Comments
Sort by recent activity
Nothing about the connection string has changed since it first worked. No port is being specified when I specify the server name (and I have done it both by IP Address and Machine Name in the past with success in either case), but right now it is using the machine name, and is not working. I tried switching it over to just the IP address, but have the same results.
EDIT: I now have it working via IP address with SQL Authentication. This did not happen before. Let me try this for a bit, and see if I can determine why it is having trouble with the machine name. If I wind up having troiuble still - I will post back. / comments
Nothing about the connection string has changed since it first worked. No port is being specified when I specify the server name (and I have done it both by IP Address and Machine Name in the past...
Nothing is on my desktop, but if what you are asking me is if I go into SSMS and connect to that database instance via my local copy of SSMS, does it connect? The answer is yes it does (and I am using SQL Auth both for Red Gate and the SSMS connection to it). / comments
Nothing is on my desktop, but if what you are asking me is if I go into SSMS and connect to that database instance via my local copy of SSMS, does it connect? The answer is yes it does (and I am u...
That'll work. / comments
That'll work.
Andy - thank you for getting back to me on this. I have looked at the links you provided, but I probably need to be more specific here. It's not that in the process of doing a restore that I cannot add files from another server's share, but once I do - I get the Red X and type Unknown, and file name leading with 'Unavailable' in Red text.
Here is a snapshot for you... [image]
I am hoping that my windows login will suffice to resolve this, because I do not have a lot of flexibility here. It's the same login for all the various boxes with the same credentials on each, but as you can see - no joy in getting to the files.
Any help would be appreciated. / comments
Andy - thank you for getting back to me on this. I have looked at the links you provided, but I probably need to be more specific here. It's not that in the process of doing a restore that I cann...
That was it! Thank you again Marianne for your support, and my apologies that I didn't read that more closely in the original thread. I have things back and operational again.
Have a great weekend... / comments
That was it! Thank you again Marianne for your support, and my apologies that I didn't read that more closely in the original thread. I have things back and operational again.
Have a great weeken...
Thank you Marianne! I will plan accordingly.
P.S. This product truly does rock! The compression alone is a huge selling point for me, but I like the fact that this is more than just a fancy looking front-end. Nice stuff, and keep up the great work! / comments
Thank you Marianne! I will plan accordingly.
P.S. This product truly does rock! The compression alone is a huge selling point for me, but I like the fact that this is more than just a fancy look...
james.billings wrote:
You can simply install it on a workstation and Add your existing servers into the list...
SaaaaaaaaaaaaWeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet! [image] / comments
james.billings wrote:
You can simply install it on a workstation and Add your existing servers into the list...
SaaaaaaaaaaaaWeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet!
Chris (et al) -
We ended up ditching the Deduplication Algorithm on our iSCSI controller in favor of compression. The comparison in disk space savings truly is noticeable (and that's an understatement!)
I will have to see what my first Differential looks like come this weekend, but the level 4 compression mode is giving us anywhere between 80%-95% size savings. Pretty awesome, and I thank you for compelling me to look into it more! / comments
Chris (et al) -
We ended up ditching the Deduplication Algorithm on our iSCSI controller in favor of compression. The comparison in disk space savings truly is noticeable (and that's an understate...
I probably won't know that until later tomorrow morning. I literally just went back to look at the log from the last time you asked this, and it ran the first TLog for today at 4am, but the Full had not finished until 4:15am. So the next one at 4:30am (TLog) was only 157.7mb.
Does that tell me that since it tried to run before the Full had a chance to complete, at 4am, that I did not get the full log that it otherwise should have? / comments
I probably won't know that until later tomorrow morning. I literally just went back to look at the log from the last time you asked this, and it ran the first TLog for today at 4am, but the Full h...
That has been the challenge for me (gauging the length of the Full backup to my one big db, and plan to kick TLogs off again not long their after).
I've gotten it down to about a 15/30 minute window of vulnerability, but that is a lot better than the 23 hour and 59 minute window of vulnerability they use to have.
Trust me - there is enough about this beast that has compromises in it that this has become more of a joy to manage than the other parts that - well - off-topic.
:roll: / comments
That has been the challenge for me (gauging the length of the Full backup to my one big db, and plan to kick TLogs off again not long their after).
I've gotten it down to about a 15/30 minute windo...