Attach Database problem

I am trying to attach a database as part of my overall application distribution.

After installing Express when my .NET app first starts it atempts to attach the database using EXEC sp_attach_db etc...

This used to work fine with MSDE 2000 but now the database is being attached as read-only. If I then use Management Studio to manually detach and attach the database it is fine.

Any ideas why this is happening please?

Hi,

is the file propably readonly (on system level) ? Do you use the same permission / login in your application as in SQL Server Managment studio ?

HTH, Jens Suessmeyer.

http://www.sqlserver2005.de

|||

Hi Jens

The .mdf and .ldf files are not set to read only.

This is happening on Windows XP.

When I run the attach command from within my code I am connected to the master db as the sa user. I am logged into Windows as an administrator user.

I have made sure that the database has been detached properly on my developement machine and the database is installed to the same path on the target machine.

Are you aware of any other reasons that could cause a db to be attached as read-only?

Thanks

Ade

|||

Odds are this is a result of the fact that SQL Express runs under Network Service rather than Local Service as was the case in MSDE. Check to see what permissions the Network Service account has on the directory where your database is located.

Mike

|||

Hi Mike

Thanks for your reply.

You were right - when I change SQL Express to run under the Local Service the problem goes away.

I can override the new default in the command line by setting the SQLACCOUNT="NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM" parameter.

What I need to know now is why the default account has changed (and am I creating a problem by overriding it)?

The alternative is to leave the account as the Network Service but I don't know how then to set the relevant folder permissions from within my Instalshield setup (Windows XP Home and Professional)

Does anyone have any more comments on this?

Thanks again Mike

|||

Wow!

Thank you all!

I was trying to migrate a medical records system database that uses MSDE sql2000 over to SQL Express. I kept getting the "read only" errors when I tried to attach the databases to SQL Express. I was ripping my hair out!

Actually, I got the same error selecting 'local service', but selecting 'local system' WORKED!

David

Asymmetric communication from ms-sql-m protocol from an SQL Cluster

We are installing an application that requires access to the ms-sql-m
protocol (UDP/1434) as well as the data port (TCP/1433). The SQL Server
we are using is part of an N+1 cluster. The issue is that when we try
to communicate to the node instance xxx.xxx.123.226 recieve the
ms-sql-m response from the physical device ip xxx.xxx.123.222 causing
an asymmetric IP communication and the response appears to be dropped
by the request as one might expect. This causing our installation to
fail.
Has anyone run into this issue before, no of a common misconfiguration
in clustering services that leads to this, or aware of any documented
bug?
Thanks in advance for you posts.
Actually, this is typical of MS cluster applications. The response comes
back from the underlying NIC address, not the cluster virtual address. It
ain't a bug, it's a feature. Or at least it has always operated this way
and could therefore be considered a standard.
Sorry this isn't the answer you were looking for, but it is the way the
system actually works.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
<ddnash@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1165524543.657106.172130@.79g2000cws.googlegro ups.com...
> We are installing an application that requires access to the ms-sql-m
> protocol (UDP/1434) as well as the data port (TCP/1433). The SQL Server
> we are using is part of an N+1 cluster. The issue is that when we try
> to communicate to the node instance xxx.xxx.123.226 recieve the
> ms-sql-m response from the physical device ip xxx.xxx.123.222 causing
> an asymmetric IP communication and the response appears to be dropped
> by the request as one might expect. This causing our installation to
> fail.
> Has anyone run into this issue before, no of a common misconfiguration
> in clustering services that leads to this, or aware of any documented
> bug?
>
> Thanks in advance for you posts.
>
|||I found the following article that does acknowledge the issue and
states that MS has chosen not to address it at this point, but there
are a couple of workarounds.
http://blogs.msdn.com/sql_protocols/archive/2006/02/27/539706.aspx
Thanks for the post.
Geoff N. Hiten wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> Actually, this is typical of MS cluster applications. The response comes
> back from the underlying NIC address, not the cluster virtual address. It
> ain't a bug, it's a feature. Or at least it has always operated this way
> and could therefore be considered a standard.
> Sorry this isn't the answer you were looking for, but it is the way the
> system actually works.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>
> <ddnash@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1165524543.657106.172130@.79g2000cws.googlegro ups.com...
sql

Asymmetric communication from ms-sql-m protocol from an SQL Cluster

We are installing an application that requires access to the ms-sql-m
protocol (UDP/1434) as well as the data port (TCP/1433). The SQL Server
we are using is part of an N+1 cluster. The issue is that when we try
to communicate to the node instance xxx.xxx.123.226 recieve the
ms-sql-m response from the physical device ip xxx.xxx.123.222 causing
an asymmetric IP communication and the response appears to be dropped
by the request as one might expect. This causing our installation to
fail.
Has anyone run into this issue before, no of a common misconfiguration
in clustering services that leads to this, or aware of any documented
bug?
Thanks in advance for you posts.Actually, this is typical of MS cluster applications. The response comes
back from the underlying NIC address, not the cluster virtual address. It
ain't a bug, it's a feature. :) Or at least it has always operated this way
and could therefore be considered a standard.
Sorry this isn't the answer you were looking for, but it is the way the
system actually works.
--
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
<ddnash@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1165524543.657106.172130@.79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
> We are installing an application that requires access to the ms-sql-m
> protocol (UDP/1434) as well as the data port (TCP/1433). The SQL Server
> we are using is part of an N+1 cluster. The issue is that when we try
> to communicate to the node instance xxx.xxx.123.226 recieve the
> ms-sql-m response from the physical device ip xxx.xxx.123.222 causing
> an asymmetric IP communication and the response appears to be dropped
> by the request as one might expect. This causing our installation to
> fail.
> Has anyone run into this issue before, no of a common misconfiguration
> in clustering services that leads to this, or aware of any documented
> bug?
>
> Thanks in advance for you posts.
>|||I found the following article that does acknowledge the issue and
states that MS has chosen not to address it at this point, but there
are a couple of workarounds.
http://blogs.msdn.com/sql_protocols/archive/2006/02/27/539706.aspx
Thanks for the post.
Geoff N. Hiten wrote:
> Actually, this is typical of MS cluster applications. The response comes
> back from the underlying NIC address, not the cluster virtual address. It
> ain't a bug, it's a feature. :) Or at least it has always operated this way
> and could therefore be considered a standard.
> Sorry this isn't the answer you were looking for, but it is the way the
> system actually works.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>
> <ddnash@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1165524543.657106.172130@.79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
> > We are installing an application that requires access to the ms-sql-m
> > protocol (UDP/1434) as well as the data port (TCP/1433). The SQL Server
> >
> > we are using is part of an N+1 cluster. The issue is that when we try
> > to communicate to the node instance xxx.xxx.123.226 recieve the
> > ms-sql-m response from the physical device ip xxx.xxx.123.222 causing
> > an asymmetric IP communication and the response appears to be dropped
> > by the request as one might expect. This causing our installation to
> > fail.
> >
> > Has anyone run into this issue before, no of a common misconfiguration
> > in clustering services that leads to this, or aware of any documented
> > bug?
> >
> >
> > Thanks in advance for you posts.
> >

Asymmetric communication from ms-sql-m protocol from an SQL Cluster

We are installing an application that requires access to the ms-sql-m
protocol (UDP/1434) as well as the data port (TCP/1433). The SQL Server
we are using is part of an N+1 cluster. The issue is that when we try
to communicate to the node instance xxx.xxx.123.226 recieve the
ms-sql-m response from the physical device ip xxx.xxx.123.222 causing
an asymmetric IP communication and the response appears to be dropped
by the request as one might expect. This causing our installation to
fail.
Has anyone run into this issue before, no of a common misconfiguration
in clustering services that leads to this, or aware of any documented
bug?
Thanks in advance for you posts.Actually, this is typical of MS cluster applications. The response comes
back from the underlying NIC address, not the cluster virtual address. It
ain't a bug, it's a feature. Or at least it has always operated this way
and could therefore be considered a standard.
Sorry this isn't the answer you were looking for, but it is the way the
system actually works.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
<ddnash@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1165524543.657106.172130@.79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
> We are installing an application that requires access to the ms-sql-m
> protocol (UDP/1434) as well as the data port (TCP/1433). The SQL Server
> we are using is part of an N+1 cluster. The issue is that when we try
> to communicate to the node instance xxx.xxx.123.226 recieve the
> ms-sql-m response from the physical device ip xxx.xxx.123.222 causing
> an asymmetric IP communication and the response appears to be dropped
> by the request as one might expect. This causing our installation to
> fail.
> Has anyone run into this issue before, no of a common misconfiguration
> in clustering services that leads to this, or aware of any documented
> bug?
>
> Thanks in advance for you posts.
>|||I found the following article that does acknowledge the issue and
states that MS has chosen not to address it at this point, but there
are a couple of workarounds.
http://blogs.msdn.com/sql_protocols.../27/539706.aspx
Thanks for the post.
Geoff N. Hiten wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> Actually, this is typical of MS cluster applications. The response comes
> back from the underlying NIC address, not the cluster virtual address. It
> ain't a bug, it's a feature. Or at least it has always operated this w
ay
> and could therefore be considered a standard.
> Sorry this isn't the answer you were looking for, but it is the way the
> system actually works.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>
> <ddnash@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1165524543.657106.172130@.79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...

Assessing needs to install one more SQL server for MOM

I am trying to avoid installing more SQL servers than what I need. This is
the scenario, please let me know if I have justification to buy a SQL server
license to install MOM on local computer or I can use this on my MainSQL
server instead:
a) I need to configure such SQL server for MOM and MOM best practices
require to allow only "Windows authentication". I have virtually dozens of
third-party applications that rely on that SQL server and I do not know if
by changing configuration to "Windows authentication only" to satisfy MOM
setup that could eventually break something down the road.
b) I have to enable IIS on such SQL server box. CUrrently MainSQL server has
no IIS enabled. That would be just a security issue, but I guess so many
applications require to have IIS installed these days...
Do you think the above is enough to make me buy a SQL server license
dedicated for MOM ?And a poster kindly reminded that instances would do work here and allow me
to configure the "Windows authentication only". From reading the SQL help
files, I see that instances are generally not recommended for SQL-production
environment (this is my case here, I will be using MOM in production
environment).
If you have any input on how SQL instances are doing in real world, please
let me know.
"Marlon Brown" <marlon_brown@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eBkAAqU4EHA.708@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>I am trying to avoid installing more SQL servers than what I need. This is
> the scenario, please let me know if I have justification to buy a SQL
> server
> license to install MOM on local computer or I can use this on my MainSQL
> server instead:
> a) I need to configure such SQL server for MOM and MOM best practices
> require to allow only "Windows authentication". I have virtually dozens of
> third-party applications that rely on that SQL server and I do not know if
> by changing configuration to "Windows authentication only" to satisfy MOM
> setup that could eventually break something down the road.
> b) I have to enable IIS on such SQL server box. CUrrently MainSQL server
> has
> no IIS enabled. That would be just a security issue, but I guess so many
> applications require to have IIS installed these days...
> Do you think the above is enough to make me buy a SQL server license
> dedicated for MOM ?
>|||They are harder to manage because now you have two sets of executibles that
must be serviced and could be corrupted by OS fixes including two sets of
perf counters, etc., etc., etc.
I'd consider running MOM on another server that's less used. You should
never run the monitoring process on the item that you are monitoring. You
will affect the outcomes of those observations. Your management pieces
should always be on another host and do their monitoring remotely.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"Marlon Brown" <marlon_brownj@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%230%23r8eY4EHA.2196@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
And a poster kindly reminded that instances would do work here and allow me
to configure the "Windows authentication only". From reading the SQL help
files, I see that instances are generally not recommended for SQL-production
environment (this is my case here, I will be using MOM in production
environment).
If you have any input on how SQL instances are doing in real world, please
let me know.
"Marlon Brown" <marlon_brown@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eBkAAqU4EHA.708@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>I am trying to avoid installing more SQL servers than what I need. This is
> the scenario, please let me know if I have justification to buy a SQL
> server
> license to install MOM on local computer or I can use this on my MainSQL
> server instead:
> a) I need to configure such SQL server for MOM and MOM best practices
> require to allow only "Windows authentication". I have virtually dozens of
> third-party applications that rely on that SQL server and I do not know if
> by changing configuration to "Windows authentication only" to satisfy MOM
> setup that could eventually break something down the road.
> b) I have to enable IIS on such SQL server box. CUrrently MainSQL server
> has
> no IIS enabled. That would be just a security issue, but I guess so many
> applications require to have IIS installed these days...
> Do you think the above is enough to make me buy a SQL server license
> dedicated for MOM ?
>|||I agree. I will buy a SQL server license now !!!.
"AnthonyThomas" <Anthony.Thomas@.CommerceBank.com> wrote in message
news:%23frmjIe4EHA.3864@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> They are harder to manage because now you have two sets of executibles
> that
> must be serviced and could be corrupted by OS fixes including two sets of
> perf counters, etc., etc., etc.
> I'd consider running MOM on another server that's less used. You should
> never run the monitoring process on the item that you are monitoring. You
> will affect the outcomes of those observations. Your management pieces
> should always be on another host and do their monitoring remotely.
> Sincerely,
>
> Anthony Thomas
>
> --
> "Marlon Brown" <marlon_brownj@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%230%23r8eY4EHA.2196@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> And a poster kindly reminded that instances would do work here and allow
> me
> to configure the "Windows authentication only". From reading the SQL help
> files, I see that instances are generally not recommended for
> SQL-production
> environment (this is my case here, I will be using MOM in production
> environment).
> If you have any input on how SQL instances are doing in real world, please
> let me know.
>
> "Marlon Brown" <marlon_brown@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:eBkAAqU4EHA.708@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>>I am trying to avoid installing more SQL servers than what I need. This is
>> the scenario, please let me know if I have justification to buy a SQL
>> server
>> license to install MOM on local computer or I can use this on my MainSQL
>> server instead:
>> a) I need to configure such SQL server for MOM and MOM best practices
>> require to allow only "Windows authentication". I have virtually dozens
>> of
>> third-party applications that rely on that SQL server and I do not know
>> if
>> by changing configuration to "Windows authentication only" to satisfy MOM
>> setup that could eventually break something down the road.
>> b) I have to enable IIS on such SQL server box. CUrrently MainSQL server
>> has
>> no IIS enabled. That would be just a security issue, but I guess so many
>> applications require to have IIS installed these days...
>> Do you think the above is enough to make me buy a SQL server license
>> dedicated for MOM ?
>>
>

Assessing needs to install one more SQL server for MOM

I am trying to avoid installing more SQL servers than what I need. This is
the scenario, please let me know if I have justification to buy a SQL server
license to install MOM on local computer or I can use this on my MainSQL
server instead:
a) I need to configure such SQL server for MOM and MOM best practices
require to allow only "Windows authentication". I have virtually dozens of
third-party applications that rely on that SQL server and I do not know if
by changing configuration to "Windows authentication only" to satisfy MOM
setup that could eventually break something down the road.
b) I have to enable IIS on such SQL server box. CUrrently MainSQL server has
no IIS enabled. That would be just a security issue, but I guess so many
applications require to have IIS installed these days...
Do you think the above is enough to make me buy a SQL server license
dedicated for MOM ?
And a poster kindly reminded that instances would do work here and allow me
to configure the "Windows authentication only". From reading the SQL help
files, I see that instances are generally not recommended for SQL-production
environment (this is my case here, I will be using MOM in production
environment).
If you have any input on how SQL instances are doing in real world, please
let me know.
"Marlon Brown" <marlon_brown@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eBkAAqU4EHA.708@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>I am trying to avoid installing more SQL servers than what I need. This is
> the scenario, please let me know if I have justification to buy a SQL
> server
> license to install MOM on local computer or I can use this on my MainSQL
> server instead:
> a) I need to configure such SQL server for MOM and MOM best practices
> require to allow only "Windows authentication". I have virtually dozens of
> third-party applications that rely on that SQL server and I do not know if
> by changing configuration to "Windows authentication only" to satisfy MOM
> setup that could eventually break something down the road.
> b) I have to enable IIS on such SQL server box. CUrrently MainSQL server
> has
> no IIS enabled. That would be just a security issue, but I guess so many
> applications require to have IIS installed these days...
> Do you think the above is enough to make me buy a SQL server license
> dedicated for MOM ?
>
|||They are harder to manage because now you have two sets of executibles that
must be serviced and could be corrupted by OS fixes including two sets of
perf counters, etc., etc., etc.
I'd consider running MOM on another server that's less used. You should
never run the monitoring process on the item that you are monitoring. You
will affect the outcomes of those observations. Your management pieces
should always be on another host and do their monitoring remotely.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas

"Marlon Brown" <marlon_brownj@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%230%23r8eY4EHA.2196@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
And a poster kindly reminded that instances would do work here and allow me
to configure the "Windows authentication only". From reading the SQL help
files, I see that instances are generally not recommended for SQL-production
environment (this is my case here, I will be using MOM in production
environment).
If you have any input on how SQL instances are doing in real world, please
let me know.
"Marlon Brown" <marlon_brown@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eBkAAqU4EHA.708@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>I am trying to avoid installing more SQL servers than what I need. This is
> the scenario, please let me know if I have justification to buy a SQL
> server
> license to install MOM on local computer or I can use this on my MainSQL
> server instead:
> a) I need to configure such SQL server for MOM and MOM best practices
> require to allow only "Windows authentication". I have virtually dozens of
> third-party applications that rely on that SQL server and I do not know if
> by changing configuration to "Windows authentication only" to satisfy MOM
> setup that could eventually break something down the road.
> b) I have to enable IIS on such SQL server box. CUrrently MainSQL server
> has
> no IIS enabled. That would be just a security issue, but I guess so many
> applications require to have IIS installed these days...
> Do you think the above is enough to make me buy a SQL server license
> dedicated for MOM ?
>
|||I agree. I will buy a SQL server license now !!!.
"AnthonyThomas" <Anthony.Thomas@.CommerceBank.com> wrote in message
news:%23frmjIe4EHA.3864@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> They are harder to manage because now you have two sets of executibles
> that
> must be serviced and could be corrupted by OS fixes including two sets of
> perf counters, etc., etc., etc.
> I'd consider running MOM on another server that's less used. You should
> never run the monitoring process on the item that you are monitoring. You
> will affect the outcomes of those observations. Your management pieces
> should always be on another host and do their monitoring remotely.
> Sincerely,
>
> Anthony Thomas
>
> --
> "Marlon Brown" <marlon_brownj@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%230%23r8eY4EHA.2196@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> And a poster kindly reminded that instances would do work here and allow
> me
> to configure the "Windows authentication only". From reading the SQL help
> files, I see that instances are generally not recommended for
> SQL-production
> environment (this is my case here, I will be using MOM in production
> environment).
> If you have any input on how SQL instances are doing in real world, please
> let me know.
>
> "Marlon Brown" <marlon_brown@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:eBkAAqU4EHA.708@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>

ASP.Net service account gray out

I am installing RS2005 on Windows server 2000 with IIS 5.0. Everything is fine in configuration tool except service account. It is empty. I have added ASPNET account in reportservice user group and tried to add <machinename>\ASPNET to <WebServiceAccount>. It is still empty. Any idea?

Thanks.

Hello,

I believe this is pulled from the Identity of your application pool. Go to IIS and set the identity there and it should be reflected in the RS Configuration Manager.

Hope this helps.

Jarret

|||

Hi,

It seems that application pool is only for IIS6.0. I am using IIS5.0. How can I set the identity in this case

thanks

Ken

|||Therer's no direct way (from RS tools at least) to set IIS5 app pool identities. In fact, there's no way in IIS to set IIS5 app pool identities. I've heard that you can modify a .config file and change the IIS5 app pool identity, but I've not tried this myself.|||Yes, I have changed <WebServiceAccount> tag in RSReportServer.config but it doesn't work. I think Jarret is right. The identity is from somewhere in IIS setting.

I also installed report service in XP pro. I don't need to set anything to let it work. I am not sure if there is something special in Windows 2000 Server.
|||

Has anyone installed Report service 2005 on Windows 2000 server successfully? Please give comment. I appreciate it.

Ken

|||Did anybody solve this issue?

ASP.NET Problem installing SQL Server 2000 Reporting Services

I am trying to install SQL Server 2000 Reporting Services on a machine with Windows Server 2003. It keeps telling me ASP.NET is not installed or not configured with the web server. I have registered it with IIS using "C:\Windows\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v1.1.4322\aspnet_regiis.ex
e -i" and I have installed all necessary updates and restarted the server. I've even set ASP.NET version 1.1.4322 as the default version on the Default Web Site. It is still claiming that it's not installed or not configured.

I checked the help and it says:

Report Manager is an ASP.NET application. If you are installing Report Manager, you must have ASP.NET installed and configured. Setup requires that version 1.1.4322 of ASP.NET be registered with IIS. If you are installing Reporting Services on Windows Server 2003, ASP.NET must be running as Network Service. For information about installing and configuring ASP.NET, see the setup documentation

As far as I can tell, ASP.NET 1.1.4322 is installed and configured and running as the user Network Service. Am I missing anything?

If you have not done actual Asp.net development in this box you are missing a lot because Win2003 comes with IIS not installed and when you install it IIS comes to just render HTML which means all components needed to run Asp.net are disabled. Now to how you fix it first remove IIS if it is installed, then you go to add it in add/remove Windows component add IIS then click on details in that box you will see all the sub components needed to run Asp.net that are disabled. When you have finished that, go into IIS and remove all the security restrictions that makes IIS to run only HTML.

Now to what you need to get SQL Server to install Reporting services 2000 make sure you are running SQL Server 2000 and have at least service pack 3a or 4 and please don't answer questions Windows ask you during the installation only answer questions relevant to you. Post again if you still need help but follow my instructions and you will get through I just helped two people with similar problems.

|||I tried that and didn't quite get there. I uninstalled the .net framework 2.0 as that was the default version on IIS and I don't think anything was using it. I also ran aspnet_ regiis.exe -i -enable.

It would have installed this morning but for the fact that SQL Server needed SP4 installing and everyone got in to work before I could get stuff installed!