Maybe this explains the issue I am finding with SQLMail

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=3Dkb;EN-US;313969
I don't get those errors from SQL Server. I get an error from Microsoft = Outlook 2003 that 'the folders cannot be created' if I allow SQL Server = Agent to start at boot in Windows 2000 SP3 and then try to open = Microsoft Outlook 2003. We have to use the same profile in SQL Mail as = we use in Microsoft Outlook 2003 because if we don't the SQL Mail will = never be sent. Therefore SQL Mail and Microsoft Outlook 2003 are both = using the same pst.
Hmmm...
If SQL Server Agent starts at boot ( a little problem here) then = Microsoft Outlook 2003 will not start. So don't allow SQL Server Agent = to start at boot and use a different profile for SQL Mail then I use to = start Microsoft Outlook 2003. Then SQL Mail will not be able to send = the mail until I close down Microsoft Outlook 2003 in my main profile = and open it in the profile I have SQL Mail set to. But of course I also = have to close down SQL Server Agent to do this. Man what a humdinger.
-- George Hester
__________________________________Try xp_smtp_sendmail from www.sqldev.net.
It works and is very stable. It is not a drop-in replacement, but it can do
most of the functions of SQLMail with a little extra work on your part.
--
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
"George Hester" <hesterloli@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:u$zN$SS4DHA.2332@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;313969
I don't get those errors from SQL Server. I get an error from Microsoft
Outlook 2003 that 'the folders cannot be created' if I allow SQL Server
Agent to start at boot in Windows 2000 SP3 and then try to open Microsoft
Outlook 2003. We have to use the same profile in SQL Mail as we use in
Microsoft Outlook 2003 because if we don't the SQL Mail will never be sent.
Therefore SQL Mail and Microsoft Outlook 2003 are both using the same pst.
Hmmm...
If SQL Server Agent starts at boot ( a little problem here) then Microsoft
Outlook 2003 will not start. So don't allow SQL Server Agent to start at
boot and use a different profile for SQL Mail then I use to start Microsoft
Outlook 2003. Then SQL Mail will not be able to send the mail until I close
down Microsoft Outlook 2003 in my main profile and open it in the profile I
have SQL Mail set to. But of course I also have to close down SQL Server
Agent to do this. Man what a humdinger.
--
George Hester
__________________________________|||I had similar problems with OutlookXP & it not being able to send mail
messages unless the pst file was open. I solved this by installing Outlook
2000 on the Server, which I believe SQL Mail was originally designed for.
Since then it was worked perfectly...
Cheers,
James Goodman MCSE, MCDBA
http://www.angelfire.com/sports/f1pictures|||Hi Geoff. Oh I have that and it works great. But my issue still =exists.
-- George Hester
__________________________________
"Geoff N. Hiten" <SRDBA@.Careerbuilder.com> wrote in message =news:#R5NxDT4DHA.1504@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Try xp_smtp_sendmail from www.sqldev.net.
> > It works and is very stable. It is not a drop-in replacement, but it =can do
> most of the functions of SQLMail with a little extra work on your =part.
> > -- > Geoff N. Hiten
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Senior Database Administrator
> Careerbuilder.com
> > > > > "George Hester" <hesterloli@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:u$zN$SS4DHA.2332@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=3Dkb;EN-US;313969
> > I don't get those errors from SQL Server. I get an error from =Microsoft
> Outlook 2003 that 'the folders cannot be created' if I allow SQL =Server
> Agent to start at boot in Windows 2000 SP3 and then try to open =Microsoft
> Outlook 2003. We have to use the same profile in SQL Mail as we use =in
> Microsoft Outlook 2003 because if we don't the SQL Mail will never be =sent.
> Therefore SQL Mail and Microsoft Outlook 2003 are both using the same =pst.
> > Hmmm...
> > If SQL Server Agent starts at boot ( a little problem here) then =Microsoft
> Outlook 2003 will not start. So don't allow SQL Server Agent to start =at
> boot and use a different profile for SQL Mail then I use to start =Microsoft
> Outlook 2003. Then SQL Mail will not be able to send the mail until I =close
> down Microsoft Outlook 2003 in my main profile and open it in the =profile I
> have SQL Mail set to. But of course I also have to close down SQL =Server
> Agent to do this. Man what a humdinger.
> > -- > George Hester
> __________________________________
> >|||Yes James. That is what I am seeing too.
-- George Hester
__________________________________
"James Goodman" <j a m e s@.norton-associates.co.u k> wrote in message =news:buqp6h$ppe$1@.hercules.btinternet.com...
> I had similar problems with OutlookXP & it not being able to send mail
> messages unless the pst file was open. I solved this by installing =Outlook
> 2000 on the Server, which I believe SQL Mail was originally designed =for.
> Since then it was worked perfectly...
> > > > -- > Cheers,
> > James Goodman MCSE, MCDBA
> http://www.angelfire.com/sports/f1pictures
> >

Maybe it's just Vista that has the problem?!?

So I installed a second instance of Report Server since the default instance couldn't find any default directories and I got this error message with started my saga Friday. I actually chose to follow MS's advise and do solution 1). That is when Report Server first lost track of it's directories and caused me to reinstall everything.

Does anyone know what this means?

Server Error in Application "Default Web Site/ReportServer$Two"

---

HTTP Error 500.0 - Internal Server Error

Description: This application is running in an application pool that uses the Integrated .NET mode. This is the preferred mode for running ASP.NET applications on the current and future version of IIS.

In this mode, the application should not specify ASP.NET handler mappings in the <system.web>/<httpHandlers> configuration section. Instead, it should use the <system.webServer>/<handlers> configuration section to configure ASP.NET handler mappings. You have the following options:

1) Migrate the application to work with the Integrated .NET mode (PREFERRED).

You can migrate the application configuration, including the contents of the <httpHandlers> configuration section, by using the following from a command line window (the window must be running as Administrator):

%systemroot%\system32\inetsrv\APPCMD.EXE migrate config "Default Web Site/ReportServer$Two"

After you migrate your application, it will run in both Classic and Integrated .NET modes, as well as on downlevel platforms.

2) Move this application to an application pool using the Classic .NET mode.

You can move the application to an application pool that uses the Classic .NET mode by using the following from a command line window (the window must be running as Administrator):

%systemroot%\system32\inetsrv\APPCMD.EXE set app "Default Web Site/ReportServer$Two" /applicationPool:"Classic .NET AppPool"

Alternatively, you can use any other application pool on your system that is running in the Classic .NET mode. You can also use the IIS Administration tool to move this application to another application pool.

It is preferred that you migrate this application by using option 1 to take advantage of the benefits provided by the Integrated .NET mode.

Error Code: 0x80070032

Notification: BeginRequest

Module: ConfigurationValidationModule

Requested URL: http://jc:80/ReportServer$Two

Physical Path: C:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL.6\Reporting Services\ReportServer

Logon User: Not yet determined

Logon Method: Not yet determined

Handler: AboMapperCustom-43870

Most likely causes: IIS received the request; however, an internal error occurred during the processing of the request. The root cause of this error depends on which module handles the request and what was happening in the worker process when this error occurred. IIS was not able to access the web.config file for the Web site or application. This can occur if the NTFS permissions are set incorrectly. IIS was not able to process configuration for the Web site or application. The authenticated user does not have permission to use this DLL. The request is mapped to a managed handler but the .NET Extensibility Feature is not installed.

What you can try: Ensure that the NTFS permissions for the web.config file are correct and allow access to the Web server's machine account. Check the event logs to see if any additional information was logged. Verify the permissions for the DLL. Install the .NET Extensibility feature if the request is mapped to a managed handler. Create a tracing rule to track failed requests for this HTTP status code. For more information about creating a tracing rule for failed requests, click here.

