Having trouble installing SQL Server 2005 SP2

The computer is a Windows 2003 R2 Enterprise 32-bit installed in a Windows
2003 R2 native AD domain/forest, and has WSUS/IIS6 running as well as SQL
Server 2005 standard. When trying to install it fails with the following
event log entry:
Event Type: Error
Event Source: Windows Update Agent
Event Category: Installation
Event ID: 20
Date: 3/8/2007
Time: 10:44:39 AM
User: N/A
Computer: BLACKDOG
Description:
Installation Failure: Windows failed to install the following update with
error 0x80070643: Microsoft SQL Server 2005 Service Pack 2 (KB 921896).
For more information, see Help and Support Center at
http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/events.asp.
Data:
0000: 57 69 6e 33 32 48 52 65 Win32HRe
0008: 73 75 6c 74 3d 30 78 38 sult=0x8
0010: 30 30 37 30 36 34 33 20 0070643
0018: 55 70 64 61 74 65 49 44 UpdateID
0020: 3d 7b 41 37 46 46 45 42 ={A7FFEB
0028: 45 33 2d 41 46 34 43 2d E3-AF4C-
0030: 34 32 38 46 2d 41 34 44 428F-A4D
0038: 38 2d 33 38 41 41 36 46 8-38AA6F
0040: 39 38 35 37 36 32 7d 20 985762}
0048: 52 65 76 69 73 69 6f 6e Revision
0050: 4e 75 6d 62 65 72 3d 31 Number=1
0058: 30 31 20 00 01 .
Any help debugging this would be appreciated.
--
Edward Ray
CCIE Security, CISSP, GCIA Gold, GCIH Gold, MCSE+Security, PEHi, Edward,
I understand that the SQL Server 2005 SP2 failed to be installed on your
Windows 2003 R2 Enterprise Edition running SQL Server 2005 STD. The error
code is 0x80070643.
If I have misunderstood, please let me know.
The error code indicates that fatal error during the installation.
Unfortunately we could not get more information from this message.
Could you please mail me the installation logs ( C:\WINDOWS\Hotfix ) for
further research? My email address is changliw_at_microsoft_dot_com.
If the hotfix logs were not generated, I recommend that you use FileMon amd
RegMon to monitor the SP2 setup progress and mail me the logs for further
research.
Best regards,
Charles Wang
Microsoft Online Community Support
=====================================================Get notification to my posts through email? Please refer to:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/managednewsgroups/default.aspx#notif
ications
If you are using Outlook Express, please make sure you clear the check box
"Tools/Options/Read: Get 300 headers at a time" to see your reply promptly.
Note: The MSDN Managed Newsgroup support offering is for non-urgent issues
where an initial response from the community or a Microsoft Support
Engineer within 1 business day is acceptable. Please note that each follow
up response may take approximately 2 business days as the support
professional working with you may need further investigation to reach the
most efficient resolution. The offering is not appropriate for situations
that require urgent, real-time or phone-based interactions or complex
project analysis and dump analysis issues. Issues of this nature are best
handled working with a dedicated Microsoft Support Engineer by contacting
Microsoft Customer Support Services (CSS) at
http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/support/default.aspx.
======================================================When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via
your newsreader so that others may learn and benefit
from this issue.
======================================================This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
======================================================|||i got this same error. would be very interested to hear any
explanation and/or workaround. i can provide whatever info is needed,
but i already submitted it via the windows crash feedback thing.
many thanks
tim|||As per your request I have sent you the error and filemon logs.
Edward Ray
CCIE Security, CISSP, GCIA Gold, GCIH Gold, MCSE+Security, PE
"Charles Wang[MSFT]" <changliw@.online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:MXO8hufYHHA.2372@.TK2MSFTNGHUB02.phx.gbl...
> Hi, Edward,
> I understand that the SQL Server 2005 SP2 failed to be installed on your
> Windows 2003 R2 Enterprise Edition running SQL Server 2005 STD. The error
> code is 0x80070643.
> If I have misunderstood, please let me know.
> The error code indicates that fatal error during the installation.
> Unfortunately we could not get more information from this message.
> Could you please mail me the installation logs ( C:\WINDOWS\Hotfix ) for
> further research? My email address is changliw_at_microsoft_dot_com.
> If the hotfix logs were not generated, I recommend that you use FileMon
> amd
> RegMon to monitor the SP2 setup progress and mail me the logs for further
> research.
> Best regards,
> Charles Wang
> Microsoft Online Community Support
> =====================================================> Get notification to my posts through email? Please refer to:
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/managednewsgroups/default.aspx#notif
> ications
> If you are using Outlook Express, please make sure you clear the check box
> "Tools/Options/Read: Get 300 headers at a time" to see your reply
> promptly.
>
> Note: The MSDN Managed Newsgroup support offering is for non-urgent issues
> where an initial response from the community or a Microsoft Support
> Engineer within 1 business day is acceptable. Please note that each follow
> up response may take approximately 2 business days as the support
> professional working with you may need further investigation to reach the
> most efficient resolution. The offering is not appropriate for situations
> that require urgent, real-time or phone-based interactions or complex
> project analysis and dump analysis issues. Issues of this nature are best
> handled working with a dedicated Microsoft Support Engineer by contacting
> Microsoft Customer Support Services (CSS) at
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/support/default.aspx.
> ======================================================> When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via
> your newsreader so that others may learn and benefit
> from this issue.
> ======================================================> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> rights.
> ======================================================>
>
>|||Hi, Edward,
Thanks for your email response.
I checked your FileMon log, and found many errors like the following:
5473 11:14:52.094 PM svchost.exe:1680 FASTIO_QUERY_OPEN C:\Program
Files\Microsoft SQL Server\90\DTS\Binn\SRCLIENT.DLL NOT FOUND Attributes:
Error
5474 11:14:52.094 PM svchost.exe:1680 FASTIO_QUERY_OPEN C:\Program
Files\Microsoft SQL Server\90\Tools\binn\SRCLIENT.DLL NOT FOUND Attributes:
Error
5475 11:14:52.094 PM svchost.exe:1680 FASTIO_QUERY_OPEN C:\Program
Files\Microsoft SQL Server\90\Tools\Binn\VSShell\Common7\IDE\SRCLIENT.DLL
NOT FOUND Attributes: Error
Also, from the log:
102 11:14:44.058 PM svchost.exe:1680 FASTIO_DEVICE_CONTROL
C:\WINDOWS\SoftwareDistribution\DataStore\Logs FAILURE IOCTL: 0x4D0008
It indicates that not enough storage is available to process this command.
Could you please check if the files paths are existed and if there is
enough disk space during the setup process?
Best regards,
Charles Wang
Microsoft Online Community Support
=====================================================Get notification to my posts through email? Please refer to:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/managednewsgroups/default.aspx#notif
ications
If you are using Outlook Express, please make sure you clear the check box
"Tools/Options/Read: Get 300 headers at a time" to see your reply promptly.
Note: The MSDN Managed Newsgroup support offering is for non-urgent issues
where an initial response from the community or a Microsoft Support
Engineer within 1 business day is acceptable. Please note that each follow
up response may take approximately 2 business days as the support
professional working with you may need further investigation to reach the
most efficient resolution. The offering is not appropriate for situations
that require urgent, real-time or phone-based interactions or complex
project analysis and dump analysis issues. Issues of this nature are best
handled working with a dedicated Microsoft Support Engineer by contacting
Microsoft Customer Support Services (CSS) at
http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/support/default.aspx.
======================================================When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via
your newsreader so that others may learn and benefit
from this issue.
======================================================This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
======================================================|||Charles, please help!
My problem is almost the same as Edward's. I have tried more than 5 times
to install the Microsoft SQL Server 2005 Express Edition Service pack and
every time I get the message: Updates were unable to be successfully
installed.
I have no error code: none comes up. I also have no hotfix file in the
Windows directory. What is filemon? How do I access it to give you more
info?
My computer has also been running slower since I installed Office 2007, but
I know that's another issue. It freezes if it has been on for awhile, and
programs are slow to open and close. I maintain my computer, I have all the
necessary virus, firewall, spyware, whatever -- so what could be the problem?
My computer is a Dell, about 8 months old, running with XP Media edition.
Thanks for your help. I am getting desperate.
Thanks,
Marla
"Charles Wang[MSFT]" wrote:
> Hi, Edward,
> Thanks for your email response.
> I checked your FileMon log, and found many errors like the following:
> 5473 11:14:52.094 PM svchost.exe:1680 FASTIO_QUERY_OPEN C:\Program
> Files\Microsoft SQL Server\90\DTS\Binn\SRCLIENT.DLL NOT FOUND Attributes:
> Error
> 5474 11:14:52.094 PM svchost.exe:1680 FASTIO_QUERY_OPEN C:\Program
> Files\Microsoft SQL Server\90\Tools\binn\SRCLIENT.DLL NOT FOUND Attributes:
> Error
> 5475 11:14:52.094 PM svchost.exe:1680 FASTIO_QUERY_OPEN C:\Program
> Files\Microsoft SQL Server\90\Tools\Binn\VSShell\Common7\IDE\SRCLIENT.DLL
> NOT FOUND Attributes: Error
> Also, from the log:
> 102 11:14:44.058 PM svchost.exe:1680 FASTIO_DEVICE_CONTROL
> C:\WINDOWS\SoftwareDistribution\DataStore\Logs FAILURE IOCTL: 0x4D0008
> It indicates that not enough storage is available to process this command.
> Could you please check if the files paths are existed and if there is
> enough disk space during the setup process?
> Best regards,
> Charles Wang
> Microsoft Online Community Support
> =====================================================> Get notification to my posts through email? Please refer to:
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/managednewsgroups/default.aspx#notif
> ications
> If you are using Outlook Express, please make sure you clear the check box
> "Tools/Options/Read: Get 300 headers at a time" to see your reply promptly.
>
> Note: The MSDN Managed Newsgroup support offering is for non-urgent issues
> where an initial response from the community or a Microsoft Support
> Engineer within 1 business day is acceptable. Please note that each follow
> up response may take approximately 2 business days as the support
> professional working with you may need further investigation to reach the
> most efficient resolution. The offering is not appropriate for situations
> that require urgent, real-time or phone-based interactions or complex
> project analysis and dump analysis issues. Issues of this nature are best
> handled working with a dedicated Microsoft Support Engineer by contacting
> Microsoft Customer Support Services (CSS) at
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/support/default.aspx.
> ======================================================> When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via
> your newsreader so that others may learn and benefit
> from this issue.
> ======================================================> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
> ======================================================>
>

