Email Attachment Problem

Hi all,
I create a subscription to send the report (in pdf format) to users once every week. The subscription works, all users manage to receive the email but some of them do not have the pdf file attached to the email. Anyone know what is wrong?

DarenSounds like a firewall setting blocking attachments on those emails.|||

Hi,

just wondering if you found a fix for this problem cause I have te same problem.

I noticed that the problem somehow connects to Outlook, cause when i retreve the mail in my Web-mailclient I get an attachment and in my version of Outlook (version 2003 English) there is the attachment and the size of the mail remains the same..

Lucas

|||Hi IjoNL,
I could not find any solution to it, but there's a temporary solution to this is ask the person to try and forward the email they received in outlook then they will find the attachment file there.

Daren

Email Attachment Problem

Hi all,
I create a subscription to send the report (in pdf format) to users once every week. The subscription works, all users manage to receive the email but some of them do not have the pdf file attached to the email. Anyone know what is wrong?

DarenSounds like a firewall setting blocking attachments on those emails.|||

Hi,

just wondering if you found a fix for this problem cause I have te same problem.

I noticed that the problem somehow connects to Outlook, cause when i retreve the mail in my Web-mailclient I get an attachment and in my version of Outlook (version 2003 English) there is the attachment and the size of the mail remains the same..

Lucas

|||Hi IjoNL,
I could not find any solution to it, but there's a temporary solution to this is ask the person to try and forward the email they received in outlook then they will find the attachment file there.

Daren

EM - Current Activity

I manage a data warehouse. Each month I potentially update
millions of records (only if they've changed from the
previous month). You can imagine this update process is
quite time consuming. I've got the tables spread accross 2
to 3 drives via File Groups. The table I update from is
either a data type table variable, temp table or a table
on it's on drive with a clustered index. I've got 2 gigs
of RAM for SQL (Std Edition)but a total of 4, SQL's
priority is boosted, plenty of hard drive space, 4
processors. In EM's current activity, under Physical IO I
seem to have a bottleneck. My wait times for one process
(multiple instances) can easily be in the millions. When I
use Perf Mon to view disk activity (read\write) at least
one usually 2 drives are maxed out. Any thoughts on how I
can improve performance?Liz,
Well one way is ensure the log file is on a separate Raid 1 than anything
else. When you say you have the data spread across 3 drives do you mean 3
individual physical drives or 3 drive array's? 2 or 3 physical drives are
usually not enough to get good performance out of a typical DW application.
The more drives the better. For updates it is very important to have the
log on a separate array than the data. You can also try doing the updates
in smaller batches and see if that speeds things up but you will still get
high disk activity.
--
Andrew J. Kelly
SQL Server MVP
"Liz" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:257201c3af73$a15507b0$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
> I manage a data warehouse. Each month I potentially update
> millions of records (only if they've changed from the
> previous month). You can imagine this update process is
> quite time consuming. I've got the tables spread accross 2
> to 3 drives via File Groups. The table I update from is
> either a data type table variable, temp table or a table
> on it's on drive with a clustered index. I've got 2 gigs
> of RAM for SQL (Std Edition)but a total of 4, SQL's
> priority is boosted, plenty of hard drive space, 4
> processors. In EM's current activity, under Physical IO I
> seem to have a bottleneck. My wait times for one process
> (multiple instances) can easily be in the millions. When I
> use Perf Mon to view disk activity (read\write) at least
> one usually 2 drives are maxed out. Any thoughts on how I
> can improve performance?