EnumAvailableSqlServers() fails to detect LOCAL installed instance when disconnected from networ

I am using EnumAvailableSqlServer to build the standard select Sql Server dialog with controls to select the server, instance and database. This all works fine - other than the well reported problem of detected multiple instances - however I have noticed that when disconnected from the network the call fails to even detect the locally installed sql servers.

What is the recommended method of determine whether an instance of sql server is installed locally. I can call Server->Databases, but this leads to a timeout / excpetion if no instances are detected which is slow. Is there a recommended registry key I can check that won't change between versions or another API I can try.

hx, Nick

Checking registry seems the simplest ...

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Microsoft SQL Server

with InstalledInstances value.

Thx, Nick

EnumAvailableSqlServers() fails to detect LOCAL installed instance when disconnected from ne

I am using EnumAvailableSqlServer to build the standard select Sql Server dialog with controls to select the server, instance and database. This all works fine - other than the well reported problem of detected multiple instances - however I have noticed that when disconnected from the network the call fails to even detect the locally installed sql servers.

What is the recommended method of determine whether an instance of sql server is installed locally. I can call Server->Databases, but this leads to a timeout / excpetion if no instances are detected which is slow. Is there a recommended registry key I can check that won't change between versions or another API I can try.

hx, Nick

Checking registry seems the simplest ...

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Microsoft SQL Server

with InstalledInstances value.

Thx, Nick

Entry point not found...mdt2fw.dll

I am having an SQL Server problem. I installed the Standard Edition of SQL Server 7 on a new server (Windows 2000 Server). When I open the SQL Server Enterprise Manager, I get errors when trying to open a database table.
The first error: The procedure entry point ? DaVinciVShowSQLVersionWarning@.@.YXGPAUHWND_@.@.@.Z could not be located in the dynamic link library mdt2fw.dll
The second error:An unexpected error happened during this operation. [MS Design Tools] - The specified procedure could not be found.
Any assistance in this matter would be greatly appreciated.
it could be a problem with a dll not being registered proplery. Try
registering that dll again using regsrv. However, you also might want to
read your sqlstp.log to check for any error messages duirng the install.
You'll find this in your WinNT folder.
Vikram Jayaram
Microsoft, SQL Server
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Subscribe to MSDN & use http://msdn.microsoft.com/newsgroups.
|||Thanks!
I will give it a try on Monday. Hopefully this will fix the problem.
Ray
"Ray" wrote:

> I am having an SQL Server problem. I installed the Standard Edition of SQL Server 7 on a new server (Windows 2000 Server). When I open the SQL Server Enterprise Manager, I get errors when trying to open a database table.
> The first error: The procedure entry point ? DaVinciVShowSQLVersionWarning@.@.YXGPAUHWND_@.@.@.Z could not be located in the dynamic link library mdt2fw.dll
> The second error:An unexpected error happened during this operation. [MS Design Tools] - The specified procedure could not be found.
> Any assistance in this matter would be greatly appreciated.
sql

Entry point not found...mdt2fw.dll

I am having an SQL Server problem. I installed the Standard Edition of SQL
Server 7 on a new server (Windows 2000 Server). When I open the SQL Server
Enterprise Manager, I get errors when trying to open a database table.
The first error: The procedure entry point ? DaVinciVShowSQLVersionWarning@.@.
YXGPAUHWND_@.@.@.Z could not be located in the dynamic link library mdt2fw.dll
The second error:An unexpected error happened during this operation. [MS
Design Tools] - The specified procedure could not be found.
Any assistance in this matter would be greatly appreciated.it could be a problem with a dll not being registered proplery. Try
registering that dll again using regsrv. However, you also might want to
read your sqlstp.log to check for any error messages duirng the install.
You'll find this in your WinNT folder.
Vikram Jayaram
Microsoft, SQL Server
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Subscribe to MSDN & use http://msdn.microsoft.com/newsgroups.|||Thanks!
I will give it a try on Monday. Hopefully this will fix the problem.
Ray
"Ray" wrote:

> I am having an SQL Server problem. I installed the Standard Edition of SQ
L Server 7 on a new server (Windows 2000 Server). When I open the SQL Serve
r Enterprise Manager, I get errors when trying to open a database table.
> The first error: The procedure entry point ? DaVinciVShowSQLVersionWarning
@.@.YXGPAUHWND_@.@.@.Z could not be located in the dynamic link library mdt2fw.dl
l
> The second error:An unexpected error happened during this operation. [
MS Design Tools] - The specified procedure could not be found.
> Any assistance in this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Entry point not found...mdt2fw.dll

I am having an SQL Server problem. I installed the Standard Edition of SQL Server 7 on a new server (Windows 2000 Server). When I open the SQL Server Enterprise Manager, I get errors when trying to open a database table.
The first error: The procedure entry point ? DaVinciVShowSQLVersionWarning@.@.YXGPAUHWND_@.@.@.Z could not be located in the dynamic link library mdt2fw.dll
The second error:An unexpected error happened during this operation. [MS Design Tools] - The specified procedure could not be found.
Any assistance in this matter would be greatly appreciated.it could be a problem with a dll not being registered proplery. Try
registering that dll again using regsrv. However, you also might want to
read your sqlstp.log to check for any error messages duirng the install.
You'll find this in your WinNT folder.
Vikram Jayaram
Microsoft, SQL Server
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Subscribe to MSDN & use http://msdn.microsoft.com/newsgroups.|||Thanks!
I will give it a try on Monday. Hopefully this will fix the problem.
Ray
"Ray" wrote:
> I am having an SQL Server problem. I installed the Standard Edition of SQL Server 7 on a new server (Windows 2000 Server). When I open the SQL Server Enterprise Manager, I get errors when trying to open a database table.
> The first error: The procedure entry point ? DaVinciVShowSQLVersionWarning@.@.YXGPAUHWND_@.@.@.Z could not be located in the dynamic link library mdt2fw.dll
> The second error:An unexpected error happened during this operation. [MS Design Tools] - The specified procedure could not be found.
> Any assistance in this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Entity Deletion Strategy

Hi,
I'm wondering what the standard practise is for dealing with the
following very common scenario:
You have users who can use your application and they are identified by
email address. Sometimes you want to delete one of these users. You
want to keep some reference to them in the DB for auditing purposes.
Also, you want to be able to free up that email address so it can be
used again.
It seems to me there are two options:
Keep the user in the User table but set its "status" to "deleted". The
problem thought is that now many of the queries against the user table
will have to check status.
Delete the user from the User table, but have it stored in some other
table, a UserAudit table for example.
Is there a standard way of doing this? If so, how is it done? Thanks.Hi
As long as the email address does not have a unique index or is the primary
key you can use the status flag. Depending on how many deleted users you have
(or if you see a significant degredation of performance) then you may or may
not want to partition the table (or create a partitioned view). To remove the
need to add the status check to every where clause you can create an active
users view (and keep table name) of the table. To implement a partioned view
would be the flip side of this (create an new table and transfer the table
name to the partitoned view), once you are using the active users table/view
there would be no T-SQL code change involved with changing over to the other
model.
John
"nickgieschen@.gmail.com" wrote:
> Hi,
> I'm wondering what the standard practise is for dealing with the
> following very common scenario:
> You have users who can use your application and they are identified by
> email address. Sometimes you want to delete one of these users. You
> want to keep some reference to them in the DB for auditing purposes.
> Also, you want to be able to free up that email address so it can be
> used again.
> It seems to me there are two options:
> Keep the user in the User table but set its "status" to "deleted". The
> problem thought is that now many of the queries against the user table
> will have to check status.
> Delete the user from the User table, but have it stored in some other
> table, a UserAudit table for example.
> Is there a standard way of doing this? If so, how is it done? Thanks.
>|||John Bell wrote:
> Hi
> As long as the email address does not have a unique index or is the primary
> key you can use the status flag. Depending on how many deleted users you have
> (or if you see a significant degredation of performance) then you may or may
> not want to partition the table (or create a partitioned view). To remove the
> need to add the status check to every where clause you can create an active
> users view (and keep table name) of the table. To implement a partioned view
> would be the flip side of this (create an new table and transfer the table
> name to the partitoned view), once you are using the active users table/view
> there would be no T-SQL code change involved with changing over to the other
> model.
> John
> "nickgieschen@.gmail.com" wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm wondering what the standard practise is for dealing with the
> > following very common scenario:
> >
> > You have users who can use your application and they are identified by
> > email address. Sometimes you want to delete one of these users. You
> > want to keep some reference to them in the DB for auditing purposes.
> > Also, you want to be able to free up that email address so it can be
> > used again.
> >
> > It seems to me there are two options:
> >
> > Keep the user in the User table but set its "status" to "deleted". The
> > problem thought is that now many of the queries against the user table
> > will have to check status.
> >
> > Delete the user from the User table, but have it stored in some other
> > table, a UserAudit table for example.
> >
> > Is there a standard way of doing this? If so, how is it done? Thanks.
> >
> >
You can create a trigger and when you will delete rows deleted rows
will be inserted to history table. So you can create a primary key or
unique key on email address.
Regards
Amish Shah
http://shahamishm.tripod.com

Entity Deletion Strategy

Hi,
I'm wondering what the standard practise is for dealing with the
following very common scenario:
You have users who can use your application and they are identified by
email address. Sometimes you want to delete one of these users. You
want to keep some reference to them in the DB for auditing purposes.
Also, you want to be able to free up that email address so it can be
used again.
It seems to me there are two options:
Keep the user in the User table but set its "status" to "deleted". The
problem thought is that now many of the queries against the user table
will have to check status.
Delete the user from the User table, but have it stored in some other
table, a UserAudit table for example.
Is there a standard way of doing this? If so, how is it done? Thanks.Hi
As long as the email address does not have a unique index or is the primary
key you can use the status flag. Depending on how many deleted users you hav
e
(or if you see a significant degredation of performance) then you may or may
not want to partition the table (or create a partitioned view). To remove th
e
need to add the status check to every where clause you can create an active
users view (and keep table name) of the table. To implement a partioned view
would be the flip side of this (create an new table and transfer the table
name to the partitoned view), once you are using the active users table/view
there would be no T-SQL code change involved with changing over to the other
model.
John
"nickgieschen@.gmail.com" wrote:

> Hi,
> I'm wondering what the standard practise is for dealing with the
> following very common scenario:
> You have users who can use your application and they are identified by
> email address. Sometimes you want to delete one of these users. You
> want to keep some reference to them in the DB for auditing purposes.
> Also, you want to be able to free up that email address so it can be
> used again.
> It seems to me there are two options:
> Keep the user in the User table but set its "status" to "deleted". The
> problem thought is that now many of the queries against the user table
> will have to check status.
> Delete the user from the User table, but have it stored in some other
> table, a UserAudit table for example.
> Is there a standard way of doing this? If so, how is it done? Thanks.
>|||John Bell wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi
> As long as the email address does not have a unique index or is the primar
y
> key you can use the status flag. Depending on how many deleted users you h
ave
> (or if you see a significant degredation of performance) then you may or m
ay
> not want to partition the table (or create a partitioned view). To remove
the
> need to add the status check to every where clause you can create an activ
e
> users view (and keep table name) of the table. To implement a partioned vi
ew
> would be the flip side of this (create an new table and transfer the table
> name to the partitoned view), once you are using the active users table/vi
ew
> there would be no T-SQL code change involved with changing over to the oth
er
> model.
> John
> "nickgieschen@.gmail.com" wrote:
>
You can create a trigger and when you will delete rows deleted rows
will be inserted to history table. So you can create a primary key or
unique key on email address.
Regards
Amish Shah
http://shahamishm.tripod.comsql

Enterprise vs. Standard

Can anyone please tell me the differences between the enterprise and standard
versions. Spoke with Microsoft sales who suggested I post out here.
Specifically, I want to know about the difference in the two with the 256
table limit in views. Thanks.Hi,
Verify the below link:-
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/evaluation/features/choosing.asp
Thanks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
"GregO" <GregO@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C8940D30-ACCC-48BB-AAB9-E04C0612A8B4@.microsoft.com...
> Can anyone please tell me the differences between the enterprise and
> standard
> versions. Spoke with Microsoft sales who suggested I post out here.
> Specifically, I want to know about the difference in the two with the 256
> table limit in views. Thanks.|||Don't think that limit changes with the edition. Standard vs. Enterprise is
more for things like clustering support, log shipping and the ability to use
more resources such as memory and CPUs
--
Kevin Hill
President
3NF Consulting
www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
www.DallasDBAs.com/forum - new DB forum for Dallas/Ft. Worth area DBAs.
www.experts-exchange.com - experts compete for points to answer your
questions
"GregO" <GregO@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C8940D30-ACCC-48BB-AAB9-E04C0612A8B4@.microsoft.com...
> Can anyone please tell me the differences between the enterprise and
> standard
> versions. Spoke with Microsoft sales who suggested I post out here.
> Specifically, I want to know about the difference in the two with the 256
> table limit in views. Thanks.|||Enterprise Edition has the same limit when it comes to maximum number of
tables references in a view.
Gert-Jan
GregO wrote:
> Can anyone please tell me the differences between the enterprise and standard
> versions. Spoke with Microsoft sales who suggested I post out here.
> Specifically, I want to know about the difference in the two with the 256
> table limit in views. Thanks.|||Hi Grego
Just check this
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/architec/8_ar_ts_1cdv.asp
--
best Regards,
Chandra
http://chanduas.blogspot.com/
http://groups.msn.com/SQLResource/
---
"GregO" wrote:
> Can anyone please tell me the differences between the enterprise and standard
> versions. Spoke with Microsoft sales who suggested I post out here.
> Specifically, I want to know about the difference in the two with the 256
> table limit in views. Thanks.sql

Enterprise vs. Standard

Can anyone please tell me the differences between the enterprise and standard
versions. Spoke with Microsoft sales who suggested I post out here.
Specifically, I want to know about the difference in the two with the 256
table limit in views. Thanks.
Hi,
Verify the below link:-
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/evaluat...s/choosing.asp
Thanks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
"GregO" <GregO@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C8940D30-ACCC-48BB-AAB9-E04C0612A8B4@.microsoft.com...
> Can anyone please tell me the differences between the enterprise and
> standard
> versions. Spoke with Microsoft sales who suggested I post out here.
> Specifically, I want to know about the difference in the two with the 256
> table limit in views. Thanks.
|||Don't think that limit changes with the edition. Standard vs. Enterprise is
more for things like clustering support, log shipping and the ability to use
more resources such as memory and CPUs
Kevin Hill
President
3NF Consulting
www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
www.DallasDBAs.com/forum - new DB forum for Dallas/Ft. Worth area DBAs.
www.experts-exchange.com - experts compete for points to answer your
questions
"GregO" <GregO@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C8940D30-ACCC-48BB-AAB9-E04C0612A8B4@.microsoft.com...
> Can anyone please tell me the differences between the enterprise and
> standard
> versions. Spoke with Microsoft sales who suggested I post out here.
> Specifically, I want to know about the difference in the two with the 256
> table limit in views. Thanks.
|||Enterprise Edition has the same limit when it comes to maximum number of
tables references in a view.
Gert-Jan
GregO wrote:
> Can anyone please tell me the differences between the enterprise and standard
> versions. Spoke with Microsoft sales who suggested I post out here.
> Specifically, I want to know about the difference in the two with the 256
> table limit in views. Thanks.
|||Hi Grego
Just check this:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...ar_ts_1cdv.asp
best Regards,
Chandra
http://chanduas.blogspot.com/
http://groups.msn.com/SQLResource/
"GregO" wrote:

> Can anyone please tell me the differences between the enterprise and standard
> versions. Spoke with Microsoft sales who suggested I post out here.
> Specifically, I want to know about the difference in the two with the 256
> table limit in views. Thanks.