having trouble getting reporting services installed properly

Hi,
I am running Windows 2000 and VS 2003.
I installed Reporting Services with service pack 2.
When I type: in http://reportserver/reports I get an access denied 403 error.
When I go into IIS Manager and look for the Report folder properties I can't
find the Reports virtual directory. It does not exist.
So, how is it when I goto http://reportserver/reports I get a 403 error and
not a 404: File not found error.
The service is run as the executable: reportingservicesservice.exe
(discovered this through internet searches) on the machine, but when I search
for it, I can't find the file.
I have created a report and successfully viewed it in the VS 2003 Report
Designer, but the reporting services and Report Manager don't exist.
I do have this directory with lots of files, but I don't seem to have the
start page for Reporting Manaer anywhere on my system.
C:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL\Reporting Services
Could someone please advise.
Thank You
ChrisDid you open the reportning services configuration manager (new with 2005)
and configure the 2 folders. In 2005 it doesnt automatically create the 2
virtual folders, you have to explicitly create them through the configuration
manager.
Go to reporting services configuration (it should be somewhere in your
"START --> All programs") and connect to your report server, and make sure
the virtual directory tabs are green checked. If not set them
"Chris" wrote:
> Hi,
> I am running Windows 2000 and VS 2003.
> I installed Reporting Services with service pack 2.
> When I type: in http://reportserver/reports I get an access denied 403 error.
> When I go into IIS Manager and look for the Report folder properties I can't
> find the Reports virtual directory. It does not exist.
> So, how is it when I goto http://reportserver/reports I get a 403 error and
> not a 404: File not found error.
> The service is run as the executable: reportingservicesservice.exe
> (discovered this through internet searches) on the machine, but when I search
> for it, I can't find the file.
> I have created a report and successfully viewed it in the VS 2003 Report
> Designer, but the reporting services and Report Manager don't exist.
> I do have this directory with lots of files, but I don't seem to have the
> start page for Reporting Manaer anywhere on my system.
> C:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL\Reporting Services
> Could someone please advise.
> Thank You
> Chris|||Hi Nagini,
I am not using SQL Server 2005, I am using SQL Server 2000.
Thanks
Chris
"Nagini Indugula" wrote:
> Did you open the reportning services configuration manager (new with 2005)
> and configure the 2 folders. In 2005 it doesnt automatically create the 2
> virtual folders, you have to explicitly create them through the configuration
> manager.
> Go to reporting services configuration (it should be somewhere in your
> "START --> All programs") and connect to your report server, and make sure
> the virtual directory tabs are green checked. If not set them
> "Chris" wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am running Windows 2000 and VS 2003.
> >
> > I installed Reporting Services with service pack 2.
> >
> > When I type: in http://reportserver/reports I get an access denied 403 error.
> >
> > When I go into IIS Manager and look for the Report folder properties I can't
> > find the Reports virtual directory. It does not exist.
> >
> > So, how is it when I goto http://reportserver/reports I get a 403 error and
> > not a 404: File not found error.
> >
> > The service is run as the executable: reportingservicesservice.exe
> > (discovered this through internet searches) on the machine, but when I search
> > for it, I can't find the file.
> >
> > I have created a report and successfully viewed it in the VS 2003 Report
> > Designer, but the reporting services and Report Manager don't exist.
> >
> > I do have this directory with lots of files, but I don't seem to have the
> > start page for Reporting Manaer anywhere on my system.
> >
> > C:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL\Reporting Services
> >
> > Could someone please advise.
> >
> > Thank You
> >
> > Chris

Having trouble deploying a report

I've installed SQL Server 2005 express SP2 with SQL Server Reporting
Services, along with the Business Intelligence Development Studio from
the SQL Server Express Toolkit SP2. I've created a reports project
and a simple report that I'm trying to deploy. When I try to deploy,
I get prompted for a username and password. I've tried all the
username and password for this computer combinations I can think of,
but it doesn't recognize any of them. I have the virtual directory for
the SQL Reports set to 'integrated windows'. Any ideas about what I'm
missing?
-MichaelOn Jan 19, 7:07 pm, michael.sle...@.gmail.com wrote:
> I've installed SQL Server 2005 express SP2 with SQL Server Reporting
> Services, along with the Business Intelligence Development Studio from
> the SQL Server Express Toolkit SP2. I've created a reports project
> and a simple report that I'm trying to deploy. When I try to deploy,
> I get prompted for a username and password. I've tried all the
> username and password for this computer combinations I can think of,
> but it doesn't recognize any of them. I have the virtual directory for
> the SQL Reports set to 'integrated windows'. Any ideas about what I'm
> missing?
> -Michael
Have you created at least one user account in the Report Manager? If
you haven't, you will want to create a user account with at least
Browser privileges in the Report Manager, preferably set to your
current windows domain account (i.e., DOMAIN_NAME\UserName). Also, if
you are using Firefox or some other non-IE browser, the authentication
window always pops up. If this doesn't help, you may need to evaluate
the security on the Reports and ReportServer virtual directories in
IIS. Hope this helps.
Regards,
Enrique Martinez
Sr. Software Consultant|||Why not uploading the report using report manager?
http://localhost/reportS
Then "Upload Report"
See if you get an error message there, possibly more specific and post this
here.
Regards
Ralf Stofer
"EMartinez" wrote:
> On Jan 19, 7:07 pm, michael.sle...@.gmail.com wrote:
> > I've installed SQL Server 2005 express SP2 with SQL Server Reporting
> > Services, along with the Business Intelligence Development Studio from
> > the SQL Server Express Toolkit SP2. I've created a reports project
> > and a simple report that I'm trying to deploy. When I try to deploy,
> > I get prompted for a username and password. I've tried all the
> > username and password for this computer combinations I can think of,
> > but it doesn't recognize any of them. I have the virtual directory for
> > the SQL Reports set to 'integrated windows'. Any ideas about what I'm
> > missing?
> >
> > -Michael
>
> Have you created at least one user account in the Report Manager? If
> you haven't, you will want to create a user account with at least
> Browser privileges in the Report Manager, preferably set to your
> current windows domain account (i.e., DOMAIN_NAME\UserName). Also, if
> you are using Firefox or some other non-IE browser, the authentication
> window always pops up. If this doesn't help, you may need to evaluate
> the security on the Reports and ReportServer virtual directories in
> IIS. Hope this helps.
> Regards,
> Enrique Martinez
> Sr. Software Consultant
>|||On Jan 21, 2:35 pm, Ralf Stofer <RalfSto...@.discussions.microsoft.com>
wrote:
> Why not uploading the report using report manager?http://localhost/reportS
> Then "Upload Report"
> See if you get an error message there, possibly more specific and post this
> here.
> Regards
> Ralf Stofer
> "EMartinez" wrote:
> > On Jan 19, 7:07 pm, michael.sle...@.gmail.com wrote:
> > > I've installed SQL Server 2005 express SP2 with SQL Server Reporting
> > > Services, along with the Business Intelligence Development Studio from
> > > the SQL Server Express Toolkit SP2. I've created a reports project
> > > and a simple report that I'm trying to deploy. When I try to deploy,
> > > I get prompted for a username and password. I've tried all the
> > > username and password for this computer combinations I can think of,
> > > but it doesn't recognize any of them. I have the virtual directory for
> > > the SQL Reports set to 'integrated windows'. Any ideas about what I'm
> > > missing?
> > > -Michael
> > Have you created at least one user account in the Report Manager? If
> > you haven't, you will want to create a user account with at least
> > Browser privileges in the Report Manager, preferably set to your
> > current windows domain account (i.e., DOMAIN_NAME\UserName). Also, if
> > you are using Firefox or some other non-IE browser, the authentication
> > window always pops up. If this doesn't help, you may need to evaluate
> > the security on the Reports and ReportServer virtual directories in
> > IIS. Hope this helps.
> > Regards,
> > Enrique Martinez
> > Sr. Software Consultant
In order to upload a report via the Report Manager, the items I
mentioned above need to be in place beforehand.
Regards,
Enrique Martinez
Sr. Software Consultant

