You DO NOT need to install vs studio 2003 on the server and you should not.
That is required for designing reports which you should do at your
workstation not on the production server. Then you deploy from VS to the
server.
You do need IIS and 1.1 framework. Neither of which is really a problem.
However, I personally would not install RS 2000 on a production database
server. The reason is that it had some problems with rendering pdf and excel
that could freeze the server. I periodically had to reboot with RS 2000.
That problem has totally disappeared with RS 2005.
I very strongly recommend that you do not start with RS 2000. Go right to RS
2005. If your database needs to stay at 2000 that is fine. RS 2005 can have
its object cache/metadata databases created on SQL 2000. You just need to
have a SQL 2005 license. If you install RS on another server you have to
have another SQL Server license there (you need a license wherever RS is
installed). So really look into getting a 2005 license and using RS 2005.
--
Bruce Loehle-Conger
MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
[quoted text, click to view] <sjucovics@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1188485541.927482.294680@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>I have a production database server on windows 2003 server. I am
> wondering if it is adviseable to install reporting services on a clean
> production database server or to install it on its own server.
>
> The cause for my concern is that reporting services requires visual
> studio 2003 and .net 1.1 be installed on the DB server.
>
> Any advice or suggestions are helpful.
>
> I am using MS SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition on a Windows 2003
> server.
>