Sample db problem: system

Showing posts with label system. Show all posts

Friday, March 30, 2012

Saving results of job to a text file

OK. I figured out a way how to do this and in case anyone
else wants to do it...
Call osql using Operating System Command from the job step.
osql -Ssrever -Uuser -Ppassword -Q"DB.dbo.stored proc"
I'd still be interested in know how other people do it.
Still need to play around a bit with the file format.
Amelia.

>--Original Message--
>Using the SQLServer job scheduler, just wondering if it
is
>possible to call a stored proc in a job step using Type
>Transact-SQL and then save the results out to a text file?
>At the moment, I am using Operating System Command Type
to
>call a command file which calls a windows script file
>using javascript to call the stored proc using osql and
>then specifiying the file name for output here.
>This must be a common thing in Prod Support environments
>to schedule daily jobs to run taht produce result files
>saved somewhere. Is there a simpler way?
>Thanks for any help.
>.
>
Another way is to use the T-SQL job type step. When viewing
the job step properties, click the advanced tab. From there,
you can specify an output file for the results of the t-sql
command for the job step.
-Sue
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 18:28:42 -0700,
<anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>OK. I figured out a way how to do this and in case anyone
>else wants to do it...
>Call osql using Operating System Command from the job step.
>osql -Ssrever -Uuser -Ppassword -Q"DB.dbo.stored proc"
>I'd still be interested in know how other people do it.
>Still need to play around a bit with the file format.
>Amelia.
>is
>to
|||Thanks Sue. I didn't know this method either.
:0)
Amelia
>--Original Message--
>Another way is to use the T-SQL job type step. When
viewing
>the job step properties, click the advanced tab. From
there,
>you can specify an output file for the results of the t-
sql[vbcol=seagreen]
>command for the job step.
>-Sue
>On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 18:28:42 -0700,
><anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
anyone[vbcol=seagreen]
step.[vbcol=seagreen]
file?[vbcol=seagreen]
environments
>.
>
|||This is exactly what I was after. I feel so silly that I
did not see this before.
Thanks again.
Amelia
[vbcol=seagreen]
>--Original Message--
>Thanks Sue. I didn't know this method either.
>:0)
>Amelia
>viewing
>there,
>sql
>anyone
>step.
it[vbcol=seagreen]
Type[vbcol=seagreen]
>file?
Type[vbcol=seagreen]
and[vbcol=seagreen]
>environments
files
>.
>
|||You have plenty of company - a lot of people miss that this
functionality is available.
Glad it helped -
-Sue
On Sun, 4 Jul 2004 21:02:26 -0700, "Amelia"
<anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>This is exactly what I was after. I feel so silly that I
>did not see this before.
>Thanks again.
>Amelia
>it
>Type
>Type
>and
>files

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

saving mp3 files in the database

has anyone got any opinions on the pros/cons of storing mp3 files in the database instead of the file system ?

How could this be done ? Would it be a binary data type ?

It would be done exactly the same way images (or any document type for that matter) are stored in the database. Search this forum, there are plenty of examples on just how to do that (one today, and one yesterday that I saw).

Monday, March 26, 2012

saving Files in DB

In my system, I generate invoices as PDF for my clients and I need to email them and save them on the database. What is the best approach for achieving that?!

Shall I save the files path in the SQL server 2000 as ( varchar ) and save files in a folder in the server or there is another approach?! is there any recommendation or advice about the procedure to send emails shall i save them first then send them or ...!??

Appreciate your advice!

You can save any file intactly into SQL server, using BLOB columns. What you need to do is only transfer binary data between files and databases, which is easy to accomplish with C# or VB, ect.

FYI, here is a similar post:

http://forums.asp.net/thread/1257206.aspx

Friday, March 23, 2012

Saving data to SQL Data Base

Hi,
I'm using the following code to open a data base and show it's content
in a Data Grid View
--
Code
--
Imports System.Data.SqlClient

Private Sub Form1_Load(ByVal sender As System.Object, ByVal e As
System.EventArgs) Handles MyBase.Load

Dim conn As New SqlConnection("Data
Source=./wideserver;Path="c:/cct.mdf";User
Id=username;Password=Password;")
Using (conn)
conn.Open()
Dim com As SqlCommand = conn.CreateCommand()
Using (com)
com.CommandType = CommandType.Text

com.CommandText = "Select * From users"
Dim da As New SqlDataAdapter(com)
Using (da)
Dim dt As New DataTable("usertable")
Using (dt)
da.Fill(dt)
Dim dgv As New DataGridView()
dgv.Dock = DockStyle.Fill
dgv.DataSource = dt
Me.Controls.Add(dgv)
End Using
End Using
End Using
End Using
End Sub
--
end code
--

The following code allow me to see the table data in a Data Grid View
but now i want to save the changes in the table (after making
modifications in the dgv)
i use : dta.update(dt)
but that don't work !!!!!!
Any Help and thanks a lot
Omar Abid
www.omarabid.uni.ccOmar Abid (omar.abid2006@.gmail.com) writes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by

Thanks for your reply. I'm new to SQL and just learning. Do you direct
links (that contain specific thing that i need)
If so post those links

If you are to work with ADO .Net, you need to learn to with MSDN Library,
either on disk or on the web.

The link for the .UpdateCommand property in MSDN Library is
ms-
help://MS.MSDNQTR.v80.en/MS.MSDN.v80/MS.NETDEVFX.v20.en/cpref10/html/P_Syste
m_Data_SqlClient_SqlDataAdapter_UpdateCommand.htm

If you are new to ADO .Net in general and want a head start, I recommend
David Sceppa's "ADO .Net Core Reference".

--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se
Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...oads/books.mspx
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodin...ions/books.mspx|||On Aug 14, 2:29 pm, Erland Sommarskog <esq...@.sommarskog.sewrote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by

Omar Abid (omar.abid2...@.gmail.com) writes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by

Thanks for your reply. I'm new to SQL and just learning. Do you direct
links (that contain specific thing that i need)
If so post those links

>
If you are to work with ADO .Net, you need to learn to with MSDN Library,
either on disk or on the web.
>
The link for the .UpdateCommand property in MSDN Library is
ms-
help://MS.MSDNQTR.v80.en/MS.MSDN.v80/MS.NETDEVFX.v20.en/cpref10/html/P_Syste
m_Data_SqlClient_SqlDataAdapter_UpdateCommand.htm
>
If you are new to ADO .Net in general and want a head start, I recommend
David Sceppa's "ADO .Net Core Reference".
>
--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esq...@.sommarskog.se
>
Books Online for SQL Server 2005 athttp://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/downloads/books...
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 athttp://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/previousversions/books.mspx

Hi Erland Sommarskog,
I see thanks very much for your interest
Omar Abid
www.omarabid.uni.cc

Saving Auto Recovery Information

I am using the Microsoft SQL Server Management Studio to manage our database objects over a VPN connection. At scheduled intervals the system saves recovery information.

The problem is that the location of the recovery files appears to be located on a remote server. This causes the UI to completely freeze while the operation is in progress.

