Did not clear up transaction log after backup?

I performed a complete database backup using the backup wizard and checked
"Remove inactive entries from transaction log". After the backup was
completed, I discovered that the size of the transaction log did not go down.
How can I clear the transaction log?
Hi
BACKUP LOG file and the DBCC SHRINKFILE command ( for more details please
refer to BOL)
"joeau" <joeau@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B0DF5822-6FCE-411B-8603-BD0F64E13DAD@.microsoft.com...
> I performed a complete database backup using the backup wizard and checked
> "Remove inactive entries from transaction log". After the backup was
> completed, I discovered that the size of the transaction log did not go
down.
> How can I clear the transaction log?

Did not clear up transaction log after backup?

I performed a complete database backup using the backup wizard and checked
"Remove inactive entries from transaction log". After the backup was
completed, I discovered that the size of the transaction log did not go down
.
How can I clear the transaction log?Hi
BACKUP LOG file and the DBCC SHRINKFILE command ( for more details please
refer to BOL)
"joeau" <joeau@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B0DF5822-6FCE-411B-8603-BD0F64E13DAD@.microsoft.com...
> I performed a complete database backup using the backup wizard and checked
> "Remove inactive entries from transaction log". After the backup was
> completed, I discovered that the size of the transaction log did not go
down.
> How can I clear the transaction log?

Did not clear up transaction log after backup?

I performed a complete database backup using the backup wizard and checked
"Remove inactive entries from transaction log". After the backup was
completed, I discovered that the size of the transaction log did not go down.
How can I clear the transaction log?Hi
BACKUP LOG file and the DBCC SHRINKFILE command ( for more details please
refer to BOL)
"joeau" <joeau@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B0DF5822-6FCE-411B-8603-BD0F64E13DAD@.microsoft.com...
> I performed a complete database backup using the backup wizard and checked
> "Remove inactive entries from transaction log". After the backup was
> completed, I discovered that the size of the transaction log did not go
down.
> How can I clear the transaction log?

Dialog Security questions

Hi Remus

Thank you for the email reply.

However i am still not 100% clear, dialog security with certificates when there are hundreds of remote services seems a bit complicated.

I have a few more questions.

1. you said "When sending the first message (any direction), we look up the 'best' certificate for each user"

My inititor sevice is owned by dbo, i have created certificates only for named users not dbo, how would this work?

2. I am going to try settin gup this again, but at the central service i will create a seprate user for each remote service, authorize the remote certificate for this user and use this user in the remote service binding for that remote service, is this correct or am i still doing somehting wrong?

3. How does all of this relate to the endpoint security, i ahve the same scenario, 1 pricipal id with all remote certificates authorized for it for the endpoint? I have no idea how i would have to setup different user for each remote servcie as far as the endpoint goes as there is no remote service binding to dictate which user to use ?

I will keep try and experimenting maybe i will get it right sooner or later.

Thank You

Dietz wrote:

1. you said "When sending the first message (any direction), we look up the 'best' certificate for each user". My inititor sevice is owned by dbo, i have created certificates only for named users not dbo, how would this work?

If 'dbo' is the owner of the service, then dbo must have a certificate. I'm not a fan of having dbo own the services, but there isn't anything to prevent this from working.

Dietz wrote:

2. I am going to try settin gup this again, but at the central service i will create a seprate user for each remote service, authorize the remote certificate for this user and use this user in the remote service binding for that remote service, is this correct or am i still doing somehting wrong?

Yes, you will need a separate user for each service you are trying to address.

Dietz wrote:

3. How does all of this relate to the endpoint security, i ahve the same scenario, 1 pricipal id with all remote certificates authorized for it for the endpoint? I have no idea how i would have to setup different user for each remote servcie as far as the endpoint goes as there is no remote service binding to dictate which user to use ?

Dialog messages may hop multiple hosts (forwarders) and may be stored by intermediaries for a long time. This loosely coupled patern of dialogs prevents them from being able to do a handshake before exchanging messages. If the initiator is up from 6 am to 6 pm and the target is up from 6 pm to 6 am, a handshake involving 3 messages (quite typical in world of security: a request, a chalenge and a response to the challenge) would mean that any new dialog would first have to wait more than 24 hours for the handshake to complete. W/o the luxury of a handshake, dialogs must choose upfront the appropiate certificate to use. This is why dialog security needs a concept like a 'remote service binding', that binds the remote service name to a certificate to be used before sending the first message.

Endpoints/transport security on the other hand is always between two instances that can open a direct connection, so they can afford the luxury of a handshake. So there is no need to choose a certificate upfront, a handshake can exchange and then validate the certificates used (there's nothing new here, this is how SSL and TLS were working for years). As a result, there is no need for a concept like a 'remote endpoint binding'. This also implies that you can have one user own all the endpoint certificates from all the peers.

Thanks,
~ Remus

P.S. I've split your original post because I don't like 2 page threads, I have to scroll down all the time to get to the second page.

|||

Hi Remus

Thank you very much for all your help, i guess i am just going to have to keeping messing around until i truely understand it.

Thank you for all the assistance, i have this working now with a user for each remote service, i still dont understand how to properly create a non dbo certified user on both sides, and i cannot find any examples, i will just keep messing around i guess that is the best wat to learn.

Thanx

|||

"If 'dbo' is the owner of the service, then dbo must have a certificate. I'm not a fan of having dbo own the services, but there isn't anything to prevent this from working."

I would love to not use dbo, however i cannot find a good code examples with the proper steps and explanations on how to do this? Only good example i have uses dbo. Only other example i have found not using dbo is too simple for my solution with hundreds of possible initiators, and i am not sure how to implement properly. No offense but BOL sucks, and i cannot find any decent examples and the webcasts on service broker are very high level. Bottom line is that finding good Service broker resources on this type of scenario is virutally impossible.

But i do really do appreciate your feedback, Thanx

|||

You should use either the AUTHORIZATION clause of the CREATE statement, either the ALTER AUTHORIZATION statement. Here is an example:

-- when starting from scratch

create user [InitiatorServiceUser] without login;

create certificate [InitiatorServiceCertificate]

authorization [InitiatorServiceUser]

with subject = 'InitiatorService';

create service [InitiatorService]

authorization [InitiatorServiceUser]

on queue q;

-- when changing an existing 'dbo' owned service and certificate

create user [InitiatorServiceUser] without login;

alter authorization on certificate::[InitiatorServiceCertificate] to [InitiatorServiceUser];

alter authorization on service::[InitiatorService] to [InitiatorServiceUser];

HTH,
~ Remus

|||

Thanx Remus

This is also the section in Roger Wolter's book under dialog securoty that i did nto understand since i never did it and everything worked.

Does dbo automatically have any certificate cereated in the database, if not i dont really understand how it works without running this. But thanx for the answer i will do this in future Thanx

Developer limitation under SQL 2005 under Vista Ultimate 64 bit

Just to be clear, I would like to know if a problem I face is due to an error on my part or a limitation on Microsoft's. In my experience (several hours-long installations, removals, reinstallations, using the skuupgrade=1 parameter from the command line, ad nauseum) I have concluded that the best one can do installing SQL Server 2005 Developer Edition from the Visual Studio 2005 Professional Edition package is to get the Express Edition, (actually styled MSSMLBIZ). In particular, what I'm hoping to be able to do is program to a test database that I have from my client, which I was able to do on my XP Professional machine. But on my new Vista Ultimate 64 bit machine (which will only let me install the x64 version of SQL Server 2005), I get an instance that is characterized as SQL Server Express and generates the following error message when I try to attach to the same MDF file to which I was able to attach under my prior, XP-Pro based configuration:

TITLE: Microsoft SQL Server Management Studio

Attach database failed for Server 'ZAPHOD42\MSSMLBIZ'. (Microsoft.SqlServer.Smo)

For help, click: http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink?ProdName=Microsoft+SQL+Server&ProdVer=9.00.3042.00&EvtSrc=Microsoft.SqlServer.Management.Smo.ExceptionTemplates.FailedOperationExceptionText&EvtID=Attach+database+Server&LinkId=20476

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

An exception occurred while executing a Transact-SQL statement or batch. (Microsoft.SqlServer.ConnectionInfo)

CREATE DATABASE or ALTER DATABASE failed because the resulting cumulative database size would exceed your licensed limit of 4096 MB per database. (Microsoft SQL Server, Error: 1827)

For help, click: http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink?ProdName=Microsoft+SQL+Server&ProdVer=09.00.3054&EvtSrc=MSSQLServer&EvtID=1827&LinkId=20476

BUTTONS:

OK

===================================================================================
The following is the Help obtained when clicking on the button on the error msg and the references in the error msg:
===================================================================================
Details
ID: Attach database Server
Source: Microsoft.SqlServer.Management.Smo.ExceptionTemplates.FailedOperationExceptionText

We're sorry
There is no additional information about this issue in the Error and Event Log Messages or Knowledge Base databases at this time. You can use the links in the Support area to determine whether any additional information might be available elsewhere.

--

Thank you for searching on this message; your search helps us identify those areas for which we need to provide more information.

Currently there are no Microsoft Knowledge Base articles available for this specific error or event message. For information about other support options you can use to find answers online, see http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx.

==================

Details
ID: 1827
Source: MSSQLServer

We're sorry
There is no additional information about this issue in the Error and Event Log Messages or Knowledge Base databases at this time. You can use the links in the Support area to determine whether any additional information might be available elsewhere.
Thank you for searching on this message; your search helps us identify those areas for which we need to provide more information.

==========End of reproduction of error messages and help text ====================================

The Developer Edition, of course, is supposed to enable us to program to all levels of the database, and I would hate to think it is really crippled in this way, but after uninstalling everything, reinstalling multiple times (devoting several days to the process), it sure beats me how I can overcome this problem short of going back to my old machine. Any definitive answers on this apparent limitation, or useful procedural advice on installation quirks, would be appreciated (and, yes, I've spent a lot of time going through the installation/setup forum -- if the answer is there I can't find it).

Seems as you want to attach a user database to a Express instance ? What is the output if you connect to the mentioned server and execute the following command: SELECT @.@.Version ?

Jens K. Suessmeyer

http://www.sqlserver2005.de

|||The server is my local machine, and I cannot attach to the database on it, as I tried to explain above, because the database is too big. When I run the command you suggest without attaching a specific database, the following output is obtained:

Microsofty SQL Server 2005 - 9.00.3054.00 (Intel X86) Mar 23 2007 16:28:52 Copyright (c) 1988-2005 Microsoft Corporation Express Ediition on Windows NT 6.0 (Build 6000

I must say the X86 reference surprises me. I hope this means more to you than it does to me.
Bob

|||

Using a SQL Server Express edition you are limited to 4GB database size (all databases in sum of the instance)

Jens K. Suessmeyer

http://www.sqlserver2005.de

|||

I face the same problem... I have a Vista ultimate x64 and I tried to attach a small MDF to SQLexpress and I had an error. It's the same if I try to create a new db?

could you give me some help

Developer limitation under SQL 2005 under Vista Ultimate 64 bit

Just to be clear, I would like to know if a problem I face is due to an error on my part or a limitation on Microsoft's. In my experience (several hours-long installations, removals, reinstallations, using the skuupgrade=1 parameter from the command line, ad nauseum) I have concluded that the best one can do installing SQL Server 2005 Developer Edition from the Visual Studio 2005 Professional Edition package is to get the Express Edition, (actually styled MSSMLBIZ). In particular, what I'm hoping to be able to do is program to a test database that I have from my client, which I was able to do on my XP Professional machine. But on my new Vista Ultimate 64 bit machine (which will only let me install the x64 version of SQL Server 2005), I get an instance that is characterized as SQL Server Express and generates the following error message when I try to attach to the same MDF file to which I was able to attach under my prior, XP-Pro based configuration:

TITLE: Microsoft SQL Server Management Studio

Attach database failed for Server 'ZAPHOD42\MSSMLBIZ'. (Microsoft.SqlServer.Smo)

For help, click: http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink?ProdName=Microsoft+SQL+Server&ProdVer=9.00.3042.00&EvtSrc=Microsoft.SqlServer.Management.Smo.ExceptionTemplates.FailedOperationExceptionText&EvtID=Attach+database+Server&LinkId=20476

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

An exception occurred while executing a Transact-SQL statement or batch. (Microsoft.SqlServer.ConnectionInfo)

CREATE DATABASE or ALTER DATABASE failed because the resulting cumulative database size would exceed your licensed limit of 4096 MB per database. (Microsoft SQL Server, Error: 1827)

For help, click: http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink?ProdName=Microsoft+SQL+Server&ProdVer=09.00.3054&EvtSrc=MSSQLServer&EvtID=1827&LinkId=20476

BUTTONS:

OK

===================================================================================
The following is the Help obtained when clicking on the button on the error msg and the references in the error msg:
===================================================================================
Details
ID: Attach database Server
Source: Microsoft.SqlServer.Management.Smo.ExceptionTemplates.FailedOperationExceptionText

We're sorry
There is no additional information about this issue in the Error and Event Log Messages or Knowledge Base databases at this time. You can use the links in the Support area to determine whether any additional information might be available elsewhere.

