A big, big SSIS for everything?

Dear all,

I would like to hear point of views, thoughts and ideas about the following request.

As some of us would have seen from a couple a days ago I’ve been setting posts one after one in order to obtain some answers about our business basis.

We’ve got a service running all day long (to accomplish this it was wrote by Visual Basic 6.0) which is checking up a file structure system for a several requirements such a verify if exists a .nul or .txt in each folder and therefore fires a DTS package. Up to here that’s fine, that system works amazing and even is be able to run till three packages at the same time. 400 Dts are scheduled this way and 100 are scheduled by Agent.

Problem comes naturally with SQL2005 where such control is not possible (it seems so) from old tools belonging to Visual Studio 6.0 because the aforementioned version uses assemblies instead of dll, bla,bla.

Keeping in mind that .NET is not possible for reasons that going beyond of any technical matter or whatever I’ve thought do that service by SSIS. A big SSIS running forever. Its responsabilities might be:

1-Look in each folder for the criteria specified in the scheduling of that SSIS

2-Launch a specified SSIS in the case that criteria has matched.

3-Update SQL tables with LOGS, times, executions, etc,

4-Look again

The point 3 will be visible from our Intranet via ASP 3.0 pages as currently we do.

Pros and cons?

Sorry for this painful request but I don’t believe that such issue can be of that kind of odd issues that nodoby suffer in its organizations.

Who else is needed for answers?

Thanks a lot for your time,

I'm not quite sure what your question is. Are you saying you want to run a SSIS package forever that simply keeps looping whenever a file is found? I don't see a problem with that. it would be interesting to see how it goes.

-Jamie

|||

When finds a Jamie.Nul file in d:\server25k\a\ launch SSIS package B and then would delete that .NUL.

Sensible information attached in that SSIS launched as flat file for example, accounts info would be stored in a backup folder. After one execution come back to verify and so on

64gb memory - recommendations, etc..

Multi proc server with 64gb memory.
Applications that use SQL Server 2000 & 2005 run on this system.
Can someone point me to a site / document / any material that has
information about best practices, recommendations, etc about configuring SQL
Server to use this much of memory ?
Cheers
sqlcatzHere are some items that you can use to shed light on the issues with large
memory.
Configuration -Memory, Large Memory Support Is Available in Windows 2000
(AWE)
http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=283037
Configuration -Memory, SQL Server 7 & 2000 memory usage
http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=321363
Configuration -Memory, SQL Server Memory
http://sqljunkies.com/Tutorial/0D4FF40A-695C-4327-A41B-F9F2FE2D58F6.scuk
Configuration -Memory, SQL Server to use more than 2 GB of physical memory
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/274750/
Configuration -Memory, Using AWE Memory
http://www.sql-server-performance.com/awe_memory.asp
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
"SQLCatz" <SQLCatz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:F7C8E4BB-39A2-4898-88B3-AC0BEA469E19@.microsoft.com...
> Multi proc server with 64gb memory.
> Applications that use SQL Server 2000 & 2005 run on this system.
> Can someone point me to a site / document / any material that has
> information about best practices, recommendations, etc about configuring
> SQL
> Server to use this much of memory ?
> Cheers
> sqlcatz
>

64gb memory - recommendations, etc..

Multi proc server with 64gb memory.
Applications that use SQL Server 2000 & 2005 run on this system.
Can someone point me to a site / document / any material that has
information about best practices, recommendations, etc about configuring SQL
Server to use this much of memory ?
Cheers
sqlcatz
Here are some items that you can use to shed light on the issues with large
memory.
Configuration -Memory, Large Memory Support Is Available in Windows 2000
(AWE)
http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=283037
Configuration -Memory, SQL Server 7 & 2000 memory usage
http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=321363
Configuration -Memory, SQL Server Memory
http://sqljunkies.com/Tutorial/0D4FF...2FE2D58F6.scuk
Configuration -Memory, SQL Server to use more than 2 GB of physical memory
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/274750/
Configuration -Memory, Using AWE Memory
http://www.sql-server-performance.com/awe_memory.asp
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
"SQLCatz" <SQLCatz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:F7C8E4BB-39A2-4898-88B3-AC0BEA469E19@.microsoft.com...
> Multi proc server with 64gb memory.
> Applications that use SQL Server 2000 & 2005 run on this system.
> Can someone point me to a site / document / any material that has
> information about best practices, recommendations, etc about configuring
> SQL
> Server to use this much of memory ?
> Cheers
> sqlcatz
>

64gb memory - recommendations, etc..

Multi proc server with 64gb memory.
Applications that use SQL Server 2000 & 2005 run on this system.
Can someone point me to a site / document / any material that has
information about best practices, recommendations, etc about configuring SQL
Server to use this much of memory ?
Cheers
sqlcatzHere are some items that you can use to shed light on the issues with large
memory.
Configuration -Memory, Large Memory Support Is Available in Windows 2000
(AWE)
http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=283037
Configuration -Memory, SQL Server 7 & 2000 memory usage
http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=321363
Configuration -Memory, SQL Server Memory
http://sqljunkies.com/Tutorial/0D4F...F2FE2D58F6.scuk
Configuration -Memory, SQL Server to use more than 2 GB of physical memory
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/274750/
Configuration -Memory, Using AWE Memory
http://www.sql-server-performance.com/awe_memory.asp
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
"SQLCatz" <SQLCatz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:F7C8E4BB-39A2-4898-88B3-AC0BEA469E19@.microsoft.com...
> Multi proc server with 64gb memory.
> Applications that use SQL Server 2000 & 2005 run on this system.
> Can someone point me to a site / document / any material that has
> information about best practices, recommendations, etc about configuring
> SQL
> Server to use this much of memory ?
> Cheers
> sqlcatz
>

64-bit versus 32-bit

Is there a difference in SQL Server 2005 64-bit versus 32-bit from a
development or management point? I realize that there are differences in
the hardware requirements and that there is 32-bit, X64, and IA64 versions.
I wanted to know if sp's, back-ups, data types, queries and functions all
work and act the same.Hi,
There is no difference interms of development..The major differnece is in
handling the memory.
see this link to get the capacity specs for 32 and 64 bits:-
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143432.aspx
Thanks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
"Chris Ruggiero" <chris.ruggiero@.gaboing.com> wrote in message
news:edDAV1qxGHA.3500@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Is there a difference in SQL Server 2005 64-bit versus 32-bit from a
> development or management point? I realize that there are differences in
> the hardware requirements and that there is 32-bit, X64, and IA64
> versions. I wanted to know if sp's, back-ups, data types, queries and
> functions all work and act the same.
>|||Hi,
I'm new to SQL so any guidance is appreciated.
We have 3 MS SQL based applications currently running on SBS 2003 Premium.
As the data has grown so much, we will be purchasing a new server dedicated
to SQL alone. The new server will be 64 bit capable (Xeons not Itaniums).
Not understanding the mechanics of it all, my question is this :-
Will the current SQL databases run without modification if we purchased the
new server with 64bit Windows Server 2003 and 64bit SQL Server 2005 or are
32bit SQL databases not compatible with the 64bit SQL Server ?
and
If forced to, will the database (or SQL itself) run properly if we put in 64
bit Windows Server 2003 and 32 bit SQL Server 2005 ?
Thanks.
Kelvin
"Hari Prasad" wrote:
> Hi,
> There is no difference interms of development..The major differnece is in
> handling the memory.
> see this link to get the capacity specs for 32 and 64 bits:-
> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143432.aspx
> Thanks
> Hari
> SQL Server MVP
> "Chris Ruggiero" <chris.ruggiero@.gaboing.com> wrote in message
> news:edDAV1qxGHA.3500@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> > Is there a difference in SQL Server 2005 64-bit versus 32-bit from a
> > development or management point? I realize that there are differences in
> > the hardware requirements and that there is 32-bit, X64, and IA64
