@@FETCH_STATUS

Hi there..
I have this problem: I run my stored proc alot of times for testing, but one
time it want work.
It just give me back this message: The command(s) completed successfully.
I checked the @.@.FETCH_STATUS and it became -1, why is that when it worked
before..
Can any body help me'
THX@.@.FETCH_STATUS is for cursors, you want to use @.@.ERROR instead if it's 0
then there is no error
http://sqlservercode.blogspot.com/
"Hussain Al-Mousawi" <hal_mousawi@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uv6dVVTRGHA.2532@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Hi there..
> I have this problem: I run my stored proc alot of times for testing, but
> one time it want work.
> It just give me back this message: The command(s) completed successfully.
> I checked the @.@.FETCH_STATUS and it became -1, why is that when it worked
> before..
> Can any body help me'
> THX
>

@@Error help

Im not really understanding how @.@.Error works. If I run this code:
exec sp_rename 'Table3','Table1'
select @.@.Error
in a DB with no Table3, I get the error message:
Server: Msg 15225, Level 11, State 1, Procedure sp_rename, Line 273
No item by the name of 'Table3' could be found in the current database
'ZipCode', given that @.itemtype was input as '(null)'.
but @.@.Error is still 0. If Im getting an error message, why is @.@.Error 0?
TIA,
ChrisR
run this for fun
create table blah (id int)
declare @.id int
EXEC @.id =sp_rename 'blah', 'blah2'
select @.id
--@.id = 0
--run again
declare @.id int
EXEC @.id =sp_rename 'blah', 'blah2'
select @.id
--@.id = 1
So it looks like it returns 0 when there is no error
http://sqlservercode.blogspot.com/
|||I dont get it... I need to make it fail twice in order to be used?
TIA,
ChrisR
"SQL" wrote:

> run this for fun
> create table blah (id int)
> declare @.id int
> EXEC @.id =sp_rename 'blah', 'blah2'
> select @.id
> --@.id = 0
> --run again
> declare @.id int
> EXEC @.id =sp_rename 'blah', 'blah2'
> select @.id
> --@.id = 1
>
> So it looks like it returns 0 when there is no error
> http://sqlservercode.blogspot.com/
>
|||No
I was just giving you the code so that you could test what the proc
returns
If you run this, the @.id should be 1 (or better not 0)
declare @.id int
exec sp_rename 'Table3','Table1'
select @.id
|||Certain types of errors are not trapped by @.@.ERROR, or the new TRY...CATCH
in SQL Server 2005. Basically, things like syntax errors or invalid object
references can prevent the batch from being successfully compiled and
executed. @.@.ERROR and TRY...CATCH only get invoked if the batch was
successfully compiled and executed. So errors like a WHERE clause that
references and invalid key value or something that does a divide by zero
will generate errors during the execution of the batch that can be processed
by @.@.ERROR or TRY...CATCH. A typo like writing SEELCT instead of SELECT
prevents the batch from being compiled, so the Database Engine simply
returns the syntax error to the calling application.
Alan Brewer [MSFT]
Content Architect, SQL Server Documentation Team
SQL Server Developer Center: http://msdn.microsoft.com/sql
SQL Server TechCenter: http://technet.microsoft.com/sql/
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
|||See http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms190193.aspx
for more information on how to properly use @.@.ERROR.
/sym.
symbiote
Posted via http://www.codecomments.com

