IWAM_ and login failure

I've been scratching me head for 3 weeks so far on this one.
I'm trying to teach myself how to do databases, etc., for MSSQL 2000. A
friend made a database for me to play around with. He created this on a
Windows 2003, IIS 6 machine. I'm running Win2K AS, IIS 5 and AD installed.
This machine is an internal LAN.
Now, when I try to access this page, I repeatedly get a
"System.Data.SqlClient.SqlException: Login failed for user
'MAINSERVER1\IWAM_MAINSERVER'."
I've been googling the hell out of this, and tried various NG's. Nothing has
worked as of yet.
Things I've tried:
I've added the user to the database permissions (as dbo).
I've made sure that the login is listed under 'Security/Logins'.
I added the user to the NTFS permissions for the folder, both where the DB
is stored plus the intranet folder where the pages are housed.
I changed the logon for 'ASP.NET State Service' from the IWAM account, to
Local System Account. I have noticed, that I can not manually start the
service when the logon is set to IWAM (I think this is part of the problem).
I've uninstalled/reinstalled IIS and .Net Framework 1.1 already.
I added IUSR_ and NT Authority\System to the 'Security/Logins' and verified
permissions for the DB for the same.
I'm at a loss as to what to try next. Any ideas?
TIA
CharlesCharles
Are you using windows only or mixed security? (If you don't know, open Enter
prise Manage, right click on your server and choose properties. The security
tab will show you)
For windows only
Right click My computer on your desktop and choose manage
Open local users and groups
Add user to appropriate group (usually Administrator or Users depending on w
hat you are going to use account for)
For Windows and mixed
In EM open Security tab and click on Logins
Right click and add new login
Give account details including domain
If you want full access to everything go to Server Roles tab and tick system
s administrator, else tick any other role that is suitable
If you want to contol access at individual level or you have not given sa ac
cess go to database access tab and assign database access
If not sa (systems administrator)
Go to individual databases and choose users
Right click and choose new user
Account should be available from drop down menu
Choose any roles in addition to public that is required
If dbo (db_owner) nothing else required
Else click on properties
Choose role just assigned and click permissions
Assign per,issions at an individual level
All should be done now. Full database access.
Hope this helps
John|||IF the error occurs because the web page is accessing sql for user data ( as
opposed to using SQL for IIS State), then you should ONLY have to
1. Add the IWAM login as a valid login to SQL Server
2. Add the login as a valid user in the database you are using
3. Give the user in the database the appropriate permissions...
A quick simple check would be to simply add the login and make it a system
administrator In SQL Server. then try the app again..
Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Computer Education Services Corporation (CESC), Charlotte, NC
www.computeredservices.com
(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
community of SQL Server professionals.
www.sqlpass.org
"Charles" <cfciii@.adelphia.NOSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:eaI4OgCDEHA.3784@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> I've been scratching me head for 3 weeks so far on this one.
> I'm trying to teach myself how to do databases, etc., for MSSQL 2000. A
> friend made a database for me to play around with. He created this on a
> Windows 2003, IIS 6 machine. I'm running Win2K AS, IIS 5 and AD installed.
> This machine is an internal LAN.
> Now, when I try to access this page, I repeatedly get a
> "System.Data.SqlClient.SqlException: Login failed for user
> 'MAINSERVER1\IWAM_MAINSERVER'."
>
> I've been googling the hell out of this, and tried various NG's. Nothing
has
> worked as of yet.
> Things I've tried:
> I've added the user to the database permissions (as dbo).
> I've made sure that the login is listed under 'Security/Logins'.
> I added the user to the NTFS permissions for the folder, both where the DB
> is stored plus the intranet folder where the pages are housed.
> I changed the logon for 'ASP.NET State Service' from the IWAM account, to
> Local System Account. I have noticed, that I can not manually start the
> service when the logon is set to IWAM (I think this is part of the
problem).
> I've uninstalled/reinstalled IIS and .Net Framework 1.1 already.
> I added IUSR_ and NT Authority\System to the 'Security/Logins' and
verified
> permissions for the DB for the same.
> I'm at a loss as to what to try next. Any ideas?
> TIA
> Charles
>|||I am using Mixed Security. The login ID is already there, and I included
IUSR_. I went through, and added the server role of SA for both logins. I
performed a net stop/start for mssql, still the same problem.
Again, I rechecked my permission settings in EM, on the DB file itself, on
the 'Data' folder for MSSQL, and the folder/files inside IIS. I have the
permissions set to 'Full Control' on the files/folders.
It's confusing as hell to me what the problem could be.
Charles
"John Bandettini" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:95E7DA3A-A561-488B-A0F9-A5FBB25DA2AF@.microsoft.com...
> Charles
> Are you using windows only or mixed security? (If you don't know, open
Enterprise Manage, right click on your server and choose properties. The
security tab will show you)
> For windows only
> Right click My computer on your desktop and choose manage
> Open local users and groups
> Add user to appropriate group (usually Administrator or Users depending on
what you are going to use account for)
> For Windows and mixed
> In EM open Security tab and click on Logins
> Right click and add new login
> Give account details including domain
> If you want full access to everything go to Server Roles tab and tick
systems administrator, else tick any other role that is suitable
> If you want to contol access at individual level or you have not given sa
access go to database access tab and assign database access
> If not sa (systems administrator)
> Go to individual databases and choose users
> Right click and choose new user
> Account should be available from drop down menu
> Choose any roles in addition to public that is required
> If dbo (db_owner) nothing else required
> Else click on properties
> Choose role just assigned and click permissions
> Assign per,issions at an individual level
> All should be done now. Full database access.
> Hope this helps
> John
>|||Response inline:
"Wayne Snyder" <wsnyder@.computeredservices.com> wrote in message
news:%23Fq5FUDDEHA.3344@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> IF the error occurs because the web page is accessing sql for user data
( as
> opposed to using SQL for IIS State), then you should ONLY have to
> 1. Add the IWAM login as a valid login to SQL Server
--Are you referring to the 'Start and Run SQL Server in the following
account'? That uses the Administrator login.

> 2. Add the login as a valid user in the database you are using
--The ID is already added to the DB as a user and SA.

> 3. Give the user in the database the appropriate permissions...
--Already done.

> A quick simple check would be to simply add the login and make it a system
> administrator In SQL Server. then try the app again..
--Still have the same error.
Charles

> --
> Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
> Computer Education Services Corporation (CESC), Charlotte, NC
> www.computeredservices.com
> (Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
> I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
> community of SQL Server professionals.
> www.sqlpass.org
>
> "Charles" <cfciii@.adelphia.NOSPAM.net> wrote in message
> news:eaI4OgCDEHA.3784@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
installed.
> has
DB
to
> problem).
> verified
>

IUSR Web Access to DB - Separate Servers

I have NT SQL 7 and Web Server on same box. I have a new server with W2K and SQL 2000 installed (no IIS). I am migrating the databases over and when done I will install W2K on the old box and it will remain the IIS Web server front end to the new SQL 2000 Server.

On the old configuration, IIS and SQL 7 on the same box, I added the IUSER to the database from the local computer users list when needed for web access. How do I add that user now that the boxes are seperate? The acccout is not a local account on the new machine and the account is a loca account on the other machine so it does not authenticate to the domain so I can't pull it in from there.

Thanks for any help.

--Steve

ssantos@.csuchico.eduSimple answer is to use SQL Authentication.

Create a SQL user on your SQL box, then use a non-SSPI connection in your ASP/ASPX.

More complicated, but ultimately better answer:
Create a new domain user, give it the same permissions on the IIS machine as the IUSER, restrict it's permissions elsewhere on the domain, then add them as a database user in the SQL box.

Iterating through tables

I want to create a stored procedure that will list all the tables for a
given database. I can get the databases using the sp_database function, but
the sp_tables requires that I be in database to use it. I want to create a
stored procedure that will take in the database name as a variable and
return a list of the tables for that database. I need to do this so as new
databases and tables are added and removed my program will have the up to
date data for the database. thanks.
JohnDECLARE @.dbname NVARCHAR(128), @.sql NVARCHAR(4000)
SET @.dbname = 'pubs'
SET @.sql =
'SELECT [table_name]
FROM '+QUOTENAME(@.dbname)+'.[information_schema].[tables]'
EXEC (@.sql)
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
--|||>> take in the database name as a variable and return a list of the tables f
or that database. <<
Have you considered that this is a METADATA problem and should be done
with sp_ routines and never in your own stored procedure? This will
lead to kludgfes with dynamic SQL, etc.
Gee, do you do that a lot? Do your users get to create tables, columns
or entire databases on the fly? Your whole approach sounds screwed up.
Would you like to expalin what you are doing so you can get a few
thousand dollars of freee consulting or do you just want a stinking
dirty little kludge?
No, your data dictionary should contain this kinfd of information, not
the programs.

ist of Databases: do not use master.dbo.sysdatabases...

Is there a SP or view to list databases for a server (2000 & 2005)? SQL 2005
has a view for sysdatabases, but they say it will not be available after thi
s
version.
We have a SP that lists the security for Logins and Databases. It uses
master.dbo.sysdatabases to loop through the databases. We need to modify thi
s
so it is not using the master database tables.
Thanks and God Bless,
ThomBeauxThomBeaux,
The SQL 2005 sys.databases view does not exists on SQL 2000. However,
sp_helpdb works on both releases of SQL Server and is not on the deprecation
list.
If you need the results of sp_helpdb in a table for your processing, do:
CREATE TABLE #db
(name sysname,
db_size nvarchar(13),
owner sysname,
dbid smallint,
created datetime,
status nvarchar (600),
compatibility_level tinyint)
INSERT INTO #db EXEC sp_helpdb
SELECT * FROM #db
Then do what you need with the results.
RLF
"ThomBeaux" <ThomBeaux@.NoSpam.Com> wrote in message
news:7B6B13C5-C01B-43C6-A370-14B191A939D2@.microsoft.com...
> Is there a SP or view to list databases for a server (2000 & 2005)? SQL
> 2005
> has a view for sysdatabases, but they say it will not be available after
> this
> version.
> We have a SP that lists the security for Logins and Databases. It uses
> master.dbo.sysdatabases to loop through the databases. We need to modify
> this
> so it is not using the master database tables.
> --
> Thanks and God Bless,
> ThomBeaux|||Thanks...
--
Thanks and God Bless,
ThomBeaux
"Russell Fields" wrote:

> ThomBeaux,
> The SQL 2005 sys.databases view does not exists on SQL 2000. However,
> sp_helpdb works on both releases of SQL Server and is not on the deprecati
on
> list.
> If you need the results of sp_helpdb in a table for your processing, do:
> CREATE TABLE #db
> (name sysname,
> db_size nvarchar(13),
> owner sysname,
> dbid smallint,
> created datetime,
> status nvarchar (600),
> compatibility_level tinyint)
> INSERT INTO #db EXEC sp_helpdb
> SELECT * FROM #db
> Then do what you need with the results.
> RLF
> "ThomBeaux" <ThomBeaux@.NoSpam.Com> wrote in message
> news:7B6B13C5-C01B-43C6-A370-14B191A939D2@.microsoft.com...
>
>

Issues with Transaction Log backups

I'm pretty new to SQL, and am running into a problem. I had setup a
Maintenance plan on one of my databases and the Transaction Log Backups are
not working. I'm not getting any feedback in the error on why they are not
working. This is the error that I get:
JOB RUN: 'Transaction Log Backup Job for DB Maintenance Plan 'CRMDEV DB
Maintenance Plan'' was run on 9/7/2006 at 5:30:00 PM
DURATION: 0 hours, 0 minutes, 0 seconds
STATUS: Failed
MESSAGES: The job failed. The Job was invoked by Schedule 2 (Schedule 1).
The last step to run was step 1 (Step 1).
Does anyone know what could be causing the error? I first thought it was
because of the account assigned to run the job, so I switched it from the
administrator to the SA account. But, still fails. Any suggestions on what
could be going on would be appreciated...My daily backups configured in the
Maintenance plan of the database are working though.
Thank you, Sara
Thanks!Saral6978 wrote:
> I'm pretty new to SQL, and am running into a problem. I had setup a
> Maintenance plan on one of my databases and the Transaction Log Backups are
> not working. I'm not getting any feedback in the error on why they are not
> working. This is the error that I get:
> JOB RUN: 'Transaction Log Backup Job for DB Maintenance Plan 'CRMDEV DB
> Maintenance Plan'' was run on 9/7/2006 at 5:30:00 PM
> DURATION: 0 hours, 0 minutes, 0 seconds
> STATUS: Failed
> MESSAGES: The job failed. The Job was invoked by Schedule 2 (Schedule 1).
> The last step to run was step 1 (Step 1).
> Does anyone know what could be causing the error? I first thought it was
> because of the account assigned to run the job, so I switched it from the
> administrator to the SA account. But, still fails. Any suggestions on what
> could be going on would be appreciated...My daily backups configured in the
> Maintenance plan of the database are working though.
> Thank you, Sara
> Thanks!
>
>
Are you possibly trying to do a transaction log backup on a database
that is in Simple recovery mode?
Tracy McKibben
MCDBA
http://www.realsqlguy.com|||I guess I'm not sure...how would I know that?
"Tracy McKibben" wrote:
> Saral6978 wrote:
> > I'm pretty new to SQL, and am running into a problem. I had setup a
> > Maintenance plan on one of my databases and the Transaction Log Backups are
> > not working. I'm not getting any feedback in the error on why they are not
> > working. This is the error that I get:
> >
> > JOB RUN: 'Transaction Log Backup Job for DB Maintenance Plan 'CRMDEV DB
> > Maintenance Plan'' was run on 9/7/2006 at 5:30:00 PM
> > DURATION: 0 hours, 0 minutes, 0 seconds
> > STATUS: Failed
> > MESSAGES: The job failed. The Job was invoked by Schedule 2 (Schedule 1).
> > The last step to run was step 1 (Step 1).
> >
> > Does anyone know what could be causing the error? I first thought it was
> > because of the account assigned to run the job, so I switched it from the
> > administrator to the SA account. But, still fails. Any suggestions on what
> > could be going on would be appreciated...My daily backups configured in the
> > Maintenance plan of the database are working though.
> >
> > Thank you, Sara
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> >
> >
> Are you possibly trying to do a transaction log backup on a database
> that is in Simple recovery mode?
>
> --
> Tracy McKibben
> MCDBA
> http://www.realsqlguy.com
>|||Saral6978 wrote:
> I guess I'm not sure...how would I know that?
>
Check the database properties of each database you're attempting to back
up. If the recovery model is "Simple", you can't (nor do you need to)
run a transaction log backup against that database. Consult Books
Online to learn what the various recovery models (Simple, Full,
Bulk-Logged) mean and what they offer.
--
Tracy McKibben
MCDBA
http://www.realsqlguy.com|||Thank you, Tracy. The recovery model IS Simple...I will be taking a 2day
course on SQL in the next month, so I'm sure that will help too. Thank you
so much for your input.
"Tracy McKibben" wrote:
> Saral6978 wrote:
> > I guess I'm not sure...how would I know that?
> >
> Check the database properties of each database you're attempting to back
> up. If the recovery model is "Simple", you can't (nor do you need to)
> run a transaction log backup against that database. Consult Books
> Online to learn what the various recovery models (Simple, Full,
> Bulk-Logged) mean and what they offer.
> --
> Tracy McKibben
> MCDBA
> http://www.realsqlguy.com
>|||Saral6978 wrote:
> Thank you, Tracy. The recovery model IS Simple...I will be taking a 2day
> course on SQL in the next month, so I'm sure that will help too. Thank you
> so much for your input.
>
No problem. I won't go into my rant about the maintenance plan wizards
allowing you to do this to yourself... After you finish your course,
you should learn how to write your own maintenance scripts without
relying on those wizards.
Tracy McKibben
MCDBA
http://www.realsqlguy.com|||Aww, c'mon Tracy. We love your rants. ;)
To the poster, I found that the SQL Server Unleashed book is invaluable
as a resource. I picked it up on Ebay for under $30 and I use it
nearly every day.
Tracy McKibben wrote:
> Saral6978 wrote:
> > Thank you, Tracy. The recovery model IS Simple...I will be taking a 2day
> > course on SQL in the next month, so I'm sure that will help too. Thank you
> > so much for your input.
> >
> No problem. I won't go into my rant about the maintenance plan wizards
> allowing you to do this to yourself... After you finish your course,
> you should learn how to write your own maintenance scripts without
> relying on those wizards.
>
> --
> Tracy McKibben
> MCDBA
> http://www.realsqlguy.com

Issues with Transaction Log backups

I'm pretty new to SQL, and am running into a problem. I had setup a
Maintenance plan on one of my databases and the Transaction Log Backups are
not working. I'm not getting any feedback in the error on why they are not
working. This is the error that I get:
JOB RUN: 'Transaction Log Backup Job for DB Maintenance Plan 'CRMDEV DB
Maintenance Plan'' was run on 9/7/2006 at 5:30:00 PM
DURATION: 0 hours, 0 minutes, 0 seconds
STATUS: Failed
MESSAGES: The job failed. The Job was invoked by Schedule 2 (Schedule 1).
The last step to run was step 1 (Step 1).
Does anyone know what could be causing the error? I first thought it was
because of the account assigned to run the job, so I switched it from the
administrator to the SA account. But, still fails. Any suggestions on what
could be going on would be appreciated...My daily backups configured in the
Maintenance plan of the database are working though.
Thank you, Sara
Thanks!Saral6978 wrote:
> I'm pretty new to SQL, and am running into a problem. I had setup a
> Maintenance plan on one of my databases and the Transaction Log Backups ar
e
> not working. I'm not getting any feedback in the error on why they are no
t
> working. This is the error that I get:
> JOB RUN: 'Transaction Log Backup Job for DB Maintenance Plan 'CRMDEV DB
> Maintenance Plan'' was run on 9/7/2006 at 5:30:00 PM
> DURATION: 0 hours, 0 minutes, 0 seconds
> STATUS: Failed
> MESSAGES: The job failed. The Job was invoked by Schedule 2 (Schedule 1).
> The last step to run was step 1 (Step 1).
> Does anyone know what could be causing the error? I first thought it was
> because of the account assigned to run the job, so I switched it from the
> administrator to the SA account. But, still fails. Any suggestions on wh
at
> could be going on would be appreciated...My daily backups configured in th
e
> Maintenance plan of the database are working though.
> Thank you, Sara
> Thanks!
>
>
Are you possibly trying to do a transaction log backup on a database
that is in Simple recovery mode?
Tracy McKibben
MCDBA
http://www.realsqlguy.com|||I guess I'm not sure...how would I know that?
"Tracy McKibben" wrote:

> Saral6978 wrote:
> Are you possibly trying to do a transaction log backup on a database
> that is in Simple recovery mode?
>
> --
> Tracy McKibben
> MCDBA
> http://www.realsqlguy.com
>|||Saral6978 wrote:
> I guess I'm not sure...how would I know that?
>
Check the database properties of each database you're attempting to back
up. If the recovery model is "Simple", you can't (nor do you need to)
run a transaction log backup against that database. Consult Books
Online to learn what the various recovery models (Simple, Full,
Bulk-Logged) mean and what they offer.
Tracy McKibben
MCDBA
http://www.realsqlguy.com|||Thank you, Tracy. The recovery model IS Simple...I will be taking a 2day
course on SQL in the next month, so I'm sure that will help too. Thank you
so much for your input.
"Tracy McKibben" wrote:

> Saral6978 wrote:
> Check the database properties of each database you're attempting to back
> up. If the recovery model is "Simple", you can't (nor do you need to)
> run a transaction log backup against that database. Consult Books
> Online to learn what the various recovery models (Simple, Full,
> Bulk-Logged) mean and what they offer.
> --
> Tracy McKibben
> MCDBA
> http://www.realsqlguy.com
>|||Saral6978 wrote:
> Thank you, Tracy. The recovery model IS Simple...I will be taking a 2day
> course on SQL in the next month, so I'm sure that will help too. Thank yo
u
> so much for your input.
>
No problem. I won't go into my rant about the maintenance plan wizards
allowing you to do this to yourself... After you finish your course,
you should learn how to write your own maintenance scripts without
relying on those wizards.
Tracy McKibben
MCDBA
http://www.realsqlguy.com|||Aww, c'mon Tracy. We love your rants. ;)
To the poster, I found that the SQL Server Unleashed book is invaluable
as a resource. I picked it up on Ebay for under $30 and I use it
nearly every day.
Tracy McKibben wrote:
> Saral6978 wrote:
> No problem. I won't go into my rant about the maintenance plan wizards
> allowing you to do this to yourself... After you finish your course,
> you should learn how to write your own maintenance scripts without
> relying on those wizards.
>
> --
> Tracy McKibben
> MCDBA
> http://www.realsqlguy.com

Issues with moving backups via XCopy

When we take backups, we xcopy them from a folder (on a remote server) containing all of the backups for the databases on that server accross a network onto a central server, into a folder for that server/database. However, should one of the backups we have moved accross the network and onto the central server get deleted or moved, the XCopy does not attempt to move the copy from the remote server back onto the central server the next time we run the procedure...so is there a setting that essentially states, "sync up the source and destination, in order to make the destination match the host"? and what causes XCopy to ignore the files it previously moved into the destination? Is it a property on the file? Any advice?

thanks in advance!

SQL Server 2000

Normally, XCOPY just copies all specified files to the destination. It is not a sophisticated sync mechanism.

If you can give us the exact XCOPY command you're using, perhaps a different setting of the flags would accomplish what you need it to.

|||can I suggest you look at robocopy, this is, imho, a far superior copy utility that I've been using since way back.|||

I just thought I would add my experiences with robocopy. I have been fighting the ability to give it a path containing spaces. Typically I would accomplish this feat by placing quotes around each path but this didn't seem to be working for robocopy.

I have a habit of ending all my paths with a "\" and discovered that robocopy interperets a \" as an escaped quote. The program works great and functions exactly how I would expect if I simply remove the trailing backslash.

I found this functionality to be very strange considering I have never experienced the problem with any other microsoft command line utilities. Not only that but a quote isn't even a valid character in a folder or file so it isn't possible that the path would contain them.

Issues with moving backups via XCopy

When we take backups, we xcopy them from a folder (on a remote server) containing all of the backups for the databases on that server accross a network onto a central server, into a folder for that server/database. However, should one of the backups we have moved accross the network and onto the central server get deleted or moved, the XCopy does not attempt to move the copy from the remote server back onto the central server the next time we run the procedure...so is there a setting that essentially states, "sync up the source and destination, in order to make the destination match the host"? and what causes XCopy to ignore the files it previously moved into the destination? Is it a property on the file? Any advice?

thanks in advance!

SQL Server 2000

Normally, XCOPY just copies all specified files to the destination. It is not a sophisticated sync mechanism.

If you can give us the exact XCOPY command you're using, perhaps a different setting of the flags would accomplish what you need it to.

|||can I suggest you look at robocopy, this is, imho, a far superior copy utility that I've been using since way back.|||

I just thought I would add my experiences with robocopy. I have been fighting the ability to give it a path containing spaces. Typically I would accomplish this feat by placing quotes around each path but this didn't seem to be working for robocopy.

I have a habit of ending all my paths with a "\" and discovered that robocopy interperets a \" as an escaped quote. The program works great and functions exactly how I would expect if I simply remove the trailing backslash.

I found this functionality to be very strange considering I have never experienced the problem with any other microsoft command line utilities. Not only that but a quote isn't even a valid character in a folder or file so it isn't possible that the path would contain them.

Issues with Image data

Hello.
We're running SQL Server 2000.
I am considering creating Image columns for one of our databases. Currently
we have a varchar field that holds the path to the actual image which is
stored on an NTFS file system. The average image size is less than 256K.
What issues arise when considering Backup/Restore and Database recovery.
Any other insights are welcome.
Thanks in advance,
Mike"Mike Lopez" <MichaelLopez@.inds.com> wrote in message
news:Oz%23B9ZG7EHA.1400@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Hello.
> We're running SQL Server 2000.
> I am considering creating Image columns for one of our databases.
> Currently we have a varchar field that holds the path to the actual image
> which is stored on an NTFS file system. The average image size is less
> than 256K.
> What issues arise when considering Backup/Restore and Database recovery.
> Any other insights are welcome.
> Thanks in advance,
> Mike
>
>
There are all kinds of performance issues to think about.
1. Someone may correct me on this one, but.. Each image will store a 16
byte pointer in the row in your regular base table. That pointer will then
point to a private 8k data page where your image will be stored. That means
that each image will take up at least 8k of database storage space and in
your case, a chain of 32 8k data pages that will need to be read from and
written to. That is a killer on disk i/o for SQL Server.
2. Having those images in the same table *could* really slow down the table
on your joins. You may wish to place the images in a 1 to 1 relationship
in a separate table.
2a. If you place those images in a separate table, you *could* put that one
table on it's own filegroup and then perform filegroup backups and restores.
This may improve your backup and recovery strategy especially if the images
don't change often. (eg. You would back up the images filegroup far less.
Restores would be quicker as you only need to do the affected filegroups and
TLogs.)
3. If you use the images frequently (reads/writes) put them on the fastest
read/write drives as possible. I would suggest a RAID 1 (striped - no
parity) and mirror that drive (RAID 0) if you need that type of failsafe.
HTH
Rick Sawtell
MCT, MCSD, MCDBA|||Thank you Rick. Yes, that helps.
I'm leaning towards keeping the current system intact (image file in a
directory, image file's path in table column). I feel there's too much
overhead involved. I also don't like the idea that the image would not be
directly viewable by third-party image viewers.
Thanks again,
Mike
"Rick Sawtell" <quickening@.msn.com> wrote in message
news:eoFr3FO7EHA.2180@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> "Mike Lopez" <MichaelLopez@.inds.com> wrote in message
> news:Oz%23B9ZG7EHA.1400@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>
> There are all kinds of performance issues to think about.
> 1. Someone may correct me on this one, but.. Each image will store a 16
> byte pointer in the row in your regular base table. That pointer will
> then point to a private 8k data page where your image will be stored.
> That means that each image will take up at least 8k of database storage
> space and in your case, a chain of 32 8k data pages that will need to be
> read from and written to. That is a killer on disk i/o for SQL Server.
> 2. Having those images in the same table *could* really slow down the
> table on your joins. You may wish to place the images in a 1 to 1
> relationship in a separate table.
> 2a. If you place those images in a separate table, you *could* put that
> one table on it's own filegroup and then perform filegroup backups and
> restores. This may improve your backup and recovery strategy especially if
> the images don't change often. (eg. You would back up the images
> filegroup far less. Restores would be quicker as you only need to do the
> affected filegroups and TLogs.)
> 3. If you use the images frequently (reads/writes) put them on the
> fastest read/write drives as possible. I would suggest a RAID 1
> (striped - no parity) and mirror that drive (RAID 0) if you need that type
> of failsafe.
>
> HTH
> Rick Sawtell
> MCT, MCSD, MCDBA
>
>sql

