Under the CAL user licensing model, does each user that has a login to a SQL
Server 2005 database need a CAL, or is one needed for each simultaneous
login? For instance if I have 100 users with access to a SQL database, but
at any given time there are only 25 users accessing a database, do I need 10
0
user CAL's or 25 user CAL's?Wade Bart wrote:
> Under the CAL user licensing model, does each user that has a login to a S
QL
> Server 2005 database need a CAL, or is one needed for each simultaneous
> login? For instance if I have 100 users with access to a SQL database, bu
t
> at any given time there are only 25 users accessing a database, do I need
100
> user CAL's or 25 user CAL's?
It is per user or device, not per concurrent connection.
David Portas, SQL Server MVP
Whenever possible please post enough code to reproduce your problem.
Including CREATE TABLE and INSERT statements usually helps.
State what version of SQL Server you are using and specify the content
of any error messages.
SQL Server Books Online:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/library/ms130214(en-US,SQL.90).aspx
--
Showing posts with label sqlserver. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sqlserver. Show all posts
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Caching of inline queries
Hi,
I am trying to evaluate the benefits of writing stored procedures over
using inline SQL code using ADO.net and SqlServer. I am coming from an
oracle background, and am trying to understand under what
circumstances SqlServer will recompile my query, and when it will use
a pre-compiled version. The Oracle term for this behavior is
'bind-variable'. The only Oracle/bind-variable related information I
found here was
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=e0dtNgY%24CHA.2572%40TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl
It seems to indicate that in order to avoid recompilation that I could
use stored procedures, format my queries using sp_executesql, or use
the prepared statement in my command object and reuse the object.
I am confused because by examining the syscacheobjects, it seems my
parameterized query is cached and reused automatically.
Here is what I am doing to test this. I have some code that looks like
this:
SqlConnection MyConnection = new SqlConnection(ConnectionString);
MyConnection.Open();
SqlCommand MyCommand = new SqlCommand("SELECT GStudentId, Lastname,
FirstName FROM student WHERE GStudentId=@.StudentId", MyConnection);
MyCommand.Parameters.Add("@.StudentId", _GStudentId);
SqlDataReader MyReader = MyCommand.ExecuteReader(CommandBehavior.CloseConnection);
I call this code on a simple web page, which lets me easily execute it
again and again.
I then do the following query inside Query Analyzer:
select usecounts, sql from syscacheobjects
where sql like '%SELECT GStudentId, Lastname, FirstName FROM student
WHERE GStudentId=@.StudentId%'
As I execute the page over and over the use count goes up.
Syscacheobjects actually returns two rows, one with a cached object
type of ?Executable Plan' (this is the one with the ?incrementing
usecounts'), and one with a type of ?Compiled Plan'. What are these
each used for?
Doesn't this mean that Sql Server is caching the query? I am
recreating the command object from scratch each time, yet it seems to
use the same "cached execution plan".
I am very happy with this behavior, yet it is in contradiction to the
other information I was able to find.
Can someone validate?
Thanks!
DaveSQL Server will do SIMPLE parameter substitution to reuse an ad-hoc plan.
That's probably what's happening in your example, but this will only happen
in trivial cases. You're better off with a proc us sp_executesql.
This paper is a good starting point for understanding SQL Server
behaivior...
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnsql2k/html/sql_queryrecompilation.asp
--
Brian Moran
Principal Mentor
Solid Quality Learning
SQL Server MVP
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com
"HaukiDog" <HaukiDog@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6d3bc6d9.0311241301.58817947@.posting.google.com...
> Hi,
> I am trying to evaluate the benefits of writing stored procedures over
> using inline SQL code using ADO.net and SqlServer. I am coming from an
> oracle background, and am trying to understand under what
> circumstances SqlServer will recompile my query, and when it will use
> a pre-compiled version. The Oracle term for this behavior is
> 'bind-variable'. The only Oracle/bind-variable related information I
> found here was
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=e0dtNgY%24CHA.2572%40TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl
> It seems to indicate that in order to avoid recompilation that I could
> use stored procedures, format my queries using sp_executesql, or use
> the prepared statement in my command object and reuse the object.
> I am confused because by examining the syscacheobjects, it seems my
> parameterized query is cached and reused automatically.
> Here is what I am doing to test this. I have some code that looks like
> this:
> SqlConnection MyConnection = new SqlConnection(ConnectionString);
> MyConnection.Open();
> SqlCommand MyCommand = new SqlCommand("SELECT GStudentId, Lastname,
> FirstName FROM student WHERE GStudentId=@.StudentId", MyConnection);
> MyCommand.Parameters.Add("@.StudentId", _GStudentId);
> SqlDataReader MyReader => MyCommand.ExecuteReader(CommandBehavior.CloseConnection);
> I call this code on a simple web page, which lets me easily execute it
> again and again.
> I then do the following query inside Query Analyzer:
> select usecounts, sql from syscacheobjects
> where sql like '%SELECT GStudentId, Lastname, FirstName FROM student
> WHERE GStudentId=@.StudentId%'
> As I execute the page over and over the use count goes up.
> Syscacheobjects actually returns two rows, one with a cached object
> type of 'Executable Plan' (this is the one with the 'incrementing
> usecounts'), and one with a type of 'Compiled Plan'. What are these
> each used for?
> Doesn't this mean that Sql Server is caching the query? I am
> recreating the command object from scratch each time, yet it seems to
> use the same "cached execution plan".
> I am very happy with this behavior, yet it is in contradiction to the
> other information I was able to find.
> Can someone validate?
> Thanks!
> Dave
I am trying to evaluate the benefits of writing stored procedures over
using inline SQL code using ADO.net and SqlServer. I am coming from an
oracle background, and am trying to understand under what
circumstances SqlServer will recompile my query, and when it will use
a pre-compiled version. The Oracle term for this behavior is
'bind-variable'. The only Oracle/bind-variable related information I
found here was
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=e0dtNgY%24CHA.2572%40TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl
It seems to indicate that in order to avoid recompilation that I could
use stored procedures, format my queries using sp_executesql, or use
the prepared statement in my command object and reuse the object.
I am confused because by examining the syscacheobjects, it seems my
parameterized query is cached and reused automatically.
Here is what I am doing to test this. I have some code that looks like
this:
SqlConnection MyConnection = new SqlConnection(ConnectionString);
MyConnection.Open();
SqlCommand MyCommand = new SqlCommand("SELECT GStudentId, Lastname,
FirstName FROM student WHERE GStudentId=@.StudentId", MyConnection);
MyCommand.Parameters.Add("@.StudentId", _GStudentId);
SqlDataReader MyReader = MyCommand.ExecuteReader(CommandBehavior.CloseConnection);
I call this code on a simple web page, which lets me easily execute it
again and again.
I then do the following query inside Query Analyzer:
select usecounts, sql from syscacheobjects
where sql like '%SELECT GStudentId, Lastname, FirstName FROM student
WHERE GStudentId=@.StudentId%'
As I execute the page over and over the use count goes up.
Syscacheobjects actually returns two rows, one with a cached object
type of ?Executable Plan' (this is the one with the ?incrementing
usecounts'), and one with a type of ?Compiled Plan'. What are these
each used for?
Doesn't this mean that Sql Server is caching the query? I am
recreating the command object from scratch each time, yet it seems to
use the same "cached execution plan".
I am very happy with this behavior, yet it is in contradiction to the
other information I was able to find.
Can someone validate?
Thanks!
DaveSQL Server will do SIMPLE parameter substitution to reuse an ad-hoc plan.
That's probably what's happening in your example, but this will only happen
in trivial cases. You're better off with a proc us sp_executesql.
This paper is a good starting point for understanding SQL Server
behaivior...
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnsql2k/html/sql_queryrecompilation.asp
--
Brian Moran
Principal Mentor
Solid Quality Learning
SQL Server MVP
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com
"HaukiDog" <HaukiDog@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6d3bc6d9.0311241301.58817947@.posting.google.com...
