Adding SQL Reporting Services to SQL Server 2005 SP1

I'm using Reporting Services Configuration tool to add the Reporting and ReportingTemb databases. Once the have been created, the tool attempts to upgrade the databases and can not create a script. This are the errors I see from the from the Reporting Services Configuration Tool after creating the databases:

! Verifing Database Version

The Database version (C.0.8.40) does not match your Reporting Services installation. You must upgrade your Reporting Services database.

! Creating upgrade script for database version C.0.8.40

ReportServicesConfigUI.WMIProvider.WMIProviderException: The version does not match a supported version.

at ReportServicesConfigUI.WMIProvider.RSReportServerAdmin.GenerateDatabaseUpgradeScript(String databaseName, String serverVersion, String& script)

I've reinstalled the entire SQL Server 2005 installation. As part of company installation precodure, SQL 2005 w/o Reporting Services is installed first, followed by SP1. I then perform the SQL Reporting Services installation add-on.

Thanks,

Mark

Ditto. I'm having the same issue. Another wrinkle (or red herring) is that I changed the name of the server before installing SP1 and before installing Reporting Services.|||I get the same too. This is a fresh intall of SQL 2005. What gives!|||

Found the answer :)

Just install SQL 2005 SP1 again (after you installed Reports Services). Fixed it for me.

Good luck

|||

That may do it as well. I re-installed SQL Server because I believe the issue was that I had the retail version of SQL 2005 installed and was trying to install the Developer Edition of SQL 2005 Reporting Services on that. I got a vague warning about the versions not matching, but matching the version of SQL 2005 between the database engine and the reporting services fixed the issue. I still need to install SP1 again....

|||

Yes. Reapplying SP1 after the Reporting Services install fixed the problem. Once SP1 is applied, run the Reporting Services Configuration Tool and the older database format will be converted.

- Thanks for the help.

|||

Hello,

I am receiving the error, "creating upgrade script for database version c.0.8.40" as well. I've tried everything I know of and it still doesn't work. I've uninstalled SQL Reporting Services, reinstalled, then reapplied SP1 but it still doesn't work. I've tried changing the application app pool for reporting services, that didn't work. I've also traced the process with file mon, that didn't help (saw a post on that somewhere else).

Can anyone help me? Is there a utility to check the health of reporting services maybe?

Thanks,
Bob

|||

I can't remember how I solved the issue now (a while ago)

possibly the worst case, uninstall everything and re-install everything

With SP2 officially out, you might want to try upgrade everything (RS, SQL) to SP2 then

|||

Hi Bob,

Try installing SQL server SP2,this should be working.

i did the same and lol its as working fine

Thanks,

vvbkumar

Adding SQL Reporting Services to SQL Server 2005 SP1

I'm using Reporting Services Configuration tool to add the Reporting and ReportingTemb databases. Once the have been created, the tool attempts to upgrade the databases and can not create a script. This are the errors I see from the from the Reporting Services Configuration Tool after creating the databases:

! Verifing Database Version

The Database version (C.0.8.40) does not match your Reporting Services installation. You must upgrade your Reporting Services database.

! Creating upgrade script for database version C.0.8.40

ReportServicesConfigUI.WMIProvider.WMIProviderException: The version does not match a supported version.

at ReportServicesConfigUI.WMIProvider.RSReportServerAdmin.GenerateDatabaseUpgradeScript(String databaseName, String serverVersion, String& script)

I've reinstalled the entire SQL Server 2005 installation. As part of company installation precodure, SQL 2005 w/o Reporting Services is installed first, followed by SP1. I then perform the SQL Reporting Services installation add-on.

Thanks,

Mark

Ditto. I'm having the same issue. Another wrinkle (or red herring) is that I changed the name of the server before installing SP1 and before installing Reporting Services.|||I get the same too. This is a fresh intall of SQL 2005. What gives!|||

Found the answer :)

Just install SQL 2005 SP1 again (after you installed Reports Services). Fixed it for me.

