BIDS error for data task

Does anybody know what this means? I have a SQL source (OLEDB) going to a script transformation as a destination:
[DTS.Pipeline] Warning: Component "Add Schemas" (32) has been removed from the Data Flow task because its output is not used and its inputs have no side effects. If the component is required, then the HasSideEffects property on at least one of its inputs should be set to true, or its output should be connected to something.
Add Schemas is the script transformation destination. I can't find a HasSideEffects property, and have no idea why this would be a problem.ETL(extraction transformation and loading) related, try this link for more info. Hope this helps.
http://www.sqlis.com/

BI Accelerator Version Error

I am evaluating the BI Accelerator samples Excel 2003 SP1, however I receive
this warning "The Analytics Builder Workbook requires Excel XP, SP1 or
greater" and then the Excel file closes.
Is there a work around for this please?Please look at this page.
http://www.webservertalk.com/archiv...p/t-954076.html
I had the same problem.
http://blogs.sqlpassj.org/nagasaki/...03/22/8178.aspx
(--Japanese)
Tomoyoshi NAGASAKI
Message posted via http://www.droptable.com

BI Accelerator Version Error

I am evaluating the BI Accelerator samples Excel 2003 SP1, however I receive
this warning "The Analytics Builder Workbook requires Excel XP, SP1 or
greater" and then the Excel file closes.
Is there a work around for this please?
Please look at this page.
http://www.webservertalk.com/archive.../t-954076.html
I had the same problem.
http://blogs.sqlpassj.org/nagasaki/a...3/22/8178.aspx
(--Japanese)
Tomoyoshi NAGASAKI
Message posted via http://www.sqlmonster.com

Beware the UNION ALL - it can swallow rows...

Just for all you June CTPers as a warning.. I have a UNION ALL that, at random, decides to swallow row count....

Tried deleting and recreating task
Unable to Repro

Along with the buffer leaks and the looping errors.. bring on the NEXT CTP.. ! ! !

Giri,

Can you send me a package that reproduces this issue? We're unaware of any UnionAll issues with CTP15 and I'd love to fix these.

thanks

Best way to install data files?

Warning beginner here.
I posted this in the setup news group but haven't received and replies, so
perphaps someone here can help me.
I am developing a small ASP.NET web application that will use an SQL Server
2000 database. The database will start with 1,000 records in a main table
and about 100,000 records in a related table. How much this database will
grow is unknown.
I have one desktop machine that I am using for testing. It has one hard
drive, and nothing special about it.
Another test machine will pretend to be a production server. It is a real
server. It has the operating (Win Server 2003) system on a RAID 1 (2 drives)
setup. It also has 6 other drives set up as a RAID 5.
Should SQL Server be installed on the RAID 1, and then install the data
files only to the RAID 5? OR Should SQL Server and the data files be
installed on the RAID 5 drive?
The reason I ask is... From prior experience with Access I learned that
although attached data files can be worked with, they often required much
more code.
So... What is the best way to do this? And... why?
TIA.
With the disk setup that server has, install the SQL Server executables on
the RAID 1, and the user database on the RAID 5. You can create the master,
model and msdb system databases on the RAID 1 as well, and the tempdb on
RAID 1 as well, if there is enough space.
Jacco Schalkwijk
SQL Server MVP
"kvr901" <kvr901@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E45F9F10-8B51-4644-A239-9A4F674BBFFD@.microsoft.com...
> Warning beginner here.
> I posted this in the setup news group but haven't received and replies, so
> perphaps someone here can help me.
> I am developing a small ASP.NET web application that will use an SQL
> Server
> 2000 database. The database will start with 1,000 records in a main table
> and about 100,000 records in a related table. How much this database will
> grow is unknown.
> I have one desktop machine that I am using for testing. It has one hard
> drive, and nothing special about it.
> Another test machine will pretend to be a production server. It is a real
> server. It has the operating (Win Server 2003) system on a RAID 1 (2
> drives)
> setup. It also has 6 other drives set up as a RAID 5.
> Should SQL Server be installed on the RAID 1, and then install the data
> files only to the RAID 5? OR Should SQL Server and the data files be
> installed on the RAID 5 drive?
> The reason I ask is... From prior experience with Access I learned that
> although attached data files can be worked with, they often required much
> more code.
> So... What is the best way to do this? And... why?
> TIA.
>
|||Thank you for your reply.
Another question:
**IF** some time in the future I decide to distribute the application
including the distributable version of SQL Server (I believe it is called the
"MSDE") would the installation procedure be the same?
In earlier versions of Access there was a considerable learning curve
(coding) to use attached Access secured "backend" databases, and I am
wondering if I should expect similar hurdles with the distributable version
of SQL Server.
Thank you.
"Jacco Schalkwijk" wrote:

> With the disk setup that server has, install the SQL Server executables on
> the RAID 1, and the user database on the RAID 5. You can create the master,
> model and msdb system databases on the RAID 1 as well, and the tempdb on
> RAID 1 as well, if there is enough space.
> --
> Jacco Schalkwijk
> SQL Server MVP
>
> "kvr901" <kvr901@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:E45F9F10-8B51-4644-A239-9A4F674BBFFD@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||kvr901 wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> Thank you for your reply.
> Another question:
> **IF** some time in the future I decide to distribute the application
> including the distributable version of SQL Server (I believe it is called the
> "MSDE") would the installation procedure be the same?
> In earlier versions of Access there was a considerable learning curve
> (coding) to use attached Access secured "backend" databases, and I am
> wondering if I should expect similar hurdles with the distributable version
> of SQL Server.
> Thank you.
>
> "Jacco Schalkwijk" wrote:
>
I am not sure I understand your concern about attached files. Once a
database is mounted by the server accessing is no different than any
other database on the server, regardless of the location of the actual
physical data file.
As to installing your database on a customers site. The issues around
RAID are more data integrity and performance related. Whatever their
configuration is will be dependent on the number of users and their
pocket books. But the system will work on any platform that supports SQL
Server.

Best way to install data files?

Warning beginner here.
I posted this in the setup news group but haven't received and replies, so
perphaps someone here can help me.
I am developing a small ASP.NET web application that will use an SQL Server
2000 database. The database will start with 1,000 records in a main table
and about 100,000 records in a related table. How much this database will
grow is unknown.
I have one desktop machine that I am using for testing. It has one hard
drive, and nothing special about it.
Another test machine will pretend to be a production server. It is a real
server. It has the operating (Win Server 2003) system on a RAID 1 (2 drives
)
setup. It also has 6 other drives set up as a RAID 5.
Should SQL Server be installed on the RAID 1, and then install the data
files only to the RAID 5? OR Should SQL Server and the data files be
installed on the RAID 5 drive?
The reason I ask is... From prior experience with Access I learned that
although attached data files can be worked with, they often required much
more code.
So... What is the best way to do this? And... why?
TIA.With the disk setup that server has, install the SQL Server executables on
the RAID 1, and the user database on the RAID 5. You can create the master,
model and msdb system databases on the RAID 1 as well, and the tempdb on
RAID 1 as well, if there is enough space.
Jacco Schalkwijk
SQL Server MVP
"kvr901" <kvr901@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E45F9F10-8B51-4644-A239-9A4F674BBFFD@.microsoft.com...
> Warning beginner here.
> I posted this in the setup news group but haven't received and replies, so
> perphaps someone here can help me.
> I am developing a small ASP.NET web application that will use an SQL
> Server
> 2000 database. The database will start with 1,000 records in a main table
> and about 100,000 records in a related table. How much this database will
> grow is unknown.
> I have one desktop machine that I am using for testing. It has one hard
> drive, and nothing special about it.
> Another test machine will pretend to be a production server. It is a real
> server. It has the operating (Win Server 2003) system on a RAID 1 (2
> drives)
> setup. It also has 6 other drives set up as a RAID 5.
> Should SQL Server be installed on the RAID 1, and then install the data
> files only to the RAID 5? OR Should SQL Server and the data files be
> installed on the RAID 5 drive?
> The reason I ask is... From prior experience with Access I learned that
> although attached data files can be worked with, they often required much
> more code.
> So... What is the best way to do this? And... why?
> TIA.
>|||Thank you for your reply.
Another question:
**IF** some time in the future I decide to distribute the application
including the distributable version of SQL Server (I believe it is called th
e
"MSDE") would the installation procedure be the same?
In earlier versions of Access there was a considerable learning curve
(coding) to use attached Access secured "backend" databases, and I am
wondering if I should expect similar hurdles with the distributable version
of SQL Server.
Thank you.
"Jacco Schalkwijk" wrote:

> With the disk setup that server has, install the SQL Server executables on
> the RAID 1, and the user database on the RAID 5. You can create the master
,
> model and msdb system databases on the RAID 1 as well, and the tempdb on
> RAID 1 as well, if there is enough space.
> --
> Jacco Schalkwijk
> SQL Server MVP
>
> "kvr901" <kvr901@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:E45F9F10-8B51-4644-A239-9A4F674BBFFD@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||kvr901 wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> Thank you for your reply.
> Another question:
> **IF** some time in the future I decide to distribute the application
> including the distributable version of SQL Server (I believe it is called
the
> "MSDE") would the installation procedure be the same?
> In earlier versions of Access there was a considerable learning curve
> (coding) to use attached Access secured "backend" databases, and I am
> wondering if I should expect similar hurdles with the distributable versio
n
> of SQL Server.
> Thank you.
>
> "Jacco Schalkwijk" wrote:
>
I am not sure I understand your concern about attached files. Once a
database is mounted by the server accessing is no different than any
other database on the server, regardless of the location of the actual
physical data file.
As to installing your database on a customers site. The issues around
RAID are more data integrity and performance related. Whatever their
configuration is will be dependent on the number of users and their
pocket books. But the system will work on any platform that supports SQL
Server.