I am almost embarrassed to post this, but I have an NT4 sp6 machine running
SQL 7. the machine is as old as the software and I am concerned at some
point I will not be able to recover this machine. The reason for this is
that the application that uses SQL is an old legacy application that will be
replaced with in the next year, but it is not supported any longer, and no
one has any idea how to reinstall it, this was done before my time. Any ways
it is a critical reporting tool and is used daily. I was hoping that someone
out there knows of a way that I could image the server and restore the image
to a diffrent hardware, or even to a virtual machine. Most everything that I
have looked at supports imaging NT4 but not restoring the image to diffrent
hardware, or to a virtual machine. I am posting this hoping someone else may
have found a solutionYou are trying to relocate the SQL Server or the entire application? If it's
just SQL server, you can install 7.0 on a new server, and deatch and attach
the databases.
But I think you should try put it into virtual machine; we did for few older
servers. I can't personally say of issues because just SQL Server guy, but
nothing went horribly wrong for us.
--
Mohit K. Gupta
B.Sc. CS, Minor Japanese
MCTS: SQL Server 2005
"Schuml" wrote:
> I am almost embarrassed to post this, but I have an NT4 sp6 machine running
> SQL 7. the machine is as old as the software and I am concerned at some
> point I will not be able to recover this machine. The reason for this is
> that the application that uses SQL is an old legacy application that will be
> replaced with in the next year, but it is not supported any longer, and no
> one has any idea how to reinstall it, this was done before my time. Any ways
> it is a critical reporting tool and is used daily. I was hoping that someone
> out there knows of a way that I could image the server and restore the image
> to a diffrent hardware, or even to a virtual machine. Most everything that I
> have looked at supports imaging NT4 but not restoring the image to diffrent
> hardware, or to a virtual machine. I am posting this hoping someone else may
> have found a solution|||Just found this ...
http://search.techrepublic.com.com/search/Microsoft+Virtual+Server+and+Microsoft+Windows+NT+4.0.html
Might find it interseting for yaa. Thanks!
--
Mohit K. Gupta
B.Sc. CS, Minor Japanese
MCTS: SQL Server 2005
"Schuml" wrote:
> I am almost embarrassed to post this, but I have an NT4 sp6 machine running
> SQL 7. the machine is as old as the software and I am concerned at some
> point I will not be able to recover this machine. The reason for this is
> that the application that uses SQL is an old legacy application that will be
> replaced with in the next year, but it is not supported any longer, and no
> one has any idea how to reinstall it, this was done before my time. Any ways
> it is a critical reporting tool and is used daily. I was hoping that someone
> out there knows of a way that I could image the server and restore the image
> to a diffrent hardware, or even to a virtual machine. Most everything that I
> have looked at supports imaging NT4 but not restoring the image to diffrent
> hardware, or to a virtual machine. I am posting this hoping someone else may
> have found a solution|||Very good Information I think the Virtual route is the way to go, I thought
about the just moving the data, but the unfortunate thing is no one knows how
to load the application thats the sticky part but it sounds like the VSMT
with virtual server is the way to go I will pursue that route.|||Minding firing me a mail when you do this ;-). Our server ops don't tell me
anything, I get the like DBA and ServerOps don't mix >,<. I wish you best
of luck ;-).
--
Mohit K. Gupta
B.Sc. CS, Minor Japanese
MCTS: SQL Server 2005
"Schuml" wrote:
> Very good Information I think the Virtual route is the way to go, I thought
> about the just moving the data, but the unfortunate thing is no one knows how
> to load the application thats the sticky part but it sounds like the VSMT
> with virtual server is the way to go I will pursue that route.
>
Showing posts with label imaging. Show all posts
Showing posts with label imaging. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Monday, March 26, 2012
Images And SQL 2000
Hello,
I'm looking to add imaging to an insurance application that was written in
house. We are programming in .Net with SQL2000 as the back end. The images
will be on average 50K and need to be stored for 7 years. Users will need
to retrieve these images from a web client to make underwriting decisions.
I was leaning towards storing the image in the data base, but while
researching the project the examples I've seen on the market all use a path
to a location to reference the image. This makes me think they either they
have found some issue with store large amounts of data in the data base or
they developed so early they the support of storing images in databases wasn
't there.
Our current SQL data base is 30Gig and the Image store we have is 275 Gigs.
I was hoping to get your opinion on the pluses and minuses of storing images
in a SQL data base.
Thanks in Advance,
MarkIn article <uyaJvCNmDHA.2652@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>, mark@.getamco.com
said...
> I'm looking to add imaging to an insurance application that was written in
> house. We are programming in .Net with SQL2000 as the back end. The images
> will be on average 50K and need to be stored for 7 years. Users will need
> to retrieve these images from a web client to make underwriting decisions.
> I was leaning towards storing the image in the data base, but while
> researching the project the examples I've seen on the market all use a path
> to a location to reference the image. This makes me think they either they
> have found some issue with store large amounts of data in the data base or
> they developed so early they the support of storing images in databases wasn
> 't there.
> Our current SQL data base is 30Gig and the Image store we have is 275 Gigs.
> I was hoping to get your opinion on the pluses and minuses of storing images
> in a SQL data base.
The pluses are that you have everything in one place for backup and
storage. The minuses are that you have everything in one place.
I find that I can use much cheaper storage for files than I use for my
database as a whole and I can easily add new volumes when I need to grow.
For some it's easier to just use the database for everything. In my
situation I have about 14 terabytes of image data in about 70 million
files driven by 35GB database.|||i read someplace that if you store images in SQL the front end must compose
the images from binary, send the images to SQL which in turn convert the
images into binary again to keep it in the tables => over head?
i am also in insurance business, don't see such apps using SQL to store
actual images. Hard drive being cheap ins't a reason I would save images in
SQL.
"Mark" <mark@.getamco.com> wrote in message
news:uyaJvCNmDHA.2652@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> I'm looking to add imaging to an insurance application that was written in
> house. We are programming in .Net with SQL2000 as the back end. The
images
> will be on average 50K and need to be stored for 7 years. Users will need
> to retrieve these images from a web client to make underwriting decisions.
>
>
> I was leaning towards storing the image in the data base, but while
> researching the project the examples I've seen on the market all use a
path
> to a location to reference the image. This makes me think they either
they
> have found some issue with store large amounts of data in the data base or
> they developed so early they the support of storing images in databases
wasn
> 't there.
>
> Our current SQL data base is 30Gig and the Image store we have is 275
Gigs.
>
> I was hoping to get your opinion on the pluses and minuses of storing
images
> in a SQL data base.
>
> Thanks in Advance,
> Mark
>
I'm looking to add imaging to an insurance application that was written in
house. We are programming in .Net with SQL2000 as the back end. The images
will be on average 50K and need to be stored for 7 years. Users will need
to retrieve these images from a web client to make underwriting decisions.
I was leaning towards storing the image in the data base, but while
researching the project the examples I've seen on the market all use a path
to a location to reference the image. This makes me think they either they
have found some issue with store large amounts of data in the data base or
they developed so early they the support of storing images in databases wasn
't there.
Our current SQL data base is 30Gig and the Image store we have is 275 Gigs.
I was hoping to get your opinion on the pluses and minuses of storing images
in a SQL data base.
Thanks in Advance,
MarkIn article <uyaJvCNmDHA.2652@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>, mark@.getamco.com
said...
> I'm looking to add imaging to an insurance application that was written in
> house. We are programming in .Net with SQL2000 as the back end. The images
> will be on average 50K and need to be stored for 7 years. Users will need
> to retrieve these images from a web client to make underwriting decisions.
> I was leaning towards storing the image in the data base, but while
> researching the project the examples I've seen on the market all use a path
> to a location to reference the image. This makes me think they either they
> have found some issue with store large amounts of data in the data base or
> they developed so early they the support of storing images in databases wasn
> 't there.
> Our current SQL data base is 30Gig and the Image store we have is 275 Gigs.
> I was hoping to get your opinion on the pluses and minuses of storing images
> in a SQL data base.
The pluses are that you have everything in one place for backup and
storage. The minuses are that you have everything in one place.
I find that I can use much cheaper storage for files than I use for my
database as a whole and I can easily add new volumes when I need to grow.
For some it's easier to just use the database for everything. In my
situation I have about 14 terabytes of image data in about 70 million
files driven by 35GB database.|||i read someplace that if you store images in SQL the front end must compose
the images from binary, send the images to SQL which in turn convert the
images into binary again to keep it in the tables => over head?
i am also in insurance business, don't see such apps using SQL to store
actual images. Hard drive being cheap ins't a reason I would save images in
SQL.
"Mark" <mark@.getamco.com> wrote in message
news:uyaJvCNmDHA.2652@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> I'm looking to add imaging to an insurance application that was written in
> house. We are programming in .Net with SQL2000 as the back end. The
images
> will be on average 50K and need to be stored for 7 years. Users will need
> to retrieve these images from a web client to make underwriting decisions.
>
>
> I was leaning towards storing the image in the data base, but while
> researching the project the examples I've seen on the market all use a
path
> to a location to reference the image. This makes me think they either
they
> have found some issue with store large amounts of data in the data base or
> they developed so early they the support of storing images in databases
wasn
> 't there.
>
> Our current SQL data base is 30Gig and the Image store we have is 275
Gigs.
>
> I was hoping to get your opinion on the pluses and minuses of storing
images
> in a SQL data base.
>
> Thanks in Advance,
> Mark
>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)