McAfee VirusScan vs MS SQL Server 2000?

Hello, all!
I wonder if anybody here has anything to say about my planning to
install the latest version of McAfee's anti-virus software, VirusScan,
on a Windows 2003 Standard server, running MS SQL Server 2000 (with the
latest patches).
I've read that some have reported problems with VirusScan when they're
running Banyan Vines, but this is strictly TCP/IP.
If you have any recommendations or warnings to give me about this, I
would really like to hear it.
Sincerely,
NiklasCheck the following article, while it does not mention McAfee specifically
it gives some general suggestions for antivirus software on SQL Servers:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;309422
Simon
This posting is provided "as is" with no warranties and confers no rights.
"Niklas" <npivic@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1109598431.924015.13650@.o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Hello, all!
> I wonder if anybody here has anything to say about my planning to
> install the latest version of McAfee's anti-virus software, VirusScan,
> on a Windows 2003 Standard server, running MS SQL Server 2000 (with the
> latest patches).
> I've read that some have reported problems with VirusScan when they're
> running Banyan Vines, but this is strictly TCP/IP.
> If you have any recommendations or warnings to give me about this, I
> would really like to hear it.
> Sincerely,
>
> Niklas
>|||I just got out of the same fight with our server team and ended up having to
have a third-level tech representative conference in with us. Our concerns
where justified by the vendor.
Limit the Active Screening and Passive Scanning to exclude the data, log,
and database backup files.
If you are inside your LAN/WAN, you should not be runing inbound email nor
should you be using any network shares on a dedicated SQL Server
installation. In this case, there would be very little risk to virus attack
on the server.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"Simon Lidberg [MSFT]" <simonlid@.online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:utOgFidHFHA.904@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
Check the following article, while it does not mention McAfee specifically
it gives some general suggestions for antivirus software on SQL Servers:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;309422
Simon
This posting is provided "as is" with no warranties and confers no rights.
"Niklas" <npivic@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1109598431.924015.13650@.o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Hello, all!
> I wonder if anybody here has anything to say about my planning to
> install the latest version of McAfee's anti-virus software, VirusScan,
> on a Windows 2003 Standard server, running MS SQL Server 2000 (with the
> latest patches).
> I've read that some have reported problems with VirusScan when they're
> running Banyan Vines, but this is strictly TCP/IP.
> If you have any recommendations or warnings to give me about this, I
> would really like to hear it.
> Sincerely,
>
> Niklas
>|||Thank you, both Simon and Anthony. You've provided me with good info,
and the URL to the recommendations from Microsoft hands me a solid base
for further internal discussions on this matter.
Sincerely,
Niklas

McAfee VirusScan vs MS SQL Server 2000?

