Showing posts with label instance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label instance. Show all posts

Thursday, March 29, 2012

Enumerating Sql Server Databases

Hi. I would like to enumerate all the databases in a given Sql Server instance.

I've searched and found no information. Would somebody post a piece of VB code to do that?

Thanks in advance

Rafael

You can do it with an SQL string:

use masterselect *from sys.databases
|||

SELECT

*

FROM

master.sys.databases

Should work, but there is probably a more standard way.

|||There is also a stored procedure called:sp_databases

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

EnumAvailableSqlServers() fails to detect LOCAL installed instance when disconnected from networ

I am using EnumAvailableSqlServer to build the standard select Sql Server dialog with controls to select the server, instance and database. This all works fine - other than the well reported problem of detected multiple instances - however I have noticed that when disconnected from the network the call fails to even detect the locally installed sql servers.

What is the recommended method of determine whether an instance of sql server is installed locally. I can call Server->Databases, but this leads to a timeout / excpetion if no instances are detected which is slow. Is there a recommended registry key I can check that won't change between versions or another API I can try.

hx, Nick

Checking registry seems the simplest ...

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Microsoft SQL Server

with InstalledInstances value.

Thx, Nick

EnumAvailableSqlServers() fails to detect LOCAL installed instance when disconnected from ne

I am using EnumAvailableSqlServer to build the standard select Sql Server dialog with controls to select the server, instance and database. This all works fine - other than the well reported problem of detected multiple instances - however I have noticed that when disconnected from the network the call fails to even detect the locally installed sql servers.

What is the recommended method of determine whether an instance of sql server is installed locally. I can call Server->Databases, but this leads to a timeout / excpetion if no instances are detected which is slow. Is there a recommended registry key I can check that won't change between versions or another API I can try.

hx, Nick

Checking registry seems the simplest ...

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Microsoft SQL Server

with InstalledInstances value.

Thx, Nick

EnumAvailableSqlServers does not return version numbers correctly

Hi,
I have a machine that has just SQL2005 (as default instance with no instance
name.) I am trying to list all SQL 2005 server instances on the network usin
g
SmoApplication.EnumAvailableSqlServers( ) and trying to filter the servers
based on version information. This machine shows up in the list, but does no
t
have version information. I saw another post on Sql Server Programming
newgroup without any response. Is this a known bug in SMO? If it is, does
anyone know how I can list SQL2005 servers only on a network that has both
SQL2005 and SQL2000 servers?
Any help is geratly appreciated.SMO in its current implementation uses
SqlDataSourceEnumerator.GetDataSources under the cover (
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/li...
etdatasources(VS.80).aspx)
Can you try writing calling this instead and see if you get the version?
This can help us isolate the problem.
Thanks,
--
Ciprian Gerea
SDE, SqlServer
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Raghu" <Raghu@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:7EB858DE-22E5-41B3-B46A-1D8229406630@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I have a machine that has just SQL2005 (as default instance with no
> instance
> name.) I am trying to list all SQL 2005 server instances on the network
> using
> SmoApplication.EnumAvailableSqlServers( ) and trying to filter the servers
> based on version information. This machine shows up in the list, but does
> not
> have version information. I saw another post on Sql Server Programming
> newgroup without any response. Is this a known bug in SMO? If it is, does
> anyone know how I can list SQL2005 servers only on a network that has both
> SQL2005 and SQL2000 servers?
> Any help is geratly appreciated.

Monday, March 26, 2012

Enterprise Publisher to Express Subscribers (2005)

I implemented a merge replication publication on a SQL Server 2005
Enterprise instance on a test server. On my laptop I have VS.NET 2005
installed with SQL Server 2005 Express.

It's my understanding that I can subscribe to a publication with
Express. I also have SQL Server Workgroup installed on my laptop so I'm
able to use Management Studio to control the Express instance.

The first issue I encountered was that you cannot subscribe to a
publication if you are not on the same network as the publishing
instance (it requires the actual server name). And in lieu of this I
tried to implement Web synchronization, but had problems with SSL
(which is my problem since I'm not entirely familiar with how to
implement SSL certs so they don't show the security warning on the
client without purchasing a certificate).

So then I decided to go ahead and create an account on my laptop and
add it to the domain of the test publishing server. I was then able to
subscribe to the published replication.

So then I look at my Express instance and the synchronization never
runs. In the documentation it says that you're supposed to be able to
right-click on the subscription and "View Synchronization" and force it
to run. This is not available in the Express instance, but it is
available in the Workgroup instance.

So I'm looking at cleaning up my web synchronization issues to make
that work, but I see two issues here.

1) Why do I have to specify the "real name" of the publishing database?
Why can't I access it like any other sql server via an IP address? This
seems like a highly restrictive implementation of replication to me.

2) Why do I have to implement SSL for replication? I understand the
need for security, but that should be left to me to implement. I
shouldn't be forced to use SSL as my security layer.

3) Why doesn't Express have "View Synchronization"?

Any help here is greatly appreciated.

David Cornelson

Hi David,
You should be able to use Web synchronization in your case.

Regarding your questions:
1) Not sure what you mean here. You need to have the actual and real publishing database name. Without it, we cannot know which database the subscription is referring to.

2) SSL is required for Web Synchronization. It is for Security Purposes. A security feature cannot be optional.

3) SQL Server Express does not have SQL Server Agent. Hence you do not have 'View Synchronization' (Workgroup has it and hence you see the option). You need to either use RMO or ActiveX sync components or use the Window Sync Manager to synchronizing.|||

re 1) So why can't I direct a subscriber to ipaddress\instanceName? Why does it have to be serverName\instanceName?

2) If all of my replication is done within my own company, say I have Smart Clients that are on different segments of my network, so they can't actually "see" the publishing database, I might want to use web synchronization and _not_ use SSL. You're making a security decision that I don't need. I understand that this should be default behaviour, but I should be able to turn it off. You're actually making my architecture more complex by forcing SSL into my replication strategy.

3) Where can I find information on Windows Sync Manager?

Thanks,

David C.

|||1) Not sure, but looks like there is no option for you to provide an ipaddress of the publisher to connect to. Servername/instance may be the only way.

2) Security is always a big concern and that is the reason for mandating the SSL. If you wish, you could workaround with a test certificate. MSDN has a tool for installing a test certificate.
For IIS6.0: http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=56fc92ee-a71a-4c73-b628-ade629c89499&displaylang=en
For IIS5.0: http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;228984

3) Windows Sync manager comes with Standard windows installation. Books online has more information about synchronizing using Sync Manager. To open Sync Manager follow either of the steps:
a) Windows Explorer-->Tools-->Synchronize
b) Start-->AllPrograms-->Accessories-->Synchronize|||1) Okay

2) Alright

3) It only has a Sql Server 2000 and an IE sync listed. Where's 2005?

Thanks for the help.

David C.|||3) I dont understand what you are saying. Where do you see SQL Server 2000 listed?
Windows sync manager is a windows mechanism for synchronization which can be launched using the 2 methods I described in my previous post. You have to enable the subscription on the Subscriber to be using the Windows Sync Manager. Once you have done that, you will start seeing the subscription in the Sync Manager and you can synchronize the subscription with the publication at the Publisher.

Thursday, March 22, 2012

Enterprise Mgr quits after SQL2005 registering

I have both SQL2000 (default) and SQL2005 (second instance) on my laptop. Just to see if it could be done, I registered my (Local) SQL2000 default instance in the Registered Servers part of SQL2005 Mgmt Studio. It worked fine. I can see all the SQL2000 databases, etc in the Mgmt Studio.

But now the SQL2000 default instance will not connect in Enterprise Mgr nor can any of the programs that used to connect to the SQL2000 databases now connect to them. The (local) instance shows in Ent Mgr with the green arrow like it is there but Ent Mgr cannot connect when icon is clicked.

Is there anything I can do to bring the default SQL2000 instance back to be able to connect with anything other than the SQL2005 Mgmt Studio?

Do you get an error ? Which one ?

HTH, Jens K. Suessmeyer.

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

The local node shows in the tree with a white circle with a green arrowhead inside the circle. Which indicates to me that the SQL instance is running and the Ent Mgr sees it. But when I click on the plus beside the node, I get the error:

A connection could not be established to (LOCAL)

Reason: SQL Server does not exist or access denied
ConnectionOpen(Connect())....

Please verify SQL Server is running and check your SQLServer registration properties (by right-clicking on the (LOCAL) node) and try again.

But I can go to the SQL2005 Mgmt Studio and click on (LOCAL) and see all the stuff in it. In Mgmt Studio, the properties for (LOCAL) show version 8.x of SQLServer.

Monday, March 19, 2012

Enterprise Manager reporting wrong OS memory (SQL 2000 SP4+)

