Can SQL Server 2000 & 2005 Reporting Services live together?

Can SQL Server 2000 Reporting Services live on the same server with SQL
Server 2005 Reporting Servives?yes
with a named instance, both works fine on 1 of my server.
but RS2005 support RS2000 reports, so there is no real needs to keep the 2
versions.
An RS2000 developper can deploy reports to an RS2005 server without problem
or the developper can upgrade the RS2000 reports to the 2005 format easily.
"Steve W" <SteveW@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6AE78E82-2EC1-42FE-BFAA-771EEDF8CEF3@.microsoft.com...
> Can SQL Server 2000 Reporting Services live on the same server with SQL
> Server 2005 Reporting Servives?|||Yes, there is no REAL need to install both in a production server. The
concern as the OP expressed comes when you have to developed/support both
with your developing computer: due to various reasons, you may not have that
many test server available to install them seperately.
So, when you install the SQL Server2000 and 2005 as different named
instance, how the RS' virtue direcctories are organised? Hwen there is only
one of them, there would be http://serverName/Reports and
http://servername/reportServer. What happens if you install both? Does the
installation process prompt you to specify a desired virtue path, or does it
automatically create a different path, as you install different .NET
version? I really do not want to take any risk to mess up my two alreay
messy development boxes.
"Jeje" <willgart@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:umY5Y4ZdHHA.1244@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> yes
> with a named instance, both works fine on 1 of my server.
> but RS2005 support RS2000 reports, so there is no real needs to keep the 2
> versions.
> An RS2000 developper can deploy reports to an RS2005 server without
> problem
> or the developper can upgrade the RS2000 reports to the 2005 format
> easily.
>
> "Steve W" <SteveW@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:6AE78E82-2EC1-42FE-BFAA-771EEDF8CEF3@.microsoft.com...
>> Can SQL Server 2000 Reporting Services live on the same server with SQL
>> Server 2005 Reporting Servives?
>|||when you install a named instance the default reportserver virtual directory
is:
http://server/reportserver$instancename
but using the RS configuration tool, you can create the reportserver virtual
directory you want.
You can quickly and easily manage this, not like in RS2000 where there is
no tool to do this job.
"Norman Yuan" <NotReal@.NotReal.not> wrote in message
news:uT%23rqafdHHA.1216@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Yes, there is no REAL need to install both in a production server. The
> concern as the OP expressed comes when you have to developed/support both
> with your developing computer: due to various reasons, you may not have
> that many test server available to install them seperately.
> So, when you install the SQL Server2000 and 2005 as different named
> instance, how the RS' virtue direcctories are organised? Hwen there is
> only one of them, there would be http://serverName/Reports and
> http://servername/reportServer. What happens if you install both? Does the
> installation process prompt you to specify a desired virtue path, or does
> it automatically create a different path, as you install different .NET
> version? I really do not want to take any risk to mess up my two alreay
> messy development boxes.
> "Jeje" <willgart@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:umY5Y4ZdHHA.1244@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> yes
>> with a named instance, both works fine on 1 of my server.
>> but RS2005 support RS2000 reports, so there is no real needs to keep the
>> 2 versions.
>> An RS2000 developper can deploy reports to an RS2005 server without
>> problem
>> or the developper can upgrade the RS2000 reports to the 2005 format
>> easily.
>>
>> "Steve W" <SteveW@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:6AE78E82-2EC1-42FE-BFAA-771EEDF8CEF3@.microsoft.com...
>> Can SQL Server 2000 Reporting Services live on the same server with SQL
>> Server 2005 Reporting Servives?
>|||Thanks to the info.
"Jeje" <willgart@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OkVspxfdHHA.2088@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> when you install a named instance the default reportserver virtual
> directory is:
> http://server/reportserver$instancename
> but using the RS configuration tool, you can create the reportserver
> virtual directory you want.
> You can quickly and easily manage this, not like in RS2000 where there is
> no tool to do this job.
> "Norman Yuan" <NotReal@.NotReal.not> wrote in message
> news:uT%23rqafdHHA.1216@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> Yes, there is no REAL need to install both in a production server. The
>> concern as the OP expressed comes when you have to developed/support both
>> with your developing computer: due to various reasons, you may not have
>> that many test server available to install them seperately.
>> So, when you install the SQL Server2000 and 2005 as different named
>> instance, how the RS' virtue direcctories are organised? Hwen there is
>> only one of them, there would be http://serverName/Reports and
>> http://servername/reportServer. What happens if you install both? Does
>> the installation process prompt you to specify a desired virtue path, or
>> does it automatically create a different path, as you install different
>> .NET version? I really do not want to take any risk to mess up my two
>> alreay messy development boxes.
>> "Jeje" <willgart@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:umY5Y4ZdHHA.1244@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> yes
>> with a named instance, both works fine on 1 of my server.
>> but RS2005 support RS2000 reports, so there is no real needs to keep the
>> 2 versions.
>> An RS2000 developper can deploy reports to an RS2005 server without
>> problem
>> or the developper can upgrade the RS2000 reports to the 2005 format
>> easily.
>>
>> "Steve W" <SteveW@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:6AE78E82-2EC1-42FE-BFAA-771EEDF8CEF3@.microsoft.com...
>> Can SQL Server 2000 Reporting Services live on the same server with SQL
>> Server 2005 Reporting Servives?
>>
>

Can Sql 2000 and 2005 express work together?

I have a server (win server 2003) that is running Symantec Backup Exec for backups. I found that this soft uses an SQL server 2000 instance to keep his data... The problem is that I developed an application in asp.net (with VS2003) that use an SQL server 2005 express database. What I want to know is if I install SQL server 2005 express, is the backup will still work? I mean that the 2005 express wont upgrade sql 2000? What do I have to do to make it works?

hi,

SQL Server 2000 (including MSDE) and SQL Server 2005 (including SQLExpress) cna be installed "side by side"...

you can install up to 16 different instances per box, and each instance will maintain it's own binaries and registry settings separated from all other instances.. even at different service pack levels..

obviously you have not to mismatch instance's names.. only 1 instance per box can be the "default" instance, known as "ComputerName" or "." or "(Local)" (the last 2 only for local connections), where all the other instances have to be "named" instances, known as "ComputerName\InstanceName" or ".\InstanceName" or "(Local)\InstanceName" ... further info at http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143547.aspx

a little "note" should be mentioned about shared components.. this binaries are actually shared among all instances of the same code base.. so all 2000 related shared binaries will be shared among all 2000 instances, where 2005 shared components will be shared with all 2005 instances, at the higher service pack level..

another "side note".. and this is COM related.. COM components do not allow "side by side" implementation, so that SQL Server 2005 installs some of them at the 2005 edition level.. and SQL Server 2000 will "inherit" those components.. think about SQL-DMO and the like, but you should not be interested with that as 2005 versions are downwards compatible...

regards

|||Thanks a lot!