Installing SQL RS 2005 only - can it be done?

Is it possible to install only the Reporting Services part of SQL Server
without the database engine? We did this with Reporting Services 2000. The
reason we need to do this is because are company policy will not let us put a
database and a Web Server on the same machine.
--
Thank you,
JohnYes, the installer will ask you what component you would like to install.
Steve MunLeeuw
"John A" <i-code4food@.newsgroups.nospam> wrote in message
news:8EE19045-4B78-4B0D-9762-0320C4FF6A20@.microsoft.com...
> Is it possible to install only the Reporting Services part of SQL Server
> without the database engine? We did this with Reporting Services 2000.
> The
> reason we need to do this is because are company policy will not let us
> put a
> database and a Web Server on the same machine.
> --
> Thank you,
> John|||ridiculous
company policies?
they're meant to be broken.
for the record; what do you use.. SQL authentication or double-hop
authentication?
there are huge holes in both; for a small implementation you should
really look at getting the policies revised.
John A wrote:
> Is it possible to install only the Reporting Services part of SQL Server
> without the database engine? We did this with Reporting Services 2000. The
> reason we need to do this is because are company policy will not let us put a
> database and a Web Server on the same machine.
> --
> Thank you,
> John|||Yes as a developer I could not agree more, lets break those ridiculous
policies. What is double hop? I have used mostly Windows Authentication. I
seldom use SQL Server Auth. Some of the databases that we connect to are
Oracle and others are SQL Server.
--
Thank you,
John
"susiedba@.hotmail.com" wrote:
> ridiculous
> company policies?
> they're meant to be broken.
> for the record; what do you use.. SQL authentication or double-hop
> authentication?
> there are huge holes in both; for a small implementation you should
> really look at getting the policies revised.
>
> John A wrote:
> > Is it possible to install only the Reporting Services part of SQL Server
> > without the database engine? We did this with Reporting Services 2000. The
> > reason we need to do this is because are company policy will not let us put a
> > database and a Web Server on the same machine.
> >
> > --
> > Thank you,
> > John
>|||As others have said, of course you can just install SSRS 05. Since SSRS
is an application server and not a database server then the "policy"
shouldn't be an issue.
--
Garth H
webdev511@.spamcop.net
Microsoft Certified Professional
Macromedia Certified Developer
John A wrote:
> Is it possible to install only the Reporting Services part of SQL Server
> without the database engine? We did this with Reporting Services 2000. The
> reason we need to do this is because are company policy will not let us put a
> database and a Web Server on the same machine.
>|||Yes it is. Of course you need an additional licence of SQL2005 to do this.
RS is not a sepparate product. It is a component of SQL. What you want to
do is like wanting to buy a single copy of MS Office and installing Word on
one machine and Excel on another.
=?Utf-8?B?Sm9obiBB?= <i-code4food@.newsgroups.nospam> wrote in
news:8EE19045-4B78-4B0D-9762-0320C4FF6A20@.microsoft.com:
> Is it possible to install only the Reporting Services part of SQL
> Server without the database engine? We did this with Reporting
> Services 2000. The reason we need to do this is because are company
> policy will not let us put a database and a Web Server on the same
> machine.
>|||Asher;
where were you when Nimda hit?
sitting back with your fat and lazy microsoft friends?
it's perfectly reasonable to want to run SSRS repository on SQL
express- for example-- on another machine... and the SSRS tempdb on
another machine still.
MS just doesn't make realistic licensing agreements; I call for a
worldwide boycott of all Microsoft products
-Susie, DBA
Asher_N wrote:
> Yes it is. Of course you need an additional licence of SQL2005 to do this.
> RS is not a sepparate product. It is a component of SQL. What you want to
> do is like wanting to buy a single copy of MS Office and installing Word on
> one machine and Excel on another.
>
> =?Utf-8?B?Sm9obiBB?= <i-code4food@.newsgroups.nospam> wrote in
> news:8EE19045-4B78-4B0D-9762-0320C4FF6A20@.microsoft.com:
> > Is it possible to install only the Reporting Services part of SQL
> > Server without the database engine? We did this with Reporting
> > Services 2000. The reason we need to do this is because are company
> > policy will not let us put a database and a Web Server on the same
> > machine.
> >|||It always amazes me when someone posts here for help and then says something
like you. As far as I know Asher doesn't work for MS. Most likely, like me,
he does this on his own time. He provides a truthful answer based on MS
licensing. He tried to explain the licensing. That is all. And then you
insult him.
In your superiority you have decided that MS licensing is somehow predatory
as far as RS. First, don't use it if you believe that. Second, you obviously
have not tried to price out using Crystal Reports. RS comes in (usually)
much cheaper.
Based on your licensing model (i.e. install everywhere and don't pay for
it). You could have RS on many many servers. A complete webfarm of 50
servers and pay nothing more for it than someone installing on one server.
Yep, that makes lots of sense.
A version of RS comes with Express (both free) as long as the data is local.
Of course, none of this matters to you. I am responding more for anyone else
who happens to read the thread. You are obviously rude and hopeless.
--
Bruce Loehle-Conger
MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
<susiedba@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1161123482.858104.99980@.f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Asher;
> where were you when Nimda hit?
> sitting back with your fat and lazy microsoft friends?
> it's perfectly reasonable to want to run SSRS repository on SQL
> express- for example-- on another machine... and the SSRS tempdb on
> another machine still.
> MS just doesn't make realistic licensing agreements; I call for a
> worldwide boycott of all Microsoft products
> -Susie, DBA
>
> Asher_N wrote:
>> Yes it is. Of course you need an additional licence of SQL2005 to do
>> this.
>> RS is not a sepparate product. It is a component of SQL. What you want to
>> do is like wanting to buy a single copy of MS Office and installing Word
>> on
>> one machine and Excel on another.
>>
>> =?Utf-8?B?Sm9obiBB?= <i-code4food@.newsgroups.nospam> wrote in
>> news:8EE19045-4B78-4B0D-9762-0320C4FF6A20@.microsoft.com:
>> > Is it possible to install only the Reporting Services part of SQL
>> > Server without the database engine? We did this with Reporting
>> > Services 2000. The reason we need to do this is because are company
>> > policy will not let us put a database and a Web Server on the same
>> > machine.
>> >
>|||Bruce, you're right. I don't work for MS. There are always jerks around.
"Bruce L-C [MVP]" <bruce_lcNOSPAM@.hotmail.com> wrote in
news:uwroFSl8GHA.2092@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl:
> It always amazes me when someone posts here for help and then says
> something like you. As far as I know Asher doesn't work for MS. Most
> likely, like me, he does this on his own time. He provides a truthful
> answer based on MS licensing. He tried to explain the licensing. That
> is all. And then you insult him.
> In your superiority you have decided that MS licensing is somehow
> predatory as far as RS. First, don't use it if you believe that.
> Second, you obviously have not tried to price out using Crystal
> Reports. RS comes in (usually) much cheaper.
> Based on your licensing model (i.e. install everywhere and don't pay
> for it). You could have RS on many many servers. A complete webfarm of
> 50 servers and pay nothing more for it than someone installing on one
> server. Yep, that makes lots of sense.
> A version of RS comes with Express (both free) as long as the data is
> local.
> Of course, none of this matters to you. I am responding more for
> anyone else who happens to read the thread. You are obviously rude and
> hopeless.
>|||RS on Express will only access local data.
I wish you luck with whatever Linux based solution you may find.
"susiedba@.hotmail.com" <susiedba@.hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1161123482.858104.99980@.f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
> Asher;
> where were you when Nimda hit?
> sitting back with your fat and lazy microsoft friends?
> it's perfectly reasonable to want to run SSRS repository on SQL
> express- for example-- on another machine... and the SSRS tempdb on
> another machine still.
> MS just doesn't make realistic licensing agreements; I call for a
> worldwide boycott of all Microsoft products
> -Susie, DBA
>
> Asher_N wrote:
>> Yes it is. Of course you need an additional licence of SQL2005 to do
>> this. RS is not a sepparate product. It is a component of SQL. What
>> you want to do is like wanting to buy a single copy of MS Office and
>> installing Word on one machine and Excel on another.
>>
>> =?Utf-8?B?Sm9obiBB?= <i-code4food@.newsgroups.nospam> wrote in
>> news:8EE19045-4B78-4B0D-9762-0320C4FF6A20@.microsoft.com:
>> > Is it possible to install only the Reporting Services part of SQL
>> > Server without the database engine? We did this with Reporting
>> > Services 2000. The reason we need to do this is because are
>> > company policy will not let us put a database and a Web Server on
>> > the same machine.
>> >
>|||susiedba is consistently an ass.
"Asher_N" <ashernat@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns986087A46D11203214562@.207.46.248.16...
> Bruce, you're right. I don't work for MS. There are always jerks around.
>
> "Bruce L-C [MVP]" <bruce_lcNOSPAM@.hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:uwroFSl8GHA.2092@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl:
>> It always amazes me when someone posts here for help and then says
>> something like you. As far as I know Asher doesn't work for MS. Most
>> likely, like me, he does this on his own time. He provides a truthful
>> answer based on MS licensing. He tried to explain the licensing. That
>> is all. And then you insult him.
>> In your superiority you have decided that MS licensing is somehow
>> predatory as far as RS. First, don't use it if you believe that.
>> Second, you obviously have not tried to price out using Crystal
>> Reports. RS comes in (usually) much cheaper.
>> Based on your licensing model (i.e. install everywhere and don't pay
>> for it). You could have RS on many many servers. A complete webfarm of
>> 50 servers and pay nothing more for it than someone installing on one
>> server. Yep, that makes lots of sense.
>> A version of RS comes with Express (both free) as long as the data is
>> local.
>> Of course, none of this matters to you. I am responding more for
>> anyone else who happens to read the thread. You are obviously rude and
>> hopeless.
>|||Since I am the original poster I thought I would chime in. I don't have a
problem with MSFT licenscing policies. There now that we got that out of the
way back to the original question.
I did a little research and it appears that an instance of SQL Server
database engine whether express or not needs to be made available to the SQL
Server Report Instance. Is this a correct statement?
--
Thank you,
John
"Asher_N" wrote:
> RS on Express will only access local data.
> I wish you luck with whatever Linux based solution you may find.
> "susiedba@.hotmail.com" <susiedba@.hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:1161123482.858104.99980@.f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
> > Asher;
> >
> > where were you when Nimda hit?
> >
> > sitting back with your fat and lazy microsoft friends?
> >
> > it's perfectly reasonable to want to run SSRS repository on SQL
> > express- for example-- on another machine... and the SSRS tempdb on
> > another machine still.
> >
> > MS just doesn't make realistic licensing agreements; I call for a
> > worldwide boycott of all Microsoft products
> >
> > -Susie, DBA
> >
> >
> > Asher_N wrote:
> >> Yes it is. Of course you need an additional licence of SQL2005 to do
> >> this. RS is not a sepparate product. It is a component of SQL. What
> >> you want to do is like wanting to buy a single copy of MS Office and
> >> installing Word on one machine and Excel on another.
> >>
> >>
> >> =?Utf-8?B?Sm9obiBB?= <i-code4food@.newsgroups.nospam> wrote in
> >> news:8EE19045-4B78-4B0D-9762-0320C4FF6A20@.microsoft.com:
> >>
> >> > Is it possible to install only the Reporting Services part of SQL
> >> > Server without the database engine? We did this with Reporting
> >> > Services 2000. The reason we need to do this is because are
> >> > company policy will not let us put a database and a Web Server on
> >> > the same machine.
> >> >
> >
>|||Yes Asher that is exactly what I want to do no matter how ridiculous the
policy might sound, I work for the government please don't get me started.
Basically the policy states that You cannot have a database and a web server
on the same physical machine.
BTW... this has nothing to do with licensing only security. Like the guys
that wrote the policy would know how to accomplish this. LOL
--
Thank you,
John
"Asher_N" wrote:
> Yes it is. Of course you need an additional licence of SQL2005 to do this.
> RS is not a sepparate product. It is a component of SQL. What you want to
> do is like wanting to buy a single copy of MS Office and installing Word on
> one machine and Excel on another.
>
> =?Utf-8?B?Sm9obiBB?= <i-code4food@.newsgroups.nospam> wrote in
> news:8EE19045-4B78-4B0D-9762-0320C4FF6A20@.microsoft.com:
> > Is it possible to install only the Reporting Services part of SQL
> > Server without the database engine? We did this with Reporting
> > Services 2000. The reason we need to do this is because are company
> > policy will not let us put a database and a Web Server on the same
> > machine.
> >
>|||=?Utf-8?B?Sm9obiBB?= <i-code4food@.newsgroups.nospam> wrote in
news:2C0CC497-5A37-41F7-A67B-5187D662109D@.microsoft.com:
> Yes Asher that is exactly what I want to do no matter how ridiculous
> the policy might sound, I work for the government please don't get me
> started.
> Basically the policy states that You cannot have a database and a web
> server on the same physical machine.
> BTW... this has nothing to do with licensing only security. Like the
> guys that wrote the policy would know how to accomplish this. LOL
>
You can do it. You know the licencing requirements. I'm not sure if you can
avoid ANY database engine part installing with RS.|||There must be a database server somewhere for RS during installation. It has
to create its two databases. This database server does not have to be on the
same machine and it can either be SQL 2000 or SQL 2005. So, during
installation you will need an account that has the rights to be able to
install these databases on SQL Server.
Bruce Loehle-Conger
MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
"John A" <i-code4food@.newsgroups.nospam> wrote in message
news:2C0CC497-5A37-41F7-A67B-5187D662109D@.microsoft.com...
> Yes Asher that is exactly what I want to do no matter how ridiculous the
> policy might sound, I work for the government please don't get me started.
> Basically the policy states that You cannot have a database and a web
> server
> on the same physical machine.
> BTW... this has nothing to do with licensing only security. Like the guys
> that wrote the policy would know how to accomplish this. LOL
> --
> Thank you,
> John
>
> "Asher_N" wrote:
>> Yes it is. Of course you need an additional licence of SQL2005 to do
>> this.
>> RS is not a sepparate product. It is a component of SQL. What you want to
>> do is like wanting to buy a single copy of MS Office and installing Word
>> on
>> one machine and Excel on another.
>>
>> =?Utf-8?B?Sm9obiBB?= <i-code4food@.newsgroups.nospam> wrote in
>> news:8EE19045-4B78-4B0D-9762-0320C4FF6A20@.microsoft.com:
>> > Is it possible to install only the Reporting Services part of SQL
>> > Server without the database engine? We did this with Reporting
>> > Services 2000. The reason we need to do this is because are company
>> > policy will not let us put a database and a Web Server on the same
>> > machine.
>> >
>>