Having SQL Profiler while SQL Express Installed

Dear All,
Is it possible for me to have a SQL profiler install in my local while i hav
e running SQL Express in my machine?
Please advise, thank you.If you have a copy of sql server and want to install the management tools yo
u can install them on a machine regardless of the edition of sql server actu
ally running on the machine. However, I haven't tried running Profiler again
st SQL Express, but I don't see why you can't. But you'll have to actually t
ry that yourself.
Mark
"Connie" <yfchan@.kdu.edu.my> wrote in message news:%23LrYcIUtGHA.1888@.TK2MSF
TNGP03.phx.gbl...
Dear All,
Is it possible for me to have a SQL profiler install in my local while i hav
e running SQL Express in my machine?
Please advise, thank you.

Having SQL Profiler while SQL Express Installed

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--=_NextPart_000_0008_01C6B584.FD651AD0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear All,
Is it possible for me to have a SQL profiler install in my local while i = have running SQL Express in my machine?
Please advise, thank you.
--=_NextPart_000_0008_01C6B584.FD651AD0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
&
Dear All,

Is it possible for me to have a SQL profiler install in my local = while i have running SQL Express in my machine?

Please advise, thank you.
--=_NextPart_000_0008_01C6B584.FD651AD0--This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--=_NextPart_000_0034_01C6B540.6D9D7D50
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
If you have a copy of sql server and want to install the management =tools you can install them on a machine regardless of the edition of sql =server actually running on the machine. However, I haven't tried running =Profiler against SQL Express, but I don't see why you can't. But you'll =have to actually try that yourself.
Mark
"Connie" <yfchan@.kdu.edu.my> wrote in message =news:%23LrYcIUtGHA.1888@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
Dear All,
Is it possible for me to have a SQL profiler install in my local while =i have running SQL Express in my machine?
Please advise, thank you.
--=_NextPart_000_0034_01C6B540.6D9D7D50
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
&

---

If you have a copy of sql server and =want to install the management tools you can install them on a machine =regardless of the edition of sql server actually running on the machine. However, I =haven't tried running Profiler against SQL Express, but I don't see why you can't. But =you'll have to actually try that yourself.
Mark
"Connie" wrote in message news:%23LrYcIUtGHA.=1888@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
Dear All,

Is it possible for me to have a SQL profiler install in my =local while i have running SQL Express in my machine?

Please advise, thank you.

---

--=_NextPart_000_0034_01C6B540.6D9D7D50--sql

Having problem with my server

I just currently installed Microsoft studio express which includes SQL server and i get this error Server Error in '/WebSite1' Application. it also states "Timeout expired. The timeout period elapsed prior to completion of the operation or the server is not responding" I am wondering do i have to have IIS on to run SQL server 2005 express adition.

I am also having problem with SQL Express installation. After installing it, and configuring with SQL surface area for also remote access via tcp or pipe I still get the message:

>sqlcmd

HResult 0x2, Level 16, State 1
Named Pipes Provider: Could not open a connection to SQL Server [2].
Sqlcmd: Error: Microsoft SQL Native Client : An error has occurred while establi
shing a connection to the server. When connecting to SQL Server 2005, this failu
re may be caused by the fact that under the default settings SQL Server does not
allow remote connections..
Sqlcmd: Error: Microsoft SQL Native Client : Login timeout expired.

|||Make sure you have followed all of the steps at http://blogs.msdn.com/sqlexpress/archive/2005/05/05/415084.aspx in order to enable remote connectivity.

Having Problem With installation

Hi:
I have already installed QSL 2005 on a win 2003 machine. The installation was without erroe or something but when I open services I do not see any sql in there and when I open the management interface there is no machine detected there. Would you please help me to run this software. When in the management tool I try to connect to the server this is the error I get:

An error has occurred while establishing a connection to the server. When connecting to SQL Server 2005, this failure may be caused by the fact that under the default settings SQL Server does not allow remote connections. (provider: Named Pipes Provider, error: 40 - Could not open a connection to SQL Server) (.Net SqlClient Data Provider)

and when I try to surface area configuration this is my error message:

No SQL Server 2005 components were found on the specified computer. Either no components are installed, or you are not an administrator on this computer. (SQLSAC)

Thanks

Go to Add/Remove Programs from the Control Pannel. You should find an entry for "Microsoft SQL Server 2005" select it and click "Change" Once the dialog comes up you should see a "Report" button, click it. This will show you all of the SQL Server 2005 features installed. Copy and Paste this back to this thread.|||

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

No SQL Server 2005 components were found on the specified computer. Either no components are installed, or you are not an administrator on this computer. (SQLSAC)
=================================

and my SQL SErver says no instance has been found or installed on ur PC... i tried installing and uninstalling this atleast 4 times...i need help... i am encountering the same problem on another machine tooo...plzzz help me out

The configuration of two machines on which SQL servers produce this ERROR are

p4 2.4 Ghz, 512 MB ram, 845 intel original motherboard ,52 x cd R/W 80 gb HDD

AMD Athlon 64 Bit 3000 +, 512 MB ram, Asus motherboard ,52 x cd R/W 80 gb HDD

Operating System installed on two machines are ~~~> Windows XP 2002 Service pack 2

REport File is as follows

System Configuration Check

- WMI Service Requirement (Success)
Messages
* WMI Service Requirement
* Check Passed

- MSXML Requirement (Success)
Messages
* MSXML Requirement
* Check Passed

- Operating System Minimum Level Requirement (Success)
Messages
* Operating System Minimum Level Requirement
* Check Passed

- Operating System Service Pack Level Requirement. (Success)
Messages
* Operating System Service Pack Level Requirement.
* Check Passed

- SQL Server Edition Operating System Compatibility (Warning)
Messages
* SQL Server Edition Operating System Compatibility
* Some components of this edition of SQL Server are not supported on this operating system. For details, see 'Hardware and Software Requirements for Installing SQL Server 2005' in Microsoft SQL Server Books Online.

- Minimum Hardware Requirement (Warning)
Messages
* Minimum Hardware Requirement
* The current system does not meet the minimum hardware requirements for this SQL Server release. For detailed hardware and software requirements, see the readme file or SQL Server Books Online.

- IIS Feature Requirement (Success)
Messages
* IIS Feature Requirement
* Check Passed

- Pending Reboot Requirement (Success)
Messages
* Pending Reboot Requirement
* Check Passed

- Performance Monitor Counter Requirement (Success)
Messages
* Performance Monitor Counter Requirement
* Check Passed

- Default Installation Path Permission Requirement (Success)
Messages
* Default Installation Path Permission Requirement
* Check Passed

- Internet Explorer Requirement (Success)
Messages
* Internet Explorer Requirement
* Check Passed

- COM Plus Catalog Requirement (Success)
Messages
* COM Plus Catalog Requirement
* Check Passed

- ASP.Net Version Registration Requirement (Success)
Messages
* ASP.Net Version Registration Requirement
* Check Passed

- Minimum MDAC Version Requirement (Success)
Messages
* Minimum MDAC Version Requirement
* Check Passed

|||For the error msg you're getting it sounds like you're attempting to install the Enterprise Edition on Windows XP SP2. Enterprise Edition is not supported on Windows XP - only Windows 2000 Server and Windows 2003 Server.|||

Hi Bobby62,

Your error "No SQL Server 2005 components were found on the specified computer" can be caused if you installed SQL Server 2005 using Disc 2 of 2. I actually did this myself accidentally. I didn't realize there were two "Premium Technologies" CD's (those shiny discs are hard to read)! So I had accidentally done the installation from disc 2. The setup process appeared legit, when in fact it only installed the client apps.

