Greetings!
I am working with two different SQL installations on two different servers.
Both have Enterprise Mgr Maintenance Plans that specify that both the
BAK and TRN files should be deleted after 1 day. On the one server,
both deletions occur just fine. On the second, the old BAK's get deleted,
but not the old TRN's. I have reviewed the maintenance plan settings
several times, but can't see anything amiss. Anyone have any ideas?
Would Be Grateful,
Tom
As long as the MP's are not too complex, I would try deleting and rebuilding
them. I have run into similar anomalies before inwhich this was the
solution.
HTH,
Chris
"Tom Glasser" <TomGlasser@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:74302972-33C1-470A-A18A-F273B84B449F@.microsoft.com...
> Greetings!
> I am working with two different SQL installations on two different
servers.
> Both have Enterprise Mgr Maintenance Plans that specify that both the
> BAK and TRN files should be deleted after 1 day. On the one server,
> both deletions occur just fine. On the second, the old BAK's get deleted,
> but not the old TRN's. I have reviewed the maintenance plan settings
> several times, but can't see anything amiss. Anyone have any ideas?
> Would Be Grateful,
> Tom
>
Showing posts with label enterprise. Show all posts
Showing posts with label enterprise. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Problem getting SQL Server 2000 EE to use more than 4GB of memory
We are trying to get our SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition server to
use more than 4GB of memory on a machine with 8GB of physical memory
(running Windows 2003 Server Enterprise Edition).
I have done the following:
1. Updated Boot.ini to have the /3GB /PAE switch
2. set Max Server Memory to 7168MB using sp_configure
3. set Min Server Memory to 1024MB using sp_configure
4. set AWE enabled using sp_configure
5. configured user account that SQL Server runs under (SYSTEM) to have
rights for the "Lock Page in Memory" policy
When I look at "total server memory" for SQL Server under the
peformance viewer, it is using 4GB of memory. When I look at the task
manager, we have 2GB of physical memory free. I understand that with
AWE, the OS needs 1GB of memory to manage the extended memory. With
the /3GB switch, the OS will allocate 1GB to the kernel. So that makes
6GB of memory... Why are there 2GB of memory free, and why can't SQL
Server use it? I even added up the memory of all processes running in
the task manager, and it adds up to maybe 30MB.
Any ideas why we only get 4GB for SQL Server? We want to put 16GB of
RAM in this server, but until we can prove that SQL Server can
actually use it, we can't justify it. Is this 2GB of "free" RAM really
free, or allocated to something else such that SQL Server cannot use
it?Has your workload driven the SQL instance sufficiently hard on memory? Note
that until SQL Server is pressured to use more memory, it won't.
Linchi
"advisortechnical" wrote:
> We are trying to get our SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition server to
> use more than 4GB of memory on a machine with 8GB of physical memory
> (running Windows 2003 Server Enterprise Edition).
> I have done the following:
> 1. Updated Boot.ini to have the /3GB /PAE switch
> 2. set Max Server Memory to 7168MB using sp_configure
> 3. set Min Server Memory to 1024MB using sp_configure
> 4. set AWE enabled using sp_configure
> 5. configured user account that SQL Server runs under (SYSTEM) to have
> rights for the "Lock Page in Memory" policy
> When I look at "total server memory" for SQL Server under the
> peformance viewer, it is using 4GB of memory. When I look at the task
> manager, we have 2GB of physical memory free. I understand that with
> AWE, the OS needs 1GB of memory to manage the extended memory. With
> the /3GB switch, the OS will allocate 1GB to the kernel. So that makes
> 6GB of memory... Why are there 2GB of memory free, and why can't SQL
> Server use it? I even added up the memory of all processes running in
> the task manager, and it adds up to maybe 30MB.
> Any ideas why we only get 4GB for SQL Server? We want to put 16GB of
> RAM in this server, but until we can prove that SQL Server can
> actually use it, we can't justify it. Is this 2GB of "free" RAM really
> free, or allocated to something else such that SQL Server cannot use
> it?
>|||On Apr 24, 8:28=A0am, Linchi Shea <LinchiS...@.discussions.microsoft.com>
wrote:
> Has your workload driven the SQL instance sufficiently hard on memory? Not=e
> that until SQL Server is pressured to use more memory, it won't.
> Linchi
>
> "advisortechnical" wrote:
> > We are trying to get our SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition server to
> > use more than 4GB of memory on a machine with 8GB of physical memory
> > (running Windows 2003 Server Enterprise Edition).
> > I have done the following:
> > 1. Updated Boot.ini to have the /3GB /PAE switch
> > 2. set Max Server Memory to 7168MB using sp_configure
> > 3. set Min Server Memory to 1024MB using sp_configure
> > 4. set AWE enabled using sp_configure
> > 5. configured user account that SQL Server runs under (SYSTEM) to have
> > rights for the "Lock Page in Memory" policy
> > When I look at "total server memory" for SQL Server under the
> > peformance viewer, it is using 4GB of memory. When I look at the task
> > manager, we have 2GB of physical memory free. I understand that with
> > AWE, the OS needs 1GB of memory to manage the extended memory. With
> > the /3GB switch, the OS will allocate 1GB to the kernel. So that makes
> > 6GB of memory... Why are there 2GB of memory free, and why can't SQL
> > Server use it? I even added up the memory of all processes running in
> > the task manager, and it adds up to maybe 30MB.
> > Any ideas why we only get 4GB for SQL Server? We want to put 16GB of
> > RAM in this server, but until we can prove that SQL Server can
> > actually use it, we can't justify it. Is this 2GB of "free" RAM really
> > free, or allocated to something else such that SQL Server cannot use
> > it... Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
It seems you have done all the things what is required to configure
SQL AWE. You can also stress the server by genearting some test data
on the same.
Please verify if you have SP4 and AWE patch is applied on above.
Thanks
Ajay Rengunthwar
MCTS,MCDBA,MCAD|||On Apr 24, 8:12=A0pm, Ajay Rengunthwar <aju...@.gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 24, 8:28=A0am, Linchi Shea <LinchiS...@.discussions.microsoft.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> > Has your workload driven the SQL instance sufficiently hard on memory? N=ote
> > that until SQL Server is pressured to use more memory, it won't.
> > Linchi
> > "advisortechnical" wrote:
> > > We are trying to get our SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition server to
> > > use more than 4GB of memory on a machine with 8GB of physical memory
> > > (running Windows 2003 Server Enterprise Edition).
> > > I have done the following:
> > > 1. Updated Boot.ini to have the /3GB /PAE switch
> > > 2. set Max Server Memory to 7168MB using sp_configure
> > > 3. set Min Server Memory to 1024MB using sp_configure
> > > 4. set AWE enabled using sp_configure
> > > 5. configured user account that SQL Server runs under (SYSTEM) to have=
> > > rights for the "Lock Page in Memory" policy
> > > When I look at "total server memory" for SQL Server under the
> > > peformance viewer, it is using 4GB of memory. When I look at the task
> > > manager, we have 2GB of physical memory free. I understand that with
> > > AWE, the OS needs 1GB of memory to manage the extended memory. With
> > > the /3GB switch, the OS will allocate 1GB to the kernel. So that makes=
> > > 6GB of memory... Why are there 2GB of memory free, and why can't SQL
> > > Server use it? I even added up the memory of all processes running in
> > > the task manager, and it adds up to maybe 30MB.
> > > Any ideas why we only get 4GB for SQL Server? We want to put 16GB of
> > > RAM in this server, but until we can prove that SQL Server can
> > > actually use it, we can't justify it. Is this 2GB of "free" RAM really=
> > > free, or allocated to something else such that SQL Server cannot use
> > > it... Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
> It seems you have done all the things what is required to configure
> SQL AWE. You can also stress the server by genearting some test data
> on the same.
> Please verify if you have SP4 and AWE patch is applied on above.
> Thanks
> Ajay Rengunthwar
> MCTS,MCDBA,MCAD- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
Thanks for the advice. I ran a stress test by opening several query
analyzer windows and running a select * query on a table with millions
of rows. I found that sql server->memory manger->target server memory
and total server memory stayed fixed at 4164408 (3.97 GB), however the
amount of available physical memory in the windows task manager had
shrunk to 1 GB from 2 GB (and it is continuing to shink as the test is
still running).
So I think on a machine with 8GB, with AWE and PAE enabled, SQL Server
can only take 3.97 GB of memory, because a certain amount of memory
needs to be free for Windows, even though it is "free" memory and the
kernel has 1GB of memory. This free memory is decreasing as the stress
test is running.
I am wondering if I add more RAM to this machine, will SQL Server will
be able to use it?|||On Apr 25, 4:08=A0pm, advisortechnical <chand.bel...@.caremark.com>
wrote:
> On Apr 24, 8:12=A0pm, Ajay Rengunthwar <aju...@.gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > On Apr 24, 8:28=A0am, Linchi Shea <LinchiS...@.discussions.microsoft.com>=
> > wrote:
> > > Has your workload driven the SQL instance sufficiently hard on memory?= Note
> > > that until SQL Server is pressured to use more memory, it won't.
> > > Linchi
> > > "advisortechnical" wrote:
> > > > We are trying to get our SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition server t=o
> > > > use more than 4GB of memory on a machine with 8GB of physical memory=
> > > > (running Windows 2003 Server Enterprise Edition).
> > > > I have done the following:
> > > > 1. Updated Boot.ini to have the /3GB /PAE switch
> > > > 2. set Max Server Memory to 7168MB using sp_configure
> > > > 3. set Min Server Memory to 1024MB using sp_configure
> > > > 4. set AWE enabled using sp_configure
> > > > 5. configured user account that SQL Server runs under (SYSTEM) to ha=ve
> > > > rights for the "Lock Page in Memory" policy
> > > > When I look at "total server memory" for SQL Server under the
> > > > peformance viewer, it is using 4GB of memory. When I look at the tas=k
> > > > manager, we have 2GB of physical memory free. I understand that with=
> > > > AWE, the OS needs 1GB of memory to manage the extended memory. With
> > > > the /3GB switch, the OS will allocate 1GB to the kernel. So that mak=es
> > > > 6GB of memory... Why are there 2GB of memory free, and why can't SQL=
> > > > Server use it? I even added up the memory of all processes running i=n
> > > > the task manager, and it adds up to maybe 30MB.
> > > > Any ideas why we only get 4GB for SQL Server? We want to put 16GB of=
> > > > RAM in this server, but until we can prove that SQL Server can
> > > > actually use it, we can't justify it. Is this 2GB of "free" RAM real=ly
> > > > free, or allocated to something else such that SQL Server cannot use=
> > > > it... Hide quoted text -
> > > - Show quoted text -
> > It seems you have done all the things what is required to configure
> > SQL AWE. You can also stress the server by genearting some test data
> > on the same.
> > Please verify if you have SP4 and AWE patch is applied on above.
> > Thanks
> > Ajay Rengunthwar
> > MCTS,MCDBA,MCAD- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
> Thanks for the advice. I ran a stress test by opening several query
> analyzer windows and running a select * query on a table with millions
> of rows. I found that sql server->memory manger->target server memory
> and total server memory stayed fixed at 4164408 (3.97 GB), however the
> amount of available physical memory in the windows task manager had
> shrunk to 1 GB from 2 GB (and it is continuing to shink as the test is
> still running).
> So I think on a machine with 8GB, with AWE and PAE enabled, SQL Server
> can only take 3.97 GB of memory, because a certain amount of memory
> needs to be free for Windows, even though it is "free" memory and the
> kernel has 1GB of memory. This free memory is decreasing as the stress
> test is running.
> I am wondering if I add more RAM to this machine, will SQL Server will
> be able to use it... Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
I think it is the system cache that needs this memory. When I run a
stress test, the amount of available memory decreases and the system
cache increases. It is confusing -- why would it say there are 2GB of
free memory, if it was allocated to the system cache? Of course, some
memory must be given to the system cache, otherwise these huge queries
couldn't do disk i/o efficiently. I changed one of the registry
settings to allow a large system cache, however I saw no change in SQL
Server memory utilization.sql
use more than 4GB of memory on a machine with 8GB of physical memory
(running Windows 2003 Server Enterprise Edition).
I have done the following:
1. Updated Boot.ini to have the /3GB /PAE switch
2. set Max Server Memory to 7168MB using sp_configure
3. set Min Server Memory to 1024MB using sp_configure
4. set AWE enabled using sp_configure
5. configured user account that SQL Server runs under (SYSTEM) to have
rights for the "Lock Page in Memory" policy
When I look at "total server memory" for SQL Server under the
peformance viewer, it is using 4GB of memory. When I look at the task
manager, we have 2GB of physical memory free. I understand that with
AWE, the OS needs 1GB of memory to manage the extended memory. With
the /3GB switch, the OS will allocate 1GB to the kernel. So that makes
6GB of memory... Why are there 2GB of memory free, and why can't SQL
Server use it? I even added up the memory of all processes running in
the task manager, and it adds up to maybe 30MB.
Any ideas why we only get 4GB for SQL Server? We want to put 16GB of
RAM in this server, but until we can prove that SQL Server can
actually use it, we can't justify it. Is this 2GB of "free" RAM really
free, or allocated to something else such that SQL Server cannot use
it?Has your workload driven the SQL instance sufficiently hard on memory? Note
that until SQL Server is pressured to use more memory, it won't.
Linchi
"advisortechnical" wrote:
> We are trying to get our SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition server to
> use more than 4GB of memory on a machine with 8GB of physical memory
> (running Windows 2003 Server Enterprise Edition).
> I have done the following:
> 1. Updated Boot.ini to have the /3GB /PAE switch
> 2. set Max Server Memory to 7168MB using sp_configure
> 3. set Min Server Memory to 1024MB using sp_configure
> 4. set AWE enabled using sp_configure
> 5. configured user account that SQL Server runs under (SYSTEM) to have
> rights for the "Lock Page in Memory" policy
> When I look at "total server memory" for SQL Server under the
> peformance viewer, it is using 4GB of memory. When I look at the task
> manager, we have 2GB of physical memory free. I understand that with
> AWE, the OS needs 1GB of memory to manage the extended memory. With
> the /3GB switch, the OS will allocate 1GB to the kernel. So that makes
> 6GB of memory... Why are there 2GB of memory free, and why can't SQL
> Server use it? I even added up the memory of all processes running in
> the task manager, and it adds up to maybe 30MB.
> Any ideas why we only get 4GB for SQL Server? We want to put 16GB of
> RAM in this server, but until we can prove that SQL Server can
> actually use it, we can't justify it. Is this 2GB of "free" RAM really
> free, or allocated to something else such that SQL Server cannot use
> it?
>|||On Apr 24, 8:28=A0am, Linchi Shea <LinchiS...@.discussions.microsoft.com>
wrote:
> Has your workload driven the SQL instance sufficiently hard on memory? Not=e
> that until SQL Server is pressured to use more memory, it won't.
> Linchi
>
> "advisortechnical" wrote:
> > We are trying to get our SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition server to
> > use more than 4GB of memory on a machine with 8GB of physical memory
> > (running Windows 2003 Server Enterprise Edition).
> > I have done the following:
> > 1. Updated Boot.ini to have the /3GB /PAE switch
> > 2. set Max Server Memory to 7168MB using sp_configure
> > 3. set Min Server Memory to 1024MB using sp_configure
> > 4. set AWE enabled using sp_configure
> > 5. configured user account that SQL Server runs under (SYSTEM) to have
> > rights for the "Lock Page in Memory" policy
> > When I look at "total server memory" for SQL Server under the
> > peformance viewer, it is using 4GB of memory. When I look at the task
> > manager, we have 2GB of physical memory free. I understand that with
> > AWE, the OS needs 1GB of memory to manage the extended memory. With
> > the /3GB switch, the OS will allocate 1GB to the kernel. So that makes
> > 6GB of memory... Why are there 2GB of memory free, and why can't SQL
> > Server use it? I even added up the memory of all processes running in
> > the task manager, and it adds up to maybe 30MB.
> > Any ideas why we only get 4GB for SQL Server? We want to put 16GB of
> > RAM in this server, but until we can prove that SQL Server can
> > actually use it, we can't justify it. Is this 2GB of "free" RAM really
> > free, or allocated to something else such that SQL Server cannot use
> > it... Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
It seems you have done all the things what is required to configure
SQL AWE. You can also stress the server by genearting some test data
on the same.
Please verify if you have SP4 and AWE patch is applied on above.
Thanks
Ajay Rengunthwar
MCTS,MCDBA,MCAD|||On Apr 24, 8:12=A0pm, Ajay Rengunthwar <aju...@.gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 24, 8:28=A0am, Linchi Shea <LinchiS...@.discussions.microsoft.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> > Has your workload driven the SQL instance sufficiently hard on memory? N=ote
> > that until SQL Server is pressured to use more memory, it won't.
> > Linchi
> > "advisortechnical" wrote:
> > > We are trying to get our SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition server to
> > > use more than 4GB of memory on a machine with 8GB of physical memory
> > > (running Windows 2003 Server Enterprise Edition).
> > > I have done the following:
> > > 1. Updated Boot.ini to have the /3GB /PAE switch
> > > 2. set Max Server Memory to 7168MB using sp_configure
> > > 3. set Min Server Memory to 1024MB using sp_configure
> > > 4. set AWE enabled using sp_configure
> > > 5. configured user account that SQL Server runs under (SYSTEM) to have=
> > > rights for the "Lock Page in Memory" policy
> > > When I look at "total server memory" for SQL Server under the
> > > peformance viewer, it is using 4GB of memory. When I look at the task
> > > manager, we have 2GB of physical memory free. I understand that with
> > > AWE, the OS needs 1GB of memory to manage the extended memory. With
> > > the /3GB switch, the OS will allocate 1GB to the kernel. So that makes=
> > > 6GB of memory... Why are there 2GB of memory free, and why can't SQL
> > > Server use it? I even added up the memory of all processes running in
> > > the task manager, and it adds up to maybe 30MB.
> > > Any ideas why we only get 4GB for SQL Server? We want to put 16GB of
> > > RAM in this server, but until we can prove that SQL Server can
> > > actually use it, we can't justify it. Is this 2GB of "free" RAM really=
> > > free, or allocated to something else such that SQL Server cannot use
> > > it... Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
> It seems you have done all the things what is required to configure
> SQL AWE. You can also stress the server by genearting some test data
> on the same.
> Please verify if you have SP4 and AWE patch is applied on above.
> Thanks
> Ajay Rengunthwar
> MCTS,MCDBA,MCAD- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
Thanks for the advice. I ran a stress test by opening several query
analyzer windows and running a select * query on a table with millions
of rows. I found that sql server->memory manger->target server memory
and total server memory stayed fixed at 4164408 (3.97 GB), however the
amount of available physical memory in the windows task manager had
shrunk to 1 GB from 2 GB (and it is continuing to shink as the test is
still running).
So I think on a machine with 8GB, with AWE and PAE enabled, SQL Server
can only take 3.97 GB of memory, because a certain amount of memory
needs to be free for Windows, even though it is "free" memory and the
kernel has 1GB of memory. This free memory is decreasing as the stress
test is running.
I am wondering if I add more RAM to this machine, will SQL Server will
be able to use it?|||On Apr 25, 4:08=A0pm, advisortechnical <chand.bel...@.caremark.com>
wrote:
> On Apr 24, 8:12=A0pm, Ajay Rengunthwar <aju...@.gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > On Apr 24, 8:28=A0am, Linchi Shea <LinchiS...@.discussions.microsoft.com>=
> > wrote:
> > > Has your workload driven the SQL instance sufficiently hard on memory?= Note
> > > that until SQL Server is pressured to use more memory, it won't.
> > > Linchi
> > > "advisortechnical" wrote:
> > > > We are trying to get our SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition server t=o
> > > > use more than 4GB of memory on a machine with 8GB of physical memory=
> > > > (running Windows 2003 Server Enterprise Edition).
> > > > I have done the following:
> > > > 1. Updated Boot.ini to have the /3GB /PAE switch
> > > > 2. set Max Server Memory to 7168MB using sp_configure
> > > > 3. set Min Server Memory to 1024MB using sp_configure
> > > > 4. set AWE enabled using sp_configure
> > > > 5. configured user account that SQL Server runs under (SYSTEM) to ha=ve
> > > > rights for the "Lock Page in Memory" policy
> > > > When I look at "total server memory" for SQL Server under the
> > > > peformance viewer, it is using 4GB of memory. When I look at the tas=k
> > > > manager, we have 2GB of physical memory free. I understand that with=
> > > > AWE, the OS needs 1GB of memory to manage the extended memory. With
> > > > the /3GB switch, the OS will allocate 1GB to the kernel. So that mak=es
> > > > 6GB of memory... Why are there 2GB of memory free, and why can't SQL=
> > > > Server use it? I even added up the memory of all processes running i=n
> > > > the task manager, and it adds up to maybe 30MB.
> > > > Any ideas why we only get 4GB for SQL Server? We want to put 16GB of=
> > > > RAM in this server, but until we can prove that SQL Server can
> > > > actually use it, we can't justify it. Is this 2GB of "free" RAM real=ly
> > > > free, or allocated to something else such that SQL Server cannot use=
> > > > it... Hide quoted text -
> > > - Show quoted text -
> > It seems you have done all the things what is required to configure
> > SQL AWE. You can also stress the server by genearting some test data
> > on the same.
> > Please verify if you have SP4 and AWE patch is applied on above.
> > Thanks
> > Ajay Rengunthwar
> > MCTS,MCDBA,MCAD- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
> Thanks for the advice. I ran a stress test by opening several query
> analyzer windows and running a select * query on a table with millions
> of rows. I found that sql server->memory manger->target server memory
> and total server memory stayed fixed at 4164408 (3.97 GB), however the
> amount of available physical memory in the windows task manager had
> shrunk to 1 GB from 2 GB (and it is continuing to shink as the test is
> still running).
> So I think on a machine with 8GB, with AWE and PAE enabled, SQL Server
> can only take 3.97 GB of memory, because a certain amount of memory
> needs to be free for Windows, even though it is "free" memory and the
> kernel has 1GB of memory. This free memory is decreasing as the stress
> test is running.
> I am wondering if I add more RAM to this machine, will SQL Server will
> be able to use it... Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
I think it is the system cache that needs this memory. When I run a
stress test, the amount of available memory decreases and the system
cache increases. It is confusing -- why would it say there are 2GB of
free memory, if it was allocated to the system cache? Of course, some
memory must be given to the system cache, otherwise these huge queries
couldn't do disk i/o efficiently. I changed one of the registry
settings to allow a large system cache, however I saw no change in SQL
Server memory utilization.sql
Friday, March 9, 2012
Problem Deleting Publications
I am running SQL Server 2000 with SP3. I receive the following message when trying to delete my publications:
SQL Server Enterprise Manager could not retrieve information about publication 'Named Publication'.
Error 2812: Could not find stored procedure ".
Also, for some reason the system is still trying to replicate even though it claims there is no distributor available... Any ideas would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
absoluttUse Profiler to check for command what EM is trying to execute and you will know what is going on.
SQL Server Enterprise Manager could not retrieve information about publication 'Named Publication'.
Error 2812: Could not find stored procedure ".
Also, for some reason the system is still trying to replicate even though it claims there is no distributor available... Any ideas would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
absoluttUse Profiler to check for command what EM is trying to execute and you will know what is going on.
problem deleting database using enterprise manager
I am trying to delete a database using Enterprise Manager. It seems like
everything works fine, the db is gone from the Databases tree, but when I
try to create a new database with the same name as the one I just deleted, I
get an error stating that the database exists. Also if I try to delete a
login associated to the deleted database, I get the error that it cannot be
deleted because it owns objects in the deleted db. I really don't understand
what's going on here. Could anybody help me out?Richard
Have you REFRESH the EM after droping db?
"Richard Gjerde" <richard_gjerde@.yahoo.no> wrote in message
news:fdKNd.7739$IW4.168987@.news2.e.nsc.no...
> I am trying to delete a database using Enterprise Manager. It seems like
> everything works fine, the db is gone from the Databases tree, but when I
> try to create a new database with the same name as the one I just deleted,
I
> get an error stating that the database exists. Also if I try to delete a
> login associated to the deleted database, I get the error that it cannot
be
> deleted because it owns objects in the deleted db. I really don't
understand
> what's going on here. Could anybody help me out?
>|||Well, I just did:-) And the db came up as "suspect". When I dropped it again
it was OK.
So the problem sort of disappeared, but I am still unsure about why it
ocurred in the first place.
"Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> wrote in message
news:%23OH5euRDFHA.512@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Richard
> Have you REFRESH the EM after droping db?
>
> "Richard Gjerde" <richard_gjerde@.yahoo.no> wrote in message
> news:fdKNd.7739$IW4.168987@.news2.e.nsc.no...
I[vbcol=seagreen]
deleted,[vbcol=seagreen]
> I
> be
> understand
>|||Richard
I prefer using DROP Database by QA not by EM.
"Richard Gjerde" <richard_gjerde@.yahoo.no> wrote in message
news:sEKNd.7744$IW4.168621@.news2.e.nsc.no...
> Well, I just did:-) And the db came up as "suspect". When I dropped it
again
> it was OK.
> So the problem sort of disappeared, but I am still unsure about why it
> ocurred in the first place.
> "Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> wrote in message
> news:%23OH5euRDFHA.512@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
like[vbcol=seagreen]
when[vbcol=seagreen]
> I
> deleted,
a[vbcol=seagreen]
cannot[vbcol=seagreen]
>
everything works fine, the db is gone from the Databases tree, but when I
try to create a new database with the same name as the one I just deleted, I
get an error stating that the database exists. Also if I try to delete a
login associated to the deleted database, I get the error that it cannot be
deleted because it owns objects in the deleted db. I really don't understand
what's going on here. Could anybody help me out?Richard
Have you REFRESH the EM after droping db?
"Richard Gjerde" <richard_gjerde@.yahoo.no> wrote in message
news:fdKNd.7739$IW4.168987@.news2.e.nsc.no...
> I am trying to delete a database using Enterprise Manager. It seems like
> everything works fine, the db is gone from the Databases tree, but when I
> try to create a new database with the same name as the one I just deleted,
I
> get an error stating that the database exists. Also if I try to delete a
> login associated to the deleted database, I get the error that it cannot
be
> deleted because it owns objects in the deleted db. I really don't
understand
> what's going on here. Could anybody help me out?
>|||Well, I just did:-) And the db came up as "suspect". When I dropped it again
it was OK.
So the problem sort of disappeared, but I am still unsure about why it
ocurred in the first place.
"Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> wrote in message
news:%23OH5euRDFHA.512@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Richard
> Have you REFRESH the EM after droping db?
>
> "Richard Gjerde" <richard_gjerde@.yahoo.no> wrote in message
> news:fdKNd.7739$IW4.168987@.news2.e.nsc.no...
I[vbcol=seagreen]
deleted,[vbcol=seagreen]
> I
> be
> understand
>|||Richard
I prefer using DROP Database by QA not by EM.
"Richard Gjerde" <richard_gjerde@.yahoo.no> wrote in message
news:sEKNd.7744$IW4.168621@.news2.e.nsc.no...
> Well, I just did:-) And the db came up as "suspect". When I dropped it
again
> it was OK.
> So the problem sort of disappeared, but I am still unsure about why it
> ocurred in the first place.
> "Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> wrote in message
> news:%23OH5euRDFHA.512@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
like[vbcol=seagreen]
when[vbcol=seagreen]
> I
> deleted,
a[vbcol=seagreen]
cannot[vbcol=seagreen]
>
problem deleting database using enterprise manager
I am trying to delete a database using Enterprise Manager. It seems like
everything works fine, the db is gone from the Databases tree, but when I
try to create a new database with the same name as the one I just deleted, I
get an error stating that the database exists. Also if I try to delete a
login associated to the deleted database, I get the error that it cannot be
deleted because it owns objects in the deleted db. I really don't understand
what's going on here. Could anybody help me out?
Richard
Have you REFRESH the EM after droping db?
"Richard Gjerde" <richard_gjerde@.yahoo.no> wrote in message
news:fdKNd.7739$IW4.168987@.news2.e.nsc.no...
> I am trying to delete a database using Enterprise Manager. It seems like
> everything works fine, the db is gone from the Databases tree, but when I
> try to create a new database with the same name as the one I just deleted,
I
> get an error stating that the database exists. Also if I try to delete a
> login associated to the deleted database, I get the error that it cannot
be
> deleted because it owns objects in the deleted db. I really don't
understand
> what's going on here. Could anybody help me out?
>
|||Well, I just did:-) And the db came up as "suspect". When I dropped it again
it was OK.
So the problem sort of disappeared, but I am still unsure about why it
ocurred in the first place.
"Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> wrote in message
news:%23OH5euRDFHA.512@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Richard
> Have you REFRESH the EM after droping db?
>
> "Richard Gjerde" <richard_gjerde@.yahoo.no> wrote in message
> news:fdKNd.7739$IW4.168987@.news2.e.nsc.no...
I[vbcol=seagreen]
deleted,
> I
> be
> understand
>
|||Richard
I prefer using DROP Database by QA not by EM.
"Richard Gjerde" <richard_gjerde@.yahoo.no> wrote in message
news:sEKNd.7744$IW4.168621@.news2.e.nsc.no...
> Well, I just did:-) And the db came up as "suspect". When I dropped it
again[vbcol=seagreen]
> it was OK.
> So the problem sort of disappeared, but I am still unsure about why it
> ocurred in the first place.
> "Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> wrote in message
> news:%23OH5euRDFHA.512@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
like[vbcol=seagreen]
when[vbcol=seagreen]
> I
> deleted,
a[vbcol=seagreen]
cannot
>
everything works fine, the db is gone from the Databases tree, but when I
try to create a new database with the same name as the one I just deleted, I
get an error stating that the database exists. Also if I try to delete a
login associated to the deleted database, I get the error that it cannot be
deleted because it owns objects in the deleted db. I really don't understand
what's going on here. Could anybody help me out?
Richard
Have you REFRESH the EM after droping db?
"Richard Gjerde" <richard_gjerde@.yahoo.no> wrote in message
news:fdKNd.7739$IW4.168987@.news2.e.nsc.no...
> I am trying to delete a database using Enterprise Manager. It seems like
> everything works fine, the db is gone from the Databases tree, but when I
> try to create a new database with the same name as the one I just deleted,
I
> get an error stating that the database exists. Also if I try to delete a
> login associated to the deleted database, I get the error that it cannot
be
> deleted because it owns objects in the deleted db. I really don't
understand
> what's going on here. Could anybody help me out?
>
|||Well, I just did:-) And the db came up as "suspect". When I dropped it again
it was OK.
So the problem sort of disappeared, but I am still unsure about why it
ocurred in the first place.
"Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> wrote in message
news:%23OH5euRDFHA.512@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Richard
> Have you REFRESH the EM after droping db?
>
> "Richard Gjerde" <richard_gjerde@.yahoo.no> wrote in message
> news:fdKNd.7739$IW4.168987@.news2.e.nsc.no...
I[vbcol=seagreen]
deleted,
> I
> be
> understand
>
|||Richard
I prefer using DROP Database by QA not by EM.
"Richard Gjerde" <richard_gjerde@.yahoo.no> wrote in message
news:sEKNd.7744$IW4.168621@.news2.e.nsc.no...
> Well, I just did:-) And the db came up as "suspect". When I dropped it
again[vbcol=seagreen]
> it was OK.
> So the problem sort of disappeared, but I am still unsure about why it
> ocurred in the first place.
> "Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> wrote in message
> news:%23OH5euRDFHA.512@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
like[vbcol=seagreen]
when[vbcol=seagreen]
> I
> deleted,
a[vbcol=seagreen]
cannot
>
problem deleting database using enterprise manager
I am trying to delete a database using Enterprise Manager. It seems like
everything works fine, the db is gone from the Databases tree, but when I
try to create a new database with the same name as the one I just deleted, I
get an error stating that the database exists. Also if I try to delete a
login associated to the deleted database, I get the error that it cannot be
deleted because it owns objects in the deleted db. I really don't understand
what's going on here. Could anybody help me out?Richard
Have you REFRESH the EM after droping db?
"Richard Gjerde" <richard_gjerde@.yahoo.no> wrote in message
news:fdKNd.7739$IW4.168987@.news2.e.nsc.no...
> I am trying to delete a database using Enterprise Manager. It seems like
> everything works fine, the db is gone from the Databases tree, but when I
> try to create a new database with the same name as the one I just deleted,
I
> get an error stating that the database exists. Also if I try to delete a
> login associated to the deleted database, I get the error that it cannot
be
> deleted because it owns objects in the deleted db. I really don't
understand
> what's going on here. Could anybody help me out?
>|||Well, I just did:-) And the db came up as "suspect". When I dropped it again
it was OK.
So the problem sort of disappeared, but I am still unsure about why it
ocurred in the first place.
"Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> wrote in message
news:%23OH5euRDFHA.512@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Richard
> Have you REFRESH the EM after droping db?
>
> "Richard Gjerde" <richard_gjerde@.yahoo.no> wrote in message
> news:fdKNd.7739$IW4.168987@.news2.e.nsc.no...
> > I am trying to delete a database using Enterprise Manager. It seems like
> > everything works fine, the db is gone from the Databases tree, but when
I
> > try to create a new database with the same name as the one I just
deleted,
> I
> > get an error stating that the database exists. Also if I try to delete a
> > login associated to the deleted database, I get the error that it cannot
> be
> > deleted because it owns objects in the deleted db. I really don't
> understand
> > what's going on here. Could anybody help me out?
> >
> >
>|||Richard
I prefer using DROP Database by QA not by EM.
"Richard Gjerde" <richard_gjerde@.yahoo.no> wrote in message
news:sEKNd.7744$IW4.168621@.news2.e.nsc.no...
> Well, I just did:-) And the db came up as "suspect". When I dropped it
again
> it was OK.
> So the problem sort of disappeared, but I am still unsure about why it
> ocurred in the first place.
> "Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> wrote in message
> news:%23OH5euRDFHA.512@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> > Richard
> > Have you REFRESH the EM after droping db?
> >
> >
> > "Richard Gjerde" <richard_gjerde@.yahoo.no> wrote in message
> > news:fdKNd.7739$IW4.168987@.news2.e.nsc.no...
> > > I am trying to delete a database using Enterprise Manager. It seems
like
> > > everything works fine, the db is gone from the Databases tree, but
when
> I
> > > try to create a new database with the same name as the one I just
> deleted,
> > I
> > > get an error stating that the database exists. Also if I try to delete
a
> > > login associated to the deleted database, I get the error that it
cannot
> > be
> > > deleted because it owns objects in the deleted db. I really don't
> > understand
> > > what's going on here. Could anybody help me out?
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
everything works fine, the db is gone from the Databases tree, but when I
try to create a new database with the same name as the one I just deleted, I
get an error stating that the database exists. Also if I try to delete a
login associated to the deleted database, I get the error that it cannot be
deleted because it owns objects in the deleted db. I really don't understand
what's going on here. Could anybody help me out?Richard
Have you REFRESH the EM after droping db?
"Richard Gjerde" <richard_gjerde@.yahoo.no> wrote in message
news:fdKNd.7739$IW4.168987@.news2.e.nsc.no...
> I am trying to delete a database using Enterprise Manager. It seems like
> everything works fine, the db is gone from the Databases tree, but when I
> try to create a new database with the same name as the one I just deleted,
I
> get an error stating that the database exists. Also if I try to delete a
> login associated to the deleted database, I get the error that it cannot
be
> deleted because it owns objects in the deleted db. I really don't
understand
> what's going on here. Could anybody help me out?
>|||Well, I just did:-) And the db came up as "suspect". When I dropped it again
it was OK.
So the problem sort of disappeared, but I am still unsure about why it
ocurred in the first place.
"Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> wrote in message
news:%23OH5euRDFHA.512@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Richard
> Have you REFRESH the EM after droping db?
>
> "Richard Gjerde" <richard_gjerde@.yahoo.no> wrote in message
> news:fdKNd.7739$IW4.168987@.news2.e.nsc.no...
> > I am trying to delete a database using Enterprise Manager. It seems like
> > everything works fine, the db is gone from the Databases tree, but when
I
> > try to create a new database with the same name as the one I just
deleted,
> I
> > get an error stating that the database exists. Also if I try to delete a
> > login associated to the deleted database, I get the error that it cannot
> be
> > deleted because it owns objects in the deleted db. I really don't
> understand
> > what's going on here. Could anybody help me out?
> >
> >
>|||Richard
I prefer using DROP Database by QA not by EM.
"Richard Gjerde" <richard_gjerde@.yahoo.no> wrote in message
news:sEKNd.7744$IW4.168621@.news2.e.nsc.no...
> Well, I just did:-) And the db came up as "suspect". When I dropped it
again
> it was OK.
> So the problem sort of disappeared, but I am still unsure about why it
> ocurred in the first place.
> "Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> wrote in message
> news:%23OH5euRDFHA.512@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> > Richard
> > Have you REFRESH the EM after droping db?
> >
> >
> > "Richard Gjerde" <richard_gjerde@.yahoo.no> wrote in message
> > news:fdKNd.7739$IW4.168987@.news2.e.nsc.no...
> > > I am trying to delete a database using Enterprise Manager. It seems
like
> > > everything works fine, the db is gone from the Databases tree, but
when
> I
> > > try to create a new database with the same name as the one I just
> deleted,
> > I
> > > get an error stating that the database exists. Also if I try to delete
a
> > > login associated to the deleted database, I get the error that it
cannot
> > be
> > > deleted because it owns objects in the deleted db. I really don't
> > understand
> > > what's going on here. Could anybody help me out?
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
Saturday, February 25, 2012
problem copying database with Microsoft SQl Server Management Studio
I am trying to copy a database from the server on my web host(crystaltech) to my new local install of MS SQL Server 2005 Enterprise (trial version).
I go to Tasks>Copy Database which opens the wizard. When I get to the select database screen I get this error:
Server user 'username' is not a valid user in database '123foo'
(123foo is the first database of all those on the server)
I need have it look only at my database which I have permissions for to copy it. How do I do this?
I tried copying the tables the other way(import data) but it dropped all my identities and primary keys which is a pain to recreate. Is there a way to copy tables from one server to another without losing primary keys and identity fields?
Thanks for any help!
I think you can use the import export option and specify them with primary keys and identities also other option is you can try scripting the tables and run the script in SSMS........
|||Thats is some sort of Bug in SSMS. You will have to assign a valid database owner top the database as the existing database owner is no server principal on your computer, this can be either based on the fact that you deleted the server principal or as the most common reason, you restored a database backup which is from another computer or a certain point in time where the current database owner did not exist on the computer. To fix that use sp_changedbowner (described int he BOL) to change the db_owner.
Jens K. Suessmeyer
http://www.sqlserver2005.de
problem copying database with Microsoft SQl Server Management Studio
I am trying to copy a database from the server on my web host(crystaltech) to my new local install of MS SQL Server 2005 Enterprise (trial version).
I go to Tasks>Copy Database which opens the wizard. When I get to the select database screen I get this error:
Server user 'username' is not a valid user in database '123foo'
(123foo is the first database of all those on the server)
I need have it look only at my database which I have permissions for to copy it. How do I do this?
I tried copying the tables the other way(import data) but it dropped all my identities and primary keys which is a pain to recreate. Is there a way to copy tables from one server to another without losing primary keys and identity fields?
Thanks for any help!
I think you can use the import export option and specify them with primary keys and identities also other option is you can try scripting the tables and run the script in SSMS........
|||Thats is some sort of Bug in SSMS. You will have to assign a valid database owner top the database as the existing database owner is no server principal on your computer, this can be either based on the fact that you deleted the server principal or as the most common reason, you restored a database backup which is from another computer or a certain point in time where the current database owner did not exist on the computer. To fix that use sp_changedbowner (described int he BOL) to change the db_owner.
Jens K. Suessmeyer
http://www.sqlserver2005.de
Monday, February 20, 2012
Problem connecting to SS2K5 named instance using client tools
Hi,
The problem I have is this:
I have installed SQL Server 2005 Enterprise Edition on a W2K3 server that already has a SQL Server 2000 default instance installed. The installation appears to be a success. The problem is that having installed the client tools, and trying to connect, I get the following error message in a dialog:
"Cannot connect server SERVERNAME\INSTANCENAME
An error has occurred while establishing a connection to the server. When connecting to SQL Server 2005, this failure may be caused by the fact that under the default settings SQL Server does not allow remote connections. (provider: SQL Network Interfaces, error: 26 - Error Locating
Server/Instance Specified)(Microsoft SQL Server)"
The funny thing is that I can connect to the SQL Server 2000 default instance that is on that server.
So it's obviously not a connection problem per se at my end i.e. bad dns etc which might stop me resolving the server name.
Googling for this error text gives the following advice on various web sites:
1. Check that the remote server allows connections.
It does, as other colleagues in my team have successfully installed the tools and can connect with no problems.
2. Check that the SQL Browser service is running.
It is, as without this running, my colleagues would not be able to connect either.
3. Open SQL Server Configuration Manager. Select "SQL Server 2005 Network Configuration | Protocols for MSSQLSERVER" then enable the protocols you need.
The required protocol (TCP/IP) is enabled. Named pipes is also enabled, although I don't think that we're using that. And shared memory is also enabled by default.
4. Open the firewall and add exceptions for sqlbrowser.exe or UDP port
1434
There is no firewall running at either end of the connection and as mentioned I can connect to the SS2K default instance.
5. Make sure that the server machine is reachable.
I can connect to the SS2K default instance so it must be reachable. I can't see that I would need to change any configuration settings as my colleagues are using exactly the same default settings for their connections and they work fine.
The only thing that I have done differently is that I originally installed the client tools using someone else's privileged account as I didn't have admin rights on my box. The client tools didn't work, so I got admin rights to my box, uninstalled the client tools and then reinstalled them using my account. Still no luck. Not sure if something is still hanging around after the uninstallation that would cause me a problem.
To help, I've also filled out the following questionnaire:
[1] Client side:
> What is the connection string in you app or DSN?
There isn't one. I'm trying to connect from the SQL Server Management Studio | 'Connect to Server' dialog.
> If client fails to connect, what is the client error messages?
"Cannot connect server Y\Z
An error has occurred while establishing a connection to the server. When connecting to SQL Server
2005, this failure may be caused by the fact that under the default settings SQL Server does not
allow remote connections. (provider: SQL Network Interfaces, error: 26 - Error Locating
Server/Instance Specified)(Microsoft SQL Server)"
Is the client remote or local to the SQL server machine? Remote
Can you ping your server? YES
Can you telnet to your SQL Server? YES
What is your client database provider? [SNAC | MDAC | ADO.NET1.0 | ADO.NET2.0| other (please specify] N/A
What is your client application? SQL Management Studio
Is your client computer in the same domain as the Server computer? Different domains
What protocol the client enabled? [Shared Memory | TCPIP | Named Pipes]. All 3 protocols are enabled
Do you have aliases configured that match the server name portion of your connection string? No
Do you select force encryption on server and/or client? No
[2] Server side:
What is the MS SQL version? SQL Server 2005
What is the SKU of MS SQL? Enterprise
What is the SQL Server Protocol enabled? [Shared Memory | TCPIP | Named Pipes ]. All 3
Does the server start successfully? YES. Other people can connect to the same instance.
If SQL Server is a named instance, is the SQL browser enabled? YES
What is the account that the SQL Server is running under? Domain Account
Do you make firewall exception for your SQL server TCP port if you want connect remotely through TCP provider? N/A. Firewall not running.
Do you make firewall exception for SQL Browser UDP port 1434? N/A. Firewall not running.
What tool or Application are you using to connect to SQL Server SQL Server Management Studio
[3] Platform:
What is the OS version? Windows 2003 (Server side), Windows XP Pro Version 2002 SP 2
Do you have third party antivirus, anti-spareware software installed? Symantec AntiVirus
[4] Misc:
If you have certificate configuration issue: N/A
Has anybody else come across this problem, as I've run out of ideas.
Many thanks,
Hi,
I've fixed the problem.
One of my colleagues who can log onto the SS2005 named instance from his workplace came to my workplace today and found that he also couldn't connect from there. That ruled out my installation. So we played with SQLCMD trying to connect and found that we could if we specified the TCP port (1776). So then it was just a question of working out
what the syntax was to specify the port in the Connection dialog. Turns out that server-name\,1776 works and allows us to connect.
Thanks.
Problem Connecting to SQL Server Non-default Named Instance
I am having a problem connecting to a SQL Server named [non-default] instanc
e
using the Server "alias" name. Connecting, through Enterprise Manager with
the IP\instance name or server name\instance name works fine. Connecting to
the default instance using the alias also works fine.
I have confirmed that when connecting to the non-default instance, using
either the IP or server name, the connecting is made through the correct [no
t
1433] port.
We have a developer network, with some workstations being able to use the
"alias"\instance name, and other workstations not, when conencting to the
non-default instance. So, there is something particular to some workstations
that is preventing access to non-default SQL instances using the alias.
The developer workstations are all built identically, so could it be an XP
service pack that may only have been applied to some workstations, that coul
d
be causing the problem? Or is there another reason.
Thanks!
dcnDeveloper.Canada.Net wrote:
> I am having a problem connecting to a SQL Server named [non-default]
> instance using the Server "alias" name. Connecting, through
> Enterprise Manager with the IP\instance name or server name\instance
> name works fine. Connecting to the default instance using the alias
> also works fine.
> I have confirmed that when connecting to the non-default instance,
> using either the IP or server name, the connecting is made through
> the correct [not 1433] port.
> We have a developer network, with some workstations being able to use
> the "alias"\instance name, and other workstations not, when
> conencting to the non-default instance. So, there is something
> particular to some workstations that is preventing access to
> non-default SQL instances using the alias.
> The developer workstations are all built identically, so could it be
> an XP service pack that may only have been applied to some
> workstations, that could be causing the problem? Or is there another
> reason.
> Thanks!
> dcn
SP2 does have some issues connecting to MSDE. IUf you define an alias,
you use just the alias name to connect, not alias\instance.
Are you defining the alias in the SQL Server Client Network Utility?
David Gugick
Imceda Software
www.imceda.com|||I must use the instance name, as we have about 10 instances on the same
server, all using different ports.
I have not defined the alias in the client utility, although I know this
works. It is just puzzling why I cannot use the alias\instance name when
connecting to the database, whereas other computers can. There is somthing
different between half the PCs in our development group, and the
rest...although not sure what.
We will likely not spin our wheels any further on this, and just live with
an alias setting in the client utility as a workaround for the affected PCs.
Thanks!
dcn
"David Gugick" wrote:
> Developer.Canada.Net wrote:
> SP2 does have some issues connecting to MSDE. IUf you define an alias,
> you use just the alias name to connect, not alias\instance.
> Are you defining the alias in the SQL Server Client Network Utility?
> --
> David Gugick
> Imceda Software
> www.imceda.com
>|||I'm sure they were all built the same. That doesn't really mean they are
necessarily the same now if they are developer machines though (unless your
developers are MUCH different than any I ever met). Have you tried having
them upgrade the MDAC on the machines that don'e work just for kicks and
grins? You can find the latest at www.microsoft.com/data
"Developer.Canada.Net" <Developer.Canada.Net@.discussions.microsoft.com>
wrote in message news:7974ACEC-FE12-4250-B122-8865CFE44C10@.microsoft.com...
> I must use the instance name, as we have about 10 instances on the same
> server, all using different ports.
> I have not defined the alias in the client utility, although I know this
> works. It is just puzzling why I cannot use the alias\instance name when
> connecting to the database, whereas other computers can. There is somthing
> different between half the PCs in our development group, and the
> rest...although not sure what.
> We will likely not spin our wheels any further on this, and just live with
> an alias setting in the client utility as a workaround for the affected
PCs.
> Thanks!
> dcn
>
> "David Gugick" wrote:
>|||Developer.Canada.Net wrote:
> I must use the instance name, as we have about 10 instances on the
> same server, all using different ports.
> I have not defined the alias in the client utility, although I know
> this works. It is just puzzling why I cannot use the alias\instance
> name when connecting to the database, whereas other computers can.
> There is somthing different between half the PCs in our development
> group, and the rest...although not sure what.
> We will likely not spin our wheels any further on this, and just live
> with an alias setting in the client utility as a workaround for the
> affected PCs. Thanks!
> dcn
>
> "David Gugick" wrote:
>
Try turning off the Windows Firewall and see what happens.
David Gugick
Imceda Software
www.imceda.com|||On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 15:56:17 -0500, "David Gugick"
<davidg-nospam@.imceda.com> wrote:
in <#6n6bObJFHA.3428@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>
>SP2 does have some issues connecting to MSDE. IUf you define an alias,
>you use just the alias name to connect, not alias\instance.
As far as I can tell the only issues have to do with implementing
the ridiculous excuse for a firewall that SP2 provides. SP2 has
no issues connecting to MSDE if a real firewall like KERIO is
used. My apologies, but this is deliberately meant to sound
inflammatory.
Stefan Berglund|||Stefan Berglund wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 15:56:17 -0500, "David Gugick"
> As far as I can tell the only issues have to do with implementing
> the ridiculous excuse for a firewall that SP2 provides. SP2 has
> no issues connecting to MSDE if a real firewall like KERIO is
> used. My apologies, but this is deliberately meant to sound
> inflammatory.
I assume you mean inflammatory to Microsoft, no?
David G.|||On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 12:51:21 -0500, "David Gugick"
<davidg-nospam@.imceda.com> wrote:
in <#qyVYwyJFHA.336@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>
>Stefan Berglund wrote:
>I assume you mean inflammatory to Microsoft, no?
Yes, of course.
Stefan Berglund|||I agree it's not a full-featured firewall, but is much improved in SP2
and as I understand it will examine incoming and outgoing packets to
some degree. For end users who until recently probably didn't keep their
virus definitions up to date, the firewall can help. Most end-users who
are on some sort of broadband have their PCs hooked directly to the
cable/DSL modem, further exposing them to attack. For businesses, this
is generally not a problem, but it does cause headaches for many
end-users, headaches aside.
David G.|||On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 21:29:57 -0500, "David Gugick"
<davidg-nospam@.imceda.com> wrote:
in <OueRz2DKFHA.732@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl>
>I agree it's not a full-featured firewall, but is much improved in SP2
>and as I understand it will examine incoming and outgoing packets to
>some degree. For end users who until recently probably didn't keep their
>virus definitions up to date, the firewall can help. Most end-users who
>are on some sort of broadband have their PCs hooked directly to the
>cable/DSL modem, further exposing them to attack. For businesses, this
>is generally not a problem, but it does cause headaches for many
>end-users, headaches aside.
I can only suppose that by improved you mean turned on by
default. I was not aware that it did any stateful inspection of
packets or that it even looked at outgoing traffic. Obviously
the ~Windows firewall~ is better than nothing, but I prefer and
insist that all my clients operate from behind a hardware
firewall in addition to having Kerio, AVG, Ad-Aware, and Spybot
S&D on every box. I run all that even on my server which also
runs SQL and it goes without saying that they all get along
together fabulously.
