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

Instance name already exists

Hello all...
Win2k3 enterprise
SQL 2000
2 nodes
I had 2 instances of SQL installed. I had to run setup to remove clustered
SQL so I could break the disk array and make it larger.
Now, I install instance 1 on node 1 just fine.
But when I run setup on node 2 to install instance 2, it tells me that
instance name already exists.
I thought when I "un-clustered" SQL that both instances would have been
removed. I can see both instance names in C:\program files\Microsoft sql
server\
How do I go about getting rid of the second instance name now, so I can
reinstall it?
Thanks in advance.
Jeff
Hi Jeff,
I would first try to uninstall the second instance the regular way i.e using the setup CD and choosing uninstall (the same way you uninstalled the first instance). If this doesn't work then you will need to manually uninstall
it. For more info, review
HOW TO: Manually Remove SQL Server 2000 Default, Named, or Virtual Instance
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=290991
HTH,
Best Regards,
Uttam Parui
Microsoft Corporation
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Are you secure? For information about the Strategic Technology Protection Program and to order your FREE Security Tool Kit, please visit http://www.microsoft.com/security.
Microsoft highly recommends that users with Internet access update their Microsoft software to better protect against viruses and security vulnerabilities. The easiest way to do this is to visit the following websites:
http://www.microsoft.com/protect
http://www.microsoft.com/security/guidance/default.mspx
|||Thank you Uttam,
I had tried the setup cd and it does not recognize the instance for
uninstall (only when I go to install the instance...go figure). But I did
not find the article you mention, so I will try that.
Jeff
"Uttam Parui[MS]" <uttamkp@.online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:RaXEsKppEHA.752@.cpmsftngxa06.phx.gbl...
> Hi Jeff,
> I would first try to uninstall the second instance the regular way i.e
using the setup CD and choosing uninstall (the same way you uninstalled the
first instance). If this doesn't work then you will need to manually
uninstall
> it. For more info, review
> HOW TO: Manually Remove SQL Server 2000 Default, Named, or Virtual
Instance
> http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=290991
> HTH,
> Best Regards,
> Uttam Parui
> Microsoft Corporation
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.
> Are you secure? For information about the Strategic Technology Protection
Program and to order your FREE Security Tool Kit, please visit
http://www.microsoft.com/security.
> Microsoft highly recommends that users with Internet access update their
Microsoft software to better protect against viruses and security
vulnerabilities. The easiest way to do this is to visit the following
websites:
> http://www.microsoft.com/protect
> http://www.microsoft.com/security/guidance/default.mspx
>

instance name

Hello,
This is the present setup.
Server A --> sql server 2000
Server B --> sql server 2005

On my machine I point to an instance name of sql server 2000 to use. i.e.
sqlserver2000Server\instance1
On my local machine I have installed sql server 2000 and can use the enterprise manager. Have the Admin rights.
I have setup a daily backup job on sql 2000...

On server B, I installed sql 2005. Restored the sql 2000 backup onto sql 2005. And now I have the sql 2000 database in sql server 2005.

Now I can use the sql 2005 by refering to the serverB name (Not an instance).

In Server A, the applications are using a login name (sql authentication) i.e. username, password.

Questions
1) How do I install sql 2005 on my local machine (Remember that I have sql 2000)

2) If I should run the setup for sql 2005 on local machine, then during the installation, do I give it an instance name or should this instance name be done on the server i.e. server B ?

Thanks

1) How do I install sql 2005 on my local machine (Remember that I have sql 2000)

SQL Server 2000 and SQL Server 2005 can be installed side by side successfully on the same machine. You just need to run setup to install SQL Server 2005.

2) If I should run the setup for sql 2005 on local machine, then during the installation, do I give it an instance name or should this instance name be done on the server i.e. server B ?

Based on your scenario, I assume you install both SQL Server 2000 and 2005 as non-cluster installation. The instance name for SQL Server 2000 and 2005 should be unique on the same machine. So the instance names may be the same on different mahcines. But when we connect to an instance, we use machinename\instancename to specify which one to connect.

instance

Hello,
This is the present setup.
Server A --> sql server 2000
Server B --> sql server 2005
On my machine I point to an instance name of sql server 2000 to use. i.e.
sqlserver2000Server\instance1
On my local machine I have installed sql server 2000 and can use the
enterprise manager. Have the Admin rights.
I have setup a daily backup job on sql 2000...
On server B, I installed sql 2005. Restored the sql 2000 backup onto sql
2005. And now I have the sql 2000 database in sql server 2005.
Now I can use the sql 2005 by refering to the serverB name (Not an instance)
.
In Server A, the applications are using a login name (sql authentication)
i.e. username, password.
Questions
1) How do I install sql 2005 on my local machine (Remember that I have sql
2000)
2) If I should run the setup for sql 2005 on local machine, then during the
installation, do I give it an instance name or should this instance name be
done on the server i.e. server B ?
ThanksHi
> Questions
> 1) How do I install sql 2005 on my local machine (Remember that I have sql
> 2000)
SQL Server 2005 is going be a named instance. They can co-exist.

