Alerts Not Working

I defined an Alert in Enterprise Manager for Severity 19 - Fatal Error In Resource. The alert is enabled, the type is "sql server event alert" and the alert is defined against a specific database. SQLSERVERAGENT and SQL Mail session are both started. I test the alert using the following statement in the specified database.

raiserror (50001,19,1) with log

A message is placed in the SQL Server log, however no alert is fired. The alert history indicates the alert has never occurred. What am I missing?

Thanks, DaveHere's an update.

I refreshed EM earlier in the day and still saw no history. This time I disconnected and reconnected the instance. For some reason I have to do this in certain situations. After reconnecting I noticed a history existed under a demo for Severity 19. I didn't realize the demos were enabled. I just disabled the demo alert and all appears to be working.

Thanks, Dave|||all the demos are enabled for each of the severity levels if you are defining errors soley based on severity they will as you found out hit first
also ...
[BOL] Says

Error messages with a severity level of 19 or higher stop the current batch. Errors messages with a severity level of 20 or higher are considered fatal errors and terminate the client connection. Errors messages in this range may affect all of the processes in the database, and may indicate that a database or object is damaged. Error messages with a severity level from 19 through 25 are written to the error log.

you might want to consider refining your alert to fire on the event id's that are acutally being thrown..
just a suggest

by the way good debugging on your part.|||The error message I'm seeing is being generated by a vendor's software package.

Error: 1204, Severity: 19, State: 1
The SQL Server cannot obtain a LOCK resource at this time. Rerun your statement when there are fewer active users or ask the system administrator to check the SQL Server lock and memory configuration..

There are multiple performance problems associated with this application. I suspect the error above is connected to many of the problems. I don't believe the database is damaged. I'm guessing it's just a matter of poorly written code. Now I have to figure out how to setup Profiler to look for this error.

Thanks, Dave|||http://www.sql-server-performance.com/deadlocks.asp to prevent deadlocks and error defined.

Ensure to run the statement in batches if it is affecting large number of rows. Another option is to specify a hint like table or page lock so that the number of locks can be reduced.

What are lock settings defined at SQL server?|||The lock setting is still at the default of 0. I'm not sure what code is causing this problem to occur. I need to setup Profiler to trap the logic. I just setup Profiler to look for Severity 19, but the filter does not appear to be working. I'm still seeing all server activity. Am I missing something?

- Filters
- Severity
- Equals 19

Dave|||Oh, then follow this link http://www.sql-server-performance.com/blocking.asp to monitor the blocking and capture the trace.|||Not missing much about profiler. Any null value is returned as a valid hit. You may want to just run profiler to a table with the SQL statement complete, RPC complete, and some of the error events getting logged. Once you have a pile of data in a table, you can run queries off of that for severity 19, then try to work back via the identity column to figure out what statement did it.|||Can you tell Profiler to ignore NULL?

I'll give your suggestion a try.

Thankssql

After upgrade MSDE Sp4 Can't connect it through Enterprise Manager

Hi,
I have upgrade MSDE to SP4, but can't connect it throught enterprise manager
after upgrade.
How can I fix it?
Thanks,
Tiger
hi Tiger (Oracle user? :D ),
Tiger wrote:
> Hi,
> I have upgrade MSDE to SP4, but can't connect it throught enterprise
> manager after upgrade.
actually you shoud have no technical problem (but legal)...
what kind of exception are you reported with when trying connection to MSDE
instance?
Andrea Montanari (Microsoft MVP - SQL Server)
http://www.asql.biz/DbaMgr.shtmhttp://italy.mvps.org
DbaMgr2k ver 0.15.0 - DbaMgr ver 0.60.0
(my vb6+sql-dmo little try to provide MS MSDE 1.0 and MSDE 2000 a visual
interface)
-- remove DMO to reply
|||No, I'm not use Oracle
I just use SQL Server Enterprise Manager to connect client PC MSDE, but
after upgrade MSDE to SP4, then fail to connect.
Tiger
"Andrea Montanari" <andrea.sqlDMO@.virgilio.it> wrote in message
news:3ngm9cF1ecmrU1@.individual.net...
> hi Tiger (Oracle user? :D ),
> Tiger wrote:
> actually you shoud have no technical problem (but legal)...
> what kind of exception are you reported with when trying connection to
> MSDE instance?
> --
> Andrea Montanari (Microsoft MVP - SQL Server)
> http://www.asql.biz/DbaMgr.shtmhttp://italy.mvps.org
> DbaMgr2k ver 0.15.0 - DbaMgr ver 0.60.0
> (my vb6+sql-dmo little try to provide MS MSDE 1.0 and MSDE 2000 a visual
> interface)
> -- remove DMO to reply
>
|||hi Tiger,
Tiger wrote:
> No, I'm not use Oracle
>
that was a joke, as Scott / Tiger are the "default" sample credentials for
accessing Oracle

> I just use SQL Server Enterprise Manager to connect client PC MSDE,
> but after upgrade MSDE to SP4, then fail to connect.
what kind of exception are you reported with when trying connection to MSDE
instance?
Andrea Montanari (Microsoft MVP - SQL Server)
http://www.asql.biz/DbaMgr.shtmhttp://italy.mvps.org
DbaMgr2k ver 0.15.0 - DbaMgr ver 0.60.0
(my vb6+sql-dmo little try to provide MS MSDE 1.0 and MSDE 2000 a visual
interface)
-- remove DMO to reply
|||On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 17:01:01 +0200, "Andrea Montanari"
<andrea.sqlDMO@.virgilio.it> wrote:

> hi Tiger (Oracle user? :D ),
> Tiger wrote:
> actually you shoud have no technical problem (but legal)...
Legal problem?
I thought a SQL Server Developer Edition license ($39 or free with MSDN)
allows you to use Enterprise Manager to configure your development copies
of MSDE.
Managing production copies is another matter, but Tiger never mentioned
that.
|||hi,
Lucvdv wrote:
> Legal problem?
> I thought a SQL Server Developer Edition license ($39 or free with
> MSDN) allows you to use Enterprise Manager to configure your
> development copies of MSDE.
> Managing production copies is another matter, but Tiger never
> mentioned that.
if you install SQL Server Dev Edition (for dev and test) you already have a
full SQL Server instance and should not require MSDE at all, but I must
confess as well I've both installed on the same dev pc for my own tests/dev
tasks...
as regard the "legal" problem, I always refer to http://tinyurl.com/ac3v2 ,
where Steve presents a good metaphor about using SQL Server Client Tools
against MSDE in production...
then it's all up to you...
Andrea Montanari (Microsoft MVP - SQL Server)
http://www.asql.biz/DbaMgr.shtmhttp://italy.mvps.org
DbaMgr2k ver 0.15.0 - DbaMgr ver 0.60.0
(my vb6+sql-dmo little try to provide MS MSDE 1.0 and MSDE 2000 a visual
interface)
-- remove DMO to reply
|||Hi!
I had the same problem - it seems that SP4 changes the server port ... check
this in server network utility.
greeting
Lukas
"Tiger" <tigerwong666@.hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:OBwjydHrFHA.3216@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> I have upgrade MSDE to SP4, but can't connect it throught enterprise
> manager after upgrade.
> How can I fix it?
> Thanks,
> Tiger
>

After Full Population, ItemCount = 0

After full population on a table with 1 million rows:
Item Count: 0
Catalog size: 1 MB
Unique Key Count: 1
I used SQL Enterprise Wizard for Full-Text Indexing on a table with 1
million rows.
Obviously, Item Count should be greater than zero.
SQL Service is running on Local System account. I have SysAdmin privileges.
the 1 unique count refers to the table.
Please post any messages you may see in your event log from MSSearch or
MSSCi.
Can you follow the advise in these kb articles?
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;317746
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;277549
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;814035
"MGBloomfield" <MGBloomfield@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B777D507-E501-44BA-AE29-91B3F1407675@.microsoft.com...
> After full population on a table with 1 million rows:
> Item Count: 0
> Catalog size: 1 MB
> Unique Key Count: 1
> I used SQL Enterprise Wizard for Full-Text Indexing on a table with 1
> million rows.
> Obviously, Item Count should be greater than zero.
> SQL Service is running on Local System account. I have SysAdmin
> privileges.
>
|||In this knowledge base article, Q317746
"PRB: SQL Server Full-Text Search Does Not Populate Catalogs"
It's says to make sure that:
1) Make sure that the BUILTIN\Administrators login exists in SQL Server.
-and-
2) Make sure that the Microsoft Search service is running under the Local
System account.
As a resolution, it says:
1) Grant the [NT Authority\System] user a logon to SQL Server.
For example: EXEC sp_grantlogin [NT Authority\System]
2) Add that account to the sysadmins role:
EXEC sp_addsrvrolemember @.loginame = [NT Authority\System], @.rolename =
'sysadmin'
I'm logged in using the sa account so this isn't the problem.
|||<b>http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;317746</b>
There are no errors when doing Full Population or Incremental Population.
<b>http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;277549</b>
There are no errors when doing Full Population or Incremental Population.
<b>http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;814035</b>
select fulltextcatalogproperty('northwind','itemcount')
Result: No rows returned
More insights:
1) Running SQL Server 2000. Fresh install. Not upgraded from SQL Server 7.0
2) There are no errors in the Event Application Log.
3) BUILTIN\Administrator is removed.
4) Connected using sa account.
5) Set up full-text indexing using the SQL Enterprise Full-Text Indexing...
wizard.
Other queries that I've tried:
<b>exec sp_help_fulltext_catalogs</b>
ftcatid NAME PATH
-- -- ----
5 Northwind D:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL\FTData
<b>exec sp_help_fulltext_tables</b>
TABLE_OWNER TABLE_NAME FULLTEXT_KEY_INDEX_NAME and so on...
-- -- --
dbo Categories PK_Categories
dbo Customers PK_Customers
dbo Employees PK_Employees
<b>exec sp_help_fulltext_columns</b>
Result: Several rows of columns that are indexed.
|||Can you examine the informational messages from MSSearch and MSSCi in the
application log - the messages will likely not be errors.
"MGBloomfield" <MGBloomfield@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:EDF955BC-86F2-44F2-A033-9FBE8F4BA065@.microsoft.com...
> <b>http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;317746</b>
> There are no errors when doing Full Population or Incremental Population.
> <b>http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;277549</b>
> There are no errors when doing Full Population or Incremental Population.
> <b>http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;814035</b>
> select fulltextcatalogproperty('northwind','itemcount')
> Result: No rows returned
> More insights:
> 1) Running SQL Server 2000. Fresh install. Not upgraded from SQL Server
> 7.0
> 2) There are no errors in the Event Application Log.
> 3) BUILTIN\Administrator is removed.
> 4) Connected using sa account.
> 5) Set up full-text indexing using the SQL Enterprise Full-Text
> Indexing...
> wizard.
> Other queries that I've tried:
> <b>exec sp_help_fulltext_catalogs</b>
> ftcatid NAME PATH
> -- -- ----
> 5 Northwind D:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL\FTData
> <b>exec sp_help_fulltext_tables</b>
> TABLE_OWNER TABLE_NAME FULLTEXT_KEY_INDEX_NAME and so on...
> -- -- --
> dbo Categories PK_Categories
> dbo Customers PK_Customers
> dbo Employees PK_Employees
> <b>exec sp_help_fulltext_columns</b>
> Result: Several rows of columns that are indexed.
>
|||A) Cleared the Event Application Log.
B) Ran the Full Population command.
C) Checked the Event Application Log.
Result:
1) No Information messages
2) No Error messages
3) No Warning messages
|||can you open a command prompt and navigate to C:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL
Server\MSSQL\FTDATA\SQLServer\GatherLogs>
or
C:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL
Server\MSSQL$InstanceName\FTDATA\SQLServer\GatherL ogs>
zip up the contents you find there and either post them here or send them to
me offline.
"MGBloomfield" <MGBloomfield@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C30E9BE9-25B8-4238-A3F1-A491A5C2C29C@.microsoft.com...
> A) Cleared the Event Application Log.
> B) Ran the Full Population command.
> C) Checked the Event Application Log.
> Result:
> 1) No Information messages
> 2) No Error messages
> 3) No Warning messages
>
|||the sa account has no bearing on whether the builtin\administrators role is
part of the system administrators role.
Please add it back in or follow the instructions in this kb article.
"MGBloomfield" <MGBloomfield@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:31616064-05D9-475A-8A76-6C63F5CF1CF9@.microsoft.com...
> In this knowledge base article, Q317746
> "PRB: SQL Server Full-Text Search Does Not Populate Catalogs"
> It's says to make sure that:
> 1) Make sure that the BUILTIN\Administrators login exists in SQL Server.
> -and-
> 2) Make sure that the Microsoft Search service is running under the Local
> System account.
> As a resolution, it says:
> 1) Grant the [NT Authority\System] user a logon to SQL Server.
> For example: EXEC sp_grantlogin [NT Authority\System]
> 2) Add that account to the sysadmins role:
> EXEC sp_addsrvrolemember @.loginame = [NT Authority\System], @.rolename =
> 'sysadmin'
> I'm logged in using the sa account so this isn't the problem.
>
|||I looked at the list of Server Roles. This is what we have.
Bulk Insert Administrators
Database Creators
Disk Administrators
Process Administrators
Security Administrators
Server Administrators
Setup Administrators
System Administrators
So, which role is the "BUILTIN\Administrator"? If it's System Administrator,
then it's already in there.
|||double click on the system administrator role. Is the BuiltIn\Administrators
group there?
"MGBloomfield" <MGBloomfield@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:49E74919-224A-4314-93B4-77EBA2395C18@.microsoft.com...
> I looked at the list of Server Roles. This is what we have.
> Bulk Insert Administrators
> Database Creators
> Disk Administrators
> Process Administrators
> Security Administrators
> Server Administrators
> Setup Administrators
> System Administrators
> So, which role is the "BUILTIN\Administrator"? If it's System
Administrator,
> then it's already in there.
>

