Boot.ini file: sp2

Showing posts with label sp2. Show all posts

Thursday, March 22, 2012

Build 9.0.3050

I downloaded SP2 on March 10, 2007, and applied it. The system to which I applied it reports 9.0.3050 as the version number, not 9.0.3042. Is this due to the post-SP2 fix?My system, which was updated with the bugged SP2, and then the subsequent hotfix, also reports 9.0.3050. So that seems like a reasonable assumption.|||

refer this link for latest fixes in SQL Server 2005...

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/933508

SP2 Release version was --9.00.3042.00

Latest version with this fix(Mar 05) is -- 9.00.3050.00

Madhu

Monday, March 19, 2012

BUG Multi-value field in SP2

Hi,
There seems to be a bug with the multi-valed fields when only one value is
selected and that value contains only spaces. I get the message 'Please
select a value for the parameter...'. It works when I test it in Visual
Studio but it doesn't work on the Web. I'm using SQL Server 2005 with SP2.
Any ideas ? Suggestions ?
Regards
AlainOn Apr 6, 12:05 pm, "Alain Magnan" <AMag...@.Hatch.caGARBAGE> wrote:
> Hi,
> There seems to be a bug with the multi-valed fields when only one value is
> selected and that value contains only spaces. I get the message 'Please
> select a value for the parameter...'. It works when I test it in Visual
> Studio but it doesn't work on the Web. I'm using SQL Server 2005 with SP2.
> Any ideas ? Suggestions ?
> Regards
> Alain
Are you using 2 columns in the dataset that sources the multi-select
parameter? If the value field is something like 0, it might not error
out. Something like this might work (in the dataset; where Name is the
displayed item and NameID is the parameter value):
Name NameID
" " 0
"Bob" 1
"John" 2
"Bill" 3
Hope this is helpful.
Regards,
Enrique Martinez
Sr. Software Consultant

Sunday, March 11, 2012

BUG in SP2 documents

The link at
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/info.aspx?u=http%3A%2F%2Fsupport.microsoft.com%2F%3Fkbid%3D842440&na=44&p=0&SrcDisplayLang=en&SrcCategoryId=&SrcFamilyId=502c0d89-1308-4662-8f58-cec55ef1235b&genscs= is supposed to contain installation instructions.
The only link on that page to installation instructions is to SP1
installation instructions. They may well be similar but it seems
likely to cause user confusion.
Andrew Watt
MVP - InfoPathNot sure what you mean. The page I see at that URL has both a link to SP2
and SP2.
--
Brian Welcker
Group Program Manager
Microsoft SQL Server Reporting Services
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Andrew Watt [MVP - InfoPath]" <SVGDeveloper@.aol.com> wrote in message
news:2cnk615s97qnupcb86jqrle0d6qkapcers@.4ax.com...
> The link at
> http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/info.aspx?u=http%3A%2F%2Fsupport.microsoft.com%2F%3Fkbid%3D842440&na=44&p=0&SrcDisplayLang=en&SrcCategoryId=&SrcFamilyId=502c0d89-1308-4662-8f58-cec55ef1235b&genscs=
> is supposed to contain installation instructions.
> The only link on that page to installation instructions is to SP1
> installation instructions. They may well be similar but it seems
> likely to cause user confusion.
> Andrew Watt
> MVP - InfoPath|||Brian,
On
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=502C0D89-1308-4662-8F58-CEC55EF1235B&displaylang=en
the text describing the link to
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=842440
describes it as the place to get a full list of installation
instructions. My point is that there is no "full list" of SP2
installation instructions on that page.
So any user e.g. me :) who followed that link looking for detailed
installation instructions would be disappointed.
Andrew Watt
MVP - InfoPath
On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 08:31:16 -0700, "Brian Welcker"
<bwelcker@.online.microsoft.com> wrote:
>Not sure what you mean. The page I see at that URL has both a link to SP2
>and SP2.
>--
>Brian Welcker
>Group Program Manager
>Microsoft SQL Server Reporting Services
>This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
>"Andrew Watt [MVP - InfoPath]" <SVGDeveloper@.aol.com> wrote in message
>news:2cnk615s97qnupcb86jqrle0d6qkapcers@.4ax.com...
>> The link at
>> http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/info.aspx?u=http%3A%2F%2Fsupport.microsoft.com%2F%3Fkbid%3D842440&na=44&p=0&SrcDisplayLang=en&SrcCategoryId=&SrcFamilyId=502c0d89-1308-4662-8f58-cec55ef1235b&genscs=
>> is supposed to contain installation instructions.
>> The only link on that page to installation instructions is to SP1
>> installation instructions. They may well be similar but it seems
>> likely to cause user confusion.
>> Andrew Watt
>> MVP - InfoPath|||OK, I understand. That article doesn't really provide much value at all.
--
Brian Welcker
Group Program Manager
Microsoft SQL Server Reporting Services
"Andrew Watt [MVP - InfoPath]" <SVGDeveloper@.aol.com> wrote in message
news:4bgl615dsktv0dqqvri8hnovk4tcd29pdg@.4ax.com...
> Brian,
> On
> http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=502C0D89-1308-4662-8F58-CEC55EF1235B&displaylang=en
> the text describing the link to
> http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=842440
> describes it as the place to get a full list of installation
> instructions. My point is that there is no "full list" of SP2
> installation instructions on that page.
> So any user e.g. me :) who followed that link looking for detailed
> installation instructions would be disappointed.
> Andrew Watt
> MVP - InfoPath
> On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 08:31:16 -0700, "Brian Welcker"
> <bwelcker@.online.microsoft.com> wrote:
>>Not sure what you mean. The page I see at that URL has both a link to SP2
>>and SP2.
>>--
>>Brian Welcker
>>Group Program Manager
>>Microsoft SQL Server Reporting Services
>>This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
>>rights.
>>"Andrew Watt [MVP - InfoPath]" <SVGDeveloper@.aol.com> wrote in message
>>news:2cnk615s97qnupcb86jqrle0d6qkapcers@.4ax.com...
>> The link at
>> http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/info.aspx?u=http%3A%2F%2Fsupport.microsoft.com%2F%3Fkbid%3D842440&na=44&p=0&SrcDisplayLang=en&SrcCategoryId=&SrcFamilyId=502c0d89-1308-4662-8f58-cec55ef1235b&genscs=
>> is supposed to contain installation instructions.
>> The only link on that page to installation instructions is to SP1
>> installation instructions. They may well be similar but it seems
>> likely to cause user confusion.
>> Andrew Watt
>> MVP - InfoPath
>

Thursday, February 16, 2012

breaking web service?

I currently have a SQL 2000 RS SP2 installation and upgraded the back end to
2005. I think I read somewhere that the web service is not compatible
anymore? I am using the web services and don't want to have to change any
code if I don't have to. Will my 2000 WS implementation continue to work
after I install SSRS 2005?
Thanks
ScottHi Scott,
As for the SQL Server reporting service, the webservice interface should
definitely change from version 2000 to version 2005 as Reporting service
2005 has involved some new objects and methods signatures. A simple way to
check this is compare the WSDL service description of the two ones and look
for the service interface definiations. If you want to migrate your
application from RS 2000 to RS 2005, I think it is necessary to regenerate
the service proxy and use the new proxy methods.
Sincerely,
Steven Cheng
Microsoft MSDN Online Support Lead
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

