"There is insufficient system memory to run this query"

Hi
Within a day of the sql server service being up we're getting memory errors
returned from SQL Server by the applications that use it and query analyser.
I suspect that one of our sp's or jobs is leaking memory. Does anyone know
how i can test which one it is?
Win2k sp4, SQL Server 2000 sp3
Thanks
MattThese articles may help you.
http://www.sql-server-performance.c...nce_audit10.asp
+
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=271624
http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...kb;en-us;316749
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/col...rfinfotable.asp
"Matt" wrote:

> Hi
> Within a day of the sql server service being up we're getting memory error
s
> returned from SQL Server by the applications that use it and query analyse
r.
> I suspect that one of our sp's or jobs is leaking memory. Does anyone kno
w
> how i can test which one it is?
> Win2k sp4, SQL Server 2000 sp3
> Thanks
> Matt
>
>

"The connection could not be made to the report server......"

My test system is fine (windows 2003, VS.NET, RS). I could suffer the page
https://myserver/reports by using a browser. However, when creating a report
project, I couldn't deploy and got the error message : "The connection could
not be made to the report server https://myserver/reportserver".
Please help me.I am also having similar problems -- I tried reseting the proxy settings in
IE but not helping
"Vu Dawson" wrote:
> My test system is fine (windows 2003, VS.NET, RS). I could suffer the page
> https://myserver/reports by using a browser. However, when creating a report
> project, I couldn't deploy and got the error message : "The connection could
> not be made to the report server https://myserver/reportserver".
> Please help me.|||I was researching this error msg. I don't know if this applies to you.
When you open the browser and navigate to https://myserver/reportserver do
you get a https certificate prompt (yes/no/install cert?). This was the issue
for me... click on Install Certficate and try deploying again.
Good luck!
"Peter" wrote:
> I am also having similar problems -- I tried reseting the proxy settings in
> IE but not helping
> "Vu Dawson" wrote:
> > My test system is fine (windows 2003, VS.NET, RS). I could suffer the page
> > https://myserver/reports by using a browser. However, when creating a report
> > project, I couldn't deploy and got the error message : "The connection could
> > not be made to the report server https://myserver/reportserver".
> > Please help me.

"System.InvalidOperationException: Invalid attempt to MetaData when reader is closed"

I am getting this exception sporadically in a certain block of code (it usually works):

"System.InvalidOperationException: Invalid attempt to MetaData when reader is closed"

The code is below: cmd.CommandText ="[dbo].CountryGetList"; cmd.CommandType = CommandType.StoredProcedure; IDataReader rdr = cmd.ExecuteReader(); List countries =new List(); ...while (rdr.Read()) {//do stuff                  
 CountryID = (
Guid)rdr["CountryID"];
 //blows up on the next line
 cty.Name = (string)rdr["Name"];
            }
 } rdr.Close();

Any ideas!?

I guess thecmd.Connection has been closed before you finish reading data from IDataReader rdr

"SQL Native Client" / "SQL Server" drivers

When creating a system DSN via the ODBC Admistrator dialog...
What is the differecne between "SQL Native Client" and "SQL Server" drivers
listed in the "Create New Data Source" drivers list?
How do they differ?
"Coder23" <Coder23@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B50C82B2-70C8-4F28-89CA-248F039A048E@.microsoft.com...
> When creating a system DSN via the ODBC Admistrator dialog...
> What is the differecne between "SQL Native Client" and "SQL
> Server" drivers
> listed in the "Create New Data Source" drivers list?
> How do they differ?
From MSDN:
"SQL Native Client is a data access technology that is new to
Microsoft SQL Server 2005, and it is a stand-alone data access
application programming interface (API) that is used for both OLE
DB and ODBC. It combines the SQL OLE DB provider and the SQL ODBC
driver into one native dynamic-link library (DLL) while also
providing new functionality above and beyond that supplied by the
Microsoft Data Access Components (MDAC). SQL Native Client can be
used to create new applications or enhance existing applications
that need to take advantage of new SQL Server 2005 features such
as multiple active result sets (MARS), user-defined data types
(UDT), query notifications, snapshot isolation, and XML data type
support."
- Arnie
|||Thanks, that helps... but what about the other one listed? ("SQL Server"
driver)
Which is the appropriate one to use in an IIS/Website scenario in terms of
data access?
"Arnie" wrote:

> "Coder23" <Coder23@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:B50C82B2-70C8-4F28-89CA-248F039A048E@.microsoft.com...
> From MSDN:
> "SQL Native Client is a data access technology that is new to
> Microsoft SQL Server 2005, and it is a stand-alone data access
> application programming interface (API) that is used for both OLE
> DB and ODBC. It combines the SQL OLE DB provider and the SQL ODBC
> driver into one native dynamic-link library (DLL) while also
> providing new functionality above and beyond that supplied by the
> Microsoft Data Access Components (MDAC). SQL Native Client can be
> used to create new applications or enhance existing applications
> that need to take advantage of new SQL Server 2005 features such
> as multiple active result sets (MARS), user-defined data types
> (UDT), query notifications, snapshot isolation, and XML data type
> support."
> - Arnie
>
>
|||"Coder23" <Coder23@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A3AAA0F0-1898-4453-8D19-9613BA7FAA08@.microsoft.com...
> Thanks, that helps... but what about the other one listed?
> ("SQL Server"
> driver)
> Which is the appropriate one to use in an IIS/Website scenario
> in terms of
> data access?
>
The 'normal' SQL Server Driver should be fine unless you plan to
use some of the new features that were mentioned for SQL Server
2005. We use SQL Server 2000. I haven't tried to run the new
driver against it yet.
- Arnie

"SQL Native Client" / "SQL Server" drivers

When creating a system DSN via the ODBC Admistrator dialog...
What is the differecne between "SQL Native Client" and "SQL Server" drivers
listed in the "Create New Data Source" drivers list?
How do they differ?"Coder23" <Coder23@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B50C82B2-70C8-4F28-89CA-248F039A048E@.microsoft.com...
> When creating a system DSN via the ODBC Admistrator dialog...
> What is the differecne between "SQL Native Client" and "SQL
> Server" drivers
> listed in the "Create New Data Source" drivers list?
> How do they differ?
From MSDN:
"SQL Native Client is a data access technology that is new to
Microsoft SQL Server 2005, and it is a stand-alone data access
application programming interface (API) that is used for both OLE
DB and ODBC. It combines the SQL OLE DB provider and the SQL ODBC
driver into one native dynamic-link library (DLL) while also
providing new functionality above and beyond that supplied by the
Microsoft Data Access Components (MDAC). SQL Native Client can be
used to create new applications or enhance existing applications
that need to take advantage of new SQL Server 2005 features such
as multiple active result sets (MARS), user-defined data types
(UDT), query notifications, snapshot isolation, and XML data type
support."
- Arnie|||Thanks, that helps... but what about the other one listed? ("SQL Server"
driver)
Which is the appropriate one to use in an IIS/Website scenario in terms of
data access?
"Arnie" wrote:

> "Coder23" <Coder23@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:B50C82B2-70C8-4F28-89CA-248F039A048E@.microsoft.com...
> From MSDN:
> "SQL Native Client is a data access technology that is new to
> Microsoft SQL Server 2005, and it is a stand-alone data access
> application programming interface (API) that is used for both OLE
> DB and ODBC. It combines the SQL OLE DB provider and the SQL ODBC
> driver into one native dynamic-link library (DLL) while also
> providing new functionality above and beyond that supplied by the
> Microsoft Data Access Components (MDAC). SQL Native Client can be
> used to create new applications or enhance existing applications
> that need to take advantage of new SQL Server 2005 features such
> as multiple active result sets (MARS), user-defined data types
> (UDT), query notifications, snapshot isolation, and XML data type
> support."
> - Arnie
>
>|||"Coder23" <Coder23@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A3AAA0F0-1898-4453-8D19-9613BA7FAA08@.microsoft.com...
> Thanks, that helps... but what about the other one listed?
> ("SQL Server"
> driver)
> Which is the appropriate one to use in an IIS/Website scenario
> in terms of
> data access?
>
The 'normal' SQL Server Driver should be fine unless you plan to
use some of the new features that were mentioned for SQL Server
2005. We use SQL Server 2000. I haven't tried to run the new
driver against it yet.
- Arnie

"simple" security?

