hi,
I would like to hear from you guys how many databases (maximum number)
did you reach on a single server.
We are trying to work with a few hundreds of databases at the same
time, and we get weird errors or problems, even with low load on these
databases.
I would like to hear from your experience and maybe get leads to
material on the subject.
I'm aware of the official limits (http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/
library/ms143432(SQL.90).aspx) but in reality the numbers are much
lower.
I don't have any problems with over 500 databases on two different
production systems.
Of course, I took painstaking efforts to make sure the systems were designed
to really treat the databases as independently as possible.
Aaron Bertrand
SQL Server MVP
http://www.sqlblog.com/
http://www.aspfaq.com/5006
<yaniv.harpaz@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1181232580.249349.26550@.q69g2000hsb.googlegro ups.com...
> hi,
> I would like to hear from you guys how many databases (maximum number)
> did you reach on a single server.
> We are trying to work with a few hundreds of databases at the same
> time, and we get weird errors or problems, even with low load on these
> databases.
> I would like to hear from your experience and maybe get leads to
> material on the subject.
> I'm aware of the official limits (http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/
> library/ms143432(SQL.90).aspx) but in reality the numbers are much
> lower.
>
|||I have a client with 6400+ databases on a single relatively low-end cluster
(2 dual core AMD 64 bit CPUs, 8GB ram, VERY low-end drive system). These
same databases are log-shipped (custom-code, not built in) to an even
wimpier stand alone server for reporting purposes. Issues include:
1) Most automated tools break down. These include automated
monitoring/backup apps as well as tools like DBArtisan, which simply barf at
the extreme amount of system information they try to chew through.
2) Log-shipping/mirroring/replication become essentially non-useable too in
my experience.
3) Automation of things like rollouts, maintanence, etc are a must to keep
your sanity. I had a developer build what I call a "database shotgun" that
uses between 10 and 20 threads to concurrently run scripts against multiple
databases at a time. Stuff that takes ms_foreachdb tens of minutes to
complete now complete in a few minutes.
4) msdb will get huge. plan for this by expanding the data and log file
sizes ahead of time to avoid fragmentation. Set up jobs to flush old
history records for job runs/backups as appropriate.
Not sure about the 'wierd errors or problems' you are receiving. Any
examples?
TheSQLGuru
President
Indicium Resources, Inc.
<yaniv.harpaz@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1181232580.249349.26550@.q69g2000hsb.googlegro ups.com...
> hi,
> I would like to hear from you guys how many databases (maximum number)
> did you reach on a single server.
> We are trying to work with a few hundreds of databases at the same
> time, and we get weird errors or problems, even with low load on these
> databases.
> I would like to hear from your experience and maybe get leads to
> material on the subject.
> I'm aware of the official limits (http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/
> library/ms143432(SQL.90).aspx) but in reality the numbers are much
> lower.
>
|||with 64-bit 8GB memory I got connection timeouts after going over 200
connections
I got very efficient queries starting to take 10 minutes instead of 2
seconds (without having high load on the DB server)
|||yaniv.harpaz@.gmail.com wrote:
> with 64-bit 8GB memory I got connection timeouts after going over 200
> connections
> I got very efficient queries starting to take 10 minutes instead of 2
> seconds (without having high load on the DB server)
I have to second yaniv's experience with sql2005 - with time it becomes
much more brittle than Sql2000.
Showing posts with label hear. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hear. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
maximum databases no.
hi,
I would like to hear from you guys how many databases (maximum number)
did you reach on a single server.
We are trying to work with a few hundreds of databases at the same
time, and we get weird errors or problems, even with low load on these
databases.
I would like to hear from your experience and maybe get leads to
material on the subject.
I'm aware of the official limits (http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/
library/ms143432(SQL.90).aspx) but in reality the numbers are much
lower.I don't have any problems with over 500 databases on two different
production systems.
Of course, I took painstaking efforts to make sure the systems were designed
to really treat the databases as independently as possible.
Aaron Bertrand
SQL Server MVP
http://www.sqlblog.com/
http://www.aspfaq.com/5006
<yaniv.harpaz@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1181232580.249349.26550@.q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> hi,
> I would like to hear from you guys how many databases (maximum number)
> did you reach on a single server.
