Viewing 15 posts - 1,231 through 1,245 (of 4,745 total)
good question I think. Reminds people of the function (or brings it to their attention for the first time) so its educational, but steve put a little twist in it...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
January 11, 2012 at 10:46 am
I would surmise 3MB was its default size.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
January 11, 2012 at 7:43 am
Interesting, thanks for posting that back.
Just curious, if you did still use truncateonly (naughty 🙂 ), what did the file shrink to?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
January 11, 2012 at 6:42 am
🙂
---------------------------------------------------------------------
January 11, 2012 at 3:26 am
I would not expect it to give the error you see, but anyway the truncateonly option has no effect when applied to a log shrink
I have used this script...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
January 11, 2012 at 3:20 am
I would not expect it to give the error you see, but anyway the truncateonly option has no effect when applied to a log shrink
---------------------------------------------------------------------
January 10, 2012 at 3:29 pm
that figure you remember of 10 databases on a 32bit server sounds like how many databases you can MIRROR on one server.
Even that is not a hard and fast...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
January 10, 2012 at 6:51 am
definitely no.
SQL browser should be running when you have multiple instances
---------------------------------------------------------------------
January 10, 2012 at 6:45 am
have you ticked the 'include updates' box?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
January 10, 2012 at 6:21 am
There seem to be more sites out there that say the SMK gets created when it is needed to encrypt another key, including technet. However there are also some that...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
January 9, 2012 at 1:05 pm
thanks for posting that back.
One thing I forgot to mention it would now be worth defragmenting your indexes as the move about of the data is likely to have fragmented...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
January 9, 2012 at 7:59 am
If the data is truly read only then I have no qualms with not backing up that data less frequently.
sorry, what? 🙂
---------------------------------------------------------------------
January 8, 2012 at 4:26 pm
note : 7 year old thread last posted to 3 and a half years ago - I highly recommend you post your question in a new thread (i.e add a...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
January 7, 2012 at 4:59 pm
just to be different, if the data is not changing, I would probably go for weekly. Why waste the resources (including tape) if the data is not changing?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
January 6, 2012 at 10:41 am
If your failover site is for high availability or DR purposes and you don't require access to the failover database in normal circumstances I would never recommend replication as the...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
January 6, 2012 at 6:16 am
Viewing 15 posts - 1,231 through 1,245 (of 4,745 total)