Do not have instance of SQL Express 2005 installed

I am attempting to install SQL Express 2005 on a laptop that already has MS Sql Server installed.

I downloaded the SQLEXPR_TOOLKIT.EXE from Microsoft's website and let it go through its installation routine accepting all the default answers.

When I open SQL Server Management Studio Express, I can only connect to the SQL 2000 instance. I have issued the 'SELECT @.@.VERSION' command, and When I try to connect to the instance COMPUTERNAME\SQLEXPRESS, the following error message is displayed:
Cannot connect to YOUR-F8A010A9D0\SQLEXPRESS.
An error has occurred while establishing a connection to the server. When connecting to SQL Server 2005, this failure my be caused by the fact that under the default settings SQL Server does not allow remote connections. (provider: SQL Network Interfaces, error: 26 - Error locating Server/Instance Specified) (Microsoft SQL Server)

When I go to remove SQL Express 2005 using the add/remove programs, there is a check box that says
"Remove SQL Server 2005 instance components"
and in the box underneath where it lists all the instances it says: "No instances have been installed"

How do I create an instance for SQL Server 2005?

Thank you
SusanYou go to the incorrect location to install SQL Express. Instead, you choose to install tools only. Please go to the directory ...\SQLEXPR\setup.exe. Note, if .NET Framework is still not installed on the machine, you need to install it first.

Do local administrators on a system with SQL Server 2005 installed have an implied 'sysad

Gurus,
Is it true that local administrators on a system with SQL Server 2005
installed have an implied 'sysadmin' right to SQL Server?
Spin
"Zarko Jovanovic" <mind_lessIsHsAsTsEsSsPsAsMs@.inet.hr> wrote in message
news:fr8dkh$olp$4@.sunce.iskon.hr...
> simple: YES !
How can I stop this behavior?
|||Unless the OS is Vista+SQL Server2005 SP2 (may be also WinServer2008+SQL
Server2005SP2).
"Zarko Jovanovic" <mind_lessIsHsAsTsEsSsPsAsMs@.inet.hr> wrote in message
news:fr8dkh$olp$4@.sunce.iskon.hr...
> Spin wrote:
> simple: YES !
|||On Mar 12, 7:29Xam, "Spin" <S...@.spin.com> wrote:
> "Zarko Jovanovic" <mind_lessIsHsAsTsEsSsPsA...@.inet.hr> wrote in message
> news:fr8dkh$olp$4@.sunce.iskon.hr...
>
> How can I stop this behavior?
It just so happens that I had to figure out how to disable this myself
just last week. I worked on SQL 2000, but hopefully this will work on
2005 as well.
I put this into a .sql file and called it using osql, in this way I
was able to scipt this change and execute it on our hundreds of
different servers very quickly.
However, you could just drop this into query analyzer (built into EM
in 2005 I recall) and run it:
exec sp_denylogin [BUILTIN\administrators]
That is it, that will deby local admin access to MSSQL. I also
scripted the changing of the sa password if you need that it is:
exec sp_Password 'OriginalPasswordHere', 'New_passwordHere1', 'sa'
Hope that helps!
|||On Mar 13, 9:13Xam, Tonagon <tony.robe...@.marriott.com> wrote:
> On Mar 12, 7:29Xam, "Spin" <S...@.spin.com> wrote:
>
>
> It just so happens that I had to figure out how to disable this myself
> just last week. XI worked on SQL 2000, but hopefully this will work on
> 2005 as well.
> I put this into a .sql file and called it using osql, in this way I
> was able to scipt this change and execute it on our hundreds of
> different servers very quickly.
> However, you could just drop this into query analyzer (built into EM
> in 2005 I recall) and run it:
> exec sp_denylogin [BUILTIN\administrators]
> That is it, that will deby local admin access to MSSQL. XI also
> scripted the changing of the sa password if you need that it is:
> exec sp_Password 'OriginalPasswordHere', 'New_passwordHere1', 'sa'
> Hope that helps!
OH! Something to look out for though. If you deny login access to the
Windows Admin group then the SQL Agent service will stop running and
say it cannot connect. By default it will be connecting using a local
Windows Admin account. That will have to be changed (you can right
click it in EM and go to properties and change it).
I found a script for that as well, but it is rather long and I don't
even understand the whole thing. It works though! If you need that as
well I can put it in here.

Do local administrators on a system with SQL Server 2005 installed have an implied 'sysad

Gurus,
Is it true that local administrators on a system with SQL Server 2005
installed have an implied 'sysadmin' right to SQL Server?
--
SpinSpin wrote:
> Gurus,
> Is it true that local administrators on a system with SQL Server 2005
> installed have an implied 'sysadmin' right to SQL Server?
simple: YES !|||"Zarko Jovanovic" <mind_lessIsHsAsTsEsSsPsAsMs@.inet.hr> wrote in message
news:fr8dkh$olp$4@.sunce.iskon.hr...
> simple: YES !
How can I stop this behavior?|||Spin wrote:
> "Zarko Jovanovic" <mind_lessIsHsAsTsEsSsPsAsMs@.inet.hr> wrote in message
> news:fr8dkh$olp$4@.sunce.iskon.hr...
>> simple: YES !
> How can I stop this behavior?
>
1 first, be sure you give some windows account (yours maybe) sysadmin
rights on sql server!!!
2 then, check 1 again!!!
3 then, remove BUILTIN\administrators login from logins on SQL server|||Unless the OS is Vista+SQL Server2005 SP2 (may be also WinServer2008+SQL
Server2005SP2).
"Zarko Jovanovic" <mind_lessIsHsAsTsEsSsPsAsMs@.inet.hr> wrote in message
news:fr8dkh$olp$4@.sunce.iskon.hr...
> Spin wrote:
>> Gurus,
>> Is it true that local administrators on a system with SQL Server 2005
>> installed have an implied 'sysadmin' right to SQL Server?
> simple: YES !|||On Mar 12, 7:29=A0am, "Spin" <S...@.spin.com> wrote:
> "Zarko Jovanovic" <mind_lessIsHsAsTsEsSsPsA...@.inet.hr> wrote in message
> news:fr8dkh$olp$4@.sunce.iskon.hr...
> > simple: YES !
> How can I stop this behavior?
It just so happens that I had to figure out how to disable this myself
just last week. I worked on SQL 2000, but hopefully this will work on
2005 as well.
I put this into a .sql file and called it using osql, in this way I
was able to scipt this change and execute it on our hundreds of
different servers very quickly.
However, you could just drop this into query analyzer (built into EM
in 2005 I recall) and run it:
exec sp_denylogin [BUILTIN\administrators]
That is it, that will deby local admin access to MSSQL. I also
scripted the changing of the sa password if you need that it is:
exec sp_Password 'OriginalPasswordHere', 'New_passwordHere1', 'sa'
Hope that helps!|||On Mar 13, 9:13=A0am, Tonagon <tony.robe...@.marriott.com> wrote:
> On Mar 12, 7:29=A0am, "Spin" <S...@.spin.com> wrote:
> > "Zarko Jovanovic" <mind_lessIsHsAsTsEsSsPsA...@.inet.hr> wrote in message=
> >news:fr8dkh$olp$4@.sunce.iskon.hr...
> > > simple: YES !
> > How can I stop this behavior?
> It just so happens that I had to figure out how to disable this myself
> just last week. =A0I worked on SQL 2000, but hopefully this will work on
> 2005 as well.
> I put this into a .sql file and called it using osql, in this way I
> was able to scipt this change and execute it on our hundreds of
> different servers very quickly.
> However, you could just drop this into query analyzer (built into EM
> in 2005 I recall) and run it:
> exec sp_denylogin [BUILTIN\administrators]
> That is it, that will deby local admin access to MSSQL. =A0I also
> scripted the changing of the sa password if you need that it is:
> exec sp_Password 'OriginalPasswordHere', 'New_passwordHere1', 'sa'
> Hope that helps!
OH! Something to look out for though. If you deny login access to the
Windows Admin group then the SQL Agent service will stop running and
say it cannot connect. By default it will be connecting using a local
Windows Admin account. That will have to be changed (you can right
click it in EM and go to properties and change it).
I found a script for that as well, but it is rather long and I don't
even understand the whole thing. It works though! If you need that as
well I can put it in here.|||<<OH! Something to look out for though. If you deny login access to the
Windows Admin group then the SQL Agent service will stop running and
say it cannot connect. By default it will be connecting using a local
Windows Admin account. >>
Agent do not run under an Admin account by default. It will run using the account you specify in
setup, and can also change later on using SAQL Server Configuration Manager. The handling of service
account is done the same way and tools for SQL Server service as SQL Server Agent service.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
"Tonagon" <tony.roberts@.marriott.com> wrote in message
news:8329df77-325f-4595-b1e1-85e8830dd0c3@.y77g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 13, 9:13 am, Tonagon <tony.robe...@.marriott.com> wrote:
> On Mar 12, 7:29 am, "Spin" <S...@.spin.com> wrote:
> > "Zarko Jovanovic" <mind_lessIsHsAsTsEsSsPsA...@.inet.hr> wrote in message
> >news:fr8dkh$olp$4@.sunce.iskon.hr...
> > > simple: YES !
> > How can I stop this behavior?
> It just so happens that I had to figure out how to disable this myself
> just last week. I worked on SQL 2000, but hopefully this will work on
> 2005 as well.
> I put this into a .sql file and called it using osql, in this way I
> was able to scipt this change and execute it on our hundreds of
> different servers very quickly.
> However, you could just drop this into query analyzer (built into EM
> in 2005 I recall) and run it:
> exec sp_denylogin [BUILTIN\administrators]
> That is it, that will deby local admin access to MSSQL. I also
> scripted the changing of the sa password if you need that it is:
> exec sp_Password 'OriginalPasswordHere', 'New_passwordHere1', 'sa'
> Hope that helps!
OH! Something to look out for though. If you deny login access to the
Windows Admin group then the SQL Agent service will stop running and
say it cannot connect. By default it will be connecting using a local
Windows Admin account. That will have to be changed (you can right
click it in EM and go to properties and change it).
I found a script for that as well, but it is rather long and I don't
even understand the whole thing. It works though! If you need that as
well I can put it in here.|||On Mar 14, 2:37=A0pm, "Tibor Karaszi"
<tibor_please.no.email_kara...@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote:
> <<OH! Something to look out for though. =A0If you deny login access to the=
> Windows Admin group then the SQL Agent service will stop running and
> say it cannot connect. =A0By default it will be connecting using a local
> Windows Admin account. >>
> Agent do not run under an Admin account by default. It will run using the =account you specify in
> setup, and can also change later on using SAQL Server Configuration Manage=r. The handling of service
> account is done the same way and tools for SQL Server service as SQL Serve=r Agent service.
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVPhttp://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asph=
ttp://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
> "Tonagon" <tony.robe...@.marriott.com> wrote in message
> news:8329df77-325f-4595-b1e1-85e8830dd0c3@.y77g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 13, 9:13 am, Tonagon <tony.robe...@.marriott.com> wrote:
>
>
> > On Mar 12, 7:29 am, "Spin" <S...@.spin.com> wrote:
> > > "Zarko Jovanovic" <mind_lessIsHsAsTsEsSsPsA...@.inet.hr> wrote in messa=ge
> > >news:fr8dkh$olp$4@.sunce.iskon.hr...
> > > > simple: YES !
> > > How can I stop this behavior?
> > It just so happens that I had to figure out how to disable this myself
> > just last week. I worked on SQL 2000, but hopefully this will work on
> > 2005 as well.
> > I put this into a .sql file and called it using osql, in this way I
> > was able to scipt this change and execute it on our hundreds of
> > different servers very quickly.
> > However, you could just drop this into query analyzer (built into EM
> > in 2005 I recall) and run it:
> > exec sp_denylogin [BUILTIN\administrators]
> > That is it, that will deby local admin access to MSSQL. I also
> > scripted the changing of the sa password if you need that it is:
> > exec sp_Password 'OriginalPasswordHere', 'New_passwordHere1', 'sa'
> > Hope that helps!
> OH! Something to look out for though. =A0If you deny login access to the
> Windows Admin group then the SQL Agent service will stop running and
> say it cannot connect. =A0By default it will be connecting using a local
> Windows Admin account. =A0That will have to be changed (you can right
> click it in EM and go to properties and change it).
> I found a script for that as well, but it is rather long and I don't
> even understand the whole thing. =A0It works though! If you need that as
> well I can put it in here.- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
Thanks for the clarification Tibor! I thought it was by default
simply because I see it that way on all our systems, but since they
were all installed the same way that only means it is by default for
me, not for the actual software. I guess he wasn't concerned about
that though since there was no response.
Then againk, I am more then a little slow to check things myself.|||<< Thanks for the clarification Tibor! I thought it was by default
simply because I see it that way on all our systems, but since they
were all installed the same way that only means it is by default for
me, not for the actual software. >>
that is what I thought. The main reason I replied was just to not leave this thread hanging with a
statement what can be read as the product being "not as secure" by default. :-)
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
"Tonagon" <tony.roberts@.marriott.com> wrote in message
news:aedb14e4-8b3a-4d62-89f1-95fae5eaf3ee@.p73g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 14, 2:37 pm, "Tibor Karaszi"
<tibor_please.no.email_kara...@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote:
> <<OH! Something to look out for though. If you deny login access to the
> Windows Admin group then the SQL Agent service will stop running and
> say it cannot connect. By default it will be connecting using a local
> Windows Admin account. >>
> Agent do not run under an Admin account by default. It will run using the account you specify in
> setup, and can also change later on using SAQL Server Configuration Manager. The handling of
> service
> account is done the same way and tools for SQL Server service as SQL Server Agent service.
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server
> MVPhttp://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asphttp://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
> "Tonagon" <tony.robe...@.marriott.com> wrote in message
> news:8329df77-325f-4595-b1e1-85e8830dd0c3@.y77g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 13, 9:13 am, Tonagon <tony.robe...@.marriott.com> wrote:
>
>
> > On Mar 12, 7:29 am, "Spin" <S...@.spin.com> wrote:
> > > "Zarko Jovanovic" <mind_lessIsHsAsTsEsSsPsA...@.inet.hr> wrote in message
> > >news:fr8dkh$olp$4@.sunce.iskon.hr...
> > > > simple: YES !
> > > How can I stop this behavior?
> > It just so happens that I had to figure out how to disable this myself
> > just last week. I worked on SQL 2000, but hopefully this will work on
> > 2005 as well.
> > I put this into a .sql file and called it using osql, in this way I
> > was able to scipt this change and execute it on our hundreds of
> > different servers very quickly.
> > However, you could just drop this into query analyzer (built into EM
> > in 2005 I recall) and run it:
> > exec sp_denylogin [BUILTIN\administrators]
> > That is it, that will deby local admin access to MSSQL. I also
> > scripted the changing of the sa password if you need that it is:
> > exec sp_Password 'OriginalPasswordHere', 'New_passwordHere1', 'sa'
> > Hope that helps!
> OH! Something to look out for though. If you deny login access to the
> Windows Admin group then the SQL Agent service will stop running and
> say it cannot connect. By default it will be connecting using a local
> Windows Admin account. That will have to be changed (you can right
> click it in EM and go to properties and change it).
> I found a script for that as well, but it is rather long and I don't
> even understand the whole thing. It works though! If you need that as
> well I can put it in here.- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
Thanks for the clarification Tibor! I thought it was by default
simply because I see it that way on all our systems, but since they
were all installed the same way that only means it is by default for
me, not for the actual software. I guess he wasn't concerned about
that though since there was no response.
Then againk, I am more then a little slow to check things myself.|||I haven't seen anyone mention those pesky default local accounts that set
themselves up as sysadmin.
%servername%\SQLServer2005SQLAgentUser$%servername%$MSSQLSERVER
%servername%\SQLServer2005MSSQLUser$%servername%$MSSQLSERVER
It seems that the default setup puts the service account into the later. All
anyone with enough power would have to do is drop an account into one of
these and presto! What are all of the implications of taking these roles out
of the picture (or at least out of admin)? Where is the best documentation
for fixing this?
"Tibor Karaszi" wrote:
> << Thanks for the clarification Tibor! I thought it was by default
> simply because I see it that way on all our systems, but since they
> were all installed the same way that only means it is by default for
> me, not for the actual software. >>
> that is what I thought. The main reason I replied was just to not leave this thread hanging with a
> statement what can be read as the product being "not as secure" by default. :-)
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
>
> "Tonagon" <tony.roberts@.marriott.com> wrote in message
> news:aedb14e4-8b3a-4d62-89f1-95fae5eaf3ee@.p73g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 14, 2:37 pm, "Tibor Karaszi"
> <tibor_please.no.email_kara...@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote:
> > <<OH! Something to look out for though. If you deny login access to the
> > Windows Admin group then the SQL Agent service will stop running and
> > say it cannot connect. By default it will be connecting using a local
> > Windows Admin account. >>
> >
> > Agent do not run under an Admin account by default. It will run using the account you specify in
> > setup, and can also change later on using SAQL Server Configuration Manager. The handling of
> > service
> > account is done the same way and tools for SQL Server service as SQL Server Agent service.
> >
> > --
> > Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server
> > MVPhttp://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asphttp://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
> >
> > "Tonagon" <tony.robe...@.marriott.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news:8329df77-325f-4595-b1e1-85e8830dd0c3@.y77g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
> > On Mar 13, 9:13 am, Tonagon <tony.robe...@.marriott.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Mar 12, 7:29 am, "Spin" <S...@.spin.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > "Zarko Jovanovic" <mind_lessIsHsAsTsEsSsPsA...@.inet.hr> wrote in message
> >
> > > >news:fr8dkh$olp$4@.sunce.iskon.hr...
> >
> > > > > simple: YES !
> >
> > > > How can I stop this behavior?
> >
> > > It just so happens that I had to figure out how to disable this myself
> > > just last week. I worked on SQL 2000, but hopefully this will work on
> > > 2005 as well.
> > > I put this into a .sql file and called it using osql, in this way I
> > > was able to scipt this change and execute it on our hundreds of
> > > different servers very quickly.
> > > However, you could just drop this into query analyzer (built into EM
> > > in 2005 I recall) and run it:
> >
> > > exec sp_denylogin [BUILTIN\administrators]
> >
> > > That is it, that will deby local admin access to MSSQL. I also
> > > scripted the changing of the sa password if you need that it is:
> > > exec sp_Password 'OriginalPasswordHere', 'New_passwordHere1', 'sa'
> >
> > > Hope that helps!
> >
> > OH! Something to look out for though. If you deny login access to the
> > Windows Admin group then the SQL Agent service will stop running and
> > say it cannot connect. By default it will be connecting using a local
> > Windows Admin account. That will have to be changed (you can right
> > click it in EM and go to properties and change it).
> > I found a script for that as well, but it is rather long and I don't
> > even understand the whole thing. It works though! If you need that as
> > well I can put it in here.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
> Thanks for the clarification Tibor! I thought it was by default
> simply because I see it that way on all our systems, but since they
> were all installed the same way that only means it is by default for
> me, not for the actual software. I guess he wasn't concerned about
> that though since there was no response.
> Then againk, I am more then a little slow to check things myself.
>|||err groups. I meant groups instead of accounts.
"Cory" wrote:
> I haven't seen anyone mention those pesky default local accounts that set
> themselves up as sysadmin.
> %servername%\SQLServer2005SQLAgentUser$%servername%$MSSQLSERVER
> %servername%\SQLServer2005MSSQLUser$%servername%$MSSQLSERVER
> It seems that the default setup puts the service account into the later. All
> anyone with enough power would have to do is drop an account into one of
> these and presto! What are all of the implications of taking these roles out
> of the picture (or at least out of admin)? Where is the best documentation
> for fixing this?
>
> "Tibor Karaszi" wrote:
> > << Thanks for the clarification Tibor! I thought it was by default
> > simply because I see it that way on all our systems, but since they
> > were all installed the same way that only means it is by default for
> > me, not for the actual software. >>
> >
> > that is what I thought. The main reason I replied was just to not leave this thread hanging with a
> > statement what can be read as the product being "not as secure" by default. :-)
> >
> > --
> > Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> > http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> > http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
> >
> >
> > "Tonagon" <tony.roberts@.marriott.com> wrote in message
> > news:aedb14e4-8b3a-4d62-89f1-95fae5eaf3ee@.p73g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> > On Mar 14, 2:37 pm, "Tibor Karaszi"
> > <tibor_please.no.email_kara...@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote:
> > > <<OH! Something to look out for though. If you deny login access to the
> > > Windows Admin group then the SQL Agent service will stop running and
> > > say it cannot connect. By default it will be connecting using a local
> > > Windows Admin account. >>
> > >
> > > Agent do not run under an Admin account by default. It will run using the account you specify in
> > > setup, and can also change later on using SAQL Server Configuration Manager. The handling of
> > > service
> > > account is done the same way and tools for SQL Server service as SQL Server Agent service.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server
> > > MVPhttp://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asphttp://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
> > >
> > > "Tonagon" <tony.robe...@.marriott.com> wrote in message
> > >
> > > news:8329df77-325f-4595-b1e1-85e8830dd0c3@.y77g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
> > > On Mar 13, 9:13 am, Tonagon <tony.robe...@.marriott.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Mar 12, 7:29 am, "Spin" <S...@.spin.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > "Zarko Jovanovic" <mind_lessIsHsAsTsEsSsPsA...@.inet.hr> wrote in message
> > >
> > > > >news:fr8dkh$olp$4@.sunce.iskon.hr...
> > >
> > > > > > simple: YES !
> > >
> > > > > How can I stop this behavior?
> > >
> > > > It just so happens that I had to figure out how to disable this myself
> > > > just last week. I worked on SQL 2000, but hopefully this will work on
> > > > 2005 as well.
> > > > I put this into a .sql file and called it using osql, in this way I
> > > > was able to scipt this change and execute it on our hundreds of
> > > > different servers very quickly.
> > > > However, you could just drop this into query analyzer (built into EM
> > > > in 2005 I recall) and run it:
> > >
> > > > exec sp_denylogin [BUILTIN\administrators]
> > >
> > > > That is it, that will deby local admin access to MSSQL. I also
> > > > scripted the changing of the sa password if you need that it is:
> > > > exec sp_Password 'OriginalPasswordHere', 'New_passwordHere1', 'sa'
> > >
> > > > Hope that helps!
> > >
> > > OH! Something to look out for though. If you deny login access to the
> > > Windows Admin group then the SQL Agent service will stop running and
> > > say it cannot connect. By default it will be connecting using a local
> > > Windows Admin account. That will have to be changed (you can right
> > > click it in EM and go to properties and change it).
> > > I found a script for that as well, but it is rather long and I don't
> > > even understand the whole thing. It works though! If you need that as
> > > well I can put it in here.- Hide quoted text -
> > >
> > > - Show quoted text -
> >
> > Thanks for the clarification Tibor! I thought it was by default
> > simply because I see it that way on all our systems, but since they
> > were all installed the same way that only means it is by default for
> > me, not for the actual software. I guess he wasn't concerned about
> > that though since there was no response.
> > Then againk, I am more then a little slow to check things myself.
> >

Do I need two login ID's?

In installed SQL Server under my Win2003 Server userID, specifying NT
authentication. Then I down loaded MS JDBC, which requires Mixed mode
authentication, so I modifyed SQL Server to that. Now in Query analyzer, I
can log in to the db using windows authentication, but my user ID and
password don't work under SQL Server authentication. I need a login ID that
works under SQL Server authentication so I can login via JDBC. Do I need to
establish another ID for this? Can it be the same as the windows ID?
Thanks
JimJim Shaw wrote:
> In installed SQL Server under my Win2003 Server userID, specifying NT
> authentication. Then I down loaded MS JDBC, which requires Mixed
mode
> authentication, so I modifyed SQL Server to that. Now in Query
analyzer, I
> can log in to the db using windows authentication, but my user ID and
> password don't work under SQL Server authentication. I need a login
ID that
> works under SQL Server authentication so I can login via JDBC. Do I
need to
> establish another ID for this? Can it be the same as the windows ID?
The administrator user name is 'sa' and the default password is blank.
You can use that for SQL authentication. Or you can log in using
Windows authentication with jTDS or one of the commercial drivers.
Alin,
The jTDS Project.|||You can (should) create a new SQL login to be used for JDBC.
Make sure that the sa login has a strong password
(alphanumeric, special characters, no known words) and then
hide that one away somewhere. Then create a new SQL login
that you can use for your SQL login connections. You don't
want to use the sa login for applications or daily use due
to security risks. Give the new SQL login just the
permissions it needs for the application.
-Sue
On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 23:55:35 -0500, "Jim Shaw"
<jeshaw2@.comcast.net> wrote:

>In installed SQL Server under my Win2003 Server userID, specifying NT
>authentication. Then I down loaded MS JDBC, which requires Mixed mode
>authentication, so I modifyed SQL Server to that. Now in Query analyzer, I
>can log in to the db using windows authentication, but my user ID and
>password don't work under SQL Server authentication. I need a login ID tha
t
>works under SQL Server authentication so I can login via JDBC. Do I need t
o
>establish another ID for this? Can it be the same as the windows ID?
>Thanks
>Jim
>|||Thanks Sue;
A good answer to my question. It will work for applications having only one
common role for all users.
Now I'm wondering what the best practice is for multiple roles at the
application level of abstraction, e.g., A Compensation System having roles
of HR Clerk, Employee supervisor, Paymaster, Employee, etc.
1. I can do an application level login and manage the roles at the
application level; or,
2. Pass the authentication data in the application's connect to SQL Server
and manage the roles in the database; or,
3. Have multiple sub-applications, each with its own authentication, one for
each application defined role.
Any thoughts on this? I think I like #3 best. Makes development easier I
think. Maybe a combination of #2 & #3 ?
Thanks
Jim
"Sue Hoegemeier" <Sue_H@.nomail.please> wrote in message
news:21il019u4kgjrmj5khi7tcm37uqqg8t1hu@.
4ax.com...
> You can (should) create a new SQL login to be used for JDBC.
> Make sure that the sa login has a strong password
> (alphanumeric, special characters, no known words) and then
> hide that one away somewhere. Then create a new SQL login
> that you can use for your SQL login connections. You don't
> want to use the sa login for applications or daily use due
> to security risks. Give the new SQL login just the
> permissions it needs for the application.
> -Sue
> On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 23:55:35 -0500, "Jim Shaw"
> <jeshaw2@.comcast.net> wrote:
>
I[vbcol=seagreen]
that[vbcol=seagreen]
to[vbcol=seagreen]
>|||Not really. I just don't know enough specifics about your
application or security needs to say. At a high level, I'd
tend to go with first whatever provides the best security.
Next I'd go with ease of maintenance. I'd probably consider
ease of programming last. Years ago, programming everything
using the sa login and a blank password was the easiest for
development and used quite often. That certainly didn't work
out well. With business needs changing and issues such as
sarbanes oxley, I'd go more with whatever serves those areas
best.
-Sue
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 11:32:04 -0500, "Jim Shaw"
<jeshaw2@.comcast.net> wrote:

>Thanks Sue;
>A good answer to my question. It will work for applications having only on
e
>common role for all users.
>Now I'm wondering what the best practice is for multiple roles at the
>application level of abstraction, e.g., A Compensation System having roles
>of HR Clerk, Employee supervisor, Paymaster, Employee, etc.
>1. I can do an application level login and manage the roles at the
>application level; or,
>2. Pass the authentication data in the application's connect to SQL Server
>and manage the roles in the database; or,
>3. Have multiple sub-applications, each with its own authentication, one fo
r
>each application defined role.
>Any thoughts on this? I think I like #3 best. Makes development easier I
>think. Maybe a combination of #2 & #3 ?
>Thanks
>Jim
>"Sue Hoegemeier" <Sue_H@.nomail.please> wrote in message
> news:21il019u4kgjrmj5khi7tcm37uqqg8t1hu@.
4ax.com...
>I
>that
>to
>

Do I need two login ID's?

In installed SQL Server under my Win2003 Server userID, specifying NT
authentication. Then I down loaded MS JDBC, which requires Mixed mode
authentication, so I modifyed SQL Server to that. Now in Query analyzer, I
can log in to the db using windows authentication, but my user ID and
password don't work under SQL Server authentication. I need a login ID that
works under SQL Server authentication so I can login via JDBC. Do I need to
establish another ID for this? Can it be the same as the windows ID?
Thanks
Jim
Jim Shaw wrote:
> In installed SQL Server under my Win2003 Server userID, specifying NT
> authentication. Then I down loaded MS JDBC, which requires Mixed
mode
> authentication, so I modifyed SQL Server to that. Now in Query
analyzer, I
> can log in to the db using windows authentication, but my user ID and
> password don't work under SQL Server authentication. I need a login
ID that
> works under SQL Server authentication so I can login via JDBC. Do I
need to
> establish another ID for this? Can it be the same as the windows ID?
The administrator user name is 'sa' and the default password is blank.
You can use that for SQL authentication. Or you can log in using
Windows authentication with jTDS or one of the commercial drivers.
Alin,
The jTDS Project.
|||You can (should) create a new SQL login to be used for JDBC.
Make sure that the sa login has a strong password
(alphanumeric, special characters, no known words) and then
hide that one away somewhere. Then create a new SQL login
that you can use for your SQL login connections. You don't
want to use the sa login for applications or daily use due
to security risks. Give the new SQL login just the
permissions it needs for the application.
-Sue
On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 23:55:35 -0500, "Jim Shaw"
<jeshaw2@.comcast.net> wrote:

>In installed SQL Server under my Win2003 Server userID, specifying NT
>authentication. Then I down loaded MS JDBC, which requires Mixed mode
>authentication, so I modifyed SQL Server to that. Now in Query analyzer, I
>can log in to the db using windows authentication, but my user ID and
>password don't work under SQL Server authentication. I need a login ID that
>works under SQL Server authentication so I can login via JDBC. Do I need to
>establish another ID for this? Can it be the same as the windows ID?
>Thanks
>Jim
>
|||Thanks Sue;
A good answer to my question. It will work for applications having only one
common role for all users.
Now I'm wondering what the best practice is for multiple roles at the
application level of abstraction, e.g., A Compensation System having roles
of HR Clerk, Employee supervisor, Paymaster, Employee, etc.
1. I can do an application level login and manage the roles at the
application level; or,
2. Pass the authentication data in the application's connect to SQL Server
and manage the roles in the database; or,
3. Have multiple sub-applications, each with its own authentication, one for
each application defined role.
Any thoughts on this? I think I like #3 best. Makes development easier I
think. Maybe a combination of #2 & #3 ?
Thanks
Jim
"Sue Hoegemeier" <Sue_H@.nomail.please> wrote in message
news:21il019u4kgjrmj5khi7tcm37uqqg8t1hu@.4ax.com... [vbcol=seagreen]
> You can (should) create a new SQL login to be used for JDBC.
> Make sure that the sa login has a strong password
> (alphanumeric, special characters, no known words) and then
> hide that one away somewhere. Then create a new SQL login
> that you can use for your SQL login connections. You don't
> want to use the sa login for applications or daily use due
> to security risks. Give the new SQL login just the
> permissions it needs for the application.
> -Sue
> On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 23:55:35 -0500, "Jim Shaw"
> <jeshaw2@.comcast.net> wrote:
I[vbcol=seagreen]
that[vbcol=seagreen]
to
>
|||Not really. I just don't know enough specifics about your
application or security needs to say. At a high level, I'd
tend to go with first whatever provides the best security.
Next I'd go with ease of maintenance. I'd probably consider
ease of programming last. Years ago, programming everything
using the sa login and a blank password was the easiest for
development and used quite often. That certainly didn't work
out well. With business needs changing and issues such as
sarbanes oxley, I'd go more with whatever serves those areas
best.
-Sue
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 11:32:04 -0500, "Jim Shaw"
<jeshaw2@.comcast.net> wrote:

>Thanks Sue;
>A good answer to my question. It will work for applications having only one
>common role for all users.
>Now I'm wondering what the best practice is for multiple roles at the
>application level of abstraction, e.g., A Compensation System having roles
>of HR Clerk, Employee supervisor, Paymaster, Employee, etc.
>1. I can do an application level login and manage the roles at the
>application level; or,
>2. Pass the authentication data in the application's connect to SQL Server
>and manage the roles in the database; or,
>3. Have multiple sub-applications, each with its own authentication, one for
>each application defined role.
>Any thoughts on this? I think I like #3 best. Makes development easier I
>think. Maybe a combination of #2 & #3 ?
>Thanks
>Jim
>"Sue Hoegemeier" <Sue_H@.nomail.please> wrote in message
>news:21il019u4kgjrmj5khi7tcm37uqqg8t1hu@.4ax.com.. .
>I
>that
>to
>

Do I need to reapply SP1 after adding new components?

Hello,

I applied SQL 2005 SP1 and hotfixes to my instance. Now I found the SQL_replication component was not installed. I just installed that component.

1. Do I need to reapply SP1? Then hotfixes?

2. Will reapply SP1 or hotfixes cause problems? I tried on my test server, the SP1 install failed with some errors the first time. It went through Ok the second time. (I have 3 instances on this test server. I only added new component to one instance. When applying SP1 the second time, the installer forces me to apply on all instances and tools; causing outage to all instances. The installer did not force me when I applied SP1 the first time.)

I wonder what is the best practice for handling this case.

thanks,

ktmd

Yes, you will have to.

HTH, Jens Suessmeyer.

http://www.sqlserver2005.de

Do I need SQL Express

I am trying out a Starter Kit which uses SQL Express. I have SQL 2005 Developer and .Net 2.0 framework installed on my XP machine. Do I need to install SQL Express as well? Can't the application work with the full blown version of SQL?

This is my connection string:

<add name="ClubSiteDB" connectionString="initial catalog=ClubDB;Data Source=.\SQLExpress;Integrated Security=true;AttachDBFileName=|DataDirectory|Club.mdf;User Instance=True" providerName="System.Data.SqlClient"/>

This is the error I get:An error has occurred while establishing a connection to the server. When connecting to SQL Server 2005, this failure may be caused by the fact that under the default settings SQL Server does not allow remote connections. (provider: SQL Network Interfaces, error: 26 - Error Locating Server/Instance Specified)

Thanks

You can use your installed SQL but you'll need to modify the connection string and initialize the membership tables in it.

Jeff

|||

Thanks for the response Jeff. What would be the Connection string?

|||

NO. you don't need to install sql express.

Make sure your club.mdf has been attached into your sql server 2005 developer version and then modify your connection string like this:

<add name="constrname" connectionString="Data Source=(local);Initial Catalog=club;Integrated Security=True"
providerName="System.Data.SqlClient" />

Hope my suggestion helps

Do I need an actual mailbox for SQLServerAgent (2000)

I'm following a book and trying to set up MSSQL to email me upon failures
and successful backups. MSSQL and SQLAgent are installed and running under
a network service user account I call "SqlServerService" which is infact a
network user.
In Ent Mgr, I'm going to Management >> Operators and I'm trying to add a new
operator. I add the email (me) account to be emailed and click Test to send
a test message. It returns an error of "error 22022: SqlServerAgent Error:
The SQLServerAgent mail session is not running; check the mail profile
and/or the SqlServerAgent service start up account..."
The SqlServerAgent is indeed running and the Agent Properties is running
under this network account I created.
Any ideas? The account "SqlServerService" doesn't have an actual Exchange
Server mailbox. I just thought it would be possible (as shown in the book)
to send FROM this account. Do I actually need to create the mailbox account
too?
Short answer: Yes.
Long answer and how: [How to configure SQL Mail]
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;263556
HTH, Jens Suessmeyer.

Do I need an actual mailbox for SQLServerAgent (2000)

I'm following a book and trying to set up MSSQL to email me upon failures
and successful backups. MSSQL and SQLAgent are installed and running under
a network service user account I call "SqlServerService" which is infact a
network user.
In Ent Mgr, I'm going to Management >> Operators and I'm trying to add a new
operator. I add the email (me) account to be emailed and click Test to send
a test message. It returns an error of "error 22022: SqlServerAgent Error:
The SQLServerAgent mail session is not running; check the mail profile
and/or the SqlServerAgent service start up account..."
The SqlServerAgent is indeed running and the Agent Properties is running
under this network account I created.
Any ideas? The account "SqlServerService" doesn't have an actual Exchange
Server mailbox. I just thought it would be possible (as shown in the book)
to send FROM this account. Do I actually need to create the mailbox account
too?Short answer: Yes.
Long answer and how: [How to configure SQL Mail]
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;263556
HTH, Jens Suessmeyer.

Do I need an actual mailbox for SQLServerAgent (2000)

I'm following a book and trying to set up MSSQL to email me upon failures
and successful backups. MSSQL and SQLAgent are installed and running under
a network service user account I call "SqlServerService" which is infact a
network user.
In Ent Mgr, I'm going to Management >> Operators and I'm trying to add a new
operator. I add the email (me) account to be emailed and click Test to send
a test message. It returns an error of "error 22022: SqlServerAgent Error:
The SQLServerAgent mail session is not running; check the mail profile
and/or the SqlServerAgent service start up account..."
The SqlServerAgent is indeed running and the Agent Properties is running
under this network account I created.
Any ideas? The account "SqlServerService" doesn't have an actual Exchange
Server mailbox. I just thought it would be possible (as shown in the book)
to send FROM this account. Do I actually need to create the mailbox account
too?Short answer: Yes.
Long answer and how: [How to configure SQL Mail]
http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...kb;en-us;263556
HTH, Jens Suessmeyer.sql

Do I have to install IIS 6 for reporting Services?

Right now we have IIS 5.0 installed on Windows 2000 server. Could we use
reporting services under this configuration?Yes. I used that before I upgraded to 2003 Server. You do have to install
the 1.1 framework so if you have other apps that run with 1.0 you can do
this but you will need to jump through some hoops to have your website use
both.
--
Bruce Loehle-Conger
MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
"Mike Moore" <MikeMoore@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:19079E1D-8F3F-48EF-915C-222D7E6D1A26@.microsoft.com...
> Right now we have IIS 5.0 installed on Windows 2000 server. Could we use
> reporting services under this configuration?

Do I HAVE to have IIS installed to use SQL Server Express 2005? and do I have to install SQLE2K5

Hi,

I'm an absolute beginner trying to learn SQL and Visual Basic/Visual Web developer.

I've downloaded SQL Express 2005 and want to install it on my laptop (Dell XPS, 2gb Ram) so that I can start doing the tutorials (for SQL and VB/VWS). I dont want any connection to the internet - i only want to have it on my local pc.

I'm confused as I 'm sure I read that I dont need to have the IIS service running, and that it wont require a server...however, I keep reading that IIS, and a server is a MUST, and for installing SQLE2005.

I'm so confused, and frustrated that I dare'nt install SQLE2005...

...Can anyone put me out of my misery?

All advice greatly appreciated.

SQLEB

Hi,

If you have downloaded SQL Express edition with Advance Services then only you require to have IIS installed on your system Refer http://download.microsoft.com/download/b/d/1/bd1e0745-0e65-43a5-ac6a-f6173f58d80e/RequirementsSQLEXP2005Advanced.htm

and if you have installed SQL Express w/o Advance Services you don't require to have IIS Refer http://download.microsoft.com/download/b/d/1/bd1e0745-0e65-43a5-ac6a-f6173f58d80e/RequirementsSQLEXP2005.htm

HTH

Hemantgiri S. Goswami

|||No, IIS is NOT required for the use and operation of SQL Server.sql

DNS_HOST_NOT_FOUND on localhost with Adventureworks

Hi, I just installed on XP Pro SP1 - the developer edition for SQL 2000 &
Report Services. The problem I am encountering is that I can not get any
report to render. I can publish/deploy them without error. The report
manager works fine until I click on a report.
Here's the odd part, if I use the reportserver URL such as :
http://localhost/reportserver?%2fSampleReports%2fCompany+Sales&rs:Command=Render
The report renders fine. The issue is rendering in Report Manager. Here is
the full error message:
Bad Gateway
The following error occurred:
[code=DNS_HOST_NOT_FOUND] The host name was not found during the DNS lookup.
Contact your system administrator if the problem is not found by retrying the
URL.
----
Please contact the administrator.
I would appreciate any help.
Thank you.I found the problem - the config file for RSManager only had the computer
name, but not the entire DSN name.
"Bob" wrote:
> Hi, I just installed on XP Pro SP1 - the developer edition for SQL 2000 &
> Report Services. The problem I am encountering is that I can not get any
> report to render. I can publish/deploy them without error. The report
> manager works fine until I click on a report.
> Here's the odd part, if I use the reportserver URL such as :
> http://localhost/reportserver?%2fSampleReports%2fCompany+Sales&rs:Command=Render
> The report renders fine. The issue is rendering in Report Manager. Here is
> the full error message:
> Bad Gateway
> The following error occurred:
> [code=DNS_HOST_NOT_FOUND] The host name was not found during the DNS lookup.
> Contact your system administrator if the problem is not found by retrying the
> URL.
> ----
> Please contact the administrator.
> I would appreciate any help.
> Thank you.sql

Distribution of SQLServer Database

Hi,
We're in the process of developing a .NET application which will use a
SQLServer database. When installed/deployed the application will query this
database. I assume each time the application is installed the SQL Server
database will need to be installed. Is this the case - sorry I know it's a
dumb question but I am a complete SQL Server novice. If this is the case then
which licensing option should we go for?
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
-Kim
Hi Kim
There is a version of SQL Server which is designed to be deployed with user
programs. It's called MSDE & you can read more about it here:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...ar_ts_67ax.asp
There are limits on it's growth (2Gb per db, max 2 CPUs etc) & if you exceed
these, you'd probably be looking at SQL Server Standard Edition.
Regards,
Greg Linwood
SQL Server MVP
"kim d" <kimd@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6DFA23FC-DADB-48A1-BF7B-03EF46AEE5D8@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> We're in the process of developing a .NET application which will use a
> SQLServer database. When installed/deployed the application will query
> this
> database. I assume each time the application is installed the SQL Server
> database will need to be installed. Is this the case - sorry I know it's a
> dumb question but I am a complete SQL Server novice. If this is the case
> then
> which licensing option should we go for?
> Any help would be greatly appreciated.
> -Kim
|||It also depends on what you mean about deplying SQL... YOu might wish all of
the clients to share data from a single database, or you might wish to
install the MSDE version on each client, so there is no data sharing...
In either case, at least you will have to the the SQL Connectivity piece on
the client.
Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Mariner, Charlotte, NC
www.mariner-usa.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
"kim d" <kimd@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6DFA23FC-DADB-48A1-BF7B-03EF46AEE5D8@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> We're in the process of developing a .NET application which will use a
> SQLServer database. When installed/deployed the application will query
this
> database. I assume each time the application is installed the SQL Server
> database will need to be installed. Is this the case - sorry I know it's a
> dumb question but I am a complete SQL Server novice. If this is the case
then
> which licensing option should we go for?
> Any help would be greatly appreciated.
> -Kim
|||Ideally clients would share data from a single database but there would be
the capability to work 'off-line' - in other words users could access the
database even while not explicitly connected to the server. I presume in this
case it would require a separate MSDE installation on each client as well as
on the server database. Does MSDE support this type of behaviour?
"Wayne Snyder" wrote:

> It also depends on what you mean about deplying SQL... YOu might wish all of
> the clients to share data from a single database, or you might wish to
> install the MSDE version on each client, so there is no data sharing...
> In either case, at least you will have to the the SQL Connectivity piece on
> the client.
> --
> Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
> Mariner, Charlotte, NC
> www.mariner-usa.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
> "kim d" <kimd@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:6DFA23FC-DADB-48A1-BF7B-03EF46AEE5D8@.microsoft.com...
> this
> then
>
>
|||Great, so does this mean that we would only need to purchase a SQLServer
developers license?
"Greg Linwood" wrote:

> Hi Kim
> There is a version of SQL Server which is designed to be deployed with user
> programs. It's called MSDE & you can read more about it here:
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...ar_ts_67ax.asp
> There are limits on it's growth (2Gb per db, max 2 CPUs etc) & if you exceed
> these, you'd probably be looking at SQL Server Standard Edition.
> Regards,
> Greg Linwood
> SQL Server MVP
> "kim d" <kimd@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:6DFA23FC-DADB-48A1-BF7B-03EF46AEE5D8@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||In this case, you'd be looking at Personal Edition, which is on the SS
media. Then you replicate the Central Database to your clients, which can
then go "offline."
That's what this edition was created for. It has restrictions, but
different than those of MSDE, which is more an Access database replacement.
SS Personal Edition is more for business, semi-connected users, like sales
staff.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas

"kim d" <kimd@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:7E0720DF-6224-4B91-A92E-5D4C542D7FC3@.microsoft.com...
Ideally clients would share data from a single database but there would be
the capability to work 'off-line' - in other words users could access the
database even while not explicitly connected to the server. I presume in
this
case it would require a separate MSDE installation on each client as well as
on the server database. Does MSDE support this type of behaviour?
"Wayne Snyder" wrote:

> It also depends on what you mean about deplying SQL... YOu might wish all
of
> the clients to share data from a single database, or you might wish to
> install the MSDE version on each client, so there is no data sharing...
> In either case, at least you will have to the the SQL Connectivity piece
on[vbcol=seagreen]
> the client.
> --
> Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
> Mariner, Charlotte, NC
> www.mariner-usa.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
> "kim d" <kimd@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:6DFA23FC-DADB-48A1-BF7B-03EF46AEE5D8@.microsoft.com...
> this
a
> then
>
>

Distribution of SQLServer Database

Hi,
We're in the process of developing a .NET application which will use a
SQLServer database. When installed/deployed the application will query this
database. I assume each time the application is installed the SQL Server
database will need to be installed. Is this the case - sorry I know it's a
dumb question but I am a complete SQL Server novice. If this is the case then
which licensing option should we go for?
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
-KimHi Kim
There is a version of SQL Server which is designed to be deployed with user
programs. It's called MSDE & you can read more about it here:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/architec/8_ar_ts_67ax.asp
There are limits on it's growth (2Gb per db, max 2 CPUs etc) & if you exceed
these, you'd probably be looking at SQL Server Standard Edition.
Regards,
Greg Linwood
SQL Server MVP
"kim d" <kimd@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6DFA23FC-DADB-48A1-BF7B-03EF46AEE5D8@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> We're in the process of developing a .NET application which will use a
> SQLServer database. When installed/deployed the application will query
> this
> database. I assume each time the application is installed the SQL Server
> database will need to be installed. Is this the case - sorry I know it's a
> dumb question but I am a complete SQL Server novice. If this is the case
> then
> which licensing option should we go for?
> Any help would be greatly appreciated.
> -Kim|||It also depends on what you mean about deplying SQL... YOu might wish all of
the clients to share data from a single database, or you might wish to
install the MSDE version on each client, so there is no data sharing...
In either case, at least you will have to the the SQL Connectivity piece on
the client.
--
Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Mariner, Charlotte, NC
www.mariner-usa.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
"kim d" <kimd@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6DFA23FC-DADB-48A1-BF7B-03EF46AEE5D8@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> We're in the process of developing a .NET application which will use a
> SQLServer database. When installed/deployed the application will query
this
> database. I assume each time the application is installed the SQL Server
> database will need to be installed. Is this the case - sorry I know it's a
> dumb question but I am a complete SQL Server novice. If this is the case
then
> which licensing option should we go for?
> Any help would be greatly appreciated.
> -Kim|||Ideally clients would share data from a single database but there would be
the capability to work 'off-line' - in other words users could access the
database even while not explicitly connected to the server. I presume in this
case it would require a separate MSDE installation on each client as well as
on the server database. Does MSDE support this type of behaviour?
"Wayne Snyder" wrote:
> It also depends on what you mean about deplying SQL... YOu might wish all of
> the clients to share data from a single database, or you might wish to
> install the MSDE version on each client, so there is no data sharing...
> In either case, at least you will have to the the SQL Connectivity piece on
> the client.
> --
> Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
> Mariner, Charlotte, NC
> www.mariner-usa.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
> "kim d" <kimd@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:6DFA23FC-DADB-48A1-BF7B-03EF46AEE5D8@.microsoft.com...
> > Hi,
> > We're in the process of developing a .NET application which will use a
> > SQLServer database. When installed/deployed the application will query
> this
> > database. I assume each time the application is installed the SQL Server
> > database will need to be installed. Is this the case - sorry I know it's a
> > dumb question but I am a complete SQL Server novice. If this is the case
> then
> > which licensing option should we go for?
> > Any help would be greatly appreciated.
> > -Kim
>
>|||Great, so does this mean that we would only need to purchase a SQLServer
developers license?
"Greg Linwood" wrote:
> Hi Kim
> There is a version of SQL Server which is designed to be deployed with user
> programs. It's called MSDE & you can read more about it here:
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/architec/8_ar_ts_67ax.asp
> There are limits on it's growth (2Gb per db, max 2 CPUs etc) & if you exceed
> these, you'd probably be looking at SQL Server Standard Edition.
> Regards,
> Greg Linwood
> SQL Server MVP
> "kim d" <kimd@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:6DFA23FC-DADB-48A1-BF7B-03EF46AEE5D8@.microsoft.com...
> > Hi,
> > We're in the process of developing a .NET application which will use a
> > SQLServer database. When installed/deployed the application will query
> > this
> > database. I assume each time the application is installed the SQL Server
> > database will need to be installed. Is this the case - sorry I know it's a
> > dumb question but I am a complete SQL Server novice. If this is the case
> > then
> > which licensing option should we go for?
> > Any help would be greatly appreciated.
> > -Kim
>
>|||In this case, you'd be looking at Personal Edition, which is on the SS
media. Then you replicate the Central Database to your clients, which can
then go "offline."
That's what this edition was created for. It has restrictions, but
different than those of MSDE, which is more an Access database replacement.
SS Personal Edition is more for business, semi-connected users, like sales
staff.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"kim d" <kimd@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:7E0720DF-6224-4B91-A92E-5D4C542D7FC3@.microsoft.com...
Ideally clients would share data from a single database but there would be
the capability to work 'off-line' - in other words users could access the
database even while not explicitly connected to the server. I presume in
this
case it would require a separate MSDE installation on each client as well as
on the server database. Does MSDE support this type of behaviour?
"Wayne Snyder" wrote:
> It also depends on what you mean about deplying SQL... YOu might wish all
of
> the clients to share data from a single database, or you might wish to
> install the MSDE version on each client, so there is no data sharing...
> In either case, at least you will have to the the SQL Connectivity piece
on
> the client.
> --
> Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
> Mariner, Charlotte, NC
> www.mariner-usa.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
> "kim d" <kimd@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:6DFA23FC-DADB-48A1-BF7B-03EF46AEE5D8@.microsoft.com...
> > Hi,
> > We're in the process of developing a .NET application which will use a
> > SQLServer database. When installed/deployed the application will query
> this
> > database. I assume each time the application is installed the SQL Server
> > database will need to be installed. Is this the case - sorry I know it's
a
> > dumb question but I am a complete SQL Server novice. If this is the case
> then
> > which licensing option should we go for?
> > Any help would be greatly appreciated.
> > -Kim
>
>

Distributed Transactions with SQL Express, Server 2003, and XP SP2

I have SQL Express installed on a Windows XP SP2 machine and on a Windows
Server 2003 machine. I added the Windows Server 2003 machine as a linked
server on the Windows XP SP2 machine.
I have checked and double checked that the DTC settings are correct on both
machines and that the DTC is running on both machines, but I am unable to
execute a distributed transaction. I have even tried playing around with many
different combinations of settings to try to get this to work. I have
followed the directions in many of the documents that can be found online on
this issue, but without success.
I am using SQL Server security and am able to execute queries if I do not
begin a transaction. But I cannot execute them if I begin a transaction.
When I execute them in a transaction, I get the following error:
OLE DB provider "SQLNCLI" for linked server "linkedserver" returned message
"No transaction is active.".
Msg 7391, Level 16, State 2, Procedure proc_procedure_name, Line 420
The operation could not be performed because OLE DB provider "SQLNCLI" for
linked server "linkedserver" was unable to begin a distributed transaction.
Does anyone have any ideas?
--
Corey YoungCan MSDTC get through the XP Firewall?
--
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
"Young, Corey" <YoungCorey@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E2E6FDA4-D185-4625-9BEB-D4995254EE70@.microsoft.com...
>I have SQL Express installed on a Windows XP SP2 machine and on a Windows
> Server 2003 machine. I added the Windows Server 2003 machine as a linked
> server on the Windows XP SP2 machine.
> I have checked and double checked that the DTC settings are correct on
> both
> machines and that the DTC is running on both machines, but I am unable to
> execute a distributed transaction. I have even tried playing around with
> many
> different combinations of settings to try to get this to work. I have
> followed the directions in many of the documents that can be found online
> on
> this issue, but without success.
> I am using SQL Server security and am able to execute queries if I do not
> begin a transaction. But I cannot execute them if I begin a transaction.
> When I execute them in a transaction, I get the following error:
> OLE DB provider "SQLNCLI" for linked server "linkedserver" returned
> message
> "No transaction is active.".
> Msg 7391, Level 16, State 2, Procedure proc_procedure_name, Line 420
> The operation could not be performed because OLE DB provider "SQLNCLI" for
> linked server "linkedserver" was unable to begin a distributed
> transaction.
> Does anyone have any ideas?
> --
> Corey Young
>|||I turned the firewall off on both machines.
--
Corey Young
"Roger Wolter[MSFT]" wrote:
> Can MSDTC get through the XP Firewall?
> --
> 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
> "Young, Corey" <YoungCorey@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:E2E6FDA4-D185-4625-9BEB-D4995254EE70@.microsoft.com...
> >I have SQL Express installed on a Windows XP SP2 machine and on a Windows
> > Server 2003 machine. I added the Windows Server 2003 machine as a linked
> > server on the Windows XP SP2 machine.
> >
> > I have checked and double checked that the DTC settings are correct on
> > both
> > machines and that the DTC is running on both machines, but I am unable to
> > execute a distributed transaction. I have even tried playing around with
> > many
> > different combinations of settings to try to get this to work. I have
> > followed the directions in many of the documents that can be found online
> > on
> > this issue, but without success.
> >
> > I am using SQL Server security and am able to execute queries if I do not
> > begin a transaction. But I cannot execute them if I begin a transaction.
> >
> > When I execute them in a transaction, I get the following error:
> >
> > OLE DB provider "SQLNCLI" for linked server "linkedserver" returned
> > message
> > "No transaction is active.".
> >
> > Msg 7391, Level 16, State 2, Procedure proc_procedure_name, Line 420
> >
> > The operation could not be performed because OLE DB provider "SQLNCLI" for
> > linked server "linkedserver" was unable to begin a distributed
> > transaction.
> >
> > Does anyone have any ideas?
> >
> > --
> > Corey Young
> >
>
>

Distributed Transactions with SQL Express, Server 2003, and XP SP2

I have SQL Express installed on a Windows XP SP2 machine and on a Windows
Server 2003 machine. I added the Windows Server 2003 machine as a linked
server on the Windows XP SP2 machine.
I have checked and double checked that the DTC settings are correct on both
machines and that the DTC is running on both machines, but I am unable to
execute a distributed transaction. I have even tried playing around with many
different combinations of settings to try to get this to work. I have
followed the directions in many of the documents that can be found online on
this issue, but without success.
I am using SQL Server security and am able to execute queries if I do not
begin a transaction. But I cannot execute them if I begin a transaction.
When I execute them in a transaction, I get the following error:
OLE DB provider "SQLNCLI" for linked server "linkedserver" returned message
"No transaction is active.".
Msg 7391, Level 16, State 2, Procedure proc_procedure_name, Line 420
The operation could not be performed because OLE DB provider "SQLNCLI" for
linked server "linkedserver" was unable to begin a distributed transaction.
Does anyone have any ideas?
Corey Young
Can MSDTC get through the XP Firewall?
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
"Young, Corey" <YoungCorey@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E2E6FDA4-D185-4625-9BEB-D4995254EE70@.microsoft.com...
>I have SQL Express installed on a Windows XP SP2 machine and on a Windows
> Server 2003 machine. I added the Windows Server 2003 machine as a linked
> server on the Windows XP SP2 machine.
> I have checked and double checked that the DTC settings are correct on
> both
> machines and that the DTC is running on both machines, but I am unable to
> execute a distributed transaction. I have even tried playing around with
> many
> different combinations of settings to try to get this to work. I have
> followed the directions in many of the documents that can be found online
> on
> this issue, but without success.
> I am using SQL Server security and am able to execute queries if I do not
> begin a transaction. But I cannot execute them if I begin a transaction.
> When I execute them in a transaction, I get the following error:
> OLE DB provider "SQLNCLI" for linked server "linkedserver" returned
> message
> "No transaction is active.".
> Msg 7391, Level 16, State 2, Procedure proc_procedure_name, Line 420
> The operation could not be performed because OLE DB provider "SQLNCLI" for
> linked server "linkedserver" was unable to begin a distributed
> transaction.
> Does anyone have any ideas?
> --
> Corey Young
>

Distributed Transactions with SQL Express, Server 2003, and XP SP2

I have SQL Express installed on a Windows XP SP2 machine and on a Windows
Server 2003 machine. I added the Windows Server 2003 machine as a linked
server on the Windows XP SP2 machine.
I have checked and double checked that the DTC settings are correct on both
machines and that the DTC is running on both machines, but I am unable to
execute a distributed transaction. I have even tried playing around with man
y
different combinations of settings to try to get this to work. I have
followed the directions in many of the documents that can be found online on
this issue, but without success.
I am using SQL Server security and am able to execute queries if I do not
begin a transaction. But I cannot execute them if I begin a transaction.
When I execute them in a transaction, I get the following error:
OLE DB provider "SQLNCLI" for linked server "linkedserver" returned message
"No transaction is active.".
Msg 7391, Level 16, State 2, Procedure proc_procedure_name, Line 420
The operation could not be performed because OLE DB provider "SQLNCLI" for
linked server "linkedserver" was unable to begin a distributed transaction.
Does anyone have any ideas?
Corey YoungCan MSDTC get through the XP Firewall?
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
"Young, Corey" <YoungCorey@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E2E6FDA4-D185-4625-9BEB-D4995254EE70@.microsoft.com...
>I have SQL Express installed on a Windows XP SP2 machine and on a Windows
> Server 2003 machine. I added the Windows Server 2003 machine as a linked
> server on the Windows XP SP2 machine.
> I have checked and double checked that the DTC settings are correct on
> both
> machines and that the DTC is running on both machines, but I am unable to
> execute a distributed transaction. I have even tried playing around with
> many
> different combinations of settings to try to get this to work. I have
> followed the directions in many of the documents that can be found online
> on
> this issue, but without success.
> I am using SQL Server security and am able to execute queries if I do not
> begin a transaction. But I cannot execute them if I begin a transaction.
> When I execute them in a transaction, I get the following error:
> OLE DB provider "SQLNCLI" for linked server "linkedserver" returned
> message
> "No transaction is active.".
> Msg 7391, Level 16, State 2, Procedure proc_procedure_name, Line 420
> The operation could not be performed because OLE DB provider "SQLNCLI" for
> linked server "linkedserver" was unable to begin a distributed
> transaction.
> Does anyone have any ideas?
> --
> Corey Young
>