define Hierarchy: dear

Showing posts with label dear. Show all posts

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

How to determine the best setting for Max Worker Threads

Dear All,
I am using SQL server 2000 and have 4 CPU and 16 GB RAM on Cluster
environment. Right now, I am using the default 255 on Max Worker Threads, but
based on my analysis, during peak hour, the number of connection is around
300, is that better to set the max worker threads to a higher value e.g. 350?
What will happen with I set it to 510 instead? Many thanks!
From,
HenryEach thread takes a small amount of memory, even if it is not being used. I
don'tremember how much ( maybe 1k). The best practice is NOT to set it
arbitrarily high... In your case, I'd set it to 300 or 310. and watch for
max connections occasionally. or alert on max connections > 310 so you will
know if you need to bump it again...
If these are not heads-down data entry people, it may even be OK for them to
thread share...
--
Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Mariner, Charlotte, NC
www.mariner-usa.com
(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
community of SQL Server professionals.
www.sqlpass.org
"Henry" <Henry@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:57C08B2F-4731-4771-BE39-BC8FFE922DD8@.microsoft.com...
> Dear All,
> I am using SQL server 2000 and have 4 CPU and 16 GB RAM on Cluster
> environment. Right now, I am using the default 255 on Max Worker Threads,
but
> based on my analysis, during peak hour, the number of connection is around
> 300, is that better to set the max worker threads to a higher value e.g.
350?
> What will happen with I set it to 510 instead? Many thanks!
> From,
> Henry|||IIRC, each worker thread uses closer to 384k of RAM.
I agree with Wayne. Use the 255 right now and use System Monitor and/or
Profiler and get a baseline value. Then bump it up to around 300 and check
the new values against your baseline. With a little tweaking here and
there, you should be able to come up with a reasonable value.
Rick Sawtell
MCT, MCSD, MCDBA
"Wayne Snyder" <wayne.nospam.snyder@.mariner-usa.com> wrote in message
news:OGiSzYesEHA.3580@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Each thread takes a small amount of memory, even if it is not being used.
I
> don'tremember how much ( maybe 1k). The best practice is NOT to set it
> arbitrarily high... In your case, I'd set it to 300 or 310. and watch for
> max connections occasionally. or alert on max connections > 310 so you
will
> know if you need to bump it again...
> If these are not heads-down data entry people, it may even be OK for them
to
> thread share...
> --
> Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
> Mariner, Charlotte, NC
> www.mariner-usa.com
> (Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
> I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
> community of SQL Server professionals.
> www.sqlpass.org
> "Henry" <Henry@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:57C08B2F-4731-4771-BE39-BC8FFE922DD8@.microsoft.com...
> > Dear All,
> > I am using SQL server 2000 and have 4 CPU and 16 GB RAM on Cluster
> > environment. Right now, I am using the default 255 on Max Worker
Threads,
> but
> > based on my analysis, during peak hour, the number of connection is
around
> > 300, is that better to set the max worker threads to a higher value e.g.
> 350?
> > What will happen with I set it to 510 instead? Many thanks!
> > From,
> > Henry
>|||Just because ht enumber of connection is over 255 does not in any way mean
you need more worker threads. Take a look at
dbcc sqlperf(UMSSTATS) and see how they are being used now.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Henry" <Henry@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:57C08B2F-4731-4771-BE39-BC8FFE922DD8@.microsoft.com...
> Dear All,
> I am using SQL server 2000 and have 4 CPU and 16 GB RAM on Cluster
> environment. Right now, I am using the default 255 on Max Worker Threads,
> but
> based on my analysis, during peak hour, the number of connection is around
> 300, is that better to set the max worker threads to a higher value e.g.
> 350?
> What will happen with I set it to 510 instead? Many thanks!
> From,
> Henry|||Oops...
Thanks Andrew... I meant connections, not worker threads.
In fact, if I remember correctly, we demo'd a 4 processor SQL 7.0 instance a
number of years ago and found that tuning the worker threads down to
somewhere around 12 gave us the best performance...
Rick
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:OLaR4thsEHA.3324@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Just because ht enumber of connection is over 255 does not in any way mean