After computer name changed ...

Hi,
We have database server that runs on SQL Server 2000
Enterprise Edition with SP3.
The computer name changed from DEVA-DB09 to DEVB-DB09.
Now, when I issue the command select @.@.servername in SQL
Query Analyzer, it returned DEVA-DB09, but the computer
name is DEVB-DB09. So my scheduling jobs cannot add,
update, or delete.
In SQL Query Analyzer I issue the following command:
DECLARE @.srv sysname
SET @.srv = CAST(SERVERPROPERTY ('Servername') AS sysname)
UPDATE sysjobs SET originating_server = @.srv
Now I can add, update, or delete the scheduling jobs. My
question is: How can I change the SQL Server name from
DEVA-DB09 to DEVB-DB09 when I issue the select
@.@.servername.
Thanks,
-JennyYou might want to check into the issues note in this KB article:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;303774&Product=sql
--
----
----
-
Need SQL Server Examples check out my website
http://www.geocities.com/sqlserverexamples
"Jenny" <jyu@.iseoptions.com> wrote in message
news:14ee01c499b9$dcc67690$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> We have database server that runs on SQL Server 2000
> Enterprise Edition with SP3.
> The computer name changed from DEVA-DB09 to DEVB-DB09.
> Now, when I issue the command select @.@.servername in SQL
> Query Analyzer, it returned DEVA-DB09, but the computer
> name is DEVB-DB09. So my scheduling jobs cannot add,
> update, or delete.
> In SQL Query Analyzer I issue the following command:
> DECLARE @.srv sysname
> SET @.srv = CAST(SERVERPROPERTY ('Servername') AS sysname)
> UPDATE sysjobs SET originating_server = @.srv
> Now I can add, update, or delete the scheduling jobs. My
> question is: How can I change the SQL Server name from
> DEVA-DB09 to DEVB-DB09 when I issue the select
> @.@.servername.
> Thanks,
> -Jenny
>|||Actually try this:
SP_DropServer 'DEVA-DB09'
Go
SP_AddServer 'DEVB-DB09','Local'
Go
HTH
Saleem@.sqlnt.com
"NT" wrote:
> Try this out..run on your mastr db and restart SQL server services...
> sp_dropserver 'DEVA-DB09'
> go
> sp_addserver 'DEVB-DB09'
> go
> -Nilay
> "Jenny" wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > We have database server that runs on SQL Server 2000
> > Enterprise Edition with SP3.
> >
> > The computer name changed from DEVA-DB09 to DEVB-DB09.
> > Now, when I issue the command select @.@.servername in SQL
> > Query Analyzer, it returned DEVA-DB09, but the computer
> > name is DEVB-DB09. So my scheduling jobs cannot add,
> > update, or delete.
> >
> > In SQL Query Analyzer I issue the following command:
> >
> > DECLARE @.srv sysname
> > SET @.srv = CAST(SERVERPROPERTY ('Servername') AS sysname)
> > UPDATE sysjobs SET originating_server = @.srv
> >
> > Now I can add, update, or delete the scheduling jobs. My
> > question is: How can I change the SQL Server name from
> > DEVA-DB09 to DEVB-DB09 when I issue the select
> > @.@.servername.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > -Jenny
> >
> >
> >

