Restore DataBase to another server

Condolences are in order. (Black bunting and soft music please...)
Arnie Rowland, YACE*
"To be successful, your heart must accompany your knowledge."
*Yet Another certification Exam
"bdickert" <bdickert@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:912D44AC-FEA5-4DED-B9EB-97A66319A718@.microsoft.com...
> Recently we lost our DBA.Restoring to a new server will serve you well.
You are correct that restoring to a server will update the master db.
However, you could restore to a different database name (if you have a DEV
copy of the database on the server and don't want to muck that up.)
Arnie Rowland, YACE*
"To be successful, your heart must accompany your knowledge."
*Yet Another certification Exam
"bdickert" <bdickert@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:912D44AC-FEA5-4DED-B9EB-97A66319A718@.microsoft.com...
> Recently we lost our DBA.
> When trying to restore a database from one physical server to another, the
> master will get updated, correct?
> We are doing a restore audit on our databases / SQL 2000 SP3.
> The plan was to restore from tape to a server which worked BData_Bat.BAK
> was
> the restored database file, then use the restore wizard to reassemble the
> database and the files that make up the database, and place them on the
> server, but this would update the master on that target / developer
> server,
> so this isn't going to work and would probably cause issues.
> The new plan is to create a new server with SQL 2000 and restore to this
> new
> server and have the developers access this new server and test the
> application that way.
> Just thought I would post to see if this seems like the right approach and
> then I want to find out DBA duties, monitoring and performance and
> recommendations for a reliable environment -
> Thanks in advance
> BD|||Recently we lost our DBA.
When trying to restore a database from one physical server to another, the
master will get updated, correct?
We are doing a restore audit on our databases / SQL 2000 SP3.
The plan was to restore from tape to a server which worked BData_Bat.BAK was
the restored database file, then use the restore wizard to reassemble the
database and the files that make up the database, and place them on the
server, but this would update the master on that target / developer server,
so this isn't going to work and would probably cause issues.
The new plan is to create a new server with SQL 2000 and restore to this new
server and have the developers access this new server and test the
application that way.
Just thought I would post to see if this seems like the right approach and
then I want to find out DBA duties, monitoring and performance and
recommendations for a reliable environment -
Thanks in advance
BD|||Condolences are in order. (Black bunting and soft music please...)
Arnie Rowland, YACE*
"To be successful, your heart must accompany your knowledge."
*Yet Another certification Exam
"bdickert" <bdickert@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:912D44AC-FEA5-4DED-B9EB-97A66319A718@.microsoft.com...
> Recently we lost our DBA.|||Restoring to a new server will serve you well.
You are correct that restoring to a server will update the master db.
However, you could restore to a different database name (if you have a DEV
copy of the database on the server and don't want to muck that up.)
Arnie Rowland, YACE*
"To be successful, your heart must accompany your knowledge."
*Yet Another certification Exam
"bdickert" <bdickert@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:912D44AC-FEA5-4DED-B9EB-97A66319A718@.microsoft.com...
> Recently we lost our DBA.
> When trying to restore a database from one physical server to another, the
> master will get updated, correct?
> We are doing a restore audit on our databases / SQL 2000 SP3.
> The plan was to restore from tape to a server which worked BData_Bat.BAK
> was
> the restored database file, then use the restore wizard to reassemble the
> database and the files that make up the database, and place them on the
> server, but this would update the master on that target / developer
> server,
> so this isn't going to work and would probably cause issues.
> The new plan is to create a new server with SQL 2000 and restore to this
> new
> server and have the developers access this new server and test the
> application that way.
> Just thought I would post to see if this seems like the right approach and
> then I want to find out DBA duties, monitoring and performance and
> recommendations for a reliable environment -
> Thanks in advance
> BD|||Well,
Here is what I did - loaded the personal edition locally and then restored
it and it seems to be ok - thanks for your help and remember "SQL Security
is very Picky"
BD
"Arnie Rowland" wrote:

> Restoring to a new server will serve you well.
> You are correct that restoring to a server will update the master db.
> However, you could restore to a different database name (if you have a DEV
> copy of the database on the server and don't want to muck that up.)
> --
> Arnie Rowland, YACE*
> "To be successful, your heart must accompany your knowledge."
> *Yet Another certification Exam
>
> "bdickert" <bdickert@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:912D44AC-FEA5-4DED-B9EB-97A66319A718@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||Well,
Here is what I did - loaded the personal edition locally and then restored
it and it seems to be ok - thanks for your help and remember "SQL Security
is very Picky"
BD
"Arnie Rowland" wrote:

> Restoring to a new server will serve you well.
> You are correct that restoring to a server will update the master db.
> However, you could restore to a different database name (if you have a DEV
> copy of the database on the server and don't want to muck that up.)
> --
> Arnie Rowland, YACE*
> "To be successful, your heart must accompany your knowledge."
> *Yet Another certification Exam
>
> "bdickert" <bdickert@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:912D44AC-FEA5-4DED-B9EB-97A66319A718@.microsoft.com...
>
>