Hi
If the source tables for Analysis Services 2000 and 2005 are all coming from Oracle, is there any reason why we need to have SQL Server installed as well?
Thanks
Steve
Nope!
-Jamie
Showing posts with label required. Show all posts
Showing posts with label required. Show all posts
Monday, March 12, 2012
Is SQL Server DB is required?
Hi,
I wanted to use MS SQL Reporting services with Oracle as database.
Please let me know whether the installation of Sql Server Database is required in this case?
Please, can any one suggest me in this regard.
Thanks
To install an SSRS environment it is required. SSRS relies on 2 SQL Server DBs to hold information such as report definitions.As a datasource for reports, SQL Server is not required.
Is SQL required for 15 users
Hello:
I have 15 clients that connect to an Access database that is hosted on a sha
red network drive. We experienced data corruprion recently and the database
designer that was hired to fix this problem recommended that we introduce a
nd SQL server. Workstatio
ns are WinXP, with Office and Access 2000. Two clients are using Office 200
0, on Win2000Pro. The server is Win2000 with active directory.
This is a costly endeavour, and I wonder if it is an overkill for such a sma
ll site. A maximum of four users need to have write access simultanoeusly.
The database is less than 50Mb in size, and it is stored on a network dri
ve where all have full read
and write access. I would tend to reconfigure security appropriately on the
server and isolate the database and roll out ACCESS 2003 as a first solutio
n to resolve this issue, and then introduce SQL if problem persist. Does i
t make sense, or would you
recommend I roll-in a SQL server?
Thanks"CC" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:F2ED7F5C-8C6F-4FA5-99E6-A28116D5169D@.microsoft.com...
> Hello:
> I have 15 clients that connect to an Access database that is hosted on a
shared network drive. We experienced data corruprion recently and the
database designer that was hired to fix this problem recommended that we
introduce and SQL server. Workstations are WinXP, with Office and Access
2000. Two clients are using Office 2000, on Win2000Pro. The server is
Win2000 with active directory.
> This is a costly endeavour, and I wonder if it is an overkill for such a
small site. A maximum of four users need to have write access
simultanoeusly. The database is less than 50Mb in size, and it is stored
on a network drive where all have full read and write access. I would tend
to reconfigure security appropriately on the server and isolate the database
and roll out ACCESS 2003 as a first solution to resolve this issue, and then
introduce SQL if problem persist. Does it make sense, or would you
recommend I roll-in a SQL server?
> Thanks
>
Access 2003 has the same problems as Access 2000 with respect to corruption.
See if the developer can get MSDE. It's SqlServer, it's free and for a
small database with 15 clients it will work fine.
David|||A properly designed Access project can handle your description. It will by
definition be file-server and not client-server, but each user should have
their own front-end mdb and the back end should be at least one mdb. You
should seek help in nntp://comp.databases.ms-access.
hth
Eric
"CC" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:F2ED7F5C-8C6F-4FA5-99E6-A28116D5169D@.microsoft.com...
> Hello:
> I have 15 clients that connect to an Access database that is hosted on a
shared network drive. We experienced data corruprion recently and the
database designer that was hired to fix this problem recommended that we
introduce and SQL server. Workstations are WinXP, with Office and Access
2000. Two clients are using Office 2000, on Win2000Pro. The server is
Win2000 with active directory.
> This is a costly endeavour, and I wonder if it is an overkill for such a
small site. A maximum of four users need to have write access
simultanoeusly. The database is less than 50Mb in size, and it is stored
on a network drive where all have full read and write access. I would tend
to reconfigure security appropriately on the server and isolate the database
and roll out ACCESS 2003 as a first solution to resolve this issue, and then
introduce SQL if problem persist. Does it make sense, or would you
recommend I roll-in a SQL server?
> Thanks
>
>
>
>|||A properly designed Access DB may or may not be able to handle 15 users.
Probably yes. But we don't know the workload. We do know that they have been
having corruption problems which Access is susecptible to.
A single processor license of SQL Standard goes for less than 5K. MSDE of
course would be free if they can use that. Perhaps the MSDE version with
Access?
But even at 5K... I question whether or not it's truly a costly endeavor.
How much was paid to have the consultant come in and 'fix the problem'.
What's the cost to the business, including lost worker productivity, in
dealing with these corruption problems?
Access is a great DB. But Access doesn't scale as well and if customer is
already seeing corruption, perhaps they should consider SQL. I don't
honestly think cost shoudl be the deciding factor in a situation like this,
at least not unless the 'cost' of having corrputed Access db's in factored.
Brian Moran
Principal Mentor
Solid Quality Learning
SQL Server MVP
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com
"Eric Sabine" <mopar41@.___ho_y_tmail.ScPoAmM> wrote in message
news:eYY9g$tBEHA.712@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> A properly designed Access project can handle your description. It will
by
> definition be file-server and not client-server, but each user should have
> their own front-end mdb and the back end should be at least one mdb. You
> should seek help in nntp://comp.databases.ms-access.
> hth
> Eric
>
> "CC" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:F2ED7F5C-8C6F-4FA5-99E6-A28116D5169D@.microsoft.com...
> shared network drive. We experienced data corruprion recently and the
> database designer that was hired to fix this problem recommended that we
> introduce and SQL server. Workstations are WinXP, with Office and Access
> 2000. Two clients are using Office 2000, on Win2000Pro. The server is
> Win2000 with active directory.
> small site. A maximum of four users need to have write access
> simultanoeusly. The database is less than 50Mb in size, and it is stored
> on a network drive where all have full read and write access. I would
tend
> to reconfigure security appropriately on the server and isolate the
database
> and roll out ACCESS 2003 as a first solution to resolve this issue, and
then
> introduce SQL if problem persist. Does it make sense, or would you
> recommend I roll-in a SQL server?
>|||We experienced data corruption once since my arrival, but no maintenance was
performed on the databases at all for a few years. We were plagued with ne
twork slowdows at the time of the incident. Maintenance was performed on th
e server (among other thing
s that were found is 16% fragmentation). The contractor that created the
database invoice a day of work. I understand the problem was resolved by s
imply using compact and repair.
The database was created originally under PAradox, then migrated to ACCESS 9
7 and then to 2000. I suspect that this is the root of the problem, coupled
with the fact that we are using 2000 as front end and that there was no mai
ntenance.|||"cc" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:5293B9C9-9C65-4406-9659-954DF6BD5227@.microsoft.com...
> We experienced data corruption once since my arrival, but no maintenance
was performed on the databases >at all for a few years. We were plagued
with network slowdows at the time of the incident. Maintenance was
>performed on the server (among other things that were found is 16%
fragmentation). The contractor that >created the database invoice a day
of work. I understand the problem was resolved by simply using compact >and
repair.
> The database was created originally under PAradox, then migrated to ACCESS
97 and then to 2000. I >suspect that this is the root of the problem,
coupled with the fact that we are using 2000 as front end and that >there
was no maintenance.
Network problems will almost always cause database corruption in Access.
If your network problems are solved, your corruption problems may be solved
too.
David
I have 15 clients that connect to an Access database that is hosted on a sha
red network drive. We experienced data corruprion recently and the database
designer that was hired to fix this problem recommended that we introduce a
nd SQL server. Workstatio
ns are WinXP, with Office and Access 2000. Two clients are using Office 200
0, on Win2000Pro. The server is Win2000 with active directory.
This is a costly endeavour, and I wonder if it is an overkill for such a sma
ll site. A maximum of four users need to have write access simultanoeusly.
The database is less than 50Mb in size, and it is stored on a network dri
ve where all have full read
and write access. I would tend to reconfigure security appropriately on the
server and isolate the database and roll out ACCESS 2003 as a first solutio
n to resolve this issue, and then introduce SQL if problem persist. Does i
t make sense, or would you
recommend I roll-in a SQL server?
Thanks"CC" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:F2ED7F5C-8C6F-4FA5-99E6-A28116D5169D@.microsoft.com...
> Hello:
> I have 15 clients that connect to an Access database that is hosted on a
shared network drive. We experienced data corruprion recently and the
database designer that was hired to fix this problem recommended that we
introduce and SQL server. Workstations are WinXP, with Office and Access
2000. Two clients are using Office 2000, on Win2000Pro. The server is
Win2000 with active directory.
> This is a costly endeavour, and I wonder if it is an overkill for such a
small site. A maximum of four users need to have write access
simultanoeusly. The database is less than 50Mb in size, and it is stored
on a network drive where all have full read and write access. I would tend
to reconfigure security appropriately on the server and isolate the database
and roll out ACCESS 2003 as a first solution to resolve this issue, and then
introduce SQL if problem persist. Does it make sense, or would you
recommend I roll-in a SQL server?
> Thanks
>
Access 2003 has the same problems as Access 2000 with respect to corruption.
See if the developer can get MSDE. It's SqlServer, it's free and for a
small database with 15 clients it will work fine.
David|||A properly designed Access project can handle your description. It will by
definition be file-server and not client-server, but each user should have
their own front-end mdb and the back end should be at least one mdb. You
should seek help in nntp://comp.databases.ms-access.
hth
Eric
"CC" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:F2ED7F5C-8C6F-4FA5-99E6-A28116D5169D@.microsoft.com...
> Hello:
> I have 15 clients that connect to an Access database that is hosted on a
shared network drive. We experienced data corruprion recently and the
database designer that was hired to fix this problem recommended that we
introduce and SQL server. Workstations are WinXP, with Office and Access
2000. Two clients are using Office 2000, on Win2000Pro. The server is
Win2000 with active directory.
> This is a costly endeavour, and I wonder if it is an overkill for such a
small site. A maximum of four users need to have write access
simultanoeusly. The database is less than 50Mb in size, and it is stored
on a network drive where all have full read and write access. I would tend
to reconfigure security appropriately on the server and isolate the database
and roll out ACCESS 2003 as a first solution to resolve this issue, and then
introduce SQL if problem persist. Does it make sense, or would you
recommend I roll-in a SQL server?
> Thanks
>
>
>
>|||A properly designed Access DB may or may not be able to handle 15 users.
Probably yes. But we don't know the workload. We do know that they have been
having corruption problems which Access is susecptible to.
A single processor license of SQL Standard goes for less than 5K. MSDE of
course would be free if they can use that. Perhaps the MSDE version with
Access?
But even at 5K... I question whether or not it's truly a costly endeavor.
How much was paid to have the consultant come in and 'fix the problem'.
What's the cost to the business, including lost worker productivity, in
dealing with these corruption problems?
Access is a great DB. But Access doesn't scale as well and if customer is
already seeing corruption, perhaps they should consider SQL. I don't
honestly think cost shoudl be the deciding factor in a situation like this,
at least not unless the 'cost' of having corrputed Access db's in factored.
Brian Moran
Principal Mentor
Solid Quality Learning
SQL Server MVP
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com
"Eric Sabine" <mopar41@.___ho_y_tmail.ScPoAmM> wrote in message
news:eYY9g$tBEHA.712@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> A properly designed Access project can handle your description. It will
by
> definition be file-server and not client-server, but each user should have
> their own front-end mdb and the back end should be at least one mdb. You
> should seek help in nntp://comp.databases.ms-access.
> hth
> Eric
>
> "CC" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:F2ED7F5C-8C6F-4FA5-99E6-A28116D5169D@.microsoft.com...
> shared network drive. We experienced data corruprion recently and the
> database designer that was hired to fix this problem recommended that we
> introduce and SQL server. Workstations are WinXP, with Office and Access
> 2000. Two clients are using Office 2000, on Win2000Pro. The server is
> Win2000 with active directory.
> small site. A maximum of four users need to have write access
> simultanoeusly. The database is less than 50Mb in size, and it is stored
> on a network drive where all have full read and write access. I would
tend
> to reconfigure security appropriately on the server and isolate the
database
> and roll out ACCESS 2003 as a first solution to resolve this issue, and
then
> introduce SQL if problem persist. Does it make sense, or would you
> recommend I roll-in a SQL server?
>|||We experienced data corruption once since my arrival, but no maintenance was
performed on the databases at all for a few years. We were plagued with ne
twork slowdows at the time of the incident. Maintenance was performed on th
e server (among other thing
s that were found is 16% fragmentation). The contractor that created the
database invoice a day of work. I understand the problem was resolved by s
imply using compact and repair.
