Hey eb
Whats the point in having a collation attached to a unicode
charecter typed column'
If you want to set a specific collation to character data, why
make it unicode on the first place'
Am I missing something here'
Thanks
ReaCollation isn't only the character set. It is also sorting order, case sensitivity, accent
sensitivity etc.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Rea" <Rea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:CA4DF029-A399-4FE0-B198-C7FC621F0691@.microsoft.com...
> Hey eb
> Whats the point in having a collation attached to a unicode
> charecter typed column'
> If you want to set a specific collation to character data, why
> make it unicode on the first place'
> Am I missing something here'
> Thanks
> Rea
>
>sqlsql
Showing posts with label attached. Show all posts
Showing posts with label attached. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
collation on nchar column
Hey eb
Whats the point in having a collation attached to a unicode
charecter typed column'
If you want to set a specific collation to character data, why
make it unicode on the first place'
Am I missing something here'
Thanks
ReaCollation isn't only the character set. It is also sorting order, case sensi
tivity, accent
sensitivity etc.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Rea" <Rea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:CA4DF029-A399-4FE0-B198-C7FC621F0691@.microsoft.com...
> Hey eb
> Whats the point in having a collation attached to a unicode
> charecter typed column'
> If you want to set a specific collation to character data, why
> make it unicode on the first place'
> Am I missing something here'
> Thanks
> Rea
>
>
Whats the point in having a collation attached to a unicode
charecter typed column'
If you want to set a specific collation to character data, why
make it unicode on the first place'
Am I missing something here'
Thanks
ReaCollation isn't only the character set. It is also sorting order, case sensi
tivity, accent
sensitivity etc.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Rea" <Rea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:CA4DF029-A399-4FE0-B198-C7FC621F0691@.microsoft.com...
> Hey eb
> Whats the point in having a collation attached to a unicode
> charecter typed column'
> If you want to set a specific collation to character data, why
> make it unicode on the first place'
> Am I missing something here'
> Thanks
> Rea
>
>
Friday, February 24, 2012
Clustering Service not starting right away on One Node
I just set up a cluster attached to a SAN. I have had it where the cluster
service on one of the nodes doesn't start up right away. I have checked the
services to make sure that it is set to automatic which it is. Both nodes
are current with the latest patches and security updates. I'm a little
clueless as to why this is happening. Here is the real weird part after 1
minute the cluster service starts on the node that is giving me troubles.
The other node is perfectly fine.
Hi
If you do a fail-over using cluster admin, are there any resources (that SQL
server depends on) take a long to come online?
I have seen similar issues when the devices take long to come online due to
high SAN activity.
Does the SQL Server resource come online, but take a long time until it has
done it's recovery steps?
This can occur when the other node was de-porting it's devices and still had
IO pending. This results in not all pages being fluished to SAN, so SQL
Server has to do more recovery on the database start-up.
The best guage of how quickly a resource comes online is to look at cluster
admin during the failover.
Regards
Mike
Regards
Mike
"Thomas" wrote:
> I just set up a cluster attached to a SAN. I have had it where the cluster
> service on one of the nodes doesn't start up right away. I have checked the
> services to make sure that it is set to automatic which it is. Both nodes
> are current with the latest patches and security updates. I'm a little
> clueless as to why this is happening. Here is the real weird part after 1
> minute the cluster service starts on the node that is giving me troubles.
> The other node is perfectly fine.
|||We haven't installed SQL server yet. I should've posted that first. But I
know from passed installs that SQL does take some time to come online. The
SAN doesn't have much activity on it right now
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi
> If you do a fail-over using cluster admin, are there any resources (that SQL
> server depends on) take a long to come online?
> I have seen similar issues when the devices take long to come online due to
> high SAN activity.
> Does the SQL Server resource come online, but take a long time until it has
> done it's recovery steps?
> This can occur when the other node was de-porting it's devices and still had
> IO pending. This results in not all pages being fluished to SAN, so SQL
> Server has to do more recovery on the database start-up.
> The best guage of how quickly a resource comes online is to look at cluster
> admin during the failover.
> Regards
> Mike
> Regards
> Mike
> "Thomas" wrote:
|||Hi
Have a look in your event logs and check the time differences between when
Node A shuts down and Node B notices it and starts up. There will be at least
15 event messages during this process. Post the information here so that I
can compare it to our big clusters.
Regards
Mike
"Thomas" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> We haven't installed SQL server yet. I should've posted that first. But I
> know from passed installs that SQL does take some time to come online. The
> SAN doesn't have much activity on it right now
> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
|||That may be somewhat normal on a simultaneous startup. The first node grabs
the quorum device and owns the cluster but isn't talking on the network yet.
The second node tries to get the device but times out. Eventually the
service comes online and talks to the other node and agrees on who is in
charge. This is especially prevalent on SCSI-based clusters.
Check the System and Application event logs on both systems to see if there
are any unusual startup errors. Also, check what happens when the second
node is rebooted. If the cluster service does come online quickly, it is
just a device contention issue. I try and avoid powering up more than one
cluster node at a time.
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
www.sqlpass.org
"Thomas" <Thomas@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:AF61883D-AE50-4F3F-AD3F-3F07834A2B78@.microsoft.com...
> I just set up a cluster attached to a SAN. I have had it where the
cluster
> service on one of the nodes doesn't start up right away. I have checked
the
> services to make sure that it is set to automatic which it is. Both nodes
> are current with the latest patches and security updates. I'm a little
> clueless as to why this is happening. Here is the real weird part after 1
> minute the cluster service starts on the node that is giving me troubles.
> The other node is perfectly fine.
|||Node 2 which I haven't seen the problem with having ownership of the cluster.
When I reboot node 1 is when I see the problem of it taking 1 mintue to
start the cluster service.
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
> That may be somewhat normal on a simultaneous startup. The first node grabs
> the quorum device and owns the cluster but isn't talking on the network yet.
> The second node tries to get the device but times out. Eventually the
> service comes online and talks to the other node and agrees on who is in
> charge. This is especially prevalent on SCSI-based clusters.
> Check the System and Application event logs on both systems to see if there
> are any unusual startup errors. Also, check what happens when the second
> node is rebooted. If the cluster service does come online quickly, it is
> just a device contention issue. I try and avoid powering up more than one
> cluster node at a time.
>
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Senior Database Administrator
> Careerbuilder.com
> I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
> www.sqlpass.org
> "Thomas" <Thomas@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:AF61883D-AE50-4F3F-AD3F-3F07834A2B78@.microsoft.com...
> cluster
> the
>
>
|||Node order is arbitrary in a cluster. We could use Node X and Node Y
instead of Node 1 and Node 2.
Try manually stopping and starting the cluster service on Node 1. If it
restarts quickly, then the problem likely is one of the services that the
cluster service depends on. Time service is a usual suspect for that, but
you will have to check the entire list. Again, the Application and System
event logs are your friends here.
Now is the time to deal with this issue, not after you load SQL and get this
baby into production.
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
www.sqlpass.org
"Thomas" <Thomas@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:29B2402A-537B-4DCE-A137-FA200DD28872@.microsoft.com...
> Node 2 which I haven't seen the problem with having ownership of the
cluster.[vbcol=seagreen]
> When I reboot node 1 is when I see the problem of it taking 1 mintue to
> start the cluster service.
> "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
grabs[vbcol=seagreen]
yet.[vbcol=seagreen]
there[vbcol=seagreen]
second[vbcol=seagreen]
is[vbcol=seagreen]
one[vbcol=seagreen]
checked[vbcol=seagreen]
nodes[vbcol=seagreen]
little[vbcol=seagreen]
after 1[vbcol=seagreen]
troubles.[vbcol=seagreen]
service on one of the nodes doesn't start up right away. I have checked the
services to make sure that it is set to automatic which it is. Both nodes
are current with the latest patches and security updates. I'm a little
clueless as to why this is happening. Here is the real weird part after 1
minute the cluster service starts on the node that is giving me troubles.
The other node is perfectly fine.
Hi
If you do a fail-over using cluster admin, are there any resources (that SQL
server depends on) take a long to come online?
I have seen similar issues when the devices take long to come online due to
high SAN activity.
Does the SQL Server resource come online, but take a long time until it has
done it's recovery steps?
This can occur when the other node was de-porting it's devices and still had
IO pending. This results in not all pages being fluished to SAN, so SQL
Server has to do more recovery on the database start-up.
The best guage of how quickly a resource comes online is to look at cluster
admin during the failover.
Regards
Mike
Regards
Mike
"Thomas" wrote:
> I just set up a cluster attached to a SAN. I have had it where the cluster
> service on one of the nodes doesn't start up right away. I have checked the
> services to make sure that it is set to automatic which it is. Both nodes
> are current with the latest patches and security updates. I'm a little
> clueless as to why this is happening. Here is the real weird part after 1
> minute the cluster service starts on the node that is giving me troubles.
> The other node is perfectly fine.
|||We haven't installed SQL server yet. I should've posted that first. But I
know from passed installs that SQL does take some time to come online. The
SAN doesn't have much activity on it right now
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi
> If you do a fail-over using cluster admin, are there any resources (that SQL
> server depends on) take a long to come online?
> I have seen similar issues when the devices take long to come online due to
> high SAN activity.
> Does the SQL Server resource come online, but take a long time until it has
> done it's recovery steps?
> This can occur when the other node was de-porting it's devices and still had
> IO pending. This results in not all pages being fluished to SAN, so SQL
> Server has to do more recovery on the database start-up.
> The best guage of how quickly a resource comes online is to look at cluster
> admin during the failover.
> Regards
> Mike
> Regards
> Mike
> "Thomas" wrote:
|||Hi
Have a look in your event logs and check the time differences between when
Node A shuts down and Node B notices it and starts up. There will be at least
15 event messages during this process. Post the information here so that I
can compare it to our big clusters.
Regards
Mike
"Thomas" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> We haven't installed SQL server yet. I should've posted that first. But I
> know from passed installs that SQL does take some time to come online. The
> SAN doesn't have much activity on it right now
> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
|||That may be somewhat normal on a simultaneous startup. The first node grabs
the quorum device and owns the cluster but isn't talking on the network yet.
The second node tries to get the device but times out. Eventually the
service comes online and talks to the other node and agrees on who is in
charge. This is especially prevalent on SCSI-based clusters.
Check the System and Application event logs on both systems to see if there
are any unusual startup errors. Also, check what happens when the second
node is rebooted. If the cluster service does come online quickly, it is
just a device contention issue. I try and avoid powering up more than one
cluster node at a time.
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
www.sqlpass.org
"Thomas" <Thomas@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:AF61883D-AE50-4F3F-AD3F-3F07834A2B78@.microsoft.com...
> I just set up a cluster attached to a SAN. I have had it where the
cluster
> service on one of the nodes doesn't start up right away. I have checked
the
> services to make sure that it is set to automatic which it is. Both nodes
> are current with the latest patches and security updates. I'm a little
> clueless as to why this is happening. Here is the real weird part after 1
> minute the cluster service starts on the node that is giving me troubles.
> The other node is perfectly fine.
|||Node 2 which I haven't seen the problem with having ownership of the cluster.
When I reboot node 1 is when I see the problem of it taking 1 mintue to
start the cluster service.
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
> That may be somewhat normal on a simultaneous startup. The first node grabs
> the quorum device and owns the cluster but isn't talking on the network yet.
> The second node tries to get the device but times out. Eventually the
> service comes online and talks to the other node and agrees on who is in
> charge. This is especially prevalent on SCSI-based clusters.
> Check the System and Application event logs on both systems to see if there
> are any unusual startup errors. Also, check what happens when the second
> node is rebooted. If the cluster service does come online quickly, it is
> just a device contention issue. I try and avoid powering up more than one
> cluster node at a time.
>
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Senior Database Administrator
> Careerbuilder.com
> I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
> www.sqlpass.org
> "Thomas" <Thomas@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:AF61883D-AE50-4F3F-AD3F-3F07834A2B78@.microsoft.com...
> cluster
> the
>
>
|||Node order is arbitrary in a cluster. We could use Node X and Node Y
instead of Node 1 and Node 2.
Try manually stopping and starting the cluster service on Node 1. If it
restarts quickly, then the problem likely is one of the services that the
cluster service depends on. Time service is a usual suspect for that, but
you will have to check the entire list. Again, the Application and System
event logs are your friends here.
Now is the time to deal with this issue, not after you load SQL and get this
baby into production.
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
www.sqlpass.org
"Thomas" <Thomas@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:29B2402A-537B-4DCE-A137-FA200DD28872@.microsoft.com...
> Node 2 which I haven't seen the problem with having ownership of the
cluster.[vbcol=seagreen]
> When I reboot node 1 is when I see the problem of it taking 1 mintue to
> start the cluster service.
> "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
grabs[vbcol=seagreen]
yet.[vbcol=seagreen]
there[vbcol=seagreen]
second[vbcol=seagreen]
is[vbcol=seagreen]
one[vbcol=seagreen]
checked[vbcol=seagreen]
nodes[vbcol=seagreen]
little[vbcol=seagreen]
after 1[vbcol=seagreen]
troubles.[vbcol=seagreen]
Clustering Question...
Say I have a current standalone SQL 2005 node that is SAN attached.
How can I get it clustered by adding a passive secondary node to it ? Can I
do so ? Or do I have to setup an entirely 2 new clustered set of servers and
move the database from the standalone server to it ?
I am trying to avoid buying 2 new servers and move the database across but
would like to just add another node to the existing standalone server and
get it clustered. If this is possible, how can I do it ?
Clusters have built from the ground up. You can't make it a cluster after
the install of SQL. Migrate to a new cluster, built from the ground up, that
is the best option.
Cheers,
Rod
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
http://www.msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
"Hassan" <Hassan@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23PKJjfJHHHA.3872@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Say I have a current standalone SQL 2005 node that is SAN attached.
> How can I get it clustered by adding a passive secondary node to it ? Can
> I do so ? Or do I have to setup an entirely 2 new clustered set of servers
> and move the database from the standalone server to it ?
