NEW SQL Server Release`

Check this out
this is the replacement for MSDE 2000

SQL Server 2005 Express Edition (http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/express/sql/default.aspx)

Top 10 cool things about SQL Server Express Edition (http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/express/sql/top10/default.aspx)

SQL Server Express Books Online (http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=2ADBC1A8-AE5C-497D-B584-EAB6719300CD&displaylang=en)

by the way if you follow the first link, you will find a pretty accurate photo of rdjabarov...Check this out
you will find a pretty accurate photo of rdjabarov...
Looks pretty nice and decent just like the Express Edition. Where he's from by the way, USA!!|||Hey, you see what you started, Scott? And YOU KNOW I don't look like this!.. And where the h*** did you get 2005 Express? In Ala-freaking-bama?|||Hey now, I'm from Ala-freaking-bama|||Hey, you see what you started, Scott? And YOU KNOW I don't look like this!.. And where the h*** did you get 2005 Express? In Ala-freaking-bama?

i'm just kidding
but on further reflection he kind of looks like fabian pascal.
Pat can verify that for us because as we all know, he's fabian's best friend.|||Do you really believe that I think that way?..Well, I DO love Texas, but I am ready for a change (ideally would be to move without my kids knowing where to :D )|||Anyone else think that CLR is a bunch of nonsense?|||Anyone else think that CLR is a bunch of nonsense?
I think it's VERY neat. I also think that this will force some hard core production DBA's to have a hard look at themselves and see if the career they've chosen is what they want to continue pursuing. Personally, I am happy with a definition that is given to me, - hybrid DBA! And the direction the job description is taking is where I am at now.|||Pat can verify that for us because as we all know, he's fabian's best friend.It's good to be loved, isn't it? Actually, I've never met Fabian in person, or even seen a picture from a reliable source, so I'm no authority there. It's hard to imagine that I've never seen anyone that loves me so, isn't it?

-PatP|||Anyone else think that CLR is a bunch of nonsense?Not really, I think that the CLR brings a lot of interesting benefits, but it brings some new risks in the baggage with it.

The benefits are basically the ones that UCSD promised with the p-machine and Java didn't quite deliver with their virtual machine. A standard, more or less hardware independant virtual machine. One code base for many platforms. One target for many compilers, which allows much better tools to evolve because the economies of scale kick in much sooner.

The big risks seem to be that once something makes it into the runtime, who will ensure that it makes sense for it to stay there as it evolves. Many things that make perfect sense on the desktop (or even handheld) are a positive liability on a server!

It is a two edged sword. It brings many benefits, but at a significant cost.

-PatP|||I think it's VERY neat.

Why? And yes, PROD DBA's who sit there waiting for an alert...sure...but someones got to do that...and I'm glad it's not me...not sure if they even know what a sproc is...let alone a trigger...

And what can you do with "External Procedures" (CLR) that you can't do with T-SQL or it's extensions?

CLR is just more overhead...

And I'd love to see what they mean by Extensive XML support...

What? Did they add Relational extenders to XML?|||Well, I've run to the rescue of "External Procedures" via sp_oaxxx. You're write, the same thing can be accomplished by T-SQL, but the final choice is based on many factors. I prefer to use a tool for a task that is designed to do that task. Of course I can create a file using T-SQL, but if there is a better way to do the same thing (Scripting.FileSystemObject) I'd pick that one.|||i like the concept and intent of the Common Language Runtime.
now you can develop in your native language without having to learn an entirely new discipline.
standardization is a good thing. it allows developers to get back to the act of developing logic instead of all of these funky diversions that we have to endure.
case in point --dbforums.com
what percent of all of the questions raised here are by dba's to dba's about dba stuff.
most of them are actually developers trying to reinvent the wheel in a entirely new discipline (T-sql SQL Server etc..). by giving them a internal wrapper for all of their "stuff" they can truly screw everything up and then call us "The Consultant" to fix it (for a fee of course)|||I think Pat summed it up pretty well. There are some things that the CLR will just do better. There's also a LOT of risk if it's used wrong. The XML thing actually worries me more then the CLR though. It's harking back to the days of hierarchial design and promising "extensibility". I have a feeling we'll end up regretting the degradation of a relational environment to cater to the desires of a shortcut "extend into anything without considering the consequences" world. Oh well....rant off.|||i like the concept and intent of the Common Language Runtime.
now you can develop in your native language without having to learn an entirely new discipline.
standardization is a good thing. it allows developers to get back to the act of developing logic instead of all of these funky diversions that we have to endure.
case in point --dbforums.com
what percent of all of the questions raised here are by dba's to dba's about dba stuff.
most of them are actually developers trying to reinvent the wheel in a entirely new discipline (T-sql SQL Server etc..). by giving them a internal wrapper for all of their "stuff" they can truly screw everything up and then call us "The Consultant" to fix it (for a fee of course)
Right on, man, right on!

New login problem

Hi,

When i create a new login on my sql server 2005, i have a default database role selected. Is there a way to remove it or to modify it ?

Thanks

Zahir

Hi,

do you mean the public role ? This role cannot be removed or disabled.

Try to make the role secure an grant not that many rights to it.

HTH, Jens Suessmeyer.

http://www.sqlserver2005.de
-

New Instance

We have a production server on SQL 2000. We have one default instance on it. Is it possible for us to add a new instance at this point now or is that someting we can do only in the initial stage when we are installing for the first time.
Thanks for your help in advance.You can re-run the install to create a new named instance. Note that everything that I have heard says that this should not be done on production servers. It is primarily intended (as I understand) for development and testing environments.

Regards,

Hugh Scott

Originally posted by anu
We have a production server on SQL 2000. We have one default instance on it. Is it possible for us to add a new instance at this point now or is that someting we can do only in the initial stage when we are installing for the first time.

Thanks for your help in advance.|||Thank you!!

New installation https issue

Hello,

I had some problems with an upgrade that added in RS to a default upgrade of sql2k to sql2k5. I then went into RS configuration and recreated everything. I am now able to get onto the site with no problems except when I have it checked to require ssl connections. I get the follow message when I have ssl checked using any of the three options "The request failed with HTTP status 401: Unauthorized." The certificate matches the url I am trying to goto: reports.domain.net. If in iis on the default website I force a redirect to https://reports.domain.net /reports it works fine, but it's not enforceing ssl if a user just types in the url http://reports.domain.net.reports. How can I get it to enforce ssl throughout via the RS configuration? Thanks.

John

John,

We are having the exact same issue. Did you ever resolve this?

Tom

New installation https issue

Hello,

I had some problems with an upgrade that added in RS to a default upgrade of sql2k to sql2k5. I then went into RS configuration and recreated everything. I am now able to get onto the site with no problems except when I have it checked to require ssl connections. I get the follow message when I have ssl checked using any of the three options "The request failed with HTTP status 401: Unauthorized." The certificate matches the url I am trying to goto: reports.domain.net. If in iis on the default website I force a redirect to https://reports.domain.net /reports it works fine, but it's not enforceing ssl if a user just types in the url http://reports.domain.net.reports. How can I get it to enforce ssl throughout via the RS configuration? Thanks.

John

John,

We are having the exact same issue. Did you ever resolve this?

Tom

New Installation can't connect to default database

I installed SQL Server 2005. Connected to an external dB on a different
server just fine. Now am trying to connect (via SQL Server Management Studio
)
to the default local dB. I get the following error:
Cannot connect to <server name in here>
A connection was successfully established with the server, but then an error
occurred during the login process (provider shared memory provider error 0 -
no process is on the other end of the pipe). Microsoft SQL Server error 23
3.
any ideas what's wrong?Run the SQL Server Configuration Manager and click on the Protocols for that
instance. Check to make sure that you enable Shared Memory.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"ChristieD" <ChristieD@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:5298A83E-8980-46E7-BC6F-DB283673B3E0@.microsoft.com...
>I installed SQL Server 2005. Connected to an external dB on a different
> server just fine. Now am trying to connect (via SQL Server Management
> Studio)
> to the default local dB. I get the following error:
> Cannot connect to <server name in here>
> A connection was successfully established with the server, but then an
> error
> occurred during the login process (provider shared memory provider error
> 0 -
> no process is on the other end of the pipe). Microsoft SQL Server error
> 233.
> any ideas what's wrong?|||Shared memory is enabled as is TCP/IP. Shared Pipes was not, and I enabled
that. VIA remains disabled. I can't start the SQL Serveer Agent, either. It
is set to Manual and if I try to start it, I get a message that it started
and stopped again.
"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:

> Run the SQL Server Configuration Manager and click on the Protocols for th
at
> instance. Check to make sure that you enable Shared Memory.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "ChristieD" <ChristieD@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:5298A83E-8980-46E7-BC6F-DB283673B3E0@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||What do the error and Agent logs say?
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"ChristieD" <ChristieD@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:4C86F2E6-A2CF-486B-8967-873B8A2D7F1B@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Shared memory is enabled as is TCP/IP. Shared Pipes was not, and I enabled
> that. VIA remains disabled. I can't start the SQL Serveer Agent, either.
> It
> is set to Manual and if I try to start it, I get a message that it started
> and stopped again.
> "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
>|||There was an application event (MSSQLSERVER) that said that the max number o
f
2 user connections had been reached and the connection was closed
"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:

> What do the error and Agent logs say?
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "ChristieD" <ChristieD@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:4C86F2E6-A2CF-486B-8967-873B8A2D7F1B@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||I re-installed SQL and opened the default db first and now it seems to be
working. Very weird.
"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:

> What do the error and Agent logs say?
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "ChristieD" <ChristieD@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:4C86F2E6-A2CF-486B-8967-873B8A2D7F1B@.microsoft.com...
>
>