affinity mask - license

In per processor license for Enterprise version of SQL Server 2000, can we
change the affinity mask variable to change the CPU usage and hence restrict
the number of sql server per processor licenses?
Example: In a 4 CPU server, single OS, if I change the sql server affinity
so that it only uses CPU1 and CPU2, and does not use the 3 & 4 processors,
then I would pay only for 2 per processor licenses for SQL Server 2000?
No. You need # of processors corresponding to the numbers that the host OS can see and uses. Here's
a quote from http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/faq.mspx
A Processor license gives you the right to install any number of copies of SQL Server 2000 on a
single computer, as long as you have purchased Processor licenses for all of the processors on that
computer. If you have made a processor inaccessible to all operating system copies on which the SQL
Server software is set up to run, you do not need a software license for that processor.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Pari" <Pari@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:627E25D7-42D2-4BBE-9991-C204FA1FD206@.microsoft.com...
> In per processor license for Enterprise version of SQL Server 2000, can we
> change the affinity mask variable to change the CPU usage and hence restrict
> the number of sql server per processor licenses?
> Example: In a 4 CPU server, single OS, if I change the sql server affinity
> so that it only uses CPU1 and CPU2, and does not use the 3 & 4 processors,
> then I would pay only for 2 per processor licenses for SQL Server 2000?
>
>
|||I read the Licensing FAQs.. However everywhere it says:
"If you have made a processor inaccessible to all operating system copies on
which the SQL Server software is set up to run, you do not need a software
license for that processor."
Why would you make a processor inaccessible to OS? Do you mean when you have
2 or more OS installed on the same server?
Can you give an illustration of this scenario for clarification, the FAQ and
licesing link does not say much?
Thanks
"Tibor Karaszi" wrote:

> No. You need # of processors corresponding to the numbers that the host OS can see and uses. Here's
> a quote from http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/faq.mspx
> A Processor license gives you the right to install any number of copies of SQL Server 2000 on a
> single computer, as long as you have purchased Processor licenses for all of the processors on that
> computer. If you have made a processor inaccessible to all operating system copies on which the SQL
> Server software is set up to run, you do not need a software license for that processor.
>
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
> Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
>
> "Pari" <Pari@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:627E25D7-42D2-4BBE-9991-C204FA1FD206@.microsoft.com...
>
|||You might want5 to approach an MS sales rep on this. As I understand it, the reasoning why just
cutting down affinity mask doesn't cut it is that everything SQL Server does it does through the
OS...
The licensing terms used to say "numbers of physical processors in the box" (or something to that
effect), but as big boxes came out where you started partitioning the OS, it made more sense to have
it "number of processors that the OS can use", methinks...
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Pari" <Pari@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D38F26A9-3F72-4720-B48C-CF581801526D@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
>I read the Licensing FAQs.. However everywhere it says:
> "If you have made a processor inaccessible to all operating system copies on
> which the SQL Server software is set up to run, you do not need a software
> license for that processor."
> Why would you make a processor inaccessible to OS? Do you mean when you have
> 2 or more OS installed on the same server?
> Can you give an illustration of this scenario for clarification, the FAQ and
> licesing link does not say much?
> Thanks
> "Tibor Karaszi" wrote:

affinity mask - license

In per processor license for Enterprise version of SQL Server 2000, can we
change the affinity mask variable to change the CPU usage and hence restric
t
the number of sql server per processor licenses?
Example: In a 4 CPU server, single OS, if I change the sql server affinity
so that it only uses CPU1 and CPU2, and does not use the 3 & 4 processors,
then I would pay only for 2 per processor licenses for SQL Server 2000?No. You need # of processors corresponding to the numbers that the host OS c
an see and uses. Here's
a quote from http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/faq.mspx
A Processor license gives you the right to install any number of copies of S
QL Server 2000 on a
single computer, as long as you have purchased Processor licenses for all of
the processors on that
computer. If you have made a processor inaccessible to all operating system
copies on which the SQL
Server software is set up to run, you do not need a software license for tha
t processor.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Pari" <Pari@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:627E25D7-42D2-4BBE-9991-C204FA1FD206@.microsoft.com...
> In per processor license for Enterprise version of SQL Server 2000, can we
> change the affinity mask variable to change the CPU usage and hence restr
ict
> the number of sql server per processor licenses?
> Example: In a 4 CPU server, single OS, if I change the sql server affinity
> so that it only uses CPU1 and CPU2, and does not use the 3 & 4 processors,
> then I would pay only for 2 per processor licenses for SQL Server 2000?
>
>|||I read the Licensing FAQs.. However everywhere it says:
"If you have made a processor inaccessible to all operating system copies on
which the SQL Server software is set up to run, you do not need a software
license for that processor."
Why would you make a processor inaccessible to OS? Do you mean when you have
2 or more OS installed on the same server?
Can you give an illustration of this scenario for clarification, the FAQ and
licesing link does not say much?
Thanks
"Tibor Karaszi" wrote:

> No. You need # of processors corresponding to the numbers that the host OS
can see and uses. Here's
> a quote from http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/faq.mspx
> A Processor license gives you the right to install any number of copies of
SQL Server 2000 on a
> single computer, as long as you have purchased Processor licenses for all
of the processors on that
> computer. If you have made a processor inaccessible to all operating syste
m copies on which the SQL
> Server software is set up to run, you do not need a software license for t
hat processor.
>
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
> Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
>
> "Pari" <Pari@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:627E25D7-42D2-4BBE-9991-C204FA1FD206@.microsoft.com...
>|||You might want5 to approach an MS sales rep on this. As I understand it, the
reasoning why just
cutting down affinity mask doesn't cut it is that everything SQL Server does
it does through the
OS...
The licensing terms used to say "numbers of physical processors in the box"
(or something to that
effect), but as big boxes came out where you started partitioning the OS, it
made more sense to have
it "number of processors that the OS can use", methinks...
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Pari" <Pari@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D38F26A9-3F72-4720-B48C-CF581801526D@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
>I read the Licensing FAQs.. However everywhere it says:
> "If you have made a processor inaccessible to all operating system copies
on
> which the SQL Server software is set up to run, you do not need a software
> license for that processor."
> Why would you make a processor inaccessible to OS? Do you mean when you ha
ve
> 2 or more OS installed on the same server?
> Can you give an illustration of this scenario for clarification, the FAQ a
nd
> licesing link does not say much?
> Thanks
> "Tibor Karaszi" wrote:
>

affinity mask - license

In per processor license for Enterprise version of SQL Server 2000, can we
change the affinity mask variable to change the CPU usage and hence restrict
the number of sql server per processor licenses?
Example: In a 4 CPU server, single OS, if I change the sql server affinity
so that it only uses CPU1 and CPU2, and does not use the 3 & 4 processors,
then I would pay only for 2 per processor licenses for SQL Server 2000?No. You need # of processors corresponding to the numbers that the host OS can see and uses. Here's
a quote from http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/faq.mspx
A Processor license gives you the right to install any number of copies of SQL Server 2000 on a
single computer, as long as you have purchased Processor licenses for all of the processors on that
computer. If you have made a processor inaccessible to all operating system copies on which the SQL
Server software is set up to run, you do not need a software license for that processor.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Pari" <Pari@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:627E25D7-42D2-4BBE-9991-C204FA1FD206@.microsoft.com...
> In per processor license for Enterprise version of SQL Server 2000, can we
> change the affinity mask variable to change the CPU usage and hence restrict
> the number of sql server per processor licenses?
> Example: In a 4 CPU server, single OS, if I change the sql server affinity
> so that it only uses CPU1 and CPU2, and does not use the 3 & 4 processors,
> then I would pay only for 2 per processor licenses for SQL Server 2000?
>
>|||I read the Licensing FAQs.. However everywhere it says:
"If you have made a processor inaccessible to all operating system copies on
which the SQL Server software is set up to run, you do not need a software
license for that processor."
Why would you make a processor inaccessible to OS? Do you mean when you have
2 or more OS installed on the same server?
Can you give an illustration of this scenario for clarification, the FAQ and
licesing link does not say much?
Thanks
"Tibor Karaszi" wrote:
> No. You need # of processors corresponding to the numbers that the host OS can see and uses. Here's
> a quote from http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/faq.mspx
> A Processor license gives you the right to install any number of copies of SQL Server 2000 on a
> single computer, as long as you have purchased Processor licenses for all of the processors on that
> computer. If you have made a processor inaccessible to all operating system copies on which the SQL
> Server software is set up to run, you do not need a software license for that processor.
>
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
> Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
>
> "Pari" <Pari@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:627E25D7-42D2-4BBE-9991-C204FA1FD206@.microsoft.com...
> > In per processor license for Enterprise version of SQL Server 2000, can we
> > change the affinity mask variable to change the CPU usage and hence restrict
> > the number of sql server per processor licenses?
> >
> > Example: In a 4 CPU server, single OS, if I change the sql server affinity
> > so that it only uses CPU1 and CPU2, and does not use the 3 & 4 processors,
> > then I would pay only for 2 per processor licenses for SQL Server 2000?
> >
> >
> >
>|||You might want5 to approach an MS sales rep on this. As I understand it, the reasoning why just
cutting down affinity mask doesn't cut it is that everything SQL Server does it does through the
OS...
The licensing terms used to say "numbers of physical processors in the box" (or something to that
effect), but as big boxes came out where you started partitioning the OS, it made more sense to have
it "number of processors that the OS can use", methinks...
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Pari" <Pari@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D38F26A9-3F72-4720-B48C-CF581801526D@.microsoft.com...
>I read the Licensing FAQs.. However everywhere it says:
> "If you have made a processor inaccessible to all operating system copies on
> which the SQL Server software is set up to run, you do not need a software
> license for that processor."
> Why would you make a processor inaccessible to OS? Do you mean when you have
> 2 or more OS installed on the same server?
> Can you give an illustration of this scenario for clarification, the FAQ and
> licesing link does not say much?
> Thanks
> "Tibor Karaszi" wrote:
>> No. You need # of processors corresponding to the numbers that the host OS can see and uses.
>> Here's
>> a quote from http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/faq.mspx
>> A Processor license gives you the right to install any number of copies of SQL Server 2000 on a
>> single computer, as long as you have purchased Processor licenses for all of the processors on
>> that
>> computer. If you have made a processor inaccessible to all operating system copies on which the
>> SQL
>> Server software is set up to run, you do not need a software license for that processor.
>>
>> --
>> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
>> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
>> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>> Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
>>
>> "Pari" <Pari@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:627E25D7-42D2-4BBE-9991-C204FA1FD206@.microsoft.com...
>> > In per processor license for Enterprise version of SQL Server 2000, can we
>> > change the affinity mask variable to change the CPU usage and hence restrict
>> > the number of sql server per processor licenses?
>> >
>> > Example: In a 4 CPU server, single OS, if I change the sql server affinity
>> > so that it only uses CPU1 and CPU2, and does not use the 3 & 4 processors,
>> > then I would pay only for 2 per processor licenses for SQL Server 2000?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>

