Cluster SQL 2000

My cu has the Win2003 Cluster 4 nodes with 1 Default and 3 Named instances
SQL 2000, each instance is on different node, we noticed that every
instances have configured with TCP port 1433.
Is it possible on Cluster?
Hello.K
Since SQL uses 1433 as the default port and each instance sounds like its
running on its own node, I would say yes?
Cheers,
Rod
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
"kersob" <lkm> wrote in message
news:ODcWDPdWEHA.3016@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> My cu has the Win2003 Cluster 4 nodes with 1 Default and 3 Named instances
> SQL 2000, each instance is on different node, we noticed that every
> instances have configured with TCP port 1433.
> Is it possible on Cluster?
>
> Hello.K
>
|||Host nodes don't have anything to do with port numbers. Notice that each
SQL resource group (virtual server) has its own IP address and network name.
Therefore, you can have each instance on 1433 if you desire. HOWEVER, there
are some gotchas. If you are hoping to connect to VirtualServername rather
than VirtualServerName\InstanceName, it won't work with anything higher than
MDAC 2.6. Even if you put a named instance on 1433, the client library
'knows' it isn't the default instance. MDAC will report an error that you
are connecting to the wrong instance.
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
www.sqlpass.org
"kersob" <lkm> wrote in message
news:ODcWDPdWEHA.3016@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> My cu has the Win2003 Cluster 4 nodes with 1 Default and 3 Named instances
> SQL 2000, each instance is on different node, we noticed that every
> instances have configured with TCP port 1433.
> Is it possible on Cluster?
>
> Hello.K
>

Cluster not visible to external IP

Hello
We have SQL 2000 with two servers clustered (one is a failover) to have one
named SQL server. This is fine internally, but external VPN connections
can't reach this server (all other machines are reachable). Permissions not
an issue.
Anyone have any ideas on where to start/look?
ThanksVPN connections will have to be enabled to the underlying node IPs, not the
virtual server IPs.
--
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"PB" <hoopitup@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:OdM$Zy47FHA.1148@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Hello
> We have SQL 2000 with two servers clustered (one is a failover) to have
> one named SQL server. This is fine internally, but external VPN
> connections can't reach this server (all other machines are reachable).
> Permissions not an issue.
> Anyone have any ideas on where to start/look?
> Thanks
>|||We are using the cluster name rather than IP. Will try the actual node name
now, but the only thing then is there is no failover protection.
"Geoff N. Hiten" <SRDBA@.Careerbuilder.com> wrote in message
news:OkktM047FHA.3224@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> VPN connections will have to be enabled to the underlying node IPs, not
> the virtual server IPs.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>
> "PB" <hoopitup@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:OdM$Zy47FHA.1148@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>> Hello
>> We have SQL 2000 with two servers clustered (one is a failover) to have
>> one named SQL server. This is fine internally, but external VPN
>> connections can't reach this server (all other machines are reachable).
>> Permissions not an issue.
>> Anyone have any ideas on where to start/look?
>> Thanks
>|||When a client (in this case the firewall) receives an IP packet from a
virtual instance, the sender IP address is the node's physical address, not
the virtual address. You can still connect via virtual IP for name and ARP
resolution, but you will have to enable VPN access via the physical node
addresses.
GNH
"PB" <hoopitup@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:eUtFO347FHA.1248@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> We are using the cluster name rather than IP. Will try the actual node
> name now, but the only thing then is there is no failover protection.
> "Geoff N. Hiten" <SRDBA@.Careerbuilder.com> wrote in message
> news:OkktM047FHA.3224@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> VPN connections will have to be enabled to the underlying node IPs, not
>> the virtual server IPs.
>> --
>> Geoff N. Hiten
>> Senior Database Administrator
>> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>>
>> "PB" <hoopitup@.gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:OdM$Zy47FHA.1148@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>> Hello
>> We have SQL 2000 with two servers clustered (one is a failover) to have
>> one named SQL server. This is fine internally, but external VPN
>> connections can't reach this server (all other machines are reachable).
>> Permissions not an issue.
>> Anyone have any ideas on where to start/look?
>> Thanks
>>
>sqlsql

Cluster confusion, and instances?

Hey,
I am trying to setup a clustered SQL 2000 environement (active-active) with
3 instances UAT, DEV and PROD.
Should i be using 3 named instances ? Or do I install 3 virtual servers each
being a default instance? I know this is a newbie question but please some
help would be appreciated.
At the moment I would expect 3 virtual servers of SQL 2000 each with their
own IP and NETBIOS name? ie.
10.10.10.1
10.10.10.2
10.10.10.3
Or do i just create 3 named insstances?ie.
10.10.10.1\UAT
10.10.10.1\DEV
10.10.10.1\PROD
Any help is appreciated.
> I am trying to setup a clustered SQL 2000 environement (active-active) with
> 3 instances UAT, DEV and PROD.
Having PROD share a cluster with QA and DEV defeats the whole purpose of
having a cluster which is to provide high availability.

> Should i be using 3 named instances ? Or do I install 3 virtual servers each
> being a default instance?
You can use three named instances. You can't have three default instances in
the same cluster; you can have only one default instance in a cluster.
Linchi
"Daniel" wrote:

> Hey,
> I am trying to setup a clustered SQL 2000 environement (active-active) with
> 3 instances UAT, DEV and PROD.
> Should i be using 3 named instances ? Or do I install 3 virtual servers each
> being a default instance? I know this is a newbie question but please some
> help would be appreciated.
> At the moment I would expect 3 virtual servers of SQL 2000 each with their
> own IP and NETBIOS name? ie.
> 10.10.10.1
> 10.10.10.2
> 10.10.10.3
> Or do i just create 3 named insstances?ie.
> 10.10.10.1\UAT
> 10.10.10.1\DEV
> 10.10.10.1\PROD
> Any help is appreciated.

Cluster confusion, and instances?

Hey,
I am trying to setup a clustered SQL 2000 environement (active-active) with
3 instances UAT, DEV and PROD.
Should i be using 3 named instances ? Or do I install 3 virtual servers each
being a default instance? I know this is a newbie question but please some
help would be appreciated.
At the moment I would expect 3 virtual servers of SQL 2000 each with their
own IP and NETBIOS name? ie.
10.10.10.1
10.10.10.2
10.10.10.3
Or do i just create 3 named insstances?ie.
10.10.10.1\UAT
10.10.10.1\DEV
10.10.10.1\PROD
Any help is appreciated.> I am trying to setup a clustered SQL 2000 environement (active-active) with
> 3 instances UAT, DEV and PROD.
Having PROD share a cluster with QA and DEV defeats the whole purpose of
having a cluster which is to provide high availability.
> Should i be using 3 named instances ? Or do I install 3 virtual servers each
> being a default instance?
You can use three named instances. You can't have three default instances in
the same cluster; you can have only one default instance in a cluster.
Linchi
"Daniel" wrote:
> Hey,
> I am trying to setup a clustered SQL 2000 environement (active-active) with
> 3 instances UAT, DEV and PROD.
> Should i be using 3 named instances ? Or do I install 3 virtual servers each
> being a default instance? I know this is a newbie question but please some
> help would be appreciated.
> At the moment I would expect 3 virtual servers of SQL 2000 each with their
> own IP and NETBIOS name? ie.
> 10.10.10.1
> 10.10.10.2
> 10.10.10.3
> Or do i just create 3 named insstances?ie.
> 10.10.10.1\UAT
> 10.10.10.1\DEV
> 10.10.10.1\PROD
> Any help is appreciated.sqlsql

Cluster confusion, and instances?

Hey,
I am trying to setup a clustered SQL 2000 environement (active-active) with
3 instances UAT, DEV and PROD.
Should i be using 3 named instances ? Or do I install 3 virtual servers each
being a default instance? I know this is a newbie question but please some
help would be appreciated.
At the moment I would expect 3 virtual servers of SQL 2000 each with their
own IP and NETBIOS name? ie.
10.10.10.1
10.10.10.2
10.10.10.3
Or do i just create 3 named insstances?ie.
10.10.10.1\UAT
10.10.10.1\DEV
10.10.10.1\PROD
Any help is appreciated.> I am trying to setup a clustered SQL 2000 environement (active-active) with">
> 3 instances UAT, DEV and PROD.
Having PROD share a cluster with QA and DEV defeats the whole purpose of
having a cluster which is to provide high availability.

> Should i be using 3 named instances ? Or do I install 3 virtual servers ea
ch
> being a default instance?
You can use three named instances. You can't have three default instances in
the same cluster; you can have only one default instance in a cluster.
Linchi
"Daniel" wrote:

> Hey,
> I am trying to setup a clustered SQL 2000 environement (active-active) wit
h
> 3 instances UAT, DEV and PROD.
> Should i be using 3 named instances ? Or do I install 3 virtual servers ea
ch
> being a default instance? I know this is a newbie question but please some
> help would be appreciated.
> At the moment I would expect 3 virtual servers of SQL 2000 each with their
> own IP and NETBIOS name? ie.
> 10.10.10.1
> 10.10.10.2
> 10.10.10.3
> Or do i just create 3 named insstances?ie.
> 10.10.10.1\UAT
> 10.10.10.1\DEV
> 10.10.10.1\PROD
> Any help is appreciated.

Cluster - 2000/2005 side-by-side install

I have a two node active/passive win2003/sql 2000 cluster. Can I do a side-by-side install of a sql2005 named instance on this cluster? This is for a test environment were for a limited time (6 months) I need to provide both a sql2000 and sql2005 environment and I would rather not purchase additional hardware.
This is a perfectly valid multi-instance cluster configuration. The new SQL 2005 installation will need its own IP address, disk resource(s), and network name. This will create a second virtual server for the SQL 2005 instance. Once you uninstall the SQL 2000 instance, you can re-assigne the disk resources to the new SQL 2005 instance. You cannot install the SQL 2005 instance in the existing SQL 2000 virtual server.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"AlanH" <AlanH@.community.nospam> wrote in message news:eQXXv6e%23FHA.2472@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
I have a two node active/passive win2003/sql 2000 cluster. Can I do a side-by-side install of a sql2005 named instance on this cluster? This is for a test environment were for a limited time (6 months) I need to provide both a sql2000 and sql2005 environment and I would rather not purchase additional hardware.
|||In your last line when you say that "You cannot install the SQL2005 instance in the existing SQL2000 virtual server" do you mean the existing cluster group where sql2000 resides?
Also, if the answer to that is yes (meaning I cannot just install sql2005 in my current group), what are my options for sharing the current disk resources or reconfiguring the current disk resources so that I can give the new cluster_group for sql2005 some disk resources.
Thanks in advance...
"Geoff N. Hiten" <SRDBA@.Careerbuilder.com> wrote in message news:Of0GDfg%23FHA.208@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
This is a perfectly valid multi-instance cluster configuration. The new SQL 2005 installation will need its own IP address, disk resource(s), and network name. This will create a second virtual server for the SQL 2005 instance. Once you uninstall the SQL 2000 instance, you can re-assigne the disk resources to the new SQL 2005 instance. You cannot install the SQL 2005 instance in the existing SQL 2000 virtual server.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"AlanH" <AlanH@.community.nospam> wrote in message news:eQXXv6e%23FHA.2472@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
I have a two node active/passive win2003/sql 2000 cluster. Can I do a side-by-side install of a sql2005 named instance on this cluster? This is for a test environment were for a limited time (6 months) I need to provide both a sql2000 and sql2005 environment and I would rather not purchase additional hardware.
|||The statement is correct. One group = one virtual server = one instance.
You will either need to add more shared disk(s) to your cluster or remove SQL from some existing disk resources. Disk resources cannot be shared in multiple groups. As such, they can only be used by one virtual server/instance at a time.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"AlanH" <AlanH@.community.nospam> wrote in message news:eq7YDyq%23FHA.3804@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
In your last line when you say that "You cannot install the SQL2005 instance in the existing SQL2000 virtual server" do you mean the existing cluster group where sql2000 resides?
Also, if the answer to that is yes (meaning I cannot just install sql2005 in my current group), what are my options for sharing the current disk resources or reconfiguring the current disk resources so that I can give the new cluster_group for sql2005 some disk resources.
Thanks in advance...
"Geoff N. Hiten" <SRDBA@.Careerbuilder.com> wrote in message news:Of0GDfg%23FHA.208@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
This is a perfectly valid multi-instance cluster configuration. The new SQL 2005 installation will need its own IP address, disk resource(s), and network name. This will create a second virtual server for the SQL 2005 instance. Once you uninstall the SQL 2000 instance, you can re-assigne the disk resources to the new SQL 2005 instance. You cannot install the SQL 2005 instance in the existing SQL 2000 virtual server.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"AlanH" <AlanH@.community.nospam> wrote in message news:eQXXv6e%23FHA.2472@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
I have a two node active/passive win2003/sql 2000 cluster. Can I do a side-by-side install of a sql2005 named instance on this cluster? This is for a test environment were for a limited time (6 months) I need to provide both a sql2000 and sql2005 environment and I would rather not purchase additional hardware.
|||That's what I thought... Thanks!
"Geoff N. Hiten" <SRDBA@.Careerbuilder.com> wrote in message news:uqMvcYt%23FHA.1336@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
The statement is correct. One group = one virtual server = one instance.
You will either need to add more shared disk(s) to your cluster or remove SQL from some existing disk resources. Disk resources cannot be shared in multiple groups. As such, they can only be used by one virtual server/instance at a time.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"AlanH" <AlanH@.community.nospam> wrote in message news:eq7YDyq%23FHA.3804@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
In your last line when you say that "You cannot install the SQL2005 instance in the existing SQL2000 virtual server" do you mean the existing cluster group where sql2000 resides?
Also, if the answer to that is yes (meaning I cannot just install sql2005 in my current group), what are my options for sharing the current disk resources or reconfiguring the current disk resources so that I can give the new cluster_group for sql2005 some disk resources.
Thanks in advance...
"Geoff N. Hiten" <SRDBA@.Careerbuilder.com> wrote in message news:Of0GDfg%23FHA.208@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
This is a perfectly valid multi-instance cluster configuration. The new SQL 2005 installation will need its own IP address, disk resource(s), and network name. This will create a second virtual server for the SQL 2005 instance. Once you uninstall the SQL 2000 instance, you can re-assigne the disk resources to the new SQL 2005 instance. You cannot install the SQL 2005 instance in the existing SQL 2000 virtual server.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"AlanH" <AlanH@.community.nospam> wrote in message news:eQXXv6e%23FHA.2472@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
I have a two node active/passive win2003/sql 2000 cluster. Can I do a side-by-side install of a sql2005 named instance on this cluster? This is for a test environment were for a limited time (6 months) I need to provide both a sql2000 and sql2005 environment and I would rather not purchase additional hardware.

cloning a db under another name

I have a database called Paris. I want to clone it but I want the new name
to be Milan. I tried creating a new database named Milan and restoring
Paris over it but Management Studio would not allow this. I had overwrite
checked. How can I do this?
Regards,
Gary Blakely
"GaryDean" <GaryDean@.newsgroups.nospam> wrote in message
news:ewnkrPDlHHA.4772@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>I have a database called Paris. I want to clone it but I want the new name
>to be Milan. I tried creating a new database named Milan and restoring
>Paris over it but Management Studio would not allow this. I had overwrite
>checked. How can I do this?
Don't use the GUI.
Personally I wouldn't bother creating Milan but would simply backup Paris
and
RESTORE DATABASE MILAN from disk='c:\paris.bak' etc etc.

> --
> Regards,
> Gary Blakely
>
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html
|||> RESTORE DATABASE MILAN from disk='c:\paris.bak' etc etc.
... and read up on the MOVE option of the RESTORE command.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" <mooregr_deleteth1s@.greenms.com> wrote in message
news:uJ3iLHElHHA.4552@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> "GaryDean" <GaryDean@.newsgroups.nospam> wrote in message
> news:ewnkrPDlHHA.4772@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Don't use the GUI.
> Personally I wouldn't bother creating Milan but would simply backup Paris and
> RESTORE DATABASE MILAN from disk='c:\paris.bak' etc etc.
>
>
> --
> Greg Moore
> SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
> Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html
>
|||Hello Gary,
I agree Tibor that you may want to use Move option since you may want to
use a different path for the database files. You could refer to the
following article for some related information
314546 HOW TO: Move Databases Between Computers That Are Running SQL Server
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=314546
Please let's know if you have any further questions on this issue. Thanks.
Best Regards,
Peter Yang
MCSE2000/2003, MCSA, MCDBA
Microsoft Online Partner Support
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
================================================== ===
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
|||On May 12, 9:24 am, "GaryDean" <GaryD...@.newsgroups.nospam> wrote:
> I have a database called Paris. I want to clone it but I want the new name
> to be Milan. I tried creating a new database named Milan and restoring
> Paris over it but Management Studio would not allow this. I had overwrite
> checked. How can I do this?
> --
> Regards,
> Gary Blakely
Hi. I suggest you copy DB, that's quite straight forward, you can
choose any name from it.
|||Well, I don't INSIST on using the gui but...
Thanks, that worked great. Now I see what the badly worded error message
was trying to tell me.
Regards,
Gary Blakely
"Daniel Crichton" <msnews@.worldofspack.com> wrote in message
news:OMc3IRjlHHA.4120@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> GaryDean wrote on Fri, 11 May 2007 18:24:07 -0700:
>
> If you insist on using the GUI to do this, you need to change the
> filenames in the Restore As column on the Options page of the restore
> task. MS is preventing you from restoring using the previous filenames as
> this would overwrite the files for the Paris database.
> Dan
>

cloning a db under another name

I have a database called Paris. I want to clone it but I want the new name
to be Milan. I tried creating a new database named Milan and restoring
Paris over it but Management Studio would not allow this. I had overwrite
checked. How can I do this?
--
Regards,
Gary Blakely"GaryDean" <GaryDean@.newsgroups.nospam> wrote in message
news:ewnkrPDlHHA.4772@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>I have a database called Paris. I want to clone it but I want the new name
>to be Milan. I tried creating a new database named Milan and restoring
>Paris over it but Management Studio would not allow this. I had overwrite
>checked. How can I do this?
Don't use the GUI.
Personally I wouldn't bother creating Milan but would simply backup Paris
and
RESTORE DATABASE MILAN from disk='c:\paris.bak' etc etc.
> --
> Regards,
> Gary Blakely
>
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html|||> RESTORE DATABASE MILAN from disk='c:\paris.bak' etc etc.
... and read up on the MOVE option of the RESTORE command.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" <mooregr_deleteth1s@.greenms.com> wrote in message
news:uJ3iLHElHHA.4552@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> "GaryDean" <GaryDean@.newsgroups.nospam> wrote in message
> news:ewnkrPDlHHA.4772@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>I have a database called Paris. I want to clone it but I want the new name to be Milan. I tried
>>creating a new database named Milan and restoring Paris over it but Management Studio would not
>>allow this. I had overwrite checked. How can I do this?
> Don't use the GUI.
> Personally I wouldn't bother creating Milan but would simply backup Paris and
> RESTORE DATABASE MILAN from disk='c:\paris.bak' etc etc.
>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Gary Blakely
>>
>
> --
> Greg Moore
> SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
> Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html
>|||Hello Gary,
I agree Tibor that you may want to use Move option since you may want to
use a different path for the database files. You could refer to the
following article for some related information
314546 HOW TO: Move Databases Between Computers That Are Running SQL Server
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=314546
Please let's know if you have any further questions on this issue. Thanks.
Best Regards,
Peter Yang
MCSE2000/2003, MCSA, MCDBA
Microsoft Online Partner Support
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
=====================================================
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.|||On May 12, 9:24 am, "GaryDean" <GaryD...@.newsgroups.nospam> wrote:
> I have a database called Paris. I want to clone it but I want the new name
> to be Milan. I tried creating a new database named Milan and restoring
> Paris over it but Management Studio would not allow this. I had overwrite
> checked. How can I do this?
> --
> Regards,
> Gary Blakely
Hi. I suggest you copy DB, that's quite straight forward, you can
choose any name from it.|||GaryDean wrote on Fri, 11 May 2007 18:24:07 -0700:
> I have a database called Paris. I want to clone it but I want the new
> name to be Milan. I tried creating a new database named Milan and
> restoring Paris over it but Management Studio would not allow this. I had
> overwrite checked. How can I do this?
>
If you insist on using the GUI to do this, you need to change the filenames
in the Restore As column on the Options page of the restore task. MS is
preventing you from restoring using the previous filenames as this would
overwrite the files for the Paris database.
Dan|||Well, I don't INSIST on using the gui but...
Thanks, that worked great. Now I see what the badly worded error message
was trying to tell me.
--
Regards,
Gary Blakely
"Daniel Crichton" <msnews@.worldofspack.com> wrote in message
news:OMc3IRjlHHA.4120@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> GaryDean wrote on Fri, 11 May 2007 18:24:07 -0700:
>> I have a database called Paris. I want to clone it but I want the new
>> name to be Milan. I tried creating a new database named Milan and
>> restoring Paris over it but Management Studio would not allow this. I
>> had
>> overwrite checked. How can I do this?
>
> If you insist on using the GUI to do this, you need to change the
> filenames in the Restore As column on the Options page of the restore
> task. MS is preventing you from restoring using the previous filenames as
> this would overwrite the files for the Paris database.
> Dan
>|||GaryDean wrote on Mon, 14 May 2007 16:11:25 -0700:
> Well, I don't INSIST on using the gui but...
I guess maybe I should have worded it differently. How about "use the GUI as
an alternative"? :)
> Thanks, that worked great. Now I see what the badly worded error message
> was trying to tell me.
Yeah, it's not that great a message really.
Dan

cloning a db under another name

I have a database called Paris. I want to clone it but I want the new name
to be Milan. I tried creating a new database named Milan and restoring
Paris over it but Management Studio would not allow this. I had overwrite
checked. How can I do this?
Regards,
Gary Blakely"GaryDean" <GaryDean@.newsgroups.nospam> wrote in message
news:ewnkrPDlHHA.4772@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>I have a database called Paris. I want to clone it but I want the new name
>to be Milan. I tried creating a new database named Milan and restoring
>Paris over it but Management Studio would not allow this. I had overwrite
>checked. How can I do this?
Don't use the GUI.
Personally I wouldn't bother creating Milan but would simply backup Paris
and
RESTORE DATABASE MILAN from disk='c:\paris.bak' etc etc.

> --
> Regards,
> Gary Blakely
>
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html|||> RESTORE DATABASE MILAN from disk='c:\paris.bak' etc etc.
... and read up on the MOVE option of the RESTORE command.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" <mooregr_deleteth1s@.greenms.com> wrote in message
news:uJ3iLHElHHA.4552@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> "GaryDean" <GaryDean@.newsgroups.nospam> wrote in message
> news:ewnkrPDlHHA.4772@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Don't use the GUI.
> Personally I wouldn't bother creating Milan but would simply backup Paris
and
> RESTORE DATABASE MILAN from disk='c:\paris.bak' etc etc.
>
>
> --
> Greg Moore
> SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
> Email: sql (at) greenms.com [url]http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html[/ur
l]
>|||Hello Gary,
I agree Tibor that you may want to use Move option since you may want to
use a different path for the database files. You could refer to the
following article for some related information
314546 HOW TO: Move Databases Between Computers That Are Running SQL Server
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=314546
Please let's know if you have any further questions on this issue. Thanks.
Best Regards,
Peter Yang
MCSE2000/2003, MCSA, MCDBA
Microsoft Online Partner Support
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
========================================
=============
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.|||On May 12, 9:24 am, "GaryDean" <GaryD...@.newsgroups.nospam> wrote:
> I have a database called Paris. I want to clone it but I want the new nam
e
> to be Milan. I tried creating a new database named Milan and restoring
> Paris over it but Management Studio would not allow this. I had overwrite
> checked. How can I do this?
> --
> Regards,
> Gary Blakely
Hi. I suggest you copy DB, that's quite straight forward, you can
choose any name from it.|||GaryDean wrote on Fri, 11 May 2007 18:24:07 -0700:

> I have a database called Paris. I want to clone it but I want the new
> name to be Milan. I tried creating a new database named Milan and
> restoring Paris over it but Management Studio would not allow this. I had
> overwrite checked. How can I do this?
>
If you insist on using the GUI to do this, you need to change the filenames
in the Restore As column on the Options page of the restore task. MS is
preventing you from restoring using the previous filenames as this would
overwrite the files for the Paris database.
Dan|||Well, I don't INSIST on using the gui but...
Thanks, that worked great. Now I see what the badly worded error message
was trying to tell me.
Regards,
Gary Blakely
"Daniel Crichton" <msnews@.worldofspack.com> wrote in message
news:OMc3IRjlHHA.4120@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> GaryDean wrote on Fri, 11 May 2007 18:24:07 -0700:
>
>
> If you insist on using the GUI to do this, you need to change the
> filenames in the Restore As column on the Options page of the restore
> task. MS is preventing you from restoring using the previous filenames as
> this would overwrite the files for the Paris database.
> Dan
>|||GaryDean wrote on Mon, 14 May 2007 16:11:25 -0700:

> Well, I don't INSIST on using the gui but...
I guess maybe I should have worded it differently. How about "use the GUI as
an alternative"?

> Thanks, that worked great. Now I see what the badly worded error message
> was trying to tell me.
Yeah, it's not that great a message really.
Dan

Cloned Drive

I have a machine named DOG with MSDE (computername=DOG). I clone the machine
to another and rename the machine CAT. When I do this, SQL Server reports
"Your SQL Server installation is either corrupt or has been tampered with
(unknown package id). Please rerun setup." I understand why this happens,
the computername changed.
Is there a way to change the package id to work with the new computername?
Of course I can reinstall MSDE, but that defeats the mai purpose of the
clone.
TIA,
Will
hi Will,
Will T wrote:
> I have a machine named DOG with MSDE (computername=DOG). I clone the
> machine to another and rename the machine CAT. When I do this, SQL
> Server reports "Your SQL Server installation is either corrupt or has
> been tampered with (unknown package id). Please rerun setup." I
> understand why this happens, the computername changed.
> Is there a way to change the package id to work with the new
> computername? Of course I can reinstall MSDE, but that defeats the
> mai purpose of the clone.
to the best of my knowledge, this was a problem with SQL Server 7.0 and MSDE
1.0(http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;229875), as SQL
Server 7.0 could be "managed" rerunning the setup (
http://databasejournal.com/features/...0894_2194711_3 ),
where no work around was available for MSDE 1.0...
for SQL Server 2000, if you change the computer name, you only need to
delete and re-create the server registration in Enterprise Manager, but as
MSDE doew not provide it, you need nothing on MSDE 2000...
Andrea Montanari (Microsoft MVP - SQL Server)
http://www.asql.biz/DbaMgr.shtmhttp://italy.mvps.org
DbaMgr2k ver 0.14.0 - DbaMgr ver 0.59.0
(my vb6+sql-dmo little try to provide MS MSDE 1.0 and MSDE 2000 a visual
interface)
-- remove DMO to reply

Clients connect via Named Pipes even though its disabled

We've got SQL 2000 clients (standard install, no sp) who are connecting
to our SQL 2000 Servers with Named Pipes even though we've disabled
named pipes in the client network utility. They should be connecting
via tcp/ip. Any ideas on what could be causing this?
Hi Gary,
How are you determining that the client is connecting using named pipes? Is
there a chance that your connection string is prefixed with "np:"? If so,
this will override any client network settings. Otherwise, this is probably
the result of the last connection being cached. One way around this would
be to force the connection to use tcp/ip and this will overwrite the cache.
Il-Sung
Il-Sung Lee
Program Manager -- SQL Server Protocols
Microsoft Corp.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Gary" <gary.noon@.tradeweb.com> wrote in message
news:1118352084.179815.156620@.g14g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> We've got SQL 2000 clients (standard install, no sp) who are connecting
> to our SQL 2000 Servers with Named Pipes even though we've disabled
> named pipes in the client network utility. They should be connecting
> via tcp/ip. Any ideas on what could be causing this?
>

Clients connect via Named Pipes even though its disabled

We've got SQL 2000 clients (standard install, no sp) who are connecting
to our SQL 2000 Servers with Named Pipes even though we've disabled
named pipes in the client network utility. They should be connecting
via tcp/ip. Any ideas on what could be causing this?Hi Gary,
How are you determining that the client is connecting using named pipes? Is
there a chance that your connection string is prefixed with "np:"? If so,
this will override any client network settings. Otherwise, this is probably
the result of the last connection being cached. One way around this would
be to force the connection to use tcp/ip and this will overwrite the cache.
Il-Sung
Il-Sung Lee
Program Manager -- SQL Server Protocols
Microsoft Corp.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Gary" <gary.noon@.tradeweb.com> wrote in message
news:1118352084.179815.156620@.g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> We've got SQL 2000 clients (standard install, no sp) who are connecting
> to our SQL 2000 Servers with Named Pipes even though we've disabled
> named pipes in the client network utility. They should be connecting
> via tcp/ip. Any ideas on what could be causing this?
>