> Hi,
> I am trying to evaluate the benefits of writing stored procedures over
> using inline SQL code using ADO.net and SqlServer. I am coming from an
> oracle background, and am trying to understand under what
> circumstances SqlServer will recompile my query, and when it will use
> a pre-compiled version. The Oracle term for this behavior is
> 'bind-variable'. The only Oracle/bind-variable related information I
> found here was
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=e0dtNgY%24CHA.2572%40TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl
> It seems to indicate that in order to avoid recompilation that I could
> use stored procedures, format my queries using sp_executesql, or use
> the prepared statement in my command object and reuse the object.
> I am confused because by examining the syscacheobjects, it seems my
> parameterized query is cached and reused automatically.
> Here is what I am doing to test this. I have some code that looks like
> this:
> SqlConnection MyConnection = new SqlConnection(ConnectionString);
> MyConnection.Open();
> SqlCommand MyCommand = new SqlCommand("SELECT GStudentId, Lastname,
> FirstName FROM student WHERE GStudentId=@.StudentId", MyConnection);
> MyCommand.Parameters.Add("@.StudentId", _GStudentId);
> SqlDataReader MyReader => MyCommand.ExecuteReader(CommandBehavior.CloseConnection);
> I call this code on a simple web page, which lets me easily execute it
> again and again.
> I then do the following query inside Query Analyzer:
> select usecounts, sql from syscacheobjects
> where sql like '%SELECT GStudentId, Lastname, FirstName FROM student
> WHERE GStudentId=@.StudentId%'
> As I execute the page over and over the use count goes up.
> Syscacheobjects actually returns two rows, one with a cached object
> type of 'Executable Plan' (this is the one with the 'incrementing
> usecounts'), and one with a type of 'Compiled Plan'. What are these
> each used for?
> Doesn't this mean that Sql Server is caching the query? I am
> recreating the command object from scratch each time, yet it seems to
> use the same "cached execution plan".
> I am very happy with this behavior, yet it is in contradiction to the
> other information I was able to find.
> Can someone validate?
> Thanks!
> Dave
Saturday, February 25, 2012
c++ lib
i am looking for c++ libs so that i may connect to sqlserver..(user does not
have client sql installed)
thanks
Hi
Look at
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...asp?frame=true
Current Windows installations come with MDAC installed so you have the OLE
DB libraries.
--
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/
"Abe" <abe_icm@.verizon.net> wrote in message
news:bXAdf.2224$Pa4.1266@.trndny01...
>i am looking for c++ libs so that i may connect to sqlserver..(user does
>not have client sql installed)
> thanks
>
have client sql installed)
thanks
Hi
Look at
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...asp?frame=true
Current Windows installations come with MDAC installed so you have the OLE
DB libraries.
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Abe" <abe_icm@.verizon.net> wrote in message
news:bXAdf.2224$Pa4.1266@.trndny01...
>i am looking for c++ libs so that i may connect to sqlserver..(user does
>not have client sql installed)
> thanks
>
c++ lib
i am looking for c++ libs so that i may connect to sqlserver..(user does not
have client sql installed)
thanksHi
Look at
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d...asp?frame=true
Current Windows installations come with MDAC installed so you have the OLE
DB libraries.
--
--
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/
"Abe" <abe_icm@.verizon.net> wrote in message
news:bXAdf.2224$Pa4.1266@.trndny01...
>i am looking for c++ libs so that i may connect to sqlserver..(user does
>not have client sql installed)
> thanks
>
have client sql installed)
thanksHi
Look at
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d...asp?frame=true
Current Windows installations come with MDAC installed so you have the OLE
DB libraries.
--
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Abe" <abe_icm@.verizon.net> wrote in message
news:bXAdf.2224$Pa4.1266@.trndny01...
>i am looking for c++ libs so that i may connect to sqlserver..(user does
>not have client sql installed)
> thanks
>
C++ and SQL Server programming
Are there any good resources (books, websites, etc) for programming SQL
Server using Visual C++? I am currently using C# but I really want to learn
how to do it using C++, but it appears to be much more difficult using C++.
Server using Visual C++? I am currently using C# but I really want to learn
how to do it using C++, but it appears to be much more difficult using C++.
