Hello,

I'm running into a problem on installing SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition.


I want to install SQL Server on a server, let's say Server001 (Server is
running windows sql server 2003).
- The log files need to be located on the same server, so no problem.
- The Data files need to be locates on an other server, let's say Server002,
on a drive Z:\SQLData. If I try to redirect the path to an other drive, I
only get local drives of Server001.

Is this possible, and if possible, how ?

Thanks for your replies.
Frank

Sorry, to avoid confusions, the server is running windows server 2003, not
windows "sql" server 2003.

Frank

"Frank Goris" wrote:

> I want to install SQL Server on a server, let's say Server001 (Server is
> running windows sql server 2003).

You pretty much don't want to use mapped drives for anything
in SQL Server. If you were using UNC paths, in that case
it's possible but not by default though - you need to use a
trace flag. And it isn't recommended. Whether supported or
not depends on the hardware. Generally, you really want to
be using DAS or SAN for the data and log files. You can find
the information on using network devices for data and log
files in the following article:
Description of support for network database files in SQL
Server
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=304261

-Sue

On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 07:16:02 -0700, Frank Goris <Frank
Goris@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>Hello,
>
>I'm running into a problem on installing SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition.
>
>
>I want to install SQL Server on a server, let's say Server001 (Server is
>running windows sql server 2003).
>- The log files need to be located on the same server, so no problem.
>- The Data files need to be locates on an other server, let's say Server002,
>on a drive Z:\SQLData. If I try to redirect the path to an other drive, I
>only get local drives of Server001.
>
>Is this possible, and if possible, how ?
>
>Thanks for your replies.
>Frank

Thanks Sue for the reply !

I understand it is not "Best Practice".
Try to work out something else.
Just wanted to avoid to store the log file on the same drive as the data
files.
If you (or anybody else) has an idea, please feel free to reply

Best regards,
Frank

Best Case Scenario you should have two seperate physical drives and even
better case those drives should be ran using seperate controllers. The cost
of puting the database files onto a UNC path is much worse then keeping the
log files and db files on the same drive.

If you have storage size issues I suggest that you back up and checkpoint
the transaction log often to keep the size of it low.

--
/*
Warren Brunk - MCITP - SQL 2005, MCDBA
www.techintsolutions.com
*/


"Frank Goris" <FrankGoris@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6CA1DC73-EA17-4BA1-BE0D-D2CFDC555C06@microsoft.com...
> Thanks Sue for the reply !
>
> I understand it is not "Best Practice".
> Try to work out something else.
> Just wanted to avoid to store the log file on the same drive as the data
> files.
> If you (or anybody else) has an idea, please feel free to reply
>
> Best regards,
> Frank
>