I am in the process of migrating apps from SSRS 2K sp1 to SP2 and one of the
application renders to PDF and it is not working.
I thought pdf rendering was missed out from rsserver.config file and added
the line below
<Extension Name="PDF"
type="Microsoft.ReportingServices.Rendering.ImageRenderer.PdfReport,Microsoft.ReportingServices.ImageRendering"/>
...thinking it might help, but still not.
THis is the error msg we are getting whenever we run the report from the
application.
An attempt has been made to use a rendering extension that is not registered
for this report server. --> An attempt has been made to use a rendering
extension that is not registered for this report server. --> An attempt has
been made to use a rendering extension that is not registered for this report
server
When we run the report from reporting service it works...
Can some one help me or point me in how to fix ...
Env: Win2k3 - SQL 2k - SSRS Sp2.
Thanks
- SaravanaAnyone can you reply about this, as I am in a time crunch
regards
- Saravana
"SK" wrote:
> I am in the process of migrating apps from SSRS 2K sp1 to SP2 and one of the
> application renders to PDF and it is not working.
> I thought pdf rendering was missed out from rsserver.config file and added
> the line below
> <Extension Name="PDF"
> type="Microsoft.ReportingServices.Rendering.ImageRenderer.PdfReport,Microsoft.ReportingServices.ImageRendering"/>
> ...thinking it might help, but still not.
> THis is the error msg we are getting whenever we run the report from the
> application.
> An attempt has been made to use a rendering extension that is not registered
> for this report server. --> An attempt has been made to use a rendering
> extension that is not registered for this report server. --> An attempt has
> been made to use a rendering extension that is not registered for this report
> server
> When we run the report from reporting service it works...
> Can some one help me or point me in how to fix ...
> Env: Win2k3 - SQL 2k - SSRS Sp2.
> Thanks
> - Saravana
Showing posts with label sp1. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sp1. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
PDF Render performance with SP1
Hi,
We have been working with some lrge PDF reports (200-400 pages) and have been anxiously awaiting
SP1 because of performance problems we have been having.
Our initial tests show that the performance is better: Given about 3000 records from SQL Server,
we generated a 272 page report.
Pre SP1: 4 minutes 35 seconds
With SP: 2 minutes 5 second.
So it is just over twice as fast. I also noticed that it is consuming less memory (roughly down
from 700MB to 400MB)
We still would like to get the performance much better and I'm looking for help to understand the
process and what we can do. In the past, running this report in MS Access and using ActivePDF took
10-20 seconds to generate the same report. Why is there such a disparity?
The SQL Query is taking 1-2 seconds at most, then all of the time is spent in aspnet_wp - all CPU,
negligible disk I/O. How do you suggest we identify the time spent?
Are there any tricks to making the report more efficient so that the PDF render time is better? Do
you have some favorite performance counters to watch to better isolate this?
We are trying to convert to using RS exclusively for our reports, but this performance may prevent
us from doing so - any help would be appreciated!
Thanks to all,
JamiIn general, the rules around RDL are much more complex than that of Access.
So much of the time may be in processing, not rendering. What is the time
for XML? Also, what type of data regions are you using (list, table,
matrix?).
Nonetheless, we will continue to work on both performance and size for
future releases.
--
Brian Welcker
Group Program Manager
SQL Server Reporting Services
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Jami Bradley" <jbradley@.isa-og.com> wrote in message
news:vv3pd0hd8qupdap37f9e5rqn5c6pupi63k@.4ax.com...
> Hi,
> We have been working with some lrge PDF reports (200-400 pages) and have
> been anxiously awaiting
> SP1 because of performance problems we have been having.
> Our initial tests show that the performance is better: Given about 3000
> records from SQL Server,
> we generated a 272 page report.
> Pre SP1: 4 minutes 35 seconds
> With SP: 2 minutes 5 second.
> So it is just over twice as fast. I also noticed that it is consuming
> less memory (roughly down
> from 700MB to 400MB)
> We still would like to get the performance much better and I'm looking for
> help to understand the
> process and what we can do. In the past, running this report in MS Access
> and using ActivePDF took
> 10-20 seconds to generate the same report. Why is there such a disparity?
> The SQL Query is taking 1-2 seconds at most, then all of the time is spent
> in aspnet_wp - all CPU,
> negligible disk I/O. How do you suggest we identify the time spent?
> Are there any tricks to making the report more efficient so that the PDF
> render time is better? Do
> you have some favorite performance counters to watch to better isolate
> this?
> We are trying to convert to using RS exclusively for our reports, but this
> performance may prevent
> us from doing so - any help would be appreciated!
> Thanks to all,
> Jami
>|||We timed the XML output and it was just over 2 *seconds*. Our report is a list with sublists.
If you have any tips that may avoid performance issues with our reports, please let us know.
Thanks!
Jami
On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 00:25:50 -0700, "Brian Welcker [MSFT]" <bwelcker@.online.microsoft.com> wrote:
>In general, the rules around RDL are much more complex than that of Access.
>So much of the time may be in processing, not rendering. What is the time
>for XML? Also, what type of data regions are you using (list, table,
>matrix?).
>Nonetheless, we will continue to work on both performance and size for
>future releases.|||Well, XML is much easier than PDF. One thing that you should probably look
at is converting some of your report to tables instead of lists. Tables can
sometimes be faster to render.
--
Brian Welcker
Group Program Manager
SQL Server Reporting Services
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Jami Bradley" <jbradley@.isa-og.com> wrote in message
news:cfc0e0ld0j45b4tbl6ic32tvskcod2ff3t@.4ax.com...
> We timed the XML output and it was just over 2 *seconds*. Our report is a
> list with sublists.
> If you have any tips that may avoid performance issues with our reports,
> please let us know.
> Thanks!
> Jami
> On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 00:25:50 -0700, "Brian Welcker [MSFT]"
> <bwelcker@.online.microsoft.com> wrote:
>>In general, the rules around RDL are much more complex than that of
>>Access.
>>So much of the time may be in processing, not rendering. What is the time
>>for XML? Also, what type of data regions are you using (list, table,
>>matrix?).
>>Nonetheless, we will continue to work on both performance and size for
>>future releases.
>|||We have been doing some testing with one of our reports and found a few interesting things. Here
is the basic information on what we did and how it affected the PDF size and PDF render
performance. All of the reports we ran were dominated by PDF render (checked in the execution
log). We were unable to get adequate performance from this report, so we solved this with a
different product, but I hope the information is useful to others.
All of these tests were using Report Manager - the processing time is the time for 'View Report' to
preview in IE, the PDF render time is the time to export to PDF from Report Manager.
A. Baseline Report (original form, desired report format):
10-15 seconds processing, 5:27 in PDF render, 508 pages, 10.6MB
B. Removed grouping and sub-report:
11 seconds processing, 2:10 in PDF render, 508 pages, 10.2MB
C. B with all details line drawing removed, and no logo (now a plain text report):
9 seconds processing, 1:00 in PDF render, 402 pages, 2.6MB
D. C with no line drawing in page header, avoiding overlapping text:
11 seconds processing, 52 in PDF render, 402 pages, 2.01MB
E. D with two fields removed (fairly complex nested iif expressions):
8 seconds processing, 46 in PDF render, 402 pages, 1.92MB
Items C, D, E had slightly different queries which reduced the row count from about 4500 to about
4000. Too bad I saw this late! I retested E with the proper row count to get the following
results:
E2. Corrected where clause to get all the rows:
9 seconds processing, 1:15 in PDF render, 451 pages, 2.16MB
So the conclusions? Grouping is dominating the time to get this report rendered (our grouping
simply puts a header line between groups). Line drawing makes the PDF significantly larger - this
is not too surpising, but other products seem to do this much more efficiently.
Good luck,
Jami
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 22:43:17 -0700, "Brian Welcker [MSFT]" <bwelcker@.online.microsoft.com> wrote:
>Well, XML is much easier than PDF. One thing that you should probably look
>at is converting some of your report to tables instead of lists. Tables can
>sometimes be faster to render.
We have been working with some lrge PDF reports (200-400 pages) and have been anxiously awaiting
SP1 because of performance problems we have been having.
Our initial tests show that the performance is better: Given about 3000 records from SQL Server,
we generated a 272 page report.
Pre SP1: 4 minutes 35 seconds
With SP: 2 minutes 5 second.
So it is just over twice as fast. I also noticed that it is consuming less memory (roughly down
from 700MB to 400MB)
We still would like to get the performance much better and I'm looking for help to understand the
process and what we can do. In the past, running this report in MS Access and using ActivePDF took
10-20 seconds to generate the same report. Why is there such a disparity?
The SQL Query is taking 1-2 seconds at most, then all of the time is spent in aspnet_wp - all CPU,
negligible disk I/O. How do you suggest we identify the time spent?
Are there any tricks to making the report more efficient so that the PDF render time is better? Do
you have some favorite performance counters to watch to better isolate this?
We are trying to convert to using RS exclusively for our reports, but this performance may prevent
us from doing so - any help would be appreciated!
Thanks to all,
JamiIn general, the rules around RDL are much more complex than that of Access.
