Viewing 12 posts - 106 through 117 (of 117 total)
This, my dears, is telling it how it is.
May 27, 2010 at 4:42 am
Sorry, I thought you were implementing native SQL Server mirroring. I don't know enough about SAN mirroring to give a qualified answer.
May 21, 2010 at 8:07 am
Wouldn't the mirror be on standby? Therefore you wouldn't be able to run SQL against it. To get round this, you would have to create a snapshot against the mirror.
May 21, 2010 at 8:01 am
I love Paul's first reply to this Fair play to the OP, at least he added attachments;-)
May 20, 2010 at 4:30 am
May 11, 2010 at 5:09 am
Thanks for getting back to us Chandu - we thought we had lost you. May I ask, is your database 800TB? What type of data / business area are you...
April 30, 2010 at 4:38 am
I hope the OP returns to clarify the situation. Perhaps he will when he has finished lugging the backup tapes onto the truck...
April 29, 2010 at 9:26 am
Grant Fritchey (4/29/2010)
If this turns out to be gigs, I'm going to cry. I was terribly excited about an 800TB system.
Me too.;-)
April 29, 2010 at 7:40 am
There is a maximum of 1024 columns per table. You would ned to create two tables with a common key and then select across both tables.
Is the table design fully...
October 8, 2008 at 3:48 am
Why would you even want to do this? Seriously. What is the design rationale for it?
October 8, 2008 at 3:38 am
Thanks for your reply Piotr.
I was thinking along that avenue, its just that the client has a policy of not using SQL Agent. They run all there scheduled jobs from...
January 30, 2008 at 6:40 am
Viewing 12 posts - 106 through 117 (of 117 total)