Collation Confusion

Greetings!
I'm trying to install SQL Server 2000 (Standard edition) on a new server to
mirror the version on an older server. The trouble I'm having is with
identifying the settings I need in order to match collations.
The instance of SQL Server on the old server has a collation described as
'SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS'. I realise that 'CI' and 'AS' refer to
case-insensitive and accent-sensitive respectively, but what does 'CP1'
relate to?
I've searched through various resources but they all seem to avoid
describing that one crucial bit of information! Can anyone help?
Code page 1
"Mario" <someone.else@.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:O3bumugWEHA.1368@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Greetings!
> I'm trying to install SQL Server 2000 (Standard edition) on a new server
to
> mirror the version on an older server. The trouble I'm having is with
> identifying the settings I need in order to match collations.
> The instance of SQL Server on the old server has a collation described as
> 'SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS'. I realise that 'CI' and 'AS' refer to
> case-insensitive and accent-sensitive respectively, but what does 'CP1'
> relate to?
> I've searched through various resources but they all seem to avoid
> describing that one crucial bit of information! Can anyone help?
>
|||In setup you should select "Dictionary order, case-insensitive, for use
with 1252 character set" in the collation selection dialog. This is the
default collation for U.S. English SQL Servers.
Bart Duncan
Microsoft SQL Server Support
Please reply to the newsgroup only - thanks.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.
From: "Adam Machanic" <amachanic@.hotmail._removetoemail_.com>
References: <O3bumugWEHA.1368@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>
Subject: Re: Collation Confusion
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 13:08:24 -0400
Lines: 22
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409
Message-ID: <uAyDd3gWEHA.1468@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>
Newsgroups: microsoft.public.sqlserver.server
NNTP-Posting-Host: firewall.getconnected.com 207.31.238.50
Path:
cpmsftngxa10.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGXA06.phx.gbl!cpmsftn gxa06.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGX
A01.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP08.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP10.phx. gbl
Xref: cpmsftngxa10.phx.gbl microsoft.public.sqlserver.server:347579
X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.sqlserver.server
Code page 1
"Mario" <someone.else@.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:O3bumugWEHA.1368@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Greetings!
> I'm trying to install SQL Server 2000 (Standard edition) on a new server
to
> mirror the version on an older server. The trouble I'm having is with
> identifying the settings I need in order to match collations.
> The instance of SQL Server on the old server has a collation described
as
> 'SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS'. I realise that 'CI' and 'AS' refer to
> case-insensitive and accent-sensitive respectively, but what does 'CP1'
> relate to?
> I've searched through various resources but they all seem to avoid
> describing that one crucial bit of information! Can anyone help?
>
sqlsql

Collation Confusion

Greetings!
I'm trying to install SQL Server 2000 (Standard edition) on a new server to
mirror the version on an older server. The trouble I'm having is with
identifying the settings I need in order to match collations.
The instance of SQL Server on the old server has a collation described as
'SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS'. I realise that 'CI' and 'AS' refer to
case-insensitive and accent-sensitive respectively, but what does 'CP1'
relate to?
I've searched through various resources but they all seem to avoid
describing that one crucial bit of information! Can anyone help?Code page 1
"Mario" <someone.else@.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:O3bumugWEHA.1368@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Greetings!
> I'm trying to install SQL Server 2000 (Standard edition) on a new server
to
> mirror the version on an older server. The trouble I'm having is with
> identifying the settings I need in order to match collations.
> The instance of SQL Server on the old server has a collation described as
> 'SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS'. I realise that 'CI' and 'AS' refer to
> case-insensitive and accent-sensitive respectively, but what does 'CP1'
> relate to?
> I've searched through various resources but they all seem to avoid
> describing that one crucial bit of information! Can anyone help?
>|||In setup you should select "Dictionary order, case-insensitive, for use
with 1252 character set" in the collation selection dialog. This is the
default collation for U.S. English SQL Servers.
--
Bart Duncan
Microsoft SQL Server Support
Please reply to the newsgroup only - thanks.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.
From: "Adam Machanic" <amachanic@.hotmail._removetoemail_.com>
References: <O3bumugWEHA.1368@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>
Subject: Re: Collation Confusion
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 13:08:24 -0400
Lines: 22
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409
Message-ID: <uAyDd3gWEHA.1468@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>
Newsgroups: microsoft.public.sqlserver.server
NNTP-Posting-Host: firewall.getconnected.com 207.31.238.50
Path:
cpmsftngxa10.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGXA06.phx.gbl!cpmsftngxa06.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGX
A01.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP08.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl
Xref: cpmsftngxa10.phx.gbl microsoft.public.sqlserver.server:347579
X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.sqlserver.server
Code page 1
"Mario" <someone.else@.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:O3bumugWEHA.1368@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Greetings!
> I'm trying to install SQL Server 2000 (Standard edition) on a new server
to
> mirror the version on an older server. The trouble I'm having is with
> identifying the settings I need in order to match collations.
> The instance of SQL Server on the old server has a collation described
as
> 'SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS'. I realise that 'CI' and 'AS' refer to
> case-insensitive and accent-sensitive respectively, but what does 'CP1'
> relate to?
> I've searched through various resources but they all seem to avoid
> describing that one crucial bit of information! Can anyone help?
>

