Runtime error data provider or other service provided an efail status

Anyone knows what would cause this?When Enterprise Manager is used to open a table
Runtime error data provider or other service provided an efail status"Vincento Harris" <wumutek@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2fa13ee7.0409220419.1d9dc812@.posting.google.c om...
> Anyone knows what would cause this?When Enterprise Manager is used to open
> a table
> Runtime error data provider or other service provided an efail status

It would be useful to know the exact error, however Google suggests that a
corrupt DLL may be one cause:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=s...f=1&sa=N&tab=wg

Probably the easiest thing to do is uninstall then reinstall the client
tools, then apply the latest servicepack.

Simon

Runtime Error - Taskpad

When I change my view to "Taskpad" in Enterprise Manager,
and then click on each of the databases, I get a "Runtime
Error has occured. Do you want to debug". Has anyone
else encountered this problem and is there a fix?
Thanks,
PatrickIf you change it back to Large icons or another view, then back again, it
should work okay.
Also make sure you're at the latest service pack...
A
"Patrick Thorsell" <patrick_thorsell@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:024001c35528$142c82a0$a101280a@.phx.gbl...
> When I change my view to "Taskpad" in Enterprise Manager,
> and then click on each of the databases, I get a "Runtime
> Error has occured. Do you want to debug". Has anyone
> else encountered this problem and is there a fix?
> Thanks,
> Patrick|||Hmm why is there no MS articles about this? Anyone know
of a long term fix for this? the switching views is
surely just a work around.
Regards,
Yussuf Khan
>--Original Message--
>If you change it back to Large icons or another view,
then back again, it
>should work okay.
>Also make sure you're at the latest service pack...
>A
>
>"Patrick Thorsell" <patrick_thorsell@.yahoo.com> wrote in
message
>news:024001c35528$142c82a0$a101280a@.phx.gbl...
>> When I change my view to "Taskpad" in Enterprise
Manager,
>> and then click on each of the databases, I get
a "Runtime
>> Error has occured. Do you want to debug". Has anyone
>> else encountered this problem and is there a fix?
>> Thanks,
>> Patrick
>
>.
>|||This error still can occur in SP3, it happened to me about 2 minutes ago.
--
----
The views expressed here are my own
and not of my employer.
----
"Aaron Bertrand - MVP" <aaron@.TRASHaspfaq.com> wrote in message
news:uKn6lJQXDHA.1680@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Since moving to SP3, I have never experienced the error. So if you're not
> at SP3, get there.
>
>
> "Yussuf Khan" <fearnan@.excite.com> wrote in message
> news:173301c35cfb$f3fc70e0$7d02280a@.phx.gbl...
> > Hmm why is there no MS articles about this? Anyone know
> > of a long term fix for this? the switching views is
> > surely just a work around.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Yussuf Khan
>

Run-time error

Hello All:
I am in desparate need of assistance. We are using an application called PaperVision Enterprise which takes scanned invoices and puts them into a database for the purpose of easy reference to any scanned invoice in the db. 2 weeks ago while trying to perform a 'match and merge' of the newly scanned docs, we received a Run-time error '-2147217871 (80040e31)": Timeout expired message. After being told by the company who supports this software that they couldn't help me since it is using a MS SQL Server Table Lookup I started googling the error with minimal success. I am not very proficient with SQL so I'm kind of stuck. I have narrowed this down to an ODBC run-time error, but looking for some kind of guidance as to how I can resolve it. Any info would be greatly appreciated. We are using MS SQL Server 2000.Timeout expired errors are bad to deal with. They are not particularly bad for the data, but they are a pain to track down. The short of it is the client is giving up on the server, after the server takes 30 seconds (default) to return a message about the success or failure of the command. The easiest fix is generally to have the vendor increase their commandtimeout value. Outside of that, you would have to check to see if it is time to purge old documents, reindex tables (if the database is on the order of 10GB or more), or check to see what other activity is going on on the SQL Server (is someone running a giant report at the same time?). Good luck.|||We actually faced this problem 4 years ago on SQL Server 2000. The issue was resolved first by increasing the timeout value in the ASP application code itself (as a temporary measure). However, after tuning the query so that it executed much faster, we switched back to the default timeout in the ASP application code. Everything went fine. If this is static data (committed data) that you are matching and merging, it would be better to use the WITH (NOLOCK) hint to start with. Of course, the query would still have to be optimized. Another case was when a query (with around 5 joins between different tables) was causing Exception Access Violation and failing. When optimized, it ran in a split second with no issues. [As per a Forrester Report (I don't have a copy of it with me right now), 50-60% of database performance issues are caused by the quality of the code.]|||I have increased the timeout value, but still have the same issues. As for the other suggestions, could you possibly recommend any books that would explain how to do some of these things, since I don't know much about SQL?|||I wouldn't use WITH (NOLOCK) unless you know with certainty that the tables involved are not being written to.