> 2) If I should run the setup for sql 2005 on local machine, then during
> the
> installation, do I give it an instance name or should this instance name
> be
> done on the server i.e. server B ?
On the server when you are running the installation script
"farshad" <farshad@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:55564446-FB63-4BC4-9C1E-599300E7A0CB@.microsoft.com...
> Hello,
> This is the present setup.
> Server A --> sql server 2000
> Server B --> sql server 2005
> On my machine I point to an instance name of sql server 2000 to use. i.e.
> sqlserver2000Server\instance1
> On my local machine I have installed sql server 2000 and can use the
> enterprise manager. Have the Admin rights.
> I have setup a daily backup job on sql 2000...
> On server B, I installed sql 2005. Restored the sql 2000 backup onto sql
> 2005. And now I have the sql 2000 database in sql server 2005.
> Now I can use the sql 2005 by refering to the serverB name (Not an
> instance).
> In Server A, the applications are using a login name (sql authentication)
> i.e. username, password.
> Questions
> 1) How do I install sql 2005 on my local machine (Remember that I have sql
> 2000)
> 2) If I should run the setup for sql 2005 on local machine, then during
> the
> installation, do I give it an instance name or should this instance name
> be
> done on the server i.e. server B ?
> Thanks|||Not sure if this make a difference but during the installation of sql server
2005 on the server i.e. server B, I chose the default instance.
Thanks
"Uri Dimant" wrote:

> Hi
> SQL Server 2005 is going be a named instance. They can co-exist.
>
> On the server when you are running the installation script
>
> "farshad" <farshad@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:55564446-FB63-4BC4-9C1E-599300E7A0CB@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||farshad (farshad@.discussions.microsoft.com) writes:
> Not sure if this make a difference but during the installation of sql
> server 2005 on the server i.e. server B, I chose the default instance.
Be careful when you install on ServerA. If you select "Default instance"
it will upgrade your SQL 2000 instance (if you have a default instance,
that is. This was a little unclear in your post.)
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se
Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...oads/books.mspx
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodin...ions/books.mspx

installtion file for SQL CE 2.0 to install in Real PocketPC

HI,

i have one instalation file of SQL CE 2.0 named setup.exe ,i installed that in my desktop it works well.i could not install the same file inside the pocketPC.Can any one give me some information about how to get the installation file of SQL CE 2.0 and how to install that in real pocketPC.Thanks in advance.

Best Regards

Ihsan

Not having worked with SQL CE 2.0 (available here) for a while I would assume that it follows the same pattern as the current verion which is that the installer is to be run on the desktop NOT the device. After running the installer either the runtime dlls or a mobile installer will be available - you should also read the ReadMe and consider installing the books online (available locally after installing the main SQL CE 2.0 installer)

Hope this helps.

Installion problem with SQL Express April CTP

When intalling SQL Server 2005 Express this gives me the message:
SQL Server Setup could not connect to the database service forserver configuration. The error was: {Microsoft}{ODBC Driver Manager}Data source name not found and no default driver specified Refer toserver error logs and setup logs for more information. For details onhow to view setup logs, see "How to View Setup Log Files" in SQL ServerBooks Online. Error No:29545
which I don't get since I have SQL Server 2000 Dev Edtion running,Win 2K sp4. I couldn't find anything in the MS KB to explain why it'sdoing so.. anything I missed perhaps?

Well, what does the setup log file have to say about the failure?
sql

InstallingSQL Server September 2005 Community Technology Preview ...errors

Hi,

I am trying to install Microsoft SQL Server September 2005 Community Technology Preview.

I get the generic error saying "SQL Server 2005 setup has detected incompatibe components..."