Collation Confusion

Greetings!
I'm trying to install SQL Server 2000 (Standard edition) on a new server to
mirror the version on an older server. The trouble I'm having is with
identifying the settings I need in order to match collations.
The instance of SQL Server on the old server has a collation described as
'SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS'. I realise that 'CI' and 'AS' refer to
case-insensitive and accent-sensitive respectively, but what does 'CP1'
relate to?
I've searched through various resources but they all seem to avoid
describing that one crucial bit of information! Can anyone help?Code page 1
"Mario" <someone.else@.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:O3bumugWEHA.1368@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Greetings!
> I'm trying to install SQL Server 2000 (Standard edition) on a new server
to
> mirror the version on an older server. The trouble I'm having is with
> identifying the settings I need in order to match collations.
> The instance of SQL Server on the old server has a collation described as
> 'SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS'. I realise that 'CI' and 'AS' refer to
> case-insensitive and accent-sensitive respectively, but what does 'CP1'
> relate to?
> I've searched through various resources but they all seem to avoid
> describing that one crucial bit of information! Can anyone help?
>|||In setup you should select "Dictionary order, case-insensitive, for use
with 1252 character set" in the collation selection dialog. This is the
default collation for U.S. English SQL Servers.
Bart Duncan
Microsoft SQL Server Support
Please reply to the newsgroup only - thanks.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.
From: "Adam Machanic" <amachanic@.hotmail._removetoemail_.com>
References: <O3bumugWEHA.1368@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>
Subject: Re: Collation Confusion
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 13:08:24 -0400
Lines: 22
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409
Message-ID: <uAyDd3gWEHA.1468@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>
Newsgroups: microsoft.public.sqlserver.server
NNTP-Posting-Host: firewall.getconnected.com 207.31.238.50
Path:
cpmsftngxa10.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGXA06.phx.gbl!cpmsftngxa06.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGX
A01.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP08.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl
Xref: cpmsftngxa10.phx.gbl microsoft.public.sqlserver.server:347579
X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.sqlserver.server
Code page 1
"Mario" <someone.else@.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:O3bumugWEHA.1368@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Greetings!
> I'm trying to install SQL Server 2000 (Standard edition) on a new server
to
> mirror the version on an older server. The trouble I'm having is with
> identifying the settings I need in order to match collations.
> The instance of SQL Server on the old server has a collation described
as
> 'SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS'. I realise that 'CI' and 'AS' refer to
> case-insensitive and accent-sensitive respectively, but what does 'CP1'
> relate to?
> I've searched through various resources but they all seem to avoid
> describing that one crucial bit of information! Can anyone help?
>

Collation Conflicts SQL 2005

Hi there,
We have recently upgraded to SQL 2005 standard from SQL 2000.
I have begun a new web project in Visual Studio 2005.
I have added a SQL data source to my project which contains a VIEW.
I am passing a single parameter to the DS to populate a gridview.
I get the following error when I try to:
A. Test the Datasource.
B. Load the page that contains a gridview that uses the DS.
Cannot resolve the collation conflict between "Latin1_General_CI_AS" and
"SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS" in the equal to operation.
I also get this error when creating stored procedures with an equal
operation.
Any steer in the right direction to resolve this issue would be greatly
appreciated.
Thanks in advance!
Hi
Have you checked the system collation and the column collations? At a guess
you upgraded/restored a backup with the SQL collation and installed SQL 2005
with the windows collation?
This may be the point where you decided to get rid of the SQL collation? In
which case I think the procedure is that same as SQL 2000, you will need to
alter the collation for the database alter the collation for each column that
uses it. These links should help http://tinyurl.com/429qa
http://tinyurl.com/91sg
John
"Codey" wrote:

> Hi there,
> We have recently upgraded to SQL 2005 standard from SQL 2000.
> I have begun a new web project in Visual Studio 2005.
> I have added a SQL data source to my project which contains a VIEW.
> I am passing a single parameter to the DS to populate a gridview.
> I get the following error when I try to:
> A. Test the Datasource.
> B. Load the page that contains a gridview that uses the DS.
> Cannot resolve the collation conflict between "Latin1_General_CI_AS" and
> "SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS" in the equal to operation.
>
> I also get this error when creating stored procedures with an equal
> operation.
> Any steer in the right direction to resolve this issue would be greatly
> appreciated.
> Thanks in advance!
>
>
|||Hi John,
Worked an absolute treat! - Thanks a million!
"John Bell" <jbellnewsposts@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:C315F5A7-2EFF-4C59-B5A9-1A8721534E19@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi
> Have you checked the system collation and the column collations? At a
> guess
> you upgraded/restored a backup with the SQL collation and installed SQL
> 2005
> with the windows collation?
> This may be the point where you decided to get rid of the SQL collation?
> In
> which case I think the procedure is that same as SQL 2000, you will need
> to
> alter the collation for the database alter the collation for each column
> that
> uses it. These links should help http://tinyurl.com/429qa
> http://tinyurl.com/91sg
> John
> "Codey" wrote:

Collation Conflicts SQL 2005

Hi there,
We have recently upgraded to SQL 2005 standard from SQL 2000.
I have begun a new web project in Visual Studio 2005.
I have added a SQL data source to my project which contains a VIEW.
I am passing a single parameter to the DS to populate a gridview.
I get the following error when I try to:
A. Test the Datasource.
B. Load the page that contains a gridview that uses the DS.
Cannot resolve the collation conflict between "Latin1_General_CI_AS" and
"SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS" in the equal to operation.
I also get this error when creating stored procedures with an equal
operation.
Any steer in the right direction to resolve this issue would be greatly
appreciated.
Thanks in advance!Hi
Have you checked the system collation and the column collations? At a guess
you upgraded/restored a backup with the SQL collation and installed SQL 2005
with the windows collation?
This may be the point where you decided to get rid of the SQL collation? In
which case I think the procedure is that same as SQL 2000, you will need to
alter the collation for the database alter the collation for each column tha
t
uses it. These links should help http://tinyurl.com/429qa
http://tinyurl.com/91sg
John
"Codey" wrote:

> Hi there,
> We have recently upgraded to SQL 2005 standard from SQL 2000.
> I have begun a new web project in Visual Studio 2005.
> I have added a SQL data source to my project which contains a VIEW.
> I am passing a single parameter to the DS to populate a gridview.
> I get the following error when I try to:
> A. Test the Datasource.
> B. Load the page that contains a gridview that uses the DS.
> Cannot resolve the collation conflict between "Latin1_General_CI_AS" and
> "SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS" in the equal to operation.
>
> I also get this error when creating stored procedures with an equal
> operation.
> Any steer in the right direction to resolve this issue would be greatly
> appreciated.
> Thanks in advance!
>
>|||Hi John,
Worked an absolute treat! - Thanks a million!
"John Bell" <jbellnewsposts@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:C315F5A7-2EFF-4C59-B5A9-1A8721534E19@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi
> Have you checked the system collation and the column collations? At a
> guess
> you upgraded/restored a backup with the SQL collation and installed SQL
> 2005
> with the windows collation?
> This may be the point where you decided to get rid of the SQL collation?
> In
> which case I think the procedure is that same as SQL 2000, you will need
> to
> alter the collation for the database alter the collation for each column
> that
> uses it. These links should help http://tinyurl.com/429qa
> http://tinyurl.com/91sg
> John
> "Codey" wrote:
>

Collation Conflicts SQL 2005

Hi there,
We have recently upgraded to SQL 2005 standard from SQL 2000.
I have begun a new web project in Visual Studio 2005.
I have added a SQL data source to my project which contains a VIEW.
I am passing a single parameter to the DS to populate a gridview.
I get the following error when I try to:
A. Test the Datasource.
B. Load the page that contains a gridview that uses the DS.
Cannot resolve the collation conflict between "Latin1_General_CI_AS" and
"SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS" in the equal to operation.
I also get this error when creating stored procedures with an equal
operation.
Any steer in the right direction to resolve this issue would be greatly
appreciated.
Thanks in advance!Hi
Have you checked the system collation and the column collations? At a guess
you upgraded/restored a backup with the SQL collation and installed SQL 2005
with the windows collation?
This may be the point where you decided to get rid of the SQL collation? In
which case I think the procedure is that same as SQL 2000, you will need to
alter the collation for the database alter the collation for each column that
uses it. These links should help http://tinyurl.com/429qa
http://tinyurl.com/91sg
John
"Codey" wrote:
> Hi there,
> We have recently upgraded to SQL 2005 standard from SQL 2000.
> I have begun a new web project in Visual Studio 2005.
> I have added a SQL data source to my project which contains a VIEW.
> I am passing a single parameter to the DS to populate a gridview.
> I get the following error when I try to:
> A. Test the Datasource.
> B. Load the page that contains a gridview that uses the DS.
> Cannot resolve the collation conflict between "Latin1_General_CI_AS" and
> "SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS" in the equal to operation.
>
> I also get this error when creating stored procedures with an equal
> operation.
> Any steer in the right direction to resolve this issue would be greatly
> appreciated.
> Thanks in advance!
>
>|||Hi John,
Worked an absolute treat! - Thanks a million!
"John Bell" <jbellnewsposts@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:C315F5A7-2EFF-4C59-B5A9-1A8721534E19@.microsoft.com...
> Hi
> Have you checked the system collation and the column collations? At a
> guess
> you upgraded/restored a backup with the SQL collation and installed SQL
> 2005
> with the windows collation?
> This may be the point where you decided to get rid of the SQL collation?
> In
> which case I think the procedure is that same as SQL 2000, you will need
> to
> alter the collation for the database alter the collation for each column
> that
> uses it. These links should help http://tinyurl.com/429qa
> http://tinyurl.com/91sg
> John
> "Codey" wrote:
>> Hi there,
>> We have recently upgraded to SQL 2005 standard from SQL 2000.
>> I have begun a new web project in Visual Studio 2005.
>> I have added a SQL data source to my project which contains a VIEW.
>> I am passing a single parameter to the DS to populate a gridview.
>> I get the following error when I try to:
>> A. Test the Datasource.
>> B. Load the page that contains a gridview that uses the DS.
>> Cannot resolve the collation conflict between "Latin1_General_CI_AS" and
>> "SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS" in the equal to operation.
>>
>> I also get this error when creating stored procedures with an equal
>> operation.
>> Any steer in the right direction to resolve this issue would be greatly
>> appreciated.
>> Thanks in advance!
>>sqlsql

Clustering with SQL2005 Standard Edition

I see that the new SQL 2005 Standard edition supports 2-node
clustering. Does that mean that Standard edition could be used in a 4
node N+1 scenario set-up as follows:
Node 1: File Server
Node 2: Exchange Server
Node 3: SQL 2005 Standard
Node 4: Dedicated failover node for 1,2 & 3
Only Nodes 3 and 4 will ever be running SQL2005. So would standard be
suitable or would SQL2005 Enterprise edition be needed?
Cheers,
Ian
Ian Robinson, Belfast, UK
<http://www.canicula.com/wp/>
Hi
Standard 2005 would suffice, but you still need the Enterprise Edition of
the Windows 2003 to do clustering.
Be very careful as to the features you need from the SQL Server edition.
There are a lot of performance features that are only available on
Enterprise Edition.
Regards
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Ian Robinson" <junk@.canicula.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BF93850800056921F0386550@.news.gradwell .net...
>I see that the new SQL 2005 Standard edition supports 2-node
> clustering. Does that mean that Standard edition could be used in a 4
> node N+1 scenario set-up as follows:
> Node 1: File Server
> Node 2: Exchange Server
> Node 3: SQL 2005 Standard
> Node 4: Dedicated failover node for 1,2 & 3
> Only Nodes 3 and 4 will ever be running SQL2005. So would standard be
> suitable or would SQL2005 Enterprise edition be needed?
> Cheers,
> Ian
> --
> Ian Robinson, Belfast, UK
> <http://www.canicula.com/wp/>
>
|||Hi Mike,
On Sun, 6 Nov 2005 18:20:28 +0000, Mike Epprecht \(SQL MVP\) wrote
(in article <#I#xC7v4FHA.3880@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl>):

> Standard 2005 would suffice,
Good stuff.

