Instances of SQL Server have disappeared

Hi,

We had 5 instances of SQL Server running on one of our machines and everything looked to be working fine. Today I installed another instance for a new application and once done and rebooted the new instance didn't show in the SQL Server Enterprise Manager. At this point we decided to uninstall it. After that 4 of the existing instances have diapered as well even though they are running and responding requests from their respective applications.

I did some googling and all I could see is something related to a command called nscontrol but I couldn't find any nscontrol executable on that machine.

Does anyone have any idea what this problem could be?

Thanksnscontrol is related to SQL Notification Services. I don't think that would be part of your solution.

I'm confused why you are installing a new instance of SQL Server for each application?

In any case, are you having any better luck? If not, can you go to the Windows command prompt on the server where SQL Server is running and type in osql -L and see if your instances are all listed? Have you checked your system's event log for any clues? How about the SQL Server error log?

I know that you should be able to run up to 16 instances of SQL Server, so you are probably not hitting that limitation.

Terri|||I'm with Terri. Instead of running 5 instances of SQL Server, why not use 1? And use 5 different databases? Seems like a better solution to me. Probably less overhead too.|||Sorry for not posting sooner, someone here has experienced something similar and the solution was to reregister every instance in Enterprise Manager. We can't explain why this thing happens but looks like this is what had to be done.

With respect to using instances rather then databases, the theory here is that we try to stay away from database administration and delegate it to the groups that actually need that application and databases that is why we give different instances to different groups of people. I hope that this explains somehow our situation.|||Glad you got it sorted out.

Yes, I had done research after you had made that post and read the cases for having multiple instances on the same server. That does make sense. Just keep in mind you can't have more than 16 instances :-)

Terri|||Yes, we knew about 16 instances limit.

Thanks

Instance name contains a dash

Hello

We are in the process of upgrading our SQL 2K server to a cluster environment. Currently the server is setup as a default instance running on a single box with log shipping as a warm backup

It is required to create an instance name for the new cluster to work. My question is

1) Has anybody tried to have an instance name that dash (-) in it.

Example: \\SERVERNAME\xxx-xx-xxx

I am told that it is not possible to have a server instance named this way. Would like to know if this naming convention is possible under SQL2K If not what is the suggested workaround

This will save a lot of time in application modifications

Thanks in advance

Gabe J

Don't do it, invest the work now and you will have a much more relaxing future. If it takes much time to modify your application to work with another instance name you probably have a design issue in your application.

HTH, Jens Suessmeyer.

http://www.sqlserver2005.de

|||

Thanks for the advice.

SQL 2000 books online does not specifically mention that dash (-) cannot be used in an instance name ( you can even create tables and other objects in a database that contains a dash in them why not instance name?). Could you please be a little more specific as what exactly the issues would be if the instance name contained dashes.

I have to justify the requirement to make program changes, for that I need to understand what the issues are going to be.

Appreciate your help

Gabe J

|||

I don′t have any specific issue in mind that I can tell of if you use special characters in instance names. Sure you can have special characters in Tables and other objects, but "What you can do" is often the opposite "What is prefered to do". As from my experience I wouldn′t bet on that horse and take the risk of naming the object or even the instance with special characters, although I can. Thats just my two cents, perhaps someone has another opinion about that, but unless you have a hand on your code and have the opportunity to correct that thing (as of my opinion) I would that effort in it.

HTH, Jens Suessmeyer.

http://www.sqlserver2005.de

|||

In general I agree with what Jens has to say. As far as I know, putting a dash in the instance name is supported. I remember back in the 7.0 days testers went to a lot of trouble to make sure that dashes worked fine in the server name. I don't remember finding any issues there (but it was a long time ago). I do seem to remember that our automation at the time needed multiple changes to run on those servers. :(

The effort was worth it for Microsoft but might not be for your arbitrary application.

|||

One of the suggestions made to get around with this issue is to place a registry hack by adding a key called "Connectto" in the following node

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\MICROSOFT\MSSQLServer\Client\

And specify the value as the OLD server name = "XXX-XX-XXX"

and data = DBNMPNTW,\\<New Server name>\pipe\MSSQL$<Instance name>\sql\query

When applications connect irrespective of the connection string, this registry value connects to the SQL server instance.

Seems to work . Agree this is just a workaround instead of solving the real issue of making application modifications.

Has anyone tried this ?

Thanks for you suggestions

|||

Not sure where you heard about this registry hack, but I would not recommend using it unless it was mentioned in a specific Microsoft article...This ***hack*** may not work after a future release. Looks like this workaround maybe setting up a alias for the server. If this is the case, you should use SQL Server Configuration Manager instead.

As others have said, I am not really sure if dashes are supported, but I would not use...SQL Server maybe able to handle it fine, but some other external component may not.

Thanks,

Peter Saddow

|||

Agree that this is a **hack**. The SQL Server is a 2K version not 2005. How do I use the configuration manager to set up and alias name for the instance at the server level?

Thanks

|||

For SQL Server 2000, use SQL Server Client Network Utility. Select the "Alias" tab and enter the required information.

Hope this helps,

Peter Saddow

Installing SSIS with SQL Server 2000

Hi All,

I have installed SSIS on server running SQL 2000 but I don't see the Business Intelligence or SSIS. I could see the SSIS service is running but do not see VS or BI version of VS.

Any ideas? Thanks in advance.

Perhaps you need to run installer of VS.NET and add BI Dev Studio.|||

Fahad,

I didn't see the option to install BI Dev Studio from VS 2005 installation. Do I need to install full VS to get the BI Dev Studio?

Please advice.

Thanks.

|||I have not done this myself as it's another group here, but my understanding is that when you install the SQL Server 2005 client tools, you'll get BIDS.|||

That was my understanding too but after installing SQL 2005 client tools and Integration Services, I don't see the BIDS.

|||

Bader Cheema wrote:

That was my understanding too but after installing SQL 2005 client tools and Integration Services, I don't see the BIDS.

Under Start->Programs->Microsoft SQL Server 2005 you don't see SQL Server Business Intelligence Development Studio?|||

I do able to see client tools but NOT BIDS.

|||I have had a similar problem installing the tools. I have installed the evaluation version of SQL 2005 including all the tools etc on a development server. BIDS is on there and works fine.

However, when I can to install the client tools on my desktop, I get management studio and all the other tools but not BIDS, the only thing that I can think of is because I use Visual Web Developer Express rather than Visual Studio.

Is there a workaround for this as its a little bit restrictive of Microsoft if this is the case.

<tuffty/>

Installing SQL Server Express edition

When I try to Install SQL Server expres edition I keep on getting this error: http://www.fambouman.com/SQLError.JPG

I'am running Windows SBS 2003 fully updated via windows update.. When I go to the URL mentioned in the error I get an error and the browser redirects to microsoft search.

Anybody know how I can setup SQL Expres ? I need it for dotnetnuke to run.

Thanks in advance

Sorry I can not read the error, could you post it in english.

|||

Sorry for the 'Dutch' error.. I thought mayb somebody could do something with it and I didn't really now how to 'generate' a english error.

But now I tried installing the 'english' version of SQL Server Expres and it gives the same error in english so here it is: http://www.fambouman.com/SQLError_english.JPG

Thanks in advance for helping me out.

|||

Hello Antonie,

it seems that your windows version does not match the requirements for sql server express.

To find out what windows version you have:

(Sorry, i'm from germany, i have the german version of windows,
and i don't know the english terms. I mentioned this here:
http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=466124&SiteID=1

I think it would be better when all developpers use the english original versions.
Then all developpers would use the same terms! On Condition that the well understandable
subset of english is used in the developper tools that microsoft uses today.)

To find out what windows version you have:
task manager / systemcontrol (try to translate...) / system /systemproperties.

To find out what windows versions are required:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143506(SQL.90).aspx

Regards,
Markus

Installing SQL Server Express

Please tell me what I am missing here. I've got an XP Pro machine with SQL Server Express running and a laptop with XP running the Management Studio Express. This is on my home network which is wireless. I can't see any databases on the XP Pro machine from the laptop. Is there something besides just installing SQL Server that I need to do? I've checked forums, documentation and co-workers but no luck.

Thanks in advance

You can not access SQL Express over the network. For that you need at least SQL Developer edition

|||

Thanks! That saves a lot of grief.

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?

Installing SQL Server 2005 SP2

Hello,
We are running SQL Server 2005 SP1 Developer Edition x64 on Windows 2003
Server R2 x64. We have setup transactional replication. The same instance
has the Distributor and Subscriber, and another instance has the Publisher.
The readme for SP2 says to upgrade the Distributor, Publisher and then the
Subscribers. Will we have any problems since the same instance is acting as
the Distributor and Subscriber? Which instance should we upgrade first?
Thanks,
Heather
Interesting question. I guess you'll have to do the dist/subs first then the
publisher as this is the nearest to the published expectations. Be nice for
BOL to be updated with clarification for this type of case - I'll put in a
BOL feedback.
Cheers,
Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com

Integrated Security with local SQL & IIS

I have SQL RS running on a Win 2K (dev only) machine with IIS on the same local machine. I am trying to access the reports from another computer, but am getting an error

An error has occurred during report processing. (rsProcessingAborted) Get Online Help

Cannot create a connection to data source '<Shared Data Source Name>'. (rsErrorOpeningConnection) Get Online Help

Login failed for user '<DOMAINNAME>\Guest'.

IIS and the Datasource are setup for integrated security and the Datasource is aimed at the local SQL DB. Anonymous access is turned off in IIS and it prompts for the login info when trying to access it via the web. My understanding is that this should work without problems due to IIS & SQL being on the same machine, but I can't seem to get it to work. Is there a doc somewhere or anything that goes thru the settings so I can see what I'm missing? Or does anyone have any ideas?

Thanks.

Does it work if you access the reports locally? How about using stored windows credentials for hte data source instead of integrated security?|||

Yes, the reports work fine locally. I just can't access them from another machine. I need to use integrated security due to needing the windows login to lookup the correct info in the report and to know the type of user (admin, basic, etc).

Thanks for your help.

|||

Probably a kerberos configuration issue. Try forcing NTLM. See the workaround in http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;871179

Installing SQL Server 2000 on XP Pro

I've got SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition & running XP Pro, but it errors on install. Displays "Not supported on this operating system". What can I do, I need use Enterprise Manager & ect.
Thanks in advance
Troy
Use standart edition
|||Install the Tools Only. You can not install Enterprise Edition on XP Pro.
Mike
Principal Mentor
Solid Quality Learning
"More than just Training"
SQL Server MVP
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com
http://www.mssqlserver.com
|||You cannot use the Standard Edition on Window XP. Only MSDE, Personal or
Developer.
Rand
This posting is provided "as is" with no warranties and confers no rights.

Installing SQL Server 2000 Instance

I am trying to install a new instance and it asks me to kill the tasks
for sql server other instances that are running. this occurs are the
MDAC 2.6 setup. I have MDAC 2.8 installed on the box but this still
comesup.
I have not seen this in the past, or encountered this problem,
is there a way to avoid this or not to kill the tasks as i think it
will stop the service for the other instances and thus give me some
downtime which i dont want.
Any suggestion or idea will be great.
Hi
"rubeel@.gmail.com" wrote:

> I am trying to install a new instance and it asks me to kill the tasks
> for sql server other instances that are running. this occurs are the
> MDAC 2.6 setup. I have MDAC 2.8 installed on the box but this still
> comesup.
> I have not seen this in the past, or encountered this problem,
> is there a way to avoid this or not to kill the tasks as i think it
> will stop the service for the other instances and thus give me some
> downtime which i dont want.
> Any suggestion or idea will be great.
>
You could use the MDAC component checker to make sure that you have the
version of MDAC you think is there.
Which versions of SQL Server are each of the instances running? What
components have you installed?
John
|||It is SQL server 2000 on a Win2k Box. all Enterprise.
The problem is that when i try to install a new instance it tries to
install MDAC 2.6 and says that the sqlservr task(which are as many as
the instances, around 14) needs to be stopped. I cant do that on the
prod box and it is causing a dilemma for me. I didnt have a problem a
couple of weeks back when i did the same and it installed the
instance.
I thought it was a service problem so i scheduled a reboot last nite
and that didnt help.
Rubeel

Installing SQL Server 2000 Instance

I am trying to install a new instance and it asks me to kill the tasks
for sql server other instances that are running. this occurs are the
MDAC 2.6 setup. I have MDAC 2.8 installed on the box but this still
comesup.
I have not seen this in the past, or encountered this problem,
is there a way to avoid this or not to kill the tasks as i think it
will stop the service for the other instances and thus give me some
downtime which i dont want.
Any suggestion or idea will be great.Hi
"rubeel@.gmail.com" wrote:
> I am trying to install a new instance and it asks me to kill the tasks
> for sql server other instances that are running. this occurs are the
> MDAC 2.6 setup. I have MDAC 2.8 installed on the box but this still
> comesup.
> I have not seen this in the past, or encountered this problem,
> is there a way to avoid this or not to kill the tasks as i think it
> will stop the service for the other instances and thus give me some
> downtime which i dont want.
> Any suggestion or idea will be great.
>
You could use the MDAC component checker to make sure that you have the
version of MDAC you think is there.
Which versions of SQL Server are each of the instances running? What
components have you installed?
John|||It is SQL server 2000 on a Win2k Box. all Enterprise.
The problem is that when i try to install a new instance it tries to
install MDAC 2.6 and says that the sqlservr task(which are as many as
the instances, around 14) needs to be stopped. I cant do that on the
prod box and it is causing a dilemma for me. I didnt have a problem a
couple of weeks back when i did the same and it installed the
instance.
I thought it was a service problem so i scheduled a reboot last nite
and that didnt help.
Rubeel

Installing SQL Server 2000 Instance

I am trying to install a new instance and it asks me to kill the tasks
for sql server other instances that are running. this occurs are the
MDAC 2.6 setup. I have MDAC 2.8 installed on the box but this still
comesup.
I have not seen this in the past, or encountered this problem,
is there a way to avoid this or not to kill the tasks as i think it
will stop the service for the other instances and thus give me some
downtime which i dont want.
Any suggestion or idea will be great.Hi
"rubeel@.gmail.com" wrote:

> I am trying to install a new instance and it asks me to kill the tasks
> for sql server other instances that are running. this occurs are the
> MDAC 2.6 setup. I have MDAC 2.8 installed on the box but this still
> comesup.
> I have not seen this in the past, or encountered this problem,
> is there a way to avoid this or not to kill the tasks as i think it
> will stop the service for the other instances and thus give me some
> downtime which i dont want.
> Any suggestion or idea will be great.
>
You could use the MDAC component checker to make sure that you have the
version of MDAC you think is there.
Which versions of SQL Server are each of the instances running? What
components have you installed?
John|||It is SQL server 2000 on a Win2k Box. all Enterprise.
The problem is that when i try to install a new instance it tries to
install MDAC 2.6 and says that the sqlservr task(which are as many as
the instances, around 14) needs to be stopped. I cant do that on the
prod box and it is causing a dilemma for me. I didnt have a problem a
couple of weeks back when i did the same and it installed the
instance.
I thought it was a service problem so i scheduled a reboot last nite
and that didnt help.
Rubeel

Installing SQL Server 2000 Developer on Windows XP Pro

Hi,

I'm a newbie with SQL Server 2000 Developer. I know that it is
supposed to install on Windows XP Pro, but I keep running into the
following message:

"The logon account cannot be validated for the SQL Server service.
Validate ...".

I've looked for help and taken the advise of trying the user
"Administrator", but that does not help. Initially I tried making a
new user called "sqlserver" with Administrator access, but that didn't
work.

Can someone please help. Ideally step by step from where I am.

Thanks in advance,

Rajrajchoud@.hotmail.com (Raj) wrote in message news:<2c27ec55.0404271823.504bfcb8@.posting.google.com>...
> Hi,
> I'm a newbie with SQL Server 2000 Developer. I know that it is
> supposed to install on Windows XP Pro, but I keep running into the
> following message:
> "The logon account cannot be validated for the SQL Server service.
> Validate ...".
> I've looked for help and taken the advise of trying the user
> "Administrator", but that does not help. Initially I tried making a
> new user called "sqlserver" with Administrator access, but that didn't
> work.
> Can someone please help. Ideally step by step from where I am.
> Thanks in advance,
> Raj

It would be useful if you can give a little more information. In
particular, are you logged in with an administrator account when you
run setup, and is your XP PC in a domain, or is it standalone? Have
you also tried using the LocalSystem account (although it's better to
use a domain account)?

If you're logged in as an administrator, and if the account meets the
requirements described in Books Online ("Setting up Windows Services
Accounts"), then it should be fine.

Simon|||On 28 Apr 2004 06:09:36 -0700, sql@.hayes.ch (Simon Hayes) wrote:

>rajchoud@.hotmail.com (Raj) wrote in message news:<2c27ec55.0404271823.504bfcb8@.posting.google.com>...
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm a newbie with SQL Server 2000 Developer. I know that it is
>> supposed to install on Windows XP Pro, but I keep running into the
>> following message:
>>
>> "The logon account cannot be validated for the SQL Server service.
>> Validate ...".
>>
>> I've looked for help and taken the advise of trying the user
>> "Administrator", but that does not help. Initially I tried making a
>> new user called "sqlserver" with Administrator access, but that didn't
>> work.
>>
>> Can someone please help. Ideally step by step from where I am.
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>>
>> Raj
>
>It would be useful if you can give a little more information. In
>particular, are you logged in with an administrator account when you
>run setup, and is your XP PC in a domain, or is it standalone? Have
>you also tried using the LocalSystem account (although it's better to
>use a domain account)?
>If you're logged in as an administrator, and if the account meets the
>requirements described in Books Online ("Setting up Windows Services
>Accounts"), then it should be fine.
>Simon

Hi,

Yes, I am logged in as an administrator and use the username and
password for a different Administrator when on the SQL Server setup
page (username: sqlserver, password: sqlserver, domain: XP7.

Can you tell me what you mean about "is your PC in a domain"? It is
networked using a DHCP server and can see the other computers (it is
named: "XP7"). I installed iton a Windows 2000 Professional box a few
days ago with no problem. Going through the exact same procedure on XP
Pro doesn't work!

Please help,

Raj|||Hi,

Installed as an Administrator using a domain XP7.

On 27 Apr 2004 19:23:37 -0700, rajchoud@.hotmail.com (Raj) wrote:

>Hi,
>I'm a newbie with SQL Server 2000 Developer. I know that it is
>supposed to install on Windows XP Pro, but I keep running into the
>following message:
>"The logon account cannot be validated for the SQL Server service.
>Validate ...".
>I've looked for help and taken the advise of trying the user
>"Administrator", but that does not help. Initially I tried making a
>new user called "sqlserver" with Administrator access, but that didn't
>work.
>Can someone please help. Ideally step by step from where I am.
>Thanks in advance,
>Raj|||On 28 Apr 2004 06:09:36 -0700, sql@.hayes.ch (Simon Hayes) wrote:

>rajchoud@.hotmail.com (Raj) wrote in message news:<2c27ec55.0404271823.504bfcb8@.posting.google.com>...
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm a newbie with SQL Server 2000 Developer. I know that it is
>> supposed to install on Windows XP Pro, but I keep running into the
>> following message:
>>
>> "The logon account cannot be validated for the SQL Server service.
>> Validate ...".
>>
>> I've looked for help and taken the advise of trying the user
>> "Administrator", but that does not help. Initially I tried making a
>> new user called "sqlserver" with Administrator access, but that didn't
>> work.
>>
>> Can someone please help. Ideally step by step from where I am.
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>>
>> Raj
>
>It would be useful if you can give a little more information. In
>particular, are you logged in with an administrator account when you
>run setup, and is your XP PC in a domain, or is it standalone? Have
>you also tried using the LocalSystem account (although it's better to
>use a domain account)?
>If you're logged in as an administrator, and if the account meets the
>requirements described in Books Online ("Setting up Windows Services
>Accounts"), then it should be fine.
>Simon

Installed using Administrator account and used XP7 as domain!|||Raj <nospam@.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<eksv80phmcak8v00713gijlfrildvpke3m@.4ax.com>...
> On 28 Apr 2004 06:09:36 -0700, sql@.hayes.ch (Simon Hayes) wrote:
> >rajchoud@.hotmail.com (Raj) wrote in message news:<2c27ec55.0404271823.504bfcb8@.posting.google.com>...
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I'm a newbie with SQL Server 2000 Developer. I know that it is
> >> supposed to install on Windows XP Pro, but I keep running into the
> >> following message:
> >>
> >> "The logon account cannot be validated for the SQL Server service.
> >> Validate ...".
> >>
> >> I've looked for help and taken the advise of trying the user
> >> "Administrator", but that does not help. Initially I tried making a
> >> new user called "sqlserver" with Administrator access, but that didn't
> >> work.
> >>
> >> Can someone please help. Ideally step by step from where I am.
> >>
> >> Thanks in advance,
> >>
> >> Raj
> >It would be useful if you can give a little more information. In
> >particular, are you logged in with an administrator account when you
> >run setup, and is your XP PC in a domain, or is it standalone? Have
> >you also tried using the LocalSystem account (although it's better to
> >use a domain account)?
> >If you're logged in as an administrator, and if the account meets the
> >requirements described in Books Online ("Setting up Windows Services
> >Accounts"), then it should be fine.
> >Simon
> Hi,
> Yes, I am logged in as an administrator and use the username and
> password for a different Administrator when on the SQL Server setup
> page (username: sqlserver, password: sqlserver, domain: XP7.
> Can you tell me what you mean about "is your PC in a domain"? It is
> networked using a DHCP server and can see the other computers (it is
> named: "XP7"). I installed iton a Windows 2000 Professional box a few
> days ago with no problem. Going through the exact same procedure on XP
> Pro doesn't work!
> Please help,
> Raj

