We have 5 SQL servers and plan to use Dell SAN data storage. We try to
figure out how to configure the data, log, temp db drivers so that we
have a better performance.
1. Should we seperate the data, log, and temp db into three different
drivers?
2. What RAID level will be best for each of them?
3. Also, we use linked servers among different SQL Servers, the
performance using the linked servers is bad. Are there any better way
to configure it or avoid using linked server to improve the performance
when we use SAN?
Thanks
*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com ***
Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!Data and log should be on separate LUN and RAID sets, preferably on
different processor engines by default. Tempdb is just another database for
this purpose. I disagree with Joe and suggest maximum RAM in the SAN with
much of it configured as write cache. My experience suggests that you will
maximize overall performance that way, but that does depend on the nature of
your application and data.
RAID-10 is best, but expensive. If you must lower costs, use RAID5 for data
and RAID10 for logs.
Linked server performance is bad because the remote server often has to dump
entire tables across the link. Try using OPENQUERY with search arguments so
the result set coming across the link is smaller. Another option is to
purchase larger host servers and consolidate your databases onto fewer
systems, thus turning your remote query into a simple cross-database query.
--
Geoff N. Hiten
SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
"cindy huang" <cindyxqhuang@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uERj2GmbDHA.616@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> We have 5 SQL servers and plan to use Dell SAN data storage. We try to
> figure out how to configure the data, log, temp db drivers so that we
> have a better performance.
> 1. Should we seperate the data, log, and temp db into three different
> drivers?
> 2. What RAID level will be best for each of them?
> 3. Also, we use linked servers among different SQL Servers, the
> performance using the linked servers is bad. Are there any better way
> to configure it or avoid using linked server to improve the performance
> when we use SAN?
> Thanks
>
> *** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com ***
> Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!|||test the disk system performance with IOmeter from
http://sourceforge.net/
opinions are many, actual results are better
>--Original Message--
>We have 5 SQL servers and plan to use Dell SAN data
storage. We try to
>figure out how to configure the data, log, temp db
drivers so that we
>have a better performance.
>1. Should we seperate the data, log, and temp db into
three different
>drivers?
>2. What RAID level will be best for each of them?
>3. Also, we use linked servers among different SQL
Servers, the
>performance using the linked servers is bad. Are there
any better way
>to configure it or avoid using linked server to improve
the performance
>when we use SAN?
>Thanks
>
>*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com
***
>Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!
>.
>
Showing posts with label log. Show all posts
Showing posts with label log. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Monday, March 19, 2012
How to configure SQL Server with SAN
We have 5 SQL servers and plan to use Dell SAN data storage. We try to
figure out how to configure the data, log, temp db drivers so that we
have a better performance.
1. Should we seperate the data, log, and temp db into three different
drivers?
2. What RAID level will be best for each of them?
3. Also, we use linked servers among different SQL Servers, the
performance using the linked servers is bad. Are there any better way
to configure it or avoid using linked server to improve the performance
when we use SAN?
Thanks
*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com ***
Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!Data and log should be on separate LUN and RAID sets, preferably on
different processor engines by default. Tempdb is just another database for
this purpose. I disagree with Joe and suggest maximum RAM in the SAN with
much of it configured as write cache. My experience suggests that you will
maximize overall performance that way, but that does depend on the nature of
your application and data.
RAID-10 is best, but expensive. If you must lower costs, use RAID5 for data
and RAID10 for logs.
Linked server performance is bad because the remote server often has to dump
entire tables across the link. Try using OPENQUERY with search arguments so
the result set coming across the link is smaller. Another option is to
purchase larger host servers and consolidate your databases onto fewer
systems, thus turning your remote query into a simple cross-database query.
--
Geoff N. Hiten
SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
"cindy huang" <cindyxqhuang@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uERj2GmbDHA.616@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> We have 5 SQL servers and plan to use Dell SAN data storage. We try to
> figure out how to configure the data, log, temp db drivers so that we
> have a better performance.
> 1. Should we seperate the data, log, and temp db into three different
> drivers?
> 2. What RAID level will be best for each of them?
> 3. Also, we use linked servers among different SQL Servers, the
> performance using the linked servers is bad. Are there any better way
> to configure it or avoid using linked server to improve the performance
> when we use SAN?
> Thanks
>
> *** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com ***
> Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!|||test the disk system performance with IOmeter from
http://sourceforge.net/
opinions are many, actual results are better
>--Original Message--
>We have 5 SQL servers and plan to use Dell SAN data
storage. We try to
>figure out how to configure the data, log, temp db
drivers so that we
>have a better performance.
>1. Should we seperate the data, log, and temp db into
three different
>drivers?
>2. What RAID level will be best for each of them?
>3. Also, we use linked servers among different SQL
Servers, the
>performance using the linked servers is bad. Are there
any better way
>to configure it or avoid using linked server to improve
the performance
>when we use SAN?
>Thanks
>
>*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com
***
>Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!
>.
>
figure out how to configure the data, log, temp db drivers so that we
have a better performance.
1. Should we seperate the data, log, and temp db into three different
drivers?
2. What RAID level will be best for each of them?
3. Also, we use linked servers among different SQL Servers, the
performance using the linked servers is bad. Are there any better way
to configure it or avoid using linked server to improve the performance
when we use SAN?
Thanks
*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com ***
Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!Data and log should be on separate LUN and RAID sets, preferably on
different processor engines by default. Tempdb is just another database for
this purpose. I disagree with Joe and suggest maximum RAM in the SAN with
much of it configured as write cache. My experience suggests that you will
maximize overall performance that way, but that does depend on the nature of
your application and data.
RAID-10 is best, but expensive. If you must lower costs, use RAID5 for data
and RAID10 for logs.
Linked server performance is bad because the remote server often has to dump
entire tables across the link. Try using OPENQUERY with search arguments so
the result set coming across the link is smaller. Another option is to
purchase larger host servers and consolidate your databases onto fewer
systems, thus turning your remote query into a simple cross-database query.
--
Geoff N. Hiten
SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
"cindy huang" <cindyxqhuang@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uERj2GmbDHA.616@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> We have 5 SQL servers and plan to use Dell SAN data storage. We try to
> figure out how to configure the data, log, temp db drivers so that we
> have a better performance.
> 1. Should we seperate the data, log, and temp db into three different
> drivers?
> 2. What RAID level will be best for each of them?
> 3. Also, we use linked servers among different SQL Servers, the
> performance using the linked servers is bad. Are there any better way
> to configure it or avoid using linked server to improve the performance
> when we use SAN?
> Thanks
>
> *** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com ***
> Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!|||test the disk system performance with IOmeter from
http://sourceforge.net/
opinions are many, actual results are better
>--Original Message--
>We have 5 SQL servers and plan to use Dell SAN data
storage. We try to
>figure out how to configure the data, log, temp db
drivers so that we
>have a better performance.
>1. Should we seperate the data, log, and temp db into
three different
>drivers?
>2. What RAID level will be best for each of them?
>3. Also, we use linked servers among different SQL
Servers, the
>performance using the linked servers is bad. Are there
any better way
>to configure it or avoid using linked server to improve
the performance
>when we use SAN?
>Thanks
>
>*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com
***
>Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!
>.
>
Monday, March 12, 2012
How to configure Logshipping across the two forests
Hi,
I have configured Log shipping in my organisation which has two forests. One
forest has primary server and monitor server while the other forest has
secondary server. While configuring the Log shipping, read only database was
created successfully on the secondary server. Primary server is taking
transaction log backup on the specified time interval but it is not being
restored on the secondary server. What is the problem? How can I proceed?
Please guide me.
With regards,
Rajendra
You mentioned the secondary server is set to read only. Are there users in
there while you're trying to restore logs? If so, then the database is
already in a fully recovered state. From books online:
"It is not possible to apply a transaction log backup:
Unless the database or differential database backup preceding the
transaction log backup is restored first.
Unless all preceding transaction logs created since the database or
differential database were backed up are applied first.
If the database has already recovered and all outstanding transactions
have either been rolled back or rolled forward."
If you're trying to create a secondary reporting database, you might want to
try using replication instead. Depending on how you set it up, the secondary
data set can be kept more "up to date", and users can get in and out. Of
course, the database can't be read only, as replication will be writing to
it, but you can set all the users in the db_DataReader database role.
"Rajendra" wrote:
> Hi,
> I have configured Log shipping in my organisation which has two forests. One
> forest has primary server and monitor server while the other forest has
> secondary server. While configuring the Log shipping, read only database was
> created successfully on the secondary server. Primary server is taking
> transaction log backup on the specified time interval but it is not being
> restored on the secondary server. What is the problem? How can I proceed?
> Please guide me.
> With regards,
> Rajendra
|||Users Can be in the database on a secondary server if the
database has been restored using STANDBY which is an
option in the maintenance plan wizard. This is why there
is also the option to remove the users before a log
restore.
Rgds,
Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com
(recommended sql server 2000 replication book:
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)
|||Hi friends,
Thanx for the reply. But I was asking whether it is possible to configure
Log shipping across the forests or not?I think share name acorss the forests
is creating some problem because I am not able connect SQL server with server
name if forests is other than the forest where my computer resides. That's
why I am connecting SQL server using IP address.
With regards
"Rajendra" wrote:
> Hi,
> I have configured Log shipping in my organisation which has two forests. One
> forest has primary server and monitor server while the other forest has
> secondary server. While configuring the Log shipping, read only database was
> created successfully on the secondary server. Primary server is taking
> transaction log backup on the specified time interval but it is not being
> restored on the secondary server. What is the problem? How can I proceed?
> Please guide me.
> With regards,
> Rajendra
|||Rajendra,
do you have a forest trust? If so, this should be possible. Can you see the
share at all? If not, perhaps you need to edit the hosts file for it to be
accessible.
HTH,
Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com
(recommended sql server 2000 replication book:
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)
I have configured Log shipping in my organisation which has two forests. One
forest has primary server and monitor server while the other forest has
secondary server. While configuring the Log shipping, read only database was
created successfully on the secondary server. Primary server is taking
transaction log backup on the specified time interval but it is not being
restored on the secondary server. What is the problem? How can I proceed?
Please guide me.
With regards,
Rajendra
You mentioned the secondary server is set to read only. Are there users in
there while you're trying to restore logs? If so, then the database is
already in a fully recovered state. From books online:
"It is not possible to apply a transaction log backup:
Unless the database or differential database backup preceding the
transaction log backup is restored first.
Unless all preceding transaction logs created since the database or
differential database were backed up are applied first.
If the database has already recovered and all outstanding transactions
have either been rolled back or rolled forward."
If you're trying to create a secondary reporting database, you might want to
try using replication instead. Depending on how you set it up, the secondary
data set can be kept more "up to date", and users can get in and out. Of
course, the database can't be read only, as replication will be writing to
it, but you can set all the users in the db_DataReader database role.
"Rajendra" wrote:
> Hi,
> I have configured Log shipping in my organisation which has two forests. One
> forest has primary server and monitor server while the other forest has
> secondary server. While configuring the Log shipping, read only database was
> created successfully on the secondary server. Primary server is taking
> transaction log backup on the specified time interval but it is not being
> restored on the secondary server. What is the problem? How can I proceed?
> Please guide me.
> With regards,
> Rajendra
|||Users Can be in the database on a secondary server if the
database has been restored using STANDBY which is an
option in the maintenance plan wizard. This is why there
is also the option to remove the users before a log
restore.
Rgds,
Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com
(recommended sql server 2000 replication book:
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)
|||Hi friends,
Thanx for the reply. But I was asking whether it is possible to configure
Log shipping across the forests or not?I think share name acorss the forests
is creating some problem because I am not able connect SQL server with server
name if forests is other than the forest where my computer resides. That's
why I am connecting SQL server using IP address.
With regards
"Rajendra" wrote:
> Hi,
> I have configured Log shipping in my organisation which has two forests. One
> forest has primary server and monitor server while the other forest has
> secondary server. While configuring the Log shipping, read only database was
> created successfully on the secondary server. Primary server is taking
> transaction log backup on the specified time interval but it is not being
> restored on the secondary server. What is the problem? How can I proceed?
> Please guide me.
> With regards,
> Rajendra
|||Rajendra,
do you have a forest trust? If so, this should be possible. Can you see the
share at all? If not, perhaps you need to edit the hosts file for it to be
accessible.
HTH,
Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com
(recommended sql server 2000 replication book:
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)
How to configure Log shipping on SQL server 2000 developer edition
Rajendra,
you should be able to use the log shipping wizard to set
things up. If you do need to script it out, then you
could use profiler while the wizard runs, but the main
part will be in the maintenance plan, which is not
scriptable in the usual meaning of the word.
Rgds,
Paul Ibison, SQL Server MVP, WWW.Replicationanswers.Com
(recommended sql server 2000 replication book:
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)
Hi Paul,
Thanx for ur reply but I don't have Enterprise edition. We purchased the
developer edition because Log shipping feature was listed in the available
features of SQL server 2000. If it is not available in developer edition then
Why Microsoft claimed to have this feature in developer edition?
"Paul Ibison" wrote:
> Rajendra,
> you should be able to use the log shipping wizard to set
> things up. If you do need to script it out, then you
> could use profiler while the wizard runs, but the main
> part will be in the maintenance plan, which is not
> scriptable in the usual meaning of the word.
> Rgds,
> Paul Ibison, SQL Server MVP, WWW.Replicationanswers.Com
> (recommended sql server 2000 replication book:
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)
>
|||Rajendra,
this facility should be there as developer is essentially
the same functionalitywise as enterprise edition and I
have just checked on a box at work. If you start the
maintenance plan wizard, and the log-shipping checkbox is
disabled for a particular database, this is because the
database is in simple recovery mode - perhaps this is the
case? Also, can you do select @.@.version just to confirm
that you have the developer edition installed.
Rgds,
Paul Ibison, SQL Server MVP, WWW.Replicationanswers.Com
(recommended sql server 2000 replication book:
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)
|||It is not installed in the developer edition, only the EE one.
I suggest Rajendra check out this link for info on how to set it up without
using EE.
http://www.sql-server-performance.co...g_shipping.asp
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
"Paul Ibison" <Paul.Ibison@.Pygmalion.Com> wrote in message
news:01fa01c4ba7e$668d7a10$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> Rajendra,
> this facility should be there as developer is essentially
> the same functionalitywise as enterprise edition and I
> have just checked on a box at work. If you start the
> maintenance plan wizard, and the log-shipping checkbox is
> disabled for a particular database, this is because the
> database is in simple recovery mode - perhaps this is the
> case? Also, can you do select @.@.version just to confirm
> that you have the developer edition installed.
> Rgds,
> Paul Ibison, SQL Server MVP, WWW.Replicationanswers.Com
> (recommended sql server 2000 replication book:
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)
>
>
|||AFAIK it is installed with Enterprise, Developer and
Enterprise Evaluation Editions - I can see the options on
my desktop, which only has Developer Edition.
Rgds,
Paul Ibison, SQL Server MVP, WWW.Replicationanswers.Com
(recommended sql server 2000 replication book:
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)
|||I'm sorry, I just realized that this laptop has standard edition SQL Server.
I'll take your word for it Paul! Thanks for the clarification.
"Paul Ibison" <Paul.Ibison@.Pygmalion.Com> wrote in message
news:0c2d01c4ba9a$9095e8d0$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
> AFAIK it is installed with Enterprise, Developer and
> Enterprise Evaluation Editions - I can see the options on
> my desktop, which only has Developer Edition.
> Rgds,
> Paul Ibison, SQL Server MVP, WWW.Replicationanswers.Com
> (recommended sql server 2000 replication book:
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)
>
you should be able to use the log shipping wizard to set
things up. If you do need to script it out, then you
could use profiler while the wizard runs, but the main
part will be in the maintenance plan, which is not
scriptable in the usual meaning of the word.
Rgds,
Paul Ibison, SQL Server MVP, WWW.Replicationanswers.Com
(recommended sql server 2000 replication book:
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)
Hi Paul,
Thanx for ur reply but I don't have Enterprise edition. We purchased the
developer edition because Log shipping feature was listed in the available
features of SQL server 2000. If it is not available in developer edition then
Why Microsoft claimed to have this feature in developer edition?
"Paul Ibison" wrote:
> Rajendra,
> you should be able to use the log shipping wizard to set
> things up. If you do need to script it out, then you
> could use profiler while the wizard runs, but the main
> part will be in the maintenance plan, which is not
> scriptable in the usual meaning of the word.
> Rgds,
> Paul Ibison, SQL Server MVP, WWW.Replicationanswers.Com
> (recommended sql server 2000 replication book:
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)
>
|||Rajendra,
this facility should be there as developer is essentially
the same functionalitywise as enterprise edition and I
have just checked on a box at work. If you start the
maintenance plan wizard, and the log-shipping checkbox is
disabled for a particular database, this is because the
database is in simple recovery mode - perhaps this is the
case? Also, can you do select @.@.version just to confirm
that you have the developer edition installed.
Rgds,
Paul Ibison, SQL Server MVP, WWW.Replicationanswers.Com
(recommended sql server 2000 replication book:
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)
|||It is not installed in the developer edition, only the EE one.
I suggest Rajendra check out this link for info on how to set it up without
using EE.
http://www.sql-server-performance.co...g_shipping.asp
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
"Paul Ibison" <Paul.Ibison@.Pygmalion.Com> wrote in message
news:01fa01c4ba7e$668d7a10$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> Rajendra,
> this facility should be there as developer is essentially
> the same functionalitywise as enterprise edition and I
> have just checked on a box at work. If you start the
> maintenance plan wizard, and the log-shipping checkbox is
> disabled for a particular database, this is because the
> database is in simple recovery mode - perhaps this is the
> case? Also, can you do select @.@.version just to confirm
> that you have the developer edition installed.
> Rgds,
> Paul Ibison, SQL Server MVP, WWW.Replicationanswers.Com
> (recommended sql server 2000 replication book:
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)
>
>
|||AFAIK it is installed with Enterprise, Developer and
Enterprise Evaluation Editions - I can see the options on
my desktop, which only has Developer Edition.
Rgds,
Paul Ibison, SQL Server MVP, WWW.Replicationanswers.Com
(recommended sql server 2000 replication book:
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)
|||I'm sorry, I just realized that this laptop has standard edition SQL Server.
I'll take your word for it Paul! Thanks for the clarification.
"Paul Ibison" <Paul.Ibison@.Pygmalion.Com> wrote in message
news:0c2d01c4ba9a$9095e8d0$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
> AFAIK it is installed with Enterprise, Developer and
> Enterprise Evaluation Editions - I can see the options on
> my desktop, which only has Developer Edition.
> Rgds,
> Paul Ibison, SQL Server MVP, WWW.Replicationanswers.Com
> (recommended sql server 2000 replication book:
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)
>
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
How to commit the rest of the transactions of an update in large bulk?
I have to modify the table structure where the table have a lot of data already. The log is getting full due to uncommitted transactions, there is a lot of data being updated in large bulks, not all of the transactions are committed, the update task cannot be completed.
However, there is no more spare disk space for it to commit the transaction. Anyone can help?what exactly are you dong? bulk insert?|||change some field 's size and its predefined function where the table have about 50,000 data already.
However, there is no more spare disk space for it to commit the transaction. Anyone can help?what exactly are you dong? bulk insert?|||change some field 's size and its predefined function where the table have about 50,000 data already.