--

Thank you for searching on this message; your search helps us identify those areas for which we need to provide more information.

Currently there are no Microsoft Knowledge Base articles available for this specific error or event message. For information about other support options you can use to find answers online, see http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx.

==================

Details
ID: 1827
Source: MSSQLServer

We're sorry
There is no additional information about this issue in the Error and Event Log Messages or Knowledge Base databases at this time. You can use the links in the Support area to determine whether any additional information might be available elsewhere.
Thank you for searching on this message; your search helps us identify those areas for which we need to provide more information.

==========End of reproduction of error messages and help text ====================================

The Developer Edition, of course, is supposed to enable us to program to all levels of the database, and I would hate to think it is really crippled in this way, but after uninstalling everything, reinstalling multiple times (devoting several days to the process), it sure beats me how I can overcome this problem short of going back to my old machine. Any definitive answers on this apparent limitation, or useful procedural advice on installation quirks, would be appreciated (and, yes, I've spent a lot of time going through the installation/setup forum -- if the answer is there I can't find it).

Seems as you want to attach a user database to a Express instance ? What is the output if you connect to the mentioned server and execute the following command: SELECT @.@.Version ?

Jens K. Suessmeyer

http://www.sqlserver2005.de

|||The server is my local machine, and I cannot attach to the database on it, as I tried to explain above, because the database is too big. When I run the command you suggest without attaching a specific database, the following output is obtained:

Microsofty SQL Server 2005 - 9.00.3054.00 (Intel X86) Mar 23 2007 16:28:52 Copyright (c) 1988-2005 Microsoft Corporation Express Ediition on Windows NT 6.0 (Build 6000

I must say the X86 reference surprises me. I hope this means more to you than it does to me.
Bob

|||

Using a SQL Server Express edition you are limited to 4GB database size (all databases in sum of the instance)

Jens K. Suessmeyer

http://www.sqlserver2005.de

|||

I face the same problem... I have a Vista ultimate x64 and I tried to attach a small MDF to SQLexpress and I had an error. It's the same if I try to create a new db?

could you give me some help

Developer 2005 Connection Limit

I have looked online but cannot find a clear answer to whether Microsoft SQL
Server 2005 Developer Edition has a maximum connection limit? I see that
SQL Express has 25 maximum connections.
If anyone knows that answer it would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks!Hi Jim
Maximum Capacity specifications are available at
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143432.aspx You can have 32,767
user connections.
John
"Jim Norton" wrote:
> I have looked online but cannot find a clear answer to whether Microsoft SQL
> Server 2005 Developer Edition has a maximum connection limit? I see that
> SQL Express has 25 maximum connections.
> If anyone knows that answer it would be greatly appreciated.
> Thanks!
>
>|||Hi Jim
I would be interested where you got 25 connections from!
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/msde2sqlexpress.mspx
states
Note: If SQL Server 2005 Express is running on Windows XP Home, it is
limited to five simultaneous connections. If it is running on Windows 2000 or
Windows XP Professional, it is limited to 10 simultaneous connections.
However, these are limitations of the operating system and not of SQL Server
2005 Express.
But nothing about any other limit!
John
"John Bell" wrote:
> Hi Jim
> Maximum Capacity specifications are available at
> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143432.aspx You can have 32,767
> user connections.
> John
> "Jim Norton" wrote:
> > I have looked online but cannot find a clear answer to whether Microsoft SQL
> > Server 2005 Developer Edition has a maximum connection limit? I see that
> > SQL Express has 25 maximum connections.
> >
> > If anyone knows that answer it would be greatly appreciated.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> >
> >|||Hi John,
Funny, I can't find where I found that but it appears you are correct. I
saw some references online that the Devloper edition of SQL may or may not
have a CAL or connection limit imposed because it is intended for
development purposes only and I am trying to determine if that will impact
my test environment before I set it up. The Max Capacity specs dont really
break down the different versions so I am still a little nervous.
"John Bell" <jbellnewsposts@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:81BA8EF8-E085-4377-BC85-68F5722434E7@.microsoft.com...
> Hi Jim
> I would be interested where you got 25 connections from!
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/msde2sqlexpress.mspx
> states
> Note: If SQL Server 2005 Express is running on Windows XP Home, it is
> limited to five simultaneous connections. If it is running on Windows 2000
> or
> Windows XP Professional, it is limited to 10 simultaneous connections.
> However, these are limitations of the operating system and not of SQL
> Server
> 2005 Express.
> But nothing about any other limit!
> John
> "John Bell" wrote:
>> Hi Jim
>> Maximum Capacity specifications are available at
>> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143432.aspx You can have
>> 32,767
>> user connections.
>> John
>> "Jim Norton" wrote:
>> > I have looked online but cannot find a clear answer to whether
>> > Microsoft SQL
>> > Server 2005 Developer Edition has a maximum connection limit? I see
>> > that
>> > SQL Express has 25 maximum connections.
>> >
>> > If anyone knows that answer it would be greatly appreciated.
>> >
>> > Thanks!
>> >
>> >
>> >|||"Jim Norton" <joe@.joe.com> wrote in message
news:%23dETmctmGHA.4728@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Hi John,
> Funny, I can't find where I found that but it appears you are correct. I
> saw some references online that the Devloper edition of SQL may or may not
> have a CAL or connection limit imposed because it is intended for
> development purposes only and I am trying to determine if that will impact
> my test environment before I set it up. The Max Capacity specs dont
really
> break down the different versions so I am still a little nervous.
The Developer edition is "basically" the Enterprise Edition, but licensed
for developer use only.
I haven't heard about SQL 2005 Express having any inherent limits itself.
> "John Bell" <jbellnewsposts@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:81BA8EF8-E085-4377-BC85-68F5722434E7@.microsoft.com...
> > Hi Jim
> >
> > I would be interested where you got 25 connections from!
> >
> >
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/msde2sqlexpress.mspx
> > states
> >
> > Note: If SQL Server 2005 Express is running on Windows XP Home, it is
> > limited to five simultaneous connections. If it is running on Windows
2000
> > or
> > Windows XP Professional, it is limited to 10 simultaneous connections.
> > However, these are limitations of the operating system and not of SQL
> > Server
> > 2005 Express.
> >
> > But nothing about any other limit!
> >
> > John
> >
> > "John Bell" wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Jim
> >>
> >> Maximum Capacity specifications are available at
> >> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143432.aspx You can have
> >> 32,767
> >> user connections.
> >>
> >> John
> >>
> >> "Jim Norton" wrote:
> >>
> >> > I have looked online but cannot find a clear answer to whether
> >> > Microsoft SQL
> >> > Server 2005 Developer Edition has a maximum connection limit? I see
> >> > that
> >> > SQL Express has 25 maximum connections.
> >> >
> >> > If anyone knows that answer it would be greatly appreciated.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks!
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
>|||Hi Jim
You could look at SELECT @.@.MAX_CONNECTIONS to see what value you have! It
could be that your system is overloaded in other areas before the maximim
number of connections is reached.
John
"Jim Norton" wrote:
> Hi John,
> Funny, I can't find where I found that but it appears you are correct. I
> saw some references online that the Devloper edition of SQL may or may not
> have a CAL or connection limit imposed because it is intended for
> development purposes only and I am trying to determine if that will impact
> my test environment before I set it up. The Max Capacity specs dont really
> break down the different versions so I am still a little nervous.
> "John Bell" <jbellnewsposts@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:81BA8EF8-E085-4377-BC85-68F5722434E7@.microsoft.com...
> > Hi Jim
> >
> > I would be interested where you got 25 connections from!
> >
> > http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/msde2sqlexpress.mspx
> > states
> >
> > Note: If SQL Server 2005 Express is running on Windows XP Home, it is
> > limited to five simultaneous connections. If it is running on Windows 2000
> > or
> > Windows XP Professional, it is limited to 10 simultaneous connections.
> > However, these are limitations of the operating system and not of SQL
> > Server
> > 2005 Express.
> >
> > But nothing about any other limit!
> >
> > John
> >
> > "John Bell" wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Jim
> >>
> >> Maximum Capacity specifications are available at
> >> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143432.aspx You can have
> >> 32,767
> >> user connections.
> >>
> >> John
> >>
> >> "Jim Norton" wrote:
> >>
> >> > I have looked online but cannot find a clear answer to whether
> >> > Microsoft SQL
> >> > Server 2005 Developer Edition has a maximum connection limit? I see
> >> > that
> >> > SQL Express has 25 maximum connections.
> >> >
> >> > If anyone knows that answer it would be greatly appreciated.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks!
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
>
>