Instance means...

In oracle The simplest description of instance : combination of memory and process architecture

I sql server, what is the Instance.? it is combination of memory and process architecture if yes then pls give name those processes ?

A combination of menory and process architecture evidenced by a completely unique 'instance' of SQL Server. A computer can contain multiple SQL Server Instances, each with its own databases, security, users.|||

you can install sql server services more than one occurence (instance) in a same physical machine. If you install many sql server services on a single machine, you said to have many instance of sql server. One instance can be Default instance(which will have physical machine name as instance name) and all other instance can be called as Named Instances. Each instance run in different process and memory are and listen to different port. There are sql server serices which is instance instance aware and instance unaware.

eg. Database engine service is INstance aware where as SSIS is not (SSIS is common service for all instances)

Madhu

Installing Standard Edition on server with 4Gb memory

Are there any problems associated with installing SQL
Server 2000 "Standard Edition" on Windows 2000 Server on a
server with 4Gb of memory? I believe that the standard
edition will only "support" 2Gb of memory, but does that
mean that it will only access 2Gb or that it is not
supported on a server with more than 2Gb? I cannot find
any documentation on this.It just means the relational server won't access more than 2GB of memory.
There is no problem running it on a 4GB server, or an 8GB server, or ...
--
Hal Berenson, SQL Server MVP
True Mountain Group LLC
"Ludwig" <lbdba@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:06f901c36c50$d665dfd0$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> Are there any problems associated with installing SQL
> Server 2000 "Standard Edition" on Windows 2000 Server on a
> server with 4Gb of memory? I believe that the standard
> edition will only "support" 2Gb of memory, but does that
> mean that it will only access 2Gb or that it is not
> supported on a server with more than 2Gb? I cannot find
> any documentation on this.|||Is that documented anywhere in a KB article or in Books-
online?
>--Original Message--
>It just means the relational server won't access more
than 2GB of memory.
>There is no problem running it on a 4GB server, or an 8GB
server, or ...
>--
>Hal Berenson, SQL Server MVP
>True Mountain Group LLC
>
>"Ludwig" <lbdba@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:06f901c36c50$d665dfd0$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
>> Are there any problems associated with installing SQL
>> Server 2000 "Standard Edition" on Windows 2000 Server
on a
>> server with 4Gb of memory? I believe that the standard
>> edition will only "support" 2Gb of memory, but does that
>> mean that it will only access 2Gb or that it is not
>> supported on a server with more than 2Gb? I cannot find
>> any documentation on this.
>
>.
>|||Books Online:
mk:@.MSITStore:C:\Program%20Files\Microsoft%20SQL%20Server\80\Tools\Books\architec.chm::/8_ar_ts_8dbn
.htm
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
Archive at: http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&as ugroup=microsoft.public.sqlserver
"Ludwig" <lbdba@.yahoo.com> wrote in message news:069e01c36c65$aa8e6020$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
> Is that documented anywhere in a KB article or in Books-
> online?
> >--Original Message--
> >It just means the relational server won't access more
> than 2GB of memory.
> >There is no problem running it on a 4GB server, or an 8GB
> server, or ...
> >
> >--
> >Hal Berenson, SQL Server MVP
> >True Mountain Group LLC
> >
> >
> >"Ludwig" <lbdba@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:06f901c36c50$d665dfd0$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> >> Are there any problems associated with installing SQL
> >> Server 2000 "Standard Edition" on Windows 2000 Server
> on a
> >> server with 4Gb of memory? I believe that the standard
> >> edition will only "support" 2Gb of memory, but does that
> >> mean that it will only access 2Gb or that it is not
> >> supported on a server with more than 2Gb? I cannot find
> >> any documentation on this.
> >
> >
> >.
> >|||Thanks Tibor. This is a good summary page, but it only
states ambiguously:
"This table shows the maximum amount of physical memory,
or RAM, that the database engine in each SQL Server 2000
edition can support"
It does not state if the server can have more than 2Gb.
>--Original Message--
>Books Online:
>mk:@.MSITStore:C:\Program%20Files\Microsoft%20SQL%
20Server\80\Tools\Books\architec.chm::/8_ar_ts_8dbn
>..htm
>--
>Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
>Archive at: http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&as
ugroup=microsoft.public.sqlserver
>|||At some point it becomes silly to document things, and this one is over that
line.
Why would SQL Server care if there was more memory on the machine then it
will actually utilize? It doesn't, nor could it.
--
Hal Berenson, SQL Server MVP
True Mountain Group LLC
"Ludwig" <lbdba@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0f1401c36cfd$a9cb6230$a001280a@.phx.gbl...
> Thanks Tibor. This is a good summary page, but it only
> states ambiguously:
> "This table shows the maximum amount of physical memory,
> or RAM, that the database engine in each SQL Server 2000
> edition can support"
> It does not state if the server can have more than 2Gb.
> >--Original Message--
> >Books Online:
> >mk:@.MSITStore:C:\Program%20Files\Microsoft%20SQL%
> 20Server\80\Tools\Books\architec.chm::/8_ar_ts_8dbn
> >..htm
> >
> >--
> >Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> >Archive at: http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&as
> ugroup=microsoft.public.sqlserver
> >
>|||Hal
I disagree and I think you have missed the point. I don't
think I am alone in this as I have read other postings
along the same line - I was hoping this time maybe I'd
receive a reference to a Microsoft document that is a
little clearer about what "support" means.
If SQL Server is configured to handle the memory
dynamically - rather than be allocated a fixed amount of
RAM - I would imagine it would be very important for it to
know how much memory is available on the server for other
processes.
I try not to be cynical, but I'm wondering if perhaps
there is a reason for the ambiguous documentation of the
memory capability - "Well I'm not real sure and I better
not take a chance, let's get the Enterprise Edition".
Ludwig
>--Original Message--
>At some point it becomes silly to document things, and
this one is over that
>line.
>Why would SQL Server care if there was more memory on the
machine then it
>will actually utilize? It doesn't, nor could it.
>--
>Hal Berenson, SQL Server MVP
>True Mountain Group LLC
>

Installing SQL Server on a Cluster

Hello All,
If SQL Server is installed on a cluster will it be able to utilize the CPU and memory of all of the servers that are part of the cluster. For example, currently we run SQL Server on one server and at certain peak time the server CPU is maxed out. Will a cluster environment allow SQL Server to utilize mutiple servers for processing eliminating this problem?
Thanks, Gary

There are lots of clustering technologies but typically you're probably talking about a fail-over cluster. These are, to all intensive purposes, separate machines and there is no load balancing across them. That's not to say you could try and partion across the databases but that's not a free feature you get from the cluster.
sql

Installing SQL Express 2005 - [Microsoft][SQL Native Client]Shared Memory Provider: No process i

Hi Everyone,

I'm really in a desperate situation. I've tried installing Visual Web Developer including SQL Express 2005. I kept getting the error:

[Microsoft][SQL Native Client]Shared Memory Provider: No process is on the other end of the pipe.

I tried tinkering with the registry and that made things worse.

I even re-installed Windows! I completely nuked my hard disk, formatting it totally. After re-installing Win XP Pro and the rest of my applications, I tried again. I got the SAME ERROR as before:

[Microsoft][SQL Native Client]Shared Memory Provider: No process is on the other end of the pipe.

Am I the only person who's getting this error when installing SQL Express 2005?

I really need to use this software. I have projects to write and it's getting desperate. Is there someone out there who can give me a solution to this? All the Microsoft info on this error relates to connecting to an existing instance, not installing a new one.

I already have SQL 2000 installed. (MSDE + Evaluation version of SQL 2000) Could that be causing the problem? I really don't know what to do.

Ken, Please confirm that the SQL Server service is running. There are a few ways to determine this:

1) Open Task Manager, go to the Processes tab, click on Image Name to sort by name. If SQL Server is running you'll see an entery called sqlservr.exe.

2) Launch the Services manager from Control Panel -> Administrative Tools -> Services. Scroll down to find "SQL Server (<INSTANCE_NAME>)" Where <INSTANCE_NAME> will be displayed as the name of the instance you installed. If you didn't specify an instance name it will show as MSSQLSERVER or SQLEXPRESS, if you installed the Express edition.

3) From the Command Prompt type "Net Start" - this will list the currently running services. Look for "SQL Server (<INSTANCE_NAME>)"

Dan

|||Hi Dan,

Thanks for replying to my message!

Here's what I got:

1) In Task Manager I found sqlservr.exe and sqlmangr.exe.
2) In Services, I don't have anything starting with "SQL Server..." but I do have MSSQLSERVER. The only thing starting with SQL is SQLSERVERAGENT which is not running.
3) Running "net start" shows the same as option 2 - I have MSSQLSERVER running.

I don't have SQL Express running just now. I know that much. Whenever I try to install, I get the error and it rolls back, deleting the files.