Friday, February 10, 2012

Both versions of SQL Server on one server

Can I install SQL Server 7.0 SP2 as a Default version and
SQL Server 2000 SP3 as a named version on a WIndows 2000
SP3 server ?
We will run Connect-Care (Customer-First) Application
against SQL Server 7.0 version and Solomon 5.5 against SQL
Server 2000 version.
Anybody see any problem with this ?
Thanks for any help.
Rick,
Yep, should work fine. I have found it preferable to install SQL Server
7.0 first, then install SQL 2000 as a named instance. Remember to
configure your memory settings so that they aren't competing with each
other for RAM.
Mark Allison, SQL Server MVP
http://www.markallison.co.uk
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602m.html
Rick wrote:
> Can I install SQL Server 7.0 SP2 as a Default version and
> SQL Server 2000 SP3 as a named version on a WIndows 2000
> SP3 server ?
> We will run Connect-Care (Customer-First) Application
> against SQL Server 7.0 version and Solomon 5.5 against SQL
> Server 2000 version.
> Anybody see any problem with this ?
> Thanks for any help.
|||I hope that installing service packs should not be a
problem....

>--Original Message--
>Rick,
>Yep, should work fine. I have found it preferable to
install SQL Server
>7.0 first, then install SQL 2000 as a named instance.
Remember to
>configure your memory settings so that they aren't
competing with each[vbcol=seagreen]
>other for RAM.
>--
>Mark Allison, SQL Server MVP
>http://www.markallison.co.uk
>Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
>http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602m.html
>
>Rick wrote:
and[vbcol=seagreen]
2000[vbcol=seagreen]
SQL
>.
>
|||Rick,
No problem! You can even have two instances of SQL Server 2000 running
at different service pack levels. (Not that you'd want to though).
Mark Allison, SQL Server MVP
http://www.markallison.co.uk
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602m.html
Rick wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> I hope that installing service packs should not be a
> problem....
>
>
> install SQL Server
>
> Remember to
>
> competing with each
>
> and
>
> 2000
>
> SQL

Both versions of SQL Server on one server

Can I install SQL Server 7.0 SP2 as a Default version and
SQL Server 2000 SP3 as a named version on a WIndows 2000
SP3 server '
We will run Connect-Care (Customer-First) Application
against SQL Server 7.0 version and Solomon 5.5 against SQL
Server 2000 version.
Anybody see any problem with this '
Thanks for any help.Check out
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?
url=/library/en-us/instsql/in_runsetup_0svo.asp
Peter
"Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them."
Ronald Reagan
>--Original Message--
>Can I install SQL Server 7.0 SP2 as a Default version and
>SQL Server 2000 SP3 as a named version on a WIndows 2000
>SP3 server '
>We will run Connect-Care (Customer-First) Application
>against SQL Server 7.0 version and Solomon 5.5 against
SQL
>Server 2000 version.
>Anybody see any problem with this '
>Thanks for any help.
>.
>|||Rick,
Yep, should work fine. I have found it preferable to install SQL Server
7.0 first, then install SQL 2000 as a named instance. Remember to
configure your memory settings so that they aren't competing with each
other for RAM.
--
Mark Allison, SQL Server MVP
http://www.markallison.co.uk
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602m.html
Rick wrote:
> Can I install SQL Server 7.0 SP2 as a Default version and
> SQL Server 2000 SP3 as a named version on a WIndows 2000
> SP3 server '
> We will run Connect-Care (Customer-First) Application
> against SQL Server 7.0 version and Solomon 5.5 against SQL
> Server 2000 version.
> Anybody see any problem with this '
> Thanks for any help.|||I hope that installing service packs should not be a
problem....
>--Original Message--
>Rick,
>Yep, should work fine. I have found it preferable to
install SQL Server
>7.0 first, then install SQL 2000 as a named instance.
Remember to
>configure your memory settings so that they aren't
competing with each
>other for RAM.
>--
>Mark Allison, SQL Server MVP
>http://www.markallison.co.uk
>Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
>http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602m.html
>
>Rick wrote:
>> Can I install SQL Server 7.0 SP2 as a Default version
and
>> SQL Server 2000 SP3 as a named version on a WIndows
2000
>> SP3 server '
>> We will run Connect-Care (Customer-First) Application
>> against SQL Server 7.0 version and Solomon 5.5 against
SQL
>> Server 2000 version.
>> Anybody see any problem with this '
>> Thanks for any help.
>.
>|||Rick,
No problem! You can even have two instances of SQL Server 2000 running
at different service pack levels. (Not that you'd want to though).
--
Mark Allison, SQL Server MVP
http://www.markallison.co.uk
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602m.html
Rick wrote:
> I hope that installing service packs should not be a
> problem....
>
>>--Original Message--
>>Rick,
>>Yep, should work fine. I have found it preferable to
> install SQL Server
>>7.0 first, then install SQL 2000 as a named instance.
> Remember to
>>configure your memory settings so that they aren't
> competing with each
>>other for RAM.
>>--
>>Mark Allison, SQL Server MVP
>>http://www.markallison.co.uk
>>Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
>>http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602m.html
>>
>>Rick wrote:
>>Can I install SQL Server 7.0 SP2 as a Default version
> and
>>SQL Server 2000 SP3 as a named version on a WIndows
> 2000
>>SP3 server '
>>We will run Connect-Care (Customer-First) Application
>>against SQL Server 7.0 version and Solomon 5.5 against
> SQL
>>Server 2000 version.
>>Anybody see any problem with this '
>>Thanks for any help.
>>.

BOOT.INI File for 4GB RAM and SQL 2005

I have 3 questions regarding memory configuration on a Windows Server 2003
SP2 Enterprise Edition with SQL2005 SP2.
1. Can someone advise on the correct boot.ini file configuration to utilize
4GB of local memory? I'm not sure if I need the 3GB switch?
multi(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINDOWS="Windows Server 2003,
Enterprise"/3GB/fastdetect/PAE/NoExectute=OptOut
2. Once Boot.ini configured, is the only setting in SQL 2005 to modify is
the sp_configure awe enabled config_value=1 and run_value=1 ?
3. Assuming nothing else is to be done to have SQL 2005 utilize more than
the 2GB memory space, how do you verify or validate SQL 2005 is using more
memory?
Thanks in advancezorro
Is it 64 bit or 32 bit?
> 1. Can someone advise on the correct boot.ini file configuration to
> utilize
> 4GB of local memory? I'm not sure if I need the 3GB switch?
You do need 3GB switch
> 2. Once Boot.ini configured, is the only setting in SQL 2005 to modify is
> the sp_configure awe enabled config_value=1 and run_value=1 ?
AWE is for utilyze more than 4GB
Yes, unless you use 64 bit , then you do not need AWE , make sure that an
account SQL Serverc runs under is added to LockPages in Memory Local Group
Policy
> 3. Assuming nothing else is to be done to have SQL 2005 utilize more than
> the 2GB memory space, how do you verify or validate SQL 2005 is using more
> memory?
Task Manager
"zorro" <zorro@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C2009B55-7B5D-4F65-8986-3AF00547FA1E@.microsoft.com...
>I have 3 questions regarding memory configuration on a Windows Server 2003
> SP2 Enterprise Edition with SQL2005 SP2.
> 1. Can someone advise on the correct boot.ini file configuration to
> utilize
> 4GB of local memory? I'm not sure if I need the 3GB switch?
> multi(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINDOWS="Windows Server 2003,
> Enterprise"/3GB/fastdetect/PAE/NoExectute=OptOut
> 2. Once Boot.ini configured, is the only setting in SQL 2005 to modify is
> the sp_configure awe enabled config_value=1 and run_value=1 ?
> 3. Assuming nothing else is to be done to have SQL 2005 utilize more than
> the 2GB memory space, how do you verify or validate SQL 2005 is using more
> memory?
> Thanks in advance
>|||>> 3. Assuming nothing else is to be done to have SQL 2005 utilize more than
>> the 2GB memory space, how do you verify or validate SQL 2005 is using
>> more
>> memory?
> Task Manager
Actually, I would use performance monitor. Task manager tends to
under-report what SQL Server is actually using.|||Aaron
I agreee. I assumed the OP wants to utilize 4GB ONLY , so after adding
3GB switch you can actually observe in TM.
"Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP]" <ten.xoc@.dnartreb.noraa> wrote in message
news:%23qL67StfIHA.5088@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> 3. Assuming nothing else is to be done to have SQL 2005 utilize more
>> than
>> the 2GB memory space, how do you verify or validate SQL 2005 is using
>> more
>> memory?
>> Task Manager
> Actually, I would use performance monitor. Task manager tends to