ThanksHi
It depends on what you are using to interface with the database, with SQL
Server there are quite a few C++ examples check out samples in the index of
Books Online. Also there are others on MSDN e.g
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=184968&sd=msdn from
http://msdn.microsoft.com/visualc/d...es/default.aspx
It may be worth avoiding DB Library and Embeded SQL for C as this has
started to be deprecated in SQL 2005.
John
"Brooke" <tbrooked@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Qgirf.12123$g_6.9870@.tornado.texas.rr.com...
> Are there any good resources (books, websites, etc) for programming SQL
> Server using Visual C++? I am currently using C# but I really want to
> learn how to do it using C++, but it appears to be much more difficult
> using C++.
> Thanks|||John Bell (jbellnewsposts@.hotmail.com) writes:
> It may be worth avoiding DB Library and Embeded SQL for C as this has
> started to be deprecated in SQL 2005.
Actually, it have been deprecated for longer than so. With these interfaces
you don't have full support for features added to SQL7 and SQL 2000.
The best interface for C++ programming is probably ODBC. OLE DB is an
alternative, but it's more cumbersome to use, no matter if you use the
raw interface or the consumer templates.
--
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
Friday, February 24, 2012
C# code or document for loading excel sheet into an sql table
Hi,
I am trying to find some document or code that will load an excel spreadsheet into an sqlserver database.
Can anyone please point me in the right direction.http://www.databasejournal.com/features/mssql/article.php/3331881|||Thanks a lot for your help I will take a look at this now.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
C# + SQLServer CE
How i can create an application in windows mobile 6 using C# and SQL Server compact edition?
1. Purchase VS 2005 SE or above and install it.
2. Install WM 6.0 SDK.
3. Install SQL CE (probably 3.1).
4. Create WM 6.0 project.
5. Write code and/or use designers to access the database.
C with ODBC
I am into a new project where I have to write C programs on UNIX
connecting to SQLServer through ODBC. I am not able to find sample
programs to learn about APIs. Can anyone point out to documentation
containing ODBC APIs for C.
TIA.Hi
You may find something in
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/results.aspx?productID=&freetext=odbc&DisplayLang=en
or
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/nhp/Default.asp?contentid=28001860
For the API check out
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/odbcsql/od_6_0crtap_8my6.asp?frame=true
John
"Ravi Krishna" <rkdba@.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:CnMFb.4703$d%1.1051172@.news20.bellglobal.com...
> I am into a new project where I have to write C programs on UNIX
> connecting to SQLServer through ODBC. I am not able to find sample
> programs to learn about APIs. Can anyone point out to documentation
> containing ODBC APIs for C.
> TIA.
>
>
connecting to SQLServer through ODBC. I am not able to find sample
programs to learn about APIs. Can anyone point out to documentation
containing ODBC APIs for C.
TIA.Hi
You may find something in
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/results.aspx?productID=&freetext=odbc&DisplayLang=en
or
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/nhp/Default.asp?contentid=28001860
For the API check out
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/odbcsql/od_6_0crtap_8my6.asp?frame=true
John
"Ravi Krishna" <rkdba@.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:CnMFb.4703$d%1.1051172@.news20.bellglobal.com...
> I am into a new project where I have to write C programs on UNIX
> connecting to SQLServer through ODBC. I am not able to find sample
> programs to learn about APIs. Can anyone point out to documentation
> containing ODBC APIs for C.
> TIA.
>
>
C with ODBC
I am into a new project where I have to write C programs on UNIX
connecting to SQLServer through ODBC. I am not able to find sample
programs to learn about APIs. Can anyone point out to documentation
containing ODBC APIs for C.
connecting to SQLServer through ODBC. I am not able to find sample
programs to learn about APIs. Can anyone point out to documentation
containing ODBC APIs for C.
TIA.Hi
You may find something in
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...&DisplayLang=en
or
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d...tentid=28001860
For the API check out
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d...asp?frame=true
John
"Ravi Krishna" <rkdba@.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:CnMFb.4703$d%1.1051172@.news20.bellglobal.com. ..
> I am into a new project where I have to write C programs on UNIX
> connecting to SQLServer through ODBC. I am not able to find sample
> programs to learn about APIs. Can anyone point out to documentation
> containing ODBC APIs for C.
