Cognos and SQL Server 2005 Reporting Services

Hi,

I would like to get the differences between Cognos and SQL Server 2005 Reporting Services.One of the client is planning to Use Cognos and I am supporting SQL server 2005 Reporting Services.

Details regarding the pros and cons of SQL Server 2005 Reporting Services would be great.

I am looking for the details like this.

Cost of Cognos licencing Vs SQL Server Reporting services licensing?

Usability issues?,etc.

Any link to the comparision study between SQL server Reporting services and Cognos?

Thanks!

Raju

http://expertanswercenter.techtarget.com/eac/knowledgebaseAnswer/0,295199,sid63_gci1141747,00.html

try this link

clustering Exchange and SQL server using one SAN drive

I'm planning to use Exchange Server 2003 and SQL server 2000 in a clustered
solution (windows 2003) with 2 nodes.
One node should contain the active Exchange resources. The other node should
contain the active SQL server resources. If one node failes the other node
should run all Exchange AND SQL server resources.
I am using a SAN (HP MSA500) solution for data storage. In our cluster
server this is assigned as the physical disk resource "Disk D:". This disk
resource was added to the default group "Cluster group".
I need to store my data from both Exchange Server and SQL server on this
"Disk D:". However, this disk resource is joined to only one node. The
D-drive is only available on the node which is active for the "Cluster
group".
Question: is it possible to use the D-drive for both nodes at the same time?
What am I doing wrong?
Thanks in advance for your answer.
Arnoud Muggen
You have a hardware configuration issue. Microsoft clustering uses the
shared nothing model. You simply can't have the D Drive on both nodes at the
same time.
Start all over. Carve up your MAS500 into volumes. Clustering will use these
volumes as drives.
Next issue, its really not a good idea to run Active(SQL)/Active(Exchange)
on a two node cluster. During a failure the remaining system is going to
take a pretty big performance hit. Let alone having the SQL & Exchange bits
on the same machine at the same time. Yuck and not a best practice,
especially if you care about performance.
I suggest you get Virtual Server 2005 or VMWare and create a test cluster to
learn more about configurations. Knowledge is very handy with clusters.
I also hear that www.clusterhelp.com has several custom detailed training
classes coming up in NYC & Denver. You may want to looking to them for help

Cheers,
Rod
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering Website
http://www.msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
http://www.clusterhelp.com - Cluster Training
"Arnoud Muggen" <webmaster_n_o_s_p_a_m_@.act-one.net> wrote in message
news:eZkgekp6FHA.1724@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> I'm planning to use Exchange Server 2003 and SQL server 2000 in a
> clustered
> solution (windows 2003) with 2 nodes.
> One node should contain the active Exchange resources. The other node
> should
> contain the active SQL server resources. If one node failes the other node
> should run all Exchange AND SQL server resources.
> I am using a SAN (HP MSA500) solution for data storage. In our cluster
> server this is assigned as the physical disk resource "Disk D:". This disk
> resource was added to the default group "Cluster group".
> I need to store my data from both Exchange Server and SQL server on this
> "Disk D:". However, this disk resource is joined to only one node. The
> D-drive is only available on the node which is active for the "Cluster
> group".
> Question: is it possible to use the D-drive for both nodes at the same
> time?
> What am I doing wrong?
> Thanks in advance for your answer.
> Arnoud Muggen
>
|||Everything clear, thanks. I'll start the installation all over again.
Thanks for your help
Arnoud
"Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" <rod@.die.spam.die.nw-america.com> wrote in
message news:%23as4D8q6FHA.3120@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> You have a hardware configuration issue. Microsoft clustering uses the
> shared nothing model. You simply can't have the D Drive on both nodes at
the
> same time.
> Start all over. Carve up your MAS500 into volumes. Clustering will use
these
> volumes as drives.
> Next issue, its really not a good idea to run Active(SQL)/Active(Exchange)
> on a two node cluster. During a failure the remaining system is going to
> take a pretty big performance hit. Let alone having the SQL & Exchange
bits
> on the same machine at the same time. Yuck and not a best practice,
> especially if you care about performance.
> I suggest you get Virtual Server 2005 or VMWare and create a test cluster
to
> learn more about configurations. Knowledge is very handy with clusters.
> I also hear that www.clusterhelp.com has several custom detailed training
> classes coming up in NYC & Denver. You may want to looking to them for
help[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Cheers,
> Rod
> MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
> http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering Website
> http://www.msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
> http://www.clusterhelp.com - Cluster Training
>
> "Arnoud Muggen" <webmaster_n_o_s_p_a_m_@.act-one.net> wrote in message
> news:eZkgekp6FHA.1724@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
node[vbcol=seagreen]
disk
>

Clustered index

I have the query below running against a table with no indexes. This is the
only query that ever runs against it so I was planning on creating a
clustered index for it to optimize performance. The table does rarely
receives inserts or updates but it is queried 10 or so times per second.
Right now the performance is pitiful. Also note, I do not have the authority
to change the query, only add an index.
SELECT TOP 25 umBatchID, umDocumentNumber, umLineSequence, DSTINDX,
umTransactionAmount, DEX_ROW_ID from UMPST04 where umBatchID = @.BatchID and
umDocumentNumber = between @.Doc1 and @.Doc2 and umLineSequence between @.Line1
and @.Line2 order by umBatchID asc, umDocumentNumber asc, umLineSequence asc,
DEX_ROW_ID asc
should I create the clustered index based predicate? Meaning index on
umBatchID, umDocumentNumber, umLineSequence
Or based make a convering index to include all the columns in the select
portion
or based on the 'order by' meaning umBatchID, umDocumentNumber,
umLineSequence, DEX_ROW_ID.
Any suggestions are appreciated...The index you suggest should speed that query considerably; only thing would
be to decide the order of umDocumentNumber and umLineSequence in the index
-- the one that will narrow the result set more (if at all) should come
before the other. Guessing from the field names you've probably got the righ
t
order.
A clustered index is effectivly a covering index because it is not seperate
from the table as a nonclustered index is - when a clustered index is used i
t
does not need a pointer back to the original record to do a bookmark lookup;
you can see this in the query plan.
"Dean" wrote:

> I have the query below running against a table with no indexes. This is th
e
> only query that ever runs against it so I was planning on creating a
> clustered index for it to optimize performance. The table does rarely
> receives inserts or updates but it is queried 10 or so times per second.
> Right now the performance is pitiful. Also note, I do not have the authori
ty
> to change the query, only add an index.
>
> SELECT TOP 25 umBatchID, umDocumentNumber, umLineSequence, DSTINDX,
> umTransactionAmount, DEX_ROW_ID from UMPST04 where umBatchID = @.BatchID an
d
> umDocumentNumber = between @.Doc1 and @.Doc2 and umLineSequence between @.Lin
e1
> and @.Line2 order by umBatchID asc, umDocumentNumber asc, umLineSequence as
c,
> DEX_ROW_ID asc
> should I create the clustered index based predicate? Meaning index on
> umBatchID, umDocumentNumber, umLineSequence
> Or based make a convering index to include all the columns in the select
> portion
> or based on the 'order by' meaning umBatchID, umDocumentNumber,
> umLineSequence, DEX_ROW_ID.
> Any suggestions are appreciated...
>