> We are trying to work with a few hundreds of databases at the same
> time, and we get weird errors or problems, even with low load on these
> databases.
> I would like to hear from your experience and maybe get leads to
> material on the subject.
> I'm aware of the official limits (http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/
> library/ms143432(SQL.90).aspx) but in reality the numbers are much
> lower.
>|||I have a client with 6400+ databases on a single relatively low-end cluster
(2 dual core AMD 64 bit CPUs, 8GB ram, VERY low-end drive system). These
same databases are log-shipped (custom-code, not built in) to an even
wimpier stand alone server for reporting purposes. Issues include:
1) Most automated tools break down. These include automated
monitoring/backup apps as well as tools like DBArtisan, which simply barf at
the extreme amount of system information they try to chew through.
2) Log-shipping/mirroring/replication become essentially non-useable too in
my experience.
3) Automation of things like rollouts, maintanence, etc are a must to keep
your sanity. I had a developer build what I call a "database shotgun" that
uses between 10 and 20 threads to concurrently run scripts against multiple
databases at a time. Stuff that takes ms_foreachdb tens of minutes to
complete now complete in a few minutes.
4) msdb will get huge. plan for this by expanding the data and log file
sizes ahead of time to avoid fragmentation. Set up jobs to flush old
history records for job runs/backups as appropriate.
Not sure about the 'wierd errors or problems' you are receiving. Any
examples?
TheSQLGuru
President
Indicium Resources, Inc.
<yaniv.harpaz@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1181232580.249349.26550@.q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> hi,
> I would like to hear from you guys how many databases (maximum number)
> did you reach on a single server.
> We are trying to work with a few hundreds of databases at the same
> time, and we get weird errors or problems, even with low load on these
> databases.
> I would like to hear from your experience and maybe get leads to
> material on the subject.
> I'm aware of the official limits (http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/
> library/ms143432(SQL.90).aspx) but in reality the numbers are much
> lower.
>|||with 64-bit 8GB memory I got connection timeouts after going over 200
connections
I got very efficient queries starting to take 10 minutes instead of 2
seconds (without having high load on the DB server)|||yaniv.harpaz@.gmail.com wrote:
> with 64-bit 8GB memory I got connection timeouts after going over 200
> connections
> I got very efficient queries starting to take 10 minutes instead of 2
> seconds (without having high load on the DB server)
I have to second yaniv's experience with sql2005 - with time it becomes
much more brittle than Sql2000.
I would like to hear from you guys how many databases (maximum number)
did you reach on a single server.
We are trying to work with a few hundreds of databases at the same
time, and we get weird errors or problems, even with low load on these
databases.
I would like to hear from your experience and maybe get leads to
material on the subject.
I'm aware of the official limits (http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/
library/ms143432(SQL.90).aspx) but in reality the numbers are much
lower.I don't have any problems with over 500 databases on two different
production systems.
Of course, I took painstaking efforts to make sure the systems were designed
to really treat the databases as independently as possible.
Aaron Bertrand
SQL Server MVP
http://www.sqlblog.com/
http://www.aspfaq.com/5006
<yaniv.harpaz@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1181232580.249349.26550@.q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> hi,
> I would like to hear from you guys how many databases (maximum number)
> did you reach on a single server.
> We are trying to work with a few hundreds of databases at the same
> time, and we get weird errors or problems, even with low load on these
> databases.
> I would like to hear from your experience and maybe get leads to
> material on the subject.
> I'm aware of the official limits (http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/
> library/ms143432(SQL.90).aspx) but in reality the numbers are much
> lower.
>|||I have a client with 6400+ databases on a single relatively low-end cluster
(2 dual core AMD 64 bit CPUs, 8GB ram, VERY low-end drive system). These
same databases are log-shipped (custom-code, not built in) to an even
wimpier stand alone server for reporting purposes. Issues include:
1) Most automated tools break down. These include automated
monitoring/backup apps as well as tools like DBArtisan, which simply barf at
the extreme amount of system information they try to chew through.
2) Log-shipping/mirroring/replication become essentially non-useable too in
my experience.
3) Automation of things like rollouts, maintanence, etc are a must to keep
your sanity. I had a developer build what I call a "database shotgun" that
uses between 10 and 20 threads to concurrently run scripts against multiple
databases at a time. Stuff that takes ms_foreachdb tens of minutes to
complete now complete in a few minutes.
4) msdb will get huge. plan for this by expanding the data and log file
sizes ahead of time to avoid fragmentation. Set up jobs to flush old
history records for job runs/backups as appropriate.
Not sure about the 'wierd errors or problems' you are receiving. Any
examples?
TheSQLGuru
President
Indicium Resources, Inc.
<yaniv.harpaz@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1181232580.249349.26550@.q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> hi,
> I would like to hear from you guys how many databases (maximum number)
> did you reach on a single server.
> We are trying to work with a few hundreds of databases at the same
> time, and we get weird errors or problems, even with low load on these
> databases.
> I would like to hear from your experience and maybe get leads to
> material on the subject.
> I'm aware of the official limits (http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/
> library/ms143432(SQL.90).aspx) but in reality the numbers are much
> lower.
>|||with 64-bit 8GB memory I got connection timeouts after going over 200
connections
I got very efficient queries starting to take 10 minutes instead of 2
seconds (without having high load on the DB server)|||yaniv.harpaz@.gmail.com wrote:
> with 64-bit 8GB memory I got connection timeouts after going over 200
> connections
> I got very efficient queries starting to take 10 minutes instead of 2
> seconds (without having high load on the DB server)
I have to second yaniv's experience with sql2005 - with time it becomes
much more brittle than Sql2000.
maximum databases no.
hi,
I would like to hear from you guys how many databases (maximum number)
did you reach on a single server.
We are trying to work with a few hundreds of databases at the same
time, and we get weird errors or problems, even with low load on these
databases.
I would like to hear from your experience and maybe get leads to
material on the subject.
I'm aware of the official limits (http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/
library/ms143432(SQL.90).aspx) but in reality the numbers are much
lower.I don't have any problems with over 500 databases on two different
production systems.
Of course, I took painstaking efforts to make sure the systems were designed
to really treat the databases as independently as possible.
--
Aaron Bertrand
SQL Server MVP
http://www.sqlblog.com/
http://www.aspfaq.com/5006
<yaniv.harpaz@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1181232580.249349.26550@.q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> hi,
> I would like to hear from you guys how many databases (maximum number)
> did you reach on a single server.
> We are trying to work with a few hundreds of databases at the same
> time, and we get weird errors or problems, even with low load on these
> databases.
> I would like to hear from your experience and maybe get leads to
> material on the subject.
> I'm aware of the official limits (http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/
> library/ms143432(SQL.90).aspx) but in reality the numbers are much
> lower.
>|||I have a client with 6400+ databases on a single relatively low-end cluster
(2 dual core AMD 64 bit CPUs, 8GB ram, VERY low-end drive system). These
same databases are log-shipped (custom-code, not built in) to an even
wimpier stand alone server for reporting purposes. Issues include:
1) Most automated tools break down. These include automated
monitoring/backup apps as well as tools like DBArtisan, which simply barf at
the extreme amount of system information they try to chew through.
2) Log-shipping/mirroring/replication become essentially non-useable too in
my experience.
3) Automation of things like rollouts, maintanence, etc are a must to keep
your sanity. I had a developer build what I call a "database shotgun" that
uses between 10 and 20 threads to concurrently run scripts against multiple
databases at a time. Stuff that takes ms_foreachdb tens of minutes to
complete now complete in a few minutes.
4) msdb will get huge. plan for this by expanding the data and log file
sizes ahead of time to avoid fragmentation. Set up jobs to flush old
history records for job runs/backups as appropriate.
Not sure about the 'wierd errors or problems' you are receiving. Any
examples?
--
TheSQLGuru
President
Indicium Resources, Inc.
<yaniv.harpaz@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1181232580.249349.26550@.q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> hi,
> I would like to hear from you guys how many databases (maximum number)
> did you reach on a single server.
> We are trying to work with a few hundreds of databases at the same
> time, and we get weird errors or problems, even with low load on these
> databases.
> I would like to hear from your experience and maybe get leads to
> material on the subject.
> I'm aware of the official limits (http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/
> library/ms143432(SQL.90).aspx) but in reality the numbers are much
> lower.
