I want to setup mirroring between 2 copies of SQL server. The primary box is SQL server enterprise edition.
Can I mirror it to a SQL server standard edition? The purpose is to save a metric ton of money.
From Books Online:
The two partners, that is the principal server and mirror server, must be running the same edition of SQL Server. The witness, if any, can run on any edition of SQL Server that supports database mirroring.
That being said, it is possible to set it up as long as you use TSQL commands and not the GUI. I would never recommend it, but it is possible, as long as you guarantee you're not using any Enterprise features. More warnings HERE and HERE.
Last edit - apparently this has been completely blocked in SQL 2012. Looks like you're out of luck.
A client wants to host their MS Access 2003 backend database into SQL Server 2008 that resides in a different server. They will be using upsizing wizard to move their databases and tables into SQL server.
A client also has MS Access front end application written in VB. After upsizing their database tables to SQL, they want to use SQL server to read/write data and also use adv. programmability features of SQL Server like stored Procs, functions etc. My team will host their SQL database.
Client will have a growing # of users entering data. So what would be the best option for our team to provide access to our SQL server so that they can use only their databases in our SQL Server?Is there a way to provide them a connection string or something like that so that they could test it in their front end application to see if they could connect to our SQL Server to read/write?Basically I want to know What are the different avenues to connect MS Access 2003 front end application written in VB to connect to SQL Server database hosted in a different server so that a user could read/write to SQL database tables? Any thoughts? Thanks.
Actually, how this setup works is not any different than if your developers were using c++, vb.net, c# or even asp.net. At the end of the day these software development tools such as c++, or FoxPro or MS Access are simply tools that let you write software. The ability of Access to connect to MySql or Oracle or insert your favorite X database brand has existed from day one.
As long as your database supports what is called "open database connectivity" then you are off to the races. And how you setup that database server to allow some software written in say c# or FoxPro or MS Access will not really change much of anything to my knowledge.
So Access is just like any other software tool such as c++ or vb.net – it is a tool that lets you write code and you connect that application and user interface to some database system you choose.
The connection technology that Access uses here is based on industry standards and thus your setup and maintains of the server side will quite much be the same for any other application(s) that you have running on premises that utilize SQL server now.
About the only relevant issue here is that in Access you have a choice of two data object models, ADO and DAO. Right now, since Microsoft is depreciating ADO and they are continuing investment in DAO and also recommending to use open database connectivity. For example, Access 2010 ships with support baked in for SQL Azure (cloud sql), and that support is based on open database connectivity.
So at this point time as it did back in 2003 the recommend data object model in Access is to use DAO.
You can read about the depreciation of ADO support in SQL server here:
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/sqlnativeclient/archive/2011/08/29/microsoft-is-aligning-with-odbc-for-native-relational-data-access.aspx
While a for good number of general exports and imports and that of linking to SQL server can occur 100% inside of Access, those users will STILL need a set of client tools beyond Access to effectively work with SQL server if over time they going to start using SQL server features. This thus suggests they will need some edition of SSMS (Sql server management studio). The free express version of SSMS should more than suffice in this case.
I can't see to find a quick explanation of the differences so I can figure out which to use.
One is for a server one is for a Database? Im not sure what that means..
Basically we are doing a new web app and I want to see what these project types can offer me in terms of tracking the DB code/schema etc..
SQL Server 2008 Project: this is used to create a SQL-CLR module, e.g. create a stored proc, a function, an aggregate etc. in C# (or VB.NET), that will be run inside SQL Server.
When you create such a project, and you click "Add New Item" in Solution Explorer, you're given the choice of creating a stored procedure, a trigger, an aggregate, a user-defined function, a user-defined type or a helper class. These will all be compiled into a .NET assembly, which will be deployed to SQL Server and be executed inside SQL Server in the SQL-CLR runtime environment.
SQL Server Database Project: that's only a collection of SQL scripts to be run against a database, to create and manipulate database objects
In a SQL Server Database Project, you basically only get to add SQL scripts - .sql files. Nothing else, really. So it is indeed quite different from the SQL Server 2008 Project type!
The answer here doesn't seem to actually answer the posted question. "SQL Server 2008 Server Project" "SQL Server 2008 Database Project" are both things that exist in Visual Studio 2008 Database Edition, but sadly while there isn't one named "SQL Server 2008 Project" as the answer suggests, there is one "SQL Server Project" that matches the description. Moreover, there isn't a project type anymore called "SQL Server Database Project" (at least not in Visual Studio 2008 Team Suite), although the description given above seems to describe the much older database projects that were at one point available in VS.
After thinking about it further, I'm going to guess that marc_s doesn't have the Database Edition (otherwise known as Data Dude or DBPro) installed. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Sql Server 2008 Database Projects and Sql Server 2008 Server Projects seem to do basically the same thing. I would have hoped that the Server projects would be used for the installation and configuration, and change management of a Sql Server instance, while Database Projects would be used for individual databases inside them...but this doesn't seem to be the case. Has anyone actually been able to determine the differences between them?
After playing around for a bit, the only difference I've been able to find is that Sql Server 2008 Server Projects will always deploy to the master database on the server you deploy to, regardless of what kind of database you import (master or otherwise) when you create the project. So in that case, Database Projects are for your business databases while Server Projects are specifically for the master database on the server that houses your business databases.
Edit: After scouring the VS2008 documentation a little harder, I came across this specification:
"Deploying Server Projects
A database project can contain definitions for database objects, for server objects, or for both. In most environments, developers can change database objects, but only the database administrator can change server objects. You can enforce this restriction by putting server objects in a separate project (known as a server project). You can then restrict version control so that only your administrators can change the server project. In a staging or production environment, the server project and its objects will most often be deployed separately from the project that contains the database objects.
You deploy a server project by using the same procedures that you use to deploy a schema project."
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd193413.aspx
I am currently developing a very simple database that tracks people and the company certifications they hold. This db will need to store letters of certification as PDF files. I was asked to develop this in MS Access, but I think it would be better to build it in SQLServer and use Windows Forms to build the interface. This app will need to be accessible from a public location like a share drive.
My question is, would it be better to do this in SQLServer like I think, or am I full of it and my boss is right on the money? Or are we both wrong?
A good alternative to Access which I use a lot is SQL Server Compact (SqlCe). This is a completely different product than SQL Server Express/Standard/etc. It is an in-process database like Access, it does not run as a separate process or service.
It is free
Full ACID support
Supports multiple connections
Full transactional support
Referential integrity (including cascading updates and deletes)
Locking
T-SQL syntax and SQL Server data types (same API as SQL Server)
Small footprint (~2 MB)
Easy deployment (supports ClickOnce, MSI, XCopy, etc)
Database is contained in a single file you can move around
Supports ADO.NET, LINQ to SQL, LINQ to Entities.
This is an extremely difficult question, without an understanding of the scale of the application. In my opinion, I wouldn't touch Access with a 33.5 ft pole.
Benefits of Access:
No dedicated machine necessary
No problems with portability
Benefits of SQL Server
Better SQL compliance
Better management control
Are you planning to store PDF files in the DB? If so, why?
I choose SQL Server.
An application built on SQL Server will be more robust and support more users than one built on MS Access.
An application built on MS Access can be easier to debug because there is a lack of a server, lack of significant multi-user support, and the entire database sits in a single file on disk that is easily copied around.
Given that, in almost every case, I choose SQL Server over MS Access.
Argh, do the world a favour & use SQL server. Express editions are free, and plenty powerfull enough for your requirements. You can even continue to do the form/report/UI design in Access if you so desire, it can hook up to SQL Server very easily and transparently.
Pros of SQL over access: concurrency, scalablity, reliabiliy, less future developers trying to hunt you down and kill you.
I would almost never use access for a db if I could avoid it, now that SQL Express exists.
If I were you I'd go with what some of the others said and use SQL Express:
http://www.microsoft.com/express/sql/default.aspx
You get all the benefits of a true SQL environment FOR FREE! You can even use the SQL Management Studio as well as leverage Reporting Services (if you download the advanced pack). Download link below:
http://www.microsoft.com/express/sql/download/
Which edition of SQL Server 2008 Express is right for you?
