Hi all
I have a server with SQL Server2000 databases in it..
Now i would like to install SQL Server 2005 on the same server with out disturbing SQL Server 2000 databases
I need to create a seperate instance for SQL Server 2005..
is it possible to have both the instances on the same server.
Thanks
Hi,
We have (after several weeks of testing in all kind of environments) send out a new version of our application to several of our customers. Within days problems where drippin in; After looking for the problem on various customer situations we found a problem which I think is rather disturbing and very odd. I'll describe the situation, on which we finally managed to recreate the problem, here.
In my problem I use the following configuration:
Windows 2003 (standard edition) AD network with 2 domain controllers, multiple Windows XP workstations, some without SQL instances, some with SQL 2000 instances, some with SQL 2005 instances and even one with SQL 7 running.
All run a 32 bit OS.
Tools to reproduce:
ListSQLSvr application (found on SQLDev.net) to enumerate the instances.
Problem description:
--------------------------------------------------
I am running the machine called DEV001, which has SQL 2000 (instancename DRUMIS) and SQL 7.0 (has no instancename so this is the root instance) installed.
In any 'normal' situation all the runnings SQL instances are visible on the network like this:
Code Block
C:>listsqlsvr -X
(local);Clustered:No;Version:7.00.623
ADM002DRUMIS;Clustered:No;Version:8.00.194
DEV001DRUMIS
DEV001DRUMIS;Clustered:No;Version:8.00.194
DEV002DRUMIS;Clustered:No;Version:8.00.194
DEV002EXPRESS;Clustered:No;Version:9.00.3042.00
DEV002EXPRESS
INSADBACKOFFICEDRUMIS;Clustered:No;Version:8.00.194
INSADBACKOFFICEEXACT;Clustered:No;Version:9.00.3042.00
INSADOFFICEWSUS;Clustered:No;Version:8.00.194
SUP001DRUMIS;Clustered:No;Version:8.00.194
When I turn the SQL 2005 Browser service off on the machine called DEV002 the list looks like:
Code Block
C:>listsqlsvr -X
(local);Clustered:No;Version:7.00.623
ADM002DRUMIS;Clustered:No;Version:8.00.194
DEV001DRUMIS;Clustered:No;Version:8.00.194
DEV001DRUMIS
DEV002
DEV002EXPRESS
DEV004DRUMIS;Clustered:No;Version:9.00.3042.00
INSADBACKOFFICEDRUMIS;Clustered:No;Version:8.00.194
INSADBACKOFFICEEXACT;Clustered:No;Version:9.00.3042.00
INSADOFFICEWSUS;Clustered:No;Version:8.00.194
SUP001DRUMIS;Clustered:No;Version:8.00.194
Notice that the browser service might be off on DEV002, you can still see the EXPRESS instance and a new root instance has appeared (though it doesn't exist!)??
After restarting the Browser service all is OK again.
When I turn on Hide Server in the SQL 2000 TCP/IP properties (or turn it on in the registry [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINESOFTWAREMicrosoftMicrosoft SQL ServerDRUMISMSSQLServerSuperSocketNetLibTcp] "TcpHideFlag"=dword:00000001) on the DEV002 computer something real scary is happening..
The list looks as follows:
Code Block
C:listsqlsvr -X
(local)
ADM002
DEV001
DEV002
DEV004
INSADBACKOFFICE
INSADOFFICE
SUP001
When someone has entered a database (for example the backoffice database on INSADBACKOFFICEEXACT) the list looks as follows (for a short moment; 5 secs or so):
Code Block
C:listsqlsvr -X
(local)
ADM002
DEV001
DEV002
DEV004
INSADBACKOFFICEDEVELOP;Clustered:No;Version:8.00.194
INSADBACKOFFICEDRUMIS;Clustered:No;Version:8.00.194
INSADBACKOFFICEEXACT;Clustered:No;Version:9.00.3042.00
INSADOFFICE
SUP001
Notice now that ALL instances are gone and no extended information is available. In the Query Analyser and in the SQL Management Studio when browsing you'll see this as well!
When someone is accessing a database instance it appears for a few seconds again.
Since our installation and applications rely on selecting a existing instance it will fail in the above situations (or at least not showing all available instances).
In my opinion this is a bug somewhere!
Note that even when the SQL Services are stopped on DEV002 (leaving the Browser service running) it still seems to block out ALL instance on the ENTIRE network!
I don't mind that one INSTANCE or even the entire MACHINE is hidden from the network, but ALL instances on ALL machines??
And the SQL Browser issue also worries me a bit since it does not stop the possibily to browse the SQL instances; it removes the SQL2000 instances but adds a root instance which doesn't even exist! Also the extended info is stripped.
Can anyone help me solve this/advise?
Also mind that in any situation there might run a lot of computers with a lot of SQL instances and I cannot tell our customers to find which machine has the SQL TCP/IP properties set to Hide...
It even seems that in some situations SBS 2003 does the hiding automatically on Install? And if so, when and why?
Regards,
Albert van Peppen
Senior System Engineer
Insad Grafisch b.v.
Hi all,I just asked some people to help me out and phone microsoft with thefollowing information, kindly they refused unless we setup a supportcontract with them first, for pre-sales information. (That really doesnot sound like good business sense to me - anyway here is our problem,if anyone could help thanks)."To tell and ask microsoft:We will be setting up a microsoft sql server 2000 instance running on awindows 2003 server.1) We need to check this can run alongside a microsoft 2003 sql server(either workgroup or standard edition), on the same machine. Are thereany .dll clashes if we do this? If there are can we run SQL Server2000, in a virtual machine running windows 2000 professional. (I have alicenced copy we can use for this).2) If we run one instance of 2000, and one of 2003 of the sql servers,can one use the processor licence model, and one use the CAL licencemodel."Thanks for any help, and any idea why they actually force you to usenews groups for pre-sales information?David
View 4 Replies View RelatedI 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)
thanks
Fede
We have an x86 sql 2000 server with 4GB of RAM, a quadcore Xeon, a RAID 5 drive C, and its utilization is generally low. Typical perfmon counters: CPU < 5%; available Mbytes, 1800; typical disk time 5-10 %; Committed bytes in use < 25%, pagessec near 0.0.
For various reasons I need to install a sql 2005 instance on the same box and both instances will be up and running at the same time.
How, using Perfmon (?), can I determine the max amount of memory to assign to each instance? (It is my understanding that I definitiely need to limit the amount of RAM used by each instance.)
TIA,
Barkingdog
Hi
I have a cluster with 4 sql server 2000 instances and would like to upgrade 2 of these to sql server 2005 - is there any document or list of things to ensure I do
Thanks
I am trying to install SQL2K5 on my machine where I already have SQL2K installed.
The best I have managed to achieve is to get SQL2K5 EM looking at my SQL2K databases.
Do I need to uninstall SQL2K before installing SQL2K?
Depending on what combo of SQL I have installed my options on SQL2K install vary.
I am a bit lost at this point.
Anyone know a link to a good white paper type doc that guides me through an install on the same machine.
Thanks In Advance
MPM
We currently have multiple instances of MS Sql 2000 and MS SQL 2005 installed on servers. When at other locations that uses different subnets only the default instance is available, published, broadcasted, selectable.
We have TCPIP and name pipes enabled for all instances. This seems to be a common problem for all locations.
Can the SQL 2005 install upgrade from SQL 2000 handle multiple instances?
View 1 Replies View RelatedI need any information on whether its possible to create more than 16 instances of SQL Server 2000. I know Microsoft says they don't support over 16 but what are the downfalls of doing this? How many could possibly be put on one server?
View 1 Replies View RelatedHi,
We have a new failover cluster (Windows 2003 SP1, Microsoft SQL 2000 SP4) with each node of the cluster hosting 7 SQL Server instances in a 2-node active-active configuration connected to a SAN. We are planning to move some SQL Server Instances(from existing stand-alone servers) into this Cluster. Any insight into the process of moving SQL Servers into the cluster would be highly appreciated.
Best Regards,
Himansu
How to get the list of instance of SQL Server 7.0/2000 running on the local machine inside my domain...
I need to prepare the list of all sql instances.. pls help if possible to find details using sql query.
I have the following problem;
I fully understand that to connect to a named instance of SQL Server you need to use the ServerNameSQLInstanceName. The problem I have is that I have a SQL Server in a different zone. I can connect to the Default instance by IP Address or the ServerName.zone.domain.org. (e.g. MySQLServer.zone1.mydomain.org).
However, the same thing does not work for the Named Instance. It seems to be named instance or nothing.
How can I connect to this named instance across network zones?:S
We are having all kinds of issues with named instances for SQL 2000.
I am trying to connect to a SQL Server 2000 named instance on a different subnet and get an error. I cannot connect with ODBC or our web app.
I am using the port number for the alias that I created in the SQL Client Utility. We can connect to default instances without a problem, but not the named instances.
