This does not seem like rocket science but I can't find a recommendation
from MS on which uplevel (from defaults) Security Template (file server,
infrastructure server, etc.) is the best baseline starting point for a SQL
install on a W2K3 AD. I realize that mods will be necessary no matter but
since there are 700+ settings having a head start seems like a good thing. I
have created the OU specifically for the SQL server and just need to
configure it's GP including IPSec. I have implemented most of the suggested
Security settings to the install of SQL itself (see prior post).
Any suggestions?
ThanksThe Enterprise - Member Server Template is the template that should be
used. Also, generate a rollback template to help you with your testing.
The High Security Template should not be used.
Thanks,
Kevin McDonnell
Microsoft Corporation
This posting is provided AS IS with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Showing posts with label install. Show all posts
Showing posts with label install. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Sunday, March 25, 2012
BEST RECOMMENDATION FOR A TESTING SCENARIO
guys:
I would like to have your best advise.
We am planning to install Passive/Active SQL server Clustering in the
production environment that includes two identical Dell PowerEdge 6650 dual
processor servers with a External Disk Storage PoweVault 220S. We have
bought two copies of Windows 2003 enterprise (for each one of the servers)
and one only copy of SQL Server 200 enterprise Edition licensed per
processor (I was told that only one copy of this software ins needed in an
Active/Passive mode)
On the other hand, since the configuration above would be in production at
all times, we would like to have similar scenario for development and
testing purposes.I was advised to replicate the same hardware and software
scenario described above, however, as you can see, it would be a costly
endeavor. Each Dell 6650 costs approximately $20,000 (two processors, 8 GB
RAM, 2 MB cache) the External Raid $8,000, the Windows 2003 Enterprise
server software $3,000 (for the two servers), and the SQL Server 200
enterprise software about $24,000 (license for two processor, for just one
server)
Could you please if you see any issue in the production scenario? Are we Ok
using only one copy of SQL server there?
Secondly, do we have any other choice for a development and testing
scenario? Most people recommend that a development and testing scenario
would be, if not identical, at least very similar to the production
scenario. I was planning to get those Dell 6650 server but with a single
processor, only 1 GB of RAM, and 1 MB cache (or even 512 KB). In terms of
software I was also told that one economical approach would be to acquire
the MSDN Universal subscription that allows use software for testing
(Windows and SQL server)
Thirdly, do you have any other (most economical recommendation in terms of
hardware and software for our development and testing scenario? How critical
is that this has to be very similar (or identical) to the production
scenario?
Thanks for all your answers
White
First off, what you are implementing is a single instance cluster, not an
active/passive cluster. It may just look like a term, but there is a very
dramatic difference between the two.
As for licensing SQL Server in a cluster, you have exactly what you need.
The easiest way to tally up licensing for a cluster is to ask how many SQL
Servers you can connect to from an application. In your case, it would be
1.
For the dev/testing environments, you do not need to purchase the Enterprise
Edition of SQL Server. You can use the Developer Edition which gives you
the full functionality of Enterprise Edition without all of the cost and
hardware requirements. This even allows you to simulate a cluster, you just
don't get full clustering functionality. But, you do NOT need to stuff
clusters into your dev/test environments. There is no case that I'm aware
of where a clustered SQL Server behaves differently with respect to an
application than a standalone SQL Server.
My recommendation would be to purchase a Dell 6650 with the external RAID
array. Depending on your testing and development scenario, you can very
easily place BOTH dev and test on the same machine in different SQL Server
instances without collisions. The only real reason to have completely
different systems for the two would be if you are doing a lot of very heavy
performance related work. If not, you can get away with a single machine
with external array + Windows 2003 Server + SQL Server 2000 Developer
Edition.
I can send you my address so you can send a check for the ~$54,000 that I
just saved you.
Mike
Principal Mentor
Solid Quality Learning
"More than just Training"
SQL Server MVP
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com
http://www.mssqlserver.com
I would like to have your best advise.
We am planning to install Passive/Active SQL server Clustering in the
production environment that includes two identical Dell PowerEdge 6650 dual
processor servers with a External Disk Storage PoweVault 220S. We have
bought two copies of Windows 2003 enterprise (for each one of the servers)
and one only copy of SQL Server 200 enterprise Edition licensed per
processor (I was told that only one copy of this software ins needed in an
Active/Passive mode)
On the other hand, since the configuration above would be in production at
all times, we would like to have similar scenario for development and
testing purposes.I was advised to replicate the same hardware and software
scenario described above, however, as you can see, it would be a costly
endeavor. Each Dell 6650 costs approximately $20,000 (two processors, 8 GB
RAM, 2 MB cache) the External Raid $8,000, the Windows 2003 Enterprise
server software $3,000 (for the two servers), and the SQL Server 200
enterprise software about $24,000 (license for two processor, for just one
server)
Could you please if you see any issue in the production scenario? Are we Ok
using only one copy of SQL server there?