Enterprise vs. Standard

Can anyone please tell me the differences between the enterprise and standar
d
versions. Spoke with Microsoft sales who suggested I post out here.
Specifically, I want to know about the difference in the two with the 256
table limit in views. Thanks.Hi,
Verify the below link:-
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/evalua...es/choosing.asp
Thanks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
"GregO" <GregO@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C8940D30-ACCC-48BB-AAB9-E04C0612A8B4@.microsoft.com...
> Can anyone please tell me the differences between the enterprise and
> standard
> versions. Spoke with Microsoft sales who suggested I post out here.
> Specifically, I want to know about the difference in the two with the 256
> table limit in views. Thanks.|||Don't think that limit changes with the edition. Standard vs. Enterprise is
more for things like clustering support, log shipping and the ability to use
more resources such as memory and CPUs
Kevin Hill
President
3NF Consulting
www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
www.DallasDBAs.com/forum - new DB forum for Dallas/Ft. Worth area DBAs.
www.experts-exchange.com - experts compete for points to answer your
questions
"GregO" <GregO@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C8940D30-ACCC-48BB-AAB9-E04C0612A8B4@.microsoft.com...
> Can anyone please tell me the differences between the enterprise and
> standard
> versions. Spoke with Microsoft sales who suggested I post out here.
> Specifically, I want to know about the difference in the two with the 256
> table limit in views. Thanks.|||Enterprise Edition has the same limit when it comes to maximum number of
tables references in a view.
Gert-Jan
GregO wrote:
> Can anyone please tell me the differences between the enterprise and stand
ard
> versions. Spoke with Microsoft sales who suggested I post out here.
> Specifically, I want to know about the difference in the two with the 256
> table limit in views. Thanks.|||Hi Grego
Just check this:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d...br />
1cdv.asp
best Regards,
Chandra
http://chanduas.blogspot.com/
http://groups.msn.com/SQLResource/
---
"GregO" wrote:

> Can anyone please tell me the differences between the enterprise and stand
ard
> versions. Spoke with Microsoft sales who suggested I post out here.
> Specifically, I want to know about the difference in the two with the 256
> table limit in views. Thanks.

Enterprise Vs standard edition

Can anyone tell me the difference between Enterprise
Edition and Standard Edition of SQL Server?
Thanks.Have you looked at this topic in Books Online?
Features Supported by the Editions of SQL Server 2000
--
Brian Moran
Principal Mentor
Solid Quality Learning
SQL Server MVP
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com
"Billy" <billya@.yahoo.com.uk> wrote in message
news:07a201c38ecd$b26e7890$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> Can anyone tell me the difference between Enterprise
> Edition and Standard Edition of SQL Server?
> Thanks.|||These links should help
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/evaluation/features/choosing.asp
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techinfo/planning/SQLResKChooseEd.asp
HTH
--
Ray Higdon MCSE, MCDBA, CCNA
--
"Billy" <billya@.yahoo.com.uk> wrote in message
news:07a201c38ecd$b26e7890$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> Can anyone tell me the difference between Enterprise
> Edition and Standard Edition of SQL Server?
> Thanks.

Enterprise vs Standard edition

Hello,
I installed sql server 2000 Enterprise edition on one of
my servers. It is currently being used. I found out today
that I was supposed to use Standard edition due to
licensing.
Is there any way to back down to Standard edition without
uninstalling and reinstalling?
Thanks
SteveHi,
No , you cant. Only way is to remove Enterprise edition and install Standard
edition. But the other way is possible.
THanks
Hari
MCDBA
"Steve" <ee07@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cfcb01c48aa7$f19e4730$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> I installed sql server 2000 Enterprise edition on one of
> my servers. It is currently being used. I found out today
> that I was supposed to use Standard edition due to
> licensing.
> Is there any way to back down to Standard edition without
> uninstalling and reinstalling?
> Thanks
> Steve|||Nope. You can upgrade from Standard to Enterprise, but you can't downgrade.
Uninstall and reinstall is the only way unfortunately. You can backup your
databases from Enterprise and restore them on Standard though.
--
Jacco Schalkwijk
SQL Server MVP
"Steve" <ee07@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cfcb01c48aa7$f19e4730$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> I installed sql server 2000 Enterprise edition on one of
> my servers. It is currently being used. I found out today
> that I was supposed to use Standard edition due to
> licensing.
> Is there any way to back down to Standard edition without
> uninstalling and reinstalling?
> Thanks
> Steve

Enterprise vs Standard edition

Hello,
I installed sql server 2000 Enterprise edition on one of
my servers. It is currently being used. I found out today
that I was supposed to use Standard edition due to
licensing.
Is there any way to back down to Standard edition without
uninstalling and reinstalling?
Thanks
Steve
Hi,
No , you cant. Only way is to remove Enterprise edition and install Standard
edition. But the other way is possible.
THanks
Hari
MCDBA
"Steve" <ee07@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cfcb01c48aa7$f19e4730$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> I installed sql server 2000 Enterprise edition on one of
> my servers. It is currently being used. I found out today
> that I was supposed to use Standard edition due to
> licensing.
> Is there any way to back down to Standard edition without
> uninstalling and reinstalling?
> Thanks
> Steve
|||Nope. You can upgrade from Standard to Enterprise, but you can't downgrade.
Uninstall and reinstall is the only way unfortunately. You can backup your
databases from Enterprise and restore them on Standard though.
Jacco Schalkwijk
SQL Server MVP
"Steve" <ee07@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cfcb01c48aa7$f19e4730$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> I installed sql server 2000 Enterprise edition on one of
> my servers. It is currently being used. I found out today
> that I was supposed to use Standard edition due to
> licensing.
> Is there any way to back down to Standard edition without
> uninstalling and reinstalling?
> Thanks
> Steve
sql

Enterprise vs Standard edition

Hello,
I installed sql server 2000 Enterprise edition on one of
my servers. It is currently being used. I found out today
that I was supposed to use Standard edition due to
licensing.
Is there any way to back down to Standard edition without
uninstalling and reinstalling?
Thanks
SteveHi,
No , you cant. Only way is to remove Enterprise edition and install Standard
edition. But the other way is possible.
THanks
Hari
MCDBA
"Steve" <ee07@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cfcb01c48aa7$f19e4730$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> I installed sql server 2000 Enterprise edition on one of
> my servers. It is currently being used. I found out today
> that I was supposed to use Standard edition due to
> licensing.
> Is there any way to back down to Standard edition without
> uninstalling and reinstalling?
> Thanks
> Steve|||Nope. You can upgrade from Standard to Enterprise, but you can't downgrade.
Uninstall and reinstall is the only way unfortunately. You can backup your
databases from Enterprise and restore them on Standard though.
Jacco Schalkwijk
SQL Server MVP
"Steve" <ee07@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cfcb01c48aa7$f19e4730$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> I installed sql server 2000 Enterprise edition on one of
> my servers. It is currently being used. I found out today
> that I was supposed to use Standard edition due to
> licensing.
> Is there any way to back down to Standard edition without
> uninstalling and reinstalling?
> Thanks
> Steve

Enterprise vs Standard

After performing an Audit we discovered that my
predicessor inadvertantly installed a SQL 2000 Enterprise
Edition instead of Standard.
This weekend I will be upgrading to a new Server and wish
to use this window to convert to the proper version of
SQL 2000.
It is my understanding that you can upgrade Standard to
Enterprise but cannot perform the reverse.
My question is, are the System databases the same between
versions.
I realize that master.spt_server_info.attribute_id Value
2 would need to be changed (DBMS_VER) as well as
attribute 500 (SYS_SPROC_VERSION)
Other than that does any body know why I cannot do the
following.
1. Backup all Databases on Original Server.
2. Modify the DBMS_VER. and SYS_SPROC_VERSION.
2. Stop All SQL Services on Original Services.
3. Copy All mdf and ldf to a network storage local.
4. Shut down the Original Server.
5. Remove the Original Server from Active Directory.
6. Boot up the New Server with the original IP Address
and Computer name.
7. Install SQL 2000 Standard.
8. Install SP 3a.
9. Stop All SQL Services.
10. Copy all mdfs and ldfs from the network storage to
the proper folder on the new Server.
11. Restart the SQL services.
Does anyone see any major problems with this?
I know I could just attach the the Database but then I
would have to re-write all jobs and create all users in
the master DB providing the SID and Password. SID are not
a problem, but some of the Passwords may be difficult to
come by. (Damn my predisesor!).Your scheme should work, from an architectural standpoint. And it most
probably will. But it is not supported, so give yourself time to verify that
everything seems OK after the switch. You need to make sure that you have
the same directory structure for the SQL Server database files.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
"A Dubey" <adubey@.winstead.com> wrote in message
news:de1d01c40ae6$121701b0$a101280a@.phx.gbl...
> After performing an Audit we discovered that my
> predicessor inadvertantly installed a SQL 2000 Enterprise
> Edition instead of Standard.
> This weekend I will be upgrading to a new Server and wish
> to use this window to convert to the proper version of
> SQL 2000.
> It is my understanding that you can upgrade Standard to
> Enterprise but cannot perform the reverse.
> My question is, are the System databases the same between
> versions.
> I realize that master.spt_server_info.attribute_id Value
> 2 would need to be changed (DBMS_VER) as well as
> attribute 500 (SYS_SPROC_VERSION)
> Other than that does any body know why I cannot do the
> following.
> 1. Backup all Databases on Original Server.
> 2. Modify the DBMS_VER. and SYS_SPROC_VERSION.
> 2. Stop All SQL Services on Original Services.
> 3. Copy All mdf and ldf to a network storage local.
> 4. Shut down the Original Server.
> 5. Remove the Original Server from Active Directory.
> 6. Boot up the New Server with the original IP Address
> and Computer name.
> 7. Install SQL 2000 Standard.
> 8. Install SP 3a.
> 9. Stop All SQL Services.
> 10. Copy all mdfs and ldfs from the network storage to
> the proper folder on the new Server.
> 11. Restart the SQL services.
> Does anyone see any major problems with this?
> I know I could just attach the the Database but then I
> would have to re-write all jobs and create all users in
> the master DB providing the SID and Password. SID are not
> a problem, but some of the Passwords may be difficult to
> come by. (Damn my predisesor!).|||Thanks,
I felt like it would, Just wanted to get a little feed
back incase I was missing something.
AD
>--Original Message--
>Your scheme should work, from an architectural
standpoint. And it most
>probably will. But it is not supported, so give yourself
time to verify that
>everything seems OK after the switch. You need to make
sure that you have
>the same directory structure for the SQL Server database
files.
>--
>Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
>http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
>
>"A Dubey" <adubey@.winstead.com> wrote in message
>news:de1d01c40ae6$121701b0$a101280a@.phx.gbl...
Enterprise
wish
between
Value
not
to
>
>.
>

