Can anyone inform me how I would go about merging or combining 2 or more physical database files into 1. For example, suppose you have the following files out on your server:
hi, I am new to this technology. can anyone pls help me.can anybody tell me what is physiacl file and source physiacl file wat are the attributes of physical file and source physical file.and how do we identify the uniqueness of a job.
I have detached the database via sp_detach_db in a job, (I was trying to use a job to detach the database, then make copies of the mdf file, then attach the databases as different copies, somehow the job failed due to file locked) I tried to delete the physical files, but they were still locked. I tried several times, two of them I was able to delete the mdf files, but not the ldf file. The other one both mdf file and ldf file can not be deleted. I was not able to see the database via Management studio.
Is there a method in SQL Server 2k to re-locate the physical databasefiles at the time the server reboots. Currently, the only way I know todo this is by scripting some OS-level commands.Thanks in advance for your help.Amy BoydDatabase AdministratorNetwork Associates*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com ***Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!
I've been trying to get a definitive answer to this question but alas I have conflicting and patchy answers so far from other sources. I have an index that, lets say, requires 10GB of data space to rebuild..This index resides on a filegroup that spans 2 files on two seperate drives (i.e. a mdf and ndf)
When I rebuild this index how will each of these datafiles grow as the rebuild proceeds to completion? Lets for the time being remove the caveats of any other activity hitting the example index/database in question.My tests seem to show that only the mdf will grows (or the file with the lowest id in the that filegroup) provided there is enough space available in that particular file to complete the operation. The secondary ndf dat file doesnt grow at all if the mdf has enough space.
Is expected behavior? i.e. the index will be rebuilt in a contiguous manner relative to the files contained with the filegroup i.e. fileid 1 will grow till limit reached then next fileid grows etc?
Hi, Can anyone tell me a solution how to combine 3 primary files that are existing in a particular database into one. One of the database that was running has three primary(.mdf) files. Can any one tell me whether the files created in that way has impact on the performance of the server.Solution for this problem is highly appreciated. Thanks in advance. VS.
Hello all. Before my arrival at my current employer, our consultantsphysically set up our MSSQL 7 server as follows:drive c: contains the mssql enginedrive d: contains the transaction logdrive e: contains the data filesNo filegroups were set up and the data files consist of only 1 largephysical file. Currently, our data file is >10GB. When I was trained onthe physical aspects of sqlserver, I was told to never create physical files[color=blue]> 2048MB each. If I did, I could expect inefficient physical storage of[/color]data and slower performance (due to the OS).Our server has 2 RAID-5 arrays. Drive c: and e: are located on the firstarray and drive d: on the second. We're running Windows 4.0 NT Server SP6with NTFS.Can someone comment on the use of 1 single large data file vs. more smallerdata files?
Hi! I have an SQL server installation with a 6.5GB database online at a particular location. I need to move the Database to another location which is a 1000 Miles away.
I have an additional physical Server at the other location which I can use to Sync the database from the original location. Can anyone please guide me to the best strategy to sync the database from the original location to the new location with minimum downtime??
Can anyone explain to me how a column defined with a "bit null" datatype is physically stored in MSSQL? Is it stored like a "tinyint null" physically? In other words, how many bytes on the row on the page does a "bit null" datatype consume (assuming a non-null value 0, or 1 is the current value).
Is there any good documentation about the physical storage layout for a data page?
I have a new server where 32GB of RAM is installed and I have user databases on this server.I am using SQL server 2000 Enterprise edition and Platform is Windows 2003 adv server, which supports upto 128GB of memory.
sp_configure 'awe enabled' is set to 1 and at OS level, AWE is enabled as well.
max server memory (MB) is 2147483647
I was doing some stress test on this server but memory usage doesn't go beyond 180MB....can someone suggest a test for physical RAM ?
How can I make sure that application will make full use of available physical memory?
I may be put on a project involving the migration of a SQL Server 2000 database from one physical location to another. I've never done something like this so any guidance would be appreciated.
My plan is to: 1. Backup the live database. 2. Do a restoration at the new location. 3. Set up transactional replication between the two databases. 4. Update records to point to the new db.
Are there any problems with doing it this way? Is there a better solution? I am trying to do this without any downtime, or as little as possible.
Is there an alert for physical memory in SQL2K5? My requirement is - I should get an alert when the free space on a particular drive comes below a threshhold.
------------------------ I think, therefore I am - Rene Descartes
My server has 16GB RM but it is using only 3GB. And I see my server is using 3GB of Virtual Memory, too. Why my physical memory is not being utilized? How can I increase Physical Memory usage and decrease VM usage?
I just inherited a dev box, and need to do some performance analyzing on a 40 gig db for a client. Time is of the essence!
My question is that this dev box only has one disk partition (c: drive). Is it a huge deal that I don't have the db system files on one drive, with the data files on another, and tempdb on another,etc.....
Hello all,We are in the process of upgrading our SQL physical server (with SS2k). Inthe process we will change the OS form NT4 to W2K. What is the best way tocopy all my databases and SQL logins, roles, jobs, alerts, etc. from myactual (old) SQL Server to my new one?Thanks for your time.Yannick
I need to bulk insert very large amount of data into several MSSQLtables.The first Data model definition used identities to mantain relationshipbetween those tables but we found that natural keys (compound) arebetter forbulk insert (there is no need to obtain the identity first)My question is, changing the identities to natural keys (in some tablesinorder of 4, 5 attributes) will enlarge my database storage?I think MSSQL implements relationships with pointers (or hashcodes), sothestorage size will be similar, right?Regards,
I got a server that has a RAID-5 array partitioned into C: and D:drives (OS Win2K Adv. Server installed on C:). The server also has amapping to a NAS device using the latest protocols that trick thesystem into thinking the map is actually a local SCSII drive. That'sdrive X:.This server is used only for SQL, and contains an OLTP database thatsees a lot of use and is pretty heavily indexed.I am toying with the idea of centralizing my data storage on the NAS(data center network segment is 1-gigabit ethernet). So I wasthinking about putting my primary data file on the NAS (drive X:) andkeeping all tables there, creating a secondary data file on localRAID-5 (drive D:) and putting all non-clustered indexes there, as wellas keeping the tempdb there and specifying the sort in tempdb option.Log files would also remain on D:.If anyone can suggest a better scenario given the above setup - I'dlove to hear it. Much appreciated.Alexey Aksyonenko
Are there any problems or issues with backing up a transaction log to a physical file with the ".bak" extension? We are having some trouble with are hourly trans log backups and I was wondering if this could be part of the problem. Tom.
We have a sql 2005 server with 8GB of RAM. Task Manager shows that it only has 198,250k (about 200 MB) of Physical Memory available. I wonder if that number should be higher.
What can I check (Perfmon counters? Which ones?) to indicate it that's too little RAM, the right amount, or too much.
I usually crate relation with database but not use physical relation * My question is if crate physical relation is best way or not and what advantage and disadvantage of physical relation and if it the best way to make relation
hi we are in the process of developing a project and we r at the initial phase i.e. at the analysis phase and we have been discusssing on what is physical and logical database design. can any body send any links or articals on this will be hightly appreciated.
Hi, i'm trying to interface a c# application with an sql database created with Visual Web Developer Express. I have published the site (and the db) on iis 5 (xp pro). Everithing goes fine on accessing the database from internet,but when i try to connect the db while it's opened with my c# program i keep an error in the sqlconnection open command: Unable to open the physical file "C:myApp_Datamydb.mdf". Operating system error 32: "32(The file is in use by another process.)". My connection string from webconfig: <add name="MYDBCS" connectionString="Data Source=.SQLEXPRESS;Database="C:myApp_Datamydb.mdf;Integrated Security=True;Connect Timeout=30;User Instance=True" providerName="System.Data.SqlClient" /> .....and the connection string for the c# program: "Data Source=.\SQLEXPRESS;Database=c:myapp_datamydb.mdf;Integrated Security=False;Connect Timeout=30;User ID=abc;Password=abc;Trusted_Connection=False;"; I have used a user to connect the database because there was a conflict trying to open the db with Integrated Security=True.
Does anyone have an idea where is the error? Many thanks Max
Any help appreciated! Is there any performance enhancements to be gained by storing frequently 'trigger-written-to' databases on a seperate disk to the source database? In particular, we keep a 'history' database of all inserts/updates/deletes against records, activated by triggers, and I was wondering if I would gain performance enhancement by locating the two databases on different disks? Thanks in advance
Can someone recommend an application that produces an estimate of the size of a database from column definitions and estimated number of rows in each table? -- Thanks
Hi Everybody, I like to compute the actual physical database file size using queries.
From the EM database properties, the file size shown is not matching with the master..sysaltfiles.size
Ex. Actual file size is 12MB and 1MB for MDF & LDF respectively. 'sysaltfiles' shows 1464 & 96 resp. Since they are shoing it as 8K Pages, 96*8 = 768KB is not matching with 1024KB for the LDF file. Is there any overheads (additional space from the physical file for file headers) allocated?
I want to move 2 databases to another physical disk. They are both single file databases. It looks like a fairly straigtforward attach and detach procedure, but I have a couple of questions:
The log files (.ldf) currently reside on a separate physical disk from the data files, if I attach and reattach the data files will the logs remain where they are by default or do I have to re specify there location?
Is there any advantage to running the update statistics portion of the sp_detach_db?
Accidentally, I've managed to have this as part of a Create Database:
... FILENAME = N'C:MSSQLData\ estdb_Log.LDF' ...
, notice the triple backslash. The Create Database statement works fine, and sp_helpdb says the log file name is:
C:MSSQLData\ estdb_Log.LDF
I noticed the MSDOS command prompt also allows multiple backslashes, they're reduced to one when performing the command and I guess SQL Server does the same thing, so no problem so far really.
But is it supposed to work this way? Quite confusing, isn't it?
I have an MS SQL 2000 server running on a Proliat with two CPUs and 2GB RAM (the process actually uses 1.6GB).
For some reason, the same queries (which return the same data) run sometimes very fast and sometimes very slow.
I used the performance counter to find out that when the queries run fast there is little disk i/o and when they run slowly there is a lot of i/o.
I thought it happens because the DB keeps swapping tables in and out of RAM. The problem is that these things happen in periods. I can have a few hours of slow access and then a few hours of fast access. This makes me believe that it doesn't actually put the table in the cache untill it is requested enough times. Very weird.
