June 16, 2012 at 12:38 pm
I am trying to install SQL Server 2005 SP2 on a fresh install of SQL Server 2005 on a Virtual Windows 2003 R2 64 bit server single-node cluster. It successfully upgrades everything but the database engine itself. It throws an error indicating the the account being used for the installation does not have adequate permissions to rename the mssqlsystemresource.ldf file. The account has all the permissions necessary to modify the file, so this error may be a bit of a red herring. The initial install was done during the wee hours of the morning and at some point the Windows domain account being used became locked out. This may have happened during the SP2 attempted install, so that could be the issue. I have seen other articles indicating the the file mentioned could have been in a different location than the one from the original install, but this is not the case. The attempted SP2 install was performed immediately after the initial install.
I can attempt to find a solution to the issue for SP2 or perhaps just try to install SP3. But I am not sure if I would have any better luck with it.
Thanks for any solutions or suggestions.
June 16, 2012 at 3:37 pm
I have resolved this error in the past by explicitly granting the sql server service account full control on the mssql directory (i.e the resource database files are in the data directory, grant the right to the mssql directory above that)
If that does not work (I would expect it to), right click on the file itself and grant the sql service account full control to the file.
I had to do this in the past even though permissions looked correct
---------------------------------------------------------------------
June 16, 2012 at 4:14 pm
Another thing... if you are not concerned about which SP you apply (you say you are happy to try SP3) then go for the latest service pack which is SP4, and follow that with security patch MS11-049.
Service packs are cumulative but personally I would be uncomfortable applying a later service pack on top of an incomplete previous patch, so complete SP2 first.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
June 16, 2012 at 5:43 pm
george sibbald (6/16/2012)
Another thing... if you are not concerned about which SP you apply (you say you are happy to try SP3) then go for the latest service pack which is SP4, and follow that with security patch MS11-049.Service packs are cumulative but personally I would be uncomfortable applying a later service pack on top of an incomplete previous patch, so complete SP2 first.
Just curious...might I ask why MS11-049 jumped out as one specifically to recommend out of all the patches available post-SP4?
As long we're talking patching might I suggest applying SP4 Cumulative Update 3 (the last CU Microsoft released for SP4) immediately after applying SP4: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2507769.
Then applying the QFE patch for MS11-049: http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=26286
There are no special teachers of virtue, because virtue is taught by the whole community.
--Plato
June 17, 2012 at 4:18 am
I highlighted MS11-049 as it is an important security update and should be applied to all SQL servers.
there is by the way a post SP3 version of this patch if the OP goes for SP3.
I fall into the camp of only applying CUs if you hit the error they address as they are not as fully tested by microsoft as service packs. I can understand the reasoning behind applying them to a new build as you can then fully test your application against that build before go live, but I don't know if the op is in that situation.
This may all be moot for the op but I feel the least risk option, and therefore the advice I would give, is to stick to service packs and security patches
---------------------------------------------------------------------
June 17, 2012 at 7:05 am
Unfortunately, after checking all the file and directory permissions I was still unable to install SP2.
I got the same error as before. But doesn't the execution of the SP just recreate the files when it runs? If so, then it could theoretically undo the permissions I had set before. I am enclosing the exact error.
Product : Database Services (MSSQLSERVER)
Product Version (Previous): 1399
Product Version (Final) :
Status : Failure
Log File : C:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\90\Setup Bootstrap\LOG\Hotfix\SQL9_Hotfix_KB921896_sqlrun_sql.msp.log
Error Number : 29538
Error Description : MSP Error: 29538 SQL Server Setup did not have the administrator permissions required to rename a file:
X:\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL.1\MSSQL\DATA\mssqlsystemresource1.ldf. To continue, verify that the file exists, and
either grant administrator permissions to the account currently running Setup or log in with an administrator account.
Then run SQL Server Setup again.
Summary
One or more products failed to install, see above for details
Exit Code Returned: 29538
Thanks for your help!
June 17, 2012 at 8:07 am
george sibbald (6/17/2012)
I highlighted MS11-049 as it is an important security update and should be applied to all SQL servers.
