Active/Active Clustering - Help!

Hi,
The installation you have in the default instance that
run on the primary node. binaries on C:\ databases on
shared cluster disks.
You have to add a new shared clustered disk to the OS an
then to the cluster, Disk resource.
Then, on secondary Node, Node2, you install a named
instance to the local C:\ (new explicit set of binaries
and executables) and the databases to the new sahred disk.
Now you have to intances, default (node1) and named
(node2) with databases on external disks. Then you
install two Vitual SQL Servers (separate IP addresses)
for each instance. You can add additional named instances
to any other node, if yoy add more disks. With multiple
instances SQL200x also support a local installation on
the local disk of ONE node.
Don't even try this. Maybe in SQL 7 this would work. All this will do with
SQL 2000 is confuse you and break your system.
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
www.sqlpass.org
"Sca" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:24db01c4acba$663fac80$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> The installation you have in the default instance that
> run on the primary node. binaries on C:\ databases on
> shared cluster disks.
> You have to add a new shared clustered disk to the OS an
> then to the cluster, Disk resource.
> Then, on secondary Node, Node2, you install a named
> instance to the local C:\ (new explicit set of binaries
> and executables) and the databases to the new sahred disk.
> Now you have to intances, default (node1) and named
> (node2) with databases on external disks. Then you
> install two Vitual SQL Servers (separate IP addresses)
> for each instance. You can add additional named instances
> to any other node, if yoy add more disks. With multiple
> instances SQL200x also support a local installation on
> the local disk of ONE node.

Active/Active Cluster Installation Failed

Hi All,
I am trying to install active/active two nodes cluster (Windows Server
2003/SQL Server 2000 â' sp3). I had successfully install the first instance.
But the name instance failed. â'Error: The cluster resource failed to come
online.â'
Also, I did not see any option to choose log file location (only able to
choose data file location). Would you please give me some hints?
For the first instance, I named the first virtual server as SQLVR1 and the
first instance as default.
For the second virtual server, do I have to name it as SQLVR1\xxxxxx? Can I
give the virtual server and the name instance same name or they have to be
different?
Thanks,
AlimI didn't think SQL Server's clustering was Active/Active capable - only
Active/Passive.
--
TheSQLGuru
President
Indicium Resources, Inc.
"alim" <alim@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8C2E1F14-C448-497B-AFB2-E26F2B57BD29@.microsoft.com...
> Hi All,
> I am trying to install active/active two nodes cluster (Windows Server
> 2003/SQL Server 2000 - sp3). I had successfully install the first
> instance.
> But the name instance failed. "Error: The cluster resource failed to come
> online."
> Also, I did not see any option to choose log file location (only able to
> choose data file location). Would you please give me some hints?
> For the first instance, I named the first virtual server as SQLVR1 and the
> first instance as default.
> For the second virtual server, do I have to name it as SQLVR1\xxxxxx? Can
> I
> give the virtual server and the name instance same name or they have to be
> different?
> Thanks,
> Alim
>|||First, use the term "multi-instance" instead of "Active/Active". It is much
less confusing to everyone.
The Application Event log should tell you you why the cluster resource did
not come on line. My guess is this is the problem:
Installation of a named instance of SQL Server 2000 virtual server on a
Windows Server 2003-based cluster fails
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/815431/en-us
You can change the log file location after the system is up and running.
You can only specify one file location during the install.
And yes, the virtual server name and the SQL instance name must be the same.
I usually use only named instances on a cluster to keep from having to
explain why the names look different.
--
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"alim" <alim@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8C2E1F14-C448-497B-AFB2-E26F2B57BD29@.microsoft.com...
> Hi All,
> I am trying to install active/active two nodes cluster (Windows Server
> 2003/SQL Server 2000 â' sp3). I had successfully install the first
> instance.
> But the name instance failed. â'Error: The cluster resource failed to come
> online.â'
> Also, I did not see any option to choose log file location (only able to
> choose data file location). Would you please give me some hints?
> For the first instance, I named the first virtual server as SQLVR1 and the
> first instance as default.
> For the second virtual server, do I have to name it as SQLVR1\xxxxxx? Can
> I
> give the virtual server and the name instance same name or they have to be
> different?
> Thanks,
> Alim
>|||> And yes, the virtual server name and the SQL instance name must be the same.
Hmmm... They can be the same or different. We typically just name the
instances SQL1, SQL2, etc. so that we can easily tell/communicate which
instance it is.
Linchi
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
> First, use the term "multi-instance" instead of "Active/Active". It is much
> less confusing to everyone.
> The Application Event log should tell you you why the cluster resource did
> not come on line. My guess is this is the problem:
> Installation of a named instance of SQL Server 2000 virtual server on a
> Windows Server 2003-based cluster fails
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/815431/en-us
> You can change the log file location after the system is up and running.
> You can only specify one file location during the install.
> And yes, the virtual server name and the SQL instance name must be the same.
> I usually use only named instances on a cluster to keep from having to
> explain why the names look different.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>
>
> "alim" <alim@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:8C2E1F14-C448-497B-AFB2-E26F2B57BD29@.microsoft.com...
> > Hi All,
> > I am trying to install active/active two nodes cluster (Windows Server
> > 2003/SQL Server 2000 â' sp3). I had successfully install the first
> > instance.
> > But the name instance failed. â'Error: The cluster resource failed to come
> > online.â'
> > Also, I did not see any option to choose log file location (only able to
> > choose data file location). Would you please give me some hints?
> > For the first instance, I named the first virtual server as SQLVR1 and the
> > first instance as default.
> > For the second virtual server, do I have to name it as SQLVR1\xxxxxx? Can
> > I
> > give the virtual server and the name instance same name or they have to be
> > different?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Alim
> >
>|||Thanks all for the comments. I think I will go with active/passive
configuration which is much easier.
Thanks!
"Linchi Shea" wrote:
> > And yes, the virtual server name and the SQL instance name must be the same.
> Hmmm... They can be the same or different. We typically just name the
> instances SQL1, SQL2, etc. so that we can easily tell/communicate which
> instance it is.
> Linchi
> "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
> > First, use the term "multi-instance" instead of "Active/Active". It is much
> > less confusing to everyone.
> >
> > The Application Event log should tell you you why the cluster resource did
> > not come on line. My guess is this is the problem:
> >
> > Installation of a named instance of SQL Server 2000 virtual server on a
> > Windows Server 2003-based cluster fails
> > http://support.microsoft.com/kb/815431/en-us
> >
> > You can change the log file location after the system is up and running.
> > You can only specify one file location during the install.
> >
> > And yes, the virtual server name and the SQL instance name must be the same.
> > I usually use only named instances on a cluster to keep from having to
> > explain why the names look different.
> >
> > --
> > Geoff N. Hiten
> > Senior Database Administrator
> > Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "alim" <alim@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:8C2E1F14-C448-497B-AFB2-E26F2B57BD29@.microsoft.com...
> > > Hi All,
> > > I am trying to install active/active two nodes cluster (Windows Server
> > > 2003/SQL Server 2000 â' sp3). I had successfully install the first
> > > instance.
> > > But the name instance failed. â'Error: The cluster resource failed to come
> > > online.â'
> > > Also, I did not see any option to choose log file location (only able to
> > > choose data file location). Would you please give me some hints?
> > > For the first instance, I named the first virtual server as SQLVR1 and the
> > > first instance as default.
> > > For the second virtual server, do I have to name it as SQLVR1\xxxxxx? Can
> > > I
> > > give the virtual server and the name instance same name or they have to be
> > > different?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Alim
> > >
> >
> >