Secondly, do we have any other choice for a development and testing
scenario? Most people recommend that a development and testing scenario
would be, if not identical, at least very similar to the production
scenario. I was planning to get those Dell 6650 server but with a single
processor, only 1 GB of RAM, and 1 MB cache (or even 512 KB). In terms of
software I was also told that one economical approach would be to acquire
the MSDN Universal subscription that allows use software for testing
(Windows and SQL server)
Thirdly, do you have any other (most economical recommendation in terms of
hardware and software for our development and testing scenario? How critical
is that this has to be very similar (or identical) to the production
scenario?
Thanks for all your answers
White
First off, what you are implementing is a single instance cluster, not an
active/passive cluster. It may just look like a term, but there is a very
dramatic difference between the two.
As for licensing SQL Server in a cluster, you have exactly what you need.
The easiest way to tally up licensing for a cluster is to ask how many SQL
Servers you can connect to from an application. In your case, it would be
1.
For the dev/testing environments, you do not need to purchase the Enterprise
Edition of SQL Server. You can use the Developer Edition which gives you
the full functionality of Enterprise Edition without all of the cost and
hardware requirements. This even allows you to simulate a cluster, you just
don't get full clustering functionality. But, you do NOT need to stuff
clusters into your dev/test environments. There is no case that I'm aware
of where a clustered SQL Server behaves differently with respect to an
application than a standalone SQL Server.
My recommendation would be to purchase a Dell 6650 with the external RAID
array. Depending on your testing and development scenario, you can very
easily place BOTH dev and test on the same machine in different SQL Server
instances without collisions. The only real reason to have completely
different systems for the two would be if you are doing a lot of very heavy
performance related work. If not, you can get away with a single machine
with external array + Windows 2003 Server + SQL Server 2000 Developer
Edition.
I can send you my address so you can send a check for the ~$54,000 that I
just saved you.
Mike
Principal Mentor
Solid Quality Learning
"More than just Training"
SQL Server MVP
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com
http://www.mssqlserver.com
Best Practices: Should other (unrelated) applications be installed on a SQL server?
I was taught long ago that database servers should be database servers
and nothing more. I have been asked by my current employer to install
a new application on our SQL server because "we aren't using all of
it." In other words, they feel the server is under-utilized and want
to run other applications on it. I told them this was a bad idea and
that we should identify another server for the installation. That was
rejected and I've been challenged to "prove" that best practices are
to avoid loading unrelated applications on a database server.
Can anyone point me to a statement from Microsoft or some DB authority
that says as much? I have located dozens of bloggers who agree with
me but I can't really cite "CyberDawg420" as a reference when making
my argument. Any help at all is greatly appreciated!You seem to be trying to "prove" common sense.
How about this. Don't share unless there is absolutely no choice.
--
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior SQL Infrastructure Consultant
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
<jimguytrucker@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1194452329.877280.250570@.v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>I was taught long ago that database servers should be database servers
> and nothing more. I have been asked by my current employer to install
> a new application on our SQL server because "we aren't using all of
> it." In other words, they feel the server is under-utilized and want
> to run other applications on it. I told them this was a bad idea and
> that we should identify another server for the installation. That was
> rejected and I've been challenged to "prove" that best practices are
> to avoid loading unrelated applications on a database server.
> Can anyone point me to a statement from Microsoft or some DB authority
> that says as much? I have located dozens of bloggers who agree with
> me but I can't really cite "CyberDawg420" as a reference when making
> my argument. Any help at all is greatly appreciated!
>|||On Nov 7, 10:38 am, "Geoff N. Hiten" <SQLCrafts...@.gmail.com> wrote:
> You seem to be trying to "prove" common sense.
> How about this. Don't share unless there is absolutely no choice.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior SQL Infrastructure Consultant
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> <jimguytruc...@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1194452329.877280.250570@.v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> >I was taught long ago that database servers should be database servers
> > and nothing more. I have been asked by my current employer to install
> > a new application on our SQL server because "we aren't using all of
> > it." In other words, they feel the server is under-utilized and want
> > to run other applications on it. I told them this was a bad idea and
> > that we should identify another server for the installation. That was
> > rejected and I've been challenged to "prove" that best practices are
> > to avoid loading unrelated applications on a database server.
> > Can anyone point me to a statement from Microsoft or some DB authority
> > that says as much? I have located dozens of bloggers who agree with
> > me but I can't really cite "CyberDawg420" as a reference when making
> > my argument. Any help at all is greatly appreciated!- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
You are spot on with the "common sense" comment. I'm frustrated
because it is obvious to me but they want "evidence." The only way to
PROVE I'm right is to do what they ask, slow down the SQL server, and
create numerous headaches. I would be willing to do this to make my
point but I'm the one who would have to clean up the aftermath.
and nothing more. I have been asked by my current employer to install
a new application on our SQL server because "we aren't using all of
it." In other words, they feel the server is under-utilized and want
to run other applications on it. I told them this was a bad idea and
that we should identify another server for the installation. That was
rejected and I've been challenged to "prove" that best practices are
to avoid loading unrelated applications on a database server.
Can anyone point me to a statement from Microsoft or some DB authority
that says as much? I have located dozens of bloggers who agree with
me but I can't really cite "CyberDawg420" as a reference when making
my argument. Any help at all is greatly appreciated!You seem to be trying to "prove" common sense.
How about this. Don't share unless there is absolutely no choice.
--
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior SQL Infrastructure Consultant
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
<jimguytrucker@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1194452329.877280.250570@.v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>I was taught long ago that database servers should be database servers
> and nothing more. I have been asked by my current employer to install
> a new application on our SQL server because "we aren't using all of
> it." In other words, they feel the server is under-utilized and want
> to run other applications on it. I told them this was a bad idea and
> that we should identify another server for the installation. That was
> rejected and I've been challenged to "prove" that best practices are
> to avoid loading unrelated applications on a database server.
> Can anyone point me to a statement from Microsoft or some DB authority
> that says as much? I have located dozens of bloggers who agree with
> me but I can't really cite "CyberDawg420" as a reference when making
> my argument. Any help at all is greatly appreciated!
>|||On Nov 7, 10:38 am, "Geoff N. Hiten" <SQLCrafts...@.gmail.com> wrote:
> You seem to be trying to "prove" common sense.
> How about this. Don't share unless there is absolutely no choice.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior SQL Infrastructure Consultant
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> <jimguytruc...@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1194452329.877280.250570@.v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> >I was taught long ago that database servers should be database servers
> > and nothing more. I have been asked by my current employer to install
> > a new application on our SQL server because "we aren't using all of
> > it." In other words, they feel the server is under-utilized and want
> > to run other applications on it. I told them this was a bad idea and
> > that we should identify another server for the installation. That was
> > rejected and I've been challenged to "prove" that best practices are
> > to avoid loading unrelated applications on a database server.
> > Can anyone point me to a statement from Microsoft or some DB authority
> > that says as much? I have located dozens of bloggers who agree with
> > me but I can't really cite "CyberDawg420" as a reference when making
> > my argument. Any help at all is greatly appreciated!- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
You are spot on with the "common sense" comment. I'm frustrated
because it is obvious to me but they want "evidence." The only way to
PROVE I'm right is to do what they ask, slow down the SQL server, and
create numerous headaches. I would be willing to do this to make my
point but I'm the one who would have to clean up the aftermath.
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Best practices for an installation of SQL Server 2000 Reporting Se
Hi,
Where would one install SQL Service 2000 Reporting Services? I though about
installing them on a Web Server (with NO local SQL Server installed on) and
connection remote to a SQL Server 2000. Does this approach make sense?
I donâ't have a good feeling installing the Web Services on a Database Server
where I have to install IIS and the .NET Framework as well.
Best regards,
DanielThis will work fine. One point to keep in mind is that you have to have a
SQL Server license on the box with RS.
What I do is have SQL Server just for RS on the box. The data the reports
are based on reside on a different box. My feeling is why not have SQL
Server for the object caching that RS uses it for be on the same box. I have
to pay for it anyway.
Bruce Loehle-Conger
MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
"Daniel Walzenbach" <daniel.walzenbach@.newsgroup.nospam> wrote in message
news:A0462F4B-9A38-4B88-B2DB-C42B6514EF8B@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> Where would one install SQL Service 2000 Reporting Services? I though
> about
> installing them on a Web Server (with NO local SQL Server installed on)
> and
> connection remote to a SQL Server 2000. Does this approach make sense?
> I don't have a good feeling installing the Web Services on a Database
> Server
> where I have to install IIS and the .NET Framework as well.
> Best regards,
> Daniel|||Bruce,
Thanks for your answer! Just to make sure I got your point. You suggest to
have both (SQL Server and RS) installed on the same computer? Am I also right
that this constellation would only require on SQL Server license?
And one more question: Can RS be installed on a computer with NO SQL Server
installed? I had some troulbe installing RS on my Web Server where on SQL
Server is installed on. The installation skipped the part where I am supposed
to select the SQL Server but told me all is fine :-( This problem though
could have been caused by the Terminal Services which I had not disabled
(Will try tomorrow).
Thanks!
Daniel
"Bruce L-C [MVP]" wrote:
> This will work fine. One point to keep in mind is that you have to have a
> SQL Server license on the box with RS.
> What I do is have SQL Server just for RS on the box. The data the reports
> are based on reside on a different box. My feeling is why not have SQL
> Server for the object caching that RS uses it for be on the same box. I have
> to pay for it anyway.
>
> --
> Bruce Loehle-Conger
> MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
> "Daniel Walzenbach" <daniel.walzenbach@.newsgroup.nospam> wrote in message
> news:A0462F4B-9A38-4B88-B2DB-C42B6514EF8B@.microsoft.com...
> > Hi,
> >
> > Where would one install SQL Service 2000 Reporting Services? I though
> > about
> > installing them on a Web Server (with NO local SQL Server installed on)
> > and
> > connection remote to a SQL Server 2000. Does this approach make sense?