Advise on Licensing SSRS on NLB IIS farm

Hi All,
I have the following question, in my organization we employ a policy of
splitting out our enterprise infrastructure, IIS separated from SQL Server
etc.
We currently have a number of SQL Server 2000 and 2005 clusters and also two
NLB IIS farms (each with 4 nodes).
If I install SQL Server Reporting Services on the NLB farms (databases on
two of the SQL Server Clusters) to make this product available to to people
here then am I right in assuming that firstly I will need Enterprise Edition
of Reporting Services 2005 installed on my NLB's as this is the only edition
capable of scale out SSRS deployment.
Secondly and more importantly will I also need in addition a separate SQL
Server 2005 Enterprise Edition license on each of the nodes involved in the
NLB's (8 nodes therefore 8 licenses)?
If this is the case then I am really concerned at this supposed low cost
reporting solution from Microsoft, as I would then for this scenario need
minimum 10 Enterprise Edition SQL Server 2005 licenses (8 for the NLB nodes
and 1 for each failover cluster (Active/Passive) )
This is no longer a cheap solution for our reporting needs.
Thanks for your help.
Kind Regards,
DesYou have the licensing correct. Enterprise is the only one which supports a
web farm and any server that has Reporting Services installed must have a
server license. How expensive it is for you depends on how you license (CAL
or per processor).
If you price Crystal in such a configuration you will find that it is even
more expensive.
Unless you have one heck of a lot of reports and users then I sincerely
doubt that you need such a configuration.
Bruce Loehle-Conger
MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
"Des FitzGerald" <dfitz@.dr-sql.com> wrote in message
news:C3A94D89.73DF%dfitz@.dr-sql.com...
> Hi All,
> I have the following question, in my organization we employ a policy of
> splitting out our enterprise infrastructure, IIS separated from SQL Server
> etc.
> We currently have a number of SQL Server 2000 and 2005 clusters and also
> two
> NLB IIS farms (each with 4 nodes).
> If I install SQL Server Reporting Services on the NLB farms (databases on
> two of the SQL Server Clusters) to make this product available to to
> people
> here then am I right in assuming that firstly I will need Enterprise
> Edition
> of Reporting Services 2005 installed on my NLB's as this is the only
> edition
> capable of scale out SSRS deployment.
> Secondly and more importantly will I also need in addition a separate SQL
> Server 2005 Enterprise Edition license on each of the nodes involved in
> the
> NLB's (8 nodes therefore 8 licenses)?
> If this is the case then I am really concerned at this supposed low cost
> reporting solution from Microsoft, as I would then for this scenario need
> minimum 10 Enterprise Edition SQL Server 2005 licenses (8 for the NLB
> nodes
> and 1 for each failover cluster (Active/Passive) )
> This is no longer a cheap solution for our reporting needs.
> Thanks for your help.
> Kind Regards,
> Des
>|||Hi Bruce,
Its not a case of a lot of users or reports - it is a case of a fault
tolerance / disaster recovery solution, we have network load balanced web
farms to facilitate this setup.
The 2 web NLB farms are for integration and production, these need to be
there for our environment, the decision was taken as we are a multi site
organization to have 2 nodes of each NLB in each of our main offices and
then of these 2 nodes each one is in a separate server room, thus 4 nodes =2 per site and of the 2 per site each is separated per server room, disaster
recovery and fault tolerance taken care of.
We will need per processor licensing as intranet reports are made and CAL
will be too expensive.
This is an extremely expensive solution in this case - I have no idea of the
cost of Crystal reports and this is no place to get into this argument as it
does not help.
I just think that Microsoft should de-couple SSRS from SQL Server and make
it Microsoft Reporting Server or something like this with its own licensing
model, the databases can still be stuck to SQL Server but this would make it
more transparent and quite possibly cheaper as Enterprise SQL Server 2005
Processor licenses are not cheap and if the database and reporting server
sides are split as recommended my MS then this does lead to an expensive
solution when each of the IIS NLB nodes need separate licenses.
Thanks for the answer though.
Cheers,
Des
On 08/01/2008 18:00, in article OyC$EghUIHA.280@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl, "Bruce
L-C [MVP]" <bruce_lcNOSPAM@.hotmail.com> wrote:
> You have the licensing correct. Enterprise is the only one which supports a
> web farm and any server that has Reporting Services installed must have a
> server license. How expensive it is for you depends on how you license (CAL
> or per processor).
> If you price Crystal in such a configuration you will find that it is even
> more expensive.
> Unless you have one heck of a lot of reports and users then I sincerely
> doubt that you need such a configuration.
>|||Hi Bruce,
A final question for you, if I have SSRS 2000 and SSRS 2005 installed on
these NLBs (8 nodes total as mentioned) do I therefore also need separate
SQL Server 2000 and SQL Server 2005 Enterprise Edition CPU licenses for
these nodes?
So a total of 16 Enterprise Edition CPU licenses for the Reporting Services
setup?
Cheers,
Des
On 08/01/2008 18:00, in article OyC$EghUIHA.280@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl, "Bruce
L-C [MVP]" <bruce_lcNOSPAM@.hotmail.com> wrote:
> You have the licensing correct. Enterprise is the only one which supports a
> web farm and any server that has Reporting Services installed must have a
> server license. How expensive it is for you depends on how you license (CAL
> or per processor).
> If you price Crystal in such a configuration you will find that it is even
> more expensive.
> Unless you have one heck of a lot of reports and users then I sincerely
> doubt that you need such a configuration.
>|||I'm confused, you want to have both RS 2000 and RS 2005 installed on each
server?
Why would you do that? RS 2000 reports run fine in RS 2005. And they run
much faster.
In case you do want to do this, I believe a SQL 2005 license allows running
both 200 and 2005 so you would not need two licenses. However, I would check
with whoever you buy licenses from.
Bruce Loehle-Conger
MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
"Des FitzGerald" <dfitz@.dr-sql.com> wrote in message
news:C3AA8E77.7B74%dfitz@.dr-sql.com...
> Hi Bruce,
> A final question for you, if I have SSRS 2000 and SSRS 2005 installed on
> these NLBs (8 nodes total as mentioned) do I therefore also need separate
> SQL Server 2000 and SQL Server 2005 Enterprise Edition CPU licenses for
> these nodes?
> So a total of 16 Enterprise Edition CPU licenses for the Reporting
> Services
> setup?
> Cheers,
> Des
>
> On 08/01/2008 18:00, in article OyC$EghUIHA.280@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl,
> "Bruce
> L-C [MVP]" <bruce_lcNOSPAM@.hotmail.com> wrote:
>> You have the licensing correct. Enterprise is the only one which supports
>> a
>> web farm and any server that has Reporting Services installed must have a
>> server license. How expensive it is for you depends on how you license
>> (CAL
>> or per processor).
>> If you price Crystal in such a configuration you will find that it is
>> even
>> more expensive.
>> Unless you have one heck of a lot of reports and users then I sincerely
>> doubt that you need such a configuration.
>

