Can Two Separate SQL Server Instances On A Clustered Box Share The Same Resource Name Such As SQLCLUS1INST1 And SQLCLUS1INST2
Mar 27, 2007
I am setting up a two active instances of MS SQL Server on a clustered box. In the past I have set up using the nomenclature SQLCLUSTERNAMEINSTANCE-NAME such as SQLCLUS1INST1 and SQLCLUS2INST2.
But, this time the client will like it installed such as SQLCLUS1INST1 and SQLCLUS1INST2. I did not think this is possible --- That is I assumed that cluster resource names have to be unique. But, nevertheless I have tried to do so for the last few days, but no luck.
Can someone please let me know if it is indeed possible to have two separate instances in a single cluster.
BTW, I know this is quite possible with non-clustered instances --- where the SQLSERV1INST1 refers to an actual server name, and not a resource name.
I am trying to set up log shipping in a clustered server environment. I am pretty confused about the location of the shared folder to be created to put backup created by log shipping job. Which drive should I use either local or clustered shared drive to store the backups in primary server and to copy the same in secondary Server?
Is it possible for a clustered instance of SQL2012 to have 2 network names ?
Reason: I need to segregate admin access to a clustered instance so that the admins and SSMS connect via a different IP address than the application. I know I can block SSMS access via application-level firewalls, but ideally the application would connect to CLUSTER1INSTANCE01 on , say, 10.192.5.5, and the admins would connect to CLUSTER1ADMININSTANCE01 on 172.168.2.2, and they'd be the same instance, just using different names and IPs
My ambition is to run ASPStateInMemory with durability on, supplementing the in-memory database with an on-disk version to give session state persistence when and if the clustered instance of SQL runs into, say a network card failure and needs to fail to a partner node. I understand that DAG's are usually run between standalone instances of SQL running on different machines. But, can I combine the DAG with the FCI? Instead of using a remote standalone SQL server, can I just another instance in the same cluster?
I have a clustered environment which has many instances in it. I have modified the xml file to allow several instances to use ssis. Everything works great when the instances are on the same node as the clustered ssis. However if they are on different nodes there seems to be an aunthentication problem and it loses my credentials. For some reason it tries to use Anonymous Logon instead. Here is the full error:
The SQL server specified in SSIS service configuration is not present or is not available. This might occur when there is no default instance of SQL Server on the computer. For more information, see the topic "Configuring the Integration Services Service" in Server 2005 Books Online.
Login failed for user 'NT AUTHORITYANONYMOUS LOGON'. (MsDtsSrvr)
We have 2 clustered SQL instances (2 physical servers in each cluster). Instance2 needs to be setup as a linked server on Instance1.
At this time port 1433 between them is not open. I am referring to the port on the network switch, not in the Windows Firewall (ports in Windows Firewall are already open).
Is opening the port between virtual IP-s sufficient? Or does port need to be open between all physical source/destination IP-s as well?
When I am in Visual Studio 2005, and I try to add an SQL database, I get the following error "generating user instances in sql server is disabled. use sp_configure user instances enabled to generate user instances." I am currently using SQL server 2005 Express. What do I need to do, to create an SQL database? Thanks in advance.
I had a server with SQL Server 7.0 I installed a named instance of SQL Server 2000 and then i passed all my DB of the 7.0 instance to the 2000 instance. Then i removed the 7.0 instance, that was the default instance. So at the moment there is only the 2000 version, but it isn't the default instance Can the 2000 instance become the default instance? (So that clients can connect to it simply through computer name, and not creating an alias)
I am trying to add 2 separate columns from separate tables i.e column1 should be added to column 2 when inserted and I want to use a trigger but i don't know the syntax to use...
We have a table, which has one clustered index and one non clustered index(primary key). I want to drop the existing clustered index and make the primary key as clustered. Is there any easy way to do that. Will Drop_Existing support on this matter?
Hi, I am going through the BOL for Sql Server 2005 and i came across the topic of RESOURCE DATABASE. But when i checked in the system databases in the object explorer there was no resource database can anybody tell me where can i find the resource database
I need to reinstall the Master and MSDB databases on a server that already has SP2 installed so I am hoping to find an ISO for SQL Server 2005 that has the SP2 installed. Is there such a resource? So far I have only found the July 2005 version of the Server installation media (pre- service pack) and the 11 month old service packs separately.
I have a requirement to only rebuild the Clustered Indexes in the table ignoring the non clustered indexes as those are taken care of by the Clustered indexes.
In order to do that, I have taken the records based on the fragmentation %.
But unable to come up with a logic to only consider rebuilding the clustered indexes in the table.
We are going to use SQL Sever change tracking. The problem is that some of our tables, which are to be tracked, have no primary keys. There are only unique clustered indexes. The question is what is the best way to turn on change tracking for these tables in our circumstances.
I desire to have a clustered index on a column other than the Primary Key. I have a few junction tables that I may want to alter, create table, or ...
I have practiced with an example table that is not really a junction table. It is just a table I decided to use for practice. When I execute the script, it seems to do everything I expect. For instance, there are not any constraints but there are indexes. The PK is the correct column.
CREATE TABLE [dbo].[tblNotificationMgr]( [NotificationMgrKey] [int] IDENTITY(1,1) NOT NULL, [ContactKey] [int] NOT NULL, [EventTypeEnum] [tinyint] NOT NULL,
I have created two tables. table one has the following fields,
Id -> unique clustered index. table two has the following fields, Tid -> unique clustered index Id -> foreign key of table one(id).
Now I have created primary key for the table one column 'id'. It's created as "nonclustered, unique, primary key located on PRIMARY". Primary key create clustered index default. since unique clustered index existed in table one, it has created "Nonclustered primary key".
My Question is, What is the difference between "clustered, unique, primary key" and "nonclustered, unique, primary key"? Is there any performance impact between these?
Copy mssqlsystemresource.mdf of a recently upgraded server and paste to an old server have same effect of upgrading via .exe installation?
My idea is to save time and administrative efforts in upgrades (Service Packs and/or Cumulative Updates) using this method.
According to BOL:
The Resource database makes upgrading to a new version of SQL Server an easier and faster procedure. In earlier versions of SQL Server, upgrading required dropping and creating system objects. Because the Resource database file contains all system objects, an upgrade is now accomplished simply by copying the single Resource database file to the local server.
Hi there, I have a table that has an IDENTITY column and it is the PK of this table. By default SQL Server creates a unique clustered index on the PK, but this isn't what I wanted. I want to make a regular unique index on the column so I can make a clustered index on a different column.
If I try to uncheck the Clustered index option in EM I get a dialog that says "Cannot convert a clustered index to a nonclustered index using the DROP_EXISTING option.". If I simply try to delete the index I get the following "An explicit DROP INDEX is not allowed on index 'index name'. It is being used for PRIMARY KEY constraint enforcement.
So do I have to drop the PK constraint now? How does that affect all the tables that have FK relationships to this table?
I have a really super slow stored proc that does something simple. it updates a table if certain values are received.
In looking at this the matching is done on the Primary Key, which is set as a Clustered index, looking further I have another constraint, that sets the same column to a Unique, Non-Clustered.
I am not sure why this was done, but it seems to be counter productive. I have read only references to Which one is better on a primary key, but not can their be both and if it is "Smart".