So I checked the C:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\90\Setup Bootstrap\LOG\SQLSetup0020_Core.log file

which says

C:\SQLENT2005\Servers\setup.exe Version: 2005.90.1314.0
Running: LoadResourcesAction at: 2005/9/11 13:3:29
Complete: LoadResourcesAction at: 2005/9/11 13:3:29, returned true
Running: ParseBootstrapOptionsAction at: 2005/9/11 13:3:29
Loaded DLL:C:\SQLENT2005\Servers\xmlrw.dll Version:2.0.3604.0
Complete: ParseBootstrapOptionsAction at: 2005/9/11 13:3:30, returned true
Running: ValidateWinNTAction at: 2005/9/11 13:3:30
Complete: ValidateWinNTAction at: 2005/9/11 13:3:30, returned true
Running: ValidateMinOSAction at: 2005/9/11 13:3:30
Complete: ValidateMinOSAction at: 2005/9/11 13:3:30, returned true
Running: PerformSCCAction at: 2005/9/11 13:3:30
Complete: PerformSCCAction at: 2005/9/11 13:3:31, returned true
Running: ActivateLoggingAction at: 2005/9/11 13:3:31
Complete: ActivateLoggingAction at: 2005/9/11 13:3:31, returned true
Running: DetectPatchedBootstrapAction at: 2005/9/11 13:3:31
Complete: DetectPatchedBootstrapAction at: 2005/9/11 13:3:31, returned true
Action "LaunchPatchedBootstrapAction" will be skipped due to the following restrictions:
Condition "EventCondition: __STP_LaunchPatchedBootstrap__1952" returned false.
Running: PerformSCCAction2 at: 2005/9/11 13:3:31
Loaded DLL:C:\WINNT\system32\msi.dll Version:3.1.4000.2435
Product "{53F5C3EE-05ED-4830-994B-50B2F0D50FCE}" versioned 9.00.1187.07 is not compatible with current builds of SQL Server.Expected at least version: 9.00.1314
The Product Name is "Microsoft SQL Server Setup Support Files (English)"
Loaded DLL:C:\WINNT\system32\msi.dll Version:3.1.4000.2435
Error: Action "PerformSCCAction2" threw an exception during execution.
Return Code: 70032
Message displayed to user
SQL Server 2005 Setup has detected incompatible components from beta versions of Visual Studio, .NET Framework, or SQL Server 2005. Use Add or Remove Programs to remove these components, and then run SQL Server 2005 Setup again. For detailed instructions on uninstalling SQL Server 2005, see the SQL Server 2005 Readme.

I understand that I need to uninstall "Microsoft SQL Server Setup Support Files (English)"

But when I try to do that I get
"A network error occured while attempting to read from C:\Winnt\Installer\SQLSupport.msi"

how do i fix this...how come nobody has a clue....|||Which previous version of Yukon / Whidbey did you have installed. Yukon comes with an uninstaller in the \Servers\Setup Tools folder. Use that to uninstall previous versions.|||When I ran the uninstall program its says

"There are no SQL Server 2005 or .Net Framework components to unistall"|||How did you uninstall the previous version ?|||I didnt have any version of SQL Server 2005.
What I had is the .net Framework 2.0 Beta version which I unistalled as per the reqm of SQL Server 2005.|||moreover the Change/Remove button for SQL Server Setup Support Files is greyed out...so I can uninstall it either..and SQL Server 2005 setup wont run unless I unless
I get rid of it...
what the heck is goin on..

Installing SQL to a SAN

Hi
We have a client that wants to implement a SAN to be shared by other
servers.
How do you setup a SQL server to use the SAN array? The client only has one
SQL server (node).
I have implemented SQL onto Active/Active and Active/Passive clustering
before, but i am confuse to just how to install single SQL node to a SAN
array (i.e no failover)
Can anyone give me some pointers please
Regards
James
Use the SAN like you would any drive. Attached it to the machine, and store
your databases and T-logs on it.
Cheers,
Rod
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
http://www.msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
"James" <hushdontspamme@.Hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ebTQvZjzEHA.1300@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> We have a client that wants to implement a SAN to be shared by other
> servers.
> How do you setup a SQL server to use the SAN array? The client only has
> one SQL server (node).
> I have implemented SQL onto Active/Active and Active/Passive clustering
> before, but i am confuse to just how to install single SQL node to a SAN
> array (i.e no failover)
> Can anyone give me some pointers please
> Regards
> James
>
|||Hi
Thanks for your relpy. So i am guessing that SQL will detect the SAN as
another drive (once the SAN is attached to the server).
Cheers
James
"Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" <rod@.die.spam.die.nw-america.com> wrote in
message news:OL3vycjzEHA.1192@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Use the SAN like you would any drive. Attached it to the machine, and
> store your databases and T-logs on it.
> Cheers,
> Rod
> MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
> http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
> http://www.msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
> "James" <hushdontspamme@.Hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ebTQvZjzEHA.1300@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>
|||Correct, its surprising easy
Cheers,
Rod
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
http://www.msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
"James" <hushdontspamme@.Hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ez4lCDkzEHA.2016@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> Thanks for your relpy. So i am guessing that SQL will detect the SAN as
> another drive (once the SAN is attached to the server).
> Cheers
> James
>
> "Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" <rod@.die.spam.die.nw-america.com> wrote in
> message news:OL3vycjzEHA.1192@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>
|||James,
Just like traditional SCSI, attaching a server to a SAN requires a
controller. Once installed and the SAN is configured you will see one or
more additional drive letters (a few administrators use mount points but
usually in very large implementations). Before you attach, discuss your
requirements with the SAN administrator.
How much disk do you need for data?
What will the RAID configuration be?
How much for logs?
How much for backups?
Will the SAN be used for SQL backups or mirror splits?
How much for tempdb and so on...
You can keep spreading the activities out with more files, filegroups, and
drives.
Good luck,
Danny
"James" <hushdontspamme@.Hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ebTQvZjzEHA.1300@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> We have a client that wants to implement a SAN to be shared by other
> servers.
> How do you setup a SQL server to use the SAN array? The client only has
> one SQL server (node).
> I have implemented SQL onto Active/Active and Active/Passive clustering
> before, but i am confuse to just how to install single SQL node to a SAN
> array (i.e no failover)
> Can anyone give me some pointers please
> Regards
> James
>
sql