Advice please - x64 Std Ed best value for money?

Hi
We need to part ways with our 32 Bit SQL 2000 Enterprise Ed server this
year and finally upgrade to 2005.
Purely from a MS / Licensing viewpoint, it would appear that the best
value for money seems to be x64 Std Ed on the per processor license
option on a W2003 x64 Std Ed? (~US$ 5000 / processor)
Rationale
=> It doesn't seem to make sense to go back to 32 bit [PAE / 3GB AWE
and the like]
=> It seems hard to justify the 4 fold price differential between x64
SE and EE - in SQL 2000 we haven't used any of the EE only features
like Indexed Views, and the major reason for EE was for the > 2GB
memory usage.
The server will host about 5 mostly OLTP / LOB Databases Total size of
around 250GB, with around 200 concurrent users. Our current EE 32 bit
setup is 2 x 3Ghz Xeon MP with 6GB RAM and usually runs at about 40%
utilisation.
I have been through
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/features/compare-features.mspx
Am I missing something obvious? (SE x64 can use >> 4GB RAM, has no DB
Size Limitations, and unlimited concurrent connection limitations,
right?)
Thanks in advance
Stuart
Hi Stuart
I am not sure if this will be posted twice!
I think your reasoning is fine if memory was the only issue that you need
Enterprise Edition. If you are definately not going to be using any of the
features available only in EE such as partitioning, online restores, online
indexing etc then SE will be sufficient.
John
"NonNB" wrote:

> Hi
> We need to part ways with our 32 Bit SQL 2000 Enterprise Ed server this
> year and finally upgrade to 2005.
> Purely from a MS / Licensing viewpoint, it would appear that the best
> value for money seems to be x64 Std Ed on the per processor license
> option on a W2003 x64 Std Ed? (~US$ 5000 / processor)
> Rationale
> => It doesn't seem to make sense to go back to 32 bit [PAE / 3GB AWE
> and the like]
> => It seems hard to justify the 4 fold price differential between x64
> SE and EE - in SQL 2000 we haven't used any of the EE only features
> like Indexed Views, and the major reason for EE was for the > 2GB
> memory usage.
> The server will host about 5 mostly OLTP / LOB Databases Total size of
> around 250GB, with around 200 concurrent users. Our current EE 32 bit
> setup is 2 x 3Ghz Xeon MP with 6GB RAM and usually runs at about 40%
> utilisation.
> I have been through
> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/features/compare-features.mspx
> Am I missing something obvious? (SE x64 can use >> 4GB RAM, has no DB
> Size Limitations, and unlimited concurrent connection limitations,
> right?)
> Thanks in advance
> Stuart
>
|||Thanks John - SE x64 will definitely be on the shortlist.
Regards
Stuart
John Bell wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi Stuart
> I am not sure if this will be posted twice!
> I think your reasoning is fine if memory was the only issue that you need
> Enterprise Edition. If you are definately not going to be using any of the
> features available only in EE such as partitioning, online restores, online
> indexing etc then SE will be sufficient.
> John
> "NonNB" wrote:

Advice please - x64 Std Ed best value for money?

