I have a SQL Server 2000 database that I would like to delete the Cluster
Index with a primary key. This primary key has a foreign key constraint.
Please help me create the syntax to delete the Cluster Index on Table A.
Thank You,
Table A
A1 PK (PK Constraint Name:A_A1)
A2
A3 (Non-Clustered Index Name: A_A3)
Table B
B1 PK
B2 FK (FK Constraint Name: B2_A_A1)
B3 (Non-Clustered Index Name: B_B3)
Hi,
You cannot remove Clustered index in your case as Primery Key is relying on
index and index is required for primery key.
All you can do is change clustered index to non-clustered or you can break
the relation and remove primery key to delete index.
Danijel Novak
"Joe K." <Joe K.@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E7AF8E98-702E-4505-8B23-6282E615FD79@.microsoft.com...
> I have a SQL Server 2000 database that I would like to delete the Cluster
> Index with a primary key. This primary key has a foreign key constraint.
> Please help me create the syntax to delete the Cluster Index on Table A.
> Thank You,
> Table A
> A1 PK (PK Constraint Name:A_A1)
> A2
> A3 (Non-Clustered Index Name: A_A3)
> Table B
> B1 PK
> B2 FK (FK Constraint Name: B2_A_A1)
> B3 (Non-Clustered Index Name: B_B3)
|||As you have a PRIMARY KEY this is treated as a CONSTRAINT rather than an
INDEX.
The syntax is :-
ALTER TABLE table_name DROP CONSTRAINT constraint_name
Firstly you will need to DROP the FOREIGN KEY constraint on TableB, then
DROP the PK on TableA
HTH
"Joe K." <Joe K.@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E7AF8E98-702E-4505-8B23-6282E615FD79@.microsoft.com...
> I have a SQL Server 2000 database that I would like to delete the Cluster
> Index with a primary key. This primary key has a foreign key constraint.
> Please help me create the syntax to delete the Cluster Index on Table A.
> Thank You,
> Table A
> A1 PK (PK Constraint Name:A_A1)
> A2
> A3 (Non-Clustered Index Name: A_A3)
> Table B
> B1 PK
> B2 FK (FK Constraint Name: B2_A_A1)
> B3 (Non-Clustered Index Name: B_B3)
Showing posts with label cluster. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cluster. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Delete Cluster Index With PK and FK Constraints
I have a SQL Server 2000 database that I would like to delete the Cluster
Index with a primary key. This primary key has a foreign key constraint.
Please help me create the syntax to delete the Cluster Index on Table A.
Thank You,
Table A
A1 PK (PK Constraint Name:A_A1)
A2
A3 (Non-Clustered Index Name: A_A3)
Table B
B1 PK
B2 FK (FK Constraint Name: B2_A_A1)
B3 (Non-Clustered Index Name: B_B3)Hi,
You cannot remove Clustered index in your case as Primery Key is relying on
index and index is required for primery key.
All you can do is change clustered index to non-clustered or you can break
the relation and remove primery key to delete index.
--
Danijel Novak
"Joe K." <Joe K.@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E7AF8E98-702E-4505-8B23-6282E615FD79@.microsoft.com...
> I have a SQL Server 2000 database that I would like to delete the Cluster
> Index with a primary key. This primary key has a foreign key constraint.
> Please help me create the syntax to delete the Cluster Index on Table A.
> Thank You,
> Table A
> A1 PK (PK Constraint Name:A_A1)
> A2
> A3 (Non-Clustered Index Name: A_A3)
> Table B
> B1 PK
> B2 FK (FK Constraint Name: B2_A_A1)
> B3 (Non-Clustered Index Name: B_B3)|||As you have a PRIMARY KEY this is treated as a CONSTRAINT rather than an
INDEX.
The syntax is :-
ALTER TABLE table_name DROP CONSTRAINT constraint_name
Firstly you will need to DROP the FOREIGN KEY constraint on TableB, then
DROP the PK on TableA
HTH
"Joe K." <Joe K.@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E7AF8E98-702E-4505-8B23-6282E615FD79@.microsoft.com...
> I have a SQL Server 2000 database that I would like to delete the Cluster
> Index with a primary key. This primary key has a foreign key constraint.
> Please help me create the syntax to delete the Cluster Index on Table A.
> Thank You,
> Table A
> A1 PK (PK Constraint Name:A_A1)
> A2
> A3 (Non-Clustered Index Name: A_A3)
> Table B
> B1 PK
> B2 FK (FK Constraint Name: B2_A_A1)
> B3 (Non-Clustered Index Name: B_B3)
Index with a primary key. This primary key has a foreign key constraint.
Please help me create the syntax to delete the Cluster Index on Table A.
Thank You,
Table A
A1 PK (PK Constraint Name:A_A1)
A2
A3 (Non-Clustered Index Name: A_A3)
Table B
B1 PK
B2 FK (FK Constraint Name: B2_A_A1)
B3 (Non-Clustered Index Name: B_B3)Hi,
You cannot remove Clustered index in your case as Primery Key is relying on
index and index is required for primery key.
All you can do is change clustered index to non-clustered or you can break
the relation and remove primery key to delete index.
--
Danijel Novak
"Joe K." <Joe K.@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E7AF8E98-702E-4505-8B23-6282E615FD79@.microsoft.com...
> I have a SQL Server 2000 database that I would like to delete the Cluster
> Index with a primary key. This primary key has a foreign key constraint.
> Please help me create the syntax to delete the Cluster Index on Table A.
> Thank You,
> Table A
> A1 PK (PK Constraint Name:A_A1)
> A2
> A3 (Non-Clustered Index Name: A_A3)
> Table B
> B1 PK
> B2 FK (FK Constraint Name: B2_A_A1)
> B3 (Non-Clustered Index Name: B_B3)|||As you have a PRIMARY KEY this is treated as a CONSTRAINT rather than an
INDEX.
The syntax is :-
ALTER TABLE table_name DROP CONSTRAINT constraint_name
Firstly you will need to DROP the FOREIGN KEY constraint on TableB, then
DROP the PK on TableA
HTH
"Joe K." <Joe K.@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E7AF8E98-702E-4505-8B23-6282E615FD79@.microsoft.com...
> I have a SQL Server 2000 database that I would like to delete the Cluster
> Index with a primary key. This primary key has a foreign key constraint.
> Please help me create the syntax to delete the Cluster Index on Table A.
> Thank You,
> Table A
> A1 PK (PK Constraint Name:A_A1)
> A2
> A3 (Non-Clustered Index Name: A_A3)
> Table B
> B1 PK
> B2 FK (FK Constraint Name: B2_A_A1)
> B3 (Non-Clustered Index Name: B_B3)
Delete Cluster Index With PK and FK Constraints
I have a SQL Server 2000 database that I would like to delete the Cluster
Index with a primary key. This primary key has a foreign key constraint.
Please help me create the syntax to delete the Cluster Index on Table A.
Thank You,
Table A
A1 PK (PK Constraint Name:A_A1)
A2
A3 (Non-Clustered Index Name: A_A3)
Table B
B1 PK
B2 FK (FK Constraint Name: B2_A_A1)
B3 (Non-Clustered Index Name: B_B3)Hi,
You cannot remove Clustered index in your case as Primery Key is relying on
index and index is required for primery key.
All you can do is change clustered index to non-clustered or you can break
the relation and remove primery key to delete index.
Danijel Novak
"Joe K." <Joe K.@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E7AF8E98-702E-4505-8B23-6282E615FD79@.microsoft.com...
> I have a SQL Server 2000 database that I would like to delete the Cluster
> Index with a primary key. This primary key has a foreign key constraint.
> Please help me create the syntax to delete the Cluster Index on Table A.
