Instances of SQL

Hi,

Is it possible to install more than one instance of SQL on the same server?
I am thinking of the SQL that comes with Windows 2003 SBS (Small business)

--
Thank you
Please post onlyYes. Sql2k supports named instances.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/e...nstall_259u.asp

"!!bogus" <hello@.microb.com> wrote in message
news:Dwavc.95442$tb4.3789522@.news20.bellglobal.com ...
> Hi,
> Is it possible to install more than one instance of SQL on the same server?
> I am thinking of the SQL that comes with Windows 2003 SBS (Small business)
> --
> Thank you
> Please post only|||"!!bogus" <hello@.microb.com> wrote in message news:<Dwavc.95442$tb4.3789522@.news20.bellglobal.com>...
> Hi,
> Is it possible to install more than one instance of SQL on the same server?
> I am thinking of the SQL that comes with Windows 2003 SBS (Small business)

SQL2000 supports multiple instances (see Books Online), but you need
to consider the impact on the server resources - you will need to
manage CPU and memory carefully to give each instance enough to work
with, as well as leaving enough for the OS and other applications. I
don't know anything about SBS specifically, but my feeling would be
that since SBS already installs a bunch of different applications on
the same server, you probably don't want to add the complexity of
multiple MSSQL instances.

Depending on what you want to achieve, you might want to look at MSDE,
which is a free version of MSSQL with some limitations:

http://www.microsoft.com/sql/msde/

Simon

Installing SQL Server Reporting Services on SBS 2003 Premium for Dynamics CRM 3.0

We are currently in the process of performing a trial installation of Microsoft Dynamics CRM for a client. In amongst their existing IT infrastructure they have:
SBS 2003 SP1 PremiumServer 2003 StandardWhilst an organisation of their size would usually choose to deploy MS CRM Small Business, they've decided they don't want to install SBS on the same system as their SBS box and instead place it on their server 2003 and therefore we're attempting to install CRM Premium.

One of the requirements of Dynamics CRM 3.0 is SQL Server Reporting services (SRS).

SRS will not install on their server 2003 box, as unbeknownst to us initially, besides running Blackberry server, the machine also appears to be running a full blown instance of Terminal Services which SRS refuses to install alongside.. I even tried change user /install ... change user /execute and this failed.

Then I resolved instead to run SRS on the same machine as their SQLServer - the SBS box.

It didn't find visual studio - fair enough.. We don't want to customise any forms just yet.

It then complained about not being able to find ASP.net 1.1 and that sharepoint services were installed.. I read the notes on sharepoint/SRS co-installs and was satisfied there I knew what needed to be done..

I then attempted to install .net framework 1.1, but was advised it was already present. I then checked IIS manager and indeed ASP.net 1.1 was registered and enabled, whilst 2.0 ASP.net was also installed, but prohibited.

I reran the SRS install - and it still couldn't find ASP.net 1.1 and therefore has not installed the web components that MS Dynamics CRM 3.0 requires..

Could someone at least give me a pointer in the right direction here to getting it (SRS) installed happily?

AnthonyI may have found your answer. I believe it's here: http://icu-mscrm.blogspot.com/2007/08/fix-for-weird-error-when-installing-sql.html

Installing SQL Server Express?

Hi,
I'm using Win SBS 2003 with SQL Server 2000 as our main database centre.
Recently when I tried to install aplication that's using SQL Server 2000
(written in C#) in computer workstations, I recognized that it take too long
of time to load those databases in server.
Perhaps I need SQL Server Express in each computer workstations, so it can
run faster?
Thanks!Hi
Are you planning to upgrade to SQL Server 2005? In terms of perfomance you
would want to test the server before starting to use. I have seen about 20
percent improvments in SQL Server 2005 when we tested it , however it
depends on lots of parameters and you need to test it on your enviroment
>I recognized that it take too long
> of time to load those databases in server.
What , to install SQL Serrver 2000?
"Dhow" <Dhow@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:FA808838-5DF5-49D4-AF5F-E175BF8868C3@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I'm using Win SBS 2003 with SQL Server 2000 as our main database centre.
> Recently when I tried to install aplication that's using SQL Server 2000
> (written in C#) in computer workstations, I recognized that it take too
> long
> of time to load those databases in server.
> Perhaps I need SQL Server Express in each computer workstations, so it can
> run faster?
> Thanks!|||Hi Uri,
No, I'm not planning to upgrade to SQL Server 2005.
What I'm trying to do is install a mini-SQL Server Client in each computer
workstations; and hoping that the application that uses SQL Server 2000
database can load it (the database) faster.
Can this be done?
Thank you.
"Uri Dimant" wrote:
> Hi
> Are you planning to upgrade to SQL Server 2005? In terms of perfomance you
> would want to test the server before starting to use. I have seen about 20
> percent improvments in SQL Server 2005 when we tested it , however it
> depends on lots of parameters and you need to test it on your enviroment
> >I recognized that it take too long
> > of time to load those databases in server.
> What , to install SQL Serrver 2000?
>
>
> "Dhow" <Dhow@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:FA808838-5DF5-49D4-AF5F-E175BF8868C3@.microsoft.com...
> > Hi,
> > I'm using Win SBS 2003 with SQL Server 2000 as our main database centre.
> > Recently when I tried to install aplication that's using SQL Server 2000
> > (written in C#) in computer workstations, I recognized that it take too
> > long
> > of time to load those databases in server.
> > Perhaps I need SQL Server Express in each computer workstations, so it can
> > run faster?
> >
> > Thanks!
>
>|||Hi
>Perhaps I need SQL Server Express in each computer >workstations, so it can
>run faster?
Does not SQL Server Express Edition belong to SQL Server 2005 MS Product?
Yes, you can install SQL Server Express on all workstations so prior just
restore a SQL Server 2000 database to SQL Server Express edition, be aware
it is limited to 4GB database size
"Dhow" <Dhow@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:AFF6AAC5-6683-4DAA-B9F0-250197D676DF@.microsoft.com...
> Hi Uri,
> No, I'm not planning to upgrade to SQL Server 2005.
> What I'm trying to do is install a mini-SQL Server Client in each computer
> workstations; and hoping that the application that uses SQL Server 2000
> database can load it (the database) faster.
> Can this be done?
> Thank you.
> "Uri Dimant" wrote:
>> Hi
>> Are you planning to upgrade to SQL Server 2005? In terms of perfomance
>> you
>> would want to test the server before starting to use. I have seen about
>> 20
>> percent improvments in SQL Server 2005 when we tested it , however it
>> depends on lots of parameters and you need to test it on your enviroment
>> >I recognized that it take too long
>> > of time to load those databases in server.
>> What , to install SQL Serrver 2000?
>>
>>
>> "Dhow" <Dhow@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:FA808838-5DF5-49D4-AF5F-E175BF8868C3@.microsoft.com...
>> > Hi,
>> > I'm using Win SBS 2003 with SQL Server 2000 as our main database
>> > centre.
>> > Recently when I tried to install aplication that's using SQL Server
>> > 2000
>> > (written in C#) in computer workstations, I recognized that it take too
>> > long
>> > of time to load those databases in server.
>> > Perhaps I need SQL Server Express in each computer workstations, so it
>> > can
>> > run faster?
>> >
>> > Thanks!
>>|||Do you know why the application is slow? Although creating a local copy of
database might help performance somewhat, that won't address the root cause
that needs to be addressed.
--
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Dhow" <Dhow@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:AFF6AAC5-6683-4DAA-B9F0-250197D676DF@.microsoft.com...
> Hi Uri,
> No, I'm not planning to upgrade to SQL Server 2005.
> What I'm trying to do is install a mini-SQL Server Client in each computer
> workstations; and hoping that the application that uses SQL Server 2000
> database can load it (the database) faster.
> Can this be done?
> Thank you.
> "Uri Dimant" wrote:
>> Hi
>> Are you planning to upgrade to SQL Server 2005? In terms of perfomance
>> you
>> would want to test the server before starting to use. I have seen about
>> 20
>> percent improvments in SQL Server 2005 when we tested it , however it
>> depends on lots of parameters and you need to test it on your enviroment
>> >I recognized that it take too long
>> > of time to load those databases in server.
>> What , to install SQL Serrver 2000?
>>
>>
>> "Dhow" <Dhow@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:FA808838-5DF5-49D4-AF5F-E175BF8868C3@.microsoft.com...
>> > Hi,
>> > I'm using Win SBS 2003 with SQL Server 2000 as our main database
>> > centre.
>> > Recently when I tried to install aplication that's using SQL Server
>> > 2000
>> > (written in C#) in computer workstations, I recognized that it take too
>> > long
>> > of time to load those databases in server.
>> > Perhaps I need SQL Server Express in each computer workstations, so it
>> > can
>> > run faster?
>> >
>> > Thanks!
>>|||Hi Dan,
My bet is that this application takes up too much long time to load the
pictures database (they're in *.jpg files), along with the items' details.
The application is written in C#, and access the SQL Server 2000 database in
the server through wireless LAN. That's why I thought it'll fasten the upload
data if I installed SQL Server Express in every workstations computer that
access the database in the server.
And I know nothing about the application programming, shoud the programmer
add some command line in the application to tell it to get the database? Or
it'll be simply automatically retrieve the database by itselves?
Thanks!
"Dan Guzman" wrote:
> Do you know why the application is slow? Although creating a local copy of
> database might help performance somewhat, that won't address the root cause
> that needs to be addressed.
> --
> Hope this helps.
> Dan Guzman
> SQL Server MVP
> "Dhow" <Dhow@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:AFF6AAC5-6683-4DAA-B9F0-250197D676DF@.microsoft.com...
> > Hi Uri,
> >
> > No, I'm not planning to upgrade to SQL Server 2005.
> > What I'm trying to do is install a mini-SQL Server Client in each computer
> > workstations; and hoping that the application that uses SQL Server 2000
> > database can load it (the database) faster.
> > Can this be done?
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> > "Uri Dimant" wrote:
> >
> >> Hi
> >> Are you planning to upgrade to SQL Server 2005? In terms of perfomance
> >> you
> >> would want to test the server before starting to use. I have seen about
> >> 20
> >> percent improvments in SQL Server 2005 when we tested it , however it
> >> depends on lots of parameters and you need to test it on your enviroment
> >>
> >> >I recognized that it take too long
> >> > of time to load those databases in server.
> >>
> >> What , to install SQL Serrver 2000?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> "Dhow" <Dhow@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >> news:FA808838-5DF5-49D4-AF5F-E175BF8868C3@.microsoft.com...
> >> > Hi,
> >> > I'm using Win SBS 2003 with SQL Server 2000 as our main database
> >> > centre.
> >> > Recently when I tried to install aplication that's using SQL Server
> >> > 2000
> >> > (written in C#) in computer workstations, I recognized that it take too
> >> > long
> >> > of time to load those databases in server.
> >> > Perhaps I need SQL Server Express in each computer workstations, so it
> >> > can
> >> > run faster?
> >> >
> >> > Thanks!
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>|||Hi Uri,
Yes, I know SQL Server Express is part of the SQL Server 2005, not the SQL
Server 2000 that I currently have. Still, can I intall and use it in each
workstation computers? Although it'll be accessing SQL Server 2000 in the
server.
Do I need to ask the programmer to put some sort like command line in the
application or in the SQL Server Express to retrieve the database? Or it'll
be automatically? I ask you this because I know nothing about SQL Server at
all.
Thank you.
"Uri Dimant" wrote:
> Hi
> >Perhaps I need SQL Server Express in each computer >workstations, so it can
> >run faster?
> Does not SQL Server Express Edition belong to SQL Server 2005 MS Product?
>
> Yes, you can install SQL Server Express on all workstations so prior just
> restore a SQL Server 2000 database to SQL Server Express edition, be aware
> it is limited to 4GB database size
>
>
>
> "Dhow" <Dhow@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:AFF6AAC5-6683-4DAA-B9F0-250197D676DF@.microsoft.com...
> > Hi Uri,
> >
> > No, I'm not planning to upgrade to SQL Server 2005.
> > What I'm trying to do is install a mini-SQL Server Client in each computer
> > workstations; and hoping that the application that uses SQL Server 2000
> > database can load it (the database) faster.
> > Can this be done?
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> > "Uri Dimant" wrote:
> >
> >> Hi
> >> Are you planning to upgrade to SQL Server 2005? In terms of perfomance
> >> you
> >> would want to test the server before starting to use. I have seen about
> >> 20
> >> percent improvments in SQL Server 2005 when we tested it , however it
> >> depends on lots of parameters and you need to test it on your enviroment
> >>
> >> >I recognized that it take too long
> >> > of time to load those databases in server.
> >>
> >> What , to install SQL Serrver 2000?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> "Dhow" <Dhow@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >> news:FA808838-5DF5-49D4-AF5F-E175BF8868C3@.microsoft.com...
> >> > Hi,
> >> > I'm using Win SBS 2003 with SQL Server 2000 as our main database
> >> > centre.
> >> > Recently when I tried to install aplication that's using SQL Server
> >> > 2000
> >> > (written in C#) in computer workstations, I recognized that it take too
> >> > long
> >> > of time to load those databases in server.
> >> > Perhaps I need SQL Server Express in each computer workstations, so it
> >> > can
> >> > run faster?
> >> >
> >> > Thanks!
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>|||Why you need to install an SQL Server/SQL Server Express on each workstation
when the app is to access the data on the server SQL Server?
I can only imagine in a few cases where you may want to store data locally
(on the app running computer) and synchronize data back to the server in
someway. For example, if the computer does not connect to the server network
often, or the network does not fit such a traffic fo data volume. In this
case, you have to save the data locally as file or in a local database. And
