all groups > sql server connect > november 2005 >
You're in the

sql server connect

group:

ver 2000 vs 2005


ver 2000 vs 2005 Carlos
11/5/2005 11:26:58 PM
sql server connect: Hi all,

I just installed version 2005, and it is co-existing with
an instance of 2000. I am trying to test the connection string fro an ASP
..Net page which works fine already in
2000. However it does not work in 2005.
In 2005, I went to configuration Manager/Protocols/TCP IP, and entered 1433
as the port in IP1, IP2, and IP3
Then, in my connection string I just changes the databasename to point to
'AdventureWorks' instead of
the DB that I used for 2K. The connection could not be openned. I also
configured the user id, and password the same way as I have in 2K, and
re-started the engine.

At this point I do not know what else should I do.

Any help will be appreciated.

Thanks in advance,

Carlos

Re: ver 2000 vs 2005 Andrew J. Kelly
11/6/2005 12:50:15 PM
You can not have both instances using port 1433. The default instance which
in your case is most likely the 2000 instance will have 1433. The named
instance (2005) will use a port other than 1433. Do not make them both
1433.

--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP


[quoted text, click to view]

Re: ver 2000 vs 2005 Carlos
11/7/2005 9:39:17 AM
Hi Andrew,

thank you for your prompt reply. I did assign a different port for the
named instance in 2005. I am trying to use a connection string that already
works in 2K by just changing to an already provided database, and including
the named instance, and port number in the connection string.
This is kind of how it looks like:

this.sqlConnection1.ConnectionString =
"Server=xxx.xx.xx.xx\\<myNamedServerInstance>,<port>;Database=AdventureWorks;User
ID=myUID;Password=myPWD;Trusted_Connection=True";

I am still no able to at least open the connection.. Any help is
appreciated.
Thanks in advance.

Carlos.


[quoted text, click to view]

Re: ver 2000 vs 2005 Andrew J. Kelly
11/7/2005 10:27:18 AM
Did you change the port on the default (2000) instance to something other
than 1433?

--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP


[quoted text, click to view]

Re: ver 2000 vs 2005 Carlos
11/7/2005 10:47:51 AM
No I did not. In reality I am trying to connect to one instace at any given
time
since I have the connection strings next to each other, I comment out the
line that I do not wish to test, and uncomment the connection string
for 2005. Kind of like this:

//connection string for SQLSrvr2000
//this.sqlConnection1.ConnectionString =
"Server=xxx.xx.xx.xx;Database=myDB;User
ID=myUID;Password=myPWD;Trusted_Connection=False";

//connection string for SQLSrvr2005
this.sqlConnection1.ConnectionString =
"Server=xxx.xx.xx.xx\\<myNamedServerInstance>,<port>;Database=AdventureWorks;User
ID=myUID;Password=myPWD;Trusted_Connection=True";


Thanks again for your help.

Carlos

[quoted text, click to view]

Re: ver 2000 vs 2005 Andrew J. Kelly
11/7/2005 11:53:19 AM
Well if you don't change the default instance they will both be listening on
1433 and who knows what you will get. You can't have two SQL Server
instances on the same server with the same port number.

--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP


[quoted text, click to view]

Re: ver 2000 vs 2005 Carlos
11/7/2005 12:29:19 PM
Hi again Andrew,

I am sorry but you probably misunderstood me. In my firewall I already
have 1433 for the default instance, so
I defined a different (new) port number for the named
instance.in the 2005 configuration manager, and the firewall (say 2534). So
that is why I said that I did not changed it in my default. That way I left
the default port number configuration for the default instance, and
configured a new port to listen for the named instance. If you see my
connection string you will notice it. I followed the books online, and I
believe that I am doing whatever is described there. However, it seems that
I am still
missing something to successfully open the connection, and I do not know how
to troubleshoot it effectively.

Thanks again.

Carlos.

[quoted text, click to view]

Re: ver 2000 vs 2005 Andrew J. Kelly
11/8/2005 10:32:49 AM
In your original post you had this:

[quoted text, click to view]

That led me to believe you had in fact attempted to use 1433 for the 2005
instance. In any case I don't believe you need to specify the instance name
if you are going to specify the port and an ip address.

[quoted text, click to view]

http://www.connectionstrings.com/



--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP


[quoted text, click to view]

Re: ver 2000 vs 2005 Carlos
11/8/2005 11:25:46 AM

Hi again Andrew,

thanks again for your help. For the record, I was finally able to
connect to the remote SQL server 2005. Unfortunately, I believe that
books online does not describe that you can assign a default port for
your instance when clicking the TCP properties in the network configuration.
Apparently you need to define your port there too. I did not test removing
the port definition from within the IP addresses dialog box, and leaving
the default port. In any case it was some kind of painful learning
experience.

Carlos.

[quoted text, click to view]

AddThis Social Bookmark Button