Adding a second processor

Hello,
We use a client/server application from our vendor running on SQL 2000,
which runs on a Windows 2003 Server in an ADS domain. The server is
currently only running a single Xeon processor and it has the capability for
having 2 processors. Our vendor claims that their application is not "coded
"
to run on a dual-processor machine (a bunch of bull?), but their application
only runs on the client end, not on the server.
The way I see it, it is Windows and SQL that have to be able to handle the
processor, which we all know they can certainly do. Does anyone think that
by adding a second processor, we would be doing any damage to our data and o
r
the application?
The application is Time Matters Enterprise 5.0 (sr2), by LexisNexis and it
is a case management system for a law firm. This is our mission-critical
application.
Thanks, JeffOutside of the fact that your vendor doesn't support it, I really see no
reason why you would want to limit yourself to just one processor. In most
cases, SQL Server would run faster with more CPU's. This is because your
workload is distributed across all of the CPU's. Thus, if you have 100
concurrent queries, 50 would run on one and 50 would run on the other -
ignoring parallelism. However, in most cases parallelism would improve an
individual query's performance, since both CPU's would be used to service
the query. In some cases, parallelism makes specific queries run slower,
but you can turn parallelism off on a per-query basis (or even at the server
level, if you prefer).
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
.
"Jeff" <Jeff@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:56410EBD-043F-4AC4-870B-652141840545@.microsoft.com...
Hello,
We use a client/server application from our vendor running on SQL 2000,
which runs on a Windows 2003 Server in an ADS domain. The server is
currently only running a single Xeon processor and it has the capability for
having 2 processors. Our vendor claims that their application is not
"coded"
to run on a dual-processor machine (a bunch of bull?), but their application
only runs on the client end, not on the server.
The way I see it, it is Windows and SQL that have to be able to handle the
processor, which we all know they can certainly do. Does anyone think that
by adding a second processor, we would be doing any damage to our data and
or
the application?
The application is Time Matters Enterprise 5.0 (sr2), by LexisNexis and it
is a case management system for a law firm. This is our mission-critical
application.
Thanks, Jeff|||I do realize the benefits of a second processor in SQL and that's just it, w
e
don't want to limit ourselves to a single processor. We purchased a new
server recently and only purchased one processor because of what our vendor
told us. It didn't make any sense to me then and it doesn't now. The mobo
on that server is setup for dual-processors. Since the application runs on
the client, I didn't understand why they would tell us that.
More importantly, we no longer have a service contract with that vendor so
they are not going to support us either way unless we get another contract.
My thought is that the worst that can happen is that we have to restore the
database off of a backup and pull the second processor out.
--
Thanks, Jeff
"Tom Moreau" wrote:

> Outside of the fact that your vendor doesn't support it, I really see no
> reason why you would want to limit yourself to just one processor. In mos
t
> cases, SQL Server would run faster with more CPU's. This is because your
> workload is distributed across all of the CPU's. Thus, if you have 100
> concurrent queries, 50 would run on one and 50 would run on the other -
> ignoring parallelism. However, in most cases parallelism would improve an
> individual query's performance, since both CPU's would be used to service
> the query. In some cases, parallelism makes specific queries run slower,
> but you can turn parallelism off on a per-query basis (or even at the serv
er
> level, if you prefer).
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> ..
> "Jeff" <Jeff@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:56410EBD-043F-4AC4-870B-652141840545@.microsoft.com...
> Hello,
> We use a client/server application from our vendor running on SQL 2000,
> which runs on a Windows 2003 Server in an ADS domain. The server is
> currently only running a single Xeon processor and it has the capability f
or
> having 2 processors. Our vendor claims that their application is not
> "coded"
> to run on a dual-processor machine (a bunch of bull?), but their applicati
on
> only runs on the client end, not on the server.
> The way I see it, it is Windows and SQL that have to be able to handle the
> processor, which we all know they can certainly do. Does anyone think tha
t
> by adding a second processor, we would be doing any damage to our data and
> or
> the application?
> The application is Time Matters Enterprise 5.0 (sr2), by LexisNexis and it
> is a case management system for a law firm. This is our mission-critical
> application.
> --
> Thanks, Jeff
>|||The only real issue I see is that of licensing. If you go with a per-CPU
license, you will have to spend some change to do the upgrade. Other than
that, you're fine.
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
"Jeff" <Jeff@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:7CA5419B-884D-4D51-8B1C-3DEE16B291F1@.microsoft.com...
I do realize the benefits of a second processor in SQL and that's just it,
we
don't want to limit ourselves to a single processor. We purchased a new
server recently and only purchased one processor because of what our vendor
told us. It didn't make any sense to me then and it doesn't now. The mobo
on that server is setup for dual-processors. Since the application runs on
the client, I didn't understand why they would tell us that.
More importantly, we no longer have a service contract with that vendor so
they are not going to support us either way unless we get another contract.
My thought is that the worst that can happen is that we have to restore the
database off of a backup and pull the second processor out.
--
Thanks, Jeff
"Tom Moreau" wrote:

> Outside of the fact that your vendor doesn't support it, I really see no
> reason why you would want to limit yourself to just one processor. In
> most
> cases, SQL Server would run faster with more CPU's. This is because your
> workload is distributed across all of the CPU's. Thus, if you have 100
> concurrent queries, 50 would run on one and 50 would run on the other -
> ignoring parallelism. However, in most cases parallelism would improve an
> individual query's performance, since both CPU's would be used to service
> the query. In some cases, parallelism makes specific queries run slower,
> but you can turn parallelism off on a per-query basis (or even at the
> server
> level, if you prefer).
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> ..
> "Jeff" <Jeff@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:56410EBD-043F-4AC4-870B-652141840545@.microsoft.com...
> Hello,
> We use a client/server application from our vendor running on SQL 2000,
> which runs on a Windows 2003 Server in an ADS domain. The server is
> currently only running a single Xeon processor and it has the capability
> for
> having 2 processors. Our vendor claims that their application is not
> "coded"
> to run on a dual-processor machine (a bunch of bull?), but their
> application
> only runs on the client end, not on the server.
> The way I see it, it is Windows and SQL that have to be able to handle the
> processor, which we all know they can certainly do. Does anyone think
> that
> by adding a second processor, we would be doing any damage to our data and
> or
> the application?
> The application is Time Matters Enterprise 5.0 (sr2), by LexisNexis and it
> is a case management system for a law firm. This is our mission-critical
> application.
> --
> Thanks, Jeff
>|||"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:uzy8rPbeGHA.5016@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> The only real issue I see is that of licensing. If you go with a per-CPU
> license, you will have to spend some change to do the upgrade. Other than
> that, you're fine.
I'll second this.
And second the opinion that the original vendor is full of it. :-)

> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> "Jeff" <Jeff@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:7CA5419B-884D-4D51-8B1C-3DEE16B291F1@.microsoft.com...
> I do realize the benefits of a second processor in SQL and that's just it,
> we
> don't want to limit ourselves to a single processor. We purchased a new
> server recently and only purchased one processor because of what our
vendor
> told us. It didn't make any sense to me then and it doesn't now. The
mobo
> on that server is setup for dual-processors. Since the application runs
on
> the client, I didn't understand why they would tell us that.
> More importantly, we no longer have a service contract with that vendor so
> they are not going to support us either way unless we get another
contract.
> My thought is that the worst that can happen is that we have to restore
the
> database off of a backup and pull the second processor out.
> --
> Thanks, Jeff
>
> "Tom Moreau" wrote:
>
your[vbcol=seagreen]
an[vbcol=seagreen]
service[vbcol=seagreen]
slower,[vbcol=seagreen]
the[vbcol=seagreen]
and[vbcol=seagreen]
it[vbcol=seagreen]
mission-critical[vbcol=seagreen]
>sql

Adding a second processor

Hello,
We use a client/server application from our vendor running on SQL 2000,
which runs on a Windows 2003 Server in an ADS domain. The server is
currently only running a single Xeon processor and it has the capability for
having 2 processors. Our vendor claims that their application is not "coded"
to run on a dual-processor machine (a bunch of bull?), but their application
only runs on the client end, not on the server.
The way I see it, it is Windows and SQL that have to be able to handle the
processor, which we all know they can certainly do. Does anyone think that
by adding a second processor, we would be doing any damage to our data and or
the application?
The application is Time Matters Enterprise 5.0 (sr2), by LexisNexis and it
is a case management system for a law firm. This is our mission-critical
application.
--
Thanks, JeffOutside of the fact that your vendor doesn't support it, I really see no
reason why you would want to limit yourself to just one processor. In most
cases, SQL Server would run faster with more CPU's. This is because your
workload is distributed across all of the CPU's. Thus, if you have 100
concurrent queries, 50 would run on one and 50 would run on the other -
ignoring parallelism. However, in most cases parallelism would improve an
individual query's performance, since both CPU's would be used to service
the query. In some cases, parallelism makes specific queries run slower,
but you can turn parallelism off on a per-query basis (or even at the server
level, if you prefer).
--
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
.
"Jeff" <Jeff@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:56410EBD-043F-4AC4-870B-652141840545@.microsoft.com...
Hello,
We use a client/server application from our vendor running on SQL 2000,
which runs on a Windows 2003 Server in an ADS domain. The server is
currently only running a single Xeon processor and it has the capability for
having 2 processors. Our vendor claims that their application is not
"coded"
to run on a dual-processor machine (a bunch of bull?), but their application
only runs on the client end, not on the server.
The way I see it, it is Windows and SQL that have to be able to handle the
processor, which we all know they can certainly do. Does anyone think that
by adding a second processor, we would be doing any damage to our data and
or
the application?
The application is Time Matters Enterprise 5.0 (sr2), by LexisNexis and it
is a case management system for a law firm. This is our mission-critical
application.
--
Thanks, Jeff|||I do realize the benefits of a second processor in SQL and that's just it, we
don't want to limit ourselves to a single processor. We purchased a new
server recently and only purchased one processor because of what our vendor
told us. It didn't make any sense to me then and it doesn't now. The mobo
on that server is setup for dual-processors. Since the application runs on
the client, I didn't understand why they would tell us that.
More importantly, we no longer have a service contract with that vendor so
they are not going to support us either way unless we get another contract.
My thought is that the worst that can happen is that we have to restore the
database off of a backup and pull the second processor out.
--
Thanks, Jeff
"Tom Moreau" wrote:
> Outside of the fact that your vendor doesn't support it, I really see no
> reason why you would want to limit yourself to just one processor. In most
> cases, SQL Server would run faster with more CPU's. This is because your
> workload is distributed across all of the CPU's. Thus, if you have 100
> concurrent queries, 50 would run on one and 50 would run on the other -
> ignoring parallelism. However, in most cases parallelism would improve an
> individual query's performance, since both CPU's would be used to service
> the query. In some cases, parallelism makes specific queries run slower,
> but you can turn parallelism off on a per-query basis (or even at the server
> level, if you prefer).
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> ..
> "Jeff" <Jeff@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:56410EBD-043F-4AC4-870B-652141840545@.microsoft.com...
> Hello,
> We use a client/server application from our vendor running on SQL 2000,
> which runs on a Windows 2003 Server in an ADS domain. The server is
> currently only running a single Xeon processor and it has the capability for
> having 2 processors. Our vendor claims that their application is not
> "coded"
> to run on a dual-processor machine (a bunch of bull?), but their application
> only runs on the client end, not on the server.
> The way I see it, it is Windows and SQL that have to be able to handle the
> processor, which we all know they can certainly do. Does anyone think that
> by adding a second processor, we would be doing any damage to our data and
> or
> the application?
> The application is Time Matters Enterprise 5.0 (sr2), by LexisNexis and it
> is a case management system for a law firm. This is our mission-critical
> application.
> --
> Thanks, Jeff
>|||The only real issue I see is that of licensing. If you go with a per-CPU
license, you will have to spend some change to do the upgrade. Other than
that, you're fine.
--
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
"Jeff" <Jeff@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:7CA5419B-884D-4D51-8B1C-3DEE16B291F1@.microsoft.com...
I do realize the benefits of a second processor in SQL and that's just it,
we
don't want to limit ourselves to a single processor. We purchased a new
server recently and only purchased one processor because of what our vendor
told us. It didn't make any sense to me then and it doesn't now. The mobo
on that server is setup for dual-processors. Since the application runs on
the client, I didn't understand why they would tell us that.
More importantly, we no longer have a service contract with that vendor so
they are not going to support us either way unless we get another contract.
My thought is that the worst that can happen is that we have to restore the
database off of a backup and pull the second processor out.
--
Thanks, Jeff
"Tom Moreau" wrote:
> Outside of the fact that your vendor doesn't support it, I really see no
> reason why you would want to limit yourself to just one processor. In
> most
> cases, SQL Server would run faster with more CPU's. This is because your
> workload is distributed across all of the CPU's. Thus, if you have 100
> concurrent queries, 50 would run on one and 50 would run on the other -
> ignoring parallelism. However, in most cases parallelism would improve an
> individual query's performance, since both CPU's would be used to service
> the query. In some cases, parallelism makes specific queries run slower,
> but you can turn parallelism off on a per-query basis (or even at the
> server
> level, if you prefer).
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> ..
> "Jeff" <Jeff@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:56410EBD-043F-4AC4-870B-652141840545@.microsoft.com...
> Hello,
> We use a client/server application from our vendor running on SQL 2000,
> which runs on a Windows 2003 Server in an ADS domain. The server is
> currently only running a single Xeon processor and it has the capability
> for
> having 2 processors. Our vendor claims that their application is not
> "coded"
> to run on a dual-processor machine (a bunch of bull?), but their
> application
> only runs on the client end, not on the server.
> The way I see it, it is Windows and SQL that have to be able to handle the
> processor, which we all know they can certainly do. Does anyone think
> that
> by adding a second processor, we would be doing any damage to our data and
> or
> the application?
> The application is Time Matters Enterprise 5.0 (sr2), by LexisNexis and it
> is a case management system for a law firm. This is our mission-critical
> application.
> --
> Thanks, Jeff
>|||"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:uzy8rPbeGHA.5016@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> The only real issue I see is that of licensing. If you go with a per-CPU
> license, you will have to spend some change to do the upgrade. Other than
> that, you're fine.
I'll second this.
And second the opinion that the original vendor is full of it. :-)
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> "Jeff" <Jeff@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:7CA5419B-884D-4D51-8B1C-3DEE16B291F1@.microsoft.com...
> I do realize the benefits of a second processor in SQL and that's just it,
> we
> don't want to limit ourselves to a single processor. We purchased a new
> server recently and only purchased one processor because of what our
vendor
> told us. It didn't make any sense to me then and it doesn't now. The
mobo
> on that server is setup for dual-processors. Since the application runs
on
> the client, I didn't understand why they would tell us that.
> More importantly, we no longer have a service contract with that vendor so
> they are not going to support us either way unless we get another
contract.
> My thought is that the worst that can happen is that we have to restore
the
> database off of a backup and pull the second processor out.
> --
> Thanks, Jeff
>
> "Tom Moreau" wrote:
> > Outside of the fact that your vendor doesn't support it, I really see no
> > reason why you would want to limit yourself to just one processor. In
> > most
> > cases, SQL Server would run faster with more CPU's. This is because
your
> > workload is distributed across all of the CPU's. Thus, if you have 100
> > concurrent queries, 50 would run on one and 50 would run on the other -
> > ignoring parallelism. However, in most cases parallelism would improve
an
> > individual query's performance, since both CPU's would be used to
service
> > the query. In some cases, parallelism makes specific queries run
slower,
> > but you can turn parallelism off on a per-query basis (or even at the
> > server
> > level, if you prefer).
> >
> > --
> > Tom
> >
> > ----
> > Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> > SQL Server MVP
> > Toronto, ON Canada
> > ..
> > "Jeff" <Jeff@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:56410EBD-043F-4AC4-870B-652141840545@.microsoft.com...
> > Hello,
> >
> > We use a client/server application from our vendor running on SQL 2000,
> > which runs on a Windows 2003 Server in an ADS domain. The server is
> > currently only running a single Xeon processor and it has the capability
> > for
> > having 2 processors. Our vendor claims that their application is not
> > "coded"
> > to run on a dual-processor machine (a bunch of bull?), but their
> > application
> > only runs on the client end, not on the server.
> >
> > The way I see it, it is Windows and SQL that have to be able to handle
the
> > processor, which we all know they can certainly do. Does anyone think
> > that
> > by adding a second processor, we would be doing any damage to our data
and
> > or
> > the application?
> >
> > The application is Time Matters Enterprise 5.0 (sr2), by LexisNexis and
it
> > is a case management system for a law firm. This is our
mission-critical
> > application.
> >
> > --
> > Thanks, Jeff
> >
> >
>

