Default Instance

I have two instances running one is on SqlServer 7 and second one is on
SqlServer 2000 (default). I want to make the default instance to SqlServer 7
, how can I ?
Thanks
Noor
hi Noor,
"Noor" <noor@.ngsol.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:OELbeuZaEHA.972@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> I have two instances running one is on SqlServer 7 and second one is on
> SqlServer 2000 (default). I want to make the default instance to SqlServer
7
> , how can I ?
AFAIK, in a scenario where both a SQL Server 7.0 and a SQL Server 2000 are
installed on the same computer, only the SQL Server 7.0 can be the default
instance, as SQL Server 7.0 has not been designed to support named
instance...
Andrea Montanari (Microsoft MVP - SQL Server)
http://www.asql.biz/DbaMgr.shtmhttp://italy.mvps.org
DbaMgr2k ver 0.8.0 - DbaMgr ver 0.54.0
(my vb6+sql-dmo little try to provide MS MSDE 1.0 and MSDE 2000 a visual
interface)
-- remove DMO to reply
|||Okie now let's assume I have two instances running one is on SqlServer
2000 - SQL1 and second one is on
SqlServer 2000 - SQL2 (default). I want to make the default instance to
SQL1.
how can I ?
Thanks
NOOR
"Andrea Montanari" <andrea.sqlDMO@.virgilio.it> wrote in message
news:2lkvfdFe02fhU1@.uni-berlin.de...[vbcol=seagreen]
> hi Noor,
> "Noor" <noor@.ngsol.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:OELbeuZaEHA.972@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
SqlServer
> 7
> AFAIK, in a scenario where both a SQL Server 7.0 and a SQL Server 2000 are
> installed on the same computer, only the SQL Server 7.0 can be the default
> instance, as SQL Server 7.0 has not been designed to support named
> instance...
> --
> Andrea Montanari (Microsoft MVP - SQL Server)
> http://www.asql.biz/DbaMgr.shtmhttp://italy.mvps.org
> DbaMgr2k ver 0.8.0 - DbaMgr ver 0.54.0
> (my vb6+sql-dmo little try to provide MS MSDE 1.0 and MSDE 2000 a visual
> interface)
> -- remove DMO to reply
>
|||Hi,
You cant change the Named Instance of SQL Server to a Default instance. The
only solution is to reinstall
the SQL Server both instances.
Thanks
Hari
MCDBA
"Noor" <noor@.ngsol.com> wrote in message
news:#XQtMSiaEHA.1656@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Okie now let's assume I have two instances running one is on SqlServer
> 2000 - SQL1 and second one is on
> SqlServer 2000 - SQL2 (default). I want to make the default instance to
> SQL1.
> how can I ?
> Thanks
> NOOR
> "Andrea Montanari" <andrea.sqlDMO@.virgilio.it> wrote in message
> news:2lkvfdFe02fhU1@.uni-berlin.de...
on[vbcol=seagreen]
> SqlServer
are[vbcol=seagreen]
default
>
|||Right Thanks, Let's assume I already have Default Instance running on my
system and now I am going to install new Instance and at the run time I
wanna set it as a default Instance so Can I do this or I have to remove the
Default Instance first ?
Thanks
Noor
"Hari Prasad" <hari_prasad_k@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uFmbaejaEHA.3596@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> You cant change the Named Instance of SQL Server to a Default instance.
The[vbcol=seagreen]
> only solution is to reinstall
> the SQL Server both instances.
>
> --
> Thanks
> Hari
> MCDBA
> "Noor" <noor@.ngsol.com> wrote in message
> news:#XQtMSiaEHA.1656@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> on
> are
> default
visual
>
|||Hi,
No, you cant do that. If you have a default instance already running then
you can only install a named instance. I feel that "default " check box will
be disabled.
Thanks
Hari
MCDBA
"Noor" <noor@.ngsol.com> wrote in message
news:u9JQQkjaEHA.1248@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Right Thanks, Let's assume I already have Default Instance running on my
> system and now I am going to install new Instance and at the run time I
> wanna set it as a default Instance so Can I do this or I have to remove
the[vbcol=seagreen]
> Default Instance first ?
> Thanks
> Noor
> "Hari Prasad" <hari_prasad_k@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:uFmbaejaEHA.3596@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> The
to[vbcol=seagreen]
is[vbcol=seagreen]
2000
> visual
>
|||but you could fool network clients into thinking it was the default instance
by changing the network listening endpoints (i.e. stop your default instance
and have your named instance listen on tcp port 1433, for example), and have
clients connect up to "servername,1433".
It's a hack but it might work for what you want to do.
Richard Waymire, MCSE, MCDBA
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Hari Prasad" <hari_prasad_k@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:O4llMrkaEHA.2812@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> No, you cant do that. If you have a default instance already running then
> you can only install a named instance. I feel that "default " check box
> will
> be disabled.
> --
> Thanks
> Hari
> MCDBA
> "Noor" <noor@.ngsol.com> wrote in message
> news:u9JQQkjaEHA.1248@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> the
> to
> is
> 2000
>

Default conflict resolver in Sql 2000

Hi, I'm replicating a database between two instances of Sql 2000 using Merge Replication. I have no custom resolvers at present but I'm seeing something unexpected.

If I change the same record in both databases at the same time, but the changes affect different columns then I thought the changes would be merged and there would be no conflict because the changes were in different columns. What I actually see is a conflict and hence the publisher is winning and pushing it's changed row to the subscriber.

Have I got this wrong, will a conflict occur if the same row changes regardless of the columns updated?

Regards

GrahamCould it be the timestamp column that is causing the conflict? When I set up the publisher I simple published all tables and sp.

Is there any way in enterprise manager establishing what columns conflicted?

Thanks

Graham|||Merge replication can track conflict at row level or column level. It looks that you wanted to track conflicts at column level but set it up at row level.

You can launch conflict viewer to see the conflicts. From Enterprise Manager, if you right click the publication, there should be a menu called View Conflicts.|||Thanks for the reply.

I do have it tracking conflicts at column level. However, I did a little more digging, this is what I found...

I have a published table with two int columns, A and B. The initial data looks like:

A B
--
1 2

If on the publisher I update column A to a value 2 and on the Subscriber I update the same row but Column B to a value 3 the a merge happens and the result is that the pub and the subscriber looks like:

A B
--
2 3

If however, on the publisher I update both columns to A=3 and B=3 (net result only column A has changed) and on the subscriber I again update both columns to A=2 and B=4 (net result only column B changes), I then get a conflict as the agent thinks both A and B have been changed on the publisher and the subscriber.

I was expecting the net results to be sent when the merge agent runs, but it seems to send all the data regardless of whether any column data was changed or not.

Is this behaviour normal?

Regards

Graham
|||Hi Graham,
Yes this is the expected behavior.
Once a column is touched (to the same value or the new value) it will be sent to the other side.
However if you touch the same column multiple times, only the net effect is sent.