@@Error help

Im not really understanding how @.@.Error works. If I run this code:
exec sp_rename 'Table3','Table1'
select @.@.Error
in a DB with no Table3, I get the error message:
Server: Msg 15225, Level 11, State 1, Procedure sp_rename, Line 273
No item by the name of 'Table3' could be found in the current database
'ZipCode', given that @.itemtype was input as '(null)'.
but @.@.Error is still 0. If Im getting an error message, why is @.@.Error 0?
--
TIA,
ChrisRrun this for fun
create table blah (id int)
declare @.id int
EXEC @.id =sp_rename 'blah', 'blah2'
select @.id
--@.id = 0
--run again
declare @.id int
EXEC @.id =sp_rename 'blah', 'blah2'
select @.id
--@.id = 1
So it looks like it returns 0 when there is no error
http://sqlservercode.blogspot.com/|||I dont get it... I need to make it fail twice in order to be used?
--
TIA,
ChrisR
"SQL" wrote:
> run this for fun
> create table blah (id int)
> declare @.id int
> EXEC @.id =sp_rename 'blah', 'blah2'
> select @.id
> --@.id = 0
> --run again
> declare @.id int
> EXEC @.id =sp_rename 'blah', 'blah2'
> select @.id
> --@.id = 1
>
> So it looks like it returns 0 when there is no error
> http://sqlservercode.blogspot.com/
>|||No
I was just giving you the code so that you could test what the proc
returns
If you run this, the @.id should be 1 (or better not 0)
declare @.id int
exec sp_rename 'Table3','Table1'
select @.id|||Certain types of errors are not trapped by @.@.ERROR, or the new TRY...CATCH
in SQL Server 2005. Basically, things like syntax errors or invalid object
references can prevent the batch from being successfully compiled and
executed. @.@.ERROR and TRY...CATCH only get invoked if the batch was
successfully compiled and executed. So errors like a WHERE clause that
references and invalid key value or something that does a divide by zero
will generate errors during the execution of the batch that can be processed
by @.@.ERROR or TRY...CATCH. A typo like writing SEELCT instead of SELECT
prevents the batch from being compiled, so the Database Engine simply
returns the syntax error to the calling application.
--
Alan Brewer [MSFT]
Content Architect, SQL Server Documentation Team
SQL Server Developer Center: http://msdn.microsoft.com/sql
SQL Server TechCenter: http://technet.microsoft.com/sql/
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.|||See [url]http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms190193.aspx[/url]
for more information on how to properly use @.@.ERROR.
/sym.
symbiote
---
Posted via http://www.codecomments.com
---sql

@@Error help

Im not really understanding how @.@.Error works. If I run this code:
exec sp_rename 'Table3','Table1'
select @.@.Error
in a DB with no Table3, I get the error message:
Server: Msg 15225, Level 11, State 1, Procedure sp_rename, Line 273
No item by the name of 'Table3' could be found in the current database
'ZipCode', given that @.itemtype was input as '(null)'.
but @.@.Error is still 0. If Im getting an error message, why is @.@.Error 0?
TIA,
ChrisRrun this for fun
create table blah (id int)
declare @.id int
EXEC @.id =sp_rename 'blah', 'blah2'
select @.id
--@.id = 0
--run again
declare @.id int
EXEC @.id =sp_rename 'blah', 'blah2'
select @.id
--@.id = 1
So it looks like it returns 0 when there is no error
http://sqlservercode.blogspot.com/|||I dont get it... I need to make it fail twice in order to be used?
--
TIA,
ChrisR
"SQL" wrote:

> run this for fun
> create table blah (id int)
> declare @.id int
> EXEC @.id =sp_rename 'blah', 'blah2'
> select @.id
> --@.id = 0
> --run again
> declare @.id int
> EXEC @.id =sp_rename 'blah', 'blah2'
> select @.id
> --@.id = 1
>
> So it looks like it returns 0 when there is no error
> http://sqlservercode.blogspot.com/
>|||No
I was just giving you the code so that you could test what the proc
returns
If you run this, the @.id should be 1 (or better not 0)
declare @.id int
exec sp_rename 'Table3','Table1'
select @.id|||Certain types of errors are not trapped by @.@.ERROR, or the new TRY...CATCH
in SQL Server 2005. Basically, things like syntax errors or invalid object
references can prevent the batch from being successfully compiled and
executed. @.@.ERROR and TRY...CATCH only get invoked if the batch was
successfully compiled and executed. So errors like a WHERE clause that
references and invalid key value or something that does a divide by zero
will generate errors during the execution of the batch that can be processed
by @.@.ERROR or TRY...CATCH. A typo like writing SEELCT instead of SELECT
prevents the batch from being compiled, so the Database Engine simply
returns the syntax error to the calling application.
Alan Brewer [MSFT]
Content Architect, SQL Server Documentation Team
SQL Server Developer Center: http://msdn.microsoft.com/sql
SQL Server TechCenter: http://technet.microsoft.com/sql/
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.|||See [url]http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms190193.aspx[/url
]
for more information on how to properly use @.@.ERROR.
/sym.
symbiote
---
Posted via http://www.codecomments.com
---

@@connections

I currently get 47 million connections back when I run 'select @.@.connections'. At what point does this become a problem with memory? And, how can I close connections from the backend? I know stopping and restarting will do it but that is not always possible. Any ideas? Thank You

You're not interpreting this number correctly. @.@.connections returns the total number of connections that have been made or attempted since SQL Server was last started. It has no relation whatsoever to the number of open or active connections.

