Post SP Install issue

We have a active/active W2K3 SQL cluster with 3 instances that was upgraded
to SP4 with the 2148 hotfix. All 3 instances upgraded to SP 4 with no
problems.
However, when applying the hotix only the first instance upgraded correctly.
The hotfix install for instances 2 and 3 indicated success but the version
for both still shows build 2139. Can't seem to get the install to work for
these instances. Any help would be appreciated.Hi
You may want to re-contact PSS for this as this is a PSS only hotfix!
John
"GManino" wrote:
> We have a active/active W2K3 SQL cluster with 3 instances that was upgraded
> to SP4 with the 2148 hotfix. All 3 instances upgraded to SP 4 with no
> problems.
> However, when applying the hotix only the first instance upgraded correctly.
> The hotfix install for instances 2 and 3 indicated success but the version
> for both still shows build 2139. Can't seem to get the install to work for
> these instances. Any help would be appreciated.|||Hi
Your answer is Windows Task Scheduler.
See http://msmvps.com/epprecht/archive/2005/08/28/64380.aspx
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"GManino" <GManino@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9BBD59DE-12E8-4A0C-AA9B-61B25D031BB3@.microsoft.com...
> We have a active/active W2K3 SQL cluster with 3 instances that was
> upgraded
> to SP4 with the 2148 hotfix. All 3 instances upgraded to SP 4 with no
> problems.
> However, when applying the hotix only the first instance upgraded
> correctly.
> The hotfix install for instances 2 and 3 indicated success but the version
> for both still shows build 2139. Can't seem to get the install to work
> for
> these instances. Any help would be appreciated.|||Does anyone know if this will work for all types of corruption?
"John Bell" wrote:
> Hi
> You may want to re-contact PSS for this as this is a PSS only hotfix!
> John
> "GManino" wrote:
> > We have a active/active W2K3 SQL cluster with 3 instances that was upgraded
> > to SP4 with the 2148 hotfix. All 3 instances upgraded to SP 4 with no
> > problems.
> >
> > However, when applying the hotix only the first instance upgraded correctly.
> > The hotfix install for instances 2 and 3 indicated success but the version
> > for both still shows build 2139. Can't seem to get the install to work for
> > these instances. Any help would be appreciated.

Post SP Install issue

We have a active/active W2K3 SQL cluster with 3 instances that was upgraded
to SP4 with the 2148 hotfix. All 3 instances upgraded to SP 4 with no
problems.
However, when applying the hotix only the first instance upgraded correctly.
The hotfix install for instances 2 and 3 indicated success but the version
for both still shows build 2139. Can't seem to get the install to work for
these instances. Any help would be appreciated.
Hi
You may want to re-contact PSS for this as this is a PSS only hotfix!
John
"GManino" wrote:

> We have a active/active W2K3 SQL cluster with 3 instances that was upgraded
> to SP4 with the 2148 hotfix. All 3 instances upgraded to SP 4 with no
> problems.
> However, when applying the hotix only the first instance upgraded correctly.
> The hotfix install for instances 2 and 3 indicated success but the version
> for both still shows build 2139. Can't seem to get the install to work for
> these instances. Any help would be appreciated.
|||Hi
Your answer is Windows Task Scheduler.
See http://msmvps.com/epprecht/archive/2.../28/64380.aspx
Regards
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"GManino" <GManino@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9BBD59DE-12E8-4A0C-AA9B-61B25D031BB3@.microsoft.com...
> We have a active/active W2K3 SQL cluster with 3 instances that was
> upgraded
> to SP4 with the 2148 hotfix. All 3 instances upgraded to SP 4 with no
> problems.
> However, when applying the hotix only the first instance upgraded
> correctly.
> The hotfix install for instances 2 and 3 indicated success but the version
> for both still shows build 2139. Can't seem to get the install to work
> for
> these instances. Any help would be appreciated.
|||Does anyone know if this will work for all types of corruption?
"John Bell" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi
> You may want to re-contact PSS for this as this is a PSS only hotfix!
> John
> "GManino" wrote:

Post SP Install issue

We have a active/active W2K3 SQL cluster with 3 instances that was upgraded
to SP4 with the 2148 hotfix. All 3 instances upgraded to SP 4 with no
problems.
However, when applying the hotix only the first instance upgraded correctly.
The hotfix install for instances 2 and 3 indicated success but the version
for both still shows build 2139. Can't seem to get the install to work for
these instances. Any help would be appreciated.Hi
You may want to re-contact PSS for this as this is a PSS only hotfix!
John
"GManino" wrote:

> We have a active/active W2K3 SQL cluster with 3 instances that was upgrade
d
> to SP4 with the 2148 hotfix. All 3 instances upgraded to SP 4 with no
> problems.
> However, when applying the hotix only the first instance upgraded correctl
y.
> The hotfix install for instances 2 and 3 indicated success but the versio
n
> for both still shows build 2139. Can't seem to get the install to work fo
r
> these instances. Any help would be appreciated.|||Hi
Your answer is Windows Task Scheduler.
See http://msmvps.com/epprecht/archive/...8/28/64380.aspx
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"GManino" <GManino@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9BBD59DE-12E8-4A0C-AA9B-61B25D031BB3@.microsoft.com...
> We have a active/active W2K3 SQL cluster with 3 instances that was
> upgraded
> to SP4 with the 2148 hotfix. All 3 instances upgraded to SP 4 with no
> problems.
> However, when applying the hotix only the first instance upgraded
> correctly.
> The hotfix install for instances 2 and 3 indicated success but the version
> for both still shows build 2139. Can't seem to get the install to work
> for
> these instances. Any help would be appreciated.|||Does anyone know if this will work for all types of corruption?
"John Bell" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi
> You may want to re-contact PSS for this as this is a PSS only hotfix!
> John
> "GManino" wrote:
>

Possible to make RS part of a failover Cluster? SQL 2000

Hi,
I am not able to install Reporting Services (RS) on a Web Farm, but would
like to get it installed and configured on a active/passive Failover Cluster.
What do you think about the following scenario?
1. Install RS on one server and create the databases on the SQL Server
Cluster.
2. Install RS on the second server.
3. Configure the second RS to use the clustered database.
4. Copy the encryption key from the RS installation that created the
databases.
5. Apply the encryption key to the RS installation that did not create the
database.
6. Create RS service as a generic service for the Cluster.
I have not tested this yet, but in theory it should work or?
That may work, but I would not recommend it. I certainly wouldn't try it.
The reason you run SQL Server in a cluster is for high availability. Mixing
your IIS and RS with the SQL Server cluster seems to compromise high
availability, if not defeat the purpose. You may find money well spent on a
separate RS box or two, considering potential support and maintenance
headache you may have otherwise.
Linchi
"Nina" <Nina@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:092B2EBC-3769-4F94-B12F-6CCAEF70B6EC@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I am not able to install Reporting Services (RS) on a Web Farm, but would
> like to get it installed and configured on a active/passive Failover
> Cluster.
> What do you think about the following scenario?
> 1. Install RS on one server and create the databases on the SQL Server
> Cluster.
> 2. Install RS on the second server.
> 3. Configure the second RS to use the clustered database.
> 4. Copy the encryption key from the RS installation that created the
> databases.
> 5. Apply the encryption key to the RS installation that did not create the
> database.
> 6. Create RS service as a generic service for the Cluster.
>
> I have not tested this yet, but in theory it should work or?
|||Thanks Linchi,
I have been doing some more reading. And it seems like some people have made
it “kind of work” , but there is no “One Documentation” on this. And the
information I find is a bit questionable.. and like you say, it can cause
some serious headaches…
I also read that making configuring RS as part of a failover cluster is not
supported by Microsoft. They even do not recommend to make IIS part of a
failover cluster.
I understand that buying one new server or two is ok, but not when you have
four environments, and each would need at least one.
Need to have a think about this one..
Nina
"Linchi Shea" wrote:

> That may work, but I would not recommend it. I certainly wouldn't try it.
> The reason you run SQL Server in a cluster is for high availability. Mixing
> your IIS and RS with the SQL Server cluster seems to compromise high
> availability, if not defeat the purpose. You may find money well spent on a
> separate RS box or two, considering potential support and maintenance
> headache you may have otherwise.
> Linchi
> "Nina" <Nina@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:092B2EBC-3769-4F94-B12F-6CCAEF70B6EC@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||If you ever test it or find another solution, could you kindly share it with the world?
************************************************** ********************
Sent via Fuzzy Software @. http://www.fuzzysoftware.com/
Comprehensive, categorised, searchable collection of links to ASP & ASP.NET resources...

Possible to locate active trans. log on different computer?

