Install Reporting Services on another IIS website

I am using IIS6 and installed Reporting Services on http://myWebsite in IIS.
This works fine and I can access http://myWebsite/ReportServer and http://myWebsite/Reports

My problem is that I also need Reporting Services on another website in IIS6.
I have a website http://www.myothersite.com which I also need Reporting Services on. I created two virtual directories (Reports,ReportServer) that point to the same directories as which the original Reporting Services site does, but it doesn't work. I get "You are not authorized to view this page message in IE." when I view http://www.myothersite.com/ReportViewer in my browser

Any suggestions?i dont think you would need to report managers. you would only need one report manager and create your folders in it and use the appropriate paths in various websites on the server.

hthsql

Install Package: VB6.0 w/ SQL Server 2000

Hello,
I want to upgrade my Access 2003 app to have a
VB 6.0 front-end and SQL Server 2000 Standard back-end, that I want
to sell on the market. I do not want to use MSDE
because of the 2GB limitation. My questions are:
1) will my customers have to purchase SQL Server 2000?
(or me, and then give them the copy w/ my app).
2) what is the best way to wrap this up in an install
package? I already have InstallShield Express 4.0
and SageKey's Access 2003 MSI Wizard; am investigating
if these will let me include SQL Server. . . any ideas
on how to mass-sell something w/ SQL Server back-end?
Thanks,
Christy Warner.
Christy Warner
www.autoaudit.com
Christy Warner
www.autoaudit.com
"ChristyWarner" <cwarner@.autoaudit.com> wrote in message
news:DB69C611-0E69-47B1-B940-4FAB81DA9C36@.microsoft.com...
> Hello,
> I want to upgrade my Access 2003 app to have a
> VB 6.0 front-end and SQL Server 2000 Standard back-end, that I want
> to sell on the market. I do not want to use MSDE
> because of the 2GB limitation. My questions are:
Access suffers from the same 2 GB limitation on database size.

> 1) will my customers have to purchase SQL Server 2000?
> (or me, and then give them the copy w/ my app).
If MSDE is not an option, your customers should probably have SQL Server. I
wouldn't recommend buying a bunch of copies of SQL Server to bundle with
your app, as you don't necessarily know your clients' licensing needs, etc.

> 2) what is the best way to wrap this up in an install
> package? I already have InstallShield Express 4.0
> and SageKey's Access 2003 MSI Wizard; am investigating
> if these will let me include SQL Server. . . any ideas
> on how to mass-sell something w/ SQL Server back-end?
People mass-market SQL Server specific products all the time. You basically
need to test it on SQL Server and make sure you specify it in the system
requirements for your app. A quick question - are you selling to home users
or businesses? If you're selling to individual home users or small
businesses, you might reconsider using MSDE, as it is freely available, and
the 2 GB restriction shouldn't be so bad for an app that previously ran on
Access.
|||Yes, selling to businesses, hopefully larger ones, which is why
I'm switching to SQL Server.
When my customers install their SQL Server, can I still refer
to it in my VB code w/ the same connection string? e.g. server=(local),
or do I have to specify an exact server name that the customer
has assigned?
thanks,
Christy.
"Michael C#" wrote:

> "ChristyWarner" <cwarner@.autoaudit.com> wrote in message
> news:DB69C611-0E69-47B1-B940-4FAB81DA9C36@.microsoft.com...
> Access suffers from the same 2 GB limitation on database size.
>
> If MSDE is not an option, your customers should probably have SQL Server. I
> wouldn't recommend buying a bunch of copies of SQL Server to bundle with
> your app, as you don't necessarily know your clients' licensing needs, etc.
>
> People mass-market SQL Server specific products all the time. You basically
> need to test it on SQL Server and make sure you specify it in the system
> requirements for your app. A quick question - are you selling to home users
> or businesses? If you're selling to individual home users or small
> businesses, you might reconsider using MSDE, as it is freely available, and
> the 2 GB restriction shouldn't be so bad for an app that previously ran on
> Access.
>
>
|||It's best to give the customer an option to configure their SQL Server
settings themselves, either during Setup or within the app itself. If
you're planning to mass-market your app, you definitely need to allow for
changes to the connection settings somehow - not every business is going to
have their network configured the same way and you can't necessarily count
on the fact that they'll be running your app on the same box as SQL Server.
Additionally, they might be using SQL Authentication instead of Windows
Integrated, in which case they'll need to access the login
username/password, etc. And hard-coding your username/password into your
app is big security no-no; sticking the customer with a username/password
combo that might not meet their security policies and requirements is also
not a good thing.
"ChristyWarner" <cwarner@.autoaudit.com> wrote in message
news:43C2467F-8064-4822-9402-19482E8D3EE3@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Yes, selling to businesses, hopefully larger ones, which is why
> I'm switching to SQL Server.
> When my customers install their SQL Server, can I still refer
> to it in my VB code w/ the same connection string? e.g. server=(local),
> or do I have to specify an exact server name that the customer
> has assigned?
> thanks,
> Christy.
> "Michael C#" wrote:

Install Package: VB6.0 w/ SQL Server 2000

Hello,
I want to upgrade my Access 2003 app to have a
VB 6.0 front-end and SQL Server 2000 Standard back-end, that I want
to sell on the market. I do not want to use MSDE
because of the 2GB limitation. My questions are:
1) will my customers have to purchase SQL Server 2000?
(or me, and then give them the copy w/ my app).
2) what is the best way to wrap this up in an install
package? I already have InstallShield Express 4.0
and SageKey's Access 2003 MSI Wizard; am investigating
if these will let me include SQL Server. . . any ideas
on how to mass-sell something w/ SQL Server back-end'
Thanks,
Christy Warner.
Christy Warner
www.autoaudit.com
Christy Warner
www.autoaudit.com"ChristyWarner" <cwarner@.autoaudit.com> wrote in message
news:DB69C611-0E69-47B1-B940-4FAB81DA9C36@.microsoft.com...
> Hello,
> I want to upgrade my Access 2003 app to have a
> VB 6.0 front-end and SQL Server 2000 Standard back-end, that I want
> to sell on the market. I do not want to use MSDE
> because of the 2GB limitation. My questions are:
Access suffers from the same 2 GB limitation on database size.

> 1) will my customers have to purchase SQL Server 2000?
> (or me, and then give them the copy w/ my app).
If MSDE is not an option, your customers should probably have SQL Server. I
wouldn't recommend buying a bunch of copies of SQL Server to bundle with
your app, as you don't necessarily know your clients' licensing needs, etc.

> 2) what is the best way to wrap this up in an install
> package? I already have InstallShield Express 4.0
> and SageKey's Access 2003 MSI Wizard; am investigating
> if these will let me include SQL Server. . . any ideas
> on how to mass-sell something w/ SQL Server back-end'
People mass-market SQL Server specific products all the time. You basically
need to test it on SQL Server and make sure you specify it in the system
requirements for your app. A quick question - are you selling to home users
or businesses? If you're selling to individual home users or small
businesses, you might reconsider using MSDE, as it is freely available, and
the 2 GB restriction shouldn't be so bad for an app that previously ran on
Access.|||Yes, selling to businesses, hopefully larger ones, which is why
I'm switching to SQL Server.
When my customers install their SQL Server, can I still refer
to it in my VB code w/ the same connection string? e.g. server=(local),
or do I have to specify an exact server name that the customer
has assigned?
thanks,
Christy.
"Michael C#" wrote:

> "ChristyWarner" <cwarner@.autoaudit.com> wrote in message
> news:DB69C611-0E69-47B1-B940-4FAB81DA9C36@.microsoft.com...
> Access suffers from the same 2 GB limitation on database size.
>
> If MSDE is not an option, your customers should probably have SQL Server.
I
> wouldn't recommend buying a bunch of copies of SQL Server to bundle with
> your app, as you don't necessarily know your clients' licensing needs, etc
.
>
> People mass-market SQL Server specific products all the time. You basical
ly
> need to test it on SQL Server and make sure you specify it in the system
> requirements for your app. A quick question - are you selling to home use
rs
> or businesses? If you're selling to individual home users or small
> businesses, you might reconsider using MSDE, as it is freely available, an
d
> the 2 GB restriction shouldn't be so bad for an app that previously ran on
> Access.
>
>|||It's best to give the customer an option to configure their SQL Server
settings themselves, either during Setup or within the app itself. If
you're planning to mass-market your app, you definitely need to allow for
changes to the connection settings somehow - not every business is going to
have their network configured the same way and you can't necessarily count
on the fact that they'll be running your app on the same box as SQL Server.
Additionally, they might be using SQL Authentication instead of Windows
Integrated, in which case they'll need to access the login
username/password, etc. And hard-coding your username/password into your
app is big security no-no; sticking the customer with a username/password
combo that might not meet their security policies and requirements is also
not a good thing.
"ChristyWarner" <cwarner@.autoaudit.com> wrote in message
news:43C2467F-8064-4822-9402-19482E8D3EE3@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Yes, selling to businesses, hopefully larger ones, which is why
> I'm switching to SQL Server.
> When my customers install their SQL Server, can I still refer
> to it in my VB code w/ the same connection string? e.g. server=(local),
> or do I have to specify an exact server name that the customer
> has assigned?
> thanks,
> Christy.
> "Michael C#" wrote:
>