>|||with 64-bit 8GB memory I got connection timeouts after going over 200
connections
I got very efficient queries starting to take 10 minutes instead of 2
seconds (without having high load on the DB server)|||yaniv.harpaz@.gmail.com wrote:
> with 64-bit 8GB memory I got connection timeouts after going over 200
> connections
> I got very efficient queries starting to take 10 minutes instead of 2
> seconds (without having high load on the DB server)
I have to second yaniv's experience with sql2005 - with time it becomes
much more brittle than Sql2000.
I would like to hear from you guys how many databases (maximum number)
did you reach on a single server.
We are trying to work with a few hundreds of databases at the same
time, and we get weird errors or problems, even with low load on these
databases.
I would like to hear from your experience and maybe get leads to
material on the subject.
I'm aware of the official limits (http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/
library/ms143432(SQL.90).aspx) but in reality the numbers are much
lower.I don't have any problems with over 500 databases on two different
production systems.
Of course, I took painstaking efforts to make sure the systems were designed
to really treat the databases as independently as possible.
--
Aaron Bertrand
SQL Server MVP
http://www.sqlblog.com/
http://www.aspfaq.com/5006
<yaniv.harpaz@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1181232580.249349.26550@.q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> hi,
> I would like to hear from you guys how many databases (maximum number)
> did you reach on a single server.
> We are trying to work with a few hundreds of databases at the same
> time, and we get weird errors or problems, even with low load on these
> databases.
> I would like to hear from your experience and maybe get leads to
> material on the subject.
> I'm aware of the official limits (http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/
> library/ms143432(SQL.90).aspx) but in reality the numbers are much
> lower.
>|||I have a client with 6400+ databases on a single relatively low-end cluster
(2 dual core AMD 64 bit CPUs, 8GB ram, VERY low-end drive system). These
same databases are log-shipped (custom-code, not built in) to an even
wimpier stand alone server for reporting purposes. Issues include:
1) Most automated tools break down. These include automated
monitoring/backup apps as well as tools like DBArtisan, which simply barf at
the extreme amount of system information they try to chew through.
2) Log-shipping/mirroring/replication become essentially non-useable too in
my experience.
3) Automation of things like rollouts, maintanence, etc are a must to keep
your sanity. I had a developer build what I call a "database shotgun" that
uses between 10 and 20 threads to concurrently run scripts against multiple
databases at a time. Stuff that takes ms_foreachdb tens of minutes to
complete now complete in a few minutes.
4) msdb will get huge. plan for this by expanding the data and log file
sizes ahead of time to avoid fragmentation. Set up jobs to flush old
history records for job runs/backups as appropriate.
Not sure about the 'wierd errors or problems' you are receiving. Any
examples?
--
TheSQLGuru
President
Indicium Resources, Inc.
<yaniv.harpaz@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1181232580.249349.26550@.q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> hi,
> I would like to hear from you guys how many databases (maximum number)
> did you reach on a single server.
> We are trying to work with a few hundreds of databases at the same
> time, and we get weird errors or problems, even with low load on these
> databases.
> I would like to hear from your experience and maybe get leads to
> material on the subject.
> I'm aware of the official limits (http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/
> library/ms143432(SQL.90).aspx) but in reality the numbers are much
> lower.
>|||with 64-bit 8GB memory I got connection timeouts after going over 200
connections
I got very efficient queries starting to take 10 minutes instead of 2
seconds (without having high load on the DB server)|||yaniv.harpaz@.gmail.com wrote:
> with 64-bit 8GB memory I got connection timeouts after going over 200
> connections
> I got very efficient queries starting to take 10 minutes instead of 2
> seconds (without having high load on the DB server)
I have to second yaniv's experience with sql2005 - with time it becomes
much more brittle than Sql2000.
Maximum Databases in ODBC
What is the maximum number of Databases you can have connections to using
ODBC connection to SQL? I am talking hear about the entries in ODBC Data
Sources as System DSN's.
Anyone got any ideas? Assume Windows XP SP2 workstation and Windows 20003
server with MS SQL 2000 SP4.
In fact is there any limit to the number of MSSQL databases you can have on
one server. I know its a bit like how longs a piece of string, but lets
assume as an average that each database is about 20Mb in size and has about
100 tables.
