I am trying to create a four node cluster. One of my instances has a Binary
sort order. The SQL Server cluster install and SP4 worked. Now I am tryin
g
to add additional drives for SQL Server to use. I am able to do this for my
case insensitive instances, and those SQL Server instances can see the
drives.
On the Binary instance, once I add the drive and try to bring the instance
back online, SQL Server will not come back up. In cluster manager, the
status just says "Online Pending".
If I go to the services applet and try to start it, I get a message the the
service started and stopped. The instance will failover to another node.
The error log actually looks like SQL Server is still running, and I can see
sqlservr.exe in Task Manager. I can also connect to it using Query Analyzer
.
When I run this: "select * from ::fn_servershareddrives()", the correct
drive letters show up in the results. From Enterprise Manager, It looks lik
e
the instance is stopped. I can also navigate to the drive.
Has anyone successfully clustered a case sensitive instance? What could I
be doing wrong?Never mind. It was something besides adding the drive and nothing to do with
the collation.
"Kathi Kellenberger" wrote:
> I am trying to create a four node cluster. One of my instances has a Bina
ry
> sort order. The SQL Server cluster install and SP4 worked. Now I am try
ing
> to add additional drives for SQL Server to use. I am able to do this for
my
> case insensitive instances, and those SQL Server instances can see the
> drives.
> On the Binary instance, once I add the drive and try to bring the instance
> back online, SQL Server will not come back up. In cluster manager, the
> status just says "Online Pending".
> If I go to the services applet and try to start it, I get a message the th
e
> service started and stopped. The instance will failover to another node.
> The error log actually looks like SQL Server is still running, and I can s
ee
> sqlservr.exe in Task Manager. I can also connect to it using Query Analyz
er.
> When I run this: "select * from ::fn_servershareddrives()", the correct
> drive letters show up in the results. From Enterprise Manager, It looks l
ike
> the instance is stopped. I can also navigate to the drive.
> Has anyone successfully clustered a case sensitive instance? What could I
> be doing wrong?
>
Showing posts with label install. Show all posts
Showing posts with label install. Show all posts
Sunday, March 25, 2012
Binary sort order and clustering
I am trying to create a four node cluster. One of my instances has a Binary
sort order. The SQL Server cluster install and SP4 worked. Now I am trying
to add additional drives for SQL Server to use. I am able to do this for my
case insensitive instances, and those SQL Server instances can see the
drives.
On the Binary instance, once I add the drive and try to bring the instance
back online, SQL Server will not come back up. In cluster manager, the
status just says "Online Pending".
If I go to the services applet and try to start it, I get a message the the
service started and stopped. The instance will failover to another node.
The error log actually looks like SQL Server is still running, and I can see
sqlservr.exe in Task Manager. I can also connect to it using Query Analyzer.
When I run this: "select * from ::fn_servershareddrives()", the correct
drive letters show up in the results. From Enterprise Manager, It looks like
the instance is stopped. I can also navigate to the drive.
Has anyone successfully clustered a case sensitive instance? What could I
be doing wrong?Never mind. It was something besides adding the drive and nothing to do with
the collation.
"Kathi Kellenberger" wrote:
> I am trying to create a four node cluster. One of my instances has a Binary
> sort order. The SQL Server cluster install and SP4 worked. Now I am trying
> to add additional drives for SQL Server to use. I am able to do this for my
> case insensitive instances, and those SQL Server instances can see the
> drives.
> On the Binary instance, once I add the drive and try to bring the instance
> back online, SQL Server will not come back up. In cluster manager, the
> status just says "Online Pending".
> If I go to the services applet and try to start it, I get a message the the
> service started and stopped. The instance will failover to another node.
> The error log actually looks like SQL Server is still running, and I can see
> sqlservr.exe in Task Manager. I can also connect to it using Query Analyzer.
> When I run this: "select * from ::fn_servershareddrives()", the correct
> drive letters show up in the results. From Enterprise Manager, It looks like
> the instance is stopped. I can also navigate to the drive.
> Has anyone successfully clustered a case sensitive instance? What could I
> be doing wrong?
>
sort order. The SQL Server cluster install and SP4 worked. Now I am trying
to add additional drives for SQL Server to use. I am able to do this for my
case insensitive instances, and those SQL Server instances can see the
drives.
On the Binary instance, once I add the drive and try to bring the instance
back online, SQL Server will not come back up. In cluster manager, the
status just says "Online Pending".
If I go to the services applet and try to start it, I get a message the the
service started and stopped. The instance will failover to another node.
The error log actually looks like SQL Server is still running, and I can see
sqlservr.exe in Task Manager. I can also connect to it using Query Analyzer.
When I run this: "select * from ::fn_servershareddrives()", the correct
drive letters show up in the results. From Enterprise Manager, It looks like
the instance is stopped. I can also navigate to the drive.
Has anyone successfully clustered a case sensitive instance? What could I
be doing wrong?Never mind. It was something besides adding the drive and nothing to do with
the collation.
"Kathi Kellenberger" wrote:
> I am trying to create a four node cluster. One of my instances has a Binary
> sort order. The SQL Server cluster install and SP4 worked. Now I am trying
> to add additional drives for SQL Server to use. I am able to do this for my
> case insensitive instances, and those SQL Server instances can see the
> drives.
> On the Binary instance, once I add the drive and try to bring the instance
> back online, SQL Server will not come back up. In cluster manager, the
> status just says "Online Pending".
> If I go to the services applet and try to start it, I get a message the the
> service started and stopped. The instance will failover to another node.
> The error log actually looks like SQL Server is still running, and I can see
> sqlservr.exe in Task Manager. I can also connect to it using Query Analyzer.
> When I run this: "select * from ::fn_servershareddrives()", the correct
> drive letters show up in the results. From Enterprise Manager, It looks like
> the instance is stopped. I can also navigate to the drive.
> Has anyone successfully clustered a case sensitive instance? What could I
> be doing wrong?
>
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Big-IP and SSL
Hi! I am working on some issues related to Reporting Services and SSL, I
wanted to know:
- If I install a NLB cluster and I add "n" servers, how many SSL
Certificates will I need? 1 or "n"?
- does anyone know if there are any issue related to MRS, SSL and the
Big-IP Load Balancer?
Thank you very much in advance :-)
Jose
--
------
Jose Ignacio Rodas, A+, CCEA, MCSEI use BigIP's in production, LVS' in test and development. If I understand
your first question about NLB clusters, you will need one certificate per
domain name. If your NLB cluster, comprised of "n" servers, answers up to
www.mydomain.com then you will need a certificate on www.mydomain.com. I
worked with NLB in 2000 and do not remember certificate management as being a
part of it, I could be wrong, not sure about 2003. As far as the BigIP and
SQL RS, good luck. It will work, if configured properly. Supposedly SP2 of
SQL RS added a feature to support SSL termination prior to the web server if
the proper HTTP headers are passed. I was able to get Reports working, but
not ReportServer. The information is available in the SP2 update
documentation. Hope this helps.
"Jose Ignacio Rodas" wrote:
> Hi! I am working on some issues related to Reporting Services and SSL, I
> wanted to know:
> - If I install a NLB cluster and I add "n" servers, how many SSL
> Certificates will I need? 1 or "n"?
> - does anyone know if there are any issue related to MRS, SSL and the
> Big-IP Load Balancer?
> Thank you very much in advance :-)
> Jose
> --
>
> ------
> Jose Ignacio Rodas, A+, CCEA, MCSE|||http://download.microsoft.com/download/5/1/3/513534ae-a0e7-44e6-9a04-ba3c549a5f5f/sp2Readme_EN.htm#_http_headers
That is the SP2 readme that talks about SSL termination
"Brian" wrote:
> I use BigIP's in production, LVS' in test and development. If I understand
> your first question about NLB clusters, you will need one certificate per
> domain name. If your NLB cluster, comprised of "n" servers, answers up to
> www.mydomain.com then you will need a certificate on www.mydomain.com. I
> worked with NLB in 2000 and do not remember certificate management as being a
> part of it, I could be wrong, not sure about 2003. As far as the BigIP and
> SQL RS, good luck. It will work, if configured properly. Supposedly SP2 of
> SQL RS added a feature to support SSL termination prior to the web server if
> the proper HTTP headers are passed. I was able to get Reports working, but
> not ReportServer. The information is available in the SP2 update
> documentation. Hope this helps.
> "Jose Ignacio Rodas" wrote:
> > Hi! I am working on some issues related to Reporting Services and SSL, I
> > wanted to know:
> >
> > - If I install a NLB cluster and I add "n" servers, how many SSL
> > Certificates will I need? 1 or "n"?
> >
> > - does anyone know if there are any issue related to MRS, SSL and the
> > Big-IP Load Balancer?
> >
> > Thank you very much in advance :-)
> >
> > Jose
> > --
> >
> >
> >
> > ------
> > Jose Ignacio Rodas, A+, CCEA, MCSE
wanted to know:
- If I install a NLB cluster and I add "n" servers, how many SSL
Certificates will I need? 1 or "n"?
- does anyone know if there are any issue related to MRS, SSL and the
Big-IP Load Balancer?
Thank you very much in advance :-)
Jose
--
------
Jose Ignacio Rodas, A+, CCEA, MCSEI use BigIP's in production, LVS' in test and development. If I understand
your first question about NLB clusters, you will need one certificate per
domain name. If your NLB cluster, comprised of "n" servers, answers up to
www.mydomain.com then you will need a certificate on www.mydomain.com. I
worked with NLB in 2000 and do not remember certificate management as being a
part of it, I could be wrong, not sure about 2003. As far as the BigIP and
SQL RS, good luck. It will work, if configured properly. Supposedly SP2 of
SQL RS added a feature to support SSL termination prior to the web server if
the proper HTTP headers are passed. I was able to get Reports working, but
not ReportServer. The information is available in the SP2 update
documentation. Hope this helps.
"Jose Ignacio Rodas" wrote:
> Hi! I am working on some issues related to Reporting Services and SSL, I
> wanted to know:
> - If I install a NLB cluster and I add "n" servers, how many SSL
> Certificates will I need? 1 or "n"?
> - does anyone know if there are any issue related to MRS, SSL and the
> Big-IP Load Balancer?
> Thank you very much in advance :-)
> Jose
> --
>
> ------
> Jose Ignacio Rodas, A+, CCEA, MCSE|||http://download.microsoft.com/download/5/1/3/513534ae-a0e7-44e6-9a04-ba3c549a5f5f/sp2Readme_EN.htm#_http_headers
That is the SP2 readme that talks about SSL termination
"Brian" wrote:
> I use BigIP's in production, LVS' in test and development. If I understand
> your first question about NLB clusters, you will need one certificate per
> domain name. If your NLB cluster, comprised of "n" servers, answers up to
> www.mydomain.com then you will need a certificate on www.mydomain.com. I
> worked with NLB in 2000 and do not remember certificate management as being a
> part of it, I could be wrong, not sure about 2003. As far as the BigIP and
> SQL RS, good luck. It will work, if configured properly. Supposedly SP2 of
> SQL RS added a feature to support SSL termination prior to the web server if
> the proper HTTP headers are passed. I was able to get Reports working, but
> not ReportServer. The information is available in the SP2 update
> documentation. Hope this helps.
> "Jose Ignacio Rodas" wrote:
> > Hi! I am working on some issues related to Reporting Services and SSL, I
> > wanted to know:
> >
> > - If I install a NLB cluster and I add "n" servers, how many SSL
> > Certificates will I need? 1 or "n"?
> >
> > - does anyone know if there are any issue related to MRS, SSL and the
> > Big-IP Load Balancer?
> >
> > Thank you very much in advance :-)
> >
> > Jose
> > --
> >
> >
> >
> > ------
> > Jose Ignacio Rodas, A+, CCEA, MCSE
Monday, March 19, 2012
BIDS, SP1, & Installation Account
On a "day to day" basis, the account I use to do work is not a member of the
Local Administrators group. When I do an install, I'll either do a Run As or
log on as a Local Administrator account to do the install.
On an XP Pro client (1GB RAM, 20 GB HDD), I install the SQL Client tools and
then Visual Studio 2005. All the Business Intelligence Project types work
correctly for both the installation account and the "day to day" account.
When I update the client tools to SQL SP1, the only user that can open a
Business Intelligence Projects is the Administrative account that did the
installation.
Using the "day to day" account, when I try to open an Analysis Services
Project, I get the error:
The Application for Project 'C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio
8\Common7\IDE\PrivateAssemblies\Business Intelligence
Projects\AnalysisServicesProject.dwproj' is not installed.
Make sure the application for the type (.dwproj) is installed.
If the "day to day" account selects a different Business Intelligence
Project type, I get the error:
Object Reference not set to an instance of an Object
I can log on as the installation Administrator to do SQL work, but that
seems to me to be a security risk.
Any ideas on how to get the "day to day" account to work with Business
Intelligence projects? It works fine with all other project types in Visual
Studio?
Al
Sorry, I forgot to day, SQL Server 2005 Enterprise Edition with Client tools
loaded onto XP (SP2) from the Enterprise Edition CD. SQL 2005 SP1 installed
from SQLServer2005SP1-KB913090-x86-ENU.exe
"Al" <zyck@.tconl.com> wrote in message
news:uZ7Lv2NGHHA.2112@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> On a "day to day" basis, the account I use to do work is not a member of
> the Local Administrators group. When I do an install, I'll either do a Run
> As or log on as a Local Administrator account to do the install.
> On an XP Pro client (1GB RAM, 20 GB HDD), I install the SQL Client tools
> and then Visual Studio 2005. All the Business Intelligence Project types
> work correctly for both the installation account and the "day to day"
> account. When I update the client tools to SQL SP1, the only user that can
> open a Business Intelligence Projects is the Administrative account that
> did the installation.
> Using the "day to day" account, when I try to open an Analysis Services
> Project, I get the error:
> The Application for Project 'C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio
> 8\Common7\IDE\PrivateAssemblies\Business Intelligence
> Projects\AnalysisServicesProject.dwproj' is not installed.
> Make sure the application for the type (.dwproj) is installed.
>
> If the "day to day" account selects a different Business Intelligence
> Project type, I get the error:
>
> Object Reference not set to an instance of an Object
>
> I can log on as the installation Administrator to do SQL work, but that
> seems to me to be a security risk.
> Any ideas on how to get the "day to day" account to work with Business
> Intelligence projects? It works fine with all other project types in
> Visual Studio?
> Al
>
Local Administrators group. When I do an install, I'll either do a Run As or
log on as a Local Administrator account to do the install.
On an XP Pro client (1GB RAM, 20 GB HDD), I install the SQL Client tools and
then Visual Studio 2005. All the Business Intelligence Project types work
correctly for both the installation account and the "day to day" account.
When I update the client tools to SQL SP1, the only user that can open a
Business Intelligence Projects is the Administrative account that did the
installation.
Using the "day to day" account, when I try to open an Analysis Services
Project, I get the error:
The Application for Project 'C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio
8\Common7\IDE\PrivateAssemblies\Business Intelligence
Projects\AnalysisServicesProject.dwproj' is not installed.
Make sure the application for the type (.dwproj) is installed.
If the "day to day" account selects a different Business Intelligence
Project type, I get the error:
Object Reference not set to an instance of an Object
I can log on as the installation Administrator to do SQL work, but that
seems to me to be a security risk.
Any ideas on how to get the "day to day" account to work with Business
Intelligence projects? It works fine with all other project types in Visual
Studio?
Al
Sorry, I forgot to day, SQL Server 2005 Enterprise Edition with Client tools
loaded onto XP (SP2) from the Enterprise Edition CD. SQL 2005 SP1 installed
from SQLServer2005SP1-KB913090-x86-ENU.exe
"Al" <zyck@.tconl.com> wrote in message
news:uZ7Lv2NGHHA.2112@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> On a "day to day" basis, the account I use to do work is not a member of
> the Local Administrators group. When I do an install, I'll either do a Run
> As or log on as a Local Administrator account to do the install.
> On an XP Pro client (1GB RAM, 20 GB HDD), I install the SQL Client tools
> and then Visual Studio 2005. All the Business Intelligence Project types
> work correctly for both the installation account and the "day to day"
> account. When I update the client tools to SQL SP1, the only user that can
> open a Business Intelligence Projects is the Administrative account that
> did the installation.
> Using the "day to day" account, when I try to open an Analysis Services
> Project, I get the error:
> The Application for Project 'C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio
> 8\Common7\IDE\PrivateAssemblies\Business Intelligence
> Projects\AnalysisServicesProject.dwproj' is not installed.
> Make sure the application for the type (.dwproj) is installed.
>
> If the "day to day" account selects a different Business Intelligence
> Project type, I get the error:
>
> Object Reference not set to an instance of an Object
>
> I can log on as the installation Administrator to do SQL work, but that
> seems to me to be a security risk.
> Any ideas on how to get the "day to day" account to work with Business
> Intelligence projects? It works fine with all other project types in
> Visual Studio?
> Al
>
BIDS doesn't install correctly...
hi, (this is also posted on the vstudio.general group)
i installed the SQL 2005 toolkit so i could design reports in VS 2005, with
the Business Intelligence project templates.
my VS 2005 professional is installed into C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual
Studio 2005\, i can't remember if this was the default directory or not, i
suspect it is not because of some "assembly not found" errors when i attempt
to run the so-called "Business Intelligence Development Studio" (which
installed with a broken short-cut after installation). i fixed the broken
shortcut to point to the visual studio 2005 devenv.exe.
i then try to create a new BI project and get a message
"Could not load file or assembly Microsoft.ReportingServices.Designer
Version=9.0.242.0"
another user also encountered this problem and posted it here:
http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/Sho...65224&SiteID=1
i searched for the Microsoft.ReportingServices.Designer file and it is
located in
C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio 8\Common7\IDE\PrivateAssemblies
i copy it to C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio
2005\Common7\IDE\PrivateAssemblies
and then restart VS and lo and behold i get a different error message for
the next file that is missing. so i try copying the entire
PrivateAssemblies folder in to the 2005 directory and now i get "object
reference not set to instance of an object". ok so i'm chancing my arm
copying files around like this, but can anyone make sense of the MESS that
is BIDS? i have repaired both my VS 2005 installation and all SQL 2005
related software, to no avail.
i would suspect that re-installing VS into the vs 8 directory (not the 2005
directory) would solve the problem but i would hate to waste all that time
uninstalling and reinstalling VS just because BIDS has a big installation
bug.
thanks for any help
tim mackey.
after i copied the PrivateAssemblies folder on top of my vS 2005 folder, it
got a bit worse (understandably) so i decided to do a repair. now the BI
projects work fine.
i'm still convinced there is a bug in BIDS integration with existing VS 2005
installations.
tim
"Tim_Mac" <tim.mackey@.community.nospam> wrote in message
news:e%23C%23f6r7GHA.3340@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> hi, (this is also posted on the vstudio.general group)
> i installed the SQL 2005 toolkit so i could design reports in VS 2005,
> with
> the Business Intelligence project templates.
> my VS 2005 professional is installed into C:\Program Files\Microsoft
> Visual
> Studio 2005\, i can't remember if this was the default directory or not, i
> suspect it is not because of some "assembly not found" errors when i
> attempt
> to run the so-called "Business Intelligence Development Studio" (which
> installed with a broken short-cut after installation). i fixed the broken
> shortcut to point to the visual studio 2005 devenv.exe.
> i then try to create a new BI project and get a message
> "Could not load file or assembly Microsoft.ReportingServices.Designer
> Version=9.0.242.0"
> another user also encountered this problem and posted it here:
> http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/Sho...65224&SiteID=1
> i searched for the Microsoft.ReportingServices.Designer file and it is
> located in
> C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio 8\Common7\IDE\PrivateAssemblies
> i copy it to C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio
> 2005\Common7\IDE\PrivateAssemblies
> and then restart VS and lo and behold i get a different error message for
> the next file that is missing. so i try copying the entire
> PrivateAssemblies folder in to the 2005 directory and now i get "object
> reference not set to instance of an object". ok so i'm chancing my arm
> copying files around like this, but can anyone make sense of the MESS that
> is BIDS? i have repaired both my VS 2005 installation and all SQL 2005
> related software, to no avail.
> i would suspect that re-installing VS into the vs 8 directory (not the
> 2005
> directory) would solve the problem but i would hate to waste all that time
> uninstalling and reinstalling VS just because BIDS has a big installation
> bug.
> thanks for any help
> tim mackey.
>
>
i installed the SQL 2005 toolkit so i could design reports in VS 2005, with
the Business Intelligence project templates.
my VS 2005 professional is installed into C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual
Studio 2005\, i can't remember if this was the default directory or not, i
suspect it is not because of some "assembly not found" errors when i attempt
to run the so-called "Business Intelligence Development Studio" (which
installed with a broken short-cut after installation). i fixed the broken
shortcut to point to the visual studio 2005 devenv.exe.
i then try to create a new BI project and get a message
"Could not load file or assembly Microsoft.ReportingServices.Designer
Version=9.0.242.0"
another user also encountered this problem and posted it here:
http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/Sho...65224&SiteID=1
i searched for the Microsoft.ReportingServices.Designer file and it is
located in
C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio 8\Common7\IDE\PrivateAssemblies
i copy it to C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio
2005\Common7\IDE\PrivateAssemblies
and then restart VS and lo and behold i get a different error message for
the next file that is missing. so i try copying the entire
PrivateAssemblies folder in to the 2005 directory and now i get "object
reference not set to instance of an object". ok so i'm chancing my arm
copying files around like this, but can anyone make sense of the MESS that
is BIDS? i have repaired both my VS 2005 installation and all SQL 2005
related software, to no avail.
i would suspect that re-installing VS into the vs 8 directory (not the 2005
directory) would solve the problem but i would hate to waste all that time
uninstalling and reinstalling VS just because BIDS has a big installation
bug.
thanks for any help
tim mackey.
after i copied the PrivateAssemblies folder on top of my vS 2005 folder, it
got a bit worse (understandably) so i decided to do a repair. now the BI
projects work fine.
i'm still convinced there is a bug in BIDS integration with existing VS 2005
installations.
tim
"Tim_Mac" <tim.mackey@.community.nospam> wrote in message
news:e%23C%23f6r7GHA.3340@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> hi, (this is also posted on the vstudio.general group)
> i installed the SQL 2005 toolkit so i could design reports in VS 2005,
> with
> the Business Intelligence project templates.
> my VS 2005 professional is installed into C:\Program Files\Microsoft
> Visual
> Studio 2005\, i can't remember if this was the default directory or not, i
> suspect it is not because of some "assembly not found" errors when i
> attempt
> to run the so-called "Business Intelligence Development Studio" (which
> installed with a broken short-cut after installation). i fixed the broken
> shortcut to point to the visual studio 2005 devenv.exe.
> i then try to create a new BI project and get a message
> "Could not load file or assembly Microsoft.ReportingServices.Designer
> Version=9.0.242.0"
> another user also encountered this problem and posted it here:
> http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/Sho...65224&SiteID=1
> i searched for the Microsoft.ReportingServices.Designer file and it is
> located in
> C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio 8\Common7\IDE\PrivateAssemblies
> i copy it to C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio
> 2005\Common7\IDE\PrivateAssemblies
> and then restart VS and lo and behold i get a different error message for
> the next file that is missing. so i try copying the entire
> PrivateAssemblies folder in to the 2005 directory and now i get "object
> reference not set to instance of an object". ok so i'm chancing my arm
> copying files around like this, but can anyone make sense of the MESS that
> is BIDS? i have repaired both my VS 2005 installation and all SQL 2005
> related software, to no avail.
> i would suspect that re-installing VS into the vs 8 directory (not the
> 2005
> directory) would solve the problem but i would hate to waste all that time
> uninstalling and reinstalling VS just because BIDS has a big installation
> bug.
> thanks for any help
> tim mackey.
>
>
Sunday, March 11, 2012
BI on xp
How can I install SQL Server 2005 Business Intelligence on windows XP, is it
possible or not. I want to design all my resports through BI, need guidance.
It's possible. Ensure you install SSIS (Integration Services) and BIDS
(Business Intelligence Development Studio) in SQL Server setup.
You can find the limitations of the editions of SQL Server from the
following site:
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/features/compare-features.mspx
Ekrem nsoy
http://www.ekremonsoy.net , http://ekremonsoy.blogspot.com
MCBDA, MCITP:DBA, MCSD.Net, MCSE, MCBMSP, MCT
"Rogers" <naissani@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23VpjUhVHIHA.5544@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> How can I install SQL Server 2005 Business Intelligence on windows XP, is
> it possible or not. I want to design all my resports through BI, need
> guidance.
>
possible or not. I want to design all my resports through BI, need guidance.
It's possible. Ensure you install SSIS (Integration Services) and BIDS
(Business Intelligence Development Studio) in SQL Server setup.
You can find the limitations of the editions of SQL Server from the
following site:
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/features/compare-features.mspx
Ekrem nsoy
http://www.ekremonsoy.net , http://ekremonsoy.blogspot.com
MCBDA, MCITP:DBA, MCSD.Net, MCSE, MCBMSP, MCT
"Rogers" <naissani@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23VpjUhVHIHA.5544@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> How can I install SQL Server 2005 Business Intelligence on windows XP, is
> it possible or not. I want to design all my resports through BI, need
> guidance.
>
Thursday, March 8, 2012
BI Dev Studio won't install with June CTP reinstallation
I am attempting to install the BI Development Studio, from the SQL Server 2005 June CTP, on an XP machine. It installed successfully the first time I installed it, along with all other Workstation Components and BOL.
Subsequently I have uninstalled and reinstalled the Workstation Components, but the installation process does not fully install BI Development Studio. It creates the C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio 8\Common7\IDE directory (where devenv.exe should be located), but this directory is empty other than the PrivateAssemblies and profiles subdirectories. After an installation , the Start Programs menu contains an option for “SQL Server Business Intelligence Development Studio” under "MS SQL Server 2005 CTP", but this shortcut points to the non-existent C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio 8\Common7\IDE\devenv.exe
There are no installation errors, and everything else seems to install OK, but BI Dev Studio is simply not there..
