Re: System degrades after 49.71 days
From: Andrew J. Kelly (sqlmvpnooospam_at_shadhawk.com)
Date: 11/19/04
- Next message: Andrew J. Kelly: "Re: Index question"
- Previous message: Mark Allison: "Re: FORCE DB Corruption"
- In reply to: Lockdesign Ltd: "Re: System degrades after 49.71 days"
- Next in thread: Steve Kass: "Re: System degrades after 49.71 days"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 11:30:12 -0500
It all depends on what they are doing. If you only have a few hundred
connections and they stay busy most of the time it shouldn't be a problem.
-- Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP "Geoff Kell (Lockdesign Ltd)" <Geoff Kell (Lockdesign Ltd)@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:3E07FD10-141F-4A2D-B6B6-2601601F83FD@microsoft.com... > Thanks Andrew - we are running the latest service pack but we are running > SQL > Server 7 not 2000. > > I am looking at the connections into the database and some processes are > attaching to the database when it starts and remain constantly attached. > > Is this bad practice? Are we better attaching, doing the work, detaching? > > Geoff > > > "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote: > >> I have had a SQL 2000 Server running for well over 2 years without a >> reboot. >> >> -- >> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP >
- Next message: Andrew J. Kelly: "Re: Index question"
- Previous message: Mark Allison: "Re: FORCE DB Corruption"
- In reply to: Lockdesign Ltd: "Re: System degrades after 49.71 days"
- Next in thread: Steve Kass: "Re: System degrades after 49.71 days"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|