Installing multiple instances of MSDE2000

Hello
I installed 2 instances of msde , installation passed ok but noone can
connect to my machine , i portscanned host machine and port 1443 is not
opened ,can it be becaus i installed it on a VmWare console, any help is
apriciated.
PS I didn't forget to set DISABLENETWORKPROTOCOLS=0.
Thx in advance
__________
TomislavFist you need to find out what the instance names are and whether one is a
default instance (both are probably named instances as no-one is listening
to port 1433).
Use either server network utility, svrnetcn.exe, or check the services in
the machine. After you know the instance names, you connect using:
machinename\instancename
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
"Tomislav Zemljak" <tomislav.zemljak@.*maknime*bj.tel.hr> wrote in message
news:c3rn9s$ksm$1@.sunce.iskon.hr...
> Hello
> I installed 2 instances of msde , installation passed ok but noone can
> connect to my machine , i portscanned host machine and port 1443 is not
> opened ,can it be becaus i installed it on a VmWare console, any help is
> apriciated.
> PS I didn't forget to set DISABLENETWORKPROTOCOLS=0.
> Thx in advance
> __________
> Tomislav
>|||"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote:
> Fist you need to find out what the instance names are and whether one is a
> default instance (both are probably named instances as no-one is listening
> to port 1433).
One is default instance , other is named "second"
> Use either server network utility, svrnetcn.exe, or check the services in
> the machine. After you know the instance names, you connect using:
> machinename\instancename
That didn't solve it ... both instances are started and appear to be
working on host machine , remote users still cant connect and portscann
shows that port 1443 isn't open .Thx for trying thou.|||You don't say whether these instances are both named or one is a default def
ault instance. You cannot have two
default instances. My guess is that you have two names instance. A named ins
tance does NOT listen on 1433.
Please follow my direction closely to find out whether these are default or
named instances and the name of
the instance.
This is what I write in my earlier post:

Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
"Tomislav Zemljak" <tomislav.zemljak@.*maknime*bj.tel.hr> wrote in message news:c3s99i$4ge$1
@.sunce.iskon.hr...
> "Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote:
> One is default instance , other is named "second"
> That didn't solve it ... both instances are started and appear to be
> working on host machine , remote users still cant connect and portscann
> shows that port 1443 isn't open .Thx for trying thou.
>|||"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote:
> You don't say whether these instances are both named or one is a default
default instance.
As i already wrote (look below) one is default instance , other is named
"second".
I "fixed" the problem by reinstalling both instances , now they work , thx
for tryng to help !
You cannot have two
> default instances. My guess is that you have two names instance. A named
instance does NOT listen on 1433.
> Please follow my direction closely to find out whether these are default
or named instances and the name of
> the instance.
> This is what I write in my earlier post:
>
in
>
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
>
> "Tomislav Zemljak" <tomislav.zemljak@.*maknime*bj.tel.hr> wrote in message
news:c3s99i$4ge$1@.sunce.iskon.hr...
wrote:
is a
listening
in
>

Installing Multiple Instances of ASP.NET Application Services on ONE SQL Server Database

Hi,

I am trying to install multiple application services on 1 sql server database. Is this possible? I do not know how to install anything but the default application services settings for the membership, roles, etc.

Please help if you can.

Thanks,

Ezeibe

Seems not possilble in 1 databases, but should be able in different databases on 1 SQL instance. Just use aspnet_regsql.exe to create schema for membership in serveral database, and then connect to 1 database respectively in your applications.

Installing Multiple Instances Design Question

I have 4 small small SQL 2000 databases that I need to consolidate to a
single machine.
The data is minimal maybe 100 GB total with an expection of some
moderate growth.
The box will be configured with a raid 5.
Question:
Should the O.S and each instance be on its own partition?
Or would it be better to have the instances on one partition and
dedicate a partition for the data and log files?
Any inforomation would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Hulicat
I would investigate if the four database could reside in the same server.
(Perhaps because of security or other needs, that is not possible.)
If you have to have 'separate' servers, install multiple instances of SQL
Server on the same box. All instances will use the same OS -the only thing
being 'duplicated' is SQL Server instances (code, settings, etc.)
Drives.
Best choice: RAID 1 for OS and SQL installables (2 drives). RAID 10 for data
files (4 drives). RAID 10 for Logs files (4 drives). For optimal
performance, each instance 'should' have its own drives for data and logs.
I wouldn't recommend trying to make everything work with a single RAID 5.
That would be painful.
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
You can't help someone get up a hill without getting a little closer to the
top yourself.
- H. Norman Schwarzkopf
"Hulicat" <dennis_A_white@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1162403869.339729.318940@.e64g2000cwd.googlegr oups.com...
>I have 4 small small SQL 2000 databases that I need to consolidate to a
> single machine.
> The data is minimal maybe 100 GB total with an expection of some
> moderate growth.
> The box will be configured with a raid 5.
> Question:
> Should the O.S and each instance be on its own partition?
> Or would it be better to have the instances on one partition and
> dedicate a partition for the data and log files?
> Any inforomation would be greatly appreciated.
> Thanks,
> Hulicat
>
|||~Thanks~
Arnie Rowland wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> I would investigate if the four database could reside in the same server.
> (Perhaps because of security or other needs, that is not possible.)
> If you have to have 'separate' servers, install multiple instances of SQL
> Server on the same box. All instances will use the same OS -the only thing
> being 'duplicated' is SQL Server instances (code, settings, etc.)
> Drives.
> Best choice: RAID 1 for OS and SQL installables (2 drives). RAID 10 for data
> files (4 drives). RAID 10 for Logs files (4 drives). For optimal
> performance, each instance 'should' have its own drives for data and logs.
> I wouldn't recommend trying to make everything work with a single RAID 5.
> That would be painful.
> --
> Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
> Westwood Consulting, Inc
> Most good judgment comes from experience.
> Most experience comes from bad judgment.
> - Anonymous
> You can't help someone get up a hill without getting a little closer to the
> top yourself.
> - H. Norman Schwarzkopf
>
> "Hulicat" <dennis_A_white@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1162403869.339729.318940@.e64g2000cwd.googlegr oups.com...

Installing Multiple Instances Design Question

I have 4 small small SQL 2000 databases that I need to consolidate to a
single machine.
The data is minimal maybe 100 GB total with an expection of some
moderate growth.
The box will be configured with a raid 5.
Question:
Should the O.S and each instance be on its own partition?
Or would it be better to have the instances on one partition and
dedicate a partition for the data and log files?
Any inforomation would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
HulicatI would investigate if the four database could reside in the same server.
(Perhaps because of security or other needs, that is not possible.)
If you have to have 'separate' servers, install multiple instances of SQL
Server on the same box. All instances will use the same OS -the only thing
being 'duplicated' is SQL Server instances (code, settings, etc.)
Drives.
Best choice: RAID 1 for OS and SQL installables (2 drives). RAID 10 for data
files (4 drives). RAID 10 for Logs files (4 drives). For optimal
performance, each instance 'should' have its own drives for data and logs.
I wouldn't recommend trying to make everything work with a single RAID 5.
That would be painful.
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
You can't help someone get up a hill without getting a little closer to the
top yourself.
- H. Norman Schwarzkopf
"Hulicat" <dennis_A_white@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1162403869.339729.318940@.e64g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>I have 4 small small SQL 2000 databases that I need to consolidate to a
> single machine.
> The data is minimal maybe 100 GB total with an expection of some
> moderate growth.
> The box will be configured with a raid 5.
> Question:
> Should the O.S and each instance be on its own partition?
> Or would it be better to have the instances on one partition and
> dedicate a partition for the data and log files?
> Any inforomation would be greatly appreciated.
> Thanks,
> Hulicat
>|||~Thanks~
Arnie Rowland wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> I would investigate if the four database could reside in the same server.
> (Perhaps because of security or other needs, that is not possible.)
> If you have to have 'separate' servers, install multiple instances of SQL
> Server on the same box. All instances will use the same OS -the only thing
> being 'duplicated' is SQL Server instances (code, settings, etc.)
> Drives.
> Best choice: RAID 1 for OS and SQL installables (2 drives). RAID 10 for da
ta
> files (4 drives). RAID 10 for Logs files (4 drives). For optimal
> performance, each instance 'should' have its own drives for data and logs.
> I wouldn't recommend trying to make everything work with a single RAID 5.
> That would be painful.
> --
> Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
> Westwood Consulting, Inc
> Most good judgment comes from experience.
> Most experience comes from bad judgment.
> - Anonymous
> You can't help someone get up a hill without getting a little closer to th
e
> top yourself.
> - H. Norman Schwarzkopf
>
> "Hulicat" <dennis_A_white@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1162403869.339729.318940@.e64g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...sql

Installing Multiple Instances Design Question

I have 4 small small SQL 2000 databases that I need to consolidate to a
single machine.
The data is minimal maybe 100 GB total with an expection of some
moderate growth.
The box will be configured with a raid 5.
Question:
Should the O.S and each instance be on its own partition?
Or would it be better to have the instances on one partition and
dedicate a partition for the data and log files?
Any inforomation would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
HulicatI would investigate if the four database could reside in the same server.
(Perhaps because of security or other needs, that is not possible.)
If you have to have 'separate' servers, install multiple instances of SQL
Server on the same box. All instances will use the same OS -the only thing
being 'duplicated' is SQL Server instances (code, settings, etc.)
Drives.
Best choice: RAID 1 for OS and SQL installables (2 drives). RAID 10 for data
files (4 drives). RAID 10 for Logs files (4 drives). For optimal
performance, each instance 'should' have its own drives for data and logs.
I wouldn't recommend trying to make everything work with a single RAID 5.
That would be painful.
--
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
You can't help someone get up a hill without getting a little closer to the
top yourself.
- H. Norman Schwarzkopf
"Hulicat" <dennis_A_white@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1162403869.339729.318940@.e64g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>I have 4 small small SQL 2000 databases that I need to consolidate to a
> single machine.
> The data is minimal maybe 100 GB total with an expection of some
> moderate growth.
> The box will be configured with a raid 5.
> Question:
> Should the O.S and each instance be on its own partition?
> Or would it be better to have the instances on one partition and
> dedicate a partition for the data and log files?
> Any inforomation would be greatly appreciated.
> Thanks,
> Hulicat
>|||~Thanks~
Arnie Rowland wrote:
> I would investigate if the four database could reside in the same server.
> (Perhaps because of security or other needs, that is not possible.)
> If you have to have 'separate' servers, install multiple instances of SQL
> Server on the same box. All instances will use the same OS -the only thing
> being 'duplicated' is SQL Server instances (code, settings, etc.)
> Drives.
> Best choice: RAID 1 for OS and SQL installables (2 drives). RAID 10 for data
> files (4 drives). RAID 10 for Logs files (4 drives). For optimal
> performance, each instance 'should' have its own drives for data and logs.
> I wouldn't recommend trying to make everything work with a single RAID 5.
> That would be painful.
> --
> Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
> Westwood Consulting, Inc
> Most good judgment comes from experience.
> Most experience comes from bad judgment.
> - Anonymous
> You can't help someone get up a hill without getting a little closer to the
> top yourself.
> - H. Norman Schwarzkopf
>
> "Hulicat" <dennis_A_white@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1162403869.339729.318940@.e64g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> >I have 4 small small SQL 2000 databases that I need to consolidate to a
> > single machine.
> > The data is minimal maybe 100 GB total with an expection of some
> > moderate growth.
> >
> > The box will be configured with a raid 5.
> >
> > Question:
> > Should the O.S and each instance be on its own partition?
> > Or would it be better to have the instances on one partition and
> > dedicate a partition for the data and log files?
> >
> > Any inforomation would be greatly appreciated.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Hulicat
> >

installing MSDE and instance name

Hi Joe,
The little server icon is called Service Manager and it does not list the
named instances.
To check the status of the named instance that you have installed, you can
type the server name in the Severbox. It is a dropdown cum text box. So you
will be able to type the SQL Server Name.
For a named instance, the SQL Server name would be
<computername>\<Instancename>.
In your case it would be <computername>\JoesDB01.
After typing the server name, click on Refresh Services button and it
should show you the state of the different services, like the SQL Server,
SQL Server Agent, Distributed Transaction Coordinator.
You can control the state of each Service,
1. Start - Click on this to start/Continue the service, if it is Stopped or
Paused
2. Stop - Click on this to stop the Service.
3. Pause - Click on this to pause the service. Pausing, will allow the
current users to work and will not allow new users to connect to the SQL
Server.
You can also installed the SQL Web Data Administrator, to create and manage
Database from
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...798-C57A-419E-
ACBC-2A332CB7F959&displaylang=en
HTH
Ashish
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Great! This helped a lot. Things seem to be working fine now
Thanks Ashish!
-- Joe
sql

Installing A Default Instance AFTER a Named Instance??

I have SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition (sp3a) running on a windows 2003 (sp4) Server.

It is a Production Server with 3 NAMED Instances and NO Default Instance.

Does anyone know if I can rerun the SQL Server Install and add a DEFAULT Instance to this box without disrupting the other Named Instances?Except for a reboot after the install, you should have no problems installing a default instance.|||Thank you : )|||Will the default instance automatically have the name of the Server - or is there a way to give it name - like you would a named instance.. sorry if the question sounds stupid.. : )|||The default instance will have the name of the server. The only way around this that I can think of off the top of my head is to give the machine a DNS alias.|||Thanks !!! I'm not so much worried about the name as I am Blowing up the Server by installing a Default Instance AFTER it has already been populated with Named Instances.

Installation of Multiple named instances in Cluster environment

Hi All..

We are planning to build a cluster environment on MS SQL 2005. We want to install multiple named instances in a single database server and use cluster for that database server.

Is this option possible ? Any relevant documentation would be helpful

Thanks in advance

Regards

Madhav

Yes, you can install multiple instances of SQL Server into a cluster. All of the relevant information can be found in Books Online.|||

here is some supplemental information to Books Online that was recently published:

SQL Server Failover Clustering White Paper
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=818234dc-a17b-4f09-b282-c6830fead499&DisplayLang=en