More Information... This error means that there was a problem while processing the request. The request was received by the Web server, but during processing a fatal error occurred, causing the 500 error.

Microsoft Knowledge Base Articles: 294807

---

Server Version Information: Internet Information Services 7.0.Could be. I heard that SQL has some problems with Vista. Check on the Microsoft site and make sure you have the new update for Vista and VS 2005 SP1. You'll have to download SP1 though. Or maybe check for some SQL updates for Vista.

maximum number of rows to fetch

Anybody knows how to change the default 1000 of "maximum number of rows to
fetch" in EM to sth else?
You get that prompt by Open Table-->Return Top...
Thanks,
Wenlei
Wenlei Fang wrote:
> Anybody knows how to change the default 1000 of "maximum number of
> rows to fetch" in EM to sth else?
> You get that prompt by Open Table-->Return Top...
> Thanks,
> Wenlei
I wouldn't use SQL EM for that anyway. Use QA and add a TOP X to the
query to return only the rows you need. SQL EM leaves pages on the
server until you scroll to see them in the UI. This leaves shared locks
on the server on the unfetched pages.
David Gugick
Imceda Software
www.imceda.com
|||I'm totally agree with your point. But what I want to do is to change it to
a smaller number, say 5, so we won't lock any rows and still can view some
sample data.
"David Gugick" <davidg-nospam@.imceda.com> wrote in message
news:OmPR5vHFFHA.2756@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Wenlei Fang wrote:
> I wouldn't use SQL EM for that anyway. Use QA and add a TOP X to the query
> to return only the rows you need. SQL EM leaves pages on the server until
> you scroll to see them in the UI. This leaves shared locks on the server
> on the unfetched pages.
> --
> David Gugick
> Imceda Software
> www.imceda.com
|||AFAIK there is no way to do this. No documented method anyway.
I second David G's advice. Avoid EM and use Query Analyzer to sample
and view data.
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
|||Davids,
Thank you for your input. Sometimes it is easier and quicker to view table
structure, sample data and insertion through EM than QA as long as you know
what you are doing. And I'm looking for undoc method such as registry hack
etc.
Regards,
Wenlei
"David Portas" <REMOVE_BEFORE_REPLYING_dportas@.acm.org> wrote in message
news:1108653945.639057.128320@.g14g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> AFAIK there is no way to do this. No documented method anyway.
> I second David G's advice. Avoid EM and use Query Analyzer to sample
> and view data.
> --
> David Portas
> SQL Server MVP
> --
>

maximum number of rows to fetch

Anybody knows how to change the default 1000 of "maximum number of rows to
fetch" in EM to sth else?
You get that prompt by Open Table-->Return Top...
Thanks,
WenleiWenlei Fang wrote:
> Anybody knows how to change the default 1000 of "maximum number of
> rows to fetch" in EM to sth else?
> You get that prompt by Open Table-->Return Top...
> Thanks,
> Wenlei
I wouldn't use SQL EM for that anyway. Use QA and add a TOP X to the
query to return only the rows you need. SQL EM leaves pages on the
server until you scroll to see them in the UI. This leaves shared locks
on the server on the unfetched pages.
David Gugick
Imceda Software
www.imceda.com|||I'm totally agree with your point. But what I want to do is to change it to
a smaller number, say 5, so we won't lock any rows and still can view some
sample data.
"David Gugick" <davidg-nospam@.imceda.com> wrote in message
news:OmPR5vHFFHA.2756@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Wenlei Fang wrote:
> I wouldn't use SQL EM for that anyway. Use QA and add a TOP X to the query
> to return only the rows you need. SQL EM leaves pages on the server until
> you scroll to see them in the UI. This leaves shared locks on the server
> on the unfetched pages.
> --
> David Gugick
> Imceda Software
> www.imceda.com|||AFAIK there is no way to do this. No documented method anyway.
I second David G's advice. Avoid EM and use Query Analyzer to sample
and view data.
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
--|||Davids,
Thank you for your input. Sometimes it is easier and quicker to view table
structure, sample data and insertion through EM than QA as long as you know
what you are doing. And I'm looking for undoc method such as registry hack
etc.
Regards,
Wenlei
"David Portas" <REMOVE_BEFORE_REPLYING_dportas@.acm.org> wrote in message
news:1108653945.639057.128320@.g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> AFAIK there is no way to do this. No documented method anyway.
> I second David G's advice. Avoid EM and use Query Analyzer to sample
> and view data.
> --
> David Portas
> SQL Server MVP
> --
>

