mdf and ldf file extensions

Hello All,
One of my customers created a database in SQL 2K SP3a. He gave the data
file LDF extension and log file MDF extension.
When I do sp_helpdb 'dbname', the extensions are pointing to the correct
files, meaning LDF is pointing to the data file and MDF is pointing to the
log file just as he designed.
My question is: is it just a standard suggested by Microsoft to name the
data file with MDF extension and log file with LDF and NDF extensions? Is
there going to be any repercussions later on if we name the files with wrong
extensions.
I though it was odd that SQL Server let the files be named with wrong
extensions in the first place.
Any ideas?
Thanks,
BivaThis will not confuse SQL Server. SQL Server doesn't rely
on the file name extension to determine the type of the
file or how it deals with the file. But it may be
confusing to a DBA, and wouldn't be considered best
practice from a naming convention standpoint.
If you don't like the current naming, you can detach the
database, rename the files to the conventional extensions,
and then attach the database using the renamed files.
Linchi
>--Original Message--
>Hello All,
>One of my customers created a database in SQL 2K SP3a.
He gave the data
>file LDF extension and log file MDF extension.
>When I do sp_helpdb 'dbname', the extensions are pointing
to the correct
>files, meaning LDF is pointing to the data file and MDF
is pointing to the
>log file just as he designed.
>My question is: is it just a standard suggested by
Microsoft to name the
>data file with MDF extension and log file with LDF and
NDF extensions? Is
>there going to be any repercussions later on if we name
the files with wrong
>extensions.
>I though it was odd that SQL Server let the files be
named with wrong
>extensions in the first place.
>Any ideas?
>Thanks,
>Biva
>
>.
>|||> My question is: is it just a standard suggested by Microsoft to name the
> data file with MDF extension and log file with LDF and NDF extensions?
The pedantic part of me is tugging to correct this. By default, at least.
Data files have MDF (and NDF extensions, in the case of multiple files).
Log files have LDF extensions (whether singular or multiple).
You can certainly override this behavior. I'm not certain that there are
any advantages of doing so, and I can certainly think of some drawbacks.
But there it is.
--
Aaron Bertrand
SQL Server MVP|||Hi Biva,
Thank you for using MSDN Newsgroup! It's my pleasure to assist you with
your issue.
You concern is if the MDF, NDF, LDF is just a suggested standard by
Microsoft and if there problem when change the extension to these files,
right?
When create a database, you should set a filename of the data, log, etc.
These fine name and extension should be specified (they are 'os_file_name'
when you refer it to 'create database' in BOL, SQL Server Books Online).
Although 'os_file_name' can be any valid operating system file name, the
name more clearly reflects the purpose of the file if you use the following
recommended extensions.
You can create a database like this:
USE master
GO
CREATE DATABASE Sales
ON
( NAME = Sales_dat,
FILENAME = 'c:\program files\microsoft sql
server\mssql\data\saledat.mdfx',
SIZE = 10,
MAXSIZE = 50,
FILEGROWTH = 5 )
LOG ON
( NAME = 'Sales_log',
FILENAME = 'c:\program files\microsoft sql
server\mssql\data\salelog.ldfx',
SIZE = 5MB,
MAXSIZE = 25MB,
FILEGROWTH = 5MB )
GO
As we know, the system table 'master' will control the user databases and
operation of SQL Server as a whole by keeping track of all information of
them. When you use:
Use master
Go
Select * from sysdatabases
You will get the fileinformation of sales with the extension you defined,
that is
'c:\program files\microsoft sql server\mssql\data\saledat.mdfx'
and you can create table or execute other operations on it.
But if you revise the extension of the file and thenuse the database again,
the SQL Server will notify you that the file is not exist although there
may be someway de recover. It is strongly suggested you to keep the
suggested file extension by Microsoft.
Hope this answered your questions. If you still have more concern about it,
please feel free to post new message here and I am ready to help!
Best regards
Baisong Wei
Microsoft Online Support
----
Get Secure! - www.microsoft.com/security
This posting is provided "as is" with no warranties and confers no rights.
Please reply to newsgroups only. Thanks.