I have a SQL Server 2000 instance on a Windows Server 2003 cluster. The SQL Server instance is at SP4 with the
additional hot fix for the AWE memory problem.
We updated the OS memory from 4 GB to 8 GB but Enterprise Manager is still showing only 4 GB of RAM. Task Manager on
the server itself shows all 8 GB.
The /PAE switch is in boot.ini (not /3GB switch) and AWE is turned on. The startup log says AWE is enabled.
Still, EM shows only 4 GB of RAM. I have another instance on a non-clustered machine and it shows all 8 GB correctly.
Any ideas what the problem could be?
Thanks,
EdEd
Did you set up MAX Memory?
"Ed Enstrom" <nospam@.invalid.net> wrote in message
news:47ccccc1$0$15174$607ed4bc@.cv.net...
>I have a SQL Server 2000 instance on a Windows Server 2003 cluster. The
>SQL Server instance is at SP4 with the additional hot fix for the AWE
>memory problem.
> We updated the OS memory from 4 GB to 8 GB but Enterprise Manager is still
> showing only 4 GB of RAM. Task Manager on the server itself shows all 8
> GB.
> The /PAE switch is in boot.ini (not /3GB switch) and AWE is turned on.
> The startup log says AWE is enabled.
> Still, EM shows only 4 GB of RAM. I have another instance on a
> non-clustered machine and it shows all 8 GB correctly.
> Any ideas what the problem could be?
> Thanks,
> Ed|||Hi Uri,
Yes, max memory is set. Here is ooutput of sp_configure for memory options:
name minimum maximum config_value run_value
awe enabled 0 1 1 1
max server memory (MB) 4 2147483647 6144 6144
min server memory (MB) 0 2147483647 0 0
"Uri Dimant" wrote:
> Ed
> Did you set up MAX Memory?
>|||Where exactly are you seeing this 4GB? What does sp_configure show for the
MAX Memory?
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors
"Ed Enstrom" <nospam@.invalid.net> wrote in message
news:47ccccc1$0$15174$607ed4bc@.cv.net...
>I have a SQL Server 2000 instance on a Windows Server 2003 cluster. The
>SQL Server instance is at SP4 with the additional hot fix for the AWE
>memory problem.
> We updated the OS memory from 4 GB to 8 GB but Enterprise Manager is still
> showing only 4 GB of RAM. Task Manager on the server itself shows all 8
> GB.
> The /PAE switch is in boot.ini (not /3GB switch) and AWE is turned on.
> The startup log says AWE is enabled.
> Still, EM shows only 4 GB of RAM. I have another instance on a
> non-clustered machine and it shows all 8 GB correctly.
> Any ideas what the problem could be?
> Thanks,
> Ed|||In Enterprise Manager, right-click on the instance.
On the General tab, the OS Memory: line shows 3839(MB)
The Memory tab shows range of 0 to 3839 MB.
in sp_configure, max server memory (MB) is 6144
"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
> Where exactly are you seeing this 4GB? What does sp_configure show for the
> MAX Memory?
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> Solid Quality Mentors
>|||It sounds like either the hotfix did not succeed or you applied the wrong
one. If you run xp_msver do you see the proper version for that hotfix? Is
this Enterprise Edition of SQL Server? This was on a cluster. Did the
hotfix get applied to both nodes?
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors
"Ed" <Ed@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E1779412-EA48-495C-A9F5-79B39619ED52@.microsoft.com...
> In Enterprise Manager, right-click on the instance.
> On the General tab, the OS Memory: line shows 3839(MB)
> The Memory tab shows range of 0 to 3839 MB.
> in sp_configure, max server memory (MB) is 6144
> "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
>> Where exactly are you seeing this 4GB? What does sp_configure show for
>> the
>> MAX Memory?
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>> Solid Quality Mentors|||Hi Andrew,
Results from xp_msver:
Index Name Internal_Value Character_Value
1 ProductName Microsoft SQL Server
2 ProductVersion 524288 8.00.2187
3 Language 1033 English (United States)
4 Platform NT INTEL X86
5 Comments NT INTEL X86
6 CompanyName Microsoft Corporation
7 FileDescription SQL Server Windows NT
8 FileVersion 2000.080.2187.00
9 InternalName SQLSERVR
10 LegalCopyright © 1988-2004 Microsoft Corp. All rights reserved.
11 LegalTrademarks Microsoft® is a registered trademark of Microsoft
Corporation. Windows(TM) is a trademark of Microsoft Corporation
12 OriginalFilename SQLSERVR.EXE
13 PrivateBuild
14 SpecialBuild 143327232
15 WindowsVersion 248381957 5.2 (3790)
16 ProcessorCount 4 4
17 ProcessorActiveMask 15 0000000f
18 ProcessorType 586 PROCESSOR_INTEL_PENTIUM
19 PhysicalMemory 3839 3839 (4025999360)
20 Product ID
The hotfix was applied. So far as I know, it was successful (no errors).
It is on both nodes of the cluster. Windows Server 2003 Enterprise (need
this version for clustering).
This is what is driving me nuts. Everything looks right, but SQL Server is
not seeing all the memory.
"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
> It sounds like either the hotfix did not succeed or you applied the wrong
> one. If you run xp_msver do you see the proper version for that hotfix? Is
> this Enterprise Edition of SQL Server? This was on a cluster. Did the
> hotfix get applied to both nodes?
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> Solid Quality Mentors
>
> "Ed" <Ed@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:E1779412-EA48-495C-A9F5-79B39619ED52@.microsoft.com...
> > In Enterprise Manager, right-click on the instance.
> > On the General tab, the OS Memory: line shows 3839(MB)
> > The Memory tab shows range of 0 to 3839 MB.
> > in sp_configure, max server memory (MB) is 6144
> >
> > "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
> >
> >> Where exactly are you seeing this 4GB? What does sp_configure show for
> >> the
> >> MAX Memory?
> >>
> >> --
> >> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> >> Solid Quality Mentors