What I do have is MSDE and an evaluation version of SQL 2000. They are working fine. I'm using them for my existing SQL stuff just now.

It's almost as if the SQL Expressinstaller expects something to be there that isn't. It tries to use a named pipe to connect to an instance that isn't there.|||

Ken,

Take a look at the file %Program Files%\Microsoft SQL Server\90\Setup Bootstrap\log\SQLSetup*_*_SQL.log for the failed installation - you can open this up in notepad. Search for "Value 3" (this is the generic error code for Windows Installer). Surrounding this should be all of the error text for the problem. Copy and paste that into a reply. My initial guess is that the server isn't starting up - you can also look in the event log for failures associated with SQL Server. I believe the MSSQLSERVER services you see are for your SQL 2K instances and not SQL2K5 so this tells me the SQL2K5 engine is failing to start.

Dan

|||Hi Dan,

I was pretty sure there wasn't an instance of SQL 2005 running. Whenever I tried to install it I got an error message saying it failed. Then I looked through the logs and found the error messages about named pipes.

Since I had deleted the logs, I decided to be brave and try installing it again, so I could see the log files and give you the "value 3" information you asked for.

I was surprised to find that this time it installed perfectly! It asked me to reboot which I did and all seems to be well.

I've had a few teething problems with my database in VWD and DotNetNuke, though. It seemed when I added a database file in VWD, the program couldn't connect to it. I got the following error:

An attempt to attach an auto-named database for file C:\inetpub\wwwroot\DotNetNuke\App_Data\database.mdf failed. A database with the same name exists, or specified file cannot be opened, or it is located on UNC share.

I deleted the database and tried again, stopping and starting the service since there was an error deleting the file. (or creating the new one, I forget which)

Anyway, I've only got one hurdle now - I need to give the ASPNET account permission on the database in question and I don't know how to do it. I've seen a sqlcmd.exe command that I could maybe use from the command line.

I wondered about downloadingMicrosoft SQL Server Management Studio Express but I was hesitant because it had the dubous words "Community Technology Preview" at the end which sounds a bit like b-e-t-a to me. I just had to re-install windows because of a beta (Visual Studio 2005 Beta 2) so I don't relish the prospect of something similar again.

Is SSMSE CTP safe to use? Is that what I should use to give permission to the ASPNET account?

Thanks for the help, by the way. It's really great when someone takes the time to respond!|||I can answer a couple of my own questions here...

The two errors I had seemed to be due to the fact that I had a connection active to the database through Visual Web Developer while I was running the web application that was attempting to connect. When I chose "Detach Database" in VWD, I was able to refresh the browser and everything was rosy.

I'm still curious about SSMSE CTP and whether it's worth a shot or not, though!|||

Ken, I'm glad to hear that you're up and running! As for SSMS-EE it is a CTP which means it's pre-release software. If you read through the General Tools forum (http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowForum.aspx?ForumID=84&SiteID=1) you'll see that some folks have experienced a few issues with it. I'll say this: SSMS-EE is largely based on the same code base as SSMS so it's pretty solid. However, there were a few modifications made which may have destabilized it in certain areas. We're fixing bugs but I don't know when the next update will come out. So I suggest you read through the forum and ask other people who've installed it what they think - that will be the best way to make an informed decision.

Don't take my hesitation as a lack of confidence in the product. I haven't installed SSMS-EE so I can't speak first hand about it and I don't want to steer you wrong.

Your three other options are: 1) use the command line tool (sqlcmd.exe) or 2) buy developer for $50 (http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/default.mspx) or 3) Download the evaluation edition and use it for 180-days until SSMS-EE releases (http://www.microsoft.com/sql/downloads/trial-software.mspx). While I can't say for sure, I expect SSMS-EE to release some time in the next 180-days.

Cheers,
Dan

|||Ok, good stuff. I appreciate your unbiased view of the product. That's sound advice.

I think that I'll stick with sqlcmd.exe for now since I don't plan on using SQL 2005 for much yet. Once SSMS-EE releases I'll get it, though.

I would just request one final clarification, if you don't mind. What would you say is the difference between "community technology preview" and beta? I should say that I don't want a huge answer but I'm wondering if they're synonymous or if CTP is one iteration on from beta. Does it go alpha -> beta -> ctp -> release? I just want to be able to have a realistic expectation of the reliability of things I'm going to install in the future based on the suffix :) Just a rough idea would be great.

Have a relaxing Christmas and happy New Year, by the way!