> but you still need the Enterprise Edition of
> the Windows 2003 to do clustering.
Yep. I thought I would.

> Be very careful as to the features you need from the SQL Server edition.
> There are a lot of performance features that are only available on
> Enterprise Edition.
I've told the client in question that. We're doing an infrastructure
upgrade and putting a base SQL installation so that it'll be there when
they go to market next year to get a new LOB system based on SQL2005.
I've told them that if they go with Standard edition it may not suit
the development house they choose. They are okay with this and will
upgrade to Enterprise next year if they have to. Their call. I've
advised them to go with enterprise now but I can't force them :-)
Thanks for the answer.
Ian
Ian Robinson, Belfast, UK
<http://www.canicula.com/wp/>

Clustering VS Replication

We have a SQL 2000 server that we are about to upgrade to SQL 2005. This
server is running on Server 2003 standard. We would like to set up a second
SQL 2005 server and either do clustering or replication so that we would be
able to access our data in the event of a single server failure.
Which is the "better' solution and what are the minimum OS requirements for
both? In either case, each server will be running its own local disk array
that would contain the OS and the databaeses.
Thanx...Jon
Windows Clustering requires a shared disk array and all the equipment must
be on the Clustering Hardware Compatibility List. Replication does not
require any special hardware but is not usually used for DR although some
do. You might want to look at using Log shipping or even the new Database
Mirroring features. Both are documented in BooksOnLine.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Jon Yiesla" <JonYiesla@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:505EE799-B615-4220-96C5-F5A7EDE71F74@.microsoft.com...
> We have a SQL 2000 server that we are about to upgrade to SQL 2005. This
> server is running on Server 2003 standard. We would like to set up a
> second
> SQL 2005 server and either do clustering or replication so that we would
> be
> able to access our data in the event of a single server failure.
> Which is the "better' solution and what are the minimum OS requirements
> for
> both? In either case, each server will be running its own local disk array
> that would contain the OS and the databaeses.
> Thanx...Jon
|||"Jon Yiesla" <JonYiesla@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:505EE799-B615-4220-96C5-F5A7EDE71F74@.microsoft.com...
> We have a SQL 2000 server that we are about to upgrade to SQL 2005. This
> server is running on Server 2003 standard. We would like to set up a
> second
> SQL 2005 server and either do clustering or replication so that we would
> be
> able to access our data in the event of a single server failure.
> Which is the "better' solution and what are the minimum OS requirements
> for
> both? In either case, each server will be running its own local disk array
> that would contain the OS and the databaeses.
>
Well clustering is a shared-disk solution. Replication, Log Shipping and
Database Mirroring are all options, though.
David
|||Actually DB mirroring sounds like what we might need. We have a recent SQL
server crash and it's too critical a piece to not have some kind of DR
process in place. The more I read about clustering the more I am unsure that
this is the way I'd like to go. What we would like is for the data to be in
two places both running SQL Server and if one server goes down, the other
would automatically or with minimal effort pick up the slack...Which if the
processes you mentioned would be the best?
Thanx...Jon
"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:

> Windows Clustering requires a shared disk array and all the equipment must
> be on the Clustering Hardware Compatibility List. Replication does not
> require any special hardware but is not usually used for DR although some
> do. You might want to look at using Log shipping or even the new Database
> Mirroring features. Both are documented in BooksOnLine.
>
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "Jon Yiesla" <JonYiesla@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:505EE799-B615-4220-96C5-F5A7EDE71F74@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||Hi
That is DB Mirroring, available for SQL Server 2005 early 2006.
Regards
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Jon Yiesla" <JonYiesla@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9C3C5AE8-3A63-4DD3-AD76-A79E4C13969F@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Actually DB mirroring sounds like what we might need. We have a recent SQL
> server crash and it's too critical a piece to not have some kind of DR
> process in place. The more I read about clustering the more I am unsure
> that
> this is the way I'd like to go. What we would like is for the data to be
> in
> two places both running SQL Server and if one server goes down, the other
> would automatically or with minimal effort pick up the slack...Which if
> the
> processes you mentioned would be the best?
> Thanx...Jon
> "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
|||As Mike stated that is what Mirroring is made for. But Log Shipping is also
a viable alternative and is available now. It has a longer time to be up
and running after a failover but that is configurable with how often you log
ship.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Jon Yiesla" <JonYiesla@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9C3C5AE8-3A63-4DD3-AD76-A79E4C13969F@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Actually DB mirroring sounds like what we might need. We have a recent SQL
> server crash and it's too critical a piece to not have some kind of DR
> process in place. The more I read about clustering the more I am unsure
> that
> this is the way I'd like to go. What we would like is for the data to be
> in
> two places both running SQL Server and if one server goes down, the other
> would automatically or with minimal effort pick up the slack...Which if
> the
> processes you mentioned would be the best?
> Thanx...Jon
> "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
|||Hi,
I am just curious on the difference between replication & log shipping. Is
the underlaying just triggers of SQL statements that done the
insert/delete/update ?
if i set up replication to rep every 2 minutes or continuously , is it any
difference with having log shipping (which i personally find it more diffcult
to setup then replication)
tks & rdgs
Andrew J. Kelly wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
>As Mike stated that is what Mirroring is made for. But Log Shipping is also
>a viable alternative and is available now. It has a longer time to be up
>and running after a failover but that is configurable with how often you log
>ship.
>[quoted text clipped - 32 lines]
Message posted via http://www.droptable.com
|||There is quite a bit of difference between the two. Too much to go into here
but if you read up in BooksOnLine on each you will begin to see all the
features of both. But in a nut shell Log shipping utilizes a backup of the
log and applies all of the changes in the log on the log shipped server
exactly as they occurred on the original. Replication has many configurable
options to determine what gets replicated and how and uses a Log reader and
distributor database to forward the changes.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"maxzsim via droptable.com" <u14644@.uwe> wrote in message
news:58b3593a1e828@.uwe...
> Hi,
> I am just curious on the difference between replication & log shipping.
> Is
> the underlaying just triggers of SQL statements that done the
> insert/delete/update ?
> if i set up replication to rep every 2 minutes or continuously , is it
> any
> difference with having log shipping (which i personally find it more
> diffcult
> to setup then replication)
> tks & rdgs
>
> Andrew J. Kelly wrote:
> --
> Message posted via http://www.droptable.com

Clustering SQL

Hi

I would like to know if it's possible to make a basic SQL cluster with
windows 2003 server and SQL 2000 standard edtition. It has to be a
basic cluster, I dont need it to be very quick, I can have minutes of
servers down and it's ok.
In case the answer is Yes, can you recommend some links to build it
up, please?

Thanks in advance!!
IgnacioNo. SQL 2000 requires enterprise edition to do a cluster. SQL 2005
will do a cluster on standard edition.|||On Jun 6, 12:02 pm, Mark <stricker...@.gmail.comwrote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by

No. SQL 2000 requires enterprise edition to do a cluster. SQL 2005
will do a cluster on standard edition.

thanks for the information!

Clustering on SQL Standard Edition?

I guess it is not possible. We can't afford the cost and at the same time downtime, I want to know if it is possible to simulate clustering using SQL Standard edition with minimal downtime. E.g., if I am running Windows 2000 Advanced Server in a cluster a
nd install SQL Server 1 on box1 and point to the data on the disk array and keep it running. When SQL server 1 crashes or stops functioning, can I start SQL Server 2 (on a diff box) and attach the databases on the disk array will it function smoothly. I g
uess it is a stupid question (it doesn't makes sense to me either), but if you have some insights on this please post them.
If you can count the cost of downtime then, depending on these costs to business, you may be able to justify to management the cost of moving to W2K Advanced Server or W2K3 Enterprise Edition and SQL2K Enterprise Edition. Introducing manual processes to
simulate High Availaible is a mistake. But you already knew that ;-)
|||Clustering is an Enterprise Edition feature only.
However, what you outline for a failover scenario will work exactly as you
expect it will. As long as the second SQL Server can gain access to the
data files, the SQL Server will start up cleanly with full access to your
data. The only thing you would have to manage is that your applications
have to be repointed to the new server.
Mike
Principal Mentor
Solid Quality Learning
"More than just Training"
SQL Server MVP
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com
http://www.mssqlserver.com
|||I can completely understand the cost factor of implementing the cluster.
But the bigger question that needs to be asked is - does the downtime and
loss of productivity justify the savings or a workaround for NOT
implementing high availability clustering ? I guess, the mere fact that
your company is looking at clustering is that they value the high
availability aspect of running a database application and they value the
money lost in terms of lost productivity. From now onwards, it would be a
question of justifying the cost-benefit scenario to your BDMs.
If you try to manually point the database to the shared disk, its possible,
but why would you like to do that? There will be a lot of contingencies to
consider and plan for if we go the manual way.
I would sugges that you have a look at this link
MS SQL Server 2000 High Availability Series
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro...y/sqlhalp.mspx
This is written for both Business and Technical folks and could give you
possible pointers on how you can achieve the functionality by justifying
the costs.
Hope this helps.
Sanchan [MSFT]
sanchans@.online.microsoft.com
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

Clustering of SQL Server 2000(SE)

We

are looking for clustering of SQL Server 2000 [standard Edition] using

third party software, any inputs in this regard would be of great help

Microsoft does not support clustering SQL Server 2000 standard edition.

SQL Server 2005 standard edition supports 2 node clusters.

|||Kevin,
are there any third party softwares which can help us in cluster creation in SS2000(SE)?

Clustering of SQL Server 2000 SE

We are looking at clustering of SQL Server 2000 [standard Edition] using third party software, any inputs in this regard would be of great helpPlease post your question to the right forum: SQL Server Disaster Recovery and Availability

Clustered SQL 2005 Standard

I just completed an install of SQL 2005 Standard into a newly formed
cluster. I basically installed every option for SQL 2005 Server, however,
the only resources added to the cluster group were SQL Server, SQL Agent and
SQL Server Fulltext.
I would have thought reporting services would have been put in there as
well. Is this something I have to add later, or install on each node
separately?
Also forgot to mention, after the install, it didn't put any of the System
DB's into the drive\folder I specified.
So, now I have to go and move them...
Does anyone know of an online tutorial for the new SQL 2005 Interface?
"Kevin Antel" <kevina@.cqlcorp.com> wrote in message
news:eTJ3ULSHGHA.3624@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>I just completed an install of SQL 2005 Standard into a newly formed
>cluster. I basically installed every option for SQL 2005 Server, however,
>the only resources added to the cluster group were SQL Server, SQL Agent
>and SQL Server Fulltext.
> I would have thought reporting services would have been put in there as
> well. Is this something I have to add later, or install on each node
> separately?
>
|||Reporting Services is not failover clusterable. It will need to be
installed on each node separately. Since it is a web service, you are
better off setting up a load-balanced web farm with the databases on a
clustered server.
From your followup question: BOL contains some excellent tutorals including
a section on SQL Server Tools.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Kevin Antel" <kevina@.cqlcorp.com> wrote in message
news:eTJ3ULSHGHA.3624@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>I just completed an install of SQL 2005 Standard into a newly formed
>cluster. I basically installed every option for SQL 2005 Server, however,
>the only resources added to the cluster group were SQL Server, SQL Agent
>and SQL Server Fulltext.
> I would have thought reporting services would have been put in there as
> well. Is this something I have to add later, or install on each node
> separately?
>
|||Thanks.
How about moving all the DB's to the appropriate drives now?
Looks like it's a little different then in 2000.
"Geoff N. Hiten" <SQLCraftsman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:O2kLMmSHGHA.344@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Reporting Services is not failover clusterable. It will need to be
> installed on each node separately. Since it is a web service, you are
> better off setting up a load-balanced web farm with the databases on a
> clustered server.
> From your followup question: BOL contains some excellent tutorals
> including a section on SQL Server Tools.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>
>
> "Kevin Antel" <kevina@.cqlcorp.com> wrote in message
> news:eTJ3ULSHGHA.3624@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>
|||ms-help://MS.SQLCC.v9/MS.SQLSVR.v9.en/udb9/html/72bb62ee-9602-4f71-be51-c466c1670878.htm
Note: This is a link from the December 2005 BOL Refresh for SQL Server
2005. If you are using the RTM BOL, it may not work correctly.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Kevin Antel" <kevina@.cqlcorp.com> wrote in message
news:e60JnoSHGHA.3408@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Thanks.
> How about moving all the DB's to the appropriate drives now?
> Looks like it's a little different then in 2000.
> "Geoff N. Hiten" <SQLCraftsman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:O2kLMmSHGHA.344@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>