Our application requires multiple instances of SQL Server 2000 in order to h
ave multiple databases, which the app clients use. Has something to do with
the name of the SQL Server instance; each instance needs to be named differe
ntly.
How does this work? Do I install SQL Server multiple times in different loca
tions, or is it simply a defined thing in SQL Server? Is there a 'per instan
ce' licensing issue, or will my one SQL Server license cover the multiple in
stances of SQL Server on on
e server system?
Thanks,
JohnI believe Standard edition is licensed per instance but Enterprise Edition
can be installed with multiple instances on a server. It's best to check
the EULA to be totally certain though. But having to buy one new copy of SE
could be worth looking at why this very odd requirement was "assumed" in the
application's design IMO.
hth
Eric
John wrote:
> Our application requires multiple instances of SQL Server 2000 in
> order to have multiple databases, which the app clients use. Has
> something to do with the name of the SQL Server instance; each
> instance needs to be named differently.
> How does this work? Do I install SQL Server multiple times in
> different locations, or is it simply a defined thing in SQL Server?
> Is there a 'per instance' licensing issue, or will my one SQL Server
> license cover the multiple instances of SQL Server on one server
> system?
> Thanks,
> John|||> Our application requires multiple instances of SQL Server 2000 in order to
have multiple databases
That's the part I don't get. Why can't the application use multiple
databases in a single instance?
> How does this work? Do I install SQL Server multiple times in different
locations
For multiple instances, yes.
> Is there a 'per instance' licensing issue
Depending on the edition of SQL Server, the licensing model you're using,
the OS, etc. You really should verify licensing compliance with a local
Microsoft rep. They can give you the legal answer as opposed to collating a
variety of opinions here.
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)|||It is poor design IMO, but I have to live with it. On the matter of the mult
iple instances, what is meant by 'instance'? multiple installations? multipl
e 'spawnings' of SQL Server under a parent 'SQL Server manager-like' server
process? does it end up loo
king like multiple servers systems each running a SQL Server, each with diff
erent names, data paths, etc, but actually all running on the same server sy
stem?
John
"Eric Sabine" wrote:
> I believe Standard edition is licensed per instance but Enterprise Edition
> can be installed with multiple instances on a server. It's best to check
> the EULA to be totally certain though. But having to buy one new copy of
SE
> could be worth looking at why this very odd requirement was "assumed" in t
he
> application's design IMO.
> hth
> Eric
> John wrote:
>
>|||Think of an instance of how many times you ran setup.exe through completion
of the wizard. Every instance after the default (if the default is taken
at first install) has the name of the server _and_ instance name as the name
of the sql server itself.
John wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> It is poor design IMO, but I have to live with it. On the matter of
> the multiple instances, what is meant by 'instance'? multiple
> installations? multiple 'spawnings' of SQL Server under a parent 'SQL
> Server manager-like' server process? does it end up looking like
> multiple servers systems each running a SQL Server, each with
> different names, data paths, etc, but actually all running on the
> same server system?
> John
> "Eric Sabine" wrote:
>
Showing posts with label clients. Show all posts
Showing posts with label clients. Show all posts
Friday, March 30, 2012
'Instances' of SQL Server 2000?
Our application requires multiple instances of SQL Server 2000 in order to have multiple databases, which the app clients use. Has something to do with the name of the SQL Server instance; each instance needs to be named differently.
How does this work? Do I install SQL Server multiple times in different locations, or is it simply a defined thing in SQL Server? Is there a 'per instance' licensing issue, or will my one SQL Server license cover the multiple instances of SQL Server on on
e server system?
Thanks,
John
I believe Standard edition is licensed per instance but Enterprise Edition
can be installed with multiple instances on a server. It's best to check
the EULA to be totally certain though. But having to buy one new copy of SE
could be worth looking at why this very odd requirement was "assumed" in the
application's design IMO.
hth
Eric
John wrote:
> Our application requires multiple instances of SQL Server 2000 in
> order to have multiple databases, which the app clients use. Has
> something to do with the name of the SQL Server instance; each
> instance needs to be named differently.
> How does this work? Do I install SQL Server multiple times in
> different locations, or is it simply a defined thing in SQL Server?
> Is there a 'per instance' licensing issue, or will my one SQL Server
> license cover the multiple instances of SQL Server on one server
> system?
> Thanks,
> John
|||> Our application requires multiple instances of SQL Server 2000 in order to
have multiple databases
That's the part I don't get. Why can't the application use multiple
databases in a single instance?
> How does this work? Do I install SQL Server multiple times in different
locations
For multiple instances, yes.
> Is there a 'per instance' licensing issue
Depending on the edition of SQL Server, the licensing model you're using,
the OS, etc. You really should verify licensing compliance with a local
Microsoft rep. They can give you the legal answer as opposed to collating a
variety of opinions here.
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)
|||It is poor design IMO, but I have to live with it. On the matter of the multiple instances, what is meant by 'instance'? multiple installations? multiple 'spawnings' of SQL Server under a parent 'SQL Server manager-like' server process? does it end up loo
king like multiple servers systems each running a SQL Server, each with different names, data paths, etc, but actually all running on the same server system?
John
"Eric Sabine" wrote:
> I believe Standard edition is licensed per instance but Enterprise Edition
> can be installed with multiple instances on a server. It's best to check
> the EULA to be totally certain though. But having to buy one new copy of SE
> could be worth looking at why this very odd requirement was "assumed" in the
> application's design IMO.
> hth
> Eric
> John wrote:
>
>
|||Think of an instance of how many times you ran setup.exe through completion
of the wizard. Every instance after the default (if the default is taken
at first install) has the name of the server _and_ instance name as the name
of the sql server itself.
John wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> It is poor design IMO, but I have to live with it. On the matter of
> the multiple instances, what is meant by 'instance'? multiple
> installations? multiple 'spawnings' of SQL Server under a parent 'SQL
> Server manager-like' server process? does it end up looking like
> multiple servers systems each running a SQL Server, each with
> different names, data paths, etc, but actually all running on the
> same server system?
> John
> "Eric Sabine" wrote:
sql
How does this work? Do I install SQL Server multiple times in different locations, or is it simply a defined thing in SQL Server? Is there a 'per instance' licensing issue, or will my one SQL Server license cover the multiple instances of SQL Server on on
e server system?
Thanks,
John
I believe Standard edition is licensed per instance but Enterprise Edition
can be installed with multiple instances on a server. It's best to check
the EULA to be totally certain though. But having to buy one new copy of SE
could be worth looking at why this very odd requirement was "assumed" in the
application's design IMO.
hth
Eric
John wrote:
> Our application requires multiple instances of SQL Server 2000 in
> order to have multiple databases, which the app clients use. Has
> something to do with the name of the SQL Server instance; each
> instance needs to be named differently.
> How does this work? Do I install SQL Server multiple times in
> different locations, or is it simply a defined thing in SQL Server?
> Is there a 'per instance' licensing issue, or will my one SQL Server
> license cover the multiple instances of SQL Server on one server
> system?
> Thanks,
> John
|||> Our application requires multiple instances of SQL Server 2000 in order to
have multiple databases
That's the part I don't get. Why can't the application use multiple
databases in a single instance?
> How does this work? Do I install SQL Server multiple times in different
locations
For multiple instances, yes.
> Is there a 'per instance' licensing issue
Depending on the edition of SQL Server, the licensing model you're using,
the OS, etc. You really should verify licensing compliance with a local
Microsoft rep. They can give you the legal answer as opposed to collating a
variety of opinions here.
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)
|||It is poor design IMO, but I have to live with it. On the matter of the multiple instances, what is meant by 'instance'? multiple installations? multiple 'spawnings' of SQL Server under a parent 'SQL Server manager-like' server process? does it end up loo
king like multiple servers systems each running a SQL Server, each with different names, data paths, etc, but actually all running on the same server system?
John
"Eric Sabine" wrote:
> I believe Standard edition is licensed per instance but Enterprise Edition
> can be installed with multiple instances on a server. It's best to check
> the EULA to be totally certain though. But having to buy one new copy of SE
> could be worth looking at why this very odd requirement was "assumed" in the
> application's design IMO.
> hth
> Eric
> John wrote:
>
>
|||Think of an instance of how many times you ran setup.exe through completion
of the wizard. Every instance after the default (if the default is taken
at first install) has the name of the server _and_ instance name as the name
of the sql server itself.
John wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> It is poor design IMO, but I have to live with it. On the matter of
> the multiple instances, what is meant by 'instance'? multiple
> installations? multiple 'spawnings' of SQL Server under a parent 'SQL
> Server manager-like' server process? does it end up looking like
> multiple servers systems each running a SQL Server, each with
> different names, data paths, etc, but actually all running on the
> same server system?
> John
> "Eric Sabine" wrote:
sql
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
InstallSQLAgentSecurity failed
I (actually one of our clients) is receiving an InstallSQLAgentSecurity
failed error in the msde install log.
*************************************
Starting custom action InstallSQLAgentSecurity
InstallSQLAgentSecurity failed (LORIH,LocalSystem,87).
Action ended 14:11:24: InstallFinalize. Return value 3.
*************************************
I've seen the following article
http://support.microsoft.com/default...en-us%3B829386
However, the Server service is running and it still won't start up. The
user is logged in as the Administrator, so is there anything else this can
be. We have this come up every now and then and we really don't have many
options to solve this.
Lance Johnson
Your solution is here:
http://seer.support.veritas.com/docs/265613.htm
I had the same problem and solution #2 fixed it. Tell me how it goes.
"Lance Johnson" <ljohnson@.docs.com> wrote in message news:<OM2SSmgXEHA.3292@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>...
> I (actually one of our clients) is receiving an InstallSQLAgentSecurity
> failed error in the msde install log.
> *************************************
> Starting custom action InstallSQLAgentSecurity
> InstallSQLAgentSecurity failed (LORIH,LocalSystem,87).
> Action ended 14:11:24: InstallFinalize. Return value 3.
> *************************************
> I've seen the following article
> http://support.microsoft.com/default...en-us%3B829386
> However, the Server service is running and it still won't start up. The
> user is logged in as the Administrator, so is there anything else this can
> be. We have this come up every now and then and we really don't have many
> options to solve this.
> Lance Johnson
|||"Lance Johnson" <ljohnson@.docs.com> wrote in message
http://seer.support.veritas.com/docs/265613.htm
Is where the solution is.
news:<OM2SSmgXEHA.3292@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>...
> I (actually one of our clients) is receiving an InstallSQLAgentSecurity
> failed error in the msde install log.
> *************************************
> Starting custom action InstallSQLAgentSecurity
> InstallSQLAgentSecurity failed (LORIH,LocalSystem,87).
> Action ended 14:11:24: InstallFinalize. Return value 3.
> *************************************
> I've seen the following article
> http://support.microsoft.com/default...en-us%3B829386
> However, the Server service is running and it still won't start up. The
> user is logged in as the Administrator, so is there anything else this can
> be. We have this come up every now and then and we really don't have many
> options to solve this.
> Lance Johnson
|||Check solution #2 @. the veritas page. I changed the roles and all
worked fine. Changed them back after and all continued to work.
[vbcol=seagreen]
> "Lance Johnson" <ljohnson@.docs.com> wrote in message
> http://seer.support.veritas.com/docs/265613.htm
> Is where the solution is.
> news:<OM2SSmgXEHA.3292@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>...
sql
failed error in the msde install log.
*************************************
Starting custom action InstallSQLAgentSecurity
InstallSQLAgentSecurity failed (LORIH,LocalSystem,87).
Action ended 14:11:24: InstallFinalize. Return value 3.
*************************************
I've seen the following article
http://support.microsoft.com/default...en-us%3B829386
However, the Server service is running and it still won't start up. The
user is logged in as the Administrator, so is there anything else this can
be. We have this come up every now and then and we really don't have many
options to solve this.
Lance Johnson
Your solution is here:
http://seer.support.veritas.com/docs/265613.htm
I had the same problem and solution #2 fixed it. Tell me how it goes.
"Lance Johnson" <ljohnson@.docs.com> wrote in message news:<OM2SSmgXEHA.3292@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>...
> I (actually one of our clients) is receiving an InstallSQLAgentSecurity
> failed error in the msde install log.
> *************************************
> Starting custom action InstallSQLAgentSecurity
> InstallSQLAgentSecurity failed (LORIH,LocalSystem,87).
> Action ended 14:11:24: InstallFinalize. Return value 3.
> *************************************
> I've seen the following article
> http://support.microsoft.com/default...en-us%3B829386
> However, the Server service is running and it still won't start up. The
> user is logged in as the Administrator, so is there anything else this can
> be. We have this come up every now and then and we really don't have many
> options to solve this.
> Lance Johnson
|||"Lance Johnson" <ljohnson@.docs.com> wrote in message
http://seer.support.veritas.com/docs/265613.htm
Is where the solution is.
news:<OM2SSmgXEHA.3292@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>...
> I (actually one of our clients) is receiving an InstallSQLAgentSecurity
> failed error in the msde install log.
> *************************************
> Starting custom action InstallSQLAgentSecurity
> InstallSQLAgentSecurity failed (LORIH,LocalSystem,87).
> Action ended 14:11:24: InstallFinalize. Return value 3.
> *************************************
> I've seen the following article
> http://support.microsoft.com/default...en-us%3B829386
> However, the Server service is running and it still won't start up. The
> user is logged in as the Administrator, so is there anything else this can
> be. We have this come up every now and then and we really don't have many
> options to solve this.
> Lance Johnson
|||Check solution #2 @. the veritas page. I changed the roles and all
worked fine. Changed them back after and all continued to work.
[vbcol=seagreen]
> "Lance Johnson" <ljohnson@.docs.com> wrote in message
> http://seer.support.veritas.com/docs/265613.htm
> Is where the solution is.
> news:<OM2SSmgXEHA.3292@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>...
sql
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)