Installing SQL service on its own

We Managed to install the MSDE system but it did not
install the SQL service again.
Is there a way to setup a MSSQL SERVER service manually on
Windows NT4.
Many Thanks
ITS Support
hi again,
"ITS Support" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> ha scritto nel
messaggio news:047b01c4dec3$effb0150$a501280a@.phx.gbl
> We Managed to install the MSDE system but it did not
> install the SQL service again.
> Is there a way to setup a MSSQL SERVER service manually on
> Windows NT4.
> Many Thanks
> ITS Support
what problems are raised and reported in the installation log text file?
search for
RETURN VALUE 3
about 10/15 lines before or after each entry a description of the problem(s)
is reported
Andrea Montanari (Microsoft MVP - SQL Server)
http://www.asql.biz/DbaMgr.shtmhttp://italy.mvps.org
DbaMgr2k ver 0.9.1 - DbaMgr ver 0.55.1
(my vb6+sql-dmo little try to provide MS MSDE 1.0 and MSDE 2000 a visual
interface)
-- remove DMO to reply

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 express 2005

hi friends!!!

to install sql server express 2005, do i have to install the windows installer 3.0. when i run the setup, after extracting the files, there is a message displaying such that to continue installation, you need to install the windows installer 3.0.

is it so?

regards.,

sekar
Hi,

.Net 2 is enough to install SQL2005 Express. Refer the below link to know the installation requirements of SQL Expres.


|||

what is the OS on this box? This error is about Windows Installer not .net Framework. Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 1 and Windows XP Service Pack 2 both include Windows Installer 3.0. For all other operating systems, you must first download and install Windows Installer 3.0.

Madhu

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

Installing SQL Server 2005 Developer Edition on same box as SQL Server 2000 Developer Edition

I tried to install this on the same box and I'm not sure how to reply to setup questions since I want to keep my SQL Server 2000 intact.

During the installation it asks me if I want to upgrade the "SQL Server Database Services 8.00.761" and if I don't select it to upgrade then it tells me that SQL Server Database Services will not be changed.

I'm not quite sure how to install this so I don't damage my existing SQL Server 2000 Developers edition. If you have any information in regards to this please let me know.

Thank you.If you want to install them side-by-side you need to provide a unique instance name for the SQL Server 2005 installation. From your comments it sounds like SQL Server 2000 is installed as the default instance (MSSQLSERVER). When installing SQL Server 2005, on the Instance Name dialog select Named Instance and type in a unique instance name (i.e. FOO). You won't be prompted to upgrade your existing SQL Server 2000 instance and SQL Server 2005 will be installed side-by-side.

Dan
http://blogs.msdn.com/dtjones/|||

Need your help..

After installing SQL 2000 & SQL 2005 Developer edition on the same server, did you encounter any issues ? Please let us know because we are afraid of installing both on the same server.

Regards,

Adarsh Mathur

|||

Shinsoft,

Have you been successful installing SQL Server 2005 Developer Edition and run it side by side with your SQL Server 2000 default instance?

If yes, what steps did you use to install SQL Server 2005 Developer(simply launch default.hta and select server components etc..)? I have failed 3 times with SQL Server 2005 Developer install on my XP SP2 box.

|||I've been running both SQL 2000 and SQL 2005 Developer's edition on my laptop (as separate instances) since SQL 2005 Beta 2, well over a year now, without problems, and my OS is XP SP2. The RTM edition of SQL 2005 is quite stable. You do need to have enough memory to handle both instances, though.