maximum number of rows to fetch

Anybody knows how to change the default 1000 of "maximum number of rows to
fetch" in EM to sth else?
You get that prompt by Open Table-->Return Top...
Thanks,
WenleiWenlei Fang wrote:
> Anybody knows how to change the default 1000 of "maximum number of
> rows to fetch" in EM to sth else?
> You get that prompt by Open Table-->Return Top...
> Thanks,
> Wenlei
I wouldn't use SQL EM for that anyway. Use QA and add a TOP X to the
query to return only the rows you need. SQL EM leaves pages on the
server until you scroll to see them in the UI. This leaves shared locks
on the server on the unfetched pages.
--
David Gugick
Imceda Software
www.imceda.com|||I'm totally agree with your point. But what I want to do is to change it to
a smaller number, say 5, so we won't lock any rows and still can view some
sample data.
"David Gugick" <davidg-nospam@.imceda.com> wrote in message
news:OmPR5vHFFHA.2756@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Wenlei Fang wrote:
>> Anybody knows how to change the default 1000 of "maximum number of
>> rows to fetch" in EM to sth else?
>> You get that prompt by Open Table-->Return Top...
>> Thanks,
>> Wenlei
> I wouldn't use SQL EM for that anyway. Use QA and add a TOP X to the query
> to return only the rows you need. SQL EM leaves pages on the server until
> you scroll to see them in the UI. This leaves shared locks on the server
> on the unfetched pages.
> --
> David Gugick
> Imceda Software
> www.imceda.com|||AFAIK there is no way to do this. No documented method anyway.
I second David G's advice. Avoid EM and use Query Analyzer to sample
and view data.
--
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
--|||Davids,
Thank you for your input. Sometimes it is easier and quicker to view table
structure, sample data and insertion through EM than QA as long as you know
what you are doing. And I'm looking for undoc method such as registry hack
etc.
Regards,
Wenlei
"David Portas" <REMOVE_BEFORE_REPLYING_dportas@.acm.org> wrote in message
news:1108653945.639057.128320@.g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> AFAIK there is no way to do this. No documented method anyway.
> I second David G's advice. Avoid EM and use Query Analyzer to sample
> and view data.
> --
> David Portas
> SQL Server MVP
> --
>

Maximum insert commit size

Hi, All,

if I set the "Maximum insert commit size" to 10 ( 0 is the default) in a OLE destination,

what does the 10 means? 10 records or 10 MB/KB of data?

Thanks

10 records.

Max Worker Threads setting in X64 system.

Hi All,

As we know, the default max worker thread in SQL 2005 is 0. The default value for Max worker threads, 0, allows SQL Server to automatically configure the number of worker threads AT STARTUP.

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms187024.aspx

However, what's the actual max worker thread while the "max worker thread" option is configured as 0? Is it the one list in this table?

Number of CPUs

32-bit computer

64-bit computer

<= 4 processors

256

512

8 processors

288

576

16 processors

352

704

32 processors

480

960

This table is got form the above article. Please kindly help me confirm

This is the formula that SQL uses is it is at 0.

x86

<= 4 procs = 256

> 4 procs = 256+((# procs-4)*8)

x64

<= 4 procs = 512

> 4 procs = 512+((# procs-4)*16)

It is also wise to set this back to 0 if it is an upgrade from 2000.

|||Thanks a lot for your confirmation and formula!