sql dwh problem: setting

Showing posts with label setting. Show all posts

Monday, March 26, 2012

Dynamic Ports value changes

Hi,

Using SQL Configuration Manager, i have set my local instance to use TCP Dynamic Ports by setting the value under IPAll to be 0 (the value TCP Port is blank). However, when i start up the server this value gets set to a specific port. ie Before startup TCP Dynamic Ports = 0, After startup TCP Dynamic Ports = 2832. This value persists throughout SQL Server restarts.

Is this behaviour correct as I would have expected this value to stay 0?

I am using SQL Standard, SP2. SQL Browser is running.

Thanks in advance!

No the value will not stay to 0. The value displayed while SQL is running is the current port that SQL is listening on.

When setting SQL Server for a dynamic port, SQL Server selects an available port at random when starting up. That TCP port is used for the duration of the time that SQL Server is running. Upon shutdown and restart of SQL Server another port is selected.

|||Thanks very much for your response.

I'd just like to clarify that although the port selected will replace the 0 in the configuration GUI, the next time it starts up, it would still be aware that it is in dynamic ports "mode". I just want to ensure the following scenario would not happen:-

Dynamic Ports = 0
SQL Server starts up and dynamically assings port 2234
Dynamic Ports = 2234
Shut down SQL Server
New application starts and listens on port 2234
SQL Server tries to start up on port 2234 and fails.
Manually have to reset dynamic ports = 0

If this isn't the case thats ok though i find it a little confusing that the value doesn't stay at 0 in the GUI as you don't really have any indication that its set to use Dynamic Ports do you?
|||

Correct, it is still in dynamic mode.

The only way to know that it's using dynamic ports is that the number is in the "TCP Dynamic Ports" section not in the "TCP Port" section.

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

Dynamic memory setting

I have inherited a SQL 2K server that is having some severe performance
problems. The server has 8Gb memory with AWE enabled and 3GB/PAE setting in
the boot.ini. No other applications are running on the server. The available
memory is showing 1.2GB.
The previous administrator has the server set with a fixed memory setting of
8120MB.
My question, is there a benefit that I am unaware of in having the server set
with fixed memory versus dynamic? Is not dynamic memory a better
configuration when SQL Server is not competing with other applications?
--
Message posted via SQLMonster.com
http://www.sqlmonster.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/sql-server/200601/1If you are using AWE and you have 8GB you should set the MAX memory to no
more than 7GB since AWE is not dynamic in SQL2000.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Robert R via SQLMonster.com" <u3288@.uwe> wrote in message
news:5ad0d04f5b9b2@.uwe...
>I have inherited a SQL 2K server that is having some severe performance
> problems. The server has 8Gb memory with AWE enabled and 3GB/PAE setting
> in
> the boot.ini. No other applications are running on the server. The
> available
> memory is showing 1.2GB.
> The previous administrator has the server set with a fixed memory setting
> of
> 8120MB.
> My question, is there a benefit that I am unaware of in having the server
> set
> with fixed memory versus dynamic? Is not dynamic memory a better
> configuration when SQL Server is not competing with other applications?
> --
> Message posted via SQLMonster.com
> http://www.sqlmonster.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/sql-server/200601/1|||OK. Thanks, for making me aware of that, but what about the question(s) I
posed:
"Is there a benefit that I am unaware of in having the server set
with fixed memory versus dynamic? Is not dynamic memory a better
configuration when SQL Server is not competing with other applications?"
Andrew J. Kelly wrote:
>If you are using AWE and you have 8GB you should set the MAX memory to no
>more than 7GB since AWE is not dynamic in SQL2000.
>>I have inherited a SQL 2K server that is having some severe performance
>> problems. The server has 8Gb memory with AWE enabled and 3GB/PAE setting
>[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>> with fixed memory versus dynamic? Is not dynamic memory a better
>> configuration when SQL Server is not competing with other applications?
--
Message posted via SQLMonster.com
http://www.sqlmonster.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/sql-server/200601/1|||This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--010904070403070902020900
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Ordinarily, allowing SQL Server to dynamically manage the memory
available to it is the better (more efficient) option, however your
options are more limited with AWE memory. SQL Server 2000 does not swap
pages out of memory when using AWE memory (it locks pages in memory), so
you cannot use the dynamic memory management in SQL Server 2000 when you
allow SQL Server address space over 4GB - you must specify a max server
memory size (the pages in memory committed by SQL Server won't be
released until the SQL Server service shuts down).
SQL 2005 EE on Win 2003 takes advantage of changes to the underlying OS
and allows dynamic memory management with AWE, but with SQL 2000 (no
matter what OS) you're stuck with fixed AWE memory unfortunately.
So figure out how much memory is needed for the non-SQL stuff on the box
and allocate the rest to SQL Server. As Andrew suggested, a dedicated
SQL server with 8GB of physical RAM probably doesn't need more than
about 1GB for the OS et al. (monitoring agents, etc.), so you should be
OK allocating about 7GB to SQL Server.
--
*mike hodgson*
http://sqlnerd.blogspot.com
Robert R via SQLMonster.com wrote:
>I have inherited a SQL 2K server that is having some severe performance
>problems. The server has 8Gb memory with AWE enabled and 3GB/PAE setting in
>the boot.ini. No other applications are running on the server. The available
>memory is showing 1.2GB.
>The previous administrator has the server set with a fixed memory setting of
>8120MB.
>My question, is there a benefit that I am unaware of in having the server set
>with fixed memory versus dynamic? Is not dynamic memory a better
>configuration when SQL Server is not competing with other applications?
>
>
--010904070403070902020900
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<tt>Ordinarily, allowing SQL Server to </tt><tt>dynamically </tt><tt>manage
the memory available to it is the better (more efficient) option,
however your options are more limited with AWE memory. SQL Server 2000
does not swap pages out of memory when using AWE memory (it locks pages
in memory), so you cannot use the dynamic memory management in SQL
Server 2000 when you allow SQL Server address space over 4GB - you must
specify a max server memory size (the pages in memory committed by SQL
Server won't be released until the SQL Server service shuts down). 
 
