When I try to install the Reporting Services on a second node of a failover cluster, I get the following error message:
Existing clustered or cluster-prepared instance failed. The instance selected for installation is already installed and clustered on node 2.
But, we never installed it before. Does anyone have any ideas? This is on Windows 2008 server 64-bit.
Just one thing though. You have to install Reporting Services using the Enterprise Edition media and to avoid doing all kinds of nasty stuff to the Licensing the fail-over cluster also have to be Enterprise Edition.
If you try to do this using the SQL Server Standard media you will not be able to install SSRS to a "Shared Database" and the encryption information in the database created by instance #1 will be mercilessly blasted into oblivion.
This will result in instance 1 of SSRS not working while instance 2 (on the second server) is working. Trying to fix this will only flip the situation.
Personally i find this to be quite the bummer from Microsoft since it practically means that you have to weigh the cost of Enterprise Edition against HA-enabling Reporting Services.
So basically, you have to acquire Enterprise Edition if you do not want your Reporting Services to be the Single Point of Failure.
Apparently, SQL Server can be installed on each node on a failover cluster. The caveat is that it must be two separate installations with two different instance names. You can, however, share the same report server database. Please read this article for more information on deploying Reporting Services.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms159114.aspx
Consider this article on SSRS scale out process. Install the shared report server database on the cluster. Then install reporting services to use the shared database. Reporting services will not failover, but the database will.
This is an option to failover IIS: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/970759
Related
I'm preparing a migration plan to migrate on-premises SQL Server to Azure. On our on-prem there are two sql instance (DevSQL01\Dev and DevSQL01\Demo) running on single VM. Can we create a same scenario on azure, i.e. can we create two SQL instance on a single Auzure SQL VM or is their any other option?
I know i can create a windows VM on Auzre and install SQL Server and create two instance manually, but i like to find out options like managed instance, elastic pool, etc.. has the feature to host named instance by default.
Forgive me if this is noob question, I just started exploring cloud technologies.
On all flavors of Azure SQL PaaS (Managed Instance, DTU-model, vCore, Serverless, Hyperscale) the concept of named instance does not exist. Your best option is a SQL VM where you can run SQL Setup and install multiple instances.
It seems you need it for development purposes, then you may want to install SQL Server Developer Edition to avoid licensing costs as mentioned here. If this will be a Production server, remember to balance memory usage across the two SQL Server instances and leave some memory for the operating system to avoid impact on the server performance.
As the graph shows above. Which type of sql server edition is for the production? I know the "Developer" version is for the development. Also I already got the Azure VM and have the "Developer SQL Server" on my VM, how can I install the production SQL Server in my VM? Is this free?
My purpose is to make a production SQL Server database. Is there two options for me? One is install a production SQL Server in my VM, another is to create a new Azure SQL database. Which one would be the best way to do this?
As the graph shows above. Which type of sql server edition is for the
Production? I know the "Developer" version is for the development.
Also I already got the Azure VM and have the "Developer SQl server" on
my VM, how can I install the production sql server on my VM? Is this
free?
Developer is not licenced for production - you aren't allowed to use it for production purposes.
Express is licenced for production but if your database gets bigger that 10Gb then it is unsuitable for your use
My purpose is to make a production sql server database. Is there two
options for me? One is install a production sql server on my VM,
another is to create a new Azure SQL database. Which one would be the
best way to do this?
"Best" doesn't mean anything. What are your constraints? Are you creating a brand new database? What tools will be connecting to and using the database? Does it need to be accessible from the internet?
If this is a brand new application / database, and you have limited capability for maintaining a VM then I definitely recommend using SQL Azure instead of a VM
Most importantly, and based on you other question, make sure you understand the term "Production"
Can Azure SQL Server on VM be the production database?
For example, you usually don't provision a 'production' environment without also provisioning at least a dev environment.
It would also help to give us some background on "My purpose is to make a production sql server database". It sounds like this is a request someone has given you but maybe you don't fully understand the term 'production'
None of them are sql azure. They are all sql server on premise on a virtual machine on azure.
If you want to add a sql server azure, you go on your main azure portal page, then on the left panel at the top "create a resource", then chose "SQL Database" on the popular column. Then follow instructions.
If you want as less pain as possible, clearly choose sql azure instead of a sql server on premise on a virtual server on azure. It is by very far the only reasonable choice if you work on azure: cheap, strong, backup automatically done, disaster recovery extremely easily applicable without any prior setup, extremely easy to up size its capacity in case of overload, perfectly secured without any prior setup either.
The only problem of this is the security: it can be accessed only by recognized IP addresses that you mention on the azure portal. So typically, you mention the IP address of you development computer. If your website is on your azure subscription as well, you don't need to worry, it will go through the azure firewall with no setup.
If you reeeeeeally want to use a sql server on premise, well, don't use the developer edition. If you want to avoid performance and load issues, don't use express. The entreprise is very complete, but not useful in most of cases for simple application (like web applications).
If you want most of features, go for the Standard edition, if you want to keep focused on the database engine for your web application, go for the Web edition.
Finaly, if you wanna have a licence free edition on a virtual server, the express is free of charges, but not powerful and extremely limited. The developer edition is free of charges as well and contains every possible and impossible features of sql server. The only pb of this edition is that you are not allowed to use it in production. Only for tests and developments.
As you are already having Azure VM with Developer edition installed you can go for either of the below options.
If you are comfortable to manage the Azure VM yourself, go for IAAS(Infrastructure as a Service) approach: Install SQL Server Standard Edition or SQL Server Enterprise Edition (based on your application needs). Read the capability difference between them. If SQL Server Express edition would be suitable for your needs, then install the same. It does have limited features and many constraints. See the scalability support for different editions in the same link above.
If you want to offload the database server management, go for PAAS(Platform as a Service) approach: Create a Azure SQL database and point your application to it. Azure SQL database is more like SQL Server Enterprise Edition with some limitations like CLR not being supported. Read Azure SQL database differences with SQL Server editions
We have a single MS Server 2012 for hosting our MSSQL 2014.
On the Server we already installed two instances of MSSQL 2014.
One for the productive Business-Applications and one instance for the development Databases.
Beside the MSSQL 2014 installation we need to setup the TFS2013.
My question is if it is a good thought to make an own instance for the TFS or if we should just use one of the existing instances (Probably the dev) to store the databases.
We would love to use another instance because we would like to isolate the TFS Databases (so a restart of the TFS SQL Service should not affect the prod dbs) from the rest. We know that the administration needed for three instances is bigger than for two but we can neglect that.
Will there be a big loose in performance with a third instance, or isnt it that dramatic?
To avoid some anwsers, there is no possibility to implement the TFS or MSSQL on an other server(Because we just don't have any free resources).
The Server is from the hardware POV suitable and because we're a small company there won't be that much connections to the DB's (40 Employees to the Prod Instance, 3-5 Developers connecting to the DEV and TFS Instances).
The data tier of your TFS installation does not require any restarts. It's just a database that's created on your SQL Server.
The application tier of TFS is where the real work happens. This is where your users connect to and where the Windows Service and IIS websites are running.
It is no problem to use a shared SQL Server instance for installing Team Foundation Server.
If you want more information on how to install TFS checkout the ALM Rangers documentation. We have just released a new version of the guide that can be found here.
I would install also on a separate instance because the development or the production databases may require an SQL Server services restart which will cause a TFS unavailability.
Also you don't want to give permissions to the developers on TFS databases (usually developers are requiring higher permissions on their development databases, e.g. sysadmin for backup/restore)
getting confused here. I'm trying to install a second instance of reporting service sql server 2008 r2. Now does it mean I need to install a second instance of sql server or can i use the existing sql server instance to create anothe reportserver database?
for 2005 I know that you would have to run setup again to install another instance. I am not sure if they changed it in later versions, although I believe it is still the same.
See "Installing Multiple Instances of Reporting Services" and "Multiple Reporting Services instances on one machine". If you want to share one database, consider a scale-out deployment.
No, you don't have to install sql engine instance. You start an installation from SQL Installation Center and check only Reporting from features.
I have a SQL box and a web box; the SQL box is close to capacity. I'd like to install reporting services and thought about installing it on a SQL instance i would install on the web box, and only use that instance for reporting services. Is this a good option? What pitfalls will I have if I try to do this?
It's recommended to not mix IIS and SQL on the same box. Because 0f different access patterns and security at least.
The fact your SQL box is close to capacity should set alarm bells ringing and big red flags waving. The Report Server databases are quite small, and I'd lie awake at night if I thought it would overload my your DB server
SO: Should SQL Server be on the same machine as your IIS installation?
If you just install the Reporting Services (SSRS) web piece this should be fine. SSRS comes in 2 sections, the web piece and the database catalog so you could have a web site run on the web server and the catalog database would live on you normal database server. You will need to manually configure SSRS through the SSRS configuration utility and specify the remote server name during the database set up.
The downside of this is that you would be required to purchase an additional SQL license for the web server, since an SSRS installation counts as a SQL instance, but you should be able to use a standard edition license to for both instances.
I didn't find a lot a great resources but the steps would be like this:
--install just SSRS (and Client tools to debug connection issues) on the web server
--run the SSRS configuration tool and configure the app pools, virtual directories
--in the same config tool in the database section just specify the remote SQL server and select "create database" and it will create the database for you and apply the permissions needed to the database instance.
One thing I have found to be kind of quirky about the SQL 2005 SSRS config tool is that you have to "apply" changes when it doesn't seem that intuitive, so beware.
Here's an OK link:
http://www.databasejournal.com/features/mssql/article.php/3573361/SQL-2005-Reporting-Services-Part-1.htm