then you would provide a way to synchronize data back to the server on the
network, in a suitable time window. That is added complexity to your app.
On the other hand, if the data (picture) must be shared among users
simultaneously, just as normal central database, the local database does not
help much, 'cause you have to synchronize local data to the server all the
time. As long as the network is allowed, the app would be better off
directly connect to the server.
Since your problem is "app is too low", adding a local database may or may
not solve your problem. You need to find out why it is low in that certain
network environment. In your other post, you mentioned that the app load
many pictures from the database, that could be the reason of slowness. IMO,
to install a SQL Server locally on each computer only helps when you do not
need to share those picture with other users concurrently (so you do not
have to update the changes (of the picutres) on the local database back to
server very often. Even so, it only improves the bottle neck of network
traffic. Retrieveing too many pictures from database is always a heavy
process. Chances are the app is still slow when retrieving too many picture
from local database. You may want to reconsider the app logic to retrieve
the picture(s) when it is really necessary, and retrieve it (then) as less
as possible.
"Dhow" <Dhow@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:FA808838-5DF5-49D4-AF5F-E175BF8868C3@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I'm using Win SBS 2003 with SQL Server 2000 as our main database centre.
> Recently when I tried to install aplication that's using SQL Server 2000
> (written in C#) in computer workstations, I recognized that it take too
> long
> of time to load those databases in server.
> Perhaps I need SQL Server Express in each computer workstations, so it can
> run faster?
> Thanks!|||"Dhow" <Dhow@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:90002B0B-4E5D-4332-8550-F4C9096FBCBA@.microsoft.com...
> Hi Uri,
> Yes, I know SQL Server Express is part of the SQL Server 2005, not the SQL
> Server 2000 that I currently have. Still, can I intall and use it in each
> workstation computers? Although it'll be accessing SQL Server 2000 in the
> server.
I'm really not clear on what you're doing here.
Is the Database on a centralized SQL 2000 Server or does each client have a
copy?
You realize SQL 2000 and SQL 2005 are servers, not necessarily desktop
applications (though there are client applications that run on the desktop.)
So, I think you're either misunderstanding how SQL 2000/2005 would
interoperate, or you have a more advanced system (some sort of detached
client running repliction/synch) with a centralized server.
> Do I need to ask the programmer to put some sort like command line in the
> application or in the SQL Server Express to retrieve the database? Or
it'll
> be automatically? I ask you this because I know nothing about SQL Server
at
> all.
> Thank you.
>
> "Uri Dimant" wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > >Perhaps I need SQL Server Express in each computer >workstations, so it
can
> > >run faster?
> > Does not SQL Server Express Edition belong to SQL Server 2005 MS
Product?
> >
> >
> > Yes, you can install SQL Server Express on all workstations so prior
just
> > restore a SQL Server 2000 database to SQL Server Express edition, be
aware
> > it is limited to 4GB database size
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Dhow" <Dhow@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:AFF6AAC5-6683-4DAA-B9F0-250197D676DF@.microsoft.com...
> > > Hi Uri,
> > >
> > > No, I'm not planning to upgrade to SQL Server 2005.
> > > What I'm trying to do is install a mini-SQL Server Client in each
computer
> > > workstations; and hoping that the application that uses SQL Server
2000
> > > database can load it (the database) faster.
> > > Can this be done?
> > >
> > > Thank you.
> > >
> > > "Uri Dimant" wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi
> > >> Are you planning to upgrade to SQL Server 2005? In terms of
perfomance
> > >> you
> > >> would want to test the server before starting to use. I have seen
about
> > >> 20
> > >> percent improvments in SQL Server 2005 when we tested it , however
it
> > >> depends on lots of parameters and you need to test it on your
enviroment
> > >>
> > >> >I recognized that it take too long
> > >> > of time to load those databases in server.
> > >>
> > >> What , to install SQL Serrver 2000?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> "Dhow" <Dhow@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > >> news:FA808838-5DF5-49D4-AF5F-E175BF8868C3@.microsoft.com...
> > >> > Hi,
> > >> > I'm using Win SBS 2003 with SQL Server 2000 as our main database
> > >> > centre.
> > >> > Recently when I tried to install aplication that's using SQL Server
> > >> > 2000
> > >> > (written in C#) in computer workstations, I recognized that it take
too
> > >> > long
> > >> > of time to load those databases in server.
> > >> > Perhaps I need SQL Server Express in each computer workstations, so
it
> > >> > can
> > >> > run faster?
> > >> >
> > >> > Thanks!
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> >
> >|||Hi Greg,
I think Norman Yuan has answered your question to me there, just look under.
"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote:
> "Dhow" <Dhow@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:90002B0B-4E5D-4332-8550-F4C9096FBCBA@.microsoft.com...
> > Hi Uri,
> >
> > Yes, I know SQL Server Express is part of the SQL Server 2005, not the SQL
> > Server 2000 that I currently have. Still, can I intall and use it in each
> > workstation computers? Although it'll be accessing SQL Server 2000 in the
> > server.
> I'm really not clear on what you're doing here.
> Is the Database on a centralized SQL 2000 Server or does each client have a
> copy?
> You realize SQL 2000 and SQL 2005 are servers, not necessarily desktop
> applications (though there are client applications that run on the desktop.)
> So, I think you're either misunderstanding how SQL 2000/2005 would
> interoperate, or you have a more advanced system (some sort of detached
> client running repliction/synch) with a centralized server.
> >
> > Do I need to ask the programmer to put some sort like command line in the
> > application or in the SQL Server Express to retrieve the database? Or
> it'll
> > be automatically? I ask you this because I know nothing about SQL Server
> at
> > all.
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> >
> > "Uri Dimant" wrote:
> >
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > >Perhaps I need SQL Server Express in each computer >workstations, so it
> can
> > > >run faster?
> > > Does not SQL Server Express Edition belong to SQL Server 2005 MS
> Product?
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes, you can install SQL Server Express on all workstations so prior
> just
> > > restore a SQL Server 2000 database to SQL Server Express edition, be
> aware
> > > it is limited to 4GB database size
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Dhow" <Dhow@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > > news:AFF6AAC5-6683-4DAA-B9F0-250197D676DF@.microsoft.com...
> > > > Hi Uri,
> > > >
> > > > No, I'm not planning to upgrade to SQL Server 2005.
> > > > What I'm trying to do is install a mini-SQL Server Client in each
> computer
> > > > workstations; and hoping that the application that uses SQL Server
> 2000
> > > > database can load it (the database) faster.
> > > > Can this be done?
> > > >
> > > > Thank you.
> > > >
> > > > "Uri Dimant" wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Hi
> > > >> Are you planning to upgrade to SQL Server 2005? In terms of
> perfomance
> > > >> you
> > > >> would want to test the server before starting to use. I have seen
> about
> > > >> 20
> > > >> percent improvments in SQL Server 2005 when we tested it , however
> it
> > > >> depends on lots of parameters and you need to test it on your
> enviroment
> > > >>
> > > >> >I recognized that it take too long
> > > >> > of time to load those databases in server.
> > > >>
> > > >> What , to install SQL Serrver 2000?
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> "Dhow" <Dhow@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > > >> news:FA808838-5DF5-49D4-AF5F-E175BF8868C3@.microsoft.com...
> > > >> > Hi,
> > > >> > I'm using Win SBS 2003 with SQL Server 2000 as our main database
> > > >> > centre.
> > > >> > Recently when I tried to install aplication that's using SQL Server
> > > >> > 2000
> > > >> > (written in C#) in computer workstations, I recognized that it take
> too
> > > >> > long
> > > >> > of time to load those databases in server.
> > > >> > Perhaps I need SQL Server Express in each computer workstations, so
> it
> > > >> > can
> > > >> > run faster?
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Thanks!
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>|||Hi Norman,
Thanks for your deep review on the reply, it really hit the spot.
You're right, I still want to put the database in the server so every user
that use the application can share the newest data and item's pictures as
well.
Right now, there are almost 3000 items plus their pictures (resolution is
320x240 pxiels) in the SQL Server 2000 database. And we're using 108Mbps
wireless LAN to connect to the server.
And users that have access to the database, can sometime need to change it's
detail informations or the pictures too. So we do need to refresh the
database everytime possible, this has been the application's main purpose.
And the application, which written in C# by our programmer, is installed in
each workstation computers. And based on the last access, it still have too
long time to load the Item Data List and took much longer time if the user
tried to edit each item detail information (that include each item picture in
it).
There are only 10 workstation computers that access the database right now,
and we're planning to add more. But we're reluctant if the condition is like
this right now.
We're hoping to find best solutions.
Your solution: to retrieve only the necessary item's picture is good. But
that would mean remake and re-write the application all over again, which is
harder way to do because it'll costs more on the prgrammer fee.
Is there some kind of SQL Server Agent / Client that's installed in
workstation computers to lessen the time of uploading the database in the
server?
Thank you very much.
"Norman Yuan" wrote:
> Why you need to install an SQL Server/SQL Server Express on each workstation
> when the app is to access the data on the server SQL Server?
> I can only imagine in a few cases where you may want to store data locally
> (on the app running computer) and synchronize data back to the server in
> someway. For example, if the computer does not connect to the server network
> often, or the network does not fit such a traffic fo data volume. In this
> case, you have to save the data locally as file or in a local database. And
> then you would provide a way to synchronize data back to the server on the
> network, in a suitable time window. That is added complexity to your app.
> On the other hand, if the data (picture) must be shared among users
> simultaneously, just as normal central database, the local database does not
> help much, 'cause you have to synchronize local data to the server all the
> time. As long as the network is allowed, the app would be better off
> directly connect to the server.
> Since your problem is "app is too low", adding a local database may or may
> not solve your problem. You need to find out why it is low in that certain
> network environment. In your other post, you mentioned that the app load
> many pictures from the database, that could be the reason of slowness. IMO,
> to install a SQL Server locally on each computer only helps when you do not
> need to share those picture with other users concurrently (so you do not
> have to update the changes (of the picutres) on the local database back to
> server very often. Even so, it only improves the bottle neck of network
> traffic. Retrieveing too many pictures from database is always a heavy
> process. Chances are the app is still slow when retrieving too many picture
> from local database. You may want to reconsider the app logic to retrieve
> the picture(s) when it is really necessary, and retrieve it (then) as less
> as possible.
> "Dhow" <Dhow@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:FA808838-5DF5-49D4-AF5F-E175BF8868C3@.microsoft.com...
> > Hi,
> > I'm using Win SBS 2003 with SQL Server 2000 as our main database centre.
> > Recently when I tried to install aplication that's using SQL Server 2000
> > (written in C#) in computer workstations, I recognized that it take too
> > long
> > of time to load those databases in server.
> > Perhaps I need SQL Server Express in each computer workstations, so it can
> > run faster?
> >
> > Thanks!
>
>|||> Your solution: to retrieve only the necessary item's picture is good. But
> that would mean remake and re-write the application all over again, which
> is
> harder way to do because it'll costs more on the prgrammer fee.
So the application loads the entire database to each client? If each image
averages 50K, that calculates to about 150MB for images alone and that's
excessive even on a wired LAN. Obviously, only data actually viewed by the
user should be retrieved. Search/pagination features can provide the needed
functionality or, as Norman suggested, images can be retrieved separately.
One could argue that this is an application design flaw that should be
corrected by the developer with no additional development charge. I would
expect this to be a relatively minor change but, based on the state of the
current app, there may be other issues as well. I wouldn't be surprised if
you run into concurrency issues when more than one user edits the same
image.
A lesson learned is that formal application deliverables should include
performance (SLAs) as well as functionality.
--
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Dhow" <Dhow@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0EBAAB41-C351-4FA3-A7FB-C6AE459A6EB1@.microsoft.com...
> Hi Norman,
> Thanks for your deep review on the reply, it really hit the spot.
> You're right, I still want to put the database in the server so every user
> that use the application can share the newest data and item's pictures as
> well.
> Right now, there are almost 3000 items plus their pictures (resolution is
> 320x240 pxiels) in the SQL Server 2000 database. And we're using 108Mbps
> wireless LAN to connect to the server.
> And users that have access to the database, can sometime need to change
> it's
> detail informations or the pictures too. So we do need to refresh the
> database everytime possible, this has been the application's main purpose.
> And the application, which written in C# by our programmer, is installed
> in
> each workstation computers. And based on the last access, it still have
> too
> long time to load the Item Data List and took much longer time if the user
> tried to edit each item detail information (that include each item picture
> in
> it).
> There are only 10 workstation computers that access the database right
> now,
> and we're planning to add more. But we're reluctant if the condition is
> like
> this right now.
> We're hoping to find best solutions.
> Your solution: to retrieve only the necessary item's picture is good. But
> that would mean remake and re-write the application all over again, which
> is
> harder way to do because it'll costs more on the prgrammer fee.
> Is there some kind of SQL Server Agent / Client that's installed in
> workstation computers to lessen the time of uploading the database in the
> server?
> Thank you very much.
>
> "Norman Yuan" wrote:
>> Why you need to install an SQL Server/SQL Server Express on each
>> workstation
>> when the app is to access the data on the server SQL Server?
>> I can only imagine in a few cases where you may want to store data
>> locally
>> (on the app running computer) and synchronize data back to the server in
>> someway. For example, if the computer does not connect to the server
>> network
>> often, or the network does not fit such a traffic fo data volume. In this
>> case, you have to save the data locally as file or in a local database.
>> And
>> then you would provide a way to synchronize data back to the server on
>> the
>> network, in a suitable time window. That is added complexity to your app.
>> On the other hand, if the data (picture) must be shared among users
>> simultaneously, just as normal central database, the local database does
>> not
>> help much, 'cause you have to synchronize local data to the server all
>> the
>> time. As long as the network is allowed, the app would be better off
>> directly connect to the server.
>> Since your problem is "app is too low", adding a local database may or
>> may
>> not solve your problem. You need to find out why it is low in that
>> certain
>> network environment. In your other post, you mentioned that the app load
>> many pictures from the database, that could be the reason of slowness.
>> IMO,
>> to install a SQL Server locally on each computer only helps when you do
>> not
>> need to share those picture with other users concurrently (so you do not
>> have to update the changes (of the picutres) on the local database back
>> to
>> server very often. Even so, it only improves the bottle neck of network
>> traffic. Retrieveing too many pictures from database is always a heavy
>> process. Chances are the app is still slow when retrieving too many
>> picture
>> from local database. You may want to reconsider the app logic to retrieve
>> the picture(s) when it is really necessary, and retrieve it (then) as
>> less
>> as possible.
>> "Dhow" <Dhow@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:FA808838-5DF5-49D4-AF5F-E175BF8868C3@.microsoft.com...
>> > Hi,
>> > I'm using Win SBS 2003 with SQL Server 2000 as our main database
>> > centre.
>> > Recently when I tried to install aplication that's using SQL Server
>> > 2000
>> > (written in C#) in computer workstations, I recognized that it take too
>> > long
>> > of time to load those databases in server.
>> > Perhaps I need SQL Server Express in each computer workstations, so it
>> > can
>> > run faster?
>> >
>> > Thanks!
>>|||From your description, I am more convinced that this is an application
design problem and you DO NOT need SQL Server Expresss on each workstation.
This app should be modified/re-worked, especially if each data access trip
has to grab more than dozens of MB data from database over a network. I do
not see there is better way to improve it other than modifying the app
itself.
"Dhow" <Dhow@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0EBAAB41-C351-4FA3-A7FB-C6AE459A6EB1@.microsoft.com...
> Hi Norman,
> Thanks for your deep review on the reply, it really hit the spot.
> You're right, I still want to put the database in the server so every user
> that use the application can share the newest data and item's pictures as
> well.
> Right now, there are almost 3000 items plus their pictures (resolution is
> 320x240 pxiels) in the SQL Server 2000 database. And we're using 108Mbps
> wireless LAN to connect to the server.
> And users that have access to the database, can sometime need to change
> it's
> detail informations or the pictures too. So we do need to refresh the
> database everytime possible, this has been the application's main purpose.
> And the application, which written in C# by our programmer, is installed
> in
> each workstation computers. And based on the last access, it still have
> too
> long time to load the Item Data List and took much longer time if the user
> tried to edit each item detail information (that include each item picture
> in
> it).
> There are only 10 workstation computers that access the database right
> now,
> and we're planning to add more. But we're reluctant if the condition is
> like
> this right now.
> We're hoping to find best solutions.
> Your solution: to retrieve only the necessary item's picture is good. But
> that would mean remake and re-write the application all over again, which
> is
> harder way to do because it'll costs more on the prgrammer fee.
> Is there some kind of SQL Server Agent / Client that's installed in
> workstation computers to lessen the time of uploading the database in the
> server?
> Thank you very much.
>
> "Norman Yuan" wrote:
>> Why you need to install an SQL Server/SQL Server Express on each
>> workstation
>> when the app is to access the data on the server SQL Server?
>> I can only imagine in a few cases where you may want to store data
>> locally
>> (on the app running computer) and synchronize data back to the server in
>> someway. For example, if the computer does not connect to the server
>> network
>> often, or the network does not fit such a traffic fo data volume. In this
>> case, you have to save the data locally as file or in a local database.
>> And
>> then you would provide a way to synchronize data back to the server on
>> the
>> network, in a suitable time window. That is added complexity to your app.
>> On the other hand, if the data (picture) must be shared among users
>> simultaneously, just as normal central database, the local database does
>> not
>> help much, 'cause you have to synchronize local data to the server all
>> the
>> time. As long as the network is allowed, the app would be better off
>> directly connect to the server.
>> Since your problem is "app is too low", adding a local database may or
>> may
>> not solve your problem. You need to find out why it is low in that
>> certain
>> network environment. In your other post, you mentioned that the app load
>> many pictures from the database, that could be the reason of slowness.
>> IMO,
>> to install a SQL Server locally on each computer only helps when you do
>> not
>> need to share those picture with other users concurrently (so you do not
>> have to update the changes (of the picutres) on the local database back
>> to
>> server very often. Even so, it only improves the bottle neck of network
>> traffic. Retrieveing too many pictures from database is always a heavy
>> process. Chances are the app is still slow when retrieving too many
>> picture
>> from local database. You may want to reconsider the app logic to retrieve
>> the picture(s) when it is really necessary, and retrieve it (then) as
>> less
>> as possible.
>> "Dhow" <Dhow@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:FA808838-5DF5-49D4-AF5F-E175BF8868C3@.microsoft.com...
>> > Hi,
>> > I'm using Win SBS 2003 with SQL Server 2000 as our main database
>> > centre.
>> > Recently when I tried to install aplication that's using SQL Server
>> > 2000
>> > (written in C#) in computer workstations, I recognized that it take too
>> > long
>> > of time to load those databases in server.
>> > Perhaps I need SQL Server Express in each computer workstations, so it
>> > can
>> > run faster?
>> >
>> > Thanks!
>>|||Hi Norman,
Again thank you for your review on the replies.
Yes, I've consulted with others programmer; and they agree that it's best to
re-write the whole application so that it'll not burden the wireless LAN with
so many pictures upload time.
"Norman Yuan" wrote:
> From your description, I am more convinced that this is an application
> design problem and you DO NOT need SQL Server Expresss on each workstation.
> This app should be modified/re-worked, especially if each data access trip
> has to grab more than dozens of MB data from database over a network. I do
> not see there is better way to improve it other than modifying the app
> itself.
> "Dhow" <Dhow@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:0EBAAB41-C351-4FA3-A7FB-C6AE459A6EB1@.microsoft.com...
> > Hi Norman,
> >
> > Thanks for your deep review on the reply, it really hit the spot.
> > You're right, I still want to put the database in the server so every user
> > that use the application can share the newest data and item's pictures as
> > well.
> > Right now, there are almost 3000 items plus their pictures (resolution is
> > 320x240 pxiels) in the SQL Server 2000 database. And we're using 108Mbps
> > wireless LAN to connect to the server.
> > And users that have access to the database, can sometime need to change
> > it's
> > detail informations or the pictures too. So we do need to refresh the
> > database everytime possible, this has been the application's main purpose.
> > And the application, which written in C# by our programmer, is installed
> > in
> > each workstation computers. And based on the last access, it still have
> > too
> > long time to load the Item Data List and took much longer time if the user
> > tried to edit each item detail information (that include each item picture
> > in
> > it).
> > There are only 10 workstation computers that access the database right
> > now,
> > and we're planning to add more. But we're reluctant if the condition is
> > like
> > this right now.
> > We're hoping to find best solutions.
> >
> > Your solution: to retrieve only the necessary item's picture is good. But
> > that would mean remake and re-write the application all over again, which
> > is
> > harder way to do because it'll costs more on the prgrammer fee.
> >
> > Is there some kind of SQL Server Agent / Client that's installed in
> > workstation computers to lessen the time of uploading the database in the
> > server?
> >
> > Thank you very much.
> >
> >
> > "Norman Yuan" wrote:
> >
> >> Why you need to install an SQL Server/SQL Server Express on each
> >> workstation
> >> when the app is to access the data on the server SQL Server?
> >>
> >> I can only imagine in a few cases where you may want to store data
> >> locally
> >> (on the app running computer) and synchronize data back to the server in
> >> someway. For example, if the computer does not connect to the server
> >> network
> >> often, or the network does not fit such a traffic fo data volume. In this
> >> case, you have to save the data locally as file or in a local database.
> >> And
> >> then you would provide a way to synchronize data back to the server on
> >> the
> >> network, in a suitable time window. That is added complexity to your app.
> >>
> >> On the other hand, if the data (picture) must be shared among users
> >> simultaneously, just as normal central database, the local database does
> >> not
> >> help much, 'cause you have to synchronize local data to the server all
> >> the
> >> time. As long as the network is allowed, the app would be better off
> >> directly connect to the server.
> >>
> >> Since your problem is "app is too low", adding a local database may or
> >> may
> >> not solve your problem. You need to find out why it is low in that
> >> certain
> >> network environment. In your other post, you mentioned that the app load
> >> many pictures from the database, that could be the reason of slowness.
> >> IMO,
> >> to install a SQL Server locally on each computer only helps when you do
> >> not
> >> need to share those picture with other users concurrently (so you do not
> >> have to update the changes (of the picutres) on the local database back
> >> to
> >> server very often. Even so, it only improves the bottle neck of network
> >> traffic. Retrieveing too many pictures from database is always a heavy
> >> process. Chances are the app is still slow when retrieving too many
> >> picture
> >> from local database. You may want to reconsider the app logic to retrieve
> >> the picture(s) when it is really necessary, and retrieve it (then) as
> >> less
> >> as possible.
> >>
> >> "Dhow" <Dhow@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >> news:FA808838-5DF5-49D4-AF5F-E175BF8868C3@.microsoft.com...
> >> > Hi,
> >> > I'm using Win SBS 2003 with SQL Server 2000 as our main database
> >> > centre.
> >> > Recently when I tried to install aplication that's using SQL Server
> >> > 2000
> >> > (written in C#) in computer workstations, I recognized that it take too
> >> > long
> >> > of time to load those databases in server.
> >> > Perhaps I need SQL Server Express in each computer workstations, so it
> >> > can
> >> > run faster?
> >> >
> >> > Thanks!
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>|||Hi Dan,
Thanks for your review on your reply here.
Yes, I agree that the programmer should re-write the application so that it
would not burden the LAN traffic. We're going to take that action.
"Dan Guzman" wrote:
> > Your solution: to retrieve only the necessary item's picture is good. But
> > that would mean remake and re-write the application all over again, which
> > is
> > harder way to do because it'll costs more on the prgrammer fee.
> So the application loads the entire database to each client? If each image
> averages 50K, that calculates to about 150MB for images alone and that's
> excessive even on a wired LAN. Obviously, only data actually viewed by the
> user should be retrieved. Search/pagination features can provide the needed
> functionality or, as Norman suggested, images can be retrieved separately.
> One could argue that this is an application design flaw that should be
> corrected by the developer with no additional development charge. I would
> expect this to be a relatively minor change but, based on the state of the
> current app, there may be other issues as well. I wouldn't be surprised if
> you run into concurrency issues when more than one user edits the same
> image.
> A lesson learned is that formal application deliverables should include
> performance (SLAs) as well as functionality.
> --
> Hope this helps.
> Dan Guzman
> SQL Server MVP
> "Dhow" <Dhow@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:0EBAAB41-C351-4FA3-A7FB-C6AE459A6EB1@.microsoft.com...
> > Hi Norman,
> >
> > Thanks for your deep review on the reply, it really hit the spot.
> > You're right, I still want to put the database in the server so every user
> > that use the application can share the newest data and item's pictures as
> > well.
> > Right now, there are almost 3000 items plus their pictures (resolution is
> > 320x240 pxiels) in the SQL Server 2000 database. And we're using 108Mbps
> > wireless LAN to connect to the server.
> > And users that have access to the database, can sometime need to change
> > it's
> > detail informations or the pictures too. So we do need to refresh the
> > database everytime possible, this has been the application's main purpose.
> > And the application, which written in C# by our programmer, is installed
> > in
> > each workstation computers. And based on the last access, it still have
> > too
> > long time to load the Item Data List and took much longer time if the user
> > tried to edit each item detail information (that include each item picture
> > in
> > it).
> > There are only 10 workstation computers that access the database right
> > now,
> > and we're planning to add more. But we're reluctant if the condition is
> > like
> > this right now.
> > We're hoping to find best solutions.
> >
> > Your solution: to retrieve only the necessary item's picture is good. But
> > that would mean remake and re-write the application all over again, which
> > is
> > harder way to do because it'll costs more on the prgrammer fee.
> >
> > Is there some kind of SQL Server Agent / Client that's installed in
> > workstation computers to lessen the time of uploading the database in the
> > server?
> >
> > Thank you very much.
> >
> >
> > "Norman Yuan" wrote:
> >
> >> Why you need to install an SQL Server/SQL Server Express on each
> >> workstation
> >> when the app is to access the data on the server SQL Server?
> >>
> >> I can only imagine in a few cases where you may want to store data
> >> locally
> >> (on the app running computer) and synchronize data back to the server in
> >> someway. For example, if the computer does not connect to the server
> >> network
> >> often, or the network does not fit such a traffic fo data volume. In this
> >> case, you have to save the data locally as file or in a local database.
> >> And
> >> then you would provide a way to synchronize data back to the server on
> >> the
> >> network, in a suitable time window. That is added complexity to your app.
> >>
> >> On the other hand, if the data (picture) must be shared among users
> >> simultaneously, just as normal central database, the local database does
> >> not
> >> help much, 'cause you have to synchronize local data to the server all
> >> the
> >> time. As long as the network is allowed, the app would be better off
> >> directly connect to the server.
> >>
> >> Since your problem is "app is too low", adding a local database may or
> >> may
> >> not solve your problem. You need to find out why it is low in that
> >> certain
> >> network environment. In your other post, you mentioned that the app load
> >> many pictures from the database, that could be the reason of slowness.
> >> IMO,
> >> to install a SQL Server locally on each computer only helps when you do
> >> not
> >> need to share those picture with other users concurrently (so you do not
> >> have to update the changes (of the picutres) on the local database back
> >> to
> >> server very often. Even so, it only improves the bottle neck of network
> >> traffic. Retrieveing too many pictures from database is always a heavy
> >> process. Chances are the app is still slow when retrieving too many
> >> picture
> >> from local database. You may want to reconsider the app logic to retrieve
> >> the picture(s) when it is really necessary, and retrieve it (then) as
> >> less
> >> as possible.
> >>
> >> "Dhow" <Dhow@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >> news:FA808838-5DF5-49D4-AF5F-E175BF8868C3@.microsoft.com...
> >> > Hi,
> >> > I'm using Win SBS 2003 with SQL Server 2000 as our main database
> >> > centre.
> >> > Recently when I tried to install aplication that's using SQL Server
> >> > 2000
> >> > (written in C#) in computer workstations, I recognized that it take too
> >> > long
> >> > of time to load those databases in server.
> >> > Perhaps I need SQL Server Express in each computer workstations, so it
> >> > can
> >> > run faster?
> >> >
> >> > Thanks!
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>|||"Dhow" <Dhow@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:48974EE4-58D0-4099-9803-A5B044B5C6F6@.microsoft.com...
> Hi Norman,
> Again thank you for your review on the replies.
> Yes, I've consulted with others programmer; and they agree that it's best
to
> re-write the whole application so that it'll not burden the wireless LAN
with
> so many pictures upload time.
Note, doesn't depend if the LAN is wireless or not. If you're loading the
entire dataset to the client, this app would never scale well.
Definitely rewrite it.

Installing SQL Server Express?

Hi,
I'm using Win SBS 2003 with SQL Server 2000 as our main database centre.
Recently when I tried to install aplication that's using SQL Server 2000
(written in C#) in computer workstations, I recognized that it take too long
of time to load those databases in server.
Perhaps I need SQL Server Express in each computer workstations, so it can
run faster?
Thanks!Hi
Are you planning to upgrade to SQL Server 2005? In terms of perfomance you
would want to test the server before starting to use. I have seen about 20
percent improvments in SQL Server 2005 when we tested it , however it
depends on lots of parameters and you need to test it on your enviroment

>I recognized that it take too long
> of time to load those databases in server.
What , to install SQL Serrver 2000?
"Dhow" <Dhow@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:FA808838-5DF5-49D4-AF5F-E175BF8868C3@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I'm using Win SBS 2003 with SQL Server 2000 as our main database centre.
> Recently when I tried to install aplication that's using SQL Server 2000
> (written in C#) in computer workstations, I recognized that it take too
> long
> of time to load those databases in server.
> Perhaps I need SQL Server Express in each computer workstations, so it can
> run faster?
> Thanks!|||Hi Uri,
No, I'm not planning to upgrade to SQL Server 2005.
What I'm trying to do is install a mini-SQL Server Client in each computer
workstations; and hoping that the application that uses SQL Server 2000
database can load it (the database) faster.
Can this be done?
Thank you.
"Uri Dimant" wrote:

> Hi
> Are you planning to upgrade to SQL Server 2005? In terms of perfomance yo
u
> would want to test the server before starting to use. I have seen about 20
> percent improvments in SQL Server 2005 when we tested it , however it
> depends on lots of parameters and you need to test it on your enviroment
>
> What , to install SQL Serrver 2000?
>
>
> "Dhow" <Dhow@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:FA808838-5DF5-49D4-AF5F-E175BF8868C3@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||Hi

>Perhaps I need SQL Server Express in each computer >workstations, so it can
>run faster?
Does not SQL Server Express Edition belong to SQL Server 2005 MS Product?
Yes, you can install SQL Server Express on all workstations so prior just
restore a SQL Server 2000 database to SQL Server Express edition, be aware
it is limited to 4GB database size
"Dhow" <Dhow@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:AFF6AAC5-6683-4DAA-B9F0-250197D676DF@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi Uri,
> No, I'm not planning to upgrade to SQL Server 2005.
> What I'm trying to do is install a mini-SQL Server Client in each computer
> workstations; and hoping that the application that uses SQL Server 2000
> database can load it (the database) faster.
> Can this be done?
> Thank you.
> "Uri Dimant" wrote:
>|||Do you know why the application is slow? Although creating a local copy of
database might help performance somewhat, that won't address the root cause
that needs to be addressed.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Dhow" <Dhow@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:AFF6AAC5-6683-4DAA-B9F0-250197D676DF@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi Uri,
> No, I'm not planning to upgrade to SQL Server 2005.
> What I'm trying to do is install a mini-SQL Server Client in each computer
> workstations; and hoping that the application that uses SQL Server 2000
> database can load it (the database) faster.
> Can this be done?
> Thank you.
> "Uri Dimant" wrote:
>|||Hi Dan,
My bet is that this application takes up too much long time to load the
pictures database (they're in *.jpg files), along with the items' details.
The application is written in C#, and access the SQL Server 2000 database in
the server through wireless LAN. That's why I thought it'll fasten the uploa
d
data if I installed SQL Server Express in every workstations computer that
access the database in the server.
And I know nothing about the application programming, shoud the programmer
add some command line in the application to tell it to get the database? Or
it'll be simply automatically retrieve the database by itselves?
Thanks!
"Dan Guzman" wrote:

> Do you know why the application is slow? Although creating a local copy o
f
> database might help performance somewhat, that won't address the root caus
e
> that needs to be addressed.
> --
> Hope this helps.
> Dan Guzman
> SQL Server MVP
> "Dhow" <Dhow@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:AFF6AAC5-6683-4DAA-B9F0-250197D676DF@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||Hi Uri,
Yes, I know SQL Server Express is part of the SQL Server 2005, not the SQL
Server 2000 that I currently have. Still, can I intall and use it in each
workstation computers? Although it'll be accessing SQL Server 2000 in the
server.
Do I need to ask the programmer to put some sort like command line in the
application or in the SQL Server Express to retrieve the database? Or it'll
be automatically? I ask you this because I know nothing about SQL Server at
all.
Thank you.
"Uri Dimant" wrote:

> Hi
>
> Does not SQL Server Express Edition belong to SQL Server 2005 MS Product?
>
> Yes, you can install SQL Server Express on all workstations so prior just
> restore a SQL Server 2000 database to SQL Server Express edition, be aware
> it is limited to 4GB database size
>
>
>
> "Dhow" <Dhow@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:AFF6AAC5-6683-4DAA-B9F0-250197D676DF@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||Why you need to install an SQL Server/SQL Server Express on each workstation
when the app is to access the data on the server SQL Server?
I can only imagine in a few cases where you may want to store data locally
(on the app running computer) and synchronize data back to the server in
someway. For example, if the computer does not connect to the server network
often, or the network does not fit such a traffic fo data volume. In this
case, you have to save the data locally as file or in a local database. And
then you would provide a way to synchronize data back to the server on the
network, in a suitable time window. That is added complexity to your app.
On the other hand, if the data (picture) must be shared among users
simultaneously, just as normal central database, the local database does not
help much, 'cause you have to synchronize local data to the server all the
time. As long as the network is allowed, the app would be better off
directly connect to the server.
Since your problem is "app is too low", adding a local database may or may
not solve your problem. You need to find out why it is low in that certain
network environment. In your other post, you mentioned that the app load
many pictures from the database, that could be the reason of slowness. IMO,
to install a SQL Server locally on each computer only helps when you do not
need to share those picture with other users concurrently (so you do not
have to update the changes (of the picutres) on the local database back to
server very often. Even so, it only improves the bottle neck of network
traffic. Retrieveing too many pictures from database is always a heavy
process. Chances are the app is still slow when retrieving too many picture
from local database. You may want to reconsider the app logic to retrieve
the picture(s) when it is really necessary, and retrieve it (then) as less
as possible.
"Dhow" <Dhow@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:FA808838-5DF5-49D4-AF5F-E175BF8868C3@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I'm using Win SBS 2003 with SQL Server 2000 as our main database centre.
> Recently when I tried to install aplication that's using SQL Server 2000
> (written in C#) in computer workstations, I recognized that it take too
> long
> of time to load those databases in server.
> Perhaps I need SQL Server Express in each computer workstations, so it can
> run faster?
> Thanks!|||"Dhow" <Dhow@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:90002B0B-4E5D-4332-8550-F4C9096FBCBA@.microsoft.com...
> Hi Uri,
> Yes, I know SQL Server Express is part of the SQL Server 2005, not the SQL
> Server 2000 that I currently have. Still, can I intall and use it in each
> workstation computers? Although it'll be accessing SQL Server 2000 in the
> server.
I'm really not clear on what you're doing here.
Is the Database on a centralized SQL 2000 Server or does each client have a
copy?
You realize SQL 2000 and SQL 2005 are servers, not necessarily desktop
applications (though there are client applications that run on the desktop.)
So, I think you're either misunderstanding how SQL 2000/2005 would
interoperate, or you have a more advanced system (some sort of detached
client running repliction/synch) with a centralized server.

> Do I need to ask the programmer to put some sort like command line in the
> application or in the SQL Server Express to retrieve the database? Or
it'll
> be automatically? I ask you this because I know nothing about SQL Server
at[vbcol=seagreen]
> all.
> Thank you.
>
> "Uri Dimant" wrote:
>
can[vbcol=seagreen]
Product?[vbcol=seagreen]
just[vbcol=seagreen]
aware[vbcol=seagreen]
computer[vbcol=seagreen]
2000[vbcol=seagreen]
perfomance[vbcol=seagreen]
about[vbcol=seagreen]
it[vbcol=seagreen]
enviroment[vbcol=seagreen]
too[vbcol=seagreen]
it[vbcol=seagreen]|||Hi Greg,
I think Norman Yuan has answered your question to me there, just look under.
"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote:

> "Dhow" <Dhow@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:90002B0B-4E5D-4332-8550-F4C9096FBCBA@.microsoft.com...
> I'm really not clear on what you're doing here.
> Is the Database on a centralized SQL 2000 Server or does each client have
a
> copy?
> You realize SQL 2000 and SQL 2005 are servers, not necessarily desktop
> applications (though there are client applications that run on the desktop
.)
> So, I think you're either misunderstanding how SQL 2000/2005 would
> interoperate, or you have a more advanced system (some sort of detached
> client running repliction/synch) with a centralized server.
>
> it'll
> at
> can
> Product?
> just
> aware
> computer
> 2000
> perfomance
> about
> it
> enviroment
> too
> it
>
>sql

Installing SQL Server Express edition

When I try to Install SQL Server expres edition I keep on getting this error: http://www.fambouman.com/SQLError.JPG

I'am running Windows SBS 2003 fully updated via windows update.. When I go to the URL mentioned in the error I get an error and the browser redirects to microsoft search.

Anybody know how I can setup SQL Expres ? I need it for dotnetnuke to run.

Thanks in advance

Sorry I can not read the error, could you post it in english.

|||

Sorry for the 'Dutch' error.. I thought mayb somebody could do something with it and I didn't really now how to 'generate' a english error.

But now I tried installing the 'english' version of SQL Server Expres and it gives the same error in english so here it is: http://www.fambouman.com/SQLError_english.JPG

Thanks in advance for helping me out.

|||

Hello Antonie,

it seems that your windows version does not match the requirements for sql server express.

To find out what windows version you have:

(Sorry, i'm from germany, i have the german version of windows,
and i don't know the english terms. I mentioned this here:
http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=466124&SiteID=1

I think it would be better when all developpers use the english original versions.
Then all developpers would use the same terms! On Condition that the well understandable
subset of english is used in the developper tools that microsoft uses today.)

To find out what windows version you have:
task manager / systemcontrol (try to translate...) / system /systemproperties.

To find out what windows versions are required:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143506(SQL.90).aspx

Regards,
Markus