adding a new subscriber

Hi
I have merge replication. One client is already subscribed. I need to add
another client to the publication
The database is pretty big, so I don't want to send the whole db over the
internet.
I want to back it up and restore it, then establish the subscription.
Are the steps
a) backup database
b) recreate snapshot
c) restored db at subcriber B
d) establish subscription at subcriber B
I would assume I don't want any changes to the database made from the other
subscriber between steps a) and d)
Is this right. And I hope recreating the snapshot will not 'damage'
subscriber A
Thanks
Bruce
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce,
if you want a pull subscription, the easiest way is to create an Attachable
Subscription Database (details in BOL). If not, then you can backup and
restore and subscribe without initialization - @.sync_type = none.
HTH,
Paul Ibison
|||Bear in mind that if the database is too large the attachable subscription
will not work. The compressed databse is limited to 2 gig in size so a
large database will have problems.
Rand
This posting is provided "as is" with no warranties and confers no rights.

Adding (local) SQL Server registration

Hi,
I am using windows 2000. I uninstalled SQL server 2000
and then reinstalled the client tools only. I deleted the
(local) SQL Server registration. Now I have problem with
adding it back. Even if I uninstall and reinstall the SQL
server the (local) SQL Server registration doesn't show
up.
When I try adding (local) SQL Server registration I am
getting this error:
(LOCAL)- SQLServer does not exist or access denied.
(local) is not showing up in my available servers list
when I try to add a new SQL Server Registration.
Does anybody know how can I add it back?
Thank you.
.Hi,
It seems you have removed SQL Server from your machine and installed only
client tools. In this case you will not
have the local sql server. The (local) server can only be registered if you
have a SQL server installed in the
local machine.
Can you check the control -- Admin tools -- services for any MSSQLServer
service. If it is not there in the list then
you do not have a SQL Server installed in your machine.
Thanks
Hari
MCDBA
<anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2164501c45a3b$be962de0$a001280a@.phx
.gbl...
> Hi,
> I am using windows 2000. I uninstalled SQL server 2000
> and then reinstalled the client tools only. I deleted the
> (local) SQL Server registration. Now I have problem with
> adding it back. Even if I uninstall and reinstall the SQL
> server the (local) SQL Server registration doesn't show
> up.
> When I try adding (local) SQL Server registration I am
> getting this error:
> (LOCAL)- SQLServer does not exist or access denied.
> (local) is not showing up in my available servers list
> when I try to add a new SQL Server Registration.
> Does anybody know how can I add it back?
> Thank you.
> .
>|||Hi,
Thanks for your reply.
There is no SQLServerAgent or any similar service
running. I only installed client tools because other
options were grayed out and I got this error message:
'Microsoft SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition server
component is not supported on this operating system. Only
client components will be available for installation.'
My operating system is windows 2000. I know that sql
server was runing on this system and I uninstalled it. It
seems that some Windows programs are deleted when I
uninstalled the SQL Server for the first time. Do you
know what should I check and what may be missing? I don't
want to reinstall my operating system.
Thank you,
Rosie

>--Original Message--
>Hi,
>It seems you have removed SQL Server from your machine
and installed only
>client tools. In this case you will not
>have the local sql server. The (local) server can only
be registered if you
>have a SQL server installed in the
>local machine.
>Can you check the control -- Admin tools -- services for
any MSSQLServer
>service. If it is not there in the list then
>you do not have a SQL Server installed in your machine.
>
>--
>Thanks
>Hari
>MCDBA
><anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:2164501c45a3b$be962de0$a001280a@.phx
.gbl...
the[vbcol=seagreen]
with[vbcol=seagreen]
SQL[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>.
>|||Hi,
It seems edition of SQL Server you are tryng to install is not supported in
your current OS.
How to check the OS version
1. From the command prompt, execute WINMSD
2. In the system summary you can get the OS Name , if it is Windows
professional you can only install
SQL Server Personal edition and MSDE.
Have a look into the Edition supported in each OS. (From Books online)
Operating Systems Supported by the Editions of SQL Server 2000
This table shows the operating systems supported for running the server
software from each Microsoft SQL ServerT 2000 edition.
Operating System
Enterprise Edition
Standard Edition
Personal Edition
Developer Edition
Desktop Engine
SQL Server CE Enterprise Evaluation Edition
Microsoft Windows 2000 DataCenter Supported Supported Supported
Supported Supported N/A Supported
Windows 2000 Advanced Server Supported Supported Supported Supported
Supported N/A Supported
Windows 2000 Server Supported Supported Supported Supported Supported
N/A Supported
Windows 2000 Professional N/A N/A Supported Supported Supported N/A
Supported
Microsoft Windows NT 4.0 Server, Enterprise Edition Supported
Supported Supported Supported Supported N/A Supported
Windows NT 4.0 Server Supported Supported Supported Supported
Supported N/A Supported
Windows NT 4.0 Workstation N/A N/A Supported Supported Supported N/A
Supported
Microsoft Windows 98 N/A N/A Supported N/A Supported N/A N/A
Microsoft Windows CE N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Supported N/A
Thanks
Hari
MCDBA
<anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:218d401c45ad1$5ccb0450$a401280a@.phx
.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi,
> Thanks for your reply.
> There is no SQLServerAgent or any similar service
> running. I only installed client tools because other
> options were grayed out and I got this error message:
> 'Microsoft SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition server
> component is not supported on this operating system. Only
> client components will be available for installation.'
> My operating system is windows 2000. I know that sql
> server was runing on this system and I uninstalled it. It
> seems that some Windows programs are deleted when I
> uninstalled the SQL Server for the first time. Do you
> know what should I check and what may be missing? I don't
> want to reinstall my operating system.
> Thank you,
> Rosie
>
> and installed only
> be registered if you
> any MSSQLServer
> the
> with
> SQL

Adding (local) SQL Server registration

Hi,
I am using windows 2000. I uninstalled SQL server 2000
and then reinstalled the client tools only. I deleted the
(local) SQL Server registration. Now I have problem with
adding it back. Even if I uninstall and reinstall the SQL
server the (local) SQL Server registration doesn't show
up.
When I try adding (local) SQL Server registration I am
getting this error:
(LOCAL)- SQLServer does not exist or access denied.
(local) is not showing up in my available servers list
when I try to add a new SQL Server Registration.
Does anybody know how can I add it back?
Thank you.
..
Hi,
It seems you have removed SQL Server from your machine and installed only
client tools. In this case you will not
have the local sql server. The (local) server can only be registered if you
have a SQL server installed in the
local machine.
Can you check the control -- Admin tools -- services for any MSSQLServer
service. If it is not there in the list then
you do not have a SQL Server installed in your machine.
Thanks
Hari
MCDBA
<anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2164501c45a3b$be962de0$a001280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> I am using windows 2000. I uninstalled SQL server 2000
> and then reinstalled the client tools only. I deleted the
> (local) SQL Server registration. Now I have problem with
> adding it back. Even if I uninstall and reinstall the SQL
> server the (local) SQL Server registration doesn't show
> up.
> When I try adding (local) SQL Server registration I am
> getting this error:
> (LOCAL)- SQLServer does not exist or access denied.
> (local) is not showing up in my available servers list
> when I try to add a new SQL Server Registration.
> Does anybody know how can I add it back?
> Thank you.
> .
>
|||Hi,
Thanks for your reply.
There is no SQLServerAgent or any similar service
running. I only installed client tools because other
options were grayed out and I got this error message:
'Microsoft SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition server
component is not supported on this operating system. Only
client components will be available for installation.'
My operating system is windows 2000. I know that sql
server was runing on this system and I uninstalled it. It
seems that some Windows programs are deleted when I
uninstalled the SQL Server for the first time. Do you
know what should I check and what may be missing? I don't
want to reinstall my operating system.
Thank you,
Rosie

>--Original Message--
>Hi,
>It seems you have removed SQL Server from your machine
and installed only
>client tools. In this case you will not
>have the local sql server. The (local) server can only
be registered if you
>have a SQL server installed in the
>local machine.
>Can you check the control -- Admin tools -- services for
any MSSQLServer[vbcol=seagreen]
>service. If it is not there in the list then
>you do not have a SQL Server installed in your machine.
>
>--
>Thanks
>Hari
>MCDBA
><anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>news:2164501c45a3b$be962de0$a001280a@.phx.gbl...
the[vbcol=seagreen]
with[vbcol=seagreen]
SQL
>
>.
>
|||Hi,
It seems edition of SQL Server you are tryng to install is not supported in
your current OS.
How to check the OS version
1. From the command prompt, execute WINMSD
2. In the system summary you can get the OS Name , if it is Windows
professional you can only install
SQL Server Personal edition and MSDE.
Have a look into the Edition supported in each OS. (From Books online)
Operating Systems Supported by the Editions of SQL Server 2000
This table shows the operating systems supported for running the server
software from each Microsoft SQL ServerT 2000 edition.
Operating System
Enterprise Edition
Standard Edition
Personal Edition
Developer Edition
Desktop Engine
SQL Server CE Enterprise Evaluation Edition
Microsoft Windows 2000 DataCenter Supported Supported Supported
Supported Supported N/A Supported
Windows 2000 Advanced Server Supported Supported Supported Supported
Supported N/A Supported
Windows 2000 Server Supported Supported Supported Supported Supported
N/A Supported
Windows 2000 Professional N/A N/A Supported Supported Supported N/A
Supported
Microsoft Windows NT 4.0 Server, Enterprise Edition Supported
Supported Supported Supported Supported N/A Supported
Windows NT 4.0 Server Supported Supported Supported Supported
Supported N/A Supported
Windows NT 4.0 Workstation N/A N/A Supported Supported Supported N/A
Supported
Microsoft Windows 98 N/A N/A Supported N/A Supported N/A N/A
Microsoft Windows CE N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Supported N/A
Thanks
Hari
MCDBA
<anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:218d401c45ad1$5ccb0450$a401280a@.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi,
> Thanks for your reply.
> There is no SQLServerAgent or any similar service
> running. I only installed client tools because other
> options were grayed out and I got this error message:
> 'Microsoft SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition server
> component is not supported on this operating system. Only
> client components will be available for installation.'
> My operating system is windows 2000. I know that sql
> server was runing on this system and I uninstalled it. It
> seems that some Windows programs are deleted when I
> uninstalled the SQL Server for the first time. Do you
> know what should I check and what may be missing? I don't
> want to reinstall my operating system.
> Thank you,
> Rosie
> and installed only
> be registered if you
> any MSSQLServer
> the
> with
> SQL