To see or count open connections, execute sp_who or sp_who2.

|||Thanks for clearing that up. The mem usage for our sqlserver is at 3 gig, is that normal?sql

VERSION MDAC FOR SQL server 6.5 on WIN NT 4.0

WHICH VERSION OF MDAC SHOULD I INSTLL ON WINDOWS NT 4.0
SERVER WTIH SQL 6.5 SERVER SP 5
to connect or transact or run procdure with SQL server
2000 from SQL 6.5
server
ThanksIf you need to connect to a named instance on the SQL Server 2000 machine
with creating an alias, the lowest level of MDAC should be MDAC 2.6.
However, if you want to use all the functionality of the SQL Server itself
you should install the level of MDAC that is installed on the SQL Server
2000 machine.
Rand
This posting is provided "as is" with no warranties and confers no rights.sql

only those jobs that run in the databases to which they have access

In the book <Inside SQL Server 2005 Tools>,

there is a paragraph as below:

=====================

Warning

In an ideal world, members of SQLAgentReaderRole and SQLAgentOperatorRole would be restricted to viewing and acting upon only those jobs that run in the databases to which they have access. Unfortunately, the SQL Server Agent security model does not allow this finer-granularity filtering. Therefore, when you make a user a member of these roles you must realize the implied security consequences to avoid unintentional information disclosure.

=====================

What is meaning of the sentence in red above?

Members of these database roles can view and execute jobs that they own, and create job steps that run as an existing proxy account, if you use.

Hello,

the examples from MSDN like the following, don't run on my computer. A System.Data.SqlServer don't exist. No SQLCommand Type, no SQLContext.GetCommand Method and so on...

Ist there something wrong with my installation or how do i execute commands
inside a CLR SQL Server Trigger?

Regards,
Markus
Imports System
Imports System.Data
Imports System.Data.Sql
Imports System.Data.SqlServer
Imports System.Data.SqlTypes
Imports System.Text.RegularExpressions

Public Class EmailTrigger

Public Shared Sub EmailAudit()
Dim triggContext As SqlTriggerContext = _
SqlContext.GetTriggerContext()
Dim userName As String
If triggContext.TriggerAction = TriggerAction.Insert Then
Dim sqlComm As SqlCommand = SqlContext.GetCommand()
Dim sqlP As SqlPipe = SqlContext.GetPipe()
sqlComm.CommandText = "SELECT Username from INSERTED"
Dim dataRecord As Object = sqlComm.ExecuteScalar
userName = dataRecord.ToString
If IsValidEMailAddress(userName) Then
sqlComm.CommandText = "INSERT Emails " & _
"VALUES ('" & userName & "')"
sqlP.Send(sqlComm.CommandText)
sqlP.Execute(sqlComm)
End If
End If
End Sub

Public Shared Function IsValidEMailAddress(ByVal email As String) _
As Boolean
Return Regex.IsMatch(email, _
"^([\w-]+\.)*?[\w-]+@.[\w-]+\.([\w-]+\.)*?[\w]+$")
End Function

End Class

It seems that something like this would work:

Dim pipe As SqlPipe = SqlContext.Pipe
Dim sqlcommand As New System.Data.SqlClient.SqlCommand

sqlcommand.CommandText = _
"Update Haushaltshilfe set Wochentag = 'Montag' where Wochentag = 'Dienstag'"
pipe.ExecuteAndSend(sqlcommand)

sqlcommand.CommandText = "Select * from inserted"
pipe.ExecuteAndSend(sqlcommand)

But how do i get the results?

