Friday, March 30, 2012

Protect DataBAse which is distributed on many SQL Servers

Hi,
I need to protect SQL Server 2000 database which I will distrubute to many
of my customers on their own SQL Servers. Unfortunately I still can't find a
way to solve this issue. Would you please help me with this?
Many thanks in advance!
Best regards,
Mariyan GotsevProtect in what way? What is it exactly you wish to prevent?
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Mariyan" <mgms@.dir.bg> wrote in message
news:OblbpQPxDHA.2340@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
quote:

>
> --
> Hi,
> I need to protect SQL Server 2000 database which I will distrubute to many
> of my customers on their own SQL Servers. Unfortunately I still can't find

a
quote:

> way to solve this issue. Would you please help me with this?
> Many thanks in advance!
> Best regards,
> Mariyan Gotsev
>
>
|||If you want to protect sql code of your procedures, triggers and views you
can use SQL Shield. http://www.activecrypt.com/sqlshield_howto.html|||Hi,
I have an application true which I want database to be available only. I
need to prevent every one of my customers from any access to the data in
the database, as there I put important customer information and customer
related restrictions - do the customer have rights to use some application
modules or not like example. What I need is very similar to MS Access
database password. You just can't open the database on every one machine if
you have not the database password. But for SQL Server this simple
protection seems to be much more difficult to implement. Please help me.
Many thanks!
Best regards,
Mariyan Gotsev
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnoooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:%2344QlrRxDHA.4060@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
quote:

> Protect in what way? What is it exactly you wish to prevent?
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "Mariyan" <mgms@.dir.bg> wrote in message
> news:OblbpQPxDHA.2340@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
many[QUOTE]
find[QUOTE]
> a
>
|||Hi,
I have an application true which I want database to be available only. I
need to prevent every one of my customers from any access to the data in
the database, as there I put important customer information and customer
related restrictions - do the customer have rights to use some application
modules or not like example. What I need is very similar to MS Access
database password. You just can't open the database on every one machine if
you have not the database password. But for SQL Server this simple
protection seems to be much more difficult to implement. Please help me.
Many thanks!
Best regards,
Mariyan Gotsev
"Andrey Kubyshev" <email.ANTISPAM@.vtc.ru> wrote in message
news:brrq4s$ep3$02$1@.news.t-online.com...
quote:

> If you want to protect sql code of your procedures, triggers and views you
> can use SQL Shield. http://www.activecrypt.com/sqlshield_howto.html
>
|||To gain access to the database, you need a login defined with access
granted to a particular database. This is similar to Accessing
a secured Access database. Local machine admins by default have sysadmin
permission. You can change this:
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techin...ration/May3.asp
If you're distributing your application with MSDE, you can disable all
network protocols during the install.
This means that only a locally logged on user can access the database.
See: DISABLENETWORKPROTOCOLS
810826 INF: New Switches in MSDE Service Pack 3 Setup
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=810826
You may want to consider using Application Roles to control security to the
database.
See: Establishing Application Security and Application Roles in SQL Books
Online.
In addition you should read this technet article before deploying your
application.
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/tr...chnet/prodtechn
ol/sql/maintain/security/sp3sec/SP3SEC03.ASP
Some addtional checklists :
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d...-us/dnnetsec/ht
ml/CL_SecDBSe.asp
Thanks,
Kevin McDonnell
Microsoft Corporation
This posting is provided AS IS with no warranties, and confers no rights.

Protect Data and Schema SQL SERVER 2005 EXPRESS

We have a commercial VB.NET winforms client/server application that utilizes SQL Server 2005 express edition. The schema and data that the application utilizes is proprietary and could be very damaging if it got into a competitors hands.

Is there any way to protect the data and schema of a sql server 2005 express edition database?

Will this functionality ever be added?

Thanks

As long as youhand over the database to someone, he will have full control over the database, attaching it to its own server and reading the schema from the database. What you can do is to encrypt data as well as stored procedures with certificates. But the schema won′t be hideable as the database will be given to the other party.

HTH, Jens Suessmeyer.

http://www.sqlserver2005.desql

Protect and invirible Database from each other

Hi,
I'm using Windows 2000 Server + SQL Server 2000 + updated SP
This server is our Web Hosting services and we have many database in SQL Ser
ver.
Each databases are belonged to each customer domains in this Server.
All customers work with SQL Server by using SQL Enterprise Manage to connect
to the Server via TCP/IP.
My problem is that, after customers connect to the SQL Server, they can see
every Databases' name and table name although I'd set the right of each cust
omer to be able to see only their own database.
I'd ask many SQL Experts but they said that if I used SQL Enterprise manager
to remote connect to the SQL Server, this senario could not be protected an
d let me ask Microsoft.
Using SQL Enterprise Manager is the easiest way for my customer to manage th
eir database, so if I let them use the SQL command line to connect to the SQ
L Server, no customers will use my service.
Please help.
Regards,
NeungThere is no way currently to stop them from seeing the other databases. But
unless you give them specific permissions they can not access or view the
data in them.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Neung" <Neung@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:F5F3F38C-8F8B-499F-8C9C-7BE19D350C9A@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I'm using Windows 2000 Server + SQL Server 2000 + updated SP
> This server is our Web Hosting services and we have many database in SQL
Server.
> Each databases are belonged to each customer domains in this Server.
> All customers work with SQL Server by using SQL Enterprise Manage to
connect to the Server via TCP/IP.
> My problem is that, after customers connect to the SQL Server, they can
see every Databases' name and table name although I'd set the right of each
customer to be able to see only their own database.
> I'd ask many SQL Experts but they said that if I used SQL Enterprise
manager to remote connect to the SQL Server, this senario could not be
protected and let me ask Microsoft.
> Using SQL Enterprise Manager is the easiest way for my customer to manage
their database, so if I let them use the SQL command line to connect to the
SQL Server, no customers will use my service.
> Please help.
> Regards,
> Neung|||Thanks and hope it will be solved in the next version.
Regards,
Neung
"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:

> There is no way currently to stop them from seeing the other databases. B
ut
> unless you give them specific permissions they can not access or view the
> data in them.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "Neung" <Neung@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:F5F3F38C-8F8B-499F-8C9C-7BE19D350C9A@.microsoft.com...
> Server.
> connect to the Server via TCP/IP.
> see every Databases' name and table name although I'd set the right of eac
h
> customer to be able to see only their own database.
> manager to remote connect to the SQL Server, this senario could not be
> protected and let me ask Microsoft.
> their database, so if I let them use the SQL command line to connect to th
e
> SQL Server, no customers will use my service.
>
>|||Yes, SQL 2005 has a lot of improvements in this area.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Neung" <Neung@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:032A5CFE-D0D9-4727-8032-707D90436D80@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Thanks and hope it will be solved in the next version.
> Regards,
> Neung
>
> "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
>
But[vbcol=seagreen]
the[vbcol=seagreen]
SQL[vbcol=seagreen]
can[vbcol=seagreen]
each[vbcol=seagreen]
manage[vbcol=seagreen]
the[vbcol=seagreen]|||> My problem is that, after customers connect to the SQL Server, they can
see every Databases' name and table name although I'd set the right of each
customer to be able to see only their own database.
Although database names are visible, I would not expect users to be able to
see other database contents unless they have explicitly been granted access
or the 'guest' user is enabled in the other databases.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Neung" <Neung@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:F5F3F38C-8F8B-499F-8C9C-7BE19D350C9A@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I'm using Windows 2000 Server + SQL Server 2000 + updated SP
> This server is our Web Hosting services and we have many database in SQL
Server.
> Each databases are belonged to each customer domains in this Server.
> All customers work with SQL Server by using SQL Enterprise Manage to
connect to the Server via TCP/IP.
> My problem is that, after customers connect to the SQL Server, they can
see every Databases' name and table name although I'd set the right of each
customer to be able to see only their own database.
> I'd ask many SQL Experts but they said that if I used SQL Enterprise
manager to remote connect to the SQL Server, this senario could not be
protected and let me ask Microsoft.
> Using SQL Enterprise Manager is the easiest way for my customer to manage
their database, so if I let them use the SQL command line to connect to the
SQL Server, no customers will use my service.
> Please help.
> Regards,
> Neung

Protect .rdl-files from being extracted from the Report Server

Hello,
is there any way to protect our .rdl-files on a Report Server of a customer
to be extracted from the Report Server by one of our customer's
administrators? Our customers should not be able to modify or develop further
the reports developed by us.
Kind regards,
RalphNot that I am aware of. You can use roles to limit users from doing this but
an admin on the box is an admin of RS automatically and can do anything.
Bruce Loehle-Conger
MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
"wbiRalph" <wbiRalph@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:48506776-7600-47F6-97A6-9391131E14E7@.microsoft.com...
> Hello,
> is there any way to protect our .rdl-files on a Report Server of a
> customer
> to be extracted from the Report Server by one of our customer's
> administrators? Our customers should not be able to modify or develop
> further
> the reports developed by us.
> Kind regards,
> Ralph
>

ProSQL

Hi all,
Dose anyone know where i can get quick infor about ProSQL.. The database
we're using uses ProSQL...
Thanks All
Message posted via http://www.droptable.com
Hi,
This group is specically meant for Microsoft SQL Server. Take a look into
dbmonster groups...
http://www.droptable.com/Uwe/ForumList.aspx
Thanks
Hari
"Naba via droptable.com" <u23570@.uwe> wrote in message
news:6a3ba2198df34@.uwe...
> Hi all,
> Dose anyone know where i can get quick infor about ProSQL.. The database
> we're using uses ProSQL...
> Thanks All
> --
> Message posted via http://www.droptable.com
>
|||Thanks Hari will do...
Hari Prasad wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
>Hi,
>This group is specically meant for Microsoft SQL Server. Take a look into
>dbmonster groups...
>http://www.droptable.com/Uwe/ForumList.aspx
>Thanks
>Hari
Message posted via http://www.droptable.com

ProSQL

Hi all,
Dose anyone know where i can get quick infor about ProSQL.. The database
we're using uses ProSQL...
Thanks All
Message posted via http://www.droptable.comHi,
This group is specically meant for Microsoft SQL Server. Take a look into
dbmonster groups...
http://www.droptable.com/Uwe/ForumList.aspx
Thanks
Hari
"Naba via droptable.com" <u23570@.uwe> wrote in message
news:6a3ba2198df34@.uwe...
> Hi all,
> Dose anyone know where i can get quick infor about ProSQL.. The database
> we're using uses ProSQL...
> Thanks All
> --
> Message posted via http://www.droptable.com
>|||Thanks Hari will do...
Hari Prasad wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
>Hi,
>This group is specically meant for Microsoft SQL Server. Take a look into
>dbmonster groups...
>http://www.droptable.com/Uwe/ForumList.aspx
>Thanks
>Hari
>
Message posted via http://www.droptable.com

ProSQL

Hi all,
Dose anyone know where i can get quick infor about ProSQL.. The database
we're using uses ProSQL...
Thanks All
--
Message posted via http://www.sqlmonster.comHi,
This group is specically meant for Microsoft SQL Server. Take a look into
dbmonster groups...
http://www.dbmonster.com/Uwe/ForumList.aspx
Thanks
Hari
"Naba via SQLMonster.com" <u23570@.uwe> wrote in message
news:6a3ba2198df34@.uwe...
> Hi all,
> Dose anyone know where i can get quick infor about ProSQL.. The database
> we're using uses ProSQL...
> Thanks All
> --
> Message posted via http://www.sqlmonster.com
>|||Thanks Hari will do...
Hari Prasad wrote:
>Hi,
>This group is specically meant for Microsoft SQL Server. Take a look into
>dbmonster groups...
>http://www.dbmonster.com/Uwe/ForumList.aspx
>Thanks
>Hari
>> Hi all,
>> Dose anyone know where i can get quick infor about ProSQL.. The database
>> we're using uses ProSQL...
>> Thanks All
--
Message posted via http://www.sqlmonster.comsql

Pros/Cons of using Win 2003 over Win 2000 for SQL Server Enterprise ?

We've recently got a new Server in.
The server has 16Gb of RAM, 8 cpus etc
We now have a choice of sticking with Windows 2000 Advanced Server or
going with Windows 2003 Enterprise edition.
Besides being able to use more RAM and having to use Service pack 3a
in Win 2003
Any pros/cons of both ?
Any recommendations ?
We use Full text, replication, analysis services etc
What issues / Enhancements has MS introduced for sp3A ?
I know that once Service pack 3A is installed all full text indexes
are automatically rebuilt..
In a replication scenario Is it necessary or just a recommendation
that all participants in the replication scenario are using the same
service pack ?
Anything else to look out for ?Win2003 has several enhancements that canmake it very worth while. The cpu
scheduling and parallism is improved along with many improvements in the
file and I/O areas. Win2003 is just a better choice overall for an
enterprise server in my opinion.
--
Andrew J. Kelly
SQL Server MVP
"Steve" <stevekeilygroups@.yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:70809952.0311191644.338d1eb3@.posting.google.com...
> We've recently got a new Server in.
> The server has 16Gb of RAM, 8 cpus etc
> We now have a choice of sticking with Windows 2000 Advanced Server or
> going with Windows 2003 Enterprise edition.
> Besides being able to use more RAM and having to use Service pack 3a
> in Win 2003
> Any pros/cons of both ?
> Any recommendations ?
> We use Full text, replication, analysis services etc
> What issues / Enhancements has MS introduced for sp3A ?
> I know that once Service pack 3A is installed all full text indexes
> are automatically rebuilt..
> In a replication scenario Is it necessary or just a recommendation
> that all participants in the replication scenario are using the same
> service pack ?
>
> Anything else to look out for ?

pros/cons of using Default instance and Named instance for Prod Se

Hi,
What is the pros and cons of using Default instance and Named instance for
Production Server?
I have been working with Default and I had no need for named instances.
We have a physical/vm servers for all environments.
Production always have a physical server.
So I have not needed a named instance.
What do you recommend to use in Production?
Thanks in advance.SQLapprentice wrote:
> Hi,
> What is the pros and cons of using Default instance and Named
> instance for Production Server?
> I have been working with Default and I had no need for named
> instances. We have a physical/vm servers for all environments.
> Production always have a physical server.
> So I have not needed a named instance.
> What do you recommend to use in Production?
> Thanks in advance.
I don't believe it makes any difference. You can install named instances on
the same server without additional licensing concerns (there is a limit I
believe of 8). However, you cannot use a SQL Server on a VM without a valid
license.
David Gugick
Quest Software|||I vote for a named instance. The advantage of names instances is that
they isolate the physical from the logical. Failing to do that has
caused me countless problems over the years, so I never pass up a
chance to avoid repeating that mistake.
The payback comes with configurations you knew for certain would never
change, change anyway. Example: There are problems with your
production server and have to bring up your production database on a
different box. With names instances the name can move from one box to
the other. With default, you either have to change all the apps that
point to the server, or rename the server (and then name it back when
you shift back to the original server.)
Roy
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 10:41:06 -0800, you wrote:

>Hi,
>What is the pros and cons of using Default instance and Named instance for
>Production Server?
>I have been working with Default and I had no need for named instances.
>We have a physical/vm servers for all environments.
>Production always have a physical server.
>So I have not needed a named instance.
>What do you recommend to use in Production?
>Thanks in advance.

pros/cons of using Access 2003 as a front-end for SQL 2005

Hi,

I'm creating a SQL 2005 database for a small company. I'm leaning towards using Access 2003 as a front-end for them, since it has a decent report writer and the adp projects seem to preserve SQL's schema relationships.

But I've read some posts where Microsoft is frowning on adp projects. It would cost this company more money in the short-term, but am I better off building a custom .net winforms application instead and avoid Access 2003?

I've done a lot of asp.net coding, but not too much Access or WinForms...so I have a slight learning curve either way.

I've looked at some RAD Tools like Iron Speed Designer, but I'm not sure they'll spend the $$ on that and it seemed complicated to customize the generated code.

thanks,
Bruce
I would recommend to ask this question on access forum instead.

Pros/Cons of Multivalue Database Columns

I'm just wondering what any pros and cons of using multivalue columns in a database are.

I'm designing a database which will have a column for FABRIC_TYPES_AVAILABLE for a certain FURNITURE_ITEM. Each FURNITURE_ITEM can have multiple FABRIC_TYPES_AVAILABLE of course. So I was just going to store a 2 or 3 digit number of the FABRIC_TYPES_AVAILABLE in that row. So I would have something like...34,24,453,32,23,45,67,65,43,21,21,45.

Anyway...thanks in advance for any information. Links I could read would be great too...b/c I did do a bit of searching, but didnt find much.::I'm just wondering what any pros and cons of using multivalue columns in a database are.

I suggest you read a book about database design. This is pretty well explained in about every into chapter about noirmalization that I have ever seen so far.

Look for (at amazon or in your local Bookstore):

"SQL for Dummies".|||do a look up table. they're faster to query than text based columns|||thona thx.

but i do know its not good for normalization; dont exactly have time to go read a book. hehe.

anyway...im going to go head and go for it, or i will use a lookup table.

thx fellaz|||http://www.sqlservercentral.com/columnists/dsumlin/lookupstrategy_printversion.asp

thats about the best info i could find about lookup tables. could you tell me a little bit more about them?

are they basically, just another table, with ID and Value columns for a certain datatype?

If thats true, i understand that...but then in the table where the values from the lookup table go...do you still store your ID as 23,32,43,54,3,25? I mean...if not...how else would a person know what rows to get from the reference table?

this is the way i was originally doing it; so im assuming there is a different/more correct way to do it, which i'm asking you about.|||you will normalize the database now, or you will normalize it in the future. If you don't exactly have the time to read a book, and you don't know how to normalize a database, I question your strength as a developer. I read constantly, and I always make room to read about something. Even if it's in the restroom. (yeah, I got tech mags in there. :))|||You will have three tables:
1. Furniture_Item
Furniture_ItemID
Furnite_Item (description, etc)
Blah blah (but no fabric type info on this table)

Your lookup table:
2.Fabric_Type
Fabric_TypeID
Fabric_Type (the description)

A link table because you have a many to many relationship between your Furniture_Items and Fabric_Type.
3.Item_FabricType
Item_FabricTypeID
Furniture_ItemID
Fabric_TypeID

The third table contains all the FabricTypes per Item,: so you have no FabricTypes on your Furniture_Item table.

I also suggest you do a bit of reading about database design; it's for your own good. :)

HTH

pros/cons keeping master as default db

Is there any concern in leaving master as a user's default database or
should it be changed to another db?
Thanks
BrianOne downside changing it is that most tools doesn't allow you to login if yo
u remove your default
database.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
"Brian D" <bdaltilio@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1179339438.486854.196200@.q23g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> Is there any concern in leaving master as a user's default database or
> should it be changed to another db?
> Thanks
> Brian
>|||Brian,
My take is that master is a safe default for everybody who does not have
rights to modify master. For those of us who _can_ modify master, please be
careful.
RLF
"Brian D" <bdaltilio@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1179339438.486854.196200@.q23g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> Is there any concern in leaving master as a user's default database or
> should it be changed to another db?
> Thanks
> Brian
>sql

pros/cons keeping master as default db

Is there any concern in leaving master as a user's default database or
should it be changed to another db?
Thanks
BrianOne downside changing it is that most tools doesn't allow you to login if you remove your default
database.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
"Brian D" <bdaltilio@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1179339438.486854.196200@.q23g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> Is there any concern in leaving master as a user's default database or
> should it be changed to another db?
> Thanks
> Brian
>|||Brian,
My take is that master is a safe default for everybody who does not have
rights to modify master. For those of us who _can_ modify master, please be
careful.
RLF
"Brian D" <bdaltilio@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1179339438.486854.196200@.q23g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> Is there any concern in leaving master as a user's default database or
> should it be changed to another db?
> Thanks
> Brian
>

pros/cons keeping master as default db

Is there any concern in leaving master as a user's default database or
should it be changed to another db?
Thanks
Brian
One downside changing it is that most tools doesn't allow you to login if you remove your default
database.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
"Brian D" <bdaltilio@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1179339438.486854.196200@.q23g2000hsg.googlegr oups.com...
> Is there any concern in leaving master as a user's default database or
> should it be changed to another db?
> Thanks
> Brian
>
|||Brian,
My take is that master is a safe default for everybody who does not have
rights to modify master. For those of us who _can_ modify master, please be
careful.
RLF
"Brian D" <bdaltilio@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1179339438.486854.196200@.q23g2000hsg.googlegr oups.com...
> Is there any concern in leaving master as a user's default database or
> should it be changed to another db?
> Thanks
> Brian
>

Pros vs Cons of installing MSDE on Win98 SE

Hi All,
Since I have not been able to get MSDE to work under Win2000 Pro while
logged in as a 'Power User' I have to come up with an alternative. I
have searched the MS knowledge base and posted a couple of questions
here but no one has been able to help me with this problem. I notice
that some other people have the same problem and they too were not able
to fix it.
So, my idea is to install MSDE on a Win98 SE computer. Anyone know if
this is a good/bad idea?
Thanks for any help,
Charles
"Charles E Finkenbiner" <CharlesEF_@._MailandNews.Com> wrote in message
news:eEzPbQ0EFHA.2824@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Hi All,
> Since I have not been able to get MSDE to work under Win2000 Pro while
> logged in as a 'Power User' I have to come up with an alternative. I have
> searched the MS knowledge base and posted a couple of questions here but
> no one has been able to help me with this problem. I notice that some
> other people have the same problem and they too were not able to fix it.
> So, my idea is to install MSDE on a Win98 SE computer. Anyone know if
> this is a good/bad idea?
MSDE on Win98SE works fine. With the notable exception of it not
automatically starting the services. Strangely this does not seem to happen
on all 98 installations. There is a workaround for (google that one).

>
> Thanks for any help,
> Charles
|||Plus, in our experience, it's much slower and way less reliable on FAT32
than on NTFS. FAT32 is great for sequential access, not good for random (as
in most databases). NTFS is a journalled filesystem. Words like
"cross-linked clusters" etc. are not words you want associated with your
database. If you are going to use it on Win98, I'd suggest leaving AutoClose
database option on for safety.
HTH,
Greg Low [MVP]
MSDE Manager SQL Tools
www.whitebearconsulting.com
"Tim Bird" <tim.bird@.nospamprettypleasehebron.co.uk> wrote in message
news:%23KgOn40EFHA.2700@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> "Charles E Finkenbiner" <CharlesEF_@._MailandNews.Com> wrote in message
> news:eEzPbQ0EFHA.2824@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> MSDE on Win98SE works fine. With the notable exception of it not
> automatically starting the services. Strangely this does not seem to
> happen on all 98 installations. There is a workaround for (google that
> one).
>
>
|||Power User is not enough to install applications under. Get used to it as W2K
onwards, you have to live with it. Security. Security.Security.
Win 98 Or 98SE is no longer fully supported:
http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifewin
Regards
Mike
"Greg Low [MVP]" wrote:

> Plus, in our experience, it's much slower and way less reliable on FAT32
> than on NTFS. FAT32 is great for sequential access, not good for random (as
> in most databases). NTFS is a journalled filesystem. Words like
> "cross-linked clusters" etc. are not words you want associated with your
> database. If you are going to use it on Win98, I'd suggest leaving AutoClose
> database option on for safety.
> HTH,
> --
> Greg Low [MVP]
> MSDE Manager SQL Tools
> www.whitebearconsulting.com
> "Tim Bird" <tim.bird@.nospamprettypleasehebron.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:%23KgOn40EFHA.2700@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>
>
|||"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message
news:64304A06-E8CD-4CEF-9BAA-93D53520CDB6@.microsoft.com...
> Power User is not enough to install applications under. Get used to it as
> W2K
> onwards, you have to live with it. Security. Security.Security.
> Win 98 Or 98SE is no longer fully supported:
> http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifewin
I have to agree with both of you. MSDE will run on Win98 - but not as well.
Even though the sooner the message gets through to users about 98SE the
better, in the "real" world us developers still have to support Win98 and
sometimes even Win95 (Though thankfully not very often)!!!. And we still
occasionally get sales enquiries for Win3.11 installations!!!!!
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Regards
> Mike
> "Greg Low [MVP]" wrote:
|||Hi Mike,
I install MSDE while logged in as 'Administrator' and it installs fine.
It works fine as long as the person logged in has Administrator
rights. The problem is that I do not want to allow anyone to have
Administrator rights. Even I do not use a login with Administrator
rights. I, like all my users, only have 'Power User' rights and that's
the way I want to keep it.
When a 'Power User' logs in the service does not appear to start. The
SQL icon in the taskbar is blank (white circle). When I open it up
there is no computer name or services shown in the drop down lists. If
I type in the computer name and hit the 'Refresh' button then MSDE
starts to run but when I load a certain program (my ISP dialer software)
the MSI installer kicks in. Sometimes it appears to be installing but
then it rolls back and the little icon in the taskbar is gone. Other
times it just sits there and does nothing. Whatever happens the MSI
installer kicks in every time I load my ISP dialer software.
So, I install MSDE while logged in as 'Administrator' but I want MSDE to
run while anyone is logged in as a 'Power User' (without the MSI
installer kicking in every single time).
Thanks for any help,
Charles
On 2/15/2005 5:29 AM, Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP) wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> Power User is not enough to install applications under. Get used to it as W2K
> onwards, you have to live with it. Security. Security.Security.
> Win 98 Or 98SE is no longer fully supported:
> http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifewin
> Regards
> Mike
> "Greg Low [MVP]" wrote:
>
|||I believe MSDE is still running on your system when logged in as a Power
User. The issue is that you do not have permissions to enumerate the names
of services. If you bring up Task Manager do you see sqlservr.exe running?
If you do then MSDE is up and ready for connections.
Jim
"Charles E Finkenbiner" <CharlesEF_@._MailandNews.Com> wrote in message
news:uKM%23xO2EFHA.2176@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi Mike,
> I install MSDE while logged in as 'Administrator' and it installs fine. It
> works fine as long as the person logged in has Administrator rights. The
> problem is that I do not want to allow anyone to have Administrator
> rights. Even I do not use a login with Administrator rights. I, like all
> my users, only have 'Power User' rights and that's the way I want to keep
> it.
> When a 'Power User' logs in the service does not appear to start. The SQL
> icon in the taskbar is blank (white circle). When I open it up there is
> no computer name or services shown in the drop down lists. If I type in
> the computer name and hit the 'Refresh' button then MSDE starts to run but
> when I load a certain program (my ISP dialer software) the MSI installer
> kicks in. Sometimes it appears to be installing but then it rolls back
> and the little icon in the taskbar is gone. Other times it just sits
> there and does nothing. Whatever happens the MSI installer kicks in every
> time I load my ISP dialer software.
> So, I install MSDE while logged in as 'Administrator' but I want MSDE to
> run while anyone is logged in as a 'Power User' (without the MSI installer
> kicking in every single time).
>
> Thanks for any help,
> Charles
> On 2/15/2005 5:29 AM, Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP) wrote:
|||Hi,
At the moment I have MSDE un-installed. I will re-install it later
today and report back.
Let's assume that what you say is true then my next questions are:
1. Why does the SQL icon even load up in the first place? If a 'Power
User' does not have the correct rights then the icon is useless.
2. Why does the MSDE installer kick in every single time my ISP dialer
is loaded? Any ideas on how to stop this?
Thanks for any help,
Charles
On 2/15/2005 9:50 AM, Jim Young wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> I believe MSDE is still running on your system when logged in as a Power
> User. The issue is that you do not have permissions to enumerate the names
> of services. If you bring up Task Manager do you see sqlservr.exe running?
> If you do then MSDE is up and ready for connections.
> Jim
> "Charles E Finkenbiner" <CharlesEF_@._MailandNews.Com> wrote in message
> news:uKM%23xO2EFHA.2176@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
|||1.SQL Service Manager is placed in the Startup folder for All Users, so it
will run no matter who logs in. If you want you can remove it after MSDE is
installed.
2. Haven't a clue.
Jim
"Charles E Finkenbiner" <CharlesEF_@._MailandNews.Com> wrote in message
news:%23whnwW4EFHA.2608@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi,
> At the moment I have MSDE un-installed. I will re-install it later today
> and report back.
> Let's assume that what you say is true then my next questions are:
> 1. Why does the SQL icon even load up in the first place? If a 'Power
> User' does not have the correct rights then the icon is useless.
> 2. Why does the MSDE installer kick in every single time my ISP dialer is
> loaded? Any ideas on how to stop this?
>
> Thanks for any help,
> Charles
> On 2/15/2005 9:50 AM, Jim Young wrote:
|||Hi,
Ok, I have re-installed MSDE SP3 on my Win2000 Pro computer, then I
applied the KB815495 patch (this is the same process I have done
before). This time the SQL icon does work when logged in as a 'Power
User' but only until I load my ISP dialer software, then MSI installer
kicks in and fails, then the SQL icon disappears from the taskbar.
This time I checked the task manager and I did see 'sqlservr.exe'
process. I 'assume' this means that the SQL server is running. I did
not have time to actually test but will try in a couple of days.
The only problem that remains is the MSDE installer that kicks in every
time the ISP dialer software is loaded. This happens to all 'Power
Users' not just me. If I change the users group from 'Power User' to
'Administrators' then the problem disappears. But, I do not want to do
this. When I change the users group back to 'Power Users' the problem
appears again.
Now, if I can figure out why this happens, so I can stop it, I will be a
happy camper.
Thanks for your help,
Charles
On 2/15/2005 1:10 PM, Jim Young wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> 1.SQL Service Manager is placed in the Startup folder for All Users, so it
> will run no matter who logs in. If you want you can remove it after MSDE is
> installed.
> 2. Haven't a clue.
> Jim
> "Charles E Finkenbiner" <CharlesEF_@._MailandNews.Com> wrote in message
> news:%23whnwW4EFHA.2608@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...

Pros of having SQL server added to AD

What are the pros of having SQL Server instance added to Active Directory ?
I was looking at the server properties and saw the Active Directory tab and
had an option to add it.
What may be the cons ? Right now none of our SQL Servers are added. Do most
of you add the server to AD ? What am I missing by not doing so ? Thanks
Well, are you using AD for anything now? If not, it is unlikely that the
mere adding of SQL Server to AD will produce any tangible benefits.
What you get by adding SQL Server to AD are things like Service Publication,
which is just a fancy form of an alias or DNS, IMHO. For example, if SQL
Server is on myServer01, it can be published through AD, then you can move
the server and clients do not need to know that the server has moved...
Since, instead of using a hard-coded IP address or server name, you are
going through AD, and it is redirecting you based solely on the name of the
database you want to connect to. This means you will have to change your
applications (and expect to need this flexibility) before you will see this
benefit.
A few of the problems I see with the above approach:
(a) obviously with AD there are more security considerations, so it won't be
like SQL Server authentication anymore. Apps have to be rewritten and
protecting the directory might take a significant amount of work.
(b) in our environment we have several locations with the same database -
e.g. Dev, QA, Production. If I want to connect to the Sales database, I now
have to think about this differently. Instead of "just connect to the Sales
database on the QA server," I now have to give each one a distinct
publication name, such as QA-SalesDB. This isn't a difficult change, and in
fact in some lights it is better, but it is a change, and we know how some
people are resistant to even the smallest delta in mindset or approach.
(c) using SQL through ADSI versus directly through the OLEDB provider can
cause some problems with existing code (and habits that will lend to
continuing to write code this way). There is no longer the ability to use
SELECT * ... You must name your columns.
As in a previous thread, I strongly suggest you spend some time reading on
the subject. You'll be much better informed to make a decision than just
listening to opinions (which are not based at all on anything specific in
YOUR environment).
ADSI and using SQL Server through AD are documented in MSDN Online, as well
as several 3rd party web sites.
On 3/20/05 2:51 PM, in article #NqyHZYLFHA.732@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl,
"Hassan" <fatima_ja@.hotmail.com> wrote:

> What are the pros of having SQL Server instance added to Active Directory ?
> I was looking at the server properties and saw the Active Directory tab and
> had an option to add it.
> What may be the cons ? Right now none of our SQL Servers are added. Do most
> of you add the server to AD ? What am I missing by not doing so ? Thanks
>

Pros of having SQL server added to AD

What are the pros of having SQL Server instance added to Active Directory ?
I was looking at the server properties and saw the Active Directory tab and
had an option to add it.
What may be the cons ? Right now none of our SQL Servers are added. Do most
of you add the server to AD ? What am I missing by not doing so ? ThanksWell, are you using AD for anything now? If not, it is unlikely that the
mere adding of SQL Server to AD will produce any tangible benefits.
What you get by adding SQL Server to AD are things like Service Publication,
which is just a fancy form of an alias or DNS, IMHO. For example, if SQL
Server is on myServer01, it can be published through AD, then you can move
the server and clients do not need to know that the server has moved...
Since, instead of using a hard-coded IP address or server name, you are
going through AD, and it is redirecting you based solely on the name of the
database you want to connect to. This means you will have to change your
applications (and expect to need this flexibility) before you will see this
benefit.
A few of the problems I see with the above approach:
(a) obviously with AD there are more security considerations, so it won't be
like SQL Server authentication anymore. Apps have to be rewritten and
protecting the directory might take a significant amount of work.
(b) in our environment we have several locations with the same database -
e.g. Dev, QA, Production. If I want to connect to the Sales database, I now
have to think about this differently. Instead of "just connect to the Sales
database on the QA server," I now have to give each one a distinct
publication name, such as QA-SalesDB. This isn't a difficult change, and in
fact in some lights it is better, but it is a change, and we know how some
people are resistant to even the smallest delta in mindset or approach.
(c) using SQL through ADSI versus directly through the OLEDB provider can
cause some problems with existing code (and habits that will lend to
continuing to write code this way). There is no longer the ability to use
SELECT * ... You must name your columns.
As in a previous thread, I strongly suggest you spend some time reading on
the subject. You'll be much better informed to make a decision than just
listening to opinions (which are not based at all on anything specific in
YOUR environment).
ADSI and using SQL Server through AD are documented in MSDN Online, as well
as several 3rd party web sites.
On 3/20/05 2:51 PM, in article #NqyHZYLFHA.732@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl,
"Hassan" <fatima_ja@.hotmail.com> wrote:
> What are the pros of having SQL Server instance added to Active Directory ?
> I was looking at the server properties and saw the Active Directory tab and
> had an option to add it.
> What may be the cons ? Right now none of our SQL Servers are added. Do most
> of you add the server to AD ? What am I missing by not doing so ? Thanks
>sql

Pros of having SQL server added to AD

What are the pros of having SQL Server instance added to Active Directory ?
I was looking at the server properties and saw the Active Directory tab and
had an option to add it.
What may be the cons ? Right now none of our SQL Servers are added. Do most
of you add the server to AD ? What am I missing by not doing so ? ThanksWell, are you using AD for anything now? If not, it is unlikely that the
mere adding of SQL Server to AD will produce any tangible benefits.
What you get by adding SQL Server to AD are things like Service Publication,
which is just a fancy form of an alias or DNS, IMHO. For example, if SQL
Server is on myServer01, it can be published through AD, then you can move
the server and clients do not need to know that the server has moved...
Since, instead of using a hard-coded IP address or server name, you are
going through AD, and it is redirecting you based solely on the name of the
database you want to connect to. This means you will have to change your
applications (and expect to need this flexibility) before you will see this
benefit.
A few of the problems I see with the above approach:
(a) obviously with AD there are more security considerations, so it won't be
like SQL Server authentication anymore. Apps have to be rewritten and
protecting the directory might take a significant amount of work.
(b) in our environment we have several locations with the same database -
e.g. Dev, QA, Production. If I want to connect to the Sales database, I now
have to think about this differently. Instead of "just connect to the Sales
database on the QA server," I now have to give each one a distinct
publication name, such as QA-SalesDB. This isn't a difficult change, and in
fact in some lights it is better, but it is a change, and we know how some
people are resistant to even the smallest delta in mindset or approach.
(c) using SQL through ADSI versus directly through the OLEDB provider can
cause some problems with existing code (and habits that will lend to
continuing to write code this way). There is no longer the ability to use
SELECT * ... You must name your columns.
As in a previous thread, I strongly suggest you spend some time reading on
the subject. You'll be much better informed to make a decision than just
listening to opinions (which are not based at all on anything specific in
YOUR environment).
ADSI and using SQL Server through AD are documented in MSDN Online, as well
as several 3rd party web sites.
On 3/20/05 2:51 PM, in article #NqyHZYLFHA.732@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl,
"Hassan" <fatima_ja@.hotmail.com> wrote:

> What are the pros of having SQL Server instance added to Active Directory
?
> I was looking at the server properties and saw the Active Directory tab an
d
> had an option to add it.
> What may be the cons ? Right now none of our SQL Servers are added. Do mos
t
> of you add the server to AD ? What am I missing by not doing so ? Thanks
>

Pros and cons with table lock

I use an ole db destination which I simply use to insert data into database.
If it's configured to use Fast Load as access mode, then it is possible to switch on/off the Lock table property, which is set to true as default.

Are there any drawbacks with switching off the Lock table property? What do I gain when using it?

Thanks for your help!

Its a performance issue. Having a table lock means that the load process doesn't have to worry about lower level locks, and so the load should be quicker.
But it does mean no one else can use that table

pros and cons of using transaction replication doing initialization from database backups

I am using transaction replication between a transaction and reporting database server. When I use a snapshot to initialize my subscribers, I currently get a lot of deadlocks during the snapshot creation. I am considering using a database backup instead. Can anyone tells me how to reduce the table locks that I am getting during snapshot creation or advice on using database backups?

Hi,

Transactional replication provides several different sync method to help alleviate locking issue on publication DB. You can take a look at @.sync_method in sp_addpublication (http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms188738.aspx).

You can try with concurrent/concurrent_c. And if you are using SQL 2005 SP2 and you are using enterprise edition, you can also use "database snapshot/database snapshot character". Snapshot agent creates a DB snapshot on the publication DB and then generates replication snapshot based on the DB snapshot. So it significantly reduces the possiblities of deadlocking on the publication DB.

Peng

pros and cons of using stored procedures for VB app ?

Hi,
Just wondering what sort of problems and advantages people have found using
stored procedures. I have an app developed in VB6 & VB.NET and our
developers are starting to re-write some of the code in stored procedures
(im advocating encryption of them). When deploying an application however
stored procedure seem to add another level of complexity to installation. In
future we also plan to have an basic ASP app with some of the functionality
of the VB app.
What are the pros and cons of using stored procedures in the situation?
PRO
- can call same stored procedure for ASP pages which saves us writing again
CON
- more complex deployment (i.e sending a bug fix will involve shipping DLL
and SQL script for stored procedure).
Thanks for any input
Scott
pros and cons of using stored procedures for VB app ?
Performance, security, maintainability (db can be maintained
independently of app changes) are some of the advantages. Your
colleagues are right. ALL data access for updates, inserts, deletes and
selects should be done through procs unless you have exceptional
reasons not to. This is the design pattern followed by all good SQL
developers. See:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...un_1a_6x45.asp
http://www.sql-server-performance.co...procedures.asp
http://www.sommarskog.se/dynamic_sql.html
http://weblogs.asp.net/rhoward/archi.../17/38095.aspx
A potential disadvantage if you are a software vendor is that the code
in the DB is exposed to the customer. The protection offered by the
WITH ENCRYPTION option is pretty worthless from a security perspective
- it can easily be circumvented. I don't see this as a major issue
myself because the best protection for your intellectual property ought
to be a licence agreement, not a software obstruction that hampers the
customer's DBA in doing his job.
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
|||many thanks for the reply David. That helps clear a few things up.
You suggested that the "ENCRYPTION" can easily be reversed. My main worry is
customer/users amending deployed stored procedures - hence we thought the
"with enctyption" method would be the best way to protect against this.
Would you use a licence agreement to stop this also ?
cheers
scott
|||Even without decrptying it, the WITH ENCRYPTION option won't stop the
DBA replacing procs. Some decryption solutions are here by the way:
http://www.planetsourcecode.com/vb/s...d=505&lngWId=5
http://www.securiteam.com/tools/6J00S003GU.html
"Users" (non administrators) should not have ddladmin role so should
never be able to modify procs, unless you are talking about a single
user setup where the end user has total control.
You could verify the existence of each proc or even recreate them at
install time for each release. You might also verify them as part of
your support diagnostics. In principle you could store and verify their
CHECKSUMs based on the text in the syscomments table. Be cautious about
how you interpret any checksum though. I can imagine legitimate acts of
scripting and re-creating proc could easily introduce extra line breaks
and whitespace that would change the checksum.
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
|||thanks again. this quote kind of says it in a nutshell...
"since encrypting something that can be decrypted without user interaction
(i.e., entering of a password) isn't anything else than the infamous
security by obscurity."
thanks for your help
Scott

pros and cons of using stored procedures for VB app ?

