Hi all.
I have a database I need no auditor to be able to track changes made to it.
As far as I know, the LDF file keeps a record of all the transactions
performed on it which is exactly what I dont want. I've read that it is
impossible to disable logging in MSSQL. Is this 100% true? Has anyone found a
way to keep the logs file clear?
Att,
RODOLFO
Yes, you are right that we cannot "disable"logging in the SQL Server.
If you want to let to SQL Server to manage its LOG file in terms of size ,
so set the recovery model to SIMPLE
For more info please refer to the BOL
"RODOLFO" <RODOLFO@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:99344364-41EF-46BB-A7F2-6621D7944A51@.microsoft.com...
> Hi all.
> I have a database I need no auditor to be able to track changes made to
it.
> As far as I know, the LDF file keeps a record of all the transactions
> performed on it which is exactly what I dont want. I've read that it is
> impossible to disable logging in MSSQL. Is this 100% true? Has anyone
found a
> way to keep the logs file clear?
> Att,
> RODOLFO
|||Hi,
We can not totally stop loggin in sql server.
But if you select the RECOVERY model for your database as SIMPLE then
transaction log will be cleared automatically
Has anyone found a way to keep the logs file clear?
If it is SIMPLE recovery log will be cleared automatically, but for other
recovery model you need to perform the transaction log backup.
See Backup Log command in books online.
Thanks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
"RODOLFO" <RODOLFO@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:99344364-41EF-46BB-A7F2-6621D7944A51@.microsoft.com...
> Hi all.
> I have a database I need no auditor to be able to track changes made to
> it.
> As far as I know, the LDF file keeps a record of all the transactions
> performed on it which is exactly what I dont want. I've read that it is
> impossible to disable logging in MSSQL. Is this 100% true? Has anyone
> found a
> way to keep the logs file clear?
> Att,
> RODOLFO
|||To add to the other responses, the transaction log is required in order to
maintain database consistency. This is used by SQL Server to guarantee
all-or-nothing atomic transactions. Although the log can be used by
third-party tools for auditing purposes, the primary purpose of the log is
to facilitate the backout and roll-forward of transactions.
You can keep transaction log file size reasonable by choosing the
appropriate recovery model and backup strategy for your environment.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"RODOLFO" <RODOLFO@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:99344364-41EF-46BB-A7F2-6621D7944A51@.microsoft.com...
> Hi all.
> I have a database I need no auditor to be able to track changes made to
> it.
> As far as I know, the LDF file keeps a record of all the transactions
> performed on it which is exactly what I dont want. I've read that it is
> impossible to disable logging in MSSQL. Is this 100% true? Has anyone
> found a
> way to keep the logs file clear?
> Att,
> RODOLFO
|||Hello and thanks a lot for your answers.
I think I understand better the purpose of the log file now reading your
posts. The problem is that it just confirms my fears. I need NO ONE to be
able to perform an audit on this database. The ideal situation will be to
disable this logging. Now I know it can't be done in MS SQL... what's the
closest to it I can get?
Att,
RODOLFO
"Dan Guzman" wrote:
> To add to the other responses, the transaction log is required in order to
> maintain database consistency. This is used by SQL Server to guarantee
> all-or-nothing atomic transactions. Although the log can be used by
> third-party tools for auditing purposes, the primary purpose of the log is
> to facilitate the backout and roll-forward of transactions.
> You can keep transaction log file size reasonable by choosing the
> appropriate recovery model and backup strategy for your environment.
> --
> Hope this helps.
> Dan Guzman
> SQL Server MVP
> "RODOLFO" <RODOLFO@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:99344364-41EF-46BB-A7F2-6621D7944A51@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||If you don't want anyone to read the log then don't give them permissions to
that folder. The physical security of the data files is up to you at the
Windows level.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"RODOLFO" <RODOLFO@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:634187D5-A399-4B4A-85D4-3CA9C7FF62B0@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hello and thanks a lot for your answers.
> I think I understand better the purpose of the log file now reading your
> posts. The problem is that it just confirms my fears. I need NO ONE to be
> able to perform an audit on this database. The ideal situation will be to
> disable this logging. Now I know it can't be done in MS SQL... what's the
> closest to it I can get?
> Att,
> RODOLFO
> "Dan Guzman" wrote:
Showing posts with label ldf. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ldf. Show all posts
Sunday, February 19, 2012
How to clear the log (ldf) file?
Hi all.
I have a database I need no auditor to be able to track changes made to it.
As far as I know, the LDF file keeps a record of all the transactions
performed on it which is exactly what I dont want. I've read that it is
impossible to disable logging in MSSQL. Is this 100% true? Has anyone found
a
way to keep the logs file clear?
Att,
RODOLFOYes, you are right that we cannot "disable"logging in the SQL Server.
If you want to let to SQL Server to manage its LOG file in terms of size ,
so set the recovery model to SIMPLE
For more info please refer to the BOL
"RODOLFO" <RODOLFO@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:99344364-41EF-46BB-A7F2-6621D7944A51@.microsoft.com...
> Hi all.
> I have a database I need no auditor to be able to track changes made to
it.
> As far as I know, the LDF file keeps a record of all the transactions
> performed on it which is exactly what I dont want. I've read that it is
> impossible to disable logging in MSSQL. Is this 100% true? Has anyone
found a
> way to keep the logs file clear?
> Att,
> RODOLFO|||Hi,
We can not totally stop loggin in sql server.
But if you select the RECOVERY model for your database as SIMPLE then
transaction log will be cleared automatically
Has anyone found a way to keep the logs file clear?
If it is SIMPLE recovery log will be cleared automatically, but for other
recovery model you need to perform the transaction log backup.
See Backup Log command in books online.
Thanks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
"RODOLFO" <RODOLFO@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:99344364-41EF-46BB-A7F2-6621D7944A51@.microsoft.com...
> Hi all.
> I have a database I need no auditor to be able to track changes made to
> it.
> As far as I know, the LDF file keeps a record of all the transactions
> performed on it which is exactly what I dont want. I've read that it is
> impossible to disable logging in MSSQL. Is this 100% true? Has anyone
> found a
> way to keep the logs file clear?
> Att,
> RODOLFO|||To add to the other responses, the transaction log is required in order to
maintain database consistency. This is used by SQL Server to guarantee
all-or-nothing atomic transactions. Although the log can be used by
third-party tools for auditing purposes, the primary purpose of the log is
to facilitate the backout and roll-forward of transactions.
You can keep transaction log file size reasonable by choosing the
appropriate recovery model and backup strategy for your environment.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"RODOLFO" <RODOLFO@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:99344364-41EF-46BB-A7F2-6621D7944A51@.microsoft.com...
> Hi all.
> I have a database I need no auditor to be able to track changes made to
> it.
> As far as I know, the LDF file keeps a record of all the transactions
> performed on it which is exactly what I dont want. I've read that it is
> impossible to disable logging in MSSQL. Is this 100% true? Has anyone
> found a
> way to keep the logs file clear?
> Att,
> RODOLFO|||Hello and thanks a lot for your answers.
I think I understand better the purpose of the log file now reading your
posts. The problem is that it just confirms my fears. I need NO ONE to be
able to perform an audit on this database. The ideal situation will be to
disable this logging. Now I know it can't be done in MS SQL... what's the
closest to it I can get?
Att,
RODOLFO
"Dan Guzman" wrote:
> To add to the other responses, the transaction log is required in order to
> maintain database consistency. This is used by SQL Server to guarantee
> all-or-nothing atomic transactions. Although the log can be used by
> third-party tools for auditing purposes, the primary purpose of the log is
> to facilitate the backout and roll-forward of transactions.
> You can keep transaction log file size reasonable by choosing the
> appropriate recovery model and backup strategy for your environment.
> --
> Hope this helps.
> Dan Guzman
> SQL Server MVP
> "RODOLFO" <RODOLFO@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:99344364-41EF-46BB-A7F2-6621D7944A51@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||If you don't want anyone to read the log then don't give them permissions to
that folder. The physical security of the data files is up to you at the
Windows level.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"RODOLFO" <RODOLFO@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:634187D5-A399-4B4A-85D4-3CA9C7FF62B0@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hello and thanks a lot for your answers.
> I think I understand better the purpose of the log file now reading your
> posts. The problem is that it just confirms my fears. I need NO ONE to be
> able to perform an audit on this database. The ideal situation will be to
> disable this logging. Now I know it can't be done in MS SQL... what's the
> closest to it I can get?
> Att,
> RODOLFO
> "Dan Guzman" wrote:
>
I have a database I need no auditor to be able to track changes made to it.
As far as I know, the LDF file keeps a record of all the transactions
performed on it which is exactly what I dont want. I've read that it is
impossible to disable logging in MSSQL. Is this 100% true? Has anyone found
a
way to keep the logs file clear?
Att,
RODOLFOYes, you are right that we cannot "disable"logging in the SQL Server.
If you want to let to SQL Server to manage its LOG file in terms of size ,
so set the recovery model to SIMPLE
For more info please refer to the BOL
"RODOLFO" <RODOLFO@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:99344364-41EF-46BB-A7F2-6621D7944A51@.microsoft.com...
> Hi all.
> I have a database I need no auditor to be able to track changes made to
it.
> As far as I know, the LDF file keeps a record of all the transactions
> performed on it which is exactly what I dont want. I've read that it is
> impossible to disable logging in MSSQL. Is this 100% true? Has anyone
found a
> way to keep the logs file clear?
> Att,
> RODOLFO|||Hi,
We can not totally stop loggin in sql server.
But if you select the RECOVERY model for your database as SIMPLE then
transaction log will be cleared automatically
Has anyone found a way to keep the logs file clear?
If it is SIMPLE recovery log will be cleared automatically, but for other
recovery model you need to perform the transaction log backup.
See Backup Log command in books online.
Thanks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
"RODOLFO" <RODOLFO@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:99344364-41EF-46BB-A7F2-6621D7944A51@.microsoft.com...
> Hi all.
> I have a database I need no auditor to be able to track changes made to
> it.
> As far as I know, the LDF file keeps a record of all the transactions
> performed on it which is exactly what I dont want. I've read that it is
> impossible to disable logging in MSSQL. Is this 100% true? Has anyone
> found a
> way to keep the logs file clear?
> Att,
> RODOLFO|||To add to the other responses, the transaction log is required in order to
maintain database consistency. This is used by SQL Server to guarantee
all-or-nothing atomic transactions. Although the log can be used by
third-party tools for auditing purposes, the primary purpose of the log is
to facilitate the backout and roll-forward of transactions.
You can keep transaction log file size reasonable by choosing the
appropriate recovery model and backup strategy for your environment.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"RODOLFO" <RODOLFO@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:99344364-41EF-46BB-A7F2-6621D7944A51@.microsoft.com...
> Hi all.
> I have a database I need no auditor to be able to track changes made to
> it.
> As far as I know, the LDF file keeps a record of all the transactions
> performed on it which is exactly what I dont want. I've read that it is
> impossible to disable logging in MSSQL. Is this 100% true? Has anyone
> found a
> way to keep the logs file clear?
> Att,
> RODOLFO|||Hello and thanks a lot for your answers.
I think I understand better the purpose of the log file now reading your
posts. The problem is that it just confirms my fears. I need NO ONE to be
able to perform an audit on this database. The ideal situation will be to
disable this logging. Now I know it can't be done in MS SQL... what's the
closest to it I can get?
Att,
RODOLFO
"Dan Guzman" wrote:
> To add to the other responses, the transaction log is required in order to
> maintain database consistency. This is used by SQL Server to guarantee
> all-or-nothing atomic transactions. Although the log can be used by
> third-party tools for auditing purposes, the primary purpose of the log is
> to facilitate the backout and roll-forward of transactions.
> You can keep transaction log file size reasonable by choosing the
> appropriate recovery model and backup strategy for your environment.
> --
> Hope this helps.
> Dan Guzman
> SQL Server MVP
> "RODOLFO" <RODOLFO@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:99344364-41EF-46BB-A7F2-6621D7944A51@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||If you don't want anyone to read the log then don't give them permissions to
that folder. The physical security of the data files is up to you at the
Windows level.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"RODOLFO" <RODOLFO@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:634187D5-A399-4B4A-85D4-3CA9C7FF62B0@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hello and thanks a lot for your answers.
> I think I understand better the purpose of the log file now reading your
> posts. The problem is that it just confirms my fears. I need NO ONE to be
> able to perform an audit on this database. The ideal situation will be to
> disable this logging. Now I know it can't be done in MS SQL... what's the
> closest to it I can get?
> Att,
> RODOLFO
> "Dan Guzman" wrote:
>
How to clear the log (ldf) file?
Hi all.
I have a database I need no auditor to be able to track changes made to it.
As far as I know, the LDF file keeps a record of all the transactions
performed on it which is exactly what I dont want. I've read that it is
impossible to disable logging in MSSQL. Is this 100% true? Has anyone found a
way to keep the logs file clear?
Att,
RODOLFOYes, you are right that we cannot "disable"logging in the SQL Server.
If you want to let to SQL Server to manage its LOG file in terms of size ,
so set the recovery model to SIMPLE
For more info please refer to the BOL
"RODOLFO" <RODOLFO@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:99344364-41EF-46BB-A7F2-6621D7944A51@.microsoft.com...
> Hi all.
> I have a database I need no auditor to be able to track changes made to
it.
> As far as I know, the LDF file keeps a record of all the transactions
> performed on it which is exactly what I dont want. I've read that it is
> impossible to disable logging in MSSQL. Is this 100% true? Has anyone
found a
> way to keep the logs file clear?
> Att,
> RODOLFO|||Hi,
We can not totally stop loggin in sql server.
But if you select the RECOVERY model for your database as SIMPLE then
transaction log will be cleared automatically
Has anyone found a way to keep the logs file clear?
If it is SIMPLE recovery log will be cleared automatically, but for other
recovery model you need to perform the transaction log backup.
See Backup Log command in books online.
Thanks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
"RODOLFO" <RODOLFO@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:99344364-41EF-46BB-A7F2-6621D7944A51@.microsoft.com...
> Hi all.
> I have a database I need no auditor to be able to track changes made to
> it.
> As far as I know, the LDF file keeps a record of all the transactions
> performed on it which is exactly what I dont want. I've read that it is
> impossible to disable logging in MSSQL. Is this 100% true? Has anyone
> found a
> way to keep the logs file clear?
> Att,
> RODOLFO|||To add to the other responses, the transaction log is required in order to
maintain database consistency. This is used by SQL Server to guarantee
all-or-nothing atomic transactions. Although the log can be used by
third-party tools for auditing purposes, the primary purpose of the log is
to facilitate the backout and roll-forward of transactions.
You can keep transaction log file size reasonable by choosing the
appropriate recovery model and backup strategy for your environment.
--
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"RODOLFO" <RODOLFO@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:99344364-41EF-46BB-A7F2-6621D7944A51@.microsoft.com...
> Hi all.
> I have a database I need no auditor to be able to track changes made to
> it.
> As far as I know, the LDF file keeps a record of all the transactions
> performed on it which is exactly what I dont want. I've read that it is
> impossible to disable logging in MSSQL. Is this 100% true? Has anyone
> found a
> way to keep the logs file clear?
> Att,
> RODOLFO|||Hello and thanks a lot for your answers.
I think I understand better the purpose of the log file now reading your
posts. The problem is that it just confirms my fears. I need NO ONE to be
able to perform an audit on this database. The ideal situation will be to
disable this logging. Now I know it can't be done in MS SQL... what's the
closest to it I can get?
Att,
RODOLFO
"Dan Guzman" wrote:
> To add to the other responses, the transaction log is required in order to
> maintain database consistency. This is used by SQL Server to guarantee
> all-or-nothing atomic transactions. Although the log can be used by
> third-party tools for auditing purposes, the primary purpose of the log is
> to facilitate the backout and roll-forward of transactions.
> You can keep transaction log file size reasonable by choosing the
> appropriate recovery model and backup strategy for your environment.
> --
> Hope this helps.
> Dan Guzman
> SQL Server MVP
> "RODOLFO" <RODOLFO@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:99344364-41EF-46BB-A7F2-6621D7944A51@.microsoft.com...
> > Hi all.
> > I have a database I need no auditor to be able to track changes made to
> > it.
> > As far as I know, the LDF file keeps a record of all the transactions
> > performed on it which is exactly what I dont want. I've read that it is
> > impossible to disable logging in MSSQL. Is this 100% true? Has anyone
> > found a
> > way to keep the logs file clear?
> >
> > Att,
> > RODOLFO
>
>|||If you don't want anyone to read the log then don't give them permissions to
that folder. The physical security of the data files is up to you at the
Windows level.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"RODOLFO" <RODOLFO@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:634187D5-A399-4B4A-85D4-3CA9C7FF62B0@.microsoft.com...
> Hello and thanks a lot for your answers.
> I think I understand better the purpose of the log file now reading your
> posts. The problem is that it just confirms my fears. I need NO ONE to be
> able to perform an audit on this database. The ideal situation will be to
> disable this logging. Now I know it can't be done in MS SQL... what's the
> closest to it I can get?
> Att,
> RODOLFO
> "Dan Guzman" wrote:
>> To add to the other responses, the transaction log is required in order
>> to
>> maintain database consistency. This is used by SQL Server to guarantee
>> all-or-nothing atomic transactions. Although the log can be used by
>> third-party tools for auditing purposes, the primary purpose of the log
>> is
>> to facilitate the backout and roll-forward of transactions.
>> You can keep transaction log file size reasonable by choosing the
>> appropriate recovery model and backup strategy for your environment.
>> --
>> Hope this helps.
>> Dan Guzman
>> SQL Server MVP
>> "RODOLFO" <RODOLFO@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:99344364-41EF-46BB-A7F2-6621D7944A51@.microsoft.com...
>> > Hi all.
>> > I have a database I need no auditor to be able to track changes made to
>> > it.
>> > As far as I know, the LDF file keeps a record of all the transactions
>> > performed on it which is exactly what I dont want. I've read that it is
>> > impossible to disable logging in MSSQL. Is this 100% true? Has anyone
>> > found a
>> > way to keep the logs file clear?
>> >
>> > Att,
>> > RODOLFO
>>
I have a database I need no auditor to be able to track changes made to it.
As far as I know, the LDF file keeps a record of all the transactions
performed on it which is exactly what I dont want. I've read that it is
impossible to disable logging in MSSQL. Is this 100% true? Has anyone found a
way to keep the logs file clear?
Att,
RODOLFOYes, you are right that we cannot "disable"logging in the SQL Server.
If you want to let to SQL Server to manage its LOG file in terms of size ,
so set the recovery model to SIMPLE
For more info please refer to the BOL
"RODOLFO" <RODOLFO@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:99344364-41EF-46BB-A7F2-6621D7944A51@.microsoft.com...
> Hi all.
> I have a database I need no auditor to be able to track changes made to
it.
> As far as I know, the LDF file keeps a record of all the transactions
> performed on it which is exactly what I dont want. I've read that it is
> impossible to disable logging in MSSQL. Is this 100% true? Has anyone
found a
> way to keep the logs file clear?
> Att,
> RODOLFO|||Hi,
We can not totally stop loggin in sql server.
But if you select the RECOVERY model for your database as SIMPLE then
transaction log will be cleared automatically
Has anyone found a way to keep the logs file clear?
If it is SIMPLE recovery log will be cleared automatically, but for other
recovery model you need to perform the transaction log backup.
See Backup Log command in books online.
Thanks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
"RODOLFO" <RODOLFO@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:99344364-41EF-46BB-A7F2-6621D7944A51@.microsoft.com...
> Hi all.
> I have a database I need no auditor to be able to track changes made to
> it.
> As far as I know, the LDF file keeps a record of all the transactions
> performed on it which is exactly what I dont want. I've read that it is
> impossible to disable logging in MSSQL. Is this 100% true? Has anyone
> found a
> way to keep the logs file clear?
> Att,
> RODOLFO|||To add to the other responses, the transaction log is required in order to
maintain database consistency. This is used by SQL Server to guarantee
all-or-nothing atomic transactions. Although the log can be used by
third-party tools for auditing purposes, the primary purpose of the log is
to facilitate the backout and roll-forward of transactions.
You can keep transaction log file size reasonable by choosing the
appropriate recovery model and backup strategy for your environment.
--
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"RODOLFO" <RODOLFO@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:99344364-41EF-46BB-A7F2-6621D7944A51@.microsoft.com...
> Hi all.
> I have a database I need no auditor to be able to track changes made to
> it.
> As far as I know, the LDF file keeps a record of all the transactions
> performed on it which is exactly what I dont want. I've read that it is
> impossible to disable logging in MSSQL. Is this 100% true? Has anyone
> found a
> way to keep the logs file clear?
> Att,
> RODOLFO|||Hello and thanks a lot for your answers.
I think I understand better the purpose of the log file now reading your
posts. The problem is that it just confirms my fears. I need NO ONE to be
able to perform an audit on this database. The ideal situation will be to
disable this logging. Now I know it can't be done in MS SQL... what's the
closest to it I can get?
Att,
RODOLFO
"Dan Guzman" wrote:
> To add to the other responses, the transaction log is required in order to
> maintain database consistency. This is used by SQL Server to guarantee
> all-or-nothing atomic transactions. Although the log can be used by
> third-party tools for auditing purposes, the primary purpose of the log is
> to facilitate the backout and roll-forward of transactions.
> You can keep transaction log file size reasonable by choosing the
> appropriate recovery model and backup strategy for your environment.
> --
> Hope this helps.
> Dan Guzman
> SQL Server MVP
> "RODOLFO" <RODOLFO@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:99344364-41EF-46BB-A7F2-6621D7944A51@.microsoft.com...
> > Hi all.
> > I have a database I need no auditor to be able to track changes made to
> > it.
> > As far as I know, the LDF file keeps a record of all the transactions
> > performed on it which is exactly what I dont want. I've read that it is
> > impossible to disable logging in MSSQL. Is this 100% true? Has anyone
> > found a
> > way to keep the logs file clear?
> >
> > Att,
> > RODOLFO
>
>|||If you don't want anyone to read the log then don't give them permissions to
that folder. The physical security of the data files is up to you at the
Windows level.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"RODOLFO" <RODOLFO@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:634187D5-A399-4B4A-85D4-3CA9C7FF62B0@.microsoft.com...
> Hello and thanks a lot for your answers.
> I think I understand better the purpose of the log file now reading your
> posts. The problem is that it just confirms my fears. I need NO ONE to be
> able to perform an audit on this database. The ideal situation will be to
> disable this logging. Now I know it can't be done in MS SQL... what's the
> closest to it I can get?
> Att,
> RODOLFO
> "Dan Guzman" wrote:
>> To add to the other responses, the transaction log is required in order
>> to
>> maintain database consistency. This is used by SQL Server to guarantee
>> all-or-nothing atomic transactions. Although the log can be used by
>> third-party tools for auditing purposes, the primary purpose of the log
>> is
>> to facilitate the backout and roll-forward of transactions.
>> You can keep transaction log file size reasonable by choosing the
>> appropriate recovery model and backup strategy for your environment.
>> --
>> Hope this helps.
>> Dan Guzman
>> SQL Server MVP
>> "RODOLFO" <RODOLFO@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:99344364-41EF-46BB-A7F2-6621D7944A51@.microsoft.com...
>> > Hi all.
>> > I have a database I need no auditor to be able to track changes made to
>> > it.
>> > As far as I know, the LDF file keeps a record of all the transactions
>> > performed on it which is exactly what I dont want. I've read that it is
>> > impossible to disable logging in MSSQL. Is this 100% true? Has anyone
>> > found a
>> > way to keep the logs file clear?
>> >
>> > Att,
>> > RODOLFO
>>
How to choose file structure on SQL database?