Enterprise versus Standard edition (2000 or 2005)

Hi All
I am a little puzzled now
Simple (or maybe not so simple) question
Is the Enterprise versions more "stable" or "usable" than the Standard
versions?
I got an email today stating this:
" (...) runs on the standard edition they may well run into problems down
the line with performance and usability"
Obviously Enterprise versions scales much better than standard versions and
the Enterprise versions has some features not supported in Standard versions
But consider a small server with max 2 cpu's and max 4Gb mem and max eg 50
users and only light load
Nothing special like data replication etc is used, you could use eg PostGRE
instead and you'll be fine
Any comments? - please :)
- Peter
--
Hi! I'm a .signature *virus*!
Copy me into your ~/.signature to help me spread!No difference regarding stability. As for usability, well, that can only mean that EE has features
that SE don't. If you don't need those features, then go for SE.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Peter Lykkegaard" <plykkegaard@.nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:%23Ka01e7OHHA.2232@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Hi All
> I am a little puzzled now
> Simple (or maybe not so simple) question
> Is the Enterprise versions more "stable" or "usable" than the Standard versions?
> I got an email today stating this:
> " (...) runs on the standard edition they may well run into problems down the line with
> performance and usability"
> Obviously Enterprise versions scales much better than standard versions and the Enterprise
> versions has some features not supported in Standard versions
> But consider a small server with max 2 cpu's and max 4Gb mem and max eg 50 users and only light
> load
> Nothing special like data replication etc is used, you could use eg PostGRE instead and you'll be
> fine
> Any comments? - please :)
> - Peter
> --
> Hi! I'm a .signature *virus*!
> Copy me into your ~/.signature to help me spread!
>|||Hi,
for the reference see the feature list on the MS website:
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/features/compare-features.mspx
HTH, jens K. Suessmeyer.
--
http://www.sqlserver2005.de
--|||Peter Lykkegaard wrote:
> Hi All
> I am a little puzzled now
> Simple (or maybe not so simple) question
> Is the Enterprise versions more "stable" or "usable" than the Standard
> versions?
> I got an email today stating this:
> " (...) runs on the standard edition they may well run into problems down
> the line with performance and usability"
> Obviously Enterprise versions scales much better than standard versions and
> the Enterprise versions has some features not supported in Standard versions
> But consider a small server with max 2 cpu's and max 4Gb mem and max eg 50
> users and only light load
> Nothing special like data replication etc is used, you could use eg PostGRE
> instead and you'll be fine
> Any comments? - please :)
> - Peter
>
I've never heard any claims that one is more/less stable than the other.
Standard is limited in the amount of memory it can use, thus *may* not
perform as well as Enterprise under the right conditions. Enterprise
also offers some tools and features that Standard doesn't, but certainly
nothing affecting stability.
Tracy McKibben
MCDBA
http://www.realsqlguy.com|||Jens wrote:
> for the reference see the feature list on the MS website:
Thanks :)
Online Restore and Fast Recovery could be of interest in some cases but only
as nice to have
- Peter
--
Hi! I'm a .signature *virus*!
Copy me into your ~/.signature to help me spread!

Enterprise versus Standard edition (2000 or 2005)

Peter Lykkegaard wrote:
> Hi All
> I am a little puzzled now
> Simple (or maybe not so simple) question
> Is the Enterprise versions more "stable" or "usable" than the Standard
> versions?
> I got an email today stating this:
> " (...) runs on the standard edition they may well run into problems down
> the line with performance and usability"
> Obviously Enterprise versions scales much better than standard versions and
> the Enterprise versions has some features not supported in Standard versions
> But consider a small server with max 2 cpu's and max 4Gb mem and max eg 50
> users and only light load
> Nothing special like data replication etc is used, you could use eg PostGRE
> instead and you'll be fine
> Any comments? - please
> - Peter
>
I've never heard any claims that one is more/less stable than the other.
Standard is limited in the amount of memory it can use, thus *may* not
perform as well as Enterprise under the right conditions. Enterprise
also offers some tools and features that Standard doesn't, but certainly
nothing affecting stability.
Tracy McKibben
MCDBA
http://www.realsqlguy.com
Hello Tracy,
Standard is only limited to the memory supported by the OS. With 64 bit edition
the max is 32TB. Thats not very limiting.
I really stuggle to find a reason to use Enterprise
Given cost of hardware, its probably cheaper to have 2 standard edition boxes
that you load balance than 1 enterprise edition. With this you can do maintenance
on one whilst the other is still up.
I just but an order in for a 4 way dual core server with 32Gb of ram and
almost 1Tb of storage for 12k, thats 3k per proc which is much less than
the difference between Ent and standard
Simon Sabin
SQL Server MVP
http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/simons

> Peter Lykkegaard wrote:
> I've never heard any claims that one is more/less stable than the
> other.
> Standard is limited in the amount of memory it can use, thus *may*
> not
> perform as well as Enterprise under the right conditions. Enterprise
> also offers some tools and features that Standard doesn't, but
> certainly nothing affecting stability.
>
|||IMO, online index rebuilds is enough reason to go with Enterprise if
you're in a high-availability environment.
-Dave
Simon Sabin wrote:

> Hello Tracy,
> Standard is only limited to the memory supported by the OS. With 64 bit
> edition the max is 32TB. Thats not very limiting.
> I really stuggle to find a reason to use Enterprise
> Given cost of hardware, its probably cheaper to have 2 standard edition
> boxes that you load balance than 1 enterprise edition. With this you can
> do maintenance on one whilst the other is still up.
> I just but an order in for a 4 way dual core server with 32Gb of ram and
> almost 1Tb of storage for 12k, thats 3k per proc which is much less
> than the difference between Ent and standard
>
> Simon Sabin
> SQL Server MVP
> http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/simons
>
>
|||Simon Sabin wrote:
> Hello Tracy,
> Standard is only limited to the memory supported by the OS. With 64 bit
> edition the max is 32TB. Thats not very limiting.
>
This is true with SQL 2005, but not with SQL 2000.
Tracy McKibben
MCDBA
http://www.realsqlguy.com

Enterprise versus Standard edition (2000 or 2005)

Hi All
I am a little puzzled now
Simple (or maybe not so simple) question
Is the Enterprise versions more "stable" or "usable" than the Standard
versions?
I got an email today stating this:
" (...) runs on the standard edition they may well run into problems down
the line with performance and usability"
Obviously Enterprise versions scales much better than standard versions and
the Enterprise versions has some features not supported in Standard versions
But consider a small server with max 2 cpu's and max 4Gb mem and max eg 50
users and only light load
Nothing special like data replication etc is used, you could use eg PostGRE
instead and you'll be fine
Any comments? - please
- Peter
Hi! I'm a .signature *virus*!
Copy me into your ~/.signature to help me spread!No difference regarding stability. As for usability, well, that can only mea
n that EE has features
that SE don't. If you don't need those features, then go for SE.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Peter Lykkegaard" <plykkegaard@.nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:%23Ka01e7OHHA.2232@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Hi All
> I am a little puzzled now
> Simple (or maybe not so simple) question
> Is the Enterprise versions more "stable" or "usable" than the Standard ver
sions?
> I got an email today stating this:
> " (...) runs on the standard edition they may well run into problems down
the line with
> performance and usability"
> Obviously Enterprise versions scales much better than standard versions an
d the Enterprise
> versions has some features not supported in Standard versions
> But consider a small server with max 2 cpu's and max 4Gb mem and max eg 50
users and only light
> load
> Nothing special like data replication etc is used, you could use eg PostGR
E instead and you'll be
> fine
> Any comments? - please
> - Peter
> --
> Hi! I'm a .signature *virus*!
> Copy me into your ~/.signature to help me spread!
>|||Hi,
for the reference see the feature list on the MS website:
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodin...e-features.mspx
HTH, jens K. Suessmeyer.
http://www.sqlserver2005.de
--|||Peter Lykkegaard wrote:
> Hi All
> I am a little puzzled now
> Simple (or maybe not so simple) question
> Is the Enterprise versions more "stable" or "usable" than the Standard
> versions?
> I got an email today stating this:
> " (...) runs on the standard edition they may well run into problems down
> the line with performance and usability"
> Obviously Enterprise versions scales much better than standard versions an
d
> the Enterprise versions has some features not supported in Standard versio
ns
> But consider a small server with max 2 cpu's and max 4Gb mem and max eg 50
> users and only light load
> Nothing special like data replication etc is used, you could use eg PostGR
E
> instead and you'll be fine
> Any comments? - please
> - Peter
>
I've never heard any claims that one is more/less stable than the other.
Standard is limited in the amount of memory it can use, thus *may* not
perform as well as Enterprise under the right conditions. Enterprise
also offers some tools and features that Standard doesn't, but certainly
nothing affecting stability.
Tracy McKibben
MCDBA
http://www.realsqlguy.com|||Jens wrote:
> for the reference see the feature list on the MS website:
Thanks
Online Restore and Fast Recovery could be of interest in some cases but only
as nice to have
- Peter
Hi! I'm a .signature *virus*!
Copy me into your ~/.signature to help me spread!|||Hello Tracy,
Standard is only limited to the memory supported by the OS. With 64 bit edit
ion
the max is 32TB. Thats not very limiting.
I really stuggle to find a reason to use Enterprise
Given cost of hardware, its probably cheaper to have 2 standard edition boxe
s
that you load balance than 1 enterprise edition. With this you can do mainte
nance
on one whilst the other is still up.
I just but an order in for a 4 way dual core server with 32Gb of ram and
almost 1Tb of storage for 12k, thats 3k per proc which is much less than
the difference between Ent and standard
Simon Sabin
SQL Server MVP
http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/simons

> Peter Lykkegaard wrote:
>
> I've never heard any claims that one is more/less stable than the
> other.
> Standard is limited in the amount of memory it can use, thus *may*
> not
> perform as well as Enterprise under the right conditions. Enterprise
> also offers some tools and features that Standard doesn't, but
> certainly nothing affecting stability.
>|||Simon Sabin wrote:
> Standard is only limited to the memory supported by the OS. With 64
> bit edition the max is 32TB. Thats not very limiting.
>
For 2005 Std there's no limit on memory - I can't recall if 2000 Std has a
limit?