New Installation can't connect to default database

I installed SQL Server 2005. Connected to an external dB on a different
server just fine. Now am trying to connect (via SQL Server Management Studio)
to the default local dB. I get the following error:
Cannot connect to <server name in here>
A connection was successfully established with the server, but then an error
occurred during the login process (provider shared memory provider error 0 -
no process is on the other end of the pipe). Microsoft SQL Server error 233.
any ideas what's wrong?
Run the SQL Server Configuration Manager and click on the Protocols for that
instance. Check to make sure that you enable Shared Memory.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"ChristieD" <ChristieD@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:5298A83E-8980-46E7-BC6F-DB283673B3E0@.microsoft.com...
>I installed SQL Server 2005. Connected to an external dB on a different
> server just fine. Now am trying to connect (via SQL Server Management
> Studio)
> to the default local dB. I get the following error:
> Cannot connect to <server name in here>
> A connection was successfully established with the server, but then an
> error
> occurred during the login process (provider shared memory provider error
> 0 -
> no process is on the other end of the pipe). Microsoft SQL Server error
> 233.
> any ideas what's wrong?
|||Shared memory is enabled as is TCP/IP. Shared Pipes was not, and I enabled
that. VIA remains disabled. I can't start the SQL Serveer Agent, either. It
is set to Manual and if I try to start it, I get a message that it started
and stopped again.
"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:

> Run the SQL Server Configuration Manager and click on the Protocols for that
> instance. Check to make sure that you enable Shared Memory.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "ChristieD" <ChristieD@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:5298A83E-8980-46E7-BC6F-DB283673B3E0@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||What do the error and Agent logs say?
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"ChristieD" <ChristieD@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:4C86F2E6-A2CF-486B-8967-873B8A2D7F1B@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Shared memory is enabled as is TCP/IP. Shared Pipes was not, and I enabled
> that. VIA remains disabled. I can't start the SQL Serveer Agent, either.
> It
> is set to Manual and if I try to start it, I get a message that it started
> and stopped again.
> "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
|||There was an application event (MSSQLSERVER) that said that the max number of
2 user connections had been reached and the connection was closed
"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:

> What do the error and Agent logs say?
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "ChristieD" <ChristieD@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:4C86F2E6-A2CF-486B-8967-873B8A2D7F1B@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||I re-installed SQL and opened the default db first and now it seems to be
working. Very weird.
"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:

> What do the error and Agent logs say?
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "ChristieD" <ChristieD@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:4C86F2E6-A2CF-486B-8967-873B8A2D7F1B@.microsoft.com...
>
>

New Data Source showing only default instance

I have two instances in SQL on my machine. When creating a New Data Source in BIDS, I can only see the default instance. I have checked the SAC manager to make sure the second instance allows remote connections and the setting are exactly the same as the default. Any ideas? Thanks.Yeah, but does the second instance run on a different port? Can you type in the second instance's name and have it work?|||I checked the Config Mgr and the port number was blank for the second instance. When I changed the port number to the same as the first instance, I was unable to restart the second instance until I removed the port number. Should I use a different #?|||After changing the ports and changing them back to get the second instance to start again, the test connection in BIDS was successful this time. Go figure. Thanks.

new custom system role

Hi
We are trying to setup security on the RS server and looking for some
pointers to get started.
By default, the BUILTIN\Administratots group has been setup for the reports
when you open the Report Manager. We would like to define a new group of
"users" who would have access to only view the reports and save/export to
the format they desire. They should not be able to make any changes tio the
site settings etc.
Here'r the steps that we performed:
1) created a new group called"MyUsers" on the server.
2) In the Report Server, unser "configure Site-wide security" -> System Role
Requirements, assigned a new role: "MyUsers" and assigned the "system User"
role. The "system Administrator" box has been unchecked.
3) Now when the reports are accessed from a user's machine, the RS url is
accessible but none of the unserlying report oflders are displayed. The RS
Home page is displayed with all the report folders hidden.
Is there anything we are missing? pls help.
Thanks
GarySystem User is only able to view some properties of report server and list
of shared schedules. It can not browse folders and view reports.
You need to assign item-level role.
It looks like "Browser" role is what you need.
--
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Gary" <gary@.msn.com> wrote in message
news:ePEgqeYpEHA.132@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> We are trying to setup security on the RS server and looking for some
> pointers to get started.
> By default, the BUILTIN\Administratots group has been setup for the
> reports
> when you open the Report Manager. We would like to define a new group of
> "users" who would have access to only view the reports and save/export to
> the format they desire. They should not be able to make any changes tio
> the
> site settings etc.
> Here'r the steps that we performed:
> 1) created a new group called"MyUsers" on the server.
> 2) In the Report Server, unser "configure Site-wide security" -> System
> Role
> Requirements, assigned a new role: "MyUsers" and assigned the "system
> User"
> role. The "system Administrator" box has been unchecked.
> 3) Now when the reports are accessed from a user's machine, the RS url is
> accessible but none of the unserlying report oflders are displayed. The RS
> Home page is displayed with all the report folders hidden.
> Is there anything we are missing? pls help.
> Thanks
> Gary
>
>