March 1, 2012 at 10:23 am
Kelsey Thornton (3/1/2012)
I don't dispute there are many reasons why this might be desirable, or even required.My point was simply that a little background information into why the port number was being changed might not be out of place in the article.
It's a bit like giving driving directions to #1544 Tree Road, Smalltown, WI and not saying "come to my party at 8 o'clock tonight"
Fair points, but this article was commissioned by me as a short way to show people how to change the port number. The directions in BOL have not been clear to many people.
The "why" article probably should be written, but this wasn't an attempt to cover every aspect of this topic.
March 2, 2012 at 1:38 am
Phil Brammer (3/1/2012)
I suspect there are client aliases set up, or the port has not been changed. SSMS will always try to connect to 1433 for default instances unless you have a client alias set up or you specify the port in the connection string.
No aliases - I've checked that. And if I try to telnet on port 1433 it doesn't work. Not that I'm complaining - I'd rather have something work when it's not expected to than the other way round!
Edit: I suppose the connection could be being made using Named Pipes.
John
March 2, 2012 at 3:30 am
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (3/1/2012)
<snip>Fair points, but this article was commissioned by me as a short way to show people how to change the port number. The directions in BOL have not been clear to many people.
The "why" article probably should be written, but this wasn't an attempt to cover every aspect of this topic.
If the article had said something like "As the directions in BOL are unclear to many people, here is how to go about changing a port number" then that would also have been fine...
(I'm not bashing the article, it was simply a little "here's some information", that's all.)
Kelsey Thornton
MBCS CITP
March 2, 2012 at 3:33 am
Good
Viewing 4 posts - 16 through 18 (of 18 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply