InstantForum.NET v2.9.0SQLServerCentralhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/notifications@sqlservercentral.comThu, 23 May 2013 21:31:24 GMT20http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic745564-146-1.aspxGreat thanks very much!Fri, 18 Nov 2011 06:41:21 GMTAndy Siantonashttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic745564-146-1.aspxNone whatsoever. It will be applied to pages the next time they are written to (not read). That's old pages and new.Fri, 18 Nov 2011 06:38:11 GMTGilaMonsterhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic745564-146-1.aspxI've just come across this post, whilst investigating a similar situation (though legacy).Can anyone explain what potential issues there are (if any) in changing a production database from TORN_PAGE_DETECTION to CHECKSUM?Am I right in assuming that CHECKSUM can't be implemented retrospectively anyhow, and so it will only affect new pages, and therefore that I am safe to make this change?ThanksAndyFri, 18 Nov 2011 05:05:36 GMTAndy Siantonashttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic745564-146-1.aspx[quote][b]Twinsoft SME (7/21/2010)[/b][hr]I always wondered why the newsletter puts articles that old in it?[/quote]Newsletter only shows forum posts with recent activity. kagemaru found this via the 'related content' (sidebar) in an article. Once he posted, the thread had recent activity and appeared in the newsletter.Wed, 21 Jul 2010 06:13:30 GMTGilaMonsterhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic745564-146-1.aspxI always wondered why the newsletter puts articles that old in it?Wed, 21 Jul 2010 06:08:36 GMTRick.Cornell.SMEhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic745564-146-1.aspxoops sorry, I was mislead by related posts to this morning article, I did not notice the post date.Tue, 20 Jul 2010 02:33:08 GMTkagemaruhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic745564-146-1.aspxPlease note: 18 month old thread.Tue, 20 Jul 2010 02:16:48 GMTGilaMonsterhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic745564-146-1.aspxcheck the SSC headline from today, there is a good explanation on this topicTue, 20 Jul 2010 01:54:18 GMTkagemaruhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic745564-146-1.aspxIn addition to what Gail has stated, the default for new databases in 2005 is CHECKSUM.Wed, 01 Jul 2009 14:10:06 GMTJeffrey Williams 3188http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic745564-146-1.aspxIt's not about security. Checksum page protection lets SQL pick up more forms of corruption than Torn page could, and also can show that said corruption is caused outside of SQL. There's a very small overhead in having it on, I think it's around a 2% hit. Personally I'd say that every SQL 2005+ database should have page protection set to checksum.Wed, 01 Jul 2009 10:54:51 GMTGilaMonsterhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic745564-146-1.aspxHi masters, I have a database in SQL Server 2000 that i'm converting (upgrading) to 2005.When i make the restore from the SQL Server 2000 in the SQL Server 2005, this database is still with the option of torn_page_detection on, and the checksum option is set to false.I'm thinking in changing the option from torn_page_detection to checksum, what do you think? I read that is more secure. Will i have any problems with my existing applications? what do you masters do in this case?thank you, PedroWed, 01 Jul 2009 10:00:13 GMTriver1