> TIA.|||I'm not sure you can use ODBC from Unix. If it was me, I would use
Java and JDBC. (Caveat: Awhile back I heard Microsoft came out
with a JDBC driver for SQL Server, but I haven't heard anything about
how good or bad it is.)
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 19:51:10 -0500, "Ravi Krishna"
<rkdba@.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>I am into a new project where I have to write C programs on UNIX
>connecting to SQLServer through ODBC. I am not able to find sample
>programs to learn about APIs. Can anyone point out to documentation
>containing ODBC APIs for C.
>TIA.|||Ellen K. (72322.enno.esspeeayem.1016@.compuserve.com) writes:
> I'm not sure you can use ODBC from Unix. If it was me, I would use
> Java and JDBC. (Caveat: Awhile back I heard Microsoft came out
> with a JDBC driver for SQL Server, but I haven't heard anything about
> how good or bad it is.)
Yes, you can use ODBC on Unix. See
http://www.sommarskog.se/mssqlperl/unix.html for a couple of products.
The page also include JDBC stuff.
--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, sommar@.algonet.se
Books Online for SQL Server SP3 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techin.../2000/books.asp|||Good to have a definitive answer. Thanks. :)
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 23:02:43 +0000 (UTC), Erland Sommarskog
<sommar@.algonet.se> wrote:
>Ellen K. (72322.enno.esspeeayem.1016@.compuserve.com) writes:
>> I'm not sure you can use ODBC from Unix. If it was me, I would use
>> Java and JDBC. (Caveat: Awhile back I heard Microsoft came out
>> with a JDBC driver for SQL Server, but I haven't heard anything about
>> how good or bad it is.)
>>
>Yes, you can use ODBC on Unix. See
>http://www.sommarskog.se/mssqlperl/unix.html for a couple of products.
>The page also include JDBC stuff.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
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
>
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, 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
>
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
>
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Business Logic Handler Not Loading
I'm trying to implement a custom conflict resolver by inheriting from
Microsoft.SqlServer.Replication.BusinessLogicSupport.BusinessLogicModule. The replication is between a SQL Server 2005 Express subscriber and a SQL Server 2005 publisher/distributer.
The problem is that the resolver class in the DLL will not load; although, it does appear to find the DLL. (If I rename the DLL I get a "file not found error"). The exact error message is:
Microsoft.SqlServer.Replication.ComErrorException
"Error loading custom class "MergeConflictHandler" from custom assembly "MergeConflictHandler",
Error : "Could not load type 'MergeConflictHandler' from assembly 'MergeConflictHandler, Version=1.0.2502.22393, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=0403e50cc4dc27fa'."."}
I placed the DLL in the directory of the program that calls SynchronizationAgent.Synchronize and tried it with and without being registered in the GAC. There was no change. Interestingly, when I move the file out of that location, but register it in the GAC, the file is not found. Thinking it may be a security problem, I gave Everyone Read & Execute and Read privileges. I believe the class is actually instantiated by replmerge.exe, an apparantly unmanaged app, so I tried marking it ComVisible. No Luck.
I registered the resolver with the following T-SQL code:
sp_registercustomresolver @.article_resolver = 'eClinical Notes Conflict Resolver'
, @.is_dotnet_assembly = 'true'
, @.dotnet_assembly_name = 'MergeConflictHandler'
, @.dotnet_class_name = 'MergeConflictHandler'
, @.resolver_clsid = Null
The resolver I've created is not much more than a shell at this point. It is pasted below, but I tried using the code found on MSDN character-for-character and had the same problem.
using System;
using System.Text;
using System.Data;
using System.Data.Common;
using Microsoft.SqlServer.Replication.BusinessLogicSupport;
namespace MergeConflictHandler
{
public class MergeConflictHandler :
Microsoft.SqlServer.Replication.BusinessLogicSupport.BusinessLogicModule
{
// Variables to hold server names.
private string m_PublisherName;
private string m_SubscriberName;
private string m_Artical_Name;
public MergeConflictHandler()
{
}
// Implement the Initialize method to get publication
// and subscription information.
