> Thanks for the reply. I've heard the same in that it can cause issues with
> hotfixes, service packs, etc... However I haven't observed any issues
> myself,
> and I haven't found any documentation illustrating the details. Do you
> have
> any links or useful articles describing these issues?

> Hi Tibor,
>
> Thanks for the reply. I've heard the same in that it can cause issues with
> hotfixes, service packs, etc... However I haven't observed any issues
> myself,
> and I haven't found any documentation illustrating the details. Do you
> have
> any links or useful articles describing these issues?
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
> "Tibor Karaszi" wrote:
>

>> In 2008, the resource database indeed is in the binn folder. And it has
>> to be - so BOL is incorrect
>> about the section on how to move resource and a BOL update will fix that.
>>
>> Yes, I understand your question was about 2005, I just wanted to mention
>> 2008 first to get that out
>> of the way. One thing I've heard about causing problems if resource files
>> aren't where master.mdf
>> is, is patching (hotfix, GDR, CU, sp).
>>
>> --
>> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
>> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
>> http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
>>
>>
>> "Justin" discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:DC2283F9-7087-4805-AF1B-20805654D832@microsoft.com...

>>> Hello Roy,
>>>
>>> Thank you for your response. The article I posted is for SQL 2005.
>>>
>>> In 2008 the requirement for the Resource and Master database to remain
>>> in
>>> the same folder no longer exists, because it is stored in
>>> :\Program
>>> Files\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL10.\Binn\ by default.
>>> Please
>>> refer to the SQL 2008 version of the article for more details:
>>>
>>> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms190940.aspx
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Justin
>>>
>>> "Roy Harvey (SQL Server MVP)" wrote:
>>>

>>>> When I followed the link you supplied it brought up the documentation
>>>> for SQL Server 2008. My understanding is that the requirement that
>>>> master and resource databases remain together is new with 2008. So
>>>> even if we can get away with it with 2005 it is no longer a good idea
>>>> to do that.
>>>>
>>>> Roy Harvey
>>>> Beacon Falls, CT
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 08:47:01 -0700, Justin
>>>> discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>>>>

>>>>>Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>>I've run into an interesting situation with a customer. We will be
>>>>>moving
>>>>>the system databases from one drive to another. I've done this before
>>>>>without
>>>>>any issues. My concern is the following paragraph, found in the
>>>>>http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms190940(SQL.90).aspx MSDN
>>>>>article:
>>>>>
>>>>>"The Resource database depends on the location of the master
>>>>>database. If
>>>>>you move the master database, you must also move the Resource
>>>>>database to the
>>>>>same location. For more information, see Moving System Databases.
>>>>>Also, do
>>>>>not put the Resource database in either compressed or encrypted NTFS
>>>>>file
>>>>>system folders. Doing so will hinder performance and prevent
>>>>>upgrades."
>>>>>
>>>>>I've read many other documents that support this paragraph when
>>>>>running SQL
>>>>>2005, however this information is new to me. I've moved the system
>>>>>databases
>>>>>before, without moving resource. I know for a fact we have customers
>>>>>out
>>>>>there who's master databases reside on separate drives from the
>>>>>resource
>>>>>database location.
>>>>>
>>>>>What I need to know is, why does the resource database depend on the
>>>>>location of the master database, and what are the implications of it
>>>>>residing
>>>>>in a different location? The fact that a SQL 2005 instance will start
>>>>>does
>>>>>not preclude the fact that something will break down the road.
>>>>>
>>>>>Thank you,
>>>>>Justin

>>>>

>>
>>