It has its own sets of problems since it means you will be doing dirty reads, and can even cause new errors if page splits, etc, occur during the read.

For tips on optimizing queries, start reading the beginner articles at http://www.sql-server-performance.com

Running SQL Server Enterprise 2005 on MS Virtual Server

I keep wondering if this is safe. I am getting errors here and there along with the inability to connect to my database via connection string in ASP.NET no matter if the user has complete permissions or not amongst other difficulties and I wonder if this is causing a lot of the problems. WE are running SQL Server Enterprise 2005 on Microsoft Virtual Server. Is this approved?

Running SQL Server in a virtual machine should work. I do this for scenario testing all the time.

The usual suspects for connectivity problems in virtual machines are whether the virtual network adapter is attached to the host's network adapter (vs. the "local adapter" that can't be seen outside the virtual server environment) and the host's firewall getting in the way of other computer's talking to the virtual machine.

The typical issues with SQL Server connectivity also apply to SQL Servers running in virtual machines. Make sure SQL Server is configured to listen to TCP/IP connections on the virtual network adapter that is mapped to the host's network adapter. Also, make sure that the firewall in your virtual machine is allowing external connections to SQL Server's port.

|||We are running some test environments on Virtual Server.
We haven't experienced any issues so far.

Running SQL Server at Home

Hi All,

I'm trying to run a copy of Enterprise Manager at home. I have a small wireless network and would like to install it on either one machine (stand-alone) or run it on my network.

The machine it is installed on is running Windows 2000 and the remote machine is running Windows XP Home <<< not sure if SQL Server will run on this.

I tried installing it previously as stand-alone on the Win2K machine, but kept getting a "Server not found or access denied" message whenever I tried to register or connect.

Any ideas on how best to set it up at home would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
TimCreate an entry for your sqlserver in hosts (or lmhosts) file. This should help with name/ip resolution. Also, it might be better to setup sqlserver in mixed mode (i.e. allow sql authentication).|||I hope you installed the SQL Server and not the client components alone. Probably, you accepted default values. When you register you can use one of the following: a dot (.), or (local) - including parenthesis - or your workstation computer name. All these are valid in a standalone computer.

Please check your registry under HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Microsoft\MSSQLSERVER\SUPERSOCK ETNETLIB\NP and if the value is like \\.\pipe\sql\query then probably you accepted default value for Named Pipe as well as the instance. If you have decided to install this as an instance then you may see like \\.\pipe\<instance_name>\sql\query then probably you installed as a server.
Also under HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Microsoft\MSSQLSERVER\SUPERSOCK ETNETLIB\TCP, you can determine the port number. If it is 1433 then you used default port.

Please make sure that MSSQLServer Service is running. You can check this through the Services.msc. If you do not see MSSQLServer Service then you have installed the client components only and install the server components. Start SQL Query Analyzer and enter any of the following:

Assumption: Your computer name is PRECAMBRIAN

1) .
2) (local)
3) PRECAMBRIAN
4) PRECAMBRIAN,1433 (or whatever port number is)
5) PRECAMBRIAN\InstanceName

Enter your SA account's password and you should be able to connect.

Running SQL Server 2005 EE on Dual-Core CPU

Hello!
We are planning following setup for our production SQL Server:
OS - Windows 2003 Enterprise Edition
SQL Server 2005 Enterprise Edition
16 GB RAM
4 Dual-Core CPUs 64 bit
I was wondering if anybody is running SQL Server 2005 on Dual-Core 64
bit CPUs. Are there any know issues with this? Would it be better to with
Intel or AMD?
Thank you in advance,
Igor
Hi
We are running SQL Server 2000 on HP 585's, 4 AMD Dual cores. We are very
happy with the performance.
Still awaiting the Intel Dual Core range, so no comparison yet.
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/
"imarchenko" <igormarchenko@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23v5j5%23R$FHA.3104@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Hello!
> We are planning following setup for our production SQL Server:
> OS - Windows 2003 Enterprise Edition
> SQL Server 2005 Enterprise Edition
> 16 GB RAM
> 4 Dual-Core CPUs 64 bit
> I was wondering if anybody is running SQL Server 2005 on Dual-Core 64
> bit CPUs. Are there any know issues with this? Would it be better to with
> Intel or AMD?
> Thank you in advance,
> Igor
>
|||I haven't seen any Intel dual cores yet but I have seen several AMD dual
core servers and they work very well. From what I have heard the Intel
units will be a little faster than the AMD's but I don't know if that is
worth waiting for or not.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"imarchenko" <igormarchenko@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23v5j5%23R$FHA.3104@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Hello!
> We are planning following setup for our production SQL Server:
> OS - Windows 2003 Enterprise Edition
> SQL Server 2005 Enterprise Edition
> 16 GB RAM
> 4 Dual-Core CPUs 64 bit
> I was wondering if anybody is running SQL Server 2005 on Dual-Core 64
> bit CPUs. Are there any know issues with this? Would it be better to with
> Intel or AMD?
> Thank you in advance,
> Igor
>
|||Mike,
Thanks a lot for your feedback. Since we are planning to run SQL 2005 on
our production env., it is critical for us to know whether SQL 2005/Dual
core CPU is stable enough configuration.
Igor
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message
news:u$js9ES$FHA.3804@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> We are running SQL Server 2000 on HP 585's, 4 AMD Dual cores. We are very
> happy with the performance.
> Still awaiting the Intel Dual Core range, so no comparison yet.
> 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/
> "imarchenko" <igormarchenko@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23v5j5%23R$FHA.3104@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>
|||Thanks, Andrew. Would you happen to know if anyone is running SQL 2005/ Dual
core CPU configuration? Is this a stable enough environment?
Igor
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:%23pR7nOU$FHA.3908@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>I haven't seen any Intel dual cores yet but I have seen several AMD dual
>core servers and they work very well. From what I have heard the Intel
>units will be a little faster than the AMD's but I don't know if that is
>worth waiting for or not.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "imarchenko" <igormarchenko@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23v5j5%23R$FHA.3104@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>
|||"imarchenko" <igormarchenko@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ekH$VRb$FHA.328@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Mike,
> Thanks a lot for your feedback. Since we are planning to run SQL 2005
> on our production env., it is critical for us to know whether SQL
> 2005/Dual core CPU is stable enough configuration.
>
IMO Multi-Core x64 with 2 or 4 sockets is the basic hardware platform for
SQL Server 2005.
Talk to Dell or HP. The Dell PowerEdge 6850 and the HP DL580 or DL585 meet
your specs, and either one of them can help put your mind at ease about
running 64-bit Windows and 64-bit SQL Server 2005 in production.
David
|||I have seen both with no problems on either that I know of.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"imarchenko" <igormarchenko@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23xldESb$FHA.1288@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Thanks, Andrew. Would you happen to know if anyone is running SQL 2005/
> Dual core CPU configuration? Is this a stable enough environment?
>
> Igor
>
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:%23pR7nOU$FHA.3908@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>

