Alert type not available

I've installed a new instance of SQL Server 2000 and applied SP3a.
I want to create a new SQL Server performance condition alert from the
Enterprise Manager, but this type of alert is not available. Only the type
SQL Server event alert is available. How can I make the performance condition
alerts available?
Wilbert,
Are your performance counters missing also in perfmon? If so, this
article should fix your problem.
PRB: SQL Performance Monitor Counters Missing
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=227662
Mark Allison, SQL Server MVP
http://www.markallison.co.uk
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Wilbert wrote:
> I've installed a new instance of SQL Server 2000 and applied SP3a.
> I want to create a new SQL Server performance condition alert from the
> Enterprise Manager, but this type of alert is not available. Only the type
> SQL Server event alert is available. How can I make the performance condition
> alerts available?
|||Hello Mark,
The problem seems to be another instance of SQL on the same machine that is
used for Veritas. In this instance, the performance counters are available.
Is there a way to get the counters available for the second instance aswell?
Regards, Wilbert
"Mark Allison" wrote:

> Wilbert,
> Are your performance counters missing also in perfmon? If so, this
> article should fix your problem.
> PRB: SQL Performance Monitor Counters Missing
> http://support.microsoft.com/?id=227662
> --
> Mark Allison, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.markallison.co.uk
> Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
>
> Wilbert wrote:
>

Alert type not available

I've installed a new instance of SQL Server 2000 and applied SP3a.
I want to create a new SQL Server performance condition alert from the
Enterprise Manager, but this type of alert is not available. Only the type
SQL Server event alert is available. How can I make the performance conditio
n
alerts available?Wilbert,
Are your performance counters missing also in perfmon? If so, this
article should fix your problem.
PRB: SQL Performance Monitor Counters Missing
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=227662
Mark Allison, SQL Server MVP
http://www.markallison.co.uk
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Wilbert wrote:
> I've installed a new instance of SQL Server 2000 and applied SP3a.
> I want to create a new SQL Server performance condition alert from the
> Enterprise Manager, but this type of alert is not available. Only the type
> SQL Server event alert is available. How can I make the performance condit
ion
> alerts available?|||Hello Mark,
The problem seems to be another instance of SQL on the same machine that is
used for Veritas. In this instance, the performance counters are available.
Is there a way to get the counters available for the second instance aswell?
Regards, Wilbert
"Mark Allison" wrote:

> Wilbert,
> Are your performance counters missing also in perfmon? If so, this
> article should fix your problem.
> PRB: SQL Performance Monitor Counters Missing
> http://support.microsoft.com/?id=227662
> --
> Mark Allison, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.markallison.co.uk
> Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
>
> Wilbert wrote:
>sql

Alert type not available

I've installed a new instance of SQL Server 2000 and applied SP3a.
I want to create a new SQL Server performance condition alert from the
Enterprise Manager, but this type of alert is not available. Only the type
SQL Server event alert is available. How can I make the performance condition
alerts available?Wilbert,
Are your performance counters missing also in perfmon? If so, this
article should fix your problem.
PRB: SQL Performance Monitor Counters Missing
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=227662
--
Mark Allison, SQL Server MVP
http://www.markallison.co.uk
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Wilbert wrote:
> I've installed a new instance of SQL Server 2000 and applied SP3a.
> I want to create a new SQL Server performance condition alert from the
> Enterprise Manager, but this type of alert is not available. Only the type
> SQL Server event alert is available. How can I make the performance condition
> alerts available?|||Hello Mark,
The problem seems to be another instance of SQL on the same machine that is
used for Veritas. In this instance, the performance counters are available.
Is there a way to get the counters available for the second instance aswell?
Regards, Wilbert
"Mark Allison" wrote:
> Wilbert,
> Are your performance counters missing also in perfmon? If so, this
> article should fix your problem.
> PRB: SQL Performance Monitor Counters Missing
> http://support.microsoft.com/?id=227662
> --
> Mark Allison, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.markallison.co.uk
> Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
>
> Wilbert wrote:
> > I've installed a new instance of SQL Server 2000 and applied SP3a.
> > I want to create a new SQL Server performance condition alert from the
> > Enterprise Manager, but this type of alert is not available. Only the type
> > SQL Server event alert is available. How can I make the performance condition
> > alerts available?
>

Aggregate integrity problems

Has anyone else had any problems with cubes showing incorrect aggregates?
For instance, the sales for a Quarter is showing twice the amount of the 3
months showing. As well, there are values associated to products (lowest
level in dimension) that should not be there. When I re-process the cubes,
the issues are eventually resolved but I feel that I cannot trust any numbers
that the cubes show now.
Thanks in advance
Data Integrity starts at the souce and, once validated, is only maintained
through constraints.
The old adage applies here: Garbage In, Garbage Out.
I'd look at the integrity constraints of the primary sources. If those look
intact, I'd attempt to run manual queries to aggregate the data to see if any
anomolies show up. Finally, if all looks well, the next time some
abnormality shows up in the cube, instead of reprocessing, I'd look at the
source first to see if you could manually replicate the numbers.
I have not seen what you are describing except where there were data errors
in the sources. But if you feel that all has been checked out, I would most
certainly open up a PSS case.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"fastforward" wrote:

> Has anyone else had any problems with cubes showing incorrect aggregates?
> For instance, the sales for a Quarter is showing twice the amount of the 3
> months showing. As well, there are values associated to products (lowest
> level in dimension) that should not be there. When I re-process the cubes,
> the issues are eventually resolved but I feel that I cannot trust any numbers
> that the cubes show now.
> Thanks in advance
|||I agree, Garbage In, Garbage Out. I have experience more than I want to.
In this case however, the data is clean. It has been checked and double
checked. There are no problems with this set of data. Could this have
anything to do with how I have designed my aggregates or writeback issues?
"AnthonyThomas" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Data Integrity starts at the souce and, once validated, is only maintained
> through constraints.
> The old adage applies here: Garbage In, Garbage Out.
> I'd look at the integrity constraints of the primary sources. If those look
> intact, I'd attempt to run manual queries to aggregate the data to see if any
> anomolies show up. Finally, if all looks well, the next time some
> abnormality shows up in the cube, instead of reprocessing, I'd look at the
> source first to see if you could manually replicate the numbers.
> I have not seen what you are describing except where there were data errors
> in the sources. But if you feel that all has been checked out, I would most
> certainly open up a PSS case.
> Sincerely,
>
> Anthony Thomas
>
> "fastforward" wrote:
|||Data integrity is always issue number one but if you've checked that out,
then logic comes next. I'd run the aggregate process manually on a few
deminsions with normal T-SQL aggregates. Then, most certainly, I would
consider a more simple design for your cubes to see if the problem clears up.
If so, I'd add complexity, one layer at a time.
If you continue to run into aggregations issues, I would most certainly
consider contacting MS PSS.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"fastforward" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> I agree, Garbage In, Garbage Out. I have experience more than I want to.
> In this case however, the data is clean. It has been checked and double
> checked. There are no problems with this set of data. Could this have
> anything to do with how I have designed my aggregates or writeback issues?
> "AnthonyThomas" wrote:

Aggregate integrity problems

Has anyone else had any problems with cubes showing incorrect aggregates?
For instance, the sales for a Quarter is showing twice the amount of the 3
months showing. As well, there are values associated to products (lowest
level in dimension) that should not be there. When I re-process the cubes,
the issues are eventually resolved but I feel that I cannot trust any numbers
that the cubes show now.
Thanks in advanceData Integrity starts at the souce and, once validated, is only maintained
through constraints.
The old adage applies here: Garbage In, Garbage Out.
I'd look at the integrity constraints of the primary sources. If those look
intact, I'd attempt to run manual queries to aggregate the data to see if any
anomolies show up. Finally, if all looks well, the next time some
abnormality shows up in the cube, instead of reprocessing, I'd look at the
source first to see if you could manually replicate the numbers.
I have not seen what you are describing except where there were data errors
in the sources. But if you feel that all has been checked out, I would most
certainly open up a PSS case.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"fastforward" wrote:
> Has anyone else had any problems with cubes showing incorrect aggregates?
> For instance, the sales for a Quarter is showing twice the amount of the 3
> months showing. As well, there are values associated to products (lowest
> level in dimension) that should not be there. When I re-process the cubes,
> the issues are eventually resolved but I feel that I cannot trust any numbers
> that the cubes show now.
> Thanks in advance|||I agree, Garbage In, Garbage Out. I have experience more than I want to.
In this case however, the data is clean. It has been checked and double
checked. There are no problems with this set of data. Could this have
anything to do with how I have designed my aggregates or writeback issues?
"AnthonyThomas" wrote:
> Data Integrity starts at the souce and, once validated, is only maintained
> through constraints.
> The old adage applies here: Garbage In, Garbage Out.
> I'd look at the integrity constraints of the primary sources. If those look
> intact, I'd attempt to run manual queries to aggregate the data to see if any
> anomolies show up. Finally, if all looks well, the next time some
> abnormality shows up in the cube, instead of reprocessing, I'd look at the
> source first to see if you could manually replicate the numbers.
> I have not seen what you are describing except where there were data errors
> in the sources. But if you feel that all has been checked out, I would most
> certainly open up a PSS case.
> Sincerely,
>
> Anthony Thomas
>
> "fastforward" wrote:
> > Has anyone else had any problems with cubes showing incorrect aggregates?
> > For instance, the sales for a Quarter is showing twice the amount of the 3
> > months showing. As well, there are values associated to products (lowest
> > level in dimension) that should not be there. When I re-process the cubes,
> > the issues are eventually resolved but I feel that I cannot trust any numbers
> > that the cubes show now.
> >
> > Thanks in advance|||Data integrity is always issue number one but if you've checked that out,
then logic comes next. I'd run the aggregate process manually on a few
deminsions with normal T-SQL aggregates. Then, most certainly, I would
consider a more simple design for your cubes to see if the problem clears up.
If so, I'd add complexity, one layer at a time.
If you continue to run into aggregations issues, I would most certainly
consider contacting MS PSS.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"fastforward" wrote:
> I agree, Garbage In, Garbage Out. I have experience more than I want to.
> In this case however, the data is clean. It has been checked and double
> checked. There are no problems with this set of data. Could this have
> anything to do with how I have designed my aggregates or writeback issues?
> "AnthonyThomas" wrote:
> > Data Integrity starts at the souce and, once validated, is only maintained
> > through constraints.
> >
> > The old adage applies here: Garbage In, Garbage Out.
> >
> > I'd look at the integrity constraints of the primary sources. If those look
> > intact, I'd attempt to run manual queries to aggregate the data to see if any
> > anomolies show up. Finally, if all looks well, the next time some
> > abnormality shows up in the cube, instead of reprocessing, I'd look at the
> > source first to see if you could manually replicate the numbers.
> >
> > I have not seen what you are describing except where there were data errors
> > in the sources. But if you feel that all has been checked out, I would most
> > certainly open up a PSS case.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> >
> > Anthony Thomas
> >
> >
> > "fastforward" wrote:
> >
> > > Has anyone else had any problems with cubes showing incorrect aggregates?
> > > For instance, the sales for a Quarter is showing twice the amount of the 3
> > > months showing. As well, there are values associated to products (lowest
> > > level in dimension) that should not be there. When I re-process the cubes,
> > > the issues are eventually resolved but I feel that I cannot trust any numbers
> > > that the cubes show now.
> > >
> > > Thanks in advance

Aggregate integrity problems

Has anyone else had any problems with cubes showing incorrect aggregates?
For instance, the sales for a Quarter is showing twice the amount of the 3
months showing. As well, there are values associated to products (lowest
level in dimension) that should not be there. When I re-process the cubes,
the issues are eventually resolved but I feel that I cannot trust any number
s
that the cubes show now.
Thanks in advanceData Integrity starts at the souce and, once validated, is only maintained
through constraints.
The old adage applies here: Garbage In, Garbage Out.
I'd look at the integrity constraints of the primary sources. If those look
intact, I'd attempt to run manual queries to aggregate the data to see if an
y
anomolies show up. Finally, if all looks well, the next time some
abnormality shows up in the cube, instead of reprocessing, I'd look at the
source first to see if you could manually replicate the numbers.
I have not seen what you are describing except where there were data errors
in the sources. But if you feel that all has been checked out, I would most
certainly open up a PSS case.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"fastforward" wrote:

> Has anyone else had any problems with cubes showing incorrect aggregates?
> For instance, the sales for a Quarter is showing twice the amount of the 3
> months showing. As well, there are values associated to products (lowest
> level in dimension) that should not be there. When I re-process the cubes
,
> the issues are eventually resolved but I feel that I cannot trust any numb
ers
> that the cubes show now.
> Thanks in advance|||I agree, Garbage In, Garbage Out. I have experience more than I want to.
In this case however, the data is clean. It has been checked and double
checked. There are no problems with this set of data. Could this have
anything to do with how I have designed my aggregates or writeback issues?
"AnthonyThomas" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Data Integrity starts at the souce and, once validated, is only maintained
> through constraints.
> The old adage applies here: Garbage In, Garbage Out.
> I'd look at the integrity constraints of the primary sources. If those lo
ok
> intact, I'd attempt to run manual queries to aggregate the data to see if
any
> anomolies show up. Finally, if all looks well, the next time some
> abnormality shows up in the cube, instead of reprocessing, I'd look at the
> source first to see if you could manually replicate the numbers.
> I have not seen what you are describing except where there were data error
s
> in the sources. But if you feel that all has been checked out, I would mo
st
> certainly open up a PSS case.
> Sincerely,
>
> Anthony Thomas
>
> "fastforward" wrote:
>|||Data integrity is always issue number one but if you've checked that out,
then logic comes next. I'd run the aggregate process manually on a few
deminsions with normal T-SQL aggregates. Then, most certainly, I would
consider a more simple design for your cubes to see if the problem clears up
.
If so, I'd add complexity, one layer at a time.
If you continue to run into aggregations issues, I would most certainly
consider contacting MS PSS.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"fastforward" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> I agree, Garbage In, Garbage Out. I have experience more than I want to.
> In this case however, the data is clean. It has been checked and double
> checked. There are no problems with this set of data. Could this have
> anything to do with how I have designed my aggregates or writeback issues?
> "AnthonyThomas" wrote:
>

After Sql 2005 Install, Sql 2000 Still There

Hi.

I just downloaded and installed Sql 2005 from the MS site.
I see that my instance of Sql 2000 is still on the same computer.
I assumed that Sql 2005 would upgrade but it didnt. Should I
simply delete my instance of 2000 or will this cause complications?
Sorry - newbie question.pbd22 (dushkin@.gmail.com) writes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by

I just downloaded and installed Sql 2005 from the MS site.
I see that my instance of Sql 2000 is still on the same computer.
I assumed that Sql 2005 would upgrade but it didnt. Should I
simply delete my instance of 2000 or will this cause complications?

That depends on how you opted to do your installation: as a new instance
or an upgrade. Since you say that you downloaded SQL 2005 from MS,
I assume that you installed SQL Express, which by default is installed
as a named instance, SQLEXPRESS.

I would keep both instances, as you may want to compare SQL 2005 to
SQL 2000.

--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se
Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...oads/books.mspx
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodin...ions/books.mspx

After MSDE upgrade to SQL 2005, MDF is not found

After upgrading an MSDE 2000 instance to SQL 2005, the database appears to be intact - according to the log file:

2007-08-28 13:51:13.78 spid11s Starting up database 'HysterSuiteMainSQL'.

Then after a system shutdown:

2007-08-28 13:57:43.57 Server SQL Server is terminating because of a system shutdown. This is an informational message only. No user action is required.

It appears the MDF file disappeared mysteriously:

2007-08-28 14:03:11.84 spid51 Starting up database 'HysterSuiteMainSQL'.
2007-08-28 14:03:11.85 spid51 Error: 17207, Severity: 16, State: 1.
2007-08-28 14:03:11.85 spid51 FCB:pen: Operating system error 2(The system cannot find the file specified.) occurred while creating or opening file 'C:\PROGRAM FILES\HYSTER SUITE\MSDE\Data\MSSQL$HS2000\Data\Hyster.mdf'. Diagnose and correct the operating system error, and retry the operation.

