Can I install more then one copy of MSDE on a server?

Yes, you can. It just requires a different instance name than the other
installed instances.
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
.
"Clayton" <none@.none.com> wrote in message
news:zEhog.34345$Bh2.22632@.fe07.news.easynews.com...
We are running a Windows 2003 domain. I have a Windows 2003 member server
running an app. and MSDE.
I now have another app. that I would like to install on this same server.
The new app. also needs MSDE. My question is can I install and run more
then one copy of MSDE? Is there anything I need to know about doing it?
TIA,
ClaytonOr can I just use the same MSDE for the new app.? Can MSDE have more the
one DB?
TIA,
Clayton
"Clayton" <none@.none.com> wrote in message
news:zEhog.34345$Bh2.22632@.fe07.news.easynews.com...
> We are running a Windows 2003 domain. I have a Windows 2003 member server
> running an app. and MSDE.
> I now have another app. that I would like to install on this same server.
> The new app. also needs MSDE. My question is can I install and run more
> then one copy of MSDE? Is there anything I need to know about doing it?
>
> TIA,
> Clayton
>|||You can install up to 16 instances of MSDE (I think that is still
correct -someone correct me if I'm wrong.) on the same server.
However, each additional instance will have a variation in the instance
name. For example, if your server is MyServer, the first installation of
MSDE (or SQL Server) will be know as MyServer. When you install a second
instance of MSDE, you are required to provide an 'instance' name (e.g.,
Accounting). Then that server/instance will be referred to as
MyServer\Accounting. You have to use the compounded name in all connection
strings, etc.
That may not be a simple issue for many third party applications. (I would
hope so -but I've learned to be pessimistic about the skills of a lot of
programmers.)
[Loud retort from over my shoulder ="Hey, I represent that remark!"]
Arnie Rowland, YACE*
"To be successful, your heart must accompany your knowledge."
*Yet Another certification Exam
"Clayton" <none@.none.com> wrote in message
news:zEhog.34345$Bh2.22632@.fe07.news.easynews.com...
> We are running a Windows 2003 domain. I have a Windows 2003 member server
> running an app. and MSDE.
> I now have another app. that I would like to install on this same server.
> The new app. also needs MSDE. My question is can I install and run more
> then one copy of MSDE? Is there anything I need to know about doing it?
>
> TIA,
> Clayton
>|||Can both apps. share the same MSDE install?
TIA,
Clayton
"Clayton" <none@.none.com> wrote in message
news:DNhog.34477$Bh2.16824@.fe07.news.easynews.com...
> Or can I just use the same MSDE for the new app.? Can MSDE have more the
> one DB?
>
> TIA,
> Clayton
>
> "Clayton" <none@.none.com> wrote in message
> news:zEhog.34345$Bh2.22632@.fe07.news.easynews.com...
>|||Cool, thanks guys. I have to go live with this thing (BlackBerry) within
the hour!
Thanks for your help,
Clayton
"Arnie Rowland" <arnie@.1568.com> wrote in message
news:O7BA$QjmGHA.3732@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> You can install up to 16 instances of MSDE (I think that is still
> correct -someone correct me if I'm wrong.) on the same server.
> However, each additional instance will have a variation in the instance
> name. For example, if your server is MyServer, the first installation of
> MSDE (or SQL Server) will be know as MyServer. When you install a second
> instance of MSDE, you are required to provide an 'instance' name (e.g.,
> Accounting). Then that server/instance will be referred to as
> MyServer\Accounting. You have to use the compounded name in all connection
> strings, etc.
> That may not be a simple issue for many third party applications. (I would
> hope so -but I've learned to be pessimistic about the skills of a lot of
> programmers.)
> [Loud retort from over my shoulder ="Hey, I represent that remark!"]
> --
> Arnie Rowland, YACE*
> "To be successful, your heart must accompany your knowledge."
> *Yet Another certification Exam
>
> "Clayton" <none@.none.com> wrote in message
> news:zEhog.34345$Bh2.22632@.fe07.news.easynews.com...
>|||That depends on the app. The app may expect a particular instance name, for
example.
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
.
"Clayton" <none@.none.com> wrote in message
news:DNhog.34477$Bh2.16824@.fe07.news.easynews.com...
Or can I just use the same MSDE for the new app.? Can MSDE have more the
one DB?
TIA,
Clayton
"Clayton" <none@.none.com> wrote in message
news:zEhog.34345$Bh2.22632@.fe07.news.easynews.com...
> We are running a Windows 2003 domain. I have a Windows 2003 member server
> running an app. and MSDE.
> I now have another app. that I would like to install on this same server.
> The new app. also needs MSDE. My question is can I install and run more
> then one copy of MSDE? Is there anything I need to know about doing it?
>
> TIA,
> Clayton
>|||Yes, one instance of MSDE (which is a version of SQL Server) can handle
quite a few databases. Depends on hardware, traffic, etc., subject to the
MSDE sizing limitations.
Arnie Rowland, YACE*
"To be successful, your heart must accompany your knowledge."
*Yet Another certification Exam
"Clayton" <none@.none.com> wrote in message
news:OOhog.362227$Az2.335116@.fe10.news.easynews.com...
> Can both apps. share the same MSDE install?
> TIA,
> Clayton
>
> "Clayton" <none@.none.com> wrote in message
> news:DNhog.34477$Bh2.16824@.fe07.news.easynews.com...
>|||Cool, thanks guys. I have to go live with this thing (BlackBerry) within
the hour!
Thanks for your help,
Clayton
"Arnie Rowland" <arnie@.1568.com> wrote in message
news:O7BA$QjmGHA.3732@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> You can install up to 16 instances of MSDE (I think that is still
> correct -someone correct me if I'm wrong.) on the same server.
> However, each additional instance will have a variation in the instance
> name. For example, if your server is MyServer, the first installation of
> MSDE (or SQL Server) will be know as MyServer. When you install a second
> instance of MSDE, you are required to provide an 'instance' name (e.g.,
> Accounting). Then that server/instance will be referred to as
> MyServer\Accounting. You have to use the compounded name in all connection
> strings, etc.
> That may not be a simple issue for many third party applications. (I would
> hope so -but I've learned to be pessimistic about the skills of a lot of
> programmers.)
> [Loud retort from over my shoulder ="Hey, I represent that remark!"]
> --
> Arnie Rowland, YACE*
> "To be successful, your heart must accompany your knowledge."
> *Yet Another certification Exam
>
> "Clayton" <none@.none.com> wrote in message
> news:zEhog.34345$Bh2.22632@.fe07.news.easynews.com...
>|||That depends on the app. The app may expect a particular instance name, for
example.
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
.
"Clayton" <none@.none.com> wrote in message
news:DNhog.34477$Bh2.16824@.fe07.news.easynews.com...
Or can I just use the same MSDE for the new app.? Can MSDE have more the
one DB?
TIA,
Clayton
"Clayton" <none@.none.com> wrote in message
news:zEhog.34345$Bh2.22632@.fe07.news.easynews.com...
> We are running a Windows 2003 domain. I have a Windows 2003 member server
> running an app. and MSDE.
> I now have another app. that I would like to install on this same server.
> The new app. also needs MSDE. My question is can I install and run more
> then one copy of MSDE? Is there anything I need to know about doing it?
>
> TIA,
> Clayton
>|||Yes, one instance of MSDE (which is a version of SQL Server) can handle
quite a few databases. Depends on hardware, traffic, etc., subject to the
MSDE sizing limitations.
Arnie Rowland, YACE*
"To be successful, your heart must accompany your knowledge."
*Yet Another certification Exam
"Clayton" <none@.none.com> wrote in message
news:OOhog.362227$Az2.335116@.fe10.news.easynews.com...
> Can both apps. share the same MSDE install?
> TIA,
> Clayton
>
> "Clayton" <none@.none.com> wrote in message
> news:DNhog.34477$Bh2.16824@.fe07.news.easynews.com...
>sql

Can i connect to SQLExpress instance using (local)

Hello,

I am using the following connection string to connect to SQL Server 2005 Express Edition installed on my local PC.
string sqlstr = "Server=(local);Database=MyDB;User ID=sa;Password=sa;Trusted_Connection=False";

And it gives me the following error. The string works fine in computer with SQL Server 2000 instance but fails with 2005. The string also fails for "Server = localhost".
However the string works very fine if I use the name of Server 2005 i.e ./SQLExpress

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

Cannot connect to (local).

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

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)

Error Number: 2
Severity: 20
State: 0

Now the main problem is that, of course I could use a named instance, but since I am embedding the Connection String in a dll file so that any user can use it to connect it to the local instance of the SQL Server 2005 installed in his/her computer, I need to use "server = localhost". Doesn't SQL 2005 support this. If yes, where could i find option to enable it?

I have enabled every option available in surface area configuration for SQL Server 2005, but nothing seems to help out. I even use local as well as remote connections using both TCP/IP and named pipes.
Can nyone help me out?

By default SQL Server 2005 Express edition is installed as a named instance with name "SQLExpress". As a result, the connection string should specify the instance, e.g. ".\SQLExpress" or "(local)\SQLExpress" to distinguish it from a possible default instance of SQL Server that may be installed on the same machine. If you install SQL Express as a default instance then "." or "(local)" are the proper ways to specify in the connection string.|||Is there a way to convert the named instance to a default one apart from re-installation. I have only a single named instance on my computer.|||The only way to change the instance name is to re-install - uninstall and install as default instance.|||Thanks a lot, Peter. That solves it all.sql

Can default and named instance co-exist?

I have 2 Windows 2003 servers running SQL2000. They each have separate
databases. I am in the process of clustering these 2 machines together. I
have purchased a shared external SCSI PowerVault appliance to put the quorom
and the shared databases on. I want to create a Virtual SQL server using
these 2 machines and put their separate databases on the virtual server. My
question is:
Do I have to uninstall SQL server on each machine before I install the
virtual server? If I have to I would have to restore my databases to the new
virtual server
Or can I just install a new named instance of SQL server - choosing the
virtual server in the setup? If I can do this - it would be a lot easier
moving my databases over to the new server.
If I can just create a new virtual server with leaving the original SQL in
tact - will the original still be available to my users if I decide not to
move all the databases over that day?
Is there one way that is better than the other?
1. If you want to use the exact same instance names, uninstall/reinstall for
clustering is needed. If not, you can just virtualize your new instance and
migrate data.
2. Consider reading through this kb for some details
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/224071
3. Your original instance will continue to run while you're installing a new
instance on the same node.
The bottom line, I would create a new instance and ensure it's up and
running before tinkering with the original.
-oj
"Amy Lewis" <AmyLewis@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:223F3934-2F36-4A2D-B5D5-D860055AE5E7@.microsoft.com...
>I have 2 Windows 2003 servers running SQL2000. They each have separate
> databases. I am in the process of clustering these 2 machines together.
> I
> have purchased a shared external SCSI PowerVault appliance to put the
> quorom
> and the shared databases on. I want to create a Virtual SQL server using
> these 2 machines and put their separate databases on the virtual server.
> My
> question is:
> Do I have to uninstall SQL server on each machine before I install the
> virtual server? If I have to I would have to restore my databases to the
> new
> virtual server
> Or can I just install a new named instance of SQL server - choosing the
> virtual server in the setup? If I can do this - it would be a lot easier
> moving my databases over to the new server.
> If I can just create a new virtual server with leaving the original SQL in
> tact - will the original still be available to my users if I decide not to
> move all the databases over that day?
> Is there one way that is better than the other?
|||Each instance of SQL Server requires its own shared disk. You can install
either 1 default instance and 15 named instances or up to 16 named
instances, but each must have its own shared drive. All drives must have a
drive letter, no mount points allowed. For existing nonclustered instances,
if you move the data files to a shared drive then you will have the option
during setup to upgrade the standalone instance to a virtual/clustered
instance (assuming you're using the Enterprise Edition setup).
Cindy Gross, MCDBA, MCSE
http://cindygross.tripod.com
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

Can Create default instance with April CTP

First, it was a nightmare to get it installed. Multiple installs,uninstalls, deleted (really renamed) directories, and cleaned registries.

It gets an error that the connection was refused. It works fine for a named instance.

Since all of the MSSQLServer registry entries are new, I don't think it is there. And all are done with the service Local Account. So I think the problem must be in the TCP/IP configuration referring to an old installation.

What is the problem? Is there a reference to all of these registry entries.

Thanks,

DavidIt's very difficult to provide you an answer given the information you provided. Are you trying to access the instance remotely or locally? By default, TCP is off. To turn on remote connectivity you can use either SQL Configuration Manager or SQL Server Surface Area Configuration Manager.

Dan

"This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights"|||This occurs during the installation, so it is before the utilities are available. What communications method does the setup program use that can be refused. It is only refused for the default instance.|||Are you saying this works if you install a named instance? That's strange. Can you grab the log files from: %Program Files%\Microsoft SQL Server\90\Setup Bootstrap\log\files\*.log. You can zip the files before attaching them.

Thanks,
Dan|||Hi David

Probably setup is finding an default instance in the machine. I suggest that you uninstall previous build using the command line:

Start /wait D:\SQLDEV_CTP4\setup.exe /qb REMOVE=ALL
Start /wait msiexec /qb /X D:\SQLDEV_CTP4\Setup\sqlncli.msi
Start /wait D:\SQLDEV_CTP4\redist\2.0\dotnetfx.exe /q:a /c:"install /qu"

where D:\SQLDEV_CTP4 is the way for which you it extracted the of setup files.

Another option is to use Build Uninstall Wizard (\Setup Tools\Build Uninstall Wizard),but still I think that command line is more efficient to remove one previous build.
regards
Nilton Pinheiro

|||Sorry to say, I've got this exact same situation, and the above doesn't fix the problem.

Can Create default instance with April CTP

First, it was a nightmare to get it installed. Multiple installs,uninstalls, deleted (really renamed) directories, and cleaned registries.

It gets an error that the connection was refused. It works fine for a named instance.

Since all of the MSSQLServer registry entries are new, I don't think it is there. And all are done with the service Local Account. So I think the problem must be in the TCP/IP configuration referring to an old installation.

What is the problem? Is there a reference to all of these registry entries.

Thanks,

DavidIt's very difficult to provide you an answer given the information you provided. Are you trying to access the instance remotely or locally? By default, TCP is off. To turn on remote connectivity you can use either SQL Configuration Manager or SQL Server Surface Area Configuration Manager.

Dan

"This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights"|||This occurs during the installation, so it is before the utilities are available. What communications method does the setup program use that can be refused. It is only refused for the default instance.|||Are you saying this works if you install a named instance? That's strange. Can you grab the log files from: %Program Files%\Microsoft SQL Server\90\Setup Bootstrap\log\files\*.log. You can zip the files before attaching them.

Thanks,
Dan|||Hi David

Probably setup is finding an default instance in the machine. I suggest that you uninstall previous build using the command line:

Start /wait D:\SQLDEV_CTP4\setup.exe /qb REMOVE=ALL
Start /wait msiexec /qb /X D:\SQLDEV_CTP4\Setup\sqlncli.msi
Start /wait D:\SQLDEV_CTP4\redist\2.0\dotnetfx.exe /q:a /c:"install /qu"

where D:\SQLDEV_CTP4 is the way for which you it extracted the of setup files.

Another option is to use Build Uninstall Wizard (\Setup Tools\Build Uninstall Wizard),but still I think that command line is more efficient to remove one previous build.
regards
Nilton Pinheiro

|||Sorry to say, I've got this exact same situation, and the above doesn't fix the problem.

Can connect with IP number but not with machine name

Running MSDE2000A named instance on an XP Pro machine as part of a domain
(W2003 server) , connecting from a client: with a connection
'machinename\instancename' i get no connection ('server not found or accss
denied'); however with the same setup and a connection
'172.0.30.14\instancename' everything works as expected. I can use an alias
for the IP number and that works but an alias for the machine name does not.
With a DHCP server, the IP address isn't permanent so how do I configure the
connection in my application?
More info - Colleagues have suggested that this is a simple DNS problem. But
I can connect to the machine using the DNS names in other apps (e.g. 'my
network Places') - it's just SQL that won't connect.
"quilkin" wrote:

> Running MSDE2000A named instance on an XP Pro machine as part of a domain
> (W2003 server) , connecting from a client: with a connection
> 'machinename\instancename' i get no connection ('server not found or accss
> denied'); however with the same setup and a connection
> '172.0.30.14\instancename' everything works as expected. I can use an alias
> for the IP number and that works but an alias for the machine name does not.
> With a DHCP server, the IP address isn't permanent so how do I configure the
> connection in my application?

Can connect with IP number but not with machine name

Running MSDE2000A named instance on an XP Pro machine as part of a domain
(W2003 server) , connecting from a client: with a connection
'machinename\instancename' i get no connection ('server not found or accss
denied'); however with the same setup and a connection
'172.0.30.14\instancename' everything works as expected. I can use an alias
for the IP number and that works but an alias for the machine name does not.
With a DHCP server, the IP address isn't permanent so how do I configure the
connection in my application?More info - Colleagues have suggested that this is a simple DNS problem. But
I can connect to the machine using the DNS names in other apps (e.g. 'my
network Places') - it's just SQL that won't connect.
"quilkin" wrote:

> Running MSDE2000A named instance on an XP Pro machine as part of a domain
> (W2003 server) , connecting from a client: with a connection
> 'machinename\instancename' i get no connection ('server not found or accss
> denied'); however with the same setup and a connection
> '172.0.30.14\instancename' everything works as expected. I can use an alia
s
> for the IP number and that works but an alias for the machine name does no
t.
> With a DHCP server, the IP address isn't permanent so how do I configure t
he
> connection in my application?

Can connect with IP number but not with machine name

Running MSDE2000A named instance on an XP Pro machine as part of a domain
(W2003 server) , connecting from a client: with a connection
'machinename\instancename' i get no connection ('server not found or accss
denied'); however with the same setup and a connection
'172.0.30.14\instancename' everything works as expected. I can use an alias
for the IP number and that works but an alias for the machine name does not.
With a DHCP server, the IP address isn't permanent so how do I configure the
connection in my application?More info - Colleagues have suggested that this is a simple DNS problem. But
I can connect to the machine using the DNS names in other apps (e.g. 'my
network Places') - it's just SQL that won't connect.
"quilkin" wrote:
> Running MSDE2000A named instance on an XP Pro machine as part of a domain
> (W2003 server) , connecting from a client: with a connection
> 'machinename\instancename' i get no connection ('server not found or accss
> denied'); however with the same setup and a connection
> '172.0.30.14\instancename' everything works as expected. I can use an alias
> for the IP number and that works but an alias for the machine name does not.
> With a DHCP server, the IP address isn't permanent so how do I configure the
> connection in my application?

Can connect to only One instance from another computer

We can only connect to only 1 instance, either the default localhost or the
named instance from another client.
For example on my computer the other client can connect to the localhost and
the other instance name such as server\instancenames cannot be connected. On
the other computer that does not have the default instance, the client can
only connect to one instance such as server\instancename.
The error message is the same as when sql cannot connect.
Mike
What version, edition of SQL Server? What is the exact error
message? What are you using to try to connect - application,
SQL Tools, DSN? Did you check for what instances are
running? The clients that can't connect to a named instance
- did you check their MDAC versions? Can you connect to
default and named instances when on the box where the
instances are running?
-Sue
On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 07:00:29 -0800, Mike9900
<Mike9900@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>We can only connect to only 1 instance, either the default localhost or the
>named instance from another client.
>For example on my computer the other client can connect to the localhost and
>the other instance name such as server\instancenames cannot be connected. On
>the other computer that does not have the default instance, the client can
>only connect to one instance such as server\instancename.
>The error message is the same as when sql cannot connect.

Can connect to only One instance from another computer

We can only connect to only 1 instance, either the default localhost or the
named instance from another client.
For example on my computer the other client can connect to the localhost and
the other instance name such as server\instancenames cannot be connected. On
the other computer that does not have the default instance, the client can
only connect to one instance such as server\instancename.
The error message is the same as when sql cannot connect.
MikeWhat version, edition of SQL Server? What is the exact error
message? What are you using to try to connect - application,
SQL Tools, DSN? Did you check for what instances are
running? The clients that can't connect to a named instance
- did you check their MDAC versions? Can you connect to
default and named instances when on the box where the
instances are running?
-Sue
On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 07:00:29 -0800, Mike9900
<Mike9900@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>We can only connect to only 1 instance, either the default localhost or the
>named instance from another client.
>For example on my computer the other client can connect to the localhost an
d
>the other instance name such as server\instancenames cannot be connected. O
n
>the other computer that does not have the default instance, the client can
>only connect to one instance such as server\instancename.
>The error message is the same as when sql cannot connect.

Can anyone help solve this puzzle?

I have one SQL instance that is giving me problems: everytime I restore a
database to it, the database has many consistency errors.
I have 3 servers I can test with: Server A, Server B, and Server C. Server
C is the one that's giving me problems.
I run a DBCC CheckDB on a database on Server A, then back it up. If I then
try to restore that backup on Server C, the backup works but DBCC CheckDB
reveals numerous errors. However, I can take that same backup file and
restore it on Server B, and everything is fine.
I can spend lots of time with my corrupt database on Server C and using DBCC
CheckDB (repair_rebuild or repair_allow_data_loss) and dbreindex to finally
get the database to report that it has no consitency errors. HOWEVER, if I
then try to back up that database and restore it on either Server A or
Server B, the restore works ok, but the database again is full of
consistency errors. Restore/backup works with no problems whatsoever
between Server A and Server B.
All of these problems apply not only to backup/restore, but also if I try to
just detach from Server A (or B) and attach to Server C.
I have sees several errors in the SQL log, on Server C, 604 (and some
others). I wish I had the complete list but I have re-installed SQL and
lost the logs.
I thought maybe it was an problem with the install, but as I just mentioned,
I completely re-installed on Server C, but the problems continue. To this
point in the current logs, there are no errors.
At this point I am thinking hardware, but the network guys insist that it
has passed all tests. Next I am going to run SQLIOStress (
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=http://support.microsoft.com:80/support/kb/articles/q231/6/19.asp&NoWebContent=1 )
and see if that turns anything up.
Oh, info on the servers:
Server A: SQL: 8.00.194 RTM Enterprise Edition OS: Windows 2000
(Build 2195 SP3)
Server B: SQL: 8.00.760 SP3 Developer Edition OS: Windows Server 2003
Standard Edition (Build 3790.srv03_rtm.030324-2048)
Server C: SQL: 8.00.760 SP3 Enterprise Edition OS: Windows 2000
(Build 2195 SP4) NOTE: the new install has no SQL service packs applied, no
difference in behavior
Any help/suggestions/links would be greatly appreciated. Please post back
here so that maybe any other unlucky soul that has this problem can benefit
from the smart folks out there.
thanks,
Greg
gjleclair AT hotmail DOT comGreg,
Step 1: install SQL Server service pack 3a and Win2K service pack 4 on
server A.
Step 2: see if you are still having trouble.
I wouldn't be so sure it's server C with the problem. Server A, which
has no SQL Server service packs installed, created the backup.
You mentioned briefly a problem detaching from B and attaching to C. If
that is a problem that is reproducible from scratch without any contact
with Server A, post the details of what's going on with that.
There are hardware issues that can cause this kind of problem that might
not be called hardware problems, such as the one described in
http://support.microsoft.com:80/support/kb/articles/q268/4/81.asp, but I
doubt you'll get much help asking why things aren't working on an
non-updated server.
SK
Greg wrote:
>I have one SQL instance that is giving me problems: everytime I restore a
>database to it, the database has many consistency errors.
>I have 3 servers I can test with: Server A, Server B, and Server C. Server
>C is the one that's giving me problems.
>I run a DBCC CheckDB on a database on Server A, then back it up. If I then
>try to restore that backup on Server C, the backup works but DBCC CheckDB
>reveals numerous errors. However, I can take that same backup file and
>restore it on Server B, and everything is fine.
>I can spend lots of time with my corrupt database on Server C and using DBCC
>CheckDB (repair_rebuild or repair_allow_data_loss) and dbreindex to finally
>get the database to report that it has no consitency errors. HOWEVER, if I
>then try to back up that database and restore it on either Server A or
>Server B, the restore works ok, but the database again is full of
>consistency errors. Restore/backup works with no problems whatsoever
>between Server A and Server B.
>All of these problems apply not only to backup/restore, but also if I try to
>just detach from Server A (or B) and attach to Server C.
>I have sees several errors in the SQL log, on Server C, 604 (and some
>others). I wish I had the complete list but I have re-installed SQL and
>lost the logs.
>I thought maybe it was an problem with the install, but as I just mentioned,
>I completely re-installed on Server C, but the problems continue. To this
>point in the current logs, there are no errors.
>At this point I am thinking hardware, but the network guys insist that it
>has passed all tests. Next I am going to run SQLIOStress (
>http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=http://support.microsoft.com:80/support/kb/articles/q231/6/19.asp&NoWebContent=1 )
>and see if that turns anything up.
>
>Oh, info on the servers:
>Server A: SQL: 8.00.194 RTM Enterprise Edition OS: Windows 2000
>(Build 2195 SP3)
>Server B: SQL: 8.00.760 SP3 Developer Edition OS: Windows Server 2003
>Standard Edition (Build 3790.srv03_rtm.030324-2048)
>Server C: SQL: 8.00.760 SP3 Enterprise Edition OS: Windows 2000
>(Build 2195 SP4) NOTE: the new install has no SQL service packs applied, no
>difference in behavior
>
>Any help/suggestions/links would be greatly appreciated. Please post back
>here so that maybe any other unlucky soul that has this problem can benefit
>from the smart folks out there.
>
>thanks,
>Greg
>gjleclair AT hotmail DOT com
>
>|||Thanks for the reply, Steve.
I understand that applying the service packs would make the most sense as a
starting point...but the powers that be do not want me to do that since
"that's only one that's working".
The reason I didn't think it was server A is that all interaction between
Server A and Server B (backup/restore, attach/detach) work fine. Any
interaction between Server B and Server C result in the same consistency
problems.
As an update the SQLIOstress failed out with a series of these errors:
>>>>*** ERROR: LSN for page 277534 is out of sequence. Expected:
605885 and found 601789 in sector 15. Probably a torn page.
>>>> Byte 513 in pattern is [>] and from read is [.]
Followed by this:
>>>>----
--
>>>>Expected pattern [C] in file for page 277534.
>>>>Bytes read = 8192
>>>>Potential torn write, lost write or stale read may have been
encountered
>>>>----
--
I'm guessing that we have a hardware issue. Any thoughts? It seems like it
is up to me to "prove" that the hardware is having issues but I'm not really
sure what those errors indicate.
Once again, any help is appreciated.
-Greg
"Steve Kass" <skass@.drew.edu> wrote in message
news:%23bYZld26DHA.2556@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Greg,
> Step 1: install SQL Server service pack 3a and Win2K service pack 4 on
> server A.
> Step 2: see if you are still having trouble.
> I wouldn't be so sure it's server C with the problem. Server A, which
> has no SQL Server service packs installed, created the backup.
> You mentioned briefly a problem detaching from B and attaching to C. If
> that is a problem that is reproducible from scratch without any contact
> with Server A, post the details of what's going on with that.
> There are hardware issues that can cause this kind of problem that might
> not be called hardware problems, such as the one described in
> http://support.microsoft.com:80/support/kb/articles/q268/4/81.asp, but I
> doubt you'll get much help asking why things aren't working on an
> non-updated server.
> SK
> Greg wrote:
> >I have one SQL instance that is giving me problems: everytime I restore
a
> >database to it, the database has many consistency errors.
> >I have 3 servers I can test with: Server A, Server B, and Server C.
Server
> >C is the one that's giving me problems.
> >
> >I run a DBCC CheckDB on a database on Server A, then back it up. If I
then
> >try to restore that backup on Server C, the backup works but DBCC CheckDB
> >reveals numerous errors. However, I can take that same backup file and
> >restore it on Server B, and everything is fine.
> >
> >I can spend lots of time with my corrupt database on Server C and using
DBCC
> >CheckDB (repair_rebuild or repair_allow_data_loss) and dbreindex to
finally
> >get the database to report that it has no consitency errors. HOWEVER, if
I
> >then try to back up that database and restore it on either Server A or
> >Server B, the restore works ok, but the database again is full of
> >consistency errors. Restore/backup works with no problems whatsoever
> >between Server A and Server B.
> >
> >All of these problems apply not only to backup/restore, but also if I try
to
> >just detach from Server A (or B) and attach to Server C.
> >
> >I have sees several errors in the SQL log, on Server C, 604 (and some
> >others). I wish I had the complete list but I have re-installed SQL and
> >lost the logs.
> >
> >I thought maybe it was an problem with the install, but as I just
mentioned,
> >I completely re-installed on Server C, but the problems continue. To
this
> >point in the current logs, there are no errors.
> >
> >At this point I am thinking hardware, but the network guys insist that it
> >has passed all tests. Next I am going to run SQLIOStress (
>http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=http://support.microsoft.com
:80/support/kb/articles/q231/6/19.asp&NoWebContent=1 )
> >and see if that turns anything up.
> >
> >
> >Oh, info on the servers:
> >
> >Server A: SQL: 8.00.194 RTM Enterprise Edition OS: Windows 2000
> >(Build 2195 SP3)
> >Server B: SQL: 8.00.760 SP3 Developer Edition OS: Windows Server
2003
> >Standard Edition (Build 3790.srv03_rtm.030324-2048)
> >Server C: SQL: 8.00.760 SP3 Enterprise Edition OS: Windows 2000
> >(Build 2195 SP4) NOTE: the new install has no SQL service packs applied,
no
> >difference in behavior
> >
> >
> >Any help/suggestions/links would be greatly appreciated. Please post
back
> >here so that maybe any other unlucky soul that has this problem can
benefit
> >from the smart folks out there.
> >
> >
> >thanks,
> >Greg
> >
> >gjleclair AT hotmail DOT com
> >
> >
> >
> >
>|||Greg,
It sure sounds like a hardware issue, but I don't have any great
suggestions. If you haven't already looked, see if these Knowledge Base
articles help at all:
http://support.microsoft.com:80/support/kb/articles/q231/6/19.asp
(and the articles it references at the bottom)
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;268481
It is sounding more like it's server C and not the service pack, but
you never know... It does seem a little strange that restore fails so
easily, yet you have to work to get SQLIOstress to error out.
SK
Greg wrote:
>Thanks for the reply, Steve.
>I understand that applying the service packs would make the most sense as a
>starting point...but the powers that be do not want me to do that since
>"that's only one that's working".
>The reason I didn't think it was server A is that all interaction between
>Server A and Server B (backup/restore, attach/detach) work fine. Any
>interaction between Server B and Server C result in the same consistency
>problems.
>As an update the SQLIOstress failed out with a series of these errors:
>
>
>>>>*** ERROR: LSN for page 277534 is out of sequence. Expected:
>>>>
>>>>
>605885 and found 601789 in sector 15. Probably a torn page.
>
>>>>Byte 513 in pattern is [>] and from read is [.]
>>>>
>>>>
>Followed by this:
>
>>>>----
>>>>
>>>>
>--
>
>>>>Expected pattern [C] in file for page 277534.
>>>>Bytes read = 8192
>>>>Potential torn write, lost write or stale read may have been
>>>>
>>>>
>encountered
>
>>>>----
>>>>
>>>>
>--
>I'm guessing that we have a hardware issue. Any thoughts? It seems like it
>is up to me to "prove" that the hardware is having issues but I'm not really
>sure what those errors indicate.
>Once again, any help is appreciated.
>-Greg
>
>
>"Steve Kass" <skass@.drew.edu> wrote in message
>news:%23bYZld26DHA.2556@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>
>>Greg,
>>Step 1: install SQL Server service pack 3a and Win2K service pack 4 on
>>server A.
>>Step 2: see if you are still having trouble.
>>I wouldn't be so sure it's server C with the problem. Server A, which
>>has no SQL Server service packs installed, created the backup.
>>You mentioned briefly a problem detaching from B and attaching to C. If
>>that is a problem that is reproducible from scratch without any contact
>>with Server A, post the details of what's going on with that.
>>There are hardware issues that can cause this kind of problem that might
>>not be called hardware problems, such as the one described in
>>http://support.microsoft.com:80/support/kb/articles/q268/4/81.asp, but I
>>doubt you'll get much help asking why things aren't working on an
>>non-updated server.
>>SK
>>Greg wrote:
>>
>>I have one SQL instance that is giving me problems: everytime I restore
>>
>a
>
>>database to it, the database has many consistency errors.
>>I have 3 servers I can test with: Server A, Server B, and Server C.
>>
>Server
>
>>C is the one that's giving me problems.
>>I run a DBCC CheckDB on a database on Server A, then back it up. If I
>>
>then
>
>>try to restore that backup on Server C, the backup works but DBCC CheckDB
>>reveals numerous errors. However, I can take that same backup file and
>>restore it on Server B, and everything is fine.
>>I can spend lots of time with my corrupt database on Server C and using
>>
>DBCC
>
>>CheckDB (repair_rebuild or repair_allow_data_loss) and dbreindex to
>>
>finally
>
>>get the database to report that it has no consitency errors. HOWEVER, if
>>
>I
>
>>then try to back up that database and restore it on either Server A or
>>Server B, the restore works ok, but the database again is full of
>>consistency errors. Restore/backup works with no problems whatsoever
>>between Server A and Server B.
>>All of these problems apply not only to backup/restore, but also if I try
>>
>to
>
>>just detach from Server A (or B) and attach to Server C.
>>I have sees several errors in the SQL log, on Server C, 604 (and some
>>others). I wish I had the complete list but I have re-installed SQL and
>>lost the logs.
>>I thought maybe it was an problem with the install, but as I just
>>
>mentioned,
>
>>I completely re-installed on Server C, but the problems continue. To
>>
>this
>
>>point in the current logs, there are no errors.
>>At this point I am thinking hardware, but the network guys insist that it
>>has passed all tests. Next I am going to run SQLIOStress (
>>
>>http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=http://support.microsoft.com
>>
>:80/support/kb/articles/q231/6/19.asp&NoWebContent=1 )
>
>>and see if that turns anything up.
>>
>>Oh, info on the servers:
>>Server A: SQL: 8.00.194 RTM Enterprise Edition OS: Windows 2000
>>(Build 2195 SP3)
>>Server B: SQL: 8.00.760 SP3 Developer Edition OS: Windows Server
>>
>2003
>
>>Standard Edition (Build 3790.srv03_rtm.030324-2048)
>>Server C: SQL: 8.00.760 SP3 Enterprise Edition OS: Windows 2000
>>(Build 2195 SP4) NOTE: the new install has no SQL service packs applied,
>>
>no
>
>>difference in behavior
>>
>>Any help/suggestions/links would be greatly appreciated. Please post
>>
>back
>
>>here so that maybe any other unlucky soul that has this problem can
>>
>benefit
>
>>from the smart folks out there.
>>
>>thanks,
>>Greg
>>gjleclair AT hotmail DOT com
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Can anyone help solve this puzzle?

I have one SQL instance that is giving me problems: everytime I restore a
database to it, the database has many consistency errors.
I have 3 servers I can test with: Server A, Server B, and Server C. Server
C is the one that's giving me problems.
I run a DBCC CheckDB on a database on Server A, then back it up. If I then
try to restore that backup on Server C, the backup works but DBCC CheckDB
reveals numerous errors. However, I can take that same backup file and
restore it on Server B, and everything is fine.
I can spend lots of time with my corrupt database on Server C and using DBCC
CheckDB (repair_rebuild or repair_allow_data_loss) and dbreindex to finally
get the database to report that it has no consitency errors. HOWEVER, if I
then try to back up that database and restore it on either Server A or
Server B, the restore works ok, but the database again is full of
consistency errors. Restore/backup works with no problems whatsoever
between Server A and Server B.
All of these problems apply not only to backup/restore, but also if I try to
just detach from Server A (or B) and attach to Server C.
I have sees several errors in the SQL log, on Server C, 604 (and some
others). I wish I had the complete list but I have re-installed SQL and
lost the logs.
I thought maybe it was an problem with the install, but as I just mentioned,
I completely re-installed on Server C, but the problems continue. To this
point in the current logs, there are no errors.
At this point I am thinking hardware, but the network guys insist that it
has passed all tests. Next I am going to run SQLIOStress (
http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...&NoWebContent=1 )
and see if that turns anything up.
Oh, info on the servers:
Server A: SQL: 8.00.194 RTM Enterprise Edition OS: Windows 2000
(Build 2195 SP3)
Server B: SQL: 8.00.760 SP3 Developer Edition OS: Windows Server 2003
Standard Edition (Build 3790.srv03_rtm.030324-2048)
Server C: SQL: 8.00.760 SP3 Enterprise Edition OS: Windows 2000
(Build 2195 SP4) NOTE: the new install has no SQL service packs applied, no
difference in behavior
Any help/suggestions/links would be greatly appreciated. Please post back
here so that maybe any other unlucky soul that has this problem can benefit
from the smart folks out there.
thanks,
Greg
gjleclair AT hotmail DOT comGreg,
Step 1: install SQL Server service pack 3a and Win2K service pack 4 on
server A.
Step 2: see if you are still having trouble.
I wouldn't be so sure it's server C with the problem. Server A, which
has no SQL Server service packs installed, created the backup.
You mentioned briefly a problem detaching from B and attaching to C. If
that is a problem that is reproducible from scratch without any contact
with Server A, post the details of what's going on with that.
There are hardware issues that can cause this kind of problem that might
not be called hardware problems, such as the one described in
http://support.microsoft.com:80/sup.../q268/4/81.asp, but I
doubt you'll get much help asking why things aren't working on an
non-updated server.
SK
Greg wrote:

quote:

---

>I have one SQL instance that is giving me problems: everytime I restore a
>database to it, the database has many consistency errors.
>I have 3 servers I can test with: Server A, Server B, and Server C. Server
>C is the one that's giving me problems.
>I run a DBCC CheckDB on a database on Server A, then back it up. If I then
>try to restore that backup on Server C, the backup works but DBCC CheckDB
>reveals numerous errors. However, I can take that same backup file and
>restore it on Server B, and everything is fine.
>I can spend lots of time with my corrupt database on Server C and using DBC
C
>CheckDB (repair_rebuild or repair_allow_data_loss) and dbreindex to finally
>get the database to report that it has no consitency errors. HOWEVER, if I
>then try to back up that database and restore it on either Server A or
>Server B, the restore works ok, but the database again is full of
>consistency errors. Restore/backup works with no problems whatsoever
>between Server A and Server B.
>All of these problems apply not only to backup/restore, but also if I try t
o
>just detach from Server A (or B) and attach to Server C.
>I have sees several errors in the SQL log, on Server C, 604 (and some
>others). I wish I had the complete list but I have re-installed SQL and
>lost the logs.
>I thought maybe it was an problem with the install, but as I just mentioned
,
>I completely re-installed on Server C, but the problems continue. To this
>point in the current logs, there are no errors.
>At this point I am thinking hardware, but the network guys insist that it
>has passed all tests. Next I am going to run SQLIOStress (
>http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...&NoWebContent=1 )
>and see if that turns anything up.
>
>Oh, info on the servers:
>Server A: SQL: 8.00.194 RTM Enterprise Edition OS: Windows 2000
>(Build 2195 SP3)
>Server B: SQL: 8.00.760 SP3 Developer Edition OS: Windows Server 200
3
>Standard Edition (Build 3790.srv03_rtm.030324-2048)
>Server C: SQL: 8.00.760 SP3 Enterprise Edition OS: Windows 2000
>(Build 2195 SP4) NOTE: the new install has no SQL service packs applied, n
o
>difference in behavior
>
>Any help/suggestions/links would be greatly appreciated. Please post back
>here so that maybe any other unlucky soul that has this problem can benefit
>from the smart folks out there.
>
>thanks,
>Greg
>gjleclair AT hotmail DOT com
>
>

---

|||Thanks for the reply, Steve.
I understand that applying the service packs would make the most sense as a
starting point...but the powers that be do not want me to do that since
"that's only one that's working".
The reason I didn't think it was server A is that all interaction between
Server A and Server B (backup/restore, attach/detach) work fine. Any
interaction between Server B and Server C result in the same consistency
problems.
As an update the SQLIOstress failed out with a series of these errors:

quote:

---

605885 and found 601789 in sector 15. Probably a torn page.[QUOTE]
Followed by this:
[QUOTE]
--[QUOTE]
encountered[QUOTE]
--
I'm guessing that we have a hardware issue. Any thoughts? It seems like it
is up to me to "prove" that the hardware is having issues but I'm not really
sure what those errors indicate.
Once again, any help is appreciated.
-Greg
"Steve Kass" <skass@.drew.edu> wrote in message
news:%23bYZld26DHA.2556@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...[QUOTE]
> Greg,
> Step 1: install SQL Server service pack 3a and Win2K service pack 4 on
> server A.
> Step 2: see if you are still having trouble.
> I wouldn't be so sure it's server C with the problem. Server A, which
> has no SQL Server service packs installed, created the backup.
> You mentioned briefly a problem detaching from B and attaching to C. If
> that is a problem that is reproducible from scratch without any contact
> with Server A, post the details of what's going on with that.
> There are hardware issues that can cause this kind of problem that might
> not be called hardware problems, such as the one described in
> http://support.microsoft.com:80/sup.../q268/4/81.asp, but I
> doubt you'll get much help asking why things aren't working on an
> non-updated server.
> SK
> Greg wrote:
>
a[QUOTE]
Server[QUOTE]
then[QUOTE]
DBCC[QUOTE]
finally[QUOTE]
I[QUOTE]
to[QUOTE]
mentioned,[QUOTE]
this[QUOTE]
>http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...t.microsoft.com

---

:80/support/kb/articles/q231/6/19.asp&NoWebContent=1 )

quote:

---

2003[QUOTE]
no[QUOTE]
back[QUOTE]
benefit[QUOTE]
>

---

|||Greg,
It sure sounds like a hardware issue, but I don't have any great
suggestions. If you haven't already looked, see if these Knowledge Base
articles help at all:
http://support.microsoft.com:80/sup...s/q231/6/19.asp
(and the articles it references at the bottom)
http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...kb;en-us;268481
It is sounding more like it's server C and not the service pack, but
you never know... It does seem a little strange that restore fails so
easily, yet you have to work to get SQLIOstress to error out.
SK
Greg wrote:

quote:

---

>Thanks for the reply, Steve.
>I understand that applying the service packs would make the most sense as a
>starting point...but the powers that be do not want me to do that since
>"that's only one that's working".
>The reason I didn't think it was server A is that all interaction between
>Server A and Server B (backup/restore, attach/detach) work fine. Any
>interaction between Server B and Server C result in the same consistency
>problems.
>As an update the SQLIOstress failed out with a series of these errors:
>
>
>605885 and found 601789 in sector 15. Probably a torn page.
>
>Followed by this:
>
>
>--
>
>encountered
>
>--
>I'm guessing that we have a hardware issue. Any thoughts? It seems like i
t
>is up to me to "prove" that the hardware is having issues but I'm not reall
y
>sure what those errors indicate.
>Once again, any help is appreciated.
>-Greg
>
>
>"Steve Kass" <skass@.drew.edu> wrote in message
>news:%23bYZld26DHA.2556@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>
>a
>
>Server
>
>then
>
>DBCC
>
>finally
>
>I
>
>to
>
>mentioned,
>
>this
>
>:80/support/kb/articles/q231/6/19.asp&NoWebContent=1 )
>
>2003
>
>no
>
>back
>
>benefit
>
>
>

---

Can anyone help me on this ?

I got this error when i try to see a webpage on my server. What should i do ?

Failed to generate a user instance of SQL Server due to failure in retrieving the user's local application data path. Please make sure the user has a local user profile on the computer. The connection will be closed.

Hi,

It seems this thread is discussing this issue with solutions.

Can a SQL "virtual server" contains more than one SQL instance ?

Hi, I am new to SQL clustering.
I have a two nodes windows 2003 enterprise server in a cluster with sql 2000
enterprise server installed. Following the SQL installation screen I have
create a virtual server ( for SQL ) and installed the first sql instance
using "default" as the name .So far no problem.
But when I tried to install another instance of SQL it seems like I could
only create a new Virtual server and then name another SQLinstance (
example: Virtual server is " ProdSQL" and instance is INST1) , so it becomes
prodsql\inst1.
My question ( confusion ) is : can I create another instance using the same
Virtual server "prodsql" and install another instance "inst2" so this will
become prodsql\inst2. Is this possible and how to do it ?( Or one cluster
group can have only one virtual server can only have one single instance of
SQL ? )
Any advice appreciated.
George Norman
From BOL ("usually" your best buddy):
Multiple Instances of SQL Server on a Failover Cluster
You can run only one instance of SQL Server on each virtual server of a SQL
Server failover cluster, although you can install up to 16 virtual servers
on a failover cluster. The instance can be either a default instance or a
named instance. The virtual server looks like a single computer to
applications connecting to that instance of SQL Server. When applications
connect to the virtual server, they use the same convention as when
connecting to any instance of SQL Server; they specify the virtual server
name of the cluster and the optional instance name (only needed for named
instances): virtualservername\instancename. For more information about
clustering, see Failover Clustering Architecture.
joe.
"Norman" <GeorgeNorman@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:emEeoMuYFHA.3572@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hi, I am new to SQL clustering.
> I have a two nodes windows 2003 enterprise server in a cluster with sql
> 2000 enterprise server installed. Following the SQL installation screen I
> have create a virtual server ( for SQL ) and installed the first sql
> instance using "default" as the name .So far no problem.
> But when I tried to install another instance of SQL it seems like I could
> only create a new Virtual server and then name another SQLinstance (
> example: Virtual server is " ProdSQL" and instance is INST1) , so it
> becomes prodsql\inst1.
> My question ( confusion ) is : can I create another instance using the
> same Virtual server "prodsql" and install another instance "inst2" so this
> will become prodsql\inst2. Is this possible and how to do it ?( Or one
> cluster group can have only one virtual server can only have one single
> instance of SQL ? )
> Any advice appreciated.
> George Norman
>
|||Thanks Joe, that clears things up.
So when Microsoft said Multiple instance it means "multiple Virtual Servers
each with a single SQL instance" .
So does it also means that the Active -Active ( say between two nodes ) is
just running one Virtual server on each of the nodes to spread the work load
( and of course one of the node will control the quorum )?
George
"Joe Yong" <jyongNOSPAM@.scalabilityexperts.com> wrote in message
news:eJ6tUeuYFHA.3356@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> From BOL ("usually" your best buddy):
> Multiple Instances of SQL Server on a Failover Cluster
> You can run only one instance of SQL Server on each virtual server of a
> SQL Server failover cluster, although you can install up to 16 virtual
> servers on a failover cluster. The instance can be either a default
> instance or a named instance. The virtual server looks like a single
> computer to applications connecting to that instance of SQL Server. When
> applications connect to the virtual server, they use the same convention
> as when connecting to any instance of SQL Server; they specify the virtual
> server name of the cluster and the optional instance name (only needed for
> named instances): virtualservername\instancename. For more information
> about clustering, see Failover Clustering Architecture.
>
>
> joe.
> "Norman" <GeorgeNorman@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:emEeoMuYFHA.3572@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>

Can a data region...

reference a parameter? For instance, I have a table control and in the detail field I have an expression.

=IIf(Parameters!Consignee.Value = True, "True","False")

But it doens't work.....any suggestions?

Michael

That should work - what happens when you try it? Did you make the data type Boolean?|||

I get "#Error" in the field.

All I did to get around this was to make a derived table in my main query that filters for the specific parameter, and then joined it back in appropriately. This made it a field instead of a parameter reference and it worked fine. Thanks for the response.

Michael

Can a clustered SQL 2000 installation run without DNS

A client of ours wants to run a clustered instance of SQL and not have it
dependent on name resolution for anything.
Since it appears that SQL is heavily dependent on AD and DNS for the virtual
server piece, does this dependancy constitute a single point of failure?
You will need DNS and AD for installing a SQL Server cluster or adding nodes
to it.
The nodes themselves don't necessarily need an active DC or DNS. In fact you
should enter the node, and cluster name in the host file to reduce the
amount of time a node requires to go online.
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
"Brian Cook" <BrianCook@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:368FFF28-CD47-4F92-A2D8-0FA72DEC1897@.microsoft.com...
> A client of ours wants to run a clustered instance of SQL and not have it
> dependent on name resolution for anything.
> Since it appears that SQL is heavily dependent on AD and DNS for the
virtual
> server piece, does this dependancy constitute a single point of failure?
>
|||Hilary, thanks for the validation. I know that AD and DNS is required, I just
am having problems convincing the client that they are required. I have
pointed out multiple articles in SQL books online, and TechNet/Support items
that also say the same thing.
Must have assumptions are not a satisfactory answer for this client. They
need to see it it writing that it must have explicitly AD/DNS.
Brian
"Hilary Cotter" wrote:

> You will need DNS and AD for installing a SQL Server cluster or adding nodes
> to it.
> The nodes themselves don't necessarily need an active DC or DNS. In fact you
> should enter the node, and cluster name in the host file to reduce the
> amount of time a node requires to go online.
>
>
> --
> Hilary Cotter
> Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
>
> "Brian Cook" <BrianCook@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:368FFF28-CD47-4F92-A2D8-0FA72DEC1897@.microsoft.com...
> virtual
>
>
|||I'd try to run cluster administrator to create a new cluster on a standalone
win2003 and take screen shots of it failing because it can't register the
cluster name in AD, or the IP address for the cluster in DNS.
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
"Brian Cook" <BrianCook@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:30241601-0AD5-4673-8102-48FEC2C932DE@.microsoft.com...
> Hilary, thanks for the validation. I know that AD and DNS is required, I
just
> am having problems convincing the client that they are required. I have
> pointed out multiple articles in SQL books online, and TechNet/Support
items[vbcol=seagreen]
> that also say the same thing.
> Must have assumptions are not a satisfactory answer for this client. They
> need to see it it writing that it must have explicitly AD/DNS.
> Brian
> "Hilary Cotter" wrote:
nodes[vbcol=seagreen]
you[vbcol=seagreen]
it[vbcol=seagreen]
failure?[vbcol=seagreen]
|||Hillary, here is the kicker for you. I don't know how they did it, however
they got the cluster and sql to run without the domain controllers/dns
servers. I will be heading over there in a little while to figure out what
they did.
Either way I know it is not a supported configuration by Microsoft, and I
cannot guarantee that it will not fail completely at some point and bite them
in the fanny.
Brian
"Hilary Cotter" wrote:

> I'd try to run cluster administrator to create a new cluster on a standalone
> win2003 and take screen shots of it failing because it can't register the
> cluster name in AD, or the IP address for the cluster in DNS.
> --
> Hilary Cotter
> Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
>
> "Brian Cook" <BrianCook@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:30241601-0AD5-4673-8102-48FEC2C932DE@.microsoft.com...
> just
> items
> nodes
> you
> it
> failure?
>
>
|||Hilary, the following items were changed on both nodes of the cluster and
allows the resources to function correctly without AD/DNS.
MSSQLSERVER service to use LocalSystem Account, Interact with Desktop
unchecked.
SQLSERVERAGENT service to use LocalSystem Account, Interact with Desktop
unchecked.
Cluster Service to use local user account which has admin rights. Use same
account and password for both computers.
Following items added to lmhosts file;
10.50.32.34 NOCTMDS-DBTSQL #PRE //SQL Server Virtual IP
10.50.32.35 NOCTMDS-DBTEST #PRE //Microsoft Cluster Server
Virtual IP
DNS servers removed from TCP/IP Properties.
Enable NetBIOS over TCP/IP.
Only other change that was made is to /flushdns from both computers. Both
AD/DNS servers are turned off.
Cluster failover occurs normally.
First question is why does this work?
Is this a supported configuration by Microsoft, or does this go against
“Best Practices” for any specific reason?
If not supported by Microsoft, what is the down side to running in this
manner, and what problems could be expected by not using a Domain\Username
account for the services?
Any white papers, tech notes, releasable internal documents that specify it
must be done one way or the other (AD/DNS or Not needed) would be greatly
appreciated.
"Brian Cook" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hillary, here is the kicker for you. I don't know how they did it, however
> they got the cluster and sql to run without the domain controllers/dns
> servers. I will be heading over there in a little while to figure out what
> they did.
> Either way I know it is not a supported configuration by Microsoft, and I
> cannot guarantee that it will not fail completely at some point and bite them
> in the fanny.
> Brian
> "Hilary Cotter" wrote:
|||What version of the OS are we talking about 2000 or 2003?
2003 does seem to require AD and DNS to be live when creating the cluster.
It does appear that somehow they have managed to create a cluster without an
active DNS or AD. I don't believe Microsoft will support this configuration.
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
"Brian Cook" <BrianCook@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B2143F93-C7C2-427E-9F54-970EB2117B7D@.microsoft.com...
> Hilary, the following items were changed on both nodes of the cluster and
> allows the resources to function correctly without AD/DNS.
> MSSQLSERVER service to use LocalSystem Account, Interact with Desktop
> unchecked.
> SQLSERVERAGENT service to use LocalSystem Account, Interact with Desktop
> unchecked.
> Cluster Service to use local user account which has admin rights. Use same
> account and password for both computers.
> Following items added to lmhosts file;
> 10.50.32.34 NOCTMDS-DBTSQL #PRE //SQL Server Virtual IP
> 10.50.32.35 NOCTMDS-DBTEST #PRE //Microsoft Cluster Server
> Virtual IP
> DNS servers removed from TCP/IP Properties.
> Enable NetBIOS over TCP/IP.
> Only other change that was made is to /flushdns from both computers. Both
> AD/DNS servers are turned off.
> Cluster failover occurs normally.
> First question is why does this work?
> Is this a supported configuration by Microsoft, or does this go against
> "Best Practices" for any specific reason?
> If not supported by Microsoft, what is the down side to running in this
> manner, and what problems could be expected by not using a Domain\Username
> account for the services?
> Any white papers, tech notes, releasable internal documents that specify
it[vbcol=seagreen]
> must be done one way or the other (AD/DNS or Not needed) would be greatly
> appreciated.
>
> "Brian Cook" wrote:
however[vbcol=seagreen]
what[vbcol=seagreen]
I[vbcol=seagreen]
them[vbcol=seagreen]
standalone[vbcol=seagreen]
the[vbcol=seagreen]
required, I[vbcol=seagreen]
have[vbcol=seagreen]
TechNet/Support[vbcol=seagreen]
They[vbcol=seagreen]
adding[vbcol=seagreen]
In fact[vbcol=seagreen]
the[vbcol=seagreen]
message[vbcol=seagreen]
not have[vbcol=seagreen]
the[vbcol=seagreen]
|||Hilary, this is a two node W2K3 installation. We have replicated it in our
lab and it is working. I am opening a case with Microsoft today to confirm my
suspicions that it is not a support configuration, and also see if there are
any down sides to this configuration.
My concern is that since we are developing an application that uses SQL, yet
does not rely on the "name" of the db server, and at some point down the
road, if the cluster fails, and stops working will it be because of the way
the system is configured or something else as it is not configured as it was
designed to be used, and our company end up with the liability for the
failure.
Brian
"Hilary Cotter" wrote:

> What version of the OS are we talking about 2000 or 2003?
> 2003 does seem to require AD and DNS to be live when creating the cluster.
> It does appear that somehow they have managed to create a cluster without an
> active DNS or AD. I don't believe Microsoft will support this configuration.
> --
> Hilary Cotter
> Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
>
> "Brian Cook" <BrianCook@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:B2143F93-C7C2-427E-9F54-970EB2117B7D@.microsoft.com...
> it
> however
> what
> I
> them
> standalone
> the
> required, I
> have
> TechNet/Support
> They
> adding
> In fact
> the
> message
> not have
> the
>
>

Can 2K5 Cluster can have 2 instances on each node?

Hi,
We have sql 2005 standard installed as cluster on win2k3 cluster with 8
GB memory on each node. We have one virtual sql server named instance on
first node. Can we create one more instance on the same node and
similarly 2 more instances on the second node. The cluster will be in
active\active mode. Our reason for considering this is that we will be
able to fail over one instance from the node 1 to node2 and node2 still
have the 2nd instance running. Is this possible?
Thanks
DeBe
DeBe's Profile: http://www.dbtalk.net/m115
View this thread: http://www.dbtalk.net/t297735
I think you have some misconceptions on how clustering works. The obsolete
naming of "Active/passive/Active..." is partially responsible for that.
Instances are installed to the cluster. You can have up to sixteen
instances on a cluster. SQL Server 2005 Standard Edition supports up to
two-node clusters. Nodes are the host computers for a cluster. An instance
can run on either node, but only on one node at a time. You cannot install
the same SQL instance to two nodes and have them both serviceing data
requests as if they were the same server. SQL Clustering is a failover
technology, not a scale-out technology. You can create two SQL instances on
a SQL 2005 two-node cluster and let one run normally on each node. During a
failure event one node can run both instances, with some performance
compromises of course.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"DeBe" <DeBe.25toh0@.no-mx.forums.yourdomain.com.au> wrote in message
news:DeBe.25toh0@.no-mx.forums.yourdomain.com.au...
> Hi,
> We have sql 2005 standard installed as cluster on win2k3 cluster with 8
> GB memory on each node. We have one virtual sql server named instance on
> first node. Can we create one more instance on the same node and
> similarly 2 more instances on the second node. The cluster will be in
> active\active mode. Our reason for considering this is that we will be
> able to fail over one instance from the node 1 to node2 and node2 still
> have the 2nd instance running. Is this possible?
> Thanks
>
> --
> DeBe
> DeBe's Profile: http://www.dbtalk.net/m115
> View this thread: http://www.dbtalk.net/t297735
>
|||I will try to make my problem more clear.
I am talking about 4 different instances and they have 4 different
databases
connecting to 4 very different application.
so
Node1-->InsA-->DBa
Node1-->InsB-->DBb
Node2-->InsC-->DBc
Node2-->InsD-->DBd
So I guess my question is is it possible for just InsA to fail over to
Node 2. So that node 2 is now running with 3 instances and node 1 is
running with 1 instance?
My second question would be about the memory. If out of 8 GB Ram on
each node if 1 GB is assigned to os and 3 GB is assigned to each
instance (assuming 2 instances) and if the third instance from the node
2 fails over how will it get the memory for itself?
Thanks
DeBe
DeBe's Profile: http://www.dbtalk.net/m115
View this thread: http://www.dbtalk.net/t297735
|||You can have up to sixteen instances per cluster. Once the instances are
installed, you can set the preferred node order for each instance. That
determines which node is the normal host for this instance. Each instance
is completely independent from the other instances. You can move each
instance independently between nodes without affecting any other instance.
Just as on a stand-alone system with multiple instances, it is the DBA's
responsibility to make sure there are enough resources for all instances to
function properly. Note that SQL will not rebalance memory amongst multiple
instances. I.E. It will not make one instance give up memory so another one
can have it. You must plan ahead for the situation where one node hosts
more than its normal set of instances.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"DeBe" <DeBe.25uu4z@.no-mx.forums.yourdomain.com.au> wrote in message
news:DeBe.25uu4z@.no-mx.forums.yourdomain.com.au...
> I will try to make my problem more clear.
> I am talking about 4 different instances and they have 4 different
> databases
> connecting to 4 very different application.
> so
> Node1-->InsA-->DBa
> Node1-->InsB-->DBb
> Node2-->InsC-->DBc
> Node2-->InsD-->DBd
> So I guess my question is is it possible for just InsA to fail over to
> Node 2. So that node 2 is now running with 3 instances and node 1 is
> running with 1 instance?
> My second question would be about the memory. If out of 8 GB Ram on
> each node if 1 GB is assigned to os and 3 GB is assigned to each
> instance (assuming 2 instances) and if the third instance from the node
> 2 fails over how will it get the memory for itself?
> Thanks
>
> --
> DeBe
> DeBe's Profile: http://www.dbtalk.net/m115
> View this thread: http://www.dbtalk.net/t297735
>
|||Just curious why you need so many instances. One instance can handle 4
DB's.
Tom
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
..
"DeBe" <DeBe.25uu4z@.no-mx.forums.yourdomain.com.au> wrote in message
news:DeBe.25uu4z@.no-mx.forums.yourdomain.com.au...
I will try to make my problem more clear.
I am talking about 4 different instances and they have 4 different
databases
connecting to 4 very different application.
so
Node1-->InsA-->DBa
Node1-->InsB-->DBb
Node2-->InsC-->DBc
Node2-->InsD-->DBd
So I guess my question is is it possible for just InsA to fail over to
Node 2. So that node 2 is now running with 3 instances and node 1 is
running with 1 instance?
My second question would be about the memory. If out of 8 GB Ram on
each node if 1 GB is assigned to os and 3 GB is assigned to each
instance (assuming 2 instances) and if the third instance from the node
2 fails over how will it get the memory for itself?
Thanks
DeBe
DeBe's Profile: http://www.dbtalk.net/m115
View this thread: http://www.dbtalk.net/t297735