Error was returned when we compiled a proc. The proc compiles under SP3a.
We're using Standard Edition SP4.
The offending statement is a sub-select in a where clause that uses a union:
and mv.INSTR_ID in
(
select @.INSTR_ID
union
select ridf.INSTR_ID
from FT_T_RIDF ridf
join FT_T_RISS riss on riss.RLD_ISS_FEAT_ID = ridf.RLD_ISS_FEAT_ID
and riss.PART_UNITS_TYP = 'Option' and riss.INSTR_ID = @.INSTR_ID
where ridf.REL_TYP = 'OPTION'
)change to:
( select @.INSTR_ID AS [ID]
union
select ridf.INSTR_ID
from FT_T_RIDF ridf
join FT_T_RISS riss on riss.RLD_ISS_FEAT_ID = ridf.RLD_ISS_FEAT_ID
and riss.PART_UNITS_TYP = 'Option' and riss.INSTR_ID = @.INSTR_ID
where ridf.REL_TYP = 'OPTION'
)
--
-oj
"davidhg" <davidhg@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3255283F-3B9E-435B-BFC4-51CF9B5069BD@.microsoft.com...
> Error was returned when we compiled a proc. The proc compiles under SP3a.
> We're using Standard Edition SP4.
> The offending statement is a sub-select in a where clause that uses a
> union:
> and mv.INSTR_ID in
> (
> select @.INSTR_ID
> union
> select ridf.INSTR_ID
> from FT_T_RIDF ridf
> join FT_T_RISS riss on riss.RLD_ISS_FEAT_ID = ridf.RLD_ISS_FEAT_ID
> and riss.PART_UNITS_TYP = 'Option' and riss.INSTR_ID = @.INSTR_ID
> where ridf.REL_TYP = 'OPTION'
> )
>|||Hi oj,
Unfortunately, the error still occurs. To compile the proc, we created a
pseudo-talbe from the sub-select with the union statement and joined it
directly to the other tables. FYI, I opened a case with MS.
--
Dave
"oj" wrote:
> change to:
> ( select @.INSTR_ID AS [ID]
> union
> select ridf.INSTR_ID
> from FT_T_RIDF ridf
> join FT_T_RISS riss on riss.RLD_ISS_FEAT_ID = ridf.RLD_ISS_FEAT_ID
> and riss.PART_UNITS_TYP = 'Option' and riss.INSTR_ID = @.INSTR_ID
> where ridf.REL_TYP = 'OPTION'
> )
> --
> -oj
>
> "davidhg" <davidhg@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:3255283F-3B9E-435B-BFC4-51CF9B5069BD@.microsoft.com...
> > Error was returned when we compiled a proc. The proc compiles under SP3a.
> > We're using Standard Edition SP4.
> >
> > The offending statement is a sub-select in a where clause that uses a
> > union:
> > and mv.INSTR_ID in
> > (
> > select @.INSTR_ID
> > union
> > select ridf.INSTR_ID
> > from FT_T_RIDF ridf
> > join FT_T_RISS riss on riss.RLD_ISS_FEAT_ID = ridf.RLD_ISS_FEAT_ID
> > and riss.PART_UNITS_TYP = 'Option' and riss.INSTR_ID = @.INSTR_ID
> > where ridf.REL_TYP = 'OPTION'
> > )
> >
> >
>
>|||Okay. Without seeing the *whole* thing I'm not sure what would be the case.
The syntax looks right to me.
Do post back if you hear anything.
--
-oj
"davidhg" <davidhg@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:21FFCFE8-EED9-47FA-821C-AE224C630FDC@.microsoft.com...
> Hi oj,
> Unfortunately, the error still occurs. To compile the proc, we created a
> pseudo-talbe from the sub-select with the union statement and joined it
> directly to the other tables. FYI, I opened a case with MS.
> --
> Dave
>
> "oj" wrote:
>> change to:
>> ( select @.INSTR_ID AS [ID]
>> union
>> select ridf.INSTR_ID
>> from FT_T_RIDF ridf
>> join FT_T_RISS riss on riss.RLD_ISS_FEAT_ID = ridf.RLD_ISS_FEAT_ID
>> and riss.PART_UNITS_TYP = 'Option' and riss.INSTR_ID = @.INSTR_ID
>> where ridf.REL_TYP = 'OPTION'
>> )
>> --
>> -oj
>>
>> "davidhg" <davidhg@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:3255283F-3B9E-435B-BFC4-51CF9B5069BD@.microsoft.com...
>> > Error was returned when we compiled a proc. The proc compiles under
>> > SP3a.
>> > We're using Standard Edition SP4.
>> >
>> > The offending statement is a sub-select in a where clause that uses a
>> > union:
>> > and mv.INSTR_ID in
>> > (
>> > select @.INSTR_ID
>> > union
>> > select ridf.INSTR_ID
>> > from FT_T_RIDF ridf
>> > join FT_T_RISS riss on riss.RLD_ISS_FEAT_ID = ridf.RLD_ISS_FEAT_ID
>> > and riss.PART_UNITS_TYP = 'Option' and riss.INSTR_ID = @.INSTR_ID
>> > where ridf.REL_TYP = 'OPTION'
>> > )
>> >
>> >
>>sql
Showing posts with label standard. Show all posts
Showing posts with label standard. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
[TCP/IP Sockets]ConnectionCheckForData()) Error
Error was returned when we compiled a proc. The proc compiles under SP3a.
We're using Standard Edition SP4.
The offending statement is a sub-select in a where clause that uses a union:
and mv.INSTR_ID in
(
select @.INSTR_ID
union
select ridf.INSTR_ID
from FT_T_RIDF ridf
join FT_T_RISS riss on riss.RLD_ISS_FEAT_ID = ridf.RLD_ISS_FEAT_ID
and riss.PART_UNITS_TYP = 'Option' and riss.INSTR_ID = @.INSTR_ID
where ridf.REL_TYP = 'OPTION'
)change to:
( select @.INSTR_ID AS [ID]
union
select ridf.INSTR_ID
from FT_T_RIDF ridf
join FT_T_RISS riss on riss.RLD_ISS_FEAT_ID = ridf.RLD_ISS_FEAT_ID
and riss.PART_UNITS_TYP = 'Option' and riss.INSTR_ID = @.INSTR_ID
where ridf.REL_TYP = 'OPTION'
)
-oj
"davidhg" <davidhg@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3255283F-3B9E-435B-BFC4-51CF9B5069BD@.microsoft.com...
> Error was returned when we compiled a proc. The proc compiles under SP3a.
> We're using Standard Edition SP4.
> The offending statement is a sub-select in a where clause that uses a
> union:
> and mv.INSTR_ID in
> (
> select @.INSTR_ID
> union
> select ridf.INSTR_ID
> from FT_T_RIDF ridf
> join FT_T_RISS riss on riss.RLD_ISS_FEAT_ID = ridf.RLD_ISS_FEAT_ID
> and riss.PART_UNITS_TYP = 'Option' and riss.INSTR_ID = @.INSTR_ID
> where ridf.REL_TYP = 'OPTION'
> )
>|||Hi oj,
Unfortunately, the error still occurs. To compile the proc, we created a
pseudo-talbe from the sub-select with the union statement and joined it
directly to the other tables. FYI, I opened a case with MS.
--
Dave
"oj" wrote:
> change to:
> ( select @.INSTR_ID AS [ID]
> union
> select ridf.INSTR_ID
> from FT_T_RIDF ridf
> join FT_T_RISS riss on riss.RLD_ISS_FEAT_ID = ridf.RLD_ISS_FEAT_ID
> and riss.PART_UNITS_TYP = 'Option' and riss.INSTR_ID = @.INSTR_ID
> where ridf.REL_TYP = 'OPTION'
> )
> --
> -oj
>
> "davidhg" <davidhg@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:3255283F-3B9E-435B-BFC4-51CF9B5069BD@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||Okay. Without seeing the *whole* thing I'm not sure what would be the case.
The syntax looks right to me.
Do post back if you hear anything.
-oj
"davidhg" <davidhg@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:21FFCFE8-EED9-47FA-821C-AE224C630FDC@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi oj,
> Unfortunately, the error still occurs. To compile the proc, we created a
> pseudo-talbe from the sub-select with the union statement and joined it
> directly to the other tables. FYI, I opened a case with MS.
> --
> Dave
>
> "oj" wrote:
>
We're using Standard Edition SP4.
The offending statement is a sub-select in a where clause that uses a union:
and mv.INSTR_ID in
(
select @.INSTR_ID
union
select ridf.INSTR_ID
from FT_T_RIDF ridf
join FT_T_RISS riss on riss.RLD_ISS_FEAT_ID = ridf.RLD_ISS_FEAT_ID
and riss.PART_UNITS_TYP = 'Option' and riss.INSTR_ID = @.INSTR_ID
where ridf.REL_TYP = 'OPTION'
)change to:
( select @.INSTR_ID AS [ID]
union
select ridf.INSTR_ID
from FT_T_RIDF ridf
join FT_T_RISS riss on riss.RLD_ISS_FEAT_ID = ridf.RLD_ISS_FEAT_ID
and riss.PART_UNITS_TYP = 'Option' and riss.INSTR_ID = @.INSTR_ID
where ridf.REL_TYP = 'OPTION'
)
-oj
"davidhg" <davidhg@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3255283F-3B9E-435B-BFC4-51CF9B5069BD@.microsoft.com...
> Error was returned when we compiled a proc. The proc compiles under SP3a.
> We're using Standard Edition SP4.
> The offending statement is a sub-select in a where clause that uses a
> union:
> and mv.INSTR_ID in
> (
> select @.INSTR_ID
> union
> select ridf.INSTR_ID
> from FT_T_RIDF ridf
> join FT_T_RISS riss on riss.RLD_ISS_FEAT_ID = ridf.RLD_ISS_FEAT_ID
> and riss.PART_UNITS_TYP = 'Option' and riss.INSTR_ID = @.INSTR_ID
> where ridf.REL_TYP = 'OPTION'
> )
>|||Hi oj,
Unfortunately, the error still occurs. To compile the proc, we created a
pseudo-talbe from the sub-select with the union statement and joined it
directly to the other tables. FYI, I opened a case with MS.
--
Dave
"oj" wrote:
> change to:
> ( select @.INSTR_ID AS [ID]
> union
> select ridf.INSTR_ID
> from FT_T_RIDF ridf
> join FT_T_RISS riss on riss.RLD_ISS_FEAT_ID = ridf.RLD_ISS_FEAT_ID
> and riss.PART_UNITS_TYP = 'Option' and riss.INSTR_ID = @.INSTR_ID
> where ridf.REL_TYP = 'OPTION'
> )
> --
> -oj
>
> "davidhg" <davidhg@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:3255283F-3B9E-435B-BFC4-51CF9B5069BD@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||Okay. Without seeing the *whole* thing I'm not sure what would be the case.
The syntax looks right to me.
Do post back if you hear anything.
-oj
"davidhg" <davidhg@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:21FFCFE8-EED9-47FA-821C-AE224C630FDC@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi oj,
> Unfortunately, the error still occurs. To compile the proc, we created a
> pseudo-talbe from the sub-select with the union statement and joined it
> directly to the other tables. FYI, I opened a case with MS.
> --
> Dave
>
> "oj" wrote:
>
[TCP/IP Sockets]ConnectionCheckForData()) Error
Error was returned when we compiled a proc. The proc compiles under SP3a.
We're using Standard Edition SP4.
The offending statement is a sub-select in a where clause that uses a union:
and mv.INSTR_ID in
(
select @.INSTR_ID
union
select ridf.INSTR_ID
from FT_T_RIDF ridf
join FT_T_RISS riss on riss.RLD_ISS_FEAT_ID = ridf.RLD_ISS_FEAT_ID
and riss.PART_UNITS_TYP = 'Option' and riss.INSTR_ID = @.INSTR_ID
where ridf.REL_TYP = 'OPTION'
)
change to:
( select @.INSTR_ID AS [ID]
union
select ridf.INSTR_ID
from FT_T_RIDF ridf
join FT_T_RISS riss on riss.RLD_ISS_FEAT_ID = ridf.RLD_ISS_FEAT_ID
and riss.PART_UNITS_TYP = 'Option' and riss.INSTR_ID = @.INSTR_ID
where ridf.REL_TYP = 'OPTION'
)
-oj
"davidhg" <davidhg@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3255283F-3B9E-435B-BFC4-51CF9B5069BD@.microsoft.com...
> Error was returned when we compiled a proc. The proc compiles under SP3a.
> We're using Standard Edition SP4.
> The offending statement is a sub-select in a where clause that uses a
> union:
> and mv.INSTR_ID in
> (
> select @.INSTR_ID
> union
> select ridf.INSTR_ID
> from FT_T_RIDF ridf
> join FT_T_RISS riss on riss.RLD_ISS_FEAT_ID = ridf.RLD_ISS_FEAT_ID
> and riss.PART_UNITS_TYP = 'Option' and riss.INSTR_ID = @.INSTR_ID
> where ridf.REL_TYP = 'OPTION'
> )
>
|||Hi oj,
Unfortunately, the error still occurs. To compile the proc, we created a
pseudo-talbe from the sub-select with the union statement and joined it
directly to the other tables. FYI, I opened a case with MS.
Dave
"oj" wrote:
> change to:
> ( select @.INSTR_ID AS [ID]
> union
> select ridf.INSTR_ID
> from FT_T_RIDF ridf
> join FT_T_RISS riss on riss.RLD_ISS_FEAT_ID = ridf.RLD_ISS_FEAT_ID
> and riss.PART_UNITS_TYP = 'Option' and riss.INSTR_ID = @.INSTR_ID
> where ridf.REL_TYP = 'OPTION'
> )
> --
> -oj
>
> "davidhg" <davidhg@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:3255283F-3B9E-435B-BFC4-51CF9B5069BD@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||Okay. Without seeing the *whole* thing I'm not sure what would be the case.
The syntax looks right to me.
Do post back if you hear anything.
-oj
"davidhg" <davidhg@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:21FFCFE8-EED9-47FA-821C-AE224C630FDC@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi oj,
> Unfortunately, the error still occurs. To compile the proc, we created a
> pseudo-talbe from the sub-select with the union statement and joined it
> directly to the other tables. FYI, I opened a case with MS.
> --
> Dave
>
> "oj" wrote:
We're using Standard Edition SP4.
The offending statement is a sub-select in a where clause that uses a union:
and mv.INSTR_ID in
(
select @.INSTR_ID
union
select ridf.INSTR_ID
from FT_T_RIDF ridf
join FT_T_RISS riss on riss.RLD_ISS_FEAT_ID = ridf.RLD_ISS_FEAT_ID
and riss.PART_UNITS_TYP = 'Option' and riss.INSTR_ID = @.INSTR_ID
where ridf.REL_TYP = 'OPTION'
)
change to:
( select @.INSTR_ID AS [ID]
union
select ridf.INSTR_ID
from FT_T_RIDF ridf
join FT_T_RISS riss on riss.RLD_ISS_FEAT_ID = ridf.RLD_ISS_FEAT_ID
and riss.PART_UNITS_TYP = 'Option' and riss.INSTR_ID = @.INSTR_ID
where ridf.REL_TYP = 'OPTION'
)
-oj
"davidhg" <davidhg@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3255283F-3B9E-435B-BFC4-51CF9B5069BD@.microsoft.com...
> Error was returned when we compiled a proc. The proc compiles under SP3a.
> We're using Standard Edition SP4.
> The offending statement is a sub-select in a where clause that uses a
> union:
> and mv.INSTR_ID in
> (
> select @.INSTR_ID
> union
> select ridf.INSTR_ID
> from FT_T_RIDF ridf
> join FT_T_RISS riss on riss.RLD_ISS_FEAT_ID = ridf.RLD_ISS_FEAT_ID
> and riss.PART_UNITS_TYP = 'Option' and riss.INSTR_ID = @.INSTR_ID
> where ridf.REL_TYP = 'OPTION'
> )
>
|||Hi oj,
Unfortunately, the error still occurs. To compile the proc, we created a
pseudo-talbe from the sub-select with the union statement and joined it
directly to the other tables. FYI, I opened a case with MS.
Dave
"oj" wrote:
> change to:
> ( select @.INSTR_ID AS [ID]
> union
> select ridf.INSTR_ID
> from FT_T_RIDF ridf
> join FT_T_RISS riss on riss.RLD_ISS_FEAT_ID = ridf.RLD_ISS_FEAT_ID
> and riss.PART_UNITS_TYP = 'Option' and riss.INSTR_ID = @.INSTR_ID
> where ridf.REL_TYP = 'OPTION'
> )
> --
> -oj
>
> "davidhg" <davidhg@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:3255283F-3B9E-435B-BFC4-51CF9B5069BD@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||Okay. Without seeing the *whole* thing I'm not sure what would be the case.
The syntax looks right to me.
Do post back if you hear anything.
-oj
"davidhg" <davidhg@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:21FFCFE8-EED9-47FA-821C-AE224C630FDC@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi oj,
> Unfortunately, the error still occurs. To compile the proc, we created a
> pseudo-talbe from the sub-select with the union statement and joined it
> directly to the other tables. FYI, I opened a case with MS.
> --
> Dave
>
> "oj" wrote:
[SSIS] : STDEV in Derived Columns
Hello,
Does anyone have already tried to calculate a standard deviation (STDEV) in a derived column ?
Any help is welcome ;-)
Cheers,
Bertrand
Bertrandr wrote:
Hello,
Does anyone have already tried to calculate a standard deviation (STDEV) in a derived column ?
Any help is welcome ;-)
Cheers,
Bertrand
Have you looked into the documentation?
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms141671.aspx
it looks to me thta function is not available...you may want to do that in the DB or create a script component.
|||Haven't calculated standard deviation in a derived column, but rather in an Async script component (i.e. Synchronous Input Id = 0 on the first output). The data being passed in to this transform is DT_CY data type (currency) called TotalDue. The data passed out is a DT_R8 on the output called StdDev.
Imports System
Imports System.Data
Imports System.Math
Imports Microsoft.SqlServer.Dts.Pipeline.Wrapper
Imports Microsoft.SqlServer.Dts.Runtime.Wrapper
Public Class ScriptMain
Inherits UserComponent
Private rowCount As Integer = 0
Private columnSum As Double = 0
Private columnSumOfSquares As Double = 0
Public Overrides Sub InputMain_ProcessInput(ByVal Buffer As InputMainBuffer)
While Buffer.NextRow()
InputMain_ProcessInputRow(Buffer)
End While
If Buffer.EndOfRowset Then
With OutputMainBuffer
.AddRow()
.StdDev = StdDev(rowCount, columnSum, columnSumOfSquares)
End With
OutputMainBuffer.SetEndOfRowset()
End If
End Sub
Public Overrides Sub InputMain_ProcessInputRow(ByVal Row As InputMainBuffer)
rowCount = rowCount + 1
columnSum = columnSum + Row.TotalDue
columnSumOfSquares = columnSumOfSquares + Math.Pow(Row.TotalDue, 2)
End Sub
Private Function StdDev(ByVal Rows As Integer, ByVal sum As Double, ByVal sumOfSquares As Double) As Double
Dim topSumVal As Double = (rowCount * columnSumOfSquares) - (Math.Pow(columnSum, 2))
Return Math.Sqrt(topSumVal / (rowCount * (rowCount - 1)))
End Function
End Class
|||Bertrand,There has been a feature suggestion posted for SSIS with respect to statistics. Please visit the link and vote. Please add your comments as well.
https://connect.microsoft.com/SQLServer/feedback/ViewFeedback.aspx?FeedbackID=253840
Thanks,
Phil|||
Bertrand,
There has been a feature suggestion posted for SSIS with respect to statistics. Please visit the link and vote. Please add your comments as well.https://connect.microsoft.com/feedback/viewfeedback.aspx?FeedbackID=253840
Thanks,
Phil
Phil,
Are you sure that's the right link? it takes me to 'Page Not Found'.
-Jamie
|||
Phil Brammer wrote: Bertrand,
There has been a feature suggestion posted for SSIS with respect to statistics. Please visit the link and vote. Please add your comments as well.https://connect.microsoft.com/feedback/viewfeedback.aspx?FeedbackID=253840
Thanks,
Phil
Phil,
Are you sure that's the right link? it takes me to 'Page Not Found'.
-Jamie
Good catch... When I visited the link, it redirected to a URL without "SQLServer" in the path... The link has been updated in my original post...
Saturday, February 25, 2012
[INSTALL SQL SERVER] GOT A WARNING MESSAGE
[Microsoft SQL server 2000 standard edition server component is not
supported ont this operation system
Only client components will be avaiable for installation ]
my OS is winXP professional edition.
Anything wrong ?
please help
It is not possible to install SQL Server (the server edition) on to a =
desktop OS such as XP Pro. =20
You do have a few options if you need the DBMS installed on your =
computer (for example for development/testing). You can install the =
Personal Edition or the Developer Edition of SQL Server to your desktop =
machine.
--=20
Keith
"Agnes" <agnes@.dynamictech.com.hk> wrote in message =
news:eJd9rxOPEHA.1340@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> [Microsoft SQL server 2000 standard edition server component is not
> supported ont this operation system
> Only client components will be avaiable for installation ]
>=20
> my OS is winXP professional edition.
> Anything wrong ?
> please help
>=20
>
|||That's mean I can install to window server2000 but not XP Pro ?
"Keith Kratochvil" <sqlguy.back2u@.comcast.net> ?
news:OCgeK4OPEHA.3124@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl ?...
It is not possible to install SQL Server (the server edition) on to a
desktop OS such as XP Pro.
You do have a few options if you need the DBMS installed on your computer
(for example for development/testing). You can install the Personal Edition
or the Developer Edition of SQL Server to your desktop machine.
Keith
"Agnes" <agnes@.dynamictech.com.hk> wrote in message
news:eJd9rxOPEHA.1340@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> [Microsoft SQL server 2000 standard edition server component is not
> supported ont this operation system
> Only client components will be avaiable for installation ]
> my OS is winXP professional edition.
> Anything wrong ?
> please help
>
|||> That's mean I can install to window server2000 but not XP Pro ?
That is the expected (and correct) behavior.
> [Microsoft SQL server 2000 standard edition server component is not
> supported ont this operation system
This is a true statement
> Only client components will be avaiable for installation ]
Also a true statement
> my OS is winXP professional edition.
This is your problem. The server editions (Standard and Enterprise) of =
SQL Server do not install on to desktop operating systems. If you want =
to install SQL Server onto your desktop operating system you will need =
to install the Personal Edition, the Developer Edition, or a trial =
edition.
> Anything wrong ?
You are trying to install SQL Server onto an operating system that it =
does not install on.
--=20
Keith
"Agnes" <agnes@.dynamictech.com.hk> wrote in message =
news:%23b76DCPPEHA.3128@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> That's mean I can install to window server2000 but not XP Pro ?
>=20
> "Keith Kratochvil" <sqlguy.back2u@.comcast.net> ?
> news:OCgeK4OPEHA.3124@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl ?...
> It is not possible to install SQL Server (the server edition) on to a
> desktop OS such as XP Pro.
>=20
> You do have a few options if you need the DBMS installed on your =
computer
> (for example for development/testing). You can install the Personal =
Edition
> or the Developer Edition of SQL Server to your desktop machine.
>=20
> --=20
> Keith
>=20
>=20
> "Agnes" <agnes@.dynamictech.com.hk> wrote in message
> news:eJd9rxOPEHA.1340@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>=20
>
supported ont this operation system
Only client components will be avaiable for installation ]
my OS is winXP professional edition.
Anything wrong ?
please help
It is not possible to install SQL Server (the server edition) on to a =
desktop OS such as XP Pro. =20
You do have a few options if you need the DBMS installed on your =
computer (for example for development/testing). You can install the =
Personal Edition or the Developer Edition of SQL Server to your desktop =
machine.
--=20
Keith
"Agnes" <agnes@.dynamictech.com.hk> wrote in message =
news:eJd9rxOPEHA.1340@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> [Microsoft SQL server 2000 standard edition server component is not
> supported ont this operation system
> Only client components will be avaiable for installation ]
>=20
> my OS is winXP professional edition.
> Anything wrong ?
> please help
>=20
>
|||That's mean I can install to window server2000 but not XP Pro ?
"Keith Kratochvil" <sqlguy.back2u@.comcast.net> ?
news:OCgeK4OPEHA.3124@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl ?...
It is not possible to install SQL Server (the server edition) on to a
desktop OS such as XP Pro.
You do have a few options if you need the DBMS installed on your computer
(for example for development/testing). You can install the Personal Edition
or the Developer Edition of SQL Server to your desktop machine.
Keith
"Agnes" <agnes@.dynamictech.com.hk> wrote in message
news:eJd9rxOPEHA.1340@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> [Microsoft SQL server 2000 standard edition server component is not
> supported ont this operation system
> Only client components will be avaiable for installation ]
> my OS is winXP professional edition.
> Anything wrong ?
> please help
>
|||> That's mean I can install to window server2000 but not XP Pro ?
That is the expected (and correct) behavior.
> [Microsoft SQL server 2000 standard edition server component is not
> supported ont this operation system
This is a true statement
> Only client components will be avaiable for installation ]
Also a true statement
> my OS is winXP professional edition.
This is your problem. The server editions (Standard and Enterprise) of =
SQL Server do not install on to desktop operating systems. If you want =
to install SQL Server onto your desktop operating system you will need =
to install the Personal Edition, the Developer Edition, or a trial =
edition.
> Anything wrong ?
You are trying to install SQL Server onto an operating system that it =
does not install on.
--=20
Keith
"Agnes" <agnes@.dynamictech.com.hk> wrote in message =
news:%23b76DCPPEHA.3128@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> That's mean I can install to window server2000 but not XP Pro ?
>=20
> "Keith Kratochvil" <sqlguy.back2u@.comcast.net> ?
> news:OCgeK4OPEHA.3124@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl ?...
> It is not possible to install SQL Server (the server edition) on to a
> desktop OS such as XP Pro.
>=20
> You do have a few options if you need the DBMS installed on your =
computer
> (for example for development/testing). You can install the Personal =
Edition
> or the Developer Edition of SQL Server to your desktop machine.
>=20
> --=20
> Keith
>=20
>=20
> "Agnes" <agnes@.dynamictech.com.hk> wrote in message
> news:eJd9rxOPEHA.1340@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>=20
>
[INSTALL SQL SERVER] GOT A WARNING MESSAGE
[Microsoft SQL server 2000 standard edition server component is not
supported ont this operation system
Only client components will be avaiable for installation ]
my OS is winXP professional edition.
Anything wrong '
please helpIt is not possible to install SQL Server (the server edition) on to a =
desktop OS such as XP Pro. =20
You do have a few options if you need the DBMS installed on your =
computer (for example for development/testing). You can install the =
Personal Edition or the Developer Edition of SQL Server to your desktop =
machine.
--=20
Keith
"Agnes" <agnes@.dynamictech.com.hk> wrote in message =
news:eJd9rxOPEHA.1340@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> [Microsoft SQL server 2000 standard edition server component is not
> supported ont this operation system
> Only client components will be avaiable for installation ]
>=20
> my OS is winXP professional edition.
> Anything wrong '
> please help
>=20
>|||That's mean I can install to window server2000 but not XP Pro '
"Keith Kratochvil" <sqlguy.back2u@.comcast.net> ?
news:OCgeK4OPEHA.3124@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl ?...
It is not possible to install SQL Server (the server edition) on to a
desktop OS such as XP Pro.
You do have a few options if you need the DBMS installed on your computer
(for example for development/testing). You can install the Personal Edition
or the Developer Edition of SQL Server to your desktop machine.
Keith
"Agnes" <agnes@.dynamictech.com.hk> wrote in message
news:eJd9rxOPEHA.1340@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> [Microsoft SQL server 2000 standard edition server component is not
> supported ont this operation system
> Only client components will be avaiable for installation ]
> my OS is winXP professional edition.
> Anything wrong '
> please help
>|||> That's mean I can install to window server2000 but not XP Pro '
That is the expected (and correct) behavior.
> [Microsoft SQL server 2000 standard edition server component is not
> supported ont this operation system
This is a true statement
> Only client components will be avaiable for installation ]
Also a true statement
> my OS is winXP professional edition.
This is your problem. The server editions (Standard and Enterprise) of =
SQL Server do not install on to desktop operating systems. If you want =
to install SQL Server onto your desktop operating system you will need =
to install the Personal Edition, the Developer Edition, or a trial =
edition.
> Anything wrong '
You are trying to install SQL Server onto an operating system that it =
does not install on.
--=20
Keith
"Agnes" <agnes@.dynamictech.com.hk> wrote in message =
news:%23b76DCPPEHA.3128@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> That's mean I can install to window server2000 but not XP Pro '
>=20
> "Keith Kratochvil" <sqlguy.back2u@.comcast.net> ?
> news:OCgeK4OPEHA.3124@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl ?...
> It is not possible to install SQL Server (the server edition) on to a
> desktop OS such as XP Pro.
>=20
> You do have a few options if you need the DBMS installed on your =
computer
> (for example for development/testing). You can install the Personal =
Edition
> or the Developer Edition of SQL Server to your desktop machine.
>=20
> --=20
> Keith
>=20
>=20
> "Agnes" <agnes@.dynamictech.com.hk> wrote in message
> news:eJd9rxOPEHA.1340@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>=20
>
supported ont this operation system
Only client components will be avaiable for installation ]
my OS is winXP professional edition.
Anything wrong '
please helpIt is not possible to install SQL Server (the server edition) on to a =
desktop OS such as XP Pro. =20
You do have a few options if you need the DBMS installed on your =
computer (for example for development/testing). You can install the =
Personal Edition or the Developer Edition of SQL Server to your desktop =
machine.
--=20
Keith
"Agnes" <agnes@.dynamictech.com.hk> wrote in message =
news:eJd9rxOPEHA.1340@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> [Microsoft SQL server 2000 standard edition server component is not
> supported ont this operation system
> Only client components will be avaiable for installation ]
>=20
> my OS is winXP professional edition.
> Anything wrong '
> please help
>=20
>|||That's mean I can install to window server2000 but not XP Pro '
"Keith Kratochvil" <sqlguy.back2u@.comcast.net> ?
news:OCgeK4OPEHA.3124@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl ?...
It is not possible to install SQL Server (the server edition) on to a
desktop OS such as XP Pro.
You do have a few options if you need the DBMS installed on your computer
(for example for development/testing). You can install the Personal Edition
or the Developer Edition of SQL Server to your desktop machine.
Keith
"Agnes" <agnes@.dynamictech.com.hk> wrote in message
news:eJd9rxOPEHA.1340@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> [Microsoft SQL server 2000 standard edition server component is not
> supported ont this operation system
> Only client components will be avaiable for installation ]
> my OS is winXP professional edition.
> Anything wrong '
> please help
>|||> That's mean I can install to window server2000 but not XP Pro '
That is the expected (and correct) behavior.
> [Microsoft SQL server 2000 standard edition server component is not
> supported ont this operation system
This is a true statement
> Only client components will be avaiable for installation ]
Also a true statement
> my OS is winXP professional edition.
This is your problem. The server editions (Standard and Enterprise) of =
SQL Server do not install on to desktop operating systems. If you want =
to install SQL Server onto your desktop operating system you will need =
to install the Personal Edition, the Developer Edition, or a trial =
edition.
> Anything wrong '
You are trying to install SQL Server onto an operating system that it =
does not install on.
--=20
Keith
"Agnes" <agnes@.dynamictech.com.hk> wrote in message =
news:%23b76DCPPEHA.3128@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> That's mean I can install to window server2000 but not XP Pro '
>=20
> "Keith Kratochvil" <sqlguy.back2u@.comcast.net> ?
> news:OCgeK4OPEHA.3124@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl ?...
> It is not possible to install SQL Server (the server edition) on to a
> desktop OS such as XP Pro.
>=20
> You do have a few options if you need the DBMS installed on your =
computer
> (for example for development/testing). You can install the Personal =
Edition
> or the Developer Edition of SQL Server to your desktop machine.
>=20
> --=20
> Keith
>=20
>=20
> "Agnes" <agnes@.dynamictech.com.hk> wrote in message
> news:eJd9rxOPEHA.1340@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>=20
>
[INSTALL SQL SERVER] GOT A WARNING MESSAGE
[Microsoft SQL server 2000 standard edition server component is not
supported ont this operation system
Only client components will be avaiable for installation ]
my OS is winXP professional edition.
Anything wrong '
please helpIt is not possible to install SQL Server (the server edition) on to a =desktop OS such as XP Pro.
You do have a few options if you need the DBMS installed on your =computer (for example for development/testing). You can install the =Personal Edition or the Developer Edition of SQL Server to your desktop =machine.
-- Keith
"Agnes" <agnes@.dynamictech.com.hk> wrote in message =news:eJd9rxOPEHA.1340@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> [Microsoft SQL server 2000 standard edition server component is not
> supported ont this operation system
> Only client components will be avaiable for installation ]
> > my OS is winXP professional edition.
> Anything wrong '
> please help
> >|||That's mean I can install to window server2000 but not XP Pro '
"Keith Kratochvil" <sqlguy.back2u@.comcast.net> ?
news:OCgeK4OPEHA.3124@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl ?...
It is not possible to install SQL Server (the server edition) on to a
desktop OS such as XP Pro.
You do have a few options if you need the DBMS installed on your computer
(for example for development/testing). You can install the Personal Edition
or the Developer Edition of SQL Server to your desktop machine.
--
Keith
"Agnes" <agnes@.dynamictech.com.hk> wrote in message
news:eJd9rxOPEHA.1340@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> [Microsoft SQL server 2000 standard edition server component is not
> supported ont this operation system
> Only client components will be avaiable for installation ]
> my OS is winXP professional edition.
> Anything wrong '
> please help
>|||> That's mean I can install to window server2000 but not XP Pro '
That is the expected (and correct) behavior.
> [Microsoft SQL server 2000 standard edition server component is not
> supported ont this operation system
This is a true statement
> Only client components will be avaiable for installation ]
Also a true statement
> my OS is winXP professional edition.
This is your problem. The server editions (Standard and Enterprise) of =SQL Server do not install on to desktop operating systems. If you want =to install SQL Server onto your desktop operating system you will need =to install the Personal Edition, the Developer Edition, or a trial =edition.
> Anything wrong '
You are trying to install SQL Server onto an operating system that it =does not install on.
-- Keith
"Agnes" <agnes@.dynamictech.com.hk> wrote in message =news:%23b76DCPPEHA.3128@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> That's mean I can install to window server2000 but not XP Pro '
> > "Keith Kratochvil" <sqlguy.back2u@.comcast.net> ?
> news:OCgeK4OPEHA.3124@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl ?...
> It is not possible to install SQL Server (the server edition) on to a
> desktop OS such as XP Pro.
> > You do have a few options if you need the DBMS installed on your =computer
> (for example for development/testing). You can install the Personal =Edition
> or the Developer Edition of SQL Server to your desktop machine.
> > -- > Keith
> > > "Agnes" <agnes@.dynamictech.com.hk> wrote in message
> news:eJd9rxOPEHA.1340@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > [Microsoft SQL server 2000 standard edition server component is not
> > supported ont this operation system
> > Only client components will be avaiable for installation ]
> >
> > my OS is winXP professional edition.
> > Anything wrong '
> > please help
> >
> >
> >
supported ont this operation system
Only client components will be avaiable for installation ]
my OS is winXP professional edition.
Anything wrong '
please helpIt is not possible to install SQL Server (the server edition) on to a =desktop OS such as XP Pro.
You do have a few options if you need the DBMS installed on your =computer (for example for development/testing). You can install the =Personal Edition or the Developer Edition of SQL Server to your desktop =machine.
-- Keith
"Agnes" <agnes@.dynamictech.com.hk> wrote in message =news:eJd9rxOPEHA.1340@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> [Microsoft SQL server 2000 standard edition server component is not
> supported ont this operation system
> Only client components will be avaiable for installation ]
> > my OS is winXP professional edition.
> Anything wrong '
> please help
> >|||That's mean I can install to window server2000 but not XP Pro '
"Keith Kratochvil" <sqlguy.back2u@.comcast.net> ?
news:OCgeK4OPEHA.3124@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl ?...
It is not possible to install SQL Server (the server edition) on to a
desktop OS such as XP Pro.
You do have a few options if you need the DBMS installed on your computer
(for example for development/testing). You can install the Personal Edition
or the Developer Edition of SQL Server to your desktop machine.
--
Keith
"Agnes" <agnes@.dynamictech.com.hk> wrote in message
news:eJd9rxOPEHA.1340@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> [Microsoft SQL server 2000 standard edition server component is not
> supported ont this operation system
> Only client components will be avaiable for installation ]
> my OS is winXP professional edition.
> Anything wrong '
> please help
>|||> That's mean I can install to window server2000 but not XP Pro '
That is the expected (and correct) behavior.
> [Microsoft SQL server 2000 standard edition server component is not
> supported ont this operation system
This is a true statement
> Only client components will be avaiable for installation ]
Also a true statement
> my OS is winXP professional edition.
This is your problem. The server editions (Standard and Enterprise) of =SQL Server do not install on to desktop operating systems. If you want =to install SQL Server onto your desktop operating system you will need =to install the Personal Edition, the Developer Edition, or a trial =edition.
> Anything wrong '
You are trying to install SQL Server onto an operating system that it =does not install on.
-- Keith
"Agnes" <agnes@.dynamictech.com.hk> wrote in message =news:%23b76DCPPEHA.3128@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> That's mean I can install to window server2000 but not XP Pro '
> > "Keith Kratochvil" <sqlguy.back2u@.comcast.net> ?
> news:OCgeK4OPEHA.3124@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl ?...
> It is not possible to install SQL Server (the server edition) on to a
> desktop OS such as XP Pro.
> > You do have a few options if you need the DBMS installed on your =computer
> (for example for development/testing). You can install the Personal =Edition
> or the Developer Edition of SQL Server to your desktop machine.
> > -- > Keith
> > > "Agnes" <agnes@.dynamictech.com.hk> wrote in message
> news:eJd9rxOPEHA.1340@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > [Microsoft SQL server 2000 standard edition server component is not
> > supported ont this operation system
> > Only client components will be avaiable for installation ]
> >
> > my OS is winXP professional edition.
> > Anything wrong '
> > please help
> >
> >
> >
Sunday, February 19, 2012
[DBNETLIB][ConnectionWrite (send()).]General network error
SQL Server Spec
SQL 2000, 8.00.2187 SP4 standard edition
windows 2003 SP1
sqlserver driver 2000.86.1830.00
webserver
windows 2003 r2, standard edition service pack2
sqlserver driver 2000.86.3959.00
we received "intermittance"
Error Number -2147467259 (&H80004005)
[DBNETLIB][ConnectionWrite (send()).]General network error. Check yo
ur
network documentation.
We already do this as mention in microsoft website
on SynAttackProtect:
http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...kb;en-us;899599
Any idea or any one have experience on this?
Cheers,
Liang Yewsorry,
SQL Server
windows 2003 SP2
SQL 2000, 8.00.2187 SP4 standard edition
sqlserver driver 2000.86.3959.00
"soonyu" wrote:
> SQL Server Spec
> SQL 2000, 8.00.2187 SP4 standard edition
> windows 2003 SP1
> sqlserver driver 2000.86.1830.00
> webserver
> windows 2003 r2, standard edition service pack2
> sqlserver driver 2000.86.3959.00
> we received "intermittance"
> Error Number -2147467259 (&H80004005)
> [DBNETLIB][ConnectionWrite (send()).]General network error. Check
your
> network documentation.
> We already do this as mention in microsoft website
> on SynAttackProtect:
> http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...kb;en-us;899599
> Any idea or any one have experience on this?
> Cheers,
> Liang Yew
SQL 2000, 8.00.2187 SP4 standard edition
windows 2003 SP1
sqlserver driver 2000.86.1830.00
webserver
windows 2003 r2, standard edition service pack2
sqlserver driver 2000.86.3959.00
we received "intermittance"
Error Number -2147467259 (&H80004005)
[DBNETLIB][ConnectionWrite (send()).]General network error. Check yo
ur
network documentation.
We already do this as mention in microsoft website
on SynAttackProtect:
http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...kb;en-us;899599
Any idea or any one have experience on this?
Cheers,
Liang Yewsorry,
SQL Server
windows 2003 SP2
SQL 2000, 8.00.2187 SP4 standard edition
sqlserver driver 2000.86.3959.00
"soonyu" wrote:
> SQL Server Spec
> SQL 2000, 8.00.2187 SP4 standard edition
> windows 2003 SP1
> sqlserver driver 2000.86.1830.00
> webserver
> windows 2003 r2, standard edition service pack2
> sqlserver driver 2000.86.3959.00
> we received "intermittance"
> Error Number -2147467259 (&H80004005)
> [DBNETLIB][ConnectionWrite (send()).]General network error. Check
your
> network documentation.
> We already do this as mention in microsoft website
> on SynAttackProtect:
> http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...kb;en-us;899599
> Any idea or any one have experience on this?
> Cheers,
> Liang Yew
[DBNETLIB][ConnectionWrite (send()).]General network error
SQL Server Spec
SQL 2000, 8.00.2187 SP4 standard edition
windows 2003 SP1
sqlserver driver 2000.86.1830.00
webserver
windows 2003 r2, standard edition service pack2
sqlserver driver 2000.86.3959.00
we received "intermittance"
Error Number -2147467259 (&H80004005)
[DBNETLIB][ConnectionWrite (send()).]General network error. Check your
network documentation.
We already do this as mention in microsoft website
on SynAttackProtect:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;899599
Any idea or any one have experience on this?
Cheers,
Liang Yew
sorry,
SQL Server
windows 2003 SP2
SQL 2000, 8.00.2187 SP4 standard edition
sqlserver driver 2000.86.3959.00
"soonyu" wrote:
> SQL Server Spec
> SQL 2000, 8.00.2187 SP4 standard edition
> windows 2003 SP1
> sqlserver driver 2000.86.1830.00
> webserver
> windows 2003 r2, standard edition service pack2
> sqlserver driver 2000.86.3959.00
> we received "intermittance"
> Error Number -2147467259 (&H80004005)
> [DBNETLIB][ConnectionWrite (send()).]General network error. Check your
> network documentation.
> We already do this as mention in microsoft website
> on SynAttackProtect:
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;899599
> Any idea or any one have experience on this?
> Cheers,
> Liang Yew
SQL 2000, 8.00.2187 SP4 standard edition
windows 2003 SP1
sqlserver driver 2000.86.1830.00
webserver
windows 2003 r2, standard edition service pack2
sqlserver driver 2000.86.3959.00
we received "intermittance"
Error Number -2147467259 (&H80004005)
[DBNETLIB][ConnectionWrite (send()).]General network error. Check your
network documentation.
We already do this as mention in microsoft website
on SynAttackProtect:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;899599
Any idea or any one have experience on this?
Cheers,
Liang Yew
sorry,
SQL Server
windows 2003 SP2
SQL 2000, 8.00.2187 SP4 standard edition
sqlserver driver 2000.86.3959.00
"soonyu" wrote:
> SQL Server Spec
> SQL 2000, 8.00.2187 SP4 standard edition
> windows 2003 SP1
> sqlserver driver 2000.86.1830.00
> webserver
> windows 2003 r2, standard edition service pack2
> sqlserver driver 2000.86.3959.00
> we received "intermittance"
> Error Number -2147467259 (&H80004005)
> [DBNETLIB][ConnectionWrite (send()).]General network error. Check your
> network documentation.
> We already do this as mention in microsoft website
> on SynAttackProtect:
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;899599
> Any idea or any one have experience on this?
> Cheers,
> Liang Yew
[DBNETLIB][ConnectionRead (recv()).]General network error. Check your network do
Hello all,
We have a Windows 2003 Web Edition server serving a site through IIS. It connects to a Windows 2003 Standard Edition server running SQL 2000 SP3a.
This site receives the following error as seen in the topic:
[DBNETLIB][ConnectionRead (recv()).]General network error. Check your network documentation.
We've configured the server network utility to only allow TCP/IP connections. The connection string for the site is as follows:
<%
' FileName="Connection_ado_conn_string.htm"
' Type="ADO"
' HTTP="false"
' Catalog=""
' Schema=""
MM_connSpankMSSQL_STRING = "Provider=sqloledb;Data Source=SERVER_IP,1433;Network Library=DBMSSOCN;Initial Catalog=ourmaindb_1;User ID=ourmaindb_1;Password=hotcookies;"
%>
Any ideas or tips on solving this issue? We've noticed it is due to larger queries as smaller ones do work with no problems.
The servers are behind a BSD box running iptables, has 1433,1434 along with standard web ports wide open. Anything outbound is allowed.
Some further testing via ODBC on the IIS server improved things. No more connection pooling for the SQL Server driver allows for 1/3 of the query to run. Still 2/3s of it doesn't show up, and that general network error message appears.
Should have 330 rows if it works right.See if this webcast can help you any:
http://support.microsoft.com/servicedesks/webcasts/seminar/shared/asp/view.asp?url=/servicedesks/webcasts/en/WC072804/manifest.xml
We have a Windows 2003 Web Edition server serving a site through IIS. It connects to a Windows 2003 Standard Edition server running SQL 2000 SP3a.
This site receives the following error as seen in the topic:
[DBNETLIB][ConnectionRead (recv()).]General network error. Check your network documentation.
We've configured the server network utility to only allow TCP/IP connections. The connection string for the site is as follows:
<%
' FileName="Connection_ado_conn_string.htm"
' Type="ADO"
' HTTP="false"
' Catalog=""
' Schema=""
MM_connSpankMSSQL_STRING = "Provider=sqloledb;Data Source=SERVER_IP,1433;Network Library=DBMSSOCN;Initial Catalog=ourmaindb_1;User ID=ourmaindb_1;Password=hotcookies;"
%>
Any ideas or tips on solving this issue? We've noticed it is due to larger queries as smaller ones do work with no problems.
The servers are behind a BSD box running iptables, has 1433,1434 along with standard web ports wide open. Anything outbound is allowed.
Some further testing via ODBC on the IIS server improved things. No more connection pooling for the SQL Server driver allows for 1/3 of the query to run. Still 2/3s of it doesn't show up, and that general network error message appears.
Should have 330 rows if it works right.See if this webcast can help you any:
http://support.microsoft.com/servicedesks/webcasts/seminar/shared/asp/view.asp?url=/servicedesks/webcasts/en/WC072804/manifest.xml
Thursday, February 9, 2012
@@servername NULL
I am running SQL 7 Standard on a W2K server, both at the most current
service packs. After applying the lastest security update to Windows
and rebooting the server, SQL has suddenly fogottern its name - SELECT
@.@.SERVERNAME returns NULL. In conjuction with this loss of identity,
various maintenance plan jobs seem to hang and never complete. This is
wreaking all sorts of havoc with my backups since none of them complete
successfully.
Will the sp_dropserver/sp_addserver combination fix the NULL problem?
Is there anything else I need to do?
Thanks,
M. E. HoustonYes...the dropserver, addserver should clean it up.
If you query the system table sysserver, you will probably
find that there isn't a server with the srvid = 0. The 0 is
used for the local server. If there is an entry for the
local server and srvid is not 0, you can remove it with
sp_dropserver. Uisng sp_addserver with 'local' adds the
server with the srvid = 0. If you don't specifiy 'local',
it's not added with the 0 for srvid.
-Sue
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 11:19:09 -0500, meh
<margit.houston@.no_spam.gsiusa.com> wrote:
>I am running SQL 7 Standard on a W2K server, both at the most current
>service packs. After applying the lastest security update to Windows
>and rebooting the server, SQL has suddenly fogottern its name - SELECT
>@.@.SERVERNAME returns NULL. In conjuction with this loss of identity,
>various maintenance plan jobs seem to hang and never complete. This is
>wreaking all sorts of havoc with my backups since none of them complete
>successfully.
>Will the sp_dropserver/sp_addserver combination fix the NULL problem?
>Is there anything else I need to do?
>Thanks,
>M. E. Houston|||This solved my server name problem, but I'm still having
issues with jobs created by maintenance plans hanging. In
order to make them stop, I have to kill the process. When
I do that, the following message gets written to the log --
[Microsoft SQL-DMO (ODBC SQLState: 01000)] Error 0:
[Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][Shared Memory]
ConnectionRead (recv()).
[Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][Shared Memory]General
network error. Check your network documentation.
-- Anyone have any clue as to what this really means?
Thanks,
Margit
>--Original Message--
>Yes...the dropserver, addserver should clean it up.
>If you query the system table sysserver, you will probably
>find that there isn't a server with the srvid = 0. The 0
is
>used for the local server. If there is an entry for the
>local server and srvid is not 0, you can remove it with
>sp_dropserver. Uisng sp_addserver with 'local' adds the
>server with the srvid = 0. If you don't specifiy 'local',
>it's not added with the 0 for srvid.
>-Sue|||Just curious based on the first issue and not sure if it's
the issue or not but did you by any chance rename the server
after the jobs were created? Do you have any problems
changing, modifying jobs?
-Sue
On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 13:22:09 -0700, "M. E. Houston"
<margit.houston@.no_spam.gsiusa.com> wrote:
>This solved my server name problem, but I'm still having
>issues with jobs created by maintenance plans hanging. In
>order to make them stop, I have to kill the process. When
>I do that, the following message gets written to the log --
>[Microsoft SQL-DMO (ODBC SQLState: 01000)] Error 0:
>[Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][Shared Memory]
>ConnectionRead (recv()).
>[Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][Shared Memory]General
>network error. Check your network documentation.
>-- Anyone have any clue as to what this really means?
>Thanks,
>Margit
>
>>--Original Message--
>>Yes...the dropserver, addserver should clean it up.
>>If you query the system table sysserver, you will probably
>>find that there isn't a server with the srvid = 0. The 0
>is
>>used for the local server. If there is an entry for the
>>local server and srvid is not 0, you can remove it with
>>sp_dropserver. Uisng sp_addserver with 'local' adds the
>>server with the srvid = 0. If you don't specifiy 'local',
>>it's not added with the 0 for srvid.
>>-Sue|||Sorry for the delay in reply.
I did not have any problems making changes to any of the
jobs/maintenance plans either before or after I renamed the server. I
thought the problem might have been a naming issue so I deleted all the
maintenance plans and all the jobs I had created and started over. The
new jobs under the correct server name still exhibit the same bad
behaviour. There doesn't seem to be any consistency as to where in the
job stream things fall apart, i.e., which database in the backup job it
hangs on. On some occassions, the jobs even complete as expected.
Thanks,
Margit
Sue Hoegemeier wrote:
> Just curious based on the first issue and not sure if it's
> the issue or not but did you by any chance rename the server
> after the jobs were created? Do you have any problems
> changing, modifying jobs?
> -Sue|||Sorry for the delay in reply.
I did not have any problems making changes to any of the
jobs/maintenance plans either before or after I renamed the server. I
thought the problem might have been a naming issue so I deleted all the
maintenance plans and all the jobs I had created and started over. The
new jobs under the correct server name still exhibit the same bad
behaviour. There doesn't seem to be any consistency as to where in the
job stream things fall apart, i.e., which database in the backup job it
hangs on. On some occassions, the jobs even complete as expected.
Thanks,
Margit
Sue Hoegemeier wrote:
> Just curious based on the first issue and not sure if it's
> the issue or not but did you by any chance rename the server
> after the jobs were created? Do you have any problems
> changing, modifying jobs?
> -Sue|||Can't tell you for sure why the jobs randomly hang - I've
seen jobs hang when they attempt to send mail and there are
problems somewhere in the mail configuration. You could run
profiler or a trace to try to track down what specifically
is going on when the jobs hang.
-Sue
On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 08:53:32 -0500, meh
<margit.houston@.no_spam.gsiusa.com> wrote:
>Sorry for the delay in reply.
>I did not have any problems making changes to any of the
>jobs/maintenance plans either before or after I renamed the server. I
>thought the problem might have been a naming issue so I deleted all the
>maintenance plans and all the jobs I had created and started over. The
>new jobs under the correct server name still exhibit the same bad
>behaviour. There doesn't seem to be any consistency as to where in the
>job stream things fall apart, i.e., which database in the backup job it
>hangs on. On some occassions, the jobs even complete as expected.
>Thanks,
>Margit
>Sue Hoegemeier wrote:
>> Just curious based on the first issue and not sure if it's
>> the issue or not but did you by any chance rename the server
>> after the jobs were created? Do you have any problems
>> changing, modifying jobs?
>> -Sue
service packs. After applying the lastest security update to Windows
and rebooting the server, SQL has suddenly fogottern its name - SELECT
@.@.SERVERNAME returns NULL. In conjuction with this loss of identity,
various maintenance plan jobs seem to hang and never complete. This is
wreaking all sorts of havoc with my backups since none of them complete
successfully.
Will the sp_dropserver/sp_addserver combination fix the NULL problem?
Is there anything else I need to do?
Thanks,
M. E. HoustonYes...the dropserver, addserver should clean it up.
If you query the system table sysserver, you will probably
find that there isn't a server with the srvid = 0. The 0 is
used for the local server. If there is an entry for the
local server and srvid is not 0, you can remove it with
sp_dropserver. Uisng sp_addserver with 'local' adds the
server with the srvid = 0. If you don't specifiy 'local',
it's not added with the 0 for srvid.
-Sue
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 11:19:09 -0500, meh
<margit.houston@.no_spam.gsiusa.com> wrote:
>I am running SQL 7 Standard on a W2K server, both at the most current
>service packs. After applying the lastest security update to Windows
>and rebooting the server, SQL has suddenly fogottern its name - SELECT
>@.@.SERVERNAME returns NULL. In conjuction with this loss of identity,
>various maintenance plan jobs seem to hang and never complete. This is
>wreaking all sorts of havoc with my backups since none of them complete
>successfully.
>Will the sp_dropserver/sp_addserver combination fix the NULL problem?
>Is there anything else I need to do?
>Thanks,
>M. E. Houston|||This solved my server name problem, but I'm still having
issues with jobs created by maintenance plans hanging. In
order to make them stop, I have to kill the process. When
I do that, the following message gets written to the log --
[Microsoft SQL-DMO (ODBC SQLState: 01000)] Error 0:
[Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][Shared Memory]
ConnectionRead (recv()).
[Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][Shared Memory]General
network error. Check your network documentation.
-- Anyone have any clue as to what this really means?
Thanks,
Margit
>--Original Message--
>Yes...the dropserver, addserver should clean it up.
>If you query the system table sysserver, you will probably
>find that there isn't a server with the srvid = 0. The 0
is
>used for the local server. If there is an entry for the
>local server and srvid is not 0, you can remove it with
>sp_dropserver. Uisng sp_addserver with 'local' adds the
>server with the srvid = 0. If you don't specifiy 'local',
>it's not added with the 0 for srvid.
>-Sue|||Just curious based on the first issue and not sure if it's
the issue or not but did you by any chance rename the server
after the jobs were created? Do you have any problems
changing, modifying jobs?
-Sue
On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 13:22:09 -0700, "M. E. Houston"
<margit.houston@.no_spam.gsiusa.com> wrote:
>This solved my server name problem, but I'm still having
>issues with jobs created by maintenance plans hanging. In
>order to make them stop, I have to kill the process. When
>I do that, the following message gets written to the log --
>[Microsoft SQL-DMO (ODBC SQLState: 01000)] Error 0:
>[Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][Shared Memory]
>ConnectionRead (recv()).
>[Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][Shared Memory]General
>network error. Check your network documentation.
>-- Anyone have any clue as to what this really means?
>Thanks,
>Margit
>
>>--Original Message--
>>Yes...the dropserver, addserver should clean it up.
>>If you query the system table sysserver, you will probably
>>find that there isn't a server with the srvid = 0. The 0
>is
>>used for the local server. If there is an entry for the
>>local server and srvid is not 0, you can remove it with
>>sp_dropserver. Uisng sp_addserver with 'local' adds the
>>server with the srvid = 0. If you don't specifiy 'local',
>>it's not added with the 0 for srvid.
>>-Sue|||Sorry for the delay in reply.
I did not have any problems making changes to any of the
jobs/maintenance plans either before or after I renamed the server. I
thought the problem might have been a naming issue so I deleted all the
maintenance plans and all the jobs I had created and started over. The
new jobs under the correct server name still exhibit the same bad
behaviour. There doesn't seem to be any consistency as to where in the
job stream things fall apart, i.e., which database in the backup job it
hangs on. On some occassions, the jobs even complete as expected.
Thanks,
Margit
Sue Hoegemeier wrote:
> Just curious based on the first issue and not sure if it's
> the issue or not but did you by any chance rename the server
> after the jobs were created? Do you have any problems
> changing, modifying jobs?
> -Sue|||Sorry for the delay in reply.
I did not have any problems making changes to any of the
jobs/maintenance plans either before or after I renamed the server. I
thought the problem might have been a naming issue so I deleted all the
maintenance plans and all the jobs I had created and started over. The
new jobs under the correct server name still exhibit the same bad
behaviour. There doesn't seem to be any consistency as to where in the
job stream things fall apart, i.e., which database in the backup job it
hangs on. On some occassions, the jobs even complete as expected.
Thanks,
Margit
Sue Hoegemeier wrote:
> Just curious based on the first issue and not sure if it's
> the issue or not but did you by any chance rename the server
> after the jobs were created? Do you have any problems
> changing, modifying jobs?
> -Sue|||Can't tell you for sure why the jobs randomly hang - I've
seen jobs hang when they attempt to send mail and there are
problems somewhere in the mail configuration. You could run
profiler or a trace to try to track down what specifically
is going on when the jobs hang.
-Sue
On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 08:53:32 -0500, meh
<margit.houston@.no_spam.gsiusa.com> wrote:
>Sorry for the delay in reply.
>I did not have any problems making changes to any of the
>jobs/maintenance plans either before or after I renamed the server. I
>thought the problem might have been a naming issue so I deleted all the
>maintenance plans and all the jobs I had created and started over. The
>new jobs under the correct server name still exhibit the same bad
>behaviour. There doesn't seem to be any consistency as to where in the
>job stream things fall apart, i.e., which database in the backup job it
>hangs on. On some occassions, the jobs even complete as expected.
>Thanks,
>Margit
>Sue Hoegemeier wrote:
>> Just curious based on the first issue and not sure if it's
>> the issue or not but did you by any chance rename the server
>> after the jobs were created? Do you have any problems
>> changing, modifying jobs?
>> -Sue
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)