Has anyone encountered this issue? Any ideas on what might have gone wrong?

Thanks,

Mike

After upgrading to sql 2005 did you change the startup account of sql 2005 ? if yes may be the startup account might not have modify privilege to the path where the mdf and ldf resides........as the error is explicit that its related to permission.....

After MSDE SP4 installation SQL Agent is set to manual

I have over 500 PC's with a named instance of MSDE installed that I need to
install SP4 on. These PC's have the SQL Agent set to automatic. After
installing SP4 on a test box, this service was changed to manual by the
service pack. replication will not work if this service is not running.
Is there a way to have the service pack set this service to be set to
automatic? Is there a way to set it to automatic with a batch program or VB
script?
I can not manually change this service on over 500 PC's.
hi,
andersos wrote:
> I have over 500 PC's with a named instance of MSDE installed that I
> need to install SP4 on. These PC's have the SQL Agent set to
> automatic. After installing SP4 on a test box, this service was
> changed to manual by the service pack. replication will not work if
> this service is not running.
> Is there a way to have the service pack set this service to be set to
> automatic? Is there a way to set it to automatic with a batch
> program or VB script?
> I can not manually change this service on over 500 PC's.
I do think via WMI, but never tried it... perhaps you have to ask in some
dev's newsgroup
Andrea Montanari (Microsoft MVP - SQL Server)
http://www.asql.biz/DbaMgr.shtmhttp://italy.mvps.org
DbaMgr2k ver 0.14.0 - DbaMgr ver 0.59.0
(my vb6+sql-dmo little try to provide MS MSDE 1.0 and MSDE 2000 a visual
interface)
-- remove DMO to reply
|||Check out this article.
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...e67c802edd178a
There is a registry key for this service. If you change the 'start'
property of this key, you can change the service from manual to automatic.
There are a number of ways to do this through code. These are the values for
this property.
Boot = 0,
System = 1,
Automatic = 2,
Manual = 3,
Disabled = 4
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Servic es\SQLAgent
|||It is cool that you even got msde upgraded on 500 users. I can't get one
installed to upgrade my default instance sp3a to sp4. You are a hero.
In BOL look up - scm Utility
If you can find the -StartupOptions for autostart, it looks like you can do
it with a bat file or xp_cmdshell.
We replicate a table with a trigger to dynamically execute sql on insert to
propagate fixes and procs.
My test install of sp4 ran well, then the status bar backed up and it
finished like all is well but .760 still shows in the version. Did you have
anything similar ? Care to share your command line secret? I have 150 users
to push to.
andersos wrote:
>Check out this article.
>http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...e67c802edd178a
>There is a registry key for this service. If you change the 'start'
>property of this key, you can change the service from manual to automatic.
>There are a number of ways to do this through code. These are the values for
>this property.
> Boot = 0,
> System = 1,
> Automatic = 2,
> Manual = 3,
> Disabled = 4
>HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Servi ces\SQLAgent
|||C:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\80\Tools\Binn>scm -Action 7 -Service
sqlserveragent -SvcStartT
ype 2
This does the job. Note this path may differ
andersos wrote:
>I have over 500 PC's with a named instance of MSDE installed that I need to
>install SP4 on. These PC's have the SQL Agent set to automatic. After
>installing SP4 on a test box, this service was changed to manual by the
>service pack. replication will not work if this service is not running.
>Is there a way to have the service pack set this service to be set to
>automatic? Is there a way to set it to automatic with a batch program or VB
>script?
>I can not manually change this service on over 500 PC's.
Mike Street
Message posted via droptable.com
http://www.droptable.com/Uwe/Forums...-msde/200507/1

After doing in-place upgrade from 2000 to 2005, compatibility mode is still 8.0

After performing an in-place upgrade from SQL 2000 to SQL 2005, the
entire instance is still 8.0. I want it to be 9.0, but don't know how
to do that.
Next to the server name under object explorer in SQL Server Management
Studio, it says 8.0.760.
If I try doing sp_dbcmptlevel to change to 9.0, it says "Valid values
of database compatibility level are 60, 65, 70, or 80", even though
I'm using Mangement Studio on the same machine.
Is there something that I missed when doing the in-place upgrade that
prevents my instance of SQL (the default instance) from being upgraded
to 9.0? How do I upgrade the instance of SQL to 9.0?
Any help is appreciated. Thanks.
<cobra@.tomgreen.com> wrote in message
news:1176253434.316158.302770@.n76g2000hsh.googlegr oups.com...
> After performing an in-place upgrade from SQL 2000 to SQL 2005, the
> entire instance is still 8.0. I want it to be 9.0, but don't know how
> to do that.
> Next to the server name under object explorer in SQL Server Management
> Studio, it says 8.0.760.
> If I try doing sp_dbcmptlevel to change to 9.0, it says "Valid values
> of database compatibility level are 60, 65, 70, or 80", even though
> I'm using Mangement Studio on the same machine.
> Is there something that I missed when doing the in-place upgrade that
> prevents my instance of SQL (the default instance) from being upgraded
> to 9.0? How do I upgrade the instance of SQL to 9.0?
It should prompt you for which instance you want to upgrade. Sounds like
you picked the wrong one.
Or only uprgaded the tools and not the database engine?

> Any help is appreciated. Thanks.
>
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html
|||I know it's not an issue with the instance, because there was only one
instance to begin with. I suppose the database engine never got
upgraded.
I could run the setup.exe again from the CD, but what do I have to do
to perform a database engine upgrade on the existing instance?
Thanks again!
On Apr 10, 10:39 pm, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
<mooregr_deletet...@.greenms.com> wrote:
> It should prompt you for which instance you want to upgrade. Sounds like
> you picked the wrong one.
> Or only uprgaded the tools and not the database engine?
>
>
> --
> Greg Moore
> SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
> Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html
|||> I could run the setup.exe again from the CD, but what do I have to do
> to perform a database engine upgrade on the existing instance?
Select to install a database engine, and when it ask for what instance name, you select the name of
your current 2000 instance.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
<cobra@.tomgreen.com> wrote in message news:1176319271.755939.173860@.d57g2000hsg.googlegr oups.com...
>I know it's not an issue with the instance, because there was only one
> instance to begin with. I suppose the database engine never got
> upgraded.
> I could run the setup.exe again from the CD, but what do I have to do
> to perform a database engine upgrade on the existing instance?
> Thanks again!
>
> On Apr 10, 10:39 pm, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
> <mooregr_deletet...@.greenms.com> wrote:
>
|||<cobra@.tomgreen.com> wrote in message
news:1176253434.316158.302770@.n76g2000hsh.googlegr oups.com...
> After performing an in-place upgrade from SQL 2000 to SQL 2005, the
> entire instance is still 8.0. I want it to be 9.0, but don't know how
> to do that.
> Next to the server name under object explorer in SQL Server Management
> Studio, it says 8.0.760.
> If I try doing sp_dbcmptlevel to change to 9.0, it says "Valid values
> of database compatibility level are 60, 65, 70, or 80", even though
> I'm using Mangement Studio on the same machine.
> Is there something that I missed when doing the in-place upgrade that
> prevents my instance of SQL (the default instance) from being upgraded
> to 9.0? How do I upgrade the instance of SQL to 9.0?
> Any help is appreciated. Thanks.
Hi
I had the same problem: there was only one instance (default) but it did not
upgrade.
It turned out the problem was that my installation of SQL 2000 didn't have
the necessary service packs applied in order to upgrade it successfully to
2005. After applying SP4 I reinstalled 2005 and this time it upgraded to
version 9 successfully.
My installation of 2000 was 8.00.194 i.e. the RTM version. I note yours is
SP3 so installating SP4 may be worth a whirl.
Andrew

After doing in-place upgrade from 2000 to 2005, compatibility mode is still 8.0

After performing an in-place upgrade from SQL 2000 to SQL 2005, the
entire instance is still 8.0. I want it to be 9.0, but don't know how
to do that.
Next to the server name under object explorer in SQL Server Management
Studio, it says 8.0.760.
If I try doing sp_dbcmptlevel to change to 9.0, it says "Valid values
of database compatibility level are 60, 65, 70, or 80", even though
I'm using Mangement Studio on the same machine.
Is there something that I missed when doing the in-place upgrade that
prevents my instance of SQL (the default instance) from being upgraded
to 9.0? How do I upgrade the instance of SQL to 9.0?
Any help is appreciated. Thanks.<cobra@.tomgreen.com> wrote in message
news:1176253434.316158.302770@.n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> After performing an in-place upgrade from SQL 2000 to SQL 2005, the
> entire instance is still 8.0. I want it to be 9.0, but don't know how
> to do that.
> Next to the server name under object explorer in SQL Server Management
> Studio, it says 8.0.760.
> If I try doing sp_dbcmptlevel to change to 9.0, it says "Valid values
> of database compatibility level are 60, 65, 70, or 80", even though
> I'm using Mangement Studio on the same machine.
> Is there something that I missed when doing the in-place upgrade that
> prevents my instance of SQL (the default instance) from being upgraded
> to 9.0? How do I upgrade the instance of SQL to 9.0?
It should prompt you for which instance you want to upgrade. Sounds like
you picked the wrong one.
Or only uprgaded the tools and not the database engine?

> Any help is appreciated. Thanks.
>
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html|||I know it's not an issue with the instance, because there was only one
instance to begin with. I suppose the database engine never got
upgraded.
I could run the setup.exe again from the CD, but what do I have to do
to perform a database engine upgrade on the existing instance?
Thanks again!
On Apr 10, 10:39 pm, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
<mooregr_deletet...@.greenms.com> wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> It should prompt you for which instance you want to upgrade. Sounds like
> you picked the wrong one.
> Or only uprgaded the tools and not the database engine?
>
>
> --
> Greg Moore
> SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
> Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html[/vbco
l]|||> I could run the setup.exe again from the CD, but what do I have to do
> to perform a database engine upgrade on the existing instance?
Select to install a database engine, and when it ask for what instance name,
you select the name of
your current 2000 instance.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
<cobra@.tomgreen.com> wrote in message news:1176319271.755939.173860@.d57g2000hsg.googlegroups
.com...
>I know it's not an issue with the instance, because there was only one
> instance to begin with. I suppose the database engine never got
> upgraded.
> I could run the setup.exe again from the CD, but what do I have to do
> to perform a database engine upgrade on the existing instance?
> Thanks again!
>
> On Apr 10, 10:39 pm, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
> <mooregr_deletet...@.greenms.com> wrote:
>|||<cobra@.tomgreen.com> wrote in message
news:1176253434.316158.302770@.n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> After performing an in-place upgrade from SQL 2000 to SQL 2005, the
> entire instance is still 8.0. I want it to be 9.0, but don't know how
> to do that.
> Next to the server name under object explorer in SQL Server Management
> Studio, it says 8.0.760.
> If I try doing sp_dbcmptlevel to change to 9.0, it says "Valid values
> of database compatibility level are 60, 65, 70, or 80", even though
> I'm using Mangement Studio on the same machine.
> Is there something that I missed when doing the in-place upgrade that
> prevents my instance of SQL (the default instance) from being upgraded
> to 9.0? How do I upgrade the instance of SQL to 9.0?
> Any help is appreciated. Thanks.
Hi
I had the same problem: there was only one instance (default) but it did not
upgrade.
It turned out the problem was that my installation of SQL 2000 didn't have
the necessary service packs applied in order to upgrade it successfully to
2005. After applying SP4 I reinstalled 2005 and this time it upgraded to
version 9 successfully.
My installation of 2000 was 8.00.194 i.e. the RTM version. I note yours is
SP3 so installating SP4 may be worth a whirl.
Andrew

After doing in-place upgrade from 2000 to 2005, compatibility mode is still 8.0

After performing an in-place upgrade from SQL 2000 to SQL 2005, the
entire instance is still 8.0. I want it to be 9.0, but don't know how
to do that.
Next to the server name under object explorer in SQL Server Management
Studio, it says 8.0.760.
If I try doing sp_dbcmptlevel to change to 9.0, it says "Valid values
of database compatibility level are 60, 65, 70, or 80", even though
I'm using Mangement Studio on the same machine.
Is there something that I missed when doing the in-place upgrade that
prevents my instance of SQL (the default instance) from being upgraded
to 9.0? How do I upgrade the instance of SQL to 9.0?
Any help is appreciated. Thanks.<cobra@.tomgreen.com> wrote in message
news:1176253434.316158.302770@.n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> After performing an in-place upgrade from SQL 2000 to SQL 2005, the
> entire instance is still 8.0. I want it to be 9.0, but don't know how
> to do that.
> Next to the server name under object explorer in SQL Server Management
> Studio, it says 8.0.760.
> If I try doing sp_dbcmptlevel to change to 9.0, it says "Valid values
> of database compatibility level are 60, 65, 70, or 80", even though
> I'm using Mangement Studio on the same machine.
> Is there something that I missed when doing the in-place upgrade that
> prevents my instance of SQL (the default instance) from being upgraded
> to 9.0? How do I upgrade the instance of SQL to 9.0?
It should prompt you for which instance you want to upgrade. Sounds like
you picked the wrong one.
Or only uprgaded the tools and not the database engine?
> Any help is appreciated. Thanks.
>
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html|||I know it's not an issue with the instance, because there was only one
instance to begin with. I suppose the database engine never got
upgraded.
I could run the setup.exe again from the CD, but what do I have to do
to perform a database engine upgrade on the existing instance?
Thanks again!
On Apr 10, 10:39 pm, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
<mooregr_deletet...@.greenms.com> wrote:
> It should prompt you for which instance you want to upgrade. Sounds like
> you picked the wrong one.
> Or only uprgaded the tools and not the database engine?
>
> > Any help is appreciated. Thanks.
> --
> Greg Moore
> SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
> Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html|||> I could run the setup.exe again from the CD, but what do I have to do
> to perform a database engine upgrade on the existing instance?
Select to install a database engine, and when it ask for what instance name, you select the name of
your current 2000 instance.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
<cobra@.tomgreen.com> wrote in message news:1176319271.755939.173860@.d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>I know it's not an issue with the instance, because there was only one
> instance to begin with. I suppose the database engine never got
> upgraded.
> I could run the setup.exe again from the CD, but what do I have to do
> to perform a database engine upgrade on the existing instance?
> Thanks again!
>
> On Apr 10, 10:39 pm, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
> <mooregr_deletet...@.greenms.com> wrote:
>> It should prompt you for which instance you want to upgrade. Sounds like
>> you picked the wrong one.
>> Or only uprgaded the tools and not the database engine?
>>
>> > Any help is appreciated. Thanks.
>> --
>> Greg Moore
>> SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
>> Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html
>|||<cobra@.tomgreen.com> wrote in message
news:1176253434.316158.302770@.n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> After performing an in-place upgrade from SQL 2000 to SQL 2005, the
> entire instance is still 8.0. I want it to be 9.0, but don't know how
> to do that.
> Next to the server name under object explorer in SQL Server Management
> Studio, it says 8.0.760.
> If I try doing sp_dbcmptlevel to change to 9.0, it says "Valid values
> of database compatibility level are 60, 65, 70, or 80", even though
> I'm using Mangement Studio on the same machine.
> Is there something that I missed when doing the in-place upgrade that
> prevents my instance of SQL (the default instance) from being upgraded
> to 9.0? How do I upgrade the instance of SQL to 9.0?
> Any help is appreciated. Thanks.
Hi
I had the same problem: there was only one instance (default) but it did not
upgrade.
It turned out the problem was that my installation of SQL 2000 didn't have
the necessary service packs applied in order to upgrade it successfully to
2005. After applying SP4 I reinstalled 2005 and this time it upgraded to
version 9 successfully.
My installation of 2000 was 8.00.194 i.e. the RTM version. I note yours is
SP3 so installating SP4 may be worth a whirl.
Andrew