Kerio can be a bit overwhelming for the novice, but once it's set
up it's a breeze. I've even used it to reclaim a client's laptop
that had been taken over by the Dark Angel trojan. This thing
was so insidious that on every reboot it took out ZoneAlarm and
Norton. Norton was able to detect its attempts at phoning home
but wasn't able to cope otherwise. It was at this point that I
removed Norton and ZoneAlarm from my boxes and went with tools
that are comparatively more lightweight and that do the job
expected of them.
Stefan Berglund
e
using the Server "alias" name. Connecting, through Enterprise Manager with
the IP\instance name or server name\instance name works fine. Connecting to
the default instance using the alias also works fine.
I have confirmed that when connecting to the non-default instance, using
either the IP or server name, the connecting is made through the correct [no
t
1433] port.
We have a developer network, with some workstations being able to use the
"alias"\instance name, and other workstations not, when conencting to the
non-default instance. So, there is something particular to some workstations
that is preventing access to non-default SQL instances using the alias.
The developer workstations are all built identically, so could it be an XP
service pack that may only have been applied to some workstations, that coul
d
be causing the problem? Or is there another reason.
Thanks!
dcnDeveloper.Canada.Net wrote:
> I am having a problem connecting to a SQL Server named [non-default]
> instance using the Server "alias" name. Connecting, through
> Enterprise Manager with the IP\instance name or server name\instance
> name works fine. Connecting to the default instance using the alias
> also works fine.
> I have confirmed that when connecting to the non-default instance,
> using either the IP or server name, the connecting is made through
> the correct [not 1433] port.
> We have a developer network, with some workstations being able to use
> the "alias"\instance name, and other workstations not, when
> conencting to the non-default instance. So, there is something
> particular to some workstations that is preventing access to
> non-default SQL instances using the alias.
> The developer workstations are all built identically, so could it be
> an XP service pack that may only have been applied to some
> workstations, that could be causing the problem? Or is there another
> reason.
> Thanks!
> dcn
SP2 does have some issues connecting to MSDE. IUf you define an alias,
you use just the alias name to connect, not alias\instance.
Are you defining the alias in the SQL Server Client Network Utility?
David Gugick
Imceda Software
www.imceda.com|||I must use the instance name, as we have about 10 instances on the same
server, all using different ports.
I have not defined the alias in the client utility, although I know this
works. It is just puzzling why I cannot use the alias\instance name when
connecting to the database, whereas other computers can. There is somthing
different between half the PCs in our development group, and the
rest...although not sure what.
We will likely not spin our wheels any further on this, and just live with
an alias setting in the client utility as a workaround for the affected PCs.
Thanks!
dcn
"David Gugick" wrote:
> Developer.Canada.Net wrote:
> SP2 does have some issues connecting to MSDE. IUf you define an alias,
> you use just the alias name to connect, not alias\instance.
> Are you defining the alias in the SQL Server Client Network Utility?
> --
> David Gugick
> Imceda Software
> www.imceda.com
>|||I'm sure they were all built the same. That doesn't really mean they are
necessarily the same now if they are developer machines though (unless your
developers are MUCH different than any I ever met). Have you tried having
them upgrade the MDAC on the machines that don'e work just for kicks and
grins? You can find the latest at www.microsoft.com/data
"Developer.Canada.Net" <Developer.Canada.Net@.discussions.microsoft.com>
wrote in message news:7974ACEC-FE12-4250-B122-8865CFE44C10@.microsoft.com...
> I must use the instance name, as we have about 10 instances on the same
> server, all using different ports.
> I have not defined the alias in the client utility, although I know this
> works. It is just puzzling why I cannot use the alias\instance name when
> connecting to the database, whereas other computers can. There is somthing
> different between half the PCs in our development group, and the
> rest...although not sure what.
> We will likely not spin our wheels any further on this, and just live with
> an alias setting in the client utility as a workaround for the affected
PCs.
> Thanks!
> dcn
>
> "David Gugick" wrote:
>|||Developer.Canada.Net wrote:
> I must use the instance name, as we have about 10 instances on the
> same server, all using different ports.
> I have not defined the alias in the client utility, although I know
> this works. It is just puzzling why I cannot use the alias\instance
> name when connecting to the database, whereas other computers can.
> There is somthing different between half the PCs in our development
> group, and the rest...although not sure what.
> We will likely not spin our wheels any further on this, and just live
> with an alias setting in the client utility as a workaround for the
> affected PCs. Thanks!
> dcn
>
> "David Gugick" wrote:
>
Try turning off the Windows Firewall and see what happens.
David Gugick
Imceda Software
www.imceda.com|||On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 15:56:17 -0500, "David Gugick"
<davidg-nospam@.imceda.com> wrote:
in <#6n6bObJFHA.3428@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>
>SP2 does have some issues connecting to MSDE. IUf you define an alias,
>you use just the alias name to connect, not alias\instance.
As far as I can tell the only issues have to do with implementing
the ridiculous excuse for a firewall that SP2 provides. SP2 has
no issues connecting to MSDE if a real firewall like KERIO is
used. My apologies, but this is deliberately meant to sound
inflammatory.
Stefan Berglund|||Stefan Berglund wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 15:56:17 -0500, "David Gugick"
> As far as I can tell the only issues have to do with implementing
> the ridiculous excuse for a firewall that SP2 provides. SP2 has
> no issues connecting to MSDE if a real firewall like KERIO is
> used. My apologies, but this is deliberately meant to sound
> inflammatory.
I assume you mean inflammatory to Microsoft, no?
David G.|||On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 12:51:21 -0500, "David Gugick"
<davidg-nospam@.imceda.com> wrote:
in <#qyVYwyJFHA.336@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>
>Stefan Berglund wrote:
>I assume you mean inflammatory to Microsoft, no?
Yes, of course.
Stefan Berglund|||I agree it's not a full-featured firewall, but is much improved in SP2
and as I understand it will examine incoming and outgoing packets to
some degree. For end users who until recently probably didn't keep their
virus definitions up to date, the firewall can help. Most end-users who
are on some sort of broadband have their PCs hooked directly to the
cable/DSL modem, further exposing them to attack. For businesses, this
is generally not a problem, but it does cause headaches for many
end-users, headaches aside.
David G.|||On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 21:29:57 -0500, "David Gugick"
<davidg-nospam@.imceda.com> wrote:
in <OueRz2DKFHA.732@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl>
>I agree it's not a full-featured firewall, but is much improved in SP2
>and as I understand it will examine incoming and outgoing packets to
>some degree. For end users who until recently probably didn't keep their
>virus definitions up to date, the firewall can help. Most end-users who
>are on some sort of broadband have their PCs hooked directly to the
>cable/DSL modem, further exposing them to attack. For businesses, this
>is generally not a problem, but it does cause headaches for many
>end-users, headaches aside.
I can only suppose that by improved you mean turned on by
default. I was not aware that it did any stateful inspection of
packets or that it even looked at outgoing traffic. Obviously
the ~Windows firewall~ is better than nothing, but I prefer and
insist that all my clients operate from behind a hardware
firewall in addition to having Kerio, AVG, Ad-Aware, and Spybot
S&D on every box. I run all that even on my server which also
runs SQL and it goes without saying that they all get along
together fabulously.
Kerio can be a bit overwhelming for the novice, but once it's set
up it's a breeze. I've even used it to reclaim a client's laptop
that had been taken over by the Dark Angel trojan. This thing
was so insidious that on every reboot it took out ZoneAlarm and
Norton. Norton was able to detect its attempts at phoning home
but wasn't able to cope otherwise. It was at this point that I
removed Norton and ZoneAlarm from my boxes and went with tools
that are comparatively more lightweight and that do the job
expected of them.
Stefan Berglund
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)