> > versions. I wanted to know if sp's, back-ups, data types, queries and
> > functions all work and act the same.
> >
>
>|||The database format is the same for 32 and 64 bit SQL Server. So you can both restore and attach a
database from 32 bit to 64 bit.
You can also run 32 bit SQL Server engine on 64 bit OS if x64. But I recommend pure 64 bit, of
course.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Kelvin" <Kelvin@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8A8F125A-CA70-4312-93B3-E2ECAE0F7F44@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I'm new to SQL so any guidance is appreciated.
> We have 3 MS SQL based applications currently running on SBS 2003 Premium.
> As the data has grown so much, we will be purchasing a new server dedicated
> to SQL alone. The new server will be 64 bit capable (Xeons not Itaniums).
> Not understanding the mechanics of it all, my question is this :-
> Will the current SQL databases run without modification if we purchased the
> new server with 64bit Windows Server 2003 and 64bit SQL Server 2005 or are
> 32bit SQL databases not compatible with the 64bit SQL Server ?
> and
> If forced to, will the database (or SQL itself) run properly if we put in 64
> bit Windows Server 2003 and 32 bit SQL Server 2005 ?
> Thanks.
> Kelvin
> "Hari Prasad" wrote:
>> Hi,
>> There is no difference interms of development..The major differnece is in
>> handling the memory.
>> see this link to get the capacity specs for 32 and 64 bits:-
>> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143432.aspx
>> Thanks
>> Hari
>> SQL Server MVP
>> "Chris Ruggiero" <chris.ruggiero@.gaboing.com> wrote in message
>> news:edDAV1qxGHA.3500@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> > Is there a difference in SQL Server 2005 64-bit versus 32-bit from a
>> > development or management point? I realize that there are differences in
>> > the hardware requirements and that there is 32-bit, X64, and IA64
>> > versions. I wanted to know if sp's, back-ups, data types, queries and
>> > functions all work and act the same.
>> >
>>|||"Kelvin" <Kelvin@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8A8F125A-CA70-4312-93B3-E2ECAE0F7F44@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I'm new to SQL so any guidance is appreciated.
> We have 3 MS SQL based applications currently running on SBS 2003 Premium.
> As the data has grown so much, we will be purchasing a new server
> dedicated
> to SQL alone. The new server will be 64 bit capable (Xeons not Itaniums).
> Not understanding the mechanics of it all, my question is this :-
> Will the current SQL databases run without modification if we purchased
> the
> new server with 64bit Windows Server 2003 and 64bit SQL Server 2005 or are
> 32bit SQL databases not compatible with the 64bit SQL Server ?
The database itself is compatible between 32-bit and 64-bit.
So you should have no problems.
> and
> If forced to, will the database (or SQL itself) run properly if we put in
> 64
> bit Windows Server 2003 and 32 bit SQL Server 2005 ?
> Thanks.
> Kelvin
> "Hari Prasad" wrote:
>> Hi,
>> There is no difference interms of development..The major differnece is in
>> handling the memory.
>> see this link to get the capacity specs for 32 and 64 bits:-
>> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143432.aspx
>> Thanks
>> Hari
>> SQL Server MVP
>> "Chris Ruggiero" <chris.ruggiero@.gaboing.com> wrote in message
>> news:edDAV1qxGHA.3500@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> > Is there a difference in SQL Server 2005 64-bit versus 32-bit from a
>> > development or management point? I realize that there are differences
>> > in
>> > the hardware requirements and that there is 32-bit, X64, and IA64
>> > versions. I wanted to know if sp's, back-ups, data types, queries and
>> > functions all work and act the same.
>> >
>>

64-bit versus 32-bit

Is there a difference in SQL Server 2005 64-bit versus 32-bit from a
development or management point? I realize that there are differences in
the hardware requirements and that there is 32-bit, X64, and IA64 versions.
I wanted to know if sp's, back-ups, data types, queries and functions all
work and act the same.Hi,
There is no difference interms of development..The major differnece is in
handling the memory.
see this link to get the capacity specs for 32 and 64 bits:-
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143432.aspx
Thanks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
"Chris Ruggiero" <chris.ruggiero@.gaboing.com> wrote in message
news:edDAV1qxGHA.3500@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Is there a difference in SQL Server 2005 64-bit versus 32-bit from a
> development or management point? I realize that there are differences in
> the hardware requirements and that there is 32-bit, X64, and IA64
> versions. I wanted to know if sp's, back-ups, data types, queries and
> functions all work and act the same.
>|||Hi,
I'm new to SQL so any guidance is appreciated.
We have 3 MS SQL based applications currently running on SBS 2003 Premium.
As the data has grown so much, we will be purchasing a new server dedicated
to SQL alone. The new server will be 64 bit capable (Xeons not Itaniums).
Not understanding the mechanics of it all, my question is this :-
Will the current SQL databases run without modification if we purchased the
new server with 64bit Windows Server 2003 and 64bit SQL Server 2005 or are
32bit SQL databases not compatible with the 64bit SQL Server ?
and
If forced to, will the database (or SQL itself) run properly if we put in 64
bit Windows Server 2003 and 32 bit SQL Server 2005 ?
Thanks.
Kelvin
"Hari Prasad" wrote:

> Hi,
> There is no difference interms of development..The major differnece is in
> handling the memory.
> see this link to get the capacity specs for 32 and 64 bits:-
> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143432.aspx
> Thanks
> Hari
> SQL Server MVP
> "Chris Ruggiero" <chris.ruggiero@.gaboing.com> wrote in message
> news:edDAV1qxGHA.3500@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>
>|||The database format is the same for 32 and 64 bit SQL Server. So you can bot
h restore and attach a
database from 32 bit to 64 bit.
You can also run 32 bit SQL Server engine on 64 bit OS if x64. But I recomme
nd pure 64 bit, of
course.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Kelvin" <Kelvin@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8A8F125A-CA70-4312-93B3-E2ECAE0F7F44@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi,
> I'm new to SQL so any guidance is appreciated.
> We have 3 MS SQL based applications currently running on SBS 2003 Premium.
> As the data has grown so much, we will be purchasing a new server dedicate
d
> to SQL alone. The new server will be 64 bit capable (Xeons not Itaniums).
> Not understanding the mechanics of it all, my question is this :-
> Will the current SQL databases run without modification if we purchased th
e
> new server with 64bit Windows Server 2003 and 64bit SQL Server 2005 or are
> 32bit SQL databases not compatible with the 64bit SQL Server ?
> and
> If forced to, will the database (or SQL itself) run properly if we put in
64
> bit Windows Server 2003 and 32 bit SQL Server 2005 ?
> Thanks.
> Kelvin
> "Hari Prasad" wrote:
>|||"Kelvin" <Kelvin@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8A8F125A-CA70-4312-93B3-E2ECAE0F7F44@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I'm new to SQL so any guidance is appreciated.
> We have 3 MS SQL based applications currently running on SBS 2003 Premium.
> As the data has grown so much, we will be purchasing a new server
> dedicated
> to SQL alone. The new server will be 64 bit capable (Xeons not Itaniums).
> Not understanding the mechanics of it all, my question is this :-
> Will the current SQL databases run without modification if we purchased
> the
> new server with 64bit Windows Server 2003 and 64bit SQL Server 2005 or are
> 32bit SQL databases not compatible with the 64bit SQL Server ?
The database itself is compatible between 32-bit and 64-bit.
So you should have no problems.
[vbcol=seagreen]
> and
> If forced to, will the database (or SQL itself) run properly if we put in
> 64
> bit Windows Server 2003 and 32 bit SQL Server 2005 ?
> Thanks.
> Kelvin
> "Hari Prasad" wrote:
>

64bit to 32bit connectivity

Main Point: Views I have on my 64bit server will UNION ALL to my 32bit server
to gather core data. The 32bit server view needs some staic data
(CountryCode) so it INNER JOINs back to the 64bit server to get the staic
data. This is extremely slow. On my 32bit => 32bit server it works fine, but
on this new 64bit => 32bit server it's dog slow.
Details:
My 32bit server has SP3a and the InstCat.sql from the 64bit
\SETUP\IA64\Install directory, I can now call my stored procedures that use
distributed views.
My previous server setup was:
Primary = OS Window Advanced Server 2000 32bit; 32bit SQL Server Enterprise
Secondary = OS Window Advanced Server 2000 32bit; 32bit SQL Server Enterprise
32bit Server (Primary;One Year of Data) + 32bit Server (Secondary; Seven
Years of Data)
My new server setup is:
Primary = OS Window Advanced Server 2000 64bit; 64bit SQL Server Enterprise
Secondary = OS Window Advanced Server 2000 32bit; 32bit SQL Server Enterprise
64bit Server (Primary;One Year of Data) + 32bit Server (Secondary; Seven
Years of Data)
The big problem: The views on the 64bit machine (64Views) UNION ALL to the
views on the 32bit machine (32Views) to allow me to retrieve data from both
machines. The concept of distributed views won't be discussed here for
brevity. These work fine.
But, as soon as I add to the 32Views, the SQL code that will INNER JOIN to
the CountryCodes static table on the 64bit machine it takes "forever"; 28
minutes to return a handful of records (162 to be exact). The reason for
doing this because I only want one location to store CountryCode details and
the 64bit machine is the primary machine to update these. I do have them on
the 32bit machine and I could change all my production machine databases to
look there, but I don't want to have to deal with this.
Tests:
On my previous setup of 32Views => 32Views => 32CountryCode, it works fine.
On a test of 64Views => 32Views, it works fine
Now, on the new setup of 64Views => 32Views => 64CountryCode, it is DOG SLOW.
Anyone help me. If you need some code I can probably put together a small
sample (instead of my big view sets). I will plan on that, but thought I
would at least get the question out into the newsgroup.
--
dbArchitect
Greg L. Wright"dbArchitect" <dbArchitect@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:EE5AFA0D-BE0C-43F6-B4AE-37D52498A6B2@.microsoft.com...
> Main Point: Views I have on my 64bit server will UNION ALL to my 32bit
> server
> to gather core data. The 32bit server view needs some staic data
> (CountryCode) so it INNER JOINs back to the 64bit server to get the staic
> data. This is extremely slow. On my 32bit => 32bit server it works fine,
> but
> on this new 64bit => 32bit server it's dog slow.
>
Apart from figuring out why this is slow (or figuring out how on earth it
was ever _not_ slow), this seems like a case for replicating the static data
to the 32bit servers. You could use one of the built-in Replication types
or just schedule a job that runs
insert into CountryCode
select * from 64bitServer.MyDB.CountryCode
David

64bit to 32bit connectivity

Main Point: Views I have on my 64bit server will UNION ALL to my 32bit serve
r
to gather core data. The 32bit server view needs some staic data
(CountryCode) so it INNER JOINs back to the 64bit server to get the staic
data. This is extremely slow. On my 32bit => 32bit server it works fine, but
on this new 64bit => 32bit server it's dog slow.
Details:
My 32bit server has SP3a and the InstCat.sql from the 64bit
\SETUP\IA64\Install directory, I can now call my stored procedures that use
distributed views.
My previous server setup was:
Primary = OS Window Advanced Server 2000 32bit; 32bit SQL Server Enterprise
Secondary = OS Window Advanced Server 2000 32bit; 32bit SQL Server Enterpris
e
32bit Server (Primary;One Year of Data) + 32bit Server (Secondary; Seven
Years of Data)
My new server setup is:
Primary = OS Window Advanced Server 2000 64bit; 64bit SQL Server Enterprise
Secondary = OS Window Advanced Server 2000 32bit; 32bit SQL Server Enterpris
e
64bit Server (Primary;One Year of Data) + 32bit Server (Secondary; Seven
Years of Data)
The big problem: The views on the 64bit machine (64Views) UNION ALL to the
views on the 32bit machine (32Views) to allow me to retrieve data from both
machines. The concept of distributed views won't be discussed here for
brevity. These work fine.
But, as soon as I add to the 32Views, the SQL code that will INNER JOIN to
the CountryCodes static table on the 64bit machine it takes "forever"; 28
minutes to return a handful of records (162 to be exact). The reason for
doing this because I only want one location to store CountryCode details and
the 64bit machine is the primary machine to update these. I do have them on
the 32bit machine and I could change all my production machine databases to
look there, but I don't want to have to deal with this.
Tests:
On my previous setup of 32Views => 32Views => 32CountryCode, it works fine.
On a test of 64Views => 32Views, it works fine
Now, on the new setup of 64Views => 32Views => 64CountryCode, it is DOG SLOW
.
Anyone help me. If you need some code I can probably put together a small
sample (instead of my big view sets). I will plan on that, but thought I
would at least get the question out into the newsgroup.
dbArchitect
Greg L. Wright"dbArchitect" <dbArchitect@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:EE5AFA0D-BE0C-43F6-B4AE-37D52498A6B2@.microsoft.com...
> Main Point: Views I have on my 64bit server will UNION ALL to my 32bit
> server
> to gather core data. The 32bit server view needs some staic data
> (CountryCode) so it INNER JOINs back to the 64bit server to get the staic
> data. This is extremely slow. On my 32bit => 32bit server it works fine,
> but
> on this new 64bit => 32bit server it's dog slow.
>
Apart from figuring out why this is slow (or figuring out how on earth it
was ever _not_ slow), this seems like a case for replicating the static data
to the 32bit servers. You could use one of the built-in Replication types
or just schedule a job that runs
insert into CountryCode
select * from 64bitServer.MyDB.CountryCode
David

64 bit

is there a service pack for 64-bit sql server? if so, please point me to
where i can find it.
thanks.
i forgot to say sql server 2000 64-bit
"Mark" <mark_kurten@.acordia.com> wrote in message
news:eJ0xsxzTFHA.3952@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> is there a service pack for 64-bit sql server? if so, please point me to
> where i can find it.
> thanks.
>

64 bit

is there a service pack for 64-bit sql server? if so, please point me to
where i can find it.
thanks.i forgot to say sql server 2000 64-bit
"Mark" <mark_kurten@.acordia.com> wrote in message
news:eJ0xsxzTFHA.3952@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> is there a service pack for 64-bit sql server? if so, please point me to
> where i can find it.
> thanks.
>

64 bit

is there a service pack for 64-bit sql server? if so, please point me to
where i can find it.
thanks.i forgot to say sql server 2000 64-bit
"Mark" <mark_kurten@.acordia.com> wrote in message
news:eJ0xsxzTFHA.3952@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> is there a service pack for 64-bit sql server? if so, please point me to
> where i can find it.
> thanks.
>

400 Linked Server to SQL Server via IBMDA400

I am running V5R2 on client and am trying to link a 400 from SQL Server
2000.
Can this be done using IBMDA400?
I have gotten to a point with the IBM DB2 UDB that I can connect without
error. But now I can't see my tables.
This is what I am using for my provider string:
User ID=USERNAME;Password=PASSWORD;Initial Catalog=DATABASE_NAME;Data
Source=AS_400_SERVER_NAME
I have also checked the In Process checkbox that some have talked about
needing to be checked.
Any assistance is appreciated.
Thanks,
JasonHi,
I had the the same problem for a time, and I don't want to check all the NG
you have crossposted to, so I don't know if you already had an answer, but
here it is anyway :
Add "Catalog Library List=Lib1 Lib2 Lib3" in the connect string where "Lib1
Lib2 Lib3" is the list of your iseries library you want to browse the tables
and views. The list can be space separated or coma separated.
HTH
Christophe Niel
Remove 'nospam' to mail me.
"Jason Penner" <pennerjason@.hotmail.com> a crit dans le message de
news:%23SqrM%23A8DHA.2028@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> I am running V5R2 on client and am trying to link a 400 from SQL Server
> 2000.
> Can this be done using IBMDA400?
> I have gotten to a point with the IBM DB2 UDB that I can connect without
> error. But now I can't see my tables.
> This is what I am using for my provider string:
> User ID=USERNAME;Password=PASSWORD;Initial Catalog=DATABASE_NAME;Data
> Source=AS_400_SERVER_NAME
> I have also checked the In Process checkbox that some have talked about
> needing to be checked.
> Any assistance is appreciated.
> Thanks,
> Jason
>