> you need more worker threads. Take a look at
> dbcc sqlperf(UMSSTATS) and see how they are being used now.
>
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "Henry" <Henry@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:57C08B2F-4731-4771-BE39-BC8FFE922DD8@.microsoft.com...
> > Dear All,
> > I am using SQL server 2000 and have 4 CPU and 16 GB RAM on Cluster
> > environment. Right now, I am using the default 255 on Max Worker
Threads,
> > but
> > based on my analysis, during peak hour, the number of connection is
around
> > 300, is that better to set the max worker threads to a higher value e.g.
> > 350?
> > What will happen with I set it to 510 instead? Many thanks!
> > From,
> > Henry
>|||Dear Andrew,
Thanks for your advise. Would you please kindly explain how to use dbcc
sqlperf(UMSSTATS) to determine the best setting? Coz as far as I know from
web article, we can use the "num runnable" to determine whether there is
bottleneck on CPU, if always 0, then is healthy, otherwise, may have
bottleneck. For my case, the current default worker thread setting 255, give
me 0 or 1 most of the time. Is that my goal is to adjust until the "num
runnable" always on 0? Please advise, many thanks!
From,
Henry :)
"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
> Just because ht enumber of connection is over 255 does not in any way mean
> you need more worker threads. Take a look at
> dbcc sqlperf(UMSSTATS) and see how they are being used now.
>
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "Henry" <Henry@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:57C08B2F-4731-4771-BE39-BC8FFE922DD8@.microsoft.com...
> > Dear All,
> > I am using SQL server 2000 and have 4 CPU and 16 GB RAM on Cluster
> > environment. Right now, I am using the default 255 on Max Worker Threads,
> > but
> > based on my analysis, during peak hour, the number of connection is around
> > 300, is that better to set the max worker threads to a higher value e.g.
> > 350?
> > What will happen with I set it to 510 instead? Many thanks!
> > From,
> > Henry
>
>|||This is a sample output for the UMSSTATS. Your question is whether you
should bump up the max worker threads. The default is a maximum of 255 and
they get evenly divided between the processors assigned to SQL Server. In
your case that is 4 processors and that means the number of workers for each
processor can be over 60. But it will rarely get even close to that on a
system that is not extremely busy. The key is to look at the "idle workers"
size in realation to the "num workers". In your case if the value is always
0 or 1 you are hardly pushing the systems ability to work with what it has.
You are seeing normal behavior.
Scheduler ID 0.0
num users 18.0
num runnable 0.0
num workers 13.0
idle workers 11.0
work queued 0.0
cntxt switches 2.2994396E+7
cntxt switches(idle) 1.7793976E+7
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Henry" <Henry@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E13223AE-6F93-4D5E-8082-472E73FA6585@.microsoft.com...
> Dear Andrew,
> Thanks for your advise. Would you please kindly explain how to use dbcc
> sqlperf(UMSSTATS) to determine the best setting? Coz as far as I know from
> web article, we can use the "num runnable" to determine whether there is
> bottleneck on CPU, if always 0, then is healthy, otherwise, may have
> bottleneck. For my case, the current default worker thread setting 255,
> give
> me 0 or 1 most of the time. Is that my goal is to adjust until the "num
> runnable" always on 0? Please advise, many thanks!
> From,
> Henry :)
> "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
>> Just because ht enumber of connection is over 255 does not in any way
>> mean
>> you need more worker threads. Take a look at
>> dbcc sqlperf(UMSSTATS) and see how they are being used now.
>>
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>>
>> "Henry" <Henry@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:57C08B2F-4731-4771-BE39-BC8FFE922DD8@.microsoft.com...
>> > Dear All,
>> > I am using SQL server 2000 and have 4 CPU and 16 GB RAM on Cluster
>> > environment. Right now, I am using the default 255 on Max Worker
>> > Threads,
>> > but
>> > based on my analysis, during peak hour, the number of connection is
>> > around
>> > 300, is that better to set the max worker threads to a higher value
>> > e.g.
>> > 350?
>> > What will happen with I set it to 510 instead? Many thanks!
>> > From,
>> > Henry
>>|||How do you know how many connections so that i can monitor this too.
thanks
"Wayne Snyder" wrote:
> Each thread takes a small amount of memory, even if it is not being used. I
> don'tremember how much ( maybe 1k). The best practice is NOT to set it
> arbitrarily high... In your case, I'd set it to 300 or 310. and watch for
> max connections occasionally. or alert on max connections > 310 so you will
> know if you need to bump it again...
> If these are not heads-down data entry people, it may even be OK for them to
> thread share...
> --
> Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
> Mariner, Charlotte, NC
> www.mariner-usa.com
> (Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
> I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
> community of SQL Server professionals.
> www.sqlpass.org
> "Henry" <Henry@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:57C08B2F-4731-4771-BE39-BC8FFE922DD8@.microsoft.com...
> > Dear All,
> > I am using SQL server 2000 and have 4 CPU and 16 GB RAM on Cluster
> > environment. Right now, I am using the default 255 on Max Worker Threads,
> but
> > based on my analysis, during peak hour, the number of connection is around
> > 300, is that better to set the max worker threads to a higher value e.g.
> 350?
> > What will happen with I set it to 510 instead? Many thanks!
> > From,
> > Henry
>
>|||> How do you know how many connections so that i can monitor this too.
> thanks
You can monitor User Connections using Performance Monitor. You can also
get the current number of user connections with the following query:
SELECT cntr_value
FROM master..sysperfinfo
WHERE
object_name = 'SQLServer:General Statistics' AND
counter_name = 'User Connections'
Keep in mind that threads are pooled so you can have thousands of database
connections without the need to increase max worker threads. Connections
are often waiting for work and are not using a thread. Personally, I
wouldn't consider increasing the default unless the 'working thread limit of
255 has been reached' in appears in the error log.
--
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"TRACEY" <TRACEY@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:AFDCBDA1-9559-40E6-97A6-B0F52053920C@.microsoft.com...
> How do you know how many connections so that i can monitor this too.
> thanks
> "Wayne Snyder" wrote:
>> Each thread takes a small amount of memory, even if it is not being used.
>> I
>> don'tremember how much ( maybe 1k). The best practice is NOT to set it
>> arbitrarily high... In your case, I'd set it to 300 or 310. and watch
>> for
>> max connections occasionally. or alert on max connections > 310 so you
>> will
>> know if you need to bump it again...
>> If these are not heads-down data entry people, it may even be OK for them
>> to
>> thread share...
>> --
>> Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
>> Mariner, Charlotte, NC
>> www.mariner-usa.com
>> (Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
>> I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
>> community of SQL Server professionals.
>> www.sqlpass.org
>> "Henry" <Henry@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:57C08B2F-4731-4771-BE39-BC8FFE922DD8@.microsoft.com...
>> > Dear All,
>> > I am using SQL server 2000 and have 4 CPU and 16 GB RAM on Cluster
>> > environment. Right now, I am using the default 255 on Max Worker
>> > Threads,
>> but
>> > based on my analysis, during peak hour, the number of connection is
>> > around
>> > 300, is that better to set the max worker threads to a higher value
>> > e.g.
>> 350?
>> > What will happen with I set it to 510 instead? Many thanks!
>> > From,
>> > Henry
>>|||So if i run the dbcc sqlperf(umsstats) command say every hour i see how many
threads are in progress at any time......if reaching 255 at any one time
then i look at whether or not to change it
Thanks i have a look
"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
> Just because ht enumber of connection is over 255 does not in any way mean
> you need more worker threads. Take a look at
> dbcc sqlperf(UMSSTATS) and see how they are being used now.
>
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "Henry" <Henry@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:57C08B2F-4731-4771-BE39-BC8FFE922DD8@.microsoft.com...
> > Dear All,
> > I am using SQL server 2000 and have 4 CPU and 16 GB RAM on Cluster
> > environment. Right now, I am using the default 255 on Max Worker Threads,
> > but
> > based on my analysis, during peak hour, the number of connection is around
> > 300, is that better to set the max worker threads to a higher value e.g.
> > 350?
> > What will happen with I set it to 510 instead? Many thanks!
> > From,
> > Henry
>
>sql

How to determine the best setting for Max Worker Threads

"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:

> Just because ht enumber of connection is over 255 does not in any way mean
> you need more worker threads. Take a look at
> dbcc sqlperf(UMSSTATS) and see how they are being used now.
>
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "Henry" <Henry@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:57C08B2F-4731-4771-BE39-BC8FFE922DD8@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||This is a sample output for the UMSSTATS. Your question is whether you
should bump up the max worker threads. The default is a maximum of 255 and
they get evenly divided between the processors assigned to SQL Server. In
your case that is 4 processors and that means the number of workers for each
processor can be over 60. But it will rarely get even close to that on a
system that is not extremely busy. The key is to look at the "idle workers"
size in realation to the "num workers". In your case if the value is always
0 or 1 you are hardly pushing the systems ability to work with what it has.
You are seeing normal behavior.
Scheduler ID 0.0
num users 18.0
num runnable 0.0
num workers 13.0
idle workers 11.0
work queued 0.0
cntxt switches 2.2994396E+7
cntxt switches(idle) 1.7793976E+7
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Henry" <Henry@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E13223AE-6F93-4D5E-8082-472E73FA6585@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Dear Andrew,
> Thanks for your advise. Would you please kindly explain how to use dbcc
> sqlperf(UMSSTATS) to determine the best setting? Coz as far as I know from
> web article, we can use the "num runnable" to determine whether there is
> bottleneck on CPU, if always 0, then is healthy, otherwise, may have
> bottleneck. For my case, the current default worker thread setting 255,
> give
> me 0 or 1 most of the time. Is that my goal is to adjust until the "num
> runnable" always on 0? Please advise, many thanks!
> From,
> Henry

> "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
>|||How do you know how many connections so that i can monitor this too.
thanks
"Wayne Snyder" wrote:

> Each thread takes a small amount of memory, even if it is not being used.
I
> don'tremember how much ( maybe 1k). The best practice is NOT to set it
> arbitrarily high... In your case, I'd set it to 300 or 310. and watch for
> max connections occasionally. or alert on max connections > 310 so you wil
l
> know if you need to bump it again...
> If these are not heads-down data entry people, it may even be OK for them
to
> thread share...
> --
> Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
> Mariner, Charlotte, NC
> www.mariner-usa.com
> (Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
> I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
> community of SQL Server professionals.
> www.sqlpass.org
> "Henry" <Henry@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:57C08B2F-4731-4771-BE39-BC8FFE922DD8@.microsoft.com...
> but
> 350?
>
>|||> How do you know how many connections so that i can monitor this too.
> thanks
You can monitor User Connections using Performance Monitor. You can also
get the current number of user connections with the following query:
SELECT cntr_value
FROM master..sysperfinfo
WHERE
object_name = 'SQLServer:General Statistics' AND
counter_name = 'User Connections'
Keep in mind that threads are pooled so you can have thousands of database
connections without the need to increase max worker threads. Connections
are often waiting for work and are not using a thread. Personally, I
wouldn't consider increasing the default unless the 'working thread limit of
255 has been reached' in appears in the error log.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"TRACEY" <TRACEY@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:AFDCBDA1-9559-40E6-97A6-B0F52053920C@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> How do you know how many connections so that i can monitor this too.
> thanks
> "Wayne Snyder" wrote:
>|||So if i run the dbcc sqlperf(umsstats) command say every hour i see how many
threads are in progress at any time......if reaching 255 at any one time
then i look at whether or not to change it
Thanks i have a look
"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:

> Just because ht enumber of connection is over 255 does not in any way mean
> you need more worker threads. Take a look at
> dbcc sqlperf(UMSSTATS) and see how they are being used now.
>
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "Henry" <Henry@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:57C08B2F-4731-4771-BE39-BC8FFE922DD8@.microsoft.com...
>
>

How to determine the best setting for Max Worker Threads

"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:

> Just because ht enumber of connection is over 255 does not in any way mean
> you need more worker threads. Take a look at
> dbcc sqlperf(UMSSTATS) and see how they are being used now.
>
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "Henry" <Henry@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:57C08B2F-4731-4771-BE39-BC8FFE922DD8@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||This is a sample output for the UMSSTATS. Your question is whether you
should bump up the max worker threads. The default is a maximum of 255 and
they get evenly divided between the processors assigned to SQL Server. In
your case that is 4 processors and that means the number of workers for each
processor can be over 60. But it will rarely get even close to that on a
system that is not extremely busy. The key is to look at the "idle workers"
size in realation to the "num workers". In your case if the value is always
0 or 1 you are hardly pushing the systems ability to work with what it has.
You are seeing normal behavior.
Scheduler ID 0.0
num users 18.0
num runnable 0.0
num workers 13.0
idle workers 11.0
work queued 0.0
cntxt switches 2.2994396E+7
cntxt switches(idle) 1.7793976E+7
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Henry" <Henry@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E13223AE-6F93-4D5E-8082-472E73FA6585@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Dear Andrew,
> Thanks for your advise. Would you please kindly explain how to use dbcc
> sqlperf(UMSSTATS) to determine the best setting? Coz as far as I know from
> web article, we can use the "num runnable" to determine whether there is
> bottleneck on CPU, if always 0, then is healthy, otherwise, may have
> bottleneck. For my case, the current default worker thread setting 255,
> give
> me 0 or 1 most of the time. Is that my goal is to adjust until the "num
> runnable" always on 0? Please advise, many thanks!
> From,
> Henry

