named server failed logon after installing MS04-011 patch

Need help urgently.
I have on win 2000 machine a default SQL Server (local) & a named SQL Server
instance (for separate web machine).
After installing the MS04-011 Patch last nite, the named SQL Server fails to
startup on reboot or manual. The default server on the other hand is runnin
g. But I cannot use the default server as it requires access within the loca
l machine only.
I tried uninstalling the patch, but it still cannot get the SQL server runni
ng again.
HOW CAN I RECOVER THE SQL Server Instance?
Additional info: On logon, following error massage:
"NtUninstall Q8877565\WinSys.cer" not found
before and after the uninstall of the patch.What error do you get when you start it? Is there anything in he SQL Server
errorlog when it fails?
Rand
This posting is provided "as is" with no warranties and confers no rights.|||Thank Rand for responding.
The Error is simply Login Failed. Service Manager shows the instance is stop
ped, while the Default Instance (Local) is started. Click start, and return
Login Failure again.
Any idea what's wrong and how I may recover the Instance?
Almon|||Error listing end at the last restart after patch install. That is, never re
start again.
Almon

named server failed logon after installing MS04-011 patch

Need help urgently
I have on win 2000 machine a default SQL Server (local) & a named SQL Server instance (for separate web machine)
After installing the MS04-011 Patch last nite, the named SQL Server fails to startup on reboot or manual. The default server on the other hand is running. But I cannot use the default server as it requires access within the local machine only
I tried uninstalling the patch, but it still cannot get the SQL server running again.
HOW CAN I RECOVER THE SQL Server Instance'
Additional info: On logon, following error massage
"NtUninstall Q8877565\WinSys.cer" not foun
before and after the uninstall of the patch.What error do you get when you start it? Is there anything in he SQL Server
errorlog when it fails?
Rand
This posting is provided "as is" with no warranties and confers no rights.|||Thank Rand for responding
The Error is simply Login Failed. Service Manager shows the instance is stopped, while the Default Instance (Local) is started. Click start, and return Login Failure again
Any idea what's wrong and how I may recover the Instance
Almo|||Error listing end at the last restart after patch install. That is, never restart again
Almo

named server failed logon after installing MS04-011 patch

Need help urgently.
I have on win 2000 machine a default SQL Server (local) & a named SQL Server instance (for separate web machine).
After installing the MS04-011 Patch last nite, the named SQL Server fails to startup on reboot or manual. The default server on the other hand is running. But I cannot use the default server as it requires access within the local machine only.
I tried uninstalling the patch, but it still cannot get the SQL server running again.
HOW CAN I RECOVER THE SQL Server Instance?
Additional info: On logon, following error massage:
"NtUninstall Q8877565\WinSys.cer" not found
before and after the uninstall of the patch.
What error do you get when you start it? Is there anything in he SQL Server
errorlog when it fails?
Rand
This posting is provided "as is" with no warranties and confers no rights.
|||Thank Rand for responding.
The Error is simply Login Failed. Service Manager shows the instance is stopped, while the Default Instance (Local) is started. Click start, and return Login Failure again.
Any idea what's wrong and how I may recover the Instance?
Almon
|||Error listing end at the last restart after patch install. That is, never restart again.
Almon
sql

Named Pipes problem

We have just installed SQL server on a Win 2003 server. We are getting the
following error message when we try to use it from the 2003 machine.
A connection was successfully established with the server, but then an error
occurred during the login process. (Provider: Named Pipes. Provider error
0 -
No process is on the other end of the Pipe.)
I am a networking guy and I don't know much about SQL (I just set up the
server) The Database guy is asking me for advice.
Next time you ask a question here, mention wich version of SQL youre using.
Check this article.
http://error.codebetter.com/blogs/sahil.malik/archive/2005/11/05/134318.aspx
I drank alot of beer and ended up in the police department database.
Drank more beer and learned SQL in the dark hours.
DELETE FROM offenders WHERE Title=''MrAA'' AND Year=2006;
I love SQL
"pogo" wrote:

> We have just installed SQL server on a Win 2003 server. We are getting the
> following error message when we try to use it from the 2003 machine.
> A connection was successfully established with the server, but then an error
> occurred during the login process. (Provider: Named Pipes. Provider error
> 0 -
> No process is on the other end of the Pipe.)
> I am a networking guy and I don't know much about SQL (I just set up the
> server) The Database guy is asking me for advice.
>
>
|||Sorry, Version is 2005 standard. Thanks for the info I'll try it.
"Hate_orphaned_users" <Hateorphanedusers@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:5460A768-4DF6-4671-BFF2-BE2384F462D9@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Next time you ask a question here, mention wich version of SQL youre
> using.
> Check this article.
> http://error.codebetter.com/blogs/sahil.malik/archive/2005/11/05/134318.aspx
>
> --
> I drank alot of beer and ended up in the police department database.
> Drank more beer and learned SQL in the dark hours.
> DELETE FROM offenders WHERE Title=''MrAA'' AND Year=2006;
> I love SQL
>
>
> "pogo" wrote:
|||Books Online also describes this error in the topic: "Troubleshooting: No
Process is on the Other End of the Pipe"
Rick Byham (MSFT)
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"pogo" <xx@.xx.com> wrote in message
news:uT9RyDZYHHA.408@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Sorry, Version is 2005 standard. Thanks for the info I'll try it.
>
> "Hate_orphaned_users" <Hateorphanedusers@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote
> in message news:5460A768-4DF6-4671-BFF2-BE2384F462D9@.microsoft.com...
>
sql

Named Pipes problem

We have just installed SQL server on a Win 2003 server. We are getting the
following error message when we try to use it from the 2003 machine.
A connection was successfully established with the server, but then an error
occurred during the login process. (Provider: Named Pipes. Provider error
0 -
No process is on the other end of the Pipe.)
I am a networking guy and I don't know much about SQL (I just set up the
server) The Database guy is asking me for advice.Next time you ask a question here, mention wich version of SQL youre using.
Check this article.
http://error.codebetter.com/blogs/s.../05/134318.aspx
I drank alot of beer and ended up in the police department database.
Drank more beer and learned SQL in the dark hours.
DELETE FROM offenders WHERE Title=''MrAA'' AND Year=2006;
I love SQL
"pogo" wrote:

> We have just installed SQL server on a Win 2003 server. We are getting the
> following error message when we try to use it from the 2003 machine.
> A connection was successfully established with the server, but then an err
or
> occurred during the login process. (Provider: Named Pipes. Provider error
> 0 -
> No process is on the other end of the Pipe.)
> I am a networking guy and I don't know much about SQL (I just set up the
> server) The Database guy is asking me for advice.
>
>|||Sorry, Version is 2005 standard. Thanks for the info I'll try it.
"Hate_orphaned_users" <Hateorphanedusers@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:5460A768-4DF6-4671-BFF2-BE2384F462D9@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Next time you ask a question here, mention wich version of SQL youre
> using.
> Check this article.
> [url]http://error.codebetter.com/blogs/sahil.malik/archive/2005/11/05/134318.aspx[/ur
l]
>
> --
> I drank alot of beer and ended up in the police department database.
> Drank more beer and learned SQL in the dark hours.
> DELETE FROM offenders WHERE Title=''MrAA'' AND Year=2006;
> I love SQL
>
>
> "pogo" wrote:
>|||Books Online also describes this error in the topic: "Troubleshooting: No
Process is on the Other End of the Pipe"
--
Rick Byham (MSFT)
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"pogo" <xx@.xx.com> wrote in message
news:uT9RyDZYHHA.408@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Sorry, Version is 2005 standard. Thanks for the info I'll try it.
>
> "Hate_orphaned_users" <Hateorphanedusers@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote
> in message news:5460A768-4DF6-4671-BFF2-BE2384F462D9@.microsoft.com...
>

Named Instance, Connectivity Question

I had XP Machine, with SQL Server 2000 Client
preinstalled.
This week, I installed MSDE 2000 under Named Instance.
After this, I restart my PC, I can see the Names Instance
is up running under Service window.
By My SQL server Enterprise Manager and SQL Analyzer wont
see the instance or any MSDE server.
Then I installed default Instance(no name), then
Enterprise Manager and SQL Analyzer can see MSDE sever
under LOCAL name, I assume this is the default instance.
My VB Data Enviroment can see a MSDE server under my
Computer name.
My Questiona are:
1. How do I login the named instance?
2. can I installed Named instance alone without a default
instance? if not, does the install sequence matters?
3. how to rollback my installation in case I want retry?
Greg Chang
hi Greg,
"Greg Chang" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:176dc01c418d4$3cb51410$a501280a@.phx.gbl...
> I had XP Machine, with SQL Server 2000 Client
> preinstalled.
> This week, I installed MSDE 2000 under Named Instance.
> After this, I restart my PC, I can see the Names Instance
> is up running under Service window.
> By My SQL server Enterprise Manager and SQL Analyzer wont
> see the instance or any MSDE server.
> Then I installed default Instance(no name), then
> Enterprise Manager and SQL Analyzer can see MSDE sever
> under LOCAL name, I assume this is the default instance.
> My VB Data Enviroment can see a MSDE server under my
> Computer name.
thi can be due to
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;EN-US;814132 ...
there are other undocumented issues regarding instance names not showing up
in the service manager list thought...

> My Questiona are:
> 1. How do I login the named instance?
you must provide the full name as ComputerName\InstanceName

> 2. can I installed Named instance alone without a default
> instance? if not, does the install sequence matters?
yes, you can install only a named instance, only a default instance, or upt
to 15 named instances and 1 default instance...