> under-report what SQL Server is actually using.|||Thanks Uri,
1. 32 bit Windows Server 2003 version.
2. To verify 3GB switch is needed for my 5GB physically installed RAM?
3. Also good catch on the LockPages in Memory setting within the gpedit.msc
Thanks,
zorro
"Uri Dimant" wrote:
> zorro
> Is it 64 bit or 32 bit?
> > 1. Can someone advise on the correct boot.ini file configuration to
> > utilize
> > 4GB of local memory? I'm not sure if I need the 3GB switch?
> You do need 3GB switch
> > 2. Once Boot.ini configured, is the only setting in SQL 2005 to modify is
> > the sp_configure awe enabled config_value=1 and run_value=1 ?
> AWE is for utilyze more than 4GB
> Yes, unless you use 64 bit , then you do not need AWE , make sure that an
> account SQL Serverc runs under is added to LockPages in Memory Local Group
> Policy
> > 3. Assuming nothing else is to be done to have SQL 2005 utilize more than
> > the 2GB memory space, how do you verify or validate SQL 2005 is using more
> > memory?
> Task Manager
>
>
> "zorro" <zorro@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:C2009B55-7B5D-4F65-8986-3AF00547FA1E@.microsoft.com...
> >I have 3 questions regarding memory configuration on a Windows Server 2003
> > SP2 Enterprise Edition with SQL2005 SP2.
> >
> > 1. Can someone advise on the correct boot.ini file configuration to
> > utilize
> > 4GB of local memory? I'm not sure if I need the 3GB switch?
> >
> > multi(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINDOWS="Windows Server 2003,
> > Enterprise"/3GB/fastdetect/PAE/NoExectute=OptOut
> >
> > 2. Once Boot.ini configured, is the only setting in SQL 2005 to modify is
> > the sp_configure awe enabled config_value=1 and run_value=1 ?
> >
> > 3. Assuming nothing else is to be done to have SQL 2005 utilize more than
> > the 2GB memory space, how do you verify or validate SQL 2005 is using more
> > memory?
> >
> > Thanks in advance
> >
> >
>
>|||See comments inline.
Linchi
"Uri Dimant" wrote:
> zorro
> Is it 64 bit or 32 bit?
> > 1. Can someone advise on the correct boot.ini file configuration to
> > utilize
> > 4GB of local memory? I'm not sure if I need the 3GB switch?
> You do need 3GB switch
>
Why?
> > 2. Once Boot.ini configured, is the only setting in SQL 2005 to modify is
> > the sp_configure awe enabled config_value=1 and run_value=1 ?
> AWE is for utilyze more than 4GB
I keep hearing that AWE is for utilizing more than 4GB. Not sure where that
comes from. Technically, it's not.
> Yes, unless you use 64 bit , then you do not need AWE , make sure that an
> account SQL Serverc runs under is added to LockPages in Memory Local Group
> Policy
> > 3. Assuming nothing else is to be done to have SQL 2005 utilize more than
> > the 2GB memory space, how do you verify or validate SQL 2005 is using more
> > memory?
> Task Manager
>
>
> "zorro" <zorro@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:C2009B55-7B5D-4F65-8986-3AF00547FA1E@.microsoft.com...
> >I have 3 questions regarding memory configuration on a Windows Server 2003
> > SP2 Enterprise Edition with SQL2005 SP2.
> >
> > 1. Can someone advise on the correct boot.ini file configuration to
> > utilize
> > 4GB of local memory? I'm not sure if I need the 3GB switch?
> >
> > multi(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINDOWS="Windows Server 2003,
> > Enterprise"/3GB/fastdetect/PAE/NoExectute=OptOut
> >
> > 2. Once Boot.ini configured, is the only setting in SQL 2005 to modify is
> > the sp_configure awe enabled config_value=1 and run_value=1 ?
> >
> > 3. Assuming nothing else is to be done to have SQL 2005 utilize more than
> > the 2GB memory space, how do you verify or validate SQL 2005 is using more
> > memory?
> >
> > Thanks in advance
> >
> >
>
>|||Hi Linchi
You are right, that technically, it's not. If I have 4GB RAM and want tio
utilize 3GB for SQL Server, so I simple add switch in BOOT.INI and why
bother enabling AWE? What do you think?
"Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:61A4195E-F98E-4AE2-A24F-0BC6AC668D08@.microsoft.com...
> See comments inline.
> Linchi
> "Uri Dimant" wrote:
>> zorro
>> Is it 64 bit or 32 bit?
>> > 1. Can someone advise on the correct boot.ini file configuration to
>> > utilize
>> > 4GB of local memory? I'm not sure if I need the 3GB switch?
>> You do need 3GB switch
> Why?
>> > 2. Once Boot.ini configured, is the only setting in SQL 2005 to modify
>> > is
>> > the sp_configure awe enabled config_value=1 and run_value=1 ?
>> AWE is for utilyze more than 4GB
> I keep hearing that AWE is for utilizing more than 4GB. Not sure where
> that
> comes from. Technically, it's not.
>> Yes, unless you use 64 bit , then you do not need AWE , make sure that
>> an
>> account SQL Serverc runs under is added to LockPages in Memory Local
>> Group
>> Policy
>> > 3. Assuming nothing else is to be done to have SQL 2005 utilize more
>> > than
>> > the 2GB memory space, how do you verify or validate SQL 2005 is using
>> > more
>> > memory?
>> Task Manager
>>
>>
>> "zorro" <zorro@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:C2009B55-7B5D-4F65-8986-3AF00547FA1E@.microsoft.com...
>> >I have 3 questions regarding memory configuration on a Windows Server
>> >2003
>> > SP2 Enterprise Edition with SQL2005 SP2.
>> >
>> > 1. Can someone advise on the correct boot.ini file configuration to
>> > utilize
>> > 4GB of local memory? I'm not sure if I need the 3GB switch?
>> >
>> > multi(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINDOWS="Windows Server 2003,
>> > Enterprise"/3GB/fastdetect/PAE/NoExectute=OptOut
>> >
>> > 2. Once Boot.ini configured, is the only setting in SQL 2005 to modify
>> > is
>> > the sp_configure awe enabled config_value=1 and run_value=1 ?
>> >
>> > 3. Assuming nothing else is to be done to have SQL 2005 utilize more
>> > than
>> > the 2GB memory space, how do you verify or validate SQL 2005 is using
>> > more
>> > memory?
>> >
>> > Thanks in advance
>> >
>> >
>>

Thursday, March 22, 2012

Build 9.0.3050

Monday, March 19, 2012

BUG Multi-value field in SP2

Sunday, March 11, 2012

BUG in SP2 documents

Thursday, February 16, 2012

breaking web service?

Friday, February 10, 2012

Both versions of SQL Server on one server

Both versions of SQL Server on one server

BOOT.INI File for 4GB RAM and SQL 2005

BOOT.INI File for 4GB RAM and SQL 2005

Boot.ini file

Blog Archive

About Me