SQL Server - SQL Server 2005 Resource Database
Asked By Justi
05-Sep-08 11:47 AM

Hello,
I've run into an interesting situation with a customer. We will be moving
the system databases from one drive to another. I've done this before without
any issues. My concern is the following paragraph, found in the
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms190940(SQL.90).aspx MSDN article:
you move the master database, you must also move the Resource database to the
same location. For more information, see Moving System Databases. Also, do
not put the Resource database in either compressed or encrypted NTFS file
system folders. Doing so will hinder performance and prevent upgrades."
I've read many other documents that support this paragraph when running SQL
2005, however this information is new to me. I've moved the system databases
before, without moving resource. I know for a fact we have customers out
there who's master databases reside on separate drives from the resource
database location.
What I need to know is, why does the resource database depend on the
location of the master database, and what are the implications of it residing
in a different location? The fact that a SQL 2005 instance will start does
not preclude the fact that something will break down the road.
Thank you,
Justin
SQL Server
(1)
Database
(1)
Databases
(1)
Roy Harvey (SQL Server MVP) replied...
When I followed the link you supplied it brought up the documentation
for SQL Server 2008. My understanding is that the requirement that
master and resource databases remain together is new with 2008. So
even if we can get away with it with 2005 it is no longer a good idea
to do that.
Roy Harvey
Beacon Falls, CT
On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 08:47:01 -0700, Justin
Justi replied...
Hello Roy,
Thank you for your response. The article I posted is for SQL 2005.
In 2008 the requirement for the Resource and Master database to remain in
the same folder no longer exists, because it is stored in <drive>:\Program
Files\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL10.<instance_name>\Binn\ by default. Please
refer to the SQL 2008 version of the article for more details:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms190940.aspx
Regards,
Justin
Tibor Karaszi replied...
In 2008, the resource database indeed is in the binn folder. And it has to be - so BOL is incorrect
about the section on how to move resource and a BOL update will fix that.
Yes, I understand your question was about 2005, I just wanted to mention 2008 first to get that out
of the way. One thing I've heard about causing problems if resource files aren't where master.mdf
is, is patching (hotfix, GDR, CU, sp).
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
Justi replied...
Hi Tibor,
Thanks for the reply. I've heard the same in that it can cause issues with
hotfixes, service packs, etc... However I haven't observed any issues myself,
and I haven't found any documentation illustrating the details. Do you have
any links or useful articles describing these issues?
Thanks,
Justin
Tibor Karaszi replied...
Hi Justin,
I'm afraid not. This is only what I'm heard, so I've stayed away from separating these...
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
Gail Erickson [MS] replied...
In SQL Server 2005, failure to keep both the resource .mdf and .ldf files in
the same location as master.mdf will cause hotfixes, CUs, SPs, etc. to fail
because that is the way the code is written. Obviously that's not optimal
and it's changed for SQL Server 2008, but I would strongly discourage you
from trying to separate the resource and master files. It's just not worth
the headache you will incur later. There are a couple KB articles out there
on the subject. Here's one regarding the location of the resource .mdf and
.ldf files not being located together:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/947989/en-us
BTW, the SQL Server 2005 topic will be updated in the next scheduled release
to state this more strongly.
--
Gail Erickson [MS]
SQL Server Documentation Team
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights
Download the latest version of Books Online from
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sqlserver/bb428874.aspx
SQL Server Cannot restart SQL Server service I recently installed SQL Server 2008 Express Edition with Advanced Tools. This is the version information from SQL Server Management Studio Microsoft SQL Server Management Studio 10.0.1600.22 ((SQL_PreRelease).080709- 1414 ) Microsoft
SQL Server Why_can’t_recursive_queries_contain. . .? hi I hope I didn = 92t put too many questions 1) Why can such as this is already a strong case to simply disallow the option. - - Hugo Kornelis, SQL Server MVP My SQL Server blog: http: / / sqlblog.com / blogs / hugo_kornelis MS SQL Server is a minimal subset of the ANSI / ISO Standards. In Standard SQL, the WITH clause
SQL Server TempDB showing allocation errors - Any ideas? Hi: After a disk failure in the RAID was no errors when checkDB'ed but as soon as users get on-line and the databases started being queried TempDB starts showing the same allocations errors. All other production DB's are fine. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance. Server: Msg 8999, Level 16, State 1, Line 1 Database tempdb allocation errors prevent further CHECKDB processing. Server: Msg 8906, Level 16, State 1, Line 1 Page (1:87) in database ID 2 is allocated in the SGAM (1:3) and PFS (1:1), but was not allocated in any IAM. PFS flags 'IAM_PG MIXED_EXT ALLOCATED 0_PCT_FULL'. Server: Msg 8906, Level 16, State 1, Line 1 Page (1:103) in database ID 2
SQL Server Access 2007-> SQL Server2005 "connection was forcibly closed", GNE 1 SQL, Server2005, "connection, was, forcibly, closed", GNE, 1" / > Hi, with an Access 2007 application, I have a very big problem connecting an SQL Server 2005. The scenario: - nearly 200 clients with Windows XP Professional (in an Active Directory Domain clients uses WAN, LAN and WLAN, different locations - one SQL Server 2005 EE, uses actually 36 databases, the Access 2007 application uses 2 of them (one
SQL Server SQL 2008 clustering with Windows 2008 I am new to SQL clustering. Does SQL 2008 clustering as far as functionality remain the same as SQL 2005? I am looking for any 'best practises for setting up SQL clustering. For setting up windows 2008 clustering , I only found the step-by-step guide a two-node Fileserver Failover cluster. Does it mean the same steps applied for the SQL database setup? Ocean Setting up SQL2008 in Windows 2008 is documented in SQL2008 Books Online