SQL Server 2008 Express is available in the following 3 editions (each is available from the Install Wizard):
SQL Server 2008 Express with Tools
SQL Server database engine - create, store, update and retrieve your data
SQL Server Management Studio Basic - visual database management tool for creating, editing and managing databases
SQL Server 2008 Express with Advanced Services
SQL Server database engine - create, store, update and retrieve your data
SQL Server Management Studio Basic - visual database management tool for creating, editing and managing databases
Full-text Search - powerful, high-speed engine for searching text-intensive data
Reporting Services - integrated report creation and design environment to create reports
SQL Server 2008 Express (Runtime Only)
SQL Server database engine - create, store, update and retrieve your data
SQL Server 2008 Management Studio Express (SSMSE)
Free, easy-to-use graphical management tool for configuring, managing, and administering SQL Server 2008 Express. It can also manage multiple instances of the SQL Server Database Engine created by any edition of SQL Server 2008 including Workgroup, Web, Standard and Enterprise.
Note: This separate download is designed for customers who have previously installed SQL Server 2008 Express (Runtime Only). If you are looking to download SQL Server Express and SSMSE for the first time, please download the SQL Server 2008 Express with Tools from the Install Wizard.
Access, to me, is really a hobbyist tool or for REALLY basic local projects at this point that just hasn't been phased out yet. I'd definitely look to using SQL Express, plus it makes it that much easier to upgrade if you get beyond the 4 GB database barrier in the future.
Go with what you have the best skills in - Access is great for a variety of projects andit can scale really well if you know what you're doing. Conversely, a bad programmer could do an app in Win Forms and SQL Server and produce a badly performing monster.
I personally would go with SQL Express and a Win Forms or ASP.Net front-end as experience shows that these small projects can easily develop over time in to much bigger applications than was originally planned and a well structured database built on SQL Server can scale up more readily to more users if needed.
Hard to say without understand the environment. It could be that all users have Access, but no desktops have .NET Framework (although this would be hard to believe). Maybe all their applications are on Access and that's all the developers and users there know.
Given all that nonsense tho, You ought to use SQL Server Express 2008 and Visual Studio 2008 Express. Hope I don't get you fired. :)
If the application is, as you said, a very simple database, that's what access is precisely for, creating simple databases. You can write both the database and the application forms within the same environment and users won't need to get anything installed.
Be careful though with concurrent access to your application. If you go for the access solution, multiple users won't be able to use the application at the same time. If you want this to happen, you will need the database and the application being apart. This doesn't mean that the DB needs to be SQL server, you can still use Access as your database if you don't require the power of a more complex engine.
EDIT: Just read on a comment that you are planning to have 10 users and less than 1000 records. FORGET about SQL server, you will be wasting your money. No matter if you decide to go for a simple all-access solution or for a distributed web application or desktop app with remote storage, Access is hundreds of times more powerful that what you need. Even for the "toy-ish" engine that access is, you are not using a 1% of it.
So at work, my team is using a central SQL server 2005 database server for integration testing and I want to move to testing on my local database. The only problem is that the central database is in excess of 10 Gb.
I am interested in importing the data objects and a rows for each table to ensure I can be up and running. Can you guys advise me on how I can do this?
I have VS 2008 professional and SQL Server management studio express. Would I need VS 2008 database edition?
Thanks
-Venu
EDIT : I will try logging into the central database server and seeing if the host machine has better tools. Thanks kpollock, I didn't think of that.
Both 2005 and 2008 Express editions have 4 gb limitation.
Have you thought about making a db copy on central server and dealing with it (just restore it into new db with other name)?
See also BACKUP and RESTORE in SQL Server -- Full Backups
Looks like an SSIS job to me - which I think Express version of Management Studio doesn't have.
Or you could do it in C# calling Stored procs on the source database to extract the data if that's where your skills lie. (this is how I would do it as I think it's more widely comprehensible - but that's just my opinion).
If the database is live and new data comes in all the time perhaps you could set up the schema and reference data only then use replication to get the new data as it comes in (if you think that will get you a representative sample).
You will have to code up the sample extraction based upon an understanding of the schema - i.e. ensure you get a full set of linked records (e.g detail records for orders and all lookups e.g. customer, addresses, etc.).