Additional Components?

I have a clustered SQL installed but never added the
Replication feature along with the initial setup.
Now I ned to configure replication and thought I could
just go back to the origianl setup files, modify the
installation, add the componenets I need...and I'd be
done. No such luck!
When I go through the setup diologue the option to modify
an existing installation is -not- available and I can't
figure out why.
If someone can help me out I'd sure appreciate it....
TIA,
Jay
After you install a virtual instance of SQL Server on your computer, you cannot add the SQL Server components to your virtual instance of SQL Server by running the Setup
program. To work around this problem, you must remove the virtual instance of SQL Server from your computer and then reinstall the virtual instance of SQL Server by
using a custom installation.
This is documented in Microsoft Knowledge Base article
You cannot add SQL Server components to an existing virtual instance of SQL Server by running the Setup program
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=867650
Best Regards,
Uttam Parui
Microsoft Corporation
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Are you secure? For information about the Strategic Technology Protection Program and to order your FREE Security Tool Kit, please visit
http://www.microsoft.com/security.
Microsoft highly recommends that users with Internet access update their Microsoft software to better protect against viruses and security vulnerabilities. The easiest way
to do this is to visit the following websites: http://www.microsoft.com/protect
http://www.microsoft.com/security/guidance/default.mspx
|||Thanks Uttam!!
How is RRE life treating you...?

>--Original Message--
>After you install a virtual instance of SQL Server on
your computer, you cannot add the SQL Server components to
your virtual instance of SQL Server by running the Setup
>program. To work around this problem, you must remove
the virtual instance of SQL Server from your computer and
then reinstall the virtual instance of SQL Server by
>using a custom installation.
>This is documented in Microsoft Knowledge Base article
>You cannot add SQL Server components to an existing
virtual instance of SQL Server by running the Setup program
>http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=867650
>Best Regards,
>Uttam Parui
>Microsoft Corporation
>This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and
confers no rights.
>Are you secure? For information about the Strategic
Technology Protection Program and to order your FREE
Security Tool Kit, please visit
>http://www.microsoft.com/security.
>Microsoft highly recommends that users with Internet
access update their Microsoft software to better protect
against viruses and security vulnerabilities. The easiest
way
>to do this is to visit the following websites:
http://www.microsoft.com/protect
>http://www.microsoft.com/security/guidance/default.mspx
>
>.
>
|||You are most welcome.
Life is good -- learning something new everyday.
Best Regards,
Uttam Parui
Microsoft Corporation
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Are you secure? For information about the Strategic Technology Protection Program and to order your FREE Security Tool Kit, please visit
http://www.microsoft.com/security.
Microsoft highly recommends that users with Internet access update their Microsoft software to better protect against viruses and security vulnerabilities. The easiest way
to do this is to visit the following websites: http://www.microsoft.com/protect
http://www.microsoft.com/security/guidance/default.mspx

Adding Spindals on Cluster to SAN

How much work is it to add spindals to a drive on a
Windows 2000 Advanced Server clustered on a SAN?
Thank You,
Dave
You will need Veritas volume manager to expand the logical drive at the OS
level under Windows 2000. What happens at the SAN level depends on your SAN
vendor.
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
www.sqlpass.org
"Dave" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:59bf01c42d50$5c2ec8a0$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
> How much work is it to add spindals to a drive on a
> Windows 2000 Advanced Server clustered on a SAN?
> Thank You,
> Dave
|||Dave -
Because we don't use Veritas we generally just add another drive to the
cluster, and make sure that the new drive does not share any spindals with
the old drive on the SAN. Then we just balance our data files.
Craig
ccarl@.mcafee.com
"Dave" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:59bf01c42d50$5c2ec8a0$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
> How much work is it to add spindals to a drive on a
> Windows 2000 Advanced Server clustered on a SAN?
> Thank You,
> Dave
|||If you wish to add physical disks to the same volume presented to your nodes in the cluster, assuming your SAN vendor supports it:
1. Add the new disks to the disk pool
2. Use diskpart (from the W2K resource kit - it comes with the o/s in W2K3) to "list volume" then "select volume" x and then "extend" the partition.
Note1: You must use diskpart 5.1 or newer (some of the earlier versions are dodgy)
Note2: This is an on-line operation and causes no disruption to current SQL operations.

Adding Processors

Hi,
Hope that someone can help me on this.
If I have a 2 nodes clustered SQL Server 2000 (active/passive) and each
server has 2 processors during the installation of SQL Server 2000. Now I
wanted to add 2 more processors onto each server to increase performance.
Will SQL Server 2000 automatically pickup the 2 new processors?
Thanks in advance,
Alex
"Alex" <Yukon@.nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:euNxLVMcEHA.1144@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> If I have a 2 nodes clustered SQL Server 2000 (active/passive) and each
> server has 2 processors during the installation of SQL Server 2000. Now I
> wanted to add 2 more processors onto each server to increase performance.
> Will SQL Server 2000 automatically pickup the 2 new processors?
>
Assuming you are running on Windows 2000 or better? The answer is yes it
will, you could verify that by checking the sql server properties. Processor
tab.
Steve
|||Alex,
Sure, why not? Unless you have set the affinity mask to manage how many
processors SQL Server can use. (In general, don't set the affinity mask.)
Russell Fields
"Alex" <Yukon@.nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:euNxLVMcEHA.1144@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> Hope that someone can help me on this.
> If I have a 2 nodes clustered SQL Server 2000 (active/passive) and each
> server has 2 processors during the installation of SQL Server 2000. Now I
> wanted to add 2 more processors onto each server to increase performance.
> Will SQL Server 2000 automatically pickup the 2 new processors?
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Alex
>
|||Russell and Steve,
Thanks for the information.
Alex
"Russell Fields" <RussellFields@.NoMailPlease.Com> wrote in message
news:OBqaovNcEHA.2520@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Alex,
> Sure, why not? Unless you have set the affinity mask to manage how many
> processors SQL Server can use. (In general, don't set the affinity mask.)
> Russell Fields
> "Alex" <Yukon@.nospam.nospam> wrote in message
> news:euNxLVMcEHA.1144@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
I[vbcol=seagreen]
performance.
>

Adding Processors

Hi,
Hope that someone can help me on this.
If I have a 2 nodes clustered SQL Server 2000 (active/passive) and each
server has 2 processors during the installation of SQL Server 2000. Now I
wanted to add 2 more processors onto each server to increase performance.
Will SQL Server 2000 automatically pickup the 2 new processors?
Thanks in advance,
Alex"Alex" <Yukon@.nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:euNxLVMcEHA.1144@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> If I have a 2 nodes clustered SQL Server 2000 (active/passive) and each
> server has 2 processors during the installation of SQL Server 2000. Now I
> wanted to add 2 more processors onto each server to increase performance.
> Will SQL Server 2000 automatically pickup the 2 new processors?
>
Assuming you are running on Windows 2000 or better? The answer is yes it
will, you could verify that by checking the sql server properties. Processor
tab.
Steve|||Alex,
Sure, why not? Unless you have set the affinity mask to manage how many
processors SQL Server can use. (In general, don't set the affinity mask.)
Russell Fields
"Alex" <Yukon@.nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:euNxLVMcEHA.1144@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> Hope that someone can help me on this.
> If I have a 2 nodes clustered SQL Server 2000 (active/passive) and each
> server has 2 processors during the installation of SQL Server 2000. Now I
> wanted to add 2 more processors onto each server to increase performance.
> Will SQL Server 2000 automatically pickup the 2 new processors?
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Alex
>|||Russell and Steve,
Thanks for the information.
Alex
"Russell Fields" <RussellFields@.NoMailPlease.Com> wrote in message
news:OBqaovNcEHA.2520@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Alex,
> Sure, why not? Unless you have set the affinity mask to manage how many
> processors SQL Server can use. (In general, don't set the affinity mask.)
> Russell Fields
> "Alex" <Yukon@.nospam.nospam> wrote in message
> news:euNxLVMcEHA.1144@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
I[vbcol=seagreen]
performance.[vbcol=seagreen]
>

Adding Processors

Hi,
Hope that someone can help me on this.
If I have a 2 nodes clustered SQL Server 2000 (active/passive) and each
server has 2 processors during the installation of SQL Server 2000. Now I
wanted to add 2 more processors onto each server to increase performance.
Will SQL Server 2000 automatically pickup the 2 new processors?
Thanks in advance,
Alex"Alex" <Yukon@.nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:euNxLVMcEHA.1144@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> If I have a 2 nodes clustered SQL Server 2000 (active/passive) and each
> server has 2 processors during the installation of SQL Server 2000. Now I
> wanted to add 2 more processors onto each server to increase performance.
> Will SQL Server 2000 automatically pickup the 2 new processors?
>
Assuming you are running on Windows 2000 or better? The answer is yes it
will, you could verify that by checking the sql server properties. Processor
tab.
Steve|||Alex,
Sure, why not? Unless you have set the affinity mask to manage how many
processors SQL Server can use. (In general, don't set the affinity mask.)
Russell Fields
"Alex" <Yukon@.nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:euNxLVMcEHA.1144@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> Hope that someone can help me on this.
> If I have a 2 nodes clustered SQL Server 2000 (active/passive) and each
> server has 2 processors during the installation of SQL Server 2000. Now I
> wanted to add 2 more processors onto each server to increase performance.
> Will SQL Server 2000 automatically pickup the 2 new processors?
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Alex
>|||Russell and Steve,
Thanks for the information.
Alex
"Russell Fields" <RussellFields@.NoMailPlease.Com> wrote in message
news:OBqaovNcEHA.2520@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Alex,
> Sure, why not? Unless you have set the affinity mask to manage how many
> processors SQL Server can use. (In general, don't set the affinity mask.)
> Russell Fields
> "Alex" <Yukon@.nospam.nospam> wrote in message
> news:euNxLVMcEHA.1144@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > Hi,
> >
> > Hope that someone can help me on this.
> >
> > If I have a 2 nodes clustered SQL Server 2000 (active/passive) and each
> > server has 2 processors during the installation of SQL Server 2000. Now
I
> > wanted to add 2 more processors onto each server to increase
performance.
> > Will SQL Server 2000 automatically pickup the 2 new processors?
> >
> >
> > Thanks in advance,
> > Alex
> >
> >
>