No question, it is important. I just wondered why you singled it out specifically. I would say I am a bit more willing to apply CUs. I too apply the patch for MS11-049 however, post SP4+CU3, which brings me to Build 9.0.5292. If you install it on top of SP4, but without any CUs (the GDR patch), then I think you'll land on 9.0.5057, but don't quote me. Thanks for the response.
there is by the way a post SP3 version of this patch if the OP goes for SP3.
The link I posted is specifically for the QFE patch meant to apply post-SP4+CU3. Here is a link to all the available flavors of the patch: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/security/bulletin/ms11-049.
The correct patch for the particular machine will depend on the SP level and post-SP patch level (if any) of the product.
There are no special teachers of virtue, because virtue is taught by the whole community.
--Plato
June 17, 2012 at 8:12 am
charlesd (6/17/2012)
Unfortunately, after checking all the file and directory permissions I was still unable to install SP2.I got the same error as before. But doesn't the execution of the SP just recreate the files when it runs? If so, then it could theoretically undo the permissions I had set before. I am enclosing the exact error.
Product : Database Services (MSSQLSERVER)
Product Version (Previous): 1399
Product Version (Final) :
Status : Failure
Log File : C:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\90\Setup Bootstrap\LOG\Hotfix\SQL9_Hotfix_KB921896_sqlrun_sql.msp.log
Error Number : 29538
Error Description : MSP Error: 29538 SQL Server Setup did not have the administrator permissions required to rename a file:
X:\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL.1\MSSQL\DATA\mssqlsystemresource1.ldf. To continue, verify that the file exists, and
either grant administrator permissions to the account currently running Setup or log in with an administrator account.
Then run SQL Server Setup again.
Summary
One or more products failed to install, see above for details
Exit Code Returned: 29538
Thanks for your help!
Googling for this error code, it looks like you may have success if you move your system databases back to their default locations so they reside together, at least for the time while you apply the SP, then you can move them back:
There are no special teachers of virtue, because virtue is taught by the whole community.
--Plato
June 17, 2012 at 8:15 am
you say you checked the permissions, did you make any changes and add the permissions I suggested above, this definitely sounds like a permissions error.
Please ensure the account you are installing with has admin rights on the box, if it has I would explicitly grant rights to your account and sql server service account to the .ldf file and directory and if necessary grant local admin to the sql server service account for the duration of the install.
If the error continues download processmon and run it while the upgrade runs, it will highlight the exact error for you.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
June 17, 2012 at 10:27 am
I know it does seem like a permissions issue, but I set all those as you mentioned and still got the error. The files are in the same directory with the other system databases, master, msdb, temp db and it is the original directory where SQL Server 2005 RTM was installed.
I notice a service, Forescout remote inspection service, running on the server which is a virtual. I am not familiar with this service though and don't know if it could be causing any issues.
June 17, 2012 at 11:41 am
something is preventing the installer accessing that file, only running processmon is going to tell you exactly what is happening.
goggling forescout it sounds like some sort of security tool monitoring remote access and has some links to the stopping and starting of services, so you could try disabling this while you upgrade but check with your windows administrators.
Is this a fresh install and no live applications are affected by this.?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
June 18, 2012 at 7:42 pm
I tried disabling Forescout and running Processmon while I attempted a re-install of SP2. Unfortunately, it failed again and this is running in production.
Since I am unfamiliar with processmon, my results were virtually useless. It generated over a million and a half entries in the short amount of time it ran. I guess it must need to be filtered in some way to control the amount of data it generates. I also noticed that the Forescout service had somehow restarted even though I had stopped and disabled it. Maybe that is the issue.
If you have any instructions on how to use processmon to limit the data generated, that would be appreciated.
June 19, 2012 at 4:37 am
processmon output can be filtered, its hard to explain so a google on how to use processmon got this:
http://blogs.technet.com/b/askperf/archive/2007/06/01/troubleshooting-with-process-monitor.aspx
you can also search the output for the string mssqlsytemresource.ldf
If this proves intractable it may be time to call in MS support
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Viewing 13 posts - 1 through 12 (of 12 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply