|
I hope this help also.
SQL Server 2005 introduces schemas to the database. A schema is simply a named container for database objects. Each schema is a scope that fits into the hierarchy between database level and object level, and each schema has a specific owner. The owner of a schema can be a user, a database role, or an application role. The schema name takes the place of the owner name in the SQL Server multi-part object naming scheme.
Schemas solve an administration problem that occurs when each database object is named after the user who creates it. In SQL Server versions prior to 2005, if a user named Bob (who is not dbo) creates a series of tables, the tables would be named after Bob. If Bob leaves the company or changes job assignments, these tables would have to be manually transferred to another user. If this transfer were not performed, a security problem could ensue.
|
|
|
|
|
Suppose I have four drives:
C: 80 GB
D: 120 GB
E: 50 GB
F: 80 GB
where D thru F are really volumes on a single 250 GB drive. I'm finding that I need to change the space allocations on the one large drive, or perhaps I want to replace the C drive with a larger one. Every night I do a full backup to a removable drive not listed here.
If I make hardware changes that affect the size or physical locations of the volumes, though I still retain the original drive letters, will Restore still work correctly? This, of course assumes that none of the existing drives contains more data than the respective 'new' drives.
I've never tried it, and I'm leery of the process. I don't want to find myself with a reconfigured system and a message telling me that "Windows could not restore the data; the destination drive could not be found."
Microsoft has a long history of supplying me with such surprises and I'd really like to avoid this one, so I'm hoping someone out here has done thsi exact same thing and can tell me happy news. 
"A Journey of a Thousand Rest Stops Begins with a Single Movement"
|
|
|
|
|
Instinctively I'd say it's possible but I've had the same experience with surprises as you have.
What OS is it?
|
|
|
|
|
Windows Server 2003.
I'm just concerned that the backup may be organized around sector/LUN information, and changing the disk configuration might totally screw me on the Restore. After the system has been rebuilt would be a hell of a time to find out about it.
"A Journey of a Thousand Rest Stops Begins with a Single Movement"
|
|
|
|
|
I have some less funny experiences with the backup of Oracle systems. It stores the backup information in the database you have just taken a backup of.
So if the database doesn't exist, you can't restore...
Anyway, I have just made a test backup (to a file) on one server, and restored it on two other servers with a totally different harddrive configurations and hardware.
No problems.
Restoring to a server 2008 didn't work though.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, Jörgen! That's reassuring to know.
Jörgen Andersson wrote: It stores the backup information in the database you have just taken a backup of.
That's insane! I'm so glad I never tried Oracle. They sent me a free copy of the full version 8 years ago - I still have no idea why - but I never installed it. Now I know why...
"A Journey of a Thousand Rest Stops Begins with a Single Movement"
|
|
|
|
|
It has its pros and cons.
Among the pros is that it's seriously faster than SQLServer, atleast for us.
And it's actually very stable, it's just that I every time I need to administer something in it I have to ask myself "How did they think now!"
So another pro is obviously that it constantly reminds me how happy I am to do the rest of my work in a Microsoft environment!
|
|
|
|
|
due to limitations of backup solutions, I have always imaged my backups. modern imaging from free solutions such as driveimageXml or seagate tools (which I use now because it is an older acronis backup), or commercial like the full blown acronis backup all backup data in such a way they expect the data may be moved. seagate tools would backup the data and then you have the option to copy as an image to a new partion or new drive on restore... or to restore as a data image to a folder of a drive. this gives you the best of both worlds of backup solutions.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi, I need software exchange 5.5 trail version for my study 70-284. Does anyone know where I could donwload this software? Thank in advance!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Exchange 5.5 reached it's end of life 2005, so it's going to be tough to find it.
I'll have a look in my cd-collection tonight, but I doubt it...
|
|
|
|
|
Jörgen Andersson wrote: I'll have a look in my cd-collection tonight
Will you upload it into an internet?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you very much in advance!!!  ![Rose | [Rose]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/rose.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you very much for your help. But whether you have it, it might be have a problem with the copy right as Dave mention in his post. Thank you again for your effort!!!
|
|
|
|
|
I would have had to read the license first, but as Microsoft is giving away these 120 day trials en masse at their seminars I doubt there would have been any problems.
But as I'm having a real licensed version lying around I haven't kept the trial as I don't have any use for it. And if I would give you that one I would certainly be burned at the stake.
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you very much for your effort  
|
|
|
|
|
He cannot do that. Microsoft would burn him alive at the stake for doing so. It may be discontinued and unsupported, but it's still Microsoft's property.
|
|
|
|
|
But it is a trail (as I mention in the last post I need the trail software) and I need to fullfile my study on 70-284 only. It is not commercial. As far as I remember exchange 5.5 might have a place to download the trail also as well as exchange 2007 which could be seen on Microsoft website.
|
|
|
|
|
Jorgen does not control the distribution rights to the product. He can still get sued for distributing the trial version, if he had it.
The test you mention covers Exchange 2003, not 5.5. So, the 5.5 trial won't do you any good (Yes, they are THAT different.)
Microsoft pulled all the downloadable trials for Exchange 2003 about a year ago. The only place you can get the trial now is from the Microsoft Press book "Implementing and Managing Microsoft Exchange Server 2003", found here[^]. Oddly enough, this is the book that covers the 70-284 test.
|
|
|
|
|
Dave Kreskowiak wrote: The test you mention covers Exchange 2003, not 5.5. So, the 5.5 trial won't do you any good (Yes, they are THAT different.)
Microsoft pulled all the downloadable trials for Exchange 2003 about a year ago. The only place you can get the trial now is from the Microsoft Press book "Implementing and Managing Microsoft Exchange Server 2003", found here[^]. Oddly enough, this is the book that covers the 70-284 test.
Well the reason that I need exchange 5.5 is not because i have an exam on it. You can check with the table content of this book 70-284[^] then you will see the chapter that is related to exchange 5.5. I already own this book and i really surprise that not only exchange 2003 and windows 2003 is the requirement software. I still need to have windows 2000 and exchange 2000. It is really lucky that I have download its trail software in the past. Also the hardware requirement its require me 4 machine (one is optional). I really do not know this requirement if i didn't purchase the book first.
Microsoft should know that people that studying their technology because they interested, support and some are require to use it. I will comment it in amazon about this point. Microsoft should pack all of software require in order to fullfill this study material. I have my own study plan but when I found that I missed some software for my future study i really difficult to adjust what I am going to do next.
Thank
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you very much for your help. I also try to find the link that I could download it in this VM but it is not available 
|
|
|
|
|
I wouldn't worry to much about a trial version. It's meant to be spread.
But it doesn't matter very much as I don't have it anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
You still don't control the distribution rights to the software, no matter what Microsoft's intentions for it may be.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