I have used both Add/Remove Programs, and the Build Uninstall Wizard, to remove the installation before trying the reinstalls.
This machine also has Visual Studio 2003 and a SQL Server 2000 instance, but they were already in place prior to my first successful installation.
Thanks in advance!
This is not a very satisfying answer, but here's how we fixed it.After running the Build Uninstall Wizard once again, we manually removed all folders and all files throughout the hard drive related to SQL Server 2005 (i.e. 9) and Visual Studio 2005 (i.e. 8). Also all registry entries. After manually removing all of this, the installation worked successfully.
Bottom line: the Build Uninstall Wizard fails to remove quite a few files and registry settings on your machine, some of which prevented the successful reinstall of the BI Dev Studio.
BI Accelerator generators (SSABI)
When you install the Accelerator it only has the ProClarity Generator.
is there any other available?
That was the only one written. Obviously you can still use other client
tools. The ability of the generator was only to customize existing reports
if you rolled out changes to the names of dimensions, levels, etc. -- other
than that -- any front-end tool can be used. Plus I think that the version
of Proclarity we used is now quite old. I don't know if it will work with
the latest version.
All-in-all, I don't believe that this was a frequently used feature of the
product.
Dave Wickert [MSFT]
dwickert@.online.microsoft.com
Program Manager
BI SystemsTeam
SQL BI Product Unit (Analysis Services)
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Gabriel Cor" <gabriel@.paradigma.com.uy> wrote in message
news:OLv$t$NyEHA.3808@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> When you install the Accelerator it only has the ProClarity Generator.
> is there any other available?
>
|||Thanks Dave, I thought it was a tool to autogenerate some reports, but based
on your response, I understand it is of limited use.
Thanks again.
"Dave Wickert [MSFT]" <dwickert@.online.microsoft.com> escribi en el mensaje
news:uKcmbmRyEHA.1300@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> That was the only one written. Obviously you can still use other client
> tools. The ability of the generator was only to customize existing reports
> if you rolled out changes to the names of dimensions, levels, etc. --
other
> than that -- any front-end tool can be used. Plus I think that the version
> of Proclarity we used is now quite old. I don't know if it will work with
> the latest version.
> All-in-all, I don't believe that this was a frequently used feature of the
> product.
> --
> Dave Wickert [MSFT]
> dwickert@.online.microsoft.com
> Program Manager
> BI SystemsTeam
> SQL BI Product Unit (Analysis Services)
> --
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.
> "Gabriel Cor" <gabriel@.paradigma.com.uy> wrote in message
> news:OLv$t$NyEHA.3808@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>
|||It is more about autogenerating a BI solution. You enter in a
multi-dimensional design, i.e. cubes, dimensions, levels, etc. into the
spreadsheet -- click on the "Generate" button and we generated the
supporting relational and Analysis services objects, DTS packages, etc. that
support that design.
It was designed as a supporting tool for quick prototyping and
proff-of-concept systems that have the basic infrastructure and best
practices to then go into production.
The tailoring of existing reports fits into that as a final step for
customization, but we found that by-hand work is probable more important as
that is what the end-users will finally see -- thus it makes sense that most
of your time should be spent in that area. One of our basic tenets was that
infrastructure is something which soaks up too much time when intially
generating BI solutions -- that consultants and architects should spend more
time on design and front-end, end-user facing components -- which is what
the BI Accelerator tool allows them to do.
Dave Wickert [MSFT]
dwickert@.online.microsoft.com
Program Manager
BI SystemsTeam
SQL BI Product Unit (Analysis Services)
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Gabriel Cor" <gabriel@.paradigma.com.uy> wrote in message
news:%234Ls1F9yEHA.1396@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Thanks Dave, I thought it was a tool to autogenerate some reports, but
based
> on your response, I understand it is of limited use.
> Thanks again.
> "Dave Wickert [MSFT]" <dwickert@.online.microsoft.com> escribi en el
mensaje[vbcol=seagreen]
> news:uKcmbmRyEHA.1300@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
reports[vbcol=seagreen]
> other
version[vbcol=seagreen]
with[vbcol=seagreen]
the
> rights.
>
is there any other available?
That was the only one written. Obviously you can still use other client
tools. The ability of the generator was only to customize existing reports
if you rolled out changes to the names of dimensions, levels, etc. -- other
than that -- any front-end tool can be used. Plus I think that the version
of Proclarity we used is now quite old. I don't know if it will work with
the latest version.
All-in-all, I don't believe that this was a frequently used feature of the
product.
Dave Wickert [MSFT]
dwickert@.online.microsoft.com
Program Manager
BI SystemsTeam
SQL BI Product Unit (Analysis Services)
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Gabriel Cor" <gabriel@.paradigma.com.uy> wrote in message
news:OLv$t$NyEHA.3808@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> When you install the Accelerator it only has the ProClarity Generator.
> is there any other available?
>
|||Thanks Dave, I thought it was a tool to autogenerate some reports, but based
on your response, I understand it is of limited use.
Thanks again.
"Dave Wickert [MSFT]" <dwickert@.online.microsoft.com> escribi en el mensaje
news:uKcmbmRyEHA.1300@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> That was the only one written. Obviously you can still use other client
> tools. The ability of the generator was only to customize existing reports
> if you rolled out changes to the names of dimensions, levels, etc. --
other
> than that -- any front-end tool can be used. Plus I think that the version
> of Proclarity we used is now quite old. I don't know if it will work with
> the latest version.
> All-in-all, I don't believe that this was a frequently used feature of the
> product.
> --
> Dave Wickert [MSFT]
> dwickert@.online.microsoft.com
> Program Manager
> BI SystemsTeam
> SQL BI Product Unit (Analysis Services)
> --
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.
> "Gabriel Cor" <gabriel@.paradigma.com.uy> wrote in message
> news:OLv$t$NyEHA.3808@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>
|||It is more about autogenerating a BI solution. You enter in a
multi-dimensional design, i.e. cubes, dimensions, levels, etc. into the
spreadsheet -- click on the "Generate" button and we generated the
supporting relational and Analysis services objects, DTS packages, etc. that
support that design.
It was designed as a supporting tool for quick prototyping and
proff-of-concept systems that have the basic infrastructure and best
practices to then go into production.
The tailoring of existing reports fits into that as a final step for
customization, but we found that by-hand work is probable more important as
that is what the end-users will finally see -- thus it makes sense that most
of your time should be spent in that area. One of our basic tenets was that
infrastructure is something which soaks up too much time when intially
generating BI solutions -- that consultants and architects should spend more
time on design and front-end, end-user facing components -- which is what
the BI Accelerator tool allows them to do.
Dave Wickert [MSFT]
dwickert@.online.microsoft.com
Program Manager
BI SystemsTeam
SQL BI Product Unit (Analysis Services)
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Gabriel Cor" <gabriel@.paradigma.com.uy> wrote in message
news:%234Ls1F9yEHA.1396@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Thanks Dave, I thought it was a tool to autogenerate some reports, but
based
> on your response, I understand it is of limited use.
> Thanks again.
> "Dave Wickert [MSFT]" <dwickert@.online.microsoft.com> escribi en el
mensaje[vbcol=seagreen]
> news:uKcmbmRyEHA.1300@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
reports[vbcol=seagreen]
> other
version[vbcol=seagreen]
with[vbcol=seagreen]
the
> rights.
>
BI Accelerator generators (SSABI)
When you install the Accelerator it only has the ProClarity Generator.
is there any other available?That was the only one written. Obviously you can still use other client
tools. The ability of the generator was only to customize existing reports
if you rolled out changes to the names of dimensions, levels, etc. -- other
than that -- any front-end tool can be used. Plus I think that the version
of Proclarity we used is now quite old. I don't know if it will work with
the latest version.
All-in-all, I don't believe that this was a frequently used feature of the
product.
--
Dave Wickert [MSFT]
dwickert@.online.microsoft.com
Program Manager
BI SystemsTeam
SQL BI Product Unit (Analysis Services)
--
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Gabriel Cor" <gabriel@.paradigma.com.uy> wrote in message
news:OLv$t$NyEHA.3808@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> When you install the Accelerator it only has the ProClarity Generator.
> is there any other available?
>|||Thanks Dave, I thought it was a tool to autogenerate some reports, but based
on your response, I understand it is of limited use.
Thanks again.
"Dave Wickert [MSFT]" <dwickert@.online.microsoft.com> escribi en el men
saje
news:uKcmbmRyEHA.1300@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> That was the only one written. Obviously you can still use other client
> tools. The ability of the generator was only to customize existing reports
> if you rolled out changes to the names of dimensions, levels, etc. --
other
> than that -- any front-end tool can be used. Plus I think that the version
> of Proclarity we used is now quite old. I don't know if it will work with
> the latest version.
> All-in-all, I don't believe that this was a frequently used feature of the
> product.
> --
> Dave Wickert [MSFT]
> dwickert@.online.microsoft.com
> Program Manager
> BI SystemsTeam
> SQL BI Product Unit (Analysis Services)
> --
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.
> "Gabriel Cor" <gabriel@.paradigma.com.uy> wrote in message
> news:OLv$t$NyEHA.3808@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>|||It is more about autogenerating a BI solution. You enter in a
multi-dimensional design, i.e. cubes, dimensions, levels, etc. into the
spreadsheet -- click on the "Generate" button and we generated the
supporting relational and Analysis services objects, DTS packages, etc. that
support that design.
It was designed as a supporting tool for quick prototyping and
proff-of-concept systems that have the basic infrastructure and best
practices to then go into production.
The tailoring of existing reports fits into that as a final step for
customization, but we found that by-hand work is probable more important as
that is what the end-users will finally see -- thus it makes sense that most
of your time should be spent in that area. One of our basic tenets was that
infrastructure is something which soaks up too much time when intially
generating BI solutions -- that consultants and architects should spend more
time on design and front-end, end-user facing components -- which is what
the BI Accelerator tool allows them to do.
Dave Wickert [MSFT]
dwickert@.online.microsoft.com
Program Manager
BI SystemsTeam
SQL BI Product Unit (Analysis Services)
--
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Gabriel Cor" <gabriel@.paradigma.com.uy> wrote in message
news:%234Ls1F9yEHA.1396@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Thanks Dave, I thought it was a tool to autogenerate some reports, but
based
> on your response, I understand it is of limited use.
> Thanks again.
> "Dave Wickert [MSFT]" <dwickert@.online.microsoft.com> escribi en el
mensaje
> news:uKcmbmRyEHA.1300@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
reports[vbcol=seagreen]
> other
version[vbcol=seagreen]
with[vbcol=seagreen]
the[vbcol=seagreen]
> rights.
>
is there any other available?That was the only one written. Obviously you can still use other client
tools. The ability of the generator was only to customize existing reports
if you rolled out changes to the names of dimensions, levels, etc. -- other
than that -- any front-end tool can be used. Plus I think that the version
of Proclarity we used is now quite old. I don't know if it will work with
the latest version.
All-in-all, I don't believe that this was a frequently used feature of the
product.
--
Dave Wickert [MSFT]
dwickert@.online.microsoft.com
Program Manager
BI SystemsTeam
SQL BI Product Unit (Analysis Services)
--
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Gabriel Cor" <gabriel@.paradigma.com.uy> wrote in message
news:OLv$t$NyEHA.3808@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> When you install the Accelerator it only has the ProClarity Generator.
> is there any other available?
>|||Thanks Dave, I thought it was a tool to autogenerate some reports, but based
on your response, I understand it is of limited use.
Thanks again.
"Dave Wickert [MSFT]" <dwickert@.online.microsoft.com> escribi en el men
saje
news:uKcmbmRyEHA.1300@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> That was the only one written. Obviously you can still use other client
> tools. The ability of the generator was only to customize existing reports
> if you rolled out changes to the names of dimensions, levels, etc. --
other
> than that -- any front-end tool can be used. Plus I think that the version
> of Proclarity we used is now quite old. I don't know if it will work with
> the latest version.
> All-in-all, I don't believe that this was a frequently used feature of the
> product.
> --
> Dave Wickert [MSFT]
> dwickert@.online.microsoft.com
> Program Manager
> BI SystemsTeam
> SQL BI Product Unit (Analysis Services)
> --
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.
> "Gabriel Cor" <gabriel@.paradigma.com.uy> wrote in message
> news:OLv$t$NyEHA.3808@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>|||It is more about autogenerating a BI solution. You enter in a
multi-dimensional design, i.e. cubes, dimensions, levels, etc. into the
spreadsheet -- click on the "Generate" button and we generated the
supporting relational and Analysis services objects, DTS packages, etc. that
support that design.
It was designed as a supporting tool for quick prototyping and
proff-of-concept systems that have the basic infrastructure and best
practices to then go into production.
The tailoring of existing reports fits into that as a final step for
customization, but we found that by-hand work is probable more important as
that is what the end-users will finally see -- thus it makes sense that most
of your time should be spent in that area. One of our basic tenets was that
infrastructure is something which soaks up too much time when intially
generating BI solutions -- that consultants and architects should spend more
time on design and front-end, end-user facing components -- which is what
the BI Accelerator tool allows them to do.
Dave Wickert [MSFT]
dwickert@.online.microsoft.com
Program Manager
BI SystemsTeam
SQL BI Product Unit (Analysis Services)
--
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Gabriel Cor" <gabriel@.paradigma.com.uy> wrote in message
news:%234Ls1F9yEHA.1396@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Thanks Dave, I thought it was a tool to autogenerate some reports, but
based
> on your response, I understand it is of limited use.
> Thanks again.
> "Dave Wickert [MSFT]" <dwickert@.online.microsoft.com> escribi en el
mensaje
> news:uKcmbmRyEHA.1300@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
reports[vbcol=seagreen]
> other
version[vbcol=seagreen]
with[vbcol=seagreen]
the[vbcol=seagreen]
> rights.
>
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
BI
I already have sql2005sp2 but I don't see the Business Intellegence piece
loaded. Where do I find that just to download and install.
Thanks.>I already have sql2005sp2 but I don't see the Business Intellegence piece
>loaded. Where do I find that just to download and install.
BI in SQL Server 2005 consists of Integration Services, Analysis Services
and Reporting Services. All three parts are on SQL Server DVD; just rerun
the setup and select appropriate components.
--
Dejan Sarka
http://blogs.solidq.com/EN/dsarka/default.aspx|||I would also recommend going to advanced setup and installing samples
MC
"Dejan Sarka" <dejan_please_reply_to_newsgroups.sarka@.avtenta.si> wrote in
message news:ePTKR%23BgIHA.5088@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> >I already have sql2005sp2 but I don't see the Business Intellegence piece
> >loaded. Where do I find that just to download and install.
> BI in SQL Server 2005 consists of Integration Services, Analysis Services
> and Reporting Services. All three parts are on SQL Server DVD; just rerun
> the setup and select appropriate components.
> --
> Dejan Sarka
> http://blogs.solidq.com/EN/dsarka/default.aspx
>
loaded. Where do I find that just to download and install.
Thanks.>I already have sql2005sp2 but I don't see the Business Intellegence piece
>loaded. Where do I find that just to download and install.
BI in SQL Server 2005 consists of Integration Services, Analysis Services
and Reporting Services. All three parts are on SQL Server DVD; just rerun
the setup and select appropriate components.
--
Dejan Sarka
http://blogs.solidq.com/EN/dsarka/default.aspx|||I would also recommend going to advanced setup and installing samples
MC
"Dejan Sarka" <dejan_please_reply_to_newsgroups.sarka@.avtenta.si> wrote in
message news:ePTKR%23BgIHA.5088@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> >I already have sql2005sp2 but I don't see the Business Intellegence piece
> >loaded. Where do I find that just to download and install.
> BI in SQL Server 2005 consists of Integration Services, Analysis Services
> and Reporting Services. All three parts are on SQL Server DVD; just rerun
> the setup and select appropriate components.
> --
> Dejan Sarka
> http://blogs.solidq.com/EN/dsarka/default.aspx
>
Beware installing SQL Server 2005 BOL (May 2007)
Beware installing this update, it can seriously damage your health. I clicked 'install' on my Vista 64 machine and let it trundle off to itself while I was doing some Visual Studio work. It runs for a while and then ... RESTARTs my PC. Without asking and withoug allowing me to save my work. Fresh, new work, gone. Thanks a bunch guys, installing some new docs really merits a restart.
This event is in the system log:
The process msiexec.exe has initiated the restart of computer BLUE on behalf of user NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM for the following reason: No title for this reason could be found
Reason Code: 0x80030002
Shutdown Type: restart
Comment: The Windows Installer initiated a system restart to complete or continue the configuration of 'Microsoft SQL Server 2005 Books Online (English) (May 2007)'.
Thanks very much for bringing this issue to our attention. It is sometimes necessary to reboot after a Books Online update - because Books Online, Visual Studio, and SQL Server Management Studio share components - but the expected behavior is a prompt for reboot rather than an automatic reboot. We are actively investigating the issue, and will re-release the update after we identify a solution, so that other customers will not have a similar experience.
|||Bryan
Thank you far replying to my post -- I am a bit calmer now 
Beware installing SQL Server 2005 BOL (May 2007)
Beware installing this update, it can seriously damage your health. I clicked 'install' on my Vista 64 machine and let it trundle off to itself while I was doing some Visual Studio work. It runs for a while and then ... RESTARTs my PC. Without asking and withoug allowing me to save my work. Fresh, new work, gone. Thanks a bunch guys, installing some new docs really merits a restart.
This event is in the system log:
The process msiexec.exe has initiated the restart of computer BLUE on behalf of user NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM for the following reason: No title for this reason could be found
Reason Code: 0x80030002
Shutdown Type: restart
Comment: The Windows Installer initiated a system restart to complete or continue the configuration of 'Microsoft SQL Server 2005 Books Online (English) (May 2007)'.
Thanks very much for bringing this issue to our attention. It is sometimes necessary to reboot after a Books Online update - because Books Online, Visual Studio, and SQL Server Management Studio share components - but the expected behavior is a prompt for reboot rather than an automatic reboot. We are actively investigating the issue, and will re-release the update after we identify a solution, so that other customers will not have a similar experience.
|||Bryan
Thank you far replying to my post -- I am a bit calmer now
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Best way to install data files?
Warning beginner here.
I posted this in the setup news group but haven't received and replies, so
perphaps someone here can help me.
I am developing a small ASP.NET web application that will use an SQL Server
2000 database. The database will start with 1,000 records in a main table
and about 100,000 records in a related table. How much this database will
grow is unknown.
I have one desktop machine that I am using for testing. It has one hard
drive, and nothing special about it.
Another test machine will pretend to be a production server. It is a real
server. It has the operating (Win Server 2003) system on a RAID 1 (2 drives)
setup. It also has 6 other drives set up as a RAID 5.
Should SQL Server be installed on the RAID 1, and then install the data
files only to the RAID 5? OR Should SQL Server and the data files be
installed on the RAID 5 drive?
The reason I ask is... From prior experience with Access I learned that
although attached data files can be worked with, they often required much
more code.
So... What is the best way to do this? And... why?
TIA.
With the disk setup that server has, install the SQL Server executables on
the RAID 1, and the user database on the RAID 5. You can create the master,
model and msdb system databases on the RAID 1 as well, and the tempdb on
RAID 1 as well, if there is enough space.
Jacco Schalkwijk
SQL Server MVP
"kvr901" <kvr901@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E45F9F10-8B51-4644-A239-9A4F674BBFFD@.microsoft.com...
> Warning beginner here.
> I posted this in the setup news group but haven't received and replies, so
> perphaps someone here can help me.
> I am developing a small ASP.NET web application that will use an SQL
> Server
> 2000 database. The database will start with 1,000 records in a main table
> and about 100,000 records in a related table. How much this database will
> grow is unknown.
> I have one desktop machine that I am using for testing. It has one hard
> drive, and nothing special about it.
> Another test machine will pretend to be a production server. It is a real
> server. It has the operating (Win Server 2003) system on a RAID 1 (2
> drives)
> setup. It also has 6 other drives set up as a RAID 5.
> Should SQL Server be installed on the RAID 1, and then install the data
> files only to the RAID 5? OR Should SQL Server and the data files be
> installed on the RAID 5 drive?
> The reason I ask is... From prior experience with Access I learned that
> although attached data files can be worked with, they often required much
> more code.
> So... What is the best way to do this? And... why?
> TIA.
>
|||Thank you for your reply.
Another question:
**IF** some time in the future I decide to distribute the application
including the distributable version of SQL Server (I believe it is called the
"MSDE") would the installation procedure be the same?
In earlier versions of Access there was a considerable learning curve
(coding) to use attached Access secured "backend" databases, and I am
wondering if I should expect similar hurdles with the distributable version
of SQL Server.
Thank you.
"Jacco Schalkwijk" wrote:
> With the disk setup that server has, install the SQL Server executables on
> the RAID 1, and the user database on the RAID 5. You can create the master,
> model and msdb system databases on the RAID 1 as well, and the tempdb on
> RAID 1 as well, if there is enough space.
> --
> Jacco Schalkwijk
> SQL Server MVP
>
> "kvr901" <kvr901@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:E45F9F10-8B51-4644-A239-9A4F674BBFFD@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||kvr901 wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> Thank you for your reply.
> Another question:
> **IF** some time in the future I decide to distribute the application
> including the distributable version of SQL Server (I believe it is called the
> "MSDE") would the installation procedure be the same?
> In earlier versions of Access there was a considerable learning curve
> (coding) to use attached Access secured "backend" databases, and I am
> wondering if I should expect similar hurdles with the distributable version
> of SQL Server.
> Thank you.
>
> "Jacco Schalkwijk" wrote:
>
I am not sure I understand your concern about attached files. Once a
database is mounted by the server accessing is no different than any
other database on the server, regardless of the location of the actual
physical data file.
As to installing your database on a customers site. The issues around
RAID are more data integrity and performance related. Whatever their
configuration is will be dependent on the number of users and their
pocket books. But the system will work on any platform that supports SQL
Server.
I posted this in the setup news group but haven't received and replies, so
perphaps someone here can help me.
I am developing a small ASP.NET web application that will use an SQL Server
2000 database. The database will start with 1,000 records in a main table
and about 100,000 records in a related table. How much this database will
grow is unknown.
I have one desktop machine that I am using for testing. It has one hard
drive, and nothing special about it.
Another test machine will pretend to be a production server. It is a real
server. It has the operating (Win Server 2003) system on a RAID 1 (2 drives)
setup. It also has 6 other drives set up as a RAID 5.
Should SQL Server be installed on the RAID 1, and then install the data
files only to the RAID 5? OR Should SQL Server and the data files be
installed on the RAID 5 drive?
The reason I ask is... From prior experience with Access I learned that
although attached data files can be worked with, they often required much
more code.
So... What is the best way to do this? And... why?
TIA.
With the disk setup that server has, install the SQL Server executables on
the RAID 1, and the user database on the RAID 5. You can create the master,
model and msdb system databases on the RAID 1 as well, and the tempdb on
RAID 1 as well, if there is enough space.
Jacco Schalkwijk
SQL Server MVP
"kvr901" <kvr901@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E45F9F10-8B51-4644-A239-9A4F674BBFFD@.microsoft.com...
> Warning beginner here.
> I posted this in the setup news group but haven't received and replies, so
> perphaps someone here can help me.
> I am developing a small ASP.NET web application that will use an SQL
> Server
> 2000 database. The database will start with 1,000 records in a main table
> and about 100,000 records in a related table. How much this database will
> grow is unknown.
> I have one desktop machine that I am using for testing. It has one hard
> drive, and nothing special about it.
> Another test machine will pretend to be a production server. It is a real
> server. It has the operating (Win Server 2003) system on a RAID 1 (2
> drives)
> setup. It also has 6 other drives set up as a RAID 5.
> Should SQL Server be installed on the RAID 1, and then install the data
> files only to the RAID 5? OR Should SQL Server and the data files be
> installed on the RAID 5 drive?
> The reason I ask is... From prior experience with Access I learned that
> although attached data files can be worked with, they often required much
> more code.
> So... What is the best way to do this? And... why?
> TIA.
>
|||Thank you for your reply.
Another question:
**IF** some time in the future I decide to distribute the application
including the distributable version of SQL Server (I believe it is called the
"MSDE") would the installation procedure be the same?
In earlier versions of Access there was a considerable learning curve
(coding) to use attached Access secured "backend" databases, and I am
wondering if I should expect similar hurdles with the distributable version
of SQL Server.
Thank you.
"Jacco Schalkwijk" wrote:
> With the disk setup that server has, install the SQL Server executables on
> the RAID 1, and the user database on the RAID 5. You can create the master,
> model and msdb system databases on the RAID 1 as well, and the tempdb on
> RAID 1 as well, if there is enough space.
> --
> Jacco Schalkwijk
> SQL Server MVP
>
> "kvr901" <kvr901@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:E45F9F10-8B51-4644-A239-9A4F674BBFFD@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||kvr901 wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> Thank you for your reply.
> Another question:
> **IF** some time in the future I decide to distribute the application
> including the distributable version of SQL Server (I believe it is called the
> "MSDE") would the installation procedure be the same?
> In earlier versions of Access there was a considerable learning curve
> (coding) to use attached Access secured "backend" databases, and I am
> wondering if I should expect similar hurdles with the distributable version
> of SQL Server.
> Thank you.
>
> "Jacco Schalkwijk" wrote:
>
I am not sure I understand your concern about attached files. Once a
database is mounted by the server accessing is no different than any
other database on the server, regardless of the location of the actual
physical data file.
As to installing your database on a customers site. The issues around
RAID are more data integrity and performance related. Whatever their
configuration is will be dependent on the number of users and their
pocket books. But the system will work on any platform that supports SQL
Server.
Best way to install data files?
Warning beginner here.
I posted this in the setup news group but haven't received and replies, so
perphaps someone here can help me.
I am developing a small ASP.NET web application that will use an SQL Server
2000 database. The database will start with 1,000 records in a main table
and about 100,000 records in a related table. How much this database will
grow is unknown.
I have one desktop machine that I am using for testing. It has one hard
drive, and nothing special about it.
Another test machine will pretend to be a production server. It is a real
server. It has the operating (Win Server 2003) system on a RAID 1 (2 drives
)
setup. It also has 6 other drives set up as a RAID 5.
Should SQL Server be installed on the RAID 1, and then install the data
files only to the RAID 5? OR Should SQL Server and the data files be
installed on the RAID 5 drive?
The reason I ask is... From prior experience with Access I learned that
although attached data files can be worked with, they often required much
more code.
So... What is the best way to do this? And... why?
TIA.With the disk setup that server has, install the SQL Server executables on
the RAID 1, and the user database on the RAID 5. You can create the master,
model and msdb system databases on the RAID 1 as well, and the tempdb on
RAID 1 as well, if there is enough space.
Jacco Schalkwijk
SQL Server MVP
"kvr901" <kvr901@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E45F9F10-8B51-4644-A239-9A4F674BBFFD@.microsoft.com...
> Warning beginner here.
> I posted this in the setup news group but haven't received and replies, so
> perphaps someone here can help me.
> I am developing a small ASP.NET web application that will use an SQL
> Server
> 2000 database. The database will start with 1,000 records in a main table
> and about 100,000 records in a related table. How much this database will
> grow is unknown.
> I have one desktop machine that I am using for testing. It has one hard
> drive, and nothing special about it.
> Another test machine will pretend to be a production server. It is a real
> server. It has the operating (Win Server 2003) system on a RAID 1 (2
> drives)
> setup. It also has 6 other drives set up as a RAID 5.
> Should SQL Server be installed on the RAID 1, and then install the data
> files only to the RAID 5? OR Should SQL Server and the data files be
> installed on the RAID 5 drive?
> The reason I ask is... From prior experience with Access I learned that
> although attached data files can be worked with, they often required much
> more code.
> So... What is the best way to do this? And... why?
> TIA.
>|||Thank you for your reply.
Another question:
**IF** some time in the future I decide to distribute the application
including the distributable version of SQL Server (I believe it is called th
e
"MSDE") would the installation procedure be the same?
In earlier versions of Access there was a considerable learning curve
(coding) to use attached Access secured "backend" databases, and I am
wondering if I should expect similar hurdles with the distributable version
of SQL Server.
Thank you.
"Jacco Schalkwijk" wrote:
> With the disk setup that server has, install the SQL Server executables on
> the RAID 1, and the user database on the RAID 5. You can create the master
,
> model and msdb system databases on the RAID 1 as well, and the tempdb on
> RAID 1 as well, if there is enough space.
> --
> Jacco Schalkwijk
> SQL Server MVP
>
> "kvr901" <kvr901@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:E45F9F10-8B51-4644-A239-9A4F674BBFFD@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||kvr901 wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> Thank you for your reply.
> Another question:
> **IF** some time in the future I decide to distribute the application
> including the distributable version of SQL Server (I believe it is called
the
> "MSDE") would the installation procedure be the same?
> In earlier versions of Access there was a considerable learning curve
> (coding) to use attached Access secured "backend" databases, and I am
> wondering if I should expect similar hurdles with the distributable versio
n
> of SQL Server.
> Thank you.
>
> "Jacco Schalkwijk" wrote:
>
I am not sure I understand your concern about attached files. Once a
database is mounted by the server accessing is no different than any
other database on the server, regardless of the location of the actual
physical data file.
As to installing your database on a customers site. The issues around
RAID are more data integrity and performance related. Whatever their
configuration is will be dependent on the number of users and their
pocket books. But the system will work on any platform that supports SQL
Server.
I posted this in the setup news group but haven't received and replies, so
perphaps someone here can help me.
I am developing a small ASP.NET web application that will use an SQL Server
2000 database. The database will start with 1,000 records in a main table
and about 100,000 records in a related table. How much this database will
grow is unknown.
I have one desktop machine that I am using for testing. It has one hard
drive, and nothing special about it.
Another test machine will pretend to be a production server. It is a real
server. It has the operating (Win Server 2003) system on a RAID 1 (2 drives
)
setup. It also has 6 other drives set up as a RAID 5.
Should SQL Server be installed on the RAID 1, and then install the data
files only to the RAID 5? OR Should SQL Server and the data files be
installed on the RAID 5 drive?
The reason I ask is... From prior experience with Access I learned that
although attached data files can be worked with, they often required much
more code.
So... What is the best way to do this? And... why?
TIA.With the disk setup that server has, install the SQL Server executables on
the RAID 1, and the user database on the RAID 5. You can create the master,
model and msdb system databases on the RAID 1 as well, and the tempdb on
RAID 1 as well, if there is enough space.
Jacco Schalkwijk
SQL Server MVP
"kvr901" <kvr901@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E45F9F10-8B51-4644-A239-9A4F674BBFFD@.microsoft.com...
> Warning beginner here.
> I posted this in the setup news group but haven't received and replies, so
> perphaps someone here can help me.
> I am developing a small ASP.NET web application that will use an SQL
> Server
> 2000 database. The database will start with 1,000 records in a main table
> and about 100,000 records in a related table. How much this database will
> grow is unknown.
> I have one desktop machine that I am using for testing. It has one hard
> drive, and nothing special about it.
> Another test machine will pretend to be a production server. It is a real
> server. It has the operating (Win Server 2003) system on a RAID 1 (2
> drives)
> setup. It also has 6 other drives set up as a RAID 5.
> Should SQL Server be installed on the RAID 1, and then install the data
> files only to the RAID 5? OR Should SQL Server and the data files be
> installed on the RAID 5 drive?
> The reason I ask is... From prior experience with Access I learned that
> although attached data files can be worked with, they often required much
> more code.
> So... What is the best way to do this? And... why?
> TIA.
>|||Thank you for your reply.
Another question:
**IF** some time in the future I decide to distribute the application
including the distributable version of SQL Server (I believe it is called th
e
"MSDE") would the installation procedure be the same?
In earlier versions of Access there was a considerable learning curve
(coding) to use attached Access secured "backend" databases, and I am
wondering if I should expect similar hurdles with the distributable version
of SQL Server.
Thank you.
"Jacco Schalkwijk" wrote:
> With the disk setup that server has, install the SQL Server executables on
> the RAID 1, and the user database on the RAID 5. You can create the master
,
> model and msdb system databases on the RAID 1 as well, and the tempdb on
> RAID 1 as well, if there is enough space.
> --
> Jacco Schalkwijk
> SQL Server MVP
>
> "kvr901" <kvr901@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:E45F9F10-8B51-4644-A239-9A4F674BBFFD@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||kvr901 wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> Thank you for your reply.
> Another question:
> **IF** some time in the future I decide to distribute the application
> including the distributable version of SQL Server (I believe it is called
the
> "MSDE") would the installation procedure be the same?
> In earlier versions of Access there was a considerable learning curve
> (coding) to use attached Access secured "backend" databases, and I am
> wondering if I should expect similar hurdles with the distributable versio
n
> of SQL Server.
> Thank you.
>
> "Jacco Schalkwijk" wrote:
>
I am not sure I understand your concern about attached files. Once a
database is mounted by the server accessing is no different than any
other database on the server, regardless of the location of the actual
physical data file.
As to installing your database on a customers site. The issues around
RAID are more data integrity and performance related. Whatever their
configuration is will be dependent on the number of users and their
pocket books. But the system will work on any platform that supports SQL
Server.
Best way to install a database at a remote site
Greetings,
I am in the process of installing a SQL database at a customer
location. I have determined that there are 3 ways to do this, and I
wanted to know which is the best of the 3.
1 Install From Script.
In this method I create the database and its objects in scripts that
are run via osql utility on the SQL server machine. For loading any
initial data that I need in the database I also run bcp commands.
2 Install from a backup
In this method I created an empty database on the SQL server, and then
restore over it the database from a backup of the database that I need
to deploy. Then I add or re-attach the users for the database. I
perform all of these operations using osql as well.
3 Install by attaching the data files.
In this method I created an empty database on the SQL server, and then
I attach the data files to the database using the sp_attach procedure.
Then I add or re-attach the users for the database. I perform all of
these operations using osql as well.
Although it is no problem for me to use any of these methods, I wanted
to know from you veterans out there what the best practices are. And
also if there are any unseen hazards for each method above. Or if I
am totally off-the-target, and there is another method that is the
preferred way.
Thanks in Advance,
roger"great_googley_moogley" <pow_pow1476@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dda0ee86.0404021123.46fd0e4e@.posting.google.c om...
> Greetings,
> I am in the process of installing a SQL database at a customer
> location. I have determined that there are 3 ways to do this, and I
> wanted to know which is the best of the 3.
> 1 Install From Script.
> In this method I create the database and its objects in scripts that
> are run via osql utility on the SQL server machine. For loading any
> initial data that I need in the database I also run bcp commands.
> 2 Install from a backup
> In this method I created an empty database on the SQL server, and then
> restore over it the database from a backup of the database that I need
> to deploy. Then I add or re-attach the users for the database. I
> perform all of these operations using osql as well.
> 3 Install by attaching the data files.
> In this method I created an empty database on the SQL server, and then
> I attach the data files to the database using the sp_attach procedure.
> Then I add or re-attach the users for the database. I perform all of
> these operations using osql as well.
> Although it is no problem for me to use any of these methods, I wanted
> to know from you veterans out there what the best practices are. And
> also if there are any unseen hazards for each method above. Or if I
> am totally off-the-target, and there is another method that is the
> preferred way.
> Thanks in Advance,
> roger
All three options can give the same results, as you say, but there are some
differences in functionality.
Option 1 is good if you need to load different data for different clients -
with other methods you'd need a copy of the database for every possible data
set you need to provide, but with scripts the object scripts are the same,
and only the data (BCP) files change. Or from the database object
perspective, you can provide different subsets and/or versions of stored
procedures etc. to different clients. In addition, this option doesn't
require you to have any access to the filesystem, which can be useful in
environments with limited bandwidth or tight security requirements. The
downside - if you consider it one - is that you need to manage the scripts,
but presumably you're using some sort of source control and deployment
scripting already.
Options 2 and 3 are essentially the same, in that you're creating the
database from files which you need to copy to a filesystem first. The major
difference is that you can restore from a network drive, but you can't
attach a database on a network drive (usually). So if you have no access to
the server's local filesystem, but you do have access to a network share
accessible to the server, you could only use the restore option. The big
advantage of these options is obviously simplicity..
Personally, I would consider option 1 the best in the sense that it's the
most flexible - you have complete control over which objects and data are
loaded, and the layout of the files and filegroups can be decided together
with the DBA before you create the database. But if you're always installing
identical databases in very similar environments (eg. inside a large
company), then the simplicity of one of the other options is likely to be
better for you - less time and effort required.
Simon|||On Fri, 2 Apr 2004 22:07:49 +0200, Simon Hayes <sql@.hayes.ch> wrote:
> "great_googley_moogley" <pow_pow1476@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:dda0ee86.0404021123.46fd0e4e@.posting.google.c om...
>> Greetings,
>>
>> I am in the process of installing a SQL database at a customer
>> location. I have determined that there are 3 ways to do this, and I
>> wanted to know which is the best of the 3.
>>
>> 1 Install From Script.
>> In this method I create the database and its objects in scripts that
>> are run via osql utility on the SQL server machine. For loading any
>> initial data that I need in the database I also run bcp commands.
>>
>> 2 Install from a backup
>> In this method I created an empty database on the SQL server, and then
>> restore over it the database from a backup of the database that I need
>> to deploy. Then I add or re-attach the users for the database. I
>> perform all of these operations using osql as well.
>>
>> 3 Install by attaching the data files.
>> In this method I created an empty database on the SQL server, and then
>> I attach the data files to the database using the sp_attach procedure.
>> Then I add or re-attach the users for the database. I perform all of
>> these operations using osql as well.
>>
>> Although it is no problem for me to use any of these methods, I wanted
>> to know from you veterans out there what the best practices are. And
>> also if there are any unseen hazards for each method above. Or if I
>> am totally off-the-target, and there is another method that is the
>> preferred way.
>>
>> Thanks in Advance,
>> roger
> All three options can give the same results, as you say, but there are
> some
> differences in functionality.
> Option 1 is good if you need to load different data for different
> clients -
> with other methods you'd need a copy of the database for every possible
> data
> set you need to provide, but with scripts the object scripts are the
> same,
> and only the data (BCP) files change. Or from the database object
> perspective, you can provide different subsets and/or versions of stored
> procedures etc. to different clients. In addition, this option doesn't
> require you to have any access to the filesystem, which can be useful in
> environments with limited bandwidth or tight security requirements. The
> downside - if you consider it one - is that you need to manage the
> scripts,
> but presumably you're using some sort of source control and deployment
> scripting already.
> Options 2 and 3 are essentially the same, in that you're creating the
> database from files which you need to copy to a filesystem first. The
> major
> difference is that you can restore from a network drive, but you can't
> attach a database on a network drive (usually). So if you have no access
> to
> the server's local filesystem, but you do have access to a network share
> accessible to the server, you could only use the restore option. The big
> advantage of these options is obviously simplicity..
> Personally, I would consider option 1 the best in the sense that it's the
> most flexible - you have complete control over which objects and data are
> loaded, and the layout of the files and filegroups can be decided
> together
> with the DBA before you create the database. But if you're always
> installing
> identical databases in very similar environments (eg. inside a large
> company), then the simplicity of one of the other options is likely to be
> better for you - less time and effort required.
> Simon
I am using option 1 too. But there is one thing I cannot do with it. This
thing is installing custom dll implementing extended stored procedure into
remote computer. Do you know any solution for this problem?
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/|||great_googley_moogley (pow_pow1476@.yahoo.com) writes:
> 1 Install From Script.
> In this method I create the database and its objects in scripts that
> are run via osql utility on the SQL server machine. For loading any
> initial data that I need in the database I also run bcp commands.
Be careful to use the -I option to enable the option QUOTED_IDENTIFIERS.
This is paricularly important if you are using indexed views.
> 2 Install from a backup
> In this method I created an empty database on the SQL server, and then
> restore over it the database from a backup of the database that I need
> to deploy. Then I add or re-attach the users for the database. I
> perform all of these operations using osql as well.
> 3 Install by attaching the data files.
> In this method I created an empty database on the SQL server, and then
> I attach the data files to the database using the sp_attach procedure.
> Then I add or re-attach the users for the database. I perform all of
> these operations using osql as well.
This far, all methods may appear to be the same. But then comes the next
step: you need to install fixes, updates and changes. Suddenly option
1 is the only one possible.
In our shop we ship install kits both for installation of new databases,
and upgrades. We have a toolset that includes a tool building an empty
database from SourceSafe. You can do that do step, so that you first
extract the files, and then build from the disk at the remote script.
The toolset also includes a tool that can build update scripts with
changed files, and the same applies to them that you can run in two steps.
If you're curious, it's available at http://www.abaris.se/abaperls/ as
freeware.
--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, sommar@.algonet.se
Books Online for SQL Server SP3 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techin.../2000/books.asp|||Igor Solodovnikov (igor@.helpco.kiev) writes:
> I am using option 1 too. But there is one thing I cannot do with it. This
> thing is installing custom dll implementing extended stored procedure into
> remote computer. Do you know any solution for this problem?
See my reply for the original poster, about the toolset we use.
When our installation staff build new databases or run update scripts at
customer sites, they rarely run them directly. They package everything
in Windows Installer kits. I don't know too much about that part of the
process, but I guess this is the way to package it. Of course, learning
Wise and all that may be too much - packaing in a BAT file could work too.
--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, sommar@.algonet.se
Books Online for SQL Server SP3 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techin.../2000/books.asp|||On Fri, 2 Apr 2004 22:15:15 +0000 (UTC), Erland Sommarskog
<sommar@.algonet.se> wrote:
> Igor Solodovnikov (igor@.helpco.kiev) writes:
>> I am using option 1 too. But there is one thing I cannot do with it.
>> This
>> thing is installing custom dll implementing extended stored procedure
>> into
>> remote computer. Do you know any solution for this problem?
> See my reply for the original poster, about the toolset we use.
> When our installation staff build new databases or run update scripts at
> customer sites, they rarely run them directly. They package everything
> in Windows Installer kits. I don't know too much about that part of the
> process, but I guess this is the way to package it. Of course, learning
> Wise and all that may be too much - packaing in a BAT file could work
> too.
Thank you for answer. I must say that I also using Wise and Windows
Installer. My installer copies all required files to local computer and
then executes another utility (written by me) which can install new
instance of msde or create database through SQL script on existing
instance of SQL server/msde. When existing instance is on local computer I
can simply copy dll into sql server directory and my extended stored proc
will work. But I cant do that when existing instance is on another
computer.
Using SQL script to create database is very convenient but it has this
problem which complicates creating extended stored procs.
To solve this problem I must create one more Windows Installer package and
run it on remote computer. This is ugly.
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)