Hello, all!
I wonder if anybody here has anything to say about my planning to
install the latest version of McAfee's anti-virus software, VirusScan,
on a Windows 2003 Standard server, running MS SQL Server 2000 (with the
latest patches).
I've read that some have reported problems with VirusScan when they're
running Banyan Vines, but this is strictly TCP/IP.
If you have any recommendations or warnings to give me about this, I
would really like to hear it.
Sincerely,
NiklasCheck the following article, while it does not mention McAfee specifically
it gives some general suggestions for antivirus software on SQL Servers:
http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...kb;en-us;309422
Simon
This posting is provided "as is" with no warranties and confers no rights.
"Niklas" <npivic@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1109598431.924015.13650@.o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Hello, all!
> I wonder if anybody here has anything to say about my planning to
> install the latest version of McAfee's anti-virus software, VirusScan,
> on a Windows 2003 Standard server, running MS SQL Server 2000 (with the
> latest patches).
> I've read that some have reported problems with VirusScan when they're
> running Banyan Vines, but this is strictly TCP/IP.
> If you have any recommendations or warnings to give me about this, I
> would really like to hear it.
> Sincerely,
>
> Niklas
>|||I just got out of the same fight with our server team and ended up having to
have a third-level tech representative conference in with us. Our concerns
where justified by the vendor.
Limit the Active Screening and Passive Scanning to exclude the data, log,
and database backup files.
If you are inside your LAN/WAN, you should not be runing inbound email nor
should you be using any network shares on a dedicated SQL Server
installation. In this case, there would be very little risk to virus attack
on the server.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"Simon Lidberg [MSFT]" <simonlid@.online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:utOgFidHFHA.904@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
Check the following article, while it does not mention McAfee specifically
it gives some general suggestions for antivirus software on SQL Servers:
http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...kb;en-us;309422
Simon
This posting is provided "as is" with no warranties and confers no rights.
"Niklas" <npivic@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1109598431.924015.13650@.o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Hello, all!
> I wonder if anybody here has anything to say about my planning to
> install the latest version of McAfee's anti-virus software, VirusScan,
> on a Windows 2003 Standard server, running MS SQL Server 2000 (with the
> latest patches).
> I've read that some have reported problems with VirusScan when they're
> running Banyan Vines, but this is strictly TCP/IP.
> If you have any recommendations or warnings to give me about this, I
> would really like to hear it.
> Sincerely,
>
> Niklas
>|||Thank you, both Simon and Anthony. You've provided me with good info,
and the URL to the recommendations from Microsoft hands me a solid base
for further internal discussions on this matter.
Sincerely,
Niklas

McAfee VirusScan vs MS SQL Server 2000?

Hello, all!
I wonder if anybody here has anything to say about my planning to
install the latest version of McAfee's anti-virus software, VirusScan,
on a Windows 2003 Standard server, running MS SQL Server 2000 (with the
latest patches).
I've read that some have reported problems with VirusScan when they're
running Banyan Vines, but this is strictly TCP/IP.
If you have any recommendations or warnings to give me about this, I
would really like to hear it.
Sincerely,
Niklas
Check the following article, while it does not mention McAfee specifically
it gives some general suggestions for antivirus software on SQL Servers:
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;309422
Simon
This posting is provided "as is" with no warranties and confers no rights.
"Niklas" <npivic@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1109598431.924015.13650@.o13g2000cwo.googlegro ups.com...
> Hello, all!
> I wonder if anybody here has anything to say about my planning to
> install the latest version of McAfee's anti-virus software, VirusScan,
> on a Windows 2003 Standard server, running MS SQL Server 2000 (with the
> latest patches).
> I've read that some have reported problems with VirusScan when they're
> running Banyan Vines, but this is strictly TCP/IP.
> If you have any recommendations or warnings to give me about this, I
> would really like to hear it.
> Sincerely,
>
> Niklas
>
|||I just got out of the same fight with our server team and ended up having to
have a third-level tech representative conference in with us. Our concerns
where justified by the vendor.
Limit the Active Screening and Passive Scanning to exclude the data, log,
and database backup files.
If you are inside your LAN/WAN, you should not be runing inbound email nor
should you be using any network shares on a dedicated SQL Server
installation. In this case, there would be very little risk to virus attack
on the server.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas

"Simon Lidberg [MSFT]" <simonlid@.online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:utOgFidHFHA.904@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
Check the following article, while it does not mention McAfee specifically
it gives some general suggestions for antivirus software on SQL Servers:
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;309422
Simon
This posting is provided "as is" with no warranties and confers no rights.
"Niklas" <npivic@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1109598431.924015.13650@.o13g2000cwo.googlegro ups.com...
> Hello, all!
> I wonder if anybody here has anything to say about my planning to
> install the latest version of McAfee's anti-virus software, VirusScan,
> on a Windows 2003 Standard server, running MS SQL Server 2000 (with the
> latest patches).
> I've read that some have reported problems with VirusScan when they're
> running Banyan Vines, but this is strictly TCP/IP.
> If you have any recommendations or warnings to give me about this, I
> would really like to hear it.
> Sincerely,
>
> Niklas
>
|||Thank you, both Simon and Anthony. You've provided me with good info,
and the URL to the recommendations from Microsoft hands me a solid base
for further internal discussions on this matter.
Sincerely,
Niklas
sql

maximum users logged in sql express

we're planning to use sql express as our database server in our office. the database will consist of accounting, purchasing, marketing, sales, inventory, production and hrd tables. 80-100 users will use the system simultaneously in adding, editing, deleting, reports.
i need some advice on the following:
1. maximum users that can log on to the database simultaneously?
2. maximum size of the database?

