Has anyone had two instances with these two versions installed in Production
yet? Any gotchas? Any compelling reasons to not do this?
--
TIA,
ChrisRHi
Biggest issue would be that you can't restore the SQL Server 2005 database
in SQL Server 2000.
Otherwise, as long as you test your application that it works on SQL Server
2005, no issues.
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"ChrisR" <ChrisR@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1ED99E08-D747-4E13-BB7B-005A742FD458@.microsoft.com...
> Has anyone had two instances with these two versions installed in
> Production
> yet? Any gotchas? Any compelling reasons to not do this?
> --
> TIA,
> ChrisR
Showing posts with label sql2k. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sql2k. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
mixing SQL2K and SQL2K5
Has anyone had two instances with these two versions installed in Production
yet? Any gotchas? Any compelling reasons to not do this?
TIA,
ChrisR
Hi
Biggest issue would be that you can't restore the SQL Server 2005 database
in SQL Server 2000.
Otherwise, as long as you test your application that it works on SQL Server
2005, no issues.
Regards
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"ChrisR" <ChrisR@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1ED99E08-D747-4E13-BB7B-005A742FD458@.microsoft.com...
> Has anyone had two instances with these two versions installed in
> Production
> yet? Any gotchas? Any compelling reasons to not do this?
> --
> TIA,
> ChrisR
yet? Any gotchas? Any compelling reasons to not do this?
TIA,
ChrisR
Hi
Biggest issue would be that you can't restore the SQL Server 2005 database
in SQL Server 2000.
Otherwise, as long as you test your application that it works on SQL Server
2005, no issues.
Regards
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"ChrisR" <ChrisR@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1ED99E08-D747-4E13-BB7B-005A742FD458@.microsoft.com...
> Has anyone had two instances with these two versions installed in
> Production
> yet? Any gotchas? Any compelling reasons to not do this?
> --
> TIA,
> ChrisR
mixing SQL2K and SQL2K5
Has anyone had two instances with these two versions installed in Production
yet? Any gotchas? Any compelling reasons to not do this?
TIA,
ChrisRHi
Biggest issue would be that you can't restore the SQL Server 2005 database
in SQL Server 2000.
Otherwise, as long as you test your application that it works on SQL Server
2005, no issues.
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"ChrisR" <ChrisR@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1ED99E08-D747-4E13-BB7B-005A742FD458@.microsoft.com...
> Has anyone had two instances with these two versions installed in
> Production
> yet? Any gotchas? Any compelling reasons to not do this?
> --
> TIA,
> ChrisR
yet? Any gotchas? Any compelling reasons to not do this?
TIA,
ChrisRHi
Biggest issue would be that you can't restore the SQL Server 2005 database
in SQL Server 2000.
Otherwise, as long as you test your application that it works on SQL Server
2005, no issues.
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"ChrisR" <ChrisR@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1ED99E08-D747-4E13-BB7B-005A742FD458@.microsoft.com...
> Has anyone had two instances with these two versions installed in
> Production
> yet? Any gotchas? Any compelling reasons to not do this?
> --
> TIA,
> ChrisR
mixed SQL2k/VS 2003 and SQL05 environment?
I'm looking for information on how the various pieces/parts of RS could work
in our environment. Currently that:
+ several SQL Server 2000 boxes (individual instances on individual and
distinct servers) on Windows Server 2003.
+ multiple load balanced web servers running on Windows 2000 with IIS5,
mixture of "classic" ASP and .NET web applications authored in Visual
Studio, Visual Studio .NET 2003.
We have a need to implement Reporting Services, but are confused about the
path to take. My instinct tells me to start a brand new implementation of
RS by using SQL 2005. For us, that should not be a problem. We could
easily take one of our SQL 2k boxes and upgrade to SQL 2005.
But now the questions are related to the implications on our .NET
development and production/runtime environments.
1) do we need to install .NET 2.0 on our web servers? (I'm assuming yes)
2) will this impact our existing .NET 1.1 applications in anyway?
3) what about our developers, all set up already w/ Visual Studio .NET 2003
and ASP.NET 1.1? Will they need install Visual Studio .NET 2005 and ASP.NET
2.0? Will this affect their existing visual studio projects?
Or, to minimize the impact, will only report *authors* need to have VS 2005?
4) To make reports available on our existing ASP.NET 1.1 based intranet, do
we need to have ASP.NET 2.0 web pages developed or can existing ASP.NET 1.1
web pages work?
Hopefully this gives you the gist of the kind of technical nitty-gritty I'm
after. Any links, direct info, etc. would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks.
-- MargoFirst. RS 2005 can be installed on a 2000 database. You do need to have a
2005 license though.
RS 2005 is more fully featured and I do think if you are starting out I
would go that route.
RS 2005 is a framework 2.0 app. It comes with a version of VS 2005 so you do
not have to purchase VS 2005 unless you want the new controls.
VS 2005 and VS 2003 can coexist side by side (I am doing that).
Only report authors need VS 2005 environment.
From asp.net 1.1 web pages you can integrate either using url integration or
web services. BUT, the new controls from VS 2005 allow much easier and
tighter integration. The new controls require asp.net 2.0 (2.0 framework).
You can definitely have both 1.1 and 2.0 framework on the same IIS server.
If you want the new controls then buy VB.Net professional (cheapest way to
get the new controls).
Bruce Loehle-Conger
MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
"Margo Noreen" <margo_no_spam@.on2morning.com> wrote in message
news:eAHcFxLBGHA.2788@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> I'm looking for information on how the various pieces/parts of RS could
> work in our environment. Currently that:
> + several SQL Server 2000 boxes (individual instances on individual and
> distinct servers) on Windows Server 2003.
> + multiple load balanced web servers running on Windows 2000 with IIS5,
> mixture of "classic" ASP and .NET web applications authored in Visual
> Studio, Visual Studio .NET 2003.
> We have a need to implement Reporting Services, but are confused about the
> path to take. My instinct tells me to start a brand new implementation of
> RS by using SQL 2005. For us, that should not be a problem. We could
> easily take one of our SQL 2k boxes and upgrade to SQL 2005.
> But now the questions are related to the implications on our .NET
> development and production/runtime environments.
> 1) do we need to install .NET 2.0 on our web servers? (I'm assuming yes)
> 2) will this impact our existing .NET 1.1 applications in anyway?
> 3) what about our developers, all set up already w/ Visual Studio .NET
> 2003 and ASP.NET 1.1? Will they need install Visual Studio .NET 2005 and
> ASP.NET 2.0? Will this affect their existing visual studio projects?
> Or, to minimize the impact, will only report *authors* need to have VS
> 2005?
> 4) To make reports available on our existing ASP.NET 1.1 based intranet,
> do we need to have ASP.NET 2.0 web pages developed or can existing ASP.NET
> 1.1 web pages work?
> Hopefully this gives you the gist of the kind of technical nitty-gritty
> I'm after. Any links, direct info, etc. would be greatly appreciated.
> Thanks.
> -- Margo
>
>|||Thank you for the quick reply Bruce... this actually confirms what I was
reading and otherwise stitching together; it was nice to get another nod in
that direction... Seems like it shouldn't be so hard... <g>.
-- Margo
in our environment. Currently that:
+ several SQL Server 2000 boxes (individual instances on individual and
distinct servers) on Windows Server 2003.
+ multiple load balanced web servers running on Windows 2000 with IIS5,
mixture of "classic" ASP and .NET web applications authored in Visual
Studio, Visual Studio .NET 2003.
We have a need to implement Reporting Services, but are confused about the
path to take. My instinct tells me to start a brand new implementation of
RS by using SQL 2005. For us, that should not be a problem. We could
easily take one of our SQL 2k boxes and upgrade to SQL 2005.
But now the questions are related to the implications on our .NET
development and production/runtime environments.
1) do we need to install .NET 2.0 on our web servers? (I'm assuming yes)
2) will this impact our existing .NET 1.1 applications in anyway?
3) what about our developers, all set up already w/ Visual Studio .NET 2003
and ASP.NET 1.1? Will they need install Visual Studio .NET 2005 and ASP.NET
2.0? Will this affect their existing visual studio projects?
Or, to minimize the impact, will only report *authors* need to have VS 2005?
4) To make reports available on our existing ASP.NET 1.1 based intranet, do
we need to have ASP.NET 2.0 web pages developed or can existing ASP.NET 1.1
web pages work?
Hopefully this gives you the gist of the kind of technical nitty-gritty I'm
after. Any links, direct info, etc. would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks.
-- MargoFirst. RS 2005 can be installed on a 2000 database. You do need to have a
2005 license though.
RS 2005 is more fully featured and I do think if you are starting out I
would go that route.