Running SQL Server 2005 EE on Dual-Core CPU

Hello!
We are planning following setup for our production SQL Server:
OS - Windows 2003 Enterprise Edition
SQL Server 2005 Enterprise Edition
16 GB RAM
4 Dual-Core CPUs 64 bit
I was wondering if anybody is running SQL Server 2005 on Dual-Core 64
bit CPUs. Are there any know issues with this? Would it be better to with
Intel or AMD?
Thank you in advance,
IgorHi
We are running SQL Server 2000 on HP 585's, 4 AMD Dual cores. We are very
happy with the performance.
Still awaiting the Intel Dual Core range, so no comparison yet.
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/
"imarchenko" <igormarchenko@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23v5j5%23R$FHA.3104@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Hello!
> We are planning following setup for our production SQL Server:
> OS - Windows 2003 Enterprise Edition
> SQL Server 2005 Enterprise Edition
> 16 GB RAM
> 4 Dual-Core CPUs 64 bit
> I was wondering if anybody is running SQL Server 2005 on Dual-Core 64
> bit CPUs. Are there any know issues with this? Would it be better to with
> Intel or AMD?
> Thank you in advance,
> Igor
>|||I haven't seen any Intel dual cores yet but I have seen several AMD dual
core servers and they work very well. From what I have heard the Intel
units will be a little faster than the AMD's but I don't know if that is
worth waiting for or not.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"imarchenko" <igormarchenko@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23v5j5%23R$FHA.3104@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Hello!
> We are planning following setup for our production SQL Server:
> OS - Windows 2003 Enterprise Edition
> SQL Server 2005 Enterprise Edition
> 16 GB RAM
> 4 Dual-Core CPUs 64 bit
> I was wondering if anybody is running SQL Server 2005 on Dual-Core 64
> bit CPUs. Are there any know issues with this? Would it be better to with
> Intel or AMD?
> Thank you in advance,
> Igor
>|||Mike,
Thanks a lot for your feedback. Since we are planning to run SQL 2005 on
our production env., it is critical for us to know whether SQL 2005/Dual
core CPU is stable enough configuration.
Igor
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message
news:u$js9ES$FHA.3804@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> We are running SQL Server 2000 on HP 585's, 4 AMD Dual cores. We are very
> happy with the performance.
> Still awaiting the Intel Dual Core range, so no comparison yet.
> 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/
> "imarchenko" <igormarchenko@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23v5j5%23R$FHA.3104@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> Hello!
>> We are planning following setup for our production SQL Server:
>> OS - Windows 2003 Enterprise Edition
>> SQL Server 2005 Enterprise Edition
>> 16 GB RAM
>> 4 Dual-Core CPUs 64 bit
>> I was wondering if anybody is running SQL Server 2005 on Dual-Core 64
>> bit CPUs. Are there any know issues with this? Would it be better to
>> with Intel or AMD?
>> Thank you in advance,
>> Igor
>|||Thanks, Andrew. Would you happen to know if anyone is running SQL 2005/ Dual
core CPU configuration? Is this a stable enough environment?
Igor
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:%23pR7nOU$FHA.3908@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>I haven't seen any Intel dual cores yet but I have seen several AMD dual
>core servers and they work very well. From what I have heard the Intel
>units will be a little faster than the AMD's but I don't know if that is
>worth waiting for or not.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "imarchenko" <igormarchenko@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23v5j5%23R$FHA.3104@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> Hello!
>> We are planning following setup for our production SQL Server:
>> OS - Windows 2003 Enterprise Edition
>> SQL Server 2005 Enterprise Edition
>> 16 GB RAM
>> 4 Dual-Core CPUs 64 bit
>> I was wondering if anybody is running SQL Server 2005 on Dual-Core 64
>> bit CPUs. Are there any know issues with this? Would it be better to
>> with Intel or AMD?
>> Thank you in advance,
>> Igor
>|||"imarchenko" <igormarchenko@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ekH$VRb$FHA.328@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Mike,
> Thanks a lot for your feedback. Since we are planning to run SQL 2005
> on our production env., it is critical for us to know whether SQL
> 2005/Dual core CPU is stable enough configuration.
>
IMO Multi-Core x64 with 2 or 4 sockets is the basic hardware platform for
SQL Server 2005.
Talk to Dell or HP. The Dell PowerEdge 6850 and the HP DL580 or DL585 meet
your specs, and either one of them can help put your mind at ease about
running 64-bit Windows and 64-bit SQL Server 2005 in production.
David|||I have seen both with no problems on either that I know of.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"imarchenko" <igormarchenko@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23xldESb$FHA.1288@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Thanks, Andrew. Would you happen to know if anyone is running SQL 2005/
> Dual core CPU configuration? Is this a stable enough environment?
>
> Igor
>
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:%23pR7nOU$FHA.3908@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>>I haven't seen any Intel dual cores yet but I have seen several AMD dual
>>core servers and they work very well. From what I have heard the Intel
>>units will be a little faster than the AMD's but I don't know if that is
>>worth waiting for or not.
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>>
>> "imarchenko" <igormarchenko@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:%23v5j5%23R$FHA.3104@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> Hello!
>> We are planning following setup for our production SQL Server:
>> OS - Windows 2003 Enterprise Edition
>> SQL Server 2005 Enterprise Edition
>> 16 GB RAM
>> 4 Dual-Core CPUs 64 bit
>> I was wondering if anybody is running SQL Server 2005 on Dual-Core 64
>> bit CPUs. Are there any know issues with this? Would it be better to
>> with Intel or AMD?
>> Thank you in advance,
>> Igor
>>
>

