SQL Configure: February 2012

Saturday, 25 February 2012

Confused about Server Express and Reporting Services

I am a novice in all Server related aspects, but I want to learn to use SQL server Express in combination with C# Express.

All really worked fined unbtil now: I want to use the Reporting Services and the Analysis Services, but I can't find any?!

I have no idea what to do right now. Also, i am working with Windos Home Edition, is the missing IIS the problem?

Thank you and lots of greetings from Germany

Quattrus

Analysis Services is not included in SQL Express, you will need to purchase a higher Edition of SQL Server 2005 to get that.

Reporting Services does require IIS, so it is not supported on Windows XP Home.

Regards,

Mike Wachal
SQL Express team

-
Mark the best posts as Answers!

|||

Thank you, Mike.

I now concentrate on Report Viewer.

Regards,

Quattrus

|||

Mike

Can you say whether MSFT plan to later bundle MSAS with SQL Express?

If not, can you explain the rationale for not including MSAS? [I had thought that MSFT had a big push on BI with SQL05 and Office07, and think that MSAS is a key/central part of that BI stack.]

Many thanks

Justin

|||

Hi Justin,

At this time we have no plans to bundle Analysis Services with SQL Express.

Analysis Services is really Enterprise functionaltiy and as such is not included in the features of Express. There are other Enterprise features that we don't include in Express, such as Clustering and Database Mirroring.

Express is targeted at the non-professional developer, hobbyist, student and anyone who is interested in doing smaller scale development, but wants to leverage the security, scalability and reliability of SQL Server. The Express feature set was picked to be useful for this scale of application and customer.

BI certainly is important to Microsoft, and you still have to capability to use the rich capabilities of products such as Excel to analyze data stored in SQL Express, in addition to the ability to create great reports using Reporting Services on top of SQL Express.

Regards,

Mike Wachal
SQL Express team

|||

Hi Mike,

(Excuse me for my English, I am French). You know the hobbyists, are also good doors for the professional solutions. For my part I begined with VB and SQL Express, and now we have several licences SQL processor and Visual Studio professional at my job.

But I continue to use the Express Edition at home for 2 raisons, (1) not to pirate, (2) I have XP Home edition which does not support IIS.

To have a full fonctionnal Express edition with Advanced Services (Reporting services that i use at job), I miss a IIS emulator.

Regards,

Dominique

Confused about Server Express and Reporting Services

I am a novice in all Server related aspects, but I want to learn to use SQL server Express in combination with C# Express.

All really worked fined unbtil now: I want to use the Reporting Services and the Analysis Services, but I can't find any?!

I have no idea what to do right now. Also, i am working with Windos Home Edition, is the missing IIS the problem?

Thank you and lots of greetings from Germany

Quattrus

Analysis Services is not included in SQL Express, you will need to purchase a higher Edition of SQL Server 2005 to get that.

Reporting Services does require IIS, so it is not supported on Windows XP Home.

Regards,

Mike Wachal
SQL Express team

-
Mark the best posts as Answers!

|||

Thank you, Mike.

I now concentrate on Report Viewer.

Regards,

Quattrus

|||

Mike

Can you say whether MSFT plan to later bundle MSAS with SQL Express?

If not, can you explain the rationale for not including MSAS? [I had thought that MSFT had a big push on BI with SQL05 and Office07, and think that MSAS is a key/central part of that BI stack.]

Many thanks

Justin

|||

Hi Justin,

At this time we have no plans to bundle Analysis Services with SQL Express.

Regards,

Mike Wachal
SQL Express team

|||

Hi Mike,

But I continue to use the Express Edition at home for 2 raisons, (1) not to pirate, (2) I have XP Home edition which does not support IIS.

To have a full fonctionnal Express edition with Advanced Services (Reporting services that i use at job), I miss a IIS emulator.

Regards,

Dominique

Confused about reporting feature

I remember reading something about some sort of new feature on SQL Server
2005 regarding adding reporting capabilities to SQL Sever 2005. I am not
sure what it was but I think it had to do with the SQL Server being able to
process a full report request and return the report all ready to print. I
think it was some sort of server reporting engine.
I also noticed that Visual Studio 2005 comes with a control that allows you
to create reports.
My question is, was I smoking crack when I read all this about SQL 2005 new
reporting capabilities? Also, anybody knows if the reporting control that
comes with Visual Studio 2005 is somewhat connected to SQL Server 005?
ThanksSearch and read about "Reporting Services".
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Rene" <a@.b.c> wrote in message news:uCSIzjQaGHA.508@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>I remember reading something about some sort of new feature on SQL Server 2
005 regarding adding
>reporting capabilities to SQL Sever 2005. I am not sure what it was but I t
hink it had to do with
>the SQL Server being able to process a full report request and return the r
eport all ready to
>print. I think it was some sort of server reporting engine.
> I also noticed that Visual Studio 2005 comes with a control that allows yo
u to create reports.
> My question is, was I smoking crack when I read all this about SQL 2005 ne
w reporting
> capabilities? Also, anybody knows if the reporting control that comes with
Visual Studio 2005 is
> somewhat connected to SQL Server 005?
> Thanks
>
>|||On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 03:13:02 -0500, "Rene" <a@.b.c> wrote:

>I remember reading something about some sort of new feature on SQL Server
>2005 regarding adding reporting capabilities to SQL Sever 2005. I am not
>sure what it was but I think it had to do with the SQL Server being able to
>process a full report request and return the report all ready to print. I
>think it was some sort of server reporting engine.
>I also noticed that Visual Studio 2005 comes with a control that allows you
>to create reports.
>My question is, was I smoking crack when I read all this about SQL 2005 new
>reporting capabilities? Also, anybody knows if the reporting control that
>comes with Visual Studio 2005 is somewhat connected to SQL Server 005?
>Thanks
Hi,
You're referring to SQL Server 2005 Reporting Services. Most editions
of SQL Server have some RS functionality.
See
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodin...e-features.mspx
for which edtions of SQL Server 2005 have what RS features.
Information about RS is available from
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techno...ng/default.mspx
and in Books Online.
Andrew Watt [MVP]|||Hi,
look here:
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techno...ng/default.mspx
The control is for rendering reports also in your other applications
like Windows Forms, rather than *only* in Web projects.-
HTH, Jens Suessmeyer.
http://www.sqlserver2005.de
--

Confused about reporting feature

I remember reading something about some sort of new feature on SQL Server
2005 regarding adding reporting capabilities to SQL Sever 2005. I am not
sure what it was but I think it had to do with the SQL Server being able to
process a full report request and return the report all ready to print. I
think it was some sort of server reporting engine.
I also noticed that Visual Studio 2005 comes with a control that allows you
to create reports.
My question is, was I smoking crack when I read all this about SQL 2005 new
reporting capabilities? Also, anybody knows if the reporting control that
comes with Visual Studio 2005 is somewhat connected to SQL Server 005?
ThanksSearch and read about "Reporting Services".
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Rene" <a@.b.c> wrote in message news:uCSIzjQaGHA.508@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>I remember reading something about some sort of new feature on SQL Server 2005 regarding adding
>reporting capabilities to SQL Sever 2005. I am not sure what it was but I think it had to do with
>the SQL Server being able to process a full report request and return the report all ready to
>print. I think it was some sort of server reporting engine.
> I also noticed that Visual Studio 2005 comes with a control that allows you to create reports.
> My question is, was I smoking crack when I read all this about SQL 2005 new reporting
> capabilities? Also, anybody knows if the reporting control that comes with Visual Studio 2005 is
> somewhat connected to SQL Server 005?
> Thanks
>
>|||On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 03:13:02 -0500, "Rene" <a@.b.c> wrote:
>I remember reading something about some sort of new feature on SQL Server
>2005 regarding adding reporting capabilities to SQL Sever 2005. I am not
>sure what it was but I think it had to do with the SQL Server being able to
>process a full report request and return the report all ready to print. I
>think it was some sort of server reporting engine.
>I also noticed that Visual Studio 2005 comes with a control that allows you
>to create reports.
>My question is, was I smoking crack when I read all this about SQL 2005 new
>reporting capabilities? Also, anybody knows if the reporting control that
>comes with Visual Studio 2005 is somewhat connected to SQL Server 005?
>Thanks
Hi,
You're referring to SQL Server 2005 Reporting Services. Most editions
of SQL Server have some RS functionality.
See
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/features/compare-features.mspx
for which edtions of SQL Server 2005 have what RS features.
Information about RS is available from
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/technologies/reporting/default.mspx
and in Books Online.
Andrew Watt [MVP]|||Hi,
look here:
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/technologies/reporting/default.mspx
The control is for rendering reports also in your other applications
like Windows Forms, rather than *only* in Web projects.-
HTH, Jens Suessmeyer.
--
http://www.sqlserver2005.de
--

Confused about relation between full backup and transaction log backup

Hi everyone,
Would someone be able to help with a question I have about the
strangeness of my backup process/results. My schema is:
Full Backup: 2:00am each day
Transactional log backup: 7:00am - 10:30pm (inclusive) each day at 30
min intervals
Full database reindex: 11:00pm on Sundays
What I found was that from Tuesday to Sunday my transactional log
backups are of minimal size. However the Monday 7:00am transactional
log backup is around the size of the database itself i.e. 30 Gigs. And
this happens each Monday 7:00am. I can only nail this down to the fact
that a full database reindex has taken place between Sunday 10:30pm and
Monday 7:00am - which is infact the case. However, my full backup takes
place on Monday 2:00am. So why should the transactional be so large? I
thought the transactional backup is a backup of:
1) transactions since the last full backup (which in my case is 2:00am
i.e. AFTER the reindex had occured - hence the 7:00am log backup should
only show transactions since the last full backup NOT the last
transactional backup) OR,
2) the last transactional backup if there has been a full backup prior
to the last log backup.
It seems as though my transactional log backup process does not depend
on my full backup process.
Does this mean that if I wanted to restore (for example) to Friday
5:00pm I could either do:
a) take a Tuesday 2:00am full backup and apply transactional backups
from Tuesday 7am to Friday 5p, OR
b) take Friday 2am full backup and apply transactional backups from
Friday 2am to Friday 5pm?
I think I am confused and hard fixed on the idea that if you implement
both full and transactional backups, the transactonal backup that takes
place immediately after a full backup contains transactions relative to
the last full backup, NOT the last transactional backup. Can anyone
confirm this?
When the answer is "relative to the last transactional backup", I guess
when you restore from the last full backup (created at 2am) and apply a
transactional backup against it (created at 7am), the system is clever
enough to disregard all transactions within the transaction log that
occured between 10:30pm and 2am - thuis only applying those
transactions between 2am and 7am. Is this correct?
Any help most appreciated in sorting out my confusion!
Many thanks,
PeterBottom line is that the two backups really have nothing to do with each
other except that you need a valid FULL backup to start the log chain. From
there on out you can back up the db with a FULL backup as many or as few
times as you want and the log backups always go from the last log backup.
It is a continuous chain. So yes if you had failure and the most recent FULL
backup was corrupted you can go back to the one before that and restore all
the logs up to the last one, right past where the last FULL backup was
taken. Same goes for a Differential backup. It does not affect the Log
backups at all. But unlike the Logs a Differential is always from the last
FULL backup.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
<mag1kus@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1141687158.413556.213540@.j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Hi everyone,
> Would someone be able to help with a question I have about the
> strangeness of my backup process/results. My schema is:
> Full Backup: 2:00am each day
> Transactional log backup: 7:00am - 10:30pm (inclusive) each day at 30
> min intervals
> Full database reindex: 11:00pm on Sundays
> What I found was that from Tuesday to Sunday my transactional log
> backups are of minimal size. However the Monday 7:00am transactional
> log backup is around the size of the database itself i.e. 30 Gigs. And
> this happens each Monday 7:00am. I can only nail this down to the fact
> that a full database reindex has taken place between Sunday 10:30pm and
> Monday 7:00am - which is infact the case. However, my full backup takes
> place on Monday 2:00am. So why should the transactional be so large? I
> thought the transactional backup is a backup of:
> 1) transactions since the last full backup (which in my case is 2:00am
> i.e. AFTER the reindex had occured - hence the 7:00am log backup should
> only show transactions since the last full backup NOT the last
> transactional backup) OR,
> 2) the last transactional backup if there has been a full backup prior
> to the last log backup.
> It seems as though my transactional log backup process does not depend
> on my full backup process.
> Does this mean that if I wanted to restore (for example) to Friday
> 5:00pm I could either do:
> a) take a Tuesday 2:00am full backup and apply transactional backups
> from Tuesday 7am to Friday 5p, OR
> b) take Friday 2am full backup and apply transactional backups from
> Friday 2am to Friday 5pm?
> I think I am confused and hard fixed on the idea that if you implement
> both full and transactional backups, the transactonal backup that takes
> place immediately after a full backup contains transactions relative to
> the last full backup, NOT the last transactional backup. Can anyone
> confirm this?
> When the answer is "relative to the last transactional backup", I guess
> when you restore from the last full backup (created at 2am) and apply a
> transactional backup against it (created at 7am), the system is clever
> enough to disregard all transactions within the transaction log that
> occured between 10:30pm and 2am - thuis only applying those
> transactions between 2am and 7am. Is this correct?
> Any help most appreciated in sorting out my confusion!
> Many thanks,
> Peter
>|||A full backup is a complete, consistant copy of the database at a single
point in time. If you are in FULL or BULK-LOGGED recovery mode, you can
apply one or more transaction logs in sequential order during the restore
process to move the database forward through time from the initial backup
time point. The large transaction log backup size is likely a side effect
of a reindex maintenance function.
--
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
<mag1kus@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1141687158.413556.213540@.j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Hi everyone,
> Would someone be able to help with a question I have about the
> strangeness of my backup process/results. My schema is:
> Full Backup: 2:00am each day
> Transactional log backup: 7:00am - 10:30pm (inclusive) each day at 30
> min intervals
> Full database reindex: 11:00pm on Sundays
> What I found was that from Tuesday to Sunday my transactional log
> backups are of minimal size. However the Monday 7:00am transactional
> log backup is around the size of the database itself i.e. 30 Gigs. And
> this happens each Monday 7:00am. I can only nail this down to the fact
> that a full database reindex has taken place between Sunday 10:30pm and
> Monday 7:00am - which is infact the case. However, my full backup takes
> place on Monday 2:00am. So why should the transactional be so large? I
> thought the transactional backup is a backup of:
> 1) transactions since the last full backup (which in my case is 2:00am
> i.e. AFTER the reindex had occured - hence the 7:00am log backup should
> only show transactions since the last full backup NOT the last
> transactional backup) OR,
> 2) the last transactional backup if there has been a full backup prior
> to the last log backup.
> It seems as though my transactional log backup process does not depend
> on my full backup process.
> Does this mean that if I wanted to restore (for example) to Friday
> 5:00pm I could either do:
> a) take a Tuesday 2:00am full backup and apply transactional backups
> from Tuesday 7am to Friday 5p, OR
> b) take Friday 2am full backup and apply transactional backups from
> Friday 2am to Friday 5pm?
> I think I am confused and hard fixed on the idea that if you implement
> both full and transactional backups, the transactonal backup that takes
> place immediately after a full backup contains transactions relative to
> the last full backup, NOT the last transactional backup. Can anyone
> confirm this?
> When the answer is "relative to the last transactional backup", I guess
> when you restore from the last full backup (created at 2am) and apply a
> transactional backup against it (created at 7am), the system is clever
> enough to disregard all transactions within the transaction log that
> occured between 10:30pm and 2am - thuis only applying those
> transactions between 2am and 7am. Is this correct?
> Any help most appreciated in sorting out my confusion!
> Many thanks,
> Peter
>|||Thanks for the response.
so in effect, if i have:
backup1: 2am transactional backup
backup2: 5am full backup
backup3: 7am transactional backup
I would like to reconfirm... am i correct in saying that:
1) backup3 contains all transactions that occured between the end of backup1
and the start of backup3?
2) I can apply backup3 to backup2. In this case not all those transactions
contained in backup3 will be applied against backup2 i.e. only those
occuring between the end of backup2 and the start of backup 3 will be
applied.
Thanks again!
peter
<mag1kus@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1141687158.413556.213540@.j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Hi everyone,
> Would someone be able to help with a question I have about the
> strangeness of my backup process/results. My schema is:
> Full Backup: 2:00am each day
> Transactional log backup: 7:00am - 10:30pm (inclusive) each day at 30
> min intervals
> Full database reindex: 11:00pm on Sundays
> What I found was that from Tuesday to Sunday my transactional log
> backups are of minimal size. However the Monday 7:00am transactional
> log backup is around the size of the database itself i.e. 30 Gigs. And
> this happens each Monday 7:00am. I can only nail this down to the fact
> that a full database reindex has taken place between Sunday 10:30pm and
> Monday 7:00am - which is infact the case. However, my full backup takes
> place on Monday 2:00am. So why should the transactional be so large? I
> thought the transactional backup is a backup of:
> 1) transactions since the last full backup (which in my case is 2:00am
> i.e. AFTER the reindex had occured - hence the 7:00am log backup should
> only show transactions since the last full backup NOT the last
> transactional backup) OR,
> 2) the last transactional backup if there has been a full backup prior
> to the last log backup.
> It seems as though my transactional log backup process does not depend
> on my full backup process.
> Does this mean that if I wanted to restore (for example) to Friday
> 5:00pm I could either do:
> a) take a Tuesday 2:00am full backup and apply transactional backups
> from Tuesday 7am to Friday 5p, OR
> b) take Friday 2am full backup and apply transactional backups from
> Friday 2am to Friday 5pm?
> I think I am confused and hard fixed on the idea that if you implement
> both full and transactional backups, the transactonal backup that takes
> place immediately after a full backup contains transactions relative to
> the last full backup, NOT the last transactional backup. Can anyone
> confirm this?
> When the answer is "relative to the last transactional backup", I guess
> when you restore from the last full backup (created at 2am) and apply a
> transactional backup against it (created at 7am), the system is clever
> enough to disregard all transactions within the transaction log that
> occured between 10:30pm and 2am - thuis only applying those
> transactions between 2am and 7am. Is this correct?
> Any help most appreciated in sorting out my confusion!
> Many thanks,
> Peter
>|||Yes and yes.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"peter" <peter@.nospam.com> wrote in message news:%23h5W9WcQGHA.5092@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Thanks for the response.
> so in effect, if i have:
> backup1: 2am transactional backup
> backup2: 5am full backup
> backup3: 7am transactional backup
> I would like to reconfirm... am i correct in saying that:
> 1) backup3 contains all transactions that occured between the end of backup1
> and the start of backup3?
> 2) I can apply backup3 to backup2. In this case not all those transactions
> contained in backup3 will be applied against backup2 i.e. only those
> occuring between the end of backup2 and the start of backup 3 will be
> applied.
> Thanks again!
> peter
> <mag1kus@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1141687158.413556.213540@.j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Hi everyone,
>> Would someone be able to help with a question I have about the
>> strangeness of my backup process/results. My schema is:
>> Full Backup: 2:00am each day
>> Transactional log backup: 7:00am - 10:30pm (inclusive) each day at 30
>> min intervals
>> Full database reindex: 11:00pm on Sundays
>> What I found was that from Tuesday to Sunday my transactional log
>> backups are of minimal size. However the Monday 7:00am transactional
>> log backup is around the size of the database itself i.e. 30 Gigs. And
>> this happens each Monday 7:00am. I can only nail this down to the fact
>> that a full database reindex has taken place between Sunday 10:30pm and
>> Monday 7:00am - which is infact the case. However, my full backup takes
>> place on Monday 2:00am. So why should the transactional be so large? I
>> thought the transactional backup is a backup of:
>> 1) transactions since the last full backup (which in my case is 2:00am
>> i.e. AFTER the reindex had occured - hence the 7:00am log backup should
>> only show transactions since the last full backup NOT the last
>> transactional backup) OR,
>> 2) the last transactional backup if there has been a full backup prior
>> to the last log backup.
>> It seems as though my transactional log backup process does not depend
>> on my full backup process.
>> Does this mean that if I wanted to restore (for example) to Friday
>> 5:00pm I could either do:
>> a) take a Tuesday 2:00am full backup and apply transactional backups
>> from Tuesday 7am to Friday 5p, OR
>> b) take Friday 2am full backup and apply transactional backups from
>> Friday 2am to Friday 5pm?
>> I think I am confused and hard fixed on the idea that if you implement
>> both full and transactional backups, the transactonal backup that takes
>> place immediately after a full backup contains transactions relative to
>> the last full backup, NOT the last transactional backup. Can anyone
>> confirm this?
>> When the answer is "relative to the last transactional backup", I guess
>> when you restore from the last full backup (created at 2am) and apply a
>> transactional backup against it (created at 7am), the system is clever
>> enough to disregard all transactions within the transaction log that
>> occured between 10:30pm and 2am - thuis only applying those
>> transactions between 2am and 7am. Is this correct?
>> Any help most appreciated in sorting out my confusion!
>> Many thanks,
>> Peter
>|||1) backup3 contains all transactions that occured between the end of backup1
and the start of backup3?
If the transaction log backups are created WITH INIT they will only contain
transactions since the previous log backup.
--
Keith Kratochvil
"peter" <peter@.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:%23h5W9WcQGHA.5092@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Thanks for the response.
> so in effect, if i have:
> backup1: 2am transactional backup
> backup2: 5am full backup
> backup3: 7am transactional backup
> I would like to reconfirm... am i correct in saying that:
> 1) backup3 contains all transactions that occured between the end of
> backup1 and the start of backup3?
> 2) I can apply backup3 to backup2. In this case not all those transactions
> contained in backup3 will be applied against backup2 i.e. only those
> occuring between the end of backup2 and the start of backup 3 will be
> applied.
> Thanks again!
> peter
> <mag1kus@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1141687158.413556.213540@.j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Hi everyone,
>> Would someone be able to help with a question I have about the
>> strangeness of my backup process/results. My schema is:
>> Full Backup: 2:00am each day
>> Transactional log backup: 7:00am - 10:30pm (inclusive) each day at 30
>> min intervals
>> Full database reindex: 11:00pm on Sundays
>> What I found was that from Tuesday to Sunday my transactional log
>> backups are of minimal size. However the Monday 7:00am transactional
>> log backup is around the size of the database itself i.e. 30 Gigs. And
>> this happens each Monday 7:00am. I can only nail this down to the fact
>> that a full database reindex has taken place between Sunday 10:30pm and
>> Monday 7:00am - which is infact the case. However, my full backup takes
>> place on Monday 2:00am. So why should the transactional be so large? I
>> thought the transactional backup is a backup of:
>> 1) transactions since the last full backup (which in my case is 2:00am
>> i.e. AFTER the reindex had occured - hence the 7:00am log backup should
>> only show transactions since the last full backup NOT the last
>> transactional backup) OR,
>> 2) the last transactional backup if there has been a full backup prior
>> to the last log backup.
>> It seems as though my transactional log backup process does not depend
>> on my full backup process.
>> Does this mean that if I wanted to restore (for example) to Friday
>> 5:00pm I could either do:
>> a) take a Tuesday 2:00am full backup and apply transactional backups
>> from Tuesday 7am to Friday 5p, OR
>> b) take Friday 2am full backup and apply transactional backups from
>> Friday 2am to Friday 5pm?
>> I think I am confused and hard fixed on the idea that if you implement
>> both full and transactional backups, the transactonal backup that takes
>> place immediately after a full backup contains transactions relative to
>> the last full backup, NOT the last transactional backup. Can anyone
>> confirm this?
>> When the answer is "relative to the last transactional backup", I guess
>> when you restore from the last full backup (created at 2am) and apply a
>> transactional backup against it (created at 7am), the system is clever
>> enough to disregard all transactions within the transaction log that
>> occured between 10:30pm and 2am - thuis only applying those
>> transactions between 2am and 7am. Is this correct?
>> Any help most appreciated in sorting out my confusion!
>> Many thanks,
>> Peter
>|||thanks!
"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in
message news:OED7V6dQGHA.4312@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Yes and yes.
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
> Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
>
> "peter" <peter@.nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:%23h5W9WcQGHA.5092@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>> Thanks for the response.
>> so in effect, if i have:
>> backup1: 2am transactional backup
>> backup2: 5am full backup
>> backup3: 7am transactional backup
>> I would like to reconfirm... am i correct in saying that:
>> 1) backup3 contains all transactions that occured between the end of
>> backup1 and the start of backup3?
>> 2) I can apply backup3 to backup2. In this case not all those
>> transactions contained in backup3 will be applied against backup2 i.e.
>> only those occuring between the end of backup2 and the start of backup 3
>> will be applied.
>> Thanks again!
>> peter
>> <mag1kus@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1141687158.413556.213540@.j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Hi everyone,
>> Would someone be able to help with a question I have about the
>> strangeness of my backup process/results. My schema is:
>> Full Backup: 2:00am each day
>> Transactional log backup: 7:00am - 10:30pm (inclusive) each day at 30
>> min intervals
>> Full database reindex: 11:00pm on Sundays
>> What I found was that from Tuesday to Sunday my transactional log
>> backups are of minimal size. However the Monday 7:00am transactional
>> log backup is around the size of the database itself i.e. 30 Gigs. And
>> this happens each Monday 7:00am. I can only nail this down to the fact
>> that a full database reindex has taken place between Sunday 10:30pm and
>> Monday 7:00am - which is infact the case. However, my full backup takes
>> place on Monday 2:00am. So why should the transactional be so large? I
>> thought the transactional backup is a backup of:
>> 1) transactions since the last full backup (which in my case is 2:00am
>> i.e. AFTER the reindex had occured - hence the 7:00am log backup should
>> only show transactions since the last full backup NOT the last
>> transactional backup) OR,
>> 2) the last transactional backup if there has been a full backup prior
>> to the last log backup.
>> It seems as though my transactional log backup process does not depend
>> on my full backup process.
>> Does this mean that if I wanted to restore (for example) to Friday
>> 5:00pm I could either do:
>> a) take a Tuesday 2:00am full backup and apply transactional backups
>> from Tuesday 7am to Friday 5p, OR
>> b) take Friday 2am full backup and apply transactional backups from
>> Friday 2am to Friday 5pm?
>> I think I am confused and hard fixed on the idea that if you implement
>> both full and transactional backups, the transactonal backup that takes
>> place immediately after a full backup contains transactions relative to
>> the last full backup, NOT the last transactional backup. Can anyone
>> confirm this?
>> When the answer is "relative to the last transactional backup", I guess
>> when you restore from the last full backup (created at 2am) and apply a
>> transactional backup against it (created at 7am), the system is clever
>> enough to disregard all transactions within the transaction log that
>> occured between 10:30pm and 2am - thuis only applying those
>> transactions between 2am and 7am. Is this correct?
>> Any help most appreciated in sorting out my confusion!
>> Many thanks,
>> Peter
>>|||but doesnt WITH INIT just overwrite all previous log backup sets (if used
against log backups)?
So irrespective of whether WITH INIT is used or not, any transaction log
backup will contain transactions since the previous log backup?
peter
"Keith Kratochvil" <sqlguy.back2u@.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:uaIzoNgQGHA.1096@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> 1) backup3 contains all transactions that occured between the end of
> backup1
> and the start of backup3?
> If the transaction log backups are created WITH INIT they will only
> contain transactions since the previous log backup.
> --
> Keith Kratochvil
>
> "peter" <peter@.nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:%23h5W9WcQGHA.5092@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>> Thanks for the response.
>> so in effect, if i have:
>> backup1: 2am transactional backup
>> backup2: 5am full backup
>> backup3: 7am transactional backup
>> I would like to reconfirm... am i correct in saying that:
>> 1) backup3 contains all transactions that occured between the end of
>> backup1 and the start of backup3?
>> 2) I can apply backup3 to backup2. In this case not all those
>> transactions contained in backup3 will be applied against backup2 i.e.
>> only those occuring between the end of backup2 and the start of backup 3
>> will be applied.
>> Thanks again!
>> peter
>> <mag1kus@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1141687158.413556.213540@.j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Hi everyone,
>> Would someone be able to help with a question I have about the
>> strangeness of my backup process/results. My schema is:
>> Full Backup: 2:00am each day
>> Transactional log backup: 7:00am - 10:30pm (inclusive) each day at 30
>> min intervals
>> Full database reindex: 11:00pm on Sundays
>> What I found was that from Tuesday to Sunday my transactional log
>> backups are of minimal size. However the Monday 7:00am transactional
>> log backup is around the size of the database itself i.e. 30 Gigs. And
>> this happens each Monday 7:00am. I can only nail this down to the fact
>> that a full database reindex has taken place between Sunday 10:30pm and
>> Monday 7:00am - which is infact the case. However, my full backup takes
>> place on Monday 2:00am. So why should the transactional be so large? I
>> thought the transactional backup is a backup of:
>> 1) transactions since the last full backup (which in my case is 2:00am
>> i.e. AFTER the reindex had occured - hence the 7:00am log backup should
>> only show transactions since the last full backup NOT the last
>> transactional backup) OR,
>> 2) the last transactional backup if there has been a full backup prior
>> to the last log backup.
>> It seems as though my transactional log backup process does not depend
>> on my full backup process.
>> Does this mean that if I wanted to restore (for example) to Friday
>> 5:00pm I could either do:
>> a) take a Tuesday 2:00am full backup and apply transactional backups
>> from Tuesday 7am to Friday 5p, OR
>> b) take Friday 2am full backup and apply transactional backups from
>> Friday 2am to Friday 5pm?
>> I think I am confused and hard fixed on the idea that if you implement
>> both full and transactional backups, the transactonal backup that takes
>> place immediately after a full backup contains transactions relative to
>> the last full backup, NOT the last transactional backup. Can anyone
>> confirm this?
>> When the answer is "relative to the last transactional backup", I guess
>> when you restore from the last full backup (created at 2am) and apply a
>> transactional backup against it (created at 7am), the system is clever
>> enough to disregard all transactions within the transaction log that
>> occured between 10:30pm and 2am - thuis only applying those
>> transactions between 2am and 7am. Is this correct?
>> Any help most appreciated in sorting out my confusion!
>> Many thanks,
>> Peter
>>
>|||> So irrespective of whether WITH INIT is used or not, any transaction log
> backup will contain transactions since the previous log backup?
Yes.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"peter" <peter@.nospam.com> wrote in message news:uTek9jsQGHA.3872@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> but doesnt WITH INIT just overwrite all previous log backup sets (if used
> against log backups)?
> So irrespective of whether WITH INIT is used or not, any transaction log
> backup will contain transactions since the previous log backup?
> peter
> "Keith Kratochvil" <sqlguy.back2u@.comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:uaIzoNgQGHA.1096@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>> 1) backup3 contains all transactions that occured between the end of
>> backup1
>> and the start of backup3?
>> If the transaction log backups are created WITH INIT they will only
>> contain transactions since the previous log backup.
>> --
>> Keith Kratochvil
>>
>> "peter" <peter@.nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:%23h5W9WcQGHA.5092@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>> Thanks for the response.
>> so in effect, if i have:
>> backup1: 2am transactional backup
>> backup2: 5am full backup
>> backup3: 7am transactional backup
>> I would like to reconfirm... am i correct in saying that:
>> 1) backup3 contains all transactions that occured between the end of
>> backup1 and the start of backup3?
>> 2) I can apply backup3 to backup2. In this case not all those
>> transactions contained in backup3 will be applied against backup2 i.e.
>> only those occuring between the end of backup2 and the start of backup 3
>> will be applied.
>> Thanks again!
>> peter
>> <mag1kus@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1141687158.413556.213540@.j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Hi everyone,
>> Would someone be able to help with a question I have about the
>> strangeness of my backup process/results. My schema is:
>> Full Backup: 2:00am each day
>> Transactional log backup: 7:00am - 10:30pm (inclusive) each day at 30
>> min intervals
>> Full database reindex: 11:00pm on Sundays
>> What I found was that from Tuesday to Sunday my transactional log
>> backups are of minimal size. However the Monday 7:00am transactional
>> log backup is around the size of the database itself i.e. 30 Gigs. And
>> this happens each Monday 7:00am. I can only nail this down to the fact
>> that a full database reindex has taken place between Sunday 10:30pm and
>> Monday 7:00am - which is infact the case. However, my full backup takes
>> place on Monday 2:00am. So why should the transactional be so large? I
>> thought the transactional backup is a backup of:
>> 1) transactions since the last full backup (which in my case is 2:00am
>> i.e. AFTER the reindex had occured - hence the 7:00am log backup should
>> only show transactions since the last full backup NOT the last
>> transactional backup) OR,
>> 2) the last transactional backup if there has been a full backup prior
>> to the last log backup.
>> It seems as though my transactional log backup process does not depend
>> on my full backup process.
>> Does this mean that if I wanted to restore (for example) to Friday
>> 5:00pm I could either do:
>> a) take a Tuesday 2:00am full backup and apply transactional backups
>> from Tuesday 7am to Friday 5p, OR
>> b) take Friday 2am full backup and apply transactional backups from
>> Friday 2am to Friday 5pm?
>> I think I am confused and hard fixed on the idea that if you implement
>> both full and transactional backups, the transactonal backup that takes
>> place immediately after a full backup contains transactions relative to
>> the last full backup, NOT the last transactional backup. Can anyone
>> confirm this?
>> When the answer is "relative to the last transactional backup", I guess
>> when you restore from the last full backup (created at 2am) and apply a
>> transactional backup against it (created at 7am), the system is clever
>> enough to disregard all transactions within the transaction log that
>> occured between 10:30pm and 2am - thuis only applying those
>> transactions between 2am and 7am. Is this correct?
>> Any help most appreciated in sorting out my confusion!
>> Many thanks,
>> Peter
>>
>>
>

confused about pull

I have setup multiple merge replications that are continuously updating.
Now, we need to have laptops in the field that connect occasionally that
will merge. Because of that, I assume it needs merge PULL subscription.
I have had tons of problems and it has never worked. Right now it seems
to always be a permission issue.
First, I need to test this in the office to make sure it works. If it is
working, can I take that laptop out in the field, connect via the
internet, and it will work there with no changes? This is needed because
90% of the time the user is in the field, but occasionally he is in the
office, and I don't want to have to change configurations when he comes
and goes.
Next, to get a pull setup and functioning in the office, this seems to
require both access to SQL (via a sql login I created) AND access to the
server via a windows login - is this true? If so, what is the windows
login access for (the snapshot I beleive)?
So, I guess in a perfect world the laptop can be first configured and
replicated in the office (to get the snapshot) and then taken out of the
office and connect via the internet.
Does all of this sound reasonable. I know (according to Hilary) this is
a very complex issue and I am discovering it is. Hopefully this is like
a push/merge that seemed complex until it was working, then it was(is)
easy.
Let me know people's thoughts.
Thanks.
Darin
*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.codecomments.com ***
Darin,
the initial Initialization process will require access to the share holding
the snapshot files. This access is by default achieved using the sql server
agent and impersonation. If the account which the agent uses doesn't have
rights to the distributor's working folder (snapshot share) or if the
account is simply not recognised on this server, then there will be
problems. In the case of a non-trusted environment you then have to use an
alternative (usually FTP) to get the initialization going. Once it's going,
the merge agent uses whatever you've set up to do synchronization, over your
configured port. This can be trusted or sql authentication, and by default
it is also trusted.
Cheers,
Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com
(recommended sql server 2000 replication book:
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)

confused about pivot

I need to transform the following layout by pivoting, but am confused ......I have a compound primary key that I want to keep intact but then values in the row need to be broken out into their own row.

I need to go from this...

PKcol1 PKcol2 PKcol3 col4 col5 col6 col7

A 2007 1 Y N N N

A 2007 2 Y Y N N

A 2007 3 N N N Y

into this....

A 2007 1 col4 Y

A 2007 1 col5 N

A 2007 1 col6 N

A 2007 1 col7 N

A 2007 2 col4 Y

A 2007 2 col5 Y

A 2007 2 col6 N

A 2007 2 col7 N

A 2007 3 col4 N

A 2007 3 col5 N

A 2007 3 col6 N

A 2007 3 col7 Y

Can I do this using PIVOT or should I just do 4 inserts (one for each col40col7) into a temp table? Any suggestions?

Give a look to UNPIVOT in books online; this is an UNPIVOT and not a PIVOT

|||

Kent is right, you need to use UNPIVOT.

select

PKcol1,

PKcol2,

PKcol3,

col,

[value]

from

dbo.t1

unpivot

(

[value]

for col in ([col4], [col5], [col6], [col7])

) as unpvt;

AMB

Confused About Permission

I read a few articles on best SQL practices and they kept coming back to using a Least Privileged Account. So I did so and gave that account read only permissions. The articles also said to do updates use Stored Procedures - so I created stored procedures for updating/deleting data.

So here's my problem - I connect to the database using the Least Privileged Account, I use the Stored Procedures, but .NET keeps saying I lack permissions. If I GRANT the Least Privileged Account UPDATE/DELETE permission on the table, the Stored Procedures run perfectly. But isn't that EXACTLY what I'm trying to avoid?

My greatest concern is someone hacks my website and using the Least Privileged Account, they delete all my data using that account. So I don't want to give the Least Privileged Account the Update/Delete privileges.

Thanks a MILLION in advance!

Do you grant EXECUTE permission on the stored procedures to the account?

Once that is done you do not need UPDATE/DELETE on the tables for the account.

|||I granted execute permissions to the stored procedures, but it still fails when I check OFF the Update permission on the table (and still works when I check ON the Update permission). Any other ideas?|||

I figured out my problem (thanks to TATWORTH). I was creating the SP's while logging in as the least privileged account, so therefore the SP was [LeastPrivilegedAccount].[StoredProcedureName] - this required the Least privileged user to have the permissions. Now I created the SP's as [dbo].[StoredProcedureName] and granted the Least privileged user EXECUTE permissions.

It works perfectly! Thanks a MILLION!!1 Big Smile

Confused about MSSQL Express installations

I have this confusion because as I am trying to install "SQL Server Management Studio Express", the installers said I already have it.

Q1. Do I need it if I already have SQL Server Management Studio for Server 2005?