I'm not sure I understand if XP7 is a computer name or a domain name,
but I suspect it's a computer name. I would try the following:

1. Logon with your own Administrator account - check you have local
admin rights
2. Logon with the "sqlserver" account - check you have local admin
rights
3. Logon with your own Administrator account - run setup

Assuming both accounts really do have local admin rights, then there
should be no reason for account validation to fail. I asked about a
domain because if the workstation is in a domain (ie. an Active
Directory domain), then it's possible that there is some group or
machine policy which is creating a problem. Although if you have a
domain, it would probably be better to use a domain account for the
SQL service, not a local computer account - I suspect there may be
some confusion here between these two types of account, but I'm not at
all sure.

Simon

Installing Sql Reporting services on a seperate website

Hi
I am installing SQL reporting services. By Default the SQL reporting
services gets installed on the Default Website.
My IIS 6.0 website is running as a seperate website and not on Default Web
Site.
Is it possible to install SQL reporting services on a separate website other
than the Default Website?
Any help is appreciated.
Regards
-RizI don't know the answer to your question however, if it does install the
Reporting services to the default website, can't you just create a new
virtual directory on your seperate website pointing at the same directory and
with the same setup?
"Riz" wrote:
> Hi
> I am installing SQL reporting services. By Default the SQL reporting
> services gets installed on the Default Website.
> My IIS 6.0 website is running as a seperate website and not on Default Web
> Site.
> Is it possible to install SQL reporting services on a separate website other
> than the Default Website?
> Any help is appreciated.
> Regards
> -Riz|||Setup does not allow you to install to anything but the default website.
Once installed you can move it to another website. You should follow these
directions to move the vdir:
http://www.sqljunkies.com/HowTo/525B575A-7F61-483A-AC8F-FEC700C34674.scuk
--
-Daniel
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Riz" <Riz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B4B60697-70F8-42E2-BC59-E8C24BA3BD21@.microsoft.com...
> Hi
> I am installing SQL reporting services. By Default the SQL reporting
> services gets installed on the Default Website.
> My IIS 6.0 website is running as a seperate website and not on Default Web
> Site.
> Is it possible to install SQL reporting services on a separate website
> other
> than the Default Website?
> Any help is appreciated.
> Regards
> -Riz

installing sql 2005 standard on vista home premium

I have not been able to get iis to be seen correctly. I have turned on every service with IIS7 available and still get warning IIS in not running. I have changed computer name to all caps and I am running on admin account. I see IIS7 when I run localhost. What is wrong here. When I go on to install system I get stuck at detecting installed IIS. As I move forward with install owc, DB services,Notification, Intagrated, and workstation components all fail. I cant move onto sp2 because nothing is installed. I have worked on this for months off and on and now I have to have it running for deadline. Any help would be appreciated. I also have VS2005 and office 2007 on this system. I have worked on this the past two days solid and I have to have it now.

Jeff

when the install fails, what do you see in the files under the log folder under setup bootstrap?|||

Thanks Meher,

I had to uninstall all of the office components and then I was able to get past OWC11. Then I still failed with all the others. I then installed sp2. I then went back and did a mimimal install and it worked. Then I went back and reran sp2. Then I went back and did a complete reinstall and reran sp2. I now have DB on vista. On troublesome problem still is IIS7 I enabled everything I could restarted it and still system did not see it. Different forum and different issue I suspect.

Again Thanks for the williness to help.

Jeff

It would be nice put out updated install directions for sql 2005 standard(different flavors) on VISTA(different flavors). Maybe they did but hours of searching did not produce them.

Installing SQL 2005 over the top of SQL Express

Hi,

I am installing SQL Server 2005 on a server that is currently running SQL Express. My reason for installing full SQL is due to the database size limitation of SQL Express.

Can anyone give me advice on whether I should unistall SQL Express before installing SQL Server 2005 or just install over the top of Express.

Thanks

In my opinion, it is better to uninstall SQL Express and then install your other edition.

Installing SQL 2005 Developer Edition

I want to install SQL 2005 developer edition (and want to keep a
default instance of SQL 2000 running on my machine)
Couple of months ago I installed VS.net 2005 edition and it installed
SQL express edition? So I went to Add/Remove programs and removed SQL
express (along with management studio express).
Now, when I started to install SQL 2005 developer edition it is giving
me option for either default instance or named instance. If I select
default instance it won't allow me install because there is already a
default instance for SQL 2000.
Is there any issues installing named instance of SQL 2005? Sometimes
based on my past experience, it is best to install a default instance
because code samples and other things won't work if you install named
instance.
Please advice.
It's not posible to have SQL Server 2000 default instance and SQL Server
2005 default instance on the same machine. One of them should be named
instance in this case
"c_shah" <shah.chirag@.netzero.net> wrote in message
news:1141398000.428873.219560@.j33g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
>I want to install SQL 2005 developer edition (and want to keep a
> default instance of SQL 2000 running on my machine)
> Couple of months ago I installed VS.net 2005 edition and it installed
> SQL express edition? So I went to Add/Remove programs and removed SQL
> express (along with management studio express).
> Now, when I started to install SQL 2005 developer edition it is giving
> me option for either default instance or named instance. If I select
> default instance it won't allow me install because there is already a
> default instance for SQL 2000.
> Is there any issues installing named instance of SQL 2005? Sometimes
> based on my past experience, it is best to install a default instance
> because code samples and other things won't work if you install named
> instance.
> Please advice.
>
|||I have both installed on the same machine without a problem
2000 is default, 2005 is named
http://sqlservercode.blogspot.com/
|||I just installed it looks like that it is working fine. Thank you.
|||Sure thing - please read again what I've read with attention
"SQL" <denis.gobo@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1141402303.677170.51520@.e56g2000cwe.googlegro ups.com...
>I have both installed on the same machine without a problem
> 2000 is default, 2005 is named
> http://sqlservercode.blogspot.com/
>

Installing SQL 2005 Developer Edition

I want to install SQL 2005 developer edition (and want to keep a
default instance of SQL 2000 running on my machine)
Couple of months ago I installed VS.net 2005 edition and it installed
SQL express edition? So I went to Add/Remove programs and removed SQL
express (along with management studio express).
Now, when I started to install SQL 2005 developer edition it is giving
me option for either default instance or named instance. If I select
default instance it won't allow me install because there is already a
default instance for SQL 2000.
Is there any issues installing named instance of SQL 2005? Sometimes
based on my past experience, it is best to install a default instance
because code samples and other things won't work if you install named
instance.
Please advice.It's not posible to have SQL Server 2000 default instance and SQL Server
2005 default instance on the same machine. One of them should be named
instance in this case
"c_shah" <shah.chirag@.netzero.net> wrote in message
news:1141398000.428873.219560@.j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>I want to install SQL 2005 developer edition (and want to keep a
> default instance of SQL 2000 running on my machine)
> Couple of months ago I installed VS.net 2005 edition and it installed
> SQL express edition? So I went to Add/Remove programs and removed SQL
> express (along with management studio express).
> Now, when I started to install SQL 2005 developer edition it is giving
> me option for either default instance or named instance. If I select
> default instance it won't allow me install because there is already a
> default instance for SQL 2000.
> Is there any issues installing named instance of SQL 2005? Sometimes
> based on my past experience, it is best to install a default instance
> because code samples and other things won't work if you install named
> instance.
> Please advice.
>|||I have both installed on the same machine without a problem
2000 is default, 2005 is named
http://sqlservercode.blogspot.com/|||I just installed it looks like that it is working fine. Thank you.|||Sure thing - please read again what I've read with attention
"SQL" <denis.gobo@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1141402303.677170.51520@.e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>I have both installed on the same machine without a problem
> 2000 is default, 2005 is named
> http://sqlservercode.blogspot.com/
>