Hello.
I have large database with very high workload (100 trans/sec avg.)
When database files were located on local disks on the server I tried to
part data files, index files, files with binary objects and log files from
each other and place them on separate physical discs to improve performance.
Now we're planning to use cluster server with external storage (HP MSA 1000).
A technician, who was configuring the hardware, told me that in this
configuration storage library segments presented to MSSQL server as discs are
already spread on many physical discs and there is no reason now to put
database files on different drives.
The question is: is this true? Will it be good if I'll put all files on
one logical disc and let storage library to manage data distridution across
physical discs?
Thanks.
Serge Shakhov
Hi
Ideally, the log and data portion of the database should be on different
LUNs ("storage library segments") and the Log should be on RAID-1 or RAID-10.
RAID-5 is not optimal for the Log due to it's high latency. Actually, with
the price of storage today, RAID-5 has no place near a IO intensive server.
Further to that, if you get presented 5 LUNs, and then present them to SQL
Server as only one disk, generally, you do not use up all the storage, so the
first 2 or 3 of the LUNS will have all the traffic, and there is no data on
the other LUNs, so they get no traffic. You don't want this. You rather have
5 database files, one on each LUN so that all the drives are busy.
Without knowing exactly how the LUNs are mapped to the physical drives and
how you want to map to LUNs to OS drives, I can't pass more comment.
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Serge Shakhov" wrote:
> Hello.
> I have large database with very high workload (100 trans/sec avg.)
> When database files were located on local disks on the server I tried to
> part data files, index files, files with binary objects and log files from
> each other and place them on separate physical discs to improve performance.
> Now we're planning to use cluster server with external storage (HP MSA 1000).
> A technician, who was configuring the hardware, told me that in this
> configuration storage library segments presented to MSSQL server as discs are
> already spread on many physical discs and there is no reason now to put
> database files on different drives.
> The question is: is this true? Will it be good if I'll put all files on
> one logical disc and let storage library to manage data distridution across
> physical discs?
> Thanks.
> Serge Shakhov
|||Mike,
Is there a net guide somewhere on setting up log files and data optimally?
Thanks,
Mica
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message
news:F43766EE-6358-4515-B6A3-7705B516DA18@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi
> Ideally, the log and data portion of the database should be on different
> LUNs ("storage library segments") and the Log should be on RAID-1 or
> RAID-10.
> RAID-5 is not optimal for the Log due to it's high latency. Actually, with
> the price of storage today, RAID-5 has no place near a IO intensive
> server.
> Further to that, if you get presented 5 LUNs, and then present them to SQL
> Server as only one disk, generally, you do not use up all the storage, so
> the
> first 2 or 3 of the LUNS will have all the traffic, and there is no data
> on
> the other LUNs, so they get no traffic. You don't want this. You rather
> have
> 5 database files, one on each LUN so that all the drives are busy.
> Without knowing exactly how the LUNs are mapped to the physical drives and
> how you want to map to LUNs to OS drives, I can't pass more comment.
> --
> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Zurich, Switzerland
> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
>
> "Serge Shakhov" wrote:
Showing posts with label database. Show all posts
Showing posts with label database. Show all posts
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Data files location.
Hello.
I have large database with very high workload (100 trans/sec avg.)
When database files were located on local disks on the server I tried to
part data files, index files, files with binary objects and log files from
each other and place them on separate physical discs to improve performance.
Now we're planning to use cluster server with external storage (HP MSA 1000)
.
A technician, who was configuring the hardware, told me that in this
configuration storage library segments presented to MSSQL server as discs ar
e
already spread on many physical discs and there is no reason now to put
database files on different drives.
The question is: is this true? Will it be good if I'll put all files on
one logical disc and let storage library to manage data distridution across
physical discs?
Thanks.
Serge ShakhovHi
Ideally, the log and data portion of the database should be on different
LUNs ("storage library segments") and the Log should be on RAID-1 or RAID-10
.
RAID-5 is not optimal for the Log due to it's high latency. Actually, with
the price of storage today, RAID-5 has no place near a IO intensive server.
Further to that, if you get presented 5 LUNs, and then present them to SQL
Server as only one disk, generally, you do not use up all the storage, so th
e
first 2 or 3 of the LUNS will have all the traffic, and there is no data on
the other LUNs, so they get no traffic. You don't want this. You rather have
5 database files, one on each LUN so that all the drives are busy.
Without knowing exactly how the LUNs are mapped to the physical drives and
how you want to map to LUNs to OS drives, I can't pass more comment.
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Serge Shakhov" wrote:
> Hello.
> I have large database with very high workload (100 trans/sec avg.)
> When database files were located on local disks on the server I tried to
> part data files, index files, files with binary objects and log files from
> each other and place them on separate physical discs to improve performanc
e.
> Now we're planning to use cluster server with external storage (HP MSA 100
0).
> A technician, who was configuring the hardware, told me that in this
> configuration storage library segments presented to MSSQL server as discs
are
> already spread on many physical discs and there is no reason now to put
> database files on different drives.
> The question is: is this true? Will it be good if I'll put all files on
> one logical disc and let storage library to manage data distridution acros
s
> physical discs?
> Thanks.
> Serge Shakhov|||Mike,
Is there a net guide somewhere on setting up log files and data optimally?
Thanks,
Mica
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message
news:F43766EE-6358-4515-B6A3-7705B516DA18@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi
> Ideally, the log and data portion of the database should be on different
> LUNs ("storage library segments") and the Log should be on RAID-1 or
> RAID-10.
> RAID-5 is not optimal for the Log due to it's high latency. Actually, with
> the price of storage today, RAID-5 has no place near a IO intensive
> server.
> Further to that, if you get presented 5 LUNs, and then present them to SQL
> Server as only one disk, generally, you do not use up all the storage, so
> the
> first 2 or 3 of the LUNS will have all the traffic, and there is no data
> on
> the other LUNs, so they get no traffic. You don't want this. You rather
> have
> 5 database files, one on each LUN so that all the drives are busy.
> Without knowing exactly how the LUNs are mapped to the physical drives and
> how you want to map to LUNs to OS drives, I can't pass more comment.
> --
> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Zurich, Switzerland
> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
>
> "Serge Shakhov" wrote:
>
I have large database with very high workload (100 trans/sec avg.)
When database files were located on local disks on the server I tried to
part data files, index files, files with binary objects and log files from
each other and place them on separate physical discs to improve performance.
Now we're planning to use cluster server with external storage (HP MSA 1000)
.
A technician, who was configuring the hardware, told me that in this
configuration storage library segments presented to MSSQL server as discs ar
e
already spread on many physical discs and there is no reason now to put
database files on different drives.
The question is: is this true? Will it be good if I'll put all files on
one logical disc and let storage library to manage data distridution across
physical discs?
Thanks.
Serge ShakhovHi
Ideally, the log and data portion of the database should be on different
LUNs ("storage library segments") and the Log should be on RAID-1 or RAID-10
.
RAID-5 is not optimal for the Log due to it's high latency. Actually, with
the price of storage today, RAID-5 has no place near a IO intensive server.
Further to that, if you get presented 5 LUNs, and then present them to SQL
Server as only one disk, generally, you do not use up all the storage, so th
e
first 2 or 3 of the LUNS will have all the traffic, and there is no data on
the other LUNs, so they get no traffic. You don't want this. You rather have
5 database files, one on each LUN so that all the drives are busy.
Without knowing exactly how the LUNs are mapped to the physical drives and
how you want to map to LUNs to OS drives, I can't pass more comment.
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Serge Shakhov" wrote:
> Hello.
> I have large database with very high workload (100 trans/sec avg.)
> When database files were located on local disks on the server I tried to
> part data files, index files, files with binary objects and log files from
> each other and place them on separate physical discs to improve performanc
e.
> Now we're planning to use cluster server with external storage (HP MSA 100
0).
> A technician, who was configuring the hardware, told me that in this
> configuration storage library segments presented to MSSQL server as discs
are
> already spread on many physical discs and there is no reason now to put
> database files on different drives.
> The question is: is this true? Will it be good if I'll put all files on
> one logical disc and let storage library to manage data distridution acros
s
> physical discs?
> Thanks.
> Serge Shakhov|||Mike,
Is there a net guide somewhere on setting up log files and data optimally?
Thanks,
Mica
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message
news:F43766EE-6358-4515-B6A3-7705B516DA18@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi
> Ideally, the log and data portion of the database should be on different
> LUNs ("storage library segments") and the Log should be on RAID-1 or
> RAID-10.
> RAID-5 is not optimal for the Log due to it's high latency. Actually, with
> the price of storage today, RAID-5 has no place near a IO intensive
> server.
> Further to that, if you get presented 5 LUNs, and then present them to SQL
> Server as only one disk, generally, you do not use up all the storage, so
> the
> first 2 or 3 of the LUNS will have all the traffic, and there is no data
> on
> the other LUNs, so they get no traffic. You don't want this. You rather
> have
> 5 database files, one on each LUN so that all the drives are busy.
> Without knowing exactly how the LUNs are mapped to the physical drives and
> how you want to map to LUNs to OS drives, I can't pass more comment.
> --
> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Zurich, Switzerland
> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
>
> "Serge Shakhov" wrote:
>
Data files in Flash Drive
Hi friends,
i want to know something abt sql server installation and database properties as under.
1) how much disk space reqd by multiuser sqlserver 2000 db to install ?
2) is it possible to install sql 2K on Flash Drive ( gen connect at USB) ?
3) When v create a database user Enterprise Manager , which files created by database ?
4) If i Know datafiles name of a database e.g. pubs , and if v copied on cd and paste on other system which has sql 2K install , does those database works ?
5) is it possible to create database on flash drive ?
thanx in advance.Come on...are these trick questions?|||I suppose it could be done, but you would have to be very sure that you properly detach the database before someone goes and unplugs the USB drive. I think you would set yourself up for a heck of a lot more user errors than SQL Server errors this way.
i want to know something abt sql server installation and database properties as under.
1) how much disk space reqd by multiuser sqlserver 2000 db to install ?
2) is it possible to install sql 2K on Flash Drive ( gen connect at USB) ?
3) When v create a database user Enterprise Manager , which files created by database ?
4) If i Know datafiles name of a database e.g. pubs , and if v copied on cd and paste on other system which has sql 2K install , does those database works ?
5) is it possible to create database on flash drive ?
thanx in advance.Come on...are these trick questions?|||I suppose it could be done, but you would have to be very sure that you properly detach the database before someone goes and unplugs the USB drive. I think you would set yourself up for a heck of a lot more user errors than SQL Server errors this way.
Data files from Database Object
The database object contains a member 'get_LogFiles' that returns a nice collection of the database's logfiles. I can't seem to find the comparable member to return the collection of datafiles. If someone can point me in the right direction, I would be most grateful
That's because log files do not reside in filegroups.
Check out the filegroup property, this contains a collection of data files.
WesleyB
Visit my SQL Server weblog @. http://dis4ea.blogspot.com
sqldata files filling up algorithm
Hi,
I have an sql database which has 3 datafiles belonging to the same filegroup. Could anyone tell me in what fashion the datafiles will fillup.
RegardsEqually in proportion
"ramy" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:162788A4-56D3-4BD0-8B42-15C0C740C85D@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I have an sql database which has 3 datafiles belonging to the same
filegroup. Could anyone tell me in what fashion the datafiles will fillup.
> Regards|||As Hassan suggest, the algorythm is called "proportional fill"... SQL tries
to keep EACH data file the same percentage full... So it will add new
records to the data files which are less full, and when they become equally
full, a round robin type approach will keep the data files equally (by
percentage) full.
--
Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Computer Education Services Corporation (CESC), Charlotte, NC
www.computeredservices.com
(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
community of SQL Server professionals.
www.sqlpass.org
"ramy" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:162788A4-56D3-4BD0-8B42-15C0C740C85D@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I have an sql database which has 3 datafiles belonging to the same
filegroup. Could anyone tell me in what fashion the datafiles will fillup.
> Regards
I have an sql database which has 3 datafiles belonging to the same filegroup. Could anyone tell me in what fashion the datafiles will fillup.
RegardsEqually in proportion
"ramy" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:162788A4-56D3-4BD0-8B42-15C0C740C85D@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I have an sql database which has 3 datafiles belonging to the same
filegroup. Could anyone tell me in what fashion the datafiles will fillup.
> Regards|||As Hassan suggest, the algorythm is called "proportional fill"... SQL tries
to keep EACH data file the same percentage full... So it will add new
records to the data files which are less full, and when they become equally
full, a round robin type approach will keep the data files equally (by
percentage) full.
--
Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Computer Education Services Corporation (CESC), Charlotte, NC
www.computeredservices.com
(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
community of SQL Server professionals.
www.sqlpass.org
"ramy" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:162788A4-56D3-4BD0-8B42-15C0C740C85D@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I have an sql database which has 3 datafiles belonging to the same
filegroup. Could anyone tell me in what fashion the datafiles will fillup.
> Regards
Data Files and one FileGroup
Hi,
Is it OK if we have one FileGroup but 3 data files in different disk drives?
We have a database of size 150G, two data fils are in the same disk drive
and the third data file is in a different disk driver. All are in the same
filegroup.
Shouldn't we create another file group for the third data file?
Thanks,
RosieRosie,
You're probably fine. Multiple files in a filegroup is common. MS
recommends one file per physical processor to help parrallelism. One thing
to look out for is for best performance you want the files to file at the
same rate. Autogrow and adding additional files often leads to hot spots on
the IO subsystem.
"Rosie" <Rosie@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D194C8A5-5B94-4CBA-A994-4E78EA69E6B9@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> Is it OK if we have one FileGroup but 3 data files in different disk
> drives?
> We have a database of size 150G, two data fils are in the same disk drive
> and the third data file is in a different disk driver. All are in the same
> filegroup.
> Shouldn't we create another file group for the third data file?
> Thanks,
> Rosie
>
>|||inline
--
Sunil Agarwal (MSFT]
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Rosie" <Rosie@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D194C8A5-5B94-4CBA-A994-4E78EA69E6B9@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> Is it OK if we have one FileGroup but 3 data files in different disk
> drives?
sunila> Yes. This will help you distribute the IO load across multiple
spindles.
> We have a database of size 150G, two data fils are in the same disk drive
> and the third data file is in a different disk driver. All are in the same
> filegroup.
Sunila> I will be curious to know why created two files belonging to same
file group on the same disk?
> Shouldn't we create another file group for the third data file?
Sunila> SQL Server allows creating file group that contains files from one
or more physical disks.
> Thanks,
> Rosie
>
>|||> You're probably fine. Multiple files in a filegroup is common. MS recommends one file per
> physical processor to help parrallelism.
Interesting... Do you have a link to that statement? So far, the only thing I've seen is that you
might want to consider the number of physical disks. Somewhere between 1 file per disk to 1 file per
8 disks. MS haven't given out a firm recommendation as it is very hw dependent.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Danny" <someone@.nowhere.com> wrote in message news:CIPef.19373$%t4.15694@.trnddc07...
> Rosie,
> You're probably fine. Multiple files in a filegroup is common. MS recommends one file per
> physical processor to help parrallelism. One thing to look out for is for best performance you
> want the files to file at the same rate. Autogrow and adding additional files often leads to hot
> spots on the IO subsystem.
>
> "Rosie" <Rosie@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:D194C8A5-5B94-4CBA-A994-4E78EA69E6B9@.microsoft.com...
>> Hi,
>> Is it OK if we have one FileGroup but 3 data files in different disk drives?
>> We have a database of size 150G, two data fils are in the same disk drive
>> and the third data file is in a different disk driver. All are in the same
>> filegroup.
>> Shouldn't we create another file group for the third data file?
>> Thanks,
>> Rosie
>>
>
Is it OK if we have one FileGroup but 3 data files in different disk drives?
We have a database of size 150G, two data fils are in the same disk drive
and the third data file is in a different disk driver. All are in the same
filegroup.
Shouldn't we create another file group for the third data file?
Thanks,
RosieRosie,
You're probably fine. Multiple files in a filegroup is common. MS
recommends one file per physical processor to help parrallelism. One thing
to look out for is for best performance you want the files to file at the
same rate. Autogrow and adding additional files often leads to hot spots on
the IO subsystem.
"Rosie" <Rosie@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D194C8A5-5B94-4CBA-A994-4E78EA69E6B9@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> Is it OK if we have one FileGroup but 3 data files in different disk
> drives?
> We have a database of size 150G, two data fils are in the same disk drive
> and the third data file is in a different disk driver. All are in the same
> filegroup.
> Shouldn't we create another file group for the third data file?
> Thanks,
> Rosie
>
>|||inline
--
Sunil Agarwal (MSFT]
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Rosie" <Rosie@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D194C8A5-5B94-4CBA-A994-4E78EA69E6B9@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> Is it OK if we have one FileGroup but 3 data files in different disk
> drives?
sunila> Yes. This will help you distribute the IO load across multiple
spindles.
> We have a database of size 150G, two data fils are in the same disk drive
> and the third data file is in a different disk driver. All are in the same
> filegroup.
Sunila> I will be curious to know why created two files belonging to same
file group on the same disk?
> Shouldn't we create another file group for the third data file?
Sunila> SQL Server allows creating file group that contains files from one
or more physical disks.
> Thanks,
> Rosie
>
>|||> You're probably fine. Multiple files in a filegroup is common. MS recommends one file per
> physical processor to help parrallelism.
Interesting... Do you have a link to that statement? So far, the only thing I've seen is that you
might want to consider the number of physical disks. Somewhere between 1 file per disk to 1 file per
8 disks. MS haven't given out a firm recommendation as it is very hw dependent.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Danny" <someone@.nowhere.com> wrote in message news:CIPef.19373$%t4.15694@.trnddc07...
> Rosie,
> You're probably fine. Multiple files in a filegroup is common. MS recommends one file per
> physical processor to help parrallelism. One thing to look out for is for best performance you
> want the files to file at the same rate. Autogrow and adding additional files often leads to hot
> spots on the IO subsystem.
>
> "Rosie" <Rosie@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:D194C8A5-5B94-4CBA-A994-4E78EA69E6B9@.microsoft.com...
>> Hi,
>> Is it OK if we have one FileGroup but 3 data files in different disk drives?
>> We have a database of size 150G, two data fils are in the same disk drive
>> and the third data file is in a different disk driver. All are in the same
>> filegroup.
>> Shouldn't we create another file group for the third data file?
>> Thanks,
>> Rosie
>>
>
Data Files and one FileGroup
Hi,
Is it OK if we have one FileGroup but 3 data files in different disk drives?
We have a database of size 150G, two data fils are in the same disk drive
and the third data file is in a different disk driver. All are in the same
filegroup.
Shouldn't we create another file group for the third data file?
Thanks,
Rosie
Rosie,
You're probably fine. Multiple files in a filegroup is common. MS
recommends one file per physical processor to help parrallelism. One thing
to look out for is for best performance you want the files to file at the
same rate. Autogrow and adding additional files often leads to hot spots on
the IO subsystem.
"Rosie" <Rosie@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D194C8A5-5B94-4CBA-A994-4E78EA69E6B9@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> Is it OK if we have one FileGroup but 3 data files in different disk
> drives?
> We have a database of size 150G, two data fils are in the same disk drive
> and the third data file is in a different disk driver. All are in the same
> filegroup.
> Shouldn't we create another file group for the third data file?
> Thanks,
> Rosie
>
>
|||inline
Sunil Agarwal (MSFT]
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Rosie" <Rosie@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D194C8A5-5B94-4CBA-A994-4E78EA69E6B9@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> Is it OK if we have one FileGroup but 3 data files in different disk
> drives?
sunila> Yes. This will help you distribute the IO load across multiple
spindles.
> We have a database of size 150G, two data fils are in the same disk drive
> and the third data file is in a different disk driver. All are in the same
> filegroup.
Sunila> I will be curious to know why created two files belonging to same
file group on the same disk?
> Shouldn't we create another file group for the third data file?
Sunila> SQL Server allows creating file group that contains files from one
or more physical disks.
> Thanks,
> Rosie
>
>
|||> You're probably fine. Multiple files in a filegroup is common. MS recommends one file per
> physical processor to help parrallelism.
Interesting... Do you have a link to that statement? So far, the only thing I've seen is that you
might want to consider the number of physical disks. Somewhere between 1 file per disk to 1 file per
8 disks. MS haven't given out a firm recommendation as it is very hw dependent.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Danny" <someone@.nowhere.com> wrote in message news:CIPef.19373$%t4.15694@.trnddc07...
> Rosie,
> You're probably fine. Multiple files in a filegroup is common. MS recommends one file per
> physical processor to help parrallelism. One thing to look out for is for best performance you
> want the files to file at the same rate. Autogrow and adding additional files often leads to hot
> spots on the IO subsystem.
>
> "Rosie" <Rosie@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:D194C8A5-5B94-4CBA-A994-4E78EA69E6B9@.microsoft.com...
>
Is it OK if we have one FileGroup but 3 data files in different disk drives?
We have a database of size 150G, two data fils are in the same disk drive
and the third data file is in a different disk driver. All are in the same
filegroup.
Shouldn't we create another file group for the third data file?
Thanks,
Rosie
Rosie,
You're probably fine. Multiple files in a filegroup is common. MS
recommends one file per physical processor to help parrallelism. One thing
to look out for is for best performance you want the files to file at the
same rate. Autogrow and adding additional files often leads to hot spots on
the IO subsystem.
"Rosie" <Rosie@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D194C8A5-5B94-4CBA-A994-4E78EA69E6B9@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> Is it OK if we have one FileGroup but 3 data files in different disk
> drives?
> We have a database of size 150G, two data fils are in the same disk drive
> and the third data file is in a different disk driver. All are in the same
> filegroup.
> Shouldn't we create another file group for the third data file?
> Thanks,
> Rosie
>
>
|||inline
Sunil Agarwal (MSFT]
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Rosie" <Rosie@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D194C8A5-5B94-4CBA-A994-4E78EA69E6B9@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> Is it OK if we have one FileGroup but 3 data files in different disk
> drives?
sunila> Yes. This will help you distribute the IO load across multiple
spindles.
> We have a database of size 150G, two data fils are in the same disk drive
> and the third data file is in a different disk driver. All are in the same
> filegroup.
Sunila> I will be curious to know why created two files belonging to same
file group on the same disk?
> Shouldn't we create another file group for the third data file?
Sunila> SQL Server allows creating file group that contains files from one
or more physical disks.
> Thanks,
> Rosie
>
>
|||> You're probably fine. Multiple files in a filegroup is common. MS recommends one file per
> physical processor to help parrallelism.
Interesting... Do you have a link to that statement? So far, the only thing I've seen is that you
might want to consider the number of physical disks. Somewhere between 1 file per disk to 1 file per
8 disks. MS haven't given out a firm recommendation as it is very hw dependent.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Danny" <someone@.nowhere.com> wrote in message news:CIPef.19373$%t4.15694@.trnddc07...
> Rosie,
> You're probably fine. Multiple files in a filegroup is common. MS recommends one file per
> physical processor to help parrallelism. One thing to look out for is for best performance you
> want the files to file at the same rate. Autogrow and adding additional files often leads to hot
> spots on the IO subsystem.
>
> "Rosie" <Rosie@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:D194C8A5-5B94-4CBA-A994-4E78EA69E6B9@.microsoft.com...
>
Data Files and one FileGroup
Hi,
Is it OK if we have one FileGroup but 3 data files in different disk drives?
We have a database of size 150G, two data fils are in the same disk drive
and the third data file is in a different disk driver. All are in the same
filegroup.
Shouldn't we create another file group for the third data file?
Thanks,
RosieRosie,
You're probably fine. Multiple files in a filegroup is common. MS
recommends one file per physical processor to help parrallelism. One thing
to look out for is for best performance you want the files to file at the
same rate. Autogrow and adding additional files often leads to hot spots on
the IO subsystem.
"Rosie" <Rosie@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D194C8A5-5B94-4CBA-A994-4E78EA69E6B9@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> Is it OK if we have one FileGroup but 3 data files in different disk
> drives?
> We have a database of size 150G, two data fils are in the same disk drive
> and the third data file is in a different disk driver. All are in the same
> filegroup.
> Shouldn't we create another file group for the third data file?
> Thanks,
> Rosie
>
>|||inline
--
Sunil Agarwal (MSFT]
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Rosie" <Rosie@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D194C8A5-5B94-4CBA-A994-4E78EA69E6B9@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> Is it OK if we have one FileGroup but 3 data files in different disk
> drives?
sunila> Yes. This will help you distribute the IO load across multiple
spindles.
> We have a database of size 150G, two data fils are in the same disk drive
> and the third data file is in a different disk driver. All are in the same
> filegroup.
Sunila> I will be curious to know why created two files belonging to same
file group on the same disk?
> Shouldn't we create another file group for the third data file?
Sunila> SQL Server allows creating file group that contains files from one
or more physical disks.
> Thanks,
> Rosie
>
>|||> You're probably fine. Multiple files in a filegroup is common. MS recommends one file pe
r
> physical processor to help parrallelism.
Interesting... Do you have a link to that statement? So far, the only thing
I've seen is that you
might want to consider the number of physical disks. Somewhere between 1 fil
e per disk to 1 file per
8 disks. MS haven't given out a firm recommendation as it is very hw depende
nt.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Danny" <someone@.nowhere.com> wrote in message news:CIPef.19373$%t4.15694@.trnddc07...seagreen">
> Rosie,
> You're probably fine. Multiple files in a filegroup is common. MS recomm
ends one file per
> physical processor to help parrallelism. One thing to look out for is for
best performance you
> want the files to file at the same rate. Autogrow and adding additional f
iles often leads to hot
> spots on the IO subsystem.
>
> "Rosie" <Rosie@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:D194C8A5-5B94-4CBA-A994-4E78EA69E6B9@.microsoft.com...
>
Is it OK if we have one FileGroup but 3 data files in different disk drives?
We have a database of size 150G, two data fils are in the same disk drive
and the third data file is in a different disk driver. All are in the same
filegroup.
Shouldn't we create another file group for the third data file?
Thanks,
RosieRosie,
You're probably fine. Multiple files in a filegroup is common. MS
recommends one file per physical processor to help parrallelism. One thing
to look out for is for best performance you want the files to file at the
same rate. Autogrow and adding additional files often leads to hot spots on
the IO subsystem.
"Rosie" <Rosie@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D194C8A5-5B94-4CBA-A994-4E78EA69E6B9@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> Is it OK if we have one FileGroup but 3 data files in different disk
> drives?
> We have a database of size 150G, two data fils are in the same disk drive
> and the third data file is in a different disk driver. All are in the same
> filegroup.
> Shouldn't we create another file group for the third data file?
> Thanks,
> Rosie
>
>|||inline
--
Sunil Agarwal (MSFT]
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Rosie" <Rosie@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D194C8A5-5B94-4CBA-A994-4E78EA69E6B9@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> Is it OK if we have one FileGroup but 3 data files in different disk
> drives?
sunila> Yes. This will help you distribute the IO load across multiple
spindles.
> We have a database of size 150G, two data fils are in the same disk drive
> and the third data file is in a different disk driver. All are in the same
> filegroup.
Sunila> I will be curious to know why created two files belonging to same
file group on the same disk?
> Shouldn't we create another file group for the third data file?
Sunila> SQL Server allows creating file group that contains files from one
or more physical disks.
> Thanks,
> Rosie
>
>|||> You're probably fine. Multiple files in a filegroup is common. MS recommends one file pe
r
> physical processor to help parrallelism.
Interesting... Do you have a link to that statement? So far, the only thing
I've seen is that you
might want to consider the number of physical disks. Somewhere between 1 fil
e per disk to 1 file per
8 disks. MS haven't given out a firm recommendation as it is very hw depende
nt.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Danny" <someone@.nowhere.com> wrote in message news:CIPef.19373$%t4.15694@.trnddc07...seagreen">
> Rosie,
> You're probably fine. Multiple files in a filegroup is common. MS recomm
ends one file per
> physical processor to help parrallelism. One thing to look out for is for
best performance you
> want the files to file at the same rate. Autogrow and adding additional f
iles often leads to hot
> spots on the IO subsystem.
>
> "Rosie" <Rosie@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:D194C8A5-5B94-4CBA-A994-4E78EA69E6B9@.microsoft.com...
>
Data files and filegroups
Hi all,
Can anyone tell me direct me to any resources on the net on SQL Server data files and filegroups. I want to manage historic data (which is about 500GB and growing) for reporting purposes. I was thinking about creating a data warehouse. But first I want to build a strong file structure for database objects like tables, views, indexes etc.
I got basic information about files and filegroups from books online but I need more juice before I start actual work.
All comments are appreciated and thank you in advance.
Yogi
Hi Yogi...is this SQL 2000 or 2005? (could be some big differences in how you want to handle things between the two...).
If 2005, respond and say so...here are some articles for 2000:
For an overview on the physical architecture and general usage, these are good:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/architec/8_ar_da2_9sab.asp
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/createdb/cm_8_des_02_6epf.asp
For data placement and performance (see sub-topics also):
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/optimsql/odp_tun_1_2upf.asp
For moving data:
http://www.sqljunkies.com/How%20To/B9F7F302-964A-4825-9246-6143A8681900.scuk
Performance tips:
http://www.sql-server-performance.com/filegroups.asp
Also, note that there are some special considerations sometimes for backups, administration, etc. for filegroups. Go to Books Online, move to the index tab, and type 'filegroups' in the textbox...this should bring you to the top-level filegroups item which has 10-15 sub-items...look over those too, great information there.
HTH
|||Hey,
Thank you very much but I have gone through these links already most of them are similary to BOL.
I am still collecting information comments are welcome!
Data files & Transaction log recovery
How do I backup a data file & transaction log from one instance of SQL to a different sql server. I have done a complete backup and now I want to restore the database but on a different SQL server, but the *.mdf and *.ldf is missing, so how do I restore them also?When you did the full backup you created a backup file. When you restore
this the mdf and ldf will be created.
On the instance you want to restore to restore from the device. On the
second tab will be the location of the mdf and ldf - this will be the
file names from the other instance so you will have to overtype with
another filename or path.
Nigel Rivett
www.nigelrivett.net
*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com ***
Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!|||If you restore to another SQL server you also have to think about databaseusers. The users from the database you restore stil are in the DB when it's on the new server but you not see them. You can either run the drop user or use sp_change_users_login 'Auto_Fix', 'username', NULL. This is call ophran users
/Joel|||Thanks a million. I completed the backup and did the restore on the other instance of SQL server and it worked like a charm. You're a life saver!
this the mdf and ldf will be created.
On the instance you want to restore to restore from the device. On the
second tab will be the location of the mdf and ldf - this will be the
file names from the other instance so you will have to overtype with
another filename or path.
Nigel Rivett
www.nigelrivett.net
*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com ***
Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!|||If you restore to another SQL server you also have to think about databaseusers. The users from the database you restore stil are in the DB when it's on the new server but you not see them. You can either run the drop user or use sp_change_users_login 'Auto_Fix', 'username', NULL. This is call ophran users
/Joel|||Thanks a million. I completed the backup and did the restore on the other instance of SQL server and it worked like a charm. You're a life saver!
Data files & Log Files in SQL2000
Dear all,
I have a question of the Data files & Log Files in SQL2000.
Is that once someone got the data files and log files of the database, and
he had a SQL server 2000 installed, he can use sp_attach_db command to
restore the database?
Is there any control for this case?
Best Regards,
IvanOnce you have the mdf and or ldf files of a particular db, then you can
attach the database, as far as I know, there is no remedy for this
"Ivan" <ivan@.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:OjQEjMx1GHA.476@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Dear all,
> I have a question of the Data files & Log Files in SQL2000.
> Is that once someone got the data files and log files of the database, and
> he had a SQL server 2000 installed, he can use sp_attach_db command to
> restore the database?
> Is there any control for this case?
> Best Regards,
> Ivan
>|||Yes , just before detaching you need to kick off all users of the database
"Ivan" <ivan@.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:OjQEjMx1GHA.476@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Dear all,
> I have a question of the Data files & Log Files in SQL2000.
> Is that once someone got the data files and log files of the database, and
> he had a SQL server 2000 installed, he can use sp_attach_db command to
> restore the database?
> Is there any control for this case?
> Best Regards,
> Ivan
>|||If someone stop the sql server service, copy out the data file and log file,
and start the service...
Then, he can easily duplicate the database.
Ivan
"Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> ¼¶¼g©ó¶l¥ó·s»D:ekHRZox1GHA.480@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Yes , just before detaching you need to kick off all users of the
> database
>
> "Ivan" <ivan@.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:OjQEjMx1GHA.476@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Dear all,
>> I have a question of the Data files & Log Files in SQL2000.
>> Is that once someone got the data files and log files of the database,
>> and he had a SQL server 2000 installed, he can use sp_attach_db command
>> to restore the database?
>> Is there any control for this case?
>> Best Regards,
>> Ivan
>|||Ivan
Well , not in the same name unless the old database will be droped.
Actually you don't need to stop Services because you can use BACKUP/RESTORE
commands
"Ivan" <ivan@.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:eyYLC9x1GHA.2036@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> If someone stop the sql server service, copy out the data file and log
> file, and start the service...
> Then, he can easily duplicate the database.
> Ivan
> "Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il>
> ¼¶¼g©ó¶l¥ó·s»D:ekHRZox1GHA.480@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Yes , just before detaching you need to kick off all users of the
>> database
>>
>> "Ivan" <ivan@.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:OjQEjMx1GHA.476@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Dear all,
>> I have a question of the Data files & Log Files in SQL2000.
>> Is that once someone got the data files and log files of the database,
>> and he had a SQL server 2000 installed, he can use sp_attach_db command
>> to restore the database?
>> Is there any control for this case?
>> Best Regards,
>> Ivan
>>
>|||> Is there any control for this case?
You can secure your database files (and backups) with NTFS permissions so
that only authorized users have access.
--
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Ivan" <ivan@.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:OjQEjMx1GHA.476@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Dear all,
> I have a question of the Data files & Log Files in SQL2000.
> Is that once someone got the data files and log files of the database, and
> he had a SQL server 2000 installed, he can use sp_attach_db command to
> restore the database?
> Is there any control for this case?
> Best Regards,
> Ivan
>|||... and even use EFS to encrypt the files, in case someone get their hands on the machine and
installs another OS on top of the old OS.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Dan Guzman" <guzmanda@.nospam-online.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:eqcp3My1GHA.4228@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Is there any control for this case?
> You can secure your database files (and backups) with NTFS permissions so that only authorized
> users have access.
> --
> Hope this helps.
> Dan Guzman
> SQL Server MVP
> "Ivan" <ivan@.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:OjQEjMx1GHA.476@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Dear all,
>> I have a question of the Data files & Log Files in SQL2000.
>> Is that once someone got the data files and log files of the database, and he had a SQL server
>> 2000 installed, he can use sp_attach_db command to restore the database?
>> Is there any control for this case?
>> Best Regards,
>> Ivan
>|||Hi,
To add on to tibor; take a look into the below article on implementing EFS
on sql server and its benfits.
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/columnists/bkelley/implementing_efs.asp
With EFS, database files are encrypted under the identity of the account
running SQL Server. Only this account can decrypt the files. If you need to
change the account that runs SQL Server, you should first decrypt the files
under the old account, then re-encrypt them under the new account.
Thanks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in
message news:OfrIXSy1GHA.4752@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> ... and even use EFS to encrypt the files, in case someone get their hands
> on the machine and installs another OS on top of the old OS.
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>
> "Dan Guzman" <guzmanda@.nospam-online.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:eqcp3My1GHA.4228@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Is there any control for this case?
>> You can secure your database files (and backups) with NTFS permissions so
>> that only authorized users have access.
>> --
>> Hope this helps.
>> Dan Guzman
>> SQL Server MVP
>> "Ivan" <ivan@.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:OjQEjMx1GHA.476@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Dear all,
>> I have a question of the Data files & Log Files in SQL2000.
>> Is that once someone got the data files and log files of the database,
>> and he had a SQL server 2000 installed, he can use sp_attach_db command
>> to restore the database?
>> Is there any control for this case?
>> Best Regards,
>> Ivan
>>
>
I have a question of the Data files & Log Files in SQL2000.
Is that once someone got the data files and log files of the database, and
he had a SQL server 2000 installed, he can use sp_attach_db command to
restore the database?
Is there any control for this case?
Best Regards,
IvanOnce you have the mdf and or ldf files of a particular db, then you can
attach the database, as far as I know, there is no remedy for this
"Ivan" <ivan@.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:OjQEjMx1GHA.476@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Dear all,
> I have a question of the Data files & Log Files in SQL2000.
> Is that once someone got the data files and log files of the database, and
> he had a SQL server 2000 installed, he can use sp_attach_db command to
> restore the database?
> Is there any control for this case?
> Best Regards,
> Ivan
>|||Yes , just before detaching you need to kick off all users of the database
"Ivan" <ivan@.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:OjQEjMx1GHA.476@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Dear all,
> I have a question of the Data files & Log Files in SQL2000.
> Is that once someone got the data files and log files of the database, and
> he had a SQL server 2000 installed, he can use sp_attach_db command to
> restore the database?
> Is there any control for this case?
> Best Regards,
> Ivan
>|||If someone stop the sql server service, copy out the data file and log file,
and start the service...
Then, he can easily duplicate the database.
Ivan
"Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> ¼¶¼g©ó¶l¥ó·s»D:ekHRZox1GHA.480@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Yes , just before detaching you need to kick off all users of the
> database
>
> "Ivan" <ivan@.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:OjQEjMx1GHA.476@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Dear all,
>> I have a question of the Data files & Log Files in SQL2000.
>> Is that once someone got the data files and log files of the database,
>> and he had a SQL server 2000 installed, he can use sp_attach_db command
>> to restore the database?
>> Is there any control for this case?
>> Best Regards,
>> Ivan
>|||Ivan
Well , not in the same name unless the old database will be droped.
Actually you don't need to stop Services because you can use BACKUP/RESTORE
commands
"Ivan" <ivan@.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:eyYLC9x1GHA.2036@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> If someone stop the sql server service, copy out the data file and log
> file, and start the service...
> Then, he can easily duplicate the database.
> Ivan
> "Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il>
> ¼¶¼g©ó¶l¥ó·s»D:ekHRZox1GHA.480@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Yes , just before detaching you need to kick off all users of the
>> database
>>
>> "Ivan" <ivan@.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:OjQEjMx1GHA.476@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Dear all,
>> I have a question of the Data files & Log Files in SQL2000.
>> Is that once someone got the data files and log files of the database,
>> and he had a SQL server 2000 installed, he can use sp_attach_db command
>> to restore the database?
>> Is there any control for this case?
>> Best Regards,
>> Ivan
>>
>|||> Is there any control for this case?
You can secure your database files (and backups) with NTFS permissions so
that only authorized users have access.
--
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Ivan" <ivan@.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:OjQEjMx1GHA.476@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Dear all,
> I have a question of the Data files & Log Files in SQL2000.
> Is that once someone got the data files and log files of the database, and
> he had a SQL server 2000 installed, he can use sp_attach_db command to
> restore the database?
> Is there any control for this case?
> Best Regards,
> Ivan
>|||... and even use EFS to encrypt the files, in case someone get their hands on the machine and
installs another OS on top of the old OS.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Dan Guzman" <guzmanda@.nospam-online.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:eqcp3My1GHA.4228@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Is there any control for this case?
> You can secure your database files (and backups) with NTFS permissions so that only authorized
> users have access.
> --
> Hope this helps.
> Dan Guzman
> SQL Server MVP
> "Ivan" <ivan@.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:OjQEjMx1GHA.476@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Dear all,
>> I have a question of the Data files & Log Files in SQL2000.
>> Is that once someone got the data files and log files of the database, and he had a SQL server
>> 2000 installed, he can use sp_attach_db command to restore the database?
>> Is there any control for this case?
>> Best Regards,
>> Ivan
>|||Hi,
To add on to tibor; take a look into the below article on implementing EFS
on sql server and its benfits.
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/columnists/bkelley/implementing_efs.asp
With EFS, database files are encrypted under the identity of the account
running SQL Server. Only this account can decrypt the files. If you need to
change the account that runs SQL Server, you should first decrypt the files
under the old account, then re-encrypt them under the new account.
Thanks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in
message news:OfrIXSy1GHA.4752@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> ... and even use EFS to encrypt the files, in case someone get their hands
> on the machine and installs another OS on top of the old OS.
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>
> "Dan Guzman" <guzmanda@.nospam-online.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:eqcp3My1GHA.4228@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Is there any control for this case?
>> You can secure your database files (and backups) with NTFS permissions so
>> that only authorized users have access.
>> --
>> Hope this helps.
>> Dan Guzman
>> SQL Server MVP
>> "Ivan" <ivan@.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:OjQEjMx1GHA.476@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Dear all,
>> I have a question of the Data files & Log Files in SQL2000.
>> Is that once someone got the data files and log files of the database,
>> and he had a SQL server 2000 installed, he can use sp_attach_db command
>> to restore the database?
>> Is there any control for this case?
>> Best Regards,
>> Ivan
>>
>
Data files & Log Files in SQL2000
Dear all,
I have a question of the Data files & Log Files in SQL2000.
Is that once someone got the data files and log files of the database, and
he had a SQL server 2000 installed, he can use sp_attach_db command to
restore the database?
Is there any control for this case?
Best Regards,
Ivan
Once you have the mdf and or ldf files of a particular db, then you can
attach the database, as far as I know, there is no remedy for this
"Ivan" <ivan@.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:OjQEjMx1GHA.476@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Dear all,
> I have a question of the Data files & Log Files in SQL2000.
> Is that once someone got the data files and log files of the database, and
> he had a SQL server 2000 installed, he can use sp_attach_db command to
> restore the database?
> Is there any control for this case?
> Best Regards,
> Ivan
>
|||Yes , just before detaching you need to kick off all users of the database
"Ivan" <ivan@.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:OjQEjMx1GHA.476@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Dear all,
> I have a question of the Data files & Log Files in SQL2000.
> Is that once someone got the data files and log files of the database, and
> he had a SQL server 2000 installed, he can use sp_attach_db command to
> restore the database?
> Is there any control for this case?
> Best Regards,
> Ivan
>
|||If someone stop the sql server service, copy out the data file and log file,
and start the service...
Then, he can easily duplicate the database.
Ivan
"Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> glsD:ekHRZox1GHA.480@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gb l...
> Yes , just before detaching you need to kick off all users of the
> database
>
> "Ivan" <ivan@.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:OjQEjMx1GHA.476@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>
|||Ivan
Well , not in the same name unless the old database will be droped.
Actually you don't need to stop Services because you can use BACKUP/RESTORE
commands
"Ivan" <ivan@.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:eyYLC9x1GHA.2036@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> If someone stop the sql server service, copy out the data file and log
> file, and start the service...
> Then, he can easily duplicate the database.
> Ivan
> "Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il>
> glsD:ekHRZox1GHA.480@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gb l...
>
|||> Is there any control for this case?
You can secure your database files (and backups) with NTFS permissions so
that only authorized users have access.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Ivan" <ivan@.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:OjQEjMx1GHA.476@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Dear all,
> I have a question of the Data files & Log Files in SQL2000.
> Is that once someone got the data files and log files of the database, and
> he had a SQL server 2000 installed, he can use sp_attach_db command to
> restore the database?
> Is there any control for this case?
> Best Regards,
> Ivan
>
|||... and even use EFS to encrypt the files, in case someone get their hands on the machine and
installs another OS on top of the old OS.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Dan Guzman" <guzmanda@.nospam-online.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:eqcp3My1GHA.4228@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> You can secure your database files (and backups) with NTFS permissions so that only authorized
> users have access.
> --
> Hope this helps.
> Dan Guzman
> SQL Server MVP
> "Ivan" <ivan@.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:OjQEjMx1GHA.476@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>
|||Hi,
To add on to tibor; take a look into the below article on implementing EFS
on sql server and its benfits.
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/colu...enting_efs.asp
With EFS, database files are encrypted under the identity of the account
running SQL Server. Only this account can decrypt the files. If you need to
change the account that runs SQL Server, you should first decrypt the files
under the old account, then re-encrypt them under the new account.
Thanks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in
message news:OfrIXSy1GHA.4752@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> ... and even use EFS to encrypt the files, in case someone get their hands
> on the machine and installs another OS on top of the old OS.
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>
> "Dan Guzman" <guzmanda@.nospam-online.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:eqcp3My1GHA.4228@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>
I have a question of the Data files & Log Files in SQL2000.
Is that once someone got the data files and log files of the database, and
he had a SQL server 2000 installed, he can use sp_attach_db command to
restore the database?
Is there any control for this case?
Best Regards,
Ivan
Once you have the mdf and or ldf files of a particular db, then you can
attach the database, as far as I know, there is no remedy for this
"Ivan" <ivan@.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:OjQEjMx1GHA.476@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Dear all,
> I have a question of the Data files & Log Files in SQL2000.
> Is that once someone got the data files and log files of the database, and
> he had a SQL server 2000 installed, he can use sp_attach_db command to
> restore the database?
> Is there any control for this case?
> Best Regards,
> Ivan
>
|||Yes , just before detaching you need to kick off all users of the database
"Ivan" <ivan@.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:OjQEjMx1GHA.476@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Dear all,
> I have a question of the Data files & Log Files in SQL2000.
> Is that once someone got the data files and log files of the database, and
> he had a SQL server 2000 installed, he can use sp_attach_db command to
> restore the database?
> Is there any control for this case?
> Best Regards,
> Ivan
>
|||If someone stop the sql server service, copy out the data file and log file,
and start the service...
Then, he can easily duplicate the database.
Ivan
"Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> glsD:ekHRZox1GHA.480@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gb l...
> Yes , just before detaching you need to kick off all users of the
> database
>
> "Ivan" <ivan@.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:OjQEjMx1GHA.476@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>
|||Ivan
Well , not in the same name unless the old database will be droped.
Actually you don't need to stop Services because you can use BACKUP/RESTORE
commands
"Ivan" <ivan@.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:eyYLC9x1GHA.2036@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> If someone stop the sql server service, copy out the data file and log
> file, and start the service...
> Then, he can easily duplicate the database.
> Ivan
> "Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il>
> glsD:ekHRZox1GHA.480@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gb l...
>
|||> Is there any control for this case?
You can secure your database files (and backups) with NTFS permissions so
that only authorized users have access.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Ivan" <ivan@.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:OjQEjMx1GHA.476@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Dear all,
> I have a question of the Data files & Log Files in SQL2000.
> Is that once someone got the data files and log files of the database, and
> he had a SQL server 2000 installed, he can use sp_attach_db command to
> restore the database?
> Is there any control for this case?
> Best Regards,
> Ivan
>
|||... and even use EFS to encrypt the files, in case someone get their hands on the machine and
installs another OS on top of the old OS.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Dan Guzman" <guzmanda@.nospam-online.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:eqcp3My1GHA.4228@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> You can secure your database files (and backups) with NTFS permissions so that only authorized
> users have access.
> --
> Hope this helps.
> Dan Guzman
> SQL Server MVP
> "Ivan" <ivan@.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:OjQEjMx1GHA.476@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>
|||Hi,
To add on to tibor; take a look into the below article on implementing EFS
on sql server and its benfits.
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/colu...enting_efs.asp
With EFS, database files are encrypted under the identity of the account
running SQL Server. Only this account can decrypt the files. If you need to
change the account that runs SQL Server, you should first decrypt the files
under the old account, then re-encrypt them under the new account.
Thanks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in
message news:OfrIXSy1GHA.4752@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> ... and even use EFS to encrypt the files, in case someone get their hands
> on the machine and installs another OS on top of the old OS.
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>
> "Dan Guzman" <guzmanda@.nospam-online.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:eqcp3My1GHA.4228@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>
Data files & Log Files in SQL2000
Dear all,
I have a question of the Data files & Log Files in SQL2000.
Is that once someone got the data files and log files of the database, and
he had a SQL server 2000 installed, he can use sp_attach_db command to
restore the database?
Is there any control for this case?
Best Regards,
IvanOnce you have the mdf and or ldf files of a particular db, then you can
attach the database, as far as I know, there is no remedy for this
"Ivan" <ivan@.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:OjQEjMx1GHA.476@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Dear all,
> I have a question of the Data files & Log Files in SQL2000.
> Is that once someone got the data files and log files of the database, and
> he had a SQL server 2000 installed, he can use sp_attach_db command to
> restore the database?
> Is there any control for this case?
> Best Regards,
> Ivan
>|||Yes , just before detaching you need to kick off all users of the database
"Ivan" <ivan@.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:OjQEjMx1GHA.476@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Dear all,
> I have a question of the Data files & Log Files in SQL2000.
> Is that once someone got the data files and log files of the database, and
> he had a SQL server 2000 installed, he can use sp_attach_db command to
> restore the database?
> Is there any control for this case?
> Best Regards,
> Ivan
>|||If someone stop the sql server service, copy out the data file and log file,
and start the service...
Then, he can easily duplicate the database.
Ivan
"Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> glsD:ekHRZox1GHA.480@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...[vbcol
=seagreen]
> Yes , just before detaching you need to kick off all users of the
> database
>
> "Ivan" <ivan@.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:OjQEjMx1GHA.476@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>[/vbcol]|||Ivan
Well , not in the same name unless the old database will be droped.
Actually you don't need to stop Services because you can use BACKUP/RESTORE
commands
"Ivan" <ivan@.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:eyYLC9x1GHA.2036@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> If someone stop the sql server service, copy out the data file and log
> file, and start the service...
> Then, he can easily duplicate the database.
> Ivan
> "Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il>
> glsD:ekHRZox1GHA.480@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>|||> Is there any control for this case?
You can secure your database files (and backups) with NTFS permissions so
that only authorized users have access.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Ivan" <ivan@.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:OjQEjMx1GHA.476@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Dear all,
> I have a question of the Data files & Log Files in SQL2000.
> Is that once someone got the data files and log files of the database, and
> he had a SQL server 2000 installed, he can use sp_attach_db command to
> restore the database?
> Is there any control for this case?
> Best Regards,
> Ivan
>|||... and even use EFS to encrypt the files, in case someone get their hands
on the machine and
installs another OS on top of the old OS.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Dan Guzman" <guzmanda@.nospam-online.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:eqcp3My1GHA.4228@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> You can secure your database files (and backups) with NTFS permissions so
that only authorized
> users have access.
> --
> Hope this helps.
> Dan Guzman
> SQL Server MVP
> "Ivan" <ivan@.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:OjQEjMx1GHA.476@.TK2MSFTN
GP06.phx.gbl...
>|||Hi,
To add on to tibor; take a look into the below article on implementing EFS
on sql server and its benfits.
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/col...menting_efs.asp
With EFS, database files are encrypted under the identity of the account
running SQL Server. Only this account can decrypt the files. If you need to
change the account that runs SQL Server, you should first decrypt the files
under the old account, then re-encrypt them under the new account.
Thanks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in
message news:OfrIXSy1GHA.4752@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> ... and even use EFS to encrypt the files, in case someone get their hands
> on the machine and installs another OS on top of the old OS.
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>
> "Dan Guzman" <guzmanda@.nospam-online.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:eqcp3My1GHA.4228@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>
I have a question of the Data files & Log Files in SQL2000.
Is that once someone got the data files and log files of the database, and
he had a SQL server 2000 installed, he can use sp_attach_db command to
restore the database?
Is there any control for this case?
Best Regards,
IvanOnce you have the mdf and or ldf files of a particular db, then you can
attach the database, as far as I know, there is no remedy for this
"Ivan" <ivan@.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:OjQEjMx1GHA.476@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Dear all,
> I have a question of the Data files & Log Files in SQL2000.
> Is that once someone got the data files and log files of the database, and
> he had a SQL server 2000 installed, he can use sp_attach_db command to
> restore the database?
> Is there any control for this case?
> Best Regards,
> Ivan
>|||Yes , just before detaching you need to kick off all users of the database
"Ivan" <ivan@.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:OjQEjMx1GHA.476@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Dear all,
> I have a question of the Data files & Log Files in SQL2000.
> Is that once someone got the data files and log files of the database, and
> he had a SQL server 2000 installed, he can use sp_attach_db command to
> restore the database?
> Is there any control for this case?
> Best Regards,
> Ivan
>|||If someone stop the sql server service, copy out the data file and log file,
and start the service...
Then, he can easily duplicate the database.
Ivan
"Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> glsD:ekHRZox1GHA.480@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...[vbcol
=seagreen]
> Yes , just before detaching you need to kick off all users of the
> database
>
> "Ivan" <ivan@.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:OjQEjMx1GHA.476@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>[/vbcol]|||Ivan
Well , not in the same name unless the old database will be droped.
Actually you don't need to stop Services because you can use BACKUP/RESTORE
commands
"Ivan" <ivan@.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:eyYLC9x1GHA.2036@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> If someone stop the sql server service, copy out the data file and log
> file, and start the service...
> Then, he can easily duplicate the database.
> Ivan
> "Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il>
> glsD:ekHRZox1GHA.480@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>|||> Is there any control for this case?
You can secure your database files (and backups) with NTFS permissions so
that only authorized users have access.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Ivan" <ivan@.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:OjQEjMx1GHA.476@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Dear all,
> I have a question of the Data files & Log Files in SQL2000.
> Is that once someone got the data files and log files of the database, and
> he had a SQL server 2000 installed, he can use sp_attach_db command to
> restore the database?
> Is there any control for this case?
> Best Regards,
> Ivan
>|||... and even use EFS to encrypt the files, in case someone get their hands
on the machine and
installs another OS on top of the old OS.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Dan Guzman" <guzmanda@.nospam-online.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:eqcp3My1GHA.4228@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> You can secure your database files (and backups) with NTFS permissions so
that only authorized
> users have access.
> --
> Hope this helps.
> Dan Guzman
> SQL Server MVP
> "Ivan" <ivan@.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:OjQEjMx1GHA.476@.TK2MSFTN
GP06.phx.gbl...
>|||Hi,
To add on to tibor; take a look into the below article on implementing EFS
on sql server and its benfits.
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/col...menting_efs.asp
With EFS, database files are encrypted under the identity of the account
running SQL Server. Only this account can decrypt the files. If you need to
change the account that runs SQL Server, you should first decrypt the files
under the old account, then re-encrypt them under the new account.
Thanks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in
message news:OfrIXSy1GHA.4752@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> ... and even use EFS to encrypt the files, in case someone get their hands
> on the machine and installs another OS on top of the old OS.
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>
> "Dan Guzman" <guzmanda@.nospam-online.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:eqcp3My1GHA.4228@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>
Data Files
Hi,
I've got one database with a 50GB file. I want to split that file on, for
example 12 files of 4GB each. What is the best aproach to this operation ?
Any ideas ?
Thanks in avance
CCHere's the FileGroup example from BOL, this will enable the creation of the
12 x 4Gb files. If you then re-create all your CLUSTERED indexes specifying
this new filegroup the data will move...
B. Add a filegroup with two files to a database
This example creates a filegroup in the Test 1 database created in Example A
and adds two 5-MB files to the filegroup. It then makes Test1FG1 the default
filegroup.
USE master
GO
ALTER DATABASE Test1
ADD FILEGROUP Test1FG1
GO
ALTER DATABASE Test1
ADD FILE
( NAME = test1dat3,
FILENAME = 'c:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL\Data\t1dat3.ndf',
SIZE = 5MB,
MAXSIZE = 100MB,
FILEGROWTH = 5MB),
( NAME = test1dat4,
FILENAME = 'c:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL\Data\t1dat4.ndf',
SIZE = 5MB,
MAXSIZE = 100MB,
FILEGROWTH = 5MB)
TO FILEGROUP Test1FG1
ALTER DATABASE Test1
MODIFY FILEGROUP Test1FG1 DEFAULT
GO
HTH. Ryan
"CC" <CC@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:28E95830-203F-4658-B585-DB92E47E305B@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I've got one database with a 50GB file. I want to split that file on, for
> example 12 files of 4GB each. What is the best aproach to this operation ?
> Any ideas ?
> Thanks in avance
> CC|||Why do you want to split them? if you mean in operation, you can use
filegroups...
MC
"CC" <CC@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:28E95830-203F-4658-B585-DB92E47E305B@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I've got one database with a 50GB file. I want to split that file on, for
> example 12 files of 4GB each. What is the best aproach to this operation ?
> Any ideas ?
> Thanks in avance
> CCsql
I've got one database with a 50GB file. I want to split that file on, for
example 12 files of 4GB each. What is the best aproach to this operation ?
Any ideas ?
Thanks in avance
CCHere's the FileGroup example from BOL, this will enable the creation of the
12 x 4Gb files. If you then re-create all your CLUSTERED indexes specifying
this new filegroup the data will move...
B. Add a filegroup with two files to a database
This example creates a filegroup in the Test 1 database created in Example A
and adds two 5-MB files to the filegroup. It then makes Test1FG1 the default
filegroup.
USE master
GO
ALTER DATABASE Test1
ADD FILEGROUP Test1FG1
GO
ALTER DATABASE Test1
ADD FILE
( NAME = test1dat3,
FILENAME = 'c:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL\Data\t1dat3.ndf',
SIZE = 5MB,
MAXSIZE = 100MB,
FILEGROWTH = 5MB),
( NAME = test1dat4,
FILENAME = 'c:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL\Data\t1dat4.ndf',
SIZE = 5MB,
MAXSIZE = 100MB,
FILEGROWTH = 5MB)
TO FILEGROUP Test1FG1
ALTER DATABASE Test1
MODIFY FILEGROUP Test1FG1 DEFAULT
GO
HTH. Ryan
"CC" <CC@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:28E95830-203F-4658-B585-DB92E47E305B@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I've got one database with a 50GB file. I want to split that file on, for
> example 12 files of 4GB each. What is the best aproach to this operation ?
> Any ideas ?
> Thanks in avance
> CC|||Why do you want to split them? if you mean in operation, you can use
filegroups...
MC
"CC" <CC@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:28E95830-203F-4658-B585-DB92E47E305B@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I've got one database with a 50GB file. I want to split that file on, for
> example 12 files of 4GB each. What is the best aproach to this operation ?
> Any ideas ?
> Thanks in avance
> CCsql
Data Files
Hi,
I've got one database with a 50GB file. I want to split that file on, for
example 12 files of 4GB each. What is the best aproach to this operation ?
Any ideas ?
Thanks in avance
CCHere's the FileGroup example from BOL, this will enable the creation of the
12 x 4Gb files. If you then re-create all your CLUSTERED indexes specifying
this new filegroup the data will move...
B. Add a filegroup with two files to a database
This example creates a filegroup in the Test 1 database created in Example A
and adds two 5-MB files to the filegroup. It then makes Test1FG1 the default
filegroup.
USE master
GO
ALTER DATABASE Test1
ADD FILEGROUP Test1FG1
GO
ALTER DATABASE Test1
ADD FILE
( NAME = test1dat3,
FILENAME = 'c:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL\Data\t1dat3.ndf',
SIZE = 5MB,
MAXSIZE = 100MB,
FILEGROWTH = 5MB),
( NAME = test1dat4,
FILENAME = 'c:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL\Data\t1dat4.ndf',
SIZE = 5MB,
MAXSIZE = 100MB,
FILEGROWTH = 5MB)
TO FILEGROUP Test1FG1
ALTER DATABASE Test1
MODIFY FILEGROUP Test1FG1 DEFAULT
GO
--
HTH. Ryan
"CC" <CC@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:28E95830-203F-4658-B585-DB92E47E305B@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I've got one database with a 50GB file. I want to split that file on, for
> example 12 files of 4GB each. What is the best aproach to this operation ?
> Any ideas ?
> Thanks in avance
> CC|||Why do you want to split them? if you mean in operation, you can use
filegroups...
MC
"CC" <CC@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:28E95830-203F-4658-B585-DB92E47E305B@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I've got one database with a 50GB file. I want to split that file on, for
> example 12 files of 4GB each. What is the best aproach to this operation ?
> Any ideas ?
> Thanks in avance
> CC
I've got one database with a 50GB file. I want to split that file on, for
example 12 files of 4GB each. What is the best aproach to this operation ?
Any ideas ?
Thanks in avance
CCHere's the FileGroup example from BOL, this will enable the creation of the
12 x 4Gb files. If you then re-create all your CLUSTERED indexes specifying
this new filegroup the data will move...
B. Add a filegroup with two files to a database
This example creates a filegroup in the Test 1 database created in Example A
and adds two 5-MB files to the filegroup. It then makes Test1FG1 the default
filegroup.
USE master
GO
ALTER DATABASE Test1
ADD FILEGROUP Test1FG1
GO
ALTER DATABASE Test1
ADD FILE
( NAME = test1dat3,
FILENAME = 'c:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL\Data\t1dat3.ndf',
SIZE = 5MB,
MAXSIZE = 100MB,
FILEGROWTH = 5MB),
( NAME = test1dat4,
FILENAME = 'c:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL\Data\t1dat4.ndf',
SIZE = 5MB,
MAXSIZE = 100MB,
FILEGROWTH = 5MB)
TO FILEGROUP Test1FG1
ALTER DATABASE Test1
MODIFY FILEGROUP Test1FG1 DEFAULT
GO
--
HTH. Ryan
"CC" <CC@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:28E95830-203F-4658-B585-DB92E47E305B@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I've got one database with a 50GB file. I want to split that file on, for
> example 12 files of 4GB each. What is the best aproach to this operation ?
> Any ideas ?
> Thanks in avance
> CC|||Why do you want to split them? if you mean in operation, you can use
filegroups...
MC
"CC" <CC@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:28E95830-203F-4658-B585-DB92E47E305B@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I've got one database with a 50GB file. I want to split that file on, for
> example 12 files of 4GB each. What is the best aproach to this operation ?
> Any ideas ?
> Thanks in avance
> CC
Data File will not shrink
I have an issue, and hopefully I can explain this fully enough. We
have a 3 server environment, all running SQL Server 2000 SP4 on
Windows 2000 Server. Server A, Server B, and Server C. Server A
replicates to Server B, Server B then replicates to Server C.
Server B has a database that two data files and two log files on two
separate drives. So drive D has 1 datafile and 1 log file, and drive
E has the same. Drive E is running out of disk space and drive D had
some to spare. In Enterprise Manager, I went to the Shrink Database
menu for that database, and I choosed 'Empty the file (data will
migrate to other files in the file group) option. That finished
successfully. But now I see that only 2 mb is being used, but the
database size is still 22358 mb. I have tried the other shrink
options with no luck.
So I have tried:
-Compress Pages and then truncate free space from the file
-Truncate free space from the other end of file
-Shrink file to "min size"
-I have also tried checking the 'Move pages to beginning of file
before shrinking, then retrying the steps above.
Also, we have tried shrinking the transaction table using a stored
proceedure called sp_forceshrink_log as well as a few other things we
have seen online.
After all this, the file size is still 20+ gb. My question is this: Is
there anything else we can try to free up the close to 20 gigs of
space? Also, this database is in the middle of a replicated chain,
what effect would there be in deleting the empty file in the
properties of the database. Is that even possible with replication
enabled?
Thanks for any help you can provide.