Installing SQL Server 2005 Developer Edition on same box as SQL Server 2000 Developer Edition

I tried to install this on the same box and I'm not sure how to reply to setup questions since I want to keep my SQL Server 2000 intact.

During the installation it asks me if I want to upgrade the "SQL Server Database Services 8.00.761" and if I don't select it to upgrade then it tells me that SQL Server Database Services will not be changed.

I'm not quite sure how to install this so I don't damage my existing SQL Server 2000 Developers edition. If you have any information in regards to this please let me know.

Thank you.If you want to install them side-by-side you need to provide a unique instance name for the SQL Server 2005 installation. From your comments it sounds like SQL Server 2000 is installed as the default instance (MSSQLSERVER). When installing SQL Server 2005, on the Instance Name dialog select Named Instance and type in a unique instance name (i.e. FOO). You won't be prompted to upgrade your existing SQL Server 2000 instance and SQL Server 2005 will be installed side-by-side.

Dan
http://blogs.msdn.com/dtjones/|||

Need your help..

After installing SQL 2000 & SQL 2005 Developer edition on the same server, did you encounter any issues ? Please let us know because we are afraid of installing both on the same server.

Regards,

Adarsh Mathur

|||

Shinsoft,

Have you been successful installing SQL Server 2005 Developer Edition and run it side by side with your SQL Server 2000 default instance?

If yes, what steps did you use to install SQL Server 2005 Developer(simply launch default.hta and select server components etc..)? I have failed 3 times with SQL Server 2005 Developer install on my XP SP2 box.

|||I've been running both SQL 2000 and SQL 2005 Developer's edition on my laptop (as separate instances) since SQL 2005 Beta 2, well over a year now, without problems, and my OS is XP SP2. The RTM edition of SQL 2005 is quite stable. You do need to have enough memory to handle both instances, though.

Installing SQL Server 2005 Developer Edition on same box as SQL Server 2000 Developer Edition

I tried to install this on the same box and I'm not sure how to reply to setup questions since I want to keep my SQL Server 2000 intact.

During the installation it asks me if I want to upgrade the "SQL Server Database Services 8.00.761" and if I don't select it to upgrade then it tells me that SQL Server Database Services will not be changed.

I'm not quite sure how to install this so I don't damage my existing SQL Server 2000 Developers edition. If you have any information in regards to this please let me know.

Thank you.If you want to install them side-by-side you need to provide a unique instance name for the SQL Server 2005 installation. From your comments it sounds like SQL Server 2000 is installed as the default instance (MSSQLSERVER). When installing SQL Server 2005, on the Instance Name dialog select Named Instance and type in a unique instance name (i.e. FOO). You won't be prompted to upgrade your existing SQL Server 2000 instance and SQL Server 2005 will be installed side-by-side.

Dan
http://blogs.msdn.com/dtjones/|||

Need your help..

After installing SQL 2000 & SQL 2005 Developer edition on the same server, did you encounter any issues ? Please let us know because we are afraid of installing both on the same server.

Regards,

Adarsh Mathur

|||

Shinsoft,

Have you been successful installing SQL Server 2005 Developer Edition and run it side by side with your SQL Server 2000 default instance?

If yes, what steps did you use to install SQL Server 2005 Developer(simply launch default.hta and select server components etc..)? I have failed 3 times with SQL Server 2005 Developer install on my XP SP2 box.

|||I've been running both SQL 2000 and SQL 2005 Developer's edition on my laptop (as separate instances) since SQL 2005 Beta 2, well over a year now, without problems, and my OS is XP SP2. The RTM edition of SQL 2005 is quite stable. You do need to have enough memory to handle both instances, though.

Installing SQL Server 2005 DB via .NET application

Hello all,

I've developed a visual basic .net (2005) application that uses sql server 2005 (express edition) as a database and I created a setup project that installes my application. Now, my question is how can I create a "all-in-one" installation procedure/file that will install both the SQL server (engine + db) and my application?

I've found the following link:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/sql/default.aspx?pull=/library/en-us/dnsse/html/sqlexpuserinst.asp#sqlexpuser_topic10

That mentions under: "Distribution and Deployment" section, something that sounds like what I'm looking for, but I didn't find any further information on how to do that. Can anyone help?

Thanks in advanced!

Tom.

I have the same question...bump...

_ANY_ resources out there?

|||

Hi,

SQL Server Express doesn′′t use merge modules anymore. It uses now the msi pakcage functionalty which is described in the help of Visual Studio, its like configuring any other MSI package within a setup project to deploy.

HTH, Jens Suessmeyer.

http://www.sqlserver2005.de

Installing SQL Server 2005 DB via .NET application

Hello all,

I've developed a visual basic .net (2005) application that uses sql server 2005 (express edition) as a database and I created a setup project that installes my application. Now, my question is how can I create a "all-in-one" installation procedure/file that will install both the SQL server (engine + db) and my application?

I've found the following link:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/sql/default.aspx?pull=/library/en-us/dnsse/html/sqlexpuserinst.asp#sqlexpuser_topic10

That mentions under: "Distribution and Deployment" section, something that sounds like what I'm looking for, but I didn't find any further information on how to do that. Can anyone help?

Thanks in advanced!

Tom.

I have the same question...bump...

_ANY_ resources out there?

|||

Hi,

SQL Server Express doesn′′t use merge modules anymore. It uses now the msi pakcage functionalty which is described in the help of Visual Studio, its like configuring any other MSI package within a setup project to deploy.

HTH, Jens Suessmeyer.

http://www.sqlserver2005.de

Integrated Security to RS and SSAS not working

Hi,
Here's my setup:
1. ReportServer website is setup to use Integrated Authentication
2. I added a new user group (in computer management) called ReportAdmins
3. I used Management Studio to connect to my Reposting Services, at the top
level, I added the user group I just created, and gave it Content Manager
permissions.
4. I added an NT user to the group - ReportAdmins.
5. My datasources is an Analysis Services database, and is setup to use
Integrated Security. So I added the NT User to the OLAP Administrators group
as well. (Analysis Services and Reporting Services are all on the same
machine, running under the same service account that is an admin on the box)
Now I go to another machine, login with the NT User I specified above,
launch IE and the when I request the report I get an rsErrorExecutingCommand
- Query execution failed for data set 'abc'
What am I missing? I'ev searched other posts and I seem to have setup all
suggested access relevant to my situation, but somehow the reports aren't
working. If I make this NT USer the machine admin on the box hosting
ReportingServices, ANalysis Services etc, everything works fine (so at least
I know the reports work OK).
Any help is greatly appreciated.
Thanks.does the report works fine if you use the basic authentication instead-of
NTLM?
have you created a role in AS associated to the user group?
"Raghu" <Raghu@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:200FCBCA-570B-4AA1-AEB3-6321729D345D@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> Here's my setup:
> 1. ReportServer website is setup to use Integrated Authentication
> 2. I added a new user group (in computer management) called ReportAdmins
> 3. I used Management Studio to connect to my Reposting Services, at the
> top
> level, I added the user group I just created, and gave it Content Manager
> permissions.
> 4. I added an NT user to the group - ReportAdmins.
> 5. My datasources is an Analysis Services database, and is setup to use
> Integrated Security. So I added the NT User to the OLAP Administrators
> group
> as well. (Analysis Services and Reporting Services are all on the same
> machine, running under the same service account that is an admin on the
> box)
> Now I go to another machine, login with the NT User I specified above,
> launch IE and the when I request the report I get an
> rsErrorExecutingCommand
> - Query execution failed for data set 'abc'
> What am I missing? I'ev searched other posts and I seem to have setup all
> suggested access relevant to my situation, but somehow the reports aren't
> working. If I make this NT USer the machine admin on the box hosting
> ReportingServices, ANalysis Services etc, everything works fine (so at
> least
> I know the reports work OK).
> Any help is greatly appreciated.
> Thanks.|||Thank you for your response.
1. Basic Authentication cannot be used for the data source because AS
requires integrated authentication and if I specify basic authentication,
then I cannot use an NT account to connect to AS.
2. The role in AS for the user group is not necessary as the NTUsers in
that group are OLAP admins (in my test case below. I have only one NTUser and
he is an OLAP admin).
BTW, sorry for not mentioning this earlier - I am using RS2005 and SSAS2005.
"Jéjé" wrote:
> does the report works fine if you use the basic authentication instead-of
> NTLM?
> have you created a role in AS associated to the user group?
> "Raghu" <Raghu@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:200FCBCA-570B-4AA1-AEB3-6321729D345D@.microsoft.com...
> > Hi,
> >
> > Here's my setup:
> > 1. ReportServer website is setup to use Integrated Authentication
> > 2. I added a new user group (in computer management) called ReportAdmins
> > 3. I used Management Studio to connect to my Reposting Services, at the
> > top
> > level, I added the user group I just created, and gave it Content Manager
> > permissions.
> > 4. I added an NT user to the group - ReportAdmins.
> > 5. My datasources is an Analysis Services database, and is setup to use
> > Integrated Security. So I added the NT User to the OLAP Administrators
> > group
> > as well. (Analysis Services and Reporting Services are all on the same
> > machine, running under the same service account that is an admin on the
> > box)
> >
> > Now I go to another machine, login with the NT User I specified above,
> > launch IE and the when I request the report I get an
> > rsErrorExecutingCommand
> > - Query execution failed for data set 'abc'
> >
> > What am I missing? I'ev searched other posts and I seem to have setup all
> > suggested access relevant to my situation, but somehow the reports aren't
> > working. If I make this NT USer the machine admin on the box hosting
> > ReportingServices, ANalysis Services etc, everything works fine (so at
> > least
> > I know the reports work OK).
> >
> > Any help is greatly appreciated.
> >
> > Thanks.
>
>|||Sorry, I misread the 'Basic Authentication' test to mean simple userid
password in RS data source setup. I was playing with IIS setup again and
found that there is a 'Basic Authentication' checkbox for security as well.
I tried the Basic Authentication and it prompts for userid and password. If
I provide the NT UserID and password that is the admin on the ReportServer
and AServer box, everything works fine, but if I use the regular user that I
added to the 'ReportUser' group, it doesn't work.
"Raghu" wrote:
> Thank you for your response.
> 1. Basic Authentication cannot be used for the data source because AS
> requires integrated authentication and if I specify basic authentication,
> then I cannot use an NT account to connect to AS.
> 2. The role in AS for the user group is not necessary as the NTUsers in
> that group are OLAP admins (in my test case below. I have only one NTUser and
> he is an OLAP admin).
> BTW, sorry for not mentioning this earlier - I am using RS2005 and SSAS2005.
> "Jéjé" wrote:
> > does the report works fine if you use the basic authentication instead-of
> > NTLM?
> > have you created a role in AS associated to the user group?
> >
> > "Raghu" <Raghu@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:200FCBCA-570B-4AA1-AEB3-6321729D345D@.microsoft.com...
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Here's my setup:
> > > 1. ReportServer website is setup to use Integrated Authentication
> > > 2. I added a new user group (in computer management) called ReportAdmins
> > > 3. I used Management Studio to connect to my Reposting Services, at the
> > > top
> > > level, I added the user group I just created, and gave it Content Manager
> > > permissions.
> > > 4. I added an NT user to the group - ReportAdmins.
> > > 5. My datasources is an Analysis Services database, and is setup to use
> > > Integrated Security. So I added the NT User to the OLAP Administrators
> > > group
> > > as well. (Analysis Services and Reporting Services are all on the same
> > > machine, running under the same service account that is an admin on the
> > > box)
> > >
> > > Now I go to another machine, login with the NT User I specified above,
> > > launch IE and the when I request the report I get an
> > > rsErrorExecutingCommand
> > > - Query execution failed for data set 'abc'
> > >
> > > What am I missing? I'ev searched other posts and I seem to have setup all
> > > suggested access relevant to my situation, but somehow the reports aren't
> > > working. If I make this NT USer the machine admin on the box hosting
> > > ReportingServices, ANalysis Services etc, everything works fine (so at
> > > least
> > > I know the reports work OK).
> > >
> > > Any help is greatly appreciated.
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> >
> >
> >|||I think the security is not correctly setup on the server
the reportuser group has not enough authorization on the server.
the error message will display where.
remember that AS2005 is more secure then AS2000, so you must authorize this
group to access the cubes through a role.
"Raghu" <Raghu@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2DD1B7A0-764E-405B-A247-DDC5C26A4532@.microsoft.com...
> Sorry, I misread the 'Basic Authentication' test to mean simple userid
> password in RS data source setup. I was playing with IIS setup again and
> found that there is a 'Basic Authentication' checkbox for security as
> well.
> I tried the Basic Authentication and it prompts for userid and password.
> If
> I provide the NT UserID and password that is the admin on the ReportServer
> and AServer box, everything works fine, but if I use the regular user
> that I
> added to the 'ReportUser' group, it doesn't work.
> "Raghu" wrote:
>> Thank you for your response.
>> 1. Basic Authentication cannot be used for the data source because AS
>> requires integrated authentication and if I specify basic authentication,
>> then I cannot use an NT account to connect to AS.
>> 2. The role in AS for the user group is not necessary as the NTUsers in
>> that group are OLAP admins (in my test case below. I have only one NTUser
>> and
>> he is an OLAP admin).
>> BTW, sorry for not mentioning this earlier - I am using RS2005 and
>> SSAS2005.
>> "Jéjé" wrote:
>> > does the report works fine if you use the basic authentication
>> > instead-of
>> > NTLM?
>> > have you created a role in AS associated to the user group?
>> >
>> > "Raghu" <Raghu@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> > news:200FCBCA-570B-4AA1-AEB3-6321729D345D@.microsoft.com...
>> > > Hi,
>> > >
>> > > Here's my setup:
>> > > 1. ReportServer website is setup to use Integrated Authentication
>> > > 2. I added a new user group (in computer management) called
>> > > ReportAdmins
>> > > 3. I used Management Studio to connect to my Reposting Services, at
>> > > the
>> > > top
>> > > level, I added the user group I just created, and gave it Content
>> > > Manager
>> > > permissions.
>> > > 4. I added an NT user to the group - ReportAdmins.
>> > > 5. My datasources is an Analysis Services database, and is setup to
>> > > use
>> > > Integrated Security. So I added the NT User to the OLAP
>> > > Administrators
>> > > group
>> > > as well. (Analysis Services and Reporting Services are all on the
>> > > same
>> > > machine, running under the same service account that is an admin on
>> > > the
>> > > box)
>> > >
>> > > Now I go to another machine, login with the NT User I specified
>> > > above,
>> > > launch IE and the when I request the report I get an
>> > > rsErrorExecutingCommand
>> > > - Query execution failed for data set 'abc'
>> > >
>> > > What am I missing? I'ev searched other posts and I seem to have setup
>> > > all
>> > > suggested access relevant to my situation, but somehow the reports
>> > > aren't
>> > > working. If I make this NT USer the machine admin on the box hosting
>> > > ReportingServices, ANalysis Services etc, everything works fine (so
>> > > at
>> > > least
>> > > I know the reports work OK).
>> > >
>> > > Any help is greatly appreciated.
>> > >
>> > > Thanks.
>> >
>> >
>> >