> >
> > I don't have a good feeling installing the Web Services on a Database
> > Server
> > where I have to install IIS and the .NET Framework as well.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Daniel
>
>|||From a licensing perspective there is no difference. You have to have a SQL
Server license for the box that has Reporting Services. Reporting Services
uses SQL Server for it's object storage. For instance, all reports are
stored in the database. You will not see any rdl files on the server. It
uses SQL Server for other objects as well. So, RS has to have SQL Server
somewhere. If you use a SQL Server that is somewhere other than the box you
are installing RS on you have to use the command line install and specify
where SQL Server can be found. I have not done this myself. I assume the
info on how to do this is in the readme. If you use the setup program it
plans that SQL Server is on the box you are installing RS.
Bruce Loehle-Conger
MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
"Daniel Walzenbach" <daniel.walzenbach@.newsgroup.nospam> wrote in message
news:E02F3FE4-EDD4-4A35-AD4D-D772A811424A@.microsoft.com...
> Bruce,
> Thanks for your answer! Just to make sure I got your point. You suggest to
> have both (SQL Server and RS) installed on the same computer? Am I also
> right
> that this constellation would only require on SQL Server license?
> And one more question: Can RS be installed on a computer with NO SQL
> Server
> installed? I had some troulbe installing RS on my Web Server where on SQL
> Server is installed on. The installation skipped the part where I am
> supposed
> to select the SQL Server but told me all is fine :-( This problem though
> could have been caused by the Terminal Services which I had not disabled
> (Will try tomorrow).
> Thanks!
> Daniel
>
> "Bruce L-C [MVP]" wrote:
>> This will work fine. One point to keep in mind is that you have to have a
>> SQL Server license on the box with RS.
>> What I do is have SQL Server just for RS on the box. The data the reports
>> are based on reside on a different box. My feeling is why not have SQL
>> Server for the object caching that RS uses it for be on the same box. I
>> have
>> to pay for it anyway.
>>
>> --
>> Bruce Loehle-Conger
>> MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
>> "Daniel Walzenbach" <daniel.walzenbach@.newsgroup.nospam> wrote in message
>> news:A0462F4B-9A38-4B88-B2DB-C42B6514EF8B@.microsoft.com...
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > Where would one install SQL Service 2000 Reporting Services? I though
>> > about
>> > installing them on a Web Server (with NO local SQL Server installed on)
>> > and
>> > connection remote to a SQL Server 2000. Does this approach make sense?
>> >
>> > I don't have a good feeling installing the Web Services on a Database
>> > Server
>> > where I have to install IIS and the .NET Framework as well.
>> >
>> > Best regards,
>> >
>> > Daniel
>>|||Thank you Bruce,
this is good to know!
Daniel
"Bruce L-C [MVP]" <bruce_lcNOSPAM@.hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:%238AtkHJYFHA.2796@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> From a licensing perspective there is no difference. You have to have a
> SQL Server license for the box that has Reporting Services. Reporting
> Services uses SQL Server for it's object storage. For instance, all
> reports are stored in the database. You will not see any rdl files on the
> server. It uses SQL Server for other objects as well. So, RS has to have
> SQL Server somewhere. If you use a SQL Server that is somewhere other than
> the box you are installing RS on you have to use the command line install
> and specify where SQL Server can be found. I have not done this myself. I
> assume the info on how to do this is in the readme. If you use the setup
> program it plans that SQL Server is on the box you are installing RS.
>
> --
> Bruce Loehle-Conger
> MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
> "Daniel Walzenbach" <daniel.walzenbach@.newsgroup.nospam> wrote in message
> news:E02F3FE4-EDD4-4A35-AD4D-D772A811424A@.microsoft.com...
>> Bruce,
>> Thanks for your answer! Just to make sure I got your point. You suggest
>> to
>> have both (SQL Server and RS) installed on the same computer? Am I also
>> right
>> that this constellation would only require on SQL Server license?
>> And one more question: Can RS be installed on a computer with NO SQL
>> Server
>> installed? I had some troulbe installing RS on my Web Server where on SQL
>> Server is installed on. The installation skipped the part where I am
>> supposed
>> to select the SQL Server but told me all is fine :-( This problem though
>> could have been caused by the Terminal Services which I had not disabled
>> (Will try tomorrow).
>> Thanks!
>> Daniel
>>
>> "Bruce L-C [MVP]" wrote:
>> This will work fine. One point to keep in mind is that you have to have
>> a
>> SQL Server license on the box with RS.
>> What I do is have SQL Server just for RS on the box. The data the
>> reports
>> are based on reside on a different box. My feeling is why not have SQL
>> Server for the object caching that RS uses it for be on the same box. I
>> have
>> to pay for it anyway.
>>
>> --
>> Bruce Loehle-Conger
>> MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
>> "Daniel Walzenbach" <daniel.walzenbach@.newsgroup.nospam> wrote in
>> message
>> news:A0462F4B-9A38-4B88-B2DB-C42B6514EF8B@.microsoft.com...
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > Where would one install SQL Service 2000 Reporting Services? I though
>> > about
>> > installing them on a Web Server (with NO local SQL Server installed
>> > on)
>> > and
>> > connection remote to a SQL Server 2000. Does this approach make sense?
>> >
>> > I don't have a good feeling installing the Web Services on a Database
>> > Server
>> > where I have to install IIS and the .NET Framework as well.
>> >
>> > Best regards,
>> >
>> > Daniel
>>
>|||" If you use a SQL Server that is somewhere other than the box you
are installing RS on you have to use the command line install and specify
where SQL Server can be found."-Bruce
Are you absolutely 100% certain this is the case?
I'm certainly stuck trying to install enterprise RS on the web server
pointing to a SQL server DB on another sql server(2000). Problem is the
install ends "successfully" but then throws an activivation error. No
resolution for this error in sight.
However if I MUST use the commend line too to configure RS across servers
this may explain the activiation error. I don't remember finding anything
documented telling me I must use this command line approach.
Please verify this is true. Thanks! Could save a lot of headaches...
Where would one install SQL Service 2000 Reporting Services? I though about
installing them on a Web Server (with NO local SQL Server installed on) and
connection remote to a SQL Server 2000. Does this approach make sense?
I donâ't have a good feeling installing the Web Services on a Database Server
where I have to install IIS and the .NET Framework as well.
Best regards,
DanielThis will work fine. One point to keep in mind is that you have to have a
SQL Server license on the box with RS.
What I do is have SQL Server just for RS on the box. The data the reports
are based on reside on a different box. My feeling is why not have SQL
Server for the object caching that RS uses it for be on the same box. I have
to pay for it anyway.
Bruce Loehle-Conger
MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
"Daniel Walzenbach" <daniel.walzenbach@.newsgroup.nospam> wrote in message
news:A0462F4B-9A38-4B88-B2DB-C42B6514EF8B@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> Where would one install SQL Service 2000 Reporting Services? I though
> about
> installing them on a Web Server (with NO local SQL Server installed on)
> and
> connection remote to a SQL Server 2000. Does this approach make sense?
> I don't have a good feeling installing the Web Services on a Database
> Server
> where I have to install IIS and the .NET Framework as well.
> Best regards,
> Daniel|||Bruce,
Thanks for your answer! Just to make sure I got your point. You suggest to
have both (SQL Server and RS) installed on the same computer? Am I also right
that this constellation would only require on SQL Server license?
And one more question: Can RS be installed on a computer with NO SQL Server
installed? I had some troulbe installing RS on my Web Server where on SQL
Server is installed on. The installation skipped the part where I am supposed
to select the SQL Server but told me all is fine :-( This problem though
could have been caused by the Terminal Services which I had not disabled
(Will try tomorrow).
Thanks!
Daniel
"Bruce L-C [MVP]" wrote:
> This will work fine. One point to keep in mind is that you have to have a
> SQL Server license on the box with RS.
> What I do is have SQL Server just for RS on the box. The data the reports
> are based on reside on a different box. My feeling is why not have SQL
> Server for the object caching that RS uses it for be on the same box. I have
> to pay for it anyway.
>
> --
> Bruce Loehle-Conger
> MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
> "Daniel Walzenbach" <daniel.walzenbach@.newsgroup.nospam> wrote in message
> news:A0462F4B-9A38-4B88-B2DB-C42B6514EF8B@.microsoft.com...
> > Hi,
> >
> > Where would one install SQL Service 2000 Reporting Services? I though
> > about
> > installing them on a Web Server (with NO local SQL Server installed on)
> > and
> > connection remote to a SQL Server 2000. Does this approach make sense?
> >
> > I don't have a good feeling installing the Web Services on a Database
> > Server
> > where I have to install IIS and the .NET Framework as well.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Daniel
>
>|||From a licensing perspective there is no difference. You have to have a SQL
Server license for the box that has Reporting Services. Reporting Services
uses SQL Server for it's object storage. For instance, all reports are
stored in the database. You will not see any rdl files on the server. It
uses SQL Server for other objects as well. So, RS has to have SQL Server
somewhere. If you use a SQL Server that is somewhere other than the box you
are installing RS on you have to use the command line install and specify
where SQL Server can be found. I have not done this myself. I assume the
info on how to do this is in the readme. If you use the setup program it
plans that SQL Server is on the box you are installing RS.
Bruce Loehle-Conger
MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
"Daniel Walzenbach" <daniel.walzenbach@.newsgroup.nospam> wrote in message
news:E02F3FE4-EDD4-4A35-AD4D-D772A811424A@.microsoft.com...
> Bruce,
> Thanks for your answer! Just to make sure I got your point. You suggest to
> have both (SQL Server and RS) installed on the same computer? Am I also
> right
> that this constellation would only require on SQL Server license?
> And one more question: Can RS be installed on a computer with NO SQL
> Server
> installed? I had some troulbe installing RS on my Web Server where on SQL
> Server is installed on. The installation skipped the part where I am
> supposed
> to select the SQL Server but told me all is fine :-( This problem though
> could have been caused by the Terminal Services which I had not disabled
> (Will try tomorrow).
