Showing posts with label current. Show all posts
Showing posts with label current. Show all posts

Monday, March 26, 2012

Installing SQLServer2005 but Preserve Current SQLServer2000

I have a default installation of SQLServer2000 on a host running
Win2003. I want to install SQLServer2005 on the same machine, but
preserve the original SQLServer2000 installation. How do I do this --
install into new directory? new directory and named instance? just
new named instance? What stumbling blocks could I run into?red_valsen@.yahoo.com wrote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by

I have a default installation of SQLServer2000 on a host running
Win2003. I want to install SQLServer2005 on the same machine, but
preserve the original SQLServer2000 installation. How do I do this --
install into new directory? new directory and named instance? just
new named instance? What stumbling blocks could I run into?


I believe new directory and named instance is necessary and sufficient.|||2005 will work side-by-side with 2000 as a named instance. Just note
that there is no Microsoft tool to migrate a database back to 2000.

You will want to set a different data/backups folder - e.g. \mssql2005.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

red_valsen@.yahoo.com wrote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by

I have a default installation of SQLServer2000 on a host running
Win2003. I want to install SQLServer2005 on the same machine, but
preserve the original SQLServer2000 installation. How do I do this --
install into new directory? new directory and named instance? just
new named instance? What stumbling blocks could I run into?

Friday, March 23, 2012

Installing SQL Server Reporting Services

Current machine Windows XP Pro with sp2. Successfully installed all portions
of Reporting Services with exception to Report Designer to SQL Server 2000.
The message which appears at almost the conclusion of installation states
"There is a problem with this Windows Installer package. A program run as
part of the setup did not finish as expected. Contact your support personnel
or package vendor.". Then it rolls back the installation.
Looking through the Event Logs it shows there was an error registered due to
the msvcr71.dll. The error value is:
Error value: C0000013
Disk type: 5
This file is on the CD for the Reporting Services and it should not be
damaged, in use, etc. by any other process other than that of the installer.
After installing all but the designer, I even installed service pack 1 for
Reporting Services and still have the same result.
Ideas?
Your thoughts on this matter will be appreciated.Just wanted to post the resolution to the situation below.
From the event log it showed that it had a problem with the msvcr71.dll.
Comparing the datetime of the file on the CD to that of the system, they were
different.
So I copied the contents of the CD to the hard drive to point to the older
file to see if it would help. The result, it did not help so I put the
original file from the CD back into the Reportin Services install directory
of my hard drive.
In reading other posts regarding installs, there was a file mentioned in the
01SEP2004 post by Daniel Reib [MSFT] to an 'install problem' (original
subject for posting), which was RSRun.msi.
I installed this file with Visual Studio .NET open and within a project. It
seemed to be having a problem without VS.NET being open, at least on 2
machines. In the past attempts the event log showed that it was having a
problem starting up the VS.NET and that is why I opened the application and
project while installing. The install was successful and the Report Designer
is working.
Hope this helps some other people that experienced a similar issue.
-Guy
"Guy G" wrote:
> Current machine Windows XP Pro with sp2. Successfully installed all portions
> of Reporting Services with exception to Report Designer to SQL Server 2000.
> The message which appears at almost the conclusion of installation states
> "There is a problem with this Windows Installer package. A program run as
> part of the setup did not finish as expected. Contact your support personnel
> or package vendor.". Then it rolls back the installation.
> Looking through the Event Logs it shows there was an error registered due to
> the msvcr71.dll. The error value is:
> Error value: C0000013
> Disk type: 5
> This file is on the CD for the Reporting Services and it should not be
> damaged, in use, etc. by any other process other than that of the installer.
> After installing all but the designer, I even installed service pack 1 for
> Reporting Services and still have the same result.
> Ideas?
> Your thoughts on this matter will be appreciated.
>

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

Installing SQL Server 2005, then upgrading to Windows 2003 from 20

We have plans to upgrade all our current SQL Server 2000 SP4 servers to SQL
Server 2005. Most of those servers are running on Windows 2000 with plans
to also upgrade to Windows 2003. Are there any risks to upgrading the SQL
Server, then upgrading the OS to 2003 at a later time? Or is it recommended
to upgrade the OS, then SQL Server for better results? In other words,
should these upgrades be tied together or does really not make a difference?
I haven't tried this sequence, but here is what I have learned fro upgrades
in the past. I prefer to upgrade in release sequence. Therefore, upgrade
to Windows 2003 then upgrade SQL 2000 to SQL 2005. Personally, I don't like
upgrading in place. I try to rebuild servers from scratch when I get a
chance. I use home-grown log shipping scripts to handle the cutover and can
generally keep the downtime to just a few minutes. Of course, this requires
a bit of spare hardware and some decent prep time but I really like having a
clean build. You also have the existing server as a fail-back for however
long you choose.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"SandiDBA" <SandiDBA@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D594190B-9FA1-4E80-BE41-E7C1680768F2@.microsoft.com...
> We have plans to upgrade all our current SQL Server 2000 SP4 servers to
> SQL
> Server 2005. Most of those servers are running on Windows 2000 with
> plans
> to also upgrade to Windows 2003. Are there any risks to upgrading the
> SQL
> Server, then upgrading the OS to 2003 at a later time? Or is it
> recommended
> to upgrade the OS, then SQL Server for better results? In other words,
> should these upgrades be tied together or does really not make a
> difference?
|||Hi
I would concur with Geoff, as Windows 2003 is an environmental change is
should have less impact and less likely to require any application changes
(although configuration changes may be necessary!) and therefore I would do
it first. An upgrade to SQL 2005 is more likely to require code changes and
so require more time for preparation and testing.
John
"SandiDBA" <SandiDBA@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D594190B-9FA1-4E80-BE41-E7C1680768F2@.microsoft.com...
> We have plans to upgrade all our current SQL Server 2000 SP4 servers to
> SQL
> Server 2005. Most of those servers are running on Windows 2000 with
> plans
> to also upgrade to Windows 2003. Are there any risks to upgrading the
> SQL
> Server, then upgrading the OS to 2003 at a later time? Or is it
> recommended
> to upgrade the OS, then SQL Server for better results? In other words,
> should these upgrades be tied together or does really not make a
> difference?