tnxHi,

the maximum number of users will be most likely limited by hardware ressources not by a logical threshold, its around 32k users. maximum size of each database is 4GB.

HTH, Jens K. Suessmeyer.

http://www.sqlserver2005.de|||

This is not what Express Edition was built for. The Express Edition exists to provide a small footprint database platform for use with primarily local or embedded applications. It is not designed to stick it on a server, write enterprise level applications against it, and then have 80 - 100 people bang away on it.

You want to deploy either the Workgroup Edition or the Standard Edition.

|||hi, i tried to install sql express w/ advanced services on a server and it works fine. also found info on its features http://www.microsoft.com/sql/editions/express/features.mspx

i already suggested on these sql editions but the company cannot afford the software.
|||hi, do you mean if RAM is increased on the server, more users can log on and perform transactions simultaneously.

how can i monitor if 32k users is already logged on to sql server?|||

Very hardware limitation and ressources will limit the performance as well as availbility.

HTH, Jens K. Suessmeyer.

http://www.sqlserver2005.de

|||Truthfully, if you have 80 - 100 users hitting a database server that your company is obviously running its business off of and they can't afford to purchase about $10K worth of software to make sure they can function, they is something fundamentally wrong with the company. They are going to have several times that amount of money spent on the computers these people are working on. So, it really boils down to a very simple question - does the business want to run or not?

Maximum databases per server

Dear All, We are planning an application where we need to maintain
separate databases for each customers. Now, the number of customers in
one year would be 50,000. I read that theoretically it is possible to
maintain 32000 databases in a single instance of SQL Server, but I can
guess that it would certainly have performance issues.
What could be the possible architecture? Can having views be a
solution, so even though the database would be one for all the
customers, it would be logically separated. Can this be a possibility?
I do not need to synchronize data between customer databases and I
reckon that the database would be having 30-40 tables.
Kind regards,
Santosh
Can you provide the Sql Server version and other server statistics?
Thanks,
Sree
"santoshmahale@.gmail.com" wrote:

> Dear All, We are planning an application where we need to maintain
> separate databases for each customers. Now, the number of customers in
> one year would be 50,000. I read that theoretically it is possible to
> maintain 32000 databases in a single instance of SQL Server, but I can
> guess that it would certainly have performance issues.
> What could be the possible architecture? Can having views be a
> solution, so even though the database would be one for all the
> customers, it would be logically separated. Can this be a possibility?
> I do not need to synchronize data between customer databases and I
> reckon that the database would be having 30-40 tables.
> Kind regards,
> Santosh
>
|||the version I am planning on is SQL Server 2000 EE.
Are you refering to hardware stats of the server? I am planning 4
processor enabled (2 installed initially), 8 GB RAM and a SAN.
What other stats information you had in mind?
|||Hi santhosh,
For sql Server 2000 The maximum capacity specification says '32767'. More
than that i dont think the single instance will take, i have tried other
maximum capacity specifications like "Maximum columns per select statement =>
4096". If we give 4097 the select statement throws an error. So your design
might fail if you try to make more than 32,767 and you were saying there can
be 50,000 customers a year. Will this count increase subsequent years? If so
you need to purchase servers as the sutomer strength increases, again on
performance side as you have a strong hardware support it wont affect much
but the concern is crossing 32,767 limit.
Why cant you maintain all customers in single DB? you asked for logical
separation between customers which i feel is not a concern. Again users
accessing it can be classified into separate logins no. Single DB is the
right choice, again seeing the application side how will you configure to
connect to each DB for each customer?
Thanks,
Sree
"santoshmahale@.gmail.com" wrote:

> the version I am planning on is SQL Server 2000 EE.
> Are you refering to hardware stats of the server? I am planning 4
> processor enabled (2 installed initially), 8 GB RAM and a SAN.
> What other stats information you had in mind?
>
|||Hi
a single db sounds the best way to go. I did something similar
recently. By adding some form of customer id column to each table, and
setting up a table to control which SQL user accesses which records.
Sreejith G wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi santhosh,
> For sql Server 2000 The maximum capacity specification says '32767'. More
> than that i dont think the single instance will take, i have tried other
> maximum capacity specifications like "Maximum columns per select statement =>
> 4096". If we give 4097 the select statement throws an error. So your design
> might fail if you try to make more than 32,767 and you were saying there can
> be 50,000 customers a year. Will this count increase subsequent years? If so
> you need to purchase servers as the sutomer strength increases, again on
> performance side as you have a strong hardware support it wont affect much
> but the concern is crossing 32,767 limit.
> Why cant you maintain all customers in single DB? you asked for logical
> separation between customers which i feel is not a concern. Again users
> accessing it can be classified into separate logins no. Single DB is the
> right choice, again seeing the application side how will you configure to
> connect to each DB for each customer?
> Thanks,
> Sree
>
>
> "santoshmahale@.gmail.com" wrote:
|||santoshmahale@.gmail.com wrote:
> Dear All, We are planning an application where we need to maintain
> separate databases for each customers. Now, the number of customers in
> one year would be 50,000. I read that theoretically it is possible to
> maintain 32000 databases in a single instance of SQL Server, but I can
> guess that it would certainly have performance issues.
> What could be the possible architecture? Can having views be a
> solution, so even though the database would be one for all the
> customers, it would be logically separated. Can this be a possibility?
> I do not need to synchronize data between customer databases and I
> reckon that the database would be having 30-40 tables.
> Kind regards,
> Santosh
No question in my mind. Go for a single DB for all customers. 50,000
databases is madness.
Why do you say you "need" separate databases for each customer?
David Portas, SQL Server MVP
Whenever possible please post enough code to reproduce your problem.
Including CREATE TABLE and INSERT statements usually helps.
State what version of SQL Server you are using and specify the content
of any error messages.
SQL Server Books Online:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/library/ms130214(en-US,SQL.90).aspx

Maximum databases per server

Dear All, We are planning an application where we need to maintain
separate databases for each customers. Now, the number of customers in
one year would be 50,000. I read that theoretically it is possible to
maintain 32000 databases in a single instance of SQL Server, but I can
guess that it would certainly have performance issues.
What could be the possible architecture? Can having views be a
solution, so even though the database would be one for all the
customers, it would be logically separated. Can this be a possibility?
I do not need to synchronize data between customer databases and I
reckon that the database would be having 30-40 tables.
Kind regards,
SantoshCan you provide the Sql Server version and other server statistics?
Thanks,
Sree
"santoshmahale@.gmail.com" wrote:

> Dear All, We are planning an application where we need to maintain
> separate databases for each customers. Now, the number of customers in
> one year would be 50,000. I read that theoretically it is possible to
> maintain 32000 databases in a single instance of SQL Server, but I can
> guess that it would certainly have performance issues.
> What could be the possible architecture? Can having views be a
> solution, so even though the database would be one for all the
> customers, it would be logically separated. Can this be a possibility?
> I do not need to synchronize data between customer databases and I
> reckon that the database would be having 30-40 tables.
> Kind regards,
> Santosh
>|||the version I am planning on is SQL Server 2000 EE.
Are you refering to hardware stats of the server? I am planning 4
processor enabled (2 installed initially), 8 GB RAM and a SAN.
What other stats information you had in mind?|||Hi santhosh,
For sql Server 2000 The maximum capacity specification says '32767'. More
than that i dont think the single instance will take, i have tried other
maximum capacity specifications like "Maximum columns per select statement =
>
4096". If we give 4097 the select statement throws an error. So your design
might fail if you try to make more than 32,767 and you were saying there can
be 50,000 customers a year. Will this count increase subsequent years? If so
you need to purchase servers as the sutomer strength increases, again on
performance side as you have a strong hardware support it wont affect much
but the concern is crossing 32,767 limit.
Why cant you maintain all customers in single DB? you asked for logical
separation between customers which i feel is not a concern. Again users
accessing it can be classified into separate logins no. Single DB is the
right choice, again seeing the application side how will you configure to
connect to each DB for each customer?
Thanks,
Sree
"santoshmahale@.gmail.com" wrote:

> the version I am planning on is SQL Server 2000 EE.
> Are you refering to hardware stats of the server? I am planning 4
> processor enabled (2 installed initially), 8 GB RAM and a SAN.
> What other stats information you had in mind?
>|||Hi
a single db sounds the best way to go. I did something similar
recently. By adding some form of customer id column to each table, and
setting up a table to control which SQL user accesses which records.
Sreejith G wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi santhosh,
> For sql Server 2000 The maximum capacity specification says '32767'. More
> than that i dont think the single instance will take, i have tried other
> maximum capacity specifications like "Maximum columns per select statement
=>
> 4096". If we give 4097 the select statement throws an error. So your desi
gn
> might fail if you try to make more than 32,767 and you were saying there c
an
> be 50,000 customers a year. Will this count increase subsequent years? If
so
> you need to purchase servers as the sutomer strength increases, again on
> performance side as you have a strong hardware support it wont affect much
> but the concern is crossing 32,767 limit.
> Why cant you maintain all customers in single DB? you asked for logical
> separation between customers which i feel is not a concern. Again users
> accessing it can be classified into separate logins no. Single DB is the
> right choice, again seeing the application side how will you configure to
> connect to each DB for each customer?
> Thanks,
> Sree
>
>
> "santoshmahale@.gmail.com" wrote:
>|||santoshmahale@.gmail.com wrote:
> Dear All, We are planning an application where we need to maintain
> separate databases for each customers. Now, the number of customers in
> one year would be 50,000. I read that theoretically it is possible to
> maintain 32000 databases in a single instance of SQL Server, but I can
> guess that it would certainly have performance issues.
> What could be the possible architecture? Can having views be a
> solution, so even though the database would be one for all the
> customers, it would be logically separated. Can this be a possibility?
> I do not need to synchronize data between customer databases and I
> reckon that the database would be having 30-40 tables.
> Kind regards,
> Santosh
No question in my mind. Go for a single DB for all customers. 50,000
databases is madness.
Why do you say you "need" separate databases for each customer?
David Portas, SQL Server MVP
Whenever possible please post enough code to reproduce your problem.
Including CREATE TABLE and INSERT statements usually helps.
State what version of SQL Server you are using and specify the content
of any error messages.
SQL Server Books Online:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/library/ms130214(en-US,SQL.90).aspx
--

Maximum databases per server

Dear All, We are planning an application where we need to maintain
separate databases for each customers. Now, the number of customers in
one year would be 50,000. I read that theoretically it is possible to
maintain 32000 databases in a single instance of SQL Server, but I can
guess that it would certainly have performance issues.
What could be the possible architecture? Can having views be a
solution, so even though the database would be one for all the
customers, it would be logically separated. Can this be a possibility?
I do not need to synchronize data between customer databases and I
reckon that the database would be having 30-40 tables.
Kind regards,
SantoshCan you provide the Sql Server version and other server statistics?
Thanks,
Sree
"santoshmahale@.gmail.com" wrote:
> Dear All, We are planning an application where we need to maintain
> separate databases for each customers. Now, the number of customers in
> one year would be 50,000. I read that theoretically it is possible to
> maintain 32000 databases in a single instance of SQL Server, but I can
> guess that it would certainly have performance issues.
> What could be the possible architecture? Can having views be a
> solution, so even though the database would be one for all the
> customers, it would be logically separated. Can this be a possibility?
> I do not need to synchronize data between customer databases and I
> reckon that the database would be having 30-40 tables.
> Kind regards,
> Santosh
>|||the version I am planning on is SQL Server 2000 EE.
Are you refering to hardware stats of the server? I am planning 4
processor enabled (2 installed initially), 8 GB RAM and a SAN.
What other stats information you had in mind?|||Hi santhosh,
For sql Server 2000 The maximum capacity specification says '32767'. More
than that i dont think the single instance will take, i have tried other
maximum capacity specifications like "Maximum columns per select statement =>
4096". If we give 4097 the select statement throws an error. So your design
might fail if you try to make more than 32,767 and you were saying there can
be 50,000 customers a year. Will this count increase subsequent years? If so
you need to purchase servers as the sutomer strength increases, again on
performance side as you have a strong hardware support it wont affect much
but the concern is crossing 32,767 limit.
Why cant you maintain all customers in single DB? you asked for logical
separation between customers which i feel is not a concern. Again users
accessing it can be classified into separate logins no. Single DB is the
right choice, again seeing the application side how will you configure to
connect to each DB for each customer?
Thanks,
Sree
"santoshmahale@.gmail.com" wrote:
> the version I am planning on is SQL Server 2000 EE.
> Are you refering to hardware stats of the server? I am planning 4
> processor enabled (2 installed initially), 8 GB RAM and a SAN.
> What other stats information you had in mind?
>|||Hi
a single db sounds the best way to go. I did something similar
recently. By adding some form of customer id column to each table, and
setting up a table to control which SQL user accesses which records.
Sreejith G wrote:
> Hi santhosh,
> For sql Server 2000 The maximum capacity specification says '32767'. More
> than that i dont think the single instance will take, i have tried other
> maximum capacity specifications like "Maximum columns per select statement =>
> 4096". If we give 4097 the select statement throws an error. So your design
> might fail if you try to make more than 32,767 and you were saying there can
> be 50,000 customers a year. Will this count increase subsequent years? If so
> you need to purchase servers as the sutomer strength increases, again on
> performance side as you have a strong hardware support it wont affect much
> but the concern is crossing 32,767 limit.
> Why cant you maintain all customers in single DB? you asked for logical
> separation between customers which i feel is not a concern. Again users
> accessing it can be classified into separate logins no. Single DB is the
> right choice, again seeing the application side how will you configure to
> connect to each DB for each customer?
> Thanks,
> Sree
>
>
> "santoshmahale@.gmail.com" wrote:
>> the version I am planning on is SQL Server 2000 EE.
>> Are you refering to hardware stats of the server? I am planning 4
>> processor enabled (2 installed initially), 8 GB RAM and a SAN.
>> What other stats information you had in mind?
>>|||santoshmahale@.gmail.com wrote:
> Dear All, We are planning an application where we need to maintain
> separate databases for each customers. Now, the number of customers in
> one year would be 50,000. I read that theoretically it is possible to
> maintain 32000 databases in a single instance of SQL Server, but I can
> guess that it would certainly have performance issues.
> What could be the possible architecture? Can having views be a
> solution, so even though the database would be one for all the
> customers, it would be logically separated. Can this be a possibility?
> I do not need to synchronize data between customer databases and I
> reckon that the database would be having 30-40 tables.
> Kind regards,
> Santosh
No question in my mind. Go for a single DB for all customers. 50,000
databases is madness.
Why do you say you "need" separate databases for each customer?
--
David Portas, SQL Server MVP
Whenever possible please post enough code to reproduce your problem.
Including CREATE TABLE and INSERT statements usually helps.
State what version of SQL Server you are using and specify the content
of any error messages.
SQL Server Books Online:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/library/ms130214(en-US,SQL.90).aspx
--