Hi,
Just wondering what sort of problems and advantages people have found using
stored procedures. I have an app developed in VB6 & VB.NET and our
developers are starting to re-write some of the code in stored procedures
(im advocating encryption of them). When deploying an application however
stored procedure seem to add another level of complexity to installation. In
future we also plan to have an basic ASP app with some of the functionality
of the VB app.
What are the pros and cons of using stored procedures in the situation?
PRO
- can call same stored procedure for ASP pages which saves us writing again
CON
- more complex deployment (i.e sending a bug fix will involve shipping DLL
and SQL script for stored procedure).
Thanks for any input
Scott
pros and cons of using stored procedures for VB app ?Performance, security, maintainability (db can be maintained
independently of app changes) are some of the advantages. Your
colleagues are right. ALL data access for updates, inserts, deletes and
selects should be done through procs unless you have exceptional
reasons not to. This is the design pattern followed by all good SQL
developers. See:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d.../>
1a_6x45.asp
http://www.sql-server-performance.c..._procedures.asp
http://www.sommarskog.se/dynamic_sql.html
http://weblogs.asp.net/rhoward/arch...1/17/38095.aspx
A potential disadvantage if you are a software vendor is that the code
in the DB is exposed to the customer. The protection offered by the
WITH ENCRYPTION option is pretty worthless from a security perspective
- it can easily be circumvented. I don't see this as a major issue
myself because the best protection for your intellectual property ought
to be a licence agreement, not a software obstruction that hampers the
customer's DBA in doing his job.
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
--|||many thanks for the reply David. That helps clear a few things up.
You suggested that the "ENCRYPTION" can easily be reversed. My main worry is
customer/users amending deployed stored procedures - hence we thought the
"with enctyption" method would be the best way to protect against this.
Would you use a licence agreement to stop this also ?
cheers
scott|||Even without decrptying it, the WITH ENCRYPTION option won't stop the
DBA replacing procs. Some decryption solutions are here by the way:
http://www.planetsourcecode.com/vb/...6J00S003GU.html
"Users" (non administrators) should not have ddladmin role so should
never be able to modify procs, unless you are talking about a single
user setup where the end user has total control.
You could verify the existence of each proc or even recreate them at
install time for each release. You might also verify them as part of
your support diagnostics. In principle you could store and verify their
CHECKSUMs based on the text in the syscomments table. Be cautious about
how you interpret any checksum though. I can imagine legitimate acts of
scripting and re-creating proc could easily introduce extra line breaks
and whitespace that would change the checksum.
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
--|||thanks again. this quote kind of says it in a nutshell...
"since encrypting something that can be decrypted without user interaction
(i.e., entering of a password) isn't anything else than the infamous
security by obscurity."
thanks for your help
Scottsql

pros and cons of using stored procedures for VB app ?

Hi,
Just wondering what sort of problems and advantages people have found using
stored procedures. I have an app developed in VB6 & VB.NET and our
developers are starting to re-write some of the code in stored procedures
(im advocating encryption of them). When deploying an application however
stored procedure seem to add another level of complexity to installation. In
future we also plan to have an basic ASP app with some of the functionality
of the VB app.
What are the pros and cons of using stored procedures in the situation?
PRO
- can call same stored procedure for ASP pages which saves us writing again
CON
- more complex deployment (i.e sending a bug fix will involve shipping DLL
and SQL script for stored procedure).
Thanks for any input
Scott
pros and cons of using stored procedures for VB app ?Performance, security, maintainability (db can be maintained
independently of app changes) are some of the advantages. Your
colleagues are right. ALL data access for updates, inserts, deletes and
selects should be done through procs unless you have exceptional
reasons not to. This is the design pattern followed by all good SQL
developers. See:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/optimsql/odp_tun_1a_6x45.asp
http://www.sql-server-performance.com/stored_procedures.asp
http://www.sommarskog.se/dynamic_sql.html
http://weblogs.asp.net/rhoward/archive/2003/11/17/38095.aspx
A potential disadvantage if you are a software vendor is that the code
in the DB is exposed to the customer. The protection offered by the
WITH ENCRYPTION option is pretty worthless from a security perspective
- it can easily be circumvented. I don't see this as a major issue
myself because the best protection for your intellectual property ought
to be a licence agreement, not a software obstruction that hampers the
customer's DBA in doing his job.
--
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
--|||many thanks for the reply David. That helps clear a few things up.
You suggested that the "ENCRYPTION" can easily be reversed. My main worry is
customer/users amending deployed stored procedures - hence we thought the
"with enctyption" method would be the best way to protect against this.
Would you use a licence agreement to stop this also ?
cheers
scott|||Even without decrptying it, the WITH ENCRYPTION option won't stop the
DBA replacing procs. Some decryption solutions are here by the way:
http://www.planetsourcecode.com/vb/scripts/ShowCode.asp?txtCodeId=505&lngWId=5
http://www.securiteam.com/tools/6J00S003GU.html
"Users" (non administrators) should not have ddladmin role so should
never be able to modify procs, unless you are talking about a single
user setup where the end user has total control.
You could verify the existence of each proc or even recreate them at
install time for each release. You might also verify them as part of
your support diagnostics. In principle you could store and verify their
CHECKSUMs based on the text in the syscomments table. Be cautious about
how you interpret any checksum though. I can imagine legitimate acts of
scripting and re-creating proc could easily introduce extra line breaks
and whitespace that would change the checksum.
--
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
--|||thanks again. this quote kind of says it in a nutshell...
"since encrypting something that can be decrypted without user interaction
(i.e., entering of a password) isn't anything else than the infamous
security by obscurity."
thanks for your help
Scott

Pros and cons of using image data type

Can anybody let me know the pros and cons of storing
images using SQL server image data type as opposed to just
storing the image file in system file directories. I'm
more concern on the efficiency and the space used if I
store images using SQL server 2000. Anything bad that
might occur?That's a sensible question to ask ... And many out there forget when they
use image datatypes ... BTW, Iam not a against image datatype but I always
prefer in storing them in the web server itself rather than passing them
around to and forth to the SQL Server. Moreover storing large files at the
sql server is also not advisable ... But if you are storing just a small
signature image for example .. It is fine to use SQL Server ...
--
HTH,
Vinod Kumar
MCSE, DBA, MCAD
www.extremeexperts.com
"twk" <twengkeat@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:01ce01c35d84$fce7c5e0$a001280a@.phx.gbl...
> Can anybody let me know the pros and cons of storing
> images using SQL server image data type as opposed to just
> storing the image file in system file directories. I'm
> more concern on the efficiency and the space used if I
> store images using SQL server 2000. Anything bad that
> might occur?|||The Pros of storing the images in SQL Server are pretty simple: You gain
all the "ACID" properties of a database system. The images are backed up
with the data in a coordinated fashion. All "pointers" between your
structured data and the images are maintained. No "broken link" problems,
no out of sync problems, no multiple namespaces, etc. If you store the data
in the database and the images in the file system then you have multiple
backups and various ways for the database and image information to end up
out of sync. Plus, you have to manage two different security environments.
The big negative of storing images in SQL Server is performance. There are
three issues here. The first is that SQL Server breaks images up into
chunks that fit on database pages. This makes reassembling the images
slower than if they are stored, without additional internal structure, in a
file. It also makes it impossible to use the operating system's built-in
facilities to transmit a file directly from disk out over a communications
link in kernel mode. So, from the standpoint of serving the image out onto
the web it is definitely much slower. Second, images stored in SQL Server
are returned to the application via the TDS protocol and the data access
APIs. Again, these are not optimal for image processing and impose overhead
that doesn't exist with a file. Third, most applications that process
images read and write them from the file system. So, if the image is stored
in SQL Server then you have to read the image out of the server, write it to
a temporary file, then invoke the image processing software against the
temporary file. It is these performance issues that lead many people to
store the images outside the database itself.
The real suitability of storing images inside SQL Server versus in the file
system comes down to the analysis of the application itself. For example,
if you have an HR application and one of the pieces of information that you
store about an employee is the picture that is on their id card then I think
you should store that image inside the database. Why? Well, you don't
access it very often. You aren't serving it up to the web constantly. It's
always accessed in conjunction with other employee data. You need to
protect access to the images under your HR policies. The performance hit is
thus not a significant factor when compared with the application and
operational issues.
If I had a server whose primary function was to serve up images all day,
then I'd store them in the file system. Or, at least maybe I would. I
actually have a preferred architecture for this scenario that addresses both
the management and performance issues. But it cost disk space. I would
store the authoritative copies of the images in the database, and then
create copies (a cache) in the file system. I would serve up the images
from the file system, but my recovery procedures would blast the
authoritative copies from the database into the filesystem. So I get the
best of both worlds. And with 120GB disks going for less money than I
usually carry around in my wallet, the duplication hardly seems to be a
problem for most situations.
One system that runs counter to conventional wisdom is the TerraServer
(http://terraserver-usa.com/). You can get details of how it works from
http://research.microsoft.com/research/pubs/view.aspx?msr_tr_id=MSR-TR-99-29.
Even though it serves up images all day long the images are stored in SQL
Server. This was done for a few reasons, chief among them to show that SQL
Server was capable of hosting such an application. Terraserver has been
operational since the summer of 1998, at times serving up several million
images per day.
--
Hal Berenson, SQL Server MVP
True Mountain Group LLC
"twk" <twengkeat@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:01ce01c35d84$fce7c5e0$a001280a@.phx.gbl...
> Can anybody let me know the pros and cons of storing
> images using SQL server image data type as opposed to just
> storing the image file in system file directories. I'm
> more concern on the efficiency and the space used if I
> store images using SQL server 2000. Anything bad that
> might occur?

Pros and Cons of Stored Procedures

can anyone explain the Pros and Cons of Stored Procedures ??

thanksThere's plenty of pro's as well as con's to procedures.

One of which is how dynamic you can have these sql statements. However, since it's not so dynamic, the chances of sql injection is far less of an issue.

Furthermore, procedures compile an execution path, and will usually execute much faster. If you have multiple requests you need to make, your procedure can consolidate many calls into one, reducing round trips.

Can you be a bit more specific? This question seems beaten to death, and I'd really suggest just going through the threads or using the search feature.|||See this...
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dndotnet/html/storedprocsnetdev2.asp

Pros and Cons of starting the SQL services with a user account instead of the lsm

What are the pros and cons of starting the SQL services (MSSQLSERVER &
SQLAgent) with a domain wide user account instead of using the Local
System Account that does not have network access. To me it would seem
more secure to start the services using an account that cannot access
the network.
Thanks
MarcosI suspect that using a different account might force you to run the ole db
drivers for linked servers inside the same process as sql server, check my
earlier thread on october 21.
I am not sure about this but no one has given me a clear answer...
Otherwise we're using different accounts to run our sql servers without
problems (i think, i'm not the one that set up the servers...)
"Marcos Marrero" wrote:
> What are the pros and cons of starting the SQL services (MSSQLSERVER &
> SQLAgent) with a domain wide user account instead of using the Local
> System Account that does not have network access. To me it would seem
> more secure to start the services using an account that cannot access
> the network.
> Thanks
> Marcos
>

PROS and CONS of seperate databases for CACHING...

I have a main database...for this large Web site...and Im wonderingwhat would be the PROS and CONS of using another database (located onthe same, or on another SQL Server). Im just thinking this would begood incase we ever needed to take some load off one of the servers.

Also, we will be integrating Community Server into this Web site. Ofcourse you know CS adds its own database objects which crowd up ourmain database objects.

We were thinking of giving CS its own database also; bad practice, or...it doesn't matter much?

Thank youIf for ASPSTATE, then a separate server (now or in the future) would improve scalability.

If you mean multiple instances of SQL Server on the same server box (SQL Server 2000 and 2005 standard and up), then it is not a good idea as there is an overhead (plus licensing cost).

If you mean multiple databases within the same SQL instance, then that is the way to go.|||multiple databases within the same instance of sql server if its on the same machine...

sort of like this...

BOX1-SQL1 (all in same instance of sql server)
caching db
state db
auditing db

BOX2-SQL2 (all in same instance of sql server)
web site db
forum db

So THATS the way to go? Eh?
|||bumpsql

Pros and Cons of saving to serverstorage versus file system

What are the pros and cons of saving the SSIS package using serverstorage versus file system? It appears to me that the file system is much flexible and can be promoted anywhere without going through the hassle of exporting off from msdb etc.

Thanks,
Lito

Lito wrote:

What are the pros and cons of saving the SSIS package using serverstorage versus file system? It appears to me that the file system is much flexible and can be promoted anywhere without going through the hassle of exporting off from msdb etc.

Thanks,
Lito

I agree. The single biggest issue I have with server deployment is that you bring a whole new layer of management into play if you're using the Execute Package task (which likely many people will be).
i.e. At design time you use a file connection manager for calling other packages...at runtime you use OLE DB connection manager. So not only do you have to tell the package which environment its running in so that it knows which connection manager to use...promoting from dev-->test-->live becomes a real headache because you don't have uniformity across environments.

Just my 2 penneth worth!

-Jamie|||Kirk has blogged about some of the Pros and Cons of saving to SQL Server Vs File System. See

http://sqljunkies.com/WebLog/knight_reign/archive/2005/05/05/13523.aspx

- Ranjeeta

Pros and Cons of saving to serverstorage versus file system

What are the pros and cons of saving the SSIS package using serverstorage versus file system? It appears to me that the file system is much flexible and can be promoted anywhere without going through the hassle of exporting off from msdb etc.

Thanks,
Lito

Lito wrote:

What are the pros and cons of saving the SSIS package using serverstorage versus file system? It appears to me that the file system is much flexible and can be promoted anywhere without going through the hassle of exporting off from msdb etc.

Thanks,
Lito

I agree. The single biggest issue I have with server deployment is that you bring a whole new layer of management into play if you're using the Execute Package task (which likely many people will be).
i.e. At design time you use a file connection manager for calling other packages...at runtime you use OLE DB connection manager. So not only do you have to tell the package which environment its running in so that it knows which connection manager to use...promoting from dev-->test-->live becomes a real headache because you don't have uniformity across environments.

Just my 2 penneth worth!

-Jamie|||Kirk has blogged about some of the Pros and Cons of saving to SQL Server Vs File System. See

http://sqljunkies.com/WebLog/knight_reign/archive/2005/05/05/13523.aspx

- Ranjeeta

Pros and cons of reindexing

Hi we have a debate here,
Should we reindex periodically our database? If yes at what frequency? This
will help for performance?
Second question after the reindexing the transactions log have 5 Gig. After
a backup should we shrink the log? This will help performance?
Thank for your help
Dany"Dany Marois" <dany.marois@.videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:uBGRsL9BEHA.3404@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Hi we have a debate here,
> Should we reindex periodically our database?
yes it will because reindexing will defragment the database. As for
frequency, depends on the database. my PeopleSoft db takes 19 hours to
reindex so I reserve weekends for this chore but I do it every week
If yes at what frequency? This
> will help for performance?
>

> Second question after the reindexing the transactions log have 5 Gig.
After
> a backup should we shrink the log? This will help performance?
>
not much but it will save space ...:-)
> Thank for your help
> Dany
>
Neil MacMurchy
"you'd do what, to who for how many biscuits?"|||> Should we reindex periodically our database?
If you need it, i.e., it helps performance, then yes.

> If yes at what frequency?
It depends on the level of fragmentation occurs. I.e., volume of data, the
pattern of your modifications and index layouts and stuff like that.

> This
> will help for performance?
Possibly, but again it depends. You can use DBCC SHOWCONTIG to check the
fragmentation level. And you can time your queries between going against
fragmented data and non-fragmented data to determine how much defrag will
improve performance. Mileage does vary.

> Second question after the reindexing the transactions log have 5 Gig.
After
> a backup should we shrink the log? This will help performance?
Why would you want to shrink it? It will only grow to that size as the users
do modifications and the file need to grow. I.e., shrinking the file will
hurt performance.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
"Dany Marois" <dany.marois@.videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:uBGRsL9BEHA.3404@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Hi we have a debate here,
> Should we reindex periodically our database? If yes at what frequency?
This
> will help for performance?
> Second question after the reindexing the transactions log have 5 Gig.
After
> a backup should we shrink the log? This will help performance?
> Thank for your help
> Dany
>|||Read this whitepaper which will answer all of your questions:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/tr...ze/ss2kidbp.asp
Paul Randal
Dev Lead, Microsoft SQL Server Storage Engine
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Dany Marois" <dany.marois@.videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:uBGRsL9BEHA.3404@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Hi we have a debate here,
> Should we reindex periodically our database? If yes at what frequency?
This
> will help for performance?
> Second question after the reindexing the transactions log have 5 Gig.
After
> a backup should we shrink the log? This will help performance?
> Thank for your help
> Dany
>

Pros and cons of having multiple DBMS in the organization

I just want to know how does a database manager go about with having
multiple RDBMS in the organization. As we acquire new companies and have to
manage them all ( Im not a manager, but would like to be some day) , what do
great database managers do? Do they just begin to choose one and how do they
go about finding the right one ? Or do they prefer to just leave them as is
..
Can you give me some pros and cons of having multiple RDBMS and what one
should do ? Any articles out there that I could read. Right now, we have SQL
Server,Oracle,DB2,Postgres and some mysql as well. Each business that we
acquire is a stand alone entity but managers tend to be operate them all
under one umbrella.
Please advice.
ThanksWe have a similar situation , with a client at the moment . They are
acquiring companies which all have different db and web apps. Currently, we
are managing SQL7,2000,2005 - Oracle 10 and mysql . After in depth analysis,
they've decided to keep every system separate and build an Integration
service based around SQL Server. This will have a bunch of filters to import
relevant data.
The main reason for a central integration server, is that they are in the
process of acquiring more companies with all sorts of other dbms, and
therefore have to build a structure to integrate future disparate systems
Jack Vamvas
___________________________________
Receive free SQL tips - www.ciquery.com/sqlserver.htm
___________________________________
"Hassan" <Hassan@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:#6X#Tv1jGHA.3780@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> I just want to know how does a database manager go about with having
> multiple RDBMS in the organization. As we acquire new companies and have
to
> manage them all ( Im not a manager, but would like to be some day) , what
do
> great database managers do? Do they just begin to choose one and how do
they
> go about finding the right one ? Or do they prefer to just leave them as
is
> ..
> Can you give me some pros and cons of having multiple RDBMS and what one
> should do ? Any articles out there that I could read. Right now, we have
SQL
> Server,Oracle,DB2,Postgres and some mysql as well. Each business that we
> acquire is a stand alone entity but managers tend to be operate them all
> under one umbrella.
> Please advice.
> Thanks
>|||Hassan
If you woork for a large company, it is inevitable that you will end up with
multiple RDBMS and indeed multiple most things. I work for a large
international bank and we have multiple RDBMS on multiple platforms.
When I joined the company they were actively trying to get rid of SQL
Server. Their databases of choice were DB2 on the mainframe and Oracle on
distributed systems. The policy was to convert all SQL Server systems to
either DB2 or Oracle. They soon found this to be an unrealistic policy due t
o
the popularity of SQL Server. For every SQL Server system they managed to
convert two or three more took it's place.
More recently we accquired some companies that use Sybase, and we now have a
small Sybase team.
How you manage all these RDBMS teams is up to you. I have worked for a
company that had a central database management team and they were responsibl
e
for all RDBMS within the company. Where I work now they split them between
mainframe and distributed.
I don't know that I have really offered any help here, more just to let you
know it is a very common situation.
Regards
John
"Hassan" wrote:

> I just want to know how does a database manager go about with having
> multiple RDBMS in the organization. As we acquire new companies and have t
o
> manage them all ( Im not a manager, but would like to be some day) , what
do
> great database managers do? Do they just begin to choose one and how do th
ey
> go about finding the right one ? Or do they prefer to just leave them as i
s
> ...
> Can you give me some pros and cons of having multiple RDBMS and what one
> should do ? Any articles out there that I could read. Right now, we have S
QL
> Server,Oracle,DB2,Postgres and some mysql as well. Each business that we
> acquire is a stand alone entity but managers tend to be operate them all
> under one umbrella.
> Please advice.
> Thanks
>
>|||We have a similar situation , with a client at the moment . They are
acquiring companies which all have different db and web apps. Currently, we
are managing SQL7,2000,2005 - Oracle 10 and mysql . After in depth analysis,
they've decided to keep every system separate and build an Integration
service based around SQL Server. This will have a bunch of filters to import
relevant data.
The main reason for a central integration server, is that they are in the
process of acquiring more companies with all sorts of other dbms, and
therefore have to build a structure to integrate future disparate systems
Jack Vamvas
___________________________________
Receive free SQL tips - www.ciquery.com/sqlserver.htm
___________________________________
"Hassan" <Hassan@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:#6X#Tv1jGHA.3780@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> I just want to know how does a database manager go about with having
> multiple RDBMS in the organization. As we acquire new companies and have
to
> manage them all ( Im not a manager, but would like to be some day) , what
do
> great database managers do? Do they just begin to choose one and how do
they
> go about finding the right one ? Or do they prefer to just leave them as
is
> ..
> Can you give me some pros and cons of having multiple RDBMS and what one
> should do ? Any articles out there that I could read. Right now, we have
SQL
> Server,Oracle,DB2,Postgres and some mysql as well. Each business that we
> acquire is a stand alone entity but managers tend to be operate them all
> under one umbrella.
> Please advice.
> Thanks
>|||Hassan
If you woork for a large company, it is inevitable that you will end up with
multiple RDBMS and indeed multiple most things. I work for a large
international bank and we have multiple RDBMS on multiple platforms.
When I joined the company they were actively trying to get rid of SQL
Server. Their databases of choice were DB2 on the mainframe and Oracle on
distributed systems. The policy was to convert all SQL Server systems to
either DB2 or Oracle. They soon found this to be an unrealistic policy due t
o
the popularity of SQL Server. For every SQL Server system they managed to
convert two or three more took it's place.
More recently we accquired some companies that use Sybase, and we now have a
small Sybase team.
How you manage all these RDBMS teams is up to you. I have worked for a
company that had a central database management team and they were responsibl
e
for all RDBMS within the company. Where I work now they split them between
mainframe and distributed.
I don't know that I have really offered any help here, more just to let you
know it is a very common situation.
Regards
John
"Hassan" wrote:

> I just want to know how does a database manager go about with having
> multiple RDBMS in the organization. As we acquire new companies and have t
o
> manage them all ( Im not a manager, but would like to be some day) , what
do
> great database managers do? Do they just begin to choose one and how do th
ey
> go about finding the right one ? Or do they prefer to just leave them as i
s
> ...
> Can you give me some pros and cons of having multiple RDBMS and what one
> should do ? Any articles out there that I could read. Right now, we have S
QL
> Server,Oracle,DB2,Postgres and some mysql as well. Each business that we
> acquire is a stand alone entity but managers tend to be operate them all
> under one umbrella.
> Please advice.
> Thanks
>
>|||One common approach in large companies is to standardize on a strategic DBMS
platform in each of the mainframe, Unix/Linux, and Windows environments. It'
s
not uncommon for a company to choose DB2 on mainframe, Oracle on Unix/Linux,
and SQL Server on Windows as its startegic DBMS platforms and consider any
other DBMS platforms as legacy platforms. The company may strongly discourag
e
or even ban any new development on any other DBMS platform, and either inves
t
to migrate existing databases from other DBMS platforms to one of these thre
e
or simply sunset the them.
In decisions like this, DBMS-specific factors count for very little.
Linchi
"Hassan" wrote:

> I just want to know how does a database manager go about with having
> multiple RDBMS in the organization. As we acquire new companies and have t
o
> manage them all ( Im not a manager, but would like to be some day) , what
do
> great database managers do? Do they just begin to choose one and how do th
ey
> go about finding the right one ? Or do they prefer to just leave them as i
s
> ...
> Can you give me some pros and cons of having multiple RDBMS and what one
> should do ? Any articles out there that I could read. Right now, we have S
QL
> Server,Oracle,DB2,Postgres and some mysql as well. Each business that we
> acquire is a stand alone entity but managers tend to be operate them all
> under one umbrella.
> Please advice.
> Thanks
>
>|||One common approach in large companies is to standardize on a strategic DBMS
platform in each of the mainframe, Unix/Linux, and Windows environments. It'
s
not uncommon for a company to choose DB2 on mainframe, Oracle on Unix/Linux,
and SQL Server on Windows as its startegic DBMS platforms and consider any
other DBMS platforms as legacy platforms. The company may strongly discourag
e
or even ban any new development on any other DBMS platform, and either inves
t
to migrate existing databases from other DBMS platforms to one of these thre
e
or simply sunset the them.
In decisions like this, DBMS-specific factors count for very little.
Linchi
"Hassan" wrote:

> I just want to know how does a database manager go about with having
> multiple RDBMS in the organization. As we acquire new companies and have t
o
> manage them all ( Im not a manager, but would like to be some day) , what
do
> great database managers do? Do they just begin to choose one and how do th
ey
> go about finding the right one ? Or do they prefer to just leave them as i
s
> ...
> Can you give me some pros and cons of having multiple RDBMS and what one
> should do ? Any articles out there that I could read. Right now, we have S
QL
> Server,Oracle,DB2,Postgres and some mysql as well. Each business that we
> acquire is a stand alone entity but managers tend to be operate them all
> under one umbrella.
> Please advice.
> Thanks
>
>

Pros and cons of having multiple DBMS in the organization

I just want to know how does a database manager go about with having
multiple RDBMS in the organization. As we acquire new companies and have to
manage them all ( Im not a manager, but would like to be some day) , what do
great database managers do? Do they just begin to choose one and how do they
go about finding the right one ? Or do they prefer to just leave them as is
..
Can you give me some pros and cons of having multiple RDBMS and what one
should do ? Any articles out there that I could read. Right now, we have SQL
Server,Oracle,DB2,Postgres and some mysql as well. Each business that we
acquire is a stand alone entity but managers tend to be operate them all
under one umbrella.
Please advice.
ThanksWe have a similar situation , with a client at the moment . They are
acquiring companies which all have different db and web apps. Currently, we
are managing SQL7,2000,2005 - Oracle 10 and MySQL . After in depth analysis,
they've decided to keep every system separate and build an Integration
service based around SQL Server. This will have a bunch of filters to import
relevant data.
The main reason for a central integration server, is that they are in the
process of acquiring more companies with all sorts of other dbms, and
therefore have to build a structure to integrate future disparate systems
--
Jack Vamvas
___________________________________
Receive free SQL tips - www.ciquery.com/sqlserver.htm
___________________________________
"Hassan" <Hassan@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:#6X#Tv1jGHA.3780@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> I just want to know how does a database manager go about with having
> multiple RDBMS in the organization. As we acquire new companies and have
to
> manage them all ( Im not a manager, but would like to be some day) , what
do
> great database managers do? Do they just begin to choose one and how do
they
> go about finding the right one ? Or do they prefer to just leave them as
is
> ..
> Can you give me some pros and cons of having multiple RDBMS and what one
> should do ? Any articles out there that I could read. Right now, we have
SQL
> Server,Oracle,DB2,Postgres and some mysql as well. Each business that we
> acquire is a stand alone entity but managers tend to be operate them all
> under one umbrella.
> Please advice.
> Thanks
>|||Hassan
If you woork for a large company, it is inevitable that you will end up with
multiple RDBMS and indeed multiple most things. I work for a large
international bank and we have multiple RDBMS on multiple platforms.
When I joined the company they were actively trying to get rid of SQL
Server. Their databases of choice were DB2 on the mainframe and Oracle on
distributed systems. The policy was to convert all SQL Server systems to
either DB2 or Oracle. They soon found this to be an unrealistic policy due to
the popularity of SQL Server. For every SQL Server system they managed to
convert two or three more took it's place.
More recently we accquired some companies that use Sybase, and we now have a
small Sybase team.
How you manage all these RDBMS teams is up to you. I have worked for a
company that had a central database management team and they were responsible
for all RDBMS within the company. Where I work now they split them between
mainframe and distributed.
I don't know that I have really offered any help here, more just to let you
know it is a very common situation.
Regards
John
"Hassan" wrote:
> I just want to know how does a database manager go about with having
> multiple RDBMS in the organization. As we acquire new companies and have to
> manage them all ( Im not a manager, but would like to be some day) , what do
> great database managers do? Do they just begin to choose one and how do they
> go about finding the right one ? Or do they prefer to just leave them as is
> ...
> Can you give me some pros and cons of having multiple RDBMS and what one
> should do ? Any articles out there that I could read. Right now, we have SQL
> Server,Oracle,DB2,Postgres and some mysql as well. Each business that we
> acquire is a stand alone entity but managers tend to be operate them all
> under one umbrella.
> Please advice.
> Thanks
>
>|||One common approach in large companies is to standardize on a strategic DBMS
platform in each of the mainframe, Unix/Linux, and Windows environments. It's
not uncommon for a company to choose DB2 on mainframe, Oracle on Unix/Linux,
and SQL Server on Windows as its startegic DBMS platforms and consider any
other DBMS platforms as legacy platforms. The company may strongly discourage
or even ban any new development on any other DBMS platform, and either invest
to migrate existing databases from other DBMS platforms to one of these three
or simply sunset the them.
In decisions like this, DBMS-specific factors count for very little.
Linchi
"Hassan" wrote:
> I just want to know how does a database manager go about with having
> multiple RDBMS in the organization. As we acquire new companies and have to
> manage them all ( Im not a manager, but would like to be some day) , what do
> great database managers do? Do they just begin to choose one and how do they
> go about finding the right one ? Or do they prefer to just leave them as is
> ...
> Can you give me some pros and cons of having multiple RDBMS and what one
> should do ? Any articles out there that I could read. Right now, we have SQL
> Server,Oracle,DB2,Postgres and some mysql as well. Each business that we
> acquire is a stand alone entity but managers tend to be operate them all
> under one umbrella.
> Please advice.
> Thanks
>
>sql

Pros and Cons

Hi,
I'm writing a proposal for a DR solution for a SQL based application. I've
been looking at clustering, database mirroring, etc. Has anyone come across
any documentation discussing the pro's and cons of the various options
available?
Thanks
Clustering has a distance limitation. Database mirroring is not scalable
beyond 10 or so databases but has no clustering limitation. Clustering
requires expensive hardware. Database Mirroring does not. Database
Mirroring is available on developer and Enterprise and above versions of SQL
Server 2005. Clustering is available on EE versions of SQL 7 and above, and
also on SQL Server Standard in SQL 2005.
Database Mirroring does add some latency to each transaction and as it is
hostbased it works best for low loads on SQL Server. If you have high cpu
utilization your database mirroring solution is likely to fail.
You neglect to mention log shipping and replication in your list of DR
solutions. Both of these word well as well. Log shipping does increase your
exposure to data loss, and is not really scalable beyond a certain size and
number of databases. Replication replicates on an object level and has no
limitation. Failback can be complex.
Hilary Cotter
Director of Text Mining and Database Strategy
RelevantNOISE.Com - Dedicated to mining blogs for business intelligence.
This posting is my own and doesn't necessarily represent RelevantNoise's
positions, strategies or opinions.
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"Hardmandez" <Hardmandez@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:F2DB4016-3D90-4438-B49D-B7B4F76CE03D@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I'm writing a proposal for a DR solution for a SQL based application.
> I've
> been looking at clustering, database mirroring, etc. Has anyone come
> across
> any documentation discussing the pro's and cons of the various options
> available?
> Thanks
>
|||Also check out Stretch Clustering, which can be configured for SQL Server
failover clusters. This can extend the distance limitation mentioned
previously.
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2000/deploy/hasog05.mspx
Anthony Thomas
"Hardmandez" <Hardmandez@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:7E081208-21B9-43D1-A241-A2B15E118575@.microsoft.com...
> Thanks for that Hilary, some good points there. Still to get to log
shipping
> and replication in my proposal. SQL isn't really my area of expertease so
> one more question, does SQL come with replication capabilities out of the
box[vbcol=seagreen]
> or when you talking about replication are you refering to products like
> Neverfail?
> "Hilary Cotter" wrote:
SQL[vbcol=seagreen]
and[vbcol=seagreen]
is[vbcol=seagreen]
cpu[vbcol=seagreen]
your[vbcol=seagreen]
and[vbcol=seagreen]
no[vbcol=seagreen]
|||I also have heard that rumor that Neverfail licenses their replication
from DoubleTake, however, this post from the VP of Product Management
from Neverfail denies that is the case. How long ago did Neverfail
tell you they licensed from DoubleTake? I suppose it may have been
true at one point, but apparently no longer.
[url]http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.sqlserver.server/browse_thread/thread/375548336a1c2343/f7328f5f4ef3dfc1?lnk=st&q=Neverfail+DoubleTake&rnu m=5&hl=en#f7328f5f4ef3dfc1[/url]
If you ever compare the two products in terms of performance of the
replication, I think you will find that Neverfail's replication is much
more efficient. It is surprising that DoubleTake, being one of the
oldest data replication products around, really is behind everyone else
in terms of performance of their replication IMHO.
David A. Bermingham, MCSE, MCSA:Messaging
Senior Systems Engineer
www.steeleye.com
Hilary Cotter wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi David.
> Last time I spoke with Neverfail they told me they licensed their technology
> from Doubletake. You are correct about DFS and Doubletake. My mistake, DFS
> does provide very similar services to Doubletake, and in some cases DFS is a
> better choice than Doubletake (for example in file replication).
> --
> Hilary Cotter
> Director of Text Mining and Database Strategy
> RelevantNOISE.Com - Dedicated to mining blogs for business intelligence.
> This posting is my own and doesn't necessarily represent RelevantNoise's
> positions, strategies or opinions.
> Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
> Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
> http://www.indexserverfaq.com
>
> "daveberm" <david.bermingham@.steeleye.com> wrote in message
> news:1161871846.621466.57800@.m7g2000cwm.googlegrou ps.com...

Pros / Cons to this approach

I have a requirement where I need to perform a query for position
information. But for some types of entries, I need to "expand" the row
to include additional position rows. Let me explain with an example:

An index is a security that is made up of components where each
component has a "weight" or a number of shares. So if I have 1 share of
the index, I have X shares of each component.

AAPL is an Equity, CSCO is an Equity, SPY is an Index. Lets say that
SPY has one component, AAPL, with shares being 10. (1 share of SPY = 10
shares of AAPL).

So, I do some trading and I end up with positions as follows:

+10 AAPL
-5 CSCO
+2 SPY

The query I need returns:

+10 AAPL
-5 CSCO
+2 SPY
+20 AAPL (from 2 SPY * 10 shares)

which becomes (after grouping):

+30 AAPL
-5 CSCO
+2 SPY

-------------

Based on that criteria and the following schema (and sample data):

-- Drop tables
DROP TABLE [SecurityMaster]
DROP TABLE [Position]
DROP TABLE [IndexComponent]

-- Create tables
CREATE TABLE [SecurityMaster] (
[Symbol] VARCHAR(10)
, [SecurityType] VARCHAR(10)
)

CREATE TABLE [Position] (
[Account] VARCHAR(10)
, [Symbol] VARCHAR(10)
, [Position] INT
)

CREATE TABLE [IndexComponent] (
[IndexSymbol] VARCHAR(10)
, [ComponentSymbol] VARCHAR(10)
, [Shares] INT
)

--Populate tables
INSERT INTO [SecurityMaster] VALUES ('AAPL', 'Equity')
INSERT INTO [SecurityMaster] VALUES ('MSFT', 'Equity')
INSERT INTO [SecurityMaster] VALUES ('MNTAM', 'Option')
INSERT INTO [SecurityMaster] VALUES ('CSCO', 'Equity')
INSERT INTO [SecurityMaster] VALUES ('SPY', 'Index')

INSERT INTO [Position] VALUES ('001', 'AAPL', 10)
INSERT INTO [Position] VALUES ('001', 'MSFT', -5)
INSERT INTO [Position] VALUES ('001', 'CSCO', 10)
INSERT INTO [Position] VALUES ('001', 'SPY', 15)
INSERT INTO [Position] VALUES ('001', 'QQQQ', 21)
INSERT INTO [Position] VALUES ('002', 'MNTAM', 10)
INSERT INTO [Position] VALUES ('002', 'APPL', 20)
INSERT INTO [Position] VALUES ('003', 'SPY', -2)

INSERT INTO [IndexComponent] VALUES ('SPY', 'AAPL', 25)
INSERT INTO [IndexComponent] VALUES ('SPY', 'CSCO', 50)
INSERT INTO [IndexComponent] VALUES ('QQQQ', 'AAPL', 33)

-- *****************************

-- Based on the rules:
-- 1) Index positions appear like other positions (account /
symbol) pair, but
-- its components show up as new rows of account (of index),
symbol (equal
--to component symbol), position (equal to shares * index position)
-- 2) One row for each account / symbol pair (GROUP BY account and
symbol, SUM position)

-- Expected output (without grouping) (sorted by account / symbol)
-- 001 AAPL 10
-- 001 AAPL 375 (component shares * index position) (25
* 15) (SPY)
-- 001 AAPL 693 (component shares * index position) (33
* 21) (QQQQ)
-- 001 CSCO 10
-- 001 CSCO 750 (component shares * index position) (50
* 15) (SPY)
-- 001 MSFT -5
-- 001 QQQQ 21
-- 001 SPY 15

-- 002 AAPL 20
-- 002 MNTAM 10

-- 003 AAPL -50 (component shares * index position) (25
* -2) (SPY)
-- 003 CSCO -100 (component shares * index position) (50
* -2) (SPY)
-- 003 SPY -2

-- Expected output (with grouping account / symbol) (sorted by account
/ symbol)
-- 001 AAPL 1078
-- 001 CSCO 760
-- 001 MSFT -5
-- 001 QQQQ 21
-- 001 SPY 15

-- 002 AAPL 20
-- 002 MNTAM 10

-- 003 AAPL -50
-- 003 CSCO -100
-- 003 SPY -2

--------------

Is a UNION the best way to perform the query. What are the pros and
cons? What, if any, is a better way?

SELECT
[Account], [Symbol], SUM([Position]) AS [Position]
FROM
(
SELECT[Account], [Symbol] , [Position]
FROM[Position]

UNION ALL

SELECTP.[Account] , IC.[ComponentSymbol] AS [Symbol] , (P.[Position] *
IC.[Shares]) AS [Position]
FROM[IndexComponent] IC
JOIN[Position] P
ONP.[Symbol] = IC.[IndexSymbol]
) D
GROUP BY[Account], [Symbol]
ORDER BY[Account], [Symbol](JayCallas@.hotmail.com) writes:
> I have a requirement where I need to perform a query for position
> information. But for some types of entries, I need to "expand" the row
> to include additional position rows. Let me explain with an example:
> An index is a security that is made up of components where each
> component has a "weight" or a number of shares. So if I have 1 share of
> the index, I have X shares of each component.

Now, this sounds funny to me, because in our system you can also define
indexes. However, indexes are virtual - you can never have a position
in an index directly. (But you can have a position in a derivative that
has the index as its contract base.)

> Is a UNION the best way to perform the query. What are the pros and
> cons? What, if any, is a better way?

There might be other alternatives, but I think the UNION query is fine.
Since I was given this query in my lap, I ran out of fantasy of trying
something else.

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

Books Online for SQL Server SP3 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techin.../2000/books.asp|||Not all index can have positions. For instance, the Dow Jones
Industrial Average is an an index but you cannot buy shares of it, only
shares of the components. But there is a class of indices called ETF
(Exchange Traded Fund) that you can buy and sell shares of. Here is a
link for the definition of an ETF,
http://www.investorwords.com/1755/ETF.html. (There are probably better
ones out there but this gives the basics.)|||(JayCallas@.hotmail.com) writes:
> Not all index can have positions. For instance, the Dow Jones
> Industrial Average is an an index but you cannot buy shares of it, only
> shares of the components. But there is a class of indices called ETF
> (Exchange Traded Fund) that you can buy and sell shares of. Here is a
> link for the definition of an ETF,
> http://www.investorwords.com/1755/ETF.html. (There are probably better
> ones out there but this gives the basics.)

I think we have those in Sweden as well. I would guess that our
customers handle them as stocks. At least I have not heard of any
requirement to add any support for them.

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

Books Online for SQL Server SP3 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techin.../2000/books.asp|||I expect the DOW JONES Industrial Average Index to rocket
up past 12500 by early 2006. Today it closed at 10530.

I won't be surprised if there is a Santa Claus Rally this year (2005).

Good luck,
Steve|||Stocks rally up early this coming week (Nov 7, 2005)

DOW +100 >
NAS +35 >
watch it happen
Good luck,
Steve