How can I change the location of the recovery files or turn off the Auto Recovery functionality completely.

In VS2005 this is configurable in the Tools-->Options-->Environment settings.

Thanks.

There is not configurable today in SQL 2005. We have a tracking bug for this issue.

Thanks,

Gops Dwarak

|||

Thanks for the reply.

Do you know when a fix may be released for this? Are you aware of how I can get the Enterprise Manager working on the same pc as the SQL Server Management Studio or do I need to uninstall SQL Server 2005?

Regards

David

|||

Enterprise manager and SQL Server Management studio can be run side by side on the same box. Answer is, you do not need to uninstall SQL 2005 to get Enterprise Manger working.

On the fix for the Autorecovery, it is planned to be fixed in next service pack. We are in planning stage for next service pack and to not have dates for this release now.

Thanks,

Gops Dwarak, MSFT

|||

I haven't tried this but this registry mod should disable AutoRecovery. If it doesn't work let me know and I'll dig a bit deeper. All the standard disclaimers about registry manipulation apply.

Go to HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Microsoft SQL Server\90\Tools\Shell\General\AutoRecover and change the “AutoRecover Enabled” value to zero.

|||

Bruce,

I have tried your fix on an XP SP2 machine and it seems to have worked. The only thing was that the reg key path for me (using SQL Server Management Studio Express) was:

HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Microsoft SQL Server\90\Tools\ShellSEM\General\AutoRecover

Thanks.

|||

Hi everybody.

I'm having the same problem in Microsoft Visual Studio 2005, Version 8.0.50727.42 (RTM.050727-4200)
Microsoft .NET Framework Version 2.0.50727 but not only the IDE freezes when saving autorecovery information but also when saving any modified file.

Do you guys know of a thread like this related to this issue? Any ideas?

Thanks a lot!

|||

Hi,

I have the same problem.

There is a conflict between the antivirus and the source control.

I did not find a solution yet. Does somebody have an idea?

Thanks.

Saving Auto Recovery Information

I am using the Microsoft SQL Server Management Studio to manage our database objects over a VPN connection. At scheduled intervals the system saves recovery information.

The problem is that the location of the recovery files appears to be located on a remote server. This causes the UI to completely freeze while the operation is in progress.

How can I change the location of the recovery files or turn off the Auto Recovery functionality completely.

In VS2005 this is configurable in the Tools-->Options-->Environment settings.

Thanks.

There is not configurable today in SQL 2005. We have a tracking bug for this issue.

Thanks,

Gops Dwarak

|||

Thanks for the reply.

Regards

David

|||

Enterprise manager and SQL Server Management studio can be run side by side on the same box. Answer is, you do not need to uninstall SQL 2005 to get Enterprise Manger working.

On the fix for the Autorecovery, it is planned to be fixed in next service pack. We are in planning stage for next service pack and to not have dates for this release now.

Thanks,

Gops Dwarak, MSFT

|||

I haven't tried this but this registry mod should disable AutoRecovery. If it doesn't work let me know and I'll dig a bit deeper. All the standard disclaimers about registry manipulation apply.

Go to HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Microsoft SQL Server\90\Tools\Shell\General\AutoRecover and change the “AutoRecover Enabled” value to zero.

|||

Bruce,

I have tried your fix on an XP SP2 machine and it seems to have worked. The only thing was that the reg key path for me (using SQL Server Management Studio Express) was:

HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Microsoft SQL Server\90\Tools\ShellSEM\General\AutoRecover

Thanks.

|||

Hi everybody.

Do you guys know of a thread like this related to this issue? Any ideas?

Thanks a lot!

|||

Hi,

I have the same problem.

There is a conflict between the antivirus and the source control.

I did not find a solution yet. Does somebody have an idea?

Thanks.

sql

Saving Auto Recovery Information

I am using the Microsoft SQL Server Management Studio to manage our database objects over a VPN connection. At scheduled intervals the system saves recovery information.

The problem is that the location of the recovery files appears to be located on a remote server. This causes the UI to completely freeze while the operation is in progress.

How can I change the location of the recovery files or turn off the Auto Recovery functionality completely.

In VS2005 this is configurable in the Tools-->Options-->Environment settings.

Thanks.

There is not configurable today in SQL 2005. We have a tracking bug for this issue.

Thanks,

Gops Dwarak

|||

Thanks for the reply.

Regards

David

|||

Enterprise manager and SQL Server Management studio can be run side by side on the same box. Answer is, you do not need to uninstall SQL 2005 to get Enterprise Manger working.

On the fix for the Autorecovery, it is planned to be fixed in next service pack. We are in planning stage for next service pack and to not have dates for this release now.

Thanks,

Gops Dwarak, MSFT

|||

I haven't tried this but this registry mod should disable AutoRecovery. If it doesn't work let me know and I'll dig a bit deeper. All the standard disclaimers about registry manipulation apply.

Go to HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Microsoft SQL Server\90\Tools\Shell\General\AutoRecover and change the “AutoRecover Enabled” value to zero.

|||

Bruce,

I have tried your fix on an XP SP2 machine and it seems to have worked. The only thing was that the reg key path for me (using SQL Server Management Studio Express) was:

HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Microsoft SQL Server\90\Tools\ShellSEM\General\AutoRecover

Thanks.

|||

Hi everybody.

Do you guys know of a thread like this related to this issue? Any ideas?

Thanks a lot!

|||

Hi,

I have the same problem.

There is a conflict between the antivirus and the source control.

I did not find a solution yet. Does somebody have an idea?

Thanks.

Saving Auto Recovery Information

I am using the Microsoft SQL Server Management Studio to manage our database objects over a VPN connection. At scheduled intervals the system saves recovery information.

The problem is that the location of the recovery files appears to be located on a remote server. This causes the UI to completely freeze while the operation is in progress.

How can I change the location of the recovery files or turn off the Auto Recovery functionality completely.

In VS2005 this is configurable in the Tools-->Options-->Environment settings.

Thanks.

There is not configurable today in SQL 2005. We have a tracking bug for this issue.

Thanks,

Gops Dwarak

|||

Thanks for the reply.

Regards

David

|||

Enterprise manager and SQL Server Management studio can be run side by side on the same box. Answer is, you do not need to uninstall SQL 2005 to get Enterprise Manger working.

On the fix for the Autorecovery, it is planned to be fixed in next service pack. We are in planning stage for next service pack and to not have dates for this release now.

Thanks,

Gops Dwarak, MSFT

|||

I haven't tried this but this registry mod should disable AutoRecovery. If it doesn't work let me know and I'll dig a bit deeper. All the standard disclaimers about registry manipulation apply.

Go to HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Microsoft SQL Server\90\Tools\Shell\General\AutoRecover and change the “AutoRecover Enabled” value to zero.

|||

Bruce,

I have tried your fix on an XP SP2 machine and it seems to have worked. The only thing was that the reg key path for me (using SQL Server Management Studio Express) was:

HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Microsoft SQL Server\90\Tools\ShellSEM\General\AutoRecover

Thanks.

|||

Hi everybody.

Do you guys know of a thread like this related to this issue? Any ideas?

Thanks a lot!

|||

Hi,

I have the same problem.

There is a conflict between the antivirus and the source control.

I did not find a solution yet. Does somebody have an idea?

Thanks.

Saving and Restoring a SQL SERVER Table

Can anyone tell me how I can save or copy a SQL Server table and restore it
on another system?
I am running SQL Server 2000.
I see how I can export it to another database on my machine. But I need to
copy the table to another PC.
Any help is appreciated.
RonHi
If you can export it into it's own database then a backup can be made and
restored on the other PC.
If the whole database is not big, then just take the whole backup. It is not
clear why you want the one table and not a whole consistent backup!
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/304692/EN-US/
John
"Ron" <Ron@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3AD5917E-4CFF-4A6C-8DC3-54E98F92E6C6@.microsoft.com...
> Can anyone tell me how I can save or copy a SQL Server table and restore
> it
> on another system?
> I am running SQL Server 2000.
> I see how I can export it to another database on my machine. But I need
> to
> copy the table to another PC.
> Any help is appreciated.
> Ron
>|||John
I only need one table to test with at another location.
I want to be able to copy one table to a floppy and then restore.
The backup option copies the whole database.
How can this be done?
"John Bell" wrote:
> Hi
> If you can export it into it's own database then a backup can be made and
> restored on the other PC.
> If the whole database is not big, then just take the whole backup. It is not
> clear why you want the one table and not a whole consistent backup!
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/304692/EN-US/
> John
> "Ron" <Ron@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:3AD5917E-4CFF-4A6C-8DC3-54E98F92E6C6@.microsoft.com...
> > Can anyone tell me how I can save or copy a SQL Server table and restore
> > it
> > on another system?
> > I am running SQL Server 2000.
> > I see how I can export it to another database on my machine. But I need
> > to
> > copy the table to another PC.
> > Any help is appreciated.
> > Ron
> >
>
>|||DTS can copy individual tables and their data to databases
on different servers.
"Ron" <Ron@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3AD5917E-4CFF-4A6C-8DC3-54E98F92E6C6@.microsoft.com...
> Can anyone tell me how I can save or copy a SQL Server table and restore
it
> on another system?
> I am running SQL Server 2000.
> I see how I can export it to another database on my machine. But I need
to
> copy the table to another PC.
> Any help is appreciated.
> Ron
>|||I assume DTS stands for Data Transformation Service but that still doesn't
give me a clue how to save and restore an individual table.
"Armando Prato" wrote:
> DTS can copy individual tables and their data to databases
> on different servers.
> "Ron" <Ron@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:3AD5917E-4CFF-4A6C-8DC3-54E98F92E6C6@.microsoft.com...
> > Can anyone tell me how I can save or copy a SQL Server table and restore
> it
> > on another system?
> > I am running SQL Server 2000.
> > I see how I can export it to another database on my machine. But I need
> to
> > copy the table to another PC.
> > Any help is appreciated.
> > Ron
> >
>
>|||Why do you need to save it and restore it? I think if worse came to worse,
you
could place it on it's on filegroup and go that route.
With DTS, you can copy the table directly and not jump through any hoops.
"Ron" <Ron@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:893AFAE7-4648-4A1D-81AD-9F23559BDCC0@.microsoft.com...
> I assume DTS stands for Data Transformation Service but that still doesn't
> give me a clue how to save and restore an individual table.
> "Armando Prato" wrote:
> >
> > DTS can copy individual tables and their data to databases
> > on different servers.
> >
> > "Ron" <Ron@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:3AD5917E-4CFF-4A6C-8DC3-54E98F92E6C6@.microsoft.com...
> > > Can anyone tell me how I can save or copy a SQL Server table and
restore
> > it
> > > on another system?
> > > I am running SQL Server 2000.
> > > I see how I can export it to another database on my machine. But I
need
> > to
> > > copy the table to another PC.
> > > Any help is appreciated.
> > > Ron
> > >
> >
> >
> >|||Are you going to tell me how to do that with DTS or do you just want to keep
me in suspence?
I already explained why I need to save & restore?
"Armando Prato" wrote:
> Why do you need to save it and restore it? I think if worse came to worse,
> you
> could place it on it's on filegroup and go that route.
> With DTS, you can copy the table directly and not jump through any hoops.
> "Ron" <Ron@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:893AFAE7-4648-4A1D-81AD-9F23559BDCC0@.microsoft.com...
> > I assume DTS stands for Data Transformation Service but that still doesn't
> > give me a clue how to save and restore an individual table.
> >
> > "Armando Prato" wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > DTS can copy individual tables and their data to databases
> > > on different servers.
> > >
> > > "Ron" <Ron@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > > news:3AD5917E-4CFF-4A6C-8DC3-54E98F92E6C6@.microsoft.com...
> > > > Can anyone tell me how I can save or copy a SQL Server table and
> restore
> > > it
> > > > on another system?
> > > > I am running SQL Server 2000.
> > > > I see how I can export it to another database on my machine. But I
> need
> > > to
> > > > copy the table to another PC.
> > > > Any help is appreciated.
> > > > Ron
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>|||Well, you could've done a wee bit of leg work and researched DTS.
DTS is a very simple tool that can be accessed right from
the Microsoft SQL Server folder on your server. The folder
entry is called "Import and Export Data". From there a wizard
launches that asks you your source and destination servers along
with a screen that lists all available tables on the source where you check
off the
one you want to export.
"Ron" <Ron@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:DC936A64-DF31-45CB-B560-AADE917754B7@.microsoft.com...
> Are you going to tell me how to do that with DTS or do you just want to
keep
> me in suspence?
> I already explained why I need to save & restore?
> "Armando Prato" wrote:
> > Why do you need to save it and restore it? I think if worse came to
worse,
> > you
> > could place it on it's on filegroup and go that route.
> >
> > With DTS, you can copy the table directly and not jump through any
hoops.
> >
> > "Ron" <Ron@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:893AFAE7-4648-4A1D-81AD-9F23559BDCC0@.microsoft.com...
> > > I assume DTS stands for Data Transformation Service but that still
doesn't
> > > give me a clue how to save and restore an individual table.
> > >
> > > "Armando Prato" wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > DTS can copy individual tables and their data to databases
> > > > on different servers.
> > > >
> > > > "Ron" <Ron@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:3AD5917E-4CFF-4A6C-8DC3-54E98F92E6C6@.microsoft.com...
> > > > > Can anyone tell me how I can save or copy a SQL Server table and
> > restore
> > > > it
> > > > > on another system?
> > > > > I am running SQL Server 2000.
> > > > > I see how I can export it to another database on my machine. But
I
> > need
> > > > to
> > > > > copy the table to another PC.
> > > > > Any help is appreciated.
> > > > > Ron
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
> >|||Hi
The point was that you can create a new database and copy the one table into
that. Then you backup contains the one table. You can then restore that
database and if necessary copy the table again. Alternatives would be to to
script the table and use DTS or BCP to export the data.
You may want to use a CD or USB flash device if this data/backup is bigger
than 1.44 MB.
John
"Ron" <Ron@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:CA95E845-DA13-4589-BAEC-D0B2852ED2CB@.microsoft.com...
> John
> I only need one table to test with at another location.
> I want to be able to copy one table to a floppy and then restore.
> The backup option copies the whole database.
> How can this be done?
> "John Bell" wrote:
>> Hi
>> If you can export it into it's own database then a backup can be made
>> and
>> restored on the other PC.
>> If the whole database is not big, then just take the whole backup. It is
>> not
>> clear why you want the one table and not a whole consistent backup!
>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/304692/EN-US/
>> John
>> "Ron" <Ron@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:3AD5917E-4CFF-4A6C-8DC3-54E98F92E6C6@.microsoft.com...
>> > Can anyone tell me how I can save or copy a SQL Server table and
>> > restore
>> > it
>> > on another system?
>> > I am running SQL Server 2000.
>> > I see how I can export it to another database on my machine. But I
>> > need
>> > to
>> > copy the table to another PC.
>> > Any help is appreciated.
>> > Ron
>> >
>>