Integrated security for web apps

We have setup IIS and SQL Server for integrated security which works fine as
long as SQL Server is on the same box as IIS.
Is it possible to use the Windows login security credentials that IIS
captures to access SQL Server when it is on a different box?
Many Thanks.If you're using NT Challenge Response and Trusted Authentication, you're
problem is documented here.
176380 How To Use ASP with a SQL Trusted Connection with Guest Account
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=176380
307002 PRB: ASP/ODBC/SQL Server Error 0x80040E4D "Login Failed for User
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=307002
175671 PRB: 80004005 ConnectionOpen (CreateFile()) Error Accessing SQL
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=175671
Depending on the requirements and your environment, if you want to pass the
credentials from the web user to IIS to SQL, then
you'll need to be in a Windows 2000 AD environment and use Security
Delegation to make this work.
Thanks,
Kevin McDonnell
Microsoft Corporation
This posting is provided AS IS with no warranties, and confers no rights.|||We are able to accomplish this w/o AD, and for an Internet application I was
always under the impression that AD was not a good idea. The main issue we
found was getting the connection string right, and making sure the users are
syncronized between the machines. We created the IUSR on the SQL box with
the same password as on the IIS box. Make sure to either get or change the
IUSR password in the Meta base, Local Users/Groups and not sure if it's the
same as the meta base but changed it in the ISM as well.
Dan
"Kevin McDonnell [MSFT]" wrote:

> If you're using NT Challenge Response and Trusted Authentication, you're
> problem is documented here.
>
> 176380 How To Use ASP with a SQL Trusted Connection with Guest Account
> http://support.microsoft.com/?id=176380
> 307002 PRB: ASP/ODBC/SQL Server Error 0x80040E4D "Login Failed for User
> http://support.microsoft.com/?id=307002
> 175671 PRB: 80004005 ConnectionOpen (CreateFile()) Error Accessing SQL
> http://support.microsoft.com/?id=175671
> Depending on the requirements and your environment, if you want to pass th
e
> credentials from the web user to IIS to SQL, then
> you'll need to be in a Windows 2000 AD environment and use Security
> Delegation to make this work.
>
> Thanks,
> Kevin McDonnell
> Microsoft Corporation
> This posting is provided AS IS with no warranties, and confers no rights.
>
>

Integer datatype question

I have a column setup using the Int datatype and a length of 4. First: does this mean that the allowable range is from -9999 to 9999? Second: I can't seem to change the 4 to anything else, how can I modify the length :confused:That's the internaly stored length...

Look up datatypes in books online...

int is actually

Integer (whole number) data from -2^31 (-2,147,483,648) through 2^31 - 1 (2,147,483,647).|||no, the 4 indicates the amount of bytes used. It's a fixed size, you can't change it. As specified by BOL, integer values '(...)from -2^63 (-9,223,372,036,854,775,808) through 2^63-1 (9,223,372,036,854,775,807).'. If this won't do use a bigint instead.

EDIT: Brett, I'll quote you on this: Damn...sniped again