I have SQL Server 2005 Developer edition installed. I use Windows
Authentication and the user is an admin on this box. For whatever
reason, I was recently locked out of SQL Server. So I uninstalled and
reinstalled then I could get back in. Then once again, I became locked
out. Same procedure and I can get back in. I downloaded and installed
SP1 for SQL Server 2005 last night. Now I'm locked out again. "sa"
never works with a blank or any other password.
Any ideas why this keeps happening and how I can gain access?
Thanks,
BrettI'm running this on Vista. I always turn off account access control.
After installing SP1 for SQL Server and rebooting, access control was
reenabled. This prevented me from logging into SQL Server. I've once
again turned access control. Now I can log in.
Brett|||Make sure that you have configured it for mixed authentication if you want
to use sa. Also, make sure that if you are using Windows authentication
with SSMS that you have that option selected when you login.
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
.
"brett" <account@.cygen.com> wrote in message
news:1167499761.263497.179960@.h40g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
I have SQL Server 2005 Developer edition installed. I use Windows
Authentication and the user is an admin on this box. For whatever
reason, I was recently locked out of SQL Server. So I uninstalled and
reinstalled then I could get back in. Then once again, I became locked
out. Same procedure and I can get back in. I downloaded and installed
SP1 for SQL Server 2005 last night. Now I'm locked out again. "sa"
never works with a blank or any other password.
Any ideas why this keeps happening and how I can gain access?
Thanks,
Brett|||Well did you give the sa acoount a password?
You sure that youre windows account is a member of the local administrator
group?
Greetz,
HDD
"brett" wrote:
> I have SQL Server 2005 Developer edition installed. I use Windows
> Authentication and the user is an admin on this box. For whatever
> reason, I was recently locked out of SQL Server. So I uninstalled and
> reinstalled then I could get back in. Then once again, I became locked
> out. Same procedure and I can get back in. I downloaded and installed
> SP1 for SQL Server 2005 last night. Now I'm locked out again. "sa"
> never works with a blank or any other password.
> Any ideas why this keeps happening and how I can gain access?
> Thanks,
> Brett
>|||Hate_orphaned_users wrote:
> Well did you give the sa acoount a password?
This was never an option during set.
> You sure that youre windows account is a member of the local administrato
r
> group?
Yep|||Tom Moreau wrote:
> Make sure that you have configured it for mixed authentication if you want
> to use sa.
Can it be set to mixed after installation?
Thanks,
Brett|||In Vista by default you are not an admin and as such not part of the
sysadmins group. You need to make yourself an admin, create an account for
yourself in SQL Server and then you can log in without being an admin. This
wasn't an issue with XP because you were generally always an admin on the
box when you logged in. Vista changed this default because running as an
admin made viruses much more nasty. I think that SP2 is supposed to create
this user for you automatically but I don't know if that part of it works in
the current CTP.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Use of included script samples are subject to the terms specified at
http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm
"brett" <account@.cygen.com> wrote in message
news:1167501829.564730.89250@.n51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> I'm running this on Vista. I always turn off account access control.
> After installing SP1 for SQL Server and rebooting, access control was
> reenabled. This prevented me from logging into SQL Server. I've once
> again turned access control. Now I can log in.
> Brett
>|||Yes.
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
.
"brett" <account@.cygen.com> wrote in message
news:1167505428.307381.19420@.i12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Tom Moreau wrote:
> Make sure that you have configured it for mixed authentication if you want
> to use sa.
Can it be set to mixed after installation?
Thanks,
Brett
Showing posts with label installed. Show all posts
Showing posts with label installed. Show all posts
Friday, March 30, 2012
Friday, March 23, 2012
Lock Issue
I've got a 2000 server (2G usable RAM) where we just
installed SP2. Immediately after installation I began
getting the below error:
The SQL Server cannot obtain a LOCK resource at this time.
Rerun your statement when there are fewer active users or
ask the system administrator to check the SQL Server lock
and memory configuration.
Error: 1204, Severity: 19, State: 1
I've got the default configuration setting for locks of 0
and nothing has changed on this server that I know except
for SP2. Furthermore, I've been monitoring the total
number of locks at any given time and I'm not seeing
anything that should cause problems. The most locks I've
seen is about 40,000.
The last time we got this error msg in the error log, I
had two index defrag jobs going and there was bulk load
and/or delete job running.
Is this simply memory related? Is there anything with SP2
that might cause this (especially if it uses extra memory
for index defrags)?
Any insight would be much appreciated?!Hi Curt.
What is your configuration for locks? Run this to find out:
exec sp_configure 'locks'
Perhaps it got set to 40000 maximum during SP2 installation somehow?
Regards,
Greg Linwood
SQL Server MVP
"CurtM" <cndmoyer@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:127e01c391b1$29933ce0$a001280a@.phx.gbl...
> I've got a 2000 server (2G usable RAM) where we just
> installed SP2. Immediately after installation I began
> getting the below error:
> The SQL Server cannot obtain a LOCK resource at this time.
> Rerun your statement when there are fewer active users or
> ask the system administrator to check the SQL Server lock
> and memory configuration.
> Error: 1204, Severity: 19, State: 1
> I've got the default configuration setting for locks of 0
> and nothing has changed on this server that I know except
> for SP2. Furthermore, I've been monitoring the total
> number of locks at any given time and I'm not seeing
> anything that should cause problems. The most locks I've
> seen is about 40,000.
> The last time we got this error msg in the error log, I
> had two index defrag jobs going and there was bulk load
> and/or delete job running.
> Is this simply memory related? Is there anything with SP2
> that might cause this (especially if it uses extra memory
> for index defrags)?
> Any insight would be much appreciated?!
>|||It is set to 0 for run and config value (which I am sure
it was pre-SP2 as well).
>--Original Message--
>Hi Curt.
>What is your configuration for locks? Run this to find
out:
>exec sp_configure 'locks'
>Perhaps it got set to 40000 maximum during SP2
installation somehow?
>Regards,
>Greg Linwood
>SQL Server MVP
>"CurtM" <cndmoyer@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:127e01c391b1$29933ce0$a001280a@.phx.gbl...
>> I've got a 2000 server (2G usable RAM) where we just
>> installed SP2. Immediately after installation I began
>> getting the below error:
>> The SQL Server cannot obtain a LOCK resource at this
time.
>> Rerun your statement when there are fewer active users
or
>> ask the system administrator to check the SQL Server
lock
>> and memory configuration.
>> Error: 1204, Severity: 19, State: 1
>> I've got the default configuration setting for locks of
0
>> and nothing has changed on this server that I know
except
>> for SP2. Furthermore, I've been monitoring the total
>> number of locks at any given time and I'm not seeing
>> anything that should cause problems. The most locks
I've
>> seen is about 40,000.
>> The last time we got this error msg in the error log, I
>> had two index defrag jobs going and there was bulk load
>> and/or delete job running.
>> Is this simply memory related? Is there anything with
SP2
>> that might cause this (especially if it uses extra
memory
>> for index defrags)?
>> Any insight would be much appreciated?!
>
>.
>|||At this point it is just memory issue and you may have a lot of low
granularity locks such as RID or Key. You may want to escalate if possible
using hints for the problematic query
"CurtM" <cndmoyer@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:08c201c391c9$77b35000$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
> It is set to 0 for run and config value (which I am sure
> it was pre-SP2 as well).
> >--Original Message--
> >Hi Curt.
> >
> >What is your configuration for locks? Run this to find
> out:
> >
> >exec sp_configure 'locks'
> >
> >Perhaps it got set to 40000 maximum during SP2
> installation somehow?
> >
> >Regards,
> >Greg Linwood
> >SQL Server MVP
> >
> >"CurtM" <cndmoyer@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:127e01c391b1$29933ce0$a001280a@.phx.gbl...
> >> I've got a 2000 server (2G usable RAM) where we just
> >> installed SP2. Immediately after installation I began
> >> getting the below error:
> >>
> >> The SQL Server cannot obtain a LOCK resource at this
> time.
> >> Rerun your statement when there are fewer active users
> or
> >> ask the system administrator to check the SQL Server
> lock
> >> and memory configuration.
> >>
> >> Error: 1204, Severity: 19, State: 1
> >>
> >> I've got the default configuration setting for locks of
> 0
> >> and nothing has changed on this server that I know
> except
> >> for SP2. Furthermore, I've been monitoring the total
> >> number of locks at any given time and I'm not seeing
> >> anything that should cause problems. The most locks
> I've
> >> seen is about 40,000.
> >>
> >> The last time we got this error msg in the error log, I
> >> had two index defrag jobs going and there was bulk load
> >> and/or delete job running.
> >>
> >> Is this simply memory related? Is there anything with
> SP2
> >> that might cause this (especially if it uses extra
> memory
> >> for index defrags)?
> >>
> >> Any insight would be much appreciated?!
> >>
> >
> >
> >.
> >
installed SP2. Immediately after installation I began
getting the below error:
The SQL Server cannot obtain a LOCK resource at this time.
Rerun your statement when there are fewer active users or
ask the system administrator to check the SQL Server lock
and memory configuration.
Error: 1204, Severity: 19, State: 1
I've got the default configuration setting for locks of 0
and nothing has changed on this server that I know except
for SP2. Furthermore, I've been monitoring the total
number of locks at any given time and I'm not seeing
anything that should cause problems. The most locks I've
seen is about 40,000.
The last time we got this error msg in the error log, I
had two index defrag jobs going and there was bulk load
and/or delete job running.
Is this simply memory related? Is there anything with SP2
that might cause this (especially if it uses extra memory
for index defrags)?
Any insight would be much appreciated?!Hi Curt.
What is your configuration for locks? Run this to find out:
exec sp_configure 'locks'
Perhaps it got set to 40000 maximum during SP2 installation somehow?
Regards,
Greg Linwood
SQL Server MVP
"CurtM" <cndmoyer@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:127e01c391b1$29933ce0$a001280a@.phx.gbl...
> I've got a 2000 server (2G usable RAM) where we just
> installed SP2. Immediately after installation I began
> getting the below error:
> The SQL Server cannot obtain a LOCK resource at this time.
> Rerun your statement when there are fewer active users or
> ask the system administrator to check the SQL Server lock
> and memory configuration.
> Error: 1204, Severity: 19, State: 1
> I've got the default configuration setting for locks of 0
> and nothing has changed on this server that I know except
> for SP2. Furthermore, I've been monitoring the total
> number of locks at any given time and I'm not seeing
> anything that should cause problems. The most locks I've
> seen is about 40,000.
> The last time we got this error msg in the error log, I
> had two index defrag jobs going and there was bulk load
> and/or delete job running.
> Is this simply memory related? Is there anything with SP2
> that might cause this (especially if it uses extra memory
> for index defrags)?
> Any insight would be much appreciated?!
>|||It is set to 0 for run and config value (which I am sure
it was pre-SP2 as well).
>--Original Message--
>Hi Curt.
>What is your configuration for locks? Run this to find
out:
>exec sp_configure 'locks'
>Perhaps it got set to 40000 maximum during SP2
installation somehow?
>Regards,
>Greg Linwood
>SQL Server MVP
>"CurtM" <cndmoyer@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:127e01c391b1$29933ce0$a001280a@.phx.gbl...
>> I've got a 2000 server (2G usable RAM) where we just
>> installed SP2. Immediately after installation I began
>> getting the below error:
>> The SQL Server cannot obtain a LOCK resource at this
time.
>> Rerun your statement when there are fewer active users
or
>> ask the system administrator to check the SQL Server
lock
>> and memory configuration.
>> Error: 1204, Severity: 19, State: 1
>> I've got the default configuration setting for locks of
0
>> and nothing has changed on this server that I know
except
>> for SP2. Furthermore, I've been monitoring the total
>> number of locks at any given time and I'm not seeing
>> anything that should cause problems. The most locks
I've
>> seen is about 40,000.
>> The last time we got this error msg in the error log, I
>> had two index defrag jobs going and there was bulk load
>> and/or delete job running.
>> Is this simply memory related? Is there anything with
SP2
>> that might cause this (especially if it uses extra
memory
>> for index defrags)?
>> Any insight would be much appreciated?!
>
>.
>|||At this point it is just memory issue and you may have a lot of low
granularity locks such as RID or Key. You may want to escalate if possible
using hints for the problematic query
"CurtM" <cndmoyer@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:08c201c391c9$77b35000$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
> It is set to 0 for run and config value (which I am sure
> it was pre-SP2 as well).
> >--Original Message--
> >Hi Curt.
> >
> >What is your configuration for locks? Run this to find
> out:
> >
> >exec sp_configure 'locks'
> >
> >Perhaps it got set to 40000 maximum during SP2
> installation somehow?
> >
> >Regards,
> >Greg Linwood
> >SQL Server MVP
> >
> >"CurtM" <cndmoyer@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:127e01c391b1$29933ce0$a001280a@.phx.gbl...
> >> I've got a 2000 server (2G usable RAM) where we just
> >> installed SP2. Immediately after installation I began
> >> getting the below error:
> >>
> >> The SQL Server cannot obtain a LOCK resource at this
> time.
> >> Rerun your statement when there are fewer active users
> or
> >> ask the system administrator to check the SQL Server
> lock
> >> and memory configuration.
> >>
> >> Error: 1204, Severity: 19, State: 1
> >>
> >> I've got the default configuration setting for locks of
> 0
> >> and nothing has changed on this server that I know
> except
> >> for SP2. Furthermore, I've been monitoring the total
> >> number of locks at any given time and I'm not seeing
> >> anything that should cause problems. The most locks
> I've
> >> seen is about 40,000.
> >>
> >> The last time we got this error msg in the error log, I
> >> had two index defrag jobs going and there was bulk load
> >> and/or delete job running.
> >>
> >> Is this simply memory related? Is there anything with
> SP2
> >> that might cause this (especially if it uses extra
> memory
> >> for index defrags)?
> >>
> >> Any insight would be much appreciated?!
> >>
> >
> >
> >.
> >
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Location of transaction log on another machine
Hi,
We have SQL server 2000 enterprise edition installed on a machine with
only one hard drive. On this server we have a small but critical
database. I have noticed that the person who created this database
placed the location of the transaction log on the same machine as the
data file.
Can I move the transaction log to another machine on the network that
doesn't have SQL server installed? Will there be a performance hit if
SQL Server has to write to this log over the network? If so will it be
major?
I know ideally we should be using a RAID setup of some sort, but for
finacial and political reasons this is not an option.
Cheers,
Steve
Basically, SQL Server doesn't support this. Doing it would be a big performance hit for
modifications. For the full story, check out
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;304261
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Steve" <steve.hager@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d5c55fd1.0412012214.76710133@.posting.google.c om...
> Hi,
> We have SQL server 2000 enterprise edition installed on a machine with
> only one hard drive. On this server we have a small but critical
> database. I have noticed that the person who created this database
> placed the location of the transaction log on the same machine as the
> data file.
> Can I move the transaction log to another machine on the network that
> doesn't have SQL server installed? Will there be a performance hit if
> SQL Server has to write to this log over the network? If so will it be
> major?
> I know ideally we should be using a RAID setup of some sort, but for
> finacial and political reasons this is not an option.
> Cheers,
>
> Steve
|||Steve wrote:
> Hi,
> We have SQL server 2000 enterprise edition installed on a machine with
> only one hard drive. On this server we have a small but critical
> database. I have noticed that the person who created this database
> placed the location of the transaction log on the same machine as the
> data file.
> Can I move the transaction log to another machine on the network that
> doesn't have SQL server installed? Will there be a performance hit if
> SQL Server has to write to this log over the network? If so will it be
> major?
> I know ideally we should be using a RAID setup of some sort, but for
> finacial and political reasons this is not an option.
> Cheers,
>
> Steve
How about another hard drive. That's no too much money...
If it's a small database, it'll probably be fine.
David Gugick
Imceda Software
www.imceda.com
We have SQL server 2000 enterprise edition installed on a machine with
only one hard drive. On this server we have a small but critical
database. I have noticed that the person who created this database
placed the location of the transaction log on the same machine as the
data file.
Can I move the transaction log to another machine on the network that
doesn't have SQL server installed? Will there be a performance hit if
SQL Server has to write to this log over the network? If so will it be
major?
I know ideally we should be using a RAID setup of some sort, but for
finacial and political reasons this is not an option.
Cheers,
Steve
Basically, SQL Server doesn't support this. Doing it would be a big performance hit for
modifications. For the full story, check out
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;304261
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Steve" <steve.hager@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d5c55fd1.0412012214.76710133@.posting.google.c om...
> Hi,
> We have SQL server 2000 enterprise edition installed on a machine with
> only one hard drive. On this server we have a small but critical
> database. I have noticed that the person who created this database
> placed the location of the transaction log on the same machine as the
> data file.
> Can I move the transaction log to another machine on the network that
> doesn't have SQL server installed? Will there be a performance hit if
> SQL Server has to write to this log over the network? If so will it be
> major?
> I know ideally we should be using a RAID setup of some sort, but for
> finacial and political reasons this is not an option.
> Cheers,
>
> Steve
|||Steve wrote:
> Hi,
> We have SQL server 2000 enterprise edition installed on a machine with
> only one hard drive. On this server we have a small but critical
> database. I have noticed that the person who created this database
> placed the location of the transaction log on the same machine as the
> data file.
> Can I move the transaction log to another machine on the network that
> doesn't have SQL server installed? Will there be a performance hit if
> SQL Server has to write to this log over the network? If so will it be
> major?
> I know ideally we should be using a RAID setup of some sort, but for
> finacial and political reasons this is not an option.
> Cheers,
>
> Steve
How about another hard drive. That's no too much money...
If it's a small database, it'll probably be fine.
David Gugick
Imceda Software
www.imceda.com
Location of transaction log on another machine
Hi,
We have SQL server 2000 enterprise edition installed on a machine with
only one hard drive. On this server we have a small but critical
database. I have noticed that the person who created this database
placed the location of the transaction log on the same machine as the
data file.
Can I move the transaction log to another machine on the network that
doesn't have SQL server installed? Will there be a performance hit if
SQL Server has to write to this log over the network? If so will it be
major?
I know ideally we should be using a RAID setup of some sort, but for
finacial and political reasons this is not an option.
Cheers,
SteveBasically, SQL Server doesn't support this. Doing it would be a big performa
nce hit for
modifications. For the full story, check out
http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...kb;en-us;304261
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Steve" <steve.hager@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d5c55fd1.0412012214.76710133@.posting.google.com...
> Hi,
> We have SQL server 2000 enterprise edition installed on a machine with
> only one hard drive. On this server we have a small but critical
> database. I have noticed that the person who created this database
> placed the location of the transaction log on the same machine as the
> data file.
> Can I move the transaction log to another machine on the network that
> doesn't have SQL server installed? Will there be a performance hit if
> SQL Server has to write to this log over the network? If so will it be
> major?
> I know ideally we should be using a RAID setup of some sort, but for
> finacial and political reasons this is not an option.
> Cheers,
>
> Steve|||Steve wrote:
> Hi,
> We have SQL server 2000 enterprise edition installed on a machine with
> only one hard drive. On this server we have a small but critical
> database. I have noticed that the person who created this database
> placed the location of the transaction log on the same machine as the
> data file.
> Can I move the transaction log to another machine on the network that
> doesn't have SQL server installed? Will there be a performance hit if
> SQL Server has to write to this log over the network? If so will it be
> major?
> I know ideally we should be using a RAID setup of some sort, but for
> finacial and political reasons this is not an option.
> Cheers,
>
> Steve
How about another hard drive. That's no too much money...
If it's a small database, it'll probably be fine.
David Gugick
Imceda Software
www.imceda.com
We have SQL server 2000 enterprise edition installed on a machine with
only one hard drive. On this server we have a small but critical
database. I have noticed that the person who created this database
placed the location of the transaction log on the same machine as the
data file.
Can I move the transaction log to another machine on the network that
doesn't have SQL server installed? Will there be a performance hit if
SQL Server has to write to this log over the network? If so will it be
major?
I know ideally we should be using a RAID setup of some sort, but for
finacial and political reasons this is not an option.
Cheers,
SteveBasically, SQL Server doesn't support this. Doing it would be a big performa
nce hit for
modifications. For the full story, check out
http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...kb;en-us;304261
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Steve" <steve.hager@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d5c55fd1.0412012214.76710133@.posting.google.com...
> Hi,
> We have SQL server 2000 enterprise edition installed on a machine with
> only one hard drive. On this server we have a small but critical
> database. I have noticed that the person who created this database
> placed the location of the transaction log on the same machine as the
> data file.
> Can I move the transaction log to another machine on the network that
> doesn't have SQL server installed? Will there be a performance hit if
> SQL Server has to write to this log over the network? If so will it be
> major?
> I know ideally we should be using a RAID setup of some sort, but for
> finacial and political reasons this is not an option.
> Cheers,
>
> Steve|||Steve wrote:
> Hi,
> We have SQL server 2000 enterprise edition installed on a machine with
> only one hard drive. On this server we have a small but critical
> database. I have noticed that the person who created this database
> placed the location of the transaction log on the same machine as the
> data file.
> Can I move the transaction log to another machine on the network that
> doesn't have SQL server installed? Will there be a performance hit if
> SQL Server has to write to this log over the network? If so will it be
> major?
> I know ideally we should be using a RAID setup of some sort, but for
> finacial and political reasons this is not an option.
> Cheers,
>
> Steve
How about another hard drive. That's no too much money...
If it's a small database, it'll probably be fine.
David Gugick
Imceda Software
www.imceda.com
Location of transaction log on another machine
Hi,
We have SQL server 2000 enterprise edition installed on a machine with
only one hard drive. On this server we have a small but critical
database. I have noticed that the person who created this database
placed the location of the transaction log on the same machine as the
data file.
Can I move the transaction log to another machine on the network that
doesn't have SQL server installed? Will there be a performance hit if
SQL Server has to write to this log over the network? If so will it be
major?
I know ideally we should be using a RAID setup of some sort, but for
finacial and political reasons this is not an option.
Cheers,
SteveBasically, SQL Server doesn't support this. Doing it would be a big performance hit for
modifications. For the full story, check out
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;304261
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Steve" <steve.hager@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d5c55fd1.0412012214.76710133@.posting.google.com...
> Hi,
> We have SQL server 2000 enterprise edition installed on a machine with
> only one hard drive. On this server we have a small but critical
> database. I have noticed that the person who created this database
> placed the location of the transaction log on the same machine as the
> data file.
> Can I move the transaction log to another machine on the network that
> doesn't have SQL server installed? Will there be a performance hit if
> SQL Server has to write to this log over the network? If so will it be
> major?
> I know ideally we should be using a RAID setup of some sort, but for
> finacial and political reasons this is not an option.
> Cheers,
>
> Steve|||Steve wrote:
> Hi,
> We have SQL server 2000 enterprise edition installed on a machine with
> only one hard drive. On this server we have a small but critical
> database. I have noticed that the person who created this database
> placed the location of the transaction log on the same machine as the
> data file.
> Can I move the transaction log to another machine on the network that
> doesn't have SQL server installed? Will there be a performance hit if
> SQL Server has to write to this log over the network? If so will it be
> major?
> I know ideally we should be using a RAID setup of some sort, but for
> finacial and political reasons this is not an option.
> Cheers,
>
> Steve
How about another hard drive. That's no too much money...
If it's a small database, it'll probably be fine.
David Gugick
Imceda Software
www.imceda.com
We have SQL server 2000 enterprise edition installed on a machine with
only one hard drive. On this server we have a small but critical
database. I have noticed that the person who created this database
placed the location of the transaction log on the same machine as the
data file.
Can I move the transaction log to another machine on the network that
doesn't have SQL server installed? Will there be a performance hit if
SQL Server has to write to this log over the network? If so will it be
major?
I know ideally we should be using a RAID setup of some sort, but for
finacial and political reasons this is not an option.
Cheers,
SteveBasically, SQL Server doesn't support this. Doing it would be a big performance hit for
modifications. For the full story, check out
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;304261
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Steve" <steve.hager@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d5c55fd1.0412012214.76710133@.posting.google.com...
> Hi,
> We have SQL server 2000 enterprise edition installed on a machine with
> only one hard drive. On this server we have a small but critical
> database. I have noticed that the person who created this database
> placed the location of the transaction log on the same machine as the
> data file.
> Can I move the transaction log to another machine on the network that
> doesn't have SQL server installed? Will there be a performance hit if
> SQL Server has to write to this log over the network? If so will it be
> major?
> I know ideally we should be using a RAID setup of some sort, but for
> finacial and political reasons this is not an option.
> Cheers,
>
> Steve|||Steve wrote:
> Hi,
> We have SQL server 2000 enterprise edition installed on a machine with
> only one hard drive. On this server we have a small but critical
> database. I have noticed that the person who created this database
> placed the location of the transaction log on the same machine as the
> data file.
> Can I move the transaction log to another machine on the network that
> doesn't have SQL server installed? Will there be a performance hit if
> SQL Server has to write to this log over the network? If so will it be
> major?
> I know ideally we should be using a RAID setup of some sort, but for
> finacial and political reasons this is not an option.
> Cheers,
>
> Steve
How about another hard drive. That's no too much money...
If it's a small database, it'll probably be fine.
David Gugick
Imceda Software
www.imceda.com
Location of default instance SQL server 2005 files
I have just installed SQL Server 2005. I was not given a choice during installation (that I remember seeing anyway) about which drive I wanted to place the default SQL instance on.
It ended up on C: and I needed it on D:.
So my questions are:
Is there a way to move it to D: that is easier than the way you had to go about it in SQL 2000?
Is there a way to do it during setup so I can avoid this in the future?
There is a file called template.ini located at the same folder as setup.exe. In this file, all related command line parameters are discussed when SQL Server 2005 is installed under unattended mode, i.e., command line. You can specify paths to install SQL Server 2005 components.
Under attended mode, i.e., GUI mode, during selecting components to install, clicking the Advanced button will prompt to change paths to install SQL Server 2005 components.
|||
Jiongxiong,
There is no file "template.ini" with the SQL setup program (cd or installed location).
The SQL readme points to a generic windows deployment info page - which is unhelpful.
|||If you're installing SQL Server Express edition you are running an executable called SQLEXPR.EXE. This is a compressed package that when run expands the contents to a temporary folder, runs the installation and then deletes the temporary folder. You can persist the uncompressed contents by running sqlexpr.exe /x - this will prompt you for a folder to save the uncompressed files. Once uncompressed you'll find the template.ini file in this folder (same folder as setup.exe). The parameters that can be passed to setup.exe can also be passed to sqlexpr.exe - the compression tool will pass the parameters to setup.exe when it runs it.
If you're installing an edition other than Express you will find template.ini in the same folder as setup.exe.
Cheers,
Dan
Jiongxiong, you are right! Sorry, I missed the template.ini file somehow. I will see if it works for my clean install tests.
It is simply amazing that M$ can not do simple file management for installation. There are files, they have versions, they need to be copied to a folder from the CD, and some settings stored - how complicated is that? Well if you are M$ you make SQL05 installation into a mass of gobble-gook. SQL Server 05 is not ready for production use until its installation abomination is fixed!
Most people think that SQL Server setup is just about copying files and writing some reg keys. While it's true it's only a small fraction of what setup does. Here is a small sampling of the other things SQL Server setup does.
SQL Server setup checks the configuration of the machine to determine if the machine is in a valid state - which improves the chances of a good installation. Windows Installer doesn't support this.
SQL Server is a multi-instance product. Windows Installer doesn't support this.
SQL Server requires configuration to happen as part of the setup process. Windows Installer doesn't support this. If you've ever performed a MySQL installation a separate tool is launched post setup to do the configuration - although at the end of setup you don't have a working server.
SQL Server cluster install is extremely robust. Every other product I've seen requires you to rerun setup on every node and make sure the configurations are the same. SQL does this for you. Windows Installer doesn't support cluster installs.
SQL Server requires a secure installation. This means that every file/directory/service/reg key is ACL'd to the appropriate service account. Windows Installer doesn't support this.
SQL Server setup supports version and edition upgrade. Windows Installer doesn't support this.
Windows Installer handles very well the copying of files and the writing of reg keys, but it doesn't handle any of the other complexities associated with SQL Server setup. Everywhere I mentioned that Windows Installer doesn't support something it means we've had to build it. I'm not using this as an excuse, but merely highlighting the fact that setup is much more than just copying files and writing reg keys. Anyone who's worked on the setup of a complex product (such as SQL or Visual Studio) will attest to this.
Is our setup perfect? No. But I certainly don't believe it deserves the criticism. There are millions of ways a user can hose their machine and it would be impossible for us to test for every single case. I'm sure you'll be tempted to compare SQL with other products - don't. There are very few products that come to mind that have the same level of complexity that SQL Server does. Again, this is not an excuse for any particular bug that remains in setup. The complexity of SQL Server has grown tremendously from SQL Server 7.0. The setup has had to embrace the increased complexity and deliver a stable and consistent experience. I believe this was achieved.
Cheers,
Dan
Dan:
This is critical tidbit that surely belongs in Embedding SQL Server Express in Custom Applications. That's a 32-page article (from November 2005) at the Microsoft SQL Server Developer Centre, and while it obviously spends time on template.ini, it doesn't tell you how to find it. Luckily for me, I found your reply on this forum.
Please pass this on to Robert Walters, who wrote the article.
Regards
Josh Korn
Location of default instance SQL server 2005 files
I have just installed SQL Server 2005. I was not given a choice during installation (that I remember seeing anyway) about which drive I wanted to place the default SQL instance on.
It ended up on C: and I needed it on D:.
So my questions are:
- Is there a way to move it to D: that is easier than the way you had to go about it in SQL 2000? Is there a way to do it during setup so I can avoid this in the future?
There is a file called template.ini located at the same folder as setup.exe. In this file, all related command line parameters are discussed when SQL Server 2005 is installed under unattended mode, i.e., command line. You can specify paths to install SQL Server 2005 components.
Under attended mode, i.e., GUI mode, during selecting components to install, clicking the Advanced button will prompt to change paths to install SQL Server 2005 components.
|||
Jiongxiong,
There is no file "template.ini" with the SQL setup program (cd or installed location).
The SQL readme points to a generic windows deployment info page - which is unhelpful.
|||If you're installing SQL Server Express edition you are running an executable called SQLEXPR.EXE. This is a compressed package that when run expands the contents to a temporary folder, runs the installation and then deletes the temporary folder. You can persist the uncompressed contents by running sqlexpr.exe /x - this will prompt you for a folder to save the uncompressed files. Once uncompressed you'll find the template.ini file in this folder (same folder as setup.exe). The parameters that can be passed to setup.exe can also be passed to sqlexpr.exe - the compression tool will pass the parameters to setup.exe when it runs it.
If you're installing an edition other than Express you will find template.ini in the same folder as setup.exe.
Cheers,
Dan
Jiongxiong, you are right! Sorry, I missed the template.ini file somehow. I will see if it works for my clean install tests.
It is simply amazing that M$ can not do simple file management for installation. There are files, they have versions, they need to be copied to a folder from the CD, and some settings stored - how complicated is that? Well if you are M$ you make SQL05 installation into a mass of gobble-gook. SQL Server 05 is not ready for production use until its installation abomination is fixed!
Most people think that SQL Server setup is just about copying files and writing some reg keys. While it's true it's only a small fraction of what setup does. Here is a small sampling of the other things SQL Server setup does.
SQL Server setup checks the configuration of the machine to determine if the machine is in a valid state - which improves the chances of a good installation. Windows Installer doesn't support this.
SQL Server is a multi-instance product. Windows Installer doesn't support this.
SQL Server requires configuration to happen as part of the setup process. Windows Installer doesn't support this. If you've ever performed a MySQL installation a separate tool is launched post setup to do the configuration - although at the end of setup you don't have a working server.
SQL Server cluster install is extremely robust. Every other product I've seen requires you to rerun setup on every node and make sure the configurations are the same. SQL does this for you. Windows Installer doesn't support cluster installs.
SQL Server requires a secure installation. This means that every file/directory/service/reg key is ACL'd to the appropriate service account. Windows Installer doesn't support this.
SQL Server setup supports version and edition upgrade. Windows Installer doesn't support this.
Windows Installer handles very well the copying of files and the writing of reg keys, but it doesn't handle any of the other complexities associated with SQL Server setup. Everywhere I mentioned that Windows Installer doesn't support something it means we've had to build it. I'm not using this as an excuse, but merely highlighting the fact that setup is much more than just copying files and writing reg keys. Anyone who's worked on the setup of a complex product (such as SQL or Visual Studio) will attest to this.
Is our setup perfect? No. But I certainly don't believe it deserves the criticism. There are millions of ways a user can hose their machine and it would be impossible for us to test for every single case. I'm sure you'll be tempted to compare SQL with other products - don't. There are very few products that come to mind that have the same level of complexity that SQL Server does. Again, this is not an excuse for any particular bug that remains in setup. The complexity of SQL Server has grown tremendously from SQL Server 7.0. The setup has had to embrace the increased complexity and deliver a stable and consistent experience. I believe this was achieved.
Cheers,
Dan
Dan:
This is critical tidbit that surely belongs in Embedding SQL Server Express in Custom Applications. That's a 32-page article (from November 2005) at the Microsoft SQL Server Developer Centre, and while it obviously spends time on template.ini, it doesn't tell you how to find it. Luckily for me, I found your reply on this forum.
Please pass this on to Robert Walters, who wrote the article.
Regards
Josh Korn
Location of default instance SQL server 2005 files
I have just installed SQL Server 2005. I was not given a choice during installation (that I remember seeing anyway) about which drive I wanted to place the default SQL instance on.
It ended up on C: and I needed it on D:.
So my questions are:
- Is there a way to move it to D: that is easier than the way you had to go about it in SQL 2000? Is there a way to do it during setup so I can avoid this in the future?
There is a file called template.ini located at the same folder as setup.exe. In this file, all related command line parameters are discussed when SQL Server 2005 is installed under unattended mode, i.e., command line. You can specify paths to install SQL Server 2005 components.
Under attended mode, i.e., GUI mode, during selecting components to install, clicking the Advanced button will prompt to change paths to install SQL Server 2005 components.
|||
Jiongxiong,
There is no file "template.ini" with the SQL setup program (cd or installed location).
The SQL readme points to a generic windows deployment info page - which is unhelpful.
|||If you're installing SQL Server Express edition you are running an executable called SQLEXPR.EXE. This is a compressed package that when run expands the contents to a temporary folder, runs the installation and then deletes the temporary folder. You can persist the uncompressed contents by running sqlexpr.exe /x - this will prompt you for a folder to save the uncompressed files. Once uncompressed you'll find the template.ini file in this folder (same folder as setup.exe). The parameters that can be passed to setup.exe can also be passed to sqlexpr.exe - the compression tool will pass the parameters to setup.exe when it runs it.
If you're installing an edition other than Express you will find template.ini in the same folder as setup.exe.
Cheers,
Dan
Jiongxiong, you are right! Sorry, I missed the template.ini file somehow. I will see if it works for my clean install tests.
It is simply amazing that M$ can not do simple file management for installation. There are files, they have versions, they need to be copied to a folder from the CD, and some settings stored - how complicated is that? Well if you are M$ you make SQL05 installation into a mass of gobble-gook. SQL Server 05 is not ready for production use until its installation abomination is fixed!
Most people think that SQL Server setup is just about copying files and writing some reg keys. While it's true it's only a small fraction of what setup does. Here is a small sampling of the other things SQL Server setup does.
SQL Server setup checks the configuration of the machine to determine if the machine is in a valid state - which improves the chances of a good installation. Windows Installer doesn't support this.
SQL Server is a multi-instance product. Windows Installer doesn't support this.
SQL Server requires configuration to happen as part of the setup process. Windows Installer doesn't support this. If you've ever performed a MySQL installation a separate tool is launched post setup to do the configuration - although at the end of setup you don't have a working server.
SQL Server cluster install is extremely robust. Every other product I've seen requires you to rerun setup on every node and make sure the configurations are the same. SQL does this for you. Windows Installer doesn't support cluster installs.
SQL Server requires a secure installation. This means that every file/directory/service/reg key is ACL'd to the appropriate service account. Windows Installer doesn't support this.
SQL Server setup supports version and edition upgrade. Windows Installer doesn't support this.
Windows Installer handles very well the copying of files and the writing of reg keys, but it doesn't handle any of the other complexities associated with SQL Server setup. Everywhere I mentioned that Windows Installer doesn't support something it means we've had to build it. I'm not using this as an excuse, but merely highlighting the fact that setup is much more than just copying files and writing reg keys. Anyone who's worked on the setup of a complex product (such as SQL or Visual Studio) will attest to this.
Is our setup perfect? No. But I certainly don't believe it deserves the criticism. There are millions of ways a user can hose their machine and it would be impossible for us to test for every single case. I'm sure you'll be tempted to compare SQL with other products - don't. There are very few products that come to mind that have the same level of complexity that SQL Server does. Again, this is not an excuse for any particular bug that remains in setup. The complexity of SQL Server has grown tremendously from SQL Server 7.0. The setup has had to embrace the increased complexity and deliver a stable and consistent experience. I believe this was achieved.
Cheers,
Dan
Dan:
This is critical tidbit that surely belongs in Embedding SQL Server Express in Custom Applications. That's a 32-page article (from November 2005) at the Microsoft SQL Server Developer Centre, and while it obviously spends time on template.ini, it doesn't tell you how to find it. Luckily for me, I found your reply on this forum.
Please pass this on to Robert Walters, who wrote the article.
Regards
Josh Korn
Location of Data Files
I have installed SQL Server 2000 with Master / Model /
MSDB databases in C Drive.
Since the size of C Drive is not sufficient, is it
possible for me to restore a database backup from another
SQL Server to D:\MSSQL\Data ?
ThanksThis article may help you
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=224071
--
--
Allan Mitchell (Microsoft SQL Server MVP)
MCSE,MCDBA
www.SQLDTS.com
I support PASS - the definitive, global community
for SQL Server professionals - http://www.sqlpass.org
"Roger Lee" <rogerlee@.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:06b101c36553$fd1b6db0$a101280a@.phx.gbl...
> I have installed SQL Server 2000 with Master / Model /
> MSDB databases in C Drive.
> Since the size of C Drive is not sufficient, is it
> possible for me to restore a database backup from another
> SQL Server to D:\MSSQL\Data ?
> Thankssql
MSDB databases in C Drive.
Since the size of C Drive is not sufficient, is it
possible for me to restore a database backup from another
SQL Server to D:\MSSQL\Data ?
ThanksThis article may help you
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=224071
--
--
Allan Mitchell (Microsoft SQL Server MVP)
MCSE,MCDBA
www.SQLDTS.com
I support PASS - the definitive, global community
for SQL Server professionals - http://www.sqlpass.org
"Roger Lee" <rogerlee@.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:06b101c36553$fd1b6db0$a101280a@.phx.gbl...
> I have installed SQL Server 2000 with Master / Model /
> MSDB databases in C Drive.
> Since the size of C Drive is not sufficient, is it
> possible for me to restore a database backup from another
> SQL Server to D:\MSSQL\Data ?
> Thankssql
Monday, March 19, 2012
Locate SQL Server on your LAN
What is the best/easiest way to locate all the SQL server
installed on your LAN?SQL Scan
http://microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=9552D43B-04EB-4AF9-9E24-6CDE4D933600&displaylang=en
--
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)
"MWH" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:255e01c4a7e8$ada3c920$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> What is the best/easiest way to locate all the SQL server
> installed on your LAN?|||The Quest freeware tools have this capability. They put any servers they
discover directly into the Nav Tree. Check
www.quest.com/quest_central/sql_server/freeware.
-Kevin
SQL Server MVP
"MWH" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:255e01c4a7e8$ada3c920$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> What is the best/easiest way to locate all the SQL server
> installed on your LAN?
installed on your LAN?SQL Scan
http://microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=9552D43B-04EB-4AF9-9E24-6CDE4D933600&displaylang=en
--
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)
"MWH" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:255e01c4a7e8$ada3c920$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> What is the best/easiest way to locate all the SQL server
> installed on your LAN?|||The Quest freeware tools have this capability. They put any servers they
discover directly into the Nav Tree. Check
www.quest.com/quest_central/sql_server/freeware.
-Kevin
SQL Server MVP
"MWH" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:255e01c4a7e8$ada3c920$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> What is the best/easiest way to locate all the SQL server
> installed on your LAN?
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
local SQL Server 2005 Express and Host with SQL Server 2000
I'm creating an app and have SQL Server 2005 Express installed. Most of the hosts now offering SQL Server 2005 are a bit pricey compared to those only offering 2000. Will I have any difficulty uploading my site and running the db on SQL 2000?
Thanks in advance.I've been searching these forums but all people having about the same question, all have no replies in the thread.
Thanks in advance.I've been searching these forums but all people having about the same question, all have no replies in the thread.
I'd love some feedback on this issue.
I'm quite new to asp.net.
I've got vs installed with sql 2005 express. but I also installed sql 2000 since my host is still using this one.
how can I port the db ? can I use the advanced controls (like login, membership, roles) if using a sql 2000 db ?
thank you|||ok I found some more replies in other threads.
basically I think my best approach should/could be:
-develop the website directly with ms sql 2000 as my database installed locally.
I guess the advanced features related to security, users, roles aren't configurable through the new admin panel of asp.net (related to the aspnetdb.* )
but If I understand correctly I could use sql 2005 for that and then run the tool inside the .NET 2.0 folder to port them into a mssql 2000 database. am I correct ?
any recommendations are welcome ;)
thanks|||
Because it depends on what you are doing. Yes, you can use sql 2000. Yes, you can move the data. No, sql 2000 can't do everything sql 2005 can, so if you write custom stored procedures, views, etc then you'll have to change them if they don't work on sql 2000.
The aspnetdb works fine on sql 2000, as does the sql providers that shipped with vs 2005. The problem is that it varies from hosting provider to hosting provider on how you get access to the sql box, and therefore you can't really give any instructions on "This is how you move your tables, views, stored procedures, indexes, triggers, and data easily".
Local smtp configure with remote smtp
Hello dear
i am using windows 2003 server where i have installed smtp server
now i want to configure with remote stmp so i can send an email to any domain.
Thanks
i think your describe credentials. admin credentials or on Report Manager
|||
HI ashok,
did you get an answer to your question? i am facing the same problem. I need to configure my local SMTP server to forward emails to another SMTP server which accepts a username and password.
did you get a solution to your question?
Local smtp configure with remote smtp
Hello dear
i am using windows 2003 server where i have installed smtp server
now i want to configure with remote stmp so i can send an email to any domain.
Thanks
i think your describe credentials. admin credentials or on Report Manager
|||
HI ashok,
did you get an answer to your question? i am facing the same problem. I need to configure my local SMTP server to forward emails to another SMTP server which accepts a username and password.
did you get a solution to your question?
Friday, February 24, 2012
Local instance registration on 2005
I just installed the workstation components for SQL 2005 and have opened
Management Studio.
I am trying to register a local instance for testing and am not having any
success. If I select "New" under database engines, I do not have any local
servers to choose from. If I attempt to enter my local computer name for the
server name in New Server Registration properties, it will not connect.
Any idea how to set up a local instance?
Message posted via droptable.com
http://www.droptable.com/Uwe/Forums...erver/200603/1
Reading you text I see that you installed the Workstation components and then try to access a local
instance. But the Workstation components doesn't include the database engine...
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"cbrichards via droptable.com" <u3288@.uwe> wrote in message news:5da4d493ce717@.uwe...
>I just installed the workstation components for SQL 2005 and have opened
> Management Studio.
> I am trying to register a local instance for testing and am not having any
> success. If I select "New" under database engines, I do not have any local
> servers to choose from. If I attempt to enter my local computer name for the
> server name in New Server Registration properties, it will not connect.
> Any idea how to set up a local instance?
> --
> Message posted via droptable.com
> http://www.droptable.com/Uwe/Forums...erver/200603/1
|||I have "Database Engine".
In SQL 2K you could register a server as [local].
How is that done in SQL 2005?
Tibor Karaszi wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
>Reading you text I see that you installed the Workstation components and then try to access a local
>instance. But the Workstation components doesn't include the database engine...
>[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
Message posted via droptable.com
http://www.droptable.com/Uwe/Forums...erver/200603/1
|||cbrichards via droptable.com wrote:
> I have "Database Engine".
> In SQL 2K you could register a server as [local].
> How is that done in SQL 2005?
> Tibor Karaszi wrote:
>
>
Where do you have "Database Engine"? You can check under services if you
have sqlserver service and if it's running. If it's there it should be
running. If it isn't there, you haven't installed the database engine.
Regards
Steen
|||I do have sqlserver service running.
Under registered servers when I right click on [local computer name]\
SQLExpress, then select connect, I get an error saying I cannot connect to
the above instance with "error 26 - Error Locating Server/Instance Specified"
Steen Persson (DK) wrote:
>[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>Where do you have "Database Engine"? You can check under services if you
>have sqlserver service and if it's running. If it's there it should be
>running. If it isn't there, you haven't installed the database engine.
>Regards
>Steen
Message posted via http://www.droptable.com
|||cbrichards via droptable.com wrote:
> I do have sqlserver service running.
> Under registered servers when I right click on [local computer name]\
> SQLExpress, then select connect, I get an error saying I cannot connect to
> the above instance with "error 26 - Error Locating Server/Instance Specified"
>
> Steen Persson (DK) wrote:
>
Have you tried to go through the SQL Server Configuartion Manager and/or
SQL server Surface Area Configuatio? Maybe there're something you're
missing to setup/enable.
Regards
Steen
Management Studio.
I am trying to register a local instance for testing and am not having any
success. If I select "New" under database engines, I do not have any local
servers to choose from. If I attempt to enter my local computer name for the
server name in New Server Registration properties, it will not connect.
Any idea how to set up a local instance?
Message posted via droptable.com
http://www.droptable.com/Uwe/Forums...erver/200603/1
Reading you text I see that you installed the Workstation components and then try to access a local
instance. But the Workstation components doesn't include the database engine...
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"cbrichards via droptable.com" <u3288@.uwe> wrote in message news:5da4d493ce717@.uwe...
>I just installed the workstation components for SQL 2005 and have opened
> Management Studio.
> I am trying to register a local instance for testing and am not having any
> success. If I select "New" under database engines, I do not have any local
> servers to choose from. If I attempt to enter my local computer name for the
> server name in New Server Registration properties, it will not connect.
> Any idea how to set up a local instance?
> --
> Message posted via droptable.com
> http://www.droptable.com/Uwe/Forums...erver/200603/1
|||I have "Database Engine".
In SQL 2K you could register a server as [local].
How is that done in SQL 2005?
Tibor Karaszi wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
>Reading you text I see that you installed the Workstation components and then try to access a local
>instance. But the Workstation components doesn't include the database engine...
>[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
Message posted via droptable.com
http://www.droptable.com/Uwe/Forums...erver/200603/1
|||cbrichards via droptable.com wrote:
> I have "Database Engine".
> In SQL 2K you could register a server as [local].
> How is that done in SQL 2005?
> Tibor Karaszi wrote:
>
>
Where do you have "Database Engine"? You can check under services if you
have sqlserver service and if it's running. If it's there it should be
running. If it isn't there, you haven't installed the database engine.
Regards
Steen
|||I do have sqlserver service running.
Under registered servers when I right click on [local computer name]\
SQLExpress, then select connect, I get an error saying I cannot connect to
the above instance with "error 26 - Error Locating Server/Instance Specified"
Steen Persson (DK) wrote:
>[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>Where do you have "Database Engine"? You can check under services if you
>have sqlserver service and if it's running. If it's there it should be
>running. If it isn't there, you haven't installed the database engine.
>Regards
>Steen
Message posted via http://www.droptable.com
|||cbrichards via droptable.com wrote:
> I do have sqlserver service running.
> Under registered servers when I right click on [local computer name]\
> SQLExpress, then select connect, I get an error saying I cannot connect to
> the above instance with "error 26 - Error Locating Server/Instance Specified"
>
> Steen Persson (DK) wrote:
>
Have you tried to go through the SQL Server Configuartion Manager and/or
SQL server Surface Area Configuatio? Maybe there're something you're
missing to setup/enable.
Regards
Steen
Local instance registration on 2005
I just installed the workstation components for SQL 2005 and have opened
Management Studio.
I am trying to register a local instance for testing and am not having any
success. If I select "New" under database engines, I do not have any local
servers to choose from. If I attempt to enter my local computer name for the
server name in New Server Registration properties, it will not connect.
Any idea how to set up a local instance?
Message posted via droptable.com
http://www.droptable.com/Uwe/Forum...server/200603/1Reading you text I see that you installed the Workstation components and the
n try to access a local
instance. But the Workstation components doesn't include the database engine
..
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"cbrichards via droptable.com" <u3288@.uwe> wrote in message news:5da4d493ce717@.uwe...[vbcol
=seagreen]
>I just installed the workstation components for SQL 2005 and have opened
> Management Studio.
> I am trying to register a local instance for testing and am not having any
> success. If I select "New" under database engines, I do not have any local
> servers to choose from. If I attempt to enter my local computer name for t
he
> server name in New Server Registration properties, it will not connect.
> Any idea how to set up a local instance?
> --
> Message posted via droptable.com
> http://www.droptable.com/Uwe/Forum...server/200603/1[/vbcol]|||I have "Database Engine".
In SQL 2K you could register a server as [local].
How is that done in SQL 2005?
Tibor Karaszi wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
>Reading you text I see that you installed the Workstation components and th
en try to access a local
>instance. But the Workstation components doesn't include the database engin
e...
>
>[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
Message posted via droptable.com
http://www.droptable.com/Uwe/Forum...server/200603/1|||cbrichards via droptable.com wrote:
> I have "Database Engine".
> In SQL 2K you could register a server as [local].
> How is that done in SQL 2005?
> Tibor Karaszi wrote:
>
>
Where do you have "Database Engine"? You can check under services if you
have sqlserver service and if it's running. If it's there it should be
running. If it isn't there, you haven't installed the database engine.
Regards
Steen|||I do have sqlserver service running.
Under registered servers when I right click on [local computer name]\
SQLExpress, then select connect, I get an error saying I cannot connect to
the above instance with "error 26 - Error Locating Server/Instance Specified
"
Steen Persson (DK) wrote:
>[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>Where do you have "Database Engine"? You can check under services if you
>have sqlserver service and if it's running. If it's there it should be
>running. If it isn't there, you haven't installed the database engine.
>Regards
>Steen
Message posted via http://www.droptable.com|||cbrichards via droptable.com wrote:
> I do have sqlserver service running.
> Under registered servers when I right click on [local computer name]\
> SQLExpress, then select connect, I get an error saying I cannot connect to
> the above instance with "error 26 - Error Locating Server/Instance Specifi
ed"
>
> Steen Persson (DK) wrote:
>
Have you tried to go through the SQL Server Configuartion Manager and/or
SQL server Surface Area Configuatio? Maybe there're something you're
missing to setup/enable.
Regards
Steen
Management Studio.
I am trying to register a local instance for testing and am not having any
success. If I select "New" under database engines, I do not have any local
servers to choose from. If I attempt to enter my local computer name for the
server name in New Server Registration properties, it will not connect.
Any idea how to set up a local instance?
Message posted via droptable.com
http://www.droptable.com/Uwe/Forum...server/200603/1Reading you text I see that you installed the Workstation components and the
n try to access a local
instance. But the Workstation components doesn't include the database engine
..
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"cbrichards via droptable.com" <u3288@.uwe> wrote in message news:5da4d493ce717@.uwe...[vbcol
=seagreen]
>I just installed the workstation components for SQL 2005 and have opened
> Management Studio.
> I am trying to register a local instance for testing and am not having any
> success. If I select "New" under database engines, I do not have any local
> servers to choose from. If I attempt to enter my local computer name for t
he
> server name in New Server Registration properties, it will not connect.
> Any idea how to set up a local instance?
> --
> Message posted via droptable.com
> http://www.droptable.com/Uwe/Forum...server/200603/1[/vbcol]|||I have "Database Engine".
In SQL 2K you could register a server as [local].
How is that done in SQL 2005?
Tibor Karaszi wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
>Reading you text I see that you installed the Workstation components and th
en try to access a local
>instance. But the Workstation components doesn't include the database engin
e...
>
>[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
Message posted via droptable.com
http://www.droptable.com/Uwe/Forum...server/200603/1|||cbrichards via droptable.com wrote:
> I have "Database Engine".
> In SQL 2K you could register a server as [local].
> How is that done in SQL 2005?
> Tibor Karaszi wrote:
>
>
Where do you have "Database Engine"? You can check under services if you
have sqlserver service and if it's running. If it's there it should be
running. If it isn't there, you haven't installed the database engine.
Regards
Steen|||I do have sqlserver service running.
Under registered servers when I right click on [local computer name]\
SQLExpress, then select connect, I get an error saying I cannot connect to
the above instance with "error 26 - Error Locating Server/Instance Specified
"
Steen Persson (DK) wrote:
>[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>Where do you have "Database Engine"? You can check under services if you
>have sqlserver service and if it's running. If it's there it should be
>running. If it isn't there, you haven't installed the database engine.
>Regards
>Steen
Message posted via http://www.droptable.com|||cbrichards via droptable.com wrote:
> I do have sqlserver service running.
> Under registered servers when I right click on [local computer name]\
> SQLExpress, then select connect, I get an error saying I cannot connect to
> the above instance with "error 26 - Error Locating Server/Instance Specifi
ed"
>
> Steen Persson (DK) wrote:
>
Have you tried to go through the SQL Server Configuartion Manager and/or
SQL server Surface Area Configuatio? Maybe there're something you're
missing to setup/enable.
Regards
Steen
Local instance registration on 2005
I just installed the workstation components for SQL 2005 and have opened
Management Studio.
I am trying to register a local instance for testing and am not having any
success. If I select "New" under database engines, I do not have any local
servers to choose from. If I attempt to enter my local computer name for the
server name in New Server Registration properties, it will not connect.
Any idea how to set up a local instance?
--
Message posted via SQLMonster.com
http://www.sqlmonster.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/sql-server/200603/1Reading you text I see that you installed the Workstation components and then try to access a local
instance. But the Workstation components doesn't include the database engine...
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"cbrichards via SQLMonster.com" <u3288@.uwe> wrote in message news:5da4d493ce717@.uwe...
>I just installed the workstation components for SQL 2005 and have opened
> Management Studio.
> I am trying to register a local instance for testing and am not having any
> success. If I select "New" under database engines, I do not have any local
> servers to choose from. If I attempt to enter my local computer name for the
> server name in New Server Registration properties, it will not connect.
> Any idea how to set up a local instance?
> --
> Message posted via SQLMonster.com
> http://www.sqlmonster.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/sql-server/200603/1|||I have "Database Engine".
In SQL 2K you could register a server as [local].
How is that done in SQL 2005?
Tibor Karaszi wrote:
>Reading you text I see that you installed the Workstation components and then try to access a local
>instance. But the Workstation components doesn't include the database engine...
>>I just installed the workstation components for SQL 2005 and have opened
>> Management Studio.
>[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>> Any idea how to set up a local instance?
--
Message posted via SQLMonster.com
http://www.sqlmonster.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/sql-server/200603/1|||cbrichards via SQLMonster.com wrote:
> I have "Database Engine".
> In SQL 2K you could register a server as [local].
> How is that done in SQL 2005?
> Tibor Karaszi wrote:
>>Reading you text I see that you installed the Workstation components and then try to access a local
>>instance. But the Workstation components doesn't include the database engine...
>>
>>I just installed the workstation components for SQL 2005 and have opened
>>Management Studio.
>>[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>>Any idea how to set up a local instance?
>
Where do you have "Database Engine"? You can check under services if you
have sqlserver service and if it's running. If it's there it should be
running. If it isn't there, you haven't installed the database engine.
Regards
Steen|||I do have sqlserver service running.
Under registered servers when I right click on [local computer name]\
SQLExpress, then select connect, I get an error saying I cannot connect to
the above instance with "error 26 - Error Locating Server/Instance Specified"
Steen Persson (DK) wrote:
>> I have "Database Engine".
>[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>>Any idea how to set up a local instance?
>Where do you have "Database Engine"? You can check under services if you
>have sqlserver service and if it's running. If it's there it should be
>running. If it isn't there, you haven't installed the database engine.
>Regards
>Steen
--
Message posted via http://www.sqlmonster.com|||cbrichards via SQLMonster.com wrote:
> I do have sqlserver service running.
> Under registered servers when I right click on [local computer name]\
> SQLExpress, then select connect, I get an error saying I cannot connect to
> the above instance with "error 26 - Error Locating Server/Instance Specified"
>
> Steen Persson (DK) wrote:
>
Have you tried to go through the SQL Server Configuartion Manager and/or
SQL server Surface Area Configuatio? Maybe there're something you're
missing to setup/enable.
Regards
Steen
Management Studio.
I am trying to register a local instance for testing and am not having any
success. If I select "New" under database engines, I do not have any local
servers to choose from. If I attempt to enter my local computer name for the
server name in New Server Registration properties, it will not connect.
Any idea how to set up a local instance?
--
Message posted via SQLMonster.com
http://www.sqlmonster.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/sql-server/200603/1Reading you text I see that you installed the Workstation components and then try to access a local
instance. But the Workstation components doesn't include the database engine...
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"cbrichards via SQLMonster.com" <u3288@.uwe> wrote in message news:5da4d493ce717@.uwe...
>I just installed the workstation components for SQL 2005 and have opened
> Management Studio.
> I am trying to register a local instance for testing and am not having any
> success. If I select "New" under database engines, I do not have any local
> servers to choose from. If I attempt to enter my local computer name for the
> server name in New Server Registration properties, it will not connect.
> Any idea how to set up a local instance?
> --
> Message posted via SQLMonster.com
> http://www.sqlmonster.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/sql-server/200603/1|||I have "Database Engine".
In SQL 2K you could register a server as [local].
How is that done in SQL 2005?
Tibor Karaszi wrote:
>Reading you text I see that you installed the Workstation components and then try to access a local
>instance. But the Workstation components doesn't include the database engine...
>>I just installed the workstation components for SQL 2005 and have opened
>> Management Studio.
>[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>> Any idea how to set up a local instance?
--
Message posted via SQLMonster.com
http://www.sqlmonster.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/sql-server/200603/1|||cbrichards via SQLMonster.com wrote:
> I have "Database Engine".
> In SQL 2K you could register a server as [local].
> How is that done in SQL 2005?
> Tibor Karaszi wrote:
>>Reading you text I see that you installed the Workstation components and then try to access a local
>>instance. But the Workstation components doesn't include the database engine...
>>
>>I just installed the workstation components for SQL 2005 and have opened
>>Management Studio.
>>[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>>Any idea how to set up a local instance?
>
Where do you have "Database Engine"? You can check under services if you
have sqlserver service and if it's running. If it's there it should be
running. If it isn't there, you haven't installed the database engine.
Regards
Steen|||I do have sqlserver service running.
Under registered servers when I right click on [local computer name]\
SQLExpress, then select connect, I get an error saying I cannot connect to
the above instance with "error 26 - Error Locating Server/Instance Specified"
Steen Persson (DK) wrote:
>> I have "Database Engine".
>[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>>Any idea how to set up a local instance?
>Where do you have "Database Engine"? You can check under services if you
>have sqlserver service and if it's running. If it's there it should be
>running. If it isn't there, you haven't installed the database engine.
>Regards
>Steen
--
Message posted via http://www.sqlmonster.com|||cbrichards via SQLMonster.com wrote:
> I do have sqlserver service running.
> Under registered servers when I right click on [local computer name]\
> SQLExpress, then select connect, I get an error saying I cannot connect to
> the above instance with "error 26 - Error Locating Server/Instance Specified"
>
> Steen Persson (DK) wrote:
>
Have you tried to go through the SQL Server Configuartion Manager and/or
SQL server Surface Area Configuatio? Maybe there're something you're
missing to setup/enable.
Regards
Steen
Local Database Issue with SQL 2000 Install
I've got a user with a new HP desktop requesting SQL 2000 Developer Server
and Client Tools to be installed. When I install the software along with SQL
SP4, the local database shows up in Enterprise Manager. When the user logs
on to the same machine, the local database is missing in Enterprise Manager.
I had another user with the same type of permissions log on to the machine
and they get the local database to show up as well.
Why can't this particular person get the local database to show up in
Enterprise Manger when they log on? Is there a registry edit that's needed?
Any help is greatly appreciated.
Colette
Hi Colette,
Perhaps it's been removed. Have they tried just registering the server in
Enterprise Manager? (ie: right-click the SQL Servers group in the main tree
and choose the option to register a server)
HTH,
Greg
"Colette" <Colette@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:084583C7-EA4C-4BC5-8EA1-1D0F448FDA32@.microsoft.com...
> I've got a user with a new HP desktop requesting SQL 2000 Developer Server
> and Client Tools to be installed. When I install the software along with
> SQL
> SP4, the local database shows up in Enterprise Manager. When the user
> logs
> on to the same machine, the local database is missing in Enterprise
> Manager.
> I had another user with the same type of permissions log on to the machine
> and they get the local database to show up as well.
> Why can't this particular person get the local database to show up in
> Enterprise Manger when they log on? Is there a registry edit that's
> needed?
> Any help is greatly appreciated.
> Colette
and Client Tools to be installed. When I install the software along with SQL
SP4, the local database shows up in Enterprise Manager. When the user logs
on to the same machine, the local database is missing in Enterprise Manager.
I had another user with the same type of permissions log on to the machine
and they get the local database to show up as well.
Why can't this particular person get the local database to show up in
Enterprise Manger when they log on? Is there a registry edit that's needed?
Any help is greatly appreciated.
Colette
Hi Colette,
Perhaps it's been removed. Have they tried just registering the server in
Enterprise Manager? (ie: right-click the SQL Servers group in the main tree
and choose the option to register a server)
HTH,
Greg
"Colette" <Colette@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:084583C7-EA4C-4BC5-8EA1-1D0F448FDA32@.microsoft.com...
> I've got a user with a new HP desktop requesting SQL 2000 Developer Server
> and Client Tools to be installed. When I install the software along with
> SQL
> SP4, the local database shows up in Enterprise Manager. When the user
> logs
> on to the same machine, the local database is missing in Enterprise
> Manager.
> I had another user with the same type of permissions log on to the machine
> and they get the local database to show up as well.
> Why can't this particular person get the local database to show up in
> Enterprise Manger when they log on? Is there a registry edit that's
> needed?
> Any help is greatly appreciated.
> Colette
Local Database Issue with SQL 2000 Install
I've got a user with a new HP desktop requesting SQL 2000 Developer Server
and Client Tools to be installed. When I install the software along with SQL
SP4, the local database shows up in Enterprise Manager. When the user logs
on to the same machine, the local database is missing in Enterprise Manager.
I had another user with the same type of permissions log on to the machine
and they get the local database to show up as well.
Why can't this particular person get the local database to show up in
Enterprise Manger when they log on? Is there a registry edit that's needed?
Any help is greatly appreciated.
ColetteHi Colette,
Perhaps it's been removed. Have they tried just registering the server in
Enterprise Manager? (ie: right-click the SQL Servers group in the main tree
and choose the option to register a server)
HTH,
Greg
"Colette" <Colette@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:084583C7-EA4C-4BC5-8EA1-1D0F448FDA32@.microsoft.com...
> I've got a user with a new HP desktop requesting SQL 2000 Developer Server
> and Client Tools to be installed. When I install the software along with
> SQL
> SP4, the local database shows up in Enterprise Manager. When the user
> logs
> on to the same machine, the local database is missing in Enterprise
> Manager.
> I had another user with the same type of permissions log on to the machine
> and they get the local database to show up as well.
> Why can't this particular person get the local database to show up in
> Enterprise Manger when they log on? Is there a registry edit that's
> needed?
> Any help is greatly appreciated.
> Colette
and Client Tools to be installed. When I install the software along with SQL
SP4, the local database shows up in Enterprise Manager. When the user logs
on to the same machine, the local database is missing in Enterprise Manager.
I had another user with the same type of permissions log on to the machine
and they get the local database to show up as well.
Why can't this particular person get the local database to show up in
Enterprise Manger when they log on? Is there a registry edit that's needed?
Any help is greatly appreciated.
ColetteHi Colette,
Perhaps it's been removed. Have they tried just registering the server in
Enterprise Manager? (ie: right-click the SQL Servers group in the main tree
and choose the option to register a server)
HTH,
Greg
"Colette" <Colette@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:084583C7-EA4C-4BC5-8EA1-1D0F448FDA32@.microsoft.com...
> I've got a user with a new HP desktop requesting SQL 2000 Developer Server
> and Client Tools to be installed. When I install the software along with
> SQL
> SP4, the local database shows up in Enterprise Manager. When the user
> logs
> on to the same machine, the local database is missing in Enterprise
> Manager.
> I had another user with the same type of permissions log on to the machine
> and they get the local database to show up as well.
> Why can't this particular person get the local database to show up in
> Enterprise Manger when they log on? Is there a registry edit that's
> needed?
> Any help is greatly appreciated.
> Colette
Local Database Issue with SQL 2000 Install
I've got a user with a new HP desktop requesting SQL 2000 Developer Server
and Client Tools to be installed. When I install the software along with SQ
L
SP4, the local database shows up in Enterprise Manager. When the user logs
on to the same machine, the local database is missing in Enterprise Manager.
I had another user with the same type of permissions log on to the machine
and they get the local database to show up as well.
Why can't this particular person get the local database to show up in
Enterprise Manger when they log on? Is there a registry edit that's needed?
Any help is greatly appreciated.
ColetteHi Colette,
Perhaps it's been removed. Have they tried just registering the server in
Enterprise Manager? (ie: right-click the SQL Servers group in the main tree
and choose the option to register a server)
HTH,
Greg
"Colette" <Colette@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:084583C7-EA4C-4BC5-8EA1-1D0F448FDA32@.microsoft.com...
> I've got a user with a new HP desktop requesting SQL 2000 Developer Server
> and Client Tools to be installed. When I install the software along with
> SQL
> SP4, the local database shows up in Enterprise Manager. When the user
> logs
> on to the same machine, the local database is missing in Enterprise
> Manager.
> I had another user with the same type of permissions log on to the machine
> and they get the local database to show up as well.
> Why can't this particular person get the local database to show up in
> Enterprise Manger when they log on? Is there a registry edit that's
> needed?
> Any help is greatly appreciated.
> Colette
and Client Tools to be installed. When I install the software along with SQ
L
SP4, the local database shows up in Enterprise Manager. When the user logs
on to the same machine, the local database is missing in Enterprise Manager.
I had another user with the same type of permissions log on to the machine
and they get the local database to show up as well.
Why can't this particular person get the local database to show up in
Enterprise Manger when they log on? Is there a registry edit that's needed?
Any help is greatly appreciated.
ColetteHi Colette,
Perhaps it's been removed. Have they tried just registering the server in
Enterprise Manager? (ie: right-click the SQL Servers group in the main tree
and choose the option to register a server)
HTH,
Greg
"Colette" <Colette@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:084583C7-EA4C-4BC5-8EA1-1D0F448FDA32@.microsoft.com...
> I've got a user with a new HP desktop requesting SQL 2000 Developer Server
> and Client Tools to be installed. When I install the software along with
> SQL
> SP4, the local database shows up in Enterprise Manager. When the user
> logs
> on to the same machine, the local database is missing in Enterprise
> Manager.
> I had another user with the same type of permissions log on to the machine
> and they get the local database to show up as well.
> Why can't this particular person get the local database to show up in
> Enterprise Manger when they log on? Is there a registry edit that's
> needed?
> Any help is greatly appreciated.
> Colette
Local Database Access Issues
Hello,
I have a local SQL Server database installed with Visual Studio .NET. I'm trying to create a SQL Server login ID to access a database on this local database. I gave it access to all of the databases with public (the one I'm using it also has DBO and execute permissions on all procs). When I try to login to it through SQL Server Query Analyzer (and also using an ASP.NET application), I get the following error:
Login failed for 'dbuser'. Reason: Not associated with a trusted SQL Server connection.
How do I set up a SQL Server login to access the database?
Thanks,
Brianin Enterprise Manager if you xpand the databases tab and then YourDatabase theres a tab called Users. You can add the dbuser over there.
hth
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)