impact of changing recovery model on a database that is currently"live"

I'm running sql server 2005 standard edition. We have given up on sql
server replication for various reasons and are gonig to implement
transaction log shipping. I need to switch the database to "Full"
recovery model but owing to a fascinating combination of circumstances
and indecisiveness the server has had replication disabled before the
new backup stratgey is in place. I don't want to wait another day
before I get a replication strategy going to I want to go to FULl
model right NOW. However the databse is in use and I don't want things
to be disrupted. The database server is only lightly loaded (8 cores,
only one running at any one time above 10% and disk queue about 0.1)
and a few seconds of latency is OK..
is it safe to switch recovery model to FULL during working hours on a
production database?
thanks,
sam
sam,
Switching to full mode will not add appreciably to the load on your server,
but it will keep the logs until they are backed up, so you may see grown in
your log (.ldf) files.
When switching to full mode, the first thing to do is a full backup. This
may cause about a 10% hit on the throughput of that server during the time
of the backup. Again, a small price to pay.
Then be sure to schedule regular transaction log backups so that your
transactions are saved and the log files do not grow excessively. (At least
once a day, but depending on your work and its critical nature it could be
as often as every 5 minutes.)
RLF
"sam.m.gardiner" <sam.m.gardiner@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6ad20370-72c2-4fec-b623-81e35b63bc9d@.u69g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> I'm running sql server 2005 standard edition. We have given up on sql
> server replication for various reasons and are gonig to implement
> transaction log shipping. I need to switch the database to "Full"
> recovery model but owing to a fascinating combination of circumstances
> and indecisiveness the server has had replication disabled before the
> new backup stratgey is in place. I don't want to wait another day
> before I get a replication strategy going to I want to go to FULl
> model right NOW. However the databse is in use and I don't want things
> to be disrupted. The database server is only lightly loaded (8 cores,
> only one running at any one time above 10% and disk queue about 0.1)
> and a few seconds of latency is OK..
> is it safe to switch recovery model to FULL during working hours on a
> production database?
> thanks,
> sam
|||ah thanks for that russell, the backup was also a worry.
but i was wondering about the actual moment of switch over, will that
cause any freeze or hang ups?
|||No, basically I understand it does two things.
1. Stops truncating the log
2. Increases the amount of logging done for BULK INSERTs. (If you don't
want this behaviour, the Bulk-Logged recovery model is similar to FULL, but
gives reduced coverage for the bulk inserts.)
RLF
"sam.m.gardiner" <sam.m.gardiner@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dde0ef2e-c103-48fd-a5f7-df76652da702@.b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> ah thanks for that russell, the backup was also a worry.
> but i was wondering about the actual moment of switch over, will that
> cause any freeze or hang ups?
|||thanks for your advice. the switch over was completed with no fuss and
took only a few seconds..
sam
sql

impact of changing recovery model on a database that is currently

I'm running sql server 2005 standard edition. We have given up on sql
server replication for various reasons and are gonig to implement
transaction log shipping. I need to switch the database to "Full"
recovery model but owing to a fascinating combination of circumstances
and indecisiveness the server has had replication disabled before the
new backup stratgey is in place. I don't want to wait another day
before I get a replication strategy going to I want to go to FULl
model right NOW. However the databse is in use and I don't want things
to be disrupted. The database server is only lightly loaded (8 cores,
only one running at any one time above 10% and disk queue about 0.1)
and a few seconds of latency is OK..
is it safe to switch recovery model to FULL during working hours on a
production database?
thanks,
samsam,
Switching to full mode will not add appreciably to the load on your server,
but it will keep the logs until they are backed up, so you may see grown in
your log (.ldf) files.
When switching to full mode, the first thing to do is a full backup. This
may cause about a 10% hit on the throughput of that server during the time
of the backup. Again, a small price to pay.
Then be sure to schedule regular transaction log backups so that your
transactions are saved and the log files do not grow excessively. (At least
once a day, but depending on your work and its critical nature it could be
as often as every 5 minutes.)
RLF
"sam.m.gardiner" <sam.m.gardiner@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6ad20370-72c2-4fec-b623-81e35b63bc9d@.u69g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> I'm running sql server 2005 standard edition. We have given up on sql
> server replication for various reasons and are gonig to implement
> transaction log shipping. I need to switch the database to "Full"
> recovery model but owing to a fascinating combination of circumstances
> and indecisiveness the server has had replication disabled before the
> new backup stratgey is in place. I don't want to wait another day
> before I get a replication strategy going to I want to go to FULl
> model right NOW. However the databse is in use and I don't want things
> to be disrupted. The database server is only lightly loaded (8 cores,
> only one running at any one time above 10% and disk queue about 0.1)
> and a few seconds of latency is OK..
> is it safe to switch recovery model to FULL during working hours on a
> production database?
> thanks,
> sam|||ah thanks for that russell, the backup was also a worry.
but i was wondering about the actual moment of switch over, will that
cause any freeze or hang ups?|||No, basically I understand it does two things.
1. Stops truncating the log
2. Increases the amount of logging done for BULK INSERTs. (If you don't
want this behaviour, the Bulk-Logged recovery model is similar to FULL, but
gives reduced coverage for the bulk inserts.)
RLF
"sam.m.gardiner" <sam.m.gardiner@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dde0ef2e-c103-48fd-a5f7-df76652da702@.b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> ah thanks for that russell, the backup was also a worry.
> but i was wondering about the actual moment of switch over, will that
> cause any freeze or hang ups?|||thanks for your advice. the switch over was completed with no fuss and
took only a few seconds..
sam

Impact of Changing Authentication Mode

Hi,
Our application using an SQL 2000 database, which is currently using Windows
Authentication. For some reason, we need to change the access mode to mixed
mode. Could someone please throw some light on the impact of this change.
Thanks in advance
SuhasOne extra door to guard?
Not sure what you mean by impact. From a performance or resource overhead
perspective? Nothing there. From a security perspective, you now need to
figure out how to manage the SQL Server logins to ensure they follow your
password policies (complexity, length, expiration, re-use, etc...). Not much
help built into SQL Server 2000 but in 2005, life gets a LOT better.
joe.
"Suhas Vengilat" <SuhasVengilat@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:34F882D9-448F-4EDC-A62C-BB87CCAF9307@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> Our application using an SQL 2000 database, which is currently using
> Windows
> Authentication. For some reason, we need to change the access mode to
> mixed
> mode. Could someone please throw some light on the impact of this change.
> Thanks in advance
> Suhas|||With either SQL Server 2000 or SQL Server 2005, the process is virtually
identical as follows:
Run SQL Enterprise Manager (or Start > Run > SQLwb.exe if using 2005)
Connect to the server
Launch Server Properties dialog
Switch to the Security tab
Select the Authentication option (Mixed or Windows only) > OK
Dismiss the "restart the server to implement changes" message box
"Restart" the MSSQLServer service (Start > Run > Compmgmt.msc >
services.msc)
Regards,
Keith
This posting is provided "as is" without inferring rights or warranties.
"Joe Yong" <NO_jyong_SPAM@.scalabilityexperts.com> wrote in message
news:OVSeLmxvFHA.1032@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> One extra door to guard?
> Not sure what you mean by impact. From a performance or resource overhead
> perspective? Nothing there. From a security perspective, you now need to
> figure out how to manage the SQL Server logins to ensure they follow your
> password policies (complexity, length, expiration, re-use, etc...). Not
> much help built into SQL Server 2000 but in 2005, life gets a LOT better.
>
> joe.
>
> "Suhas Vengilat" <SuhasVengilat@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
> message news:34F882D9-448F-4EDC-A62C-BB87CCAF9307@.microsoft.com...
>

Image rendering with IIS Virtual Directory

Iâ'm trying to show images in my report using a url path since I the pics are
many and ever changing. Iâ've set the image source=external;
Image value= http://<webserver>/<IISVirtualDirectoryName>/filename.jpg
If I set the IIS Directory security to â'Anonymous Accessâ' with a proper
Account name/pass, the image renders properly.
If I try to set the IIS Directory security to â'Windows authenticationâ', the
image does not render-- even though all the other report fields are populated.
So it appears to me the credentials are not being passed to IIS for the
virtual directory authentication when the report is rendered.
How can I pass the report credentials to IIS?
Btw-Iâ'm running SP1 on Win2K, and have set the unattended user/pass, and
have tried various datasource options in Report Manager without success.Tony,
I am not sure if this is what you are looking for but this is what we did.
We generated the image in an aspx page that only contains the image. We then
set the image value = to the URL of that aspx page and works without a hitch.
In our case we were generating Trend graphs in a third party graphing tool
and exporting them as bitmaps and having Reporting Services display the
image. We had to do this because Reporting Services graphing ability is
rather lacking and we are in the process of moving all of the companies
reports to reporting services.
Hope this helps
"Tony Ballman" wrote:
> Iâ'm trying to show images in my report using a url path since I the pics are
> many and ever changing. Iâ've set the image source=external;
> Image value= http://<webserver>/<IISVirtualDirectoryName>/filename.jpg
> If I set the IIS Directory security to â'Anonymous Accessâ' with a proper
> Account name/pass, the image renders properly.
> If I try to set the IIS Directory security to â'Windows authenticationâ', the
> image does not render-- even though all the other report fields are populated.
> So it appears to me the credentials are not being passed to IIS for the
> virtual directory authentication when the report is rendered.
> How can I pass the report credentials to IIS?
> Btw-Iâ'm running SP1 on Win2K, and have set the unattended user/pass, and
> have tried various datasource options in Report Manager without success.
>|||Thanks that's a great idea. I suppose you're also able to thumbnail or reduce
the image size that way too.
My thought was to create an IIS web site set to localhost of the box running
the report server, and then placing the IIS Virtual directory there with
anonymous access- so the virtual directory access is at least limited to
inside the firewall.
"KBurnell" wrote:
> Tony,
> I am not sure if this is what you are looking for but this is what we did.
> We generated the image in an aspx page that only contains the image. We then
> set the image value = to the URL of that aspx page and works without a hitch.
> In our case we were generating Trend graphs in a third party graphing tool
> and exporting them as bitmaps and having Reporting Services display the
> image. We had to do this because Reporting Services graphing ability is
> rather lacking and we are in the process of moving all of the companies
> reports to reporting services.
> Hope this helps
> "Tony Ballman" wrote:
> > Iâ'm trying to show images in my report using a url path since I the pics are
> > many and ever changing. Iâ've set the image source=external;
> > Image value= http://<webserver>/<IISVirtualDirectoryName>/filename.jpg
> > If I set the IIS Directory security to â'Anonymous Accessâ' with a proper
> > Account name/pass, the image renders properly.
> > If I try to set the IIS Directory security to â'Windows authenticationâ', the
> > image does not render-- even though all the other report fields are populated.
> > So it appears to me the credentials are not being passed to IIS for the
> > virtual directory authentication when the report is rendered.
> >
> > How can I pass the report credentials to IIS?
> >
> > Btw-Iâ'm running SP1 on Win2K, and have set the unattended user/pass, and
> > have tried various datasource options in Report Manager without success.
> >