Showing posts with label vendor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label vendor. Show all posts

Thursday, March 22, 2012

collation case sensitive

I have a vendor who is trying to apply an upgrade to our database, he is running into errors because the database collation is set to case sensitive. Is there a way to by pass the setting so he can procedd with the update scripts.
Robert,
A case sensitive TSQL script can often be made to function in case
insensitive manner by using UPPER or COLLATE. You could also change the
collation of the database if there are new tables which are set to inherit
the default collation. However I'd need to know more details to see if these
methods can help - please post back to explain further what the upgrade is
doing?.
Paul Ibison

collation case sensitive

I have a vendor who is trying to apply an upgrade to our database, he is run
ning into errors because the database collation is set to case sensitive. Is
there a way to by pass the setting so he can procedd with the update script
s.Robert,
A case sensitive TSQL script can often be made to function in case
insensitive manner by using UPPER or COLLATE. You could also change the
collation of the database if there are new tables which are set to inherit
the default collation. However I'd need to know more details to see if these
methods can help - please post back to explain further what the upgrade is
doing?.
Paul Ibisonsqlsql

Sunday, February 19, 2012

Clustering concepts...

We have just setup two servers running a copy of SQL 2000 on Windows 2000
server. Each of these servers is running vendor software that interrracts
with the databases. One server is primary and one is backup. Clients only
interract with the vendor process on the servers and not the SQL directly.
Some general questions on SQL 2000 high availability options...
Does Active/Passive and Active/Active refer to clustering options that
require that the servers be clustered on the OS level? Is this the only
option that keeps the databases syncronized in real time?
Is replication a good method if the failover will be done manually?
Thanks!
Karl Albrecht
Active/Active and Active/Passive are obsolete concepts from SQL 7.0 when
each SQL instance had a primary owner host node and a partner owner node.
Under SQL 2000, all nodes are interchangable in a cluster. Some people
mistakenly use teh terms to refer to single and multiple instance SQL
clustering.
Clustering involves a single data store on a 'shared' storage system (SCSI
Array, SAN, etc. NOT NAS). Shared is not exactly correct since the cluster
software arbitrates ownership so that only one host node owns the
resource(s) at a time. Therefore, you have to have a working MSCS cluster
in order to create a SQL cluster.
Replication is not a good technique for creating a warm standby server.
Replication has VERY limited ability to handle schema changes without a
total resynch. It also does not replicate stored procedures or views.
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
www.sqlpass.org
"Karl Albrecht" <karlman@.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:O8QGJUplEHA.2340@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> We have just setup two servers running a copy of SQL 2000 on Windows 2000
> server. Each of these servers is running vendor software that interrracts
> with the databases. One server is primary and one is backup. Clients only
> interract with the vendor process on the servers and not the SQL directly.
>
> Some general questions on SQL 2000 high availability options...
> Does Active/Passive and Active/Active refer to clustering options that
> require that the servers be clustered on the OS level? Is this the only
> option that keeps the databases syncronized in real time?
> Is replication a good method if the failover will be done manually?
>
> Thanks!
> Karl Albrecht
>
|||Geoff, you can replicate stored procs and views.
Tom
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
"Geoff N. Hiten" <SRDBA@.Careerbuilder.com> wrote in message
news:u%23O18vplEHA.3712@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
Active/Active and Active/Passive are obsolete concepts from SQL 7.0 when
each SQL instance had a primary owner host node and a partner owner node.
Under SQL 2000, all nodes are interchangable in a cluster. Some people
mistakenly use teh terms to refer to single and multiple instance SQL
clustering.
Clustering involves a single data store on a 'shared' storage system (SCSI
Array, SAN, etc. NOT NAS). Shared is not exactly correct since the cluster
software arbitrates ownership so that only one host node owns the
resource(s) at a time. Therefore, you have to have a working MSCS cluster
in order to create a SQL cluster.
Replication is not a good technique for creating a warm standby server.
Replication has VERY limited ability to handle schema changes without a
total resynch. It also does not replicate stored procedures or views.
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
www.sqlpass.org
"Karl Albrecht" <karlman@.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:O8QGJUplEHA.2340@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> We have just setup two servers running a copy of SQL 2000 on Windows 2000
> server. Each of these servers is running vendor software that interrracts
> with the databases. One server is primary and one is backup. Clients only
> interract with the vendor process on the servers and not the SQL directly.
>
> Some general questions on SQL 2000 high availability options...
> Does Active/Passive and Active/Active refer to clustering options that
> require that the servers be clustered on the OS level? Is this the only
> option that keeps the databases syncronized in real time?
> Is replication a good method if the failover will be done manually?
>
> Thanks!
> Karl Albrecht
>
|||> Clustering involves a single data store on a 'shared' storage system (SCSI
> Array, SAN, etc. NOT NAS).
Actually, you can cluster to a shared resource on a NAS. We have a NetApp
880 Filer and have been running SQL clusters quite nicely using Snapdrive
over Gig fiber for a couple of years using the procedures outlined at this
NetApp link:
http://www.netapp.com/tech_library/3248.html#2.
"Geoff N. Hiten" <SRDBA@.Careerbuilder.com> wrote in message
news:u%23O18vplEHA.3712@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Active/Active and Active/Passive are obsolete concepts from SQL 7.0 when
> each SQL instance had a primary owner host node and a partner owner node.
> Under SQL 2000, all nodes are interchangable in a cluster. Some people
> mistakenly use teh terms to refer to single and multiple instance SQL
> clustering.
> Clustering involves a single data store on a 'shared' storage system (SCSI
> Array, SAN, etc. NOT NAS). Shared is not exactly correct since the
> cluster
> software arbitrates ownership so that only one host node owns the
> resource(s) at a time. Therefore, you have to have a working MSCS cluster
> in order to create a SQL cluster.
> Replication is not a good technique for creating a warm standby server.
> Replication has VERY limited ability to handle schema changes without a
> total resynch. It also does not replicate stored procedures or views.
>
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Senior Database Administrator
> Careerbuilder.com
> I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
> www.sqlpass.org
> "Karl Albrecht" <karlman@.pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:O8QGJUplEHA.2340@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>