Install Package: VB6.0 w/ SQL Server 2000

Hello,
I want to upgrade my Access 2003 app to have a
VB 6.0 front-end and SQL Server 2000 Standard back-end, that I want
to sell on the market. I do not want to use MSDE
because of the 2GB limitation. My questions are:
1) will my customers have to purchase SQL Server 2000?
(or me, and then give them the copy w/ my app).
2) what is the best way to wrap this up in an install
package? I already have InstallShield Express 4.0
and SageKey's Access 2003 MSI Wizard; am investigating
if these will let me include SQL Server. . . any ideas
on how to mass-sell something w/ SQL Server back-end'
Thanks,
Christy Warner.
--
Christy Warner
www.autoaudit.com
--
Christy Warner
www.autoaudit.com"ChristyWarner" <cwarner@.autoaudit.com> wrote in message
news:DB69C611-0E69-47B1-B940-4FAB81DA9C36@.microsoft.com...
> Hello,
> I want to upgrade my Access 2003 app to have a
> VB 6.0 front-end and SQL Server 2000 Standard back-end, that I want
> to sell on the market. I do not want to use MSDE
> because of the 2GB limitation. My questions are:
Access suffers from the same 2 GB limitation on database size.
> 1) will my customers have to purchase SQL Server 2000?
> (or me, and then give them the copy w/ my app).
If MSDE is not an option, your customers should probably have SQL Server. I
wouldn't recommend buying a bunch of copies of SQL Server to bundle with
your app, as you don't necessarily know your clients' licensing needs, etc.
> 2) what is the best way to wrap this up in an install
> package? I already have InstallShield Express 4.0
> and SageKey's Access 2003 MSI Wizard; am investigating
> if these will let me include SQL Server. . . any ideas
> on how to mass-sell something w/ SQL Server back-end'
People mass-market SQL Server specific products all the time. You basically
need to test it on SQL Server and make sure you specify it in the system
requirements for your app. A quick question - are you selling to home users
or businesses? If you're selling to individual home users or small
businesses, you might reconsider using MSDE, as it is freely available, and
the 2 GB restriction shouldn't be so bad for an app that previously ran on
Access.|||Yes, selling to businesses, hopefully larger ones, which is why
I'm switching to SQL Server.
When my customers install their SQL Server, can I still refer
to it in my VB code w/ the same connection string? e.g. server=(local),
or do I have to specify an exact server name that the customer
has assigned?
thanks,
Christy.
"Michael C#" wrote:
> "ChristyWarner" <cwarner@.autoaudit.com> wrote in message
> news:DB69C611-0E69-47B1-B940-4FAB81DA9C36@.microsoft.com...
> > Hello,
> >
> > I want to upgrade my Access 2003 app to have a
> > VB 6.0 front-end and SQL Server 2000 Standard back-end, that I want
> > to sell on the market. I do not want to use MSDE
> > because of the 2GB limitation. My questions are:
> Access suffers from the same 2 GB limitation on database size.
> > 1) will my customers have to purchase SQL Server 2000?
> > (or me, and then give them the copy w/ my app).
> If MSDE is not an option, your customers should probably have SQL Server. I
> wouldn't recommend buying a bunch of copies of SQL Server to bundle with
> your app, as you don't necessarily know your clients' licensing needs, etc.
> > 2) what is the best way to wrap this up in an install
> > package? I already have InstallShield Express 4.0
> > and SageKey's Access 2003 MSI Wizard; am investigating
> > if these will let me include SQL Server. . . any ideas
> > on how to mass-sell something w/ SQL Server back-end'
> People mass-market SQL Server specific products all the time. You basically
> need to test it on SQL Server and make sure you specify it in the system
> requirements for your app. A quick question - are you selling to home users
> or businesses? If you're selling to individual home users or small
> businesses, you might reconsider using MSDE, as it is freely available, and
> the 2 GB restriction shouldn't be so bad for an app that previously ran on
> Access.
>
>|||It's best to give the customer an option to configure their SQL Server
settings themselves, either during Setup or within the app itself. If
you're planning to mass-market your app, you definitely need to allow for
changes to the connection settings somehow - not every business is going to
have their network configured the same way and you can't necessarily count
on the fact that they'll be running your app on the same box as SQL Server.
Additionally, they might be using SQL Authentication instead of Windows
Integrated, in which case they'll need to access the login
username/password, etc. And hard-coding your username/password into your
app is big security no-no; sticking the customer with a username/password
combo that might not meet their security policies and requirements is also
not a good thing.
"ChristyWarner" <cwarner@.autoaudit.com> wrote in message
news:43C2467F-8064-4822-9402-19482E8D3EE3@.microsoft.com...
> Yes, selling to businesses, hopefully larger ones, which is why
> I'm switching to SQL Server.
> When my customers install their SQL Server, can I still refer
> to it in my VB code w/ the same connection string? e.g. server=(local),
> or do I have to specify an exact server name that the customer
> has assigned?
> thanks,
> Christy.
> "Michael C#" wrote:
>> "ChristyWarner" <cwarner@.autoaudit.com> wrote in message
>> news:DB69C611-0E69-47B1-B940-4FAB81DA9C36@.microsoft.com...
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > I want to upgrade my Access 2003 app to have a
>> > VB 6.0 front-end and SQL Server 2000 Standard back-end, that I want
>> > to sell on the market. I do not want to use MSDE
>> > because of the 2GB limitation. My questions are:
>> Access suffers from the same 2 GB limitation on database size.
>> > 1) will my customers have to purchase SQL Server 2000?
>> > (or me, and then give them the copy w/ my app).
>> If MSDE is not an option, your customers should probably have SQL Server.
>> I
>> wouldn't recommend buying a bunch of copies of SQL Server to bundle with
>> your app, as you don't necessarily know your clients' licensing needs,
>> etc.
>> > 2) what is the best way to wrap this up in an install
>> > package? I already have InstallShield Express 4.0
>> > and SageKey's Access 2003 MSI Wizard; am investigating
>> > if these will let me include SQL Server. . . any ideas
>> > on how to mass-sell something w/ SQL Server back-end'
>> People mass-market SQL Server specific products all the time. You
>> basically
>> need to test it on SQL Server and make sure you specify it in the system
>> requirements for your app. A quick question - are you selling to home
>> users
>> or businesses? If you're selling to individual home users or small
>> businesses, you might reconsider using MSDE, as it is freely available,
>> and
>> the 2 GB restriction shouldn't be so bad for an app that previously ran
>> on
>> Access.
>>

Install of SQL 2005

If a server is going to be used for just SQL database access - locally on the
WAN - is there any need for IIS?
Does installing reporting services and IIS degrade the machine.
I've got a client whose DBA is debating these issues with the tech who
installed OS and SQL...
DBA wants bare-bones SQL install - thinking of installing IIS/Reporting
Services on another server later if it's ever needed.
Recommendations and opinions would be appreciated.
Best practice would usually dictate that IIS / SSRS are employed on another
machine. However, just like whether you should buy an SL55 AMG or a Toyota
Corolla, it depends...
A
"Steve Z" <SteveZ@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9FF616F6-89A7-4B3C-B78E-566D976B25AF@.microsoft.com...
> If a server is going to be used for just SQL database access - locally on
> the
> WAN - is there any need for IIS?
> Does installing reporting services and IIS degrade the machine.
> I've got a client whose DBA is debating these issues with the tech who
> installed OS and SQL...
> DBA wants bare-bones SQL install - thinking of installing IIS/Reporting
> Services on another server later if it's ever needed.
> Recommendations and opinions would be appreciated.
|||I agree. I would install bare essentials now, and add IIS/RS if/when needed.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
"Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP]" <ten.xoc@.dnartreb.noraa> wrote in message
news:eOtb68zxHHA.4352@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Best practice would usually dictate that IIS / SSRS are employed on another machine. However,
> just like whether you should buy an SL55 AMG or a Toyota Corolla, it depends...
> A
>
>
> "Steve Z" <SteveZ@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:9FF616F6-89A7-4B3C-B78E-566D976B25AF@.microsoft.com...
>
|||On Jul 15, 4:30 pm, Steve Z <Ste...@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
> If a server is going to be used for just SQL database access - locally on the
> WAN - is there any need for IIS?
> Does installing reporting services and IIS degrade the machine.
> I've got a client whose DBA is debating these issues with the tech who
> installed OS and SQL...
> DBA wants bare-bones SQL install - thinking of installing IIS/Reporting
> Services on another server later if it's ever needed.
> Recommendations and opinions would be appreciated.
As already echoed in the thread, start with your minimal footprint and
add as necessary. Reporting Services is pretty easy to get up and
running when need be. Just get your specifications and go from there.
|||Is there a reason to use a named instance?
Is there a reason to not use a named instance?
This will be a large enterprise server - over 1000 users - around 20 or so
buildings across town.
Opinions?
|||No and no. A named instance isn't different from a default instance except for how you access it
from a client (like only machinename or machinename\instancename). So do what feels natural for you.
Well, the one difference I can think of is resolution from machine (or host) name to port number,
when using the IP netlib.
For the default instance, the port is well known (1433). You can change this but that requires that
you specify that port in the client app.
For a named instance, the client queries the "SQL Server browser" service which relies what port
number the desired instance is using. This is done using port 1434, UDP.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
"Steve Z" <SteveZ@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9A6F1BE0-5819-457A-8E07-86869FDF2BE7@.microsoft.com...
> Is there a reason to use a named instance?
> Is there a reason to not use a named instance?
> This will be a large enterprise server - over 1000 users - around 20 or so
> buildings across town.
> Opinions?

