Starting the 70-462 today

My background: I was certified under SQL Server 7.0 and was supporting a small ERP system in SQL Server 2000 for many years. I started studying for the 462 several years back but never took the exam. Now that I've changed jobs and have a couple of clients running SQL Server 2005 and 2008R2, I figured this should be the next certification to tackle being that most of the advanced features covered by 412 are being taken care of by non-MS solutions by our clients. I'll more than likely circle back and hit the 412 at some point.

I'm creating my lab environment in Hyper-V. 1 DC, 4 SQL Servers and a SQL Server Core installation.

The challenging part is throwing in the 2014 material into the mix. I'm wondering if I should only install SQL Server 1014 on all of my VMs or create a new VM with SQL 2014? Looks like not that much material has changed on the exam.

Any advice?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

adam9870

At the beginning, install one or two virtual machine with SQL Server 2014 SP2.
On the occasion of topics such as failover clustering you install next machines.

AvgITGeek

Thanks. Failover seems to be the biggest change. Maybe I'll go with 2012 for 2 Vms and 2014 on 2 Vms.

adam9870

For learn failover I used three or four virtual machines with Windows Server 2012 R2 and SQL Server 2014 SP2 and I Passed 70-462. I used this tutorial: https://social.technet.microsoft.com/wiki/contents/articles/31604.sql-server-2014-step-by-step-guide-to-setup-a-failover-cluster-virtual-lab.aspx

For 60-70% of Traing Kit will enough one virtual machine, maybe with two instances of SQL Server.

clarkincnet

Good luck!

AvgITGeek

Thanks all!

And thanks for the linkadam9870. Bookmarked for later!

AvgITGeek

Finally got all of my VMs created and DC configured. Now to join the 5 SQL Servers and get to work on this.

AvgITGeek

I'm back on it for a bit tonight. Have re-read the first two chapters in the study guide while I was waiting for my oil to be changed in my car. Got home and after a break of laundry and various tasks around the home, hit up Plural Sight where they were explaining the ins and outs of multiple ndf's and file groups. That was helpful because I always struggled in the past regarding that topic as the database I supported was only 8 or 9 GB and always ran fine. It will make way more sense once I get my lab fully operational and start running with a database. Logically, it makes sense but I'm one of those people that need to see it in action.

DatabaseHead

It's terrible to admit but I just don't have the experience or drive to follow through 462. I wish I did, but I am soooo not a DBA. I mean I am, but not really lol.

More of a data warehouse hack.

Either way keep up the progress congrats!

AvgITGeek

Thanks for that DatabaseHead!

I really, really, REALLY need to get a SSD for my labs. I can't believe how quickly SQL Server 2012 and 2014 install!

I was called in by my senior guy to help re-write some queries so I was super stoked I could help him out. Database in bad shape. Currently allowing Null values in tables that shouldn't be allowing null values. Reporting is hosed up because of it.

DatabaseHead

Ewwwwww

Sounds like someone didn't build some constraints on the table.
Just curious what are the value that are null?

Does the application have constraints but not the tables? Probably some back end process that loaded those nulls. LOL

AvgITGeek

DB is mySQL. They are allowing deletions from one table which will insert a Null value in the referenced table. Migrating to SQL server. Big mess. My mother wonders why I drink. Other than being a LFC and Pirates supporter.

DatabaseHead

AvgITGeek wrote: »

DB is mySQL. They are allowing deletions from one table which will insert a Null value in the referenced table. Migrating to SQL server. Big mess. My mother wonders why I drink. Other than being a LFC and Pirates supporter.

Wonder if cascading upon delete makes sense in this relationship?

I do very little with production tables, but when I do build data warehouses I usually set them to cascade upon delete or just flag the record I so it's not picked up as an active record.

Either way good luck and It's nice talking to another database professional. Always a really good time.

AvgITGeek

Nothing server side was involved. It was all front end PHP sending update statements to the tables in question. Deffo a mess but should be able to be fixed with some rules and someone that knows databases. Cascade delete probably would have worked. Thanks for giving me something new to look into.