installing to another website

Hi,
I am trying to install Reporting Services on our web
server and one of the requirements says I have to install
the report server's virtual directory to the default
website. The problem is, the default website's ip is
unassigned most of the time, and is frequently either
being configured differently for testing or is out of
commission most of the time. Now, there are other
websites on the server that I'd rather use, and I was
wondering if it is possible to create the report server's
virtual directory in a website other than the default
one?
Thanks,
MarkThis article explains how to change the website that RS is hosted on.
http://www.sqljunkies.com/HowTo/525B575A-7F61-483A-AC8F-FEC700C34674.scuk
Craig
Mark Hackenberg wrote:
> Hi,
> I am trying to install Reporting Services on our web
> server and one of the requirements says I have to install
> the report server's virtual directory to the default
> website. The problem is, the default website's ip is
> unassigned most of the time, and is frequently either
> being configured differently for testing or is out of
> commission most of the time. Now, there are other
> websites on the server that I'd rather use, and I was
> wondering if it is possible to create the report server's
> virtual directory in a website other than the default
> one?
> Thanks,
> Mark|||That article really helped. It laid everything out step
by step. Thanks for the help.
>--Original Message--
>This article explains how to change the website that RS
is hosted on.
>http://www.sqljunkies.com/HowTo/525B575A-7F61-483A-AC8F-
FEC700C34674.scuk
>
>Craig
>Mark Hackenberg wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I am trying to install Reporting Services on our web
>> server and one of the requirements says I have to
install
>> the report server's virtual directory to the default
>> website. The problem is, the default website's ip is
>> unassigned most of the time, and is frequently either
>> being configured differently for testing or is out of
>> commission most of the time. Now, there are other
>> websites on the server that I'd rather use, and I was
>> wondering if it is possible to create the report
server's
>> virtual directory in a website other than the default
>> one?
>> Thanks,
>> Mark
>.
>|||Thank you sooo much Craig. This article told the steps exactly.
No one had a clue what to do. I was mucking around with this for ages.
<b>Just brilliant</b>
"Craig Riter" wrote:
> This article explains how to change the website that RS is hosted on.
> http://www.sqljunkies.com/HowTo/525B575A-7F61-483A-AC8F-FEC700C34674.scuk
>
> Craig
> Mark Hackenberg wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am trying to install Reporting Services on our web
> > server and one of the requirements says I have to install
> > the report server's virtual directory to the default
> > website. The problem is, the default website's ip is
> > unassigned most of the time, and is frequently either
> > being configured differently for testing or is out of
> > commission most of the time. Now, there are other
> > websites on the server that I'd rather use, and I was
> > wondering if it is possible to create the report server's
> > virtual directory in a website other than the default
> > one?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Mark
>

Installing SQL Server Web Data Administrator

On the SQL Server Web Data Administrator page (see last line in this note), it states that the following are requirements
Microsoft SQL Server 7 SP2 or later
Microsoft .NET SDK or Microsoft Visual Studio .NET
Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.5 or later
Microsoft Internet Information Services (IIS)
1. Can I use MSDE 2000 instead of SQL Server 7 SP2
2. Can I use the free copy of ".NET Framework SDK Version 1.1" from Microsoft or do I need a more costly, expanded version
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=c039a798-c57a-419e-acbc-2a332cb7f959&displaylang=e
Thank you
AFGHi,
1. You can use SQL Web Data Administrator with MSDE 2000
2. You can use the .NET Framework SDK Ver 1.1
Ashish
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.|||I installed the app but when I run it the default.aspx code appears in ie rather than the application. What did I do wrong
Ning|||Hi Ning,
I am not able find a reason for it to display the Code instead of the GUI.
Which Server are you using ? IIS or Cassini ?
Ashish
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.|||I'm using IIS on a xp machine. Right now, I'm having trouble with my vs.net as well. I have installed and used vs.net on my win 2000 machine without any problems. I just inherited a xp machine and would like to do development on it. I installed vs.net and the IDE appears to be fine. I can start a simple asp.net project but all the server controls behave strangely. For example, asp:textbox behave like a label showing its text non-editable text while a html textbox works just fine. I wonder if the two problems are related. By the way I've seen another msg in the group about having the same problem with sql web admin
Ning|||Hi,
Try using Cassini Personal Web Server instead of IIS. It should work.
HTH
Ashish
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.sql

Installing SQL Server on a SAN - any special requirements?

Once the SAN is setup and the server can see the SAN drives as local drives,
there is nothing else that you need to do from SQL Server point of view. The
installation is the same.
--
HTH,
Vyas, MVP (SQL Server)
SQL Server Articles and Code Samples @. http://vyaskn.tripod.com/
"dondiego" <erite@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:FC5149EF-716A-4BA4-BBC5-B89E3B59EE67@.microsoft.com...
Hello,
I'll be installing SQL Server on a SAN at a customer site for the 1st time
and would like to know if the installation is any different from a standard
SQL Server installation?
Thanks in advance
Don DiegoThanks for that!
"Narayana Vyas Kondreddi" wrote:

> Once the SAN is setup and the server can see the SAN drives as local drive
s,
> there is nothing else that you need to do from SQL Server point of view. T
he
> installation is the same.
> --
> HTH,
> Vyas, MVP (SQL Server)
> SQL Server Articles and Code Samples @. http://vyaskn.tripod.com/
>
> "dondiego" <erite@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:FC5149EF-716A-4BA4-BBC5-B89E3B59EE67@.microsoft.com...
> Hello,
> I'll be installing SQL Server on a SAN at a customer site for the 1st time
> and would like to know if the installation is any different from a standar
d
> SQL Server installation?
> Thanks in advance
> Don Diego
>
>|||SAN attached disks are never as fast as locally attached disks. So if
you have the option put your transaction logs on local disks. If not
make sure that your transaction logs are on their own SAN disk.
*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.codecomments.com ***|||Hello,
I'll be installing SQL Server on a SAN at a customer site for the 1st time
and would like to know if the installation is any different from a standard
SQL Server installation?
Thanks in advance
Don Diego|||Once the SAN is setup and the server can see the SAN drives as local drives,
there is nothing else that you need to do from SQL Server point of view. The
installation is the same.
--
HTH,
Vyas, MVP (SQL Server)
SQL Server Articles and Code Samples @. http://vyaskn.tripod.com/
"dondiego" <erite@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:FC5149EF-716A-4BA4-BBC5-B89E3B59EE67@.microsoft.com...
Hello,
I'll be installing SQL Server on a SAN at a customer site for the 1st time
and would like to know if the installation is any different from a standard
SQL Server installation?
Thanks in advance
Don Diego|||Thanks for that!
"Narayana Vyas Kondreddi" wrote:

> Once the SAN is setup and the server can see the SAN drives as local drive
s,
> there is nothing else that you need to do from SQL Server point of view. T
he
> installation is the same.
> --
> HTH,
> Vyas, MVP (SQL Server)
> SQL Server Articles and Code Samples @. http://vyaskn.tripod.com/
>
> "dondiego" <erite@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:FC5149EF-716A-4BA4-BBC5-B89E3B59EE67@.microsoft.com...
> Hello,
> I'll be installing SQL Server on a SAN at a customer site for the 1st time
> and would like to know if the installation is any different from a standar
d
> SQL Server installation?
> Thanks in advance
> Don Diego
>
>|||SAN attached disks are never as fast as locally attached disks. So if
you have the option put your transaction logs on local disks. If not
make sure that your transaction logs are on their own SAN disk.
*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.codecomments.com ***|||> SAN attached disks are never as fast as locally attached disks.
This is too broad a statement to be generally true. It all depends on the
configuration. I supposed, for a given SAN disk, you could in theory
configure a locally attached disk (e.g. with sufficient number of spindles)
to outperform it. But the other way is also true. For some workloads, it is
almost impossible to configure a locally attached disk to outperform a SAN
disk because you may not be able to find as large amount of cache on a local
controller as you may find on a SAN.
Linchi
"Kevin Hayward" wrote:

> SAN attached disks are never as fast as locally attached disks. So if
> you have the option put your transaction logs on local disks. If not
> make sure that your transaction logs are on their own SAN disk.
>
> *** Sent via Developersdex http://www.codecomments.com ***
>|||> SAN attached disks are never as fast as locally attached disks.
This is too broad a statement to be generally true. It all depends on the
configuration. I supposed, for a given SAN disk, you could in theory
configure a locally attached disk (e.g. with sufficient number of spindles)
to outperform it. But the other way is also true. For some workloads, it is
almost impossible to configure a locally attached disk to outperform a SAN
disk because you may not be able to find as large amount of cache on a local
controller as you may find on a SAN.
Linchi
"Kevin Hayward" wrote:

> SAN attached disks are never as fast as locally attached disks. So if
> you have the option put your transaction logs on local disks. If not
> make sure that your transaction logs are on their own SAN disk.
>
> *** Sent via Developersdex http://www.codecomments.com ***
>|||"dondiego" <erite@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:FC5149EF-716A-4BA4-BBC5-B89E3B59EE67@.microsoft.com...
> Hello,
> I'll be installing SQL Server on a SAN at a customer site for the 1st time
> and would like to know if the installation is any different from a
> standard
> SQL Server installation?
> Thanks in advance
> Don Diego
SQL installation is no different. There are some things you can do to get
the most out of the SAN:
For best performance, after attaching the disks to the server, you should
create your SAN partition using diskpart.
Run this command to create it:
create partition primary align=64
Changing the partition alignment setting prevents I/O operations from being
split across multiple sectors, which causes unnecessary overhead. The
recommended setting varies from vendor to vendor, but 64 is good.
Also, you should have separate physical disks for the data and log files.
When you format the data partition, set the cluster size to 64K.

Installing SQL Server on a SAN - any special requirements?

Hello,
I'll be installing SQL Server on a SAN at a customer site for the 1st time
and would like to know if the installation is any different from a standard
SQL Server installation?
Thanks in advance
Don DiegoOnce the SAN is setup and the server can see the SAN drives as local drives,
there is nothing else that you need to do from SQL Server point of view. The
installation is the same.
--
HTH,
Vyas, MVP (SQL Server)
SQL Server Articles and Code Samples @. http://vyaskn.tripod.com/
"dondiego" <erite@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:FC5149EF-716A-4BA4-BBC5-B89E3B59EE67@.microsoft.com...
Hello,
I'll be installing SQL Server on a SAN at a customer site for the 1st time
and would like to know if the installation is any different from a standard
SQL Server installation?
Thanks in advance
Don Diego|||Thanks for that!
"Narayana Vyas Kondreddi" wrote:
> Once the SAN is setup and the server can see the SAN drives as local drives,
> there is nothing else that you need to do from SQL Server point of view. The
> installation is the same.
> --
> HTH,
> Vyas, MVP (SQL Server)
> SQL Server Articles and Code Samples @. http://vyaskn.tripod.com/
>
> "dondiego" <erite@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:FC5149EF-716A-4BA4-BBC5-B89E3B59EE67@.microsoft.com...
> Hello,
> I'll be installing SQL Server on a SAN at a customer site for the 1st time
> and would like to know if the installation is any different from a standard
> SQL Server installation?
> Thanks in advance
> Don Diego
>
>|||> SAN attached disks are never as fast as locally attached disks.
This is too broad a statement to be generally true. It all depends on the
configuration. I supposed, for a given SAN disk, you could in theory
configure a locally attached disk (e.g. with sufficient number of spindles)
to outperform it. But the other way is also true. For some workloads, it is
almost impossible to configure a locally attached disk to outperform a SAN
disk because you may not be able to find as large amount of cache on a local
controller as you may find on a SAN.
Linchi
"Kevin Hayward" wrote:
> SAN attached disks are never as fast as locally attached disks. So if
> you have the option put your transaction logs on local disks. If not
> make sure that your transaction logs are on their own SAN disk.
>
> *** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com ***
>|||"dondiego" <erite@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:FC5149EF-716A-4BA4-BBC5-B89E3B59EE67@.microsoft.com...
> Hello,
> I'll be installing SQL Server on a SAN at a customer site for the 1st time
> and would like to know if the installation is any different from a
> standard
> SQL Server installation?
> Thanks in advance
> Don Diego
SQL installation is no different. There are some things you can do to get
the most out of the SAN:
For best performance, after attaching the disks to the server, you should
create your SAN partition using diskpart.
Run this command to create it:
create partition primary align=64
Changing the partition alignment setting prevents I/O operations from being
split across multiple sectors, which causes unnecessary overhead. The
recommended setting varies from vendor to vendor, but 64 is good.
Also, you should have separate physical disks for the data and log files.
When you format the data partition, set the cluster size to 64K.sql