Saving an embedded image

Is it possible to save an embedded image back to the file system? I have a
report than has an embedded image and I want to be able to save it. Is this
possible?
Thanks in advance for any help.It's probably stored uuencoded. Take the contents of the image, put it in a
text file and find a UUDECODE utility.
"Dan Wood" <Dan Wood@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:411907D2-A4DA-4677-849A-678D5D6EFB3F@.microsoft.com...
> Is it possible to save an embedded image back to the file system? I have
> a
> report than has an embedded image and I want to be able to save it. Is
> this
> possible?
> Thanks in advance for any help.
>

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

Save system stored procedure results?

Is there a way to save the results of a system stored procedure into a
table? Example - I want to run xp_fixeddrives and send the results to a
temp table. Is this possible?
Rachael
*** Sent via Devdex http://www.devdex.com ***
Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!Yes, here's some quick code:
CREATE TABLE #FixedDrivesOutput
(
Drive char(1),
MBFree int
)
GO
INSERT INTO #FixedDrivesOutput (Drive, MBFree)
EXEC master.dbo.xp_fixeddrives
--
Vyas, MVP (SQL Server)
http://vyaskn.tripod.com/
"Rachael Faber" <rfaber@.alldata.net> wrote in message
news:Onzn0A5YEHA.2816@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Is there a way to save the results of a system stored procedure into a
> table? Example - I want to run xp_fixeddrives and send the results to a
> temp table. Is this possible?
> Rachael
>
> *** Sent via Devdex http://www.devdex.com ***
> Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!|||Hey -
How are you running the SP, ie.. from Query Analyzer, from isql ?
If from Query Analyzer you can save .CSV file or any other type of file and
then load it into a table.
If from isql, redirect the output to a file and then load it into a table.
HTH
"Rachael Faber" <rfaber@.alldata.net> wrote in message
news:Onzn0A5YEHA.2816@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Is there a way to save the results of a system stored procedure into a
> table? Example - I want to run xp_fixeddrives and send the results to a
> temp table. Is this possible?
> Rachael
>
> *** Sent via Devdex http://www.devdex.com ***
> Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!|||Rachel
try do to something like this
-- Create a table with the same structure that the procedure returns
Create table tempdb.dbo.sphelpdb( name_1 varchar(255), db_size varchar(255), owner varchar(255), db_id int ,created varchar(255), status varchar(255))
-- Insert into the table the results got using a EXEC and procedure with parameters
Insert tempdb.dbo.sphelpdb(name_1, db_size, owner, db_id, created, status)
EXEC('sp_helpdb')
-- Voila! the table contains, the procedure results.
Select * from tempdb.dbo.sphelpdb
"Rachael Faber" wrote:
> Is there a way to save the results of a system stored procedure into a
> table? Example - I want to run xp_fixeddrives and send the results to a
> temp table. Is this possible?
> Rachael
>
> *** Sent via Devdex http://www.devdex.com ***
> Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!
>

Save system stored procedure results?

Is there a way to save the results of a system stored procedure into a
table? Example - I want to run xp_fixeddrives and send the results to a
temp table. Is this possible?
Rachael
*** Sent via Devdex http://www.devdex.com ***
Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!Yes, here's some quick code:
CREATE TABLE #FixedDrivesOutput
(
Drive char(1),
MBFree int
)
GO
INSERT INTO #FixedDrivesOutput (Drive, MBFree)
EXEC master.dbo.xp_fixeddrives
Vyas, MVP (SQL Server)
http://vyaskn.tripod.com/
"Rachael Faber" <rfaber@.alldata.net> wrote in message
news:Onzn0A5YEHA.2816@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Is there a way to save the results of a system stored procedure into a
> table? Example - I want to run xp_fixeddrives and send the results to a
> temp table. Is this possible?
> Rachael
>
> *** Sent via Devdex http://www.devdex.com ***
> Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!|||Hey -
How are you running the SP, ie.. from Query Analyzer, from isql ?
If from Query Analyzer you can save .CSV file or any other type of file and
then load it into a table.
If from isql, redirect the output to a file and then load it into a table.
HTH
"Rachael Faber" <rfaber@.alldata.net> wrote in message
news:Onzn0A5YEHA.2816@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Is there a way to save the results of a system stored procedure into a
> table? Example - I want to run xp_fixeddrives and send the results to a
> temp table. Is this possible?
> Rachael
>
> *** Sent via Devdex http://www.devdex.com ***
> Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!|||Rachel
try do to something like this
-- Create a table with the same structure that the procedure returns
Create table tempdb.dbo.sphelpdb( name_1 varchar(255), db_size varchar(255),
owner varchar(255), db_id int ,created varchar(255), status varchar(255))
-- Insert into the table the results got using a EXEC and procedure with par
ameters
Insert tempdb.dbo.sphelpdb(name_1, db_size, owner, db_id, created, status)
EXEC('sp_helpdb')
-- Voila! the table contains, the procedure results.
Select * from tempdb.dbo.sphelpdb
"Rachael Faber" wrote:

> Is there a way to save the results of a system stored procedure into a
> table? Example - I want to run xp_fixeddrives and send the results to a
> temp table. Is this possible?
> Rachael
>
> *** Sent via Devdex http://www.devdex.com ***
> Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!
>|||Thanks for the suggestions. That's exactly what I needed!
*** Sent via Devdex http://www.devdex.com ***
Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!

Save system stored procedure results?

Is there a way to save the results of a system stored procedure into a
table? Example - I want to run xp_fixeddrives and send the results to a
temp table. Is this possible?
Rachael
*** Sent via Devdex http://www.devdex.com ***
Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!
Yes, here's some quick code:
CREATE TABLE #FixedDrivesOutput
(
Drive char(1),
MBFree int
)
GO
INSERT INTO #FixedDrivesOutput (Drive, MBFree)
EXEC master.dbo.xp_fixeddrives
Vyas, MVP (SQL Server)
http://vyaskn.tripod.com/
"Rachael Faber" <rfaber@.alldata.net> wrote in message
news:Onzn0A5YEHA.2816@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Is there a way to save the results of a system stored procedure into a
> table? Example - I want to run xp_fixeddrives and send the results to a
> temp table. Is this possible?
> Rachael
>
> *** Sent via Devdex http://www.devdex.com ***
> Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!
|||Hey -
How are you running the SP, ie.. from Query Analyzer, from isql ?
If from Query Analyzer you can save .CSV file or any other type of file and
then load it into a table.
If from isql, redirect the output to a file and then load it into a table.
HTH
"Rachael Faber" <rfaber@.alldata.net> wrote in message
news:Onzn0A5YEHA.2816@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Is there a way to save the results of a system stored procedure into a
> table? Example - I want to run xp_fixeddrives and send the results to a
> temp table. Is this possible?
> Rachael
>
> *** Sent via Devdex http://www.devdex.com ***
> Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!
|||Rachel
try do to something like this
-- Create a table with the same structure that the procedure returns
Create table tempdb.dbo.sphelpdb( name_1 varchar(255), db_size varchar(255), owner varchar(255), db_id int ,created varchar(255), status varchar(255))
-- Insert into the table the results got using a EXEC and procedure with parameters
Insert tempdb.dbo.sphelpdb(name_1, db_size, owner, db_id, created, status)
EXEC('sp_helpdb')
-- Voila! the table contains, the procedure results.
Select * from tempdb.dbo.sphelpdb
"Rachael Faber" wrote:

> Is there a way to save the results of a system stored procedure into a
> table? Example - I want to run xp_fixeddrives and send the results to a
> temp table. Is this possible?
> Rachael
>
> *** Sent via Devdex http://www.devdex.com ***
> Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!
>
|||Thanks for the suggestions. That's exactly what I needed!
*** Sent via Devdex http://www.devdex.com ***
Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!