SQL 2005 EE on Win 2003 takes advantage of changes to the underlying OS
and allows dynamic memory management with AWE, but with SQL 2000 (no
matter what OS) you're stuck with fixed AWE memory unfortunately. 
 
So figure out how much memory is needed for the non-SQL stuff on the
box and allocate the rest to SQL Server. As Andrew suggested, a
dedicated SQL server with 8GB of physical RAM probably doesn't need
more than about 1GB for the OS et al. (monitoring agents, etc.), so you
should be OK allocating about 7GB to SQL Server. 
</tt>
<div class="moz-signature">
<title></title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; ">
-- 
 mike
hodgson 
<a href="http://links.10026.com/?link=http://sqlnerd.blogspot.com</a>">http://sqlnerd.blogspot.com">http://sqlnerd.blogspot.com</a>

</div>
 
 
Robert R via SQLMonster.com wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid5ad0d04f5b9b2@.uwe" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I have inherited a SQL 2K server that is having some severe performance
problems. The server has 8Gb memory with AWE enabled and 3GB/PAE setting in
the boot.ini. No other applications are running on the server. The available
memory is showing 1.2GB.
The previous administrator has the server set with a fixed memory setting of
8120MB.
My question, is there a benefit that I am unaware of in having the server set
with fixed memory versus dynamic? Is not dynamic memory a better
configuration when SQL Server is not competing with other applications?
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>
--010904070403070902020900--|||Hello Robert
I administer myself a windows 2000 / SQL 2000 server with 8 GB of memory
( this erver has superior performance )
if you use PAE icw AWE enabled you should first calculate how manny memory
your server needs in a typicall load ( i use 512 MB for my windows 2000
advanced server )
now fix the rest of the memory size in the AWE setting for SQL use
if you start your task manager you should see that the 7,5 gigabytes is
constantly claimed by SQL server
> My question, is there a benefit that I am unaware of in having the server
> set
> with fixed memory versus dynamic? Is not dynamic memory a better
> configuration when SQL Server is not competing with other applications?
In my opinion it is the other way around ,,,, however with PAE and AWE this
is simply not an option
regards
Michel Posseth [MCP]
"Robert R via SQLMonster.com" <u3288@.uwe> wrote in message
news:5ad0d04f5b9b2@.uwe...
>I have inherited a SQL 2K server that is having some severe performance
> problems. The server has 8Gb memory with AWE enabled and 3GB/PAE setting
> in
> the boot.ini. No other applications are running on the server. The
> available
> memory is showing 1.2GB.
> The previous administrator has the server set with a fixed memory setting
> of
> 8120MB.
> My question, is there a benefit that I am unaware of in having the server
> set
> with fixed memory versus dynamic? Is not dynamic memory a better
> configuration when SQL Server is not competing with other applications?
> --
> Message posted via SQLMonster.com
> http://www.sqlmonster.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/sql-server/200601/1|||Hello, Robert!
To decide if you will use fixe the memory to SQL Server, you need to know
your environment. The SQL Server works better if it has memory enough to
process the information and transaction. If your SQL Server has any other
application installed you should not set fixed memory, because other process
must require more memory and the server will not have memory enough to
supress this request.
So, you should analyze it before and after that define if you will use fixed
memory or not.
I have problems too with hyper-memory allocation to SQL Server, or better, I
had define more memory that it needed.
I recomend for you, that you set a min memory and a maximum memory before,
monitor its performance and if you have many memory free, cache hit ratio
below 90% and other important counters to determine if SQL Server is using
memory efficiently.
If you need a help, please send me a message. Ok?
Take care, when you define fixed memory. You should monitor in System Monitor
(W2k ou W2k3) how many Pages/sec your server is paging because it. Ok?
Bye
Juliano Horta
Robert R wrote:
>I have inherited a SQL 2K server that is having some severe performance
>problems. The server has 8Gb memory with AWE enabled and 3GB/PAE setting in