Installing SQL Server 2005, then upgrading to Windows 2003 from 20

We have plans to upgrade all our current SQL Server 2000 SP4 servers to SQL
Server 2005. Most of those servers are running on Windows 2000 with plans
to also upgrade to Windows 2003. Are there any risks to upgrading the SQL
Server, then upgrading the OS to 2003 at a later time? Or is it recommended
to upgrade the OS, then SQL Server for better results? In other words,
should these upgrades be tied together or does really not make a difference?I haven't tried this sequence, but here is what I have learned fro upgrades
in the past. I prefer to upgrade in release sequence. Therefore, upgrade
to Windows 2003 then upgrade SQL 2000 to SQL 2005. Personally, I don't like
upgrading in place. I try to rebuild servers from scratch when I get a
chance. I use home-grown log shipping scripts to handle the cutover and can
generally keep the downtime to just a few minutes. Of course, this requires
a bit of spare hardware and some decent prep time but I really like having a
clean build. You also have the existing server as a fail-back for however
long you choose.
--
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"SandiDBA" <SandiDBA@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D594190B-9FA1-4E80-BE41-E7C1680768F2@.microsoft.com...
> We have plans to upgrade all our current SQL Server 2000 SP4 servers to
> SQL
> Server 2005. Most of those servers are running on Windows 2000 with
> plans
> to also upgrade to Windows 2003. Are there any risks to upgrading the
> SQL
> Server, then upgrading the OS to 2003 at a later time? Or is it
> recommended
> to upgrade the OS, then SQL Server for better results? In other words,
> should these upgrades be tied together or does really not make a
> difference?|||Hi
I would concur with Geoff, as Windows 2003 is an environmental change is
should have less impact and less likely to require any application changes
(although configuration changes may be necessary!) and therefore I would do
it first. An upgrade to SQL 2005 is more likely to require code changes and
so require more time for preparation and testing.
John
"SandiDBA" <SandiDBA@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D594190B-9FA1-4E80-BE41-E7C1680768F2@.microsoft.com...
> We have plans to upgrade all our current SQL Server 2000 SP4 servers to
> SQL
> Server 2005. Most of those servers are running on Windows 2000 with
> plans
> to also upgrade to Windows 2003. Are there any risks to upgrading the
> SQL
> Server, then upgrading the OS to 2003 at a later time? Or is it
> recommended
> to upgrade the OS, then SQL Server for better results? In other words,
> should these upgrades be tied together or does really not make a
> difference?|||We are looking at the extact ame scenerio. When you say you don't like
upgrading in place, do you mean Windows OS , SQL Server or both ? We agree
that a server rebuild it cleaner but we have never done a SQL server upgrade.
I am wondering if that is true for SQL server as well e.e Is a side-by-side
migration cleaner than an in-place upgrade ?
--
Thanks,
Flora
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
> I haven't tried this sequence, but here is what I have learned fro upgrades
> in the past. I prefer to upgrade in release sequence. Therefore, upgrade
> to Windows 2003 then upgrade SQL 2000 to SQL 2005. Personally, I don't like
> upgrading in place. I try to rebuild servers from scratch when I get a
> chance. I use home-grown log shipping scripts to handle the cutover and can
> generally keep the downtime to just a few minutes. Of course, this requires
> a bit of spare hardware and some decent prep time but I really like having a
> clean build. You also have the existing server as a fail-back for however
> long you choose.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>
> "SandiDBA" <SandiDBA@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:D594190B-9FA1-4E80-BE41-E7C1680768F2@.microsoft.com...
> > We have plans to upgrade all our current SQL Server 2000 SP4 servers to
> > SQL
> > Server 2005. Most of those servers are running on Windows 2000 with
> > plans
> > to also upgrade to Windows 2003. Are there any risks to upgrading the
> > SQL
> > Server, then upgrading the OS to 2003 at a later time? Or is it
> > recommended
> > to upgrade the OS, then SQL Server for better results? In other words,
> > should these upgrades be tied together or does really not make a
> > difference?
>
>

Installing SQL Server 2005, then upgrading to Windows 2003 from 20

We have plans to upgrade all our current SQL Server 2000 SP4 servers to SQL
Server 2005. Most of those servers are running on Windows 2000 with plan
s
to also upgrade to Windows 2003. Are there any risks to upgrading the SQ
L
Server, then upgrading the OS to 2003 at a later time? Or is it recommende
d
to upgrade the OS, then SQL Server for better results? In other words,
should these upgrades be tied together or does really not make a difference?I haven't tried this sequence, but here is what I have learned fro upgrades
in the past. I prefer to upgrade in release sequence. Therefore, upgrade
to Windows 2003 then upgrade SQL 2000 to SQL 2005. Personally, I don't like
upgrading in place. I try to rebuild servers from scratch when I get a
chance. I use home-grown log shipping scripts to handle the cutover and can
generally keep the downtime to just a few minutes. Of course, this requires
a bit of spare hardware and some decent prep time but I really like having a
clean build. You also have the existing server as a fail-back for however
long you choose.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"SandiDBA" <SandiDBA@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D594190B-9FA1-4E80-BE41-E7C1680768F2@.microsoft.com...
> We have plans to upgrade all our current SQL Server 2000 SP4 servers to
> SQL
> Server 2005. Most of those servers are running on Windows 2000 with
> plans
> to also upgrade to Windows 2003. Are there any risks to upgrading the
> SQL
> Server, then upgrading the OS to 2003 at a later time? Or is it
> recommended
> to upgrade the OS, then SQL Server for better results? In other words,
> should these upgrades be tied together or does really not make a
> difference?|||Hi
I would concur with Geoff, as Windows 2003 is an environmental change is
should have less impact and less likely to require any application changes
(although configuration changes may be necessary!) and therefore I would do
it first. An upgrade to SQL 2005 is more likely to require code changes and
so require more time for preparation and testing.
John
"SandiDBA" <SandiDBA@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D594190B-9FA1-4E80-BE41-E7C1680768F2@.microsoft.com...
> We have plans to upgrade all our current SQL Server 2000 SP4 servers to
> SQL
> Server 2005. Most of those servers are running on Windows 2000 with
> plans
> to also upgrade to Windows 2003. Are there any risks to upgrading the
> SQL
> Server, then upgrading the OS to 2003 at a later time? Or is it
> recommended
> to upgrade the OS, then SQL Server for better results? In other words,
> should these upgrades be tied together or does really not make a
> difference?

Monday, March 19, 2012

Integrated Security with IIS6.0 identity impersonate=true

Hi,
I'm struggling trying to catch the current user in MSSQL with
SYSTEM_USER through an Intranet Application. I try to do this to create
audit trail of changes to data. (I'm aware of the performance penalties
it causes due to application pooling problems with integrated
security.)
Now to my problem:
Using IIS6.0 ASP.NET 1.1 on Windows2003 with Windows Authentication
enabled and Anonymous logon disabled. I get the correct user and can
verify him/her in IIS. Now I want this identity to be used when logging
into SQLServer. To keep things simple, lets say the SQLServer is on the
same machine (it is right now, but won't be further on). The aspx-pages
use a wrapper to call COM-dll's that connect to the database using an
ODBC file DSN. I have set <indentity impersonate="true" /> in
Web.Config and have created the Windows Integrated Security login
accounts in SQLServer with proper db-roles to update the data.
Unfortunately I keep getting stuck with the NT AUTHORISATION/NETWORK
SERVICE account when the connection reaches SQLServer. It was working
last week, but now I've made a clean install and just can't get it to
work.
Please help with any ideas! The <identity impersonate="true" /> isn't
listening to me.
/RichardIt looks like you might be missing setting up delegation.
The following articles should get you started:
How To: Implement Kerberos Delegation for Windows 2000
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d.../>
NetHT05.asp
How to use Kerberos authentication in SQL Server
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=319723
-Sue
On 15 May 2006 17:23:09 -0700, richard.allgardh@.medinit.se
wrote:

>Hi,
>I'm struggling trying to catch the current user in MSSQL with
>SYSTEM_USER through an Intranet Application. I try to do this to create
>audit trail of changes to data. (I'm aware of the performance penalties
>it causes due to application pooling problems with integrated
>security.)
>Now to my problem:
>Using IIS6.0 ASP.NET 1.1 on Windows2003 with Windows Authentication
>enabled and Anonymous logon disabled. I get the correct user and can
>verify him/her in IIS. Now I want this identity to be used when logging
>into SQLServer. To keep things simple, lets say the SQLServer is on the
>same machine (it is right now, but won't be further on). The aspx-pages
>use a wrapper to call COM-dll's that connect to the database using an
>ODBC file DSN. I have set <indentity impersonate="true" /> in
>Web.Config and have created the Windows Integrated Security login
>accounts in SQLServer with proper db-roles to update the data.
>Unfortunately I keep getting stuck with the NT AUTHORISATION/NETWORK
>SERVICE account when the connection reaches SQLServer. It was working
>last week, but now I've made a clean install and just can't get it to
>work.
>Please help with any ideas! The <identity impersonate="true" /> isn't
>listening to me.
>/Richard

Friday, March 9, 2012

integer datatype and null value error

I'm getting a datatype error: "Application uses a value of the wrong type for the current operation" when executing the following stored procedure:

CREATE PROCEDURE dbo.Insert_Temp_ContactInfo
@.sessionid varchar(50),
@.FirstName varchar(50) = NULL,
@.LastName varchar(50) = NULL,
@.SchoolName varchar(50) = NULL,
@.address varchar(50) = NULL,
@.City varchar(50) = NULL,
@.State int = NULL,
@.Zip varchar(5) = NULL,
@.Phone varchar(10) = NULL,
@.Email varchar(50) = NULL,
@.CurrentCustomer varchar(3) = NULL,
@.ImplementationType int = NULL,
@.ProductType int = NULL,
@.Comment varchar(500) = NULL
AS
--check if a current record exists
SET NOCOUNT ON
begin
UPDATE dbo.Temp_ContactInfo
SET
FirstName = @.FirstName,
LastName = @.LastName,
SchoolName = @.SchoolName,
Address = @.address,
City = @.City,
State = @.State,
Zip = @.Zip,
Phone = @.Phone,
Email = @.Email,
CurrentCustomer = @.CurrentCustomer,
ImplementationType = @.ImplementationType,
ProductType = @.ProductType,
Comment = @.Comment
WHERE
sessionid = @.sessionid

If @.@.Rowcount = 0
INSERT INTO dbo.Temp_ContactInfo
(sessionid,
FirstName,
LastName,
SchoolName,
address,
City,
State,
Zip,
Phone,
Email,
CurrentCustomer,
ImplementationType,
ProductType,
Comment)
VALUES
(@.sessionid,
@.FirstName,
@.LastName,
@.SchoolName,
@.address,
@.City,
@.State,
@.Zip,
@.Phone,
@.Email,
@.CurrentCustomer,
@.ImplementationType,
@.ProductType,
@.Comment)
end
GO

This is code I'm using to call the procedure:

set InsertTempInfo = Server.CreateObject("ADODB.Command")
With InsertTempInfo
.ActiveConnection = MM_DBConn_STRING
.CommandText = "dbo.Insert_Temp_ContactInfo"
.CommandType = 4
.CommandTimeout = 0
.Prepared = true
.Parameters.Append .CreateParameter("@.sessionid", 200, 1,50, usrid)
.Parameters.Append .CreateParameter("@.FirstName", 200, 1,50,fname)
.Parameters.Append .CreateParameter("@.LastName", 200, 1,50,lname)
.Parameters.Append .CreateParameter("@.SchoolName", 200, 1,50,schoolname)
.Parameters.Append .CreateParameter("@.address", 200, 1,50,address)
.Parameters.Append .CreateParameter("@.City", 200, 1,50,city)
.Parameters.Append .CreateParameter("@.State", 3, 1,4,state)
.Parameters.Append .CreateParameter("@.Zip", 200, 1,5,zip)
.Parameters.Append .CreateParameter("@.Phone", 200, 1,10,phone)
.Parameters.Append .CreateParameter("@.Email", 200, 1,50,email)
.Parameters.Append .CreateParameter("@.CurrentCustomer", 200, 1,3,currentcustomer)
.Parameters.Append .CreateParameter("@.ImplementationType", 3, 1,4,implementationtype)
.Parameters.Append .CreateParameter("@.ProductType", 3, 1,4,producttype)
.Parameters.Append .CreateParameter("@.Comment", 200, 1,500,comment)
.Execute()
End With
Set InsertTempInfo = Nothing

the error is thrown on the following line:

.Parameters.Append .CreateParameter("@.State", 3, 1,4,state)

I'm using a table to hold data that I can pass back to the original form page and re-populate the fields that were not validated correctly. The stored procedure either inserts or updates the record in the temp table I've created.

So, currently, as I'm testing, I'm just passing empty values to all the parameters and the @.state parameter is failing and throwing the error.

I've double checked that the table has the state column set to integer datatype

The column is set as follows:

Name datatype length Allow Nulls
--------------
State int 4 checked

I have tried setting the default value for every column to Null in the table and then also not using a default value. Either way, I still recieve the same error?

Not sure what else to look at?

It seems the problem might be that instead of a null value being passed to the parameter that it is actually empty. Can passing an empty value to a column of datatype integer cause this problem? If so, is there a way to correct it?

Thanks for any help.Basic thing to check: Make sure the data type you are passing to the stored procedure is of the same type as the stored procedure is expecting