MDAC 2.8 on SQL 2000 Sp3a

Any reason why MDAC 2.8 should NOT be installed on the above server? A
colleague has an error linking a Excel spreadsheet (linked server) and the
MS site suggests Jet 4 SP8. However it claims I do not have Jet 4 SP3 yet
and that is the minimum required to add SP8! I thought MDAC 2.8 would get me
bang up to date with Jet.
Thanks for any input.
SimonJet is no longer included with MDAC. For Jet updates see
http://www.aspfaq.com/2342
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)
"Simon" <simoncar@.NotThisBittotalise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:#7j$g7RXEHA.4064@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Any reason why MDAC 2.8 should NOT be installed on the above server? A
> colleague has an error linking a Excel spreadsheet (linked server) and the
> MS site suggests Jet 4 SP8. However it claims I do not have Jet 4 SP3 yet
> and that is the minimum required to add SP8! I thought MDAC 2.8 would get
me
> bang up to date with Jet.
> Thanks for any input.
> Simon
>

MDAC 2.8 on SQL 2000 Sp3a

Any reason why MDAC 2.8 should NOT be installed on the above server? A
colleague has an error linking a Excel spreadsheet (linked server) and the
MS site suggests Jet 4 SP8. However it claims I do not have Jet 4 SP3 yet
and that is the minimum required to add SP8! I thought MDAC 2.8 would get me
bang up to date with Jet.
Thanks for any input.
Simon
Jet is no longer included with MDAC. For Jet updates see
http://www.aspfaq.com/2342
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)
"Simon" <simoncar@.NotThisBittotalise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:#7j$g7RXEHA.4064@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Any reason why MDAC 2.8 should NOT be installed on the above server? A
> colleague has an error linking a Excel spreadsheet (linked server) and the
> MS site suggests Jet 4 SP8. However it claims I do not have Jet 4 SP3 yet
> and that is the minimum required to add SP8! I thought MDAC 2.8 would get
me
> bang up to date with Jet.
> Thanks for any input.
> Simon
>
|||Jet is no longer included with MDAC. For Jet updates see
http://www.aspfaq.com/2342
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)
"Simon" <simoncar@.NotThisBittotalise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:#7j$g7RXEHA.4064@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Any reason why MDAC 2.8 should NOT be installed on the above server? A
> colleague has an error linking a Excel spreadsheet (linked server) and the
> MS site suggests Jet 4 SP8. However it claims I do not have Jet 4 SP3 yet
> and that is the minimum required to add SP8! I thought MDAC 2.8 would get
me
> bang up to date with Jet.
> Thanks for any input.
> Simon
>

MDAC 2.8 on SQL 2000 Sp3a

Any reason why MDAC 2.8 should NOT be installed on the above server? A
colleague has an error linking a Excel spreadsheet (linked server) and the
MS site suggests Jet 4 SP8. However it claims I do not have Jet 4 SP3 yet
and that is the minimum required to add SP8! I thought MDAC 2.8 would get me
bang up to date with Jet.
Thanks for any input.
SimonJet is no longer included with MDAC. For Jet updates see
http://www.aspfaq.com/2342
--
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)
"Simon" <simoncar@.NotThisBittotalise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:#7j$g7RXEHA.4064@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Any reason why MDAC 2.8 should NOT be installed on the above server? A
> colleague has an error linking a Excel spreadsheet (linked server) and the
> MS site suggests Jet 4 SP8. However it claims I do not have Jet 4 SP3 yet
> and that is the minimum required to add SP8! I thought MDAC 2.8 would get
me
> bang up to date with Jet.
> Thanks for any input.
> Simon
>sql

MDAC

What version of MDAC does a client pc need to have to
access SQL Server 2000 SP3a, on a Windows 2000 SP3
server. MDAC 2.7 SP1?
What is recommended as a procedure to make sure this
version is rollout to users? How should that work'
What version comes with Windows XP?
Thanks,
JimVersions of MDAC earlier that MDAC 2.7 SP1 can access SQL Server 2000 SP3.
I am not aware of a version of MDAC that will not access SQL Server 2000
SP3. You would not have the ability to use the new features of SQL Server
2000 but still would have access.
Windows XP ships with MDAC 2.7.
Rand
This posting is provided "as is" with no warranties and confers no rights.|||So earlier version of MDAC are ok. Later versions than
what's installed on the SQL box you run the risk of not
being able to access all of the functionality on the SQL
Server.
Great. Thanks.

quote:

---

>--Original Message--
>Versions of MDAC earlier that MDAC 2.7 SP1 can access

---

SQL Server 2000 SP3.

quote:

---

>I am not aware of a version of MDAC that will not access

---

SQL Server 2000

quote:

---

>SP3. You would not have the ability to use the new

---

features of SQL Server

quote:

---

>2000 but still would have access.
>Windows XP ships with MDAC 2.7.
>Rand
>This posting is provided "as is" with no warranties and

---

confers no rights.

quote:

---

>.
>

---

MDAC

What version of MDAC does a client pc need to have to
access SQL Server 2000 SP3a, on a Windows 2000 SP3
server. MDAC 2.7 SP1?
What is recommended as a procedure to make sure this
version is rollout to users? How should that work'
What version comes with Windows XP?
Thanks,
JimVersions of MDAC earlier that MDAC 2.7 SP1 can access SQL Server 2000 SP3.
I am not aware of a version of MDAC that will not access SQL Server 2000
SP3. You would not have the ability to use the new features of SQL Server
2000 but still would have access.
Windows XP ships with MDAC 2.7.
Rand
This posting is provided "as is" with no warranties and confers no rights.|||So earlier version of MDAC are ok. Later versions than
what's installed on the SQL box you run the risk of not
being able to access all of the functionality on the SQL
Server.
Great. Thanks.
>--Original Message--
>Versions of MDAC earlier that MDAC 2.7 SP1 can access
SQL Server 2000 SP3.
>I am not aware of a version of MDAC that will not access
SQL Server 2000
>SP3. You would not have the ability to use the new
features of SQL Server
>2000 but still would have access.
>Windows XP ships with MDAC 2.7.
>Rand
>This posting is provided "as is" with no warranties and
confers no rights.
>.
>

Maximum number of logins?

SQL Server 2000 Enterprise SP3a
Is there a limit on the number of logins that can be created?Probably 32K but I can't find any documentation on this. More than likely
you will run into other problems before you run out of logins. If you need
that many you really should be looking at using Windows Logins anyway.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"DJ" <DJ@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:DA6634DC-058F-410E-AB81-7D8C20EF238F@.microsoft.com...
> SQL Server 2000 Enterprise SP3a
> Is there a limit on the number of logins that can be created?|||We hit the limit at 16k. They lifted it in SQL 2005.
--
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinpub.com
.
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:ulBS8xtIGHA.344@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
Probably 32K but I can't find any documentation on this. More than likely
you will run into other problems before you run out of logins. If you need
that many you really should be looking at using Windows Logins anyway.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"DJ" <DJ@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:DA6634DC-058F-410E-AB81-7D8C20EF238F@.microsoft.com...
> SQL Server 2000 Enterprise SP3a
> Is there a limit on the number of logins that can be created?|||Maximum user connection is, 32767 with 37KB of memory per user. Our server
settings is set for 1000 connection as per business requirement. You can
change that using sp_configure in Advanced option, use reconfigure after that
and it will take effect only after a reboot.
"DJ" wrote:
> SQL Server 2000 Enterprise SP3a
> Is there a limit on the number of logins that can be created?|||The maximum user connection is, 32767 with 37K memory for each connection.
Ours is 1000 depending on business requirement. You can change the number of
connection using sp_configure advanced option enabled and reconfigure. Do a
restart to make the change into effect.
Thanks,
Sree
"DJ" wrote:
> SQL Server 2000 Enterprise SP3a
> Is there a limit on the number of logins that can be created?|||There's a difference between logins and connections. The OP asked about
logins.
--
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinpub.com
.
"Sreejith G" <SreejithG@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0BCA5411-F5A6-4E34-9BC9-B330E687943A@.microsoft.com...
The maximum user connection is, 32767 with 37K memory for each connection.
Ours is 1000 depending on business requirement. You can change the number of
connection using sp_configure advanced option enabled and reconfigure. Do a
restart to make the change into effect.
Thanks,
Sree
"DJ" wrote:
> SQL Server 2000 Enterprise SP3a
> Is there a limit on the number of logins that can be created?|||:) oopsss sorry...
Breaking my head i feel, its the maximum number of rows that a table can
have. i.e for syslogins table. Because its where the login details are kept.
And the maximum number of rows for a table in turn is "Limited by available
storage". So that might be the answer, iam not sure if there is any fixed
limit for maximum number of logins...
Thanks,
Sree
"Tom Moreau" wrote:
> There's a difference between logins and connections. The OP asked about
> logins.
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> Toronto, ON Canada
> www.pinpub.com
> ..
> "Sreejith G" <SreejithG@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:0BCA5411-F5A6-4E34-9BC9-B330E687943A@.microsoft.com...
> The maximum user connection is, 32767 with 37K memory for each connection.
> Ours is 1000 depending on business requirement. You can change the number of
> connection using sp_configure advanced option enabled and reconfigure. Do a
> restart to make the change into effect.
> Thanks,
> Sree
> "DJ" wrote:
> > SQL Server 2000 Enterprise SP3a
> >
> > Is there a limit on the number of logins that can be created?
>|||We hit the same limitation - thanx for verifying this. I couldn't find a doc
on it.
-DJ
"Tom Moreau" wrote:
> We hit the limit at 16k. They lifted it in SQL 2005.
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> Toronto, ON Canada
> www.pinpub.com
> ..
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:ulBS8xtIGHA.344@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Probably 32K but I can't find any documentation on this. More than likely
> you will run into other problems before you run out of logins. If you need
> that many you really should be looking at using Windows Logins anyway.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "DJ" <DJ@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:DA6634DC-058F-410E-AB81-7D8C20EF238F@.microsoft.com...
> > SQL Server 2000 Enterprise SP3a
> >
> > Is there a limit on the number of logins that can be created?
>
>