public override void Initialize(string publisher, string subscriber, string distributor, string publisherDB, string subscriberDB,string articleName)
{
m_PublisherName = publisher;
m_SubscriberName = subscriber;
m_Artical_Name = articleName;
}
// Declare what types of row changes, conflicts, or errors to handle.
public override ChangeStates HandledChangeStates
{
get
{
return ChangeStates.UpdateConflicts;
}
}
public override ActionOnUpdateConflict UpdateConflictsHandler(DataSet publisherDataSet, DataSet subscriberDataSet, ref DataSet customDataSet, ref ConflictLogType conflictLogType, ref string customConflictMessage, ref int historyLogLevel, ref string historyLogMessage)
{
if (m_Artical_Name == "PatientAllergies")
{
// Accept the updated data in the Subscriber's data set and apply it to the Publisher.
}
return ActionOnUpdateConflict.AcceptPublisherData;
}
}
}
Does anyone have any thoughts or advice? (Help!)
I had similar problems
I found that the parameter @.dotnet_class_name had to be set to assemblyName.className
If in your case the assembly is named the same as the class then it would need to be set to MergeConflictHandler.MergeConflictHandler
|||
Aero1 Thanks So Much
It is now working, although not exactly as you said. Apparantly the @.dot_class_name parameter needs to be prefixed with the Namespace, not the assemblyName. Perhaps your name space and assemblyName were the same for you? Anyway, I had tried prefixing the Namespace before, but obviously I did something wrong then. As an added benefit, it makes sense. Of course it still should be better documented! So to highlight the answer for future readers:
@.dot_class_name = 'Namespace.Classname'
Thanks again... Life is once again worth living.
This is documented in: http://msdn2.microsoft.com/zh-cn/library/ms147911.aspx
However we will try to make it more discoverable.
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Business Intelligence Development Studio Starrtup File
roper startup file for Business Intelligence Development Studio
2005?
My SQLServer 2005 installation went smoothly, incl. Reporting Services.
However, staretu icon for BI Studio refers to DISTRIB.EXE, and I just see a
brief DOS window flashing by when I try to start it.
Thanks for any help.
AlanWhere are you looking for business intelligence? You say startup Icon? It
should be found by going to start, all programs, sql server (doing this from
memory so exact verbiage might be different). The tools have to be selected
during installation. If you go to add/remove programs you should see the
tools separately (it will be the largest one there for sql server, something
like 500 mb). I have installed both VS Beta 2 and also the June CTP and had
no trouble with either one.
Bruce Loehle-Conger
MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
"Alan Z. Scharf" <ascharf@.grapevines.com> wrote in message
news:OibRnF4nFHA.3036@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> roper startup file for Business Intelligence Development Studio
> 2005?
> My SQLServer 2005 installation went smoothly, incl. Reporting Services.
> However, staretu icon for BI Studio refers to DISTRIB.EXE, and I just see
> a
> brief DOS window flashing by when I try to start it.
> Thanks for any help.
> Alan
>
>
2005?
My SQLServer 2005 installation went smoothly, incl. Reporting Services.
However, staretu icon for BI Studio refers to DISTRIB.EXE, and I just see a
brief DOS window flashing by when I try to start it.
Thanks for any help.
AlanWhere are you looking for business intelligence? You say startup Icon? It
should be found by going to start, all programs, sql server (doing this from
memory so exact verbiage might be different). The tools have to be selected
during installation. If you go to add/remove programs you should see the
tools separately (it will be the largest one there for sql server, something
like 500 mb). I have installed both VS Beta 2 and also the June CTP and had
no trouble with either one.
Bruce Loehle-Conger
MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
"Alan Z. Scharf" <ascharf@.grapevines.com> wrote in message
news:OibRnF4nFHA.3036@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> roper startup file for Business Intelligence Development Studio
> 2005?
> My SQLServer 2005 installation went smoothly, incl. Reporting Services.
> However, staretu icon for BI Studio refers to DISTRIB.EXE, and I just see
> a
> brief DOS window flashing by when I try to start it.
> Thanks for any help.
> Alan
>
>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)