DSN issue/question..

I have 2 instances of SQL on the same box. I am running Great Plains on both. When I change the properties of one system DSN, it automatically updates the other entry also. Have any of you seen this before? Any insights would help.

Thanks

Sundar

You are in the wrong forum.

Try this for starters: http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowForum.aspx?ForumID=93&SiteID=1|||following Phil's suggestion, thread moved to DB Engine forum

Dropping a file in a filegroup that does not exist.

Hi,
I moved a database from an older sql box to one of our new servers. One of
the files in the prmiary file group was not moved and the server was wiped...
the filename is sysft_ix_STS_neo_1414639615. Everytime I try to do a backup
of that database I get a "file or firegroup is not online..." error message
and SQL won't let me drop it because it does not exist. Can anyone help me
out?Hi Henry
If there was data in this filegroup then you would have to resort to your
last backup.
John
"Henry" wrote:
> Hi,
> I moved a database from an older sql box to one of our new servers. One of
> the files in the prmiary file group was not moved and the server was wiped...
> the filename is sysft_ix_STS_neo_1414639615. Everytime I try to do a backup
> of that database I get a "file or firegroup is not online..." error message
> and SQL won't let me drop it because it does not exist. Can anyone help me
> out?|||I'm pretty certain this is the full text index and that rebuilding or removing full-text indexing
would solve this. This is what I recall from earlier post with the same problem.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"John Bell" <jbellnewsposts@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7E297789-FEFB-41D9-BF17-90BF96129198@.microsoft.com...
> Hi Henry
> If there was data in this filegroup then you would have to resort to your
> last backup.
> John
> "Henry" wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I moved a database from an older sql box to one of our new servers. One of
>> the files in the prmiary file group was not moved and the server was wiped...
>> the filename is sysft_ix_STS_neo_1414639615. Everytime I try to do a backup
>> of that database I get a "file or firegroup is not online..." error message
>> and SQL won't let me drop it because it does not exist. Can anyone help me
>> out?|||Hi Tibor
You are probably right! sp_help_fulltext_catalogs might verify this!
John
"Tibor Karaszi" wrote:
> I'm pretty certain this is the full text index and that rebuilding or removing full-text indexing
> would solve this. This is what I recall from earlier post with the same problem.
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>
> "John Bell" <jbellnewsposts@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7E297789-FEFB-41D9-BF17-90BF96129198@.microsoft.com...
> > Hi Henry
> >
> > If there was data in this filegroup then you would have to resort to your
> > last backup.
> >
> > John
> >
> > "Henry" wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I moved a database from an older sql box to one of our new servers. One of
> >> the files in the prmiary file group was not moved and the server was wiped...
> >> the filename is sysft_ix_STS_neo_1414639615. Everytime I try to do a backup
> >> of that database I get a "file or firegroup is not online..." error message
> >> and SQL won't let me drop it because it does not exist. Can anyone help me
> >> out?
>

Dropping a file in a filegroup that does not exist.

Hi,
I moved a database from an older sql box to one of our new servers. One of
the files in the prmiary file group was not moved and the server was wiped..
.
the filename is sysft_ix_STS_neo_1414639615. Everytime I try to do a backup
of that database I get a "file or firegroup is not online..." error message
and SQL won't let me drop it because it does not exist. Can anyone help me
out?Hi Henry
If there was data in this filegroup then you would have to resort to your
last backup.
John
"Henry" wrote:

> Hi,
> I moved a database from an older sql box to one of our new servers. One o
f
> the files in the prmiary file group was not moved and the server was wiped
..
> the filename is sysft_ix_STS_neo_1414639615. Everytime I try to do a back
up
> of that database I get a "file or firegroup is not online..." error messag
e
> and SQL won't let me drop it because it does not exist. Can anyone help m
e
> out?|||Hi Henry
If there was data in this filegroup then you would have to resort to your
last backup.
John
"Henry" wrote:

> Hi,
> I moved a database from an older sql box to one of our new servers. One o
f
> the files in the prmiary file group was not moved and the server was wiped
..
> the filename is sysft_ix_STS_neo_1414639615. Everytime I try to do a back
up
> of that database I get a "file or firegroup is not online..." error messag
e
> and SQL won't let me drop it because it does not exist. Can anyone help m
e
> out?|||I'm pretty certain this is the full text index and that rebuilding or removi
ng full-text indexing
would solve this. This is what I recall from earlier post with the same prob
lem.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"John Bell" <jbellnewsposts@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7E297789-FEFB-41D9-BF17-90BF96129198@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi Henry
> If there was data in this filegroup then you would have to resort to your
> last backup.
> John
> "Henry" wrote:
>|||Hi Tibor
You are probably right! sp_help_fulltext_catalogs might verify this!
John
"Tibor Karaszi" wrote:

> I'm pretty certain this is the full text index and that rebuilding or remo
ving full-text indexing
> would solve this. This is what I recall from earlier post with the same pr
oblem.
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>
> "John Bell" <jbellnewsposts@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7E297789-FEFB-41D9-BF17-90BF96129198@.microsoft.com...
>|||I'm pretty certain this is the full text index and that rebuilding or removi
ng full-text indexing
would solve this. This is what I recall from earlier post with the same prob
lem.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"John Bell" <jbellnewsposts@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7E297789-FEFB-41D9-BF17-90BF96129198@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi Henry
> If there was data in this filegroup then you would have to resort to your
> last backup.
> John
> "Henry" wrote:
>|||Hi Tibor
You are probably right! sp_help_fulltext_catalogs might verify this!
John
"Tibor Karaszi" wrote:

> I'm pretty certain this is the full text index and that rebuilding or remo
ving full-text indexing
> would solve this. This is what I recall from earlier post with the same pr
oblem.
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>
> "John Bell" <jbellnewsposts@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7E297789-FEFB-41D9-BF17-90BF96129198@.microsoft.com...
>

DropdownLIst box question, Stored Procedure

Hi All,

I have a dropdownlist box with values (All, Paris, London, New York) -- Cities

Another dropdwonlist box with values (All, Bank of America, City Bank, CIBC) -- Banks

And have a stored procedure that populates the info:

CREATE Procedure Search
(
@.City nvarchar(50),
@.Bank nvarchar(50)
)
AS SELECT * FROM TableA WHERE
city = @.city AND bank= @.bank GO

If user selects a value anything other than "All" in both dropdownbox, everything is OK.

My question is, if user selects "All" in any of these dropdown combobox, how can I seach for all Cities or Banks.

SQL needs to run as a stored procedure. If it was on client end, it would be alot easier.

Any ideas?

Thanks for your help.

Duplicate post, see
http://forums.asp.net/1138420/ShowPost.aspx

Dropdown menu help

I have a report with 4 parameters
2 of them are dropdown menus, one contains groups that populate the other
dropdown box with computer names. The report works great but I would like to
have an ALL function in the computer name dropdown box.
From poking around here I was able to plug a UNION SELECT 'All' AS
ComputerName into the dataset that builds the computername list but I am no
sql wiz by any stretch of the imagination and it seems that is just plugging
in All to the dropdown without any meaning behind it.
Has anyone done this sort of thing before or have any examples they could
share?
Thanks!
Kevinhttp://blogs.msdn.com/chrishays/archive/2004/07/27/199157.aspx
--
This post is provided 'AS IS' with no warranties, and confers no rights. All
rights reserved. Some assembly required. Batteries not included. Your
mileage may vary. Objects in mirror may be closer than they appear. No user
serviceable parts inside. Opening cover voids warranty. Keep out of reach of
children under 3.
"Kevin Serafin" <kevin.serafinISHEREATecolabDOTcom> wrote in message
news:enxx48jeEHA.2852@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> I have a report with 4 parameters
> 2 of them are dropdown menus, one contains groups that populate the other
> dropdown box with computer names. The report works great but I would like
to
> have an ALL function in the computer name dropdown box.
> From poking around here I was able to plug a UNION SELECT 'All' AS
> ComputerName into the dataset that builds the computername list but I am
no
> sql wiz by any stretch of the imagination and it seems that is just
plugging
> in All to the dropdown without any meaning behind it.
> Has anyone done this sort of thing before or have any examples they could
> share?
> Thanks!
> Kevin
>|||Thanks Chris, works great!
"Chris Hays [MSFT]" <chays@.online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:us4dvpleEHA.140@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> http://blogs.msdn.com/chrishays/archive/2004/07/27/199157.aspx
> --
> This post is provided 'AS IS' with no warranties, and confers no rights.
All
> rights reserved. Some assembly required. Batteries not included. Your
> mileage may vary. Objects in mirror may be closer than they appear. No
user
> serviceable parts inside. Opening cover voids warranty. Keep out of reach
of
> children under 3.
> "Kevin Serafin" <kevin.serafinISHEREATecolabDOTcom> wrote in message
> news:enxx48jeEHA.2852@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > I have a report with 4 parameters
> >
> > 2 of them are dropdown menus, one contains groups that populate the
other
> > dropdown box with computer names. The report works great but I would
like
> to
> > have an ALL function in the computer name dropdown box.
> >
> > From poking around here I was able to plug a UNION SELECT 'All' AS
> > ComputerName into the dataset that builds the computername list but I am
> no
> > sql wiz by any stretch of the imagination and it seems that is just
> plugging
> > in All to the dropdown without any meaning behind it.
> >
> > Has anyone done this sort of thing before or have any examples they
could
> > share?
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Kevin
> >
> >
>

dropdown box ?

Is there anyway i can have a dropdown box on the report ? -
not on the parameters list - but on the report.
ThanksNope. You can do drill down (and maybe immitate one).
Bruce Loehle-Conger
MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
"RP" <RP@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:16B29C30-C9E3-4F7A-8189-1620DCEFA15B@.microsoft.com...
> Is there anyway i can have a dropdown box on the report ? -
> not on the parameters list - but on the report.
> Thanks|||But how do i take the selected value ?
EX: if i have to select a country
i create a table with drill down
+Country
-Country
China
USA
UK
Australia
If the user clicks USA - how do i get the value ' i need to use that
value in other calulations.
Thanks
"Bruce L-C [MVP]" wrote:
> Nope. You can do drill down (and maybe immitate one).
>
> --
> Bruce Loehle-Conger
> MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
> "RP" <RP@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:16B29C30-C9E3-4F7A-8189-1620DCEFA15B@.microsoft.com...
> > Is there anyway i can have a dropdown box on the report ? -
> > not on the parameters list - but on the report.
> >
> > Thanks
>
>|||You cann't do what you want. Remember, RS is a reporting solution that
renders in a variety of formats, of which HTML is just one of them. There is
some interactivity (drill down, drill through and in 2005 dynamic sorting)
but it is not a web application environment. In the end it is a report.
Now, if you want to jump to something once they click on that you can do
that, but you cann't detect elsewhere in the report.
Bruce Loehle-Conger
MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
"RP" <RP@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:5A9923A8-AED0-4EDE-998C-E6BCFD84257A@.microsoft.com...
> But how do i take the selected value ?
> EX: if i have to select a country
> i create a table with drill down
> +Country
> -Country
> China
> USA
> UK
> Australia
> If the user clicks USA - how do i get the value ' i need to use that
> value in other calulations.
> Thanks
> "Bruce L-C [MVP]" wrote:
>> Nope. You can do drill down (and maybe immitate one).
>>
>> --
>> Bruce Loehle-Conger
>> MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
>> "RP" <RP@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:16B29C30-C9E3-4F7A-8189-1620DCEFA15B@.microsoft.com...
>> > Is there anyway i can have a dropdown box on the report ? -
>> > not on the parameters list - but on the report.
>> >
>> > Thanks
>>|||There are serveral solutions I think. Let say your report is named "report1"
The first is to create a parameter in your report f.e. "SelectedValue" (you
hide it from the user).
You make sure the rport loads with a default value for this parameter (f.e.
blank).
And then you create an action on your country values, that action will call
the same report "Report1" but now with the parameter "SelectedValue"
containing the name of your country.
I use this technique f.e. to highlight a matrix row that a user has selected
and at the same time show a sub-report with details of the selected row.
Another possibility, that I haven't tried yet. Is to make an action that
opens a very small report, in a small window (fe with the window.open
function you can size the window ref.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/workshop/author/dhtml/reference/methods/open_0.asp ).
The small report will only contain a few textboxes (arranged as a drop down
menu), you can even use parameters to fill them. You can than add actions to
these textboxes.
The only problem with this solution is that a selected action in the
"drop-down-menu" will have to open in another window (I thin there probably
is a solution for that to, but I haven't found it yet).
Hope this helps
"Bruce L-C [MVP]" wrote:
> You cann't do what you want. Remember, RS is a reporting solution that
> renders in a variety of formats, of which HTML is just one of them. There is
> some interactivity (drill down, drill through and in 2005 dynamic sorting)
> but it is not a web application environment. In the end it is a report.
> Now, if you want to jump to something once they click on that you can do
> that, but you cann't detect elsewhere in the report.
>
> --
> Bruce Loehle-Conger
> MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
> "RP" <RP@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:5A9923A8-AED0-4EDE-998C-E6BCFD84257A@.microsoft.com...
> > But how do i take the selected value ?
> > EX: if i have to select a country
> > i create a table with drill down
> >
> > +Country
> >
> > -Country
> > China
> > USA
> > UK
> > Australia
> >
> > If the user clicks USA - how do i get the value ' i need to use that
> > value in other calulations.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > "Bruce L-C [MVP]" wrote:
> >
> >> Nope. You can do drill down (and maybe immitate one).
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Bruce Loehle-Conger
> >> MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
> >>
> >> "RP" <RP@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >> news:16B29C30-C9E3-4F7A-8189-1620DCEFA15B@.microsoft.com...
> >> > Is there anyway i can have a dropdown box on the report ? -
> >> > not on the parameters list - but on the report.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>

Drop Down Box with edit/input by user

We have a report which is based on Schemes which have pre-defined
start and end dates. I have set up report parameters which are queried
and
the user can select these pre-determined values.. (The user choose a
"Scheme" and both dates are set).
However, there are occasions when the users want to enter a date other
than
one of these values.( by the date control). This I cant get RS to do?
How can I best achieve this switch from selection of a value in a drop
down
list to typing in a value in a text box. If the parameter is queried, a
drop
down list is displayed and the user cannot type in a value. There is no
option to use a "Combo" box and use the display value.
Any help appreciated.
Deepan (This question is takin from another question that was not
answered)I'm looking to do the same thing...
-Ben
Deepan wrote:
> We have a report which is based on Schemes which have pre-defined
> start and end dates. I have set up report parameters which are queried
> and
> the user can select these pre-determined values.. (The user choose a
> "Scheme" and both dates are set).
> However, there are occasions when the users want to enter a date other
> than
> one of these values.( by the date control). This I cant get RS to do?
>
> How can I best achieve this switch from selection of a value in a drop
> down
> list to typing in a value in a text box. If the parameter is queried, a
> drop
> down list is displayed and the user cannot type in a value. There is no
> option to use a "Combo" box and use the display value.
>
> Any help appreciated.
> Deepan (This question is takin from another question that was not
> answered)

Drop Down box not showing option

I'm using a drop down list for a parameter in RS2005. The issue comes when there is only one option. When I render the report inside the microsoft studio it works fine, but when I render the report from the Report Server (web browser) if there is only one option in the dropdown menu then it seems that it is there but I can't see it. It is a multivalued parameter. Is there a way to resize the dropdown list or any way I can fix this? Any help would be greatly appreciated.

This issue was fixed in a QFE. It will be available in SP2. The QFE is not publicly available, but if you need it you can contact Microsoft Customer support and they should be able to give you access to the QFE.|||

Thanks for your response. I contacted Microsoft Support and they told me I needed an article Number. Do you know that number?, If so, can you please send it to me?

Thanks again,

Pilar

|||Ok, here is the KB # for them 919556.

drive configuration on new sql server 2005 box?

I have a new dell 2850 server with 4 146gb drives attached to a raid 5
controller. I would like to know how I should setup the drives for
installation of server 2003 std os and sql server 2005. This server is going
to be a dedicated sql server to serve databases for web applications.
Thanks and let me know if I should supply any additional info.
Shelly Campbell
This will give you some ideas
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro...n/sqlops6.mspx
In BOL, index tab, type NTFS, see note.
SQL Server magazine had a good article on hardware for SQL Server . I can't
post it as it is for subscribers only
http://www.windowsitpro.com/SQLServe...92/46492.html#
In the nutshell, system = RAID1, logs = RAID1, data = case when cash poor
then RAID5 else RAID10 end.
Farmer.
"mp3nomad" <mp3nomad@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1923B0A6-06A2-4041-850A-C692718D54AB@.microsoft.com...
>I have a new dell 2850 server with 4 146gb drives attached to a raid 5
> controller. I would like to know how I should setup the drives for
> installation of server 2003 std os and sql server 2005. This server is
> going
> to be a dedicated sql server to serve databases for web applications.
> Thanks and let me know if I should supply any additional info.
> Shelly Campbell
|||Hi Shelly:
OS should always stay on RAID 1. No Exceptions should be made here.
For SQL Data, You can use RAID 5 if you wish to though RAID 5 is not the
best solution. For Faster Read\Write RAID 10 is the best solution but then it
has a cost attached to its performance.
Since you have 4x146 GB Drives on the machine, I would recommend that buy
another couple of drives identical in size and host RAID 1 on it and use it
for OS.
For other 4 drives set up RAID 5 and use them for SQL data and log.
Hope this helps.
"mp3nomad" wrote:

> I have a new dell 2850 server with 4 146gb drives attached to a raid 5
> controller. I would like to know how I should setup the drives for
> installation of server 2003 std os and sql server 2005. This server is going
> to be a dedicated sql server to serve databases for web applications.
> Thanks and let me know if I should supply any additional info.
> Shelly Campbell
|||Thanks! This helps.
"Farmer" wrote:

> This will give you some ideas
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro...n/sqlops6.mspx
> In BOL, index tab, type NTFS, see note.
> SQL Server magazine had a good article on hardware for SQL Server . I can't
> post it as it is for subscribers only
> http://www.windowsitpro.com/SQLServe...92/46492.html#
> In the nutshell, system = RAID1, logs = RAID1, data = case when cash poor
> then RAID5 else RAID10 end.
>
> Farmer.
> "mp3nomad" <mp3nomad@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:1923B0A6-06A2-4041-850A-C692718D54AB@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||Thanks Mark.
Since we're kind of tight on funds, I'm going to setup the drives as follows:
1 separate 36 gb drive for OS and SQL Server program install.
1 separate 146 gb drive for Tlogs.
3 146 gb disks in RAID 5 array for data.
Does this look acceptable? Not the best, but acceptable?
"mp3nomad" wrote:

> I have a new dell 2850 server with 4 146gb drives attached to a raid 5
> controller. I would like to know how I should setup the drives for
> installation of server 2003 std os and sql server 2005. This server is going
> to be a dedicated sql server to serve databases for web applications.
> Thanks and let me know if I should supply any additional info.
> Shelly Campbell
|||NO, this set up is not acceptable.
If you use only one drive for OS, if the drive fails, everything is gone.
Therefore, you must, must, and must use RAID 1 for OS which will involve a
minimum of 2 drives.
Here is what you need to remember:
RAID 1 requires at least 2 drives.
Raid 5 requires at least 3 drives.
If you use only 1 drive as you are mentionining, you can only build RAID 0
on it which gives no protection against data recovery.
I would say based on your server since it's not on SAN, use 2 drives for
RAID 1 and set up OS on it and use 4 drives for RAID 5 and set up SQL Data on
it. SQL Binaries can say on the same RAID Volume where OS resides.
I hope this helps.
"mp3nomad" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Thanks Mark.
> Since we're kind of tight on funds, I'm going to setup the drives as follows:
> 1 separate 36 gb drive for OS and SQL Server program install.
> 1 separate 146 gb drive for Tlogs.
> 3 146 gb disks in RAID 5 array for data.
> Does this look acceptable? Not the best, but acceptable?
> "mp3nomad" wrote:
|||I see. Ok.
Where would the transaction logs go? On the same RAID volume with the OS?
"Mark" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> NO, this set up is not acceptable.
> If you use only one drive for OS, if the drive fails, everything is gone.
> Therefore, you must, must, and must use RAID 1 for OS which will involve a
> minimum of 2 drives.
> Here is what you need to remember:
> RAID 1 requires at least 2 drives.
> Raid 5 requires at least 3 drives.
> If you use only 1 drive as you are mentionining, you can only build RAID 0
> on it which gives no protection against data recovery.
> I would say based on your server since it's not on SAN, use 2 drives for
> RAID 1 and set up OS on it and use 4 drives for RAID 5 and set up SQL Data on
> it. SQL Binaries can say on the same RAID Volume where OS resides.
> I hope this helps.
>
> "mp3nomad" wrote:
|||currently the server is configured as follows:
4 146 gb drives in RAID 5 container partitioned as C:\ (30 gb) and D:\
(remainder of space)
Windows Server 2003 w/ SP1 installed on C:\ partition
nothing else installed as yet
I'm trying to figure out if this setup is ok and then just add an additional
RAID 1 array for the transaction logs?
I appreciate your assistance.
Shelly
"Mark" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> NO, this set up is not acceptable.
> If you use only one drive for OS, if the drive fails, everything is gone.
> Therefore, you must, must, and must use RAID 1 for OS which will involve a
> minimum of 2 drives.
> Here is what you need to remember:
> RAID 1 requires at least 2 drives.
> Raid 5 requires at least 3 drives.
> If you use only 1 drive as you are mentionining, you can only build RAID 0
> on it which gives no protection against data recovery.
> I would say based on your server since it's not on SAN, use 2 drives for
> RAID 1 and set up OS on it and use 4 drives for RAID 5 and set up SQL Data on
> it. SQL Binaries can say on the same RAID Volume where OS resides.
> I hope this helps.
>
> "mp3nomad" wrote:
|||Do not put log on same drive where the OS is.
"mp3nomad" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> currently the server is configured as follows:
> 4 146 gb drives in RAID 5 container partitioned as C:\ (30 gb) and D:\
> (remainder of space)
> Windows Server 2003 w/ SP1 installed on C:\ partition
> nothing else installed as yet
> I'm trying to figure out if this setup is ok and then just add an additional
> RAID 1 array for the transaction logs?
> I appreciate your assistance.
> Shelly
> "Mark" wrote:
|||ok. thanks! we're trying to configure this box the best we can based on the
hardware we can afford to purchase.
"Mark" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Do not put log on same drive where the OS is.
> "mp3nomad" wrote:

drive configuration on new sql server 2005 box?

I have a new dell 2850 server with 4 146gb drives attached to a raid 5
controller. I would like to know how I should setup the drives for
installation of server 2003 std os and sql server 2005. This server is going
to be a dedicated sql server to serve databases for web applications.
Thanks and let me know if I should supply any additional info.
Shelly CampbellThis will give you some ideas
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2000/maintain/sqlops6.mspx
In BOL, index tab, type NTFS, see note.
SQL Server magazine had a good article on hardware for SQL Server . I can't
post it as it is for subscribers only
http://www.windowsitpro.com/SQLServer/Article/ArticleID/46492/46492.html#
In the nutshell, system = RAID1, logs = RAID1, data = case when cash poor
then RAID5 else RAID10 end.
Farmer.
"mp3nomad" <mp3nomad@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1923B0A6-06A2-4041-850A-C692718D54AB@.microsoft.com...
>I have a new dell 2850 server with 4 146gb drives attached to a raid 5
> controller. I would like to know how I should setup the drives for
> installation of server 2003 std os and sql server 2005. This server is
> going
> to be a dedicated sql server to serve databases for web applications.
> Thanks and let me know if I should supply any additional info.
> Shelly Campbell|||Hi Shelly:
OS should always stay on RAID 1. No Exceptions should be made here.
For SQL Data, You can use RAID 5 if you wish to though RAID 5 is not the
best solution. For Faster Read\Write RAID 10 is the best solution but then it
has a cost attached to its performance.
Since you have 4x146 GB Drives on the machine, I would recommend that buy
another couple of drives identical in size and host RAID 1 on it and use it
for OS.
For other 4 drives set up RAID 5 and use them for SQL data and log.
Hope this helps.
"mp3nomad" wrote:
> I have a new dell 2850 server with 4 146gb drives attached to a raid 5
> controller. I would like to know how I should setup the drives for
> installation of server 2003 std os and sql server 2005. This server is going
> to be a dedicated sql server to serve databases for web applications.
> Thanks and let me know if I should supply any additional info.
> Shelly Campbell|||Thanks! This helps.
"Farmer" wrote:
> This will give you some ideas
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2000/maintain/sqlops6.mspx
> In BOL, index tab, type NTFS, see note.
> SQL Server magazine had a good article on hardware for SQL Server . I can't
> post it as it is for subscribers only
> http://www.windowsitpro.com/SQLServer/Article/ArticleID/46492/46492.html#
> In the nutshell, system = RAID1, logs = RAID1, data = case when cash poor
> then RAID5 else RAID10 end.
>
> Farmer.
> "mp3nomad" <mp3nomad@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:1923B0A6-06A2-4041-850A-C692718D54AB@.microsoft.com...
> >I have a new dell 2850 server with 4 146gb drives attached to a raid 5
> > controller. I would like to know how I should setup the drives for
> > installation of server 2003 std os and sql server 2005. This server is
> > going
> > to be a dedicated sql server to serve databases for web applications.
> >
> > Thanks and let me know if I should supply any additional info.
> >
> > Shelly Campbell
>
>|||Thanks Mark.
Since we're kind of tight on funds, I'm going to setup the drives as follows:
1 separate 36 gb drive for OS and SQL Server program install.
1 separate 146 gb drive for Tlogs.
3 146 gb disks in RAID 5 array for data.
Does this look acceptable? Not the best, but acceptable?
"mp3nomad" wrote:
> I have a new dell 2850 server with 4 146gb drives attached to a raid 5
> controller. I would like to know how I should setup the drives for
> installation of server 2003 std os and sql server 2005. This server is going
> to be a dedicated sql server to serve databases for web applications.
> Thanks and let me know if I should supply any additional info.
> Shelly Campbell|||NO, this set up is not acceptable.
If you use only one drive for OS, if the drive fails, everything is gone.
Therefore, you must, must, and must use RAID 1 for OS which will involve a
minimum of 2 drives.
Here is what you need to remember:
RAID 1 requires at least 2 drives.
Raid 5 requires at least 3 drives.
If you use only 1 drive as you are mentionining, you can only build RAID 0
on it which gives no protection against data recovery.
I would say based on your server since it's not on SAN, use 2 drives for
RAID 1 and set up OS on it and use 4 drives for RAID 5 and set up SQL Data on
it. SQL Binaries can say on the same RAID Volume where OS resides.
I hope this helps.
"mp3nomad" wrote:
> Thanks Mark.
> Since we're kind of tight on funds, I'm going to setup the drives as follows:
> 1 separate 36 gb drive for OS and SQL Server program install.
> 1 separate 146 gb drive for Tlogs.
> 3 146 gb disks in RAID 5 array for data.
> Does this look acceptable? Not the best, but acceptable?
> "mp3nomad" wrote:
> > I have a new dell 2850 server with 4 146gb drives attached to a raid 5
> > controller. I would like to know how I should setup the drives for
> > installation of server 2003 std os and sql server 2005. This server is going
> > to be a dedicated sql server to serve databases for web applications.
> >
> > Thanks and let me know if I should supply any additional info.
> >
> > Shelly Campbell|||I see. Ok.
Where would the transaction logs go? On the same RAID volume with the OS?
"Mark" wrote:
> NO, this set up is not acceptable.
> If you use only one drive for OS, if the drive fails, everything is gone.
> Therefore, you must, must, and must use RAID 1 for OS which will involve a
> minimum of 2 drives.
> Here is what you need to remember:
> RAID 1 requires at least 2 drives.
> Raid 5 requires at least 3 drives.
> If you use only 1 drive as you are mentionining, you can only build RAID 0
> on it which gives no protection against data recovery.
> I would say based on your server since it's not on SAN, use 2 drives for
> RAID 1 and set up OS on it and use 4 drives for RAID 5 and set up SQL Data on
> it. SQL Binaries can say on the same RAID Volume where OS resides.
> I hope this helps.
>
> "mp3nomad" wrote:
> > Thanks Mark.
> >
> > Since we're kind of tight on funds, I'm going to setup the drives as follows:
> >
> > 1 separate 36 gb drive for OS and SQL Server program install.
> > 1 separate 146 gb drive for Tlogs.
> > 3 146 gb disks in RAID 5 array for data.
> >
> > Does this look acceptable? Not the best, but acceptable?
> >
> > "mp3nomad" wrote:
> >
> > > I have a new dell 2850 server with 4 146gb drives attached to a raid 5
> > > controller. I would like to know how I should setup the drives for
> > > installation of server 2003 std os and sql server 2005. This server is going
> > > to be a dedicated sql server to serve databases for web applications.
> > >
> > > Thanks and let me know if I should supply any additional info.
> > >
> > > Shelly Campbell|||currently the server is configured as follows:
4 146 gb drives in RAID 5 container partitioned as C:\ (30 gb) and D:\
(remainder of space)
Windows Server 2003 w/ SP1 installed on C:\ partition
nothing else installed as yet
I'm trying to figure out if this setup is ok and then just add an additional
RAID 1 array for the transaction logs?
I appreciate your assistance.
Shelly
"Mark" wrote:
> NO, this set up is not acceptable.
> If you use only one drive for OS, if the drive fails, everything is gone.
> Therefore, you must, must, and must use RAID 1 for OS which will involve a
> minimum of 2 drives.
> Here is what you need to remember:
> RAID 1 requires at least 2 drives.
> Raid 5 requires at least 3 drives.
> If you use only 1 drive as you are mentionining, you can only build RAID 0
> on it which gives no protection against data recovery.
> I would say based on your server since it's not on SAN, use 2 drives for
> RAID 1 and set up OS on it and use 4 drives for RAID 5 and set up SQL Data on
> it. SQL Binaries can say on the same RAID Volume where OS resides.
> I hope this helps.
>
> "mp3nomad" wrote:
> > Thanks Mark.
> >
> > Since we're kind of tight on funds, I'm going to setup the drives as follows:
> >
> > 1 separate 36 gb drive for OS and SQL Server program install.
> > 1 separate 146 gb drive for Tlogs.
> > 3 146 gb disks in RAID 5 array for data.
> >
> > Does this look acceptable? Not the best, but acceptable?
> >
> > "mp3nomad" wrote:
> >
> > > I have a new dell 2850 server with 4 146gb drives attached to a raid 5
> > > controller. I would like to know how I should setup the drives for
> > > installation of server 2003 std os and sql server 2005. This server is going
> > > to be a dedicated sql server to serve databases for web applications.
> > >
> > > Thanks and let me know if I should supply any additional info.
> > >
> > > Shelly Campbell|||Do not put log on same drive where the OS is.
"mp3nomad" wrote:
> currently the server is configured as follows:
> 4 146 gb drives in RAID 5 container partitioned as C:\ (30 gb) and D:\
> (remainder of space)
> Windows Server 2003 w/ SP1 installed on C:\ partition
> nothing else installed as yet
> I'm trying to figure out if this setup is ok and then just add an additional
> RAID 1 array for the transaction logs?
> I appreciate your assistance.
> Shelly
> "Mark" wrote:
> > NO, this set up is not acceptable.
> >
> > If you use only one drive for OS, if the drive fails, everything is gone.
> > Therefore, you must, must, and must use RAID 1 for OS which will involve a
> > minimum of 2 drives.
> >
> > Here is what you need to remember:
> > RAID 1 requires at least 2 drives.
> > Raid 5 requires at least 3 drives.
> >
> > If you use only 1 drive as you are mentionining, you can only build RAID 0
> > on it which gives no protection against data recovery.
> >
> > I would say based on your server since it's not on SAN, use 2 drives for
> > RAID 1 and set up OS on it and use 4 drives for RAID 5 and set up SQL Data on
> > it. SQL Binaries can say on the same RAID Volume where OS resides.
> >
> > I hope this helps.
> >
> >
> >
> > "mp3nomad" wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks Mark.
> > >
> > > Since we're kind of tight on funds, I'm going to setup the drives as follows:
> > >
> > > 1 separate 36 gb drive for OS and SQL Server program install.
> > > 1 separate 146 gb drive for Tlogs.
> > > 3 146 gb disks in RAID 5 array for data.
> > >
> > > Does this look acceptable? Not the best, but acceptable?
> > >
> > > "mp3nomad" wrote:
> > >
