A connection could not be made to the report server http://[IP Address]/ReportServer

Hi

I have sql server 2005 Business Intelligent studio on my machine and Report server on some other machine. I created one rdl file and tried to deploy it on the report server. I have checked the report folder name and everything. But the error mentioned in the subject is being thrown. Additional information is

The request failed with HTTP status 407: Proxy Authentication Required. (Microsoft.ReportingServices.Designer)

Please let me know what all I need to do to resolve the problem.

Regards

Rajesh

Hi,

I too faced the same problem. I have a temporary solution . First copy these files in the machine ( Report Server ). copy the full folder i.e folder containing the reports and its handles(.vssscc files,.rptproj files). Then deploy it. This worked .

Regards

neevarp

A connection could not be made to the report server http://[IP Address]/ReportServer

Hi

I have sql server 2005 Business Intelligent studio on my machine and Report server on some other machine. I created one rdl file and tried to deploy it on the report server. I have checked the report folder name and everything. But the error mentioned in the subject is being thrown. Additional information is

The request failed with HTTP status 407: Proxy Authentication Required. (Microsoft.ReportingServices.Designer)

Please let me know what all I need to do to resolve the problem.

Regards

Rajesh

Hi,

I too faced the same problem. I have a temporary solution . First copy these files in the machine ( Report Server ). copy the full folder i.e folder containing the reports and its handles(.vssscc files,.rptproj files). Then deploy it. This worked .

Regards

neevarp

A Connection cannot be made

Hello
I try to build my cube on localhost by VS2005, while the data source is on the other machine. When I deploy the cube, it gives me the following error msg:
The project could not be deployed to the 'localhost' server because of the following connectivity problems: A connection cannot be made. Ensure that the server is running. To verify or update the name of the target server, right-click on the project in Solution Explorer, select Project Properties, click on the Deployment tab, and then enter the name of the server.
I tried to fix it by following the instruction, but it does not work. I think my target server should be localhost, since my cube is built on the localhost, is it right? And I check my MS SQL server 2005 has been upgraded to package 1.
I am new to VS 2005, and really appreciate any help.
Thank you so much!
Aurora

Did you install SQL Server Analysis Services?

Take a look in the SQL Server Configuration Manager and see if it is running.

Edward.
--
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

|||I checked it already, it is running
|||

Can you connect to Analysis Server using SQL Management Studio? If yes, double check your project settings in BI Dev Studio. Try and use machine name instead of localhost as a Target server

Here is some information for you to troubleshoot connectivity problems: http://www.sqljunkies.com/WebLog/edwardm/

Edward.
--
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

|||Thank you, I fixed it.|||Could you finger out how to fix it, please?

A Connection cannot be made

Hello
I try to build my cube on localhost by VS2005, while the data source is on the other machine. When I deploy the cube, it gives me the following error msg:
The project could not be deployed to the 'localhost' server because of the following connectivity problems: A connection cannot be made. Ensure that the server is running. To verify or update the name of the target server, right-click on the project in Solution Explorer, select Project Properties, click on the Deployment tab, and then enter the name of the server.
I tried to fix it by following the instruction, but it does not work. I think my target server should be localhost, since my cube is built on the localhost, is it right? And I check my MS SQL server 2005 has been upgraded to package 1.
I am new to VS 2005, and really appreciate any help.
Thank you so much!
Aurora

Did you install SQL Server Analysis Services?

Take a look in the SQL Server Configuration Manager and see if it is running.

Edward.
--
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

|||I checked it already, it is running
|||

Can you connect to Analysis Server using SQL Management Studio? If yes, double check your project settings in BI Dev Studio. Try and use machine name instead of localhost as a Target server

Here is some information for you to troubleshoot connectivity problems: http://www.sqljunkies.com/WebLog/edwardm/

Edward.
--
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

|||Thank you, I fixed it.|||Could you finger out how to fix it, please?sql

911 Help! Why can't I get a functional version of SQL installed on my machine?

Hello Everyone, I am trying to install SQL 2005 on my machine. All I want is the functionality that I enjoyed with SQL 2000- Query Analyzer and Enterprise Manager. For some reason, the version of SQL 2005 that I am installing is only giving me an option for the Configuration Manger which does not provide access to the Management Console. It is my understanding that I need the Management Console to create databases, look at tables in my databases, etc., etc. just like I did in Enterprise Manager. Is there anyone who can tell me what I'm doing wrong? Currently, the cd that I have says SQL Developer Edition. Thanks.

You have to expressly install the client tools. The default installation only installs the server.|||EM is replaced by SQL Server Management Studio, just for the case you are wondering where the EM is installed :-)

Jens K. Suessmeyer.

http://www.sqlserver2005.de|||Hello, your answer was very enlightening and I was able to find the client tools you referenced...another question...did you ever have installation issues? Now, everytime I try and run the installation routine with the client tools, the installation errors out before completing the installation. Any thoughts?|||

A lot of folks experience various kinds of errors.

Please post the errors you are receiving so we can better help you.

|||

Feel free to post any setup related questions to the setup & upgrade forum and include any specific error messages you are seeing.

Thanks,
Sam Lester (MSFT)

8 GB of RAM installed

SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition machine running Windows 2000 Advanced Server. The server has 8 GB of RAM installed but for some reason SQL Server is only utilizing less than 4 GB. What would the likely cause be?
Three thoughts:
You are not using /3GB /PAE within the boot.ini
You have not configured SQL Server to with the "awe enabled" option (exec
sp_configure).
Memory usage is being restricted by min server memory (MB) and max server
memory (MB) (exec sp_configure).
Keith
"Serverdba" <Serverdba@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A4DAD1E0-5C6A-49D4-8631-6DE54777B44B@.microsoft.com...
> SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition machine running Windows 2000 Advanced
Server. The server has 8 GB of RAM installed but for some reason SQL Server
is only utilizing less than 4 GB. What would the likely cause be?
|||Are you using the /3GB in your boot.ini? Look in books online under
"Managing AWE Memory."
-John Oakes
"Serverdba" <Serverdba@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A4DAD1E0-5C6A-49D4-8631-6DE54777B44B@.microsoft.com...
> SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition machine running Windows 2000 Advanced
Server. The server has 8 GB of RAM installed but for some reason SQL Server
is only utilizing less than 4 GB. What would the likely cause be?
|||All those option is set. Still same problem
"John Oakes" wrote:

> Are you using the /3GB in your boot.ini? Look in books online under
> "Managing AWE Memory."
> -John Oakes
> "Serverdba" <Serverdba@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:A4DAD1E0-5C6A-49D4-8631-6DE54777B44B@.microsoft.com...
> Server. The server has 8 GB of RAM installed but for some reason SQL Server
> is only utilizing less than 4 GB. What would the likely cause be?
>
>
|||Did you reboot after changing boot.ini?
-John Oakes
"Serverdba" <Serverdba@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:188FFB29-DDE5-42B3-A802-DC671FC7B68A@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> All those option is set. Still same problem
> "John Oakes" wrote:
Advanced[vbcol=seagreen]
Server[vbcol=seagreen]
|||You also need the /PAE set in the Boot.ini.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Serverdba" <Serverdba@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:188FFB29-DDE5-42B3-A802-DC671FC7B68A@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> All those option is set. Still same problem
> "John Oakes" wrote:
Advanced[vbcol=seagreen]
Server[vbcol=seagreen]
|||Serverdba wrote:

> SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition machine running Windows 2000 Advanced Server. The server has 8 GB of RAM installed but for some reason SQL Server is only utilizing less than 4 GB. What would the likely cause be?
Hi,
The Account which starts the SQL Service must have the privilege "lock
pages in memory" - you can set this in the local policy settings

8 GB of RAM installed

SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition machine running Windows 2000 Advanced Ser
ver. The server has 8 GB of RAM installed but for some reason SQL Server is
only utilizing less than 4 GB. What would the likely cause be?Three thoughts:
You are not using /3GB /PAE within the boot.ini
You have not configured SQL Server to with the "awe enabled" option (exec
sp_configure).
Memory usage is being restricted by min server memory (MB) and max server
memory (MB) (exec sp_configure).
Keith
"Serverdba" <Serverdba@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A4DAD1E0-5C6A-49D4-8631-6DE54777B44B@.microsoft.com...
> SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition machine running Windows 2000 Advanced
Server. The server has 8 GB of RAM installed but for some reason SQL Server
is only utilizing less than 4 GB. What would the likely cause be?|||Are you using the /3GB in your boot.ini? Look in books online under
"Managing AWE Memory."
-John Oakes
"Serverdba" <Serverdba@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A4DAD1E0-5C6A-49D4-8631-6DE54777B44B@.microsoft.com...
> SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition machine running Windows 2000 Advanced
Server. The server has 8 GB of RAM installed but for some reason SQL Server
is only utilizing less than 4 GB. What would the likely cause be?|||All those option is set. Still same problem
"John Oakes" wrote:

> Are you using the /3GB in your boot.ini? Look in books online under
> "Managing AWE Memory."
> -John Oakes
> "Serverdba" <Serverdba@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:A4DAD1E0-5C6A-49D4-8631-6DE54777B44B@.microsoft.com...
> Server. The server has 8 GB of RAM installed but for some reason SQL Serve
r
> is only utilizing less than 4 GB. What would the likely cause be?
>
>|||Did you reboot after changing boot.ini?
-John Oakes
"Serverdba" <Serverdba@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:188FFB29-DDE5-42B3-A802-DC671FC7B68A@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> All those option is set. Still same problem
> "John Oakes" wrote:
>
Advanced[vbcol=seagreen]
Server[vbcol=seagreen]|||You also need the /PAE set in the Boot.ini.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Serverdba" <Serverdba@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:188FFB29-DDE5-42B3-A802-DC671FC7B68A@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> All those option is set. Still same problem
> "John Oakes" wrote:
>
Advanced[vbcol=seagreen]
Server[vbcol=seagreen]|||Serverdba wrote:

> SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition machine running Windows 2000 Advanced Server. T
he server has 8 GB of RAM installed but for some reason SQL Server is only utilizing
less than 4 GB. What would the likely cause be?
Hi,
The Account which starts the SQL Service must have the privilege "lock
pages in memory" - you can set this in the local policy settings

64-Bits Failover Cluster with two instances

We have xSeries 460(x3950-8878) IBM Machine , mounted at win2003 and sql 2005
64-bits.
At future processes, this machine will take over all distributed database
with many application.
The failover clauster is configured with Active/Active node and I read about
reconfigure processor and I/O Affinity and memory at sp_configure procedure
to measure up or , perhaps take a base line to avoid series problems about
performance.
so, any help, article or step-by-step to guide our future away.
Thanks.
Kris
Message posted via http://www.droptable.com
More Information:
Both machine have 128GB Ram and 32 processor (dual core).
Krisnamourt wrote:
>We have xSeries 460(x3950-8878) IBM Machine , mounted at win2003 and sql 2005
>64-bits.
>At future processes, this machine will take over all distributed database
>with many application.
>The failover clauster is configured with Active/Active node and I read about
>reconfigure processor and I/O Affinity and memory at sp_configure procedure
>to measure up or , perhaps take a base line to avoid series problems about
>performance.
>so, any help, article or step-by-step to guide our future away.
>Thanks.
>Kris
Message posted via droptable.com
http://www.droptable.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/sql-server-clustering/200707/1

64bit windows and 32bit SQL

I have a 64bit Windows Server machine running a 32bit version of SQL 2000
Standard. I am running into 'insufficient memory available' errors. I
upgraded the RAM from 4GB to 8GB, but the problem persists.
Do I need to use the /PAE or /3GB boot switch even though I am running a
64bit version of Windows? Do I need AWE setup for SQL to access more
memory?
I figure this has more to do with the 32 bit version of SQL not being able
to access all the memory. Any ideas?SQL 2000 Standard is limited to 2GB RAM.
--
Kevin Hill
3NF Consulting
http://www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
http://kevin3nf.blogspot.com
"Marc Speed" <vw_marc@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:egONT2E$GHA.1220@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>I have a 64bit Windows Server machine running a 32bit version of SQL 2000
>Standard. I am running into 'insufficient memory available' errors. I
>upgraded the RAM from 4GB to 8GB, but the problem persists.
> Do I need to use the /PAE or /3GB boot switch even though I am running a
> 64bit version of Windows? Do I need AWE setup for SQL to access more
> memory?
> I figure this has more to do with the 32 bit version of SQL not being able
> to access all the memory. Any ideas?
>
>|||> I am running into 'insufficient memory available' errors.
Throwing more memory at the problem is probably not the solution. Have you
installed SP4? Do you get the error with only certain types of queries?
--
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Marc Speed" <vw_marc@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:egONT2E$GHA.1220@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>I have a 64bit Windows Server machine running a 32bit version of SQL 2000
>Standard. I am running into 'insufficient memory available' errors. I
>upgraded the RAM from 4GB to 8GB, but the problem persists.
> Do I need to use the /PAE or /3GB boot switch even though I am running a
> 64bit version of Windows? Do I need AWE setup for SQL to access more
> memory?
> I figure this has more to do with the 32 bit version of SQL not being able
> to access all the memory. Any ideas?
>
>

64bit windows and 32bit SQL

I have a 64bit Windows Server machine running a 32bit version of SQL 2000
Standard. I am running into 'insufficient memory available' errors. I
upgraded the RAM from 4GB to 8GB, but the problem persists.
Do I need to use the /PAE or /3GB boot switch even though I am running a
64bit version of Windows? Do I need AWE setup for SQL to access more
memory?
I figure this has more to do with the 32 bit version of SQL not being able
to access all the memory. Any ideas?SQL 2000 Standard is limited to 2GB RAM.
Kevin Hill
3NF Consulting
http://www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
http://kevin3nf.blogspot.com
"Marc Speed" <vw_marc@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:egONT2E$GHA.1220@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>I have a 64bit Windows Server machine running a 32bit version of SQL 2000
>Standard. I am running into 'insufficient memory available' errors. I
>upgraded the RAM from 4GB to 8GB, but the problem persists.
> Do I need to use the /PAE or /3GB boot switch even though I am running a
> 64bit version of Windows? Do I need AWE setup for SQL to access more
> memory?
> I figure this has more to do with the 32 bit version of SQL not being able
> to access all the memory. Any ideas?
>
>|||> I am running into 'insufficient memory available' errors.
Throwing more memory at the problem is probably not the solution. Have you
installed SP4? Do you get the error with only certain types of queries?
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Marc Speed" <vw_marc@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:egONT2E$GHA.1220@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>I have a 64bit Windows Server machine running a 32bit version of SQL 2000
>Standard. I am running into 'insufficient memory available' errors. I
>upgraded the RAM from 4GB to 8GB, but the problem persists.
> Do I need to use the /PAE or /3GB boot switch even though I am running a
> 64bit version of Windows? Do I need AWE setup for SQL to access more
> memory?
> I figure this has more to do with the 32 bit version of SQL not being able
> to access all the memory. Any ideas?
>
>

64bit Server 32bit Client

I installed SQL 2005 on a 64bit server. Can I still use enterprise studio on a 32bit client machine?

The install CD's are 64bit and when I try to find the enterprise studio to install on my 32bit machine i get an error. Is there a place to download the 32bit enterprise studio? What are my options here?

Thanks in advance.

Mike

32 bit tools can happily talk to a 64 bit server.

64 bit ODBC Datasource

Hello together
I'm running Reporting Services on a 64 bit Windows 2003 R2 machine. I've
installed the MyOdbc 3.51 Drivers for MySql which I would like to use as the
Datasource for my reports. I configured and tested the ODBC connection
successfully using the odbcad32.exe in the windows\syswow64 folder.
But when I deploy a report which I designed on my 32 bit development machine
where all is running correctly, and I run the report on the server, it
cannot find the datasource.
I think it has the same reason why I cannot see the MyODBC driver in the
normal ODBC Configuration Manager in the Administrative Tools.
Is there a possiblity to do that anyway'
Thank you and greetings from Switzerland
ThomasHi Thomas,
Did you get a response to this question? I'm not using MySQL, but
I've spent most of today chasing this exact problem. I can tell you
that hacking the registry doesn't work, but I'd really like to know if
you heard from someone that had solved it, or if you found the answer
yourself.
Thanks in advance.
Dan
Thomas Bolt wrote:
> Hello together
> I'm running Reporting Services on a 64 bit Windows 2003 R2 machine. I've
> installed the MyOdbc 3.51 Drivers for MySql which I would like to use as the
> Datasource for my reports. I configured and tested the ODBC connection
> successfully using the odbcad32.exe in the windows\syswow64 folder.
> But when I deploy a report which I designed on my 32 bit development machine
> where all is running correctly, and I run the report on the server, it
> cannot find the datasource.
> I think it has the same reason why I cannot see the MyODBC driver in the
> normal ODBC Configuration Manager in the Administrative Tools.
> Is there a possiblity to do that anyway'
> Thank you and greetings from Switzerland
> Thomas|||Hi Dan,
Did you get anywhere with this? I'm in exactly the same position that you
were in August!
Any help would be very much appreciated.
Rob
"barnetted@.michigan.gov" wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
> Did you get a response to this question? I'm not using MySQL, but
> I've spent most of today chasing this exact problem. I can tell you
> that hacking the registry doesn't work, but I'd really like to know if
> you heard from someone that had solved it, or if you found the answer
> yourself.
> Thanks in advance.
> Dan
> Thomas Bolt wrote:
> > Hello together
> >
> > I'm running Reporting Services on a 64 bit Windows 2003 R2 machine. I've
> > installed the MyOdbc 3.51 Drivers for MySql which I would like to use as the
> > Datasource for my reports. I configured and tested the ODBC connection
> > successfully using the odbcad32.exe in the windows\syswow64 folder.
> > But when I deploy a report which I designed on my 32 bit development machine
> > where all is running correctly, and I run the report on the server, it
> > cannot find the datasource.
> >
> > I think it has the same reason why I cannot see the MyODBC driver in the
> > normal ODBC Configuration Manager in the Administrative Tools.
> > Is there a possiblity to do that anyway'
> >
> > Thank you and greetings from Switzerland
> > Thomas
>

64 Bit drivers IBM Db2

Hey guys .. I am trying to run SSIS on the WIn2k3 .. The server is a 64 bit machine. I could not find Db2 drivers for a 64 bit one .. any clues as to how , I can find it. By the way .. I have been running the package in 32 bit mode for now .. which I dont think is a very good idea.

Any suggestions are most welcome ..

Have you tried the Microsoft one (http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=D09C1D60-A13C-4479-9B91-9E8B9D835CDC&displaylang=en)

The standalone Microsoft OLE DB Provider 2005, which ships in the Feature Pack for SQL Server 2005, offers a single download package and setup program. The setup will detect the processor and install (1) X86 only on Windows X86, (2) x86 side-by-side X64 on Windows X64, or (3) x86 only on Windows IA64. The other Microsoft OLE DB Provider for DB2 that ships in HIS 2006, offers x86 only. The end result of running "either" setup program is an X86 only DB2OLEDB provider.

If you don't want the WOW64 "work-around" for SSIS, you must get the 64 bit provider for DB2 from IBM. Its part of their standard client install kit.

64 bit and max server memory

Do we still need to put a cap to the max server memory settings for SQL on a
64 bit machine or just leave it to the default ?The guideline on setting Max Server Memory doesn't change whether it's 32-bit
or 64-bit.
Linchi
"Hassan" wrote:
> Do we still need to put a cap to the max server memory settings for SQL on a
> 64 bit machine or just leave it to the default ?
>
>

6.5 to 2000 upgrade

We will be performing a 2 machine upgrade from 6.5 to
2000. When I install 2000 on our new server, I want
retain the registed name that I gave the server on the
6.5 box (upon taking the 6.5 box offline and making the
2000 box the "live" box). Can I call both servers the
same name (e.g. testserver)? Do I install SQL 2000 as a
named instance or a default instance? When I perform the
upgrade wizard, will I have the opportunity at that time
to ultimately retain the name? Thanks!No. Only one server can be named the same in a domain at
any given time, so they must be unique.
If it is not a clustered instance and you are installing
locally to a normal server, by default, SQL Server will
take on the name of its underlying server if it is a
default instance. So in essence, if you're using a
default instance, you'd have to name your server the
same. Now, if you completely decomission the old server
and shut it down and then change the name of the newer
server, you should be fine.
The bigger question is will your applications handle a
named instance? That is what you need to determine. You
can only have one default instance per server or cluster.
>--Original Message--
>We will be performing a 2 machine upgrade from 6.5 to
>2000. When I install 2000 on our new server, I want
>retain the registed name that I gave the server on the
>6.5 box (upon taking the 6.5 box offline and making the
>2000 box the "live" box). Can I call both servers the
>same name (e.g. testserver)? Do I install SQL 2000 as a
>named instance or a default instance? When I perform the
>upgrade wizard, will I have the opportunity at that time
>to ultimately retain the name? Thanks!
>.
>

6.5 to 2000 migration problem

I am attempting to migrate 4 database from a SQL 6.5 server to SQL 2000 on a different machine. I am using the upgrade wizard and it works fine for some test databases that I used. The problem with the "real" databases that I want to migrate is that they total about 100 gig and there is not enough local disk on the target server to handle that. We use network devices to hold our database files so I mapped a drive on the target server to a directory on our NAS device and when I ran the upgrade wizard I changed the properties of the databases so that the files would be created on the mapped drive. This created a problem since the upgrade wizard gave a message that the database could not be placed on a network device and must be on a local drive. I know that I can move the files after the migration but we dont have enough available disk to migrate to local disk with the wizard. I thought about moving one database at a time but the documentation discussed numerous potential problems with this practise.
I am hoping there is a way to "trick" the upgrade wizard into allowing me to migrate the databases to 2000 and put the database files on the NAS device.
p.s. I tried setting the traceflag which works when relocating database files to the NAS device but it did not work with the upgrade wizard.
Thanks in advance for any advice
BillAs far as I know there is not a way to trick the upgrade wizard to use a
network drive. I have successfully upgrade individual databases with no
problems.
Rand
This posting is provided "as is" with no warranties and confers no rights.

6.5 connectivity to 2000

Is it safe to use 6.5 connectivity on a 95 machine to
connect to a SQL 2000 installation on Win 2K?Hi,
No issues. You can execute all commands. Only demerit is that you wont get
the GUI facilities available in SQL 2000 client.
FYI, You cant use SQL 6.5 enterprise manager to connect to SQL 2000. Only
ISQLW can be used .
Hari
"Mark Walker" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:254101c3fc6a$25446c80$a101280a@.phx.gbl...
> Is it safe to use 6.5 connectivity on a 95 machine to
> connect to a SQL 2000 installation on Win 2K?|||... and since 6.5 ISQL.EXE and ISQLW.EXE uses DbLibrary, some of the new
stuff in 7.0/2000 will not be available. Such includes longer strings than
255 characters, Unicode, uniqueidentifier etc.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
Archive at:
http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&as_ugroup=microsoft.public.sqlserver
"Hari" <hari_prasad_k@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%2387UBvG$DHA.2520@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> No issues. You can execute all commands. Only demerit is that you wont get
> the GUI facilities available in SQL 2000 client.
> FYI, You cant use SQL 6.5 enterprise manager to connect to SQL 2000. Only
> ISQLW can be used .
>
> Hari
> "Mark Walker" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:254101c3fc6a$25446c80$a101280a@.phx.gbl...
> > Is it safe to use 6.5 connectivity on a 95 machine to
> > connect to a SQL 2000 installation on Win 2K?
>

6.5 connectivity to 2000

Is it safe to use 6.5 connectivity on a 95 machine to
connect to a SQL 2000 installation on Win 2K?Hi,
No issues. You can execute all commands. Only demerit is that you wont get
the GUI facilities available in SQL 2000 client.
FYI, You cant use SQL 6.5 enterprise manager to connect to SQL 2000. Only
ISQLW can be used .
Hari
"Mark Walker" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:254101c3fc6a$25446c80$a101280a@.phx.gbl...
> Is it safe to use 6.5 connectivity on a 95 machine to
> connect to a SQL 2000 installation on Win 2K?|||... and since 6.5 ISQL.EXE and ISQLW.EXE uses DbLibrary, some of the new
stuff in 7.0/2000 will not be available. Such includes longer strings than
255 characters, Unicode, uniqueidentifier etc.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
Archive at:
http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=...ublic.sqlserver
"Hari" <hari_prasad_k@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%2387UBvG$DHA.2520@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> No issues. You can execute all commands. Only demerit is that you wont get
> the GUI facilities available in SQL 2000 client.
> FYI, You cant use SQL 6.5 enterprise manager to connect to SQL 2000. Only
> ISQLW can be used .
>
> Hari
> "Mark Walker" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:254101c3fc6a$25446c80$a101280a@.phx.gbl...
>