> Thanks!
> Daniel
>
> "Bruce L-C [MVP]" wrote:
>> This will work fine. One point to keep in mind is that you have to have a
>> SQL Server license on the box with RS.
>> What I do is have SQL Server just for RS on the box. The data the reports
>> are based on reside on a different box. My feeling is why not have SQL
>> Server for the object caching that RS uses it for be on the same box. I
>> have
>> to pay for it anyway.
>>
>> --
>> Bruce Loehle-Conger
>> MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
>> "Daniel Walzenbach" <daniel.walzenbach@.newsgroup.nospam> wrote in message
>> news:A0462F4B-9A38-4B88-B2DB-C42B6514EF8B@.microsoft.com...
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > Where would one install SQL Service 2000 Reporting Services? I though
>> > about
>> > installing them on a Web Server (with NO local SQL Server installed on)
>> > and
>> > connection remote to a SQL Server 2000. Does this approach make sense?
>> >
>> > I don't have a good feeling installing the Web Services on a Database
>> > Server
>> > where I have to install IIS and the .NET Framework as well.
>> >
>> > Best regards,
>> >
>> > Daniel
>>|||Thank you Bruce,
this is good to know!
Daniel
"Bruce L-C [MVP]" <bruce_lcNOSPAM@.hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:%238AtkHJYFHA.2796@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> From a licensing perspective there is no difference. You have to have a
> SQL Server license for the box that has Reporting Services. Reporting
> Services uses SQL Server for it's object storage. For instance, all
> reports are stored in the database. You will not see any rdl files on the
> server. It uses SQL Server for other objects as well. So, RS has to have
> SQL Server somewhere. If you use a SQL Server that is somewhere other than
> the box you are installing RS on you have to use the command line install
> and specify where SQL Server can be found. I have not done this myself. I
> assume the info on how to do this is in the readme. If you use the setup
> program it plans that SQL Server is on the box you are installing RS.
>
> --
> Bruce Loehle-Conger
> MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
> "Daniel Walzenbach" <daniel.walzenbach@.newsgroup.nospam> wrote in message
> news:E02F3FE4-EDD4-4A35-AD4D-D772A811424A@.microsoft.com...
>> Bruce,
>> Thanks for your answer! Just to make sure I got your point. You suggest
>> to
>> have both (SQL Server and RS) installed on the same computer? Am I also
>> right
>> that this constellation would only require on SQL Server license?
>> And one more question: Can RS be installed on a computer with NO SQL
>> Server
>> installed? I had some troulbe installing RS on my Web Server where on SQL
>> Server is installed on. The installation skipped the part where I am
>> supposed
>> to select the SQL Server but told me all is fine :-( This problem though
>> could have been caused by the Terminal Services which I had not disabled
>> (Will try tomorrow).
>> Thanks!
>> Daniel
>>
>> "Bruce L-C [MVP]" wrote:
>> This will work fine. One point to keep in mind is that you have to have
>> a
>> SQL Server license on the box with RS.
>> What I do is have SQL Server just for RS on the box. The data the
>> reports
>> are based on reside on a different box. My feeling is why not have SQL
>> Server for the object caching that RS uses it for be on the same box. I
>> have
>> to pay for it anyway.
>>
>> --
>> Bruce Loehle-Conger
>> MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
>> "Daniel Walzenbach" <daniel.walzenbach@.newsgroup.nospam> wrote in
>> message
>> news:A0462F4B-9A38-4B88-B2DB-C42B6514EF8B@.microsoft.com...
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > Where would one install SQL Service 2000 Reporting Services? I though
>> > about
>> > installing them on a Web Server (with NO local SQL Server installed
>> > on)
>> > and
>> > connection remote to a SQL Server 2000. Does this approach make sense?
>> >
>> > I don't have a good feeling installing the Web Services on a Database
>> > Server
>> > where I have to install IIS and the .NET Framework as well.
>> >
>> > Best regards,
>> >
>> > Daniel
>>
>|||" If you use a SQL Server that is somewhere other than the box you
are installing RS on you have to use the command line install and specify
where SQL Server can be found."-Bruce
Are you absolutely 100% certain this is the case?
I'm certainly stuck trying to install enterprise RS on the web server
pointing to a SQL server DB on another sql server(2000). Problem is the
install ends "successfully" but then throws an activivation error. No
resolution for this error in sight.
However if I MUST use the commend line too to configure RS across servers
this may explain the activiation error. I don't remember finding anything
documented telling me I must use this command line approach.
Please verify this is true. Thanks! Could save a lot of headaches...
Best Practice? SQL 2000 and 2005 on same server
(I tried to search for answers before posting, but had difficulty)
I have read in Microsoft forums that you "can" install SQL 2005 as an instance on a SQL 2000 server (not clustered.)
My decade+ of experience tells me it would be a bad idea, I'd expect the next service pack to fail or some other un-expected result. This is for a high availability application where the vendor requires SQL2000, and our custom coders want to use some SQL2005 featuers.
Does anyone have experience with two instances of different versions in a high visibility production system?
Does anyone have some points I could use to argue against this other than me sounding paranoid.
Thanks!I just completed a seminar that was hosted by Michael Hotek, author and MVP. He stated that SQL Server 2000 and 2005 (non-beta) can reside the same server with no problems for the 32 bit products. For 64 bit, there's a specific order to install both for both to function properly...but since you're probably talking about 32 bit, I won't get into that.|||I've been running the two side-by-side for many months on dev and test machines, atlhough not in production. I don't know of any problems with running them on the same machine (but I haven't tested every possible configuration either).
-PatPsql
I have read in Microsoft forums that you "can" install SQL 2005 as an instance on a SQL 2000 server (not clustered.)
My decade+ of experience tells me it would be a bad idea, I'd expect the next service pack to fail or some other un-expected result. This is for a high availability application where the vendor requires SQL2000, and our custom coders want to use some SQL2005 featuers.
Does anyone have experience with two instances of different versions in a high visibility production system?
Does anyone have some points I could use to argue against this other than me sounding paranoid.
Thanks!I just completed a seminar that was hosted by Michael Hotek, author and MVP. He stated that SQL Server 2000 and 2005 (non-beta) can reside the same server with no problems for the 32 bit products. For 64 bit, there's a specific order to install both for both to function properly...but since you're probably talking about 32 bit, I won't get into that.|||I've been running the two side-by-side for many months on dev and test machines, atlhough not in production. I don't know of any problems with running them on the same machine (but I haven't tested every possible configuration either).
-PatPsql
Saturday, February 25, 2012
best install scenario
In the current MSDN Universal disk set, there is a disk for Visual Studio
2005 (beta2) and a disk for SQL Server 2005. If you install VS2005 you get
the April CTP SQL server but without Server Management Studio. If you
install SQL Server 2005, you get VS2005 but without the normal code
development templates. What's the recommended install sequence to get both?
And after several install/uninstall sequences I seem to have lost start menu
links to VS.Net 2003. Can I have VS.Net 2003 and VS.Net 2005 on the same
machine?
tks
RonHi Ron,
Since SQL Server 2005 has not been public released yet, we will redirect
all SQL Server 2005 posts to the newsgroup below
http://communities.microsoft.com/newsgroups/default.asp?icp=sqlserver2005&sl
cid=us
Thanks so much for your understanding.
Sincerely yours,
Michael Cheng
Microsoft Online Partner Support
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
=====================================================This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
2005 (beta2) and a disk for SQL Server 2005. If you install VS2005 you get
the April CTP SQL server but without Server Management Studio. If you
install SQL Server 2005, you get VS2005 but without the normal code
development templates. What's the recommended install sequence to get both?
And after several install/uninstall sequences I seem to have lost start menu
links to VS.Net 2003. Can I have VS.Net 2003 and VS.Net 2005 on the same
machine?
tks
RonHi Ron,
Since SQL Server 2005 has not been public released yet, we will redirect
all SQL Server 2005 posts to the newsgroup below
http://communities.microsoft.com/newsgroups/default.asp?icp=sqlserver2005&sl
cid=us
Thanks so much for your understanding.
Sincerely yours,
Michael Cheng
Microsoft Online Partner Support
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
=====================================================This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
best install scenario
In the current MSDN Universal disk set, there is a disk for Visual Studio
2005 (beta2) and a disk for SQL Server 2005. If you install VS2005 you get
the April CTP SQL server but without Server Management Studio. If you
install SQL Server 2005, you get VS2005 but without the normal code
development templates. What's the recommended install sequence to get both?
And after several install/uninstall sequences I seem to have lost start menu
links to VS.Net 2003. Can I have VS.Net 2003 and VS.Net 2005 on the same
machine?
tks
RonHi Ron,
Since SQL Server 2005 has not been public released yet, we will redirect
all SQL Server 2005 posts to the newsgroup below
http://communities.microsoft.com/ne...qlserver2005&sl
cid=us
Thanks so much for your understanding.
Sincerely yours,
Michael Cheng
Microsoft Online Partner Support
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
========================================
=============
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
2005 (beta2) and a disk for SQL Server 2005. If you install VS2005 you get
the April CTP SQL server but without Server Management Studio. If you
install SQL Server 2005, you get VS2005 but without the normal code
development templates. What's the recommended install sequence to get both?
And after several install/uninstall sequences I seem to have lost start menu
links to VS.Net 2003. Can I have VS.Net 2003 and VS.Net 2005 on the same
machine?
tks
RonHi Ron,
Since SQL Server 2005 has not been public released yet, we will redirect
all SQL Server 2005 posts to the newsgroup below
http://communities.microsoft.com/ne...qlserver2005&sl
cid=us
Thanks so much for your understanding.
Sincerely yours,
Michael Cheng
Microsoft Online Partner Support
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
========================================
=============
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
best install scenario
In the current MSDN Universal disk set, there is a disk for Visual Studio
2005 (beta2) and a disk for SQL Server 2005. If you install VS2005 you get
the April CTP SQL server but without Server Management Studio. If you
install SQL Server 2005, you get VS2005 but without the normal code
development templates. What's the recommended install sequence to get both?