Q2.

How many ways to have SQL Express installed on your PC?

- Seperate downloads

- Visual Studio 2005 Retail

- SQL Server 2005

In that regards, will all methods are basically install the same set of components into the machine?

Q3. I don't find any relevant item in the "Add or Remove Programs" regarding to SQL Express.

Is that because SQLExpress is just an database instance not a application item?

Q4. Where are the files of Express in the file system?

I saw in c:\Program files\Microsoft SQL Server, a few directories like

80, 90, MSSQL.1, MSSQL.2, MSSQL.3, MSSQL.3, MSSQL.4

Which one of those belongs to SQL Express and which belongs to SQL Server 2005?

Is the directory structure identical with other types of installation (standalone and VS IDE)?

Thanks

Stanley

If you have the full version of SQL Management studio the installer will not allow you to install the express version as it is already installed.

Each of the numbered directories refers to an instance of sql server 2005 installed on the system. The engine tool and shared files are stored inside the version directories ie 80 or 90... where 80 is sql server 2000 and 90 is sql server 2005.

|||I too have had problems re the above. I uninstalled what I had, and then reinstalled my first download of SQLexpress. I configured (re help), added in online books, searched for answers re an interface and found something on dnncreative forum re the management download. This time I was able to install it.

Sorry for not being too specific, but it all became a blurr. Perhaps you could try without configuring, if that doesnt work, youll find what you need to know online amongst the configuring ...

Confused about MSDE installation

I needed to distribute the MSDE components to the computers that use my
software so I decided to build a setup program using InstallShield that
included the MSDE files.
After I ran the installation, I noticed that the setup created a folder on
my computer using the MSDE instance name I told the setup program to used
prefixed by a "$" character. So the folder created for an instance named
such as MACHOGRANDE was "C:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL
Server\MSSQL$MACHOGRANDE"
After noticing that, I went on to explore this folder and notice that it had
a bunch of files in it, I was surprised to see that one of the files was
named sqlservr.exe! It almost looked like the installation of my MSDE
instance was like a totally independent sql server installation! Like if it
had nothing to do with the other MSDE instance I had running. I doubt this
is the case since I am pretty sure there must be a gazzilion other files
installed on the computer that are sheared by all the database that use the
MSDE engine.
So my question is,
1. Why did the instance of MSDE crated all of this extra files (such as
sqlservr.exe)? Instead of simply created the ldf and mdf files like a
regular SQL server database? Aren't the MSDE and SQL server supposed to be
the same thing?
2. Also is there a special reason for the "$" character"?
ThanksRene,
what happened is actually exactly what should happen. If you install a
new (named)instance it will always be installed in a folder like
MSSQL$Instancename. It doesn't even matter if you use MSDE or any other
SQL Server edition. A new instance includes it's own sqlserver.exe and
is basically a new installation of the SQL Server engine.
If you just wanted to add a new database you could have done so in your
existing SQLServer installation.
>2. Also is there a special reason for the "$" character"?
I have no idea why MS uses $, probably someone at MS thought this makes
it easier to see that your dealing with a named instance.
M|||Thanks Markus,
If you don't mind, could you tell me if MSDE suffers from the same security
issues as the regular SQL Server?
For example, if a security vulnerability was found in SQL Server where the
server could be exploited by a hacker from the Internet, will I also have
the same problem with the MSDE instance? Or do MSDE instances only run
locally therefore its immune to those types of attacks?
Thanks.
"MarkusB" <m.bohse@.quest-consultants.com> wrote in message
news:1126682536.660588.222940@.f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Rene,
> what happened is actually exactly what should happen. If you install a
> new (named)instance it will always be installed in a folder like
> MSSQL$Instancename. It doesn't even matter if you use MSDE or any other
> SQL Server edition. A new instance includes it's own sqlserver.exe and
> is basically a new installation of the SQL Server engine.
> If you just wanted to add a new database you could have done so in your
> existing SQLServer installation.
> I have no idea why MS uses $, probably someone at MS thought this makes
> it easier to see that your dealing with a named instance.
> M
>|||Hi Rene,
Welcome to use MSDN Managed Newsgroup!
I have noticed you posted a duplicated post in the
microsoft.public.sqlserver.msde. To keep the integrity of newsgroup, I will
reply and follow up in that post. Thank you for your patience and
cooperation.
Sincerely yours,
Michael Cheng
Microsoft Online Partner Support
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
========================================
=============
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.|||"Rene" <nospam@.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:O73fJRQuFHA.3452@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Thanks Markus,
> If you don't mind, could you tell me if MSDE suffers from the same
> security issues as the regular SQL Server?
> For example, if a security vulnerability was found in SQL Server where the
> server could be exploited by a hacker from the Internet, will I also have
> the same problem with the MSDE instance? Or do MSDE instances only run
> locally therefore its immune to those types of attacks?
>
MSDE is SQL Server, but in order to reduce the possibility that widely
dispersed MSDE machines could be vulnerable to a network attack, network
connectivity is off my default in MSDE (and its sucessor SQL 2005 Express
Edition).
See
[url]http://support.microsoft.com/? kbid=814130#XSLTH5167121121120121120120[
/url]
David