> I am trying to avoid buying 2 new servers and move the database across but
> would like to just add another node to the existing standalone server and
> get it clustered. If this is possible, how can I do it ?
>
>
|||Just to expand on what Rodney said, it is possible to create a cluster from
existing equipment, but it is neither desirable nor supported. The
potential disruption during the install and migration process will likely
cause some unplanned downtime, which defeats the entire purpose of a
cluster. It is best to start from a clean slate and migrate the data into
the new system.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" <rod@.die.spam.die.nw-america.com> wrote in
message news:ODTKVxJHHHA.4804@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Clusters have built from the ground up. You can't make it a cluster after
> the install of SQL. Migrate to a new cluster, built from the ground up,
> that is the best option.
> Cheers,
> Rod
> MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
> http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
> http://www.msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
> "Hassan" <Hassan@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23PKJjfJHHHA.3872@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>
|||What you can do, however, if you are willing to live with a new network
name, is to build a new single-node cluster and install SQL Server on it.
After migrating the databases to this new host, you can then rebuild the
original server and then have it joined to the new cluster as a new cluster
node.
This last bit has very specific steps. Look them up in Books Online or
TechNet. I even think I have a detailed list lying around this new group
somewhere. If I find it, I'll shoot it out to you.
Anyway, this should save you the cost of buying a third server.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"Geoff N. Hiten" <SQLCraftsman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23WajdlSHHHA.960@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Just to expand on what Rodney said, it is possible to create a cluster
from[vbcol=seagreen]
> existing equipment, but it is neither desirable nor supported. The
> potential disruption during the install and migration process will likely
> cause some unplanned downtime, which defeats the entire purpose of a
> cluster. It is best to start from a clean slate and migrate the data into
> the new system.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>
>
> "Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" <rod@.die.spam.die.nw-america.com> wrote in
> message news:ODTKVxJHHHA.4804@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
after[vbcol=seagreen]
Can[vbcol=seagreen]
server
>
How can I get it clustered by adding a passive secondary node to it ? Can I
do so ? Or do I have to setup an entirely 2 new clustered set of servers and
move the database from the standalone server to it ?
I am trying to avoid buying 2 new servers and move the database across but
would like to just add another node to the existing standalone server and
get it clustered. If this is possible, how can I do it ?
Clusters have built from the ground up. You can't make it a cluster after
the install of SQL. Migrate to a new cluster, built from the ground up, that
is the best option.
Cheers,
Rod
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
http://www.msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
"Hassan" <Hassan@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23PKJjfJHHHA.3872@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Say I have a current standalone SQL 2005 node that is SAN attached.
> How can I get it clustered by adding a passive secondary node to it ? Can
> I do so ? Or do I have to setup an entirely 2 new clustered set of servers
> and move the database from the standalone server to it ?
> I am trying to avoid buying 2 new servers and move the database across but
> would like to just add another node to the existing standalone server and
> get it clustered. If this is possible, how can I do it ?
>
>
|||Just to expand on what Rodney said, it is possible to create a cluster from
existing equipment, but it is neither desirable nor supported. The
potential disruption during the install and migration process will likely
cause some unplanned downtime, which defeats the entire purpose of a
cluster. It is best to start from a clean slate and migrate the data into
the new system.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" <rod@.die.spam.die.nw-america.com> wrote in
message news:ODTKVxJHHHA.4804@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Clusters have built from the ground up. You can't make it a cluster after
> the install of SQL. Migrate to a new cluster, built from the ground up,
> that is the best option.
> Cheers,
> Rod
> MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
> http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
> http://www.msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
> "Hassan" <Hassan@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23PKJjfJHHHA.3872@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>
|||What you can do, however, if you are willing to live with a new network
name, is to build a new single-node cluster and install SQL Server on it.
After migrating the databases to this new host, you can then rebuild the
original server and then have it joined to the new cluster as a new cluster
node.
This last bit has very specific steps. Look them up in Books Online or
TechNet. I even think I have a detailed list lying around this new group
somewhere. If I find it, I'll shoot it out to you.
Anyway, this should save you the cost of buying a third server.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"Geoff N. Hiten" <SQLCraftsman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23WajdlSHHHA.960@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Just to expand on what Rodney said, it is possible to create a cluster
from[vbcol=seagreen]
> existing equipment, but it is neither desirable nor supported. The
> potential disruption during the install and migration process will likely
> cause some unplanned downtime, which defeats the entire purpose of a
> cluster. It is best to start from a clean slate and migrate the data into
> the new system.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>
>
> "Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" <rod@.die.spam.die.nw-america.com> wrote in
> message news:ODTKVxJHHHA.4804@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
after[vbcol=seagreen]
Can[vbcol=seagreen]
server
>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)