Manual creation of aspnet database fails "does not allow remote connections"

What do I have to do to get this to work?

C:\>aspnet_regsql.exe -A m -E

Start adding the following features:
Membership

............
An error has occurred. Details of the exception:
An error has occurred while establishing a connection to the server. When conne
cting to SQL Server 2005, this failure may be caused by the fact that under the
default settings SQL Server does not allow remote connections. (provider: Named
Pipes Provider, error: 40 - Could not open a connection to SQL Server)

Unable to connect to SQL Server database.

Hi,

If you're connecting to a remote machine, you will need to turn on remote connection on that server. Please follow this KB article to achieve this.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/914277/en-us

HTH. If this does not answer your question, please feel free to mark the post as Not Answered and reply. Thank you!

|||SQL Server is set to allow remote connections already. I probably should have mentioned that in the first post.|||

Hi,

Named Pipes Provider, error: 40 - Could not open a connection to SQL Server

Is just a basic connectivity error meaning the client could not connect to the target SQL Server. So just follow the basic connectivity troubleshooting guidelines on our SQL Protocols blog, see:

SQL Server 2005 Connectivity Issue Troubleshoot - Part I

http://blogs.msdn.com/sql_protocols/archive/2005/10/22/483684.aspx

and

SQL Server 2005 Connectivity Issue Troubleshoot - Part II

http://blogs.msdn.com/sql_protocols/archive/2005/10/29/486861.aspx

This should help you debug the problem.

Managing Connections for optimal performance question, switch from Oracle to SQL

I was told in one of my systems classes that the real performance bottleneck in accessing information from the database was the opening of a connection from the application to the database.

To combat that problem I was advised to use a Singleton Factory pattern and to have that Factory instaniate a connection and open it, then pass references to that connection for all of the objects that it created. All of those objects passed the connection reference to the objects they created and so on. Basically that meant that I only ever had one connection open at any one time for my entire application. And I was able to implement this solution at my previous job where I was developing in Oracle. I primarially used OracleCommands and OracleDataReaders to get the informaton into and out of the database. I thought this was a very nice solution. Having this many DataReaders accessing a single connection was not a problem because OracleConnections don't get locked from having more than one DataReader open at once.

At my current job, however, I use SQL Server. I am concerned that the single connection will not work in my new enviroment as the SQLDataReaders lock up the connection while they are using it. If the information that I recieved about opening connections being the real bottleneck, then I am hesitant to have a connection instanciated and opened for each method, but I am concerned that a whole lot of errors will be generated if I use the single connection method. Also, how do DataAdapters effect my decision of which approach to use.

Any advice would be most helpful. If you have any questions that would help answer just ask. Thanks.No! Definitely not the way to do it. Just use ADO.NET's connection pooling to manage it. Out of the box it's pretty efficient, but you can tweak it if necessary. There's no way you'll write anything that will be as efficient as what's already there.

You're right that a data reader hogs a connection.

And the decision is the same whether you use data adapters or readers.

Don|||How do I use ADO.Net's connection pooling? Is there an article or something that you know about that can teach me to manage this problem better.

Thanks again for your help.|||That connection pooling stuff is pretty cool. My systems class was based on Java so apparantly that type of behind the scenes work didn't take place to efficiently manage the connections. I didn't realize that when I was instanciating a connection it was already managing a pool of connections for me. slick stuff.|||So you figured out how to use it? Cool. Yeah, it definitely is an area where all of Microsoft's hard work is paying off.

Don

Management Studio Solution user-defined project folders?

When you create a Solution/Project in Management Studio, it creates 3 folders for you - Connections, Queries, Miscellaneous.

It does not appear that there exists the ability to create your own set of folders, either under the project or any of the 3 provided folders. Does anyone know of a way to do this?

If you are working on a project that has hundreds, perhaps thousands of stored procedures, views, etc., there currently seems to be no way to organize them. If this is true, this is an incredible MS oversight!

Thanks!

You have found the growing pain problems with the tool...maybe future versions will correct it.|||I would hope so! Since Mgmt Studio is based upon the Visual Studio shell, it doesn't seem like it would be that hard. In fact, I would think they would have had to specifically disable that functionality in this version, it seems so basic and fundamental to an IDE.|||

This is one of our most requested features. You can track the progress of this at http://connect.microsoft.com.

Here is the direct link to the issue: https://connect.microsoft.com/SQLServer/feedback/ViewFeedback.aspx?FeedbackID=124787

Vote on it and let us know that it is important to you.

Paul A. Mestemaker II
Program Manager
Microsoft SQL Server
http://blogs.msdn.com/sqlrem/

|||

I already did. I also started my own post to this issue a long time ago.

https://connect.microsoft.com/SQLServer/feedback/ViewFeedback.aspx?FeedbackID=127202

|||

Ahh, nice... even though your solution is not solved, can you mark the post as answered?

Management Studio Solution user-defined project folders?

When you create a Solution/Project in Management Studio, it creates 3 folders for you - Connections, Queries, Miscellaneous.

It does not appear that there exists the ability to create your own set of folders, either under the project or any of the 3 provided folders. Does anyone know of a way to do this?

If you are working on a project that has hundreds, perhaps thousands of stored procedures, views, etc., there currently seems to be no way to organize them. If this is true, this is an incredible MS oversight!

Thanks!

You have found the growing pain problems with the tool...maybe future versions will correct it.|||I would hope so! Since Mgmt Studio is based upon the Visual Studio shell, it doesn't seem like it would be that hard. In fact, I would think they would have had to specifically disable that functionality in this version, it seems so basic and fundamental to an IDE.|||

This is one of our most requested features. You can track the progress of this at http://connect.microsoft.com.

Here is the direct link to the issue: https://connect.microsoft.com/SQLServer/feedback/ViewFeedback.aspx?FeedbackID=124787

Vote on it and let us know that it is important to you.

Paul A. Mestemaker II
Program Manager
Microsoft SQL Server
http://blogs.msdn.com/sqlrem/

|||

I already did. I also started my own post to this issue a long time ago.

https://connect.microsoft.com/SQLServer/feedback/ViewFeedback.aspx?FeedbackID=127202

|||

Ahh, nice... even though your solution is not solved, can you mark the post as answered?

|||I agree it is a huge MS oversight... fortunately theres a 3rd party solution available... Here's the link SQL Server Management Studio 2005 Project Plugin|||I agree it is a huge MS oversight... fortunately theres a 3rd party solution available... Here's the link SQL Server Management Studio 2005 Project Plugin