So much of the time may be in processing, not rendering. What is the time
for XML? Also, what type of data regions are you using (list, table,
matrix?).
Nonetheless, we will continue to work on both performance and size for
future releases.
--
Brian Welcker
Group Program Manager
SQL Server Reporting Services
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Jami Bradley" <jbradley@.isa-og.com> wrote in message
news:vv3pd0hd8qupdap37f9e5rqn5c6pupi63k@.4ax.com...
> Hi,
> We have been working with some lrge PDF reports (200-400 pages) and have
> been anxiously awaiting
> SP1 because of performance problems we have been having.
> Our initial tests show that the performance is better: Given about 3000
> records from SQL Server,
> we generated a 272 page report.
> Pre SP1: 4 minutes 35 seconds
> With SP: 2 minutes 5 second.
> So it is just over twice as fast. I also noticed that it is consuming
> less memory (roughly down
> from 700MB to 400MB)
> We still would like to get the performance much better and I'm looking for
> help to understand the
> process and what we can do. In the past, running this report in MS Access
> and using ActivePDF took
> 10-20 seconds to generate the same report. Why is there such a disparity?
> The SQL Query is taking 1-2 seconds at most, then all of the time is spent
> in aspnet_wp - all CPU,
> negligible disk I/O. How do you suggest we identify the time spent?
> Are there any tricks to making the report more efficient so that the PDF
> render time is better? Do
> you have some favorite performance counters to watch to better isolate
> this?
> We are trying to convert to using RS exclusively for our reports, but this
> performance may prevent
> us from doing so - any help would be appreciated!
> Thanks to all,
> Jami
>|||We timed the XML output and it was just over 2 *seconds*. Our report is a list with sublists.
If you have any tips that may avoid performance issues with our reports, please let us know.
Thanks!
Jami
On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 00:25:50 -0700, "Brian Welcker [MSFT]" <bwelcker@.online.microsoft.com> wrote:
>In general, the rules around RDL are much more complex than that of Access.
>So much of the time may be in processing, not rendering. What is the time
>for XML? Also, what type of data regions are you using (list, table,
>matrix?).
>Nonetheless, we will continue to work on both performance and size for
>future releases.|||Well, XML is much easier than PDF. One thing that you should probably look
at is converting some of your report to tables instead of lists. Tables can
sometimes be faster to render.
--
Brian Welcker
Group Program Manager
SQL Server Reporting Services
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Jami Bradley" <jbradley@.isa-og.com> wrote in message
news:cfc0e0ld0j45b4tbl6ic32tvskcod2ff3t@.4ax.com...
> We timed the XML output and it was just over 2 *seconds*. Our report is a
> list with sublists.
> If you have any tips that may avoid performance issues with our reports,
> please let us know.
> Thanks!
> Jami
> On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 00:25:50 -0700, "Brian Welcker [MSFT]"
> <bwelcker@.online.microsoft.com> wrote:
>>In general, the rules around RDL are much more complex than that of
>>Access.
>>So much of the time may be in processing, not rendering. What is the time
>>for XML? Also, what type of data regions are you using (list, table,
>>matrix?).
>>Nonetheless, we will continue to work on both performance and size for
>>future releases.
>|||We have been doing some testing with one of our reports and found a few interesting things. Here
is the basic information on what we did and how it affected the PDF size and PDF render
performance. All of the reports we ran were dominated by PDF render (checked in the execution
log). We were unable to get adequate performance from this report, so we solved this with a
different product, but I hope the information is useful to others.
All of these tests were using Report Manager - the processing time is the time for 'View Report' to
preview in IE, the PDF render time is the time to export to PDF from Report Manager.
A. Baseline Report (original form, desired report format):
10-15 seconds processing, 5:27 in PDF render, 508 pages, 10.6MB
B. Removed grouping and sub-report:
11 seconds processing, 2:10 in PDF render, 508 pages, 10.2MB
C. B with all details line drawing removed, and no logo (now a plain text report):
9 seconds processing, 1:00 in PDF render, 402 pages, 2.6MB
D. C with no line drawing in page header, avoiding overlapping text:
11 seconds processing, 52 in PDF render, 402 pages, 2.01MB
E. D with two fields removed (fairly complex nested iif expressions):
8 seconds processing, 46 in PDF render, 402 pages, 1.92MB
Items C, D, E had slightly different queries which reduced the row count from about 4500 to about
4000. Too bad I saw this late! I retested E with the proper row count to get the following
results:
E2. Corrected where clause to get all the rows:
9 seconds processing, 1:15 in PDF render, 451 pages, 2.16MB
So the conclusions? Grouping is dominating the time to get this report rendered (our grouping
simply puts a header line between groups). Line drawing makes the PDF significantly larger - this
is not too surpising, but other products seem to do this much more efficiently.
Good luck,
Jami
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 22:43:17 -0700, "Brian Welcker [MSFT]" <bwelcker@.online.microsoft.com> wrote:
>Well, XML is much easier than PDF. One thing that you should probably look
>at is converting some of your report to tables instead of lists. Tables can
>sometimes be faster to render.
Monday, March 26, 2012
PDF Export Failing after SP1
Am also having a problem exporting to PDF since installing SP1. Error is
"Cannot download format=PDF from <server>"
"Internet Explorer was not able to open this Internet Site. The requested
site is either unavailable or cannot be found. Please try again later".
Micktry to export same report to PDF in visual studio designer
you will recive different error
this error is explained in two of todays posts
HTH,
Kamil
U¿ytkownik "Mick Horne" <mick.horne@.conchango.com> napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
news:%23bePBQeXEHA.1656@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Am also having a problem exporting to PDF since installing SP1. Error is
> "Cannot download format=PDF from <server>"
> "Internet Explorer was not able to open this Internet Site. The requested
> site is either unavailable or cannot be found. Please try again later".
> Mick
>
>|||> try to export same report to PDF in visual studio designer
> you will recive different error
> this error is explained in two of todays posts
As posted before I've got the same problem. And yes, you are right, in the
designer I receive a different error. Unfortunately I can not find the posts
where a solution for this is stated. Can you please explain to me how to fix
it?
Thanks.
Christian|||Workaround solution with following post:
"SP1 - Exception of type
Microsoft.ReportingServices.ReportRendering.ReportRenderingException was
thrown" by Rahul
U¿ytkownik "Christian Anders" <anders.christian@.firemail.de> napisa³ w
wiadomo¶ci news:ewNfcgeXEHA.2388@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > try to export same report to PDF in visual studio designer
> > you will recive different error
> > this error is explained in two of todays posts
> As posted before I've got the same problem. And yes, you are right, in the
> designer I receive a different error. Unfortunately I can not find the
posts
> where a solution for this is stated. Can you please explain to me how to
fix
> it?
> Thanks.
> Christian
>sql
"Cannot download format=PDF from <server>"
"Internet Explorer was not able to open this Internet Site. The requested
site is either unavailable or cannot be found. Please try again later".
Micktry to export same report to PDF in visual studio designer
you will recive different error
this error is explained in two of todays posts
HTH,
Kamil
U¿ytkownik "Mick Horne" <mick.horne@.conchango.com> napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
news:%23bePBQeXEHA.1656@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Am also having a problem exporting to PDF since installing SP1. Error is
> "Cannot download format=PDF from <server>"
> "Internet Explorer was not able to open this Internet Site. The requested
> site is either unavailable or cannot be found. Please try again later".
> Mick
>
>|||> try to export same report to PDF in visual studio designer
> you will recive different error
> this error is explained in two of todays posts
As posted before I've got the same problem. And yes, you are right, in the
designer I receive a different error. Unfortunately I can not find the posts
where a solution for this is stated. Can you please explain to me how to fix
it?
Thanks.
Christian|||Workaround solution with following post:
"SP1 - Exception of type
Microsoft.ReportingServices.ReportRendering.ReportRenderingException was
thrown" by Rahul
U¿ytkownik "Christian Anders" <anders.christian@.firemail.de> napisa³ w
wiadomo¶ci news:ewNfcgeXEHA.2388@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > try to export same report to PDF in visual studio designer
> > you will recive different error
> > this error is explained in two of todays posts
> As posted before I've got the same problem. And yes, you are right, in the
> designer I receive a different error. Unfortunately I can not find the
posts
> where a solution for this is stated. Can you please explain to me how to
fix
> it?
> Thanks.
> Christian
>sql
PDF error after applying SP1
After applying SP1 i got following error during export to PDF
Export Error:
"Index and lenght must refer to a location within a string.
Parameter name: lenght"Workaround solution with following post:
"SP1 - Exception of type
Microsoft.ReportingServices.ReportRendering.ReportRenderingException was
thrown" by Rahul
U¿ytkownik "kamel" <ddd@.ddd.com> napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
news:e9gFBIQXEHA.3016@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> After applying SP1 i got following error during export to PDF
> Export Error:
> "Index and lenght must refer to a location within a string.
> Parameter name: lenght"
>|||I have a straight forward workaround: Always use a Lang-Country code pair.
For example, in report designer, the language options for Norwegian are
Name Lang-County Code
* Norwegian no
* Norwegian (Bokmal) nb-NO
* Norwegian (Nynorsk) nn-NO
To avoid the error when exporting to PDF always use nb-NO or nn-NO.
--
Bruce Johnson [MSFT]
Microsoft SQL Server Reporting Services
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"kamel" <ddd@.ddd.com> wrote in message
news:e1TnW%23cXEHA.2364@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Workaround solution with following post:
> "SP1 - Exception of type
> Microsoft.ReportingServices.ReportRendering.ReportRenderingException was
> thrown" by Rahul
> U¿ytkownik "kamel" <ddd@.ddd.com> napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
> news:e9gFBIQXEHA.3016@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > After applying SP1 i got following error during export to PDF
> >
> > Export Error:
> > "Index and lenght must refer to a location within a string.
> > Parameter name: lenght"
> >
> >
>
Export Error:
"Index and lenght must refer to a location within a string.
Parameter name: lenght"Workaround solution with following post:
"SP1 - Exception of type
Microsoft.ReportingServices.ReportRendering.ReportRenderingException was
thrown" by Rahul
U¿ytkownik "kamel" <ddd@.ddd.com> napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
news:e9gFBIQXEHA.3016@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> After applying SP1 i got following error during export to PDF
> Export Error:
> "Index and lenght must refer to a location within a string.
> Parameter name: lenght"
>|||I have a straight forward workaround: Always use a Lang-Country code pair.
For example, in report designer, the language options for Norwegian are
Name Lang-County Code
* Norwegian no
* Norwegian (Bokmal) nb-NO
* Norwegian (Nynorsk) nn-NO
To avoid the error when exporting to PDF always use nb-NO or nn-NO.
--
Bruce Johnson [MSFT]
Microsoft SQL Server Reporting Services
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"kamel" <ddd@.ddd.com> wrote in message
news:e1TnW%23cXEHA.2364@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Workaround solution with following post:
> "SP1 - Exception of type
> Microsoft.ReportingServices.ReportRendering.ReportRenderingException was
> thrown" by Rahul
> U¿ytkownik "kamel" <ddd@.ddd.com> napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
> news:e9gFBIQXEHA.3016@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > After applying SP1 i got following error during export to PDF
> >
> > Export Error:
> > "Index and lenght must refer to a location within a string.
> > Parameter name: lenght"
> >
> >
>
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Patching SqlRun_Sql.msi not successful
Hi all,
when I tried to integrate SP1 into my install media (32bit Developer Edition) by using
msiexec /i sqlrun_sql.msi shortfilename=true /p sqlrun_sql.msp
using the msp from an extracted SP1 full web download I ended up with a modified msi file. But installing from this one I received an error:
"sysdbupg.sql.<some_guid> was not found in Sql.CAB"
Any ideas how to fix that?
With best regards,
Artus
Hey Artus, what is it specifically that you're trying to integrate? Are you able to change your install cmd to call the SP1 exe instead? Are you confined to call the msp's directly? This gets a bit sticky and we'd prefer to stay with the exe if possible.
Thanks,
Sam Lester (MSFT)
Hi Sam,
for the university I am at we are looking for a solution to deploy SQL Server 2005 to several dozens of computers. It is though not feasible for us to get someone manually installing SQL Server to each computer that is why we are
(1) looking for a program to write an appropriate MST file [any hints appreciated] to deploy custom installation for our AD forest
(2) integrating SP1 and the hotfix rollup for SP1 into the install media *
And for (2) I extracted the SP1 web download, searched for the MSPs and now try to integrate them into the corresponding MSIs.
With kind regards,
Artus
*.) We don't get any of the two updates delivered by Microsoft Update opposite to what we expected when we migrated to Microsoft Update. If WSUS will deliver both the SP1 and the rollup we were fine with that, too
|||Still any help appreciated :-)|||Running the MSP directly to upgrade to SP1 is not supported. You should look at launching the hotfix.exe using the unattended command-line flags, such as /quiet and /allinstances.
SQL Server SP1 has just been published to Microsoft Update so you can also obatin the update from there.
Peter
Patching for W2k3 SP1 server w/SQL Server 2005
Is the correct procedure for SUS patches to a server running SQL Server 2005, to set the client to download only and then manually shutdown SQL Server, apply patches, reboot, and restart SQL Server?
Do SQL Server 2005 patches download through SUS or is it manual SP only, except for hotfixes?
Thanks, Tom
I don't have much experience with SUS, but the hotfix patches will take care of the services for you. SP2, which has publicly released quite yet, shows a list of processes in use to allow you to shut them down before patching. This will eliminate the reboot need.
Thanks,
Sam Lester (MSFT)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)