> 3. how to rollback my installation in case I want retry?
you have to fully uninstall it... go in control panel and use the
install/uninstall applet...
hth
Andrea Montanari (Microsoft MVP - SQL Server)
http://www.asql.biz/DbaMgr.shtmhttp://italy.mvps.org
DbaMgr2k ver 0.7.0 - DbaMgr ver 0.53.0
(my vb6+sql-dmo little try to provide MS MSDE 1.0 and MSDE 2000 a visual
interface)
-- remove DMO to reply

Named Instance

I couldn't connect to named instance in my client machine... I recieved the
error messange.. SQL Server Doesn't exist or Access denied. Can any one
guide me...
Thanks
See if this helps?
http://support.microsoft.com/default...265808&sd=tech
HTH,
Vyas, MVP (SQL Server)
SQL Server Articles and Code Samples @. http://vyaskn.tripod.com/
"Roy" <roy@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eVq00F$hFHA.500@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>I couldn't connect to named instance in my client machine... I recieved the
> error messange.. SQL Server Doesn't exist or Access denied. Can any one
> guide me...
> Thanks
>
>
sql

name of instance

I just setup a new database machine... in my home environment
and want to test replication and subscribion
I am using windows 2003 server and sql 2000 server,
i have create a instance name while installion... but after around 15
days...
the instance name automatic changed to "local".. and then I can not create a
replication anymore because the sql server said that "local" can as a name
of distributor ...
any anyone tell me what i can/should do?
Many Thanks..
Thanks in advanced.
Hi
If the instance is called (local) this would imply a default instance and
not a named instance! You can refer to a default instance by the machine name.
John
"beachboy" wrote:

> I just setup a new database machine... in my home environment
> and want to test replication and subscribion
> I am using windows 2003 server and sql 2000 server,
> i have create a instance name while installion... but after around 15
> days...
> the instance name automatic changed to "local".. and then I can not create a
> replication anymore because the sql server said that "local" can as a name
> of distributor ...
> any anyone tell me what i can/should do?
> Many Thanks..
> Thanks in advanced.
>
>

name of instance

I just setup a new database machine... in my home environment
and want to test replication and subscribion
I am using windows 2003 server and sql 2000 server,
i have create a instance name while installion... but after around 15
days...
the instance name automatic changed to "local".. and then I can not create a
replication anymore because the sql server said that "local" can as a name
of distributor ...
any anyone tell me what i can/should do?
Many Thanks..
Thanks in advanced.Hi
If the instance is called (local) this would imply a default instance and
not a named instance! You can refer to a default instance by the machine nam
e.
John
"beachboy" wrote:

> I just setup a new database machine... in my home environment
> and want to test replication and subscribion
> I am using windows 2003 server and sql 2000 server,
> i have create a instance name while installion... but after around 15
> days...
> the instance name automatic changed to "local".. and then I can not create
a
> replication anymore because the sql server said that "local" can as a name
> of distributor ...
> any anyone tell me what i can/should do?
> Many Thanks..
> Thanks in advanced.
>
>

name of instance

I just setup a new database machine... in my home environment
and want to test replication and subscribion
I am using windows 2003 server and sql 2000 server,
i have create a instance name while installion... but after around 15
days...
the instance name automatic changed to "local".. and then I can not create a
replication anymore because the sql server said that "local" can as a name
of distributor ...
any anyone tell me what i can/should do?
Many Thanks..
Thanks in advanced.Hi
If the instance is called (local) this would imply a default instance and
not a named instance! You can refer to a default instance by the machine name.
John
"beachboy" wrote:
> I just setup a new database machine... in my home environment
> and want to test replication and subscribion
> I am using windows 2003 server and sql 2000 server,
> i have create a instance name while installion... but after around 15
> days...
> the instance name automatic changed to "local".. and then I can not create a
> replication anymore because the sql server said that "local" can as a name
> of distributor ...
> any anyone tell me what i can/should do?
> Many Thanks..
> Thanks in advanced.
>
>

MYSQL error

While installing mysql server on a windows 2000 machine without a
firewall, I get an error numbered 1045. Access is denied for user
'root'@.'localhost' (using password: NO). If anyone has any ideas of
how to solve it, it would be much appreciated.
RB
This is a newsgroup for Microsoft SQL Server support. I am not trying to
chase you off or flame you, but you may not find te assistance you are
looking for here. You may want to look at http://forums.mysql.com/ for help
with your problem.
Of course, you could try SQL Express.
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...displaylang=en
Don't forget the SQL Express manager:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...displaylang=en
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
<slush@.albertaimit.ca> wrote in message
news:v0fua1lc7b2ftt4c5i81bvikeuk4t2k1l0@.4ax.com...
> While installing mysql server on a windows 2000 machine without a
> firewall, I get an error numbered 1045. Access is denied for user
> 'root'@.'localhost' (using password: NO). If anyone has any ideas of
> how to solve it, it would be much appreciated.
> RB
|||www.mysql.com
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
<slush@.albertaimit.ca> wrote in message
news:v0fua1lc7b2ftt4c5i81bvikeuk4t2k1l0@.4ax.com...
> While installing mysql server on a windows 2000 machine without a
> firewall, I get an error numbered 1045. Access is denied for user
> 'root'@.'localhost' (using password: NO). If anyone has any ideas of
> how to solve it, it would be much appreciated.
> RB

MYSQL error

While installing mysql server on a Windows 2000 machine without a
firewall, I get an error numbered 1045. Access is denied for user
'root'@.'localhost' (using password: NO). If anyone has any ideas of
how to solve it, it would be much appreciated.
RBThis is a newsgroup for Microsoft SQL Server support. I am not trying to
chase you off or flame you, but you may not find te assistance you are
looking for here. You may want to look at http://forums.mysql.com/ for help
with your problem.
Of course, you could try SQL Express.
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...&displaylang=en
Don't forget the SQL Express manager:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...&displaylang=en
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
<slush@.albertaimit.ca> wrote in message
news:v0fua1lc7b2ftt4c5i81bvikeuk4t2k1l0@.
4ax.com...
> While installing mysql server on a Windows 2000 machine without a
> firewall, I get an error numbered 1045. Access is denied for user
> 'root'@.'localhost' (using password: NO). If anyone has any ideas of
> how to solve it, it would be much appreciated.
> RB|||www.mysql.com
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
<slush@.albertaimit.ca> wrote in message
news:v0fua1lc7b2ftt4c5i81bvikeuk4t2k1l0@.
4ax.com...
> While installing mysql server on a Windows 2000 machine without a
> firewall, I get an error numbered 1045. Access is denied for user
> 'root'@.'localhost' (using password: NO). If anyone has any ideas of
> how to solve it, it would be much appreciated.
> RB

MYSQL error

While installing mysql server on a windows 2000 machine without a
firewall, I get an error numbered 1045. Access is denied for user
'root'@.'localhost' (using password: NO). If anyone has any ideas of
how to solve it, it would be much appreciated.
RBThis is a newsgroup for Microsoft SQL Server support. I am not trying to
chase you off or flame you, but you may not find te assistance you are
looking for here. You may want to look at http://forums.mysql.com/ for help
with your problem.
Of course, you could try SQL Express.
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=1A722B0F-6CCA-4E8B-B6EA-12D9C450ED92&displaylang=en
Don't forget the SQL Express manager:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=C7A5CC62-EC54-4299-85FC-BA05C181ED55&displaylang=en
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
<slush@.albertaimit.ca> wrote in message
news:v0fua1lc7b2ftt4c5i81bvikeuk4t2k1l0@.4ax.com...
> While installing mysql server on a windows 2000 machine without a
> firewall, I get an error numbered 1045. Access is denied for user
> 'root'@.'localhost' (using password: NO). If anyone has any ideas of
> how to solve it, it would be much appreciated.
> RB|||www.mysql.com
--
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
<slush@.albertaimit.ca> wrote in message
news:v0fua1lc7b2ftt4c5i81bvikeuk4t2k1l0@.4ax.com...
> While installing mysql server on a windows 2000 machine without a
> firewall, I get an error numbered 1045. Access is denied for user
> 'root'@.'localhost' (using password: NO). If anyone has any ideas of
> how to solve it, it would be much appreciated.
> RB

My new SQL Server

Hey guys,
I was hoping some of you people could shed some light on something
that's been puzzling me this morning. I had a SQL 7 machine with a DB that
contained millions of images. It was on a dual 1GHz P3 box with 2 GB of ram
running Windows NT. This machine was really old and so mission critical no
one wanted to touch it. Anyway, the nightly backup of this DB was
approaching 15 hours and the size was approaching the 137gb limitation in
both NT and the BIOS. I convinced my work that to fix these 2 problems we
need to do 2 things.
1.) Buy a new server, Dual 2.6GHz 2Gb RAM running windows 2000 server.
This will improve performance and upgrade a server that's in dire need of an
upgrade anyway and, most importantly, jump the 137gb hurdle.
2.) Move these 1 million plus images out of a DB structure and onto a
mirrored file structure. This will greatly reduce the backup time and the
actual size of the DB.
Well, I got the server...and I set it all up like I wanted except for
moving the images out of the DB. The DB backed up like normal last night
and I noticed that instead of 15 hours it successfully completed in 2.
Can the new servers speed really have been that effective in shortening
the backup time. I was expecting maybe a little faster...like from 15 hours
to maybe...at best 10, but, 2 hours. Wow!! Is this even possible or should
I look into some problem with the backup? If this is correct I wouldn't
need to move the images into a file structure. From what I have read,
because these images are small and used on our web pages, a database
structure like we have currently would be the better choice.
If anyone can shed some light on why the huge difference in backup times
it would be much appreciated. Any suggestions on what I should do with
these images are welcome too.
Thanks,
-Scott
Hi
Windows 2003 would probably bring better IO performance as Microsoft did a
lot of work on it.
If your DB is not yet dived up into file groups, do so. Then you can backup
and restore a single file group. This will help a lot in a DR scenario.
I like to store Images in a DB. A file system needs complicated directory
structure to support than number of images. Keeping the DB and images in sync
is another issue too.
Microsoft has proven with the TerraServer project that SQL server is
efficient when storing images in a DB.
Regards
Mike
"Scott Elgram" wrote:

> Hey guys,
> I was hoping some of you people could shed some light on something
> that's been puzzling me this morning. I had a SQL 7 machine with a DB that
> contained millions of images. It was on a dual 1GHz P3 box with 2 GB of ram
> running Windows NT. This machine was really old and so mission critical no
> one wanted to touch it. Anyway, the nightly backup of this DB was
> approaching 15 hours and the size was approaching the 137gb limitation in
> both NT and the BIOS. I convinced my work that to fix these 2 problems we
> need to do 2 things.
> 1.) Buy a new server, Dual 2.6GHz 2Gb RAM running windows 2000 server.
> This will improve performance and upgrade a server that's in dire need of an
> upgrade anyway and, most importantly, jump the 137gb hurdle.
> 2.) Move these 1 million plus images out of a DB structure and onto a
> mirrored file structure. This will greatly reduce the backup time and the
> actual size of the DB.
> Well, I got the server...and I set it all up like I wanted except for
> moving the images out of the DB. The DB backed up like normal last night
> and I noticed that instead of 15 hours it successfully completed in 2.
> Can the new servers speed really have been that effective in shortening
> the backup time. I was expecting maybe a little faster...like from 15 hours
> to maybe...at best 10, but, 2 hours. Wow!! Is this even possible or should
> I look into some problem with the backup? If this is correct I wouldn't
> need to move the images into a file structure. From what I have read,
> because these images are small and used on our web pages, a database
> structure like we have currently would be the better choice.
> If anyone can shed some light on why the huge difference in backup times
> it would be much appreciated. Any suggestions on what I should do with
> these images are welcome too.
> Thanks,
> --
> -Scott
>
>
|||Have you considered a third-party backup tool, e.g. SQL LiteSpeed? I think
you'll find even greater performance increases (although images may not
compress well depending on the format so that's hard to say)...
Adam Machanic
SQL Server MVP
http://www.sqljunkies.com/weblog/amachanic
"Scott Elgram" <SElgram@.verifpoint.com> wrote in message
news:OKM3nkcGFHA.3068@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Hey guys,
> I was hoping some of you people could shed some light on something
> that's been puzzling me this morning. I had a SQL 7 machine with a DB
that
> contained millions of images. It was on a dual 1GHz P3 box with 2 GB of
ram
> running Windows NT. This machine was really old and so mission critical
no
> one wanted to touch it. Anyway, the nightly backup of this DB was
> approaching 15 hours and the size was approaching the 137gb limitation in
> both NT and the BIOS. I convinced my work that to fix these 2 problems we
> need to do 2 things.
> 1.) Buy a new server, Dual 2.6GHz 2Gb RAM running windows 2000 server.
> This will improve performance and upgrade a server that's in dire need of
an
> upgrade anyway and, most importantly, jump the 137gb hurdle.
> 2.) Move these 1 million plus images out of a DB structure and onto a
> mirrored file structure. This will greatly reduce the backup time and the
> actual size of the DB.
> Well, I got the server...and I set it all up like I wanted except for
> moving the images out of the DB. The DB backed up like normal last night
> and I noticed that instead of 15 hours it successfully completed in 2.
> Can the new servers speed really have been that effective in
shortening
> the backup time. I was expecting maybe a little faster...like from 15
hours
> to maybe...at best 10, but, 2 hours. Wow!! Is this even possible or
should
> I look into some problem with the backup? If this is correct I wouldn't
> need to move the images into a file structure. From what I have read,
> because these images are small and used on our web pages, a database
> structure like we have currently would be the better choice.
> If anyone can shed some light on why the huge difference in backup
times
> it would be much appreciated. Any suggestions on what I should do with
> these images are welcome too.
> Thanks,
> --
> -Scott
>
|||Hey thanks,
Yeah, I looked into windows 2003 but given the size of the company and
the cost of the new server they wanted to save money. We already had a
spare copy of windows 2000 server so I used that. I also wanted to upgrade
to SQL 2000 but like with server 2003 with all the licenses I'd need they
said it would be too expensive.
What do you mean by my DB being dived up into file groups? Are you
suggesting I divide the actual database into multiple databases, i.e. a 2003
database containing images from 2003 and so on?
So is it possible then that just the huge jump in speed between my old
server and the new one solved my problem of the 15 hour backup? I still
find it hard to believe that it would make 86% reduction in time.
-Scott
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message
news:7153294A-229F-4B97-95B1-D6A055450CC2@.microsoft.com...
> Hi
> Windows 2003 would probably bring better IO performance as Microsoft did a
> lot of work on it.
> If your DB is not yet dived up into file groups, do so. Then you can
backup
> and restore a single file group. This will help a lot in a DR scenario.
> I like to store Images in a DB. A file system needs complicated directory
> structure to support than number of images. Keeping the DB and images in
sync[vbcol=seagreen]
> is another issue too.
> Microsoft has proven with the TerraServer project that SQL server is
> efficient when storing images in a DB.
> Regards
> Mike
> "Scott Elgram" wrote:
that[vbcol=seagreen]
ram[vbcol=seagreen]
no[vbcol=seagreen]
in[vbcol=seagreen]
we[vbcol=seagreen]
of an[vbcol=seagreen]
the[vbcol=seagreen]
for[vbcol=seagreen]
night[vbcol=seagreen]
shortening[vbcol=seagreen]
hours[vbcol=seagreen]
should[vbcol=seagreen]
times[vbcol=seagreen]

My new SQL Server

Hey guys,
I was hoping some of you people could shed some light on something
that's been puzzling me this morning. I had a SQL 7 machine with a DB that
contained millions of images. It was on a dual 1GHz P3 box with 2 GB of ram
running Windows NT. This machine was really old and so mission critical no
one wanted to touch it. Anyway, the nightly backup of this DB was
approaching 15 hours and the size was approaching the 137gb limitation in
both NT and the BIOS. I convinced my work that to fix these 2 problems we
need to do 2 things.
1.) Buy a new server, Dual 2.6GHz 2Gb RAM running Windows 2000 server.
This will improve performance and upgrade a server that's in dire need of an
upgrade anyway and, most importantly, jump the 137gb hurdle.
2.) Move these 1 million plus images out of a DB structure and onto a
mirrored file structure. This will greatly reduce the backup time and the
actual size of the DB.
Well, I got the server...and I set it all up like I wanted except for
moving the images out of the DB. The DB backed up like normal last night
and I noticed that instead of 15 hours it successfully completed in 2.
Can the new servers speed really have been that effective in shortening
the backup time. I was expecting maybe a little faster...like from 15 hours
to maybe...at best 10, but, 2 hours. Wow!! Is this even possible or should
I look into some problem with the backup? If this is correct I wouldn't
need to move the images into a file structure. From what I have read,
because these images are small and used on our web pages, a database
structure like we have currently would be the better choice.
If anyone can shed some light on why the huge difference in backup times
it would be much appreciated. Any suggestions on what I should do with
these images are welcome too.
Thanks,
--
-ScottHi
Windows 2003 would probably bring better IO performance as Microsoft did a
lot of work on it.
If your DB is not yet dived up into file groups, do so. Then you can backup
and restore a single file group. This will help a lot in a DR scenario.
I like to store Images in a DB. A file system needs complicated directory
structure to support than number of images. Keeping the DB and images in syn
c
is another issue too.
Microsoft has proven with the TerraServer project that SQL server is
efficient when storing images in a DB.
Regards
Mike
"Scott Elgram" wrote:

> Hey guys,
> I was hoping some of you people could shed some light on something
> that's been puzzling me this morning. I had a SQL 7 machine with a DB tha
t
> contained millions of images. It was on a dual 1GHz P3 box with 2 GB of r
am
> running Windows NT. This machine was really old and so mission critical n
o
> one wanted to touch it. Anyway, the nightly backup of this DB was
> approaching 15 hours and the size was approaching the 137gb limitation in
> both NT and the BIOS. I convinced my work that to fix these 2 problems we
> need to do 2 things.
> 1.) Buy a new server, Dual 2.6GHz 2Gb RAM running Windows 2000 server.
> This will improve performance and upgrade a server that's in dire need of
an
> upgrade anyway and, most importantly, jump the 137gb hurdle.
> 2.) Move these 1 million plus images out of a DB structure and onto a
> mirrored file structure. This will greatly reduce the backup time and the
> actual size of the DB.
> Well, I got the server...and I set it all up like I wanted except for
> moving the images out of the DB. The DB backed up like normal last night
> and I noticed that instead of 15 hours it successfully completed in 2.
> Can the new servers speed really have been that effective in shortenin
g
> the backup time. I was expecting maybe a little faster...like from 15 hou
rs
> to maybe...at best 10, but, 2 hours. Wow!! Is this even possible or shou
ld
> I look into some problem with the backup? If this is correct I wouldn't
> need to move the images into a file structure. From what I have read,
> because these images are small and used on our web pages, a database
> structure like we have currently would be the better choice.
> If anyone can shed some light on why the huge difference in backup tim
es
> it would be much appreciated. Any suggestions on what I should do with
> these images are welcome too.
> Thanks,
> --
> -Scott
>
>|||Have you considered a third-party backup tool, e.g. SQL LiteSpeed? I think
you'll find even greater performance increases (although images may not
compress well depending on the format so that's hard to say)...
Adam Machanic
SQL Server MVP
http://www.sqljunkies.com/weblog/amachanic
--
"Scott Elgram" <SElgram@.verifpoint.com> wrote in message
news:OKM3nkcGFHA.3068@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Hey guys,
> I was hoping some of you people could shed some light on something
> that's been puzzling me this morning. I had a SQL 7 machine with a DB
that
> contained millions of images. It was on a dual 1GHz P3 box with 2 GB of
ram
> running Windows NT. This machine was really old and so mission critical
no
> one wanted to touch it. Anyway, the nightly backup of this DB was
> approaching 15 hours and the size was approaching the 137gb limitation in
> both NT and the BIOS. I convinced my work that to fix these 2 problems we
> need to do 2 things.
> 1.) Buy a new server, Dual 2.6GHz 2Gb RAM running Windows 2000 server.
> This will improve performance and upgrade a server that's in dire need of
an
> upgrade anyway and, most importantly, jump the 137gb hurdle.
> 2.) Move these 1 million plus images out of a DB structure and onto a
> mirrored file structure. This will greatly reduce the backup time and the
> actual size of the DB.
> Well, I got the server...and I set it all up like I wanted except for
> moving the images out of the DB. The DB backed up like normal last night
> and I noticed that instead of 15 hours it successfully completed in 2.
> Can the new servers speed really have been that effective in
shortening
> the backup time. I was expecting maybe a little faster...like from 15
hours
> to maybe...at best 10, but, 2 hours. Wow!! Is this even possible or
should
> I look into some problem with the backup? If this is correct I wouldn't
> need to move the images into a file structure. From what I have read,
> because these images are small and used on our web pages, a database
> structure like we have currently would be the better choice.
> If anyone can shed some light on why the huge difference in backup
times
> it would be much appreciated. Any suggestions on what I should do with
> these images are welcome too.
> Thanks,
> --
> -Scott
>|||Hey thanks,
Yeah, I looked into windows 2003 but given the size of the company and
the cost of the new server they wanted to save money. We already had a
spare copy of Windows 2000 server so I used that. I also wanted to upgrade
to SQL 2000 but like with server 2003 with all the licenses I'd need they
said it would be too expensive.
What do you mean by my DB being dived up into file groups? Are you
suggesting I divide the actual database into multiple databases, i.e. a 2003
database containing images from 2003 and so on?
So is it possible then that just the huge jump in speed between my old
server and the new one solved my problem of the 15 hour backup? I still
find it hard to believe that it would make 86% reduction in time.
-Scott
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message
news:7153294A-229F-4B97-95B1-D6A055450CC2@.microsoft.com...
> Hi
> Windows 2003 would probably bring better IO performance as Microsoft did a
> lot of work on it.
> If your DB is not yet dived up into file groups, do so. Then you can
backup
> and restore a single file group. This will help a lot in a DR scenario.
> I like to store Images in a DB. A file system needs complicated directory
> structure to support than number of images. Keeping the DB and images in
sync[vbcol=seagreen]
> is another issue too.
> Microsoft has proven with the TerraServer project that SQL server is
> efficient when storing images in a DB.
> Regards
> Mike
> "Scott Elgram" wrote:
>
that[vbcol=seagreen]
ram[vbcol=seagreen]
no[vbcol=seagreen]
in[vbcol=seagreen]
we[vbcol=seagreen]
of an[vbcol=seagreen]
the[vbcol=seagreen]
for[vbcol=seagreen]
night[vbcol=seagreen]
shortening[vbcol=seagreen]
hours[vbcol=seagreen]
should[vbcol=seagreen]
times[vbcol=seagreen]

My new SQL Server

Hey guys,
I was hoping some of you people could shed some light on something
that's been puzzling me this morning. I had a SQL 7 machine with a DB that
contained millions of images. It was on a dual 1GHz P3 box with 2 GB of ram
running Windows NT. This machine was really old and so mission critical no
one wanted to touch it. Anyway, the nightly backup of this DB was
approaching 15 hours and the size was approaching the 137gb limitation in
both NT and the BIOS. I convinced my work that to fix these 2 problems we
need to do 2 things.
1.) Buy a new server, Dual 2.6GHz 2Gb RAM running windows 2000 server.
This will improve performance and upgrade a server that's in dire need of an
upgrade anyway and, most importantly, jump the 137gb hurdle.
2.) Move these 1 million plus images out of a DB structure and onto a
mirrored file structure. This will greatly reduce the backup time and the
actual size of the DB.
Well, I got the server...and I set it all up like I wanted except for
moving the images out of the DB. The DB backed up like normal last night
and I noticed that instead of 15 hours it successfully completed in 2.
Can the new servers speed really have been that effective in shortening
the backup time. I was expecting maybe a little faster...like from 15 hours
to maybe...at best 10, but, 2 hours. Wow!! Is this even possible or should
I look into some problem with the backup? If this is correct I wouldn't
need to move the images into a file structure. From what I have read,
because these images are small and used on our web pages, a database
structure like we have currently would be the better choice.
If anyone can shed some light on why the huge difference in backup times
it would be much appreciated. Any suggestions on what I should do with
these images are welcome too.
Thanks,
--
-ScottHi
Windows 2003 would probably bring better IO performance as Microsoft did a
lot of work on it.
If your DB is not yet dived up into file groups, do so. Then you can backup
and restore a single file group. This will help a lot in a DR scenario.
I like to store Images in a DB. A file system needs complicated directory
structure to support than number of images. Keeping the DB and images in sync
is another issue too.
Microsoft has proven with the TerraServer project that SQL server is
efficient when storing images in a DB.
Regards
Mike
"Scott Elgram" wrote:
> Hey guys,
> I was hoping some of you people could shed some light on something
> that's been puzzling me this morning. I had a SQL 7 machine with a DB that
> contained millions of images. It was on a dual 1GHz P3 box with 2 GB of ram
> running Windows NT. This machine was really old and so mission critical no
> one wanted to touch it. Anyway, the nightly backup of this DB was
> approaching 15 hours and the size was approaching the 137gb limitation in
> both NT and the BIOS. I convinced my work that to fix these 2 problems we
> need to do 2 things.
> 1.) Buy a new server, Dual 2.6GHz 2Gb RAM running windows 2000 server.
> This will improve performance and upgrade a server that's in dire need of an
> upgrade anyway and, most importantly, jump the 137gb hurdle.
> 2.) Move these 1 million plus images out of a DB structure and onto a
> mirrored file structure. This will greatly reduce the backup time and the
> actual size of the DB.
> Well, I got the server...and I set it all up like I wanted except for
> moving the images out of the DB. The DB backed up like normal last night
> and I noticed that instead of 15 hours it successfully completed in 2.
> Can the new servers speed really have been that effective in shortening
> the backup time. I was expecting maybe a little faster...like from 15 hours
> to maybe...at best 10, but, 2 hours. Wow!! Is this even possible or should
> I look into some problem with the backup? If this is correct I wouldn't
> need to move the images into a file structure. From what I have read,
> because these images are small and used on our web pages, a database
> structure like we have currently would be the better choice.
> If anyone can shed some light on why the huge difference in backup times
> it would be much appreciated. Any suggestions on what I should do with
> these images are welcome too.
> Thanks,
> --
> -Scott
>
>|||Have you considered a third-party backup tool, e.g. SQL LiteSpeed? I think
you'll find even greater performance increases (although images may not
compress well depending on the format so that's hard to say)...
Adam Machanic
SQL Server MVP
http://www.sqljunkies.com/weblog/amachanic
--
"Scott Elgram" <SElgram@.verifpoint.com> wrote in message
news:OKM3nkcGFHA.3068@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Hey guys,
> I was hoping some of you people could shed some light on something
> that's been puzzling me this morning. I had a SQL 7 machine with a DB
that
> contained millions of images. It was on a dual 1GHz P3 box with 2 GB of
ram
> running Windows NT. This machine was really old and so mission critical
no
> one wanted to touch it. Anyway, the nightly backup of this DB was
> approaching 15 hours and the size was approaching the 137gb limitation in
> both NT and the BIOS. I convinced my work that to fix these 2 problems we
> need to do 2 things.
> 1.) Buy a new server, Dual 2.6GHz 2Gb RAM running windows 2000 server.
> This will improve performance and upgrade a server that's in dire need of
an
> upgrade anyway and, most importantly, jump the 137gb hurdle.
> 2.) Move these 1 million plus images out of a DB structure and onto a
> mirrored file structure. This will greatly reduce the backup time and the
> actual size of the DB.
> Well, I got the server...and I set it all up like I wanted except for
> moving the images out of the DB. The DB backed up like normal last night
> and I noticed that instead of 15 hours it successfully completed in 2.
> Can the new servers speed really have been that effective in
shortening
> the backup time. I was expecting maybe a little faster...like from 15
hours
> to maybe...at best 10, but, 2 hours. Wow!! Is this even possible or
should
> I look into some problem with the backup? If this is correct I wouldn't
> need to move the images into a file structure. From what I have read,
> because these images are small and used on our web pages, a database
> structure like we have currently would be the better choice.
> If anyone can shed some light on why the huge difference in backup
times
> it would be much appreciated. Any suggestions on what I should do with
> these images are welcome too.
> Thanks,
> --
> -Scott
>|||Hey thanks,
Yeah, I looked into windows 2003 but given the size of the company and
the cost of the new server they wanted to save money. We already had a
spare copy of windows 2000 server so I used that. I also wanted to upgrade
to SQL 2000 but like with server 2003 with all the licenses I'd need they
said it would be too expensive.
What do you mean by my DB being dived up into file groups? Are you
suggesting I divide the actual database into multiple databases, i.e. a 2003
database containing images from 2003 and so on?
So is it possible then that just the huge jump in speed between my old
server and the new one solved my problem of the 15 hour backup? I still
find it hard to believe that it would make 86% reduction in time.
-Scott
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message
news:7153294A-229F-4B97-95B1-D6A055450CC2@.microsoft.com...
> Hi
> Windows 2003 would probably bring better IO performance as Microsoft did a
> lot of work on it.
> If your DB is not yet dived up into file groups, do so. Then you can
backup
> and restore a single file group. This will help a lot in a DR scenario.
> I like to store Images in a DB. A file system needs complicated directory
> structure to support than number of images. Keeping the DB and images in
sync
> is another issue too.
> Microsoft has proven with the TerraServer project that SQL server is
> efficient when storing images in a DB.
> Regards
> Mike
> "Scott Elgram" wrote:
> > Hey guys,
> > I was hoping some of you people could shed some light on something
> > that's been puzzling me this morning. I had a SQL 7 machine with a DB
that
> > contained millions of images. It was on a dual 1GHz P3 box with 2 GB of
ram
> > running Windows NT. This machine was really old and so mission critical
no
> > one wanted to touch it. Anyway, the nightly backup of this DB was
> > approaching 15 hours and the size was approaching the 137gb limitation
in
> > both NT and the BIOS. I convinced my work that to fix these 2 problems
we
> > need to do 2 things.
> > 1.) Buy a new server, Dual 2.6GHz 2Gb RAM running windows 2000 server.
> > This will improve performance and upgrade a server that's in dire need
of an
> > upgrade anyway and, most importantly, jump the 137gb hurdle.
> > 2.) Move these 1 million plus images out of a DB structure and onto a
> > mirrored file structure. This will greatly reduce the backup time and
the
> > actual size of the DB.
> > Well, I got the server...and I set it all up like I wanted except
for
> > moving the images out of the DB. The DB backed up like normal last
night
> > and I noticed that instead of 15 hours it successfully completed in 2.
> > Can the new servers speed really have been that effective in
shortening
> > the backup time. I was expecting maybe a little faster...like from 15
hours
> > to maybe...at best 10, but, 2 hours. Wow!! Is this even possible or
should
> > I look into some problem with the backup? If this is correct I wouldn't
> > need to move the images into a file structure. From what I have read,
> > because these images are small and used on our web pages, a database
> > structure like we have currently would be the better choice.
> >
> > If anyone can shed some light on why the huge difference in backup
times
> > it would be much appreciated. Any suggestions on what I should do with
> > these images are welcome too.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > --
> > -Scott
> >
> >
> >