> Thank You,
> Table A
> A1 PK (PK Constraint Name:A_A1)
> A2
> A3 (Non-Clustered Index Name: A_A3)
> Table B
> B1 PK
> B2 FK (FK Constraint Name: B2_A_A1)
> B3 (Non-Clustered Index Name: B_B3)|||As you have a PRIMARY KEY this is treated as a CONSTRAINT rather than an
INDEX.
The syntax is :-
ALTER TABLE table_name DROP CONSTRAINT constraint_name
Firstly you will need to DROP the FOREIGN KEY constraint on TableB, then
DROP the PK on TableA
HTH
"Joe K." <Joe K.@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E7AF8E98-702E-4505-8B23-6282E615FD79@.microsoft.com...
> I have a SQL Server 2000 database that I would like to delete the Cluster
> Index with a primary key. This primary key has a foreign key constraint.
> Please help me create the syntax to delete the Cluster Index on Table A.
> Thank You,
> Table A
> A1 PK (PK Constraint Name:A_A1)
> A2
> A3 (Non-Clustered Index Name: A_A3)
> Table B
> B1 PK
> B2 FK (FK Constraint Name: B2_A_A1)
> B3 (Non-Clustered Index Name: B_B3)
Index with a primary key. This primary key has a foreign key constraint.
Please help me create the syntax to delete the Cluster Index on Table A.
Thank You,
Table A
A1 PK (PK Constraint Name:A_A1)
A2
A3 (Non-Clustered Index Name: A_A3)
Table B
B1 PK
B2 FK (FK Constraint Name: B2_A_A1)
B3 (Non-Clustered Index Name: B_B3)Hi,
You cannot remove Clustered index in your case as Primery Key is relying on
index and index is required for primery key.
All you can do is change clustered index to non-clustered or you can break
the relation and remove primery key to delete index.
Danijel Novak
"Joe K." <Joe K.@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E7AF8E98-702E-4505-8B23-6282E615FD79@.microsoft.com...
> I have a SQL Server 2000 database that I would like to delete the Cluster
> Index with a primary key. This primary key has a foreign key constraint.
> Please help me create the syntax to delete the Cluster Index on Table A.
> Thank You,
> Table A
> A1 PK (PK Constraint Name:A_A1)
> A2
> A3 (Non-Clustered Index Name: A_A3)
> Table B
> B1 PK
> B2 FK (FK Constraint Name: B2_A_A1)
> B3 (Non-Clustered Index Name: B_B3)|||As you have a PRIMARY KEY this is treated as a CONSTRAINT rather than an
INDEX.
The syntax is :-
ALTER TABLE table_name DROP CONSTRAINT constraint_name
Firstly you will need to DROP the FOREIGN KEY constraint on TableB, then
DROP the PK on TableA
HTH
"Joe K." <Joe K.@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E7AF8E98-702E-4505-8B23-6282E615FD79@.microsoft.com...
> I have a SQL Server 2000 database that I would like to delete the Cluster
> Index with a primary key. This primary key has a foreign key constraint.
> Please help me create the syntax to delete the Cluster Index on Table A.
> Thank You,
> Table A
> A1 PK (PK Constraint Name:A_A1)
> A2
> A3 (Non-Clustered Index Name: A_A3)
> Table B
> B1 PK
> B2 FK (FK Constraint Name: B2_A_A1)
> B3 (Non-Clustered Index Name: B_B3)
Monday, March 19, 2012
Defragging SQL Server Data Disk?
I've noticed disk performance on our SQL 2000 cluster
slowing down. The 100 GB disk with the database files is
on an array. Using the included 2000 defrag tool I did an
analyze and found the disk is highly fragmented. It's
been running for about 2 years and never been defraged.
Is it necessary or even safe to defrag the disk with the
databases? I would assume you would need to stop the SQL
service to do it. Would it even do any good? I'd almost
think that since there is a small number of files that
after turning it back up it wouldn't take long before
everthing is fragmented again, but maybe not to the extent
that it is now.Sam,
Stop the SQL Server service and defrag the disk. The primary cause of
file fragmentation is growing and shrinking of the SQL Server data
files. If using autogrow, then grow in large chunks, so that this
operation only occurs every few months or so, or even better longer
periods than that. Turn off autoshrink.
After you have defragged the data files, perform a DBCC DBREINDEX to
locically defrag your indexes. If you have a clustered index on all your
tables, this process will be more thorough.
--
Mark Allison, SQL Server MVP
http://www.markallison.co.uk
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Sam Winston wrote:
> I've noticed disk performance on our SQL 2000 cluster
> slowing down. The 100 GB disk with the database files is
> on an array. Using the included 2000 defrag tool I did an
> analyze and found the disk is highly fragmented. It's
> been running for about 2 years and never been defraged.
> Is it necessary or even safe to defrag the disk with the
> databases? I would assume you would need to stop the SQL
> service to do it. Would it even do any good? I'd almost
> think that since there is a small number of files that
> after turning it back up it wouldn't take long before
> everthing is fragmented again, but maybe not to the extent
> that it is now.|||I agree 100% with Mark. Just want to add that you should make sure you have
valid backups before attempting the defrag. And I also want to emphasize to
stop the shrinking and growing.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Mark Allison" <marka@.no.tinned.meat.mvps.org> wrote in message
news:%23Tr%23AB%23cEHA.2752@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Sam,
> Stop the SQL Server service and defrag the disk. The primary cause of
> file fragmentation is growing and shrinking of the SQL Server data
> files. If using autogrow, then grow in large chunks, so that this
> operation only occurs every few months or so, or even better longer
> periods than that. Turn off autoshrink.
> After you have defragged the data files, perform a DBCC DBREINDEX to
> locically defrag your indexes. If you have a clustered index on all your
> tables, this process will be more thorough.
> --
> Mark Allison, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.markallison.co.uk
> Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
>
> Sam Winston wrote:
> > I've noticed disk performance on our SQL 2000 cluster
> > slowing down. The 100 GB disk with the database files is
> > on an array. Using the included 2000 defrag tool I did an
> > analyze and found the disk is highly fragmented. It's
> > been running for about 2 years and never been defraged.
> > Is it necessary or even safe to defrag the disk with the
> > databases? I would assume you would need to stop the SQL
> > service to do it. Would it even do any good? I'd almost
> > think that since there is a small number of files that
> > after turning it back up it wouldn't take long before
> > everthing is fragmented again, but maybe not to the extent
> > that it is now.|||Hi
As an aside.
The fact that Defragger can even look at your array volumes means that your
disk is formatted with block sizes of 4kb or smaller.
Have a serious look at formatting your drives with larger block sizes, and
if possible, the same size as your RAID block sizes.
SQL does I/O in 8 extents of 8kb each (64Kb). Having a larger block size may
improve your performance (8 or 64kb)
Regards
--
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Johannesburg, South Africa
Mobile: +27-82-552-0268
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Sam Winston" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:4f3601c473dc$d7b2b8b0$a501280a@.phx.gbl...
> I've noticed disk performance on our SQL 2000 cluster
> slowing down. The 100 GB disk with the database files is
> on an array. Using the included 2000 defrag tool I did an
> analyze and found the disk is highly fragmented. It's
> been running for about 2 years and never been defraged.
> Is it necessary or even safe to defrag the disk with the
> databases? I would assume you would need to stop the SQL
> service to do it. Would it even do any good? I'd almost
> think that since there is a small number of files that
> after turning it back up it wouldn't take long before
> everthing is fragmented again, but maybe not to the extent
> that it is now.|||Mike,
I agree, 64k seems to be better for "standard" disks.
--
Mark Allison, SQL Server MVP
http://www.markallison.co.uk
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP) wrote:
> Hi
> As an aside.
> The fact that Defragger can even look at your array volumes means that your
> disk is formatted with block sizes of 4kb or smaller.
> Have a serious look at formatting your drives with larger block sizes, and
> if possible, the same size as your RAID block sizes.
> SQL does I/O in 8 extents of 8kb each (64Kb). Having a larger block size may
> improve your performance (8 or 64kb)
> Regards|||I have been shrinking and growing alot. It hit me that's
what's resulting in the fragmentation. I'll add in some
overhead, try to stick with fixed sizes, and set the
autogrow to a large chunk.
We are adding a second array. 400 GB total that I'm
formatting as 2 200 GB disks. The server has six majort
databases all are over 5 GB and 3 are over 15 GB. The
current disks are 4k clusters. Larger clusters make
sense. For DBs of this size would'nt it make sense to go
ahead and do 64k?|||Sam,
Yep, 64k clusters would be good.
--
Mark Allison, SQL Server MVP
http://www.markallison.co.uk
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Sam Winston wrote:
> I have been shrinking and growing alot. It hit me that's
> what's resulting in the fragmentation. I'll add in some
> overhead, try to stick with fixed sizes, and set the
> autogrow to a large chunk.
> We are adding a second array. 400 GB total that I'm
> formatting as 2 200 GB disks. The server has six majort
> databases all are over 5 GB and 3 are over 15 GB. The
> current disks are 4k clusters. Larger clusters make
> sense. For DBs of this size would'nt it make sense to go
> ahead and do 64k?
slowing down. The 100 GB disk with the database files is
on an array. Using the included 2000 defrag tool I did an
analyze and found the disk is highly fragmented. It's
been running for about 2 years and never been defraged.
Is it necessary or even safe to defrag the disk with the
databases? I would assume you would need to stop the SQL
service to do it. Would it even do any good? I'd almost
think that since there is a small number of files that
after turning it back up it wouldn't take long before
everthing is fragmented again, but maybe not to the extent
that it is now.Sam,
Stop the SQL Server service and defrag the disk. The primary cause of
file fragmentation is growing and shrinking of the SQL Server data
files. If using autogrow, then grow in large chunks, so that this
operation only occurs every few months or so, or even better longer
periods than that. Turn off autoshrink.
After you have defragged the data files, perform a DBCC DBREINDEX to
locically defrag your indexes. If you have a clustered index on all your
tables, this process will be more thorough.
--
Mark Allison, SQL Server MVP
http://www.markallison.co.uk
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Sam Winston wrote:
> I've noticed disk performance on our SQL 2000 cluster
> slowing down. The 100 GB disk with the database files is
> on an array. Using the included 2000 defrag tool I did an
> analyze and found the disk is highly fragmented. It's
> been running for about 2 years and never been defraged.
> Is it necessary or even safe to defrag the disk with the
> databases? I would assume you would need to stop the SQL
> service to do it. Would it even do any good? I'd almost
> think that since there is a small number of files that
> after turning it back up it wouldn't take long before
> everthing is fragmented again, but maybe not to the extent
> that it is now.|||I agree 100% with Mark. Just want to add that you should make sure you have
valid backups before attempting the defrag. And I also want to emphasize to
stop the shrinking and growing.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Mark Allison" <marka@.no.tinned.meat.mvps.org> wrote in message
news:%23Tr%23AB%23cEHA.2752@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Sam,
> Stop the SQL Server service and defrag the disk. The primary cause of
> file fragmentation is growing and shrinking of the SQL Server data
> files. If using autogrow, then grow in large chunks, so that this
> operation only occurs every few months or so, or even better longer
> periods than that. Turn off autoshrink.
> After you have defragged the data files, perform a DBCC DBREINDEX to
> locically defrag your indexes. If you have a clustered index on all your
> tables, this process will be more thorough.
> --
> Mark Allison, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.markallison.co.uk
> Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
>
> Sam Winston wrote:
> > I've noticed disk performance on our SQL 2000 cluster
> > slowing down. The 100 GB disk with the database files is
> > on an array. Using the included 2000 defrag tool I did an
> > analyze and found the disk is highly fragmented. It's
> > been running for about 2 years and never been defraged.
> > Is it necessary or even safe to defrag the disk with the
> > databases? I would assume you would need to stop the SQL
> > service to do it. Would it even do any good? I'd almost
> > think that since there is a small number of files that
> > after turning it back up it wouldn't take long before
> > everthing is fragmented again, but maybe not to the extent
> > that it is now.|||Hi
As an aside.
The fact that Defragger can even look at your array volumes means that your
disk is formatted with block sizes of 4kb or smaller.
Have a serious look at formatting your drives with larger block sizes, and
if possible, the same size as your RAID block sizes.
SQL does I/O in 8 extents of 8kb each (64Kb). Having a larger block size may
improve your performance (8 or 64kb)
Regards
--
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Johannesburg, South Africa
Mobile: +27-82-552-0268
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Sam Winston" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:4f3601c473dc$d7b2b8b0$a501280a@.phx.gbl...
> I've noticed disk performance on our SQL 2000 cluster
> slowing down. The 100 GB disk with the database files is
> on an array. Using the included 2000 defrag tool I did an
> analyze and found the disk is highly fragmented. It's
> been running for about 2 years and never been defraged.
> Is it necessary or even safe to defrag the disk with the
> databases? I would assume you would need to stop the SQL
> service to do it. Would it even do any good? I'd almost
> think that since there is a small number of files that
> after turning it back up it wouldn't take long before
> everthing is fragmented again, but maybe not to the extent
> that it is now.|||Mike,
I agree, 64k seems to be better for "standard" disks.
--
Mark Allison, SQL Server MVP
http://www.markallison.co.uk
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP) wrote:
> Hi
> As an aside.
> The fact that Defragger can even look at your array volumes means that your
> disk is formatted with block sizes of 4kb or smaller.
> Have a serious look at formatting your drives with larger block sizes, and
> if possible, the same size as your RAID block sizes.
> SQL does I/O in 8 extents of 8kb each (64Kb). Having a larger block size may
> improve your performance (8 or 64kb)
> Regards|||I have been shrinking and growing alot. It hit me that's
what's resulting in the fragmentation. I'll add in some
overhead, try to stick with fixed sizes, and set the
autogrow to a large chunk.
We are adding a second array. 400 GB total that I'm
formatting as 2 200 GB disks. The server has six majort
databases all are over 5 GB and 3 are over 15 GB. The
current disks are 4k clusters. Larger clusters make
sense. For DBs of this size would'nt it make sense to go
ahead and do 64k?|||Sam,
Yep, 64k clusters would be good.
--
Mark Allison, SQL Server MVP
http://www.markallison.co.uk
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Sam Winston wrote:
> I have been shrinking and growing alot. It hit me that's
> what's resulting in the fragmentation. I'll add in some
> overhead, try to stick with fixed sizes, and set the
> autogrow to a large chunk.
> We are adding a second array. 400 GB total that I'm
> formatting as 2 200 GB disks. The server has six majort
> databases all are over 5 GB and 3 are over 15 GB. The
> current disks are 4k clusters. Larger clusters make
> sense. For DBs of this size would'nt it make sense to go
> ahead and do 64k?
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Defrag needed ?
Hi,
Env : SQLserver2000 Entr. (active/passive cluster)
windows 2000 adv. server.
Server has RAID10 setup for all the drives. I have used
one partition X for the backups and i used to delete the
older backups. right now i want to use this partition for
the database files because i changed my backups to
different drive. Before placing the database files to
this drive X, Do i need to run any defrag utility? or
windows defrag? . If i wont run anything and use this X
drive for my database files , will it hurt SQL
Performance?
ThanksIf there is nothing on the partition it shouldn't matter. The OS wont care
if there was something there before as long as it's deleted for good you
should be all set.
--
Andrew J. Kelly
SQL Server MVP
"kris" <kpxus@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:032f01c36b40$6b042aa0$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> Env : SQLserver2000 Entr. (active/passive cluster)
> windows 2000 adv. server.
> Server has RAID10 setup for all the drives. I have used
> one partition X for the backups and i used to delete the
> older backups. right now i want to use this partition for
> the database files because i changed my backups to
> different drive. Before placing the database files to
> this drive X, Do i need to run any defrag utility? or
> windows defrag? . If i wont run anything and use this X
> drive for my database files , will it hurt SQL
> Performance?
> Thanks
>
Env : SQLserver2000 Entr. (active/passive cluster)
windows 2000 adv. server.
Server has RAID10 setup for all the drives. I have used
one partition X for the backups and i used to delete the
older backups. right now i want to use this partition for
the database files because i changed my backups to
different drive. Before placing the database files to
this drive X, Do i need to run any defrag utility? or
windows defrag? . If i wont run anything and use this X
drive for my database files , will it hurt SQL
Performance?
ThanksIf there is nothing on the partition it shouldn't matter. The OS wont care
if there was something there before as long as it's deleted for good you
should be all set.
--
Andrew J. Kelly
SQL Server MVP
"kris" <kpxus@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:032f01c36b40$6b042aa0$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> Env : SQLserver2000 Entr. (active/passive cluster)
> windows 2000 adv. server.
> Server has RAID10 setup for all the drives. I have used
> one partition X for the backups and i used to delete the
> older backups. right now i want to use this partition for
> the database files because i changed my backups to
> different drive. Before placing the database files to
> this drive X, Do i need to run any defrag utility? or
> windows defrag? . If i wont run anything and use this X
> drive for my database files , will it hurt SQL
> Performance?
> Thanks
>
Friday, March 9, 2012
Defining linked server in a failover cluster
Hi,
Are there any issues to consider when defining a linked
server for a virtual SQL server pointing to another
virtual SQL server in a failover cluster?
Many thanks,
OskarNo. As far as sql concerns, a valid linked server can be either virtual or
physical.
"Oskar" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6bdf01c48362$8b493180$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> Are there any issues to consider when defining a linked
> server for a virtual SQL server pointing to another
> virtual SQL server in a failover cluster?
> --
> Many thanks,
> Oskar
>
Are there any issues to consider when defining a linked
server for a virtual SQL server pointing to another
virtual SQL server in a failover cluster?
Many thanks,
OskarNo. As far as sql concerns, a valid linked server can be either virtual or
physical.
"Oskar" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6bdf01c48362$8b493180$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> Are there any issues to consider when defining a linked
> server for a virtual SQL server pointing to another
> virtual SQL server in a failover cluster?
> --
> Many thanks,
> Oskar
>
Defining linked server in a failover cluster
Hi,
Are there any issues to consider when defining a linked
server for a virtual SQL server pointing to another
virtual SQL server in a failover cluster?
Many thanks,
Oskar
No. As far as sql concerns, a valid linked server can be either virtual or
physical.
"Oskar" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6bdf01c48362$8b493180$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> Are there any issues to consider when defining a linked
> server for a virtual SQL server pointing to another
> virtual SQL server in a failover cluster?
> --
> Many thanks,
> Oskar
>
Are there any issues to consider when defining a linked
server for a virtual SQL server pointing to another
virtual SQL server in a failover cluster?
Many thanks,
Oskar
No. As far as sql concerns, a valid linked server can be either virtual or
physical.
"Oskar" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6bdf01c48362$8b493180$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> Are there any issues to consider when defining a linked
> server for a virtual SQL server pointing to another
> virtual SQL server in a failover cluster?
> --
> Many thanks,
> Oskar
>
Defining linked server in a failover cluster
Hi,
Are there any issues to consider when defining a linked
server for a virtual SQL server pointing to another
virtual SQL server in a failover cluster?
--
Many thanks,
OskarNo. As far as sql concerns, a valid linked server can be either virtual or
physical.
"Oskar" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6bdf01c48362$8b493180$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> Are there any issues to consider when defining a linked
> server for a virtual SQL server pointing to another
> virtual SQL server in a failover cluster?
> --
> Many thanks,
> Oskar
>
Are there any issues to consider when defining a linked
server for a virtual SQL server pointing to another
virtual SQL server in a failover cluster?
--
Many thanks,
OskarNo. As far as sql concerns, a valid linked server can be either virtual or
physical.
"Oskar" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6bdf01c48362$8b493180$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> Are there any issues to consider when defining a linked
> server for a virtual SQL server pointing to another
> virtual SQL server in a failover cluster?
> --
> Many thanks,
> Oskar
>
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Default Versus Named Instance
Default uses: Servername
Named uses: Servername\Instancename
Clusters are a whole different beast entirely. Are you on a cluster or
stand-alone?
Kevin Hill
3NF Consulting
http://www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
http://kevin3nf.blogspot.com
"Matt Tinney" <matt.tinney@.css-security.com> wrote in message
news:eeAQaxv$GHA.4292@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> When makes an application require the use of a default SQL instance versus
> named instances? If named instances are allowed with an application, how
> does one specify the specific instance to use?
>
> Clusters are a whole different beast entirely. Are you on a cluster or
> stand-alone?
We are talking about connecting to a SQL server instance from a client app;
it should not matter whether or not the SQL instance runs in a cluster.
Linchi
"Kevin3NF" wrote:
> Default uses: Servername
> Named uses: Servername\Instancename
> Clusters are a whole different beast entirely. Are you on a cluster or
> stand-alone?
> --
> Kevin Hill
> 3NF Consulting
> http://www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
> http://kevin3nf.blogspot.com
>
> "Matt Tinney" <matt.tinney@.css-security.com> wrote in message
> news:eeAQaxv$GHA.4292@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>
>
|||Except for the Virtual Server name being a required part of the connection
parameters
Kevin Hill
3NF Consulting
http://www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
Real-world stuff I run across with SQL Server:
http://kevin3nf.blogspot.com
"Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:F6590417-338D-4794-B22D-768F497B7857@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> We are talking about connecting to a SQL server instance from a client
> app;
> it should not matter whether or not the SQL instance runs in a cluster.
> Linchi
> "Kevin3NF" wrote:
Named uses: Servername\Instancename
Clusters are a whole different beast entirely. Are you on a cluster or
stand-alone?
Kevin Hill
3NF Consulting
http://www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
http://kevin3nf.blogspot.com
"Matt Tinney" <matt.tinney@.css-security.com> wrote in message
news:eeAQaxv$GHA.4292@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> When makes an application require the use of a default SQL instance versus
> named instances? If named instances are allowed with an application, how
> does one specify the specific instance to use?
>
> Clusters are a whole different beast entirely. Are you on a cluster or
> stand-alone?
We are talking about connecting to a SQL server instance from a client app;
it should not matter whether or not the SQL instance runs in a cluster.
Linchi
"Kevin3NF" wrote:
> Default uses: Servername
> Named uses: Servername\Instancename
> Clusters are a whole different beast entirely. Are you on a cluster or
> stand-alone?
> --
> Kevin Hill
> 3NF Consulting
> http://www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
> http://kevin3nf.blogspot.com
>
> "Matt Tinney" <matt.tinney@.css-security.com> wrote in message
> news:eeAQaxv$GHA.4292@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>
>
|||Except for the Virtual Server name being a required part of the connection
parameters
Kevin Hill
3NF Consulting
http://www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
Real-world stuff I run across with SQL Server:
http://kevin3nf.blogspot.com
"Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:F6590417-338D-4794-B22D-768F497B7857@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> We are talking about connecting to a SQL server instance from a client
> app;
> it should not matter whether or not the SQL instance runs in a cluster.
> Linchi
> "Kevin3NF" wrote:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)