@DustinB3403 said in Microsoft SQL Express 2005 - Complete Database Backup - help:

@coliver said in Microsoft SQL Express 2005 - Complete Database Backup - help:

@DustinB3403 said in Microsoft SQL Express 2005 - Complete Database Backup - help:

And I have a feeling the software is crap... that or I'm just doing this wrong..

You might be doing it wrong. The basic/free version is very limited, from what we saw. What are you having issues with?

Oh sorry I'm not trialing that backup software yet.

I'm using the built in tools from the application vendor to try and restore a .BAK into a clean installation.

Oh, I see.

That looks like a win if you didn't need any data from that system...

Export the Schema just in case, lol.

Getting lots of eyes on this thread today. Very interesting.

@StrongBad said in Need to Extract PostgreSQL Schema for Clean Database:

This is what I get...

postgres@~ 2$ pg_dump -p 5023 -n portaltest pg_dump: specified schema "portaltest" does not exist

portal_2___error_by_half_dude-d3h8bys.jpg

In this case, it was a matter of the settings during the restore.

Under GENERAL you had to select your source and destination as normal. Destination was changed so that it was the new History file. Under FILES you updated the DB and LOG files to reflect the new DB, otherwise you would over write the originals.

This is where they borked it. They didn't mention FILES only going to OPTIONS, and there is where they mentioned updating the file names. The main discovery was that you need to uncheck LEAVE Source database in the restoring state.

When I emailed them about removing the 'borked' databases I had created the called me back. I mentioned it to the fellow and we had a short discussion on the matter where he took notes and agreed that the directions were incorrect. When I got to the part about unchecking LEAVE Source database in the restoring state he mentioned that he uncheck Take tail-log backup before restore

Hope this helps.

0_1460118217976_2016-04-08 08_22_29-NTG - SSI-SQL01 - Connected.png

https://channel9.msdn.com/Shows/Data-Exposed/SQL-Server-on-Linux-Sneak-Peak

@wrx7m said:

I have supported FM server here for the past 5.5 years (Versions 10-13, so far). It is OK from a small-scale perspective but like you said above, you don't want to look small-scale, especially since you will almost surely trap yourself. As far as I can tell, FM does not scale well. Our FM guy is a co-owner and taught himself how to create and maintain FM databases and he is pretty good at it. However, I am sure there are things he has done that were taking the long way around with a sort of house of cards effect. I would say that over half of our business relies on the 25 or so databases he has created.

I supported FM for a company, NTG's second MSP customer, actually, for over a decade and it does its job well enough for what it is. But there is no doubt that it's extremely limiting in every possible way. They use it for a three person office that was two people in 2001 when the company started and grew to whopping.... two people over a decade later. During the summers they go up to three people for a few months during their busy season. For a company with zero growth and no high reliability demands (it can be down for a month at times without an issue) it worked fine. But, very limiting and they have had to pay a bit for it over the years and I'm not sure that a spreadsheet would not have been cheaper and easier.

@antonit said:

What is the default db admin?

root

They work very differently too. MySQL's features vary significantly based on which engine is in use. They perform differently, have different relational abilities, store differently on disk (MyISAM is one file per table, InnoDB is one file for everything) and use different tools.

It is a very cool tool.

Holy crap, yeah, that's not useful at all. No wonder they do not publish the prices anywhere. The old rule of thumb applies: if the price isn't public, the price isn't good.

Great!

Got it solved. I started pointing them at a new server (basically starting from scratch). Still got some inconsistencies but that was resolved by toggling the agent to the new server (after I already pointed it at it). Then I fixed the last couple with a disk allocation mod. What a mind-blowing, super frustrating piece of software.

If anyone is interested, Robert for Microsoft on Spiceworks was a huge help on this issue. He has really helped me narrow it down and given me a possible resolution.

http://community.spiceworks.com/topic/1175896-allocation-error-in-sql-database

@Dashrender said:

The question from me is, Is the effected version of VMware 6 an effected version because of a patch they released or an RTM problem?

Isn't every version patched at some level? There isn't just one version.

Me too, that sounds good now that you say it.

I am staying with my dad too, here in the land of pizza, subs and fish frys.

@Dashrender said:

The quote indicates leaving 6 billion on the table, i.e. shrinking the market value... sure they are talking about increasing their own share, but the market overall would be shrinking. Wouldn't others step in to bring the market back to the full 9 billion? or am I missing something? the market has already shown that it's willing to pay at least 9 billion to do what they do.

The market was willing to pay $9bn when no other options existed. Other options now exist. Like any market, competition shrinks markets. Just like how IBM, HP and Dell have decimated the server market total size by lowering the cost per company. And how Amazon has. But as we have seen Amazon killing the server market still makes Amazon a LOT of money!