I created MDF file and LDF for one database on SQL server 2000.
I need to create more DNF files on other 5 logical drives for this datanase.
All these logical drives are located in SAN storage configured with RAID10.
Should I create one NDF on each logical drive OR create multiple DNF on each
logical drive?
Which way is better for performance?
Thanks,
Mike
What is DNF files? Is it NDF? Have you monitor your SQL Server to make such
decision?
"Mike Torry" <MikeTorry@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:FDBA14B3-18FC-4723-8D73-08A46ECD921C@.microsoft.com...
>I created MDF file and LDF for one database on SQL server 2000.
> I need to create more DNF files on other 5 logical drives for this
> datanase.
> All these logical drives are located in SAN storage configured with
> RAID10.
> Should I create one NDF on each logical drive OR create multiple DNF on
> each
> logical drive?
> Which way is better for performance?
> Thanks,
|||Hello,
Probably you should be talking about NDF files. Since it is SAN just try
creating the database in a Single Logical drive (1 logical drive for MDF
and another for LDF) and see how database performs. See the I/O queue length
counter in perfmon and seee how well it goes.
If it quue length is always <=1 then you are good. I have the similar
environemnt and I have created database based on this strategy.
I will recommend you to keep the files in multiple drives if you have
multiple controllers running. Otherwise even if you create files
in multiple logical drives you will not get any performance improvements.
Thanks
Hari
"Mike Torry" <MikeTorry@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:FDBA14B3-18FC-4723-8D73-08A46ECD921C@.microsoft.com...
>I created MDF file and LDF for one database on SQL server 2000.
> I need to create more DNF files on other 5 logical drives for this
> datanase.
> All these logical drives are located in SAN storage configured with
> RAID10.
> Should I create one NDF on each logical drive OR create multiple DNF on
> each
> logical drive?
> Which way is better for performance?
> Thanks,
I need to create more DNF files on other 5 logical drives for this datanase.
All these logical drives are located in SAN storage configured with RAID10.
Should I create one NDF on each logical drive OR create multiple DNF on each
logical drive?
Which way is better for performance?
Thanks,
Mike
What is DNF files? Is it NDF? Have you monitor your SQL Server to make such
decision?
"Mike Torry" <MikeTorry@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:FDBA14B3-18FC-4723-8D73-08A46ECD921C@.microsoft.com...
>I created MDF file and LDF for one database on SQL server 2000.
> I need to create more DNF files on other 5 logical drives for this
> datanase.
> All these logical drives are located in SAN storage configured with
> RAID10.
> Should I create one NDF on each logical drive OR create multiple DNF on
> each
> logical drive?
> Which way is better for performance?
> Thanks,
|||Hello,
Probably you should be talking about NDF files. Since it is SAN just try
creating the database in a Single Logical drive (1 logical drive for MDF
and another for LDF) and see how database performs. See the I/O queue length
counter in perfmon and seee how well it goes.
If it quue length is always <=1 then you are good. I have the similar
environemnt and I have created database based on this strategy.
I will recommend you to keep the files in multiple drives if you have
multiple controllers running. Otherwise even if you create files
in multiple logical drives you will not get any performance improvements.
Thanks
Hari
"Mike Torry" <MikeTorry@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:FDBA14B3-18FC-4723-8D73-08A46ECD921C@.microsoft.com...
>I created MDF file and LDF for one database on SQL server 2000.
> I need to create more DNF files on other 5 logical drives for this
> datanase.
> All these logical drives are located in SAN storage configured with
> RAID10.
> Should I create one NDF on each logical drive OR create multiple DNF on
> each
> logical drive?
> Which way is better for performance?
> Thanks,
How to choose file structure on SQL database?
I created MDF file and LDF for one database on SQL server 2000.
I need to create more DNF files on other 5 logical drives for this datanase.
All these logical drives are located in SAN storage configured with RAID10.
Should I create one NDF on each logical drive OR create multiple DNF on each
logical drive?
Which way is better for performance?
Thanks,Mike
What is DNF files? Is it NDF? Have you monitor your SQL Server to make such
decision?
"Mike Torry" <MikeTorry@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:FDBA14B3-18FC-4723-8D73-08A46ECD921C@.microsoft.com...
>I created MDF file and LDF for one database on SQL server 2000.
> I need to create more DNF files on other 5 logical drives for this
> datanase.
> All these logical drives are located in SAN storage configured with
> RAID10.
> Should I create one NDF on each logical drive OR create multiple DNF on
> each
> logical drive?
> Which way is better for performance?
> Thanks,|||Mike Torry wrote:
> I created MDF file and LDF for one database on SQL server 2000.
> I need to create more DNF files on other 5 logical drives for this datanas
e.
> All these logical drives are located in SAN storage configured with RAID10
.
> Should I create one NDF on each logical drive OR create multiple DNF on ea
ch
> logical drive?
> Which way is better for performance?
> Thanks,
Hi,
If it's logical drives rather than physical drives, it won't help you a
lot to split the files on several drives. If you want to increase
performance, the data will have to placed on different physical spindles
and also preferably on different controllers (in most cases you'll just
have your MDF files disks on one controller and your ldf files disks on
a second controller). If you have any influence on hos your SAN is being
configured, you should also consider have more spindles in an array
rather than having many arrays. Depending on the usage of your database
it will give a better performance to have more spindles to read from
rather than splitting the load on several arrays/disks.
Regards
Steen Schlüter Persson
Database Administrator / System Administrator|||Hello,
Probably you should be talking about NDF files. Since it is SAN just try
creating the database in a Single Logical drive (1 logical drive for MDF
and another for LDF) and see how database performs. See the I/O queue length
counter in perfmon and seee how well it goes.
If it quue length is always <=1 then you are good. I have the similar
environemnt and I have created database based on this strategy.
I will recommend you to keep the files in multiple drives if you have
multiple controllers running. Otherwise even if you create files
in multiple logical drives you will not get any performance improvements.
Thanks
Hari
"Mike Torry" <MikeTorry@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:FDBA14B3-18FC-4723-8D73-08A46ECD921C@.microsoft.com...
>I created MDF file and LDF for one database on SQL server 2000.
> I need to create more DNF files on other 5 logical drives for this
> datanase.
> All these logical drives are located in SAN storage configured with
> RAID10.
> Should I create one NDF on each logical drive OR create multiple DNF on
> each
> logical drive?
> Which way is better for performance?
> Thanks,
I need to create more DNF files on other 5 logical drives for this datanase.
All these logical drives are located in SAN storage configured with RAID10.
Should I create one NDF on each logical drive OR create multiple DNF on each
logical drive?
Which way is better for performance?
Thanks,Mike
What is DNF files? Is it NDF? Have you monitor your SQL Server to make such
decision?
"Mike Torry" <MikeTorry@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:FDBA14B3-18FC-4723-8D73-08A46ECD921C@.microsoft.com...
>I created MDF file and LDF for one database on SQL server 2000.
> I need to create more DNF files on other 5 logical drives for this
> datanase.
> All these logical drives are located in SAN storage configured with
> RAID10.
> Should I create one NDF on each logical drive OR create multiple DNF on
> each
> logical drive?
> Which way is better for performance?
> Thanks,|||Mike Torry wrote:
> I created MDF file and LDF for one database on SQL server 2000.
> I need to create more DNF files on other 5 logical drives for this datanas
e.
> All these logical drives are located in SAN storage configured with RAID10
.
> Should I create one NDF on each logical drive OR create multiple DNF on ea
ch
> logical drive?
> Which way is better for performance?
> Thanks,
Hi,
If it's logical drives rather than physical drives, it won't help you a
lot to split the files on several drives. If you want to increase
performance, the data will have to placed on different physical spindles
and also preferably on different controllers (in most cases you'll just
have your MDF files disks on one controller and your ldf files disks on
a second controller). If you have any influence on hos your SAN is being
configured, you should also consider have more spindles in an array
rather than having many arrays. Depending on the usage of your database
it will give a better performance to have more spindles to read from
rather than splitting the load on several arrays/disks.
Regards
Steen Schlüter Persson
Database Administrator / System Administrator|||Hello,
Probably you should be talking about NDF files. Since it is SAN just try
creating the database in a Single Logical drive (1 logical drive for MDF
and another for LDF) and see how database performs. See the I/O queue length
counter in perfmon and seee how well it goes.
If it quue length is always <=1 then you are good. I have the similar
environemnt and I have created database based on this strategy.
I will recommend you to keep the files in multiple drives if you have
multiple controllers running. Otherwise even if you create files
in multiple logical drives you will not get any performance improvements.
Thanks
Hari
"Mike Torry" <MikeTorry@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:FDBA14B3-18FC-4723-8D73-08A46ECD921C@.microsoft.com...
>I created MDF file and LDF for one database on SQL server 2000.
> I need to create more DNF files on other 5 logical drives for this
> datanase.
> All these logical drives are located in SAN storage configured with
> RAID10.
> Should I create one NDF on each logical drive OR create multiple DNF on
> each
> logical drive?
> Which way is better for performance?
> Thanks,
How to choose file structure on SQL database?
I created MDF file and LDF for one database on SQL server 2000.
I need to create more DNF files on other 5 logical drives for this datanase.
All these logical drives are located in SAN storage configured with RAID10.
Should I create one NDF on each logical drive OR create multiple DNF on each
logical drive?
Which way is better for performance?
Thanks,Mike
What is DNF files? Is it NDF? Have you monitor your SQL Server to make such
decision?
"Mike Torry" <MikeTorry@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:FDBA14B3-18FC-4723-8D73-08A46ECD921C@.microsoft.com...
>I created MDF file and LDF for one database on SQL server 2000.
