Profiler

I have a trace file that I captured from my production server that I want to replay on my dev box. The database on dev is a restore of the production backup, but the DB_ID of the two is different, which I believe is causing these errors:
No matching connection to execute this on. Will auto-create one.
and
Failed to set proper user name ('empireapi') for the connection
the empireapi username is in the Dev database. I have also dropped and re-created it.
Question:
Is the different databaseid the source of the problem? can I change it somehow? Do you have enough info to determine?
Thanks,
Kevin Hill
President
3NF Consulting
www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
www.DallasDBAs.com/forum - new DB forum for Dallas/Ft. Worth area DBAs.
Yes. Yes. And Yes.
In books online there is a topic:
Replaying Traces
in the Administering SQL Server section. You can find the
requirements for replay traces listed there. Included is
that the database ids need to be the same.
To correct this, you can restore the master database from
the production server to the dev box.
The other work around would be to remove database ids from
the trace. Then set all the users captured in the trace to
have a default database of the target database. The commands
will then be executed in the default database so the
database id isn't an issue.
-Sue
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 11:16:31 -0500, "Kevin3NF"
<KHill@.NopeIDontNeedNoSPAM3NF-inc.com> wrote:

>I have a trace file that I captured from my production server that I want to replay on my dev box. The database on dev is a restore of the production backup, but the DB_ID of the two is different, which I believe is causing these errors:
>No matching connection to execute this on. Will auto-create one.
>and
>Failed to set proper user name ('empireapi') for the connection
>the empireapi username is in the Dev database. I have also dropped and re-created it.
>Question:
>Is the different databaseid the source of the problem? can I change it somehow? Do you have enough info to determine?
>Thanks,
|||Thanks Sue...I will get to one of your two excellent suggestions right away.
Fortunately, the DEV box is completely under my control for at least another
week, then it becomes a production box, so I can do anything I need to with
it :-)
Kevin Hill
President
3NF Consulting
www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
www.DallasDBAs.com/forum - new DB forum for Dallas/Ft. Worth area DBAs.
"Sue Hoegemeier" <Sue_H@.nomail.please> wrote in message
news:d87ic0tqi2vj8g4vti340ukfa80corr6dj@.4ax.com... [vbcol=seagreen]
> Yes. Yes. And Yes.
> In books online there is a topic:
> Replaying Traces
> in the Administering SQL Server section. You can find the
> requirements for replay traces listed there. Included is
> that the database ids need to be the same.
> To correct this, you can restore the master database from
> the production server to the dev box.
> The other work around would be to remove database ids from
> the trace. Then set all the users captured in the trace to
> have a default database of the target database. The commands
> will then be executed in the default database so the
> database id isn't an issue.
> -Sue
> On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 11:16:31 -0500, "Kevin3NF"
> <KHill@.NopeIDontNeedNoSPAM3NF-inc.com> wrote:
to replay on my dev box. The database on dev is a restore of the production
backup, but the DB_ID of the two is different, which I believe is causing
these errors:[vbcol=seagreen]
re-created it.[vbcol=seagreen]
somehow? Do you have enough info to determine?
>

Product Search question

I have a search box on my website which is used to search the products database.

I will be using the search text in an SQL stored procedure that uses LIKE statements. The search string could realistically contain any character.

How do I prevent SQL injection when any search string is reasonably feasible? .

supergriff:

How do I prevent SQL injection when any search string is reasonably feasible?

I recommend that you read the weblog entry by Microsoft's Bertrand Le Roy,Please, please, please, learn about injection attacks!|||

Great, so if i'm using stored procedures, rather than string concatenation, this inherently prevents SQL injection? My search function is below:

' Select all ProductsPublicFunction GetAllVisibleProductsBySearchString(ByVal SearchStringAsString)As DataTable

Dim connAs SqlConnection =New SqlConnection(_connectionString)Dim cmdStoredProcedureAsNew SqlCommand("dis_GetAllVisibleProductsBySearchString", conn)

cmdStoredProcedure.CommandType = CommandType.StoredProcedure

cmdStoredProcedure.Parameters.Add(

"@.SearchString", SqlDbType.VarChar, 250).Value = SearchStringDim daAs SqlDataAdapter =New SqlDataAdapter(cmdStoredProcedure)Dim dsAs DataSet =New DataSet()Try

conn.Open()

da.Fill(ds,

"Products")

Catch eAs SqlException

' Handle exception.Finally

conn.Close()

EndTryReturn ds.Tables("Products")EndFunction

Processors

Does anybody have any experience or know of any articles between 4
dual-core vs. a 8 proc box'
I'm looking at comparing processors exclusively.
ThanksThe licensing price for 4 dual-core is 4 processors but for 8 proc., it's 8
processors. This should be a sufficient argument to chose the former over
the later.
--
Sylvain Lafontaine, ing.
MVP - Technologies Virtual-PC
E-mail: http://cerbermail.com/?QugbLEWINF
"Ulan" <wdoman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1157559259.768841.213380@.h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Does anybody have any experience or know of any articles between 4
> dual-core vs. a 8 proc box'
> I'm looking at comparing processors exclusively.
> Thanks
>|||Money for licensing is of no concern.
Sylvain Lafontaine (fill the blanks, no spam please) wrote:
> The licensing price for 4 dual-core is 4 processors but for 8 proc., it's 8
> processors. This should be a sufficient argument to chose the former over
> the later.
> --
> Sylvain Lafontaine, ing.
> MVP - Technologies Virtual-PC
> E-mail: http://cerbermail.com/?QugbLEWINF
>
> "Ulan" <wdoman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1157559259.768841.213380@.h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Does anybody have any experience or know of any articles between 4
> > dual-core vs. a 8 proc box'
> >
> > I'm looking at comparing processors exclusively.
> >
> > Thanks
> >|||Then you're a lucky guy or you are doing a theorytical study.
Comparing a dual core processor with two single cores mean nothing if you
don't specify the type of processor, memory, motherboard (north and south
bridges are important here) and the type of controler used for input/output
. Of course, running 32 or 64 bits will also have some effect on the
results, as well as the type of software and operating system used.
So, comparing only the processors can be tricky.
However, if you want a short answer, single core processor are older
technologies, so they should probably give you a lesser performance in
comparaison against the latest dual-core processors running at the same
frequency on a core by core basis.
--
Sylvain Lafontaine, ing.
MVP - Technologies Virtual-PC
E-mail: http://cerbermail.com/?QugbLEWINF
"Ulan" <wdoman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1157564917.777675.299710@.p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> Money for licensing is of no concern.
>
>
> Sylvain Lafontaine (fill the blanks, no spam please) wrote:
>> The licensing price for 4 dual-core is 4 processors but for 8 proc., it's
>> 8
>> processors. This should be a sufficient argument to chose the former
>> over
>> the later.
>> --
>> Sylvain Lafontaine, ing.
>> MVP - Technologies Virtual-PC
>> E-mail: http://cerbermail.com/?QugbLEWINF
>>
>> "Ulan" <wdoman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1157559259.768841.213380@.h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > Does anybody have any experience or know of any articles between 4
>> > dual-core vs. a 8 proc box'
>> >
>> > I'm looking at comparing processors exclusively.
>> >
>> > Thanks
>> >
>|||Maybe, to focus my concern slightly, how does SQL 2005 handles
parallelism with dual core vs. single core architectures. With
analytical processes crunching enormous datasets, hundreds of millions
of records, we have found parallelism essential.|||SQL Server doesn't differentiate between a dual core processor and two
single core processors - they're both seen as two processors. The actual
performance is going to depend on the processor architecture - whether the
dual core shares components between the processor for example.
--
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Use of included script samples are subject to the terms specified at
http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm
"Ulan" <wdoman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1157571394.948255.161810@.d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Maybe, to focus my concern slightly, how does SQL 2005 handles
> parallelism with dual core vs. single core architectures. With
> analytical processes crunching enormous datasets, hundreds of millions
> of records, we have found parallelism essential.
>|||Multi-cores is not hyperthreading: excerpt for the licensing purpose, there
is no real difference in performance or in functionality between a dual-core
or two single cores.
However, a dual-core will not access the memory in the same way as two
single cores because of the type of memory controler used and the L2 cache
and even then, there are differences between old dual cores and the new
models, the latest beeing able to share their L2 cache between the two
cores.
For a peformance comparaison between the latest serie of Xeon (the Woodcrest
or the 51xx) and the Opteron, see:
http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=2772 .
In my opinion, you don't have to compare the Woodcrest serie with any of the
previous models of Xeon, either single or dual-core.
--
Sylvain Lafontaine, ing.
MVP - Technologies Virtual-PC
E-mail: http://cerbermail.com/?QugbLEWINF
"Ulan" <wdoman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1157571394.948255.161810@.d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Maybe, to focus my concern slightly, how does SQL 2005 handles
> parallelism with dual core vs. single core architectures. With
> analytical processes crunching enormous datasets, hundreds of millions
> of records, we have found parallelism essential.
>|||Thank you!!|||"Ulan" <wdoman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1157564917.777675.299710@.p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> Money for licensing is of no concern.
I call "shenanigans" on that statement.
I'll assume you're on the Enterprise version. Last I checked
(more than a year ago) Ent was going for $16,000 a processor.
I don't care what kind of budget you have 4 x 16K = $64,000
is relevant. It's a concern to even a multi-million dollar budget.
If it's truly "of no concern", it's because you're planning on
running it illegally.|||Maybe he works for the Treasury Dept and they just print as much money as
they need.
--
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Use of included script samples are subject to the terms specified at
http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm
"Sgt.Sausage" <nobody@.nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:938ee$4501f2a6$42a1e606$22924@.FUSE.NET...
> "Ulan" <wdoman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1157564917.777675.299710@.p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>> Money for licensing is of no concern.
> I call "shenanigans" on that statement.
> I'll assume you're on the Enterprise version. Last I checked
> (more than a year ago) Ent was going for $16,000 a processor.
> I don't care what kind of budget you have 4 x 16K = $64,000
> is relevant. It's a concern to even a multi-million dollar budget.
> If it's truly "of no concern", it's because you're planning on
> running it illegally.
>

Processors

Does anybody have any experience or know of any articles between 4
dual-core vs. a 8 proc box'
I'm looking at comparing processors exclusively.
ThanksThe licensing price for 4 dual-core is 4 processors but for 8 proc., it's 8
processors. This should be a sufficient argument to chose the former over
the later.
Sylvain Lafontaine, ing.
MVP - Technologies Virtual-PC
E-mail: http://cerbermail.com/?QugbLEWINF
"Ulan" <wdoman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1157559259.768841.213380@.h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Does anybody have any experience or know of any articles between 4
> dual-core vs. a 8 proc box'
> I'm looking at comparing processors exclusively.
> Thanks
>|||Money for licensing is of no concern.
Sylvain Lafontaine (fill the blanks, no spam please) wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> The licensing price for 4 dual-core is 4 processors but for 8 proc., it's
8
> processors. This should be a sufficient argument to chose the former over
> the later.
> --
> Sylvain Lafontaine, ing.
> MVP - Technologies Virtual-PC
> E-mail: http://cerbermail.com/?QugbLEWINF
>
> "Ulan" <wdoman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1157559259.768841.213380@.h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...|||Then you're a lucky guy or you are doing a theorytical study.
Comparing a dual core processor with two single cores mean nothing if you
don't specify the type of processor, memory, motherboard (north and south
bridges are important here) and the type of controler used for input/output
. Of course, running 32 or 64 bits will also have some effect on the
results, as well as the type of software and operating system used.
So, comparing only the processors can be tricky.
However, if you want a short answer, single core processor are older
technologies, so they should probably give you a lesser performance in
comparaison against the latest dual-core processors running at the same
frequency on a core by core basis.
Sylvain Lafontaine, ing.
MVP - Technologies Virtual-PC
E-mail: http://cerbermail.com/?QugbLEWINF
"Ulan" <wdoman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1157564917.777675.299710@.p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> Money for licensing is of no concern.
>
>
> Sylvain Lafontaine (fill the blanks, no spam please) wrote:
>|||Maybe, to focus my concern slightly, how does SQL 2005 handles
parallelism with dual core vs. single core architectures. With
analytical processes crunching enormous datasets, hundreds of millions
of records, we have found parallelism essential.|||SQL Server doesn't differentiate between a dual core processor and two
single core processors - they're both seen as two processors. The actual
performance is going to depend on the processor architecture - whether the
dual core shares components between the processor for example.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Use of included script samples are subject to the terms specified at
http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm
"Ulan" <wdoman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1157571394.948255.161810@.d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Maybe, to focus my concern slightly, how does SQL 2005 handles
> parallelism with dual core vs. single core architectures. With
> analytical processes crunching enormous datasets, hundreds of millions
> of records, we have found parallelism essential.
>|||Multi-cores is not hyperthreading: excerpt for the licensing purpose, there
is no real difference in performance or in functionality between a dual-core
or two single cores.
However, a dual-core will not access the memory in the same way as two
single cores because of the type of memory controler used and the L2 cache
and even then, there are differences between old dual cores and the new
models, the latest beeing able to share their L2 cache between the two
cores.
For a peformance comparaison between the latest serie of Xeon (the Woodcrest
or the 51xx) and the Opteron, see:
http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=2772 .
In my opinion, you don't have to compare the Woodcrest serie with any of the
previous models of Xeon, either single or dual-core.
Sylvain Lafontaine, ing.
MVP - Technologies Virtual-PC
E-mail: http://cerbermail.com/?QugbLEWINF
"Ulan" <wdoman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1157571394.948255.161810@.d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Maybe, to focus my concern slightly, how does SQL 2005 handles
> parallelism with dual core vs. single core architectures. With
> analytical processes crunching enormous datasets, hundreds of millions
> of records, we have found parallelism essential.
>|||Thank you!!|||"Ulan" <wdoman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1157564917.777675.299710@.p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...

> Money for licensing is of no concern.
I call "shenanigans" on that statement.
I'll assume you're on the Enterprise version. Last I checked
(more than a year ago) Ent was going for $16,000 a processor.
I don't care what kind of budget you have 4 x 16K = $64,000
is relevant. It's a concern to even a multi-million dollar budget.
If it's truly "of no concern", it's because you're planning on
running it illegally.|||Maybe he works for the Treasury Dept and they just print as much money as
they need.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Use of included script samples are subject to the terms specified at
http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm
"Sgt.Sausage" <nobody@.nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:938ee$4501f2a6$42a1e606$22924@.FUSE.NET...
> "Ulan" <wdoman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1157564917.777675.299710@.p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>
> I call "shenanigans" on that statement.
> I'll assume you're on the Enterprise version. Last I checked
> (more than a year ago) Ent was going for $16,000 a processor.
> I don't care what kind of budget you have 4 x 16K = $64,000
> is relevant. It's a concern to even a multi-million dollar budget.
> If it's truly "of no concern", it's because you're planning on
> running it illegally.
>

Process: %processor time

Hi,
I am monitoring the above counter on a 4 processor box
and have 2 questions:
(1) the value for 2 instances (there are 5 all together)
is ~200, so how is this a %? Is this to be read as 200/4
so 50%?
(2) the instances are listed as sqlservr #1, sqlservr #2
etc - how can I resolve this to the instance name?
TIA,
MaryMary,
1: Yes, divide the total percent by the number of instances. Double check
with Task Manager.
2. What operating system are you using? On Windows XP, Perfmon separates the
counters by instance name.
Hope this helps,
Ron
--
Ron Talmage
SQL Server MVP
"Mary" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:112801c4f721$51e21910$a501280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> I am monitoring the above counter on a 4 processor box
> and have 2 questions:
> (1) the value for 2 instances (there are 5 all together)
> is ~200, so how is this a %? Is this to be read as 200/4
> so 50%?
> (2) the instances are listed as sqlservr #1, sqlservr #2
> etc - how can I resolve this to the instance name?
> TIA,
> Mary|||Thanks Ron,
I'm using Win 2000 Server. The counters are separated by
instance name for most things, but for Process they are
not - they appear as a numbered list in the bottom right-
hand corner.
Thanks,
Mary