Issues with Image data

Hello.
We're running SQL Server 2000.
I am considering creating Image columns for one of our databases. Currently
we have a varchar field that holds the path to the actual image which is
stored on an NTFS file system. The average image size is less than 256K.
What issues arise when considering Backup/Restore and Database recovery.
Any other insights are welcome.
Thanks in advance,
Mike
"Mike Lopez" <MichaelLopez@.inds.com> wrote in message
news:Oz%23B9ZG7EHA.1400@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Hello.
> We're running SQL Server 2000.
> I am considering creating Image columns for one of our databases.
> Currently we have a varchar field that holds the path to the actual image
> which is stored on an NTFS file system. The average image size is less
> than 256K.
> What issues arise when considering Backup/Restore and Database recovery.
> Any other insights are welcome.
> Thanks in advance,
> Mike
>
>
There are all kinds of performance issues to think about.
1. Someone may correct me on this one, but.. Each image will store a 16
byte pointer in the row in your regular base table. That pointer will then
point to a private 8k data page where your image will be stored. That means
that each image will take up at least 8k of database storage space and in
your case, a chain of 32 8k data pages that will need to be read from and
written to. That is a killer on disk i/o for SQL Server.
2. Having those images in the same table *could* really slow down the table
on your joins. You may wish to place the images in a 1 to 1 relationship
in a separate table.
2a. If you place those images in a separate table, you *could* put that one
table on it's own filegroup and then perform filegroup backups and restores.
This may improve your backup and recovery strategy especially if the images
don't change often. (eg. You would back up the images filegroup far less.
Restores would be quicker as you only need to do the affected filegroups and
TLogs.)
3. If you use the images frequently (reads/writes) put them on the fastest
read/write drives as possible. I would suggest a RAID 1 (striped - no
parity) and mirror that drive (RAID 0) if you need that type of failsafe.
HTH
Rick Sawtell
MCT, MCSD, MCDBA
|||Thank you Rick. Yes, that helps.
I'm leaning towards keeping the current system intact (image file in a
directory, image file's path in table column). I feel there's too much
overhead involved. I also don't like the idea that the image would not be
directly viewable by third-party image viewers.
Thanks again,
Mike
"Rick Sawtell" <quickening@.msn.com> wrote in message
news:eoFr3FO7EHA.2180@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> "Mike Lopez" <MichaelLopez@.inds.com> wrote in message
> news:Oz%23B9ZG7EHA.1400@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>
> There are all kinds of performance issues to think about.
> 1. Someone may correct me on this one, but.. Each image will store a 16
> byte pointer in the row in your regular base table. That pointer will
> then point to a private 8k data page where your image will be stored.
> That means that each image will take up at least 8k of database storage
> space and in your case, a chain of 32 8k data pages that will need to be
> read from and written to. That is a killer on disk i/o for SQL Server.
> 2. Having those images in the same table *could* really slow down the
> table on your joins. You may wish to place the images in a 1 to 1
> relationship in a separate table.
> 2a. If you place those images in a separate table, you *could* put that
> one table on it's own filegroup and then perform filegroup backups and
> restores. This may improve your backup and recovery strategy especially if
> the images don't change often. (eg. You would back up the images
> filegroup far less. Restores would be quicker as you only need to do the
> affected filegroups and TLogs.)
> 3. If you use the images frequently (reads/writes) put them on the
> fastest read/write drives as possible. I would suggest a RAID 1
> (striped - no parity) and mirror that drive (RAID 0) if you need that type
> of failsafe.
>
> HTH
> Rick Sawtell
> MCT, MCSD, MCDBA
>
>

Issues with Image data

Hello.
We're running SQL Server 2000.
I am considering creating Image columns for one of our databases. Currently
we have a varchar field that holds the path to the actual image which is
stored on an NTFS file system. The average image size is less than 256K.
What issues arise when considering Backup/Restore and Database recovery.
Any other insights are welcome.
Thanks in advance,
Mike"Mike Lopez" <MichaelLopez@.inds.com> wrote in message
news:Oz%23B9ZG7EHA.1400@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Hello.
> We're running SQL Server 2000.
> I am considering creating Image columns for one of our databases.
> Currently we have a varchar field that holds the path to the actual image
> which is stored on an NTFS file system. The average image size is less
> than 256K.
> What issues arise when considering Backup/Restore and Database recovery.
> Any other insights are welcome.
> Thanks in advance,
> Mike
>
>
There are all kinds of performance issues to think about.
1. Someone may correct me on this one, but.. Each image will store a 16
byte pointer in the row in your regular base table. That pointer will then
point to a private 8k data page where your image will be stored. That means
that each image will take up at least 8k of database storage space and in
your case, a chain of 32 8k data pages that will need to be read from and
written to. That is a killer on disk i/o for SQL Server.
2. Having those images in the same table *could* really slow down the table
on your joins. You may wish to place the images in a 1 to 1 relationship
in a separate table.
2a. If you place those images in a separate table, you *could* put that one
table on it's own filegroup and then perform filegroup backups and restores.
This may improve your backup and recovery strategy especially if the images
don't change often. (eg. You would back up the images filegroup far less.
Restores would be quicker as you only need to do the affected filegroups and
TLogs.)
3. If you use the images frequently (reads/writes) put them on the fastest
read/write drives as possible. I would suggest a RAID 1 (striped - no
parity) and mirror that drive (RAID 0) if you need that type of failsafe.
HTH
Rick Sawtell
MCT, MCSD, MCDBA|||Thank you Rick. Yes, that helps.
I'm leaning towards keeping the current system intact (image file in a
directory, image file's path in table column). I feel there's too much
overhead involved. I also don't like the idea that the image would not be
directly viewable by third-party image viewers.
Thanks again,
Mike
"Rick Sawtell" <quickening@.msn.com> wrote in message
news:eoFr3FO7EHA.2180@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> "Mike Lopez" <MichaelLopez@.inds.com> wrote in message
> news:Oz%23B9ZG7EHA.1400@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>> Hello.
>> We're running SQL Server 2000.
>> I am considering creating Image columns for one of our databases.
>> Currently we have a varchar field that holds the path to the actual image
>> which is stored on an NTFS file system. The average image size is less
>> than 256K.
>> What issues arise when considering Backup/Restore and Database recovery.
>> Any other insights are welcome.
>> Thanks in advance,
>> Mike
>>
>
> There are all kinds of performance issues to think about.
> 1. Someone may correct me on this one, but.. Each image will store a 16
> byte pointer in the row in your regular base table. That pointer will
> then point to a private 8k data page where your image will be stored.
> That means that each image will take up at least 8k of database storage
> space and in your case, a chain of 32 8k data pages that will need to be
> read from and written to. That is a killer on disk i/o for SQL Server.
> 2. Having those images in the same table *could* really slow down the
> table on your joins. You may wish to place the images in a 1 to 1
> relationship in a separate table.
> 2a. If you place those images in a separate table, you *could* put that
> one table on it's own filegroup and then perform filegroup backups and
> restores. This may improve your backup and recovery strategy especially if
> the images don't change often. (eg. You would back up the images
> filegroup far less. Restores would be quicker as you only need to do the
> affected filegroups and TLogs.)
> 3. If you use the images frequently (reads/writes) put them on the
> fastest read/write drives as possible. I would suggest a RAID 1
> (striped - no parity) and mirror that drive (RAID 0) if you need that type
> of failsafe.
>
> HTH
> Rick Sawtell
> MCT, MCSD, MCDBA
>
>

Issues with database.dbo.tablename usage

Hello,

Can you guys think of all the possible reason why you wouldn't want 2 databases to cross reference each other using -

database.dbo.tablename

I can see one reason...Developers are going to go gagas using database.dbo.tablename for cross database updates/inserts etc. This will mean that the databases cannot scale anymore. What else?Hi,

because you would have to create the user which access the object not only in one database but also in the other one.

<Ignore this part, because this is a bad practice>
You could enable cross database ownership chain and use a view/procedure from database A to Select the data from Database B, opening up a security hole to database B, because the security is only checked once on Database A if the two owners of the objects are both the same.
<Ignore this part, because this is a bad practice>

Thats the hardest part for me, maintaing the user in two databases (without enabling cross database ownership chain)

HTH, Jens K. Suessmeyer.

-
http://www.sqlserver2005.de
-|||

Security issues, additional keystrokes required to use four part names, etc.

I can also think of many equally valid reasons to separate data between different databases. Security issues, Backup/Restore Issues, etc.

Saving Developers 'keystrokes' is a trivial concern and should be ignored. Make the decision based upon 'real' organizational needs and requirements. With drag and drop, cut and paste, etc., too many keystrokes is totally bogus!

sql

Issues passing Table Name as a parameter to a Stored Procedure

Hi Friends,

I use the stored procedure pr_Set_Min_Max_Ind to set some indicators in certain type of tables in my databases.

CREATE Procedure [dbo].[pr_Set_Min_Max_Ind] ( @.t SysName, @.k1 SysName, @.k2 SysName, @.r1 SysName, @.r2 SysName )
................
................
...
...
...
................
End

The procedure pr_Set_Min_Max_Ind takes five parameters ( @.t, @.k1, @.k2, @.r1, @.r2 ) of which
@.t is the table name in which I want to set some indicators and
the rest of the parameters (@.k1, @.k2, @.r1, @.r2) are column names in the table @.t

Say, I have this procedure stored in database A. Then to execute the procedure on table TestTable_A in database A , I write the statement as:

exec pr_Set_Min_Max_Ind TestTable_A, Column1, Column2, Column3, Column4 (statement-1)

Now, if I want to execute this procedure on a table TestTable_B in a different database B, I am NOT able to issue a statement like:

exec pr_Set_Min_Max_Ind B.dbo.TestTable_B, Column1, Column2, Column3, Column4 (statement-2)

The only way I now know to accomplish this is to save a copy of this procedure in database B and write a statement similar to statement-1. But, for some reasons I DO NOT want to do that. I just want to have the procedure stored in only one database and be able to pass the table names from other databases in the format database_name.dbo.table_name ;So, guys please let me know how I can pass the table name in the format shown as in statement-2 above.

Thanks in advance for taking time to give me a solution.

With Best Regards,

-Ram.

Depends on how you create your SQL statements based on the table names and column names that you pass to your stored procedure but you should be able to do a SELECT statement from another database in the same SQL Server. Try posting your SP so that we will be able to see where the problem could be.

SQL Server Helper
http://www.sql-server-helper.com

|||

Hi,

The following is the SP that I was referring to.

Thank you.

--

CREATE Procedure [dbo].[pr_Set_Min_Max_Ind](@.t SysName, @.k1 SysName, @.k2 SysName, @.r1 SysName, @.r2 SysName)

As

Declare @.SQL Varchar(8000),

@.x SysName

Set @.x = '##_' + @.t + '_' + Replace(Convert(Char,GetDate(),114),':','')

Begin

-- Tables which have a Min_Ind column

IF ((Select Count(*) From Information_Schema.Columns Where Table_Name = @.t And Column_Name = 'Min_Ind') <> 0)

Begin

-- Rows where the very first column does not have Min_Ind set to Y

Set @.SQL = 'Select * Into ' + @.x + ' From ( Select ' + @.k1 + ' k1,' + @.k2 + ' k2,' + @.r1 + ' r1,' + @.r2 + ' r2, Case When Rank() Over (Partition By ' + @.k1 + ',' + @.k2 + ' Order By ' + @.r1 + ',' + @.r2 + ') = 1 Then ''Y'' Else ''N'' End New_Min_Ind, IsNull(Min_Ind,''-'') Old_Min_Ind From ' + @.t +') t Where Old_Min_Ind <> New_Min_Ind And New_Min_Ind = ''Y'' '

Print @.Sql

Exec(@.SQL)

-- Update any record based on key fields and set the Min_Ind to N if it is not N

Set @.SQL = 'Update a Set Min_Ind = ''N'' From ' + @.x + ' b, ' + @.t + ' a Where b.k1 = a.' + @.k1 + ' And b.k2 = a.' + @.k2 + ' And IsNull(Min_Ind,''-'') <> ''N'' '

Print @.Sql

Exec(@.SQL)

-- Update table and set the Min_Ind to Y based on key and rank fields

Set @.SQL = 'Update a Set Min_Ind = ''Y'' From ' + @.x + ' b, ' + @.t + ' a Where b.k1 = a.' + @.k1 +' And b.k2 = a.' + @.k2 + ' And b.r1 = a.' + @.r1 + ' And b.r2 = a.' + @.r2

Print @.Sql

Exec(@.SQL)

Exec('Drop Table ' + @.x)

End

-- Tables which have a Max_Ind column

IF ((Select Count(*) From Information_Schema.Columns Where Table_Name = @.t And Column_Name = 'Max_Ind') <> 0)

Begin

-- Rows where the very first column does not have Min_Ind set to Y

Set @.SQL = 'Select * Into ' + @.x + ' From ( Select ' + @.k1 + ' k1,' + @.k2 + ' k2,' + @.r1 + ' r1,' + @.r2 +' r2, Case When Rank() Over (Partition By ' + @.k1 + ',' + @.k2 + ' Order By ' + @.r1 + ' Desc,' + @.r2 + ' Desc) = 1 Then ''Y'' Else ''N'' End New_Max_Ind, IsNull(Max_Ind,''-'') Old_Max_Ind From ' + @.t +') t Where Old_Max_Ind <> New_Max_Ind And New_Max_Ind = ''Y'' '

Print @.sql

Exec(@.SQL)

-- Update any record based on key fields and set the Max_Ind to N if it is not N

Set @.SQL = 'Update a Set Max_Ind = ''N'' From ' + @.x + ' b, ' + @.t + ' a Where b.k1 = a.' + @.k1 + ' And b.k2 = a.' + @.k2 + ' And IsNull(Max_Ind,''-'') <> ''N'''

Print @.sql

Exec(@.SQL)

-- Update table and set the Max_Ind to Y based on key and rank fields

Set @.SQL = 'Update a Set Max_Ind = ''Y'' From ' + @.x + ' b, ' + @.t + ' a Where b.k1 = ' + @.k1 +' And b.k2 = ' + @.k2 + ' And b.r1 = ' + @.r1 + ' And b.r2 = ' + @.r2

Print @.sql

Exec(@.SQL)

Exec('Drop Table ' + @.x)

End

Return @.@.Error

End

|||

You will need to prefix your If ... from Information_Schema.Columns with the name of the database passed from your @.t variable...

Something like this

declare @.DBName varchar(50)
declare @.TblName varhcar(50)

Set @.DBName = parsename(@.t, 3)
Set @.TblName = parsename(@.t, 1)

-- 1=object name, 2=schema name, 3=database name, 4= server name

Then you'll need to change your If count(*)... from Information_Schema.Columns statement into dynamic SQL (so that the database name gets interpretted)...

I would use sp_executesql to return your count (from the If statement against information_schema). See BOL on how to return a value using sp_executesql.

Note, just a partial example...

SET @.SQLString = N'Select @.retCountOut = Count(*) From ' + @.dbname + '.Information_Schema.Columns Where Table_Name = ''' + @.tblname + ''' Column_Name = 'Min_Ind''

SET @.ParamDef = N'@.retCountOut int Output, @.dbname varchar(50), @.tblname varchar(50)';

EXECUTE sp_executesql @.SQLString, @.ParamDef, @.dbname = @.dbname, @.tblname = @.tblname, @.retCountout=@.retCount OUTPUT;

If @.retCount<> 0
Begin.....

|||I would strongly suggest against this sort of thing. This code is really hard to follow and will be problematic. I would consider using this code to generate non-dynamic SQL that you run directly. Then the code generator might be dynamic, but each module won't be, and will perform better, and be easier to manage.

Issues after server rename

We have a new SQL Server 2005 box in place and we named this server - Server2. Restored all the production databases from original Server1. Server1 is running SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition. Server1 also has three subscribers ServerA, ServerB, and ServerC.

After Server2 was renamed to Server1 and Server1 decommissioned, replication is not working on the new Server1 due to the renaming issue. I can afford to re do replication from ground up on Server1 but cannot reinstall SQL Server 2005 and start from scratch since the server is already in production.

How can I resolve this issue? What is the right approach to take for the scenario described above?

Its unclear to me what state the new server 1 is in now. To get this to work you should have restored the master, msdb, distirbution, and publication databases, and then the transaction logs of the publication databases, followed by the tail of the publication database restored with the keep_replication switch. These should have been restored to a SQL 2000 server, the new SQL 2000 server should br renamed Server1 and restarted. Then run the sp_replrestart command, and run with the continue on data consistency error profile until the errors are cleared.

Then upgrade your publisher to SQL 2005.

If publications exist in Server1, attempt to script them out and then drop the publications and recreate them with the script and then redeploy your subcribers.

Issue with Installation SQL 2005

We are running some tests here to evaluate whether to upgrade and switch som
e
of the databases from Oracle to SQL 2005, but running into a major issue.
We have a W2003 server where we used to have SQL 2000 running. We upgraded
that to SQL 2005 server. So far, so good, but the client tool (Management
Studio) doesn't show up in the menu list. Running sqlwb.exe also doesn't
return anything.
However trying to install the client tools gives a friendly that it is
already there, but it isn't. I tried a client install on a laptop which
works, but on the server it gives a problem.
Are you not able to install the client tools on the server?
We tried to remove SQL 2005 from Remove Programs which removes it from the
list, but SQL server remains installed and we have no way to access the
databases.
Hopefully someone can help here, because it isn't anything good on the
perception of the product, while from a functionality perspective the produc
t
looks promising. We tried to install SQL 2005 Standard Edition.
Thanks in advance.
MattTry uninstalling and reinstalling the client tools.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Use of included script samples are subject to the terms specified at
http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm
"Matt" <Matt@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:DD66D067-60E6-4B2B-8574-1C3DE32A4FFA@.microsoft.com...
> We are running some tests here to evaluate whether to upgrade and switch
> some
> of the databases from Oracle to SQL 2005, but running into a major issue.
> We have a W2003 server where we used to have SQL 2000 running. We upgraded
> that to SQL 2005 server. So far, so good, but the client tool (Management
> Studio) doesn't show up in the menu list. Running sqlwb.exe also doesn't
> return anything.
> However trying to install the client tools gives a friendly that it is
> already there, but it isn't. I tried a client install on a laptop which
> works, but on the server it gives a problem.
> Are you not able to install the client tools on the server?
> We tried to remove SQL 2005 from Remove Programs which removes it from the
> list, but SQL server remains installed and we have no way to access the
> databases.
> Hopefully someone can help here, because it isn't anything good on the
> perception of the product, while from a functionality perspective the
> product
> looks promising. We tried to install SQL 2005 Standard Edition.
> Thanks in advance.
> Matt|||YES, it worked. Thank you!
"Roger Wolter[MSFT]" wrote:

> Try uninstalling and reinstalling the client tools.
> --
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights
.
> Use of included script samples are subject to the terms specified at
> http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm
> "Matt" <Matt@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:DD66D067-60E6-4B2B-8574-1C3DE32A4FFA@.microsoft.com...
>
>

Issue with Installation SQL 2005

We are running some tests here to evaluate whether to upgrade and switch some
of the databases from Oracle to SQL 2005, but running into a major issue.
We have a W2003 server where we used to have SQL 2000 running. We upgraded
that to SQL 2005 server. So far, so good, but the client tool (Management
Studio) doesn't show up in the menu list. Running sqlwb.exe also doesn't
return anything.
However trying to install the client tools gives a friendly that it is
already there, but it isn't. I tried a client install on a laptop which
works, but on the server it gives a problem.
Are you not able to install the client tools on the server?
We tried to remove SQL 2005 from Remove Programs which removes it from the
list, but SQL server remains installed and we have no way to access the
databases.
Hopefully someone can help here, because it isn't anything good on the
perception of the product, while from a functionality perspective the product
looks promising. We tried to install SQL 2005 Standard Edition.
Thanks in advance.
Matt
Try uninstalling and reinstalling the client tools.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Use of included script samples are subject to the terms specified at
http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm
"Matt" <Matt@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:DD66D067-60E6-4B2B-8574-1C3DE32A4FFA@.microsoft.com...
> We are running some tests here to evaluate whether to upgrade and switch
> some
> of the databases from Oracle to SQL 2005, but running into a major issue.
> We have a W2003 server where we used to have SQL 2000 running. We upgraded
> that to SQL 2005 server. So far, so good, but the client tool (Management
> Studio) doesn't show up in the menu list. Running sqlwb.exe also doesn't
> return anything.
> However trying to install the client tools gives a friendly that it is
> already there, but it isn't. I tried a client install on a laptop which
> works, but on the server it gives a problem.
> Are you not able to install the client tools on the server?
> We tried to remove SQL 2005 from Remove Programs which removes it from the
> list, but SQL server remains installed and we have no way to access the
> databases.
> Hopefully someone can help here, because it isn't anything good on the
> perception of the product, while from a functionality perspective the
> product
> looks promising. We tried to install SQL 2005 Standard Edition.
> Thanks in advance.
> Matt
|||YES, it worked. Thank you!
"Roger Wolter[MSFT]" wrote:

> Try uninstalling and reinstalling the client tools.
> --
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
> Use of included script samples are subject to the terms specified at
> http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm
> "Matt" <Matt@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:DD66D067-60E6-4B2B-8574-1C3DE32A4FFA@.microsoft.com...
>
>

Issue with Installation SQL 2005

We are running some tests here to evaluate whether to upgrade and switch some
of the databases from Oracle to SQL 2005, but running into a major issue.
We have a W2003 server where we used to have SQL 2000 running. We upgraded
that to SQL 2005 server. So far, so good, but the client tool (Management
Studio) doesn't show up in the menu list. Running sqlwb.exe also doesn't
return anything.
However trying to install the client tools gives a friendly that it is
already there, but it isn't. I tried a client install on a laptop which
works, but on the server it gives a problem.
Are you not able to install the client tools on the server?
We tried to remove SQL 2005 from Remove Programs which removes it from the
list, but SQL server remains installed and we have no way to access the
databases.
Hopefully someone can help here, because it isn't anything good on the
perception of the product, while from a functionality perspective the product
looks promising. We tried to install SQL 2005 Standard Edition.
Thanks in advance.
MattTry uninstalling and reinstalling the client tools.
--
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Use of included script samples are subject to the terms specified at
http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm
"Matt" <Matt@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:DD66D067-60E6-4B2B-8574-1C3DE32A4FFA@.microsoft.com...
> We are running some tests here to evaluate whether to upgrade and switch
> some
> of the databases from Oracle to SQL 2005, but running into a major issue.
> We have a W2003 server where we used to have SQL 2000 running. We upgraded
> that to SQL 2005 server. So far, so good, but the client tool (Management
> Studio) doesn't show up in the menu list. Running sqlwb.exe also doesn't
> return anything.
> However trying to install the client tools gives a friendly that it is
> already there, but it isn't. I tried a client install on a laptop which
> works, but on the server it gives a problem.
> Are you not able to install the client tools on the server?
> We tried to remove SQL 2005 from Remove Programs which removes it from the
> list, but SQL server remains installed and we have no way to access the
> databases.
> Hopefully someone can help here, because it isn't anything good on the
> perception of the product, while from a functionality perspective the
> product
> looks promising. We tried to install SQL 2005 Standard Edition.
> Thanks in advance.
> Matt|||YES, it worked. Thank you!
"Roger Wolter[MSFT]" wrote:
> Try uninstalling and reinstalling the client tools.
> --
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
> Use of included script samples are subject to the terms specified at
> http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm
> "Matt" <Matt@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:DD66D067-60E6-4B2B-8574-1C3DE32A4FFA@.microsoft.com...
> > We are running some tests here to evaluate whether to upgrade and switch
> > some
> > of the databases from Oracle to SQL 2005, but running into a major issue.
> >
> > We have a W2003 server where we used to have SQL 2000 running. We upgraded
> > that to SQL 2005 server. So far, so good, but the client tool (Management
> > Studio) doesn't show up in the menu list. Running sqlwb.exe also doesn't
> > return anything.
> >
> > However trying to install the client tools gives a friendly that it is
> > already there, but it isn't. I tried a client install on a laptop which
> > works, but on the server it gives a problem.
> >
> > Are you not able to install the client tools on the server?
> >
> > We tried to remove SQL 2005 from Remove Programs which removes it from the
> > list, but SQL server remains installed and we have no way to access the
> > databases.
> >
> > Hopefully someone can help here, because it isn't anything good on the
> > perception of the product, while from a functionality perspective the
> > product
> > looks promising. We tried to install SQL 2005 Standard Edition.
> >
> > Thanks in advance.
> >
> > Matt
>
>