> I need to create more DNF files on other 5 logical drives for this
> datanase.
> All these logical drives are located in SAN storage configured with
> RAID10.
> Should I create one NDF on each logical drive OR create multiple DNF on
> each
> logical drive?
> Which way is better for performance?
> Thanks,|||Mike Torry wrote:
> I created MDF file and LDF for one database on SQL server 2000.
> I need to create more DNF files on other 5 logical drives for this datanase.
> All these logical drives are located in SAN storage configured with RAID10.
> Should I create one NDF on each logical drive OR create multiple DNF on each
> logical drive?
> Which way is better for performance?
> Thanks,
Hi,
If it's logical drives rather than physical drives, it won't help you a
lot to split the files on several drives. If you want to increase
performance, the data will have to placed on different physical spindles
and also preferably on different controllers (in most cases you'll just
have your MDF files disks on one controller and your ldf files disks on
a second controller). If you have any influence on hos your SAN is being
configured, you should also consider have more spindles in an array
rather than having many arrays. Depending on the usage of your database
it will give a better performance to have more spindles to read from
rather than splitting the load on several arrays/disks.
--
Regards
Steen Schlüter Persson
Database Administrator / System Administrator|||Hello,
Probably you should be talking about NDF files. Since it is SAN just try
creating the database in a Single Logical drive (1 logical drive for MDF
and another for LDF) and see how database performs. See the I/O queue length
counter in perfmon and seee how well it goes.
If it quue length is always <=1 then you are good. I have the similar
environemnt and I have created database based on this strategy.
I will recommend you to keep the files in multiple drives if you have
multiple controllers running. Otherwise even if you create files
in multiple logical drives you will not get any performance improvements.
Thanks
Hari
"Mike Torry" <MikeTorry@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:FDBA14B3-18FC-4723-8D73-08A46ECD921C@.microsoft.com...
>I created MDF file and LDF for one database on SQL server 2000.
> I need to create more DNF files on other 5 logical drives for this
> datanase.
> All these logical drives are located in SAN storage configured with
> RAID10.
> Should I create one NDF on each logical drive OR create multiple DNF on
> each
> logical drive?
> Which way is better for performance?
> Thanks,
I need to create more DNF files on other 5 logical drives for this datanase.
All these logical drives are located in SAN storage configured with RAID10.
Should I create one NDF on each logical drive OR create multiple DNF on each
logical drive?
Which way is better for performance?
Thanks,Mike
What is DNF files? Is it NDF? Have you monitor your SQL Server to make such
decision?
"Mike Torry" <MikeTorry@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:FDBA14B3-18FC-4723-8D73-08A46ECD921C@.microsoft.com...
>I created MDF file and LDF for one database on SQL server 2000.
> I need to create more DNF files on other 5 logical drives for this
> datanase.
> All these logical drives are located in SAN storage configured with
> RAID10.
> Should I create one NDF on each logical drive OR create multiple DNF on
> each
> logical drive?
> Which way is better for performance?
> Thanks,|||Mike Torry wrote:
> I created MDF file and LDF for one database on SQL server 2000.
> I need to create more DNF files on other 5 logical drives for this datanase.
> All these logical drives are located in SAN storage configured with RAID10.
> Should I create one NDF on each logical drive OR create multiple DNF on each
> logical drive?
> Which way is better for performance?
> Thanks,
Hi,
If it's logical drives rather than physical drives, it won't help you a
lot to split the files on several drives. If you want to increase
performance, the data will have to placed on different physical spindles
and also preferably on different controllers (in most cases you'll just
have your MDF files disks on one controller and your ldf files disks on
a second controller). If you have any influence on hos your SAN is being
configured, you should also consider have more spindles in an array
rather than having many arrays. Depending on the usage of your database
it will give a better performance to have more spindles to read from
rather than splitting the load on several arrays/disks.
--
Regards
Steen Schlüter Persson
Database Administrator / System Administrator|||Hello,
Probably you should be talking about NDF files. Since it is SAN just try
creating the database in a Single Logical drive (1 logical drive for MDF
and another for LDF) and see how database performs. See the I/O queue length
counter in perfmon and seee how well it goes.
If it quue length is always <=1 then you are good. I have the similar
environemnt and I have created database based on this strategy.
I will recommend you to keep the files in multiple drives if you have
multiple controllers running. Otherwise even if you create files
in multiple logical drives you will not get any performance improvements.
Thanks
Hari
"Mike Torry" <MikeTorry@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:FDBA14B3-18FC-4723-8D73-08A46ECD921C@.microsoft.com...
>I created MDF file and LDF for one database on SQL server 2000.
> I need to create more DNF files on other 5 logical drives for this
> datanase.
> All these logical drives are located in SAN storage configured with
> RAID10.
> Should I create one NDF on each logical drive OR create multiple DNF on
> each
> logical drive?
> Which way is better for performance?
> Thanks,
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)