William Hindman
wdhindman at dejpolsystems.com
Thu Nov 2 10:36:51 CST 2006
...lol ...listen up JC ...SBS2003 is NOT xp ...you must plan your install and know ahead of time what services you need and how you want to provide them ...that said, it is a whole lot simpler than installing the individual applications and getting them to work together ...and a whole lot cheaper for your client. ...of course, your first step should have been to RTFM :) ...if you have the server resources, just choose every install option ...I'm assuming you have two NICs :) ...but if this is something YOU are planning to use in your office for anything more than learning purposes, its probably enormous overkill. ...if you have two or more people sending faxes using the same modems, fax services will make it easier. ...if you have a group of people who can use shared calendaring, scheduling, contacts, and e-mail, Exchange will make it happen ...but in my office, I use OE because Exchange requires Outlook and it is such a resource hog ...but hey, if you have the resources, its the best groupware going despite Gustav's enamoration with Novell :) ...I belong to a listserve, sbs2k on yahoo groups that is very active and quite similar to AccessD ...and very tolerant of newbies ...a number of mvps hang out there ...despite its name, sbs2k3 is the topic of choice. ...I love SBS and in small offices of 5-25 people it just can't be beat ...stable as a rock once installed and a real pleasure to support because it really doesn't require much :) ...but if you really don't need it, don't install it ...gustav is right about their being simpler alternatives for SOHOs that don't need the array that SBS provides ...and no matter what you want, if its an MS server, you will learn Active Directory ...actually much simpler than it looks at first glance ...most of it happens behind the scenes. William Hindman ----- Original Message ----- From: "JWColby" <jwcolby at colbyconsulting.com> To: <dba-sqlserver at databaseadvisors.com>; "'Access Developers discussion and problem solving'" <accessd at databaseadvisors.com> Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 10:16 AM Subject: [AccessD] Installing SBS2003 - was [dba-SQLServer] What is going on > Well, nothing ever goes as planned. I own SBS 2003. I started the > install > which proceeded as smoothly as any of this ever does, which means plenty > of > "the F6 floppy doesn't work, but it doesn't say that, so spend an hour > figuring that out, find the driver on the internet etc.", and "oh I need > an > active network controller, and what do you mean you have to install a > driver > disk (right in the middle of the install) to give me that" etc. > > In the meantime, it gets to some screen where it just informs me that it > is > installing active directory. > >>As you are not going, right at the start, into Active Directory >>(workgroups > will work fine), installing Server2003 is as simple as installing XP. > > So now it appears that I AM installing active directory, whether I need or > want it or not. So (from your email) perhaps the install will NOT be as > easy as installing XP? > > I am doing a dual boot, installing SBS2003 to the raid 6 D: drive (might > as > well use this raid stuff to make the system install more fault tolerant). > > I just got to a screen where it is asking me what components I want, > things > like server tools, exchange server, fax service. So what do I need, and > will it "just install" or will it ask me questions which I am not prepared > to answer? > > William, you are the one always touting how great SBS is. Any words of > wisdom on this? > > Man I hate this crap! > > John W. Colby > Colby Consulting > www.ColbyConsulting.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: dba-sqlserver-bounces at databaseadvisors.com > [mailto:dba-sqlserver-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Jim > Lawrence > Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 10:12 PM > To: dba-sqlserver at databaseadvisors.com > Subject: Re: [dba-SQLServer] What is going on > > Hi John: > > As you are not going, right at the start, into Active Directory > (workgroups > will work fine), installing Server2003 is as simple as installing XP.. The > whole process tends to be a disk jockey nodding off between switch disk > and > answering such questions as, "What is your product key" and do you want to > install IIS. If I can do it so can you. > > Server2003 can run multiple instances and processes. It will run > applications that will over-load any XP desktop box. It has better > isolation > so if a program misbehaves it does not bring down the system. I understood > you were on the MS partner plan and therefore you should have access to > all > the servers you can stand. Server 2003 standard or developer is just fine > unless you are planning to run virtual and exchange server etc. > > I have taken the luxury to run Server 2003 as my desktop, one that has > never > gone down... Well only once and that was my fault... But it is really > stable. MS SQL and IIS run as background processes and their impact is > hardly noticeable. > > Sorry if this sounds like a lecture but I am sure your problems can be > solved by going this route. > > Jim > > -----Original Message----- > From: dba-sqlserver-bounces at databaseadvisors.com > [mailto:dba-sqlserver-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of JWColby > Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 2:52 PM > To: dba-sqlserver at databaseadvisors.com > Subject: Re: [dba-SQLServer] What is going on > > LOL, borderline