Friday, March 9, 2012

SATA for SQL Server data

Hi all,
Currently we have database system that logs readings from sensors at an
interval from 5 minutes to 1 hour (more on the 5 minute side), from which
customers can view statistical data, graphs, etc.
For storage, we currently connect to a fiber-channel SAN with 150GB 15k
drives. As you would expect, the amounts of data for this system is getting
large enough that to continue with FC drives might not be cost effective. Is
SATA an option for this type of system, or will performance be too degraded.
I read that SQL 2k can only do about 300Mbps (true?), so perhaps the existing
config is already too much.
Thanks!
-ckWhere is you read that? SQL Server is not the limiting factor by any means.
It is the hardware and configuration that will most likely be the bottleneck
for I/O. You say you are only collecting data every 5 minutes or more. How
much data can that be? Can you give more details? I doubt that you should
have a performance issue either way but we would really need to know more
about the amount and type of data you are talking about writing and reading.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Chris" <Chris@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:327E30E1-A54C-4B9D-A128-7DA2BE6876DF@.microsoft.com...
> Hi all,
> Currently we have database system that logs readings from sensors at an
> interval from 5 minutes to 1 hour (more on the 5 minute side), from which
> customers can view statistical data, graphs, etc.
> For storage, we currently connect to a fiber-channel SAN with 150GB 15k
> drives. As you would expect, the amounts of data for this system is
> getting
> large enough that to continue with FC drives might not be cost effective.
> Is
> SATA an option for this type of system, or will performance be too
> degraded.
> I read that SQL 2k can only do about 300Mbps (true?), so perhaps the
> existing
> config is already too much.
> Thanks!
> -ck|||Perhaps I am misreading.
Here is the article:
http://www.sql-server-performance.com/jc_system_storage_configuration.asp
Skip to the part about System Storage:
"Now it turns out SQL Server 2000 has limited ability to read from disk in a
table scan operation. Without hints, SQL Server 2000 table scan operation in
most systems will generate between 300-400MB/sec in disk reads."
As for the system:
I am not collecting data every 5 minutes; I am inserting data every 5
minutes. The scenario is a sensor wakes up every five minutes and collects
temperature data, etc. and inserts a row containing sensor information (id,
date time, firmware) plus the measurements (temp, %RH, etc.). Currently we
see about 16,000 new rows per hour with expect growth to be 12 - 20 X what we
currently are doing.
Customers can login to a website and view statistics, graphs, etc. based on
that sensor data. So you can possibly be displaying a graph for hundreds of
thousands of retrieved sensor readings.
I feel this is an I/O intense application, and I am afraid to "scale back"
from Fiber channel to SATA just based on the fact that FC is faster. But is
it REALLY that much better?
Does anyone else deal with such large amounts of data and how do they store
it?
-ck
"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
> Where is you read that? SQL Server is not the limiting factor by any means.
> It is the hardware and configuration that will most likely be the bottleneck
> for I/O. You say you are only collecting data every 5 minutes or more. How
> much data can that be? Can you give more details? I doubt that you should
> have a performance issue either way but we would really need to know more
> about the amount and type of data you are talking about writing and reading.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> "Chris" <Chris@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:327E30E1-A54C-4B9D-A128-7DA2BE6876DF@.microsoft.com...
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Currently we have database system that logs readings from sensors at an
> > interval from 5 minutes to 1 hour (more on the 5 minute side), from which
> > customers can view statistical data, graphs, etc.
> >
> > For storage, we currently connect to a fiber-channel SAN with 150GB 15k
> > drives. As you would expect, the amounts of data for this system is
> > getting
> > large enough that to continue with FC drives might not be cost effective.
> > Is
> > SATA an option for this type of system, or will performance be too
> > degraded.
> > I read that SQL 2k can only do about 300Mbps (true?), so perhaps the
> > existing
> > config is already too much.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > -ck
>
>|||"Chris" <Chris@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A4FFD3A4-2EA8-4C9C-9EA6-FCB2BA4CC65A@.microsoft.com...
> As for the system:
> I am not collecting data every 5 minutes; I am inserting data every 5
> minutes. The scenario is a sensor wakes up every five minutes and collects
> temperature data, etc. and inserts a row containing sensor information
> (id,
> date time, firmware) plus the measurements (temp, %RH, etc.). Currently we
> see about 16,000 new rows per hour with expect growth to be 12 - 20 X what
> we
> currently are doing.
> Customers can login to a website and view statistics, graphs, etc. based
> on
> that sensor data. So you can possibly be displaying a graph for hundreds
> of
> thousands of retrieved sensor readings.
>
How big is each row? 5 bytes, 5,000, 5 million?
That's really going to drive things. Typically a row can't exceed 8060
bytes. (unless you use large text).
SQL will read/write a page (8K) at time.
So if a row is 8000 bytes, you need to write a row per page.
If it's 800 bytes, you can write 10 rows per page, so it'll be that much
faster.
Ultimately you just really need to figure out the size of the rows.
Now the site at my former employer, we were recording millions of banner ad
impressions an hour. On fairly old hardware.
> I feel this is an I/O intense application, and I am afraid to "scale back"
> from Fiber channel to SATA just based on the fact that FC is faster. But
> is
> it REALLY that much better?
> Does anyone else deal with such large amounts of data and how do they
> store
> it?
By doing the math. ;-)
Figure out what you really need and you can scale from there.
> -ck
>
> "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
>> Where is you read that? SQL Server is not the limiting factor by any
>> means.
>> It is the hardware and configuration that will most likely be the
>> bottleneck
>> for I/O. You say you are only collecting data every 5 minutes or more.
>> How
>> much data can that be? Can you give more details? I doubt that you
>> should
>> have a performance issue either way but we would really need to know more
>> about the amount and type of data you are talking about writing and
>> reading.
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>> "Chris" <Chris@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:327E30E1-A54C-4B9D-A128-7DA2BE6876DF@.microsoft.com...
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > Currently we have database system that logs readings from sensors at an
>> > interval from 5 minutes to 1 hour (more on the 5 minute side), from
>> > which
>> > customers can view statistical data, graphs, etc.
>> >
>> > For storage, we currently connect to a fiber-channel SAN with 150GB 15k
>> > drives. As you would expect, the amounts of data for this system is
>> > getting
>> > large enough that to continue with FC drives might not be cost
>> > effective.
>> > Is
>> > SATA an option for this type of system, or will performance be too
>> > degraded.
>> > I read that SQL 2k can only do about 300Mbps (true?), so perhaps the
>> > existing
>> > config is already too much.
>> >
>> > Thanks!
>> >
>> > -ck
>>|||Chris,
Inserting 16K rows an hour or even 20 x that much is trivial with a well
designed db and application. I deal with applications every day that do that
many in a second or two. Reading hundreds of thousands of rows on a regular
basis may certainly be I/O intensive and I think you can handle it with both
FC or SATA given a proper design and hardware. Having said that if you try
to cut too much cost you end up with what you paid for. The only way to know
for sure if the system can handle the expected load is to test it under your
exact conditions. I know nothing of your app but it seems pretty
unrealistic to think that someone can get something meaningful out of
hundreds of thousands of rows displayed on a web page without any
aggregation. Might it be possible to aggregate this data when storing it or
in addition to the data you collect row by row? Then you can read much less
data and require much less I/O. Again I am not going to pretend I
understand your app and its requirement but that is the key here. You must
determine exactly how much and what type of I/O you will actually need and
do the math and test.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Chris" <Chris@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A4FFD3A4-2EA8-4C9C-9EA6-FCB2BA4CC65A@.microsoft.com...
> Perhaps I am misreading.
> Here is the article:
> http://www.sql-server-performance.com/jc_system_storage_configuration.asp
> Skip to the part about System Storage:
> "Now it turns out SQL Server 2000 has limited ability to read from disk in
> a
> table scan operation. Without hints, SQL Server 2000 table scan operation
> in
> most systems will generate between 300-400MB/sec in disk reads."
> As for the system:
> I am not collecting data every 5 minutes; I am inserting data every 5
> minutes. The scenario is a sensor wakes up every five minutes and collects
> temperature data, etc. and inserts a row containing sensor information
> (id,
> date time, firmware) plus the measurements (temp, %RH, etc.). Currently we
> see about 16,000 new rows per hour with expect growth to be 12 - 20 X what
> we
> currently are doing.
> Customers can login to a website and view statistics, graphs, etc. based
> on
> that sensor data. So you can possibly be displaying a graph for hundreds
> of
> thousands of retrieved sensor readings.
> I feel this is an I/O intense application, and I am afraid to "scale back"
> from Fiber channel to SATA just based on the fact that FC is faster. But
> is
> it REALLY that much better?
> Does anyone else deal with such large amounts of data and how do they
> store
> it?
> -ck
>
> "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
>> Where is you read that? SQL Server is not the limiting factor by any
>> means.
>> It is the hardware and configuration that will most likely be the
>> bottleneck
>> for I/O. You say you are only collecting data every 5 minutes or more.
>> How
>> much data can that be? Can you give more details? I doubt that you
>> should
>> have a performance issue either way but we would really need to know more
>> about the amount and type of data you are talking about writing and
>> reading.
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>> "Chris" <Chris@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:327E30E1-A54C-4B9D-A128-7DA2BE6876DF@.microsoft.com...
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > Currently we have database system that logs readings from sensors at an
>> > interval from 5 minutes to 1 hour (more on the 5 minute side), from
>> > which
>> > customers can view statistical data, graphs, etc.
>> >
>> > For storage, we currently connect to a fiber-channel SAN with 150GB 15k
>> > drives. As you would expect, the amounts of data for this system is
>> > getting
>> > large enough that to continue with FC drives might not be cost
>> > effective.
>> > Is
>> > SATA an option for this type of system, or will performance be too
>> > degraded.
>> > I read that SQL 2k can only do about 300Mbps (true?), so perhaps the
>> > existing
>> > config is already too much.
>> >
>> > Thanks!
>> >
>> > -ck
>>|||Hi,
I would looked at partitioning the data. The current data on the FC and the
historical data stored in SATA device. This will give you the preformance
needed for realtime data and cost saving by storing historical data on SATA
device.
Regards,
Kueh.
"Chris" <Chris@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:327E30E1-A54C-4B9D-A128-7DA2BE6876DF@.microsoft.com...
> Hi all,
> Currently we have database system that logs readings from sensors at an
> interval from 5 minutes to 1 hour (more on the 5 minute side), from which
> customers can view statistical data, graphs, etc.
> For storage, we currently connect to a fiber-channel SAN with 150GB 15k
> drives. As you would expect, the amounts of data for this system is
> getting
> large enough that to continue with FC drives might not be cost effective.
> Is
> SATA an option for this type of system, or will performance be too
> degraded.
> I read that SQL 2k can only do about 300Mbps (true?), so perhaps the
> existing
> config is already too much.
> Thanks!
> -ck|||Thanks all. I figured it would come down to a "depends" but I just wanted to
make sure that using SATA for an app like this did not throw up any big red
flags.
-ck
"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote:
> "Chris" <Chris@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:A4FFD3A4-2EA8-4C9C-9EA6-FCB2BA4CC65A@.microsoft.com...
> > As for the system:
> > I am not collecting data every 5 minutes; I am inserting data every 5
> > minutes. The scenario is a sensor wakes up every five minutes and collects
> > temperature data, etc. and inserts a row containing sensor information
> > (id,
> > date time, firmware) plus the measurements (temp, %RH, etc.). Currently we
> > see about 16,000 new rows per hour with expect growth to be 12 - 20 X what
> > we
> > currently are doing.
> >
> > Customers can login to a website and view statistics, graphs, etc. based
> > on
> > that sensor data. So you can possibly be displaying a graph for hundreds
> > of
> > thousands of retrieved sensor readings.
> >
> How big is each row? 5 bytes, 5,000, 5 million?
> That's really going to drive things. Typically a row can't exceed 8060
> bytes. (unless you use large text).
> SQL will read/write a page (8K) at time.
> So if a row is 8000 bytes, you need to write a row per page.
> If it's 800 bytes, you can write 10 rows per page, so it'll be that much
> faster.
> Ultimately you just really need to figure out the size of the rows.
> Now the site at my former employer, we were recording millions of banner ad
> impressions an hour. On fairly old hardware.
>
> > I feel this is an I/O intense application, and I am afraid to "scale back"
> > from Fiber channel to SATA just based on the fact that FC is faster. But
> > is
> > it REALLY that much better?
> >
> > Does anyone else deal with such large amounts of data and how do they
> > store
> > it?
> By doing the math. ;-)
> Figure out what you really need and you can scale from there.
>
> >
> > -ck
> >
> >
> > "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
> >
> >> Where is you read that? SQL Server is not the limiting factor by any
> >> means.
> >> It is the hardware and configuration that will most likely be the
> >> bottleneck
> >> for I/O. You say you are only collecting data every 5 minutes or more.
> >> How
> >> much data can that be? Can you give more details? I doubt that you
> >> should
> >> have a performance issue either way but we would really need to know more
> >> about the amount and type of data you are talking about writing and
> >> reading.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> >>
> >> "Chris" <Chris@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >> news:327E30E1-A54C-4B9D-A128-7DA2BE6876DF@.microsoft.com...
> >> > Hi all,
> >> >
> >> > Currently we have database system that logs readings from sensors at an
> >> > interval from 5 minutes to 1 hour (more on the 5 minute side), from
> >> > which
> >> > customers can view statistical data, graphs, etc.
> >> >
> >> > For storage, we currently connect to a fiber-channel SAN with 150GB 15k
> >> > drives. As you would expect, the amounts of data for this system is
> >> > getting
> >> > large enough that to continue with FC drives might not be cost
> >> > effective.
> >> > Is
> >> > SATA an option for this type of system, or will performance be too
> >> > degraded.
> >> > I read that SQL 2k can only do about 300Mbps (true?), so perhaps the
> >> > existing
> >> > config is already too much.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks!
> >> >
> >> > -ck
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>|||"Chris" <Chris@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:53906716-C57E-4454-B796-E24A9D76C936@.microsoft.com...
> Thanks all. I figured it would come down to a "depends" but I just wanted
> to
> make sure that using SATA for an app like this did not throw up any big
> red
> flags.
Not really.
(though some SATA drives are clearly "consumer" level and have lower MTBF
than you might want. So just keep an eye on that.)
> -ck
> "Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote:
>> "Chris" <Chris@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:A4FFD3A4-2EA8-4C9C-9EA6-FCB2BA4CC65A@.microsoft.com...
>> > As for the system:
>> > I am not collecting data every 5 minutes; I am inserting data every 5
>> > minutes. The scenario is a sensor wakes up every five minutes and
>> > collects
>> > temperature data, etc. and inserts a row containing sensor information
>> > (id,
>> > date time, firmware) plus the measurements (temp, %RH, etc.). Currently
>> > we
>> > see about 16,000 new rows per hour with expect growth to be 12 - 20 X
>> > what
>> > we
>> > currently are doing.
>> >
>> > Customers can login to a website and view statistics, graphs, etc.
>> > based
>> > on
>> > that sensor data. So you can possibly be displaying a graph for
>> > hundreds
>> > of
>> > thousands of retrieved sensor readings.
>> >
>> How big is each row? 5 bytes, 5,000, 5 million?
>> That's really going to drive things. Typically a row can't exceed 8060
>> bytes. (unless you use large text).
>> SQL will read/write a page (8K) at time.
>> So if a row is 8000 bytes, you need to write a row per page.
>> If it's 800 bytes, you can write 10 rows per page, so it'll be that much
>> faster.
>> Ultimately you just really need to figure out the size of the rows.
>> Now the site at my former employer, we were recording millions of banner
>> ad
>> impressions an hour. On fairly old hardware.
>>
>> > I feel this is an I/O intense application, and I am afraid to "scale
>> > back"
>> > from Fiber channel to SATA just based on the fact that FC is faster.
>> > But
>> > is
>> > it REALLY that much better?
>> >
>> > Does anyone else deal with such large amounts of data and how do they
>> > store
>> > it?
>> By doing the math. ;-)
>> Figure out what you really need and you can scale from there.
>>
>> >
>> > -ck
>> >
>> >
>> > "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
>> >
>> >> Where is you read that? SQL Server is not the limiting factor by any
>> >> means.
>> >> It is the hardware and configuration that will most likely be the
>> >> bottleneck
>> >> for I/O. You say you are only collecting data every 5 minutes or more.
>> >> How
>> >> much data can that be? Can you give more details? I doubt that you
>> >> should
>> >> have a performance issue either way but we would really need to know
>> >> more
>> >> about the amount and type of data you are talking about writing and
>> >> reading.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>> >>
>> >> "Chris" <Chris@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:327E30E1-A54C-4B9D-A128-7DA2BE6876DF@.microsoft.com...
>> >> > Hi all,
>> >> >
>> >> > Currently we have database system that logs readings from sensors at
>> >> > an
>> >> > interval from 5 minutes to 1 hour (more on the 5 minute side), from
>> >> > which
>> >> > customers can view statistical data, graphs, etc.
>> >> >
>> >> > For storage, we currently connect to a fiber-channel SAN with 150GB
>> >> > 15k
>> >> > drives. As you would expect, the amounts of data for this system is
>> >> > getting
>> >> > large enough that to continue with FC drives might not be cost
>> >> > effective.
>> >> > Is
>> >> > SATA an option for this type of system, or will performance be too
>> >> > degraded.
>> >> > I read that SQL 2k can only do about 300Mbps (true?), so perhaps the
>> >> > existing
>> >> > config is already too much.
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks!
>> >> >
>> >> > -ck
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>>
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html

Saturday, February 25, 2012

SAN And Drive Config

Hi
I have been reading recently that the most important area of design in a SQL
system is the drive subsystem. With this I would appreciate some feedback on
the type of issues relating to this, drive spindles, speed of drives, LUN
configs on the SAN and so on.
ThanksIn an ideal world, you would have these all on different spindles:
O/S, SQL Server program files
TempDB
Data files
Log files
Backup files
Make sure the SAN admin(s) gets actual different spindles, not just
different LUNs in the same disk group. My terminology is probably off, but
I think the point is clear
--
Kevin Hill
President
3NF Consulting
www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
www.DallasDBAs.com/forum - new DB forum for Dallas/Ft. Worth area DBAs.
www.experts-exchange.com - experts compete for points to answer your
questions
"News Microsoft" <thestig@.nobody.com> wrote in message
news:O98pYd$dFHA.2960@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> I have been reading recently that the most important area of design in a
> SQL system is the drive subsystem. With this I would appreciate some
> feedback on the type of issues relating to this, drive spindles, speed of
> drives, LUN configs on the SAN and so on.
> Thanks
>
>|||Well, actually the MOST important area where the most performance can be
gained is in the database design. Assuming the database design is
optimal, then you are correct, look at the disk subsystem.
Disk subsystem design could be summarised in a white paper, not in a
single usenet message. Have a search in google - there' plenty of topics
online that discusses this. Sorry I don't have any links for you at the mo.
--
Mark Allison, SQL Server MVP
http://www.markallison.co.uk
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602m.html
News Microsoft wrote:
> Hi
> I have been reading recently that the most important area of design in a SQL
> system is the drive subsystem. With this I would appreciate some feedback on
> the type of issues relating to this, drive spindles, speed of drives, LUN
> configs on the SAN and so on.
> Thanks
>
>|||awesome article on this topic on SQLServerCentral.com
check it out
Greg Jackson
PDX, Oregon

SAN abreviation

Hi all,
Can anyone light the question what is the difference between System Area
Network (mentioned in SQL Server EE features) and Storage Area Network.
Or i should advice ms to change abreviation in BOL ...System Area Network is basically a replacement to IP or NetBEUI. Consider a small network with
perhaps only two computers (your SQL Server and your web server). No need to carry the heavy IP
protocol on this, use something which is "closer to the metal". System Are Network is such, and if
you are running Enterprise Edition or Developer Edition of SQL server, you have such netlib: ViaSAN.
You probably know what Storage Area Network is already, and this is what we generally mean when we
say "SAN". If you don't know what SAN is, let us know.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Eli Milkova" <EliMilkova@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6C6ECE6B-21D4-465F-8023-8C26C4B7E26E@.microsoft.com...
> Hi all,
> Can anyone light the question what is the difference between System Area
> Network (mentioned in SQL Server EE features) and Storage Area Network.
> Or i should advice ms to change abreviation in BOL ...
>|||Thank you ...precious answer...thanks
"Tibor Karaszi" wrote:
> System Area Network is basically a replacement to IP or NetBEUI. Consider a small network with
> perhaps only two computers (your SQL Server and your web server). No need to carry the heavy IP
> protocol on this, use something which is "closer to the metal". System Are Network is such, and if
> you are running Enterprise Edition or Developer Edition of SQL server, you have such netlib: ViaSAN.
> You probably know what Storage Area Network is already, and this is what we generally mean when we
> say "SAN". If you don't know what SAN is, let us know.
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
> Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
>
> "Eli Milkova" <EliMilkova@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:6C6ECE6B-21D4-465F-8023-8C26C4B7E26E@.microsoft.com...
> > Hi all,
> > Can anyone light the question what is the difference between System Area
> > Network (mentioned in SQL Server EE features) and Storage Area Network.
> > Or i should advice ms to change abreviation in BOL ...
> >
> >
>

SAN abreviation

Hi all,
Can anyone light the question what is the difference between System Area
Network (mentioned in SQL Server EE features) and Storage Area Network.
Or i should advice ms to change abreviation in BOL ...System Area Network is basically a replacement to IP or NetBEUI. Consider a
small network with
perhaps only two computers (your SQL Server and your web server). No need to
carry the heavy IP
protocol on this, use something which is "closer to the metal". System Are
Network is such, and if
you are running Enterprise Edition or Developer Edition of SQL server, you h
ave such netlib: ViaSAN.
You probably know what Storage Area Network is already, and this is what we
generally mean when we
say "SAN". If you don't know what SAN is, let us know.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Eli Milkova" <EliMilkova@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6C6ECE6B-21D4-465F-8023-8C26C4B7E26E@.microsoft.com...
> Hi all,
> Can anyone light the question what is the difference between System Area
> Network (mentioned in SQL Server EE features) and Storage Area Network.
> Or i should advice ms to change abreviation in BOL ...
>|||Thank you ...precious answer...thanks
"Tibor Karaszi" wrote:

> System Area Network is basically a replacement to IP or NetBEUI. Consider
a small network with
> perhaps only two computers (your SQL Server and your web server). No need
to carry the heavy IP
> protocol on this, use something which is "closer to the metal". System Are
Network is such, and if
> you are running Enterprise Edition or Developer Edition of SQL server, you
have such netlib: ViaSAN.
> You probably know what Storage Area Network is already, and this is what w
e generally mean when we
> say "SAN". If you don't know what SAN is, let us know.
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
> Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
>
> "Eli Milkova" <EliMilkova@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:6C6ECE6B-21D4-465F-8023-8C26C4B7E26E@.microsoft.com...
>

SAN abreviation

Hi all,
Can anyone light the question what is the difference between System Area
Network (mentioned in SQL Server EE features) and Storage Area Network.
Or i should advice ms to change abreviation in BOL ...
System Area Network is basically a replacement to IP or NetBEUI. Consider a small network with
perhaps only two computers (your SQL Server and your web server). No need to carry the heavy IP
protocol on this, use something which is "closer to the metal". System Are Network is such, and if
you are running Enterprise Edition or Developer Edition of SQL server, you have such netlib: ViaSAN.
You probably know what Storage Area Network is already, and this is what we generally mean when we
say "SAN". If you don't know what SAN is, let us know.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Eli Milkova" <EliMilkova@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6C6ECE6B-21D4-465F-8023-8C26C4B7E26E@.microsoft.com...
> Hi all,
> Can anyone light the question what is the difference between System Area
> Network (mentioned in SQL Server EE features) and Storage Area Network.
> Or i should advice ms to change abreviation in BOL ...
>
|||Thank you ...precious answer...thanks
"Tibor Karaszi" wrote:

> System Area Network is basically a replacement to IP or NetBEUI. Consider a small network with
> perhaps only two computers (your SQL Server and your web server). No need to carry the heavy IP
> protocol on this, use something which is "closer to the metal". System Are Network is such, and if
> you are running Enterprise Edition or Developer Edition of SQL server, you have such netlib: ViaSAN.
> You probably know what Storage Area Network is already, and this is what we generally mean when we
> say "SAN". If you don't know what SAN is, let us know.
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
> Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
>
> "Eli Milkova" <EliMilkova@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:6C6ECE6B-21D4-465F-8023-8C26C4B7E26E@.microsoft.com...
>

Friday, March 30, 2012

Saving results of job to a text file

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

saving mp3 files in the database

Monday, March 26, 2012

saving Files in DB

Friday, March 23, 2012

Saving data to SQL Data Base

Saving Auto Recovery Information

Saving Auto Recovery Information

Saving Auto Recovery Information

Saving Auto Recovery Information

Saving and Restoring a SQL SERVER Table

Saving an embedded image

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

Save system stored procedure results?

Save system stored procedure results?

Save system stored procedure results?

Friday, March 9, 2012

SATA for SQL Server data

SATA for SQL Server data

SATA for SQL Server data

Saturday, February 25, 2012

SAN And Drive Config

SAN abreviation

SAN abreviation

SAN abreviation

Sample db problem

Blog Archive

About Me