Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.databases.ms-sqlserver > #1025 > unrolled thread

Memory Stick Reliability Issue

Back to article view | Back to comp.databases.ms-sqlserver

Contents

  Memory Stick Reliability Issue Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-05-09 10:37 -0700
    Re: Memory Stick Reliability Issue Jeroen Mostert <jmostert@xs4all.nl> - 2012-05-09 20:44 +0200
      Re: Memory Stick Reliability Issue Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-05-09 12:50 -0700
        Re: Memory Stick Reliability Issue Jeroen Mostert <jmostert@xs4all.nl> - 2012-05-09 22:18 +0200
          Re: Memory Stick Reliability Issue Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-05-09 13:31 -0700
    Re: Memory Stick Reliability Issue Tony Toews <ttoews@telusplanet.net> - 2012-05-09 13:59 -0600
      Re: Memory Stick Reliability Issue Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-05-09 13:35 -0700
        Re: Memory Stick Reliability Issue Tony Toews <ttoews@telusplanet.net> - 2012-05-09 21:42 -0600
    Re: Memory Stick Reliability Issue Philipp Post <post.philipp@googlemail.com> - 2012-06-25 06:32 -0700
      Re: Memory Stick Reliability Issue rja.carnegie@gmail.com - 2012-07-02 03:53 -0700

#1025 — Memory Stick Reliability Issue

Dear SQLers:

     I have two systems: an XP system which is my main system and a
Windows 7 system which is for development.  The latter is a
sacrificial goat which might get sacrificed yet and rebuilt.

     Microsoft makes it rather difficult to tell which versions of SQL
Server 2008 Express one needs.  They have many versions ranging from
just under 100 MB to just under 1 GB.  I have downloaded several
gigabytes of them.

     I download them to my XP system.  Anything that I want on my 7
system, I copy to a memory stick and from there to the 7 system.

     It does not always work!  I have gotten messages about corrupt
SQL Server installation files.  This does not happen often, and there
is not much corruption.  It is an occasional few (usually four) bytes
in a sector.  This behaviour seems to happen only with large files.

     From now on, I will be checking both copy results.  If you are
having any weirdness in your installs, this might be part of it.

     Between the above and installation programs that throw exceptions
or just plain die, SQL Server Express is a rather challenging program
to install.  Oh, I forgot about how my XP system got hosed a while
back by SSE installation and I had to have Windows reloaded.  That,
too.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1026

On 2012-05-09 19:37, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>       Microsoft makes it rather difficult to tell which versions of SQL
> Server 2008 Express one needs.  They have many versions ranging from
> just under 100 MB to just under 1 GB.  I have downloaded several
> gigabytes of them.
>
That's because the Express versions are offered with service packs included 
(and there have been three), 2008 still has a 32-bit version as well, and 
Express is offered with and without desktop tooling.

I'd download SQL Server 2008 Express with Tools 
(http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=22973) and Service 
Pack 3 (http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=27594).

>       I download them to my XP system.  Anything that I want on my 7
> system, I copy to a memory stick and from there to the 7 system.
>
If only there was some way to have computers exchange data without using 
storage media. A sort of "network", if you will. :-)

Seriously, though, if you think you'll be doing this more often, a simple 
switch costs nothing these days and offers better throughput and reliability 
than a USB stick.

OK, I checked -- it's not actually nothing, it's $12. Well then.

>       It does not always work!  I have gotten messages about corrupt
> SQL Server installation files.  This does not happen often, and there
> is not much corruption.  It is an occasional few (usually four) bytes
> in a sector.  This behaviour seems to happen only with large files.
>
I've had far worse luck getting the downloads from Microsoft in an 
uncorrupted state to begin with. This is compounded by the fact that they 
usually don't publish checksums for the files, except for some of the larger 
images. Even then I need wget to make sure the downloads complete at all.

>       Between the above and installation programs that throw exceptions
> or just plain die, SQL Server Express is a rather challenging program
> to install.  Oh, I forgot about how my XP system got hosed a while
> back by SSE installation and I had to have Windows reloaded.  That,
> too.
>
Thanks for sharing your experiences, I guess? Not sure what other people are 
supposed to take away from it.

-- 
J.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1027

On Wed, 09 May 2012 20:44:18 +0200, Jeroen Mostert
<jmostert@xs4all.nl> wrote:

>On 2012-05-09 19:37, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>>       Microsoft makes it rather difficult to tell which versions of SQL
>> Server 2008 Express one needs.  They have many versions ranging from
>> just under 100 MB to just under 1 GB.  I have downloaded several
>> gigabytes of them.
>>
>That's because the Express versions are offered with service packs included 
>(and there have been three), 2008 still has a 32-bit version as well, and 
>Express is offered with and without desktop tooling.

     There are a lot of them, and few have version numbers in the
filenames, and some of them are different yet have the same filename.

>I'd download SQL Server 2008 Express with Tools 
>(http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=22973) and Service 
>Pack 3 (http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=27594).
>
>>       I download them to my XP system.  Anything that I want on my 7
>> system, I copy to a memory stick and from there to the 7 system.
>>
>If only there was some way to have computers exchange data without using 
>storage media. A sort of "network", if you will. :-)

     Sure.  I could easily connect the two of them.  They are already
connected to the same router.  A bit of software configuration and my
7 system will able to trash my main system!  That is not something I
want.  I prefer the separation.

>Seriously, though, if you think you'll be doing this more often, a simple 
>switch costs nothing these days and offers better throughput and reliability 
>than a USB stick.
>
>OK, I checked -- it's not actually nothing, it's $12. Well then.

     I do not want a connection between the two systems.

>>       It does not always work!  I have gotten messages about corrupt
>> SQL Server installation files.  This does not happen often, and there
>> is not much corruption.  It is an occasional few (usually four) bytes
>> in a sector.  This behaviour seems to happen only with large files.
>>
>I've had far worse luck getting the downloads from Microsoft in an 
>uncorrupted state to begin with. This is compounded by the fact that they 
>usually don't publish checksums for the files, except for some of the larger 
>images. Even then I need wget to make sure the downloads complete at all.

     I am not referring to downloads not working although Firefox does
not allow me to interrupt a download and then resume it.  It always
fails on the resume.

     I am referring to the copy to the memory stick being bad.

>>       Between the above and installation programs that throw exceptions
>> or just plain die, SQL Server Express is a rather challenging program
>> to install.  Oh, I forgot about how my XP system got hosed a while
>> back by SSE installation and I had to have Windows reloaded.  That,
>> too.
>>
>Thanks for sharing your experiences, I guess? Not sure what other people are 
>supposed to take away from it.

     Well, you could try reading what I wrote.  I have a memory stick
that does not work so reliably on large files.  SQL Server
installation files are large files.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1029

On 2012-05-09 21:50, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> On Wed, 09 May 2012 20:44:18 +0200, Jeroen Mostert
> <jmostert@xs4all.nl>  wrote:
>
<snip>
>>>        I download them to my XP system.  Anything that I want on my 7
>>> system, I copy to a memory stick and from there to the 7 system.
>>>
>> If only there was some way to have computers exchange data without using
>> storage media. A sort of "network", if you will. :-)
>
>       Sure.  I could easily connect the two of them.  They are already
> connected to the same router.  A bit of software configuration and my
> 7 system will able to trash my main system!  That is not something I
> want.  I prefer the separation.
>
Then don't shuttle executable data between them?

I do get your point, but this seems either overly paranoid or not paranoid 
enough. I would have to stop and think to "trash" one system with another 
over a network connection. I wouldn't be worried about this happening 
spontaneously. I'd think disconnecting after the copy is sufficient -- this 
is no more dangerous than ferrying in code from the Internet in the first place.

>> Thanks for sharing your experiences, I guess? Not sure what other people are
>> supposed to take away from it.
>
>       Well, you could try reading what I wrote.  I have a memory stick
> that does not work so reliably on large files.  SQL Server
> installation files are large files.
>
There are a Windows XP machine and a memory stick in existence that together 
seem to corrupt large files. Check. I did indeed not know that. People who 
want to replicate your exact scenario without corruption should... I don't 
know, use DVD-Rs instead, I suppose.

You can relax now, I'm just teasing you. :-) Maybe this will indeed be of 
use to someone, how should I know.

-- 
J.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1030

On Wed, 09 May 2012 22:18:04 +0200, Jeroen Mostert
<jmostert@xs4all.nl> wrote:

>On 2012-05-09 21:50, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>> On Wed, 09 May 2012 20:44:18 +0200, Jeroen Mostert
>> <jmostert@xs4all.nl>  wrote:
>>
><snip>
>>>>        I download them to my XP system.  Anything that I want on my 7
>>>> system, I copy to a memory stick and from there to the 7 system.
>>>>
>>> If only there was some way to have computers exchange data without using
>>> storage media. A sort of "network", if you will. :-)
>>
>>       Sure.  I could easily connect the two of them.  They are already
>> connected to the same router.  A bit of software configuration and my
>> 7 system will able to trash my main system!  That is not something I
>> want.  I prefer the separation.
>>
>Then don't shuttle executable data between them?

     No, that would not prevent me from a typing error hitting the
wrong drive and targetting the wrong system.

>I do get your point, but this seems either overly paranoid or not paranoid 
>enough. I would have to stop and think to "trash" one system with another 
>over a network connection. I wouldn't be worried about this happening 
>spontaneously. I'd think disconnecting after the copy is sufficient -- this 
>is no more dangerous than ferrying in code from the Internet in the first place.

     I do not want to have to connect, etc.  Mounting a memory stick
is simple.

[snip]

>There are a Windows XP machine and a memory stick in existence that together 
>seem to corrupt large files. Check. I did indeed not know that. People who 
>want to replicate your exact scenario without corruption should... I don't 
>know, use DVD-Rs instead, I suppose.
>
>You can relax now, I'm just teasing you. :-) Maybe this will indeed be of 
>use to someone, how should I know.

     Well, given the amount of trouble I have had with SQL Server
installations and that others have had troubles, too, this is a
heads-up for them.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1028

On Wed, 09 May 2012 10:37:00 -0700, Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net>
wrote:
  
>     I have two systems: an XP system which is my main system and a
>Windows 7 system which is for development.  The latter is a
>sacrificial goat which might get sacrificed yet and rebuilt.

Consider using Virtual PC or Virtual Box for such sacrificial OSs.  So
long as the host PC has lots of RAM.  If you use an USB attached
external hard drive (and at least a dual core PC although I don't
think you could find a single core PC these days)  you won't even
notice the OS startup and shutdown.  I have every version of Windows
since 2000 on that external hard drive.

>     I download them to my XP system.  Anything that I want on my 7
>system, I copy to a memory stick and from there to the 7 system.
>
>     It does not always work!  I have gotten messages about corrupt
>SQL Server installation files.  This does not happen often, and there
>is not much corruption.  It is an occasional few (usually four) bytes
>in a sector.  This behaviour seems to happen only with large files.

Do you copy from the memory stick to the hard drive and then do the
install?  Or install from the memory stick?  Memory sticks don't seem
to do well with lots of different reads like an install would do.
But that's very subjective on my part.

Tony
-- 
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Tony's Main MS Access pages - http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm
Tony's Microsoft Access Blog - http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/
For a convenient utility to keep your users FEs and other files 
  updated see http://www.autofeupdater.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1031

On Wed, 09 May 2012 13:59:45 -0600, Tony Toews
<ttoews@telusplanet.net> wrote:

>On Wed, 09 May 2012 10:37:00 -0700, Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net>
>wrote:
>  
>>     I have two systems: an XP system which is my main system and a
>>Windows 7 system which is for development.  The latter is a
>>sacrificial goat which might get sacrificed yet and rebuilt.
>
>Consider using Virtual PC or Virtual Box for such sacrificial OSs.  So
>long as the host PC has lots of RAM.  If you use an USB attached
>external hard drive (and at least a dual core PC although I don't
>think you could find a single core PC these days)  you won't even
>notice the OS startup and shutdown.  I have every version of Windows
>since 2000 on that external hard drive.

     Not enough RAM on my XP system.  I needed another computer
anyway.  Not using such is simpler.  Maybe I will give it a try if my
7 system ever becomes my main system.

[snip]

>Do you copy from the memory stick to the hard drive and then do the
>install?  Or install from the memory stick?  Memory sticks don't seem
>to do well with lots of different reads like an install would do.
>But that's very subjective on my part.

      I copy to the hard drive of the 7 system and install from the
hard drive.  The slowness that I have seen with memory sticks has been
with writes.  That may have been a different USB version as it was
some years ago.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1034

On Wed, 09 May 2012 13:35:29 -0700, Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net>
wrote:
  
>     Not enough RAM on my XP system.  I needed another computer
>anyway.  Not using such is simpler.  Maybe I will give it a try if my
>7 system ever becomes my main system.

FWIW I've been using a 4 Gb or recently an 8 Gb laptop as my
programming system and Virtual PC/Virtual Box server for at least 5 or
7 years now.

But when I travel I need to ensure I take my programming system with
me so I can take care of problems while on the road.

Tony
-- 
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Tony's Main MS Access pages - http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm
Tony's Microsoft Access Blog - http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/
For a convenient utility to keep your users FEs and other files 
  updated see http://www.autofeupdater.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1156

I usually test my memory sticks with a software called H2TESTW if I
have doubt if they are still good.
http://translate.google.ca/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.heise.de/software/download/h2testw/50539&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=2&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3DH2testw%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG

It writes the USB stick full of test data, tries to read them and
reports in case of error. If that is the case you will need to get a
new one.

Then, on a FAT32 formatted stick (what is the default), the maximum
file size is 4 GB for one file.

brgds
Philipp Post

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1159

On Monday, June 25, 2012 2:32:16 PM UTC+1, Philipp Post wrote:
> I usually test my memory sticks with a software called H2TESTW if I
> have doubt if they are still good.
> http://translate.google.ca/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.heise.de/software/download/h2testw/50539&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=2&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3DH2testw%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG
> 
> It writes the USB stick full of test data, tries to read them and
> reports in case of error. If that is the case you will need to get a
> new one.
> 
> Then, on a FAT32 formatted stick (what is the default), the maximum
> file size is 4 GB for one file.

That may be not the problem in this case - 
the installation files apparently aren't that 
big - but I have found that Windows or CMD
error messages are unhelpful in that case.
It says something about an error on the
destination disk, which of course is healthy.

The COPY statement within CMD has an optional
switch /V "Verifies that new files are written 
correctly", which presumably means that they 
can be read back.  But perhaps best to FC 
(compare) the original and copy.  /V might
only rely on the sector checksum code on hard 
disk and floppy disk storage, which a USB drive 
presumably doesn't have, or it would not give
you the defective file, it would say something
like "Error reading disc, Abort Retry Fail?"

By the way, our technicians invented a wonderful
new program for transferring database backups
between servers - just like replication, except 
that we invented it ourselves!  Unfortunately,
it took some time to discover that once in a 
zillion bytes, just a few bytes together were 
corrupted - and that SQL Server 2005 evidently
doesn't have a checksum for that, either.
(So, obviously, we should.  Obviously.  Zip, say.)
It appeared as occasional wrong data values 
in the restored databases, as errors detected
by a thorough DBCC CHECKDB, and finally in a 
byte-for-byte comparison of original file and
copy.

The current state of play is that we are 
moving files internally between servers
using FTP ... how /are/ things for you,
up there in the twenty-first century?
Page me!  Or send a fax!  It's so so lonely...
On the plus side, here in the last century, 
people still use Usenet!

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.databases.ms-sqlserver

csiph-web