I've heard that SQL Server's security system is good, but complicated. What
is the easiest way to:
1. Limit who can make structural changes to the database, including stored
procedures.
2. Limit read access to certain tables or fields, and limit write access for
others.
At this point, I don't need something totally bulletproof. Just plain
serviceable would do for the time being.There are some database roles called db_datareader and db_datawriter that
allow a user to either read or write to tables. Apart from those, you could
just not grant any rights at all to a user, but give him explicit SELECT,
INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE permissions on a table. You can find a brief overview
of SQL Server security model at:
http://vyaskn.tripod.com/sql_server...t_practices.htm
--
Vyas, MVP (SQL Server)
SQL Server Articles and Code Samples @. http://vyaskn.tripod.com/
"Paul Pedersen" <no-reply@.swen.com> wrote in message
news:uaZAPfjXFHA.2420@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> I've heard that SQL Server's security system is good, but complicated.
What
> is the easiest way to:
> 1. Limit who can make structural changes to the database, including stored
> procedures.
> 2. Limit read access to certain tables or fields, and limit write access
for
> others.
>
> At this point, I don't need something totally bulletproof. Just plain
> serviceable would do for the time being.
>
>
>|||Thank you. I will try to find something "simple" in there...
"Narayana Vyas Kondreddi" <answer_me@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23ZEoqijXFHA.3732@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> There are some database roles called db_datareader and db_datawriter that
> allow a user to either read or write to tables. Apart from those, you
> could
> just not grant any rights at all to a user, but give him explicit SELECT,
> INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE permissions on a table. You can find a brief
> overview
> of SQL Server security model at:
> http://vyaskn.tripod.com/sql_server...t_practices.htm
> --
> Vyas, MVP (SQL Server)
> SQL Server Articles and Code Samples @. http://vyaskn.tripod.com/
>
> "Paul Pedersen" <no-reply@.swen.com> wrote in message
> news:uaZAPfjXFHA.2420@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> What
> for
>

"New transaction is not allowed because there are other threads running in the session." -

That is a SqlException I got at a...

at System.Data.Common.DbCommand.System.Data.IDbCommand.ExecuteReader()

Anyone an idea what THAT means? How do I cause it? How can I work around it?

I think you probably have an open connection somewhere. See if you can start the transaction after you close the connection.|||

I have about 25 open connections. Because that is - quess what - an ASP.NET application.

Once connection per page.

And every page has - one thread. No multi threading at all.

Plus it is legal for a thread to have multiple open connections.

|||

Have you enabled Multiple Active Resultsets (MARS)?

For connections with MARS enabled, manual transactions started via TSQL BEGIN TRAN must end (COMMIT or ROLLBACK) within the same scope that started the transaction

If your issue meets the the aboving conditions, you can try this work aroud:

To begin tansactions that are not required to be scoped under
MARS-enabled connections, use the client driver API constructs to begin and end transactions. If existing code relies on BEGIN TRAN operations without
corresponding COMMIT/ROLLBACK, MARS can be turned off until the application can be modified to use the client driver transaction APIs

|||Nope, no MARS. Actually that was (not is) old SQL Server 2000 code from .NET 1.1 that was traansported over. Worked flawlessly under .NET 1.1, and looks flawless to me still.

"model" system database transaction log

why would the transaction log of the model database have increased? this is a
template database what could be writing to it?
Obviously someone or some app has connected to the wrong db. Maybe someone
meant to use Tempdb and incorrectly chose Model instead.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Peter L." <PeterL@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9B15D142-5FE8-4822-AAD2-57DDCE393B34@.microsoft.com...
> why would the transaction log of the model database have increased? this
> is a
> template database what could be writing to it?
>

"model" system database transaction log

why would the transaction log of the model database have increased? this is
a
template database what could be writing to it?Obviously someone or some app has connected to the wrong db. Maybe someone
meant to use Tempdb and incorrectly chose Model instead.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Peter L." <PeterL@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9B15D142-5FE8-4822-AAD2-57DDCE393B34@.microsoft.com...
> why would the transaction log of the model database have increased? this
> is a
> template database what could be writing to it?
>

"model" system database transaction log

why would the transaction log of the model database have increased? this is a
template database what could be writing to it?Obviously someone or some app has connected to the wrong db. Maybe someone
meant to use Tempdb and incorrectly chose Model instead.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Peter L." <PeterL@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9B15D142-5FE8-4822-AAD2-57DDCE393B34@.microsoft.com...
> why would the transaction log of the model database have increased? this
> is a
> template database what could be writing to it?
>

"max text repl size" safety

I just increased the max size of text replication to 524288 bytes with below
Sql statements. The system allows me to do that but I'm wondering if there
is any issue/drawback that I should know about pumping the max size up by so
much. Thank you in advance for your advice.
EXEC sp_configure 'max text repl size', '524288'
go
RECONFIGURE WITH OVERRIDE
go
Basically it means that SQL can replicate data where a row contains more
than 524288 bytes. This will cause performance degradation on your system as
rows this size are going through.
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"Zeng" <Zeng5000@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e3DD325%23FHA.3992@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>I just increased the max size of text replication to 524288 bytes with
>below
> Sql statements. The system allows me to do that but I'm wondering if
> there
> is any issue/drawback that I should know about pumping the max size up by
> so
> much. Thank you in advance for your advice.
> EXEC sp_configure 'max text repl size', '524288'
> go
> RECONFIGURE WITH OVERRIDE
> go
>
|||If you have a separate distributor server where does this setting need to be
issued. At the distributor or the publisher?
If the system is moving large files (2- 10 MB) what kind of impact will it
have? What impact will it have on both servers?
Thanks
"Hilary Cotter" wrote:

> Basically it means that SQL can replicate data where a row contains more
> than 524288 bytes. This will cause performance degradation on your system as
> rows this size are going through.
> --
> Hilary Cotter
> Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
> Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
> http://www.indexserverfaq.com
> "Zeng" <Zeng5000@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:e3DD325%23FHA.3992@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>
>
|||I believe its on the publisher.
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"Mark" <Mark@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2DB417F1-5573-48EA-B1AC-C10B8760D75E@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> If you have a separate distributor server where does this setting need to
> be
> issued. At the distributor or the publisher?
> If the system is moving large files (2- 10 MB) what kind of impact will it
> have? What impact will it have on both servers?
> Thanks
> "Hilary Cotter" wrote:

"max text repl size" safety

I just increased the max size of text replication to 524288 bytes with below
Sql statements. The system allows me to do that but I'm wondering if there
is any issue/drawback that I should know about pumping the max size up by so
much. Thank you in advance for your advice.
EXEC sp_configure 'max text repl size', '524288'
go
RECONFIGURE WITH OVERRIDE
goBasically it means that SQL can replicate data where a row contains more
than 524288 bytes. This will cause performance degradation on your system as
rows this size are going through.
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"Zeng" <Zeng5000@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e3DD325%23FHA.3992@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>I just increased the max size of text replication to 524288 bytes with
>below
> Sql statements. The system allows me to do that but I'm wondering if
> there
> is any issue/drawback that I should know about pumping the max size up by
> so
> much. Thank you in advance for your advice.
> EXEC sp_configure 'max text repl size', '524288'
> go
> RECONFIGURE WITH OVERRIDE
> go
>|||If you have a separate distributor server where does this setting need to be
issued. At the distributor or the publisher?
If the system is moving large files (2- 10 MB) what kind of impact will it
have? What impact will it have on both servers?
Thanks
"Hilary Cotter" wrote:

> Basically it means that SQL can replicate data where a row contains more
> than 524288 bytes. This will cause performance degradation on your system
as
> rows this size are going through.
> --
> Hilary Cotter
> Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
> Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
> http://www.indexserverfaq.com
> "Zeng" <Zeng5000@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:e3DD325%23FHA.3992@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>
>|||I believe its on the publisher.
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"Mark" <Mark@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2DB417F1-5573-48EA-B1AC-C10B8760D75E@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> If you have a separate distributor server where does this setting need to
> be
> issued. At the distributor or the publisher?
> If the system is moving large files (2- 10 MB) what kind of impact will it
> have? What impact will it have on both servers?
> Thanks
> "Hilary Cotter" wrote:
>

"max text repl size" safety

I just increased the max size of text replication to 524288 bytes with below
Sql statements. The system allows me to do that but I'm wondering if there
is any issue/drawback that I should know about pumping the max size up by so
much. Thank you in advance for your advice.
EXEC sp_configure 'max text repl size', '524288'
go
RECONFIGURE WITH OVERRIDE
go
Basically it means that SQL can replicate data where a row contains more
than 524288 bytes. This will cause performance degradation on your system as
rows this size are going through.
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"Zeng" <Zeng5000@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e3DD325%23FHA.3992@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>I just increased the max size of text replication to 524288 bytes with
>below
> Sql statements. The system allows me to do that but I'm wondering if
> there
> is any issue/drawback that I should know about pumping the max size up by
> so
> much. Thank you in advance for your advice.
> EXEC sp_configure 'max text repl size', '524288'
> go
> RECONFIGURE WITH OVERRIDE
> go
>
|||If you have a separate distributor server where does this setting need to be
issued. At the distributor or the publisher?
If the system is moving large files (2- 10 MB) what kind of impact will it
have? What impact will it have on both servers?
Thanks
"Hilary Cotter" wrote:

> Basically it means that SQL can replicate data where a row contains more
> than 524288 bytes. This will cause performance degradation on your system as
> rows this size are going through.
> --
> Hilary Cotter
> Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
> Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
> http://www.indexserverfaq.com
> "Zeng" <Zeng5000@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:e3DD325%23FHA.3992@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>
>
|||I believe its on the publisher.
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"Mark" <Mark@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2DB417F1-5573-48EA-B1AC-C10B8760D75E@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> If you have a separate distributor server where does this setting need to
> be
> issued. At the distributor or the publisher?
> If the system is moving large files (2- 10 MB) what kind of impact will it
> have? What impact will it have on both servers?
> Thanks
> "Hilary Cotter" wrote:

"max text repl size" safety

I just increased the max size of text replication to 524288 bytes with below
Sql statements. The system allows me to do that but I'm wondering if there
is any issue/drawback that I should know about pumping the max size up by so
much. Thank you in advance for your advice.
EXEC sp_configure 'max text repl size', '524288'
go
RECONFIGURE WITH OVERRIDE
goBasically it means that SQL can replicate data where a row contains more
than 524288 bytes. This will cause performance degradation on your system as
rows this size are going through.
--
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"Zeng" <Zeng5000@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e3DD325%23FHA.3992@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>I just increased the max size of text replication to 524288 bytes with
>below
> Sql statements. The system allows me to do that but I'm wondering if
> there
> is any issue/drawback that I should know about pumping the max size up by
> so
> much. Thank you in advance for your advice.
> EXEC sp_configure 'max text repl size', '524288'
> go
> RECONFIGURE WITH OVERRIDE
> go
>|||If you have a separate distributor server where does this setting need to be
issued. At the distributor or the publisher?
If the system is moving large files (2- 10 MB) what kind of impact will it
have? What impact will it have on both servers?
Thanks
"Hilary Cotter" wrote:
> Basically it means that SQL can replicate data where a row contains more
> than 524288 bytes. This will cause performance degradation on your system as
> rows this size are going through.
> --
> Hilary Cotter
> Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
> Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
> http://www.indexserverfaq.com
> "Zeng" <Zeng5000@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:e3DD325%23FHA.3992@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> >I just increased the max size of text replication to 524288 bytes with
> >below
> > Sql statements. The system allows me to do that but I'm wondering if
> > there
> > is any issue/drawback that I should know about pumping the max size up by
> > so
> > much. Thank you in advance for your advice.
> >
> > EXEC sp_configure 'max text repl size', '524288'
> > go
> > RECONFIGURE WITH OVERRIDE
> > go
> >
> >
>
>|||I believe its on the publisher.
--
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"Mark" <Mark@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2DB417F1-5573-48EA-B1AC-C10B8760D75E@.microsoft.com...
> If you have a separate distributor server where does this setting need to
> be
> issued. At the distributor or the publisher?
> If the system is moving large files (2- 10 MB) what kind of impact will it
> have? What impact will it have on both servers?
> Thanks
> "Hilary Cotter" wrote:
>> Basically it means that SQL can replicate data where a row contains more
>> than 524288 bytes. This will cause performance degradation on your system
>> as
>> rows this size are going through.
>> --
>> Hilary Cotter
>> Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
>> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
>> Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
>> http://www.indexserverfaq.com
>> "Zeng" <Zeng5000@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:e3DD325%23FHA.3992@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> >I just increased the max size of text replication to 524288 bytes with
>> >below
>> > Sql statements. The system allows me to do that but I'm wondering if
>> > there
>> > is any issue/drawback that I should know about pumping the max size up
>> > by
>> > so
>> > much. Thank you in advance for your advice.
>> >
>> > EXEC sp_configure 'max text repl size', '524288'
>> > go
>> > RECONFIGURE WITH OVERRIDE
>> > go
>> >
>> >
>>

"dynamic" partitioning in SQL 2005 - possibility/speed?

Hi.
We have a workflow system that has tasks (tickets, whatever).
As of today, we have several hundred thousand closed tasks and about
5-7k open tasks.
The majority of operations work on open tasks, and the majority of
reports are also for open tasks; open tasks eventually become closed,
closed tasks can become open too but that's rare.
Is it possible to partition the tasks' table by the IsClosed bit
field, and have SQL server move rows back and forth automatically?
Will it be slow?
Also, for the reports that aggregate data from both small active
partition and big "closed" partition, will there be a big performance
hit compared to a single, non-partitioned table?
Articles on partitioning I have googled are kind of one sided and
mostly deal with static partitions of archived sales data etc that are
maintained manually or using scripts on regular basis.Hmm.. any ideas?

"dynamic" partitioning in SQL 2005 - possibility/speed?

Hi.
We have a workflow system that has tasks (tickets, whatever).
As of today, we have several hundred thousand closed tasks and about
5-7k open tasks.
The majority of operations work on open tasks, and the majority of
reports are also for open tasks; open tasks eventually become closed,
closed tasks can become open too but that's rare.
Is it possible to partition the tasks' table by the IsClosed bit
field, and have SQL server move rows back and forth automatically?
Will it be slow? :)
Also, for the reports that aggregate data from both small active
partition and big "closed" partition, will there be a big performance
hit compared to a single, non-partitioned table?
Articles on partitioning I have googled are kind of one sided and
mostly deal with static partitions of archived sales data etc that are
maintained manually or using scripts on regular basis.Hmm.. any ideas?

"dynamic" partitioning in SQL 2005 - possibility/speed?

Hi.
We have a workflow system that has tasks (tickets, whatever).
As of today, we have several hundred thousand closed tasks and about
5-7k open tasks.
The majority of operations work on open tasks, and the majority of
reports are also for open tasks; open tasks eventually become closed,
closed tasks can become open too but that's rare.
Is it possible to partition the tasks' table by the IsClosed bit
field, and have SQL server move rows back and forth automatically?
Will it be slow?
Also, for the reports that aggregate data from both small active
partition and big "closed" partition, will there be a big performance
hit compared to a single, non-partitioned table?
Articles on partitioning I have googled are kind of one sided and
mostly deal with static partitions of archived sales data etc that are
maintained manually or using scripts on regular basis.
Hmm.. any ideas?

"Disk full"

I am running Windows 2000 professional, we are showing the entire drive
is full( 30gig). I suspect it is in system backups. Any ideas?Hi
This will depend on the machine and what it is used for e.g. your cached
internet files could be huge or temporary files could be cluttering up the
system.
If you used Windows Explorer to seach the drive you can then order the files
by size.
John
<austx@.ev1.net> wrote in message
news:1136735870.520313.12800@.g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>I am running Windows 2000 professional, we are showing the entire drive
> is full( 30gig). I suspect it is in system backups. Any ideas?
>|||Also take a look at the size of your DB (mdf,ndf) and Log files (ldf)
you can use the following below to find out
sp_spaceused
DBCC SQLPERF ( LOGSPACE )
<austx@.ev1.net> wrote in message
news:1136735870.520313.12800@.g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>I am running Windows 2000 professional, we are showing the entire drive
> is full( 30gig). I suspect it is in system backups. Any ideas?
>|||Install a program called "Treesize" and use it to scan your hard drves,
that way you will be able to see the biggest folders and you can
manually check why and delete the files that use most of the space and
are not needed.
Hope it helps.|||thanks, I'll look at that.

"Disk full"

I am running windows 2000 professional, we are showing the entire drive
is full( 30gig). I suspect it is in system backups. Any ideas?Hi
This will depend on the machine and what it is used for e.g. your cached
internet files could be huge or temporary files could be cluttering up the
system.
If you used Windows Explorer to seach the drive you can then order the files
by size.
John
<austx@.ev1.net> wrote in message
news:1136735870.520313.12800@.g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>I am running windows 2000 professional, we are showing the entire drive
> is full( 30gig). I suspect it is in system backups. Any ideas?
>|||Also take a look at the size of your DB (mdf,ndf) and Log files (ldf)
you can use the following below to find out
sp_spaceused
DBCC SQLPERF ( LOGSPACE )
<austx@.ev1.net> wrote in message
news:1136735870.520313.12800@.g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>I am running windows 2000 professional, we are showing the entire drive
> is full( 30gig). I suspect it is in system backups. Any ideas?
>|||Install a program called "Treesize" and use it to scan your hard drves,
that way you will be able to see the biggest folders and you can
manually check why and delete the files that use most of the space and
are not needed.
Hope it helps.|||thanks, I'll look at that.

"Disk full"

I am running windows 2000 professional, we are showing the entire drive
is full( 30gig). I suspect it is in system backups. Any ideas?
Hi
This will depend on the machine and what it is used for e.g. your cached
internet files could be huge or temporary files could be cluttering up the
system.
If you used Windows Explorer to seach the drive you can then order the files
by size.
John
<austx@.ev1.net> wrote in message
news:1136735870.520313.12800@.g44g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
>I am running windows 2000 professional, we are showing the entire drive
> is full( 30gig). I suspect it is in system backups. Any ideas?
>
|||Also take a look at the size of your DB (mdf,ndf) and Log files (ldf)
you can use the following below to find out
sp_spaceused
DBCC SQLPERF ( LOGSPACE )
<austx@.ev1.net> wrote in message
news:1136735870.520313.12800@.g44g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
>I am running windows 2000 professional, we are showing the entire drive
> is full( 30gig). I suspect it is in system backups. Any ideas?
>
|||Install a program called "Treesize" and use it to scan your hard drves,
that way you will be able to see the biggest folders and you can
manually check why and delete the files that use most of the space and
are not needed.
Hope it helps.
|||thanks, I'll look at that.