Comments
Sort by recent activity
I am using the most recent version (can't check now but I just did the web update a few days ago). Is it possible that I focused a different database in the main UI *before* clicking Retry? / comments
I am using the most recent version (can't check now but I just did the web update a few days ago). Is it possible that I focused a different database in the main UI *before* clicking Retry?
Hi Chris,
When you do upgrade to 6.1, here is my horror story from the last few days. I actually spent about 6 man hours getting the upgrade from 5 to 6 to take.
1) after deactivating 5.4, I installed 6.1, upgrading (or so I thought) 5.4
2) I activated 6.1 licenses through the new UI
3) backup jobs were failing ("Trial expired." - they were still using 5.x for some reason)
4) contacted support
5) they told me to uninstall 5/6 and reinstall 6 from scratch
6) uninstalled all Red Gate components, restarted SQL Server, rebooted
7) reinstalled 6.1 -- same result
8) I snooped around and found that uninstall had not removed the old SQBCoreService.exe, and for some reason the upgrade was not pointing the service at the *new* version of this exe (after I told support this, they said, "hey maybe there is an old SQBCoreService.exe laying around?" Thanks guys!)
9) after repeating 6) I deleted the exe above as well as its parent path, and removed all instances of "Red Gate", "redgate" etc. from the registry
Finally I was able to install 6.1 and actually make it stick (it was forced to lay down a NEW SQBCoreService.exe and point the service at it correctly).
So, in case mine was not an isolated incident, I recommend jumping straight to 6)/9) above and cleaning the box before upgrade. Support said that "all other upgrades have worked fine" but I can't imagine I did anything to corrupt this experience. <shrug> / comments
Hi Chris,
When you do upgrade to 6.1, here is my horror story from the last few days. I actually spent about 6 man hours getting the upgrade from 5 to 6 to take.
1) after deactivating 5.4, I insta...
Well if I am being greedy (and I do that from time to time :-)) I would say it should be a function of the combination of source and target databases. Project can be additional metadata but isn't necessary (e.g. in my case where I re-use a generic project that I never save) and is probably irrelevant in a lot of cases. / comments
Well if I am being greedy (and I do that from time to time :-)) I would say it should be a function of the combination of source and target databases. Project can be additional metadata but isn't ...
David I think it's a good suggestion. As you may remember I am not a big fan of the new way you all wanted us to work with projects, and I don't bother saving my projects every time I perform a compare (in fact I often reuse a single project over and over again). If each project retained properties like last compared, last synchronized, etc. then it may make using multiple projects that much more attractive to me. This could be optional and could even use a data source to store the information. / comments
David I think it's a good suggestion. As you may remember I am not a big fan of the new way you all wanted us to work with projects, and I don't bother saving my projects every time I perform a co...
Thanks Andras,
I was able to find the option shortly after posting. What screwed me up was that I had enabled filters to exclude these entities (among others) since first configuring SQL Compare. So when I turned partition scheme and function back on, I didn't expect to have to go turn them on somewhere else as well.
I think a handy usability item would be to disable turning filters on/off for objects that can't be displayed no matter what due to underlying settings. / comments
Thanks Andras,
I was able to find the option shortly after posting. What screwed me up was that I had enabled filters to exclude these entities (among others) since first configuring SQL Compare. ...
I concur with Giggles220... I would rather see the old project selection screen (with all projects, not just 6) than be prompted to open my last project only. Make it an option maybe for the different types of DBAs you have as customers?
Though, I'm not going to fight too hard for this one. I already won my synchronization arrow battle and may want to quit while I'm ahead. :-) / comments
I concur with Giggles220... I would rather see the old project selection screen (with all projects, not just 6) than be prompted to open my last project only. Make it an option maybe for the diffe...
Thanks Chris, but I am not using the GUI, this is actually a SQL Server agent job on a 3rd server calling the extended procs on the source server. And the 3rd server is only backing up a single server and never more than one DB at a time.
Plenty of disk space. And like I said, the backups work fine if the 3rd server tells the source, back up to your own local Y: drive (SAN). It fails when the 3rd server tells the source, back up to that other server's Y: drive (same SAN underneath).
As an experiment, I ran the same commands from the source server and experienced the same issue. So the 3rd server is not part of the equation, it would seem. / comments
Thanks Chris, but I am not using the GUI, this is actually a SQL Server agent job on a 3rd server calling the extended procs on the source server. And the 3rd server is only backing up a single se...
Hey I hope you're not implying that it was only me who wanted this feature back! :-) / comments
Hey I hope you're not implying that it was only me who wanted this feature back! :-)
If you save, yes. Typically when I switch direction from the project's original state it is just for that time. If I don't save then Compare should leave it the way it was if I close and re-open. / comments
If you save, yes. Typically when I switch direction from the project's original state it is just for that time. If I don't save then Compare should leave it the way it was if I close and re-open.
No I think that the two databases should stay on the same side as registered no matter what you decide to do. That would add an unnecessary level of confusion IMHO. / comments
No I think that the two databases should stay on the same side as registered no matter what you decide to do. That would add an unnecessary level of confusion IMHO.