Running SQL Server 2005 EE on Dual-Core CPU

Hello!
We are planning following setup for our production SQL Server:
OS - Windows 2003 Enterprise Edition
SQL Server 2005 Enterprise Edition
16 GB RAM
4 Dual-Core CPUs 64 bit
I was wondering if anybody is running SQL Server 2005 on Dual-Core 64
bit CPUs. Are there any know issues with this? Would it be better to with
Intel or AMD?
Thank you in advance,
IgorHi
We are running SQL Server 2000 on HP 585's, 4 AMD Dual cores. We are very
happy with the performance.
Still awaiting the Intel Dual Core range, so no comparison yet.
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/
"imarchenko" <igormarchenko@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23v5j5%23R$FHA.3104@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Hello!
> We are planning following setup for our production SQL Server:
> OS - Windows 2003 Enterprise Edition
> SQL Server 2005 Enterprise Edition
> 16 GB RAM
> 4 Dual-Core CPUs 64 bit
> I was wondering if anybody is running SQL Server 2005 on Dual-Core 64
> bit CPUs. Are there any know issues with this? Would it be better to with
> Intel or AMD?
> Thank you in advance,
> Igor
>|||I haven't seen any Intel dual cores yet but I have seen several AMD dual
core servers and they work very well. From what I have heard the Intel
units will be a little faster than the AMD's but I don't know if that is
worth waiting for or not.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"imarchenko" <igormarchenko@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23v5j5%23R$FHA.3104@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Hello!
> We are planning following setup for our production SQL Server:
> OS - Windows 2003 Enterprise Edition
> SQL Server 2005 Enterprise Edition
> 16 GB RAM
> 4 Dual-Core CPUs 64 bit
> I was wondering if anybody is running SQL Server 2005 on Dual-Core 64
> bit CPUs. Are there any know issues with this? Would it be better to with
> Intel or AMD?
> Thank you in advance,
> Igor
>|||Mike,
Thanks a lot for your feedback. Since we are planning to run SQL 2005 on
our production env., it is critical for us to know whether SQL 2005/Dual
core CPU is stable enough configuration.
Igor
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message
news:u$js9ES$FHA.3804@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> We are running SQL Server 2000 on HP 585's, 4 AMD Dual cores. We are very
> happy with the performance.
> Still awaiting the Intel Dual Core range, so no comparison yet.
> 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/
> "imarchenko" <igormarchenko@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23v5j5%23R$FHA.3104@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>|||Thanks, Andrew. Would you happen to know if anyone is running SQL 2005/ Dual
core CPU configuration? Is this a stable enough environment?
Igor
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:%23pR7nOU$FHA.3908@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>I haven't seen any Intel dual cores yet but I have seen several AMD dual
>core servers and they work very well. From what I have heard the Intel
>units will be a little faster than the AMD's but I don't know if that is
>worth waiting for or not.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "imarchenko" <igormarchenko@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23v5j5%23R$FHA.3104@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>|||"imarchenko" <igormarchenko@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ekH$VRb$FHA.328@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Mike,
> Thanks a lot for your feedback. Since we are planning to run SQL 2005
> on our production env., it is critical for us to know whether SQL
> 2005/Dual core CPU is stable enough configuration.
>
IMO Multi-Core x64 with 2 or 4 sockets is the basic hardware platform for
SQL Server 2005.
Talk to Dell or HP. The Dell PowerEdge 6850 and the HP DL580 or DL585 meet
your specs, and either one of them can help put your mind at ease about
running 64-bit Windows and 64-bit SQL Server 2005 in production.
David|||I have seen both with no problems on either that I know of.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"imarchenko" <igormarchenko@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23xldESb$FHA.1288@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Thanks, Andrew. Would you happen to know if anyone is running SQL 2005/
> Dual core CPU configuration? Is this a stable enough environment?
>
> Igor
>
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:%23pR7nOU$FHA.3908@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>

running sql on a different port

sql 2k, sp3a
For security reasons, I changed sql to run on a different port. I'm able to
get into Enterprise Manager and Query Analyzer just fine. However, when I
try to go into Object Manager in QA, I get a message that the connection has
been broken. It never allows me to see the objects. Is this a bug? Is
there a workaround?
As long as sql is running on port 1433 I can get into the object manager
just fine.
Thanks, Andrehave you tried creating an alias in client network utility and using the
alias to connect to the server?
Carlos E. Rojas
SQL Server MVP
Co-Author SQL Server 2000 programming by Example
"Andre" <AndreGetsEnoughSPAM@.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:eY8FrbtAEHA.1700@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> sql 2k, sp3a
> For security reasons, I changed sql to run on a different port. I'm able
to
> get into Enterprise Manager and Query Analyzer just fine. However, when I
> try to go into Object Manager in QA, I get a message that the connection
has
> been broken. It never allows me to see the objects. Is this a bug? Is
> there a workaround?
> As long as sql is running on port 1433 I can get into the object manager
> just fine.
> Thanks, Andre
>|||I have that in place.
"Carlos Eduardo Rojas" <carloser@.mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:uL07F9tAEHA.2112@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> have you tried creating an alias in client network utility and using the
> alias to connect to the server?
> --
> Carlos E. Rojas
> SQL Server MVP
> Co-Author SQL Server 2000 programming by Example
>
> "Andre" <AndreGetsEnoughSPAM@.nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:eY8FrbtAEHA.1700@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
able
> to
I
> has
>|||Actually, that worked. I'd created the alias but was still connecting to
'.'. Connecting to the alias was the trick. Thanks!
Andre
"Andre" <AndreGetsEnoughSPAM@.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:OcKVNbuAEHA.1964@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> I have that in place.
> "Carlos Eduardo Rojas" <carloser@.mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:uL07F9tAEHA.2112@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> able
when
> I
connection
Is
manager
>

running sql on a different port

sql 2k, sp3a
For security reasons, I changed sql to run on a different port. I'm able to
get into Enterprise Manager and Query Analyzer just fine. However, when I
try to go into Object Manager in QA, I get a message that the connection has
been broken. It never allows me to see the objects. Is this a bug? Is
there a workaround?
As long as sql is running on port 1433 I can get into the object manager
just fine.
Thanks, Andrehave you tried creating an alias in client network utility and using the
alias to connect to the server?
--
Carlos E. Rojas
SQL Server MVP
Co-Author SQL Server 2000 Programming by Example
"Andre" <AndreGetsEnoughSPAM@.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:eY8FrbtAEHA.1700@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> sql 2k, sp3a
> For security reasons, I changed sql to run on a different port. I'm able
to
> get into Enterprise Manager and Query Analyzer just fine. However, when I
> try to go into Object Manager in QA, I get a message that the connection
has
> been broken. It never allows me to see the objects. Is this a bug? Is
> there a workaround?
> As long as sql is running on port 1433 I can get into the object manager
> just fine.
> Thanks, Andre
>|||I have that in place.
"Carlos Eduardo Rojas" <carloser@.mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:uL07F9tAEHA.2112@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> have you tried creating an alias in client network utility and using the
> alias to connect to the server?
> --
> Carlos E. Rojas
> SQL Server MVP
> Co-Author SQL Server 2000 Programming by Example
>
> "Andre" <AndreGetsEnoughSPAM@.nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:eY8FrbtAEHA.1700@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > sql 2k, sp3a
> >
> > For security reasons, I changed sql to run on a different port. I'm
able
> to
> > get into Enterprise Manager and Query Analyzer just fine. However, when
I
> > try to go into Object Manager in QA, I get a message that the connection
> has
> > been broken. It never allows me to see the objects. Is this a bug? Is
> > there a workaround?
> >
> > As long as sql is running on port 1433 I can get into the object manager
> > just fine.
> >
> > Thanks, Andre
> >
> >
>|||Actually, that worked. I'd created the alias but was still connecting to
'.'. Connecting to the alias was the trick. Thanks!
Andre
"Andre" <AndreGetsEnoughSPAM@.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:OcKVNbuAEHA.1964@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> I have that in place.
> "Carlos Eduardo Rojas" <carloser@.mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:uL07F9tAEHA.2112@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > have you tried creating an alias in client network utility and using the
> > alias to connect to the server?
> >
> > --
> > Carlos E. Rojas
> > SQL Server MVP
> > Co-Author SQL Server 2000 Programming by Example
> >
> >
> > "Andre" <AndreGetsEnoughSPAM@.nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:eY8FrbtAEHA.1700@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > > sql 2k, sp3a
> > >
> > > For security reasons, I changed sql to run on a different port. I'm
> able
> > to
> > > get into Enterprise Manager and Query Analyzer just fine. However,
when
> I
> > > try to go into Object Manager in QA, I get a message that the
connection
> > has
> > > been broken. It never allows me to see the objects. Is this a bug?
Is
> > > there a workaround?
> > >
> > > As long as sql is running on port 1433 I can get into the object
manager
> > > just fine.
> > >
> > > Thanks, Andre
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>