Adding (local) SQL Server registration

Hi,
I am using windows 2000. I uninstalled SQL server 2000
and then reinstalled the client tools only. I deleted the
(local) SQL Server registration. Now I have problem with
adding it back. Even if I uninstall and reinstall the SQL
server the (local) SQL Server registration doesn't show
up.
When I try adding (local) SQL Server registration I am
getting this error:
(LOCAL)- SQLServer does not exist or access denied.
(local) is not showing up in my available servers list
when I try to add a new SQL Server Registration.
Does anybody know how can I add it back?
Thank you.
.Hi,
It seems you have removed SQL Server from your machine and installed only
client tools. In this case you will not
have the local sql server. The (local) server can only be registered if you
have a SQL server installed in the
local machine.
Can you check the control -- Admin tools -- services for any MSSQLServer
service. If it is not there in the list then
you do not have a SQL Server installed in your machine.
Thanks
Hari
MCDBA
<anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2164501c45a3b$be962de0$a001280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> I am using windows 2000. I uninstalled SQL server 2000
> and then reinstalled the client tools only. I deleted the
> (local) SQL Server registration. Now I have problem with
> adding it back. Even if I uninstall and reinstall the SQL
> server the (local) SQL Server registration doesn't show
> up.
> When I try adding (local) SQL Server registration I am
> getting this error:
> (LOCAL)- SQLServer does not exist or access denied.
> (local) is not showing up in my available servers list
> when I try to add a new SQL Server Registration.
> Does anybody know how can I add it back?
> Thank you.
> .
>|||Hi,
Thanks for your reply.
There is no SQLServerAgent or any similar service
running. I only installed client tools because other
options were grayed out and I got this error message:
'Microsoft SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition server
component is not supported on this operating system. Only
client components will be available for installation.'
My operating system is windows 2000. I know that sql
server was runing on this system and I uninstalled it. It
seems that some Windows programs are deleted when I
uninstalled the SQL Server for the first time. Do you
know what should I check and what may be missing? I don't
want to reinstall my operating system.
Thank you,
Rosie
>--Original Message--
>Hi,
>It seems you have removed SQL Server from your machine
and installed only
>client tools. In this case you will not
>have the local sql server. The (local) server can only
be registered if you
>have a SQL server installed in the
>local machine.
>Can you check the control -- Admin tools -- services for
any MSSQLServer
>service. If it is not there in the list then
>you do not have a SQL Server installed in your machine.
>
>--
>Thanks
>Hari
>MCDBA
><anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>news:2164501c45a3b$be962de0$a001280a@.phx.gbl...
>> Hi,
>> I am using windows 2000. I uninstalled SQL server 2000
>> and then reinstalled the client tools only. I deleted
the
>> (local) SQL Server registration. Now I have problem
with
>> adding it back. Even if I uninstall and reinstall the
SQL
>> server the (local) SQL Server registration doesn't show
>> up.
>> When I try adding (local) SQL Server registration I am
>> getting this error:
>> (LOCAL)- SQLServer does not exist or access denied.
>> (local) is not showing up in my available servers list
>> when I try to add a new SQL Server Registration.
>> Does anybody know how can I add it back?
>> Thank you.
>> .
>>
>
>.
>|||Hi,
It seems edition of SQL Server you are tryng to install is not supported in
your current OS.
How to check the OS version
1. From the command prompt, execute WINMSD
2. In the system summary you can get the OS Name , if it is Windows
professional you can only install
SQL Server Personal edition and MSDE.
Have a look into the Edition supported in each OS. (From Books online)
Operating Systems Supported by the Editions of SQL Server 2000
This table shows the operating systems supported for running the server
software from each Microsoft® SQL ServerT 2000 edition.
Operating System
Enterprise Edition
Standard Edition
Personal Edition
Developer Edition
Desktop Engine
SQL Server CE Enterprise Evaluation Edition
Microsoft Windows® 2000 DataCenter Supported Supported Supported
Supported Supported N/A Supported
Windows 2000 Advanced Server Supported Supported Supported Supported
Supported N/A Supported
Windows 2000 Server Supported Supported Supported Supported Supported
N/A Supported
Windows 2000 Professional N/A N/A Supported Supported Supported N/A
Supported
Microsoft Windows NT® 4.0 Server, Enterprise Edition Supported
Supported Supported Supported Supported N/A Supported
Windows NT 4.0 Server Supported Supported Supported Supported
Supported N/A Supported
Windows NT 4.0 Workstation N/A N/A Supported Supported Supported N/A
Supported
Microsoft Windows 98 N/A N/A Supported N/A Supported N/A N/A
Microsoft Windows CE N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Supported N/A
Thanks
Hari
MCDBA
<anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:218d401c45ad1$5ccb0450$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> Thanks for your reply.
> There is no SQLServerAgent or any similar service
> running. I only installed client tools because other
> options were grayed out and I got this error message:
> 'Microsoft SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition server
> component is not supported on this operating system. Only
> client components will be available for installation.'
> My operating system is windows 2000. I know that sql
> server was runing on this system and I uninstalled it. It
> seems that some Windows programs are deleted when I
> uninstalled the SQL Server for the first time. Do you
> know what should I check and what may be missing? I don't
> want to reinstall my operating system.
> Thank you,
> Rosie
> >--Original Message--
> >Hi,
> >
> >It seems you have removed SQL Server from your machine
> and installed only
> >client tools. In this case you will not
> >have the local sql server. The (local) server can only
> be registered if you
> >have a SQL server installed in the
> >local machine.
> >
> >Can you check the control -- Admin tools -- services for
> any MSSQLServer
> >service. If it is not there in the list then
> >you do not have a SQL Server installed in your machine.
> >
> >
> >--
> >Thanks
> >Hari
> >MCDBA
> ><anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >news:2164501c45a3b$be962de0$a001280a@.phx.gbl...
> >> Hi,
> >> I am using windows 2000. I uninstalled SQL server 2000
> >> and then reinstalled the client tools only. I deleted
> the
> >> (local) SQL Server registration. Now I have problem
> with
> >> adding it back. Even if I uninstall and reinstall the
> SQL
> >> server the (local) SQL Server registration doesn't show
> >> up.
> >> When I try adding (local) SQL Server registration I am
> >> getting this error:
> >>
> >> (LOCAL)- SQLServer does not exist or access denied.
> >>
> >> (local) is not showing up in my available servers list
> >> when I try to add a new SQL Server Registration.
> >>
> >> Does anybody know how can I add it back?
> >> Thank you.
> >>
> >> .
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >.
> >

Add TCP/IP and named pipes protocls

Hi,
I have a trouble to connect to my local SQL Server 2005 instances.
I have noticed that "SQL Server Configuration Manager \ SQL Native Client
Configuration \ Client Protocols" is empty, I guest TCP/IP and named pipes
entries should exist !
How to add these protocols ?
Thank youHi
Have you enabled remote connections in the Surface Area Configuration tool?
John
"sauve mark" wrote:
> Hi,
> I have a trouble to connect to my local SQL Server 2005 instances.
> I have noticed that "SQL Server Configuration Manager \ SQL Native Client
> Configuration \ Client Protocols" is empty, I guest TCP/IP and named pipes
> entries should exist !
> How to add these protocols ?
> Thank you
>
>

Add Hindi Language Data In Sql Server

I want to store data in hindi language. I have taken nvarchar as datatype for this column. When i store data from a client application running on browser ascii value for corresponding data is stored in the database. I want hindi font should be displayed when i view the database in enterprise manager not like this ???Might be a silly question, but this held me up for a couple of days:

Have you installed the correct fonts/character sets on your client?|||Also, is the client booting with the Locale and Regional settings that support this character set?

add an Oracle linked server as a subscriber

Hi,
I have an Oracle 9i client installed on SQL Server 2000, and I want to add a linked Oracle server to SQL Server so that I can use the linked Oracle server as a subscriber, I got an error says 'OLEDB error, OLEDB error trace: initialize returned 0x80004005
', and I can not view the tables or views in the Oracle linked server, can anybody help me on this?
Hong
80004005 is generic access denied you need to use a login and password on
your linked server which maps to SYSDBA or SYSTEM on the Oracle server.
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a book on SQL Server replication?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
"Hong Wang" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E7D43F27-B100-4CE1-A32C-B084E8EC2C96@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I have an Oracle 9i client installed on SQL Server 2000, and I want to add
a linked Oracle server to SQL Server so that I can use the linked Oracle
server as a subscriber, I got an error says 'OLEDB error, OLEDB error trace:
initialize returned 0x80004005', and I can not view the tables or views in
the Oracle linked server, can anybody help me on this?
> Hong