Required Security for Report Viewer on Windows 2003 SP1 Web Server

When trying to run a local report using the RS Report Viewer for VS
2005 we get the below exception when the User Account for the
Application Pool we are using is not in the Administrators Group of the
web server.
Does anybody have any suggestions as to what specific security is
needed to use the Report Viewer?
Could this be because we built the application as a "Web Project"
instead of a "Web Site"?
Microsoft.Reporting.WebForms.LocalProcessingException: An error
occurred during local report processing. -->
Microsoft.Reporting.DefinitionInvalidException: The definition of the
report 'Main Report' is invalid. -->
Microsoft.ReportingServices.ReportProcessing.ReportProcessingException:
An unexpected error occurred while compiling expressions. Native
compiler return value: '[BC2001] file 'C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\n_rkco4n.0.vb'
could not be found'. -- End of inner exception stack trace -- at
AMR.AdvertiserClientList.RefreshReport() in C:\Documents and
Settings\god\My Documents\Visual Studio
2005\Projects\AMR\AdvertiserClientList.aspx.vb:line 192 at
AMR.AdvertiserClientList.RUNREPORT_Click(Object sender, EventArgs e) in
C:\Documents and Settings\God\My Documents\Visual Studio
2005\Projects\AMR\AdvertiserClientList.aspx.vb:line 50 ::
InnerException: Microsoft.Reporting.DefinitionInvalidException: The
definition of the report 'Main Report' is invalid. -->
Microsoft.ReportingServices.ReportProcessing.ReportProcessingException:
An unexpected error occurred while compiling expressions. Native
compiler return value: '[BC2001] file 'C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\n_rkco4n.0.vb'
could not be found'.This error is also logged in the system event viewer, however granting
access NETMAN in the DCOM manager only keeps the errors from showing
and does not fix the problem. The CLSID refers to tthe Network
Connection Manager Class (under the NETMAN application).
The application-specific permission settings do not grant Local
Activation permission for the COM Server application with CLSID
{BA126AD1-2166-11D1-B1D0-00805FC1270E}
to the user AMI\srvAcctAppAccessDEV SID
(S-1-5-21-2975352776-793034493-3225607600-10632). This security
permission can be modified using the Component Services administrative
tool.
tfelber@.gmail.com wrote:
> When trying to run a local report using the RS Report Viewer for VS
> 2005 we get the below exception when the User Account for the
> Application Pool we are using is not in the Administrators Group of the
> web server.
> Does anybody have any suggestions as to what specific security is
> needed to use the Report Viewer?
> Could this be because we built the application as a "Web Project"
> instead of a "Web Site"?
> Microsoft.Reporting.WebForms.LocalProcessingException: An error
> occurred during local report processing. -->
> Microsoft.Reporting.DefinitionInvalidException: The definition of the
> report 'Main Report' is invalid. -->
> Microsoft.ReportingServices.ReportProcessing.ReportProcessingException:
> An unexpected error occurred while compiling expressions. Native
> compiler return value: '[BC2001] file 'C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\n_rkco4n.0.vb'
> could not be found'. -- End of inner exception stack trace -- at
> AMR.AdvertiserClientList.RefreshReport() in C:\Documents and
> Settings\god\My Documents\Visual Studio
> 2005\Projects\AMR\AdvertiserClientList.aspx.vb:line 192 at
> AMR.AdvertiserClientList.RUNREPORT_Click(Object sender, EventArgs e) in
> C:\Documents and Settings\God\My Documents\Visual Studio
> 2005\Projects\AMR\AdvertiserClientList.aspx.vb:line 50 ::
> InnerException: Microsoft.Reporting.DefinitionInvalidException: The
> definition of the report 'Main Report' is invalid. -->
> Microsoft.ReportingServices.ReportProcessing.ReportProcessingException:
> An unexpected error occurred while compiling expressions. Native
> compiler return value: '[BC2001] file 'C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\n_rkco4n.0.vb'
> could not be found'.|||Finally figured it out.
The configurable identity that our application pool was using under
IIS 6.0 needed read/write access to the c:\Windows\Temp directory.
(Explains why we could get this to work when the account was part of
the Administrators or Power Users Group). I suppose this is to give it
temp space when rendering large reports.
Hopefully this helps somebody else out one day.
tfelber@.gmail.com wrote:
> This error is also logged in the system event viewer, however granting
> access NETMAN in the DCOM manager only keeps the errors from showing
> and does not fix the problem. The CLSID refers to tthe Network
> Connection Manager Class (under the NETMAN application).
> The application-specific permission settings do not grant Local
> Activation permission for the COM Server application with CLSID
> {BA126AD1-2166-11D1-B1D0-00805FC1270E}
> to the user AMI\srvAcctAppAccessDEV SID
> (S-1-5-21-2975352776-793034493-3225607600-10632). This security
> permission can be modified using the Component Services administrative
> tool.
>
> tfelber@.gmail.com wrote:
> > When trying to run a local report using the RS Report Viewer for VS
> > 2005 we get the below exception when the User Account for the
> > Application Pool we are using is not in the Administrators Group of the
> > web server.
> >
> > Does anybody have any suggestions as to what specific security is
> > needed to use the Report Viewer?
> >
> > Could this be because we built the application as a "Web Project"
> > instead of a "Web Site"?
> >
> > Microsoft.Reporting.WebForms.LocalProcessingException: An error
> > occurred during local report processing. -->
> > Microsoft.Reporting.DefinitionInvalidException: The definition of the
> > report 'Main Report' is invalid. -->
> > Microsoft.ReportingServices.ReportProcessing.ReportProcessingException:
> > An unexpected error occurred while compiling expressions. Native
> > compiler return value: '[BC2001] file 'C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\n_rkco4n.0.vb'
> > could not be found'. -- End of inner exception stack trace -- at
> > AMR.AdvertiserClientList.RefreshReport() in C:\Documents and
> > Settings\god\My Documents\Visual Studio
> > 2005\Projects\AMR\AdvertiserClientList.aspx.vb:line 192 at
> > AMR.AdvertiserClientList.RUNREPORT_Click(Object sender, EventArgs e) in
> > C:\Documents and Settings\God\My Documents\Visual Studio
> > 2005\Projects\AMR\AdvertiserClientList.aspx.vb:line 50 ::
> > InnerException: Microsoft.Reporting.DefinitionInvalidException: The
> > definition of the report 'Main Report' is invalid. -->
> > Microsoft.ReportingServices.ReportProcessing.ReportProcessingException:
> > An unexpected error occurred while compiling expressions. Native
> > compiler return value: '[BC2001] file 'C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\n_rkco4n.0.vb'
> > could not be found'.

request advice on judging memory usage/allocation

Hello,
I'm relatively new to SQL Server, and have 'inherited' a SQL Server box
with the following specs:
Windows 2003 SP1, SQL Server 2000 SP 3 (or 3a?), single-processor
license
2.8 GHz Xeon, 2 GB RAM, about 2 years old
Great Plains 7.5 company DBs, about 8-9 users during the day, total DB
size < 5 GB? I don't know exactly.
Other apps are the OS, some Access MDBs accessed by Access front ends
via Citrix, and an Abra Suite DB (FoxPro tables, eventually to be
migrated to SQL Server, the Abra client is on Citrix servers.
We have a monitoring system through our support consultant. This system
tells us now and then that SQL has used up all its physical memory, but
these alerts occur at odd times like midnight on a Sunday (to be fair,
this is around the time when SQL does its maintenance, backup, etc), or
540 pm when the main GP users have all gone home and are not doing
anything in GP. I don't know yet if SQL is paging a lot, but no
specific end user complaints have appeared yet, so we have time to be
pro-active.
I've recently found some information on which PerfMon items to check,
and will try these.
My questions:
1. If we install 4 GB of RAM do I need to learn about doing anything
special like set PAE or AWE parameters or boot.ini parameters or
anything' Most of the MS links I saw on the list are for Windows 2000
Server, not Windows 2003 Server.
2. If we put in 4 GB of RAM, it seems to me that setting SQL to 2.5 GB
max and leaving the remainder for the OS and Abra Suite would work
until Abra Suite's DB is upgraded to SQL 2005, in which case I would
change it to 3 GB for SQL and the remaining 1 GB for the OS and IIS,
which is our most likely upgrade path. Does this make sense'
Right now SQL is set to dynamic memory allocation and I would like to
leave it this way if possible but I want to learn about preventing
future issues down the road related to virtual or physical memory,
especially to prevent paging, this server has to last a while!!
3. Any other forum threads or websites or advice would be most welcome.
Thank you for reading this,
Tom"tlyczko" <tlyczko@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1151518715.642430.142110@.x69g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
> Hello,
> I'm relatively new to SQL Server, and have 'inherited' a SQL Server box
> with the following specs:
> Windows 2003 SP1, SQL Server 2000 SP 3 (or 3a?), single-processor
> license
> 2.8 GHz Xeon, 2 GB RAM, about 2 years old
> Great Plains 7.5 company DBs, about 8-9 users during the day, total DB
> size < 5 GB? I don't know exactly.
> Other apps are the OS, some Access MDBs accessed by Access front ends
> via Citrix, and an Abra Suite DB (FoxPro tables, eventually to be
> migrated to SQL Server, the Abra client is on Citrix servers.
> We have a monitoring system through our support consultant. This system
> tells us now and then that SQL has used up all its physical memory, but
> these alerts occur at odd times like midnight on a Sunday (to be fair,
> this is around the time when SQL does its maintenance, backup, etc), or
> 540 pm when the main GP users have all gone home and are not doing
> anything in GP. I don't know yet if SQL is paging a lot, but no
> specific end user complaints have appeared yet, so we have time to be
> pro-active.
> I've recently found some information on which PerfMon items to check,
> and will try these.
> My questions:
> 1. If we install 4 GB of RAM do I need to learn about doing anything
> special like set PAE or AWE parameters or boot.ini parameters or
> anything' Most of the MS links I saw on the list are for Windows 2000
> Server, not Windows 2003 Server.
No. In a small setup like this SQL Server will use < 2GB of ram (that's SQL
2000 Standard Ed.'s limit).
If you install more ram, the additional ram will be available for the other
applications, and they won't have to fight with SQL Server for memory.
SQL Server is designed to use up all the available memory for data cache,
which is appropriate only for a dedicated SQL Server. If you don't install
more ram, you should change SQL Server's max memory setting to leave enough
memory for the other applications to run..SQL Server will run just fine with
1G or 1.5G of ram. It will just use a smaller data cache and have to go to
disk more often.
David|||Thank you for responding...I put in two more short questions below.
David Browne wrote:
> No. In a small setup like this SQL Server will use < 2GB of ram (that's SQL
> 2000 Standard Ed.'s limit).
> If you install more ram, the additional ram will be available for the other
> applications, and they won't have to fight with SQL Server for memory.
Adding more RAM will not make any difference' Sigh. Thank you.
Does SQL Server 2005 Standard have the same limitation' One book I
read states that SQL Server 2005 Standard has no maximum RAM limit,
please correct me if I am wrong, so that seems like a good reason to
upgrade when we can do so, at which point it will only have SQL Server,
IIS, and the OS.
> SQL Server is designed to use up all the available memory for data cache,
> which is appropriate only for a dedicated SQL Server. If you don't install
> more ram, you should change SQL Server's max memory setting to leave enough
> memory for the other applications to run..SQL Server will run just fine with
> 1G or 1.5G of ram. It will just use a smaller data cache and have to go to
> disk more often.
Are there any *negative* consequences to SQL Server 2000 paging to disk
more often other than things possibly being "slower" and whatever wear
and tear could happen to the disk drives'
So far our server may not be paging very much at all, the alerts we
receive state that the server is using ~2% of virtual memory (paging).
Is any information available about judging how much RAM the OS (Windows
2003) should have available'
The pagefile BTW on this server I believe is 4 GB.
Thank you for your help so far.
Thank you, Tom

request advice on judging memory usage/allocation

Hello,
I'm relatively new to SQL Server, and have 'inherited' a SQL Server box
with the following specs:
Windows 2003 SP1, SQL Server 2000 SP 3 (or 3a?), single-processor
license
2.8 GHz Xeon, 2 GB RAM, about 2 years old
Great Plains 7.5 company DBs, about 8-9 users during the day, total DB
size < 5 GB? I don't know exactly.
Other apps are the OS, some Access MDBs accessed by Access front ends
via Citrix, and an Abra Suite DB (FoxPro tables, eventually to be
migrated to SQL Server, the Abra client is on Citrix servers.
We have a monitoring system through our support consultant. This system
tells us now and then that SQL has used up all its physical memory, but
these alerts occur at odd times like midnight on a Sunday (to be fair,
this is around the time when SQL does its maintenance, backup, etc), or
540 pm when the main GP users have all gone home and are not doing
anything in GP. I don't know yet if SQL is paging a lot, but no
specific end user complaints have appeared yet, so we have time to be
pro-active.
I've recently found some information on which PerfMon items to check,
and will try these.
My questions:
1. If we install 4 GB of RAM do I need to learn about doing anything
special like set PAE or AWE parameters or boot.ini parameters or
anything' Most of the MS links I saw on the list are for Windows 2000
Server, not Windows 2003 Server.
2. If we put in 4 GB of RAM, it seems to me that setting SQL to 2.5 GB
max and leaving the remainder for the OS and Abra Suite would work
until Abra Suite's DB is upgraded to SQL 2005, in which case I would
change it to 3 GB for SQL and the remaining 1 GB for the OS and IIS,
which is our most likely upgrade path. Does this make sense'
Right now SQL is set to dynamic memory allocation and I would like to
leave it this way if possible but I want to learn about preventing
future issues down the road related to virtual or physical memory,
especially to prevent paging, this server has to last a while!!
3. Any other forum threads or websites or advice would be most welcome.
Thank you for reading this,
Tom"tlyczko" <tlyczko@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1151518715.642430.142110@.x69g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
> Hello,
> I'm relatively new to SQL Server, and have 'inherited' a SQL Server box
> with the following specs:
> Windows 2003 SP1, SQL Server 2000 SP 3 (or 3a?), single-processor
> license
> 2.8 GHz Xeon, 2 GB RAM, about 2 years old
> Great Plains 7.5 company DBs, about 8-9 users during the day, total DB
> size < 5 GB? I don't know exactly.
> Other apps are the OS, some Access MDBs accessed by Access front ends
> via Citrix, and an Abra Suite DB (FoxPro tables, eventually to be
> migrated to SQL Server, the Abra client is on Citrix servers.
> We have a monitoring system through our support consultant. This system
> tells us now and then that SQL has used up all its physical memory, but
> these alerts occur at odd times like midnight on a Sunday (to be fair,
> this is around the time when SQL does its maintenance, backup, etc), or
> 540 pm when the main GP users have all gone home and are not doing
> anything in GP. I don't know yet if SQL is paging a lot, but no
> specific end user complaints have appeared yet, so we have time to be
> pro-active.
> I've recently found some information on which PerfMon items to check,
> and will try these.
> My questions:
> 1. If we install 4 GB of RAM do I need to learn about doing anything
> special like set PAE or AWE parameters or boot.ini parameters or
> anything' Most of the MS links I saw on the list are for Windows 2000
> Server, not Windows 2003 Server.
No. In a small setup like this SQL Server will use < 2GB of ram (that's SQL
2000 Standard Ed.'s limit).
If you install more ram, the additional ram will be available for the other
applications, and they won't have to fight with SQL Server for memory.
SQL Server is designed to use up all the available memory for data cache,
which is appropriate only for a dedicated SQL Server. If you don't install
more ram, you should change SQL Server's max memory setting to leave enough
memory for the other applications to run..SQL Server will run just fine with
1G or 1.5G of ram. It will just use a smaller data cache and have to go to
disk more often.
David|||"tlyczko" <tlyczko@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1151518715.642430.142110@.x69g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
> Hello,
> I'm relatively new to SQL Server, and have 'inherited' a SQL Server box
> with the following specs:
> Windows 2003 SP1, SQL Server 2000 SP 3 (or 3a?), single-processor
> license
> 2.8 GHz Xeon, 2 GB RAM, about 2 years old
> Great Plains 7.5 company DBs, about 8-9 users during the day, total DB
> size < 5 GB? I don't know exactly.
> Other apps are the OS, some Access MDBs accessed by Access front ends
> via Citrix, and an Abra Suite DB (FoxPro tables, eventually to be
> migrated to SQL Server, the Abra client is on Citrix servers.
> We have a monitoring system through our support consultant. This system
> tells us now and then that SQL has used up all its physical memory, but
> these alerts occur at odd times like midnight on a Sunday (to be fair,
> this is around the time when SQL does its maintenance, backup, etc), or
> 540 pm when the main GP users have all gone home and are not doing
> anything in GP. I don't know yet if SQL is paging a lot, but no
> specific end user complaints have appeared yet, so we have time to be
> pro-active.
> I've recently found some information on which PerfMon items to check,
> and will try these.
> My questions:
> 1. If we install 4 GB of RAM do I need to learn about doing anything
> special like set PAE or AWE parameters or boot.ini parameters or
> anything' Most of the MS links I saw on the list are for Windows 2000
> Server, not Windows 2003 Server.
No. In a small setup like this SQL Server will use < 2GB of ram (that's SQL
2000 Standard Ed.'s limit).
If you install more ram, the additional ram will be available for the other
applications, and they won't have to fight with SQL Server for memory.
SQL Server is designed to use up all the available memory for data cache,
which is appropriate only for a dedicated SQL Server. If you don't install
more ram, you should change SQL Server's max memory setting to leave enough
memory for the other applications to run..SQL Server will run just fine with
1G or 1.5G of ram. It will just use a smaller data cache and have to go to
disk more often.
David|||Thank you for responding...I put in two more short questions below.
David Browne wrote:

> No. In a small setup like this SQL Server will use < 2GB of ram (that's S
QL
> 2000 Standard Ed.'s limit).
> If you install more ram, the additional ram will be available for the othe
r
> applications, and they won't have to fight with SQL Server for memory.
Adding more RAM will not make any difference' Sigh. Thank you.
Does SQL Server 2005 Standard have the same limitation' One book I
read states that SQL Server 2005 Standard has no maximum RAM limit,
please correct me if I am wrong, so that seems like a good reason to
upgrade when we can do so, at which point it will only have SQL Server,
IIS, and the OS.

> SQL Server is designed to use up all the available memory for data cache,
> which is appropriate only for a dedicated SQL Server. If you don't instal
l
> more ram, you should change SQL Server's max memory setting to leave enoug
h
> memory for the other applications to run..SQL Server will run just fine wi
th
> 1G or 1.5G of ram. It will just use a smaller data cache and have to go t
o
> disk more often.
Are there any *negative* consequences to SQL Server 2000 paging to disk
more often other than things possibly being "slower" and whatever wear
and tear could happen to the disk drives'
So far our server may not be paging very much at all, the alerts we
receive state that the server is using ~2% of virtual memory (paging).
Is any information available about judging how much RAM the OS (Windows
2003) should have available'
The pagefile BTW on this server I believe is 4 GB.
Thank you for your help so far.
Thank you, Tom|||Thank you for responding...I put in two more short questions below.
David Browne wrote:

> No. In a small setup like this SQL Server will use < 2GB of ram (that's S
QL
> 2000 Standard Ed.'s limit).
> If you install more ram, the additional ram will be available for the othe
r
> applications, and they won't have to fight with SQL Server for memory.
Adding more RAM will not make any difference' Sigh. Thank you.
Does SQL Server 2005 Standard have the same limitation' One book I
read states that SQL Server 2005 Standard has no maximum RAM limit,
please correct me if I am wrong, so that seems like a good reason to
upgrade when we can do so, at which point it will only have SQL Server,
IIS, and the OS.

> SQL Server is designed to use up all the available memory for data cache,
> which is appropriate only for a dedicated SQL Server. If you don't instal
l
> more ram, you should change SQL Server's max memory setting to leave enoug
h
> memory for the other applications to run..SQL Server will run just fine wi
th
> 1G or 1.5G of ram. It will just use a smaller data cache and have to go t
o
> disk more often.
Are there any *negative* consequences to SQL Server 2000 paging to disk
more often other than things possibly being "slower" and whatever wear
and tear could happen to the disk drives'
So far our server may not be paging very much at all, the alerts we
receive state that the server is using ~2% of virtual memory (paging).
Is any information available about judging how much RAM the OS (Windows
2003) should have available'
The pagefile BTW on this server I believe is 4 GB.
Thank you for your help so far.
Thank you, Tom

Repost:The processing of filter expression for the chart "MyChart" cannot be performed. Th