Adding Order by on clustered index

Hi all

I recently noticed when trying to optimise a major query of a chess website
I am the webmaster of, that adding an order by for "gamenumber" which is a
clustered index field as in for example "order by timeleft desc, gamenumber
desc" actually speeded up the queries and reduced sql server 2000 timeouts.
I have an ASP error log and I am fairly sure that a dramatic reduction in
sql server timeouts is simply attributed to adding an extra seemingly
redundant order by field - which is the clustered index. Is this phenomena
at all possible or is it my imagination?!

Other special attributes of the query includes the use of "Top" to obtain a
maximum specified number of rows. Perhaps it is just the unique
characteristics of the query, but I would have thought that the less order
by fields would imply faster performance. Has anyone else noticed that a
seemingly redundant order by column on for example the clustered index
column, can actually help speed up queries?!

Best wishes
Tryfon Gavriel
Webmaster
www.chessworld.net> I have an ASP error log and I am fairly sure that a dramatic reduction in
> sql server timeouts is simply attributed to adding an extra seemingly
> redundant order by field - which is the clustered index. Is this
> phenomena
> at all possible or is it my imagination?!

Apparently, SQL Server is choosing a more efficient execution plan to
satisfy your ORDER BY specification. This implies that the plan without the
ORDER BY is sub-optimal and may be an indication that statistics need to be
updated. There may be other factors but it's difficult to say without DDL
and sample data that demonstrates the problem.

ORDER BY is never redundant. Regardless of any indexes, SQL Server can
return rows in any sequence it deems appropriate unless ORDER BY is
explicitly specified. Similarly TOP n is meaningless without ORDER BY. If
ORDER BY is not specified, any rows can be returned.

--
Hope this helps.

Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP

"Tryfon Gavriel" <tryfon@.gtryfon.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cniegl$k8p$1$8300dec7@.news.demon.co.uk...
> Hi all
> I recently noticed when trying to optimise a major query of a chess
> website
> I am the webmaster of, that adding an order by for "gamenumber" which is a
> clustered index field as in for example "order by timeleft desc,
> gamenumber
> desc" actually speeded up the queries and reduced sql server 2000
> timeouts.
> I have an ASP error log and I am fairly sure that a dramatic reduction in
> sql server timeouts is simply attributed to adding an extra seemingly
> redundant order by field - which is the clustered index. Is this
> phenomena
> at all possible or is it my imagination?!
> Other special attributes of the query includes the use of "Top" to obtain
> a
> maximum specified number of rows. Perhaps it is just the unique
> characteristics of the query, but I would have thought that the less order
> by fields would imply faster performance. Has anyone else noticed that a
> seemingly redundant order by column on for example the clustered index
> column, can actually help speed up queries?!
> Best wishes
> Tryfon Gavriel
> Webmaster
> www.chessworld.net|||> Other special attributes of the query includes the use of "Top" to obtain a
> maximum specified number of rows. Perhaps it is just the unique

If you just added a Top N, that should have a dramatic impact.

> characteristics of the query, but I would have thought that the less order
> by fields would imply faster performance. Has anyone else noticed that a
> seemingly redundant order by column on for example the clustered index
> column, can actually help speed up queries?!

If the query was sorting on anything other than the clustered index,
or if the records were coming out in no particular order, and not in
order by the clustering, that will help, too.

A "clustered" table is saved in order, row-by-row, so when you want
your data back in order, it doesn't have to sort the data. Just do a
table scan, and they'll come back already sorted. So if you sort on
something else, you're giving up that optimization, and then having to
sort on something else, too.|||> A "clustered" table is saved in order, row-by-row, so when you want
> your data back in order, it doesn't have to sort the data. Just do a
> table scan, and they'll come back already sorted.

Just to be clear, SQL server may choose an access method that causes rows to
be returned out-of-sequence even with a simple query against a table with a
clustered index. ORDER BY *must* be specified when you want to ensure data
are returned in a particular order.

--
Hope this helps.

Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP

"Forrest" <ValhallaPhotos@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9d371039.0411182019.1014f0ed@.posting.google.c om...
>> Other special attributes of the query includes the use of "Top" to obtain
>> a
>> maximum specified number of rows. Perhaps it is just the unique
> If you just added a Top N, that should have a dramatic impact.
>> characteristics of the query, but I would have thought that the less
>> order
>> by fields would imply faster performance. Has anyone else noticed that a
>> seemingly redundant order by column on for example the clustered index
>> column, can actually help speed up queries?!
> If the query was sorting on anything other than the clustered index,
> or if the records were coming out in no particular order, and not in
> order by the clustering, that will help, too.
> A "clustered" table is saved in order, row-by-row, so when you want
> your data back in order, it doesn't have to sort the data. Just do a
> table scan, and they'll come back already sorted. So if you sort on
> something else, you're giving up that optimization, and then having to
> sort on something else, too.|||Dan Guzman (guzmanda@.nospam-online.sbcglobal.net) writes:
>> A "clustered" table is saved in order, row-by-row, so when you want
>> your data back in order, it doesn't have to sort the data. Just do a
>> table scan, and they'll come back already sorted.
> Just to be clear, SQL server may choose an access method that causes
> rows to be returned out-of-sequence even with a simple query against a
> table with a clustered index. ORDER BY *must* be specified when you
> want to ensure data are returned in a particular order.

Just to elaborate on Dan's comment a little more. In SQL Server 6.5 you
could be fairly sure that the rows would be returned in order of the
clustered index if you said things like:

SELECT * FROM tbl

But in SQL7 and later, SQL Server may open parallel streams on the table,
and the result is likely to be semi-ordered (which could be deceivable).
This is particularly true for large queries.

(In all versions of SQL Serger, a WHERE clause a on column with a non-
clustered index or a Select list covered by a non-covered index is likely
to use that index as the starting point for the return order.)

Thus, to echo Dan: you *must* specify ORDER BY if you want a certain order.

--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se

Books Online for SQL Server SP3 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techin.../2000/books.asp

adding disk to existing clustered sql 2000 instance

hi guys
i had 2 sql instances in win2003. I uninstalled one instance. How do i add
the disks to the existing/active instance?
TIAHi
Move the disks to the SQL Server group you want to add them to. Take the
group offline, create a dependency for SQL Server on the new disks and bring
the group online again.
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"rupart" wrote:

> hi guys
> i had 2 sql instances in win2003. I uninstalled one instance. How do i add
> the disks to the existing/active instance?
> TIA|||hi Mike,
i tried to create the resource(physical disk) but couldnt see the disks
under the list...
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi
> Move the disks to the SQL Server group you want to add them to. Take the
> group offline, create a dependency for SQL Server on the new disks and bri
ng
> the group online again.
> Regards
> --
> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Zurich, Switzerland
> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
>
> "rupart" wrote:
>

adding disk to existing clustered sql 2000 instance

hi guys
i had 2 sql instances in win2003. I uninstalled one instance. How do i add
the disks to the existing/active instance?
TIA
Hi
Move the disks to the SQL Server group you want to add them to. Take the
group offline, create a dependency for SQL Server on the new disks and bring
the group online again.
Regards
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"rupart" wrote:

> hi guys
> i had 2 sql instances in win2003. I uninstalled one instance. How do i add
> the disks to the existing/active instance?
> TIA
|||hi Mike,
i tried to create the resource(physical disk) but couldnt see the disks
under the list...
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi
> Move the disks to the SQL Server group you want to add them to. Take the
> group offline, create a dependency for SQL Server on the new disks and bring
> the group online again.
> Regards
> --
> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Zurich, Switzerland
> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
>
> "rupart" wrote:

adding disk to existing clustered sql 2000 instance

hi guys
i had 2 sql instances in win2003. I uninstalled one instance. How do i add
the disks to the existing/active instance?
TIAHi
Move the disks to the SQL Server group you want to add them to. Take the
group offline, create a dependency for SQL Server on the new disks and bring
the group online again.
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"rupart" wrote:
> hi guys
> i had 2 sql instances in win2003. I uninstalled one instance. How do i add
> the disks to the existing/active instance?
> TIA|||hi Mike,
i tried to create the resource(physical disk) but couldnt see the disks
under the list...
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
> Hi
> Move the disks to the SQL Server group you want to add them to. Take the
> group offline, create a dependency for SQL Server on the new disks and bring
> the group online again.
> Regards
> --
> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Zurich, Switzerland
> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
>
> "rupart" wrote:
> > hi guys
> > i had 2 sql instances in win2003. I uninstalled one instance. How do i add
> > the disks to the existing/active instance?
> >
> > TIA