Hi
Maximum number of databases per SQL Server instance: 32'767.
As to ODBC Data Sources, well since ODBC is nearing end of life I don't
think anyone is interested anymore. I could imagine that one of the 16 bit
number limits could be hit (256, 1024 or 32'737).
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/
"Rowland Costin" <technical@.selven.co.uk> wrote in message
news:%23TMk65EwFHA.1148@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> What is the maximum number of Databases you can have connections to using
> ODBC connection to SQL? I am talking hear about the entries in ODBC Data
> Sources as System DSN's.
> Anyone got any ideas? Assume Windows XP SP2 workstation and Windows 20003
> server with MS SQL 2000 SP4.
> In fact is there any limit to the number of MSSQL databases you can have
> on one server. I know its a bit like how longs a piece of string, but lets
> assume as an average that each database is about 20Mb in size and has
> about 100 tables.
>
|||What is replacing ODBC?
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message
news:OSaSXGIwFHA.3548@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> Maximum number of databases per SQL Server instance: 32'767.
> As to ODBC Data Sources, well since ODBC is nearing end of life I don't
> think anyone is interested anymore. I could imagine that one of the 16 bit
> number limits could be hit (256, 1024 or 32'737).
> 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/
> "Rowland Costin" <technical@.selven.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:%23TMk65EwFHA.1148@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>
|||Hi,
OLE DB. It's not really a "replacement" for ODBC but a newer technology.
Cindy Winegarden MCSD, Microsoft Most Valuable Professional
cindy_winegarden@.msn.com www.cindywinegarden.com
Blog: http://spaces.msn.com/members/cindywinegarden
"Preacher Man" <nospam> wrote in message
news:OebocSIwFHA.3720@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> What is replacing ODBC?
[vbcol=seagreen]
ODBC connection to SQL? I am talking hear about the entries in ODBC Data
Sources as System DSN's.
Anyone got any ideas? Assume Windows XP SP2 workstation and Windows 20003
server with MS SQL 2000 SP4.
In fact is there any limit to the number of MSSQL databases you can have on
one server. I know its a bit like how longs a piece of string, but lets
assume as an average that each database is about 20Mb in size and has about
100 tables.
Hi
Maximum number of databases per SQL Server instance: 32'767.
As to ODBC Data Sources, well since ODBC is nearing end of life I don't
think anyone is interested anymore. I could imagine that one of the 16 bit
number limits could be hit (256, 1024 or 32'737).
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/
"Rowland Costin" <technical@.selven.co.uk> wrote in message
news:%23TMk65EwFHA.1148@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> What is the maximum number of Databases you can have connections to using
> ODBC connection to SQL? I am talking hear about the entries in ODBC Data
> Sources as System DSN's.
> Anyone got any ideas? Assume Windows XP SP2 workstation and Windows 20003
> server with MS SQL 2000 SP4.
> In fact is there any limit to the number of MSSQL databases you can have
> on one server. I know its a bit like how longs a piece of string, but lets
> assume as an average that each database is about 20Mb in size and has
> about 100 tables.
>
|||What is replacing ODBC?
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message
news:OSaSXGIwFHA.3548@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> Maximum number of databases per SQL Server instance: 32'767.
> As to ODBC Data Sources, well since ODBC is nearing end of life I don't
> think anyone is interested anymore. I could imagine that one of the 16 bit
> number limits could be hit (256, 1024 or 32'737).
> 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/
> "Rowland Costin" <technical@.selven.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:%23TMk65EwFHA.1148@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>
|||Hi,
OLE DB. It's not really a "replacement" for ODBC but a newer technology.
Cindy Winegarden MCSD, Microsoft Most Valuable Professional
cindy_winegarden@.msn.com www.cindywinegarden.com
Blog: http://spaces.msn.com/members/cindywinegarden
"Preacher Man" <nospam> wrote in message
news:OebocSIwFHA.3720@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> What is replacing ODBC?
[vbcol=seagreen]
Maximum Databases in ODBC
What is the maximum number of Databases you can have connections to using
ODBC connection to SQL? I am talking hear about the entries in ODBC Data
Sources as System DSN's.
Anyone got any ideas? Assume Windows XP SP2 workstation and Windows 20003
server with MS SQL 2000 SP4.
In fact is there any limit to the number of MSSQL databases you can have on
one server. I know its a bit like how longs a piece of string, but lets
assume as an average that each database is about 20Mb in size and has about
100 tables.Hi
Maximum number of databases per SQL Server instance: 32'767.
As to ODBC Data Sources, well since ODBC is nearing end of life I don't
think anyone is interested anymore. I could imagine that one of the 16 bit
number limits could be hit (256, 1024 or 32'737).
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/
"Rowland Costin" <technical@.selven.co.uk> wrote in message
news:%23TMk65EwFHA.1148@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> What is the maximum number of Databases you can have connections to using
> ODBC connection to SQL? I am talking hear about the entries in ODBC Data
> Sources as System DSN's.
> Anyone got any ideas? Assume Windows XP SP2 workstation and Windows 20003
> server with MS SQL 2000 SP4.
> In fact is there any limit to the number of MSSQL databases you can have
> on one server. I know its a bit like how longs a piece of string, but lets
> assume as an average that each database is about 20Mb in size and has
> about 100 tables.
>|||What is replacing ODBC?
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message
news:OSaSXGIwFHA.3548@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> Maximum number of databases per SQL Server instance: 32'767.
> As to ODBC Data Sources, well since ODBC is nearing end of life I don't
> think anyone is interested anymore. I could imagine that one of the 16 bit
> number limits could be hit (256, 1024 or 32'737).
> 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/
> "Rowland Costin" <technical@.selven.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:%23TMk65EwFHA.1148@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>|||Hi,
OLE DB. It's not really a "replacement" for ODBC but a newer technology.
Cindy Winegarden MCSD, Microsoft Most Valuable Professional
cindy_winegarden@.msn.com www.cindywinegarden.com
Blog: http://spaces.msn.com/members/cindywinegarden
"Preacher Man" <nospam> wrote in message
news:OebocSIwFHA.3720@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> What is replacing ODBC?
[vbcol=seagreen]
ODBC connection to SQL? I am talking hear about the entries in ODBC Data
Sources as System DSN's.
Anyone got any ideas? Assume Windows XP SP2 workstation and Windows 20003
server with MS SQL 2000 SP4.
In fact is there any limit to the number of MSSQL databases you can have on
one server. I know its a bit like how longs a piece of string, but lets
assume as an average that each database is about 20Mb in size and has about
100 tables.Hi
Maximum number of databases per SQL Server instance: 32'767.
As to ODBC Data Sources, well since ODBC is nearing end of life I don't
think anyone is interested anymore. I could imagine that one of the 16 bit
number limits could be hit (256, 1024 or 32'737).
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/
"Rowland Costin" <technical@.selven.co.uk> wrote in message
news:%23TMk65EwFHA.1148@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> What is the maximum number of Databases you can have connections to using
> ODBC connection to SQL? I am talking hear about the entries in ODBC Data
> Sources as System DSN's.
> Anyone got any ideas? Assume Windows XP SP2 workstation and Windows 20003
> server with MS SQL 2000 SP4.
> In fact is there any limit to the number of MSSQL databases you can have
> on one server. I know its a bit like how longs a piece of string, but lets
> assume as an average that each database is about 20Mb in size and has
> about 100 tables.
>|||What is replacing ODBC?
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message
news:OSaSXGIwFHA.3548@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> Maximum number of databases per SQL Server instance: 32'767.
> As to ODBC Data Sources, well since ODBC is nearing end of life I don't
> think anyone is interested anymore. I could imagine that one of the 16 bit
> number limits could be hit (256, 1024 or 32'737).
> 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/
> "Rowland Costin" <technical@.selven.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:%23TMk65EwFHA.1148@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>|||Hi,
OLE DB. It's not really a "replacement" for ODBC but a newer technology.
Cindy Winegarden MCSD, Microsoft Most Valuable Professional
cindy_winegarden@.msn.com www.cindywinegarden.com
Blog: http://spaces.msn.com/members/cindywinegarden
"Preacher Man" <nospam> wrote in message
news:OebocSIwFHA.3720@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> What is replacing ODBC?
[vbcol=seagreen]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)