Create an instance of SQL 2005

Dear friends,

I deleted the instance of SQL 2005, and now I want to create and I dont know how! Colud you tell me?
Thanks.

Insert the setup media and install it again, you have the chance to name of new instance there. (don′t forget to patch the system again after installing the instance from scratch)

HTH, Jens Suessmeyer.

http://www.sqlserver2005.de

Create a Named Instance on top of a Default Instance

Hi

I've never had to do this, but when I downloaded the Web Workflow Approvals Starter Kit, it requested that I install the database into a User Instance of .\SQLEXPRESS.

Now the problem is, I've installed it onto a default instance, so I was wondering whether you can create a named instance on top of a default instance... and if so, how would you do that?

Cheers

Chris

hi Chris,

you can not create one as you intend, but you can install an additional named instance for that.. or, you can modify the connection strings in the application code to connect to

Data Source=(Local); .....; User Instance=true;

instead of

Data Source=(Local)\SQLExpress; .....; User Instance=true;

regards

|||Hi Andrea

Thanks for the tip... I always wondered what user instances were for...

Now I just have to uninstall & reinstall SQL and enable it.

Cheers

Chris
sql

Create a cached instance of a view from a linked server?

Hi
How do i manage to create a cache of a view from a linked server?
I have this view on a linked server (takes app. 15 secs) and i would like to
have a "local" cache of this view.
What would be the best way to handle this - to ensure both performance and
consistency?
Hope somebody can give me an answer to this.. :-)Hi
Persist the data to a local table, and have a job that refreshes the table
on a regular basis.
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/
"pnp" <pnp@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:ADA26A03-95C5-4737-9176-B4C114E15EA6@.microsoft.com...
> Hi
> How do i manage to create a cache of a view from a linked server?
> I have this view on a linked server (takes app. 15 secs) and i would like
> to
> have a "local" cache of this view.
> What would be the best way to handle this - to ensure both performance and
> consistency?
> Hope somebody can give me an answer to this.. :-)|||Ok, thanks...
Thought that would be the best way - but didn't know if there were any
built-in features that allowed me to do this easier.
But thanks - i'll take this road then... :-)
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:

> Hi
> Persist the data to a local table, and have a job that refreshes the table
> on a regular basis.
> 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/
> "pnp" <pnp@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:ADA26A03-95C5-4737-9176-B4C114E15EA6@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||Replication is an option. But I wouldn't do it for just one table. Keep it s
imple.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"pnp" <pnp@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:4D5977DE-FB7A-4C19-8236-6E3BC3B70C8A@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Ok, thanks...
> Thought that would be the best way - but didn't know if there were any
> built-in features that allowed me to do this easier.
> But thanks - i'll take this road then... :-)
> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
>

Create a cached instance of a view from a linked server?

Hi
How do i manage to create a cache of a view from a linked server?
I have this view on a linked server (takes app. 15 secs) and i would like to
have a "local" cache of this view.
What would be the best way to handle this - to ensure both performance and
consistency?
Hope somebody can give me an answer to this.. :-)Hi
Persist the data to a local table, and have a job that refreshes the table
on a regular basis.
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/
"pnp" <pnp@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:ADA26A03-95C5-4737-9176-B4C114E15EA6@.microsoft.com...
> Hi
> How do i manage to create a cache of a view from a linked server?
> I have this view on a linked server (takes app. 15 secs) and i would like
> to
> have a "local" cache of this view.
> What would be the best way to handle this - to ensure both performance and
> consistency?
> Hope somebody can give me an answer to this.. :-)|||Ok, thanks...
Thought that would be the best way - but didn't know if there were any
built-in features that allowed me to do this easier.
But thanks - i'll take this road then... :-)
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
> Hi
> Persist the data to a local table, and have a job that refreshes the table
> on a regular basis.
> 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/
> "pnp" <pnp@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:ADA26A03-95C5-4737-9176-B4C114E15EA6@.microsoft.com...
> > Hi
> >
> > How do i manage to create a cache of a view from a linked server?
> >
> > I have this view on a linked server (takes app. 15 secs) and i would like
> > to
> > have a "local" cache of this view.
> >
> > What would be the best way to handle this - to ensure both performance and
> > consistency?
> >
> > Hope somebody can give me an answer to this.. :-)
>
>|||Replication is an option. But I wouldn't do it for just one table. Keep it simple.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"pnp" <pnp@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:4D5977DE-FB7A-4C19-8236-6E3BC3B70C8A@.microsoft.com...
> Ok, thanks...
> Thought that would be the best way - but didn't know if there were any
> built-in features that allowed me to do this easier.
> But thanks - i'll take this road then... :-)
> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
>> Hi
>> Persist the data to a local table, and have a job that refreshes the table
>> on a regular basis.
>> 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/
>> "pnp" <pnp@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:ADA26A03-95C5-4737-9176-B4C114E15EA6@.microsoft.com...
>> > Hi
>> >
>> > How do i manage to create a cache of a view from a linked server?
>> >
>> > I have this view on a linked server (takes app. 15 secs) and i would like
>> > to
>> > have a "local" cache of this view.
>> >
>> > What would be the best way to handle this - to ensure both performance and
>> > consistency?
>> >
>> > Hope somebody can give me an answer to this.. :-)
>>

Create a cached instance of a view from a linked server?

Hi
How do i manage to create a cache of a view from a linked server?
I have this view on a linked server (takes app. 15 secs) and i would like to
have a "local" cache of this view.
What would be the best way to handle this - to ensure both performance and
consistency?
Hope somebody can give me an answer to this.. :-)
Hi
Persist the data to a local table, and have a job that refreshes the table
on a regular basis.
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/
"pnp" <pnp@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:ADA26A03-95C5-4737-9176-B4C114E15EA6@.microsoft.com...
> Hi
> How do i manage to create a cache of a view from a linked server?
> I have this view on a linked server (takes app. 15 secs) and i would like
> to
> have a "local" cache of this view.
> What would be the best way to handle this - to ensure both performance and
> consistency?
> Hope somebody can give me an answer to this.. :-)
|||Ok, thanks...
Thought that would be the best way - but didn't know if there were any
built-in features that allowed me to do this easier.
But thanks - i'll take this road then... :-)
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:

> Hi
> Persist the data to a local table, and have a job that refreshes the table
> on a regular basis.
> 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/
> "pnp" <pnp@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:ADA26A03-95C5-4737-9176-B4C114E15EA6@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||Replication is an option. But I wouldn't do it for just one table. Keep it simple.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"pnp" <pnp@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:4D5977DE-FB7A-4C19-8236-6E3BC3B70C8A@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Ok, thanks...
> Thought that would be the best way - but didn't know if there were any
> built-in features that allowed me to do this easier.
> But thanks - i'll take this road then... :-)
> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:

CPU/Core Prio. on SQL Server Express Instance?

