http://www.grumpyolddba.co.uk/monitoring/Creating%20Custom%20Reports%20for%20the%20DBA.htm

is an article about custom reports but if you extract the sql from the reports this might give you what you want - or at least a hint. I'm not...

not that this helps but I'm glad someone else has encountered this - I did lots of testing and found that I needed the database in exclusive ( single user...

if you mean can you have three nodes where one is the failover for the other two then the answer is yes. Have I installed or configured one - no...

you did test this first ???? I would have thought you would have installed a storage virtualisation product with your sql servers safely shut down. I don't know...

I posted this - it may help - follow on some of the links

http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/grumpyolddba/archive/2008/01/06/configuring-windows-2003-x64-for-sql-server.aspx

usual stuff applies - if you have ent x64 sql then you need to set lock pages...

scaling isn't about numbers of objects but of usage so in effect your question can never be answered. Your only way to answer your question is to stress test...

interesting - a volatile table will present problems - I'd personally try to make sure that the table(s) functions as a heap so all new records are added at...

in general dmv's are cumulative so you need snapshots into a table - but I'm not quite sure what you're trying to achieve so if you want to drop me...

I'd probably suggest you find an experienced DBA as this isn't a simple question to answer. latches are lightweight "locks" and generally not too much to worry about, if lock...

sorry but i disagree about the post, storage and server o/s tuning are all part of the DBA skill set and this is a valid question on a SQL site.

just...

I can only make general observations from experience with SAN's ..

are your luns dedicated spindles - if not then you will have contention.

are all your trays/luns on the same...

I can't say as I've noted any issues with inserts - however, if your inserts are being put up and down the table and not on top , as per...

as said, it's tricky to make recommendations in this situation, however, SQL2005 is much fusier with optimiser and plan reuse than sql2000 was, this is a common happening and my...

good to say i've not encountered that level of, I was going to say stupidity, but to be honest very little fails to amaze me these days!

sorry for any confusion...

actually you'd do better to allocate an instance to each user rather than a database. If this isn't production you could consider some levsl of virtualisation too