The SQL Server is 2000 build 2040 (Service pack 4 with a hot fix.) The server is listening on port 1223. In the ODBC connection I click on the Network Config and create an alias with the named instance such as SQLVSNSQLNI and specify port 1223. I have also tried adding the port to the connection string in the ASP include file (SQLVSNSQLNI,1223). If I do the same thing with a default instance on the network, both the app and ODBC work fine. It is only when I use a named instance.
Very frustrated. Thanks for any help you can provide
We're moving several Version 7 databases to a SQL Server
2000 box.
How can I grant SQL Server 2000 security for three
"Named Instances"?
Thanks
Benny
I am working on a site's SQL Server 2000 database on a W2k3 machine . I went into Enterprise Manager and saw that their database resides on a named instance. I did not see the default instance listed so I registered that using windows authentication. I noticed that the default instance had a user database that had the same name as the user database on the named instance that I was to work on. I looked at the properties of the databases and saw that on both the default and named instances of SQL Server that the Data Files and Log Files for the user database point to the same location.
Is this a problem? Can anyone see any issues with this? Does this mean that someone can simply connect to the named or the default instance of the SQL Server and connect to the same database?
Kirk
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.
View 4 Replies View RelatedHello. Is it possible on a server with 2 instances of SQL 2005 running, to have EACH instance get up to 2.8 GB of RAM. I've done that on single instance machines, just not sure about multi-instances, if you can use the same settings to get 2.8 GB each, assuming the overall memory is at least 6GB... Thanks, Bruce
View 2 Replies View Related
Hi,
I've been able to make a linked server to an access document as follows and it works perfectly:
EXECUTE sp_addlinkedserver 'North', 'OLE DB Provider for Jet',
'Microsoft.Jet.OLEDB.4.0','C:Practice FilesNorthwind.mdb'
SELECT * FROM North...Customers
I have 2x sql 2005 servers at home at different machines. I'm logging on both machines by using windows authentication. How can I make a linked server between them?
Thank you.
I just installed sql server 2005 and trying to pick it up before I start a new job as a developer using sql server 2005. The problem is that I have three instances installed, the one that works was installed prior to installing sql server 2005 when I installed System Architect a CASE tool which utilizes sql server for its encyclopedias.
My initial installed I used the default settings with the default instance and that does not work. I later ran set up again and installed another instance and that does not work. For some apparent reason the POKIN10SQL instance is over riding everything rendering every other instance non-functional.
When I try to connect to the one of the other instances, the error message is
"An error has occured while establishing a connection to the server. When connection to SQL Server 2005, this failure may be caused by the fact that under the default settings SQL does not allow remote connections. (Provider Network Interface, error: 26 - Error locating Server/Instance Specified) (Microsoft SQL Server)"
I don't think the remote connection is the problem as I went into the properties settings and checked the connection settings and allow remote connections is checked.
In terms of locating the instance, I installed SQL Server as specified in the handbook ... with the default instance and then a named instance.
Something seems to be wrong with the POKIN10SQL instance which was installed with System Architect, I need System Architect so I need a work around rather then an uninstall.
Can someone help please?
I am trying to install multi instances on my server cluster 2003 R2 Sp2. Because of the compatibility issues with my services I need to install both SQL 2000 and 2005. With 2000 I can easily specify the instance and servername. The server name can be the same, but the instance has to be different. Is this true for 2005? I have found so far that for every new instance that you create that you need to have a different virtual server name. How can you utilize the same virtual name and have multi insances
servername$instance1
servername$instance2
and so on
ThatGuy
Hi all,
This is my first C# (2.0) Windows based app accessing a local SQL Server database. Ive build a couple of web based apps using C#.
First I just copied a datbase access wrapper class from one of my web apps and used that. It works, but, the database shown in Server Explorer in VS2005 shows the table as empty. The table in /bin/ however, is updated as expected. Before I realised that there were seperate instances of the database i stripped everything down to a very simple example
[code]
string sConnectionString = "Data Source=.\SQLEXPRESS;AttachDbFilename=|DataDirectory|\Database1.mdf;Integrated Security=True;User Instance=True";
SqlCommand foo = new SqlCommand("INSERT INTO tblTest (foo) VALUES ('atest')");
SqlConnection conn = new SqlConnection(sConnectionString);
conn.Open();
foo.Connection = conn;
foo.ExecuteNonQuery();
foo.Dispose();
conn.Close();
[/code]
This little tester windows based app has a simple tester drag and dropped grid view in it. When i run /pathToApp/bin/Debug/<AppName>.exe, independantly of VS, the grid view is full of the value "atest" as expected, but not when ran under visual studio. As I said above i found (at least i think this is right) there is a debug and user instance of the database. So im guessing I need two connection strings if i want to update both whilst dev'ing the application.
Ive had a look throuhg connectionstring.com and, to be honest, im confused... Any help for what the second connection string should be would be greatly apprecaited.
Thanks.
My client has a server running MS 2003 Server for Smal Business Server, and it has SQL Server Express 2005 installed (I believe it is installed 3 times, as part of SharePoint, Veritas Backup Exec and ACT! applications).
I am trying to implement an application that uses SQL Server 2000, but the Server 2003 SBS does not support that version. So I need to launch an additional instance of SQL Server Exp 2005.
To do so, do I need to download and install SQL Server Express 2005 software again? Or can I just run SQLSVR.exe from an existing instance, but with a different instance name (sqlservr.exe -s<InstanceName>?
The reason I need another instance is that these existing instances limit DDL statements.
I am new to this and compare it to launching MS Word multiple times - you don't need to reinstall Word to run it multiple times.
Is launching from the command line a bad idea - and if it is, what is the better way to ensure that it launches under the local system context a service?
Thanks in advance for any help and insights. It is much appreciated.
Hello,
I have found code on how to find sql server instances on your local network but my question is. Is there an easy way to find a local copy of SQL Server 2005 and what the name of the instance is. Beacuse the program I am writing will need a sql server installed somewhere on the network then it will allow the user to select either the local copy or a network copy of the sql server
example
on my computer I have SQL Server 2005 express installed and mine is Daniel-LaptopSQLEXPRESS
I tried to set up mirroring on my laptop.
I have got two instances of SQL Server 2005 SP2 on my laptop (the first one is the default instance).
Checked configuration running the following scripts
SELECT type_desc, port FROM sys.tcp_endpoints;
GO
SELECT state_desc FROM sys.database_mirroring_endpoints
go
SELECT role FROM sys.database_mirroring_endpoints;
GO
SELECT 'Metadata Check';
SELECT EP.name, SP.STATE,
CONVERT(nvarchar(38), suser_name(SP.grantor_principal_id))
AS GRANTOR,
SP.TYPE AS PERMISSION,
CONVERT(nvarchar(46),suser_name(SP.grantee_principal_id))
AS GRANTEE
FROM sys.server_permissions SP , sys.endpoints EP
WHERE SP.major_id = EP.endpoint_id
ORDER BY Permission,grantor, grantee;
GO
Everything is OK on both instances. Tried to start mirroring and I have got this error message:
TITLE: Database Properties
------------------------------
An error occurred while starting mirroring.
------------------------------
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Alter failed for Database 'Northwind'. (Microsoft.SqlServer.Smo)
An exception occurred while executing a Transact-SQL statement or batch. (Microsoft.SqlServer.ConnectionInfo)
The server network address "TCP://kookaburra.sydney.ssw.com.au:5022" can not be reached or does not exist. Check the network address name and that the ports for the local and remote endpoints are operational. (Microsoft SQL Server, Error: 1418)
I could connect to both instances:
C:Documents and SettingsSergeiTchernykh.SSW2000>sqlcmd -U sa -P <password> -S k
ookaburra,5022
1> exit
C:Documents and SettingsSergeiTchernykh.SSW2000>sqlcmd -U sa -P <password> -S k
ookaburrasydney2005,5023
1> exit
I could ping my laptop
C:Documents and SettingsSergeiTchernykh.SSW2000>ping -a kookaburra
Pinging kookaburra.sydney.ssw.com.au [10.0.0.1] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 10.0.0.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=128
Reply from 10.0.0.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=128
Reply from 10.0.0.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=128
Reply from 10.0.0.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=128
Ping statistics for 10.0.0.1:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 0ms, Maximum = 0ms, Average = 0ms
Thank you.
Hi
We would like to install Sql 2005 Enterprise Edition (including database engine, reporting service, integration service and analysis service) as a sepearte instance on a server which already has Sql 2000 with reporting services and analysis services. We do not want to disturb the existing sql 2000 setup.
If we do that then what will happen to my earlier sql 2000 reporting service? Will it be upgraded to sql 2005 reporting service? I heard that reporting services are instance unaware application. Where will be the default reporting service database available?
Please help us.
Regards,
Sankar N
Hi all
We are planning to upgrade vom SQL 6.5 to SQL 2000 and SMS 1.2 to SMS 2.0. We want to first migrate SMS 1.2 to 2.0 with the SQL 6.5 database. Afterwards we want to install SQL 2000 as a second instance on the sql 6.5 server and migrate from there our databases. Is this the best way to do this? Does anybody have experience with running two instances of different SQL-Versions on one server? and what kind of trouble can I expect to run into?
Any tips & tricks are welcome
Thanx
Aragorn
I need to put sql server 2000 enterprise and sql server 7 on the same box. For multiple instancing is it better to run with Win 2k Pro Server or Advanced Server. Please Elaborate.
Thanks in advance
Gunnar
Hi,From a previous sys-admin I inherited a a MS-SQL (2000) machine with 3instances. It is a nice machine with 4 Gb of memory but the memory allocationis very weird:Instance A: 1400MbInstance B: 1000MbInstance C: 80Mb (!)Instance C is performing badly under a bit of pressure which seems not strangeconsidering these allocations.With that in mind, is there a way to check and re-allocate memory? I'd like tosee if the instances really need these amounts of memory and if not, to movesome over to other instances.Thanks!Dries Bessels
View 1 Replies View RelatedHi, I am trying to edit some data from a SQL2000-datasource in ASP.NET 2.0 and have a problem with a column that has bit-data and is used for selection. SQL2005 works fine when declaring <SelectParameters> <asp:Parameter DefaultValue="TRUE" Name="APL" Type="boolean" /> </SelectParameters>When running this code with SQL2000, there are no error-msgs, but after editing a record the "APL"-column looses its value of 1 and is set to 0. Looks like an issue with type-conversion, we've hit incompatibilities between SQL200 and 2005 with bit/boolean several times before. So, how is this done correctly with SQL2000? (I've tried setting the Type to "int16" -> err. Also setting Defval="1" gave an err) ThanksMichael
View 2 Replies View RelatedWe have 10+ MSDE 2000 installations on the same network. Each install has a named instance and the
machines connect to eachother via VB application. We have a couple SQL 2000 Standard boxes and a SQL 2005
box all running on the same network with no issues. The problem we have recently run into is with a SQL
Express box. When the box is on the network OSQL stops finding the MSDE 2000 named instances on the
network and only the SQL Express named instance appears in the list. The second the SQL Express box is removed
from the network the named instances are visible. I monitored the UDP traffic and suspect there is an issue with the response from SQL Express to OSQL. Can't find any issues for this problem only report I found is if MSDE and Express are on the same machine.
SQL Express Response
.Q.ServerName;DDK7P4D1;InstanceName;SQLEXPRESS;IsClustered;No;Version;9.00.1399.06;;
MSDE Response
...ServerName;RED;InstanceName;SECOND;IsClustered;No;Version;8.00.194;tcp;4307;;Ser
verName;RED;InstanceName;THIRD;IsClustered;No;Version;8.00.194;tcp;0;;Server
Name;RED;InstanceName;MSSQLSERVER;IsClustered;No;Version;8.00.194;tcp;4303;;
Any ideas?
Thanks, Kevin.
We have 10+ MSDE 2000 installations on the same network. Each install has a named instance and the
machines connect to eachother via VB application. We have a couple SQL 2000 Standard boxes and a SQL 2005
box all running on the same network with no issues. The problem we have recently run into is with a SQL
Express box. When the box is on the network OSQL stops finding the MSDE 2000 named instances on the
network and only the SQL Express named instance appears in the list. The second the SQL Express box is removed
from the network the named instances are visible. I monitored the UDP traffic and suspect there is an issue with the response from SQL Express to OSQL. Can't find any issues for this problem only report I found is if MSDE and Express are on the same machine.
SQL Express Response
.Q.ServerName;DDK7P4D1;InstanceName;SQLEXPRESS;IsClustered;No;Version;9.00.1399.06;;
MSDE Response
...ServerName;RED;InstanceName;SECOND;IsClustered;No;Version;8.00.194;tcp;4307;;Ser
verName;RED;InstanceName;THIRD;IsClustered;No;Version;8.00.194;tcp;0;;Server
Name;RED;InstanceName;MSSQLSERVER;IsClustered;No;Version;8.00.194;tcp;4303;;
Any ideas?
Thanks, Kevin.
Has anyone run SQL 2005 Standard Edition, 2 or more instances on one server... where you got the extended memory up to 2.8 GB on EACH instance of SQL Server? I've done the 2.8GB game on boxes with ONE instance, but don't think I tried it on a multi-instance box, to get the 2.8GB RAM each. Thanks, Bruce
View 2 Replies View Related