The database was created originally under PAradox, then migrated to ACCESS 9
7 and then to 2000. I suspect that this is the root of the problem, coupled
with the fact that we are using 2000 as front end and that there was no mai
ntenance.|||"cc" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:5293B9C9-9C65-4406-9659-954DF6BD5227@.microsoft.com...
> We experienced data corruption once since my arrival, but no maintenance
was performed on the databases >at all for a few years. We were plagued
with network slowdows at the time of the incident. Maintenance was
>performed on the server (among other things that were found is 16%
fragmentation). The contractor that >created the database invoice a day
of work. I understand the problem was resolved by simply using compact >and
repair.
> The database was created originally under PAradox, then migrated to ACCESS
97 and then to 2000. I >suspect that this is the root of the problem,
coupled with the fact that we are using 2000 as front end and that >there
was no maintenance.
Network problems will almost always cause database corruption in Access.
If your network problems are solved, your corruption problems may be solved
too.
David
Is SQL Native Client required on a client machine?
If I understand correctly, SQL Native Client must be used to access the new
features in SQL Server 2005. What if I just want to access SQL Server 2005
but don't use any new feature, can I not install it onto client machine and
just use SQL Server driver comes with ODBC?Hi
MDAC 2.6 and later is supported if you are not using any new features.
IMHO, it would be best to be on MDAC 2.8
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Peter" <Peter@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B420C925-C42C-4DE3-A5E6-B337637B7BB3@.microsoft.com...
> If I understand correctly, SQL Native Client must be used to access the
> new
> features in SQL Server 2005. What if I just want to access SQL Server
> 2005
> but don't use any new feature, can I not install it onto client machine
> and
> just use SQL Server driver comes with ODBC?
>
features in SQL Server 2005. What if I just want to access SQL Server 2005
but don't use any new feature, can I not install it onto client machine and
just use SQL Server driver comes with ODBC?Hi
MDAC 2.6 and later is supported if you are not using any new features.
IMHO, it would be best to be on MDAC 2.8
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Peter" <Peter@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B420C925-C42C-4DE3-A5E6-B337637B7BB3@.microsoft.com...
> If I understand correctly, SQL Native Client must be used to access the
> new
> features in SQL Server 2005. What if I just want to access SQL Server
> 2005
> but don't use any new feature, can I not install it onto client machine
> and
> just use SQL Server driver comes with ODBC?
>
Is SQL Native Client required on a client machine?
If I understand correctly, SQL Native Client must be used to access the new
features in SQL Server 2005. What if I just want to access SQL Server 2005
but don't use any new feature, can I not install it onto client machine and
just use SQL Server driver comes with ODBC?
Hi
MDAC 2.6 and later is supported if you are not using any new features.
IMHO, it would be best to be on MDAC 2.8
Regards
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Peter" <Peter@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B420C925-C42C-4DE3-A5E6-B337637B7BB3@.microsoft.com...
> If I understand correctly, SQL Native Client must be used to access the
> new
> features in SQL Server 2005. What if I just want to access SQL Server
> 2005
> but don't use any new feature, can I not install it onto client machine
> and
> just use SQL Server driver comes with ODBC?
>
features in SQL Server 2005. What if I just want to access SQL Server 2005
but don't use any new feature, can I not install it onto client machine and
just use SQL Server driver comes with ODBC?
Hi
MDAC 2.6 and later is supported if you are not using any new features.
IMHO, it would be best to be on MDAC 2.8
Regards
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Peter" <Peter@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B420C925-C42C-4DE3-A5E6-B337637B7BB3@.microsoft.com...
> If I understand correctly, SQL Native Client must be used to access the
> new
> features in SQL Server 2005. What if I just want to access SQL Server
> 2005
> but don't use any new feature, can I not install it onto client machine
> and
> just use SQL Server driver comes with ODBC?
>
Friday, March 9, 2012
Is SQL Express required...
Does SQL Express 2005 have to be installed for SQL Developer 2005 to work correctly in VB 2005 Pro?
Thank you,
David
Nope, SQL Express and SQL Developer are just two different editions of SQL Server 2005. You can have either one for your VB install to connect to.
Thanks,
Sam Lester (MSFT)
Is 'SET NOCOUNT OFF' required?
Normally I bracket my stored procedure code with 'SET NOCOUNT ON' and 'SET
NOCOUNT OFF' statements. Do I actually have to explicitly add the 'SET
NOCOUNT OFF' statement at the end of the Stored procedure or does SQL Server
automatically set it to OFF once the stored procedure is finished executing?
Thanks in advanceAnything SET within the procedure is set only for the duration of the
procedure.
I don't have a single SET NOCOUNT OFF statement throughout our entire
enterprise (but one of our standard coding conventions is to start every
single stored procedure with SET NOCOUNT ON).
"Cipher" <Cipher@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:EEADA5B8-C1F7-422A-A932-7C79A1789A8E@.microsoft.com...
> Normally I bracket my stored procedure code with 'SET NOCOUNT ON' and 'SET
> NOCOUNT OFF' statements. Do I actually have to explicitly add the 'SET
> NOCOUNT OFF' statement at the end of the Stored procedure or does SQL
> Server
> automatically set it to OFF once the stored procedure is finished
> executing?
> Thanks in advance|||It should revert to the server settings after the stored procedure is
completed, so technically, SET NOCOUNT OFF is not required. However,
it's good programming practice to include it.
HTH,
Stu
Cipher wrote:
> Normally I bracket my stored procedure code with 'SET NOCOUNT ON' and 'SET
> NOCOUNT OFF' statements. Do I actually have to explicitly add the 'SET
> NOCOUNT OFF' statement at the end of the Stored procedure or does SQL Serv
er
> automatically set it to OFF once the stored procedure is finished executin
g?
> Thanks in advance|||Always set it ON, don't worry about setting it off.
Arnie Rowland, YACE*
"To be successful, your heart must accompany your knowledge."
*Yet Another certification Exam
"Cipher" <Cipher@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:EEADA5B8-C1F7-422A-A932-7C79A1789A8E@.microsoft.com...
> Normally I bracket my stored procedure code with 'SET NOCOUNT ON' and 'SET
> NOCOUNT OFF' statements. Do I actually have to explicitly add the 'SET
> NOCOUNT OFF' statement at the end of the Stored procedure or does SQL
> Server
> automatically set it to OFF once the stored procedure is finished
> executing?
> Thanks in advance
NOCOUNT OFF' statements. Do I actually have to explicitly add the 'SET
NOCOUNT OFF' statement at the end of the Stored procedure or does SQL Server
automatically set it to OFF once the stored procedure is finished executing?
Thanks in advanceAnything SET within the procedure is set only for the duration of the
procedure.
I don't have a single SET NOCOUNT OFF statement throughout our entire
enterprise (but one of our standard coding conventions is to start every
single stored procedure with SET NOCOUNT ON).
"Cipher" <Cipher@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:EEADA5B8-C1F7-422A-A932-7C79A1789A8E@.microsoft.com...
> Normally I bracket my stored procedure code with 'SET NOCOUNT ON' and 'SET
> NOCOUNT OFF' statements. Do I actually have to explicitly add the 'SET
> NOCOUNT OFF' statement at the end of the Stored procedure or does SQL
> Server
> automatically set it to OFF once the stored procedure is finished
> executing?
> Thanks in advance|||It should revert to the server settings after the stored procedure is
completed, so technically, SET NOCOUNT OFF is not required. However,
it's good programming practice to include it.
HTH,
Stu
Cipher wrote:
> Normally I bracket my stored procedure code with 'SET NOCOUNT ON' and 'SET
> NOCOUNT OFF' statements. Do I actually have to explicitly add the 'SET
> NOCOUNT OFF' statement at the end of the Stored procedure or does SQL Serv
er
> automatically set it to OFF once the stored procedure is finished executin
g?
> Thanks in advance|||Always set it ON, don't worry about setting it off.
Arnie Rowland, YACE*
"To be successful, your heart must accompany your knowledge."
*Yet Another certification Exam
"Cipher" <Cipher@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:EEADA5B8-C1F7-422A-A932-7C79A1789A8E@.microsoft.com...
> Normally I bracket my stored procedure code with 'SET NOCOUNT ON' and 'SET
> NOCOUNT OFF' statements. Do I actually have to explicitly add the 'SET
> NOCOUNT OFF' statement at the end of the Stored procedure or does SQL
> Server
> automatically set it to OFF once the stored procedure is finished
> executing?
> Thanks in advance
Monday, February 20, 2012
Is NTFS required?
Good day. I had my XP Pro PC hard drives formatted to NTFS but when I built
the 98SE PC it could not read the shared files from the XP PC. I
re-formatted the drives on the XP PC to FAT32. Does the PC on which SQL
Server 2000 is installed require the NTFS formatted hard drives? TIA, Jim.
AFAIK, no.
HTH, Jens Suessmeyer.
http://www.sqlserver2005.de
"Jim Richards" <JWRichards@.satx.rr.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:nS%qe.39974$j51.31328@.tornado.texas.rr.com...
> Good day. I had my XP Pro PC hard drives formatted to NTFS but when I
> built the 98SE PC it could not read the shared files from the XP PC. I
> re-formatted the drives on the XP PC to FAT32. Does the PC on which SQL
> Server 2000 is installed require the NTFS formatted hard drives? TIA, Jim.
>
|||Not required but it is recommended according to Books Online.
Only Personal Ed and MSDE are supported as servers on Win98, although
Win98 clients are OK for all editions.
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
the 98SE PC it could not read the shared files from the XP PC. I
re-formatted the drives on the XP PC to FAT32. Does the PC on which SQL
Server 2000 is installed require the NTFS formatted hard drives? TIA, Jim.
AFAIK, no.
HTH, Jens Suessmeyer.
http://www.sqlserver2005.de
"Jim Richards" <JWRichards@.satx.rr.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:nS%qe.39974$j51.31328@.tornado.texas.rr.com...
> Good day. I had my XP Pro PC hard drives formatted to NTFS but when I
> built the 98SE PC it could not read the shared files from the XP PC. I
> re-formatted the drives on the XP PC to FAT32. Does the PC on which SQL
> Server 2000 is installed require the NTFS formatted hard drives? TIA, Jim.
>
|||Not required but it is recommended according to Books Online.
Only Personal Ed and MSDE are supported as servers on Win98, although
Win98 clients are OK for all editions.
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
Is NTFS required?
Good day. I had my XP Pro PC hard drives formatted to NTFS but when I built
the 98SE PC it could not read the shared files from the XP PC. I
re-formatted the drives on the XP PC to FAT32. Does the PC on which SQL
Server 2000 is installed require the NTFS formatted hard drives? TIA, Jim.AFAIK, no.
HTH, Jens Suessmeyer.
http://www.sqlserver2005.de
--
"Jim Richards" <JWRichards@.satx.rr.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:nS%qe.39974$j51.31328@.tornado.texas.rr.com...
> Good day. I had my XP Pro PC hard drives formatted to NTFS but when I
> built the 98SE PC it could not read the shared files from the XP PC. I
> re-formatted the drives on the XP PC to FAT32. Does the PC on which SQL
> Server 2000 is installed require the NTFS formatted hard drives? TIA, Jim.
>|||Not required but it is recommended according to Books Online.
Only Personal Ed and MSDE are supported as servers on Win98, although
Win98 clients are OK for all editions.
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
--
the 98SE PC it could not read the shared files from the XP PC. I
re-formatted the drives on the XP PC to FAT32. Does the PC on which SQL
Server 2000 is installed require the NTFS formatted hard drives? TIA, Jim.AFAIK, no.
HTH, Jens Suessmeyer.
http://www.sqlserver2005.de
--
"Jim Richards" <JWRichards@.satx.rr.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:nS%qe.39974$j51.31328@.tornado.texas.rr.com...
> Good day. I had my XP Pro PC hard drives formatted to NTFS but when I
> built the 98SE PC it could not read the shared files from the XP PC. I
> re-formatted the drives on the XP PC to FAT32. Does the PC on which SQL
> Server 2000 is installed require the NTFS formatted hard drives? TIA, Jim.
>|||Not required but it is recommended according to Books Online.
Only Personal Ed and MSDE are supported as servers on Win98, although
Win98 clients are OK for all editions.
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
--
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)