> "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:

Monday, March 12, 2012

How to deploy msde database in web matrix

Dear Sir,
How do I deploy database to remote server in web matrix. It does not have enterprise manager.
I have to use osql.exe command line that runs msde statements that are exuceted against database. Can you
please let me know how to use osql.exe.
Regards,
Farhan

Web Matrix is free so is MSDE so you can buy the Developer edition for $37 to manage MSDE or test drive SQL Server 2005 from the first link below. I would do the former. Hope this helps.
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/downloads/trial-software.mspx

http://www.provantage.com/buy-22053391-microsoft-backoffice-sql-server-2000-developer-edition-shopping.htm

Wednesday, March 7, 2012

How to delete Guest user, via group membership

Dear all
In my databases I can see the user Guest, via group membership, but I
can not delete it by any way. Is there any way to delete it?
RegardsHi
What does it mean via group membership?
Do you have permissions to drop logins?
<shahdharti@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1134650134.830481.233610@.z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Dear all
> In my databases I can see the user Guest, via group membership, but I
> can not delete it by any way. Is there any way to delete it?
> Regards
>|||delete the row from sysusers table.
shahdharti@.gmail.com wrote:
> Dear all
> In my databases I can see the user Guest, via group membership, but I
> can not delete it by any way. Is there any way to delete it?
> Regards|||ch
It is really deprecate to edit system tables
"ch" <ch@.dontemailme.com> wrote in message
news:43A16AB2.932AD7A0@.dontemailme.com...
> delete the row from sysusers table.
>
> shahdharti@.gmail.com wrote:
>> Dear all
>> In my databases I can see the user Guest, via group membership, but I
>> can not delete it by any way. Is there any way to delete it?
>> Regards|||In Enterprise manager when I see users list I see the Guest user and in
status column I see 'via group membership'.
In sysusers system table I can found guest user.
sp_helpuser does not show guest user.
When I try to delete I get error :15008 user Guest does not exist in
the current database.
Regards|||Hi
Why would you want to delete a rows from system table?
<shahdharti@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1134653831.421300.138100@.z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> In Enterprise manager when I see users list I see the Guest user and in
> status column I see 'via group membership'.
> In sysusers system table I can found guest user.
> sp_helpuser does not show guest user.
> When I try to delete I get error :15008 user Guest does not exist in
> the current database.
> Regards
>|||What version? 2000 or 2005?
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
<shahdharti@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1134650134.830481.233610@.z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Dear all
> In my databases I can see the user Guest, via group membership, but I
> can not delete it by any way. Is there any way to delete it?
> Regards
>|||SQL Server 2000, SP3.
One more strange matter , when I register server in my coleagues PC ,
it is not showing Guest user there.
On my pc all servers which are registered I am seeing Guest user,
having status via group memeber ship.
I want to remove this guest for all servers from my PC.
Regards|||The user doesn't really exists in the real sense. Try
SELECT * FROM sysusers WHERE name = 'guest'
You will see that the column hasdbaccess is 0.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
<shahdharti@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1134653831.421300.138100@.z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> In Enterprise manager when I see users list I see the Guest user and in
> status column I see 'via group membership'.
> In sysusers system table I can found guest user.
> sp_helpuser does not show guest user.
> When I try to delete I get error :15008 user Guest does not exist in
> the current database.
> Regards
>|||Have you got the SQL2005 tools installed? The version of SQLDMO installed by
the SQL2005 tools issues a slightly different query to enumerate database
users than the SQL2000 versions. This has the side effect of the guest user
showing up in all databases when viewed via Enterprise Manager. If you open
EM on the server itself (assuming there are no SQL2005 components installed)
you should see that it doesn't show up (the default SQL2000 behaviour). This
is just a UI issue and nothing has actually changed on the server - it's
nothing to worry about.
--
HTH
Jasper Smith (SQL Server MVP)
http://www.sqldbatips.com
I support PASS - the definitive, global
community for SQL Server professionals -
http://www.sqlpass.org
<shahdharti@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1134650134.830481.233610@.z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Dear all
> In my databases I can see the user Guest, via group membership, but I
> can not delete it by any way. Is there any way to delete it?
> Regards
>|||Hi Jasper!
Thanks for that! I thought I was going crazy when looking at this (for this posts sake) and noticed
that guest show up in each database even if it "doesn't exist". I was close to dead certain that
this isn't the normal behavior... :-)
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Jasper Smith" <jasper_smith9@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23wGk9QaAGHA.3872@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Have you got the SQL2005 tools installed? The version of SQLDMO installed by the SQL2005 tools
> issues a slightly different query to enumerate database users than the SQL2000 versions. This has
> the side effect of the guest user showing up in all databases when viewed via Enterprise Manager.
> If you open EM on the server itself (assuming there are no SQL2005 components installed) you
> should see that it doesn't show up (the default SQL2000 behaviour). This is just a UI issue and
> nothing has actually changed on the server - it's nothing to worry about.
> --
> HTH
> Jasper Smith (SQL Server MVP)
> http://www.sqldbatips.com
> I support PASS - the definitive, global
> community for SQL Server professionals -
> http://www.sqlpass.org
> <shahdharti@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1134650134.830481.233610@.z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> Dear all
>> In my databases I can see the user Guest, via group membership, but I
>> can not delete it by any way. Is there any way to delete it?
>> Regards
>|||Thanks Jasper
You are right. Its a relief for me.
Regards|||jasper, you should have also posted this response in my thread titled
"how did guest get back into all of my databases?" ;)
thanks for the info.
Jasper Smith wrote:
> Have you got the SQL2005 tools installed? The version of SQLDMO installed by
> the SQL2005 tools issues a slightly different query to enumerate database
> users than the SQL2000 versions. This has the side effect of the guest user
> showing up in all databases when viewed via Enterprise Manager. If you open
> EM on the server itself (assuming there are no SQL2005 components installed)
> you should see that it doesn't show up (the default SQL2000 behaviour). This
> is just a UI issue and nothing has actually changed on the server - it's
> nothing to worry about.
> --
> HTH
> Jasper Smith (SQL Server MVP)
> http://www.sqldbatips.com
> I support PASS - the definitive, global
> community for SQL Server professionals -
> http://www.sqlpass.org
> <shahdharti@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1134650134.830481.233610@.z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > Dear all
> >
> > In my databases I can see the user Guest, via group membership, but I
> > can not delete it by any way. Is there any way to delete it?
> >
> > Regards
> >

