date and time diffs

Sunday, February 26, 2012

Databases Starting Repeatedly

I have four databases that show up in the database log as
starting over and over again. While this activity is
going on the web based application is unable to connect.
I have checked all available log files for errors but have
not received the first one as of yet.
I need to call on the experts in the field. Have any of
you ever seen this before? If so, what did you do to
correct the problem?
This is SQL Server 2000 Sp3 running on Windows 2000 Sp3
with 2GB of ram and two 2.4 GHZ processors.
I would appreciate anyone's help as this is a show stopper
for me. Thanks in advance.
A portion of log follows.
**********************************************
2003-09-29 09:53:38.42 server Microsoft SQL Server
2000 - 8.00.760 (Intel X86)
Dec 17 2002 14:22:05
Copyright (c) 1988-2003 Microsoft Corporation
Enterprise Edition on Windows NT 5.0 (Build 2195:
Service Pack 3)
2003-09-29 09:53:38.42 server Copyright (C) 1988-2002
Microsoft Corporation.
2003-09-29 09:53:38.42 server All rights reserved.
2003-09-29 09:53:38.42 server Server Process ID is 996.
2003-09-29 09:53:38.42 server Logging SQL Server
messages in file 'e:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL
Server\MSSQL\log\ERRORLOG'.
2003-09-29 09:53:38.42 server SQL Server is starting at
priority class 'normal'(4 CPUs detected).
2003-09-29 09:53:38.67 server SQL Server configured for
thread mode processing.
2003-09-29 09:53:38.67 server Using dynamic lock
allocation. [2500] Lock Blocks, [5000] Lock Owner Blocks.
2003-09-29 09:53:38.79 server Attempting to initialize
Distributed Transaction Coordinator.
2003-09-29 09:53:40.29 spid3 Starting up
database 'master'.
2003-09-29 09:53:40.74 spid3 Server name is 'HSMDB'.
2003-09-29 09:53:40.74 spid3 Skipping startup of clean
database id 5
2003-09-29 09:53:40.78 spid3 Skipping startup of clean
database id 6
2003-09-29 09:53:40.78 spid3 Skipping startup of clean
database id 7
2003-09-29 09:53:40.78 spid5 Starting up
database 'msdb'.
2003-09-29 09:53:40.78 spid6 Starting up
database 'hsmqa'.
2003-09-29 09:53:40.78 spid7 Starting up
database 'WebTrend'.
2003-09-29 09:53:40.78 server Using 'SSNETLIB.DLL'
version '8.0.760'.
2003-09-29 09:53:40.78 spid8 Starting up
database 'model'.
2003-09-29 09:53:40.78 spid9 Starting up
database 'WebData'.
2003-09-29 09:53:40.78 spid12 Starting up
database 'WebCache'.
2003-09-29 09:53:40.81 spid7 Analysis of
database 'WebTrend' (10) is 100% complete (approximately 0
more seconds)
2003-09-29 09:53:40.85 spid12 Analysis of
database 'WebCache' (12) is 100% complete (approximately 0
more seconds)
2003-09-29 09:53:40.92 server SQL server listening on
TCP, Shared Memory, Named Pipes.
2003-09-29 09:53:40.92 server SQL Server is ready for
client connections
2003-09-29 09:53:40.92 spid8 Clearing tempdb database.
2003-09-29 09:53:41.10 spid8 Starting up
database 'tempdb'.
2003-09-29 09:53:41.21 spid3 Recovery complete.
2003-09-29 09:53:41.21 spid3 SQL global counter
collection task is created.
2003-09-29 09:53:42.45 spid3 Launched startup
procedure 'hbi_unlock_objects'
2003-09-29 09:53:43.40 spid52 Using 'xpsqlbot.dll'
version '2000.80.194' to execute extended stored
procedure 'xp_qv'.
2003-09-29 09:54:26.79 spid53 Using 'xpstar.dll'
version '2000.80.760' to execute extended stored
procedure 'sp_MSgetversion'.
2003-09-29 09:54:30.64 spid53 Starting up
database 'hsmprod'.
2003-09-29 09:54:30.75 spid53 Starting up
database 'hsmtest'.
2003-09-29 09:54:30.84 spid53 Starting up
database 'hsmtrain'.
2003-09-29 09:55:44.43 spid53 Starting up
database 'hsmprod'.
2003-09-29 09:55:44.53 spid53 Starting up
database 'hsmtest'.
2003-09-29 09:55:44.62 spid53 Starting up
database 'hsmtrain'.
2003-09-29 09:55:45.98 spid53 Starting up
database 'hsmprod'.
2003-09-29 09:55:46.07 spid53 Starting up
database 'hsmprod'.
2003-09-29 09:55:46.17 spid53 Starting up
database 'hsmprod'.
2003-09-29 09:55:46.26 spid53 Starting up
database 'hsmprod'.
2003-09-29 09:55:46.36 spid53 Starting up
database 'hsmprod'.
2003-09-29 09:55:46.45 spid53 Starting up
database 'hsmprod'.
2003-09-29 09:55:46.57 spid53 Starting up
database 'hsmtest'.
2003-09-29 09:55:46.67 spid53 Starting up
database 'hsmtest'.
2003-09-29 09:55:46.76 spid53 Starting up
database 'hsmtest'.
2003-09-29 09:55:46.86 spid53 Starting up
database 'hsmtest'.
2003-09-29 09:55:46.95 spid53 Starting up
database 'hsmtest'.
2003-09-29 09:55:47.04 spid53 Starting up
database 'hsmtest'.
2003-09-29 09:55:47.14 spid53 Starting up
database 'hsmtrain'.
2003-09-29 09:55:47.23 spid53 Starting up
database 'hsmtrain'.
2003-09-29 09:55:47.32 spid53 Starting up
database 'hsmtrain'.
2003-09-29 09:55:47.42 spid53 Starting up
database 'hsmtrain'.
2003-09-29 09:55:47.53 spid53 Starting up
database 'hsmtrain'.
2003-09-29 09:55:47.62 spid53 Starting up
database 'hsmtrain'.
2003-09-29 09:55:47.76 spid53 Starting up
database 'hsmprod'.
2003-09-29 09:55:47.86 spid53 Starting up
database 'hsmprod'.
2003-09-29 09:55:47.95 spid53 Starting up
database 'hsmprod'.
2003-09-29 09:55:50.21 spid53 Starting up
database 'hsmprod'.
2003-09-29 09:55:50.31 spid53 Starting up
database 'hsmprod'.
2003-09-29 09:55:50.40 spid53 Starting up
database 'hsmprod'.
2003-09-29 09:55:50.93 spid53 Starting up
database 'hsmprod'.
2003-09-29 10:00:01.78 spid86 Starting up
database 'hsmtest'.
2003-09-29 10:00:01.87 spid86 Starting up
database 'hsmtrain'.
2003-09-29 10:00:01.98 spid86 Starting up
database 'hsmtest'.
2003-09-29 10:00:02.07 spid86 Starting up
database 'hsmtrain'.
2003-09-29 10:00:02.40 spid87 Starting up
database 'hsmtest'.
2003-09-29 10:00:02.51 spid87 Starting up
database 'hsmtrain'.Hi Thomas,
Such issues tend to be complex and require extensive research. I'd like to
set the right expectations and let you know that it may take a while for us
to help you narrow down the problem.
Please check to see if the "Auto close" is checked in the Option tab in the
property dialog of the database. If so, make sure this option is unchecked
and try to connect to SQL Server again. Does this resolve the problem?
If not, I would like you to provide me with more information regarding this
issue so that I can narrow down it.
Please make sure that the MSSQLServer service, for the SQL Server you are
trying to connect to, is started and running before doing any further
troubleshooting.
1. What do you mean by "the web based application is unable to connect"?
How do you connect SQL Server? Please describe it in detail. Do any error
messages occur?
2. Ping the server using the server name and IP address. See if the request
completes successfully or times out.
3. Can you connect to SQL Server using Query Analyzer? If not, does any
error message occur?
4. What is the MDAC version on the client machine? For more information
regarding how to check the MDAC version, please refer to the following
article:
301202 HOW TO: Check for MDAC Version
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=301202
5. Please provide the complete error log, you can send it at
v-yshao@.microsoft.com
I am standing by for your response.
Regards,
Michael Shao
Microsoft Online Partner Support
Get Secure! - www.microsoft.com/security
This posting is provided "as is" with no warranties and confers no rights.|||Most probably the autoclose database option turned on.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
Archive at: http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&as ugroup=microsoft.public.sqlserver
"Thomas Rhodes" <thomas.rhodes@.nghs.com> wrote in message
news:1c7601c386a0$fb9485d0$a001280a@.phx.gbl...
> I have four databases that show up in the database log as
> starting over and over again. While this activity is
> going on the web based application is unable to connect.
> I have checked all available log files for errors but have
> not received the first one as of yet.
> I need to call on the experts in the field. Have any of
> you ever seen this before? If so, what did you do to
> correct the problem?
> This is SQL Server 2000 Sp3 running on Windows 2000 Sp3
> with 2GB of ram and two 2.4 GHZ processors.
> I would appreciate anyone's help as this is a show stopper
> for me. Thanks in advance.
> A portion of log follows.
> **********************************************
> 2003-09-29 09:53:38.42 server Microsoft SQL Server
> 2000 - 8.00.760 (Intel X86)
> Dec 17 2002 14:22:05
> Copyright (c) 1988-2003 Microsoft Corporation
> Enterprise Edition on Windows NT 5.0 (Build 2195:
> Service Pack 3)
> 2003-09-29 09:53:38.42 server Copyright (C) 1988-2002
> Microsoft Corporation.
> 2003-09-29 09:53:38.42 server All rights reserved.
> 2003-09-29 09:53:38.42 server Server Process ID is 996.
> 2003-09-29 09:53:38.42 server Logging SQL Server
> messages in file 'e:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL
> Server\MSSQL\log\ERRORLOG'.
> 2003-09-29 09:53:38.42 server SQL Server is starting at
> priority class 'normal'(4 CPUs detected).
> 2003-09-29 09:53:38.67 server SQL Server configured for
> thread mode processing.
> 2003-09-29 09:53:38.67 server Using dynamic lock
> allocation. [2500] Lock Blocks, [5000] Lock Owner Blocks.
> 2003-09-29 09:53:38.79 server Attempting to initialize
> Distributed Transaction Coordinator.
> 2003-09-29 09:53:40.29 spid3 Starting up
> database 'master'.
> 2003-09-29 09:53:40.74 spid3 Server name is 'HSMDB'.
> 2003-09-29 09:53:40.74 spid3 Skipping startup of clean
> database id 5
> 2003-09-29 09:53:40.78 spid3 Skipping startup of clean
> database id 6
> 2003-09-29 09:53:40.78 spid3 Skipping startup of clean
> database id 7
> 2003-09-29 09:53:40.78 spid5 Starting up
> database 'msdb'.
> 2003-09-29 09:53:40.78 spid6 Starting up
> database 'hsmqa'.
> 2003-09-29 09:53:40.78 spid7 Starting up
> database 'WebTrend'.
> 2003-09-29 09:53:40.78 server Using 'SSNETLIB.DLL'
> version '8.0.760'.
> 2003-09-29 09:53:40.78 spid8 Starting up
> database 'model'.
> 2003-09-29 09:53:40.78 spid9 Starting up
> database 'WebData'.
> 2003-09-29 09:53:40.78 spid12 Starting up
> database 'WebCache'.
> 2003-09-29 09:53:40.81 spid7 Analysis of
> database 'WebTrend' (10) is 100% complete (approximately 0
> more seconds)
> 2003-09-29 09:53:40.85 spid12 Analysis of
> database 'WebCache' (12) is 100% complete (approximately 0
> more seconds)
> 2003-09-29 09:53:40.92 server SQL server listening on
> TCP, Shared Memory, Named Pipes.
> 2003-09-29 09:53:40.92 server SQL Server is ready for
> client connections
> 2003-09-29 09:53:40.92 spid8 Clearing tempdb database.
> 2003-09-29 09:53:41.10 spid8 Starting up
> database 'tempdb'.
> 2003-09-29 09:53:41.21 spid3 Recovery complete.
> 2003-09-29 09:53:41.21 spid3 SQL global counter
> collection task is created.
> 2003-09-29 09:53:42.45 spid3 Launched startup
> procedure 'hbi_unlock_objects'
> 2003-09-29 09:53:43.40 spid52 Using 'xpsqlbot.dll'
> version '2000.80.194' to execute extended stored
> procedure 'xp_qv'.
> 2003-09-29 09:54:26.79 spid53 Using 'xpstar.dll'
> version '2000.80.760' to execute extended stored
> procedure 'sp_MSgetversion'.
> 2003-09-29 09:54:30.64 spid53 Starting up
> database 'hsmprod'.
> 2003-09-29 09:54:30.75 spid53 Starting up
> database 'hsmtest'.
> 2003-09-29 09:54:30.84 spid53 Starting up
> database 'hsmtrain'.
> 2003-09-29 09:55:44.43 spid53 Starting up
> database 'hsmprod'.
> 2003-09-29 09:55:44.53 spid53 Starting up
> database 'hsmtest'.
> 2003-09-29 09:55:44.62 spid53 Starting up
> database 'hsmtrain'.
> 2003-09-29 09:55:45.98 spid53 Starting up
> database 'hsmprod'.
> 2003-09-29 09:55:46.07 spid53 Starting up
> database 'hsmprod'.
> 2003-09-29 09:55:46.17 spid53 Starting up
> database 'hsmprod'.
> 2003-09-29 09:55:46.26 spid53 Starting up
> database 'hsmprod'.
> 2003-09-29 09:55:46.36 spid53 Starting up
> database 'hsmprod'.
> 2003-09-29 09:55:46.45 spid53 Starting up
> database 'hsmprod'.
> 2003-09-29 09:55:46.57 spid53 Starting up
> database 'hsmtest'.
> 2003-09-29 09:55:46.67 spid53 Starting up
> database 'hsmtest'.
> 2003-09-29 09:55:46.76 spid53 Starting up
> database 'hsmtest'.
> 2003-09-29 09:55:46.86 spid53 Starting up
> database 'hsmtest'.
> 2003-09-29 09:55:46.95 spid53 Starting up
> database 'hsmtest'.
> 2003-09-29 09:55:47.04 spid53 Starting up
> database 'hsmtest'.
> 2003-09-29 09:55:47.14 spid53 Starting up
> database 'hsmtrain'.
> 2003-09-29 09:55:47.23 spid53 Starting up
> database 'hsmtrain'.
> 2003-09-29 09:55:47.32 spid53 Starting up
> database 'hsmtrain'.
> 2003-09-29 09:55:47.42 spid53 Starting up
> database 'hsmtrain'.
> 2003-09-29 09:55:47.53 spid53 Starting up
> database 'hsmtrain'.
> 2003-09-29 09:55:47.62 spid53 Starting up
> database 'hsmtrain'.
> 2003-09-29 09:55:47.76 spid53 Starting up
> database 'hsmprod'.
> 2003-09-29 09:55:47.86 spid53 Starting up
> database 'hsmprod'.
> 2003-09-29 09:55:47.95 spid53 Starting up
> database 'hsmprod'.
> 2003-09-29 09:55:50.21 spid53 Starting up
> database 'hsmprod'.
> 2003-09-29 09:55:50.31 spid53 Starting up
> database 'hsmprod'.
> 2003-09-29 09:55:50.40 spid53 Starting up
> database 'hsmprod'.
> 2003-09-29 09:55:50.93 spid53 Starting up
> database 'hsmprod'.
> 2003-09-29 10:00:01.78 spid86 Starting up
> database 'hsmtest'.
> 2003-09-29 10:00:01.87 spid86 Starting up
> database 'hsmtrain'.
> 2003-09-29 10:00:01.98 spid86 Starting up
> database 'hsmtest'.
> 2003-09-29 10:00:02.07 spid86 Starting up
> database 'hsmtrain'.
> 2003-09-29 10:00:02.40 spid87 Starting up
> database 'hsmtest'.
> 2003-09-29 10:00:02.51 spid87 Starting up
> database 'hsmtrain'.|||Michael:
First, Thank you for your reply. I appreciate the
professional level and degree of your response.
Second, yes the Auto Close was set. I have since removed
the check mark. I have several other databases running on
this server in support of the web based application I
mentioned. These other databases started normally and
remained so after I had restarted the server. If I had
given more thought to situation I could have compared the
properties between the problem databases and those that
functioned as expected. The problem ceased yesterday
morning around 10:00am even with the auto close still
set. I suspect the web application connection succeeded
and maintain its connection thereafter.
Just quickly, should others have interest, I'll respond to
your questions.
1. The web application could not connect from the web
application server. This is a separate server from the
database. I am not exactly sure how the vendor connects
to the database in the code behind the pages. No errors
reported back to Internet Explorer except that the page
could not be found. Basically the weblogic web server
could not start without the connection to the database.
2. I did ping all the servers associated with this
application. I receive successful results on all counts.
3. Yes I was able to connect to the database server using
Query Analyzer and was able to query tables and data from
the affected databases.
4. I have the latest MDAC installation that comes with
SQL SP3a.
Again, I thank you for your help.
Thomas
>--Original Message--
>Hi Thomas,
>Such issues tend to be complex and require extensive
research. I'd like to
>set the right expectations and let you know that it may
take a while for us
>to help you narrow down the problem.
>Please check to see if the "Auto close" is checked in the
Option tab in the
>property dialog of the database. If so, make sure this
option is unchecked
>and try to connect to SQL Server again. Does this resolve
the problem?
>If not, I would like you to provide me with more
information regarding this
>issue so that I can narrow down it.
>Please make sure that the MSSQLServer service, for the
SQL Server you are
>trying to connect to, is started and running before doing
any further
>troubleshooting.
>1. What do you mean by "the web based application is
unable to connect"?
>How do you connect SQL Server? Please describe it in
detail. Do any error
>messages occur?
>2. Ping the server using the server name and IP address.
See if the request
>completes successfully or times out.
>3. Can you connect to SQL Server using Query Analyzer? If
not, does any
>error message occur?
>4. What is the MDAC version on the client machine? For
more information
>regarding how to check the MDAC version, please refer to
the following
>article:
>301202 HOW TO: Check for MDAC Version
>http://support.microsoft.com/?id=301202
>5. Please provide the complete error log, you can send it
at
>v-yshao@.microsoft.com
>I am standing by for your response.
>Regards,
>Michael Shao
>Microsoft Online Partner Support
>Get Secure! - www.microsoft.com/security
>This posting is provided "as is" with no warranties and
confers no rights.
>.
>|||Hi Thomas,
Thank you for taking time to write in your experience so that it may help
other customers who may encounter similar issues. As per your previous
post, I am going consider this issue as Resolved. However, should you have
any further questions or concerns, please feel free to send your post here.
I will continue to work with you.
Thanks for using MSDN newsgroup again.
Regards,
Michael Shao
Microsoft Online Partner Support
Get Secure! - www.microsoft.com/security
This posting is provided "as is" with no warranties and confers no rights.

Databases show in EM but not in sysdatabases?

I'm managing the back end SQL 2000 instance for a vendors application. The
application allows users to create databases on the fly for testing, etc.
I opened the instance in Enterprise Manager, and noted that the number of
databases had grown to about a dozen (other than the system databases). Hmm
,
so being concerned about drive space, etc, I executed a sp_helpdb.
Yikes..only one of the dozen user databases showed in the listing for
sp_helpdb. Checked sysdatabases and sure enough only one user db shows.
But in EM I can open any of the other 11 DB's, open tables from them, view
options, etc etc. So I'm just curious, how can I view them in EM but they
don't show in sysdatabases?
TIAMy guess is that you are connecting to different SQL Server instances.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"bill_the_cat" <billthecat@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:AF04CEDA-BF16-415C-A652-CB7693F2F16D@.microsoft.com...
> I'm managing the back end SQL 2000 instance for a vendors application. Th
e
> application allows users to create databases on the fly for testing, etc.
> I opened the instance in Enterprise Manager, and noted that the number of
> databases had grown to about a dozen (other than the system databases). H
mm,
> so being concerned about drive space, etc, I executed a sp_helpdb.
> Yikes..only one of the dozen user databases showed in the listing for
> sp_helpdb. Checked sysdatabases and sure enough only one user db shows.
> But in EM I can open any of the other 11 DB's, open tables from them, view
> options, etc etc. So I'm just curious, how can I view them in EM but they
> don't show in sysdatabases?
> TIA|||<*blush*>..Sigh..one of those days. I did a 'Romo'. Time for a brewski.
"Tibor Karaszi" wrote:

> My guess is that you are connecting to different SQL Server instances.
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>
> "bill_the_cat" <billthecat@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:AF04CEDA-BF16-415C-A652-CB7693F2F16D@.microsoft.com...
>|||Happens to all of us... :-)
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"bill_the_cat" <billthecat@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:DBD746A2-59BE-49C8-90A9-757086DA9412@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> <*blush*>..Sigh..one of those days. I did a 'Romo'. Time for a brewski.
> "Tibor Karaszi" wrote:
>

Databases Progress

How Can connect tha Progress Databases in DTS?

Google gave me this list: http://www.sqlsummit.com/oledbVen.htm

of companies that offer OLE DB connectors for various systems. 2 of them offer something for progress.

-Jamie

|||

Progress have their own ODBC driver, which may be accessed using the .Net Data Reader source in SSIS, and the ODBC .Net Framework Data Provider

See http://www.psdn.com/library/servlet/KbServlet/download/1102-102-905/odr.pdf

Donald

Databases per Server

All,

I have 2 web applications running on 2 W2K servers. Each server has a local SQL server(2000). We are about to upgrade the servers to Windows 2003. The web applications are running classic ASP and VB COM+ objects. We are going to take the opportunity to seperate SQL from the web server. What will end up with is 2 web servers running the applications and a single database server with 2 databases servering up the data. We will upgrade the SQL2K to SQL2K5.

My question is how will the SQL performance be affected? What's the best place to locate the COM+ objects? What kind of pitfalls do I need to be aware of?

Thanks

Make sure that the consolidated box has suitable hardware to support both apps (memory, disks, processors). Also, remember that now the a failure of the SQL Server will bring down both while if one database starts hogging resources, the other would be adversely affected. Similarly you'll only have one set of system databases so make sure that tempdb is on a fast set of disks.

Certainly one area you may need to check any conflicts arising from any SQL Server configurations that may differ on the current boxes and also any login conflicts. Remember, also that future patches will be applied at the server level and both apps will need to be able to run on the same SQL version.

You are able to run multiple instances on one box which would allow you to allocate resources better to each application or could consider virtual servers which is becoming more and more popular these days.

HTH!

|||

Great advice - thanks!

What about the increase in network traffic. Is there something to do hardware wise? Like adding a second NIC card? Will that even make a difference?

Thanks

Databases Only

Hello,
I know to you this seems like a stupid question but I can get some microsoft
article that proves my point I feel our department is going to make a big
mistake.
We have an administrator (help desk supervisor) who wants to put an
application on our SQL server. The application is TRACK-IT, used for
helpdesk support and auditing. I realize this application will probably run
just fine on the Microsoft SQL 2000 server, but I was hoping I could leave it
just for databases. But, the person at the helpdesk who will run the app is
pushing to have installed right on the SQL server instead of our print/file
server. Is there any documentation out there that will support my position
that a SQL Server should be used for Databases only! This is kind of urgent,
I need something fast if I am going to prevent them from doing this
I know this might
Ed Boyer
Reasons not to:
-Could pose a security risk
-Could decrease performance
-Could negatively affect availability
Reasons to:
-None
HTH
Jerry
"EddieB" <EddieB@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C4BE62A0-6D9D-461D-96B6-2B163254C4E6@.microsoft.com...
> Hello,
> I know to you this seems like a stupid question but I can get some
> microsoft
> article that proves my point I feel our department is going to make a big
> mistake.
> We have an administrator (help desk supervisor) who wants to put an
> application on our SQL server. The application is TRACK-IT, used for
> helpdesk support and auditing. I realize this application will probably
> run
> just fine on the Microsoft SQL 2000 server, but I was hoping I could leave
> it
> just for databases. But, the person at the helpdesk who will run the app
> is
> pushing to have installed right on the SQL server instead of our
> print/file
> server. Is there any documentation out there that will support my
> position
> that a SQL Server should be used for Databases only! This is kind of
> urgent,
> I need something fast if I am going to prevent them from doing this
> I know this might
> --
> Ed Boyer
|||Is there a microsoft article that I can use to support this. I agree of
course, but apparently my opinion means nothing. She does not want to
listen. Which is too bad
Ed Boyer
"Jerry Spivey" wrote:

> Reasons not to:
> -Could pose a security risk
> -Could decrease performance
> -Could negatively affect availability
> Reasons to:
> -None
> HTH
> Jerry
> "EddieB" <EddieB@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:C4BE62A0-6D9D-461D-96B6-2B163254C4E6@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||Ed,
There are references to this in different white papers dealing with
performance, security and availability. I've read it but off the top of my
head I don't remember what page they were on and in what papers. What I
would do just to cover yourself is to document the reasons with examples of
why this is not your recommendation and email her and cc management and
yourself so if and when things do go sour you'll have some documentation to
fall back on.
HTH
Jerry
"EddieB" <EddieB@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:BBF845D1-FC64-4DEC-82A5-E45E5AF70927@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Is there a microsoft article that I can use to support this. I agree of
> course, but apparently my opinion means nothing. She does not want to
> listen. Which is too bad
> --
> Ed Boyer
>
> "Jerry Spivey" wrote:
|||Does this application use SQL for backend, or has its own, if its own is it
proprietary or another 3rd party db solution.
Will it install "middleware" or some sore of service to respond to clients
Does the SLA for this application allow for it to be down for SQL
maintenence
Does the SLA for you sql server allow it to go down due to this other
application
How does this other app access your system i.e is it a service running
under local SYSTEM account
How secure is this new app
on...and...on...and...on......
#4 @.
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techinf...sqlserver.mspx
Secure Operation:Surface and feature reduction @.
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro.../sp3sec04.mspx
"EddieB" <EddieB@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C4BE62A0-6D9D-461D-96B6-2B163254C4E6@.microsoft.com...
> Hello,
> I know to you this seems like a stupid question but I can get some
> microsoft
> article that proves my point I feel our department is going to make a big
> mistake.
> We have an administrator (help desk supervisor) who wants to put an
> application on our SQL server. The application is TRACK-IT, used for
> helpdesk support and auditing. I realize this application will probably
> run
> just fine on the Microsoft SQL 2000 server, but I was hoping I could leave
> it
> just for databases. But, the person at the helpdesk who will run the app
> is
> pushing to have installed right on the SQL server instead of our
> print/file
> server. Is there any documentation out there that will support my
> position
> that a SQL Server should be used for Databases only! This is kind of
> urgent,
> I need something fast if I am going to prevent them from doing this
> I know this might
> --
> Ed Boyer
|||If the said database is an SQL Server database, it must be attached to an
SQL Server. If the said SQL Server is the onlly SQL Server in your office,
you have no choice if you wna to use that app, which requires the said
database.
An SQL Server can serve mone that one database. If the SQL Server computer
has enough power to server that extra database, technically, there is
nothing wrong. As for other possible/potecial problem, such as added
security concern due extra SQL Server login required by that app..., it is
totally up to your analysis on your situation.
If you really do not want to mix the said app's database with your very
mission critical SQL Server, then you need another SQL Server to server that
database, or if the said database has very low work load, you may consider
use MSDE (free version of SQL Server) to server the database.
"EddieB" <EddieB@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C4BE62A0-6D9D-461D-96B6-2B163254C4E6@.microsoft.com...
> Hello,
> I know to you this seems like a stupid question but I can get some
> microsoft
> article that proves my point I feel our department is going to make a big
> mistake.
> We have an administrator (help desk supervisor) who wants to put an
> application on our SQL server. The application is TRACK-IT, used for
> helpdesk support and auditing. I realize this application will probably
> run
> just fine on the Microsoft SQL 2000 server, but I was hoping I could leave
> it
> just for databases. But, the person at the helpdesk who will run the app
> is
> pushing to have installed right on the SQL server instead of our
> print/file
> server. Is there any documentation out there that will support my
> position
> that a SQL Server should be used for Databases only! This is kind of
> urgent,
> I need something fast if I am going to prevent them from doing this
> I know this might
> --
> Ed Boyer
|||By the looks of the fine print
http://itsolutions.intuit.com/pdf/73...sLtr_05_is.pdf
This app installs MSDE, maybe it can use SQL As a back end in which case,
you may just need to house another db....
but middleware....dunno
"Norman Yuan" <NotReal@.NotReal.not> wrote in message
news:%23b6rty6vFHA.1996@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> If the said database is an SQL Server database, it must be attached to an
> SQL Server. If the said SQL Server is the onlly SQL Server in your office,
> you have no choice if you wna to use that app, which requires the said
> database.
> An SQL Server can serve mone that one database. If the SQL Server computer
> has enough power to server that extra database, technically, there is
> nothing wrong. As for other possible/potecial problem, such as added
> security concern due extra SQL Server login required by that app..., it is
> totally up to your analysis on your situation.
> If you really do not want to mix the said app's database with your very
> mission critical SQL Server, then you need another SQL Server to server
> that database, or if the said database has very low work load, you may
> consider use MSDE (free version of SQL Server) to server the database.
> "EddieB" <EddieB@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:C4BE62A0-6D9D-461D-96B6-2B163254C4E6@.microsoft.com...
>

Databases Only

Hello,
I know to you this seems like a stupid question but I can get some microsoft
article that proves my point I feel our department is going to make a big
mistake.
We have an administrator (help desk supervisor) who wants to put an
application on our SQL server. The application is TRACK-IT, used for
helpdesk support and auditing. I realize this application will probably run
just fine on the Microsoft SQL 2000 server, but I was hoping I could leave it
just for databases. But, the person at the helpdesk who will run the app is
pushing to have installed right on the SQL server instead of our print/file
server. Is there any documentation out there that will support my position
that a SQL Server should be used for Databases only! This is kind of urgent,
I need something fast if I am going to prevent them from doing this
I know this might
--
Ed BoyerReasons not to:
-Could pose a security risk
-Could decrease performance
-Could negatively affect availability
Reasons to:
-None
HTH
Jerry
"EddieB" <EddieB@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C4BE62A0-6D9D-461D-96B6-2B163254C4E6@.microsoft.com...
> Hello,
> I know to you this seems like a stupid question but I can get some
> microsoft
> article that proves my point I feel our department is going to make a big
> mistake.
> We have an administrator (help desk supervisor) who wants to put an
> application on our SQL server. The application is TRACK-IT, used for
> helpdesk support and auditing. I realize this application will probably
> run
> just fine on the Microsoft SQL 2000 server, but I was hoping I could leave
> it
> just for databases. But, the person at the helpdesk who will run the app
> is
> pushing to have installed right on the SQL server instead of our
> print/file
> server. Is there any documentation out there that will support my
> position
> that a SQL Server should be used for Databases only! This is kind of
> urgent,
> I need something fast if I am going to prevent them from doing this
> I know this might
> --
> Ed Boyer|||Is there a microsoft article that I can use to support this. I agree of
course, but apparently my opinion means nothing. She does not want to
listen. Which is too bad
--
Ed Boyer
"Jerry Spivey" wrote:
> Reasons not to:
> -Could pose a security risk
> -Could decrease performance
> -Could negatively affect availability
> Reasons to:
> -None
> HTH
> Jerry
> "EddieB" <EddieB@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:C4BE62A0-6D9D-461D-96B6-2B163254C4E6@.microsoft.com...
> > Hello,
> >
> > I know to you this seems like a stupid question but I can get some
> > microsoft
> > article that proves my point I feel our department is going to make a big
> > mistake.
> >
> > We have an administrator (help desk supervisor) who wants to put an
> > application on our SQL server. The application is TRACK-IT, used for
> > helpdesk support and auditing. I realize this application will probably
> > run
> > just fine on the Microsoft SQL 2000 server, but I was hoping I could leave
> > it
> > just for databases. But, the person at the helpdesk who will run the app
> > is
> > pushing to have installed right on the SQL server instead of our
> > print/file
> > server. Is there any documentation out there that will support my
> > position
> > that a SQL Server should be used for Databases only! This is kind of
> > urgent,
> > I need something fast if I am going to prevent them from doing this
> >
> > I know this might
> > --
> > Ed Boyer
>
>|||Ed,
There are references to this in different white papers dealing with
performance, security and availability. I've read it but off the top of my
head I don't remember what page they were on and in what papers. What I
would do just to cover yourself is to document the reasons with examples of
why this is not your recommendation and email her and cc management and
yourself so if and when things do go sour you'll have some documentation to
fall back on.
HTH
Jerry
"EddieB" <EddieB@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:BBF845D1-FC64-4DEC-82A5-E45E5AF70927@.microsoft.com...
> Is there a microsoft article that I can use to support this. I agree of
> course, but apparently my opinion means nothing. She does not want to
> listen. Which is too bad
> --
> Ed Boyer
>
> "Jerry Spivey" wrote:
>> Reasons not to:
>> -Could pose a security risk
>> -Could decrease performance
>> -Could negatively affect availability
>> Reasons to:
>> -None
>> HTH
>> Jerry
>> "EddieB" <EddieB@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:C4BE62A0-6D9D-461D-96B6-2B163254C4E6@.microsoft.com...
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > I know to you this seems like a stupid question but I can get some
>> > microsoft
>> > article that proves my point I feel our department is going to make a
>> > big
>> > mistake.
>> >
>> > We have an administrator (help desk supervisor) who wants to put an
>> > application on our SQL server. The application is TRACK-IT, used for
>> > helpdesk support and auditing. I realize this application will
>> > probably
>> > run
>> > just fine on the Microsoft SQL 2000 server, but I was hoping I could
>> > leave
>> > it
>> > just for databases. But, the person at the helpdesk who will run the
>> > app
>> > is
>> > pushing to have installed right on the SQL server instead of our
>> > print/file
>> > server. Is there any documentation out there that will support my
>> > position
>> > that a SQL Server should be used for Databases only! This is kind of
>> > urgent,
>> > I need something fast if I am going to prevent them from doing this
>> >
>> > I know this might
>> > --
>> > Ed Boyer
>>|||Does this application use SQL for backend, or has its own, if its own is it
proprietary or another 3rd party db solution.
Will it install "middleware" or some sore of service to respond to clients
Does the SLA for this application allow for it to be down for SQL
maintenence
Does the SLA for you sql server allow it to go down due to this other
application
How does this other app access your system i.e is it a service running
under local SYSTEM account
How secure is this new app
on...and...on...and...on......
#4 @.
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techinfo/administration/2000/security/securingsqlserver.mspx
Secure Operation:Surface and feature reduction @.
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2000/maintain/sp3sec04.mspx
"EddieB" <EddieB@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C4BE62A0-6D9D-461D-96B6-2B163254C4E6@.microsoft.com...
> Hello,
> I know to you this seems like a stupid question but I can get some
> microsoft
> article that proves my point I feel our department is going to make a big
> mistake.
> We have an administrator (help desk supervisor) who wants to put an
> application on our SQL server. The application is TRACK-IT, used for
> helpdesk support and auditing. I realize this application will probably
> run
> just fine on the Microsoft SQL 2000 server, but I was hoping I could leave
> it
> just for databases. But, the person at the helpdesk who will run the app
> is
> pushing to have installed right on the SQL server instead of our
> print/file
> server. Is there any documentation out there that will support my
> position
> that a SQL Server should be used for Databases only! This is kind of
> urgent,
> I need something fast if I am going to prevent them from doing this
> I know this might
> --
> Ed Boyer|||If the said database is an SQL Server database, it must be attached to an
SQL Server. If the said SQL Server is the onlly SQL Server in your office,
you have no choice if you wna to use that app, which requires the said
database.
An SQL Server can serve mone that one database. If the SQL Server computer
has enough power to server that extra database, technically, there is
nothing wrong. As for other possible/potecial problem, such as added
security concern due extra SQL Server login required by that app..., it is
totally up to your analysis on your situation.
If you really do not want to mix the said app's database with your very
mission critical SQL Server, then you need another SQL Server to server that
database, or if the said database has very low work load, you may consider
use MSDE (free version of SQL Server) to server the database.
"EddieB" <EddieB@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C4BE62A0-6D9D-461D-96B6-2B163254C4E6@.microsoft.com...
> Hello,
> I know to you this seems like a stupid question but I can get some
> microsoft
> article that proves my point I feel our department is going to make a big
> mistake.
> We have an administrator (help desk supervisor) who wants to put an
> application on our SQL server. The application is TRACK-IT, used for
> helpdesk support and auditing. I realize this application will probably
> run
> just fine on the Microsoft SQL 2000 server, but I was hoping I could leave
> it
> just for databases. But, the person at the helpdesk who will run the app
> is
> pushing to have installed right on the SQL server instead of our
> print/file
> server. Is there any documentation out there that will support my
> position
> that a SQL Server should be used for Databases only! This is kind of
> urgent,
> I need something fast if I am going to prevent them from doing this
> I know this might
> --
> Ed Boyer|||By the looks of the fine print
http://itsolutions.intuit.com/pdf/7376-r1_ti_sLtr_05_is.pdf
This app installs MSDE, maybe it can use SQL As a back end in which case,
you may just need to house another db....
but middleware....dunno
"Norman Yuan" <NotReal@.NotReal.not> wrote in message
news:%23b6rty6vFHA.1996@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> If the said database is an SQL Server database, it must be attached to an
> SQL Server. If the said SQL Server is the onlly SQL Server in your office,
> you have no choice if you wna to use that app, which requires the said
> database.
> An SQL Server can serve mone that one database. If the SQL Server computer
> has enough power to server that extra database, technically, there is
> nothing wrong. As for other possible/potecial problem, such as added
> security concern due extra SQL Server login required by that app..., it is
> totally up to your analysis on your situation.
> If you really do not want to mix the said app's database with your very
> mission critical SQL Server, then you need another SQL Server to server
> that database, or if the said database has very low work load, you may
> consider use MSDE (free version of SQL Server) to server the database.
> "EddieB" <EddieB@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:C4BE62A0-6D9D-461D-96B6-2B163254C4E6@.microsoft.com...
>> Hello,
>> I know to you this seems like a stupid question but I can get some
>> microsoft
>> article that proves my point I feel our department is going to make a big
>> mistake.
>> We have an administrator (help desk supervisor) who wants to put an
>> application on our SQL server. The application is TRACK-IT, used for
>> helpdesk support and auditing. I realize this application will probably
>> run
>> just fine on the Microsoft SQL 2000 server, but I was hoping I could
>> leave it
>> just for databases. But, the person at the helpdesk who will run the app
>> is
>> pushing to have installed right on the SQL server instead of our
>> print/file
>> server. Is there any documentation out there that will support my
>> position
>> that a SQL Server should be used for Databases only! This is kind of
>> urgent,
>> I need something fast if I am going to prevent them from doing this
>> I know this might
>> --
>> Ed Boyer
>

Sunday, February 26, 2012

Databases Starting Repeatedly

Databases show in EM but not in sysdatabases?

Databases show in EM but not in sysdatabases?

Databases Progress

Databases per Server

Databases Only

Databases Only

date and time diffs

Blog Archive

About Me