> > > > I have a new dell 2850 server with 4 146gb drives attached to a raid 5
> > > > controller. I would like to know how I should setup the drives for
> > > > installation of server 2003 std os and sql server 2005. This server is going
> > > > to be a dedicated sql server to serve databases for web applications.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks and let me know if I should supply any additional info.
> > > >
> > > > Shelly Campbell|||ok. thanks! we're trying to configure this box the best we can based on the
hardware we can afford to purchase.
"Mark" wrote:
> Do not put log on same drive where the OS is.
> "mp3nomad" wrote:
> > currently the server is configured as follows:
> >
> > 4 146 gb drives in RAID 5 container partitioned as C:\ (30 gb) and D:\
> > (remainder of space)
> >
> > Windows Server 2003 w/ SP1 installed on C:\ partition
> >
> > nothing else installed as yet
> >
> > I'm trying to figure out if this setup is ok and then just add an additional
> > RAID 1 array for the transaction logs?
> >
> > I appreciate your assistance.
> >
> > Shelly
> >
> > "Mark" wrote:
> >
> > > NO, this set up is not acceptable.
> > >
> > > If you use only one drive for OS, if the drive fails, everything is gone.
> > > Therefore, you must, must, and must use RAID 1 for OS which will involve a
> > > minimum of 2 drives.
> > >
> > > Here is what you need to remember:
> > > RAID 1 requires at least 2 drives.
> > > Raid 5 requires at least 3 drives.
> > >
> > > If you use only 1 drive as you are mentionining, you can only build RAID 0
> > > on it which gives no protection against data recovery.
> > >
> > > I would say based on your server since it's not on SAN, use 2 drives for
> > > RAID 1 and set up OS on it and use 4 drives for RAID 5 and set up SQL Data on
> > > it. SQL Binaries can say on the same RAID Volume where OS resides.
> > >
> > > I hope this helps.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "mp3nomad" wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thanks Mark.
> > > >
> > > > Since we're kind of tight on funds, I'm going to setup the drives as follows:
> > > >
> > > > 1 separate 36 gb drive for OS and SQL Server program install.
> > > > 1 separate 146 gb drive for Tlogs.
> > > > 3 146 gb disks in RAID 5 array for data.
> > > >
> > > > Does this look acceptable? Not the best, but acceptable?
> > > >
> > > > "mp3nomad" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I have a new dell 2850 server with 4 146gb drives attached to a raid 5
> > > > > controller. I would like to know how I should setup the drives for
> > > > > installation of server 2003 std os and sql server 2005. This server is going
> > > > > to be a dedicated sql server to serve databases for web applications.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks and let me know if I should supply any additional info.
> > > > >
> > > > > Shelly Campbell|||Maybe this is a little out of the box on this one...
In the future I would order smaller drives and more of them. Lets say that
you have the 4 of 146s If you have the drive bays how about 10 72's. Raid
this in pairs as RAID 1. This way you have 5 drive letters where you can
table partition your storage for a better performance.
I know this sounds odd. But I have found that smaller faster drives =better read times.
--Chris Shaw
"mp3nomad" wrote:
> ok. thanks! we're trying to configure this box the best we can based on the
> hardware we can afford to purchase.
> "Mark" wrote:
> > Do not put log on same drive where the OS is.
> >
> > "mp3nomad" wrote:
> >
> > > currently the server is configured as follows:
> > >
> > > 4 146 gb drives in RAID 5 container partitioned as C:\ (30 gb) and D:\
> > > (remainder of space)
> > >
> > > Windows Server 2003 w/ SP1 installed on C:\ partition
> > >
> > > nothing else installed as yet
> > >
> > > I'm trying to figure out if this setup is ok and then just add an additional
> > > RAID 1 array for the transaction logs?
> > >
> > > I appreciate your assistance.
> > >
> > > Shelly
> > >
> > > "Mark" wrote:
> > >
> > > > NO, this set up is not acceptable.
> > > >
> > > > If you use only one drive for OS, if the drive fails, everything is gone.
> > > > Therefore, you must, must, and must use RAID 1 for OS which will involve a
> > > > minimum of 2 drives.
> > > >
> > > > Here is what you need to remember:
> > > > RAID 1 requires at least 2 drives.
> > > > Raid 5 requires at least 3 drives.
> > > >
> > > > If you use only 1 drive as you are mentionining, you can only build RAID 0
> > > > on it which gives no protection against data recovery.
> > > >
> > > > I would say based on your server since it's not on SAN, use 2 drives for
> > > > RAID 1 and set up OS on it and use 4 drives for RAID 5 and set up SQL Data on
> > > > it. SQL Binaries can say on the same RAID Volume where OS resides.
> > > >
> > > > I hope this helps.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "mp3nomad" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Thanks Mark.
> > > > >
> > > > > Since we're kind of tight on funds, I'm going to setup the drives as follows:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1 separate 36 gb drive for OS and SQL Server program install.
> > > > > 1 separate 146 gb drive for Tlogs.
> > > > > 3 146 gb disks in RAID 5 array for data.
> > > > >
> > > > > Does this look acceptable? Not the best, but acceptable?
> > > > >
> > > > > "mp3nomad" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I have a new dell 2850 server with 4 146gb drives attached to a raid 5
> > > > > > controller. I would like to know how I should setup the drives for
> > > > > > installation of server 2003 std os and sql server 2005. This server is going
> > > > > > to be a dedicated sql server to serve databases for web applications.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks and let me know if I should supply any additional info.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Shelly Campbell|||Chris Shaw wrote:
> Maybe this is a little out of the box on this one...
> In the future I would order smaller drives and more of them. Lets say that
> you have the 4 of 146s If you have the drive bays how about 10 72's. Raid
> this in pairs as RAID 1. This way you have 5 drive letters where you can
> table partition your storage for a better performance.
> I know this sounds odd. But I have found that smaller faster drives => better read times.
> --Chris Shaw
>
It's not the drive size as such that makes it faster but the number of
heads available for operation. Having a RAID with 10 146GB disks might
not be slower than a RAID with 10 72 GB disk. Of course there can be
various differences in design (number of plates etc.) but I think that
will makes a difference that is mostly theoretically.
The general rule of thumb is that you should get as many and as fast
disks as possible.
To get back on topic, I agree that a SQL server with only 4 disks is a
no Win situation in many cases. Another possibility could be to setup 2
RAID 1 arrays, but no matter how you configure it with OS, logfiles and
datafiles, you won't have the optimal setup.
In your case where you need it for a web application, it might be ok
though, but it depends on your need of recovery and availability on the
web server. We have a SQL server that host the database for one of our
web applications and here we restore a new database each night. The
database is also only used for read operations. On this server we run a
RAID1 for OS and a RAID 5 that contains both logfiles and datafiles. I'd
never do this on a server with critical data, but in this case where we
just can restore a new database it doesn't matter. Maybe your setup is
something similar and in that case I think it could be justified to put
log and data files on the same RAID.
Regards
Steen|||thanks for your support!
"mp3nomad" wrote:
> ok. thanks! we're trying to configure this box the best we can based on the
> hardware we can afford to purchase.
> "Mark" wrote:
> > Do not put log on same drive where the OS is.
> >
> > "mp3nomad" wrote:
> >
> > > currently the server is configured as follows:
> > >
> > > 4 146 gb drives in RAID 5 container partitioned as C:\ (30 gb) and D:\
> > > (remainder of space)
> > >
> > > Windows Server 2003 w/ SP1 installed on C:\ partition
> > >
> > > nothing else installed as yet
> > >
> > > I'm trying to figure out if this setup is ok and then just add an additional
> > > RAID 1 array for the transaction logs?
> > >
> > > I appreciate your assistance.
> > >
> > > Shelly
> > >
> > > "Mark" wrote:
> > >
> > > > NO, this set up is not acceptable.
> > > >
> > > > If you use only one drive for OS, if the drive fails, everything is gone.
> > > > Therefore, you must, must, and must use RAID 1 for OS which will involve a
> > > > minimum of 2 drives.
> > > >
> > > > Here is what you need to remember:
> > > > RAID 1 requires at least 2 drives.
> > > > Raid 5 requires at least 3 drives.
> > > >
> > > > If you use only 1 drive as you are mentionining, you can only build RAID 0
> > > > on it which gives no protection against data recovery.
> > > >
> > > > I would say based on your server since it's not on SAN, use 2 drives for
> > > > RAID 1 and set up OS on it and use 4 drives for RAID 5 and set up SQL Data on
> > > > it. SQL Binaries can say on the same RAID Volume where OS resides.
> > > >
> > > > I hope this helps.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "mp3nomad" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Thanks Mark.
> > > > >
> > > > > Since we're kind of tight on funds, I'm going to setup the drives as follows:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1 separate 36 gb drive for OS and SQL Server program install.
> > > > > 1 separate 146 gb drive for Tlogs.
> > > > > 3 146 gb disks in RAID 5 array for data.
> > > > >
> > > > > Does this look acceptable? Not the best, but acceptable?
> > > > >
> > > > > "mp3nomad" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I have a new dell 2850 server with 4 146gb drives attached to a raid 5
> > > > > > controller. I would like to know how I should setup the drives for
> > > > > > installation of server 2003 std os and sql server 2005. This server is going
> > > > > > to be a dedicated sql server to serve databases for web applications.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks and let me know if I should supply any additional info.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Shelly Campbell

drive configuration on new sql server 2005 box?

I have a new dell 2850 server with 4 146gb drives attached to a raid 5
controller. I would like to know how I should setup the drives for
installation of server 2003 std os and sql server 2005. This server is going
to be a dedicated sql server to serve databases for web applications.
Thanks and let me know if I should supply any additional info.
Shelly CampbellThis will give you some ideas
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...in/sqlops6.mspx
In BOL, index tab, type NTFS, see note.
SQL Server magazine had a good article on hardware for SQL Server . I can't
post it as it is for subscribers only
http://www.windowsitpro.com/SQLServ...492/46492.html#
In the nutshell, system = RAID1, logs = RAID1, data = case when cash poor
then RAID5 else RAID10 end.
Farmer.
"mp3nomad" <mp3nomad@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1923B0A6-06A2-4041-850A-C692718D54AB@.microsoft.com...
>I have a new dell 2850 server with 4 146gb drives attached to a raid 5
> controller. I would like to know how I should setup the drives for
> installation of server 2003 std os and sql server 2005. This server is
> going
> to be a dedicated sql server to serve databases for web applications.
> Thanks and let me know if I should supply any additional info.
> Shelly Campbell|||Hi Shelly:
OS should always stay on RAID 1. No Exceptions should be made here.
For SQL Data, You can use RAID 5 if you wish to though RAID 5 is not the
best solution. For Faster Read\Write RAID 10 is the best solution but then i
t
has a cost attached to its performance.
Since you have 4x146 GB Drives on the machine, I would recommend that buy
another couple of drives identical in size and host RAID 1 on it and use it
for OS.
For other 4 drives set up RAID 5 and use them for SQL data and log.
Hope this helps.
"mp3nomad" wrote:

> I have a new dell 2850 server with 4 146gb drives attached to a raid 5
> controller. I would like to know how I should setup the drives for
> installation of server 2003 std os and sql server 2005. This server is goi
ng
> to be a dedicated sql server to serve databases for web applications.
> Thanks and let me know if I should supply any additional info.
> Shelly Campbell|||Thanks! This helps.
"Farmer" wrote:

> This will give you some ideas
> hardware for SQL Server . I can'
t
> post it as it is for subscribers only
> [url]http://www.windowsitpro.com/SQLServer/Article/ArticleID/46492/46492.html#" target="_blank">http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...492/46492.html#
> In the nutshell, system = RAID1, logs = RAID1, data = case when cash poor
> then RAID5 else RAID10 end.
>
> Farmer.
> "mp3nomad" <mp3nomad@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:1923B0A6-06A2-4041-850A-C692718D54AB@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||Thanks Mark.
Since we're kind of tight on funds, I'm going to setup the drives as follows
:
1 separate 36 gb drive for OS and SQL Server program install.
1 separate 146 gb drive for Tlogs.
3 146 gb disks in RAID 5 array for data.
Does this look acceptable? Not the best, but acceptable?
"mp3nomad" wrote:

> I have a new dell 2850 server with 4 146gb drives attached to a raid 5
> controller. I would like to know how I should setup the drives for
> installation of server 2003 std os and sql server 2005. This server is goi
ng
> to be a dedicated sql server to serve databases for web applications.
> Thanks and let me know if I should supply any additional info.
> Shelly Campbell|||NO, this set up is not acceptable.
If you use only one drive for OS, if the drive fails, everything is gone.
Therefore, you must, must, and must use RAID 1 for OS which will involve a
minimum of 2 drives.
Here is what you need to remember:
RAID 1 requires at least 2 drives.
Raid 5 requires at least 3 drives.
If you use only 1 drive as you are mentionining, you can only build RAID 0
on it which gives no protection against data recovery.
I would say based on your server since it's not on SAN, use 2 drives for
RAID 1 and set up OS on it and use 4 drives for RAID 5 and set up SQL Data o
n
it. SQL Binaries can say on the same RAID Volume where OS resides.
I hope this helps.
"mp3nomad" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Thanks Mark.
> Since we're kind of tight on funds, I'm going to setup the drives as follo
ws:
> 1 separate 36 gb drive for OS and SQL Server program install.
> 1 separate 146 gb drive for Tlogs.
> 3 146 gb disks in RAID 5 array for data.
> Does this look acceptable? Not the best, but acceptable?
> "mp3nomad" wrote:
>|||I see. Ok.
Where would the transaction logs go? On the same RAID volume with the OS?
"Mark" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> NO, this set up is not acceptable.
> If you use only one drive for OS, if the drive fails, everything is gone.
> Therefore, you must, must, and must use RAID 1 for OS which will involve a
> minimum of 2 drives.
> Here is what you need to remember:
> RAID 1 requires at least 2 drives.
> Raid 5 requires at least 3 drives.
> If you use only 1 drive as you are mentionining, you can only build RAID 0
> on it which gives no protection against data recovery.
> I would say based on your server since it's not on SAN, use 2 drives for
> RAID 1 and set up OS on it and use 4 drives for RAID 5 and set up SQL Data
on
> it. SQL Binaries can say on the same RAID Volume where OS resides.
> I hope this helps.
>
> "mp3nomad" wrote:
>|||currently the server is configured as follows:
4 146 gb drives in RAID 5 container partitioned as C:\ (30 gb) and D:\
(remainder of space)
Windows Server 2003 w/ SP1 installed on C:\ partition
nothing else installed as yet
I'm trying to figure out if this setup is ok and then just add an additional
RAID 1 array for the transaction logs?
I appreciate your assistance.
Shelly
"Mark" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> NO, this set up is not acceptable.
> If you use only one drive for OS, if the drive fails, everything is gone.
> Therefore, you must, must, and must use RAID 1 for OS which will involve a
> minimum of 2 drives.
> Here is what you need to remember:
> RAID 1 requires at least 2 drives.
> Raid 5 requires at least 3 drives.
> If you use only 1 drive as you are mentionining, you can only build RAID 0
> on it which gives no protection against data recovery.
> I would say based on your server since it's not on SAN, use 2 drives for
> RAID 1 and set up OS on it and use 4 drives for RAID 5 and set up SQL Data
on
> it. SQL Binaries can say on the same RAID Volume where OS resides.
> I hope this helps.
>
> "mp3nomad" wrote:
>|||Do not put log on same drive where the OS is.
"mp3nomad" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> currently the server is configured as follows:
> 4 146 gb drives in RAID 5 container partitioned as C:\ (30 gb) and D:\
> (remainder of space)
> Windows Server 2003 w/ SP1 installed on C:\ partition
> nothing else installed as yet
> I'm trying to figure out if this setup is ok and then just add an addition
al
> RAID 1 array for the transaction logs?
> I appreciate your assistance.
> Shelly
> "Mark" wrote:
>|||ok. thanks! we're trying to configure this box the best we can based on the
hardware we can afford to purchase.
"Mark" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Do not put log on same drive where the OS is.
> "mp3nomad" wrote:
>

drilldown values

When you use the action property of a text box for drill down, how do you
pass the selected value to the report? or is sql reporting smart enough to
know?
--
Thanks,
CGWNever mind... found the button for parameters.
"CGW" wrote:
> When you use the action property of a text box for drill down, how do you
> pass the selected value to the report? or is sql reporting smart enough to
> know?
> --
> Thanks,
> CGW

drilldown newbie

Please excuse me if this double posts. Thought I posted earlier but do not
see it.)
When I use the action property of a text box to bring up a chart, how do i
tell it to chart only that row's values. For example, I want to chart manager
sales over months. I list the managers and their sales as rows and have set
the manager's name text box to jump to my chart. What displays are the sums
for all managers. (all data rows). What do I need to do?
--
Thanks,
CGWNever mind... found the button for parameters.
"CGW" wrote:
> Please excuse me if this double posts. Thought I posted earlier but do not
> see it.)
> When I use the action property of a text box to bring up a chart, how do i
> tell it to chart only that row's values. For example, I want to chart manager
> sales over months. I list the managers and their sales as rows and have set
> the manager's name text box to jump to my chart. What displays are the sums
> for all managers. (all data rows). What do I need to do?
> --
> Thanks,
> CGW