>the boot.ini. No other applications are running on the server. The available
>memory is showing 1.2GB.
>The previous administrator has the server set with a fixed memory setting of
>8120MB.
>My question, is there a benefit that I am unaware of in having the server set
>with fixed memory versus dynamic? Is not dynamic memory a better
>configuration when SQL Server is not competing with other applications?
--
Message posted via SQLMonster.com
http://www.sqlmonster.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/sql-server/200601/1|||I thought that when I stated the memory was not dynamic it made this
irrelevant. It's rare that the Fixed memory option is used and I would
uncheck this but the memory in AWE is always static in SQL2000.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Robert R via SQLMonster.com" <u3288@.uwe> wrote in message
news:5ad1454f51cda@.uwe...
> OK. Thanks, for making me aware of that, but what about the question(s) I
> posed:
> "Is there a benefit that I am unaware of in having the server set
> with fixed memory versus dynamic? Is not dynamic memory a better
> configuration when SQL Server is not competing with other applications?"
>
> Andrew J. Kelly wrote:
>>If you are using AWE and you have 8GB you should set the MAX memory to no
>>more than 7GB since AWE is not dynamic in SQL2000.
>>I have inherited a SQL 2K server that is having some severe performance
>> problems. The server has 8Gb memory with AWE enabled and 3GB/PAE setting
>>[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>> with fixed memory versus dynamic? Is not dynamic memory a better
>> configuration when SQL Server is not competing with other applications?
> --
> Message posted via SQLMonster.com
> http://www.sqlmonster.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/sql-server/200601/1|||This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--020809020907060301070206
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I think you missed the bit where Robert said he has 8GB in his box and
therefore must use AWE (and therefore, by implication, cannot use
dynamic memory management).
--
*mike hodgson*
http://sqlnerd.blogspot.com
Juliano H via SQLMonster.com wrote:
>Hello, Robert!
>To decide if you will use fixe the memory to SQL Server, you need to know
>your environment. The SQL Server works better if it has memory enough to
>process the information and transaction. If your SQL Server has any other
>application installed you should not set fixed memory, because other process
>must require more memory and the server will not have memory enough to
>supress this request.
>So, you should analyze it before and after that define if you will use fixed
>memory or not.
>I have problems too with hyper-memory allocation to SQL Server, or better, I
>had define more memory that it needed.
>I recomend for you, that you set a min memory and a maximum memory before,
>monitor its performance and if you have many memory free, cache hit ratio
>below 90% and other important counters to determine if SQL Server is using
>memory efficiently.
>If you need a help, please send me a message. Ok?
>Take care, when you define fixed memory. You should monitor in System Monitor
>(W2k ou W2k3) how many Pages/sec your server is paging because it. Ok?
>Bye
>Juliano Horta
>
>Robert R wrote:
>
>>I have inherited a SQL 2K server that is having some severe performance
>>problems. The server has 8Gb memory with AWE enabled and 3GB/PAE setting in
>>the boot.ini. No other applications are running on the server. The available
>>memory is showing 1.2GB.
>>The previous administrator has the server set with a fixed memory setting of
>>8120MB.
>>My question, is there a benefit that I am unaware of in having the server set
>>with fixed memory versus dynamic? Is not dynamic memory a better
>>configuration when SQL Server is not competing with other applications?
>>
>
>
--020809020907060301070206
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<tt>I think you missed the bit where Robert said he has 8GB in his box
and therefore must use AWE (and therefore, by implication, cannot use
dynamic memory management).</tt> 
<div class="moz-signature">
<title></title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; ">
-- 
 mike
hodgson 
<a href="http://links.10026.com/?link=http://sqlnerd.blogspot.com</a>">http://sqlnerd.blogspot.com">http://sqlnerd.blogspot.com</a>

</div>
 
 
Juliano H via SQLMonster.com wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid5ad45d0f6773c@.uwe" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hello, Robert!
To decide if you will use fixe the memory to SQL Server, you need to know
your environment. The SQL Server works better if it has memory enough to
process the information and transaction. If your SQL Server has any other
application installed you should not set fixed memory, because other process
must require more memory and the server will not have memory enough to
supress this request.
So, you should analyze it before and after that define if you will use fixed
memory or not.
I have problems too with hyper-memory allocation to SQL Server, or better, I
had define more memory that it needed.
I recomend for you, that you set a min memory and a maximum memory before,
monitor its performance and if you have many memory free, cache hit ratio
below 90% and other important counters to determine if SQL Server is using
memory efficiently.
If you need a help, please send me a message. Ok?
Take care, when you define fixed memory. You should monitor in System Monitor
(W2k ou W2k3) how many Pages/sec your server is paging because it. Ok?
Bye
Juliano Horta
Robert R wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I have inherited a SQL 2K server that is having some severe performance
problems. The server has 8Gb memory with AWE enabled and 3GB/PAE setting in
the boot.ini. No other applications are running on the server. The available
memory is showing 1.2GB.
The previous administrator has the server set with a fixed memory setting of
8120MB.
My question, is there a benefit that I am unaware of in having the server set
with fixed memory versus dynamic? Is not dynamic memory a better
configuration when SQL Server is not competing with other applications?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>
--010103060909000305060202--

Sunday, March 11, 2012

Dynamic Filter Operator

Here is what I am trying to do in SSRS 2005.

Setting up filters based on parameters with an expression like this:

=Iif(Parameters!Company.Value = "", "", Fields!company.Value)

In the wizard we are creating, we are also letting the user choose the operator for each parameter that they choose. My question is how can I change the filter dynamically based on the user choosing a specific parameter and also choosing an operator to associate with that parameter?

Example 1: User 1 chooses the Company parameter to filter their report, and they choose the parameter to equal (=) a specific value. So the filter expression would be like the one previously mentioned and the operator would be an equal sign.

Example 2: User 2 chooses the Company parameter to filter their report, and they choose the parameter to be LIKE a specific value. So the filter expression would be like the one previously mentioned and the operator would be LIKE.

How can I do this?

Thanks in advance for your help.

You indicate you have a parameter named "Company"

first:
Create a parameter named "operator" and give it values "equals" and "like"

label value

equals equals
like like

Set the default value if you choose.

then:
Create a parameter named "filter" and leave it blank

Open the "table properties" and select "filter"

1st expression -
for the filter expression like:
=Iif(Parameters!Operator.Value = "equals", "", Fields!company.Value))
for the operator:
select the "like" operator
for the value:
=Iif(Parameters!Operator.Value = "equals", "", Switch(Parameters!Filter.Value = Parameters!Filter.Value, Parameters!Filter.Value & "*", Parameters!Filter.Value = nothing, "*"))

2nd expression -
for the filter expression equals:
=Iif(Parameters!Operator.Value = "like", "", Fields!company.Value))
for the operator:
select the "=" operator
for the value:
=Iif(Parameters!Operator.Value = "like", "", Parameters!Filter.Value)

This only covers one data field so when you select "like" you can enter the leter "A" in the filter parameter and all fields that start with "A" will be returned.
However if you select "equals" you need to know exactly what to type in other wise a dropdown would be great here.
If you leave the filter parameter blank and select "like" it will return all the data.
The options are endless. . .

|||

That is exactly what I was looking for!

