I have found what appears to be a rather nasty little problem in SQL Server
2005. What I need to do is add a component (replication) to an existing
installation. Since the installation I have upgraded to SP1.

When I attempt to run setup from the CD to add the component I get the
following warning;

To change an existing instance of Microsoft SQL Server 2005 to a different
edition of SQL Server 2005, you must run SQL Server 2005 Setup from the
command prompt and include the SKUUPGRADE=1 parameter.

If I continue the install fails with the following;

Name: Microsoft SQL Server 2005
Reason: Your upgrade is blocked. For more information about upgrade support,
see the "Version and Edition Upgrades" and "Hardware and Software
Requirements" topics in SQL Server 2005 Setup or SQL Server 2005 Books
Online.

Build version check:
Your upgrade is blocked because the existing component is a later version
than the version you are trying to upgrade to. To modify an existing SQL
Server component, go to Add or Remove Programs in Control Panel, select the
component you would like to modify, and then click Change/Remove.

If I try it by running setup with the SKUUPGRADE=1 I do not get the warning
message but it still fails with the message above.

If I try through Add/Remove programs it asks for the setup.exe file, which I
point to the one on the CD and I get the same warning/failure.

Does anyone know how to fix this?

Preferably without reinstalling SQL Server?

Paul - what is the version of SQL Server that is installed, and what is the
version on the disk? I had a similar experience when installing the SSMS
tools on a box that already had the client tools on it, because the client
tools belonged to a server version and the computer was a desktop. In your
case it might be that the initial tools are also incompatible with the
computer they're installed on or alternatively the installation cd is
different to the installed version. If it is the latter issue then simply
getting the correct disks should be enough.
Cheers,
Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com ?

Paul:

The version running seems to be 9.0.2047.

The version on the CD is 9.0.1399, I think.

The running version was installed from the same CD, but was later upgraded
to SP1 from a downloaded file from MS.

Paul

"Paul Ibison" wrote:

> Paul - what is the version of SQL Server that is installed, and what is the
> version on the disk? I had a similar experience when installing the SSMS
> tools on a box that already had the client tools on it, because the client
> tools belonged to a server version and the computer was a desktop. In your
> case it might be that the initial tools are also incompatible with the
> computer they're installed on or alternatively the installation cd is
> different to the installed version. If it is the latter issue then simply
> getting the correct disks should be enough.
> Cheers,
> Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com ?
>
>
>

Paul:

As an additional note, I have tried to locate a "Setup.exe" file from the
SP1 update, thinking that when I attempt to add the component from Add/Remove
programs and it asks for the setup.exe file I could specify that version. I
was unable to find it.

Paul

Paul,
in my case ultimately I had to uninstall before reinstalling.
In your case it might be the same - perhaps PSS could definitively tell you
if this is the case. Sorry to not be more positive here!
Cheers,
Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com

Paul:

What/Who is PSS?

In my opinion this definitely a bug. If it is a bug, how does one go about
reporting a bug to MS without incurring $$$?

"Paul Ibison" wrote:

> Paul,
> in my case ultimately I had to uninstall before reinstalling.
> In your case it might be the same - perhaps PSS could definitively tell you
> if this is the case. Sorry to not be more positive here!
> Cheers,
> Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com
>
>
>

Paul,
if you have MSDN then you'll have some support calls for free, so there
won't be a cost. If it turns out to be a bug with a hotfix, also you won't
have any charge. Otherwise I remember paying £100 for a call some time
back - just checked and it is $245 now. PSS is available here:
http://support.microsoft.com/common/...h=1&gprid=2855
Cheers,
Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com

Paul:

I just had a rather humorous conversations with the folks at M$.

I called one of their Tech support numbers and asked how I could report a
bug in SQL Server. The woman their responded that I have two choices;

1) I can pay them $245 USD, and if the technician determines that it truly
is a bug, they will refund my money.

Not wanting to gamble my $245 that some individual that gets paid out of my
money is going to agree to give it back to me, I asked what the other option
was;

2) I can send a bug report via postal mail, with full documentation,
including how to reproduce the error, etc.

I burst out in uncontrollable laughter.

No wonder M$ hasn't a fix for this bug. M$ hasn't found out about it 'cause
nobody wants to pay the $245, or write a book, print it and send it via snail
mail.

The good news is that I understand that laughter is supposed to have
positive health benefits. I will be chuckling about this long after I
reinstall SQL Server to add replication, perhaps even after I replace SQL
Server with Oracle.

I should have remembered that there are only two answers to any M$ problem,
1) Reboot, 2) Reinstall.

Paul

Paul,
we use MSDN credits with PSS and have had generally positive experiences,
albeit through some lengthy correspondences. The one main thing they have is
an enormous database of cases which may well contain the error you have
encountered - who knows. In your particular case however I'd also have
reinstalled rather than go through PSS. The installation path you were
trying was a regression to a component of an earlier version which seems
understandable (although admittedly inflexible) to be disallowed - in my
case I couldn't find a workaround either so I did the same. Anyway, keep
laughing - you're $245 richer in real terms
Paul

Paul:

I agree with everything except the usage of "understandable",
"understandably lazy" or, maybe "an understandable bug" perhaps. But to not
allow adding components after adding a M$ supplied SP, means that appropriate
regression testing was not done, or it was done and they callously
disregarded the problem.

Paul