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
>