> >>
>|||OK well you actually have the Cumulative Update not just the hotfix but it
still should contain it as far as I know. What do the perfmon counters for
SQL Memory Target and Total memory show? If they show the 6GB then it
sounds like a bug in the gui. You may need to contact PSS if perfmon or
DBCC MEMORYSTATUS are not showing the right amount.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors
"Ed" <Ed@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9D711AC5-1218-42B4-825F-6F8BF60B35CE@.microsoft.com...
> Hi Andrew,
> Results from xp_msver:
> Index Name Internal_Value Character_Value
> 1 ProductName Microsoft SQL Server
> 2 ProductVersion 524288 8.00.2187
> 3 Language 1033 English (United States)
> 4 Platform NT INTEL X86
> 5 Comments NT INTEL X86
> 6 CompanyName Microsoft Corporation
> 7 FileDescription SQL Server Windows NT
> 8 FileVersion 2000.080.2187.00
> 9 InternalName SQLSERVR
> 10 LegalCopyright © 1988-2004 Microsoft Corp. All rights reserved.
> 11 LegalTrademarks Microsoft® is a registered trademark of Microsoft
> Corporation. Windows(TM) is a trademark of Microsoft Corporation
> 12 OriginalFilename SQLSERVR.EXE
> 13 PrivateBuild
> 14 SpecialBuild 143327232
> 15 WindowsVersion 248381957 5.2 (3790)
> 16 ProcessorCount 4 4
> 17 ProcessorActiveMask 15 0000000f
> 18 ProcessorType 586 PROCESSOR_INTEL_PENTIUM
> 19 PhysicalMemory 3839 3839 (4025999360)
> 20 Product ID
> The hotfix was applied. So far as I know, it was successful (no errors).
> It is on both nodes of the cluster. Windows Server 2003 Enterprise (need
> this version for clustering).
> This is what is driving me nuts. Everything looks right, but SQL Server
> is
> not seeing all the memory.
> "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
>> It sounds like either the hotfix did not succeed or you applied the wrong
>> one. If you run xp_msver do you see the proper version for that hotfix?
>> Is
>> this Enterprise Edition of SQL Server? This was on a cluster. Did the
>> hotfix get applied to both nodes?
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>> Solid Quality Mentors
>>
>> "Ed" <Ed@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:E1779412-EA48-495C-A9F5-79B39619ED52@.microsoft.com...
>> > In Enterprise Manager, right-click on the instance.
>> > On the General tab, the OS Memory: line shows 3839(MB)
>> > The Memory tab shows range of 0 to 3839 MB.
>> > in sp_configure, max server memory (MB) is 6144
>> >
>> > "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
>> >
>> >> Where exactly are you seeing this 4GB? What does sp_configure show
>> >> for
>> >> the
>> >> MAX Memory?
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>> >> Solid Quality Mentors
>> >>
>>|||Andrew,
Perfmon shows 3.2 GB total memory for SQL Server, so the problem is not a UI
issue. I have another server (non-clustered) at the same SQL 8,00.2187 (SP4)
version with 8 GB and it is working properly. I suspect the problem is
related to clustering, but I do not know enough about that to pinpoint the
cause. I will continue to investigate.
Thanks for the DBCC MEMORYSTATUS idea. I did not know about this function.
It does not appear in Help.
Ed
"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
> OK well you actually have the Cumulative Update not just the hotfix but it
> still should contain it as far as I know. What do the perfmon counters for
> SQL Memory Target and Total memory show? If they show the 6GB then it
> sounds like a bug in the gui. You may need to contact PSS if perfmon or
> DBCC MEMORYSTATUS are not showing the right amount.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> Solid Quality Mentors
>|||It certainly sounds like the Hoxfix didn't work properly. I would give MS a
call.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors
"Ed" <Ed@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3C36BE31-DFED-469C-BC93-27808286BEB5@.microsoft.com...
> Andrew,
> Perfmon shows 3.2 GB total memory for SQL Server, so the problem is not a
> UI
> issue. I have another server (non-clustered) at the same SQL 8,00.2187
> (SP4)
> version with 8 GB and it is working properly. I suspect the problem is
> related to clustering, but I do not know enough about that to pinpoint the
> cause. I will continue to investigate.
> Thanks for the DBCC MEMORYSTATUS idea. I did not know about this
> function.
> It does not appear in Help.
> Ed
> "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
>> OK well you actually have the Cumulative Update not just the hotfix but
>> it
>> still should contain it as far as I know. What do the perfmon counters
>> for
>> SQL Memory Target and Total memory show? If they show the 6GB then it
>> sounds like a bug in the gui. You may need to contact PSS if perfmon or
>> DBCC MEMORYSTATUS are not showing the right amount.
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>> Solid Quality Mentors|||Right. I've pretty much come to the same conclusion.
Thanks for the help.
Ed
"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
> It certainly sounds like the Hoxfix didn't work properly. I would give MS a
> call.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> Solid Quality Mentors
>|||The problem has been solved. It turns out that we had to stop and restart
the cluster in order for SQL Server to see the extra memory. We had to wait
until Friday night to do it.
When we added the memory, we failed over the SQL Server service, took the
machine down, added the memory and brought the machine back up again. The
cluster was never stopped.
Thanks again for your help.
Ed
"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
> It certainly sounds like the Hoxfix didn't work properly. I would give MS a
> call.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> Solid Quality Mentors

Enterprise Manager reporting wrong OS memory (SQL 2000 SP4+)

I have a SQL Server 2000 instance on a Windows Server 2003 cluster. The SQL Server instance is at SP4 with the
additional hot fix for the AWE memory problem.
We updated the OS memory from 4 GB to 8 GB but Enterprise Manager is still showing only 4 GB of RAM. Task Manager on
the server itself shows all 8 GB.
The /PAE switch is in boot.ini (not /3GB switch) and AWE is turned on. The startup log says AWE is enabled.
Still, EM shows only 4 GB of RAM. I have another instance on a non-clustered machine and it shows all 8 GB correctly.
Any ideas what the problem could be?
Thanks,
Ed
Ed
Did you set up MAX Memory?
"Ed Enstrom" <nospam@.invalid.net> wrote in message
news:47ccccc1$0$15174$607ed4bc@.cv.net...
>I have a SQL Server 2000 instance on a Windows Server 2003 cluster. The
>SQL Server instance is at SP4 with the additional hot fix for the AWE
>memory problem.
> We updated the OS memory from 4 GB to 8 GB but Enterprise Manager is still
> showing only 4 GB of RAM. Task Manager on the server itself shows all 8
> GB.
> The /PAE switch is in boot.ini (not /3GB switch) and AWE is turned on.
> The startup log says AWE is enabled.
> Still, EM shows only 4 GB of RAM. I have another instance on a
> non-clustered machine and it shows all 8 GB correctly.
> Any ideas what the problem could be?
> Thanks,
> Ed
|||Hi Uri,
Yes, max memory is set. Here is ooutput of sp_configure for memory options:
nameminimummaximumconfig_valuerun_value
awe enabled0111
max server memory (MB)4214748364761446144
min server memory (MB)0214748364700
"Uri Dimant" wrote:

> Ed
> Did you set up MAX Memory?
>
|||Where exactly are you seeing this 4GB? What does sp_configure show for the
MAX Memory?
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors
"Ed Enstrom" <nospam@.invalid.net> wrote in message
news:47ccccc1$0$15174$607ed4bc@.cv.net...
>I have a SQL Server 2000 instance on a Windows Server 2003 cluster. The
>SQL Server instance is at SP4 with the additional hot fix for the AWE
>memory problem.
> We updated the OS memory from 4 GB to 8 GB but Enterprise Manager is still
> showing only 4 GB of RAM. Task Manager on the server itself shows all 8
> GB.
> The /PAE switch is in boot.ini (not /3GB switch) and AWE is turned on.
> The startup log says AWE is enabled.
> Still, EM shows only 4 GB of RAM. I have another instance on a
> non-clustered machine and it shows all 8 GB correctly.
> Any ideas what the problem could be?
> Thanks,
> Ed
|||In Enterprise Manager, right-click on the instance.
On the General tab, the OS Memory: line shows 3839(MB)
The Memory tab shows range of 0 to 3839 MB.
in sp_configure, max server memory (MB) is 6144
"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:

> Where exactly are you seeing this 4GB? What does sp_configure show for the
> MAX Memory?
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> Solid Quality Mentors
>
|||It sounds like either the hotfix did not succeed or you applied the wrong
one. If you run xp_msver do you see the proper version for that hotfix? Is
this Enterprise Edition of SQL Server? This was on a cluster. Did the
hotfix get applied to both nodes?
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors
"Ed" <Ed@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E1779412-EA48-495C-A9F5-79B39619ED52@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> In Enterprise Manager, right-click on the instance.
> On the General tab, the OS Memory: line shows 3839(MB)
> The Memory tab shows range of 0 to 3839 MB.
> in sp_configure, max server memory (MB) is 6144
> "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
|||Hi Andrew,
Results from xp_msver:
IndexNameInternal_ValueCharacter_Value
1ProductNameMicrosoft SQL Server
2ProductVersion5242888.00.2187
3Language1033English (United States)
4PlatformNT INTEL X86
5CommentsNT INTEL X86
6CompanyNameMicrosoft Corporation
7FileDescriptionSQL Server Windows NT
8FileVersion2000.080.2187.00
9InternalNameSQLSERVR
10LegalCopyright? 1988-2004 Microsoft Corp. All rights reserved.
11LegalTrademarksMicrosoft? is a registered trademark of Microsoft
Corporation. Windows(TM) is a trademark of Microsoft Corporation
12OriginalFilenameSQLSERVR.EXE
13PrivateBuild
14SpecialBuild143327232
15WindowsVersion2483819575.2 (3790)
16ProcessorCount44
17ProcessorActiveMask150000000f
18ProcessorType586PROCESSOR_INTEL_PENTIUM
19PhysicalMemory38393839 (4025999360)
20Product ID
The hotfix was applied. So far as I know, it was successful (no errors).
It is on both nodes of the cluster. Windows Server 2003 Enterprise (need
this version for clustering).
This is what is driving me nuts. Everything looks right, but SQL Server is
not seeing all the memory.
"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:

> It sounds like either the hotfix did not succeed or you applied the wrong
> one. If you run xp_msver do you see the proper version for that hotfix? Is
> this Enterprise Edition of SQL Server? This was on a cluster. Did the
> hotfix get applied to both nodes?
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> Solid Quality Mentors
>
> "Ed" <Ed@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:E1779412-EA48-495C-A9F5-79B39619ED52@.microsoft.com...
>
|||OK well you actually have the Cumulative Update not just the hotfix but it
still should contain it as far as I know. What do the perfmon counters for
SQL Memory Target and Total memory show? If they show the 6GB then it
sounds like a bug in the gui. You may need to contact PSS if perfmon or
DBCC MEMORYSTATUS are not showing the right amount.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors
"Ed" <Ed@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9D711AC5-1218-42B4-825F-6F8BF60B35CE@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi Andrew,
> Results from xp_msver:
> Index Name Internal_Value Character_Value
> 1 ProductName Microsoft SQL Server
> 2 ProductVersion 524288 8.00.2187
> 3 Language 1033 English (United States)
> 4 Platform NT INTEL X86
> 5 Comments NT INTEL X86
> 6 CompanyName Microsoft Corporation
> 7 FileDescription SQL Server Windows NT
> 8 FileVersion 2000.080.2187.00
> 9 InternalName SQLSERVR
> 10 LegalCopyright ? 1988-2004 Microsoft Corp. All rights reserved.
> 11 LegalTrademarks Microsoft? is a registered trademark of Microsoft
> Corporation. Windows(TM) is a trademark of Microsoft Corporation
> 12 OriginalFilename SQLSERVR.EXE
> 13 PrivateBuild
> 14 SpecialBuild 143327232
> 15 WindowsVersion 248381957 5.2 (3790)
> 16 ProcessorCount 4 4
> 17 ProcessorActiveMask 15 0000000f
> 18 ProcessorType 586 PROCESSOR_INTEL_PENTIUM
> 19 PhysicalMemory 3839 3839 (4025999360)
> 20 Product ID
> The hotfix was applied. So far as I know, it was successful (no errors).
> It is on both nodes of the cluster. Windows Server 2003 Enterprise (need
> this version for clustering).
> This is what is driving me nuts. Everything looks right, but SQL Server
> is
> not seeing all the memory.
> "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
|||Andrew,
Perfmon shows 3.2 GB total memory for SQL Server, so the problem is not a UI
issue. I have another server (non-clustered) at the same SQL 8,00.2187 (SP4)
version with 8 GB and it is working properly. I suspect the problem is
related to clustering, but I do not know enough about that to pinpoint the
cause. I will continue to investigate.
Thanks for the DBCC MEMORYSTATUS idea. I did not know about this function.
It does not appear in Help.
Ed
"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:

> OK well you actually have the Cumulative Update not just the hotfix but it
> still should contain it as far as I know. What do the perfmon counters for
> SQL Memory Target and Total memory show? If they show the 6GB then it
> sounds like a bug in the gui. You may need to contact PSS if perfmon or
> DBCC MEMORYSTATUS are not showing the right amount.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> Solid Quality Mentors
>
|||It certainly sounds like the Hoxfix didn't work properly. I would give MS a
call.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors
"Ed" <Ed@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3C36BE31-DFED-469C-BC93-27808286BEB5@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Andrew,
> Perfmon shows 3.2 GB total memory for SQL Server, so the problem is not a
> UI
> issue. I have another server (non-clustered) at the same SQL 8,00.2187
> (SP4)
> version with 8 GB and it is working properly. I suspect the problem is
> related to clustering, but I do not know enough about that to pinpoint the
> cause. I will continue to investigate.
> Thanks for the DBCC MEMORYSTATUS idea. I did not know about this
> function.
> It does not appear in Help.
> Ed
> "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:

Friday, March 9, 2012

Enterprise Manager licensing question.

Hi,
Complete SQL Server newbie here.
I have one instance of SQL server and Enterprise Manager installed on my
server. Can I install Enterprise manager on two client computers so they
can administer the server from their desktop rather than sitting at the
server?
Thanks for your help,
Andy.Yes, if they have valid client licenses (or the SQL Server is licensed as per processor). As far as
I understand, I should add...
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
Archive at: http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&as_ugroup=microsoft.public.sqlserver
"Andy" <PLEASEREPLY@.THEGROUP.COM> wrote in message news:ejDjaVImDHA.2068@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> Complete SQL Server newbie here.
> I have one instance of SQL server and Enterprise Manager installed on my
> server. Can I install Enterprise manager on two client computers so they
> can administer the server from their desktop rather than sitting at the
> server?
> Thanks for your help,
> Andy.
>

Friday, February 24, 2012

Enterprise manager compatibility

Hi
I trying register SQL Server 2005 Express Edition instance in Enterprise
Manager 2000 without success. Enterprise Manager 2000 do see instance and
lists its name in the list of available servers. But connection check
returns error: "SQL Server does not exist or access denied. ConnectionOpen
(Connect())".
Is Enterprise Manager 2000 compatible with SQL Server 2005 instances?Igor Solodovnikov (IgorSolodovnikov@.discussions.microsoft.com) writes:
> I trying register SQL Server 2005 Express Edition instance in Enterprise
> Manager 2000 without success. Enterprise Manager 2000 do see instance and
> lists its name in the list of available servers. But connection check
> returns error: "SQL Server does not exist or access denied. ConnectionOpen
> (Connect())".
> Is Enterprise Manager 2000 compatible with SQL Server 2005 instances?
No, you cannot connect to SQL 2005 with Enterprise Manager 2000. Query
Analyzer works though. (With some restrictions.)
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se
Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...oads/books.mspx
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodin...ions/books.mspx|||Igor Solodovnikov wrote:
> Hi
> I trying register SQL Server 2005 Express Edition instance in Enterprise
> Manager 2000 without success. Enterprise Manager 2000 do see instance and
> lists its name in the list of available servers. But connection check
> returns error: "SQL Server does not exist or access denied. ConnectionOpen
> (Connect())".
> Is Enterprise Manager 2000 compatible with SQL Server 2005 instances?
No. Use SQL Server Management Studio for 2005. SSMS can also manage SQL
Server 2000 instances.
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
--

Enterprise Manager Can Not Connect to a Named Instance

I installed a new named instance of sql server on a machine called faoweb2k04. There are three instances on this machine: default, afosrio, & afosrio2 (which I can not connect to).
Any suggestions? aforio2 does not show up in the enterprise manager when I select the option [New SQL Server Registration...]
Interesting...
Are the services associated with those other instances running?
Rick Sawtell
MCT, MCSD, MCDBA
|||"sjsnraets" wrote:

> I installed a new named instance of sql server on a machine called faoweb2k04. There are three instances on this machine: default, afosrio, & afosrio2 (which I can not connect to).
> Any suggestions? aforio2 does not show up in the enterprise manager when I select the option [New SQL Server Registration...]
Start the New SQL Server Registration wizard
Type server name inmediatelly to available servers field (server name\aforio2) and click on add button. Click next ...
If server instance is running, the registration will be completed. (not need visible in list)
Andras Jakus
MCDBA

Enterprise Manager Can Not Connect to a Named Instance

I installed a new named instance of sql server on a machine called faoweb2k0
4. There are three instances on this machine: default, afosrio, & afosrio2
(which I can not connect to).
Any suggestions? aforio2 does not show up in the enterprise manager when I
select the option [New SQL Server Registration...]Interesting...
Are the services associated with those other instances running?
Rick Sawtell
MCT, MCSD, MCDBA|||"sjsnraets" wrote:

> I installed a new named instance of sql server on a machine called faoweb2
k04. There are three instances on this machine: default, afosrio, & afosrio
2 (which I can not connect to).
> Any suggestions? aforio2 does not show up in the enterprise manager when I select
the option [New SQL Server Registration...]
Start the New SQL Server Registration wizard
Type server name inmediatelly to available servers field (server name\aforio
2) and click on add button. Click next ...
If server instance is running, the registration will be completed. (not need
visible in list)
Andras Jakus
MCDBA

Enterprise Manager Can Not Connect to a Named Instance

I installed a new named instance of sql server on a machine called faoweb2k04. There are three instances on this machine: default, afosrio, & afosrio2 (which I can not connect to).
Any suggestions? aforio2 does not show up in the enterprise manager when I select the option [New SQL Server Registration...]Interesting...
Are the services associated with those other instances running?
Rick Sawtell
MCT, MCSD, MCDBA

Sunday, February 19, 2012

Enterprise Manager and named instances

Hi, How to connect via internet to MSDE 2000 named instance using Enterprise
Manager?
On remote server (2K Server) there are installed MSDE 2000 default instance
and named instance. Named instance is using port 3077.
Adam,
in the Client Network utility define an alias which points to your
named instance and define the port number.
M

Enterprise manager / register with name

Hi,

I connect to a server on an other location with a VPN connection.
The SQL server on the other side is running an instance "MAINSERVER"
There are no problems to register the server locally as mainserver, but when i connect with the VPN it isnt't possible to register the server with the name "MAINSERVER"
It is only possible to register with its IP address.

Has anyone an idea why i cant't connect using the name?

Thanks!Hey Leo,

Sounds like you have a DNS issue. Just a guess but are you running Windows 2000. I have had many problems with VPN when it comes to DNS and WINS. On the other hand my XP machines have no problem. I'm not sure what it is about 2000 but I would like to see what kind of answers you get on this one. Have you yourself looked into any DNS issues?

Kal

Friday, February 17, 2012

Enterprise Manager - Available Servers - remote instance not listed

When using the register available servers in Enterprise Manager, the
named instances on a remote machine are not listed. The unnamed
instance is listed and will register successfully.
I have tried manually typing the names of the remote NAMED instances;
then tried to authenticate and get the message "SQL server does not
exist or access denied".
Local machine; SQL Server 2000 SP4 (Developer Edition) installed.
2 Instances
Unnamed
DEV\DB1
On the remote machine SQL Server 2000 (MSDE Edition) installed
3 Instances;
Unnamed
REM\DB1
REM\DB2
Both machines are on the same domain. All SQL server instances are
running.
I have also used the svrnetcn.exe tool to make sure the Named Pipes
and TCP/IP protocols are enabled. The port on the TCP/IP protocol has
been changed to 1433 on all remote instances. (both machines were
rebooted)
What else can I check ?
Thanks
DOn Sep 18, 9:18 pm, do <dmc...@.gmail.com> wrote:
> When using the register available servers in Enterprise Manager, the
> named instances on a remote machine are not listed. The unnamed
> instance is listed and will register successfully.
> I have tried manually typing the names of the remote NAMED instances;
> then tried to authenticate and get the message "SQL server does not
> exist or access denied".
> Local machine; SQL Server 2000 SP4 (Developer Edition) installed.
> 2 Instances
> Unnamed
> DEV\DB1
> On the remote machine SQL Server 2000 (MSDE Edition) installed
> 3 Instances;
> Unnamed
> REM\DB1
> REM\DB2
Create an alias for the named instances on the client end & then try
registering...
> Both machines are on the same domain. All SQL server instances are
> running.
> I have also used the svrnetcn.exe tool to make sure the Named Pipes
> and TCP/IP protocols are enabled. The port on the TCP/IP protocol has
> been changed to 1433 on all remote instances. (both machines were
> rebooted)
> What else can I check ?
> Thanks
> D

Enterprise Manager - Available Servers - remote instance not listed

When using the register available servers in Enterprise Manager, the
named instances on a remote machine are not listed. The unnamed
instance is listed and will register successfully.
I have tried manually typing the names of the remote NAMED instances;
then tried to authenticate and get the message "SQL server does not
exist or access denied".
Local machine; SQL Server 2000 SP4 (Developer Edition) installed.
2 Instances
Unnamed
DEV\DB1
On the remote machine SQL Server 2000 (MSDE Edition) installed
3 Instances;
Unnamed
REM\DB1
REM\DB2
Both machines are on the same domain. All SQL server instances are
running.
I have also used the svrnetcn.exe tool to make sure the Named Pipes
and TCP/IP protocols are enabled. The port on the TCP/IP protocol has
been changed to 1433 on all remote instances. (both machines were
rebooted)
What else can I check ?
Thanks
DHow about trying adding aliases from SQL Server Client Network Utility?
Add Aliases for your named instances and try connecting then.
You may obtain more info about this from the following link:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa213780(SQL.80).aspx
You may want to have a look at the following article from BOL to learn more
about Browser Service of SQL Server 2005. This may be irrelevant however it
informs you about SS2000' s listening service too. It may give you an idea.
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms181087.aspx
--
Ekrem Önsoy
"do" <dmcb73@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190189984.640820.24640@.o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> When using the register available servers in Enterprise Manager, the
> named instances on a remote machine are not listed. The unnamed
> instance is listed and will register successfully.
> I have tried manually typing the names of the remote NAMED instances;
> then tried to authenticate and get the message "SQL server does not
> exist or access denied".
> Local machine; SQL Server 2000 SP4 (Developer Edition) installed.
> 2 Instances
> Unnamed
> DEV\DB1
> On the remote machine SQL Server 2000 (MSDE Edition) installed
> 3 Instances;
> Unnamed
> REM\DB1
> REM\DB2
> Both machines are on the same domain. All SQL server instances are
> running.
> I have also used the svrnetcn.exe tool to make sure the Named Pipes
> and TCP/IP protocols are enabled. The port on the TCP/IP protocol has
> been changed to 1433 on all remote instances. (both machines were
> rebooted)
> What else can I check ?
> Thanks
> D
>

Wednesday, February 15, 2012

Enterprise Edition doesnt install the SQL server instance.

I am trying to install the SQL Server 2005 Enterprise Edition, but on the components selection page, the only options I can check are Sample Book/Docs and Tools(Business Intelligence Studio, SQL Management Studio).

Even on the advanced page, those are the only options. Everything runs with no problem, except the SQL server instance.

I checked on the SQL Server Configuration Manager, and it does not show any SQL instances installed.

I tried adding a new instance using the add/remove>change for Microsoft SQL Server 2005 by selecting the setup.exe file in the Enterprise CD, but the it has the same options. If I select the setup.exe file from my Workgroup Edition CD, the option for adding new instances works.

What should I Do?

Cant I add SQL server instances using the Enterprise Edition? I was unable to install even the first instance.

The computer I am using meets all requirements and no SQL versions have been installed yet.

Thanks for the help.

go to the tools and servers folders respectively and install the components individually,.....dunno if it works just a surmise.....also you can refer this link might be useful........

http://dumthata.com/sqlchn/articles/install/insql.htm

|||

Enterprise Edition REQUIRES a server OS.

As you can see from the chart on this page, it does NOT install on Windows XP or VISTA.