Is it really so that the examples from msdn with System.Data.SQLServer don't work?|||The reason why it's not working for you is because the example you're trying is old, and they have now merged the old SqlServer provider for System.Data.SqlServer with the client side provider and created a new namespace: Microsoft.SqlServer.Server. In addition some of the methods on the SqlContext object have been replaced with properties.
Replace the Import System.Data.SqlServer with Import Microsoft.SqlServer.Server and do an extra import for System.Data.SqlClient. Then in the code where you say GetTriggerContext, use the propery TriggerContext instead. you also need to create a connection: Dim sqlConn as SqlConnection = new SqlConnection("Context Connection=true") and the open the connection. From the connection you can create the command: sqlConn.CreateCommand. Instead of GetPipe you use the Pipe property and finally you call ExecuteAndSend on the Pipe with your command as param.
Niels

|||Thank you very much Niels!
Are there web-pages where the latest changes in VS 2005 and SQL Server are documented?|||You can check Bob B's blog and mine. We're trying keep track of what's changing.

::Conection

Hi All,
I Have a SQL Server run in a computer that run Windows 2003 and have one
static ip.
This computer also have a NAT with basic firewall to distribute internet.
In my home I have one computer withWindows XP that I want acess SQL.
When I disable basic firewall, I can conect, but if firewall is on I can't.
My question: what port I need open to connect in my sql?
I know that I need use SQL account.
Thanks
Default installations of SQL Server monitor TCP port 1433, but the port
doesn't need to be 1433. A named instance of SQL Server 2000 will listen a
dynamic port by default. This port should be changed to a fixed port prior
to configuring the firewall. You can refer to this article for more
information:
287932 INF: TCP Ports Needed for Communication to SQL Server Through a
Firewall
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=287932
HTH!
Sincerely,
William Wang
Microsoft Online Partner Support
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
sql

::Conection

Hi All,
I Have a SQL Server run in a computer that run Windows 2003 and have one
static ip.
This computer also have a NAT with basic firewall to distribute internet.
In my home I have one computer withWindows XP that I want acess SQL.
When I disable basic firewall, I can conect, but if firewall is on I can't.
My question: what port I need open to connect in my sql?
I know that I need use SQL account.
ThanksDefault installations of SQL Server monitor TCP port 1433, but the port
doesn't need to be 1433. A named instance of SQL Server 2000 will listen a
dynamic port by default. This port should be changed to a fixed port prior
to configuring the firewall. You can refer to this article for more
information:
287932 INF: TCP Ports Needed for Communication to SQL Server Through a
Firewall
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=287932
HTH!
Sincerely,
William Wang
Microsoft Online Partner Support
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

::Conection

Hi All,
I Have a SQL Server run in a computer that run Windows 2003 and have one
static ip.
This computer also have a NAT with basic firewall to distribute internet.
In my home I have one computer withWindows XP that I want acess SQL.
When I disable basic firewall, I can conect, but if firewall is on I can't.
My question: what port I need open to connect in my sql?
I know that I need use SQL account.
ThanksDefault installations of SQL Server monitor TCP port 1433, but the port
doesn't need to be 1433. A named instance of SQL Server 2000 will listen a
dynamic port by default. This port should be changed to a fixed port prior
to configuring the firewall. You can refer to this article for more
information:
287932 INF: TCP Ports Needed for Communication to SQL Server Through a
Firewall
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=287932
HTH!
Sincerely,
William Wang
Microsoft Online Partner Support
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

/3GB SQL Server 2000

Hi,
I run SQL Server 2000 on Windows 2000 Server (4 GB memory) with 2
instances.
As I understand it, one instance can use a maximum of 2 GB of memory. If I
would use the /3GB switch in this environment, would that help me or is it
that this switch can only be used with the Advanced or Enterprise Edition
of SQL Server 2000 /w2K?
TIA
WombelYou need to run Windows 2000 Advanced Server or Data Center editions in
order to use the /3GB switch. See
http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...750&Product=sql
for more information.
Assuming you want both instances to use an equal amount of memory, you
wouldn't want to use /3GB anyway with only 4GB physical RAM. It's important
to have enough physical RAM to support the SQL Server memory requirements of
all instances running on the server.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Thomas Wrobel" <twrobel@.waslos.de> wrote in message
news:Xns94C3739FDCBEBtwrobelwaslosde@.207
.46.248.16...
> Hi,
> I run SQL Server 2000 on Windows 2000 Server (4 GB memory) with 2
> instances.
> As I understand it, one instance can use a maximum of 2 GB of memory. If I
> would use the /3GB switch in this environment, would that help me or is it
> that this switch can only be used with the Advanced or Enterprise Edition
> of SQL Server 2000 /w2K?
> TIA
> Wombel|||"Dan Guzman" <danguzman@.nospam-earthlink.net> wrote in
news:OrPWjb9GEHA.684@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl:

> You need to run Windows 2000 Advanced Server or Data Center editions
> in order to use the /3GB switch. See
> http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...274750&Product=
> sql for more information.
> Assuming you want both instances to use an equal amount of memory, you
> wouldn't want to use /3GB anyway with only 4GB physical RAM. It's
> important to have enough physical RAM to support the SQL Server memory
> requirements of all instances running on the server.
>
Dan,
thanks for your reply. Do you know if there is any difference when I user
Windows 2003 Server Standard?
TIA
Thomas|||> thanks for your reply. Do you know if there is any difference when I user
> Windows 2003 Server Standard?
As stated in MSKB 274750, you can use the /3GB boot.ini switch with Windows
2000 Server (Standard Edition).
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Thomas Wrobel" <twrobel@.waslos.de> wrote in message
news:Xns94C39FB4C54Etwrobelwaslosde@.207.46.248.16...
> "Dan Guzman" <danguzman@.nospam-earthlink.net> wrote in
> news:OrPWjb9GEHA.684@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl:
>
> Dan,
> thanks for your reply. Do you know if there is any difference when I user
> Windows 2003 Server Standard?
> TIA
> Thomassql

.sql scripts NEBIE ALERT

I am new to SQL 2005
I want to know how to run a .sql file someone gave me to create a new
database. Where is the command or gui to do this.
Thanks
NEBIEHi,
From SQL Server 2005 program groups; open SQL Server Management Studio..
Connect to SQL Server..Open a Query window...
Oprn the .SQL file and press execute or press F5 to execute the SQL File.
Otherwise from command prompt using SQLCMD you could use -ic:\file.SQL to
execute the SQL file
Thanks
Hari
"frogman7" <frogman7@.googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:1160363466.452205.98690@.b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>I am new to SQL 2005
> I want to know how to run a .sql file someone gave me to create a new
> database. Where is the command or gui to do this.
>
> Thanks
> NEBIE
>

.sql scripts NEBIE ALERT

I am new to SQL 2005
I want to know how to run a .sql file someone gave me to create a new
database. Where is the command or gui to do this.
Thanks
NEBIEHi,
From SQL Server 2005 program groups; open SQL Server Management Studio..
Connect to SQL Server..Open a Query window...
Oprn the .SQL file and press execute or press F5 to execute the SQL File.
Otherwise from command prompt using SQLCMD you could use -ic:\file.SQL to
execute the SQL file
Thanks
Hari
"frogman7" <frogman7@.googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:1160363466.452205.98690@.b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>I am new to SQL 2005
> I want to know how to run a .sql file someone gave me to create a new
> database. Where is the command or gui to do this.
>
> Thanks
> NEBIE
>|||i also found if you double click the file it will request the database
password.

.sql scripts NEBIE ALERT

I am new to SQL 2005
I want to know how to run a .sql file someone gave me to create a new
database. Where is the command or gui to do this.
Thanks
NEBIE
Hi,
From SQL Server 2005 program groups; open SQL Server Management Studio..
Connect to SQL Server..Open a Query window...
Oprn the .SQL file and press execute or press F5 to execute the SQL File.
Otherwise from command prompt using SQLCMD you could use -ic:\file.SQL to
execute the SQL file
Thanks
Hari
"frogman7" <frogman7@.googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:1160363466.452205.98690@.b28g2000cwb.googlegro ups.com...
>I am new to SQL 2005
> I want to know how to run a .sql file someone gave me to create a new
> database. Where is the command or gui to do this.
>
> Thanks
> NEBIE
>

.SQL file

I have install.sql, that i want to run...so I can add to my existing asp.net 2.0 project. How do can I add the table to my database using that file (contents below)? Database resides in SQL Server 2000.

create table[dbo].[CustomProfile](

[UserID] [uniqueidentifier]not null,

[FirstName] [nvarchar](25)not null,

[LastName] [nvarchar](25)not null,

[Address1] [nvarchar](75)not null,

[Address2] [nvarchar](75)null,

[City] [nvarchar](50)not null,

[State] [nvarchar](2)not null,

[Zip] [nvarchar](10)not null,

[Phone] [nvarchar](12)null,

[ProfileVersion] [int]not null,

[LastUpdatedDate] [datetime]not null

)on[PRIMARY]

alter table[dbo].[CustomProfile]add

constraint[PK_CustomProfile_UserProfile]primary key clustered

(

[UserID]

)with(IGNORE_DUP_KEY =OFF)on[PRIMARY]

Easiest way is to run it in the Query Analyzer. Open up SQL management tools, connect to the sevrver/db of your choice. Then you start the Query Analyzer (or new Query if it's 2005) from a menu. There you can paste the code and just click the green arrow to execute it. Voila!

|||

Thanks for the suggestion. However, I got the following error listed below. Any idea?

Msg 170, Level 15, State 1, Line 19

Line 19: Incorrect syntax near '('.

|||

I removed 'with(IGNORE_DUP_KEY =OFF)on[PRIMARY]'....and it worked. Is this not an SQL option?

Thanks again for your help.

|||

johram:

Easiest way is to run it in the Query Analyzer. Open up SQL management tools, connect to the sevrver/db of your choice. Then you start the Query Analyzer (or new Query if it's 2005) from a menu. There you can paste the code and just click the green arrow to execute it. Voila!

In a perfect world, perhaps...

The OP is saying he needs to create the table on SQL 2000. The script wil fail at the end ".. WITH (IGNORE_DUP_KEY).. " part. This is 2005 syntax. I believe the script was generated from Management Studio connected to 2000 box?

.Net Framework 2.0 and Reporting Services

When I installed 2.0 on the Web Server Reporting Services stopped working
properly. Is it possible to run them side by side. The server also has 1.1
running.
ThanksOn Fri, 25 Mar 2005 04:59:02 -0800, DJONES
<DJONES@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>When I installed 2.0 on the Web Server Reporting Services stopped working
>properly. Is it possible to run them side by side. The server also has 1.1
>running.
>Thanks
In theory,
When .NET Framework 2.0 reaches RTM it is supposed to be possible to
run them side by side without problem.
In practice, in the short term, there are assorted issues.
Why do you have .NET Framework 2.0 on your Web server? Which build?
Andrew Watt
MVP - InfoPath|||Thanks for the reply...
I'm working on the Proof of Concept phase of a project using 2.0. I wonder
if it would work with VS loaded on the Web Server instead...
"Andrew Watt [MVP - InfoPath]" wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 04:59:02 -0800, DJONES
> <DJONES@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
> >When I installed 2.0 on the Web Server Reporting Services stopped working
> >properly. Is it possible to run them side by side. The server also has 1.1
> >running.
> >
> >Thanks
> In theory,
> When .NET Framework 2.0 reaches RTM it is supposed to be possible to
> run them side by side without problem.
> In practice, in the short term, there are assorted issues.
> Why do you have .NET Framework 2.0 on your Web server? Which build?
> Andrew Watt
> MVP - InfoPath
>|||I would suggest that the best thing is to ask your question (with a
more detailed description of your situation) on the Reporting Services
2005 NG. It's called microsoft.private.sqlserver2005.reportingsvcs.
Despite its name it's public.
You will see me there too. But I like to leave the pain of version
incompatibilities to others - so at this stage I only install one
version of SQL Server 2005 on a machine. Some of the others on that
group may have a solution to your situation though.
I would expect Visual Studio 2005 to cause you the same problem -
since it too will install .NET Framework 2.0.
Andrew Watt
MVP - InfoPath
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 07:15:03 -0800, DJONES
<DJONES@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>Thanks for the reply...
>I'm working on the Proof of Concept phase of a project using 2.0. I wonder
>if it would work with VS loaded on the Web Server instead...
>"Andrew Watt [MVP - InfoPath]" wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 04:59:02 -0800, DJONES
>> <DJONES@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>> >When I installed 2.0 on the Web Server Reporting Services stopped working
>> >properly. Is it possible to run them side by side. The server also has 1.1
>> >running.
>> >
>> >Thanks
>> In theory,
>> When .NET Framework 2.0 reaches RTM it is supposed to be possible to
>> run them side by side without problem.
>> In practice, in the short term, there are assorted issues.
>> Why do you have .NET Framework 2.0 on your Web server? Which build?
>> Andrew Watt
>> MVP - InfoPath|||We have similar situation - fix was two-fold, all done in IIS.
First, create an applicaton pool specifically for the two reporting
services applications, then set the properties of each application to
use that pool. Applications using different frameworks cannot "swim in
the same pool".
Second, ensure that the reporting services applications are configured
to use the 1.1 framework and not the 2.0 - the tedious way is to check
(and change, if needed) every mapping through the IIS properties pages.
The faster way is to use the command line applications to do this
configuration - but I think injudicious use of the command line can
remap all the applications at once - which could be what happened when
you installed the 2.0 framework.|||The command line tool aspnet_regiis has options to check the current script
mappings and to install certain versions for a particular virtual root only
rather than all virtual roots:
aspnet_regiis -lk
aspnet_regiis -s <path>
Make sure to run the aspnet_regiis.exe from the correct version directory
under \Windows\Microsoft.Net\Framework
-- Robert
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Parker" <psmith@.iquest.net> wrote in message
news:1112015101.606172.149480@.g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> We have similar situation - fix was two-fold, all done in IIS.
> First, create an applicaton pool specifically for the two reporting
> services applications, then set the properties of each application to
> use that pool. Applications using different frameworks cannot "swim in
> the same pool".
> Second, ensure that the reporting services applications are configured
> to use the 1.1 framework and not the 2.0 - the tedious way is to check
> (and change, if needed) every mapping through the IIS properties pages.
> The faster way is to use the command line applications to do this
> configuration - but I think injudicious use of the command line can
> remap all the applications at once - which could be what happened when
> you installed the 2.0 framework.
>

.NET 1.1 running on SQL Server 2005

Hi, I am migrating my client's site from SQL 2k to 2005. The site was built on .NET 1.1

In order to run SQL 2005, do we need to upgrade to .NET 2.0 in order to run the site?

If we do need to upgrade to .net 2.0, is there any way to get around the problem and run it on .NET 1.1. This is because we have a lot of 3rd party componenet which only support .NET 1.1

Thanks in advance.

Paul

No.|||You would need the 2.0 framework for sure. I think the SQL 2005 installation wizard would detect and install the framework for you.You dont need to upgrade your application to VS 2005, however.

.net 1.1 and SQL Server 2005

Hi,

I run .net 1.1, VS2003 with SQL Server Enterprise Manager v 8.0 on my home XP Pro machine.

I have recently purchased some hosting with SQL Server 2005 capabilities. I was in a real rush but I should have checked I suppose.

I would love to be able to use my Enterprise Manager but obviously that wont work as it isnt compatible with 2005. It would be preferable not to have to use the web based admin and I have been told I have to install Microsoft SQL Server Management Studio Express, which requires .net 2.0 to be installed. It seems a bit of a mess really.

Can anyone enlighten me as to what options I have?

Thanks,

Pete

You're already looking at the best option, but incorrectly assuming it's a mess. It isn't. The two framework versions are independent and play fine together, and just doing the default installs should give you wahat you need in not much more time than it takes to download the files.

Jeff

|||

ah OK Jeff thanks,

I shall give it a go!

Pete

|||

Can anyone tell me why 2003 isn't compatible with 2005?

Not a gripe, just curious...

|||

2003 what and 2005 what?

Jeff

|||

Oops,

Well, the whole .net 2 / SQL Server 2005 thing.

Why cant I log in to 2005 server using my Enterprise manager 8.0 ... :)

.mdf/.ldf on a NAS

I'm wondering if it's a good idea to put datafiles on a NAS and to run the
DB Servers without local disks.
Seems risky to me, but I know the topic has come up and (I hope) Microsoft
has an article on the subject.
Thanks,
JayJay,
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/304261
RLF
"Jay" <nospan@.nospam.org> wrote in message
news:%23aLZrJ$GIHA.2328@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> I'm wondering if it's a good idea to put datafiles on a NAS and to run the
> DB Servers without local disks.
> Seems risky to me, but I know the topic has come up and (I hope) Microsoft
> has an article on the subject.
> Thanks,
> Jay
>|||I'd recommend against placing the database files on NAS.
NAS is based on CIFS and CIFS is not a good protocol for block I/Os. In
addition, a host with a mapped network drive is a CIFS client, and if you
read the CIFS specs carefully, data can be cached on the CIFS client side
(i.e. SQL Server host if you map a network drive there). I'm not comfortable
with what that CIFS caching may do to your SQL database integrity.
Linchi
"Jay" wrote:
> I'm wondering if it's a good idea to put datafiles on a NAS and to run the
> DB Servers without local disks.
> Seems risky to me, but I know the topic has come up and (I hope) Microsoft
> has an article on the subject.
> Thanks,
> Jay
>
>|||I misspoke, not a NAS, a SAN (if it makes a difference)
"Jay" <nospan@.nospam.org> wrote in message
news:%23aLZrJ$GIHA.2328@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> I'm wondering if it's a good idea to put datafiles on a NAS and to run the
> DB Servers without local disks.
> Seems risky to me, but I know the topic has come up and (I hope) Microsoft
> has an article on the subject.
> Thanks,
> Jay
>|||NAS = Network Attached Storage
SAN = Storage Area Network
They are different stuff.
--
Ekrem Önsoy
http://www.ekremonsoy.net , http://ekremonsoy.blogspot.com
MCBDA, MCITP:DBA, MCSD.Net, MCSE, MCBMSP, MCT
"Jay" <nospan@.nospam.org> wrote in message
news:eZduXt$GIHA.1212@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>I misspoke, not a NAS, a SAN (if it makes a difference)
> "Jay" <nospan@.nospam.org> wrote in message
> news:%23aLZrJ$GIHA.2328@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> I'm wondering if it's a good idea to put datafiles on a NAS and to run
>> the DB Servers without local disks.
>> Seems risky to me, but I know the topic has come up and (I hope)
>> Microsoft has an article on the subject.
>> Thanks,
>> Jay
>|||Yes, SAN is OK, since it has dedicated HW and network with protocols designed for this. Consider
what you have at the other end, though, and how the SAN is setup. It isn't uncommon to end up with
your database files "in the pool" with no control for you regarding RAID levels and whatever else
get shared with your data.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
"Jay" <nospan@.nospam.org> wrote in message news:eZduXt$GIHA.1212@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>I misspoke, not a NAS, a SAN (if it makes a difference)
> "Jay" <nospan@.nospam.org> wrote in message news:%23aLZrJ$GIHA.2328@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> I'm wondering if it's a good idea to put datafiles on a NAS and to run the DB Servers without
>> local disks.
>> Seems risky to me, but I know the topic has come up and (I hope) Microsoft has an article on the
>> subject.
>> Thanks,
>> Jay
>|||I'd venture to say that today most databases in large enterprises run on some
kind of SANs, mostly fibre-channel SANs.
Linchi
"Jay" wrote:
> I misspoke, not a NAS, a SAN (if it makes a difference)
> "Jay" <nospan@.nospam.org> wrote in message
> news:%23aLZrJ$GIHA.2328@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> > I'm wondering if it's a good idea to put datafiles on a NAS and to run the
> > DB Servers without local disks.
> >
> > Seems risky to me, but I know the topic has come up and (I hope) Microsoft
> > has an article on the subject.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Jay
> >
>
>|||SAN will be fine, it's what we do.
SAN and NAS have almost nothing in common, unless you're dyslexic :-)
"Jay" <nospan@.nospam.org> wrote in message
news:eZduXt$GIHA.1212@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>I misspoke, not a NAS, a SAN (if it makes a difference)
> "Jay" <nospan@.nospam.org> wrote in message
> news:%23aLZrJ$GIHA.2328@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> I'm wondering if it's a good idea to put datafiles on a NAS and to run
>> the DB Servers without local disks.
>> Seems risky to me, but I know the topic has come up and (I hope)
>> Microsoft has an article on the subject.
>> Thanks,
>> Jay
>