insanity. I can assure you that I am FULLY insane. Bwaaa > haaaa haaaa. I am using SP Pro. SQL Server ran just fine on 2K pro, XP > Pro > is the 2K Pro base code. Why would it not run on that? I keep hearing > that > it isn't supposed to, but it does. I can tell you I would be irritated > beyond belief if I went to Win 2003 server (which I have but haven't a > clue > how to install, since this is a desktop machine in the end) and I still > had > this issue. > > I actually tried to install 2003 server (in fact I have a disk with the > beginnings of the install) and got to questions that implied I was > supposed > to know what I was doing (and I don't) so how am I supposed to install > 2003 > so that I can test your theory? > > I am not a notwork / OS admin, I am a developer. MS themselves push SQL > Server lite as a developer tool. > > If anyone wants to talk me through a 2003 server install I will do that > but... > > John W. Colby > Colby Consulting > www.ColbyConsulting.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: dba-sqlserver-bounces at databaseadvisors.com > [mailto:dba-sqlserver-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Jim > Lawrence > Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 5:19 PM > To: dba-sqlserver at databaseadvisors.com > Subject: Re: [dba-SQLServer] What is going on > > Hi John: > > I am trying to cover all the bases. The problems initially appears to be > with the MS SQL sever setting as they run fairly indendendantly from an > OS. > If the problem is not in the MS SQL setup, accumulating non responsive > results sort of negates the hardware being the issue, then it has to be in > the process. > > If it is absolutely not in the process then it must be in the MS SQL > settings. > > Please tell me you are using server OS as it would be border-line insanity > to use a desktop type OS and then I would assure you, without hesitation, > that that is the problem. > > HTH > Jim > > -----Original Message----- > From: dba-sqlserver-bounces at databaseadvisors.com > [mailto:dba-sqlserver-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of JWColby > Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 12:12 PM > To: dba-sqlserver at databaseadvisors.com > Subject: Re: [dba-SQLServer] What is going on > > Jim, > > I don't understand what this is doing for me. I have just one data file > ATM. I don't know whether that is a good thing or a bad thing. This > sounds > like the process for creating and then redistributing data amongst > multiple > files. If you are saying that it is the existence of one huge file that > is > causing my slowdown, then I can certainly do that. > > > > I have to ask if this is as good as it gets with SQL Server. I understand > that I am doing stuff with big tables but keerimeny. I started the build > of > a PKID field on the big table. It tells me that "ansi nulls was not on > and > it has to rebuild the table" so I do. EM just locks up tight, won't even > redraw the screen (blank white) if you switch away and back again. I > believe that it is hard at work but folks, this is the age of threads. > > So I open another instance of EM to work with another table. EM takes > several seconds to expand each tree (server, databases, specific database) > then when I try to expand the tables, the second instance of EM locks up > tight with an hourglass. I mean c'mon. This is 2006, a monster (desktop) > system and EM acts as if it is a DOS app from 1986 running on a '286 with > 4 > megs and swapping memory. The second EM instance has been trying to open > the tables icon just to show me what tables are there for 20 minutes now. > > To say this is discouraging to work with would be an understatement. If > this is the best I am going to get I am going to have to look for another > database engine to work with. > > And the most discouraging part is that my dual proc system is cruising > along > using (average?) well under 25% of the processor while EM is locked up > tight. > > Does SQl Server 2005 fix any of this? Or should I just go look at MySQL > or > Oracle personal edition. I have to get work done on this database and it > is > telling me that one job (building a field / index) on one table is all it > can handle. And by the looks of it I will be locked out of this database > for the next 12 to 24 hours. > > Hell, ACCESS can do better than this!!! Well, maybe not but SQL Server's > rep is taking a beating here. > > John W. Colby > Colby Consulting > www.ColbyConsulting.com > > _______________________________________________ > dba-SQLServer mailing list > dba-SQLServer at databaseadvisors.com > http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-sqlserver > http://www.databaseadvisors.com > > _______________________________________________ > dba-SQLServer mailing list > dba-SQLServer at databaseadvisors.com > http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-sqlserver > http://www.databaseadvisors.com > > _______________________________________________ > dba-SQLServer mailing list > dba-SQLServer at databaseadvisors.com > http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-sqlserver > http://www.databaseadvisors.com > > _______________________________________________ > dba-SQLServer mailing list > dba-SQLServer at databaseadvisors.com > http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-sqlserver > http://www.databaseadvisors.com > > -- > AccessD mailing list > AccessD at databaseadvisors.com > http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd > Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com >