I have integrated Share Point server 2007 with Reports Server to publish the reports on share point site. I did all steps involved for integration
I have share point server, reports server and database server on three different machines configured and when I am trying to publish the reports from my local Dev box, setting the below project properties, target datasource folder: http://vstsvr:168/sites/wsL/ReportsLibrary/ target report folder: http://vstsvr:168/sites/wsL/ReportsLibrary/ target Server url: http://vstsvr:168/sites/wsL/
I am getting the following error:
TITLE: Microsoft Report Designer ------------------------------ A connection could not be made to the report server http://vstsvr:168/sites/wsL/. ------------------------------ ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Client found response content type of 'text/html; charset=utf-8', but expected 'text/xml'. The request failed with the error message: -- <HTML dir="ltr"> <HEAD><meta name="GENERATOR" content="Microsoft SharePoint" /><meta name="progid" content="SharePoint.WebPartPage.Document" /><meta HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" /><meta HTTP-EQUIV="Expires" content="0" /><meta name="ROBOTS" content="NOHTMLINDEX" /><title>
<table width=100% border=0 class="ms-titleareaframe" cellpadding=0> <TR> <TD valign=top width="100%" style="padding-top: 10px" class="ms-descriptiontext"> <span id="ctl00_PlaceHolderMain_LabelMessage">The file you are attempting to save or retrieve has been blocked from this Web site by the server administrators.</span> <P><span class="ms-descriptiontext"> <span id="ctl00_PlaceHolderMain_helptopic_troubleshooting"><A Title="Troubleshoot issues with Windows SharePoint Services. - Opens in new window" HREF="javascript:HelpWindowKey('troubleshooting')">Troubleshoot issues with Windows SharePoint Services.</A></span>
I got this system error log in the event viewer every time I start the SQL Server cluster resource:
The Microsoft Clustering Service failed restore a registry key for resource SQL Server when it was brought online. This error code was 2. Some changes may be lost.
Even though the SQL seems to be working fine now, I won't know if something drastic will happen later. :confused:
Searching the Internet for resolution, I saw this article. The Microsoft Knowledge Base Article - 307469 (http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?kbid=307469) requires using the Windows Server 2003 ClusterRecover utility to reset the server cluster check points.
I've not tried it because I don't know if this is the correct solution or if it will work or not.
Can I even solve the error without using the above utility? I also cannot afford to reinstall the clustering or SQL server. :mad:
We have two instances of SQL Server 2005 - SP1 installed on one server. The default instance starts very slowly. When looking at the log I can see the delay is due to Resource Manager based upon the following error.
I am using SQL 2000 (Standard Edition, SP4) and have created a linked server to access a Access MDB file. When I run a simple query against that server, I get the error:
Server: Msg 7399, Level 16, State 1, Line 1 OLE DB provider 'Microsoft.Jet.OLEDB.4.0' reported an error. [OLE/DB provider returned message: System resource exceeded.] OLE DB error trace [OLE/DB Provider 'Microsoft.Jet.OLEDB.4.0' ICommandText::Execute returned 0x80004005: ].
I am able to connect to this same Access MDB file from another SQL server (SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition, SP4). I have compared the two servers and they both have the same version of MDAC (2.8) and the same version of the Jet OLE DB Provider.
Any idea why this would work from one server and not from the other. Also, I was able to perform the same queries from the first server a week back.
I have a package that is basically a container for using the Execute Package task to call many "child" packages. Each child package basically uses a data flow to move data from one database to another database on the same SQL Server. In the case of the child packages, I've used a combination of OLEDB and ADO.Net connections on the destinations. I ensured that all tasks and packages are set to TransactionOption.Supported and that the "parent" package has Required set at the package level. Anyway, the problem I'm finding is that one of the OLEDB connections is being blocked. When I look in SQL Server Activity Monitor I see that there are numerous ADO.Net connections that are on multiple processes (all belonging to these packages) even though when I check the Details, I can see that it has completed the final statement of the package the process belongs to. Thinking this may have been a multithreading issue, I changed MaximumConcurrentExecutables to 1 in all of the packages. Basically, even though all of the packages appear to have their own processes, when I look at the locks for the objects I'm working with, they all show up on the lowest process ID. My assumption here is that since the processID is associated with the first package, it is the "owner" of the transaction and even though the packages have their own processIDs, they show up on the first process because they're in the transaction. If I change the connection from OLEDB to ADO.Net, it resolves the issue and the blocking does not occur. So my question is, if I have an OLEDB connection manager and ADO.Net connection manager, can they share in the same transaction or are they in their own transactions?
I've a table with primary key defined as non-clusterd, now without dropping it can I modify the existing index to clustered through tsql as I had to write some migration script and in that script I wanna do this.
