Collation Name?

Hi,
I am help a church (chinese) to look at the existing database. When I
first look at it, I found out it is "Chinese_Taiwan_Stroke_CI_AS" under the
database property for the sectin of Collation Name.
I would like to know what is the major different between the default
(SQL_Latin1_General) and the "Chinese_Taiwan"? Also, I found out if i open
up a QA and typed in a Select statement, they are all case sensitive.. e.g.
a
table name called Customer, I have to key in "Select * from Customer", if i
type in "Select * from customer", there would be a syntax error...
Is that related to the Collation Name? or Is there any setting I can
configure to remove the case sensitive?
Thanks
Edyup, That is related to collation names. But syntax is case senisitive ?
that is something you set when you install the server. well collation name
can be differently spefified for db/table/even at column level. see BOL for
details.
--
Regards
R.D
--Knowledge gets doubled when shared
"Ed" wrote:

> Hi,
> I am help a church (chinese) to look at the existing database. When I
> first look at it, I found out it is "Chinese_Taiwan_Stroke_CI_AS" under th
e
> database property for the sectin of Collation Name.
> I would like to know what is the major different between the default
> (SQL_Latin1_General) and the "Chinese_Taiwan"? Also, I found out if i ope
n
> up a QA and typed in a Select statement, they are all case sensitive.. e.g
. a
> table name called Customer, I have to key in "Select * from Customer", if
i
> type in "Select * from customer", there would be a syntax error...
> Is that related to the Collation Name? or Is there any setting I can
> configure to remove the case sensitive?
> Thanks
> Ed|||Ed (Ed@.discussions.microsoft.com) writes:
> I am help a church (chinese) to look at the existing database. When I
> first look at it, I found out it is "Chinese_Taiwan_Stroke_CI_AS" under
> the database property for the sectin of Collation Name.
> I would like to know what is the major different between the default
> (SQL_Latin1_General) and the "Chinese_Taiwan"? Also, I found out if i
> open up a QA and typed in a Select statement, they are all case
> sensitive.. e.g. a table name called Customer, I have to key in "Select
> * from Customer", if i type in "Select * from customer", there would be
> a syntax error.. .
> Is that related to the Collation Name? or Is there any setting I can
> configure to remove the case sensitive?
Whether object names in a database are case sensitive or not depends on
the collation. However, I would expect Chinese_Taiwan_Stroke_CI_AS
to be a case-insensitive collation. (That's what the CI stands for).
The difference between different collations is that they sort and compare
data differently. For instance in SQL_Latin_General1, and co-sort
with A, where as in Finnish_Swedish_CS_AS they sort after Z, as they are
independent letters in Finnish and Swedish.
Since my Chinese is thin, I can't really discuss the peculiarities of
Chinese_Taiwan_Stroke_CI_AS, but obviously it obeys the old rules of
Chinese, and not the modern introduced by the rgime on the mainland.
Stroke would indicate sorting is done according to strokes. How
SQL_Latin1_General sorts Chinese, I don't know.
Anyway, changing the collation requires you to rebuild the database and
is a major work. I would stronly recommend you to keep the collation,
if all you have problem with is the table names. (It's another issue
if the Chinese stuff is handled in some undesired way.)
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se
Books Online for SQL Server SP3 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techin.../2000/books.asp

Clustering an existing set of servers

I have two non-clustered win2k servers (advanced server) with SQL Enterprise
installed with local storage. Production use has already started on a limited
basis. Would it be possible to to in place clustering using the following
steps?
1.Installation and configuration of additional hardware on each sever to
support SAN connectivity.
2.Getting the necessary IP addresses for one (active/passive) or two
3Installation and configuration of Microsoft Cluster Service on each server.
4.Install and configure named instance
5. Add the database logins from the non-clustered instances to
the newly created name instance.
6. Restore all users databases onto the new named instance.
Has anyone attempted this and been successful. The discussion of high
availability solutions including clustering was put off until just before
go-live. Hardware and budget are limited.
Thank you in advance for any suggestions
From a very high level, yes, the general steps are right but the details are
quite a bit more involved.
Before going into that, I strongly suggest you check out the MS clustering
hardware certification list. While you can hook up lots of different
hardware for a homegrown failover cluster solution, and many of them will
work just fine, if something bad happens, you'll have challenges with
Microsoft support. There are good reasons clusters are certified as a system
and not as "mix-n-match" components. Cluster hardware really isn't much more
expensive than "regular" stuff these days. If you're serious about HA,
convince your management/finance folks that it's not worth saving 10-15%
cost now and risk significant pains and costs later.
aK.
"John Kingery" <John Kingery@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:BAB4AD2D-B866-4EE2-AAE2-77856D7D84E7@.microsoft.com...
> I have two non-clustered win2k servers (advanced server) with SQL
Enterprise
> installed with local storage. Production use has already started on a
limited
> basis. Would it be possible to to in place clustering using the following
> steps?
> 1. Installation and configuration of additional hardware on each sever to
> support SAN connectivity.
> 2. Getting the necessary IP addresses for one (active/passive) or two
> 3 Installation and configuration of Microsoft Cluster Service on each
server.
> 4. Install and configure named instance
> 5. Add the database logins from the non-clustered instances to
> the newly created name instance.
> 6. Restore all users databases onto the new named instance.
> Has anyone attempted this and been successful. The discussion of high
> availability solutions including clustering was put off until just before
> go-live. Hardware and budget are limited.
> Thank you in advance for any suggestions
>
|||I am pretty sure you will have to uninstall SQL and reinstall for it to be
cluster aware, though I have never done this.
Even if it does work, would you trust your configuration? Take one of the
machines, attach external storage, start over and cluster it, move the
databases from the existing SQL using the attach command, when moved, redo
the old SQL server. That is what I would do
Cheers,
Rod
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
http://msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
"John Kingery" <John Kingery@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:BAB4AD2D-B866-4EE2-AAE2-77856D7D84E7@.microsoft.com...
>I have two non-clustered win2k servers (advanced server) with SQL
>Enterprise
> installed with local storage. Production use has already started on a
> limited
> basis. Would it be possible to to in place clustering using the following
> steps?
> 1. Installation and configuration of additional hardware on each sever to
> support SAN connectivity.
> 2. Getting the necessary IP addresses for one (active/passive) or two
> 3 Installation and configuration of Microsoft Cluster Service on each
> server.
> 4. Install and configure named instance
> 5. Add the database logins from the non-clustered instances to
> the newly created name instance.
> 6. Restore all users databases onto the new named instance.
> Has anyone attempted this and been successful. The discussion of high
> availability solutions including clustering was put off until just before
> go-live. Hardware and budget are limited.
> Thank you in advance for any suggestions
>

cluster-compatible OS versions

I have an existing 2-node cluster on older hardware that is hosting 3
SQL2000 virtual server/named instances. The current OS version for both
nodes is Windows 2003 Ent SP1.
I intend on upgrading this to a 3-node cluster by adding two very new
host nodes followed by removal of one older node, giving me an
active/active/passive failover setup.
The question is: can I simply load Win2003 R2 Ent SP2 on the new host
nodes and join them to the cluster, or do I need to first upgrade the
existing nodes in some fashion?
> The question is: can I simply load Win2003 R2 Ent SP2 on the new host
> nodes and join them to the cluster, or do I need to first upgrade the
> existing nodes in some fashion?
I have not done this specific scenario, but I'd guess that it should work
because that's no different from an OS rolling upgrade. In any event, I'd
keep the OS versions on all nodes the same when all is said and done.
Linchi
"horseradish" wrote:

> I have an existing 2-node cluster on older hardware that is hosting 3
> SQL2000 virtual server/named instances. The current OS version for both
> nodes is Windows 2003 Ent SP1.
> I intend on upgrading this to a 3-node cluster by adding two very new
> host nodes followed by removal of one older node, giving me an
> active/active/passive failover setup.
> The question is: can I simply load Win2003 R2 Ent SP2 on the new host
> nodes and join them to the cluster, or do I need to first upgrade the
> existing nodes in some fashion?
>
|||I would upgrade to SP2 (if your vendors support it) on the existing node.
Make sure you have a valid, restorable backup first. Then add in the second
SP2 nodes.
Cheers,
Rodney R. Fournier
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering Website
http://msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
http://www.clusterhelp.com - Cluster Training
ClusterHelp.com is a Microsoft Certified Gold Partner
"horseradish" <millardjk@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23ilR6MojHHA.4904@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>I have an existing 2-node cluster on older hardware that is hosting 3
>SQL2000 virtual server/named instances. The current OS version for both
>nodes is Windows 2003 Ent SP1.
> I intend on upgrading this to a 3-node cluster by adding two very new host
> nodes followed by removal of one older node, giving me an
> active/active/passive failover setup.
> The question is: can I simply load Win2003 R2 Ent SP2 on the new host
> nodes and join them to the cluster, or do I need to first upgrade the
> existing nodes in some fashion?