Hi
We need to part ways with our 32 Bit SQL 2000 Enterprise Ed server this
year and finally upgrade to 2005.
Purely from a MS / Licensing viewpoint, it would appear that the best
value for money seems to be x64 Std Ed on the per processor license
option on a W2003 x64 Std Ed? (~US$ 5000 / processor)
Rationale
=> It doesn't seem to make sense to go back to 32 bit [PAE / 3GB AWE
and the like]
=> It seems hard to justify the 4 fold price differential between x64
SE and EE - in SQL 2000 we haven't used any of the EE only features
like Indexed Views, and the major reason for EE was for the > 2GB
memory usage.
The server will host about 5 mostly OLTP / LOB Databases Total size of
around 250GB, with around 200 concurrent users. Our current EE 32 bit
setup is 2 x 3Ghz Xeon MP with 6GB RAM and usually runs at about 40%
utilisation.
I have been through
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/features/compare-features.mspx
Am I missing something obvious? (SE x64 can use >> 4GB RAM, has no DB
Size Limitations, and unlimited concurrent connection limitations,
right?)
Thanks in advance
StuartThanks John - SE x64 will definitely be on the shortlist.
Regards
Stuart
John Bell wrote:
> Hi Stuart
> I am not sure if this will be posted twice!
> I think your reasoning is fine if memory was the only issue that you need
> Enterprise Edition. If you are definately not going to be using any of the
> features available only in EE such as partitioning, online restores, online
> indexing etc then SE will be sufficient.
> John
> "NonNB" wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > We need to part ways with our 32 Bit SQL 2000 Enterprise Ed server this
> > year and finally upgrade to 2005.
> >
> > Purely from a MS / Licensing viewpoint, it would appear that the best
> > value for money seems to be x64 Std Ed on the per processor license
> > option on a W2003 x64 Std Ed? (~US$ 5000 / processor)
> >
> > Rationale
> > => It doesn't seem to make sense to go back to 32 bit [PAE / 3GB AWE
> > and the like]
> > => It seems hard to justify the 4 fold price differential between x64
> > SE and EE - in SQL 2000 we haven't used any of the EE only features
> > like Indexed Views, and the major reason for EE was for the > 2GB
> > memory usage.
> >
> > The server will host about 5 mostly OLTP / LOB Databases Total size of
> > around 250GB, with around 200 concurrent users. Our current EE 32 bit
> > setup is 2 x 3Ghz Xeon MP with 6GB RAM and usually runs at about 40%
> > utilisation.
> >
> > I have been through
> > http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/features/compare-features.mspx
> >
> > Am I missing something obvious? (SE x64 can use >> 4GB RAM, has no DB
> > Size Limitations, and unlimited concurrent connection limitations,
> > right?)
> >
> > Thanks in advance
> >
> > Stuart
> >
> >

Advice please - x64 Std Ed best value for money?

Hi
We need to part ways with our 32 Bit SQL 2000 Enterprise Ed server this
year and finally upgrade to 2005.
Purely from a MS / Licensing viewpoint, it would appear that the best
value for money seems to be x64 Std Ed on the per processor license
option on a W2003 x64 Std Ed? (~US$ 5000 / processor)
Rationale
=> It doesn't seem to make sense to go back to 32 bit [PAE / 3GB AWE
and the like]
=> It seems hard to justify the 4 fold price differential between x64
SE and EE - in SQL 2000 we haven't used any of the EE only features
like Indexed Views, and the major reason for EE was for the > 2GB
memory usage.
The server will host about 5 mostly OLTP / LOB Databases Total size of
around 250GB, with around 200 concurrent users. Our current EE 32 bit
setup is 2 x 3Ghz Xeon MP with 6GB RAM and usually runs at about 40%
utilisation.
I have been through
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodin...e-features.mspx
Am I missing something obvious? (SE x64 can use >> 4GB RAM, has no DB
Size Limitations, and unlimited concurrent connection limitations,
right?)
Thanks in advance
StuartHi Stuart
I am not sure if this will be posted twice!
I think your reasoning is fine if memory was the only issue that you need
Enterprise Edition. If you are definately not going to be using any of the
features available only in EE such as partitioning, online restores, online
indexing etc then SE will be sufficient.
John
"NonNB" wrote:

> Hi
> We need to part ways with our 32 Bit SQL 2000 Enterprise Ed server this
> year and finally upgrade to 2005.
> Purely from a MS / Licensing viewpoint, it would appear that the best
> value for money seems to be x64 Std Ed on the per processor license
> option on a W2003 x64 Std Ed? (~US$ 5000 / processor)
> Rationale
> => It doesn't seem to make sense to go back to 32 bit [PAE / 3GB AWE
> and the like]
> => It seems hard to justify the 4 fold price differential between x64
> SE and EE - in SQL 2000 we haven't used any of the EE only features
> like Indexed Views, and the major reason for EE was for the > 2GB
> memory usage.
> The server will host about 5 mostly OLTP / LOB Databases Total size of
> around 250GB, with around 200 concurrent users. Our current EE 32 bit
> setup is 2 x 3Ghz Xeon MP with 6GB RAM and usually runs at about 40%
> utilisation.
> I have been through
> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodin...e-features.mspx
> Am I missing something obvious? (SE x64 can use >> 4GB RAM, has no DB
> Size Limitations, and unlimited concurrent connection limitations,
> right?)
> Thanks in advance
> Stuart
>|||Thanks John - SE x64 will definitely be on the shortlist.
Regards
Stuart
John Bell wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi Stuart
> I am not sure if this will be posted twice!
> I think your reasoning is fine if memory was the only issue that you need
> Enterprise Edition. If you are definately not going to be using any of the
> features available only in EE such as partitioning, online restores, onlin
e
> indexing etc then SE will be sufficient.
> John
> "NonNB" wrote:
>