How to delete Guest user, via group membership

Friday, February 24, 2012

How to Delete article in mearge replication

Dear Friends
I want to delete one article from the current Merge
replication i have use the sp_dropmergearticle but it is
comming up with the error that the ARTICLE CAN NOT BE
DROPED AS THE SNAPSHOT OF THE SAME PUBLICATION IS ALREADY
APPLIED.
Please suggest how I can do the same.
Thanks and best regards
Sharad
Kick everyone off your subscribers and publisher. drop the article. Recreate
your subscriptions using the no-sync option.
Run all merge agents.
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
"sharad" <niitmalad@.yahoo.co.in> wrote in message
news:0cea01c4f3f0$9e1da4e0$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
> Dear Friends
> I want to delete one article from the current Merge
> replication i have use the sp_dropmergearticle but it is
> comming up with the error that the ARTICLE CAN NOT BE
> DROPED AS THE SNAPSHOT OF THE SAME PUBLICATION IS ALREADY
> APPLIED.
> Please suggest how I can do the same.
> Thanks and best regards
> Sharad
|||Sharad try with this SP
sp_repldropcolumn
David Barquero
"sharad" <niitmalad@.yahoo.co.in> wrote in message
news:0cea01c4f3f0$9e1da4e0$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
> Dear Friends
> I want to delete one article from the current Merge
> replication i have use the sp_dropmergearticle but it is
> comming up with the error that the ARTICLE CAN NOT BE
> DROPED AS THE SNAPSHOT OF THE SAME PUBLICATION IS ALREADY
> APPLIED.
> Please suggest how I can do the same.
> Thanks and best regards
> Sharad

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

How to determine the best setting for Max Worker Threads

How to determine the best setting for Max Worker Threads

How to determine the best setting for Max Worker Threads

Monday, March 12, 2012

How to deploy msde database in web matrix

Wednesday, March 7, 2012

How to delete Guest user, via group membership

How to delete Guest user, via group membership

How to delete Guest user, via group membership

Friday, February 24, 2012

How to Delete article in mearge replication

define Hierarchy

Blog Archive

About Me