Friday, February 24, 2012
how to clear up log file in primary database in log shipping ?
our database system is runninig in log shipping mode.
currently, primary database log file get much more bigger,
but I dare not shrink log file in primary database ,
because do this will affect log shipping.
any way reslove this?
regards!Backup Log has Active and Inactive Portions. To Truncate Inactive
portion user the following command in SQL Query Analyser
USE The following Command
BACKUP LOG { database_name | @.database_name_var }
WITH TRUNCATE_ONLY|||That would break the log shipping!
AFAIK, shrinking of log file should be OK in a log shipping scenario...
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Rex" <r.ghodasara@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1143808657.133001.205870@.u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> Backup Log has Active and Inactive Portions. To Truncate Inactive
> portion user the following command in SQL Query Analyser
> USE The following Command
> BACKUP LOG { database_name | @.database_name_var }
> WITH TRUNCATE_ONLY
>|||thanks ,
but according to your point
as time goes, the logfile will get bigger and bigger,
shrinking logfile is not the best way?
do you think so ?
I meant how to clear up logfile and don't affect log shipping?|||The log file is emptied each time you do backup of the transaction log. So, it will grow until it
has the size needed to accommodate the modifications you do between two log backups, so just let it
be the size it need to be. If you see it grow beyond that, you can perhaps have had a long running
transaction in the log preventing the file to be emptied to a high degree. See
http://www.karaszi.com/SQLServer/info_dont_shrink.asp for more information.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
<lovexueer@.gmail.com> wrote in message news:1143814572.962154.266770@.g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> thanks ,
> but according to your point
> as time goes, the logfile will get bigger and bigger,
> shrinking logfile is not the best way?
> do you think so ?
> I meant how to clear up logfile and don't affect log shipping?
>
currently, primary database log file get much more bigger,
but I dare not shrink log file in primary database ,
because do this will affect log shipping.
any way reslove this?
regards!Backup Log has Active and Inactive Portions. To Truncate Inactive
portion user the following command in SQL Query Analyser
USE The following Command
BACKUP LOG { database_name | @.database_name_var }
WITH TRUNCATE_ONLY|||That would break the log shipping!
AFAIK, shrinking of log file should be OK in a log shipping scenario...
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Rex" <r.ghodasara@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1143808657.133001.205870@.u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> Backup Log has Active and Inactive Portions. To Truncate Inactive
> portion user the following command in SQL Query Analyser
> USE The following Command
> BACKUP LOG { database_name | @.database_name_var }
> WITH TRUNCATE_ONLY
>|||thanks ,
but according to your point
as time goes, the logfile will get bigger and bigger,
shrinking logfile is not the best way?
do you think so ?
I meant how to clear up logfile and don't affect log shipping?|||The log file is emptied each time you do backup of the transaction log. So, it will grow until it
has the size needed to accommodate the modifications you do between two log backups, so just let it
be the size it need to be. If you see it grow beyond that, you can perhaps have had a long running
transaction in the log preventing the file to be emptied to a high degree. See
http://www.karaszi.com/SQLServer/info_dont_shrink.asp for more information.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
<lovexueer@.gmail.com> wrote in message news:1143814572.962154.266770@.g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> thanks ,
> but according to your point
> as time goes, the logfile will get bigger and bigger,
> shrinking logfile is not the best way?
> do you think so ?
> I meant how to clear up logfile and don't affect log shipping?
>
how to clear up log file in primary database in log shipping ?
our database system is runninig in log shipping mode.
currently, primary database log file get much more bigger,
but I dare not shrink log file in primary database ,
because do this will affect log shipping.
any way reslove this?
regards!
Backup Log has Active and Inactive Portions. To Truncate Inactive
portion user the following command in SQL Query Analyser
USE The following Command
BACKUP LOG { database_name | @.database_name_var }
WITH TRUNCATE_ONLY
|||That would break the log shipping!
AFAIK, shrinking of log file should be OK in a log shipping scenario...
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Rex" <r.ghodasara@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1143808657.133001.205870@.u72g2000cwu.googlegr oups.com...
> Backup Log has Active and Inactive Portions. To Truncate Inactive
> portion user the following command in SQL Query Analyser
> USE The following Command
> BACKUP LOG { database_name | @.database_name_var }
> WITH TRUNCATE_ONLY
>
|||thanks ,
but according to your point
as time goes, the logfile will get bigger and bigger,
shrinking logfile is not the best way?
do you think so ?
I meant how to clear up logfile and don't affect log shipping?
|||The log file is emptied each time you do backup of the transaction log. So, it will grow until it
has the size needed to accommodate the modifications you do between two log backups, so just let it
be the size it need to be. If you see it grow beyond that, you can perhaps have had a long running
transaction in the log preventing the file to be emptied to a high degree. See
http://www.karaszi.com/SQLServer/info_dont_shrink.asp for more information.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
<lovexueer@.gmail.com> wrote in message news:1143814572.962154.266770@.g10g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
> thanks ,
> but according to your point
> as time goes, the logfile will get bigger and bigger,
> shrinking logfile is not the best way?
> do you think so ?
> I meant how to clear up logfile and don't affect log shipping?
>
currently, primary database log file get much more bigger,
but I dare not shrink log file in primary database ,
because do this will affect log shipping.
any way reslove this?
regards!
Backup Log has Active and Inactive Portions. To Truncate Inactive
portion user the following command in SQL Query Analyser
USE The following Command
BACKUP LOG { database_name | @.database_name_var }
WITH TRUNCATE_ONLY
|||That would break the log shipping!
AFAIK, shrinking of log file should be OK in a log shipping scenario...
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Rex" <r.ghodasara@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1143808657.133001.205870@.u72g2000cwu.googlegr oups.com...
> Backup Log has Active and Inactive Portions. To Truncate Inactive
> portion user the following command in SQL Query Analyser
> USE The following Command
> BACKUP LOG { database_name | @.database_name_var }
> WITH TRUNCATE_ONLY
>
|||thanks ,
but according to your point
as time goes, the logfile will get bigger and bigger,
shrinking logfile is not the best way?
do you think so ?
I meant how to clear up logfile and don't affect log shipping?
|||The log file is emptied each time you do backup of the transaction log. So, it will grow until it
has the size needed to accommodate the modifications you do between two log backups, so just let it
be the size it need to be. If you see it grow beyond that, you can perhaps have had a long running
transaction in the log preventing the file to be emptied to a high degree. See
http://www.karaszi.com/SQLServer/info_dont_shrink.asp for more information.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
<lovexueer@.gmail.com> wrote in message news:1143814572.962154.266770@.g10g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
> thanks ,
> but according to your point
> as time goes, the logfile will get bigger and bigger,
> shrinking logfile is not the best way?
> do you think so ?
> I meant how to clear up logfile and don't affect log shipping?
>
Sunday, February 19, 2012
how to clear up log file in primary database in log shipping ?
our database system is runninig in log shipping mode.
currently, primary database log file get much more bigger,
but I dare not shrink log file in primary database ,
because do this will affect log shipping.
any way reslove this?
regards!Backup Log has Active and Inactive Portions. To Truncate Inactive
portion user the following command in SQL Query Analyser
USE The following Command
BACKUP LOG { database_name | @.database_name_var }
WITH TRUNCATE_ONLY|||That would break the log shipping!
AFAIK, shrinking of log file should be OK in a log shipping scenario...
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Rex" <r.ghodasara@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1143808657.133001.205870@.u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> Backup Log has Active and Inactive Portions. To Truncate Inactive
> portion user the following command in SQL Query Analyser
> USE The following Command
> BACKUP LOG { database_name | @.database_name_var }
> WITH TRUNCATE_ONLY
>|||thanks ,
but according to your point
as time goes, the logfile will get bigger and bigger,
shrinking logfile is not the best way?
do you think so ?
I meant how to clear up logfile and don't affect log shipping?|||The log file is emptied each time you do backup of the transaction log. So,
it will grow until it
has the size needed to accommodate the modifications you do between two log
backups, so just let it
be the size it need to be. If you see it grow beyond that, you can perhaps h
ave had a long running
transaction in the log preventing the file to be emptied to a high degree. S
ee
http://www.karaszi.com/SQLServer/info_dont_shrink.asp for more information.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
<lovexueer@.gmail.com> wrote in message news:1143814572.962154.266770@.g10g2000cwb.googlegroup
s.com...
> thanks ,
> but according to your point
> as time goes, the logfile will get bigger and bigger,
> shrinking logfile is not the best way?
> do you think so ?
> I meant how to clear up logfile and don't affect log shipping?
>
currently, primary database log file get much more bigger,
but I dare not shrink log file in primary database ,
because do this will affect log shipping.
any way reslove this?
regards!Backup Log has Active and Inactive Portions. To Truncate Inactive
portion user the following command in SQL Query Analyser
USE The following Command
BACKUP LOG { database_name | @.database_name_var }
WITH TRUNCATE_ONLY|||That would break the log shipping!
AFAIK, shrinking of log file should be OK in a log shipping scenario...
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Rex" <r.ghodasara@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1143808657.133001.205870@.u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> Backup Log has Active and Inactive Portions. To Truncate Inactive
> portion user the following command in SQL Query Analyser
> USE The following Command
> BACKUP LOG { database_name | @.database_name_var }
> WITH TRUNCATE_ONLY
>|||thanks ,
but according to your point
as time goes, the logfile will get bigger and bigger,
shrinking logfile is not the best way?
do you think so ?
I meant how to clear up logfile and don't affect log shipping?|||The log file is emptied each time you do backup of the transaction log. So,
it will grow until it
has the size needed to accommodate the modifications you do between two log
backups, so just let it
be the size it need to be. If you see it grow beyond that, you can perhaps h
ave had a long running
transaction in the log preventing the file to be emptied to a high degree. S
ee
http://www.karaszi.com/SQLServer/info_dont_shrink.asp for more information.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
<lovexueer@.gmail.com> wrote in message news:1143814572.962154.266770@.g10g2000cwb.googlegroup
s.com...
> thanks ,
> but according to your point
> as time goes, the logfile will get bigger and bigger,
> shrinking logfile is not the best way?
> do you think so ?
> I meant how to clear up logfile and don't affect log shipping?
>
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,
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:
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:
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 clear log ?
Hi,
I am using SQL sever 2000,
My server said, the Log file for MSDB is full, what should I do to clear the
log history?
Thanks
MichaelFairly simple - back up & truncate the log.
You can do this either via the SQL Enterprise Manager or issuing the backup
log command, but before you rush off trying to do that, if you've got DBAs
you're probably best off approaching them as this is something they'd
normally look after.
Regards,
Greg Linwood
SQL Server MVP
"Michael" <vbvfvid@.yahoo.com.sg> wrote in message
news:%238DMrtbyDHA.3220@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> I am using SQL sever 2000,
> My server said, the Log file for MSDB is full, what should I do to clear
the
> log history?
> Thanks
> Michael
>|||Is there any Transaction-SQL cmd can clear the logs?
I checked the database, it only sized 14MB, please tell me how to enlarge
the log file history or size? Is there any documents talking about this?
Thanks
Michael
"Greg Linwood" <g_linwoodQhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Oa0xVzbyDHA.1908@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Fairly simple - back up & truncate the log.
> You can do this either via the SQL Enterprise Manager or issuing the
backup
> log command, but before you rush off trying to do that, if you've got DBAs
> you're probably best off approaching them as this is something they'd
> normally look after.
> Regards,
> Greg Linwood
> SQL Server MVP
> "Michael" <vbvfvid@.yahoo.com.sg> wrote in message
> news:%238DMrtbyDHA.3220@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am using SQL sever 2000,
> > My server said, the Log file for MSDB is full, what should I do to clear
> the
> > log history?
> >
> > Thanks
> > Michael
> >
> >
>|||Hi Michael.
The term for "clearing" the transaction log is "truncating" the transaction
log. This will help you research the topic. Truncation of the transaction
log is usually performed whilst backing up the transaction log.
There is an article in the online SQL Server documentation on this here:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/architec/8_ar_da2_7vaf.asp
If you want to enlarge the transaction log via a t-sql command, you do this
via the ALTER DATABASE command, using it's MODIFY FILE argument. Eg:
ALTER DATABASE [database name]
MODIFY FILE (
NAME = [logical file name]
, SIZE = [target size]
)
Managing transaction logs is one of the fundamental aspects of managing SQL
Server databases (as with Oracle, DB2 etc). It's worth reading up more on
this as it will help build your knowledge of SQL Server significantly.
HTH
Regards,
Greg Linwood
SQL Server MVP
"Michael" <vbvfvid@.yahoo.com.sg> wrote in message
news:%23bo1u%23byDHA.3888@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Is there any Transaction-SQL cmd can clear the logs?
> I checked the database, it only sized 14MB, please tell me how to enlarge
> the log file history or size? Is there any documents talking about this?
> Thanks
> Michael
>
>
> "Greg Linwood" <g_linwoodQhotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Oa0xVzbyDHA.1908@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > Fairly simple - back up & truncate the log.
> >
> > You can do this either via the SQL Enterprise Manager or issuing the
> backup
> > log command, but before you rush off trying to do that, if you've got
DBAs
> > you're probably best off approaching them as this is something they'd
> > normally look after.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Greg Linwood
> > SQL Server MVP
> >
> > "Michael" <vbvfvid@.yahoo.com.sg> wrote in message
> > news:%238DMrtbyDHA.3220@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I am using SQL sever 2000,
> > > My server said, the Log file for MSDB is full, what should I do to
clear
> > the
> > > log history?
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Michael
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>|||By default the MSDB database is in simple mode which would truncate the log
upon checkpoint and not allow for the log to grow too big. If the recov mode
for MSDB has been changed to full recov, you should implement regular backup
log commands or jobs to keep this in check, lookup backup log in BOL for
syntax or use a maint plan
HTH
--
Ray Higdon MCSE, MCDBA, CCNA
--
"Michael" <vbvfvid@.yahoo.com.sg> wrote in message
news:%23bo1u%23byDHA.3888@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Is there any Transaction-SQL cmd can clear the logs?
> I checked the database, it only sized 14MB, please tell me how to enlarge
> the log file history or size? Is there any documents talking about this?
> Thanks
> Michael
>
>
> "Greg Linwood" <g_linwoodQhotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Oa0xVzbyDHA.1908@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > Fairly simple - back up & truncate the log.
> >
> > You can do this either via the SQL Enterprise Manager or issuing the
> backup
> > log command, but before you rush off trying to do that, if you've got
DBAs
> > you're probably best off approaching them as this is something they'd
> > normally look after.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Greg Linwood
> > SQL Server MVP
> >
> > "Michael" <vbvfvid@.yahoo.com.sg> wrote in message
> > news:%238DMrtbyDHA.3220@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I am using SQL sever 2000,
> > > My server said, the Log file for MSDB is full, what should I do to
clear
> > the
> > > log history?