I got the following error when I try to luanch the report ,it is working on
another server with SP1 installed on it .Could it be the problem?(Not havinf
Sp1)
The processing of filter expression for the chart "MyChart" cannot be
performed. The comparison failed
I removed the filter and it works,why this filter is working in the other
server and not in this server.
here is the filters that I use:
=Fields!monthName.Value
!= Total
ThanksDoes installing SP1 resolve it on the other server too?
--
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"ALI-R" <newbie@.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:OkIHP4KCFHA.1392@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> I got the following error when I try to luanch the report ,it is working
on
> another server with SP1 installed on it .Could it be the problem?(Not
havinf
> Sp1)
> The processing of filter expression for the chart "MyChart" cannot be
> performed. The comparison failed
> I removed the filter and it works,why this filter is working in the other
> server and not in this server.
> here is the filters that I use:
>
> =Fields!monthName.Value
> !=> Total
> Thanks
>|||I haven't had the chance to install SP1 yet,Do you think it might be
relevant?
Thanks
"Robert Bruckner [MSFT]" <robruc@.online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:%23vIDaCOCFHA.268@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Does installing SP1 resolve it on the other server too?
> --
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.
> "ALI-R" <newbie@.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:OkIHP4KCFHA.1392@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > I got the following error when I try to luanch the report ,it is working
> on
> > another server with SP1 installed on it .Could it be the problem?(Not
> havinf
> > Sp1)
> >
> > The processing of filter expression for the chart "MyChart" cannot
be
> > performed. The comparison failed
> > I removed the filter and it works,why this filter is working in the
other
> > server and not in this server.
> > here is the filters that I use:
> >
> >
> > =Fields!monthName.Value
> > !=> > Total
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> >
>|||While there is no specific change for chart filters in SP1, there are some
improvements to make chart processing more efficient. Also from your
description, the same report with the same data works fine on the SP1
server.
--
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"ALI-R" <newbie@.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:exH0YqUCFHA.2960@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> I haven't had the chance to install SP1 yet,Do you think it might be
> relevant?
> Thanks
> "Robert Bruckner [MSFT]" <robruc@.online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:%23vIDaCOCFHA.268@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > Does installing SP1 resolve it on the other server too?
> >
> > --
> > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> rights.
> >
> > "ALI-R" <newbie@.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:OkIHP4KCFHA.1392@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > > I got the following error when I try to luanch the report ,it is
working
> > on
> > > another server with SP1 installed on it .Could it be the problem?(Not
> > havinf
> > > Sp1)
> > >
> > > The processing of filter expression for the chart "MyChart" cannot
> be
> > > performed. The comparison failed
> > > I removed the filter and it works,why this filter is working in the
> other
> > > server and not in this server.
> > > here is the filters that I use:
> > >
> > >
> > > =Fields!monthName.Value
> > > !=> > > Total
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>|||Yes,It's working fine in the server with SP1.I willl let you know as soon as
I install SP1 and should the problem is solved.
Thanks
"Robert Bruckner [MSFT]" <robruc@.online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:e9QjDfaCFHA.1936@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> While there is no specific change for chart filters in SP1, there are some
> improvements to make chart processing more efficient. Also from your
> description, the same report with the same data works fine on the SP1
> server.
> --
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.
>
> "ALI-R" <newbie@.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:exH0YqUCFHA.2960@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> > I haven't had the chance to install SP1 yet,Do you think it might be
> > relevant?
> > Thanks
> > "Robert Bruckner [MSFT]" <robruc@.online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:%23vIDaCOCFHA.268@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > > Does installing SP1 resolve it on the other server too?
> > >
> > > --
> > > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> > rights.
> > >
> > > "ALI-R" <newbie@.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > > news:OkIHP4KCFHA.1392@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > > > I got the following error when I try to luanch the report ,it is
> working
> > > on
> > > > another server with SP1 installed on it .Could it be the
problem?(Not
> > > havinf
> > > > Sp1)
> > > >
> > > > The processing of filter expression for the chart "MyChart"
cannot
> > be
> > > > performed. The comparison failed
> > > > I removed the filter and it works,why this filter is working in the
> > other
> > > > server and not in this server.
> > > > here is the filters that I use:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > =Fields!monthName.Value
> > > > !=> > > > Total
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>