Multi SQL Server (2000 & 2005) Problem

Hi All!

I setup MS SQL Server 2005 first and then I setup MS SQL Server 2000 with instance 'Myname' and the I created 2 database in SQL Server 2005 and 2000, When I Write an application in .NET 2005 to connect to MS SQL Server 2005 it ok, but it's not ok in sql Server 2000 and appear the error:

System.Data.SqlClient.SqlException: Snapshot isolation transaction failed accessing database 'TustenaOS' because snapshot isolation is not allowed in this database. Use ALTER DATABASE to allow snapshot isolation.
at System.Data.SqlClient.SqlConnection.OnError(SqlException exception, Boolean breakConnection)
at System.Data.SqlClient.SqlInternalConnection.OnError(SqlException exception, Boolean breakConnection)
at System.Data.SqlClient.TdsParser.ThrowExceptionAndWarning(TdsParserStateObject stateObj)
at System.Data.SqlClient.TdsParser.Run(RunBehavior runBehavior, SqlCommand cmdHandler, SqlDataReader dataStream, BulkCopySimpleResultSet bulkCopyHandler, TdsParserStateObject stateObj)
at System.Data.SqlClient.SqlCommand.RunExecuteNonQueryTds(String methodName, Boolean async)
at

How to connect to MS SQL Server 2000. Thanks

By "setup" did you mean install? Because it's usually avery bad idea to install a later version, then install a prior version. If that is what you did, I suspect things will never work the way you want them to.

|||

It looks like you are requesting snapshot isolation, and that's not a feature of SQL Server 2000.

Multi Language

Can anyone give insight on the proper way to store names in a multi
language database? For instance in English we store First, Middle,
Last. In Spanish there could be multiple last names. In Chinese the
whole name is only one name, (fits in one field). Any experience with
something like this?
Peter Cwik
It really depends on the requirements of the application, and whether you
are attempting to separate family name from given name, or preserve name
order for presentation. (In different cultures, the first name is the
family name, whereas in English, the first name is the given name.)
You may have different rules for different localizations, in defining what
is FirstName and LastName, but also have a common FullName field that is
populated in a language-specific or culture-specific manner.
Again, your business requirements will have much to do with the solution.
Cheers,
'(' Jeff A. Stucker
\
Senior Consultant
www.rapidigm.com
"Peter Cwik" <cwik4@.cox.net> wrote in message
news:1135790334.343599.101660@.z14g2000cwz.googlegr oups.com...
> Can anyone give insight on the proper way to store names in a multi
> language database? For instance in English we store First, Middle,
> Last. In Spanish there could be multiple last names. In Chinese the
> whole name is only one name, (fits in one field). Any experience with
> something like this?
> Peter Cwik
>
|||In general, "Family Name" and "Given Name" are less confusing than
"First", "Last", "Christian", "Sur", etc on multi-language forms. A
simple way to organize the columns might be something like this:
NameID(pk), FamilyName, GivenName, Name2, Name3,Name4, NameType --
where FamilyName is the only required name field and NameType is a
foreign key describing the naming convention of that particular person.
So long as the order preference is spelled out in the NameType, I don't
see a reason to distinguish between a middle name, second given name,
or second family name. You can use CASE to distinguish between them in
your select statements:
SELECT CASE NameType
WHEN '3a' THEN GivenName +' '+ Name4 +' '+ FamilyName
WHEN '4b' THEN Name2 +' '+ GivenName +' '+ FamilyName
WHEN '5c' THEN FamilyName +' '+ GivenName
ELSE GivenName+' '+FamilyName END AS FullName
>From Table1
(If you want, you could nest the CASEs so that they check fields for
null values before plugging them in so as to allow people to predict
naming conventions that might apply after marriage, confirmation, etc.)
--L

Multi Language

Can anyone give insight on the proper way to store names in a multi
language database? For instance in English we store First, Middle,
Last. In Spanish there could be multiple last names. In Chinese the
whole name is only one name, (fits in one field). Any experience with
something like this?
Peter CwikIt really depends on the requirements of the application, and whether you
are attempting to separate family name from given name, or preserve name
order for presentation. (In different cultures, the first name is the
family name, whereas in English, the first name is the given name.)
You may have different rules for different localizations, in defining what
is FirstName and LastName, but also have a common FullName field that is
populated in a language-specific or culture-specific manner.
Again, your business requirements will have much to do with the solution.
--
Cheers,
'(' Jeff A. Stucker
\
Senior Consultant
www.rapidigm.com
"Peter Cwik" <cwik4@.cox.net> wrote in message
news:1135790334.343599.101660@.z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Can anyone give insight on the proper way to store names in a multi
> language database? For instance in English we store First, Middle,
> Last. In Spanish there could be multiple last names. In Chinese the
> whole name is only one name, (fits in one field). Any experience with
> something like this?
> Peter Cwik
>|||In general, "Family Name" and "Given Name" are less confusing than
"First", "Last", "Christian", "Sur", etc on multi-language forms. A
simple way to organize the columns might be something like this:
NameID(pk), FamilyName, GivenName, Name2, Name3,Name4, NameType --
where FamilyName is the only required name field and NameType is a
foreign key describing the naming convention of that particular person.
So long as the order preference is spelled out in the NameType, I don't
see a reason to distinguish between a middle name, second given name,
or second family name. You can use CASE to distinguish between them in
your select statements:
SELECT CASE NameType
WHEN '3a' THEN GivenName +' '+ Name4 +' '+ FamilyName
WHEN '4b' THEN Name2 +' '+ GivenName +' '+ FamilyName
WHEN '5c' THEN FamilyName +' '+ GivenName
ELSE GivenName+' '+FamilyName END AS FullName
>From Table1
(If you want, you could nest the CASEs so that they check fields for
null values before plugging them in so as to allow people to predict
naming conventions that might apply after marriage, confirmation, etc.)
--L

Multi Language

Can anyone give insight on the proper way to store names in a multi
language database? For instance in English we store First, Middle,
Last. In Spanish there could be multiple last names. In Chinese the
whole name is only one name, (fits in one field). Any experience with
something like this?
Peter CwikIt really depends on the requirements of the application, and whether you
are attempting to separate family name from given name, or preserve name
order for presentation. (In different cultures, the first name is the
family name, whereas in English, the first name is the given name.)
You may have different rules for different localizations, in defining what
is FirstName and LastName, but also have a common FullName field that is
populated in a language-specific or culture-specific manner.
Again, your business requirements will have much to do with the solution.
--
Cheers,
'(' Jeff A. Stucker
\
Senior Consultant
www.rapidigm.com
"Peter Cwik" <cwik4@.cox.net> wrote in message
news:1135790334.343599.101660@.z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Can anyone give insight on the proper way to store names in a multi
> language database? For instance in English we store First, Middle,
> Last. In Spanish there could be multiple last names. In Chinese the
> whole name is only one name, (fits in one field). Any experience with
> something like this?
> Peter Cwik
>|||In general, "Family Name" and "Given Name" are less confusing than
"First", "Last", "Christian", "Sur", etc on multi-language forms. A
simple way to organize the columns might be something like this:
NameID(pk), FamilyName, GivenName, Name2, Name3,Name4, NameType --
where FamilyName is the only required name field and NameType is a
foreign key describing the naming convention of that particular person.
So long as the order preference is spelled out in the NameType, I don't
see a reason to distinguish between a middle name, second given name,
or second family name. You can use CASE to distinguish between them in
your select statements:
SELECT CASE NameType
WHEN '3a' THEN GivenName +' '+ Name4 +' '+ FamilyName
WHEN '4b' THEN Name2 +' '+ GivenName +' '+ FamilyName
WHEN '5c' THEN FamilyName +' '+ GivenName
ELSE GivenName+' '+FamilyName END AS FullName
>From Table1
(If you want, you could nest the CASEs so that they check fields for
null values before plugging them in so as to allow people to predict
naming conventions that might apply after marriage, confirmation, etc.)
--L

Multi instance Sql Server 2000, coexistence SP3-SP4, replication issue?

Hi,
I've went throught the SP4 documentation but I didn't find a clear answer about how to deal with this situation:
In the situation of a multi instances server in which all instances are SP3a, can I just upgrade a couple of instances to SP4 and leave the others in SP3a ? .
One of the instances I may have to leave in SP3a belongs to a merge replication environnement (Distributor and Publisher), while the Subscriber is also in SP3 on a remote server (which I don't administer..).(the point is that in this situation I have to upgrade the 2 servers simultaneously)
In other words, when I 'll apply the SP4 to just one instance, I understood that the all the tools will be upgraded to SP4.

Will the merge replication involving a SP3 instance on the same server still work?

Thanks for your comments/replies/ideas.

Regards,
jalalIt is not recommended to leave some instances at lower SP levels. You could try this on a test configuration, all shared components will be upgraded to SP4 level. I dont think you will get a correct response related to your "merge replication" question under "Setup & Upgrade"|||I just thought it was an upgrade issue...
I've read somewhere in the upgrade documentation that SP4 shared tools were compatible with post SP3 ones:
-I was not sure about replication

but thanks for the reply
Regards,
jalal

Multi Instance or Mutliple Virtual Servers

Can anybody tell me the differences, advantages or disadvantages in
installing an active/active cluster as
VIRTUAL/INSTANCE1
and
VIRTUAL/INSTANCE2
against
VIRTUAL1
and
VIRTUAL2
We did not seem to get the option to install a second instance on the first
virtual server and so opted for 2 virtual servers with names instance on
each so
VIRTUAL1 / INSTANCE1
and
VIRTUAL2 / INSTANCE2
Many Thanks
Steve
In a cluster, each instance is installed in its own virtual server.
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
www.sqlpass.org
"Steve" <spam@.notformeplease.net> wrote in message
news:HLednboIr5j-OrnfRVnytg@.brightview.com...
> Can anybody tell me the differences, advantages or disadvantages in
> installing an active/active cluster as
> VIRTUAL/INSTANCE1
> and
> VIRTUAL/INSTANCE2
> against
> VIRTUAL1
> and
> VIRTUAL2
> We did not seem to get the option to install a second instance on the
first
> virtual server and so opted for 2 virtual servers with names instance on
> each so
> VIRTUAL1 / INSTANCE1
> and
> VIRTUAL2 / INSTANCE2
> Many Thanks
> Steve
>
|||Thanks Geoff
So I think that means we got it right first time.
Regards
Steve
"Geoff N. Hiten" <SQLCraftsman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:%2339SkcoHFHA.236@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> In a cluster, each instance is installed in its own virtual server.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Senior Database Administrator
> Careerbuilder.com
> I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
> www.sqlpass.org
> "Steve" <spam@.notformeplease.net> wrote in message
> news:HLednboIr5j-OrnfRVnytg@.brightview.com...
> first
>

Multi Instance Cluster Question

I decided to try and setup a multi instance cluster on my
own and seem to be fairly successful . Its SQL 2000 EE on
Windows Server 2003 EE
Just had 2 questions. When i installed the second
instance, it asked me for a virtual name.. so i gave it
one ..in my case SQL2.. and then was asked for an
instance name so i called it ins2.. Eventually this
second sql server is now called sql2\ins2 and not sql2 as
i had thought it would be.. The first instance which was
a default instance was named as SQL1 . Is this the right
way it should be ? i.e one instance called SQL1 and the
other SQL2\ins2 in my case. I was under the impression
that since its a virtual name i could get them to be
called SQL1 and SQL2
If not, then my next question is..
When i connect to those 2 virtual names from a client, it
seems to connect fine to SQL1 but when i connect to SQL2
\ins2 it fails...with SQL Server does not exist or access
denied. Any reason why ? Thanks
Answer #1.
You can have one default instance and 15 named instances OR 16 named
instances of SQL per cluster. Each named instance will be
VirtualServerName\InstanceName. For consistancy I use only named
instances on a cluster, but that is just a personal thing.
Answer #2.
You may have an older version of MDAC on your client system. I think the
breakover is MDAC 2.6, but I may be wrong. Version 2.6 and higher
understand named instances. Versions before that do not. You can make an
older version connect to a named instance if you create an alias that
includes the port number.
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
"Ronald" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:520a01c42ca8$dfdc9680$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
> I decided to try and setup a multi instance cluster on my
> own and seem to be fairly successful . Its SQL 2000 EE on
> Windows Server 2003 EE
> Just had 2 questions. When i installed the second
> instance, it asked me for a virtual name.. so i gave it
> one ..in my case SQL2.. and then was asked for an
> instance name so i called it ins2.. Eventually this
> second sql server is now called sql2\ins2 and not sql2 as
> i had thought it would be.. The first instance which was
> a default instance was named as SQL1 . Is this the right
> way it should be ? i.e one instance called SQL1 and the
> other SQL2\ins2 in my case. I was under the impression
> that since its a virtual name i could get them to be
> called SQL1 and SQL2
> If not, then my next question is..
> When i connect to those 2 virtual names from a client, it
> seems to connect fine to SQL1 but when i connect to SQL2
> \ins2 it fails...with SQL Server does not exist or access
> denied. Any reason why ? Thanks

MSX/TSX question between SQL 2000 and 2005

Hi,
I have a SQL Server 2005 as a master server, I want to make a SQL Server
2000 default instance a target server, but it failed and the error message i
s
'The master server version 9.00.2047 is not compatible with the target serve
r
version 8.00.818'. Can we have a SQL 2000 server as a target server when we
have a SQL 2005 as a master server? If so, how?
Thanks for your help.So far i have not seen any documentation on mingling 2k and 2k5 MSX and
TSX services. I believe you would have to have both instances running
on the MSX server and have 2 complete MSX db's running.
Hong Wang wrote:
> Hi,
> I have a SQL Server 2005 as a master server, I want to make a SQL Server
> 2000 default instance a target server, but it failed and the error message
is
> 'The master server version 9.00.2047 is not compatible with the target ser
ver
> version 8.00.818'. Can we have a SQL 2000 server as a target server when w
e
> have a SQL 2005 as a master server? If so, how?
> Thanks for your help.

MSX/TSX question between SQL 2000 and 2005

Hi,
I have a SQL Server 2005 as a master server, I want to make a SQL Server
2000 default instance a target server, but it failed and the error message is
'The master server version 9.00.2047 is not compatible with the target server
version 8.00.818'. Can we have a SQL 2000 server as a target server when we
have a SQL 2005 as a master server? If so, how?
Thanks for your help.So far i have not seen any documentation on mingling 2k and 2k5 MSX and
TSX services. I believe you would have to have both instances running
on the MSX server and have 2 complete MSX db's running.
Hong Wang wrote:
> Hi,
> I have a SQL Server 2005 as a master server, I want to make a SQL Server
> 2000 default instance a target server, but it failed and the error message is
> 'The master server version 9.00.2047 is not compatible with the target server
> version 8.00.818'. Can we have a SQL 2000 server as a target server when we
> have a SQL 2005 as a master server? If so, how?
> Thanks for your help.

MSSQLSERVER is MIA

To start a named instance of SQL Server

On the Start menu, point to All Programs, point to

Microsoft SQL Server 2005, point to Configuration Tools, and then

click SQL Server Configuration Manager.

In SQL Server Configuration Manager, expand Services, and

then click SQL Server (MSSQLSERVER).

There is no MSSQLSERVER to click!!!!!!!!

If you open services.msc (services page), is MSSQLSERVER listed there? Do you have the appropriate WMI permissions? Try this article to see if it applies:

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms188690.aspx

Thanks,
Sam Lester (MSFT)

mssql8 AND mssql 2005

I have both 8 and 2005 installed on a windows 2003 server. However from a remote machine I can only see the 2005 instance. Is there a configuration I have missed or is this not possible?Are you using SQL Server 2005 Management Studio to connect to a remote database engine? If so, you may wanna try to select <Browse for more...> option from the Server Name dropdown list and then switch to the Network Servers tab. Let me know how you're getting along.|||I can see both instances on the Windows 2003 system and can connect to the v8 thru sql server management as you suggest. My issue is a remote machine with only 8's client cannot connect to the mssql v8 instance.|||Are you getting any error at all? Try to quickly create a .udl file on the remote machine to see if you could make and test a connection to the server.|||I get a server not found message.|||How did you name your 2000 and 2005 instances on the same box?|||2005 = server
other is server\server2003|||And server\server2003 is not visible from 2000 client, right?|||Yes. I wonder if I should name it something else maybe it doesn;t like that name. Maybe OldSQL?|||

Quote:

Originally Posted by kitspid

Yes. I wonder if I should name it something else maybe it doesn;t like that name. Maybe OldSQL?

Try to name it without slash. I doubt though it'll help. I once experienced a very funny problem with my replication whereby the distributor wouldn't connect to the subscriber. I had to enable Naming Pipes on the subscriber via the SQL config console to fix it. Just a thought.|||Tried the name pipes didn;t help. Don;t think I can rename it as the machine is called server which is where that comes from shoulf just be server2003 to connect. Going to move this db to a different machine and not worry about it anymore. Chalk it up to a 2005 quirk I think.|||Thanx for your help anyway.|||Good luck to you. Sorry couldn't help you better. Try to search in MSDN troubleshooting articles.|||I had to change the port for the mssql8 version to get it to work.

MSSQL.1 directory

Hi,
I just did a fresh install of SQL 2005, default instance, to a new server. I
specified the root of D:\ as the target for the install, however I ended up
with D:\MSSQL.1\MSSQL as my physical directory. Did I miss something or is
MSSQL.1 the norm in 2k5?
Thanks in advance.
That's the norm with 2005. I think they like seeing their name in print. I
don't know the intention of MSSQL.1.
"sqlboy2000" <sqlboy2000@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A30BA7DB-EB9B-45F2-B37D-E1949D0FE0B4@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I just did a fresh install of SQL 2005, default instance, to a new server.
I
> specified the root of D:\ as the target for the install, however I ended
up
> with D:\MSSQL.1\MSSQL as my physical directory. Did I miss something or is
> MSSQL.1 the norm in 2k5?
> Thanks in advance.
|||New naming convention. Install another SQL component (Analysis services,
Reporting Services) and you will see a MSSQL.2 folder. Upgrades and service
packs will also create new folders for newer versions, at least for the
binaries. It certainly makes rollbacks easier.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"sqlboy2000" <sqlboy2000@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A30BA7DB-EB9B-45F2-B37D-E1949D0FE0B4@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I just did a fresh install of SQL 2005, default instance, to a new server.
> I
> specified the root of D:\ as the target for the install, however I ended
> up
> with D:\MSSQL.1\MSSQL as my physical directory. Did I miss something or is
> MSSQL.1 the norm in 2k5?
> Thanks in advance.
|||Cool, thank you both.
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:

> New naming convention. Install another SQL component (Analysis services,
> Reporting Services) and you will see a MSSQL.2 folder. Upgrades and service
> packs will also create new folders for newer versions, at least for the
> binaries. It certainly makes rollbacks easier.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>
>
> "sqlboy2000" <sqlboy2000@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:A30BA7DB-EB9B-45F2-B37D-E1949D0FE0B4@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||if you want to know what MSSQL.1 corresponds to you can go into :
HKLM\SOFTWARE\MICROSOFT\MICROSOFT SQL SERVER\INSTANCE NAMES\SQL

MSSQL.1 directory

Hi,
I just did a fresh install of SQL 2005, default instance, to a new server. I
specified the root of D:\ as the target for the install, however I ended up
with D:\MSSQL.1\MSSQL as my physical directory. Did I miss something or is
MSSQL.1 the norm in 2k5?
Thanks in advance.That's the norm with 2005. I think they like seeing their name in print. I
don't know the intention of MSSQL.1.
"sqlboy2000" <sqlboy2000@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A30BA7DB-EB9B-45F2-B37D-E1949D0FE0B4@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I just did a fresh install of SQL 2005, default instance, to a new server.
I
> specified the root of D:\ as the target for the install, however I ended
up
> with D:\MSSQL.1\MSSQL as my physical directory. Did I miss something or is
> MSSQL.1 the norm in 2k5?
> Thanks in advance.|||New naming convention. Install another SQL component (Analysis services,
Reporting Services) and you will see a MSSQL.2 folder. Upgrades and service
packs will also create new folders for newer versions, at least for the
binaries. It certainly makes rollbacks easier.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"sqlboy2000" <sqlboy2000@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A30BA7DB-EB9B-45F2-B37D-E1949D0FE0B4@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I just did a fresh install of SQL 2005, default instance, to a new server.
> I
> specified the root of D:\ as the target for the install, however I ended
> up
> with D:\MSSQL.1\MSSQL as my physical directory. Did I miss something or is
> MSSQL.1 the norm in 2k5?
> Thanks in advance.|||Cool, thank you both.
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:

> New naming convention. Install another SQL component (Analysis services,
> Reporting Services) and you will see a MSSQL.2 folder. Upgrades and servi
ce
> packs will also create new folders for newer versions, at least for the
> binaries. It certainly makes rollbacks easier.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>
>
> "sqlboy2000" <sqlboy2000@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:A30BA7DB-EB9B-45F2-B37D-E1949D0FE0B4@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||if you want to know what MSSQL.1 corresponds to you can go into :
HKLM\SOFTWARE\MICROSOFT\MICROSOFT SQL SERVER\INSTANCE NAMES\SQL

MSSQL.1 directory

Hi,
I just did a fresh install of SQL 2005, default instance, to a new server. I
specified the root of D:\ as the target for the install, however I ended up
with D:\MSSQL.1\MSSQL as my physical directory. Did I miss something or is
MSSQL.1 the norm in 2k5?
Thanks in advance.That's the norm with 2005. I think they like seeing their name in print. I
don't know the intention of MSSQL.1.
"sqlboy2000" <sqlboy2000@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A30BA7DB-EB9B-45F2-B37D-E1949D0FE0B4@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I just did a fresh install of SQL 2005, default instance, to a new server.
I
> specified the root of D:\ as the target for the install, however I ended
up
> with D:\MSSQL.1\MSSQL as my physical directory. Did I miss something or is
> MSSQL.1 the norm in 2k5?
> Thanks in advance.|||New naming convention. Install another SQL component (Analysis services,
Reporting Services) and you will see a MSSQL.2 folder. Upgrades and service
packs will also create new folders for newer versions, at least for the
binaries. It certainly makes rollbacks easier.
--
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"sqlboy2000" <sqlboy2000@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A30BA7DB-EB9B-45F2-B37D-E1949D0FE0B4@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I just did a fresh install of SQL 2005, default instance, to a new server.
> I
> specified the root of D:\ as the target for the install, however I ended
> up
> with D:\MSSQL.1\MSSQL as my physical directory. Did I miss something or is
> MSSQL.1 the norm in 2k5?
> Thanks in advance.|||Cool, thank you both.
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
> New naming convention. Install another SQL component (Analysis services,
> Reporting Services) and you will see a MSSQL.2 folder. Upgrades and service
> packs will also create new folders for newer versions, at least for the
> binaries. It certainly makes rollbacks easier.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>
>
> "sqlboy2000" <sqlboy2000@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:A30BA7DB-EB9B-45F2-B37D-E1949D0FE0B4@.microsoft.com...
> > Hi,
> > I just did a fresh install of SQL 2005, default instance, to a new server.
> > I
> > specified the root of D:\ as the target for the install, however I ended
> > up
> > with D:\MSSQL.1\MSSQL as my physical directory. Did I miss something or is
> > MSSQL.1 the norm in 2k5?
> >
> > Thanks in advance.
>
>|||if you want to know what MSSQL.1 corresponds to you can go into :
HKLM\SOFTWARE\MICROSOFT\MICROSOFT SQL SERVER\INSTANCE NAMES\SQL