How about a reporting product that...Prints reports?

I waited to see if sp2 would address this issue; it does not.
Don't get me wrong, I like RS in general, but, where is the ability to print?
This seems, well, fundamental in a reporting tool. Can you name any other
serious reporting or BI product that doesn't let you output to paper? I
can't and I've been around the block a time or two.
Yes, I know sp2 adds client-side printing and that's nice, but it misses the
point.
How is one supposed to have the boss's report waiting for him in the printer
in the morning using RS? There are still some people that want reports on
paper.
You should see the looks on people's faces when, in the course of telling
them why we should consider replacing our current reporting tool with RS,
that RS does not have the ability to automatically print a report. It's a
pretty awkward feeling.
Come on, Microsoft. You can do better than this.In the samples folder that installs with the product, you'll find a printer
delivery extension. (complete with source code if you care to see how it is
done)
When you install that extension, you'll be able to use the subscription
mechanism to automatically send a report to the printer so it is sitting
there waiting for your boss in the morning as requested.
Regards,
--
Rob Labbé, MCP, MCAD, MCSD, MCT
Lead Architect/Trainer
Fidelis
Blog: http://spaces.msn.com/members/roblabbe
"dj" <dj@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:62871B7A-70B5-48A3-9BF0-FE4372235F27@.microsoft.com...
>I waited to see if sp2 would address this issue; it does not.
> Don't get me wrong, I like RS in general, but, where is the ability to
> print?
> This seems, well, fundamental in a reporting tool. Can you name any other
> serious reporting or BI product that doesn't let you output to paper? I
> can't and I've been around the block a time or two.
> Yes, I know sp2 adds client-side printing and that's nice, but it misses
> the
> point.
> How is one supposed to have the boss's report waiting for him in the
> printer
> in the morning using RS? There are still some people that want reports on
> paper.
> You should see the looks on people's faces when, in the course of telling
> them why we should consider replacing our current reporting tool with RS,
> that RS does not have the ability to automatically print a report. It's a
> pretty awkward feeling.
> Come on, Microsoft. You can do better than this.
>|||While we would love to add every feature in the product, we simply don't
have resources to do so. So we have to pick and choose. It turns out every
person that you ask considers a different feature "absolutely critical".
Some of these "must haves" that we have added for SQL 2005 include
multi-valued parameters, a date picker, and an end-user report designer.
Other "must haves" that we didn't have time to do include rich text, style
templates, and Word output (to name a few).
Are you saying that you would rather have server-side printing instead of
client printing? If so, you have different priorities than the set of
customers we talked to (which is understandable) before we decided to add
client print. Anyway, if enough people really think this is important, it
can be easily written using the extensibility mechanism in RS. Or, you can
wait until we get a chance to build it in.
--
Brian Welcker
Group Program Manager
Microsoft SQL Server Reporting Services
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"dj" <dj@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:62871B7A-70B5-48A3-9BF0-FE4372235F27@.microsoft.com...
>I waited to see if sp2 would address this issue; it does not.
> Don't get me wrong, I like RS in general, but, where is the ability to
> print?
> This seems, well, fundamental in a reporting tool. Can you name any other
> serious reporting or BI product that doesn't let you output to paper? I
> can't and I've been around the block a time or two.
> Yes, I know sp2 adds client-side printing and that's nice, but it misses
> the
> point.
> How is one supposed to have the boss's report waiting for him in the
> printer
> in the morning using RS? There are still some people that want reports on
> paper.
> You should see the looks on people's faces when, in the course of telling
> them why we should consider replacing our current reporting tool with RS,
> that RS does not have the ability to automatically print a report. It's a
> pretty awkward feeling.
> Come on, Microsoft. You can do better than this.
>|||Brian -
I probably could have expressed my frustration somewhat better.
You and your team deserve a lot of credit for delivering a solid, useful
reporting tool.
And you are right on target that not everyone has the same needs or
priorities.
As you can tell, server-side printing is a major priority for us. Trying to
move to
RS from Access and CR-based reporting is a challenge we are currently
working through. Converting and losing a capability we previously had makes
things more of a challenge.
Not to labor the point, but I can't help but think that when most managers,
executives, etc. think of the term 'report', they think of a piece of paper.
Perhaps I'm wrong, but judging from the response I've seen personally, this
would appear to be the case.
Certainly, we have many reporting scenarios, as most shops do, and printing
does
not figure in all, or even most of them. It's just frustrating to not be
able to
deliver on all your client's requests. Hmmm, does that sound familiar?
So, let me try this again:
Brian, if you're not already doing so, please consider adding server-side
printing
to the next release of Reporting Services.
Best regards,
Dexter Jones, MCSD
"Brian Welcker [MSFT]" wrote:
> While we would love to add every feature in the product, we simply don't
> have resources to do so. So we have to pick and choose. It turns out every
> person that you ask considers a different feature "absolutely critical".
> Some of these "must haves" that we have added for SQL 2005 include
> multi-valued parameters, a date picker, and an end-user report designer.
> Other "must haves" that we didn't have time to do include rich text, style
> templates, and Word output (to name a few).
> Are you saying that you would rather have server-side printing instead of
> client printing? If so, you have different priorities than the set of
> customers we talked to (which is understandable) before we decided to add
> client print. Anyway, if enough people really think this is important, it
> can be easily written using the extensibility mechanism in RS. Or, you can
> wait until we get a chance to build it in.
> --
> Brian Welcker
> Group Program Manager
> Microsoft SQL Server Reporting Services
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
> "dj" <dj@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:62871B7A-70B5-48A3-9BF0-FE4372235F27@.microsoft.com...
> >I waited to see if sp2 would address this issue; it does not.
> >
> > Don't get me wrong, I like RS in general, but, where is the ability to
> > print?
> > This seems, well, fundamental in a reporting tool. Can you name any other
> > serious reporting or BI product that doesn't let you output to paper? I
> > can't and I've been around the block a time or two.
> >
> > Yes, I know sp2 adds client-side printing and that's nice, but it misses
> > the
> > point.
> > How is one supposed to have the boss's report waiting for him in the
> > printer
> > in the morning using RS? There are still some people that want reports on
> > paper.
> >
> > You should see the looks on people's faces when, in the course of telling
> > them why we should consider replacing our current reporting tool with RS,
> > that RS does not have the ability to automatically print a report. It's a
> > pretty awkward feeling.
> >
> > Come on, Microsoft. You can do better than this.
> >
>
>|||I certainly appreciate that this is an important feature for many people. I
cringe every time I look at the features that we end up having to cut to
meet our schedule. One of the ways that we try to mitigate the fact that we
can't get everything in is by providing extensibility interfaces that people
can use to add functionality we didn't have time to do. Printer delivery is
one of these that is possible to add. It is not going to make it into SQL
2005 as we are already code complete with the product and are in bug fix
mode. It is very high on the list for the post 2005 release.
--
Brian Welcker
Group Program Manager
Microsoft SQL Server Reporting Services
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"dj" <dj@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1F422F95-A85D-4C66-BC2D-DB65563D5113@.microsoft.com...
> Brian -
> I probably could have expressed my frustration somewhat better.
> You and your team deserve a lot of credit for delivering a solid, useful
> reporting tool.
> And you are right on target that not everyone has the same needs or
> priorities.
> As you can tell, server-side printing is a major priority for us. Trying
> to
> move to
> RS from Access and CR-based reporting is a challenge we are currently
> working through. Converting and losing a capability we previously had
> makes
> things more of a challenge.
> Not to labor the point, but I can't help but think that when most
> managers,
> executives, etc. think of the term 'report', they think of a piece of
> paper.
> Perhaps I'm wrong, but judging from the response I've seen personally,
> this
> would appear to be the case.
> Certainly, we have many reporting scenarios, as most shops do, and
> printing
> does
> not figure in all, or even most of them. It's just frustrating to not be
> able to
> deliver on all your client's requests. Hmmm, does that sound familiar?
> So, let me try this again:
> Brian, if you're not already doing so, please consider adding server-side
> printing
> to the next release of Reporting Services.
> Best regards,
> Dexter Jones, MCSD
>
> "Brian Welcker [MSFT]" wrote:
>> While we would love to add every feature in the product, we simply don't
>> have resources to do so. So we have to pick and choose. It turns out
>> every
>> person that you ask considers a different feature "absolutely critical".
>> Some of these "must haves" that we have added for SQL 2005 include
>> multi-valued parameters, a date picker, and an end-user report designer.
>> Other "must haves" that we didn't have time to do include rich text,
>> style
>> templates, and Word output (to name a few).
>> Are you saying that you would rather have server-side printing instead of
>> client printing? If so, you have different priorities than the set of
>> customers we talked to (which is understandable) before we decided to add
>> client print. Anyway, if enough people really think this is important, it
>> can be easily written using the extensibility mechanism in RS. Or, you
>> can
>> wait until we get a chance to build it in.
>> --
>> Brian Welcker
>> Group Program Manager
>> Microsoft SQL Server Reporting Services
>> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
>> rights.
>> "dj" <dj@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:62871B7A-70B5-48A3-9BF0-FE4372235F27@.microsoft.com...
>> >I waited to see if sp2 would address this issue; it does not.
>> >
>> > Don't get me wrong, I like RS in general, but, where is the ability to
>> > print?
>> > This seems, well, fundamental in a reporting tool. Can you name any
>> > other
>> > serious reporting or BI product that doesn't let you output to paper?
>> > I
>> > can't and I've been around the block a time or two.
>> >
>> > Yes, I know sp2 adds client-side printing and that's nice, but it
>> > misses
>> > the
>> > point.
>> > How is one supposed to have the boss's report waiting for him in the
>> > printer
>> > in the morning using RS? There are still some people that want reports
>> > on
>> > paper.
>> >
>> > You should see the looks on people's faces when, in the course of
>> > telling
>> > them why we should consider replacing our current reporting tool with
>> > RS,
>> > that RS does not have the ability to automatically print a report.
>> > It's a
>> > pretty awkward feeling.
>> >
>> > Come on, Microsoft. You can do better than this.
>> >
>>

How (un)secure is my remote SQL Server?

I've been provided with a server at a hosting company. The server is running W2K3 SP2 in its own workgroup (i.e., non-AD) configuration, but is not behind any type of hardware firewall; there is no VPN in place, either. I connect to the server via RDP using an extremely long and complex password. I'm using the newest version of the RDP client. The article "Hacking RDP" and the ensuing reader comments (http://mcpmag.com/columns/article.asp?EditorialsID=1699) indicate that using RDP in this fashion is relatively safe.

I installed SQL Server 2005 SP2 on this server. I set server authentication to 'SQL Server and Windows Authentication mode'. I created one obscure SQL Server login, using another extremely long and complex password. I also disabled the login for the 'sa' account.

Since installing SQL Server on this server, I've noticed thousands of Failure Audit events in the server's Application log:

Source: MSSQLSERVER

Description: Login failed for user X

where X equals 'administrator', 'root', 'server', 'database' 'sql', 'sa', etc.

These failure events occur almost non-stop, about a dozen per second, and come from a small pool of unknown IP addresses. The IP address seems to change every few hours. I'm guessing that someone is hoping that one of these names is an actual SQL Server login and is trying a brute-force attack to try to stumble upon a matching password. None of these logins are valid, but it's still disconcerting. Is this anything to be concerned about? I could have the hosting company block the IP addresses, but that seems like a losing battle.

Lastly, I used the Surface Area Configuration tool to allow local and remote connections, using TCP/IP only--so that I could begin interacting with this SQL Server from my PC, using both SQL Server Management Studio and my own Visual Studio code. For each method, I'm using the obscure SQL Server login that I created earlier--the one with the extremely long and complex password. How (un)secure is my traffic to/from this SQL Server? I don't believe that my credentials are encrypted, but I'm not sure how much of a risk this is nor do I know how else to more securely connect to SQL Server.

Given these circumstances, is there any way to make this resource more secure? Thanks!

Every hacker in the world (or so it seems) has automated tools that are always pinging port 1433.

You can increase your 'invisibility' by changing the IP port -preferrably to a high IP number, and make sure that port 1434 is closed on the windows firewall, and that the SQL Browser service is not running.

You are correct, that without a VPN, or SSL connection, you are sending the SQL password in clear text across the wire -in the context of your RDP connection.

While you have a small vulnerablity, it is relatively insignificant. Should you be concerned? If the database has sensitive data, protected data, or heads would roll if the data was hacked -get a VPN (or SSL) connection. Most hackers are seeking the 'low hanging fruit' of open and unprotected servers.

|||

Thanks. Please pardon my ignorance. How does blocking port 1434 on the Windows firewall help? Are there any negative side-effects of stopping the SQL Server Browser service?

>>You are correct, that without a VPN, or SSL connection, you are sending the SQL password in clear text across the wire -in the context of your RDP connection.

I think I was unclear in my original explanation. I'm using SQL Server Management Studio and Visual Studio-based applications from my PC to connect (via clear text) to the server's SQL Server over the Internet--not via the RDP connection. I mentioned RDP just in the context of how I administer the server, when necessary; RDP is not in use otherwise.

I'm not sure where to begin with a VPN; do you have any recommendations? The hosting company mentioned OpenVPN, but I'm not making much progress with that. I might make better progress via a SSL connection. Can you recommend any references on how to get started with that--in particular, regarding SQL Server traffic? Or any articles in general that apply to my kind of scenario? (unprotected server at a hosting company)

|||

If you are managing the SQL Server 'in the wild' (and not over the RDP) then you are really exposed and totally dependent upon the strength of your passwords and security model used in SQL Server.

Whatever solution you settle upon, it will have to be something that the hosting company is willing to deal with and support -since it has to be on their end and you probably cannot physically go there and set it up or mainain it.

If they suggested OpenVPN, I would start exploring that product. Personally, I have no experience with it.

Setting up SSL should be something that the host company should easily handle -but there is a cost for the certificate. (But not too onerous for the level of 'security' it provides.)

|||

Thanks again, Arnie. I forgot to mention that the SQL Server Browser service is already set to Disabled.

Your earlier comment got me thinking. I configured the Windows firewall to block all traffic other than port 3389 (RDP)--and that, with only the somewhat-static IP address of my PC. Of course, this had the immediate side-effect of preventing me from accessing SQL Server via SQL Server Management Studio on my PC. Next, I further configured the Windows firewall to allow port 1433 traffic--again, with just the IP address of my PC. SQL Server Management Studio was then able to connect to the server. That seems about as secure as I know how to make it for the time being. Now I just have to make sure that the IP address of my PC doesn't change!

I've opened another dialog with the hosting company. It's not clear to me how setting up a VPN will thereafter protect the server; is it that the server no longer responds to any other traffic other than that over the VPN port?

I don't mind purchasing an SSL certificate; just by itself, however, it's not clear to me how that will protect the server as a whole--like a VPN might. Wouldn't SSL result in just SQL Server traffic being encrypted?

|||

It may be time to bite the bullet and pay the extra for a static IP address (business expense and all...)

A VPN tunnel is somewhat similar to the RDP connection -with the extension that what is on the other end of the tunnel appears to be local to your network/computer. ALL internet traffic is encrypted between the endpoints. It is impossible for anyone to 'sniff' your packets and pick out data (or passwords).

For this usage, I think that VPN may be a better option that setting up SSL -unless your business needs SSL for its website.

|||

I agree that a VPN is the way to go. I've begun perusing the OpenVPN documentation, but it's a bit disjointed.

Can you recommend a different VPN?

I can't help but wonder whether Windows' RRAS might work; however, I have yet to find any helpful documentation about that feature.

Hotfix on sp2

Hello,

Just want to know if anybody else has problems with the hotfix ?

I have a sqlserver 2005 on my desktop.

I installed the sp2 before 5th march.

Recently Microsoft changed the sp2 and released a hotfix for sp2 installed(downloaded) before 5th march.

I installed the hotfix but it failed to update the sqlserver engine.

Very weird.

I uninstalled sqlserver 2005, applied the new sp2 (which was smaller compared with previous one)

Today i still received a critical update in windows update.

I installed it, but i still don't trust these updates.

How can i investigate all went well ?

Go to Add/Remove Programs, click on the SQL 2005 entry, click Remove, and then Change. This will show a nice report at the component level and include the versions for each. If they are all at 3152, then your machine is up to date with the cumulative hotfix. If not, go grab it here:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/933097

Thanks,
Sam Lester (MSFT)

Hotfix on sp2

Hello,

Just want to know if anybody else has problems with the hotfix ?

I have a sqlserver 2005 on my desktop.

I installed the sp2 before 5th march.

Recently Microsoft changed the sp2 and released a hotfix for sp2 installed(downloaded) before 5th march.

I installed the hotfix but it failed to update the sqlserver engine.

Very weird.

I uninstalled sqlserver 2005, applied the new sp2 (which was smaller compared with previous one)

Today i still received a critical update in windows update.

I installed it, but i still don't trust these updates.

How can i investigate all went well ?

Go to Add/Remove Programs, click on the SQL 2005 entry, click Remove, and then Change. This will show a nice report at the component level and include the versions for each. If they are all at 3152, then your machine is up to date with the cumulative hotfix. If not, go grab it here:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/933097

Thanks,
Sam Lester (MSFT)

Hotfix 934459.

Hi, I have a sql 2005 with Sp2 applied. My Build is 9.0.3054
Now I have the error described in Fix 934459 (The Check Database Integrity
task and the Execute T-SQL Statement task in a maintenance plan may lose
database context in certain circumstances ), but my build 9.0.3054 doesn't
seem to be in the affected ones..
Should I install the hotfix? Which one?
This are the two available
If you are running a build of SQL Server 2005 SP2 between 3150 and 3158
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/934459/
If you are running any build of SQL Server 2005 SP2 between 3042 and 3053
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/934458/
Thanks.
You should get 3200 or, better yet, 3215 instead.
9.0.3200:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/941450
9.0.3215:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/943656
"averied" <averied@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:BE40CE77-C3A5-4FF3-AEFA-477950543802@.microsoft.com...
> Hi, I have a sql 2005 with Sp2 applied. My Build is 9.0.3054
> Now I have the error described in Fix 934459 (The Check Database Integrity
> task and the Execute T-SQL Statement task in a maintenance plan may lose
> database context in certain circumstances ), but my build 9.0.3054 doesn't
> seem to be in the affected ones..
> Should I install the hotfix? Which one?
> This are the two available
> If you are running a build of SQL Server 2005 SP2 between 3150 and 3158
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/934459/
> If you are running any build of SQL Server 2005 SP2 between 3042 and 3053
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/934458/
>
> Thanks.
>
|||I installed the Cumulative update package 4 for SQL Server 2005 Service Pack
2 and rebooted my machine, yet my version still shows 9.00.3042. The
installation appeared to function properly w/ no errors. How can I tell that
this hot fix did indeed install?
Cordially,
Mark Boettcher
PS, I have just now requested the hotfix for 3215 and should get it tomorrow.
"Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP]" wrote:

> You should get 3200 or, better yet, 3215 instead.
> 9.0.3200:
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/941450
> 9.0.3215:
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/943656
>
>
> "averied" <averied@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:BE40CE77-C3A5-4FF3-AEFA-477950543802@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||>I installed the Cumulative update package 4 for SQL Server 2005 Service
>Pack
> 2 and rebooted my machine, yet my version still shows 9.00.3042.
Where/how are you checking "my version"?
A
|||In server management studio, I right-clicked on registered server and found
it under properties. If not there, how should I display the sql version?
Mark
"Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP]" wrote:

> Where/how are you checking "my version"?
> A
>
|||That is the version for the tools (Management Studio). Open a query window
connected to the server you updated, and then run:
SELECT @.@.VERSION;
"Mark Boettcher" <MarkBoettcher@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:71D22B9E-5D0B-4B79-8E59-B9067A58EC2C@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> In server management studio, I right-clicked on registered server and
> found
> it under properties. If not there, how should I display the sql version?
> Mark
> "Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP]" wrote:
|||Since I installed Cumulative update package 4, I requested, received, and
installed Cumulative update package 5. Using the Select @.@.Version command
returns 9.00.3215 now. I assume Cumulative update package 5 includes the
changes in Cumulative update package 4 - correct? After I installed package
4, I did do a select @.@.version and received 9.00.3042 which is why I
questioned whether the package really did install.
Mark
"Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP]" wrote:

> That is the version for the tools (Management Studio). Open a query window
> connected to the server you updated, and then run:
> SELECT @.@.VERSION;
>
> "Mark Boettcher" <MarkBoettcher@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:71D22B9E-5D0B-4B79-8E59-B9067A58EC2C@.microsoft.com...
>
|||> returns 9.00.3215 now. I assume Cumulative update package 5 includes the
> changes in Cumulative update package 4 - correct?
Yes, each cumulative update page states that cumulative updates are
cumulative -- that's why they're named as such. :-)

> After I installed package
> 4, I did do a select @.@.version and received 9.00.3042
Then the install didn't succeed, or you ran SELECT @.@.VERSION against the
wrong server.
A

Hotfix 934459.

Hi, I have a sql 2005 with Sp2 applied. My Build is 9.0.3054
Now I have the error described in Fix 934459 (The Check Database Integrity
task and the Execute T-SQL Statement task in a maintenance plan may lose
database context in certain circumstances ), but my build 9.0.3054 doesn't
seem to be in the affected ones..
Should I install the hotfix' Which one'
This are the two available
If you are running a build of SQL Server 2005 SP2 between 3150 and 3158
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/934459/
If you are running any build of SQL Server 2005 SP2 between 3042 and 3053
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/934458/
Thanks.You should get 3200 or, better yet, 3215 instead.
9.0.3200:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/941450
9.0.3215:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/943656
"averied" <averied@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:BE40CE77-C3A5-4FF3-AEFA-477950543802@.microsoft.com...
> Hi, I have a sql 2005 with Sp2 applied. My Build is 9.0.3054
> Now I have the error described in Fix 934459 (The Check Database Integrity
> task and the Execute T-SQL Statement task in a maintenance plan may lose
> database context in certain circumstances ), but my build 9.0.3054 doesn't
> seem to be in the affected ones..
> Should I install the hotfix' Which one'
> This are the two available
> If you are running a build of SQL Server 2005 SP2 between 3150 and 3158
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/934459/
> If you are running any build of SQL Server 2005 SP2 between 3042 and 3053
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/934458/
>
> Thanks.
>|||I installed the Cumulative update package 4 for SQL Server 2005 Service Pack
2 and rebooted my machine, yet my version still shows 9.00.3042. The
installation appeared to function properly w/ no errors. How can I tell that
this hot fix did indeed install?
Cordially,
Mark Boettcher
PS, I have just now requested the hotfix for 3215 and should get it tomorrow.
"Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP]" wrote:
> You should get 3200 or, better yet, 3215 instead.
> 9.0.3200:
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/941450
> 9.0.3215:
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/943656
>
>
> "averied" <averied@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:BE40CE77-C3A5-4FF3-AEFA-477950543802@.microsoft.com...
> > Hi, I have a sql 2005 with Sp2 applied. My Build is 9.0.3054
> >
> > Now I have the error described in Fix 934459 (The Check Database Integrity
> > task and the Execute T-SQL Statement task in a maintenance plan may lose
> > database context in certain circumstances ), but my build 9.0.3054 doesn't
> > seem to be in the affected ones..
> >
> > Should I install the hotfix' Which one'
> >
> > This are the two available
> >
> > If you are running a build of SQL Server 2005 SP2 between 3150 and 3158
> > http://support.microsoft.com/kb/934459/
> >
> > If you are running any build of SQL Server 2005 SP2 between 3042 and 3053
> > http://support.microsoft.com/kb/934458/
> >
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
>
>|||>I installed the Cumulative update package 4 for SQL Server 2005 Service
>Pack
> 2 and rebooted my machine, yet my version still shows 9.00.3042.
Where/how are you checking "my version"?
A|||In server management studio, I right-clicked on registered server and found
it under properties. If not there, how should I display the sql version?
Mark
"Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP]" wrote:
> >I installed the Cumulative update package 4 for SQL Server 2005 Service
> >Pack
> > 2 and rebooted my machine, yet my version still shows 9.00.3042.
> Where/how are you checking "my version"?
> A
>|||That is the version for the tools (Management Studio). Open a query window
connected to the server you updated, and then run:
SELECT @.@.VERSION;
"Mark Boettcher" <MarkBoettcher@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:71D22B9E-5D0B-4B79-8E59-B9067A58EC2C@.microsoft.com...
> In server management studio, I right-clicked on registered server and
> found
> it under properties. If not there, how should I display the sql version?
> Mark
> "Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP]" wrote:
>> >I installed the Cumulative update package 4 for SQL Server 2005 Service
>> >Pack
>> > 2 and rebooted my machine, yet my version still shows 9.00.3042.
>> Where/how are you checking "my version"?
>> A|||Since I installed Cumulative update package 4, I requested, received, and
installed Cumulative update package 5. Using the Select @.@.Version command
returns 9.00.3215 now. I assume Cumulative update package 5 includes the
changes in Cumulative update package 4 - correct? After I installed package
4, I did do a select @.@.version and received 9.00.3042 which is why I
questioned whether the package really did install.
Mark
"Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP]" wrote:
> That is the version for the tools (Management Studio). Open a query window
> connected to the server you updated, and then run:
> SELECT @.@.VERSION;
>
> "Mark Boettcher" <MarkBoettcher@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:71D22B9E-5D0B-4B79-8E59-B9067A58EC2C@.microsoft.com...
> > In server management studio, I right-clicked on registered server and
> > found
> > it under properties. If not there, how should I display the sql version?
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > "Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP]" wrote:
> >
> >> >I installed the Cumulative update package 4 for SQL Server 2005 Service
> >> >Pack
> >> > 2 and rebooted my machine, yet my version still shows 9.00.3042.
> >>
> >> Where/how are you checking "my version"?
> >>
> >> A
> >>
>|||> returns 9.00.3215 now. I assume Cumulative update package 5 includes the
> changes in Cumulative update package 4 - correct?
Yes, each cumulative update page states that cumulative updates are
cumulative -- that's why they're named as such. :-)
> After I installed package
> 4, I did do a select @.@.version and received 9.00.3042
Then the install didn't succeed, or you ran SELECT @.@.VERSION against the
wrong server.
A