RS 2005 is a framework 2.0 app. It comes with a version of VS 2005 so you do
not have to purchase VS 2005 unless you want the new controls.
VS 2005 and VS 2003 can coexist side by side (I am doing that).
Only report authors need VS 2005 environment.
From asp.net 1.1 web pages you can integrate either using url integration or
web services. BUT, the new controls from VS 2005 allow much easier and
tighter integration. The new controls require asp.net 2.0 (2.0 framework).
You can definitely have both 1.1 and 2.0 framework on the same IIS server.
If you want the new controls then buy VB.Net professional (cheapest way to
get the new controls).
Bruce Loehle-Conger
MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
"Margo Noreen" <margo_no_spam@.on2morning.com> wrote in message
news:eAHcFxLBGHA.2788@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> I'm looking for information on how the various pieces/parts of RS could
> work in our environment. Currently that:
> + several SQL Server 2000 boxes (individual instances on individual and
> distinct servers) on Windows Server 2003.
> + multiple load balanced web servers running on Windows 2000 with IIS5,
> mixture of "classic" ASP and .NET web applications authored in Visual
> Studio, Visual Studio .NET 2003.
> We have a need to implement Reporting Services, but are confused about the
> path to take. My instinct tells me to start a brand new implementation of
> RS by using SQL 2005. For us, that should not be a problem. We could
> easily take one of our SQL 2k boxes and upgrade to SQL 2005.
> But now the questions are related to the implications on our .NET
> development and production/runtime environments.
> 1) do we need to install .NET 2.0 on our web servers? (I'm assuming yes)
> 2) will this impact our existing .NET 1.1 applications in anyway?
> 3) what about our developers, all set up already w/ Visual Studio .NET
> 2003 and ASP.NET 1.1? Will they need install Visual Studio .NET 2005 and
> ASP.NET 2.0? Will this affect their existing visual studio projects?
> Or, to minimize the impact, will only report *authors* need to have VS
> 2005?
> 4) To make reports available on our existing ASP.NET 1.1 based intranet,
> do we need to have ASP.NET 2.0 web pages developed or can existing ASP.NET
> 1.1 web pages work?
> Hopefully this gives you the gist of the kind of technical nitty-gritty
> I'm after. Any links, direct info, etc. would be greatly appreciated.
> Thanks.
> -- Margo
>
>|||Thank you for the quick reply Bruce... this actually confirms what I was
reading and otherwise stitching together; it was nice to get another nod in
that direction... Seems like it shouldn't be so hard... <g>.
-- Margo
Monday, March 12, 2012
Missing sysjobhistory in sql job
Hi,
I have a sql2k job to do the log backup. For some reason, I don't see the
job history.
When it finish running I see the job history "completed sucessfully". Next
morning the history disappeared. I ran the trace over night and search
"%sysjobhistory%", I don't see any transactions that delete the records in
sysjobhistory table.
Don't know why? any ideas?
Thanks,.This is most likely caused by the settings on the "Job System" tab of the SQL
Server Agent Properties dialog box. The default setting is to retain 1000
rows total with 100 per job. If you have many jobs on the server and some of
them running frequently then the records for the job you are describing are
most likely being "pushed" out of the table due to the other volume.
Hope this is helpful.
--
David
"mecn" wrote:
> Hi,
> I have a sql2k job to do the log backup. For some reason, I don't see the
> job history.
> When it finish running I see the job history "completed sucessfully". Next
> morning the history disappeared. I ran the trace over night and search
> "%sysjobhistory%", I don't see any transactions that delete the records in
> sysjobhistory table.
> Don't know why? any ideas?
> Thanks,.
>
>|||David,
Thanks, I think that you are right. I'm going to increase the size to 2000
instead of 1000.
Thanks again,
"mecn" <mecn2002@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:%23hmBlapIGHA.3816@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> I have a sql2k job to do the log backup. For some reason, I don't see the
> job history.
> When it finish running I see the job history "completed sucessfully". Next
> morning the history disappeared. I ran the trace over night and search
> "%sysjobhistory%", I don't see any transactions that delete the records in
> sysjobhistory table.
> Don't know why? any ideas?
> Thanks,.
>
I have a sql2k job to do the log backup. For some reason, I don't see the
job history.
When it finish running I see the job history "completed sucessfully". Next
morning the history disappeared. I ran the trace over night and search
"%sysjobhistory%", I don't see any transactions that delete the records in
sysjobhistory table.
Don't know why? any ideas?
Thanks,.This is most likely caused by the settings on the "Job System" tab of the SQL
Server Agent Properties dialog box. The default setting is to retain 1000
rows total with 100 per job. If you have many jobs on the server and some of
them running frequently then the records for the job you are describing are
most likely being "pushed" out of the table due to the other volume.
Hope this is helpful.
--
David
"mecn" wrote:
> Hi,
> I have a sql2k job to do the log backup. For some reason, I don't see the
> job history.
> When it finish running I see the job history "completed sucessfully". Next
> morning the history disappeared. I ran the trace over night and search
> "%sysjobhistory%", I don't see any transactions that delete the records in
> sysjobhistory table.
> Don't know why? any ideas?
> Thanks,.
>
>|||David,
Thanks, I think that you are right. I'm going to increase the size to 2000
instead of 1000.
Thanks again,
"mecn" <mecn2002@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:%23hmBlapIGHA.3816@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> I have a sql2k job to do the log backup. For some reason, I don't see the
> job history.
> When it finish running I see the job history "completed sucessfully". Next
> morning the history disappeared. I ran the trace over night and search
> "%sysjobhistory%", I don't see any transactions that delete the records in
> sysjobhistory table.
> Don't know why? any ideas?
> Thanks,.
>
Missing sysjobhistory in sql job
Hi,
I have a sql2k job to do the log backup. For some reason, I don't see the
job history.
When it finish running I see the job history "completed sucessfully". Next
morning the history disappeared. I ran the trace over night and search
"%sysjobhistory%", I don't see any transactions that delete the records in
sysjobhistory table.
Don't know why? any ideas?
Thanks,.
This is most likely caused by the settings on the "Job System" tab of the SQL
Server Agent Properties dialog box. The default setting is to retain 1000
rows total with 100 per job. If you have many jobs on the server and some of
them running frequently then the records for the job you are describing are
most likely being "pushed" out of the table due to the other volume.
Hope this is helpful.
David
"mecn" wrote:
> Hi,
> I have a sql2k job to do the log backup. For some reason, I don't see the
> job history.
> When it finish running I see the job history "completed sucessfully". Next
> morning the history disappeared. I ran the trace over night and search
> "%sysjobhistory%", I don't see any transactions that delete the records in
> sysjobhistory table.
> Don't know why? any ideas?
> Thanks,.
>
>
|||David,
Thanks, I think that you are right. I'm going to increase the size to 2000
instead of 1000.
Thanks again,
"mecn" <mecn2002@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:%23hmBlapIGHA.3816@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> I have a sql2k job to do the log backup. For some reason, I don't see the
> job history.
> When it finish running I see the job history "completed sucessfully". Next
> morning the history disappeared. I ran the trace over night and search
> "%sysjobhistory%", I don't see any transactions that delete the records in
> sysjobhistory table.
> Don't know why? any ideas?
> Thanks,.
>
I have a sql2k job to do the log backup. For some reason, I don't see the
job history.
When it finish running I see the job history "completed sucessfully". Next
morning the history disappeared. I ran the trace over night and search
"%sysjobhistory%", I don't see any transactions that delete the records in
sysjobhistory table.
Don't know why? any ideas?
Thanks,.
This is most likely caused by the settings on the "Job System" tab of the SQL
Server Agent Properties dialog box. The default setting is to retain 1000
rows total with 100 per job. If you have many jobs on the server and some of
them running frequently then the records for the job you are describing are
most likely being "pushed" out of the table due to the other volume.
Hope this is helpful.
David
"mecn" wrote:
> Hi,
> I have a sql2k job to do the log backup. For some reason, I don't see the
> job history.
> When it finish running I see the job history "completed sucessfully". Next
> morning the history disappeared. I ran the trace over night and search
> "%sysjobhistory%", I don't see any transactions that delete the records in
> sysjobhistory table.
> Don't know why? any ideas?
> Thanks,.
>
>
|||David,
Thanks, I think that you are right. I'm going to increase the size to 2000
instead of 1000.
Thanks again,
"mecn" <mecn2002@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:%23hmBlapIGHA.3816@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> I have a sql2k job to do the log backup. For some reason, I don't see the
> job history.
> When it finish running I see the job history "completed sucessfully". Next
> morning the history disappeared. I ran the trace over night and search
> "%sysjobhistory%", I don't see any transactions that delete the records in
> sysjobhistory table.
> Don't know why? any ideas?
> Thanks,.
>
Missing sysjobhistory in sql job
Hi,
I have a sql2k job to do the log backup. For some reason, I don't see the
job history.
When it finish running I see the job history "completed sucessfully". Next
morning the history disappeared. I ran the trace over night and search
"%sysjobhistory%", I don't see any transactions that delete the records in
sysjobhistory table.
Don't know why? any ideas?
Thanks,.This is most likely caused by the settings on the "Job System" tab of the SQ
L
Server Agent Properties dialog box. The default setting is to retain 1000
rows total with 100 per job. If you have many jobs on the server and some of
them running frequently then the records for the job you are describing are
most likely being "pushed" out of the table due to the other volume.
Hope this is helpful.
--
David
"mecn" wrote:
> Hi,
> I have a sql2k job to do the log backup. For some reason, I don't see the
> job history.
> When it finish running I see the job history "completed sucessfully". Next
> morning the history disappeared. I ran the trace over night and search
> "%sysjobhistory%", I don't see any transactions that delete the records in
> sysjobhistory table.
> Don't know why? any ideas?
> Thanks,.
>
>|||David,
Thanks, I think that you are right. I'm going to increase the size to 2000
instead of 1000.
Thanks again,
"mecn" <mecn2002@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:%23hmBlapIGHA.3816@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> I have a sql2k job to do the log backup. For some reason, I don't see the
> job history.
> When it finish running I see the job history "completed sucessfully". Next
> morning the history disappeared. I ran the trace over night and search
> "%sysjobhistory%", I don't see any transactions that delete the records in
> sysjobhistory table.
> Don't know why? any ideas?
> Thanks,.
>
I have a sql2k job to do the log backup. For some reason, I don't see the
job history.
When it finish running I see the job history "completed sucessfully". Next
morning the history disappeared. I ran the trace over night and search
"%sysjobhistory%", I don't see any transactions that delete the records in
sysjobhistory table.
Don't know why? any ideas?
Thanks,.This is most likely caused by the settings on the "Job System" tab of the SQ
L
Server Agent Properties dialog box. The default setting is to retain 1000
rows total with 100 per job. If you have many jobs on the server and some of
them running frequently then the records for the job you are describing are
most likely being "pushed" out of the table due to the other volume.
Hope this is helpful.
--
David
"mecn" wrote:
> Hi,
> I have a sql2k job to do the log backup. For some reason, I don't see the
> job history.
> When it finish running I see the job history "completed sucessfully". Next
> morning the history disappeared. I ran the trace over night and search
> "%sysjobhistory%", I don't see any transactions that delete the records in
> sysjobhistory table.
> Don't know why? any ideas?
> Thanks,.
>
>|||David,
Thanks, I think that you are right. I'm going to increase the size to 2000
instead of 1000.
Thanks again,
"mecn" <mecn2002@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:%23hmBlapIGHA.3816@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> I have a sql2k job to do the log backup. For some reason, I don't see the
> job history.
> When it finish running I see the job history "completed sucessfully". Next
> morning the history disappeared. I ran the trace over night and search
> "%sysjobhistory%", I don't see any transactions that delete the records in
> sysjobhistory table.
> Don't know why? any ideas?
> Thanks,.
>
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Missing pubs in Replication Monitor
I have set up Replication in SQL2K on a Windows 2K Advanced Server. Up until last week the Replication Monitor showed my publications and the agents. I was able to monitor and troubleshoot by selecting one of the agents. Now the Replication Monitor is there, and the publisher group is there, but the publications are not visible. The agents are running and functioning normally, yet I can not monitor them in the Replication Monitor.
Any ideas?Howdy
Well EM is a pile of cr*p so nothing would surprise me....
Try re-registering the server to EM & see how it goes.
Cheers
SG|||I have reregistered the server, I have opened a Monitor group and registered it, I have registered the server from other SQL servers. All the same.|||Howdy
How are you logging onto the SQL SErver? Are you sa? If you arent sa you probably wont be able to see the jobs.
Post back if probs.........
Cheers
SG
Any ideas?Howdy
Well EM is a pile of cr*p so nothing would surprise me....
Try re-registering the server to EM & see how it goes.
Cheers
SG|||I have reregistered the server, I have opened a Monitor group and registered it, I have registered the server from other SQL servers. All the same.|||Howdy
How are you logging onto the SQL SErver? Are you sa? If you arent sa you probably wont be able to see the jobs.
Post back if probs.........
Cheers
SG
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)