In short, make sure you're installing SQL 2005 from disc 1 of 2.

Regards,

Doug

Having Problem With installation

Hi:
I have already installed QSL 2005 on a win 2003 machine. The installation was without erroe or something but when I open services I do not see any sql in there and when I open the management interface there is no machine detected there. Would you please help me to run this software. When in the management tool I try to connect to the server this is the error I get:

An error has occurred while establishing a connection to the server. When connecting to SQL Server 2005, this failure may be caused by the fact that under the default settings SQL Server does not allow remote connections. (provider: Named Pipes Provider, error: 40 - Could not open a connection to SQL Server) (.Net SqlClient Data Provider)

and when I try to surface area configuration this is my error message:

No SQL Server 2005 components were found on the specified computer. Either no components are installed, or you are not an administrator on this computer. (SQLSAC)

Thanks

Go to Add/Remove Programs from the Control Pannel. You should find an entry for "Microsoft SQL Server 2005" select it and click "Change" Once the dialog comes up you should see a "Report" button, click it. This will show you all of the SQL Server 2005 features installed. Copy and Paste this back to this thread.|||

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

No SQL Server 2005 components were found on the specified computer. Either no components are installed, or you are not an administrator on this computer. (SQLSAC)
=================================

and my SQL SErver says no instance has been found or installed on ur PC... i tried installing and uninstalling this atleast 4 times...i need help... i am encountering the same problem on another machine tooo...plzzz help me out

The configuration of two machines on which SQL servers produce this ERROR are

p4 2.4 Ghz, 512 MB ram, 845 intel original motherboard ,52 x cd R/W 80 gb HDD

AMD Athlon 64 Bit 3000 +, 512 MB ram, Asus motherboard ,52 x cd R/W 80 gb HDD

Operating System installed on two machines are ~~~> Windows XP 2002 Service pack 2

REport File is as follows

System Configuration Check

- WMI Service Requirement (Success)
Messages
* WMI Service Requirement
* Check Passed

- MSXML Requirement (Success)
Messages
* MSXML Requirement
* Check Passed

- Operating System Minimum Level Requirement (Success)
Messages
* Operating System Minimum Level Requirement
* Check Passed

- Operating System Service Pack Level Requirement. (Success)
Messages
* Operating System Service Pack Level Requirement.
* Check Passed

- SQL Server Edition Operating System Compatibility (Warning)
Messages
* SQL Server Edition Operating System Compatibility
* Some components of this edition of SQL Server are not supported on this operating system. For details, see 'Hardware and Software Requirements for Installing SQL Server 2005' in Microsoft SQL Server Books Online.

- Minimum Hardware Requirement (Warning)
Messages
* Minimum Hardware Requirement
* The current system does not meet the minimum hardware requirements for this SQL Server release. For detailed hardware and software requirements, see the readme file or SQL Server Books Online.

- IIS Feature Requirement (Success)
Messages
* IIS Feature Requirement
* Check Passed

- Pending Reboot Requirement (Success)
Messages
* Pending Reboot Requirement
* Check Passed

- Performance Monitor Counter Requirement (Success)
Messages
* Performance Monitor Counter Requirement
* Check Passed

- Default Installation Path Permission Requirement (Success)
Messages
* Default Installation Path Permission Requirement
* Check Passed

- Internet Explorer Requirement (Success)
Messages
* Internet Explorer Requirement
* Check Passed

- COM Plus Catalog Requirement (Success)
Messages
* COM Plus Catalog Requirement
* Check Passed

- ASP.Net Version Registration Requirement (Success)
Messages
* ASP.Net Version Registration Requirement
* Check Passed

- Minimum MDAC Version Requirement (Success)
Messages
* Minimum MDAC Version Requirement
* Check Passed

|||For the error msg you're getting it sounds like you're attempting to install the Enterprise Edition on Windows XP SP2. Enterprise Edition is not supported on Windows XP - only Windows 2000 Server and Windows 2003 Server.|||

Hi Bobby62,

Your error "No SQL Server 2005 components were found on the specified computer" can be caused if you installed SQL Server 2005 using Disc 2 of 2. I actually did this myself accidentally. I didn't realize there were two "Premium Technologies" CD's (those shiny discs are hard to read)! So I had accidentally done the installation from disc 2. The setup process appeared legit, when in fact it only installed the client apps.

In short, make sure you're installing SQL 2005 from disc 1 of 2.

Regards,

Doug

have you ever installed MSSQL on a server with Oracle already running ?

am i going to cause problems if i install MSSQL2005 on a server with Oracle already installed and running ?
thank youOracle and MSSQL on the same machine is possible without problems ?
have you experience about this ?

thank you
Dario|||I have them both on my dev box at home, but it's difficult to run them both simultaneously. They both grab a lot of memory, but especially oracle.

I only run the services simultaneously when absolutely necessary.

I would never run them on the same box in a production environment.|||I have an Oracle server and a SQL Server running on the same box in a production environment, but there's a couple of BIG catches:

1. The Oracle server (9iR2) is only being used for Oracle Enterprise Management services and as an RMAN catalog/repository. Nothing else. It's certainly NOT an OLTP machine;

2. The SQL Server is SQL 2005 Standard Edition and is the back end for SQL Reporting Services and WSUS (Windows Update Services). The Reporting Services install is used only for management reports (nothing goes to the outside world).

So, yes they can be installed on the same machine together. I wouldn't recommend it for anything that was mission critical (I can lose OEM, WSUS and Reporting Services and not impact production applications).

Regards,

hmscott|||THat server has 2Gbyte ram
Right now oracle.exe is using 430MB memory and java.exe 100MB of memory

I would install Sql Server 2005 Express edition (will not be used heavly)
do you think i should find another machine for this task ?|||it's not just the memory that's the issue. both will be competing for other resources such as disk and cpu.

my instinct is to put express on a separate server.

there's nothing to prevent you from trying it on the same server and reporting back here with your experience howerver ;)|||Well. It's quite possible to run both SQL Server and Oracle on the same computer, without any problems. However, as mentioned, they will compete for CPU, Memory, I/O and other resources, so the performance may drop quite a bit when both are executing queries at the same time. In a testing-environment this should really not be a too big issue. What I've done is going a bit further, installing SQL Server and Oracle in their own Virtual PCs. They still compete for resources, but it's easy for me to transfer one of the Virtual PCs to a different physical computer if I should need to do so.

If you end having Oracle and SQL Server on the same computer, please ensure that you configure both Oracle and SQL Server, so that they both get enough memory.

have lost the ability to get in

I never, ever cross-post, but I am desparate. This was placed in the
sqlserver.server group earlier today.
I installed SQL 2005 on a new machine last week. Created a database using
scripts. Worked fine for a few days. It's not on my machine, but on a
Win2003 Vitrual Server instance which I get to remotely.
Yesterday, I attached a database that had been created on another machine,
with SQL 2000. Seemed to work fine. I closed SQL Server to work on something
else, then opened it back up. It won't let me in now. It says that it
doesn't allow remote connections, even though I am doing it from the same
machine that it resides on. (Well, it's remote in that I am using Terminal
Services, but you know what I mean).
Text of the message is below the line at the bottom of this.
I tried changing the way I log in, including Windows Authentication, SQL
Server authentication, using my network name, and then using the user name I
created just for this thing when I installed SQL Server. I alwasy get the
same message. I also tried connecting remotely from another machine.
I was able to use this same machine to connect to another SQL Server
instance on the network, so it's apparent that the installation of SQL
Server isn't messed up.
I know that I will probably get asked about an admin username and password,
but I don't know what mine is. I tried sa with no password, but it didn't
work.
This is really causing some problems and I have something due at noon today.
Any help appreciated.
If I uninstalled SQL Server and re-install, will that let me in then?
-----
TITLE: Connect to Server
Cannot connect to SERV423.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
An error has occurred while establishing a connection to the server. When
connecting to SQL Server 2005, this failure may be caused by the fact that
under the default settings SQL Server does not allow remote connections.
(provider: Named Pipes Provider, error: 40 - Could not open a connection to
SQL Server) (Microsoft SQL Server, Error: 2)
For help, click:
http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink?ProdN...2&LinkId=20476
BUTTONS:
OK
I stumbled across the fact that two of the services weren't running, despite
their being set to automatic. Not sure why, but at any rate, I started them
and I can get in now.
While I am happy that I am in, I sure wish MS would have given a more
intuitive error message; would have saved me a few hours.
|||Hi middletree,
Can you please tell use the exact services that needed to be started in
order for you to get this to work. I am having the exact same issue and
i've googled hi and lo with no apparent solution.
Thanks,
Brendan
middletree wrote:
> I stumbled across the fact that two of the services weren't running, despite
> their being set to automatic. Not sure why, but at any rate, I started them
> and I can get in now.
> While I am happy that I am in, I sure wish MS would have given a more
> intuitive error message; would have saved me a few hours.

have lost the ability to get in

I never, ever cross-post, but I am desparate. This was placed in the
sqlserver.server group earlier today.
I installed SQL 2005 on a new machine last week. Created a database using
scripts. Worked fine for a few days. It's not on my machine, but on a
Win2003 Vitrual Server instance which I get to remotely.
Yesterday, I attached a database that had been created on another machine,
with SQL 2000. Seemed to work fine. I closed SQL Server to work on something
else, then opened it back up. It won't let me in now. It says that it
doesn't allow remote connections, even though I am doing it from the same
machine that it resides on. (Well, it's remote in that I am using Terminal
Services, but you know what I mean).
Text of the message is below the line at the bottom of this.
I tried changing the way I log in, including Windows Authentication, SQL
Server authentication, using my network name, and then using the user name I
created just for this thing when I installed SQL Server. I alwasy get the
same message. I also tried connecting remotely from another machine.
I was able to use this same machine to connect to another SQL Server
instance on the network, so it's apparent that the installation of SQL
Server isn't messed up.
I know that I will probably get asked about an admin username and password,
but I don't know what mine is. I tried sa with no password, but it didn't
work.
This is really causing some problems and I have something due at noon today.
Any help appreciated.
If I uninstalled SQL Server and re-install, will that let me in then?
----
--
TITLE: Connect to Server
--
Cannot connect to SERV423.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
An error has occurred while establishing a connection to the server. When
connecting to SQL Server 2005, this failure may be caused by the fact that
under the default settings SQL Server does not allow remote connections.
(provider: Named Pipes Provider, error: 40 - Could not open a connection to
SQL Server) (Microsoft SQL Server, Error: 2)
For help, click:
tID=2&LinkId=20476" target="_blank">http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink?Prod...=2&LinkId=20476
BUTTONS:
OK
--I stumbled across the fact that two of the services weren't running, despite
their being set to automatic. Not sure why, but at any rate, I started them
and I can get in now.
While I am happy that I am in, I sure wish MS would have given a more
intuitive error message; would have saved me a few hours.|||Hi middletree,
Can you please tell use the exact services that needed to be started in
order for you to get this to work. I am having the exact same issue and
i've googled hi and lo with no apparent solution.
Thanks,
Brendan
middletree wrote:
> I stumbled across the fact that two of the services weren't running, despi
te
> their being set to automatic. Not sure why, but at any rate, I started the
m
> and I can get in now.
> While I am happy that I am in, I sure wish MS would have given a more
> intuitive error message; would have saved me a few hours.

Hardware scalability

Dear all,
My company has got a Win 2000 SP3 (PIII 1.2Ghz, 1.5Go RAM) server with SQL
2000 SP3a installed (around 90 databases in which around 10 are used daily
not intensively - total data size : 5.5Go - in which 10% is for daily used
databases). SQL Server is setup to use at most 800Mo of RAM. Transactional
replication is implemented. The server is setup as editor only (distributor
and subscribers are on other powerful servers). All is working fine. Network
load is low (10Mo pikes for I/O). We have got around 20 frequent users on
this server.
We are planning to implement two new databases that should represents a
significant increase in workload (frequent heavy batches processes - 1Go of
data). Moreover, we need to integrate them in the transactional replication
process.
We are wondering if our hardware will be sufficient enough to support this
added workload. Yet, I've not found any rule to deduce hardware requirements
from databases size and use.
Could you give me clues for scaling my server, knowing that I have no
similar test server to make benchmarking? Maybe have you similar systems?
Thanks a lot,
Eric.
Eric,
You're correct there's not much to go on here. However, I would point out
one thing. Sounds like the server infrequently services reasonably short
requests. That indicates that the single processor is probably keeping up
with the requests because its generally only getting one request at a time.
So the responsiveness to the users is acceptable. By integrating heavy
batch processes into the mix, there's a strong likelihood that SQL won't
have an internal scheduler free when a user request is initiated. A mix of
heavy batch or large query, with OLTP on too few processors usually results
in end users waiting on screens.
"itparis" <itparis@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:DF71D8B2-6184-4631-82F3-6FE96FA81514@.microsoft.com...
> Dear all,
> My company has got a Win 2000 SP3 (PIII 1.2Ghz, 1.5Go RAM) server with SQL
> 2000 SP3a installed (around 90 databases in which around 10 are used daily
> not intensively - total data size : 5.5Go - in which 10% is for daily used
> databases). SQL Server is setup to use at most 800Mo of RAM. Transactional
> replication is implemented. The server is setup as editor only
> (distributor
> and subscribers are on other powerful servers). All is working fine.
> Network
> load is low (10Mo pikes for I/O). We have got around 20 frequent users on
> this server.
> We are planning to implement two new databases that should represents a
> significant increase in workload (frequent heavy batches processes - 1Go
> of
> data). Moreover, we need to integrate them in the transactional
> replication
> process.
> We are wondering if our hardware will be sufficient enough to support this
> added workload. Yet, I've not found any rule to deduce hardware
> requirements
> from databases size and use.
> Could you give me clues for scaling my server, knowing that I have no
> similar test server to make benchmarking? Maybe have you similar systems?
> Thanks a lot,
> Eric.
|||"Danny" <someone@.nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:KpdWe.6396$XO6.2458@.trnddc03...
> Eric,
> You're correct there's not much to go on here. However, I would point out
> one thing. Sounds like the server infrequently services reasonably short
> requests. That indicates that the single processor is probably keeping up
> with the requests because its generally only getting one request at a
> time. So the responsiveness to the users is acceptable. By integrating
> heavy batch processes into the mix, there's a strong likelihood that SQL
> won't have an internal scheduler free when a user request is initiated. A
> mix of heavy batch or large query, with OLTP on too few processors usually
> results in end users waiting on screens.
>
I have to agree with Danny on this one. The right answer (as always with
database) is, It depends.
Do you want to optimize your server for general usage, or do you want to
optimize your server to handle the spikes in performance.
For general usage, I would suggest that you add more RAM to the box. 4GB
total and give 2GB to SQL Server. You will still have spikes, most likely
due to the processor running heavy batches, but should otherwise be in
decent shape. On the replication side of the house, depending on the size
of your transactions which are being replicated and how often replication
occurs (immediate, every 15 minutes etc.). You may want to upgrade your NIC
if possible to 100MB or even 1GB.
If you want to optimize to handle the spikes, then more RAM, 2 procs with
higher speeds and larger L2 caches should help out.
You can read up on a lot of the perf counters to watch for at
www.sql-server-performance.com Take a look at McGeHee's article... It's a
great first step...
http://www.sql-server-performance.co...ance_audit.asp
Rick Sawtell
MCT, MCSD, MCDBA
|||The "standard" config for a dedicated and heavy-duty SQLServer
hardware is 2-processors, all the RAM you can get, at least separate
physical drive for log files, generally RAID-5 for the main DBs.
These days with 200gb drives going for a hundred bux you don't need
RAID just to get your storage size up, but it still helps isolate
physical storage concerns. Network-attached storage is even better,
if you have gigahertz networks. And oh yes, Windows2003, makes
hyperthreading work and has better general threading and COM 1.5+.
Click up Dell and configure such a server, betcha can get a couple of
3ghz processors starting around, um, ... $10k? $15k? Depends. Once
you reach blade-scale, adding another processor is cheap.
Let's say a proper current box like this would be around 5x faster
than a single PIII with a single physical disk drive.
J.
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 02:00:07 -0700, "itparis"
<itparis@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>Dear all,
>My company has got a Win 2000 SP3 (PIII 1.2Ghz, 1.5Go RAM) server with SQL
>2000 SP3a installed (around 90 databases in which around 10 are used daily
>not intensively - total data size : 5.5Go - in which 10% is for daily used
>databases). SQL Server is setup to use at most 800Mo of RAM. Transactional
>replication is implemented. The server is setup as editor only (distributor
>and subscribers are on other powerful servers). All is working fine. Network
>load is low (10Mo pikes for I/O). We have got around 20 frequent users on
>this server.
>We are planning to implement two new databases that should represents a
>significant increase in workload (frequent heavy batches processes - 1Go of
>data). Moreover, we need to integrate them in the transactional replication
>process.
>We are wondering if our hardware will be sufficient enough to support this
>added workload. Yet, I've not found any rule to deduce hardware requirements
>from databases size and use.
>Could you give me clues for scaling my server, knowing that I have no
>similar test server to make benchmarking? Maybe have you similar systems?
>Thanks a lot,
>Eric.

Hardware scalability

Dear all,
My company has got a Win 2000 SP3 (PIII 1.2Ghz, 1.5Go RAM) server with SQL
2000 SP3a installed (around 90 databases in which around 10 are used daily
not intensively - total data size : 5.5Go - in which 10% is for daily used
databases). SQL Server is setup to use at most 800Mo of RAM. Transactional
replication is implemented. The server is setup as editor only (distributor
and subscribers are on other powerful servers). All is working fine. Network
load is low (10Mo pikes for I/O). We have got around 20 frequent users on
this server.
We are planning to implement two new databases that should represents a
significant increase in workload (frequent heavy batches processes - 1Go of
data). Moreover, we need to integrate them in the transactional replication
process.
We are wondering if our hardware will be sufficient enough to support this
added workload. Yet, I've not found any rule to deduce hardware requirements
from databases size and use.
Could you give me clues for scaling my server, knowing that I have no
similar test server to make benchmarking? Maybe have you similar systems?
Thanks a lot,
Eric.Eric,
You're correct there's not much to go on here. However, I would point out
one thing. Sounds like the server infrequently services reasonably short
requests. That indicates that the single processor is probably keeping up
with the requests because its generally only getting one request at a time.
So the responsiveness to the users is acceptable. By integrating heavy
batch processes into the mix, there's a strong likelihood that SQL won't
have an internal scheduler free when a user request is initiated. A mix of
heavy batch or large query, with OLTP on too few processors usually results
in end users waiting on screens.
"itparis" <itparis@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:DF71D8B2-6184-4631-82F3-6FE96FA81514@.microsoft.com...
> Dear all,
> My company has got a Win 2000 SP3 (PIII 1.2Ghz, 1.5Go RAM) server with SQL
> 2000 SP3a installed (around 90 databases in which around 10 are used daily
> not intensively - total data size : 5.5Go - in which 10% is for daily used
> databases). SQL Server is setup to use at most 800Mo of RAM. Transactional
> replication is implemented. The server is setup as editor only
> (distributor
> and subscribers are on other powerful servers). All is working fine.
> Network
> load is low (10Mo pikes for I/O). We have got around 20 frequent users on
> this server.
> We are planning to implement two new databases that should represents a
> significant increase in workload (frequent heavy batches processes - 1Go
> of
> data). Moreover, we need to integrate them in the transactional
> replication
> process.
> We are wondering if our hardware will be sufficient enough to support this
> added workload. Yet, I've not found any rule to deduce hardware
> requirements
> from databases size and use.
> Could you give me clues for scaling my server, knowing that I have no
> similar test server to make benchmarking? Maybe have you similar systems?
> Thanks a lot,
> Eric.|||"Danny" <someone@.nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:KpdWe.6396$XO6.2458@.trnddc03...
> Eric,
> You're correct there's not much to go on here. However, I would point out
> one thing. Sounds like the server infrequently services reasonably short
> requests. That indicates that the single processor is probably keeping up
> with the requests because its generally only getting one request at a
> time. So the responsiveness to the users is acceptable. By integrating
> heavy batch processes into the mix, there's a strong likelihood that SQL
> won't have an internal scheduler free when a user request is initiated. A
> mix of heavy batch or large query, with OLTP on too few processors usually
> results in end users waiting on screens.
>
I have to agree with Danny on this one. The right answer (as always with
database) is, It depends.
Do you want to optimize your server for general usage, or do you want to
optimize your server to handle the spikes in performance.
For general usage, I would suggest that you add more RAM to the box. 4GB
total and give 2GB to SQL Server. You will still have spikes, most likely
due to the processor running heavy batches, but should otherwise be in
decent shape. On the replication side of the house, depending on the size
of your transactions which are being replicated and how often replication
occurs (immediate, every 15 minutes etc.). You may want to upgrade your NIC
if possible to 100MB or even 1GB.
If you want to optimize to handle the spikes, then more RAM, 2 procs with
higher speeds and larger L2 caches should help out.
You can read up on a lot of the perf counters to watch for at
www.sql-server-performance.com Take a look at McGeHee's article... It's a
great first step...
http://www.sql-server-performance.com/sql_server_performance_audit.asp
Rick Sawtell
MCT, MCSD, MCDBA|||The "standard" config for a dedicated and heavy-duty SQLServer
hardware is 2-processors, all the RAM you can get, at least separate
physical drive for log files, generally RAID-5 for the main DBs.
These days with 200gb drives going for a hundred bux you don't need
RAID just to get your storage size up, but it still helps isolate
physical storage concerns. Network-attached storage is even better,
if you have gigahertz networks. And oh yes, Windows2003, makes
hyperthreading work and has better general threading and COM 1.5+.
Click up Dell and configure such a server, betcha can get a couple of
3ghz processors starting around, um, ... $10k? $15k? Depends. Once
you reach blade-scale, adding another processor is cheap.
Let's say a proper current box like this would be around 5x faster
than a single PIII with a single physical disk drive.
J.
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 02:00:07 -0700, "itparis"
<itparis@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>Dear all,
>My company has got a Win 2000 SP3 (PIII 1.2Ghz, 1.5Go RAM) server with SQL
>2000 SP3a installed (around 90 databases in which around 10 are used daily
>not intensively - total data size : 5.5Go - in which 10% is for daily used
>databases). SQL Server is setup to use at most 800Mo of RAM. Transactional
>replication is implemented. The server is setup as editor only (distributor
>and subscribers are on other powerful servers). All is working fine. Network
>load is low (10Mo pikes for I/O). We have got around 20 frequent users on
>this server.
>We are planning to implement two new databases that should represents a
>significant increase in workload (frequent heavy batches processes - 1Go of
>data). Moreover, we need to integrate them in the transactional replication
>process.
>We are wondering if our hardware will be sufficient enough to support this
>added workload. Yet, I've not found any rule to deduce hardware requirements
>from databases size and use.
>Could you give me clues for scaling my server, knowing that I have no
>similar test server to make benchmarking? Maybe have you similar systems?
>Thanks a lot,
>Eric.

Hardware scalability

Dear all,
My company has got a Win 2000 SP3 (PIII 1.2Ghz, 1.5Go RAM) server with SQL
2000 SP3a installed (around 90 databases in which around 10 are used daily
not intensively - total data size : 5.5Go - in which 10% is for daily used
databases). SQL Server is setup to use at most 800Mo of RAM. Transactional
replication is implemented. The server is setup as editor only (distributor
and subscribers are on other powerful servers). All is working fine. Network
load is low (10Mo pikes for I/O). We have got around 20 frequent users on
this server.
We are planning to implement two new databases that should represents a
significant increase in workload (frequent heavy batches processes - 1Go of
data). Moreover, we need to integrate them in the transactional replication
process.
We are wondering if our hardware will be sufficient enough to support this
added workload. Yet, I've not found any rule to deduce hardware requirements
from databases size and use.
Could you give me clues for scaling my server, knowing that I have no
similar test server to make benchmarking? Maybe have you similar systems?
Thanks a lot,
Eric.Eric,
You're correct there's not much to go on here. However, I would point out
one thing. Sounds like the server infrequently services reasonably short
requests. That indicates that the single processor is probably keeping up
with the requests because its generally only getting one request at a time.
So the responsiveness to the users is acceptable. By integrating heavy
batch processes into the mix, there's a strong likelihood that SQL won't
have an internal scheduler free when a user request is initiated. A mix of
heavy batch or large query, with OLTP on too few processors usually results
in end users waiting on screens.
"itparis" <itparis@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:DF71D8B2-6184-4631-82F3-6FE96FA81514@.microsoft.com...
> Dear all,
> My company has got a Win 2000 SP3 (PIII 1.2Ghz, 1.5Go RAM) server with SQL
> 2000 SP3a installed (around 90 databases in which around 10 are used daily
> not intensively - total data size : 5.5Go - in which 10% is for daily used
> databases). SQL Server is setup to use at most 800Mo of RAM. Transactional
> replication is implemented. The server is setup as editor only
> (distributor
> and subscribers are on other powerful servers). All is working fine.
> Network
> load is low (10Mo pikes for I/O). We have got around 20 frequent users on
> this server.
> We are planning to implement two new databases that should represents a
> significant increase in workload (frequent heavy batches processes - 1Go
> of
> data). Moreover, we need to integrate them in the transactional
> replication
> process.
> We are wondering if our hardware will be sufficient enough to support this
> added workload. Yet, I've not found any rule to deduce hardware
> requirements
> from databases size and use.
> Could you give me clues for scaling my server, knowing that I have no
> similar test server to make benchmarking? Maybe have you similar systems?
> Thanks a lot,
> Eric.|||"Danny" <someone@.nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:KpdWe.6396$XO6.2458@.trnddc03...
> Eric,
> You're correct there's not much to go on here. However, I would point out
> one thing. Sounds like the server infrequently services reasonably short
> requests. That indicates that the single processor is probably keeping up
> with the requests because its generally only getting one request at a
> time. So the responsiveness to the users is acceptable. By integrating
> heavy batch processes into the mix, there's a strong likelihood that SQL
> won't have an internal scheduler free when a user request is initiated. A
> mix of heavy batch or large query, with OLTP on too few processors usually
> results in end users waiting on screens.
>
I have to agree with Danny on this one. The right answer (as always with
database) is, It depends.
Do you want to optimize your server for general usage, or do you want to
optimize your server to handle the spikes in performance.
For general usage, I would suggest that you add more RAM to the box. 4GB
total and give 2GB to SQL Server. You will still have spikes, most likely
due to the processor running heavy batches, but should otherwise be in
decent shape. On the replication side of the house, depending on the size
of your transactions which are being replicated and how often replication
occurs (immediate, every 15 minutes etc.). You may want to upgrade your NIC
if possible to 100MB or even 1GB.
If you want to optimize to handle the spikes, then more RAM, 2 procs with
higher speeds and larger L2 caches should help out.
You can read up on a lot of the perf counters to watch for at
www.sql-server-performance.com Take a look at McGeHee's article... It's a
great first step...
http://www.sql-server-performance.c...mance_audit.asp
Rick Sawtell
MCT, MCSD, MCDBA|||The "standard" config for a dedicated and heavy-duty SQLServer
hardware is 2-processors, all the RAM you can get, at least separate
physical drive for log files, generally RAID-5 for the main DBs.
These days with 200gb drives going for a hundred bux you don't need
RAID just to get your storage size up, but it still helps isolate
physical storage concerns. Network-attached storage is even better,
if you have gigahertz networks. And oh yes, Windows2003, makes
hyperthreading work and has better general threading and COM 1.5+.
Click up Dell and configure such a server, betcha can get a couple of
3ghz processors starting around, um, ... $10k? $15k? Depends. Once
you reach blade-scale, adding another processor is cheap.
Let's say a proper current box like this would be around 5x faster
than a single PIII with a single physical disk drive.
J.
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 02:00:07 -0700, "itparis"
<itparis@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>Dear all,
>My company has got a Win 2000 SP3 (PIII 1.2Ghz, 1.5Go RAM) server with SQL
>2000 SP3a installed (around 90 databases in which around 10 are used daily
>not intensively - total data size : 5.5Go - in which 10% is for daily used
>databases). SQL Server is setup to use at most 800Mo of RAM. Transactional
>replication is implemented. The server is setup as editor only (distributor
>and subscribers are on other powerful servers). All is working fine. Networ
k
>load is low (10Mo pikes for I/O). We have got around 20 frequent users on
>this server.
>We are planning to implement two new databases that should represents a
>significant increase in workload (frequent heavy batches processes - 1Go of
>data). Moreover, we need to integrate them in the transactional replication
>process.
>We are wondering if our hardware will be sufficient enough to support this
>added workload. Yet, I've not found any rule to deduce hardware requirement
s
>from databases size and use.
>Could you give me clues for scaling my server, knowing that I have no
>similar test server to make benchmarking? Maybe have you similar systems?
>Thanks a lot,
>Eric.

Hardware Requirements for SQL server DB Clustering

Hi,
I want to cluster my SQL server DB and just wondering what hardware (how
many systems, adapters, what will be installed on what etc) will be required
to do the same. We are planning to use Win2k3 "Server Cluster" service for
the same.
Where will SQL Server DB reside? What will be installed on Nodes?
Thanks in advance
Pankaj A. Chitriv
Its a pretty vague question with a lot of decisions to be made. You need at
least two servers with the same hardware. Each server should have at least 2
nic cards. You need to decide what type of shared storage you want. It can
range from a scsi drive array to a fiber channel SAN.
The database needs to reside on the shared storage. If you have only one
database you will be using and active/passive clustering model.
You can Google or search MS for SQL and clustering and come up with a slew
of reading. Check with your hardware vendor to work out the hardware details
and come up with something you want and can afford. We'll be here to help
along the way.
Hope it helps.........
dw
Don Wilwol
http://spaces.msn.com/members/wilwol/
"Pankaj" <pankajchitriv@.rediffmail.com(donotspam)> wrote in message
news:36FB2975-3CCB-4160-8503-DAD488F140E0@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I want to cluster my SQL server DB and just wondering what hardware (how
> many systems, adapters, what will be installed on what etc) will be
> required
> to do the same. We are planning to use Win2k3 "Server Cluster" service for
> the same.
> Where will SQL Server DB reside? What will be installed on Nodes?
> Thanks in advance
> Pankaj A. Chitriv
>
|||Pankaj,
I've got more information for you. I'm most familiar with
COMPAQ/HP cluster implementations, so I'll suggest
something from their product line that will give you an
idea as to what hardware is needed. There is something
called a "packaged cluster", which contains what you need
(a baseline config only. There are many options to consider)
Just google for "DL380 packaged cluster" and hit the first link
that comes up. (today, anyway) It should
Now, for more in-depth "how-to-do-it" information, I will
suggest that you get a book called
"Sql server 2000 Black Book" by Coriolis.
This book explains in great detail what needs to be done to
get clustered SQL working. Only about 40 pages of it is
for clustering, but I still think that it is the best
printed resource.
Costs about 60 bucks but worth it, since you are about to spend 40K or more...
Good Luck!
jg

Quote:

Originally posted by Pankaj
Hi,
I want to cluster my SQL server DB and just wondering what hardware (how
many systems, adapters, what will be installed on what etc) will be required
to do the same. We are planning to use Win2k3 "Server Cluster" service for
the same.
Where will SQL Server DB reside? What will be installed on Nodes?
Thanks in advance
Pankaj A. Chitriv

|||Thanks a lot Don.
"Don Wilwol" wrote:

> Its a pretty vague question with a lot of decisions to be made. You need at
> least two servers with the same hardware. Each server should have at least 2
> nic cards. You need to decide what type of shared storage you want. It can
> range from a scsi drive array to a fiber channel SAN.
> The database needs to reside on the shared storage. If you have only one
> database you will be using and active/passive clustering model.
> You can Google or search MS for SQL and clustering and come up with a slew
> of reading. Check with your hardware vendor to work out the hardware details
> and come up with something you want and can afford. We'll be here to help
> along the way.
> --
> Hope it helps.........
> dw
> Don Wilwol
> http://spaces.msn.com/members/wilwol/
>
> "Pankaj" <pankajchitriv@.rediffmail.com(donotspam)> wrote in message
> news:36FB2975-3CCB-4160-8503-DAD488F140E0@.microsoft.com...
>
>

Hard drive crashed but MDF/LDF on drive D:

SQL 7.0/Server 2000
The c: drive crashed;
the MDF and LDF files were on drive D:
When a new hard drive is installed with the new OS and
SQL 7.0 installed on it...is there a way to "attach" to
the MDF and LDF files? or are they lost?
Thanks,
Don
with SQL7 and/or SQL 2000
you can try sp_attach_db
PS. usually better to perform sp_detach_db but you had no choice in this
instance :-)
hope this works.
"Don" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:086001c4f832$20813b50$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
> SQL 7.0/Server 2000
> The c: drive crashed;
> the MDF and LDF files were on drive D:
> When a new hard drive is installed with the new OS and
> SQL 7.0 installed on it...is there a way to "attach" to
> the MDF and LDF files? or are they lost?
> Thanks,
> Don
>
|||sp_attach_db is the first choice but if you have issues this may help:
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/scri...p?scriptid=599
Restoring a .mdf
http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=314546 Moving DB's between Servers
http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=224071 Moving SQL Server Databases
to a New Location with Detach/Attach
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=221465 Using WITH MOVE in a
Restore
http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=246133 How To Transfer Logins and
Passwords Between SQL Servers
http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=298897 Mapping Logins & SIDs after a
Restore
http://www.dbmaint.com/SyncSqlLogins.asp Utility to map logins to
users
http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=168001 User Logon and/or Permission
Errors After Restoring Dump
http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=240872 How to Resolve Permission
Issues When a Database Is Moved Between SQL Servers
http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=307775 Disaster Recovery Articles
for SQL Server
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Don" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:086001c4f832$20813b50$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
> SQL 7.0/Server 2000
> The c: drive crashed;
> the MDF and LDF files were on drive D:
> When a new hard drive is installed with the new OS and
> SQL 7.0 installed on it...is there a way to "attach" to
> the MDF and LDF files? or are they lost?
> Thanks,
> Don
>

Hard drive crashed but MDF/LDF on drive D:

SQL 7.0/Server 2000
The c: drive crashed;
the MDF and LDF files were on drive D:
When a new hard drive is installed with the new OS and
SQL 7.0 installed on it...is there a way to "attach" to
the MDF and LDF files? or are they lost?
Thanks,
Donwith SQL7 and/or SQL 2000
you can try sp_attach_db
PS. usually better to perform sp_detach_db but you had no choice in this
instance :-)
hope this works.
"Don" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:086001c4f832$20813b50$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
> SQL 7.0/Server 2000
> The c: drive crashed;
> the MDF and LDF files were on drive D:
> When a new hard drive is installed with the new OS and
> SQL 7.0 installed on it...is there a way to "attach" to
> the MDF and LDF files? or are they lost?
> Thanks,
> Don
>|||sp_attach_db is the first choice but if you have issues this may help:
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/scr...sp?scriptid=599
Restoring a .mdf
http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=314546 Moving DB's between Servers
http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=224071 Moving SQL Server Databases
to a New Location with Detach/Attach
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=221465 Using WITH MOVE in a
Restore
http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=246133 How To Transfer Logins and
Passwords Between SQL Servers
http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=298897 Mapping Logins & SIDs after a
Restore
http://www.dbmaint.com/SyncSqlLogins.asp Utility to map logins to
users
http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=168001 User Logon and/or Permission
Errors After Restoring Dump
http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=240872 How to Resolve Permission
Issues When a Database Is Moved Between SQL Servers
http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=307775 Disaster Recovery Articles
for SQL Server
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Don" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:086001c4f832$20813b50$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
> SQL 7.0/Server 2000
> The c: drive crashed;
> the MDF and LDF files were on drive D:
> When a new hard drive is installed with the new OS and
> SQL 7.0 installed on it...is there a way to "attach" to
> the MDF and LDF files? or are they lost?
> Thanks,
> Don
>

Hard drive crashed but MDF/LDF on drive D:

SQL 7.0/Server 2000
The c: drive crashed;
the MDF and LDF files were on drive D:
When a new hard drive is installed with the new OS and
SQL 7.0 installed on it...is there a way to "attach" to
the MDF and LDF files? or are they lost?
Thanks,
Donwith SQL7 and/or SQL 2000
you can try sp_attach_db
PS. usually better to perform sp_detach_db but you had no choice in this
instance :-)
hope this works.
"Don" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:086001c4f832$20813b50$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
> SQL 7.0/Server 2000
> The c: drive crashed;
> the MDF and LDF files were on drive D:
> When a new hard drive is installed with the new OS and
> SQL 7.0 installed on it...is there a way to "attach" to
> the MDF and LDF files? or are they lost?
> Thanks,
> Don
>|||sp_attach_db is the first choice but if you have issues this may help:
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/scripts/scriptdetails.asp?scriptid=599
Restoring a .mdf
http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=314546 Moving DB's between Servers
http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=224071 Moving SQL Server Databases
to a New Location with Detach/Attach
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=221465 Using WITH MOVE in a
Restore
http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=246133 How To Transfer Logins and
Passwords Between SQL Servers
http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=298897 Mapping Logins & SIDs after a
Restore
http://www.dbmaint.com/SyncSqlLogins.asp Utility to map logins to
users
http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=168001 User Logon and/or Permission
Errors After Restoring Dump
http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=240872 How to Resolve Permission
Issues When a Database Is Moved Between SQL Servers
http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=307775 Disaster Recovery Articles
for SQL Server
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Don" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:086001c4f832$20813b50$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
> SQL 7.0/Server 2000
> The c: drive crashed;
> the MDF and LDF files were on drive D:
> When a new hard drive is installed with the new OS and
> SQL 7.0 installed on it...is there a way to "attach" to
> the MDF and LDF files? or are they lost?
> Thanks,
> Don
>

Hackers or worm worries

I have IIS5.1 installed on my PC to run my personal website. I use ZoneAlarm
pro. The problem is that on my internet meter, I see a steady use of
downloading (6kb/s) and uploading (2kb/s) since maybe 24 hours or so. When I
block internet access with ZA, internet access is stopped for a while then
restart within minutes or hour.
Is there a program that can monitor live my internet access (cable-modem)
and tell me what program is sucking my bandwidth ? Something like a Task
Manager but for internet access ?
Note : I ran Ad-aware Se and except for cookies, it found nothing. NAV2004
found nothing either. (both uptodate ref files)
tiaRun netstat to see what connections are from and to your computer.
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Junkyard Engineer" <jackeric@.engineer.com> wrote in message
news:e2QLos61EHA.3616@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> I have IIS5.1 installed on my PC to run my personal website. I use
ZoneAlarm
> pro. The problem is that on my internet meter, I see a steady use of
> downloading (6kb/s) and uploading (2kb/s) since maybe 24 hours or so. When
I
> block internet access with ZA, internet access is stopped for a while then
> restart within minutes or hour.
> Is there a program that can monitor live my internet access (cable-modem)
> and tell me what program is sucking my bandwidth ? Something like a Task
> Manager but for internet access ?
> Note : I ran Ad-aware Se and except for cookies, it found nothing. NAV2004
> found nothing either. (both uptodate ref files)
> tia
>|||Why not try a google search for "Ethereal"?
"Junkyard Engineer" <jackeric@.engineer.com> wrote in message
news:e2QLos61EHA.3616@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> I have IIS5.1 installed on my PC to run my personal website. I use
ZoneAlarm
> pro. The problem is that on my internet meter, I see a steady use of
> downloading (6kb/s) and uploading (2kb/s) since maybe 24 hours or so. When
I
> block internet access with ZA, internet access is stopped for a while then
> restart within minutes or hour.
> Is there a program that can monitor live my internet access (cable-modem)
> and tell me what program is sucking my bandwidth ? Something like a Task
> Manager but for internet access ?
> Note : I ran Ad-aware Se and except for cookies, it found nothing. NAV2004
> found nothing either. (both uptodate ref files)
> tia
>|||hummm... interesting... a nice complement to netlimiter !
thanks
"The Poster" <nospam@.nospam_dontyoudare.net> a crit dans le message de
news: ufGlppR2EHA.3336@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Why not try a google search for "Ethereal"?
> "Junkyard Engineer" <jackeric@.engineer.com> wrote in message
> news:e2QLos61EHA.3616@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> ZoneAlarm
> I
>|||Yes I would use a network sniffer like Ethereal or netmon. This way you can
view what packets of data are leaving your box and where they are going.
However there is a big learning curve as far as making sense of what you are
seeing.
Another good set of tools I would recommend is TCPView and TDIMon from
www.sysinternals.com. You can get a high level view of what is going on
with these. For example, you can see what process on your machine is
sending the packets, this is often good information.
Matt
"Junkyard Engineer" <jackeric@.engineer.com> wrote in message
news:%2323shgV2EHA.3908@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> hummm... interesting... a nice complement to netlimiter !
> thanks
> "The Poster" <nospam@.nospam_dontyoudare.net> a crit dans le message de
> news: ufGlppR2EHA.3336@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>