Thanks very much

Dynamic Filter Operator

Here is what I am trying to do in SSRS 2005.

Setting up filters based on parameters with an expression like this:

=Iif(Parameters!Company.Value = "", "", Fields!company.Value)

How can I do this?

Thanks in advance for your help.

You indicate you have a parameter named "Company"

first:
Create a parameter named "operator" and give it values "equals" and "like"

label value

equals equals
like like

Set the default value if you choose.

then:
Create a parameter named "filter" and leave it blank

Open the "table properties" and select "filter"

|||

That is exactly what I was looking for!

Thanks very much

Wednesday, March 7, 2012

Dynamic date setting in loops

Hello everybody,

I've been trying to write a script to populate a table.
One filed is of 'date' type and I would like to insert dates different from record to record.
I thought about creating a loop and then try to increment the day (or the hour, I don'care) by using the loop index.
There comes of course a problem of casting from integers to strings (or date).

I tried to do something like:

DECLARE @.K INT
WHILE(@.K<10)
BEGIN
INSERT INTO TABLE1 (DATETIME) VALUES ('20071026 11:'||CAST(@.K AS VARCHAR)||'00')
SET @.K=@.K+1
END

but it didn't work ...

Would you please suggest a method of performing this action?

Thanks in advance,

Stefano.What is the data that you are trying to insert. I dont think the initial condition of the loop satisfies at all.|||The data type is 'datetime' and I was trying to build the string by a cat operation.
For instance, to build '20071025 12:28:40' I coded:

'20071025 12:'+cast(@.j+28, varchar)+':40'

where @.j is the loop variable.

The aim is to obtain strings with dates like:

..............................
'20071025 12:29:40'
'20071025 12:30:40'
'20071025 12:31:40'
'20071025 12:32:40'
'20071025 12:33:40'

and so on ...|||If you have the table like below:
TABLE1 ([DATETIME] DATETIME)

The modification your script to correct one as follows:

DECLARE @.K INT
SET @.K = 0
WHILE(@.K<10)
BEGIN
INSERT INTO TABLE1 (DATETIME) VALUES (convert(datetime,'2007-10-26 11:'+CAST(@.K AS VARCHAR)+':00'))
SET @.K=@.K+1
END|||I implemented the suggested modification, the parser says ok, but the run.time execution got the following error:

Server: Msg 242, Level 16, State 3, Line 12
The conversion of a char data to a datetime data type resulted in
an out-of-range datetime value.
The statement has been terminated

The troubles keep going ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by sayedul

If you have the table like below:
TABLE1 ([DATETIME] DATETIME)

The modification your script to correct one as follows:

DECLARE @.K INT
SET @.K = 0
WHILE(@.K<10)
BEGIN
INSERT INTO TABLE1 (DATETIME) VALUES (convert(datetime,'2007-10-26 11:'+CAST(@.K AS VARCHAR)+':00'))
SET @.K=@.K+1
END

|||I already found my error! I wrote incorrect datetime format!
Now everything works!

Sorry, I am stupid ...

Thanks a lot anyway for the helpful suggetsions!!!

Stefano.

Sunday, February 19, 2012

Dynamic columns

I am setting visible property for column based on user input. This works
fine. However, I need to be able to change the width to 0 for the column as
well so the report will not print blank pages. A matrix is NOT an option.
Report is too complicated. Unfortunately there is no expression option for
the column width. Is there any way of setting this to 0 or autosize' Also
need to adjust the body width dynamically.On May 29, 3:32 pm, Sherminator
<Shermina...@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
> I am setting visible property for column based on user input. This works
> fine. However, I need to be able to change the width to 0 for the column as
> well so the report will not print blank pages. A matrix is NOT an option.
> Report is too complicated. Unfortunately there is no expression option for
> the column width. Is there any way of setting this to 0 or autosize' Also
> need to adjust the body width dynamically.
Unfortunately, there are not very many options available if a matrix
control is not an option. You could try putting the table control(s)
in a rectangle. Also, you could try to rearrange the columns according
to the ones most likely to be invisible. Sorry that I could not be of
greater assistance.
Regards,
Enrique Martinez
Sr. Software Consultant|||It's not a matter of the columns not showing, so the order doesn't matter.
They do hide, however blank pages print because the body is over 18 inches
when all columns are populated. Unfortunately, the tablecolumn element is not
available thru the ReportItems collections. If it were I could reset the
width of the empty columns to 0 using a function and adjust the body width if
it too were available thru the ReportItems collection, however, those
elements are not available to my knowledge.
"EMartinez" wrote:
> On May 29, 3:32 pm, Sherminator
> <Shermina...@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
> > I am setting visible property for column based on user input. This works
> > fine. However, I need to be able to change the width to 0 for the column as
> > well so the report will not print blank pages. A matrix is NOT an option.
> > Report is too complicated. Unfortunately there is no expression option for
> > the column width. Is there any way of setting this to 0 or autosize' Also
> > need to adjust the body width dynamically.
>
> Unfortunately, there are not very many options available if a matrix
> control is not an option. You could try putting the table control(s)
> in a rectangle. Also, you could try to rearrange the columns according
> to the ones most likely to be invisible. Sorry that I could not be of
> greater assistance.
> Regards,
> Enrique Martinez
> Sr. Software Consultant
>

Wednesday, February 15, 2012

DWH Hardware Configuration

We are currently in the process of looking into setting up a Data WareHouse
in SQL2000 so that we can use Cognos to report on the data.
I am looking at what hardware to run SQL2000 on just for the DWH. On all of
our other SQL2000 servers we have a very VERY simply hardware config of a
single RAID controller with 2 mirrored drives for the OS and then 3+ drives
in RAID5 for the SQL Data and Logs (on same logical drive).
Obviously, I want to make sure that I configure the new machine around a DWH
environment so was wondering if anyone had any suggestions of the best way
of doing this.
The hardware I am looking at is an IBM x255 a couple of 18Gb drive mirrored
for the OS and then seperate logical drives for the log and data.
Should I use seperate RAID controllers for the SQL data and log?
Is RAID 5 the best way to go with regards to the log and data?
Anything else I should be looking for?
Thanks.What are the requirements? How much data, how well is modeled, how will it
be accessed, how many concurrent queries and what types of queries? Any end
user access or just cube builds? Any ad-hoc access?
"Peter Shankland" <aopz10@.dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:OUyPjwAwDHA.2448@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...

quote:

> We are currently in the process of looking into setting up a Data

WareHouse

quote:

> in SQL2000 so that we can use Cognos to report on the data.
> I am looking at what hardware to run SQL2000 on just for the DWH. On all

quote:

> our other SQL2000 servers we have a very VERY simply hardware config of a
> single RAID controller with 2 mirrored drives for the OS and then 3+

drives

quote:

> in RAID5 for the SQL Data and Logs (on same logical drive).
> Obviously, I want to make sure that I configure the new machine around a

DWH

quote:

> environment so was wondering if anyone had any suggestions of the best way
> of doing this.
> The hardware I am looking at is an IBM x255 a couple of 18Gb drive

mirrored

quote:

> for the OS and then seperate logical drives for the log and data.
> Should I use seperate RAID controllers for the SQL data and log?
> Is RAID 5 the best way to go with regards to the log and data?
> Anything else I should be looking for?
> Thanks.
>

Monday, March 26, 2012

Dynamic Ports value changes

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

Dynamic memory setting

Dynamic memory setting

Dynamic memory setting

Sunday, March 11, 2012

Dynamic Filter Operator

Dynamic Filter Operator

Wednesday, March 7, 2012

Dynamic date setting in loops

Sunday, February 19, 2012

Dynamic columns

Wednesday, February 15, 2012

DWH Hardware Configuration

sql dwh problem

Blog Archive

About Me