Active/Active Cluster Installation Failed

Hi All,
I am trying to install active/active two nodes cluster (Windows Server
2003/SQL Server 2000 – sp3). I had successfully install the first instance.
But the name instance failed. “Error: The cluster resource failed to come
online.”
Also, I did not see any option to choose log file location (only able to
choose data file location). Would you please give me some hints?
For the first instance, I named the first virtual server as SQLVR1 and the
first instance as default.
For the second virtual server, do I have to name it as SQLVR1\xxxxxx? Can I
give the virtual server and the name instance same name or they have to be
different?
Thanks,
Alim
I didn't think SQL Server's clustering was Active/Active capable - only
Active/Passive.
TheSQLGuru
President
Indicium Resources, Inc.
"alim" <alim@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8C2E1F14-C448-497B-AFB2-E26F2B57BD29@.microsoft.com...
> Hi All,
> I am trying to install active/active two nodes cluster (Windows Server
> 2003/SQL Server 2000 - sp3). I had successfully install the first
> instance.
> But the name instance failed. "Error: The cluster resource failed to come
> online."
> Also, I did not see any option to choose log file location (only able to
> choose data file location). Would you please give me some hints?
> For the first instance, I named the first virtual server as SQLVR1 and the
> first instance as default.
> For the second virtual server, do I have to name it as SQLVR1\xxxxxx? Can
> I
> give the virtual server and the name instance same name or they have to be
> different?
> Thanks,
> Alim
>
|||First, use the term "multi-instance" instead of "Active/Active". It is much
less confusing to everyone.
The Application Event log should tell you you why the cluster resource did
not come on line. My guess is this is the problem:
Installation of a named instance of SQL Server 2000 virtual server on a
Windows Server 2003-based cluster fails
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/815431/en-us
You can change the log file location after the system is up and running.
You can only specify one file location during the install.
And yes, the virtual server name and the SQL instance name must be the same.
I usually use only named instances on a cluster to keep from having to
explain why the names look different.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"alim" <alim@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8C2E1F14-C448-497B-AFB2-E26F2B57BD29@.microsoft.com...
> Hi All,
> I am trying to install active/active two nodes cluster (Windows Server
> 2003/SQL Server 2000 – sp3). I had successfully install the first
> instance.
> But the name instance failed. “Error: The cluster resource failed to come
> online.”
> Also, I did not see any option to choose log file location (only able to
> choose data file location). Would you please give me some hints?
> For the first instance, I named the first virtual server as SQLVR1 and the
> first instance as default.
> For the second virtual server, do I have to name it as SQLVR1\xxxxxx? Can
> I
> give the virtual server and the name instance same name or they have to be
> different?
> Thanks,
> Alim
>
|||> And yes, the virtual server name and the SQL instance name must be the same.
Hmmm... They can be the same or different. We typically just name the
instances SQL1, SQL2, etc. so that we can easily tell/communicate which
instance it is.
Linchi
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:

> First, use the term "multi-instance" instead of "Active/Active". It is much
> less confusing to everyone.
> The Application Event log should tell you you why the cluster resource did
> not come on line. My guess is this is the problem:
> Installation of a named instance of SQL Server 2000 virtual server on a
> Windows Server 2003-based cluster fails
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/815431/en-us
> You can change the log file location after the system is up and running.
> You can only specify one file location during the install.
> And yes, the virtual server name and the SQL instance name must be the same.
> I usually use only named instances on a cluster to keep from having to
> explain why the names look different.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>
>
> "alim" <alim@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:8C2E1F14-C448-497B-AFB2-E26F2B57BD29@.microsoft.com...
>
|||Thanks all for the comments. I think I will go with active/passive
configuration which is much easier.
Thanks!
"Linchi Shea" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hmmm... They can be the same or different. We typically just name the
> instances SQL1, SQL2, etc. so that we can easily tell/communicate which
> instance it is.
> Linchi
> "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:

Active/Active Cluster Installation Failed

Hi All,
I am trying to install active/active two nodes cluster (Windows Server
2003/SQL Server 2000 – sp3). I had successfully install the first instanc
e.
But the name instance failed. “Error: The cluster resource failed to come
online.”
Also, I did not see any option to choose log file location (only able to
choose data file location). Would you please give me some hints?
For the first instance, I named the first virtual server as SQLVR1 and the
first instance as default.
For the second virtual server, do I have to name it as SQLVR1\xxxxxx? Can I
give the virtual server and the name instance same name or they have to be
different?
Thanks,
AlimI didn't think SQL Server's clustering was Active/Active capable - only
Active/Passive.
TheSQLGuru
President
Indicium Resources, Inc.
"alim" <alim@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8C2E1F14-C448-497B-AFB2-E26F2B57BD29@.microsoft.com...
> Hi All,
> I am trying to install active/active two nodes cluster (Windows Server
> 2003/SQL Server 2000 - sp3). I had successfully install the first
> instance.
> But the name instance failed. "Error: The cluster resource failed to come
> online."
> Also, I did not see any option to choose log file location (only able to
> choose data file location). Would you please give me some hints?
> For the first instance, I named the first virtual server as SQLVR1 and the
> first instance as default.
> For the second virtual server, do I have to name it as SQLVR1\xxxxxx? Can
> I
> give the virtual server and the name instance same name or they have to be
> different?
> Thanks,
> Alim
>|||First, use the term "multi-instance" instead of "Active/Active". It is much
less confusing to everyone.
The Application Event log should tell you you why the cluster resource did
not come on line. My guess is this is the problem:
Installation of a named instance of SQL Server 2000 virtual server on a
Windows Server 2003-based cluster fails
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/815431/en-us
You can change the log file location after the system is up and running.
You can only specify one file location during the install.
And yes, the virtual server name and the SQL instance name must be the same.
I usually use only named instances on a cluster to keep from having to
explain why the names look different.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"alim" <alim@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8C2E1F14-C448-497B-AFB2-E26F2B57BD29@.microsoft.com...
> Hi All,
> I am trying to install active/active two nodes cluster (Windows Server
> 2003/SQL Server 2000 – sp3). I had successfully install the first
> instance.
> But the name instance failed. “Error: The cluster resource failed to co
me
> online.”
> Also, I did not see any option to choose log file location (only able to
> choose data file location). Would you please give me some hints?
> For the first instance, I named the first virtual server as SQLVR1 and the
> first instance as default.
> For the second virtual server, do I have to name it as SQLVR1\xxxxxx? Can
> I
> give the virtual server and the name instance same name or they have to be
> different?
> Thanks,
> Alim
>|||> And yes, the virtual server name and the SQL instance name must be the sam
e.
Hmmm... They can be the same or different. We typically just name the
instances SQL1, SQL2, etc. so that we can easily tell/communicate which
instance it is.
Linchi
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:

> First, use the term "multi-instance" instead of "Active/Active". It is mu
ch
> less confusing to everyone.
> The Application Event log should tell you you why the cluster resource did
> not come on line. My guess is this is the problem:
> Installation of a named instance of SQL Server 2000 virtual server on a
> Windows Server 2003-based cluster fails
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/815431/en-us
> You can change the log file location after the system is up and running.
> You can only specify one file location during the install.
> And yes, the virtual server name and the SQL instance name must be the sam
e.
> I usually use only named instances on a cluster to keep from having to
> explain why the names look different.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>
>
> "alim" <alim@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:8C2E1F14-C448-497B-AFB2-E26F2B57BD29@.microsoft.com...
>|||Thanks all for the comments. I think I will go with active/passive
configuration which is much easier.
Thanks!
"Linchi Shea" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hmmm... They can be the same or different. We typically just name the
> instances SQL1, SQL2, etc. so that we can easily tell/communicate which
> instance it is.
> Linchi
> "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
>sql

AcquireConnection Error - Lookup Component

Hi,

Trying to get a particular SSIS is package working - while running the Package Installation wizard a package is reported with the following errors:

AcquireConnection method fails with error code 0xC0202009 Then Lookup fails validation and returns code 0xC020801C

The odd thing is the Lookup does not exist in the package, it did exist at one point but was deleted.

I have tried searching the XML and can't find any reference to the Lookup

Any suggestions appreciated...

Thanks,

John

Could you check if you are not somehow referencing the old package?|||

Any ideas how?

The steps I've tried are:

Delete all the packages in the server file system store

Check the local package for the Lookup (not found)

Rebuild the solution.

Double click the manifest to deploy on the server to a file store with the validate option turned on.

Validation warning above occurs.

If I open the package in notepad and search for the name of the lookup I don't find anything

|||

You may want to try a brute force here and search for all files with extension .dtsx on your machine. You could find some you do not know about (VS sometimes makes copies). If you do, see if any of them is the troublemaker.

HTH.

Accessing SQL 2000 servers from 2005 Management Studio

Hi,
I have seen many post on this problem, but I have not seen a concise
answer.
I have 2 servers running SQL 2000. I have a fresh installation of XP
and SQL 2005 on my laptop (No Firewall). I cannot register the 2000
servers using the SQL 2005 Management studio by Named Pipes or by
TCPIP. Names Pipes throws the error 40 error, and TCP throws the error
0, connection refused error.
the 2000 severs can regsiter each other and a 4th machine with EM on it
can register them, so I know this isn't a firewall or connection issue
on the 2000 servers.
Can anyone shed some light on how to open up my SQL 20005 installation
to allow it to communicate with the 2000 servers.
Thanks
Pepper FlemingHi
Do you configure SQL Server 2005 remote connection to be enabled?
Can you show an exact error you are getting?
<PepperFleming@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150642596.033192.219160@.u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> Hi,
> I have seen many post on this problem, but I have not seen a concise
> answer.
> I have 2 servers running SQL 2000. I have a fresh installation of XP
> and SQL 2005 on my laptop (No Firewall). I cannot register the 2000
> servers using the SQL 2005 Management studio by Named Pipes or by
> TCPIP. Names Pipes throws the error 40 error, and TCP throws the error
> 0, connection refused error.
> the 2000 severs can regsiter each other and a 4th machine with EM on it
> can register them, so I know this isn't a firewall or connection issue
> on the 2000 servers.
> Can anyone shed some light on how to open up my SQL 20005 installation
> to allow it to communicate with the 2000 servers.
> Thanks
> Pepper Fleming
>|||Hi Uri,
Thanks so much for responding. The message I am getting through the
Management studio when trying to connect to the server running SQL 2000
is:
An error has occurred while establishing a connection to the server.
When connecting to SQL Server 2005, this failure may be caused by the
fact that under the default settings SQL Server does not allow remote
connections. (provider: Named Pipes Provider, error: 40 - Could not
open a connection to SQL Server) (Microsoft SQL Server, Error: 1326)
I have named pipes enabled on my laptop under the SQL Server
Configuration manager.
The message looks a little misleading to me, because the way I read it,
the studio thinks it is connecting to a SQL Server 2005 instance.
Thanks,
Pepper|||One more piece of information if it helps, I can connect to other SQL
2005 servers remotely, this seems specific to SQL 2000 servers.
Pepper|||These may help. Using portqry you should get similar output as below.
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=89811747-C74B-4638-A2D5-AC828BDC6983&displaylang=en
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;287932
F:\PortQryV2>
*** User Input***
F:\PortQryV2>portqry -i
PortQry Interactive Mode
Type 'help' for a list of commands
Default Node: 127.0.0.1
Current option values:
end port= 80
protocol= TCP
source port= 0 (ephemeral)
*** User Input***
> node 192.168.1.98
Default Node: 192.168.1.98
>
*** User Input***
> q sql
resolving service name using local services file...
TCP port resolved to the 'ms-sql-s' service
IP address resolved to pe1600.dspatrick.local.com
querying...
TCP port 1433 (ms-sql-s service): LISTENING
>
resolving service name using local services file...
UDP port resolved to the 'ms-sql-m' service
IP address resolved to pe1600.dspatrick.local.com
querying...
UDP port 1434 (ms-sql-m service): LISTENING or FILTERED
Sending SQL Server query to UDP port 1434...
Server's response:
ServerName PE1600
InstanceName MSSQLSERVER
IsClustered No
Version 9.00.1399.06
tcp 1433
F
==== End of SQL Server query response ====UDP port 1434 is LISTENING
*** User Input***
> exit
exiting PortQry Interactive Mode...
F:\PortQryV2>
--
Regards,
Dave Patrick ...Please no email replies - reply in newsgroup.
Microsoft Certified Professional
Microsoft MVP [Windows]
http://www.microsoft.com/protect
<PepperFleming@.gmail.com> wrote:
| One more piece of information if it helps, I can connect to other SQL
| 2005 servers remotely, this seems specific to SQL 2000 servers.
|
| Pepper
||||Thanks Dave,
I will run this, but does anyone know if my problem is unusual or is
this a configuration issue common with a standard SQL Server 2005
installation.
Can you manage SQL 2000 servers from the 2005 Management studio out of
the box?
Pepper|||1.) Yes, unusual.
2.) Yes, you can.
--
Regards,
Dave Patrick ...Please no email replies - reply in newsgroup.
Microsoft Certified Professional
Microsoft MVP [Windows]
http://www.microsoft.com/protect
<PepperFleming@.gmail.com> wrote:
| Thanks Dave,
|
| I will run this, but does anyone know if my problem is unusual or is
| this a configuration issue common with a standard SQL Server 2005
| installation.
|
| Can you manage SQL 2000 servers from the 2005 Management studio out of
| the box?
|
| Pepper
||||Hey Dave,
Thanks for the link to the tool. That did the trick.
If anyone is interested, I noticed in the event log that the TCP / UDP
protocols had been disabled due to incompatability with windows 2003.
There are 2 things interesting about this. First, the entry wasnt' an
error, nor an alert but an information entry. the second, is that the
server is running SP 4a. A port scan did confirm that 1433 was not
open, and a reinstall of 4a did re-enable the port again.
I can only conclude that something I had done had rolled-back or over
wrote something critical for Windows 2003 to identify the service pack
level of SQL server and cause the ports to be disabled.
Thanks to all that responded, I appreciate the help.
Pepper|||Glad to hear it. You're welcome.
--
Regards,
Dave Patrick ...Please no email replies - reply in newsgroup.
Microsoft Certified Professional
Microsoft MVP [Windows]
http://www.microsoft.com/protect
<PepperFleming@.gmail.com> wrote:
| Hey Dave,
|
| Thanks for the link to the tool. That did the trick.
|
| If anyone is interested, I noticed in the event log that the TCP / UDP
| protocols had been disabled due to incompatability with windows 2003.
| There are 2 things interesting about this. First, the entry wasnt' an
| error, nor an alert but an information entry. the second, is that the
| server is running SP 4a. A port scan did confirm that 1433 was not
| open, and a reinstall of 4a did re-enable the port again.
|
| I can only conclude that something I had done had rolled-back or over
| wrote something critical for Windows 2003 to identify the service pack
| level of SQL server and cause the ports to be disabled.
|
| Thanks to all that responded, I appreciate the help.
|
| Pepper
|

Accessing Reporting Services Reports from Mac

Hi all.
Using a MacMini to access a Reporting Services 2000 installation and getting
some very strange results.
When using Safari I can browse the folders of the server, and can see the
reports, but they will not render at all.
In IE, I can render the reports but encounter missing entries in my
parameterised drop downs, and cannot seem to export to any format, PDF/Excel
etc.
Anyone come across this behaviour before, and know if it's 'by design' or
avoidable at all?
Many thanks,
Paul.I have not heard of very much success at all with using MACs with RS2000. It
might be better with RS 2005 but I don't know.
Bruce Loehle-Conger
MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
"Paul Paintin" <paul.paintin@.virgin.net> wrote in message
news:eRGt$ZqxGHA.4112@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Hi all.
> Using a MacMini to access a Reporting Services 2000 installation and
> getting some very strange results.
> When using Safari I can browse the folders of the server, and can see the
> reports, but they will not render at all.
> In IE, I can render the reports but encounter missing entries in my
> parameterised drop downs, and cannot seem to export to any format,
> PDF/Excel etc.
> Anyone come across this behaviour before, and know if it's 'by design' or
> avoidable at all?
> Many thanks,
> Paul.
>|||Update: tried accessing RS2005, exactly the same results - no exporting,
blank drop down parameter values.
Paul.
"Bruce L-C [MVP]" <bruce_lcNOSPAM@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ud7kyPsxGHA.3492@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>I have not heard of very much success at all with using MACs with RS2000.
>It might be better with RS 2005 but I don't know.
>
> --
> Bruce Loehle-Conger
> MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
> "Paul Paintin" <paul.paintin@.virgin.net> wrote in message
> news:eRGt$ZqxGHA.4112@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> Hi all.
>> Using a MacMini to access a Reporting Services 2000 installation and
>> getting some very strange results.
>> When using Safari I can browse the folders of the server, and can see the
>> reports, but they will not render at all.
>> In IE, I can render the reports but encounter missing entries in my
>> parameterised drop downs, and cannot seem to export to any format,
>> PDF/Excel etc.
>> Anyone come across this behaviour before, and know if it's 'by design' or
>> avoidable at all?
>> Many thanks,
>> Paul.
>|||In article <#HPztdsxGHA.5068@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>,
"Paul Paintin" <paul.paintin@.virgin.net> wrote:
> Update: tried accessing RS2005, exactly the same results - no exporting,
> blank drop down parameter values.
> Paul.
> "Bruce L-C [MVP]" <bruce_lcNOSPAM@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ud7kyPsxGHA.3492@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> >I have not heard of very much success at all with using MACs with RS2000.
> >It might be better with RS 2005 but I don't know.
Hi Paul!
I'm not familiar with Reporting Services. Does it require ActiveX? If
so, this is Windows only and won't work with any browser on a Mac.
If it doesn't require ActiveX, try a different web browser such as
Firefox. Firefox uses a different rendering engine than Safari and we
have found we're able to access more Windows-centric sites with it. As
for IE for Mac, that was discontinued a few years ago and was finally
pulled off Microsoft's website earlier this year.
Hope this helps! bill
--
William M. Smith
(Microsoft Interop MVP - Mac/Windows)