JonIf you want to shrink a log file, you should do it immediately after
you backup the transaction log. If you do it later, you will get a
warning like "Cannot shrink log file 2 (LogFile) because all logical
log files are in use." and the file will not be shrinked.
If you get a warning saying "The log was not truncated because records
at the beginning of the log are pending replication. Ensure the Log
Reader Agent is running or use sp_repldone to mark transactions as
distributed", you should see this thread, for example:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.databases.ms-sqlserver/browse_frm/th
read/23ca52b9df791e59/
In any case, you should not delete the transaction log file (especially
if the database is in a transactional replication chain).
--
Razvan Socol
SQL Server MVP|||Thanks for your response, but the issue is not with the log file, but
the data file. I emptied the contents of one data file to another
data file on another drive. So I have 2 mb used in the file, but the
file size is 20+ gb on the physical drive. I am unable to shrink the
file size using the options found in the "Shrink Database" window. So
I am looking for alternatives to getting the data file size down.
Jon
On Feb 3, 2:42 am, "Razvan Socol" <rso...@.gmail.com> wrote:
> If you want to shrink a log file, you should do it immediately after
> you backup the transaction log. If you do it later, you will get a
> warning like "Cannot shrink log file 2 (LogFile) because all logical
> log files are in use." and the file will not be shrinked.
> If you get a warning saying "The log was not truncated because records
> at the beginning of the log are pending replication. Ensure the Log
> Reader Agent is running or use sp_repldone to mark transactions as
> distributed", you should see this thread, for example:http://groups.google.com/group/comp.databases.ms-sqlserver/browse_frm/th
> read/23ca52b9df791e59/
> In any case, you should not delete the transaction log file (especially
> if the database is in a transactional replication chain).
> --
> Razvan Socol
> SQL Server MVP
have a 3 server environment, all running SQL Server 2000 SP4 on
Windows 2000 Server. Server A, Server B, and Server C. Server A
replicates to Server B, Server B then replicates to Server C.
Server B has a database that two data files and two log files on two
separate drives. So drive D has 1 datafile and 1 log file, and drive
E has the same. Drive E is running out of disk space and drive D had
some to spare. In Enterprise Manager, I went to the Shrink Database
menu for that database, and I choosed 'Empty the file (data will
migrate to other files in the file group) option. That finished
successfully. But now I see that only 2 mb is being used, but the
database size is still 22358 mb. I have tried the other shrink
options with no luck.
So I have tried:
-Compress Pages and then truncate free space from the file
-Truncate free space from the other end of file
-Shrink file to "min size"
-I have also tried checking the 'Move pages to beginning of file
before shrinking, then retrying the steps above.
Also, we have tried shrinking the transaction table using a stored
proceedure called sp_forceshrink_log as well as a few other things we
have seen online.
After all this, the file size is still 20+ gb. My question is this: Is
there anything else we can try to free up the close to 20 gigs of
space? Also, this database is in the middle of a replicated chain,
what effect would there be in deleting the empty file in the
properties of the database. Is that even possible with replication
enabled?
Thanks for any help you can provide.
JonIf you want to shrink a log file, you should do it immediately after
you backup the transaction log. If you do it later, you will get a
warning like "Cannot shrink log file 2 (LogFile) because all logical
log files are in use." and the file will not be shrinked.
If you get a warning saying "The log was not truncated because records
at the beginning of the log are pending replication. Ensure the Log
Reader Agent is running or use sp_repldone to mark transactions as
distributed", you should see this thread, for example:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.databases.ms-sqlserver/browse_frm/th
read/23ca52b9df791e59/
In any case, you should not delete the transaction log file (especially
if the database is in a transactional replication chain).
--
Razvan Socol
SQL Server MVP|||Thanks for your response, but the issue is not with the log file, but
the data file. I emptied the contents of one data file to another
data file on another drive. So I have 2 mb used in the file, but the
file size is 20+ gb on the physical drive. I am unable to shrink the
file size using the options found in the "Shrink Database" window. So
I am looking for alternatives to getting the data file size down.
Jon
On Feb 3, 2:42 am, "Razvan Socol" <rso...@.gmail.com> wrote:
> If you want to shrink a log file, you should do it immediately after
> you backup the transaction log. If you do it later, you will get a
> warning like "Cannot shrink log file 2 (LogFile) because all logical
> log files are in use." and the file will not be shrinked.
> If you get a warning saying "The log was not truncated because records
> at the beginning of the log are pending replication. Ensure the Log
> Reader Agent is running or use sp_repldone to mark transactions as
> distributed", you should see this thread, for example:http://groups.google.com/group/comp.databases.ms-sqlserver/browse_frm/th
> read/23ca52b9df791e59/
> In any case, you should not delete the transaction log file (especially
> if the database is in a transactional replication chain).
> --
> Razvan Socol
> SQL Server MVP
Data File Used Space
Using the master.sysperfinfo table in a SQL Server database you can obtain
the "Log file(s) Used sizes (KB)".
I would like to determine the "Database file(s) Used Sizes (KB)".
How can I determine this value?
Thank You,Lookup the usage and details of the system procedure sp_spaceused in SQL
Server Books Online.
Anith
the "Log file(s) Used sizes (KB)".
I would like to determine the "Database file(s) Used Sizes (KB)".
How can I determine this value?
Thank You,Lookup the usage and details of the system procedure sp_spaceused in SQL
Server Books Online.
Anith
Data File Used Space
How is it, that when I delete records in my Test environment that the "data
used" within the data file decreases, but not so when I delete records from
my production environment?
Message posted via http://www.droptable.com
See my reply to your other message.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Robert Richards via droptable.com" <forum@.nospam.droptable.com> wrote in
message news:2cc2a3ac2e7643468a1c4107212c0865@.droptable.co m...
> How is it, that when I delete records in my Test environment that the
> "data
> used" within the data file decreases, but not so when I delete records
> from
> my production environment?
> --
> Message posted via http://www.droptable.com
|||hi
why dont you post it again so that others can go through the post aswell
best Regards,
Chandra
http://groups.msn.com/SQLResource/
http://chanduas.blogspot.com/
*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.codecomments.com ***
used" within the data file decreases, but not so when I delete records from
my production environment?
Message posted via http://www.droptable.com
See my reply to your other message.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Robert Richards via droptable.com" <forum@.nospam.droptable.com> wrote in
message news:2cc2a3ac2e7643468a1c4107212c0865@.droptable.co m...
> How is it, that when I delete records in my Test environment that the
> "data
> used" within the data file decreases, but not so when I delete records
> from
> my production environment?
> --
> Message posted via http://www.droptable.com
|||hi
why dont you post it again so that others can go through the post aswell
best Regards,
Chandra
http://groups.msn.com/SQLResource/
http://chanduas.blogspot.com/
*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.codecomments.com ***
Data File Used Space
How is it, that when I delete records in my Test environment that the "data
used" within the data file decreases, but not so when I delete records from
my production environment?
Message posted via http://www.droptable.comSee my reply to your other message.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Robert Richards via droptable.com" <forum@.nospam.droptable.com> wrote in
message news:2cc2a3ac2e7643468a1c4107212c0865@.SQ
droptable.com...
> How is it, that when I delete records in my Test environment that the
> "data
> used" within the data file decreases, but not so when I delete records
> from
> my production environment?
> --
> Message posted via http://www.droptable.com|||hi
why dont you post it again so that others can go through the post aswell
best Regards,
Chandra
http://groups.msn.com/SQLResource/
http://chanduas.blogspot.com/
---
*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.codecomments.com ***sql
used" within the data file decreases, but not so when I delete records from
my production environment?
Message posted via http://www.droptable.comSee my reply to your other message.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Robert Richards via droptable.com" <forum@.nospam.droptable.com> wrote in
message news:2cc2a3ac2e7643468a1c4107212c0865@.SQ
droptable.com...
> How is it, that when I delete records in my Test environment that the
> "data
> used" within the data file decreases, but not so when I delete records
> from
> my production environment?
> --
> Message posted via http://www.droptable.com|||hi
why dont you post it again so that others can go through the post aswell
best Regards,
Chandra
http://groups.msn.com/SQLResource/
http://chanduas.blogspot.com/
---
*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.codecomments.com ***sql
Data File Used Space
How is it, that when I delete records in my Test environment that the "data
used" within the data file decreases, but not so when I delete records from
my production environment?
--
Message posted via http://www.sqlmonster.comSee my reply to your other message.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Robert Richards via SQLMonster.com" <forum@.nospam.SQLMonster.com> wrote in
message news:2cc2a3ac2e7643468a1c4107212c0865@.SQLMonster.com...
> How is it, that when I delete records in my Test environment that the
> "data
> used" within the data file decreases, but not so when I delete records
> from
> my production environment?
> --
> Message posted via http://www.sqlmonster.com
used" within the data file decreases, but not so when I delete records from
my production environment?
--
Message posted via http://www.sqlmonster.comSee my reply to your other message.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Robert Richards via SQLMonster.com" <forum@.nospam.SQLMonster.com> wrote in
message news:2cc2a3ac2e7643468a1c4107212c0865@.SQLMonster.com...
> How is it, that when I delete records in my Test environment that the
> "data
> used" within the data file decreases, but not so when I delete records
> from
> my production environment?
> --
> Message posted via http://www.sqlmonster.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)