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Michael
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>|||backup log urdatabase with no_log
dbcc shrinkdatabase (urdatabase)
backup ur database afterwards.
I am using SQL sever 2000,
My server said, the Log file for MSDB is full, what should I do to clear the
log history?
Thanks
MichaelFairly simple - back up & truncate the log.
You can do this either via the SQL Enterprise Manager or issuing the backup
log command, but before you rush off trying to do that, if you've got DBAs
you're probably best off approaching them as this is something they'd
normally look after.
Regards,
Greg Linwood
SQL Server MVP
"Michael" <vbvfvid@.yahoo.com.sg> wrote in message
news:%238DMrtbyDHA.3220@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> I am using SQL sever 2000,
> My server said, the Log file for MSDB is full, what should I do to clear
the
> log history?
> Thanks
> Michael
>|||Is there any Transaction-SQL cmd can clear the logs?
I checked the database, it only sized 14MB, please tell me how to enlarge
the log file history or size? Is there any documents talking about this?
Thanks
Michael
"Greg Linwood" <g_linwoodQhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Oa0xVzbyDHA.1908@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Fairly simple - back up & truncate the log.
> You can do this either via the SQL Enterprise Manager or issuing the
backup
> log command, but before you rush off trying to do that, if you've got DBAs
> you're probably best off approaching them as this is something they'd
> normally look after.
> Regards,
> Greg Linwood
> SQL Server MVP
> "Michael" <vbvfvid@.yahoo.com.sg> wrote in message
> news:%238DMrtbyDHA.3220@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am using SQL sever 2000,
> > My server said, the Log file for MSDB is full, what should I do to clear
> the
> > log history?
> >
> > Thanks
> > Michael
> >
> >
>|||Hi Michael.
The term for "clearing" the transaction log is "truncating" the transaction
log. This will help you research the topic. Truncation of the transaction
log is usually performed whilst backing up the transaction log.
There is an article in the online SQL Server documentation on this here:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/architec/8_ar_da2_7vaf.asp
If you want to enlarge the transaction log via a t-sql command, you do this
via the ALTER DATABASE command, using it's MODIFY FILE argument. Eg:
ALTER DATABASE [database name]
MODIFY FILE (
NAME = [logical file name]
, SIZE = [target size]
)
Managing transaction logs is one of the fundamental aspects of managing SQL
Server databases (as with Oracle, DB2 etc). It's worth reading up more on
this as it will help build your knowledge of SQL Server significantly.
HTH
Regards,
Greg Linwood
SQL Server MVP
"Michael" <vbvfvid@.yahoo.com.sg> wrote in message
news:%23bo1u%23byDHA.3888@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Is there any Transaction-SQL cmd can clear the logs?
> I checked the database, it only sized 14MB, please tell me how to enlarge
> the log file history or size? Is there any documents talking about this?
> Thanks
> Michael
>
>
> "Greg Linwood" <g_linwoodQhotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Oa0xVzbyDHA.1908@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > Fairly simple - back up & truncate the log.
> >
> > You can do this either via the SQL Enterprise Manager or issuing the
> backup
> > log command, but before you rush off trying to do that, if you've got
DBAs
> > you're probably best off approaching them as this is something they'd
> > normally look after.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Greg Linwood
> > SQL Server MVP
> >
> > "Michael" <vbvfvid@.yahoo.com.sg> wrote in message
> > news:%238DMrtbyDHA.3220@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I am using SQL sever 2000,
> > > My server said, the Log file for MSDB is full, what should I do to
clear
> > the
> > > log history?
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Michael
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>|||By default the MSDB database is in simple mode which would truncate the log
upon checkpoint and not allow for the log to grow too big. If the recov mode
for MSDB has been changed to full recov, you should implement regular backup
log commands or jobs to keep this in check, lookup backup log in BOL for
syntax or use a maint plan
HTH
--
Ray Higdon MCSE, MCDBA, CCNA
--
"Michael" <vbvfvid@.yahoo.com.sg> wrote in message
news:%23bo1u%23byDHA.3888@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Is there any Transaction-SQL cmd can clear the logs?
> I checked the database, it only sized 14MB, please tell me how to enlarge
> the log file history or size? Is there any documents talking about this?
> Thanks
> Michael
>
>
> "Greg Linwood" <g_linwoodQhotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Oa0xVzbyDHA.1908@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > Fairly simple - back up & truncate the log.
> >
> > You can do this either via the SQL Enterprise Manager or issuing the
> backup
> > log command, but before you rush off trying to do that, if you've got
DBAs
> > you're probably best off approaching them as this is something they'd
> > normally look after.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Greg Linwood
> > SQL Server MVP
> >
> > "Michael" <vbvfvid@.yahoo.com.sg> wrote in message
> > news:%238DMrtbyDHA.3220@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I am using SQL sever 2000,
> > > My server said, the Log file for MSDB is full, what should I do to
clear
> > the
> > > log history?
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Michael
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>|||backup log urdatabase with no_log
dbcc shrinkdatabase (urdatabase)
backup ur database afterwards.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)