Where is Compact 3.5 SP1

I haven't found the link on the Microsoft site for downloading Compact 3.5
SP1.
We are replicating with SQL Server 2008 and *need* 3.5 SP1. I think Compact
3.5 SP1 is installed with SQL Server 2008 but I was hoping to find a link
on the Microsoft site to download it. The only link available is for
downloading Compact 3.5 (without SP1).
Thanks
Tom Baxter
It seems Comapct 3.5 SP1 is currently in beta. It is available with the
November, 2007 CTP of SQL Server 2008. You can find the installation in:
\servers\setup\SSCERunTime.msi of the SQL Server 2008 installtion image.
Incidentally, SQL Server 2008 will replicate just fine with either SQL
Server Compact 3.5 RTM *OR* SQL Server Compact 3.5 SP1 Beta.
Tom Baxter
"Tom Baxter" wrote:

> I haven't found the link on the Microsoft site for downloading Compact 3.5
> SP1.
> We are replicating with SQL Server 2008 and *need* 3.5 SP1. I think Compact
> 3.5 SP1 is installed with SQL Server 2008 but I was hoping to find a link
> on the Microsoft site to download it. The only link available is for
> downloading Compact 3.5 (without SP1).
> Thanks
> --
> Tom Baxter

Compact 3.5 SP1 "LoadProperties()" Thows Exception

Hi all,
I have SQL Server 2008 (Nov. CTP) as a publisher and a SQL Server Compact
3.5 SP1 as a client for merge replication.
The Compact database has two subscriptions. The synchronization worked
perfectly many times. If I look at the Compact database in Management Studio
I can see my subscriptions in the Replication folder.
Everything looked so promising.....until I added a call to
"SqlCeReplication.LoadProperties()". At this point I see an error that simply
says, "Unhandled Exception: The subscription could not be loaded because it
was not saved.".
In doing some research it turns out this is error:
SSCE_M_SUBSCRIPTIOWASNOTSAVED
described here: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms172898.aspx
The web page indicates:
"If the error appears again, you should immediately contact Microsoft
Product Support Services. The internal errors cannot be resolved by common
troubleshooting techniques."
Which is why I am posting here. Hopefully someone from Microsoft can
respond. The relevant code is listed here:
SqlCeReplication repl = new SqlCeReplication();
repl.Publisher = @."AOS-LAPASO-4\AOS_1";
repl.PublisherDatabase = @."RepTest";
repl.SubscriberConnectionString = @."Data Source=""C:\test.sdf"";Max Database
Size=128;Default Lock Escalation =100;";
repl.Publication = @."TestPub";
Console.WriteLine("LoadProperties: " + repl.LoadProperties());
Thanks very much.
Tom Baxter
Hi Tom,
Appreciate your understanding that our MSDN newsgroups are not very good at
handling such issue since this issue is an internal error and dump analysis
would be required in this case. We recommended that you contact Microsoft
Product Support Services (PSS) via telephone so that a dedicated Support
professional can assist you in a more efficient manner. Please be advised
that contacting phone support will be a charged call.
To obtain the phone numbers for specific technology request please take a
look at the web site listed below.
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=fh;EN-US;PHONENUMBERS
If you are outside the US please see http://support.microsoft.com for
regional support phone numbers.
If you have any other questions or concerns, please feel free to let us
know. Have a good day!
Best regards,
Charles Wang
Microsoft Online Community Support
================================================== ===
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via
your newsreader so that others may learn and benefit
from this issue.
================================================== ====
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
================================================== ====
sql

: Preferred disk raid config when using SQL Server 2005

Hello all,
If you are planning on installing SQL Server 2005 on a WIndows 2003 SP1
server, is there a "preferred" disk configuration that gives redundancy
and fast performance? I was going to go hardware raid 5, but I fear
slow performance under heavy load. Any suggestions or ideas? Is there
a SQL Server best practice for this?
Thank you in advance for your help, ideas, and/or suggestions!
- MikeRAID 0+1
"Listoff" <fastxlr8r@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131642400.414148.236860@.g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Hello all,
> If you are planning on installing SQL Server 2005 on a WIndows 2003 SP1
> server, is there a "preferred" disk configuration that gives redundancy
> and fast performance? I was going to go hardware raid 5, but I fear
> slow performance under heavy load. Any suggestions or ideas? Is there
> a SQL Server best practice for this?|||Listoff wrote:
> Hello all,
> If you are planning on installing SQL Server 2005 on a WIndows 2003 SP1
> server, is there a "preferred" disk configuration that gives redundancy
> and fast performance? I was going to go hardware raid 5, but I fear
> slow performance under heavy load. Any suggestions or ideas? Is there
> a SQL Server best practice for this?
> Thank you in advance for your help, ideas, and/or suggestions!
> - Mike
>
Mike,
There are a lot of different opinions on this subject, but generally
it's best practice to seperate database files, logfiles and OS
files/tempdb on different disk arrays.
Depending on your load and application, it can be worth putting tempdb
on it's own array as well, but I'd say that in many cases it will be ok
to have tempdb together with the OS. Furthermore you could also consider
putting your swap file somewhere different from the OS drive, but in
most cases I don't think it will be worth the effort.
When it comes to RAID, there're also many different opinions, but again
I think that most people will agree that an ok setup will be to put you
OS on RAID 1, Databasefiles on RAID 5 and logfiles on RAID 1 (or 1+0).
This will be a decent setup in most cases. If you have enough
disks/money, you could put you databasefiles on a RAID 10 which in some
situations will perform better than RAID 5.
Bottomline is that you gain the most by ensuring that you split OS,
database file and logfile on physical different units (disks) and then
avoiding RAID 5 for your logfiles. What ever you do after that in terms
of RAID configuration, arrays on different controllers etc. will give
you "slightly" better performance, but might be to little to be noticed
by your users.
Last, but not least, you should also consider where you put you backup
files. Best of all you put them on their own array - both from a
performance and safety point of view. IF you only plan to do backup once
a day or so, it might not matter much in terms of performance, but if
you do logfile backup every 15 minutes on a heavy loaded server, it
might make a difference.
HTH
Regards
Steen|||Wow! That makes a lot of sense and helps out a lot! Thank you guys
for your help! -Mike

.NET Runtime 2.0 Error with EventID 5000

Hi,

We are performing a SQL 2000 to SQL 2005 upgrade on a Windows 2003 SP1 server.

We encountered error in the SQL 2005 upgrade with the following error :

===================================

Common Language Runtime detected an invalid program.

===================================

Common Language Runtime detected an invalid program. (System.Xml)

Program Location:

at System.Xml.Schema.SchemaInfo..ctor()
at System.Xml.Schema.XmlSchemaSet..ctor(XmlNameTable nameTable)
at System.Xml.XmlReaderSettings.get_Schemas()
at Microsoft.SqlServer.UpgradeAdvisor.ReportViewer.UAReportController.LoadAndValidateDataFile()
at Microsoft.SqlServer.UpgradeAdvisor.ReportViewer.UAReport.ValidateDataFile()
at Microsoft.SqlServer.UpgradeAdvisor.ReportViewer.UAIssueReport.Refresh()
at Microsoft.SqlServer.UpgradeAdvisor.ReportPanel.OpenReport(String reportFile)

From the Event Viewer, under Application, we can see the following error :

EventID : 5000

Source :

EventType clr20r3, P1 bpacmd.exe, P2 2005.90.2047.0, P3 443f5935, P4 bpacmdx, P5 9.0.242.0, P6 443f5932, P7 7, P8 7a, P9 microsoft.bpa.common.bpaserver, P10 NIL.

We do urgently need some help now.

Thanks.

Mike,

I'm not sure what went wrong exactly, but seems a .net runtime issue. Wondering if you're willing to manually install .NET framework 2.0 before running the setup? You can download x86 version of .NET 2.0 from:

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=0856eacb-4362-4b0d-8edd-aab15c5e04f5&displaylang=en