Hi,
I am currently using a single SQL Server Express Instance on a Core 2 Duo
box.
I know that the Express version is limited to use 1 CPU/Core.
I now want to setup a second SQL Server Express instance for unrelated
purposes.
Is it possible to give one instance Core 0 prio, and the Second the Core 1
prio, or do they ALWAYS (MUST/ONLY) use Core 0?
Also, if I don't set it specifically will Windows manage it properly?
I guess my main question in detail is:
Is the Express version build in such a way that it will always use the first
core/cpu regardless how many there are? For example, if I have 3 instances
running, would they all fight for cycles on the first core/cpu?
If not, do I have to do/set something to make it work properly?
Thanks for any Info. on this!
Regards,
FrankExpress will only create one scheduler. A scheduler is by default not bound to a particular core, it
can "float" between the cores. However, there is no guarantee that your two express instances will
always be on different cores.
However, you can use sp_configure and the "affinity mask" option to specify that instance it is tied
to core 0 and instance 2 is tied to core 1. This way you've configured the two instances to use
different cores.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
"Frank Osterberg" <raven7370@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:uVFYNK6dIHA.748@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> I am currently using a single SQL Server Express Instance on a Core 2 Duo box.
> I know that the Express version is limited to use 1 CPU/Core.
> I now want to setup a second SQL Server Express instance for unrelated purposes.
> Is it possible to give one instance Core 0 prio, and the Second the Core 1 prio, or do they ALWAYS
> (MUST/ONLY) use Core 0?
> Also, if I don't set it specifically will Windows manage it properly?
> I guess my main question in detail is:
> Is the Express version build in such a way that it will always use the first core/cpu regardless
> how many there are? For example, if I have 3 instances running, would they all fight for cycles on
> the first core/cpu?
> If not, do I have to do/set something to make it work properly?
> Thanks for any Info. on this!
> Regards,
> Frank
>|||> Also, if I don't set it specifically will Windows manage it properly?
To add on to Tibor's response, the OS can schedule work on any available
core when the SQL Server affinity mask is not set. You do not need to do
anything special to make this happen.
--
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
http://weblogs.sqlteam.com/dang/
"Frank Osterberg" <raven7370@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:uVFYNK6dIHA.748@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> I am currently using a single SQL Server Express Instance on a Core 2 Duo
> box.
> I know that the Express version is limited to use 1 CPU/Core.
> I now want to setup a second SQL Server Express instance for unrelated
> purposes.
> Is it possible to give one instance Core 0 prio, and the Second the Core 1
> prio, or do they ALWAYS (MUST/ONLY) use Core 0?
> Also, if I don't set it specifically will Windows manage it properly?
> I guess my main question in detail is:
> Is the Express version build in such a way that it will always use the
> first core/cpu regardless how many there are? For example, if I have 3
> instances running, would they all fight for cycles on the first core/cpu?
> If not, do I have to do/set something to make it work properly?
> Thanks for any Info. on this!
> Regards,
> Frank
>|||Great! Thank you very much!!!
"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> schrieb
im Newsbeitrag news:eI1NqL7dIHA.4728@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Express will only create one scheduler. A scheduler is by default not
> bound to a particular core, it can "float" between the cores. However,
> there is no guarantee that your two express instances will always be on
> different cores.
> However, you can use sp_configure and the "affinity mask" option to
> specify that instance it is tied to core 0 and instance 2 is tied to core
> 1. This way you've configured the two instances to use different cores.
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
>
> "Frank Osterberg" <raven7370@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:uVFYNK6dIHA.748@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> Hi,
>> I am currently using a single SQL Server Express Instance on a Core 2 Duo
>> box.
>> I know that the Express version is limited to use 1 CPU/Core.
>> I now want to setup a second SQL Server Express instance for unrelated
>> purposes.
>> Is it possible to give one instance Core 0 prio, and the Second the Core
>> 1 prio, or do they ALWAYS (MUST/ONLY) use Core 0?
>> Also, if I don't set it specifically will Windows manage it properly?
>> I guess my main question in detail is:
>> Is the Express version build in such a way that it will always use the
>> first core/cpu regardless how many there are? For example, if I have 3
>> instances running, would they all fight for cycles on the first core/cpu?
>> If not, do I have to do/set something to make it work properly?
>> Thanks for any Info. on this!
>> Regards,
>> Frank
>|||Ok, i was hoping it would be like that. Thank you!!!
"Dan Guzman" <guzmanda@.nospam-online.sbcglobal.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:D1D2B4EC-1D77-4D1E-941C-9E2E0F985F8C@.microsoft.com...
>> Also, if I don't set it specifically will Windows manage it properly?
> To add on to Tibor's response, the OS can schedule work on any available
> core when the SQL Server affinity mask is not set. You do not need to do
> anything special to make this happen.
> --
> Hope this helps.
> Dan Guzman
> SQL Server MVP
> http://weblogs.sqlteam.com/dang/
> "Frank Osterberg" <raven7370@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:uVFYNK6dIHA.748@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> Hi,
>> I am currently using a single SQL Server Express Instance on a Core 2 Duo
>> box.
>> I know that the Express version is limited to use 1 CPU/Core.
>> I now want to setup a second SQL Server Express instance for unrelated
>> purposes.
>> Is it possible to give one instance Core 0 prio, and the Second the Core
>> 1 prio, or do they ALWAYS (MUST/ONLY) use Core 0?
>> Also, if I don't set it specifically will Windows manage it properly?
>> I guess my main question in detail is:
>> Is the Express version build in such a way that it will always use the
>> first core/cpu regardless how many there are? For example, if I have 3
>> instances running, would they all fight for cycles on the first core/cpu?
>> If not, do I have to do/set something to make it work properly?
>> Thanks for any Info. on this!
>> Regards,
>> Frank
>

CPU Ruuning at 100%

We have an instance of SQLRS on a virtual server under W2003.
Recently we had cause to reset the sever due to a dramatic slowdown in
response times. Upon checking we found the CPU usage was constantly around 95
to 100%.
Stopping the RS and SQL services made no difference and it was only resolved
by restarting the server itself.
This coincided with a user accessing an RS report with an Excel output,
which failed to respond 'fast enough' so he closed the window prior to the
dialogue box appearing (open-save-cancel).
We then set up a second server, and emulated exactly the users actions and
found the same problems with the CPU running out of control, requiring a
reset.
What might be the cause of this problem? I understand the user closing the
window initially caused the problem, but I am at a loss as to why stopping
the RS and SQL Services failed to resolve the problem. What other process
could RS have initiated that went out of control?
ANY pointers would be of use as this functionality is essential to some of
our processes, but we will need to restrict it's until this gets resolved.
Note: We have not, as yet, installed SP2 on either of the RS Servers.
Thanks in advance,We've ran into the same issues with high CPU usage. Support was never able
to point out the exact cause of the CPU spikes.
We have since installed all SPs, and the latest HotFix. So far, we haven't
seen the issue popup again. Maybe the SP2 helped with that, but we dont
know. It'll be good to know what causes it.
"Logicalman" <tony9scott45us@.com7cast.net34> wrote in message
news:5DE74C28-B866-4F79-9E74-0539C6514E78@.microsoft.com...
> We have an instance of SQLRS on a virtual server under W2003.
> Recently we had cause to reset the sever due to a dramatic slowdown in
> response times. Upon checking we found the CPU usage was constantly around
> 95
> to 100%.
> Stopping the RS and SQL services made no difference and it was only
> resolved
> by restarting the server itself.
> This coincided with a user accessing an RS report with an Excel output,
> which failed to respond 'fast enough' so he closed the window prior to the
> dialogue box appearing (open-save-cancel).
> We then set up a second server, and emulated exactly the users actions and
> found the same problems with the CPU running out of control, requiring a
> reset.
> What might be the cause of this problem? I understand the user closing the
> window initially caused the problem, but I am at a loss as to why stopping
> the RS and SQL Services failed to resolve the problem. What other process
> could RS have initiated that went out of control?
> ANY pointers would be of use as this functionality is essential to some of
> our processes, but we will need to restrict it's until this gets resolved.
> Note: We have not, as yet, installed SP2 on either of the RS Servers.
> Thanks in advance,
>
>|||TechnoSpyke,
Thanks for the info. I intend setting up a test scenario and have the Server
guys run every trace they can to pinpoint what
process/subProcess/Application/Service is kicked off as a result of the said
actions.
I will post what results, if we get anything, even semi-conclusive, back to
this thread.
If anyone else has anything to chip in for me to check whilst testing this,
please feel free..
Thanks again
"TechnoSpyke" wrote:
> We've ran into the same issues with high CPU usage. Support was never able
> to point out the exact cause of the CPU spikes.
> We have since installed all SPs, and the latest HotFix. So far, we haven't
> seen the issue popup again. Maybe the SP2 helped with that, but we dont
> know. It'll be good to know what causes it.
>
> "Logicalman" <tony9scott45us@.com7cast.net34> wrote in message
> news:5DE74C28-B866-4F79-9E74-0539C6514E78@.microsoft.com...
> > We have an instance of SQLRS on a virtual server under W2003.
> > Recently we had cause to reset the sever due to a dramatic slowdown in
> > response times. Upon checking we found the CPU usage was constantly around
> > 95
> > to 100%.
> > Stopping the RS and SQL services made no difference and it was only
> > resolved
> > by restarting the server itself.
> > This coincided with a user accessing an RS report with an Excel output,
> > which failed to respond 'fast enough' so he closed the window prior to the
> > dialogue box appearing (open-save-cancel).
> > We then set up a second server, and emulated exactly the users actions and
> > found the same problems with the CPU running out of control, requiring a
> > reset.
> > What might be the cause of this problem? I understand the user closing the
> > window initially caused the problem, but I am at a loss as to why stopping
> > the RS and SQL Services failed to resolve the problem. What other process
> > could RS have initiated that went out of control?
> > ANY pointers would be of use as this functionality is essential to some of
> > our processes, but we will need to restrict it's until this gets resolved.
> > Note: We have not, as yet, installed SP2 on either of the RS Servers.
> >
> > Thanks in advance,
> >
> >
> >
>
>