Good luck

|||

That may do it as well. I re-installed SQL Server because I believe the issue was that I had the retail version of SQL 2005 installed and was trying to install the Developer Edition of SQL 2005 Reporting Services on that. I got a vague warning about the versions not matching, but matching the version of SQL 2005 between the database engine and the reporting services fixed the issue. I still need to install SP1 again....

|||

Yes. Reapplying SP1 after the Reporting Services install fixed the problem. Once SP1 is applied, run the Reporting Services Configuration Tool and the older database format will be converted.

- Thanks for the help.

|||

Hello,

I am receiving the error, "creating upgrade script for database version c.0.8.40" as well. I've tried everything I know of and it still doesn't work. I've uninstalled SQL Reporting Services, reinstalled, then reapplied SP1 but it still doesn't work. I've tried changing the application app pool for reporting services, that didn't work. I've also traced the process with file mon, that didn't help (saw a post on that somewhere else).

Can anyone help me? Is there a utility to check the health of reporting services maybe?

Thanks,
Bob

|||

I can't remember how I solved the issue now (a while ago)

possibly the worst case, uninstall everything and re-install everything

With SP2 officially out, you might want to try upgrade everything (RS, SQL) to SP2 then

|||

Hi Bob,

Try installing SQL server SP2,this should be working.

i did the same and lol its as working fine

Thanks,

vvbkumar

Adding SQL Reporting Services to SQL Server 2005 SP1

I'm using Reporting Services Configuration tool to add the Reporting and ReportingTemb databases. Once the have been created, the tool attempts to upgrade the databases and can not create a script. This are the errors I see from the from the Reporting Services Configuration Tool after creating the databases:

! Verifing Database Version

The Database version (C.0.8.40) does not match your Reporting Services installation. You must upgrade your Reporting Services database.

! Creating upgrade script for database version C.0.8.40

ReportServicesConfigUI.WMIProvider.WMIProviderException: The version does not match a supported version.

at ReportServicesConfigUI.WMIProvider.RSReportServerAdmin.GenerateDatabaseUpgradeScript(String databaseName, String serverVersion, String& script)

I've reinstalled the entire SQL Server 2005 installation. As part of company installation precodure, SQL 2005 w/o Reporting Services is installed first, followed by SP1. I then perform the SQL Reporting Services installation add-on.

Thanks,

Mark

Ditto. I'm having the same issue. Another wrinkle (or red herring) is that I changed the name of the server before installing SP1 and before installing Reporting Services.|||I get the same too. This is a fresh intall of SQL 2005. What gives!|||

Found the answer :)

Just install SQL 2005 SP1 again (after you installed Reports Services). Fixed it for me.

Good luck

|||

That may do it as well. I re-installed SQL Server because I believe the issue was that I had the retail version of SQL 2005 installed and was trying to install the Developer Edition of SQL 2005 Reporting Services on that. I got a vague warning about the versions not matching, but matching the version of SQL 2005 between the database engine and the reporting services fixed the issue. I still need to install SP1 again....

|||

Yes. Reapplying SP1 after the Reporting Services install fixed the problem. Once SP1 is applied, run the Reporting Services Configuration Tool and the older database format will be converted.

- Thanks for the help.

|||

Hello,

I am receiving the error, "creating upgrade script for database version c.0.8.40" as well. I've tried everything I know of and it still doesn't work. I've uninstalled SQL Reporting Services, reinstalled, then reapplied SP1 but it still doesn't work. I've tried changing the application app pool for reporting services, that didn't work. I've also traced the process with file mon, that didn't help (saw a post on that somewhere else).

Can anyone help me? Is there a utility to check the health of reporting services maybe?

Thanks,
Bob

|||

I can't remember how I solved the issue now (a while ago)

possibly the worst case, uninstall everything and re-install everything

With SP2 officially out, you might want to try upgrade everything (RS, SQL) to SP2 then

|||

Hi Bob,

Try installing SQL server SP2,this should be working.

i did the same and lol its as working fine

Thanks,

vvbkumar

Adding new web.config custom section

Hello All,
I want to add custom cofiguration section to the report server web.config
and use this configuration from the RDL, can it be done? and if the answer is
yes, how it can be done.
Thank youOn Oct 7, 1:21 pm, Shlomi <Shl...@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
> Hello All,
> I want to add custom cofiguration section to the report server web.config
> and use this configuration from the RDL, can it be done? and if the answer is
> yes, how it can be done.
> Thank you
You might be able to reference the Web config file from custom code in
the report (via: Layout view >> Report drop-down >> Report
Properties... >> Code tab). You might be able to reference it via a
call to Configurations.AppSettings(...). Of course this is a long
shot. Hope this helps.
Regards,
Enrique Martinez
Sr. Software Consultant|||thank you,
i will be thankful if you can give me an example f custom configuration
section for the web.config
"EMartinez" wrote:
> On Oct 7, 1:21 pm, Shlomi <Shl...@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
> > Hello All,
> >
> > I want to add custom cofiguration section to the report server web.config
> > and use this configuration from the RDL, can it be done? and if the answer is
> > yes, how it can be done.
> >
> > Thank you
>
> You might be able to reference the Web config file from custom code in
> the report (via: Layout view >> Report drop-down >> Report
> Properties... >> Code tab). You might be able to reference it via a
> call to Configurations.AppSettings(...). Of course this is a long
> shot. Hope this helps.
> Regards,
> Enrique Martinez
> Sr. Software Consultant
>

Adding column to sp_helpuser

I am working on creating a configuration database. This will connect to many databases on many different servers. What I would like to do is run sp_MSForEachDB then store the name of the current server and database the package is connected to. Then add both of these into a column before running sp_helpuser. I don't know how confusing this is, but I think I may have the code worked out pretty well. If you have any questions, please post them and I will try to answer as best as I can. What I would like the ending result to look like is...

<server1> <database1> <userID1> <datareader>
<server1> <database1> <userID1> <datawriter>
<server1> <database1> <userID2> <datawriter>
<server1> <database2> <userID1> <datawriter>

I am at a loss, and I can't use the sys.<table> tables because it has to be backward compatible. Thanks for any help in advance.
sp_helplogins is the answer.
-Kyle

Adding column to sp_helpuser

I am working on creating a configuration database. This will connect to many databases on many different servers. What I would like to do is run sp_MSForEachDB then store the name of the current server and database the package is connected to. Then add both of these into a column before running sp_helpuser. I don't know how confusing this is, but I think I may have the code worked out pretty well. If you have any questions, please post them and I will try to answer as best as I can. What I would like the ending result to look like is...

<server1> <database1> <userID1> <datareader>
<server1> <database1> <userID1> <datawriter>
<server1> <database1> <userID2> <datawriter>
<server1> <database2> <userID1> <datawriter>

I am at a loss, and I can't use the sys.<table> tables because it has to be backward compatible. Thanks for any help in advance.
sp_helplogins is the answer.
-Kyle

adding client server aliases

How can I import a client alias list in SQL Server 2005 Configuration Manager? The tool provides a way to export a list, but not to import a list. Adding 100 SQL Server instances via the GUI is time consuming and agonizing.

Thanks,

Justin Randall

Unfortunately, as you noticed, the functionality to import a list is missing.

If you think it would be a useful addition, please let your wishes/needs be known at:

Suggestions for SQL Server

http://connect.microsoft.com/sqlserver

|||I will make the suggestion. Thanks!

adding article in merge replication

Hi,
our configuration is SQL 2000 (publisher and subscribers as well), merge
replication, pull subscription.
From time to time we add new subscriber.
I need to add new table or stored procedure into current replication
schema. What to do exactly if I want to avoid reinit with total snapshot
transfer for existing subscriptions and any new subscription should be
created with new articles already?
Is following sequence correct?
EXEC sp_addmergearticle
@.publication = @.our_publication,
@.article = N'newarticle',
... @.force_invalidate_snapshot = 1
EXEC sp_refreshsubscriptions
@.publication = @.our_publication
Thanks for an answer or suggestion.
Lenka
Adding a new merge article to the publication will result in an entire
snapshot being created but NOT a reinitialization. Just the new article will
be transferred. Once the article has been added to the publication, you'll
need to also run the snapshot agent to have it propagated.
Cheers,
Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com .

Adding a third NODE to an existing SQl server 2000 CLUSTER

Currently we have an ACTIVE/ACTIVE SQL Server 2000 cluster in our production
environment. The current configuration is such that each node has a dedicated
server hardware. Lets call one of the ACTIVE nodes as NODE1 and the other
ACTIVE node as NODE2. We are in the planning stages of a SQL Server 2005,
side by side upgrade. Also we are planning to introduce a new server hardware
into the equation to help the upgrade process so that the performance is not
affected. The way we want to use the new SQl server hardware is to have both
a SQl Server 2000 instance and a SQl Server 2005 instance in this new
hardware, lets call this NODE3. The databases for all the SQl servers will be
presented via a SAN.
(1)NODE2 will have another instance of SQl 2005 installed into it.
(2)The SQL 2005 instance of the NODE2 needs to be clustered with the SQL
2005 instance in the NODE3 as an ACTIVE-ACTIVE cluster.
(3)The SQL 2000 instance of the NODE2 then needs to be clustered with the
SQL 2000 instance in the NODE 1.
If the above was technically possible then the SQl 2005 databases will be
load balanced between NODE2 and NODE3 and the SQL 2000 databases will be load
balanced between NODE 1 and NODE 2. Eventually when we move all of the SQl
2000 databases to SQl 2005 then the SQl 2000 Server instances will be
upgraded to SQl 2005 as well.
So eventually we would end up with 2 ACTIVE/ACTIVE cluster of SQl 2005
Servers in 3 dedicated server hardware.
Am I dreaming here ? Or is this technically feasible. Any thoughts are
welcome. Any other alternatives are also welcome.
Many Thanks in advance.
RK
Active/Active does not share data across nodes. Technically, Active/Active
does not exist. The term described a unique configuration that existed for
SQL 7.0 when nodes were not equal peers in cluster. There is no load
balancing or shared databases across nodes in MSCS clustering.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"RK" <RK@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C6A544B9-0573-4CE4-829F-D42727C52134@.microsoft.com...
> Currently we have an ACTIVE/ACTIVE SQL Server 2000 cluster in our
> production
> environment. The current configuration is such that each node has a
> dedicated
> server hardware. Lets call one of the ACTIVE nodes as NODE1 and the other
> ACTIVE node as NODE2. We are in the planning stages of a SQL Server 2005,
> side by side upgrade. Also we are planning to introduce a new server
> hardware
> into the equation to help the upgrade process so that the performance is
> not
> affected. The way we want to use the new SQl server hardware is to have
> both
> a SQl Server 2000 instance and a SQl Server 2005 instance in this new
> hardware, lets call this NODE3. The databases for all the SQl servers will
> be
> presented via a SAN.
> (1)NODE2 will have another instance of SQl 2005 installed into it.
> (2)The SQL 2005 instance of the NODE2 needs to be clustered with the SQL
> 2005 instance in the NODE3 as an ACTIVE-ACTIVE cluster.
> (3)The SQL 2000 instance of the NODE2 then needs to be clustered with the
> SQL 2000 instance in the NODE 1.
> If the above was technically possible then the SQl 2005 databases will be
> load balanced between NODE2 and NODE3 and the SQL 2000 databases will be
> load
> balanced between NODE 1 and NODE 2. Eventually when we move all of the SQl
> 2000 databases to SQl 2005 then the SQl 2000 Server instances will be
> upgraded to SQl 2005 as well.
> So eventually we would end up with 2 ACTIVE/ACTIVE cluster of SQl 2005
> Servers in 3 dedicated server hardware.
> Am I dreaming here ? Or is this technically feasible. Any thoughts are
> welcome. Any other alternatives are also welcome.
> Many Thanks in advance.
> RK
>
>
|||Hi,
Thanks for that. When I said shared SAN I didnt mean shared databases
between the cluster nodes. Again when I said load balancing what I intended
there was rather than have an Active/passive configuration and have all
databases managed by one instance of SQl Server 2000, in Active/Active it
will be managed by 2 SQL servers. But still you havent answered my main
question whether the new configuration as mentioned below is possible
technically ?
Many thanks in advance.
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:

> Active/Active does not share data across nodes. Technically, Active/Active
> does not exist. The term described a unique configuration that existed for
> SQL 7.0 when nodes were not equal peers in cluster. There is no load
> balancing or shared databases across nodes in MSCS clustering.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>
>
> "RK" <RK@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:C6A544B9-0573-4CE4-829F-D42727C52134@.microsoft.com...
>
|||You can have a three node cluster with multiple SQL instances of differing
versions. You can also set preferred node order for each instance
independently. Finally, you can set each instance to run on only a subset
of the nodes, but I would recommend allowing all instances on all nodes,
just to cover secondary failure possibilities.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"RK" <RK@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C2CBECB3-A855-48E9-AAF2-FF2700DFEAD1@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi,
> Thanks for that. When I said shared SAN I didnt mean shared databases
> between the cluster nodes. Again when I said load balancing what I
> intended
> there was rather than have an Active/passive configuration and have all
> databases managed by one instance of SQl Server 2000, in Active/Active it
> will be managed by 2 SQL servers. But still you havent answered my main
> question whether the new configuration as mentioned below is possible
> technically ?
> Many thanks in advance.
>
> "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
|||You can have a three node cluster with multiple SQL instances of differing
versions. You can also set preferred node order for each instance
independently. Finally, you can set each instance to run on only a subset
of the nodes, but I would recommend allowing all instances on all nodes,
just to cover secondary failure possibilities.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"RK" <RK@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C2CBECB3-A855-48E9-AAF2-FF2700DFEAD1@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi,
> Thanks for that. When I said shared SAN I didnt mean shared databases
> between the cluster nodes. Again when I said load balancing what I
> intended
> there was rather than have an Active/passive configuration and have all
> databases managed by one instance of SQl Server 2000, in Active/Active it
> will be managed by 2 SQL servers. But still you havent answered my main
> question whether the new configuration as mentioned below is possible
> technically ?
> Many thanks in advance.
>
> "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
|||Hi Geoff,
What I intended to acheive with this was TWO 2 node clusters from the 4 SQl
server instances spread around 3 servers. One cluster being a SQL 2000 based
and the other one based on SQL 2005. Possible still ?
Cheers
Rajeev
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:

> You can have a three node cluster with multiple SQL instances of differing
> versions. You can also set preferred node order for each instance
> independently. Finally, you can set each instance to run on only a subset
> of the nodes, but I would recommend allowing all instances on all nodes,
> just to cover secondary failure possibilities.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>
>
> "RK" <RK@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:C2CBECB3-A855-48E9-AAF2-FF2700DFEAD1@.microsoft.com...
>
|||No. Each machine can participate in one and only one cluster. You can have
a single cluster with two SQL instances and three host nodes.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"RK" <RK@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C91E92BB-0C97-44CE-AC35-D426D9C92F5F@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi Geoff,
> What I intended to acheive with this was TWO 2 node clusters from the 4
> SQl
> server instances spread around 3 servers. One cluster being a SQL 2000
> based
> and the other one based on SQL 2005. Possible still ?
> Cheers
> Rajeev
> "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote: