Failed to generate a user instance of SQL Server

Hi,

On my developer machine I don't have any problems with VS2005 and SQL Server 2005 Express. Now I should set up a server (Win2003Web) for a webhosting environment.
Every website has its own application pool with its own application pool user. Now if I try to connect to a db in my data directory I get the following error:

Failed to generate a user instance of SQL Server due to failure in

retrieving the user's local application data path. Please make sure the user has

a local user profile on the computer. The connection will be closed.

I already read the other threads about that subject but they didn't help me because I need to connect to the db with different application pool users.

Can somebody help me, please?!
Thanks, fabianOk, I think my problem is due to the fact that my application pool users haven't got a user profile and they aren't getting one because they can't login. I tried out to give one user the rights to login und afterwards i logged in. Since then the error is gone.
Is this the only solution to my problem? Do I must login with every new application pool user? I hope there's another solution .
I could create perhaps a directory in C:\Documents and...\ for the username but I don't think that would work?! Or create a user profile with a simple c# codesnipped (don't know if there's something like that)?

Any suggestions?

Failed to generate a user instance of SQL Server

Hi,

On my developer machine I don't have any problems with VS2005 and SQL Server 2005 Express. Now I should set up a server (Win2003Web) for a webhosting environment.
Every website has its own application pool with its own application pool user. Now if I try to connect to a db in my data directory I get the following error:

Failed to generate a user instance of SQL Server due to failure in retrieving the user's local application data path. Please make sure the user has a local user profile on the computer. The connection will be closed.

I already read the other threads about that subject but they didn't help me because I need to connect to the db with different application pool users.

Can somebody help me, please?!
Thanks, fabian
Ok, I think my problem is due to the fact that my application pool users haven't got a user profile and they aren't getting one because they can't login. I tried out to give one user the rights to login und afterwards i logged in. Since then the error is gone.
Is this the only solution to my problem? Do I must login with every new application pool user? I hope there's another solution .
I could create perhaps a directory in C:\Documents and...\ for the username but I don't think that would work?! Or create a user profile with a simple c# codesnipped (don't know if there's something like that)?

Any suggestions?

Failed install of standard SQL 2005 server on XP

I have an issue with trying to install SQL 2005 standard on my XP machine.

I get an .hta file that is not readable and when I btpass that I get a pop-up message:

please go to the control panel to install and configure system components.

WTH?

PLease assist....

Gene

Is your XP on Service Pack 2?|||Yes, I am completely up to date with all of my SP's and patches.|||

I did not relize this but this was a simple fix.

All I had to do was go into the SQL disk was to open it up and execute the Setup.exe instead of opening it up from the .hta file.

Failed client connection by name\name.

Attempting ODBC connection to SQL Server by MachineName\SqlServerName doesn't work.
Can only connect by using IP address of server machine with name of SQL Server instance.
Any help would be appreciated.
thanksPlease refer to the following url, it may help you:
http://www.able-consulting.com/MDAC/ADO/Connection/OLEDB_Providers.htm#OLEDBProviderForSQLServer|||Rather than SQL-Server, can u access that machine by name from the client? It also happens bcz of WINS entry or if the Server is in DMZ etc. If u can't access the server over the LAN by name, edit ur client's HOSTS file.|||Add the entry in LMHOSTS file and if its still timeouts then ensure proper value is defined on SQL server to login timeout.

Also ensure similar protocols are enabled between client & server.

F12 Not working

I just reformatted my HD, reloaded the OS and all applications on my dev
machine. Now that VS2003 is reloaded on the machine and I'm starting to
work in it again, I noticed that the F12 doesn't work anymore. Normally
when I click on a variable and hit F12 the focus will move to where that
variable is defined. Now it does nothing.
Any ideas on why this is so? I also loaded VS2005 Pro on this machine as
well, but assume that it's not causing the problem.
Thanks.
moondaddy@.nospam.nospamSorry, I posted this to the wrong group. It should have gone to
vsnet.general.
moondaddy@.nospam.nospam
"moondaddy" <moondaddy@.nospam.nospam> wrote in message news:...
>I just reformatted my HD, reloaded the OS and all applications on my dev
>machine. Now that VS2003 is reloaded on the machine and I'm starting to
>work in it again, I noticed that the F12 doesn't work anymore. Normally
>when I click on a variable and hit F12 the focus will move to where that
>variable is defined. Now it does nothing.
> Any ideas on why this is so? I also loaded VS2005 Pro on this machine as
> well, but assume that it's not causing the problem.
> Thanks.
> --
> moondaddy@.nospam.nospam
>

extremely bad performance running on huge box ?

hi all !!!
I have a SQL Server 2000 running on a 4 processor 2 GB ram DELL box running
Windows 2003 Server. no other apps run in this machine.
a table witn 20 million records is truncated and recreated once every week.
records are quite simple: (key,value). Table in indexes on key field.
the problem is thar running a "select count(*) from table" takes more than 2
minutes.
even worst, doing a "select * from table where (condition on indexed key
field)" also takes more than 2 minutes.
during these queries, which I do from the Query Analyzer, the overall CPUs
usage is less than 3%.
what could be wrong ? any help would be greatly appreciated.
thanks in advance,
ant.Please post your table DDL (including constraints and indexes), sample data
and problem queries so that we can better help.

> the problem is thar running a "select count(*) from table" takes more than
2
> minutes.
This will require a scan and the duration will be proportional to table
size. If you have only a clustered index and data are not cached, then all
data pages will be read. 2 minutes may or may not be reasonable depending
on your row size and disk configuration.

> even worst, doing a "select * from table where (condition on indexed key
> field)" also takes more than 2 minutes.
This doesn't seem right. If your 'indexed key field' is unique, I would
expect sub-second response. With a non-unique index, I'd expect the
response time to be roughly proportional to the number of rows that satisfy
the condition as long as the expression is sargable.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Antonio Lopez Arredondo" <adog@.someplace.com> wrote in message
news:uzLV4A%238DHA.3348@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> hi all !!!
> I have a SQL Server 2000 running on a 4 processor 2 GB ram DELL box
running
> Windows 2003 Server. no other apps run in this machine.
> a table witn 20 million records is truncated and recreated once every
week.
> records are quite simple: (key,value). Table in indexes on key field.
> the problem is thar running a "select count(*) from table" takes more than
2
> minutes.
> even worst, doing a "select * from table where (condition on indexed key
> field)" also takes more than 2 minutes.
> during these queries, which I do from the Query Analyzer, the overall CPUs
> usage is less than 3%.
> what could be wrong ? any help would be greatly appreciated.
> thanks in advance,
> ant.
>

extremely bad performance running on huge box ?

hi all !!!
I have a SQL Server 2000 running on a 4 processor 2 GB ram DELL box running
Windows 2003 Server. no other apps run in this machine.
a table witn 20 million records is truncated and recreated once every week.
records are quite simple: (key,value). Table in indexes on key field.
the problem is thar running a "select count(*) from table" takes more than 2
minutes.
even worst, doing a "select * from table where (condition on indexed key
field)" also takes more than 2 minutes.
during these queries, which I do from the Query Analyzer, the overall CPUs
usage is less than 3%.
what could be wrong ? any help would be greatly appreciated.
thanks in advance,
ant.are there 4 physcial processors or is this a Xeon box with
Hyper-Threading,
if HT is enabled, then regardless of the number of actual
processors, try OPTION (MAXDOP 1) or 2
suppose your average row size is 100Bytes, then 20M rows
means the table is 2GB in size
a select count(*) requires a full table scan.
if your data is on a single disk, you can probably achieve
a sequential transfer rate of 50MB/sec, meaning your query
should take 40sec,
if you have 2 disks striped, you ought to be closer to
100MB/sec or 20sec.
if the entire table is in memory, the scan rate should be
800MB/sec,
so something is not right.
on the select *, i need to know the index and the full
query,
also keep in mind the time it QA to receive a large number
of rows
>--Original Message--
>hi all !!!
>I have a SQL Server 2000 running on a 4 processor 2 GB
ram DELL box running
>Windows 2003 Server. no other apps run in this machine.
>a table witn 20 million records is truncated and
recreated once every week.
>records are quite simple: (key,value). Table in indexes
on key field.
>the problem is thar running a "select count(*) from
table" takes more than 2
>minutes.
>even worst, doing a "select * from table where (condition
on indexed key
>field)" also takes more than 2 minutes.
>during these queries, which I do from the Query Analyzer,
the overall CPUs
>usage is less than 3%.
>what could be wrong ? any help would be greatly
appreciated.
>thanks in advance,
> ant.
>
>.
>|||Please post your table DDL (including constraints and indexes), sample data
and problem queries so that we can better help.
> the problem is thar running a "select count(*) from table" takes more than
2
> minutes.
This will require a scan and the duration will be proportional to table
size. If you have only a clustered index and data are not cached, then all
data pages will be read. 2 minutes may or may not be reasonable depending
on your row size and disk configuration.
> even worst, doing a "select * from table where (condition on indexed key
> field)" also takes more than 2 minutes.
This doesn't seem right. If your 'indexed key field' is unique, I would
expect sub-second response. With a non-unique index, I'd expect the
response time to be roughly proportional to the number of rows that satisfy
the condition as long as the expression is sargable.
--
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Antonio Lopez Arredondo" <adog@.someplace.com> wrote in message
news:uzLV4A%238DHA.3348@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> hi all !!!
> I have a SQL Server 2000 running on a 4 processor 2 GB ram DELL box
running
> Windows 2003 Server. no other apps run in this machine.
> a table witn 20 million records is truncated and recreated once every
week.
> records are quite simple: (key,value). Table in indexes on key field.
> the problem is thar running a "select count(*) from table" takes more than
2
> minutes.
> even worst, doing a "select * from table where (condition on indexed key
> field)" also takes more than 2 minutes.
> during these queries, which I do from the Query Analyzer, the overall CPUs
> usage is less than 3%.
> what could be wrong ? any help would be greatly appreciated.
> thanks in advance,
> ant.
>