It does not appear possible to locate the active transaction log on a
computer other than the one on which the DB exists. Am I correct? Is there
no way to isolate the log from the box on which the data exists?
Thanks,
Randy NeallThere's an undocumented trace flag that allows you to do this. I don't
remember it off the top of my head, but I don't recommend it unless you're
in a well configured SAN environment. Even then it's not always the best
idea...
Brian Moran
Principal Mentor
Solid Quality Learning
SQL Server MVP
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com
"Randolph Neall" <randolphneall@.veracitycomputing.com> wrote in message
news:epOxPqZnDHA.2404@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> It does not appear possible to locate the active transaction log on a
> computer other than the one on which the DB exists. Am I correct? Is there
> no way to isolate the log from the box on which the data exists?
> Thanks,
> Randy Neall
>|||That's not possible and you don't want to do that, even if
you could.
Linchi
>--Original Message--
>It does not appear possible to locate the active
transaction log on a
>computer other than the one on which the DB exists. Am I
correct? Is there
>no way to isolate the log from the box on which the data
exists?
>Thanks,
>Randy Neall
>
>.
>|||Thanks, Brian for pointing this out! I totally forgot
about this trace flag. The trace flag is 1807, and KB
article is
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=304261
Linchi
>--Original Message--
>There's an undocumented trace flag that allows you to do
this. I don't
>remember it off the top of my head, but I don't recommend
it unless you're
>in a well configured SAN environment. Even then it's not
always the best
>idea...
>
>--
>Brian Moran
>Principal Mentor
>Solid Quality Learning
>SQL Server MVP
>http://www.solidqualitylearning.com
>
>"Randolph Neall" <randolphneall@.veracitycomputing.com>
wrote in message
>news:epOxPqZnDHA.2404@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> It does not appear possible to locate the active
transaction log on a
>> computer other than the one on which the DB exists. Am
I correct? Is there
>> no way to isolate the log from the box on which the
data exists?
>> Thanks,
>> Randy Neall
>>
>
>.
>|||Hi Brian,
Why isn't this a good idea? The idea I had was to get the log and backups on
a completely separate box for added redundancy, saving us even if the DB box
were somehow destroyed, stolen, or if more than one drive within the DB box
failed. But you suggest, and Linchi confirms, this is a bad idea. Why?
Randy
"Brian Moran" <brian@.solidqualitylearning.com> wrote in message
news:OqOsUyZnDHA.1708@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> There's an undocumented trace flag that allows you to do this. I don't
> remember it off the top of my head, but I don't recommend it unless you're
> in a well configured SAN environment. Even then it's not always the best
> idea...
>
> --
> Brian Moran
> Principal Mentor
> Solid Quality Learning
> SQL Server MVP
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com
>
> "Randolph Neall" <randolphneall@.veracitycomputing.com> wrote in message
> news:epOxPqZnDHA.2404@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > It does not appear possible to locate the active transaction log on a
> > computer other than the one on which the DB exists. Am I correct? Is
there
> > no way to isolate the log from the box on which the data exists?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Randy Neall
> >
> >
>|||SQL Server log files are absolutely critical for database integrity.
Physical writes to log files must be guaranteed or committed data can be
lost and/or physical database corruption result. Standard network i/o
does not guarantee these writes and the loss of a single packet can be
disastrous. You'll need to be prepared to restore from backup in the
event of a simple network outage.
--
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
--
SQL FAQ links (courtesy Neil Pike):
http://www.ntfaq.com/Articles/Index.cfm?DepartmentID=800
http://www.sqlserverfaq.com
http://www.mssqlserver.com/faq
--
"Randolph Neall" <randolphneall@.veracitycomputing.com> wrote in message
news:uatwTCcnDHA.3304@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Hi Brian,
> Why isn't this a good idea? The idea I had was to get the log and
backups on
> a completely separate box for added redundancy, saving us even if the
DB box
> were somehow destroyed, stolen, or if more than one drive within the
DB box
> failed. But you suggest, and Linchi confirms, this is a bad idea. Why?
> Randy
> "Brian Moran" <brian@.solidqualitylearning.com> wrote in message
> news:OqOsUyZnDHA.1708@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > There's an undocumented trace flag that allows you to do this. I
don't
> > remember it off the top of my head, but I don't recommend it unless
you're
> > in a well configured SAN environment. Even then it's not always the
best
> > idea...
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Brian Moran
> > Principal Mentor
> > Solid Quality Learning
> > SQL Server MVP
> > http://www.solidqualitylearning.com
> >
> >
> > "Randolph Neall" <randolphneall@.veracitycomputing.com> wrote in
message
> > news:epOxPqZnDHA.2404@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > > It does not appear possible to locate the active transaction log
on a
> > > computer other than the one on which the DB exists. Am I correct?
Is
> there
> > > no way to isolate the log from the box on which the data exists?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Randy Neall
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>|||Thanks. Yes you've helped a lot. I hadn't thought of the risks of network
failure.
Randy
"Dan Guzman" <danguzman@.nospam-earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:u1Ki88cnDHA.708@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> SQL Server log files are absolutely critical for database integrity.
> Physical writes to log files must be guaranteed or committed data can be
> lost and/or physical database corruption result. Standard network i/o
> does not guarantee these writes and the loss of a single packet can be
> disastrous. You'll need to be prepared to restore from backup in the
> event of a simple network outage.
> --
> Hope this helps.
> Dan Guzman
> SQL Server MVP
> --
> SQL FAQ links (courtesy Neil Pike):
> http://www.ntfaq.com/Articles/Index.cfm?DepartmentID=800
> http://www.sqlserverfaq.com
> http://www.mssqlserver.com/faq
> --
> "Randolph Neall" <randolphneall@.veracitycomputing.com> wrote in message
> news:uatwTCcnDHA.3304@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > Hi Brian,
> >
> > Why isn't this a good idea? The idea I had was to get the log and
> backups on
> > a completely separate box for added redundancy, saving us even if the
> DB box
> > were somehow destroyed, stolen, or if more than one drive within the
> DB box
> > failed. But you suggest, and Linchi confirms, this is a bad idea. Why?
> >
> > Randy
> >
> > "Brian Moran" <brian@.solidqualitylearning.com> wrote in message
> > news:OqOsUyZnDHA.1708@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > > There's an undocumented trace flag that allows you to do this. I
> don't
> > > remember it off the top of my head, but I don't recommend it unless
> you're
> > > in a well configured SAN environment. Even then it's not always the
> best
> > > idea...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Brian Moran
> > > Principal Mentor
> > > Solid Quality Learning
> > > SQL Server MVP
> > > http://www.solidqualitylearning.com
> > >
> > >
> > > "Randolph Neall" <randolphneall@.veracitycomputing.com> wrote in
> message
> > > news:epOxPqZnDHA.2404@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > > > It does not appear possible to locate the active transaction log
> on a
> > > > computer other than the one on which the DB exists. Am I correct?
> Is
> > there
> > > > no way to isolate the log from the box on which the data exists?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Randy Neall
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>|||> Why isn't this a good idea?
Did you read the KB article? As I remember, it is pretty clear on the subject.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
Archive at: http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&as_ugroup=microsoft.public.sqlserver
"Randolph Neall" <randolphneall@.veracitycomputing.com> wrote in message
news:uatwTCcnDHA.3304@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Hi Brian,
> Why isn't this a good idea? The idea I had was to get the log and backups on
> a completely separate box for added redundancy, saving us even if the DB box
> were somehow destroyed, stolen, or if more than one drive within the DB box
> failed. But you suggest, and Linchi confirms, this is a bad idea. Why?
> Randy
> "Brian Moran" <brian@.solidqualitylearning.com> wrote in message
> news:OqOsUyZnDHA.1708@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > There's an undocumented trace flag that allows you to do this. I don't
> > remember it off the top of my head, but I don't recommend it unless you're
> > in a well configured SAN environment. Even then it's not always the best
> > idea...
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Brian Moran
> > Principal Mentor
> > Solid Quality Learning
> > SQL Server MVP
> > http://www.solidqualitylearning.com
> >
> >
> > "Randolph Neall" <randolphneall@.veracitycomputing.com> wrote in message
> > news:epOxPqZnDHA.2404@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > > It does not appear possible to locate the active transaction log on a
> > > computer other than the one on which the DB exists. Am I correct? Is
> there
> > > no way to isolate the log from the box on which the data exists?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Randy Neall
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>|||I just did. You're right. It's clear. Thanks
Randy
"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor.please_reply_to_public_forum.karaszi@.cornerstone.se>
wrote in message news:ODUsa4enDHA.3304@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > Why isn't this a good idea?
> Did you read the KB article? As I remember, it is pretty clear on the
subject.
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> Archive at:
http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&as_ugroup=microsoft.public.sqlserver
>
> "Randolph Neall" <randolphneall@.veracitycomputing.com> wrote in message
> news:uatwTCcnDHA.3304@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > Hi Brian,
> >
> > Why isn't this a good idea? The idea I had was to get the log and
backups on
> > a completely separate box for added redundancy, saving us even if the DB
box
> > were somehow destroyed, stolen, or if more than one drive within the DB
box
> > failed. But you suggest, and Linchi confirms, this is a bad idea. Why?
> >
> > Randy
> >
> > "Brian Moran" <brian@.solidqualitylearning.com> wrote in message
> > news:OqOsUyZnDHA.1708@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > > There's an undocumented trace flag that allows you to do this. I don't
> > > remember it off the top of my head, but I don't recommend it unless
you're
> > > in a well configured SAN environment. Even then it's not always the
best
> > > idea...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Brian Moran
> > > Principal Mentor
> > > Solid Quality Learning
> > > SQL Server MVP
> > > http://www.solidqualitylearning.com
> > >
> > >
> > > "Randolph Neall" <randolphneall@.veracitycomputing.com> wrote in
message
> > > news:epOxPqZnDHA.2404@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > > > It does not appear possible to locate the active transaction log on
a
> > > > computer other than the one on which the DB exists. Am I correct? Is
> > there
> > > > no way to isolate the log from the box on which the data exists?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Randy Neall
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>