5 GIG on Advanced 2000 with Std Ed 2000

After installing the 5 GIG on the Advanced Server, only two gig is available.
If an upgrade is made to SQL Server 2005 STD for this machine, are there
pitfalls to be aware of? Alternatively, Advanced Server is dual processor,
is there a strategy available to set each processor to use 2 gig?
--
Regards,
JamieHi Jamie,
Can you be specific as to which operation system and SQL version is
currently installed?
Have you added the /3GB switch to boot.ini?
On Jan 20, 9:27 pm, thejamie <theja...@.discussions.microsoft.com>
wrote:
> After installing the 5 GIG on the Advanced Server, only two gig is available.
> If an upgrade is made to SQL Server 2005 STD for this machine, are there
> pitfalls to be aware of? Alternatively, Advanced Server is dual processor,
> is there a strategy available to set each processor to use 2 gig?
> --
> Regards,
> Jamie|||There is no limitations in SQL Server 2005 Standard editions. Limitation is
all based on the type of operating system
Take a look into below URL.
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/features/compare-features.mspx
http://download.microsoft.com/download/5/0/e/50ec0a69-d69e-4962-b2c9-80bbad125641/RequirementsSQL2005.htm
Thanks
Hari
"thejamie" <thejamie@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:82B017BD-E9BE-4E06-89BA-B404ACD42F30@.microsoft.com...
> Advanced Server 2000 (with 5 GIG RAM) running Standard Edition 2000 SQL
> Server
> --
> Regards,
> Jamie
>
> "Shoval" wrote:
>> Hi Jamie,
>> Can you be specific as to which operation system and SQL version is
>> currently installed?
>> Have you added the /3GB switch to boot.ini?
>>
>> On Jan 20, 9:27 pm, thejamie <theja...@.discussions.microsoft.com>
>> wrote:
>> > After installing the 5 GIG on the Advanced Server, only two gig is
>> > available.
>> > If an upgrade is made to SQL Server 2005 STD for this machine, are
>> > there
>> > pitfalls to be aware of? Alternatively, Advanced Server is dual
>> > processor,
>> > is there a strategy available to set each processor to use 2 gig?
>> > --
>> > Regards,
>> > Jamie
>>|||thejamie wrote:
> After installing the 5 GIG on the Advanced Server, only two gig is
> available.
SQL server 2000 standard only supports 2 Gb
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa933149(SQL.80).aspx
- Peter
--
Hi! I'm a .signature *virus*!
Copy me into your ~/.signature to help me spread!|||Hari,
The limitation on STANDARD Edition 2000 still exists or did that go away
with SP4?
--
Regards,
Jamie
"Hari Prasad" wrote:
> There is no limitations in SQL Server 2005 Standard editions. Limitation is
> all based on the type of operating system
> Take a look into below URL.
> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/features/compare-features.mspx
> http://download.microsoft.com/download/5/0/e/50ec0a69-d69e-4962-b2c9-80bbad125641/RequirementsSQL2005.htm
> Thanks
> Hari
>
> "thejamie" <thejamie@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:82B017BD-E9BE-4E06-89BA-B404ACD42F30@.microsoft.com...
> > Advanced Server 2000 (with 5 GIG RAM) running Standard Edition 2000 SQL
> > Server
> > --
> > Regards,
> > Jamie
> >
> >
> > "Shoval" wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Jamie,
> >> Can you be specific as to which operation system and SQL version is
> >> currently installed?
> >> Have you added the /3GB switch to boot.ini?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Jan 20, 9:27 pm, thejamie <theja...@.discussions.microsoft.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > After installing the 5 GIG on the Advanced Server, only two gig is
> >> > available.
> >> > If an upgrade is made to SQL Server 2005 STD for this machine, are
> >> > there
> >> > pitfalls to be aware of? Alternatively, Advanced Server is dual
> >> > processor,
> >> > is there a strategy available to set each processor to use 2 gig?
> >> > --
> >> > Regards,
> >> > Jamie
> >>
> >>
>
>|||Peter Lykkegaard wrote:
> SQL server 2000 standard only supports 2 Gb
Ahh I think I might have misunderstood you question slightly :)
You want to upgrade to SQL Server Enterprise?
- Peter
--
Hi! I'm a .signature *virus*!
Copy me into your ~/.signature to help me spread!|||You need either:
* a 64-bit OS and a 64-bit version of SQL Server
* AWE (Address Windowing Extensions) enabled on SQL Server and PAE
(Physical Address Extensions) enabled in your operating system.
When you go to "My Computer", under "Properties" how much RAM do you
see? In the "General" tab, do you see "Physical Address Extensions"
enabled anywhere?
-Dave
--
-Dave Markle
http://www.markleconsulting.com/blog
thejamie wrote:
> After installing the 5 GIG on the Advanced Server, only two gig is available.
> If an upgrade is made to SQL Server 2005 STD for this machine, are there
> pitfalls to be aware of? Alternatively, Advanced Server is dual processor,
> is there a strategy available to set each processor to use 2 gig?|||Things are often difficult to explain. To make this more interesting, when
SQL came back online, the SQL properties indicate SQL is now using 4 gig of
ram rather than 2 gig as before. This may not be a true reading. The
machine is a Dell from 2000 with a dual processor - dual processor shows up
as four processors - standard now for a duo core processor but the technology
is older. Definitely using a Standard Edition of SQL - not an Enterprise
version. Is it possible that with extra processors, the standard edition
will assign up to two gig per processor? I spent many nights worrying and it
doesn't appear to be a problem at the moment. More can be said when we bring
in production Monday morning.
--
Regards,
Jamie
"Peter Lykkegaard" wrote:
> Peter Lykkegaard wrote:
> >
> > SQL server 2000 standard only supports 2 Gb
> Ahh I think I might have misunderstood you question slightly :)
> You want to upgrade to SQL Server Enterprise?
> - Peter
> --
> Hi! I'm a .signature *virus*!
> Copy me into your ~/.signature to help me spread!
>
>|||I see four gig now vs two gig before. Physical Address Extensions cannot be
seen. We do not have the /PAE listed in the boot.ini.
--
Regards,
Jamie
"Dave Markle" <"dma[remove_ZZ]ZZrkle" wrote:
> You need either:
> * a 64-bit OS and a 64-bit version of SQL Server
> * AWE (Address Windowing Extensions) enabled on SQL Server and PAE
> (Physical Address Extensions) enabled in your operating system.
> When you go to "My Computer", under "Properties" how much RAM do you
> see? In the "General" tab, do you see "Physical Address Extensions"
> enabled anywhere?
> -Dave
> --
> -Dave Markle
> http://www.markleconsulting.com/blog
>
> thejamie wrote:
> > After installing the 5 GIG on the Advanced Server, only two gig is available.
> > If an upgrade is made to SQL Server 2005 STD for this machine, are there
> > pitfalls to be aware of? Alternatively, Advanced Server is dual processor,
> > is there a strategy available to set each processor to use 2 gig?
>
>

5 GIG on Advanced 2000 with Std Ed 2000

After installing the 5 GIG on the Advanced Server, only two gig is available.
If an upgrade is made to SQL Server 2005 STD for this machine, are there
pitfalls to be aware of? Alternatively, Advanced Server is dual processor,
is there a strategy available to set each processor to use 2 gig?
Regards,
Jamie
Hi Jamie,
Can you be specific as to which operation system and SQL version is
currently installed?
Have you added the /3GB switch to boot.ini?
On Jan 20, 9:27 pm, thejamie <theja...@.discussions.microsoft.com>
wrote:
> After installing the 5 GIG on the Advanced Server, only two gig is available.
> If an upgrade is made to SQL Server 2005 STD for this machine, are there
> pitfalls to be aware of? Alternatively, Advanced Server is dual processor,
> is there a strategy available to set each processor to use 2 gig?
> --
> Regards,
> Jamie
|||Advanced Server 2000 (with 5 GIG RAM) running Standard Edition 2000 SQL Server
Regards,
Jamie
"Shoval" wrote:

> Hi Jamie,
> Can you be specific as to which operation system and SQL version is
> currently installed?
> Have you added the /3GB switch to boot.ini?
>
> On Jan 20, 9:27 pm, thejamie <theja...@.discussions.microsoft.com>
> wrote:
>
|||There is no limitations in SQL Server 2005 Standard editions. Limitation is
all based on the type of operating system
Take a look into below URL.
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/features/compare-features.mspx
http://download.microsoft.com/download/5/0/e/50ec0a69-d69e-4962-b2c9-80bbad125641/RequirementsSQL2005.htm
Thanks
Hari
"thejamie" <thejamie@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:82B017BD-E9BE-4E06-89BA-B404ACD42F30@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Advanced Server 2000 (with 5 GIG RAM) running Standard Edition 2000 SQL
> Server
> --
> Regards,
> Jamie
>
> "Shoval" wrote:
|||Hari,
The limitation on STANDARD Edition 2000 still exists or did that go away
with SP4?
Regards,
Jamie
"Hari Prasad" wrote:

> There is no limitations in SQL Server 2005 Standard editions. Limitation is
> all based on the type of operating system
> Take a look into below URL.
> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/features/compare-features.mspx
> http://download.microsoft.com/download/5/0/e/50ec0a69-d69e-4962-b2c9-80bbad125641/RequirementsSQL2005.htm
> Thanks
> Hari
>
> "thejamie" <thejamie@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:82B017BD-E9BE-4E06-89BA-B404ACD42F30@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||You need either:
* a 64-bit OS and a 64-bit version of SQL Server
* AWE (Address Windowing Extensions) enabled on SQL Server and PAE
(Physical Address Extensions) enabled in your operating system.
When you go to "My Computer", under "Properties" how much RAM do you
see? In the "General" tab, do you see "Physical Address Extensions"
enabled anywhere?
-Dave
-Dave Markle
http://www.markleconsulting.com/blog
thejamie wrote:
> After installing the 5 GIG on the Advanced Server, only two gig is available.
> If an upgrade is made to SQL Server 2005 STD for this machine, are there
> pitfalls to be aware of? Alternatively, Advanced Server is dual processor,
> is there a strategy available to set each processor to use 2 gig?
|||Things are often difficult to explain. To make this more interesting, when
SQL came back online, the SQL properties indicate SQL is now using 4 gig of
ram rather than 2 gig as before. This may not be a true reading. The
machine is a Dell from 2000 with a dual processor - dual processor shows up
as four processors - standard now for a duo core processor but the technology
is older. Definitely using a Standard Edition of SQL - not an Enterprise
version. Is it possible that with extra processors, the standard edition
will assign up to two gig per processor? I spent many nights worrying and it
doesn't appear to be a problem at the moment. More can be said when we bring
in production Monday morning.
Regards,
Jamie
"Peter Lykkegaard" wrote:

> Peter Lykkegaard wrote:
> Ahh I think I might have misunderstood you question slightly
> You want to upgrade to SQL Server Enterprise?
> - Peter
> --
> Hi! I'm a .signature *virus*!
> Copy me into your ~/.signature to help me spread!
>
>
|||I see four gig now vs two gig before. Physical Address Extensions cannot be
seen. We do not have the /PAE listed in the boot.ini.
Regards,
Jamie
"Dave Markle" <"dma[remove_ZZ]ZZrkle" wrote:

> You need either:
> * a 64-bit OS and a 64-bit version of SQL Server
> * AWE (Address Windowing Extensions) enabled on SQL Server and PAE
> (Physical Address Extensions) enabled in your operating system.
> When you go to "My Computer", under "Properties" how much RAM do you
> see? In the "General" tab, do you see "Physical Address Extensions"
> enabled anywhere?
> -Dave
> --
> -Dave Markle
> http://www.markleconsulting.com/blog
>
> thejamie wrote:
>
>