And after several install/uninstall sequences I seem to have lost start menu
links to VS.Net 2003. Can I have VS.Net 2003 and VS.Net 2005 on the same
machine?
tks
Ron
Hi Ron,
Since SQL Server 2005 has not been public released yet, we will redirect
all SQL Server 2005 posts to the newsgroup below
http://communities.microsoft.com/new...lserver2005&sl
cid=us
Thanks so much for your understanding.
Sincerely yours,
Michael Cheng
Microsoft Online Partner Support
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
================================================== ===
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
2005 (beta2) and a disk for SQL Server 2005. If you install VS2005 you get
the April CTP SQL server but without Server Management Studio. If you
install SQL Server 2005, you get VS2005 but without the normal code
development templates. What's the recommended install sequence to get both?
And after several install/uninstall sequences I seem to have lost start menu
links to VS.Net 2003. Can I have VS.Net 2003 and VS.Net 2005 on the same
machine?
tks
Ron
Hi Ron,
Since SQL Server 2005 has not been public released yet, we will redirect
all SQL Server 2005 posts to the newsgroup below
http://communities.microsoft.com/new...lserver2005&sl
cid=us
Thanks so much for your understanding.
Sincerely yours,
Michael Cheng
Microsoft Online Partner Support
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
================================================== ===
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Monday, February 13, 2012
beginner question: which MS SQL server I need to use for Visual Studio 2005
Hi: I am trying to install Visual Studio 2005, but before that I need install MS SQL Server for my database, what kind of MS SQL server I need install, how about "MS SQL 2005 Express Edition"? Or I have to install "MS SQL 2005"?Can you please give a link for the download.Thanks.James
It is totally depends on you (e.g. what type of operating system you use and how big your project or application is?)
Express: is free, you can distribute it with your application, it has some limitation (e.g. Max database size is 4 GB + has limited number of concruunt connections) but such limitation might not be big deal for some small or stand alone application.
Anyway,.. here is a comparision of sql server editions which will help you to decide which one is good for your case:
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/features/compare-features.mspx
Good luck.
Beginner needs help installing MSDE
Hi, I am trying to teach myself ASP.NET from the SAMS 24 Hrs book and I am trying to install MSDE for use with the web matrix project.
I think I succesfully installed it the first time I tried but entered a four digit SAPWD password not knowing it needed to be strong. I clicked on the data tab in the web matrix project as instructed to open the database and entered my user and password but it gave me some error message.
Now when I click the data tab it say I need to install MSDE on my computer and links me to www.asp.net.
Then when I try to install MSDE after it has downloaded, it gives me this error message. -- 'Setup failed to configure the server. Refer to the server error logs and setup error logs for more information.'--
I have tried uninstalling and reinstalling everything as well as everything else I can think of.
I would be forever grateful if someone could help me out with this.
Many Thanks
Mark
E-Mail: poolstar_uk@.hotmail.comTry this link. It might help.
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb%3Ben-us%3B829386
Goodluck|||Many Thanks for the advice but I am still having no luck with it.
Any other ideas? I'm not sure my pc will live to see many more days!|||Are you using the Web Matrix server or The IIS ?|||I appreciate your replies, thanks.
I am using the web matrix server.
I have tried installing IIS but it is asking for my windows disk and I cannot find it. I've just moved house and there are boxes and bags everywhere.
Do you think I could use IIS if I could find the disk? Or do you have any ideas on using the web matrix project?|||Follow this tutorial. It's from this website.
http://www.asp.net/webmatrix/guidedtour/Appendices/installMsde.aspx
Perfect example and exact step-by-step of what you need to do. Also, please post what your error logs state if this still doesn't work. You can specify where your logs dump to when you install MSDE from the command line.
Hope this helps. Good luck.|||Thanks everyone for your help, problem solved.
Many Thanks|||Hi poolstar, actually I have the same problem as yours, can u tell me how u solved the problem, thanks a lot man. can u email me this through this email jie_jeep@.yahoo.com|||I am having the same problem but the tutorial did not help.
How do you specify where the log dumps to?
I am using an XP machine networked to another XP machine for internet purposes. My machine is the slave and does not have its own modem. I normally turn off the connection unless I want to be hooked to the internet.
The instructions I had read that time said to install with sapwd=matrixsa instancename=matrixsa but did not add securitymode=sql so I tried the install without it (with the lan connection active). MSDE did install but then had no red x or green arrow in the white circle on the icon in the system tray. When I clicked on the icon, it was looking for the master machine and there were no possible selections in the dropdown box.
I uninstalled, restarted and tried it again with the securitymode and began to get the error again saying that setup failed to configure the server. I have tried three more times, restarting each time, and consistently get this error. All of the successive times, the lan connection has been off.
Any suggestions? Could this be caused by the lack of a modem in this machine and/or having the lan connection active?
Thanks,
Beth
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)