Install of SQL 2005

If a server is going to be used for just SQL database access - locally on the
WAN - is there any need for IIS?
Does installing reporting services and IIS degrade the machine.
I've got a client whose DBA is debating these issues with the tech who
installed OS and SQL...
DBA wants bare-bones SQL install - thinking of installing IIS/Reporting
Services on another server later if it's ever needed.
Recommendations and opinions would be appreciated.Best practice would usually dictate that IIS / SSRS are employed on another
machine. However, just like whether you should buy an SL55 AMG or a Toyota
Corolla, it depends...
A
"Steve Z" <SteveZ@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9FF616F6-89A7-4B3C-B78E-566D976B25AF@.microsoft.com...
> If a server is going to be used for just SQL database access - locally on
> the
> WAN - is there any need for IIS?
> Does installing reporting services and IIS degrade the machine.
> I've got a client whose DBA is debating these issues with the tech who
> installed OS and SQL...
> DBA wants bare-bones SQL install - thinking of installing IIS/Reporting
> Services on another server later if it's ever needed.
> Recommendations and opinions would be appreciated.|||I agree. I would install bare essentials now, and add IIS/RS if/when needed.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
"Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP]" <ten.xoc@.dnartreb.noraa> wrote in message
news:eOtb68zxHHA.4352@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Best practice would usually dictate that IIS / SSRS are employed on another machine. However,
> just like whether you should buy an SL55 AMG or a Toyota Corolla, it depends...
> A
>
>
> "Steve Z" <SteveZ@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:9FF616F6-89A7-4B3C-B78E-566D976B25AF@.microsoft.com...
>> If a server is going to be used for just SQL database access - locally on the
>> WAN - is there any need for IIS?
>> Does installing reporting services and IIS degrade the machine.
>> I've got a client whose DBA is debating these issues with the tech who
>> installed OS and SQL...
>> DBA wants bare-bones SQL install - thinking of installing IIS/Reporting
>> Services on another server later if it's ever needed.
>> Recommendations and opinions would be appreciated.
>|||On Jul 15, 4:30 pm, Steve Z <Ste...@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
> If a server is going to be used for just SQL database access - locally on the
> WAN - is there any need for IIS?
> Does installing reporting services and IIS degrade the machine.
> I've got a client whose DBA is debating these issues with the tech who
> installed OS and SQL...
> DBA wants bare-bones SQL install - thinking of installing IIS/Reporting
> Services on another server later if it's ever needed.
> Recommendations and opinions would be appreciated.
As already echoed in the thread, start with your minimal footprint and
add as necessary. Reporting Services is pretty easy to get up and
running when need be. Just get your specifications and go from there.|||Is there a reason to use a named instance?
Is there a reason to not use a named instance?
This will be a large enterprise server - over 1000 users - around 20 or so
buildings across town.
Opinions?|||No and no. A named instance isn't different from a default instance except for how you access it
from a client (like only machinename or machinename\instancename). So do what feels natural for you.
Well, the one difference I can think of is resolution from machine (or host) name to port number,
when using the IP netlib.
For the default instance, the port is well known (1433). You can change this but that requires that
you specify that port in the client app.
For a named instance, the client queries the "SQL Server browser" service which relies what port
number the desired instance is using. This is done using port 1434, UDP.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
"Steve Z" <SteveZ@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9A6F1BE0-5819-457A-8E07-86869FDF2BE7@.microsoft.com...
> Is there a reason to use a named instance?
> Is there a reason to not use a named instance?
> This will be a large enterprise server - over 1000 users - around 20 or so
> buildings across town.
> Opinions?

Install of SQL 2005

If a server is going to be used for just SQL database access - locally on th
e
WAN - is there any need for IIS?
Does installing reporting services and IIS degrade the machine.
I've got a client whose DBA is debating these issues with the tech who
installed OS and SQL...
DBA wants bare-bones SQL install - thinking of installing IIS/Reporting
Services on another server later if it's ever needed.
Recommendations and opinions would be appreciated.Best practice would usually dictate that IIS / SSRS are employed on another
machine. However, just like whether you should buy an SL55 AMG or a Toyota
Corolla, it depends...
A
"Steve Z" <SteveZ@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9FF616F6-89A7-4B3C-B78E-566D976B25AF@.microsoft.com...
> If a server is going to be used for just SQL database access - locally on
> the
> WAN - is there any need for IIS?
> Does installing reporting services and IIS degrade the machine.
> I've got a client whose DBA is debating these issues with the tech who
> installed OS and SQL...
> DBA wants bare-bones SQL install - thinking of installing IIS/Reporting
> Services on another server later if it's ever needed.
> Recommendations and opinions would be appreciated.|||I agree. I would install bare essentials now, and add IIS/RS if/when needed.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
"Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP]" <ten.xoc@.dnartreb.noraa> wrote in mess
age
news:eOtb68zxHHA.4352@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Best practice would usually dictate that IIS / SSRS are employed on anothe
r machine. However,
> just like whether you should buy an SL55 AMG or a Toyota Corolla, it depen
ds...
> A
>
>
> "Steve Z" <SteveZ@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:9FF616F6-89A7-4B3C-B78E-566D976B25AF@.microsoft.com...
>|||On Jul 15, 4:30 pm, Steve Z <Ste...@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
> If a server is going to be used for just SQL database access - locally on
the
> WAN - is there any need for IIS?
> Does installing reporting services and IIS degrade the machine.
> I've got a client whose DBA is debating these issues with the tech who
> installed OS and SQL...
> DBA wants bare-bones SQL install - thinking of installing IIS/Reporting
> Services on another server later if it's ever needed.
> Recommendations and opinions would be appreciated.
As already echoed in the thread, start with your minimal footprint and
add as necessary. Reporting Services is pretty easy to get up and
running when need be. Just get your specifications and go from there.|||Is there a reason to use a named instance?
Is there a reason to not use a named instance?
This will be a large enterprise server - over 1000 users - around 20 or so
buildings across town.
Opinions?|||No and no. A named instance isn't different from a default instance except f
or how you access it
from a client (like only machinename or machinename\instancename). So do wha
t feels natural for you.
Well, the one difference I can think of is resolution from machine (or host)
name to port number,
when using the IP netlib.
For the default instance, the port is well known (1433). You can change this
but that requires that
you specify that port in the client app.
For a named instance, the client queries the "SQL Server browser" service wh
ich relies what port
number the desired instance is using. This is done using port 1434, UDP.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
"Steve Z" <SteveZ@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9A6F1BE0-5819-457A-8E07-86869FDF2BE7@.microsoft.com...
> Is there a reason to use a named instance?
> Is there a reason to not use a named instance?
> This will be a large enterprise server - over 1000 users - around 20 or so
> buildings across town.
> Opinions?sql

insertion into sql server table failed

Hi ,
At SQL server's end , i have put my windows id as a readonly for that
database.
however from MS Access when i specify the ODBC i used the sa id & pwd
from Ms Access , i linked to the SQL server db using ODBC connection ,when i
tried to insert some data into SQL server i was not allowed
why is that so as i was using sa pwd from the odbc connection
Could anyone kindly advise ?
tks & rdgsDon't think it has much to do with the security context -
more likely related to how the tables are linked or an ODBC
issue depending on the details of the error you receive.
Make sure you have defined a primary key or unique
identifier for the tables you are linking.
-Sue
On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 18:10:03 -0700, "maxzsim"
<maxzsim@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>Hi ,
> At SQL server's end , i have put my windows id as a readonly for that
>database.
> however from MS Access when i specify the ODBC i used the sa id & pwd
>from Ms Access , i linked to the SQL server db using ODBC connection ,when i
>tried to insert some data into SQL server i was not allowed
> why is that so as i was using sa pwd from the odbc connection
> Could anyone kindly advise ?
>tks & rdgs|||Hi
From the local table in Ms Access ,i have added a primary and tried
inserting it into the tbl in SQL Server in Production but i have got a key
violation error
However, when i insert into a local SQL Server it's ok
tks & rdgs
"Sue Hoegemeier" wrote:
> Don't think it has much to do with the security context -
> more likely related to how the tables are linked or an ODBC
> issue depending on the details of the error you receive.
> Make sure you have defined a primary key or unique
> identifier for the tables you are linking.
> -Sue
> On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 18:10:03 -0700, "maxzsim"
> <maxzsim@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
> >Hi ,
> >
> > At SQL server's end , i have put my windows id as a readonly for that
> >database.
> >
> > however from MS Access when i specify the ODBC i used the sa id & pwd
> >
> >from Ms Access , i linked to the SQL server db using ODBC connection ,when i
> >tried to insert some data into SQL server i was not allowed
> >
> > why is that so as i was using sa pwd from the odbc connection
> >
> > Could anyone kindly advise ?
> >
> >tks & rdgs
>

insertion into sql server table failed

Hi ,
At SQL server's end , i have put my windows id as a readonly for that
database.
however from MS Access when i specify the ODBC i used the sa id & pwd
from Ms Access , i linked to the SQL server db using ODBC connection ,when i
tried to insert some data into SQL server i was not allowed
why is that so as i was using sa pwd from the odbc connection
Could anyone kindly advise ?
tks & rdgsDon't think it has much to do with the security context -
more likely related to how the tables are linked or an ODBC
issue depending on the details of the error you receive.
Make sure you have defined a primary key or unique
identifier for the tables you are linking.
-Sue
On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 18:10:03 -0700, "maxzsim"
<maxzsim@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>Hi ,
> At SQL server's end , i have put my windows id as a readonly for that
>database.
> however from MS Access when i specify the ODBC i used the sa id & pwd
>from Ms Access , i linked to the SQL server db using ODBC connection ,when
i
>tried to insert some data into SQL server i was not allowed
> why is that so as i was using sa pwd from the odbc connection
> Could anyone kindly advise ?
>tks & rdgs|||Hi
From the local table in Ms Access ,i have added a primary and tried
inserting it into the tbl in SQL Server in Production but i have got a key
violation error
However, when i insert into a local SQL Server it's ok
tks & rdgs
"Sue Hoegemeier" wrote:

> Don't think it has much to do with the security context -
> more likely related to how the tables are linked or an ODBC
> issue depending on the details of the error you receive.
> Make sure you have defined a primary key or unique
> identifier for the tables you are linking.
> -Sue
> On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 18:10:03 -0700, "maxzsim"
> <maxzsim@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>

insertion into sql server table failed

Hi ,
At SQL server's end , i have put my windows id as a readonly for that
database.
however from MS Access when i specify the ODBC i used the sa id & pwd
from Ms Access , i linked to the SQL server db using ODBC connection ,when i
tried to insert some data into SQL server i was not allowed
why is that so as i was using sa pwd from the odbc connection
Could anyone kindly advise ?
tks & rdgs
Don't think it has much to do with the security context -
more likely related to how the tables are linked or an ODBC
issue depending on the details of the error you receive.
Make sure you have defined a primary key or unique
identifier for the tables you are linking.
-Sue
On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 18:10:03 -0700, "maxzsim"
<maxzsim@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>Hi ,
> At SQL server's end , i have put my windows id as a readonly for that
>database.
> however from MS Access when i specify the ODBC i used the sa id & pwd
>from Ms Access , i linked to the SQL server db using ODBC connection ,when i
>tried to insert some data into SQL server i was not allowed
> why is that so as i was using sa pwd from the odbc connection
> Could anyone kindly advise ?
>tks & rdgs
|||Hi
From the local table in Ms Access ,i have added a primary and tried
inserting it into the tbl in SQL Server in Production but i have got a key
violation error
However, when i insert into a local SQL Server it's ok
tks & rdgs
"Sue Hoegemeier" wrote:

> Don't think it has much to do with the security context -
> more likely related to how the tables are linked or an ODBC
> issue depending on the details of the error you receive.
> Make sure you have defined a primary key or unique
> identifier for the tables you are linking.
> -Sue
> On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 18:10:03 -0700, "maxzsim"
> <maxzsim@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>

Inserting only time (09:00:00) into SQL server

I'm having problems inserting times into my SQL backend through my VB app
I have a access front end that I am wanting to recreate in VB but when i
execute my SQL insert statement instead of 09:00:00 showing in the field,
01/01/1900 09:00:00 or similar shows, i can insert only a date into the date
field 01/01/2005 and it stores how i want. but i cant seperately store the
time the field is set to datetime.
any one have any ideas, also I am getting an error with the SQL statement i
dont think it likes the ' around the time variable but errors if it isnt
there. If i paste the SQL statement into query analyzer with the ' it runs
no problem.
TIA
some sample code is below
strSQL = "INSERT INTO Appointment (Date_Of_Travel, Time_Of_Appointment,
House, Postcode, CMS_Ref, Agent_ID) VALUES ('" & _
DateTrav & "', '" & txtTime & "', '" & txtHouse & "', '" & txtPCode & "', '"
& txtCMS & "', '" & txtAgentID & "');"
Cmd.CommandText = strSQL
Cmd.Executehi steven,
u cannot store the time alone in the datetime obj. it has to be with the
date part. since u have not specified the date , sql server has picked up th
e
default date : 1/1/1900.
optionally u can think of adding the time along with some date and then
ignore the date part , when ever u operate on this field.
anu
"steven scaife" wrote:

> I'm having problems inserting times into my SQL backend through my VB app
> I have a access front end that I am wanting to recreate in VB but when i
> execute my SQL insert statement instead of 09:00:00 showing in the field,
> 01/01/1900 09:00:00 or similar shows, i can insert only a date into the da
te
> field 01/01/2005 and it stores how i want. but i cant seperately store th
e
> time the field is set to datetime.
> any one have any ideas, also I am getting an error with the SQL statement
i
> dont think it likes the ' around the time variable but errors if it isnt
> there. If i paste the SQL statement into query analyzer with the ' it run
s
> no problem.
> TIA
> some sample code is below
> strSQL = "INSERT INTO Appointment (Date_Of_Travel, Time_Of_Appointment,
> House, Postcode, CMS_Ref, Agent_ID) VALUES ('" & _
> DateTrav & "', '" & txtTime & "', '" & txtHouse & "', '" & txtPCode & "',
'"
> & txtCMS & "', '" & txtAgentID & "');"
> Cmd.CommandText = strSQL
> Cmd.Execute
>|||SQL Server doesn't have a TIME datatype. DATETIME always stores both
date and time. Looking at your INSERT statement it seems you have
separate columns for date and time. That doesn't seem like a good idea.
Why use one column instead of two? You can easily separate the date and
time elements when you query the table, or just format it differently
to show only date or only time on screen.
Don't build and execute dynamic SQL strings from user input. It exposes
you to SQL Injection vulnerabilities (Google for it if you don't know).
Data-access code in your client app also increases database maintenance
problems because it forces you to change your application when you make
schema changes. All data access should usually be performed through
parameterized stored procedures.
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
--|||Hi
I'd create stored procedure that accept few parameters
declare @.dt DATETIME,@.t CHAR(5)
SET @.dt=GETDATE()
SET @.t='09:00'
CREATE TABLE #Test
(
col DATETIME
)
INSERT INTO #Test SELECT GETDATE()
INSERT INTO #Test SELECT CAST(CONVERT(CHAR(10),@.dt,112)+@.t AS DATETIME)
SELECT * FROM #Test
"steven scaife" <stevenscaife@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A60949B8-0E18-46D0-9937-A01761A3FB8D@.microsoft.com...
> I'm having problems inserting times into my SQL backend through my VB app
> I have a access front end that I am wanting to recreate in VB but when i
> execute my SQL insert statement instead of 09:00:00 showing in the field,
> 01/01/1900 09:00:00 or similar shows, i can insert only a date into the
date
> field 01/01/2005 and it stores how i want. but i cant seperately store
the
> time the field is set to datetime.
> any one have any ideas, also I am getting an error with the SQL statement
i
> dont think it likes the ' around the time variable but errors if it isnt
> there. If i paste the SQL statement into query analyzer with the ' it
runs
> no problem.
> TIA
> some sample code is below
> strSQL = "INSERT INTO Appointment (Date_Of_Travel, Time_Of_Appointment,
> House, Postcode, CMS_Ref, Agent_ID) VALUES ('" & _
> DateTrav & "', '" & txtTime & "', '" & txtHouse & "', '" & txtPCode & "',
'"
> & txtCMS & "', '" & txtAgentID & "');"
> Cmd.CommandText = strSQL
> Cmd.Execute
>

Inserting Null values

Hi,
I am trying to insert null values into sql server from my access from. I am using sql statement. But it says 'Syntex error in Insert statement'. When i remove null values it works fine? How can I insert null values into a table?
Any help will be highly appreciated.It would help if you post the statement...|||Use SQL Pass-Through Query:

INSERT INTO Table1 ( id, name ) values(13, null);|||If your table accepts null in the field (name) then you don't need to mention that in your isert statment. Just use:

INSERT INTO Table1 (id) values(13);