> I really stuggle to find a reason to use Enterprise
Absolutely

> Given cost of hardware, its probably cheaper to have 2 standard
> edition boxes that you load balance than 1 enterprise edition. With
> this you can do maintenance on one whilst the other is still up.
>
2005 Std supports 2 node failover clustering
For 2000 you needed the Enterprise to do the clustering tango
Btw number of CPU's?
Is this number of processors or physical CPU's?
4 Xeon with HT gives you 8 processors in task manager
Thanks/Peter
Hi! I'm a .signature *virus*!
Copy me into your ~/.signature to help me spread!|||IMO, online index rebuilds is enough reason to go with Enterprise if
you're in a high-availability environment.
-Dave
Simon Sabin wrote:

> Hello Tracy,
> Standard is only limited to the memory supported by the OS. With 64 bit
> edition the max is 32TB. Thats not very limiting.
> I really stuggle to find a reason to use Enterprise
> Given cost of hardware, its probably cheaper to have 2 standard edition
> boxes that you load balance than 1 enterprise edition. With this you can
> do maintenance on one whilst the other is still up.
> I just but an order in for a 4 way dual core server with 32Gb of ram and
> almost 1Tb of storage for 12k, thats 3k per proc which is much less
> than the difference between Ent and standard
>
> Simon Sabin
> SQL Server MVP
> http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/simons
>
>|||Dave Markle" wrote:

> IMO, online index rebuilds is enough reason to go with Enterprise if
> you're in a high-availability environment.
>
Online indexing also has some negative sideeffects
http://www.databasejournal.com/feat...cle.php/3447711
- Peter
Hi! I'm a .signature *virus*!
Copy me into your ~/.signature to help me spread!|||> Btw number of CPU's?
> Is this number of processors or physical CPU's?
It is number pf sockets. So, you can have (for instance) 4 dual core hyperth
readed, which would give
you 16 logical processors but still only pay for 4 "processors".
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Peter Lykkegaard" <plykkegaard@.nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:eh4ja9BPHHA.4820@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Simon Sabin wrote:
> For 2005 Std there's no limit on memory - I can't recall if 2000 Std has a
limit?
>
> Absolutely
>
> 2005 Std supports 2 node failover clustering
> For 2000 you needed the Enterprise to do the clustering tango
> Btw number of CPU's?
> Is this number of processors or physical CPU's?
> 4 Xeon with HT gives you 8 processors in task manager
> Thanks/Peter
> --
> Hi! I'm a .signature *virus*!
> Copy me into your ~/.signature to help me spread!
>sql

Enterprise to Standard downgrade

We have a SQL 2000 server running Enterprise Edition. We also have a separate machine running SQL 2000, Standard edition. We then detached the database from the Enterprise server, copied the MDF and LDF files to the Standard server and reattached. Currently, a program running on the Standard Edition server is returning an error message when trying to access "systables". The questions are as follows:
1) is this error a result of the copy process?
2) is this a recoverable error, and if so, how?
3) are there any other problems and side-effects of which we need to be aware?I have moved databases between Standard and Enterprise several times before, and not had this issue, so it can be done. Without any other information, I can only guess as to why this is happening, but here is my guess:

The user-account being used by the program that is throwing the error probably has a different default database setting than on the Enterprise version. In other words, UserX on the Enterprise server probably has a default database pointing to the application database, and on the Standard edition has a default database of something like Master.

This would cause a problem in implicit database references. If the program issues a command like SELECT * FROM systables, thinking it is going to automatically be pointing to the application database, but is actually pointing to something else, it will not be able to find systables. The proper syntax for the query would explicitly state the table name SELECT * FROM [dbname].dbo.systables, in which case the default database setting of the user would not affect the code.|||The default database for the user is the same on both servers. Any other ideas? Is there any other information I could give that might be of assistance?

Originally posted by bpdWork
I have moved databases between Standard and Enterprise several times before, and not had this issue, so it can be done. Without any other information, I can only guess as to why this is happening, but here is my guess:

The user-account being used by the program that is throwing the error probably has a different default database setting than on the Enterprise version. In other words, UserX on the Enterprise server probably has a default database pointing to the application database, and on the Standard edition has a default database of something like Master.

This would cause a problem in implicit database references. If the program issues a command like SELECT * FROM systables, thinking it is going to automatically be pointing to the application database, but is actually pointing to something else, it will not be able to find systables. The proper syntax for the query would explicitly state the table name SELECT * FROM [dbname].dbo.systables, in which case the default database setting of the user would not affect the code.|||1) Are you sure the database you moved has the table systables, and that it is not in a different database?

2) Does the user account being used by the application have SELECT (etc) permissions for the table?

The exact error message might be helpful.|||check the service pack level|||We've found the issue. Basically, an error was made during the installation of the software. To everyone, thanks for the help.

enterprise to standard

dear all,

if one has purchased enterprise edition of sql server, could he install the standard version instead of the enterprise one without violating software license?

regards

My suggestion would be to contact the vendor that you purchased the licenese through and check with them.

Thanks,
Sam Lester (MSFT)