preconfigure port number while command line installing

Hi,

I want set a specific port number of SQL Server(express) during installation not by Configuration Manager after install.
Is it possible?

hi,

probably becouse of the multi instances support of SQL Server up to version 2000, which introduced the SQL Server Resolution Service listening on UDP 1434, now SQLBrowser, this feature has been removed from the configurable settings..

but you can interact via SMO as well, but probably after your installer has finished..

regards

Prebuild HD configuration question

I'm in the process of building a new SQL box. I have the following
configuration in mind and was wondering the best way to appoint the
hard drives. It's an HP DL585 with 4 processors. I'm going to put 4
72gb 15k drives in the internal slots in a raid 0/1 configuration. I
also will have an external drive enclosure that will house 14 36gb 15k
drives. I'm planning on putting the OS and SQL program files along
with logs on the internal drives. For the external enclosure what will
give me better performance: Raid 5 with 13 drives + 1 spare or Raid
0/1 with the 14 drives? I'm planning on putting the data files on the
external enclosure.A RAID 0+1 or 1+0(recommended over 0+1) will always outperform a comparable
Raid 5 when writes are concerned. What will work best for you depends on how
you will use your db(s). If disk space is not an issue I would recommend
going with a RAID 1+0.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"BCole8888" <nospambc@.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1106844697.121710.214580@.c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> I'm in the process of building a new SQL box. I have the following
> configuration in mind and was wondering the best way to appoint the
> hard drives. It's an HP DL585 with 4 processors. I'm going to put 4
> 72gb 15k drives in the internal slots in a raid 0/1 configuration. I
> also will have an external drive enclosure that will house 14 36gb 15k
> drives. I'm planning on putting the OS and SQL program files along
> with logs on the internal drives. For the external enclosure what will
> give me better performance: Raid 5 with 13 drives + 1 spare or Raid
> 0/1 with the 14 drives? I'm planning on putting the data files on the
> external enclosure.
>

Prebuild HD configuration question

I'm in the process of building a new SQL box. I have the following
configuration in mind and was wondering the best way to appoint the
hard drives. It's an HP DL585 with 4 processors. I'm going to put 4
72gb 15k drives in the internal slots in a raid 0/1 configuration. I
also will have an external drive enclosure that will house 14 36gb 15k
drives. I'm planning on putting the OS and SQL program files along
with logs on the internal drives. For the external enclosure what will
give me better performance: Raid 5 with 13 drives + 1 spare or Raid
0/1 with the 14 drives? I'm planning on putting the data files on the
external enclosure.
A RAID 0+1 or 1+0(recommended over 0+1) will always outperform a comparable
Raid 5 when writes are concerned. What will work best for you depends on how
you will use your db(s). If disk space is not an issue I would recommend
going with a RAID 1+0.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"BCole8888" <nospambc@.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1106844697.121710.214580@.c13g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
> I'm in the process of building a new SQL box. I have the following
> configuration in mind and was wondering the best way to appoint the
> hard drives. It's an HP DL585 with 4 processors. I'm going to put 4
> 72gb 15k drives in the internal slots in a raid 0/1 configuration. I
> also will have an external drive enclosure that will house 14 36gb 15k
> drives. I'm planning on putting the OS and SQL program files along
> with logs on the internal drives. For the external enclosure what will
> give me better performance: Raid 5 with 13 drives + 1 spare or Raid
> 0/1 with the 14 drives? I'm planning on putting the data files on the
> external enclosure.
>

Prebuild HD configuration question

I'm in the process of building a new SQL box. I have the following
configuration in mind and was wondering the best way to appoint the
hard drives. It's an HP DL585 with 4 processors. I'm going to put 4
72gb 15k drives in the internal slots in a raid 0/1 configuration. I
also will have an external drive enclosure that will house 14 36gb 15k
drives. I'm planning on putting the OS and SQL program files along
with logs on the internal drives. For the external enclosure what will
give me better performance: Raid 5 with 13 drives + 1 spare or Raid
0/1 with the 14 drives? I'm planning on putting the data files on the
external enclosure.A RAID 0+1 or 1+0(recommended over 0+1) will always outperform a comparable
Raid 5 when writes are concerned. What will work best for you depends on how
you will use your db(s). If disk space is not an issue I would recommend
going with a RAID 1+0.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"BCole8888" <nospambc@.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1106844697.121710.214580@.c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> I'm in the process of building a new SQL box. I have the following
> configuration in mind and was wondering the best way to appoint the
> hard drives. It's an HP DL585 with 4 processors. I'm going to put 4
> 72gb 15k drives in the internal slots in a raid 0/1 configuration. I
> also will have an external drive enclosure that will house 14 36gb 15k
> drives. I'm planning on putting the OS and SQL program files along
> with logs on the internal drives. For the external enclosure what will
> give me better performance: Raid 5 with 13 drives + 1 spare or Raid
> 0/1 with the 14 drives? I'm planning on putting the data files on the
> external enclosure.
>

Possible to have link server in the connection string?

Hi,
I have an application which requires a server name (connection string)
in the configuration for connection. There isn't any big issue if I am
just connecting to a regular server. e.g. just entering the server
name (server1), however, now my question is is it possible to put in a
linked server within a server name e.g. server1..linkserver1? In fact,
I need the connection to linkserver1 instead. I have a linkserver
since the server can't be connected directly.
Please advice the exact format (e.g. server1..linkserver1 ) if there
is any. Thanks in advance. And your help would be greatly appreciated.On Feb 28, 12:26=A0pm, sweetpota...@.gmail.com wrote:
> Hi,
> I have an application which requires a server name (connection string)
> in the configuration for connection. There isn't any big issue if I am
> just connecting to a regular server. e.g. just entering the server
> name (server1), however, now my question is is it possible to put in a
> linked server within a server name e.g. server1..linkserver1? In fact,
> I need the connection to linkserver1 instead. I have a linkserver
> since the server can't be connected directly.
> Please advice the exact format (e.g. server1..linkserver1 ) if there
> is any. Thanks in advance. And your help would be greatly appreciated.
Or
If this is the configuration setup:
Server Name: Server1
Database Name: linkserver1..DB1
Will that work?
Thanks

Possible to have link server in the connection string?

Hi,
I have an application which requires a server name (connection string)
in the configuration for connection. There isn't any big issue if I am
just connecting to a regular server. e.g. just entering the server
name (server1), however, now my question is is it possible to put in a
linked server within a server name e.g. server1..linkserver1? In fact,
I need the connection to linkserver1 instead. I have a linkserver
since the server can't be connected directly.
Please advice the exact format (e.g. server1..linkserver1 ) if there
is any. Thanks in advance. And your help would be greatly appreciated.
On Feb 28, 12:26Xpm, sweetpota...@.gmail.com wrote:
> Hi,
> I have an application which requires a server name (connection string)
> in the configuration for connection. There isn't any big issue if I am
> just connecting to a regular server. e.g. just entering the server
> name (server1), however, now my question is is it possible to put in a
> linked server within a server name e.g. server1..linkserver1? In fact,
> I need the connection to linkserver1 instead. I have a linkserver
> since the server can't be connected directly.
> Please advice the exact format (e.g. server1..linkserver1 ) if there
> is any. Thanks in advance. And your help would be greatly appreciated.
Or
If this is the configuration setup:
Server Name: Server1
Database Name: linkserver1..DB1
Will that work?
Thanks