How to simpify the Deployment process of a SQL Server Report

Dear all,
I have 5 SQL Servers and totally around 100 databases (1 database for 1
client).
Whenever I finish a Report development on my development server, I will need
to repeat the same task on these 100 databases 100 times ?
Although I can copy the Report Definition File from the development server
to these 100 databases' folders, I still need to do the following tasks :
(1)Create 100 new Visual Studio projects
(2)Enter "Start Item" and "Target Server URL" 100 times
(3)Create 100 new Shared Data Sources
(4)Build and Deploy Visual Studio projects 100 times.
Are there any better or more efficient ways to deploy a new Report in a
multiple servers or multiple databases environment ?
Please help me.
Thanks a lot."cpchan" wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I have 5 SQL Servers and totally around 100 databases (1 database for 1
> client).
>
> Whenever I finish a Report development on my development server, I will need
> to repeat the same task on these 100 databases 100 times ?
> Although I can copy the Report Definition File from the development server
> to these 100 databases' folders, I still need to do the following tasks :
>
> (1)Create 100 new Visual Studio projects
> (2)Enter "Start Item" and "Target Server URL" 100 times
> (3)Create 100 new Shared Data Sources
> (4)Build and Deploy Visual Studio projects 100 times.
>
> Are there any better or more efficient ways to deploy a new Report in a
> multiple servers or multiple databases environment ?
>
> Please help me.
> Thanks a lot.
>
Hi
I am not a reporting services expert, you may find more help in the
reporting services newsgroup microsoft.public.sqlserver.reportingsvcs
You can probably do what you require using multiple configurations for a
single project that deploys onto the different servers:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa179464.aspx
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa237242(SQL.80).aspx
You could probably use the command prompt utilities and write a
parameterised script that will deploy to a server
John|||Thanks
"John Bell" <jbellnewsposts@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:679E4454-427D-4734-B5BB-7817C3C11BCB@.microsoft.com...
> "cpchan" wrote:
> > Dear all,
> >
> >
> > I have 5 SQL Servers and totally around 100 databases (1 database for 1
> > client).
> >
> >
> >
> > Whenever I finish a Report development on my development server, I will
need
> > to repeat the same task on these 100 databases 100 times ?
> > Although I can copy the Report Definition File from the development
server
> > to these 100 databases' folders, I still need to do the following tasks
:
> >
> >
> > (1)Create 100 new Visual Studio projects
> > (2)Enter "Start Item" and "Target Server URL" 100 times
> > (3)Create 100 new Shared Data Sources
> > (4)Build and Deploy Visual Studio projects 100 times.
> >
> >
> >
> > Are there any better or more efficient ways to deploy a new Report in a
> > multiple servers or multiple databases environment ?
> >
> >
> >
> > Please help me.
> > Thanks a lot.
> >
> Hi
> I am not a reporting services expert, you may find more help in the
> reporting services newsgroup microsoft.public.sqlserver.reportingsvcs
> You can probably do what you require using multiple configurations for a
> single project that deploys onto the different servers:
> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa179464.aspx
> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa237242(SQL.80).aspx
> You could probably use the command prompt utilities and write a
> parameterised script that will deploy to a server
> John

how to shrink tran-logs of databases

hi,
work on sql server 2000.
I have serveral dbs that are either 'full' or 'simple',
their tran-logs have lots of empty space in it due to one-
time big processes, hence, I want to shrink their physical
size down.
I used the below query on several dbs, some log size got
shrinked, some didn't shrink at all. how come? I didn't
perform a backup log operation for any of the db before I
run this query:
use db1
DBCC SHRINKFILE (db1_log1_logical_name)
many thanks.
JJ
HI,
You need to perform a backup log if the database recovery model is FULL or
BULK_LOGGED. Otherwise the inactive trasnaction logs will not be removed and
though your shrinkfile command will shrink. in case if you donot need the
trasnactions you could truncate the logs
backup log <dbname> with truncate_only
go
DBCC SHRINKFILE (db1_log1_logical_name,truncateonly)
Now execute the below command to see log file size and usage.
DBCC SQLPERF(LOGSPACE)
Thanks
Hari
MCDBA
"JJ Wang" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:28e4a01c46551$c5a68f00$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
> hi,
> work on sql server 2000.
> I have serveral dbs that are either 'full' or 'simple',
> their tran-logs have lots of empty space in it due to one-
> time big processes, hence, I want to shrink their physical
> size down.
> I used the below query on several dbs, some log size got
> shrinked, some didn't shrink at all. how come? I didn't
> perform a backup log operation for any of the db before I
> run this query:
> use db1
> DBCC SHRINKFILE (db1_log1_logical_name)
> many thanks.
> JJ
|||hey Hari, it's you again! thanks for all the help. I
think you are definately right.
one more question, I also want to shrink this db's data
file which is total 21 gig, with over 9 gig free. I want
to shrink off those 9 gigs. I started by shrinking down
25 mg only, it took 11 minutes! my God, for 9 gig, it
will take 66 hrs then!
how come so slow?
thanks
JJ
>--Original Message--
>HI,
>You need to perform a backup log if the database recovery
model is FULL or
>BULK_LOGGED. Otherwise the inactive trasnaction logs will
not be removed and
>though your shrinkfile command will shrink. in case if
you donot need the
>trasnactions you could truncate the logs
>backup log <dbname> with truncate_only
>go
> DBCC SHRINKFILE (db1_log1_logical_name,truncateonly)
>Now execute the below command to see log file size and
usage.
>DBCC SQLPERF(LOGSPACE)
>Thanks
>Hari
>MCDBA
>
>"JJ Wang" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message[vbcol=seagreen]
>news:28e4a01c46551$c5a68f00$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
one-[vbcol=seagreen]
physical[vbcol=seagreen]
I
>
>.
>
|||JJ,
9GB of free spacein a 21GB DB is not too much. You need free space for a
database to operate properly anyway for things such as reindexing and you
always want room to add more data without growing. In any case the reason
it takes so long is that it shrinks from the end of the file and must move
any data that is near the end to a free spot at the beginning. This process
is resource intensive and can take a while depending on your hardware and if
the log files are on their own raid array or not. 11 minutes for only 25MB
does seem a little excessive but if your disks are poorly configured it's
not out of the question. Shrinking the file will also fragment your data
files and you may want to reindex afterwards. But if you shrink it too much
that will cause it to grow again<g>.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"JJ Wang" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2a18601c4655a$809f44c0$a301280a@.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> hey Hari, it's you again! thanks for all the help. I
> think you are definately right.
> one more question, I also want to shrink this db's data
> file which is total 21 gig, with over 9 gig free. I want
> to shrink off those 9 gigs. I started by shrinking down
> 25 mg only, it took 11 minutes! my God, for 9 gig, it
> will take 66 hrs then!
> how come so slow?
> thanks
> JJ
> model is FULL or
> not be removed and
> you donot need the
> usage.
> message
> one-
> physical
> I
|||Hi,
Add on to Andrews detailed description, please shrink the MDF file in Single
user mode and during reindexing make the database recovery model to
BULK_LOGGED.
Alter database <dbname> set single_user with rollback immediate
go
dbcc shrinkfile('logical_mdf_name',size_in_mb)
go
Now reindex
go
-- Multi user
Alter database <dbname> set multi_user
Thanks
Hari
MCDBA
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:#e9ZYzVZEHA.212@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> JJ,
> 9GB of free spacein a 21GB DB is not too much. You need free space for a
> database to operate properly anyway for things such as reindexing and you
> always want room to add more data without growing. In any case the reason
> it takes so long is that it shrinks from the end of the file and must move
> any data that is near the end to a free spot at the beginning. This
process
> is resource intensive and can take a while depending on your hardware and
if
> the log files are on their own raid array or not. 11 minutes for only 25MB
> does seem a little excessive but if your disks are poorly configured it's
> not out of the question. Shrinking the file will also fragment your data
> files and you may want to reindex afterwards. But if you shrink it too
much
> that will cause it to grow again<g>.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "JJ Wang" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:2a18601c4655a$809f44c0$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
>
|||Don't EVER leave the transaction log on 'full' recovery - it will absolutely eat your disks. ALWAYS have the default for ALL databases to be on 'simple'.
"JJ Wang" wrote:

> hi,
> work on sql server 2000.
> I have serveral dbs that are either 'full' or 'simple',
> their tran-logs have lots of empty space in it due to one-
> time big processes, hence, I want to shrink their physical
> size down.
> I used the below query on several dbs, some log size got
> shrinked, some didn't shrink at all. how come? I didn't
> perform a backup log operation for any of the db before I
> run this query:
> use db1
> DBCC SHRINKFILE (db1_log1_logical_name)
> many thanks.
> JJ
>
|||That is absolutely wrong advise. The reason it eats up your disks is that
you are not doing regular log backups to keep it in check. If you need to
have the ability to recover up to the minute there is no choice but to use
Full recovery mode.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Beeeeeeeeeeeeves" <Beeeeeeeeeeeeves@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:EF5BCB8B-0C14-4728-A2B3-D3E8907D7171@.microsoft.com...
> Don't EVER leave the transaction log on 'full' recovery - it will
absolutely eat your disks. ALWAYS have the default for ALL databases to be
on 'simple'.[vbcol=seagreen]
> "JJ Wang" wrote:
|||hi Andrew,
you sure always have good advices. The reason I want to
shrink this files was that we had a one time temperaroy
data expansion, this db's size should stay pretty constant
because we have a history archive db for it. and this is
just one of the files taht we need to shrink, there are
more files that have more unneeded space.
we have tran-log disk (1,0) seperate from our data disk
(raid 5). what do you mean by 'if the disk is poorly
designed'? how to judge that?
also, you mentioned: 'it takes so long is that it shrinks
from the end of the file and must move any data that is
near the end to a free spot at the beginning. ', is there
an option that we don't move the data around when
shrinking?
many thanks.
JJ

>--Original Message--
>JJ,
>9GB of free spacein a 21GB DB is not too much. You need
free space for a
>database to operate properly anyway for things such as
reindexing and you
>always want room to add more data without growing. In
any case the reason
>it takes so long is that it shrinks from the end of the
file and must move
>any data that is near the end to a free spot at the
beginning. This process
>is resource intensive and can take a while depending on
your hardware and if
>the log files are on their own raid array or not. 11
minutes for only 25MB
>does seem a little excessive but if your disks are poorly
configured it's
>not out of the question. Shrinking the file will also
fragment your data
>files and you may want to reindex afterwards. But if you
shrink it too much
>that will cause it to grow again<g>.
>--
>Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
>"JJ Wang" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message[vbcol=seagreen]
>news:2a18601c4655a$809f44c0$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
want[vbcol=seagreen]
recovery[vbcol=seagreen]
will[vbcol=seagreen]
in[vbcol=seagreen]
or 'simple',[vbcol=seagreen]
got[vbcol=seagreen]
didn't[vbcol=seagreen]
before
>
>.
>
|||thanks Andrew.
backup the log doesn't shrink its physical size though.
is the best way to shrink a log is to do it right after
the backup log job (maybe as the next step in the backup
log job)?
JJ
>--Original Message--
>That is absolutely wrong advise. The reason it eats up
your disks is that
>you are not doing regular log backups to keep it in
check. If you need to
>have the ability to recover up to the minute there is no
choice but to use
>Full recovery mode.
>--
>Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
>"Beeeeeeeeeeeeves"
<Beeeeeeeeeeeeves@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
>message news:EF5BCB8B-0C14-4728-A2B3-
D3E8907D7171@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
recovery - it will
>absolutely eat your disks. ALWAYS have the default for
ALL databases to be[vbcol=seagreen]
>on 'simple'.
or 'simple',[vbcol=seagreen]
one-[vbcol=seagreen]
physical[vbcol=seagreen]
got[vbcol=seagreen]
didn't[vbcol=seagreen]
before I
>
>.
>
|||I totally agree with Andrew. but thanks anyway. :-)
JJ
>--Original Message--
>Don't EVER leave the transaction log on 'full' recovery -
it will absolutely eat your disks. ALWAYS have the default
for ALL databases to be on 'simple'.[vbcol=seagreen]
>"JJ Wang" wrote:
one-[vbcol=seagreen]
physical[vbcol=seagreen]
got[vbcol=seagreen]
didn't[vbcol=seagreen]
I
>.
>
sql

How to setup two equal databases environment

Dear all,
I have an application running on a production database. And now, I
want to change a column of data to another of value and compare the result
between them. Since the data in production is changing. I need to
synchronize two set of data except the testing data. For do that, I build
replication on these two database. This is my first time using replication.
I found there's an initialize error on during synchronization job. Is there
any guideline on setup replication? Thanks
Rdgs
Ellis
Ellis,
can you explain this in a little more detail using column names and
explaining the relationship between the databases. Also, what type of
replication have you implemented.
TIA,
Paul Ibison
sql

How to setup two equal databases environment

Dear all,
I have an application running on a production database. And now, I
want to change a column of data to another of value and compare the result
between them. Since the data in production is changing. I need to
synchronize two set of data except the testing data. For do that, I build
replication on these two database. This is my first time using replication.
I found there's an initialize error on during synchronization job. Is there
any guideline on setup replication? Thanks
Rdgs
EllisEllis,
can you explain this in a little more detail using column names and
explaining the relationship between the databases. Also, what type of
replication have you implemented.
TIA,
Paul Ibison

How to setup two equal databases environment

Dear all,
I have an application running on a production database. And now, I
want to change a column of data to another of value and compare the result
between them. Since the data in production is changing. I need to
synchronize two set of data except the testing data. For do that, I build
replication on these two database. This is my first time using replication.
I found there's an initialize error on during synchronization job. Is there
any guideline on setup replication? Thanks
Rdgs
Ellis
Ellis,
can you explain this in a little more detail using column names and
explaining the relationship between the databases. Also, what type of
replication have you implemented.
TIA,
Paul Ibison

How to setup two equal databases environment

Dear all,
I have an application running on a production database. And now, I
want to change a column of data to another of value and compare the result
between them. Since the data in production is changing. I need to
synchronize two set of data except the testing data. For do that, I build
replication on these two database. This is my first time using replication.
I found there's an initialize error on during synchronization job. Is there
any guideline on setup replication? Thanks
Rdgs
EllisEllis,
can you explain this in a little more detail using column names and
explaining the relationship between the databases. Also, what type of
replication have you implemented.
TIA,
Paul Ibison

How to setup profile, roles, etc in my hosted sqlserver?

I've been working with godaddy.com, and when I setup there the sqlserver databases it tells me if I want to create the tables and stored procedures that conform the typical profile, roles and users features... the same as if I execute the aspnet_regsql.exe

Now I'm working with anotherhoster (aruba) and I've setup the database OK, but i didn't found any way to setup the profile, roles, users, etc features.
Aruba uses the mssql server web admin.

How can I setup this features? Of course, aruba doesn't let me to execute the aspnet_regsql.exe...

thanksNo idea??

I think it's an important problem, isn't it??

ASP.NET 2.0 without the specific tables and sps for users, roles, profiles, etc, aren't powerful!!!

Please, an answer!!!|||I would ask aruba to do it for you. I'm sure they have a way if they support hosting ASP.NET 2.0 apps.|||Yes Motley, I'm doing it... the problem is that aruba isn't well enougth solving things like this

On the other hand, with your post I see that there is no way to make it by myself, isn't it?

thanks!
|||Can you run scripts against the database? All the SQL scripts for ASP.NET application services are in the %windows%\microsoft.net\framework\v2.0.50727 directory.|||Wow, I didn't realize they gave us the .SQL files. I guess I just assumed they were encoded/encrypted in the aspnet_regsql.exe file. Very nice.|||ok, I've found those .sql files andthey can be runned against the database.

They are:
- InstallCommon.sql
- InstalMembership.sql
- InstalPersistSqlState.sql
- InstallPersonalization.sql
- InstallProfile.sql
- InstallRoles.sql
- InstallSqlState.sql
- InstallSqlStateTemplate.sql
- InstallWebEventSqlProvider.sql

Should I run all??

On other hand, I've tried the first one and I've found a lot of problems. The first was the name of the database, taht I've changed, but the next was this error:

"Specified owner name 'dbo' either does not exist or you do not have permission to use it."

What should I do? Remove all references to dbo?

Thanks in advance.|||Yes, remove all references to dbo.

How to setup a repeated update to a table in SQL?

Hi:

I am fairly new to SQL Server 2005 and before now, I have only had to restore databases, and connect to tables via ODBC connection in a reference (read only) setup. Today, I have a very small project to set up using the server.

I have a userlogon.csv file that the network stores on a file server in a hidden share \logon$. It has 4 columns, UserID, Computer, Date, Time.

I was able to create a database called UserLogon and import the file as it was today. I want to create a scheduled update so the server would go to this file perhaps 4 times a day (or more) and grab any new logins that have appended itself to this CSV file.

So, as a newbie with a 1,900 page SQL Server 2005 unleashed manual at my side, could someone outline what the steps are in general I should follow to set this up?

I have the process laid out in my mind, but I don't know how to translate in into a scheduled task of the SQL Server :

1. Create DB and import the table (done)

2. create a stored procedure that connects to the CSV file and evaluates date and time stamps then appends any new records into the SQL db table. (appending records would be achieved by using the INSERT and WHERE statements?)

3. Schedule a job to perform this task on a routine basis.

It appears that the file connection portion of this set up is defined outside the evaluation and append record procedure? (not in the same stored procedure). Perhaps I tie the whole process together using the Job Manager, selecting the file settings, and then the stored procedure to be performed on the file.?

I hope I have been descriptive enough to ask if someone could outline the modules/features/processes involved so I can read up on them and figure them out using the book.

Thank you in advance.

David

David:

It sounds to me like you need a good book on the subject of "Database Design". I would suggest Pro SQL Server 2005 Database Design and Optimization by MVP Louis Davidson.

Maybe since you are just getting started a better choice for a first book would be Data Modeling Essentials by Graeme Simison

Kent