Confused about MSDE installation

I needed to distribute the MSDE components to the computers that use my
software so I decided to build a setup program using InstallShield that
included the MSDE files.
After I ran the installation, I noticed that the setup created a folder on
my computer using the MSDE instance name I told the setup program to used
prefixed by a "$" character. So the folder created for an instance named
such as MACHOGRANDE was "C:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL
Server\MSSQL$MACHOGRANDE"
After noticing that, I went on to explore this folder and notice that it had
a bunch of files in it, I was surprised to see that one of the files was
named sqlservr.exe! It almost looked like the installation of my MSDE
instance was like a totally independent sql server installation! Like if it
had nothing to do with the other MSDE instance I had running. I doubt this
is the case since I am pretty sure there must be a gazzilion other files
installed on the computer that are sheared by all the database that use the
MSDE engine.
So my question is,
1. Why did the instance of MSDE crated all of this extra files (such as
sqlservr.exe)? Instead of simply created the ldf and mdf files like a
regular SQL server database? Aren't the MSDE and SQL server supposed to be
the same thing?
2. Also is there a special reason for the "$" character"?
Thanks
Rene,
what happened is actually exactly what should happen. If you install a
new (named)instance it will always be installed in a folder like
MSSQL$Instancename. It doesn't even matter if you use MSDE or any other
SQL Server edition. A new instance includes it's own sqlserver.exe and
is basically a new installation of the SQL Server engine.
If you just wanted to add a new database you could have done so in your
existing SQLServer installation.
>2. Also is there a special reason for the "$" character"?
I have no idea why MS uses $, probably someone at MS thought this makes
it easier to see that your dealing with a named instance.
M
|||Thanks Markus,
If you don't mind, could you tell me if MSDE suffers from the same security
issues as the regular SQL Server?
For example, if a security vulnerability was found in SQL Server where the
server could be exploited by a hacker from the Internet, will I also have
the same problem with the MSDE instance? Or do MSDE instances only run
locally therefore its immune to those types of attacks?
Thanks.
"MarkusB" <m.bohse@.quest-consultants.com> wrote in message
news:1126682536.660588.222940@.f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
> Rene,
> what happened is actually exactly what should happen. If you install a
> new (named)instance it will always be installed in a folder like
> MSSQL$Instancename. It doesn't even matter if you use MSDE or any other
> SQL Server edition. A new instance includes it's own sqlserver.exe and
> is basically a new installation of the SQL Server engine.
> If you just wanted to add a new database you could have done so in your
> existing SQLServer installation.
> I have no idea why MS uses $, probably someone at MS thought this makes
> it easier to see that your dealing with a named instance.
> M
>
|||Hi Rene,
Welcome to use MSDN Managed Newsgroup!
I have noticed you posted a duplicated post in the
microsoft.public.sqlserver.msde. To keep the integrity of newsgroup, I will
reply and follow up in that post. Thank you for your patience and
cooperation.
Sincerely yours,
Michael Cheng
Microsoft Online Partner Support
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
================================================== ===
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
|||"Rene" <nospam@.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:O73fJRQuFHA.3452@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Thanks Markus,
> If you don't mind, could you tell me if MSDE suffers from the same
> security issues as the regular SQL Server?
> For example, if a security vulnerability was found in SQL Server where the
> server could be exploited by a hacker from the Internet, will I also have
> the same problem with the MSDE instance? Or do MSDE instances only run
> locally therefore its immune to those types of attacks?
>
MSDE is SQL Server, but in order to reduce the possibility that widely
dispersed MSDE machines could be vulnerable to a network attack, network
connectivity is off my default in MSDE (and its sucessor SQL 2005 Express
Edition).
See
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=8...21120121120120
David

Confused about MSDE installation

I needed to distribute the MSDE components to the computers that use my
software so I decided to build a setup program using InstallShield that
included the MSDE files.
After I ran the installation, I noticed that the setup created a folder on
my computer using the MSDE instance name I told the setup program to used
prefixed by a "$" character. So the folder created for an instance named
such as MACHOGRANDE was "C:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL
Server\MSSQL$MACHOGRANDE"
After noticing that, I went on to explore this folder and notice that it had
a bunch of files in it, I was surprised to see that one of the files was
named sqlservr.exe! It almost looked like the installation of my MSDE
instance was like a totally independent sql server installation! Like if it
had nothing to do with the other MSDE instance I had running. I doubt this
is the case since I am pretty sure there must be a gazzilion other files
installed on the computer that are sheared by all the database that use the
MSDE engine.
So my question is,
1. Why did the instance of MSDE crated all of this extra files (such as
sqlservr.exe)? Instead of simply created the ldf and mdf files like a
regular SQL server database? Aren't the MSDE and SQL server supposed to be
the same thing?
2. Also is there a special reason for the "$" character"?
ThanksRene,
what happened is actually exactly what should happen. If you install a
new (named)instance it will always be installed in a folder like
MSSQL$Instancename. It doesn't even matter if you use MSDE or any other
SQL Server edition. A new instance includes it's own sqlserver.exe and
is basically a new installation of the SQL Server engine.
If you just wanted to add a new database you could have done so in your
existing SQLServer installation.
>2. Also is there a special reason for the "$" character"?
I have no idea why MS uses $, probably someone at MS thought this makes
it easier to see that your dealing with a named instance.
M|||Thanks Markus,
If you don't mind, could you tell me if MSDE suffers from the same security
issues as the regular SQL Server?
For example, if a security vulnerability was found in SQL Server where the
server could be exploited by a hacker from the Internet, will I also have
the same problem with the MSDE instance? Or do MSDE instances only run
locally therefore its immune to those types of attacks?
Thanks.
"MarkusB" <m.bohse@.quest-consultants.com> wrote in message
news:1126682536.660588.222940@.f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Rene,
> what happened is actually exactly what should happen. If you install a
> new (named)instance it will always be installed in a folder like
> MSSQL$Instancename. It doesn't even matter if you use MSDE or any other
> SQL Server edition. A new instance includes it's own sqlserver.exe and
> is basically a new installation of the SQL Server engine.
> If you just wanted to add a new database you could have done so in your
> existing SQLServer installation.
>>2. Also is there a special reason for the "$" character"?
> I have no idea why MS uses $, probably someone at MS thought this makes
> it easier to see that your dealing with a named instance.
> M
>|||Hi Rene,
Welcome to use MSDN Managed Newsgroup!
I have noticed you posted a duplicated post in the
microsoft.public.sqlserver.msde. To keep the integrity of newsgroup, I will
reply and follow up in that post. Thank you for your patience and
cooperation.
Sincerely yours,
Michael Cheng
Microsoft Online Partner Support
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
=====================================================This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.|||"Rene" <nospam@.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:O73fJRQuFHA.3452@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Thanks Markus,
> If you don't mind, could you tell me if MSDE suffers from the same
> security issues as the regular SQL Server?
> For example, if a security vulnerability was found in SQL Server where the
> server could be exploited by a hacker from the Internet, will I also have
> the same problem with the MSDE instance? Or do MSDE instances only run
> locally therefore its immune to those types of attacks?
>
MSDE is SQL Server, but in order to reduce the possibility that widely
dispersed MSDE machines could be vulnerable to a network attack, network
connectivity is off my default in MSDE (and its sucessor SQL 2005 Express
Edition).
See
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=814130#XSLTH5167121121120121120120
David

Saturday, 25 February 2012

Confused about Server Express and Reporting Services

Confused about Server Express and Reporting Services

Confused about reporting feature

Confused about reporting feature

Confused about relation between full backup and transaction log backup

Confused about relation between full backup and transaction log backup

Confused about relation between full backup and transaction log backup

confused about pull

confused about pivot

Confused About Permission

Confused about MSSQL Express installations

Confused about MSDE installation

Confused about MSDE installation

Confused about MSDE installation

SQL Configure

Blog Archive

About Me