi all,
> I just need an opinion -
> The organization I work for is considering buying the "full version" of
SQL
> Server 2000 (we're using MSDE 2000 right now).
> The thing is, since we're in 2004, I'm worried that the next big version
of
> SQL Server could be somewhere around the corner.
> (The present version's capabilities are absolutely convenient for our
needs
> now and as far as I can see in the future.)
> Our server is running on Windows 2000, and maybe we'll move to Windows
2003
> some time next year.
> So here are my questions:
> - Is it worth it to invest substantial money in SQL Server 2000 now or
> should we cope with MSDE and wait for the next release;
> - If we're going with the 2000 version, and since the life cycle of server
> products tends to be a bit longer than destop products, how many years
from
> now is it reasonable to think that it would be supported ?
>
> TIA
>
> Paul Dussault, MCP
>
|||Thanks David,
This kind of data will be helpful.
Paul Dussault, MCP
"David Portas" <REMOVE_BEFORE_REPLYING_dportas@.acm.org> wrote in message
news:luidnetW86CJCwbdRVn-gw@.giganews.com...
> The next version is SQL Server 2005 ("Yukon") which Microsoft has
announced
> for the first half of 2005.
> Microsoft's support lifecycle policies are documented here:
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=lifecycle
> This states that Mainstream Support for SQLServer 2000 will end 31
December
> 2005. In view of the projected release date of Yukon I wouldn't be
surprised
> if the end date of the Mainstream Support period was pushed back. Extended
> Support ends 31 December 2007.
> I would suggest that if SQL2000 meets your requirements and is going to
> bring benefits to your organization today then there is no reason to wait.
> --
> David Portas
> SQL Server MVP
> --
>
|||...this maybe somewhere to start?
http://www.teratrax.com/articles/msd...ql_server.html
|||Thanks Julie,
This will be a good read for my bosses indeed.
Paul Dussault, MCP
"Julie" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B71D98AC-4EEB-4C1E-AF95-4C17A592B25A@.microsoft.com...
> ..this maybe somewhere to start?
> http://www.teratrax.com/articles/msd...ql_server.html
|||Paul,
A tip if you aren't already aware of it:
You can use DBCC CONCURRENCYVIOLATION to monitor how often etc. the performance throttling has kicked in. This
might buy you some time, and perhaps the support plans for SQL2K has been updated by the time this reports any
significant throttling...
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
"Paul Dussault" <paulduss@.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:uQ6buGENEHA.3476@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hi Keith,
> probably perform better than MSDE.
> For now we have just a few apps with just a few users. But many more apps
> and Web sites are in planning or in development, so we're bound to work with
> the full version at one time or another.
> you have to buy a new server, or are you talking about license cost?
> MSDE is OK right now. And we have a brand new server and it rocks. I
> personally think that SQL Server 2000 will be supported for a while; but I
> have to sit with management and will have to deal with their perception:
> "why should we buy a 3000$ product that is 4 year old, to replace a product
> that's working fine and is... free?"
> You get the idea... So I'll need all the arguments I can get (and a few
> experts opinions could do no harm!) to convince them that it's a worthy
> purchase...
> Thanks for your input!
>
> Paul Dussault, MCP
> --
> Keith
>
> "Paul Dussault" <paulduss@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23ArQuNDNEHA.2780@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> SQL
> of
> needs
> 2003
> from
>

Business Intelligence Development Studio

i have just installed the SQL Server 2005 eval version to try the Business Intelligence. However, when i click on the Business Intelligence Studio link it starts looking for a file devenv.exe and reports that the file is not found. I have searched for the file and it does not exisits. I have made sure that I selected ALL the components at the time of installation. So although the link to Business Intelligence appears, it is not there. My question is that do i need to install Visual Studio to make this work? I already had Visual Studio 6 - VSS only on the machine.

Regards,

Haris

Hello,

I just spent quite a bit of time trying to figure out why this was happening to me. I installed all components using the developer

edition and when i tried to use BIDS from the start programs Business Intelligence Studio link / menu option it could not find

devenv.exe.

I tried to reinstall but the instal reported that everything was installed OK !

On the second disk I found a file called vs_setup.msi, I did an install and after some time the install completed and I was able

to work with BIDS after the install completed.

Hope this helps.

thank you

Business Intelligence Development Studio

i have just installed the SQL Server 2005 eval version to try the Business Intelligence. However, when i click on the Business Intelligence Studio link it starts looking for a file devenv.exe and reports that the file is not found. I have searched for the file and it does not exisits. I have made sure that I selected ALL the components at the time of installation. So although the link to Business Intelligence appears, it is not there. My question is that do i need to install Visual Studio to make this work? I already had Visual Studio 6 - VSS only on the machine.

Regards,

Haris

Hello,

I just spent quite a bit of time trying to figure out why this was happening to me. I installed all components using the developer

edition and when i tried to use BIDS from the start programs Business Intelligence Studio link / menu option it could not find

devenv.exe.

I tried to reinstall but the instal reported that everything was installed OK !

On the second disk I found a file called vs_setup.msi, I did an install and after some time the install completed and I was able

to work with BIDS after the install completed.

Hope this helps.

thank you

Business Intelligence

The Business Intelligence isn't showing up in the menu with ( Visual Basic, Visual C##, etc). A teckie installed the pro version and said she installed everything, can some one point me in the right direction. We purchase the media and installed from that.

If you are referring to the Business Intelligence Projects not showing up in Business Intelligence Development Studio (BIDS), then please refer to the link below.

http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=1479717&SiteID=1

|||The BI projects are part of SQL tools not Visual Studio install

Bulk-Logged Recovery - Data Loss?

Folks,
Version: SQL Server 2000 SP3
I've been trying to determine from the documentation if there is any
potential for data loss while a database is in Bulk-Logged Recovery Mode
(BLRM), assuming that the server does not experience anything out of the norm.
Just prior to a DBREINDEX on several tables during minimal user activity, I
plan on putting the database into BLRM. I will return it to Full Recovery
Mode (FRM) upon completion of the reorg. My concern is that if there is a
user transaction during this DBREINDEX will it be logged, and therefore
recoverable? I'm thinking yes. Would just like confirmation.
Much obliged.
--
Scott H.Scott H.,
If the backup of the log include bulk-logged operations, then you will not
be able to restore to a point-in-time within that log backup; you can restore
only the whole log backup.
If something happend during the bulk operation and you need to backup the
log, then the data files that contain the bulk-logged transaction should be
accesible. If any affected data file is inaccessible, the transaction log
cannot be backed up and all operations committed in that log are lost.
Backup Under the Bulk-Logged Recovery Model
ms-help://MS.SQLCC.v9/MS.SQLSVR.v9.en/udb9/html/c6bce51b-f401-408e-a1d6-f53866cd7351.htm
AMB
"Scott H." wrote:
> Folks,
> Version: SQL Server 2000 SP3
> I've been trying to determine from the documentation if there is any
> potential for data loss while a database is in Bulk-Logged Recovery Mode
> (BLRM), assuming that the server does not experience anything out of the norm.
> Just prior to a DBREINDEX on several tables during minimal user activity, I
> plan on putting the database into BLRM. I will return it to Full Recovery
> Mode (FRM) upon completion of the reorg. My concern is that if there is a
> user transaction during this DBREINDEX will it be logged, and therefore
> recoverable? I'm thinking yes. Would just like confirmation.
> Much obliged.
> --
> Scott H.