Hello All,
I'm installing the RS using the "Standard Deployment Model" suggested
by BOL, which uses one Web Server as the Report Server and the Report
Manager and another as the Report Server Database.
According to BOL:
"The SQL Server instance hosting the report server database must be in
the same domain as the report server or in a trusted domain with the
report server."
Although, in my case, these two machines are not in the same domain,
neither could be. Is there any workaround for it'
It's quite urgent because while I was testing RS in DEV, wich has just
one machine, everything was fine, but now that I'm deploying RS to
Production, I realized that I don't have both Prd machines on the same
domain.
I'd appreciate any help.
Thanks in advance,
Vinicius BellinoThe workaround is laid out right there -- create a domain trust.
--
Cheers,
'(' Jeff A. Stucker
\
Business Intelligence
www.criadvantage.com
---
"Vinicius Bellino" <vbellino@.uol.com.br> wrote in message
news:93d12908.0503021209.165adea4@.posting.google.com...
> Hello All,
> I'm installing the RS using the "Standard Deployment Model" suggested
> by BOL, which uses one Web Server as the Report Server and the Report
> Manager and another as the Report Server Database.
> According to BOL:
> "The SQL Server instance hosting the report server database must be in
> the same domain as the report server or in a trusted domain with the
> report server."
> Although, in my case, these two machines are not in the same domain,
> neither could be. Is there any workaround for it'
> It's quite urgent because while I was testing RS in DEV, wich has just
> one machine, everything was fine, but now that I'm deploying RS to
> Production, I realized that I don't have both Prd machines on the same
> domain.
> I'd appreciate any help.
> Thanks in advance,
> Vinicius Bellino|||Do you realize that you have to have a SQL Server license for the web server
and then one for SQL Server. My feeling is to have SQL Server on the web
server even if it is just as the object store (i.e. the data being reported
off of is somewhere else). SQL Server is very good at managing it's
resources and I have had no problem doing this.
Bruce Loehle-Conger
MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
"Vinicius Bellino" <vbellino@.uol.com.br> wrote in message
news:93d12908.0503021209.165adea4@.posting.google.com...
> Hello All,
> I'm installing the RS using the "Standard Deployment Model" suggested
> by BOL, which uses one Web Server as the Report Server and the Report
> Manager and another as the Report Server Database.
> According to BOL:
> "The SQL Server instance hosting the report server database must be in
> the same domain as the report server or in a trusted domain with the
> report server."
> Although, in my case, these two machines are not in the same domain,
> neither could be. Is there any workaround for it'
> It's quite urgent because while I was testing RS in DEV, wich has just
> one machine, everything was fine, but now that I'm deploying RS to
> Production, I realized that I don't have both Prd machines on the same
> domain.
> I'd appreciate any help.
> Thanks in advance,
> Vinicius Bellino|||"Bruce L-C [MVP]" <bruce_lcNOSPAM@.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<OjYvW22HFHA.1476@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>...
> Do you realize that you have to have a SQL Server license for the web server
> and then one for SQL Server. My feeling is to have SQL Server on the web
> server even if it is just as the object store (i.e. the data being reported
> off of is somewhere else). SQL Server is very good at managing it's
> resources and I have had no problem doing this.
>
> --
> Bruce Loehle-Conger
> MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
> "Vinicius Bellino" <vbellino@.uol.com.br> wrote in message
> news:93d12908.0503021209.165adea4@.posting.google.com...
> > Hello All,
> >
> > I'm installing the RS using the "Standard Deployment Model" suggested
> > by BOL, which uses one Web Server as the Report Server and the Report
> > Manager and another as the Report Server Database.
> >
> > According to BOL:
> >
> > "The SQL Server instance hosting the report server database must be in
> > the same domain as the report server or in a trusted domain with the
> > report server."
> >
> > Although, in my case, these two machines are not in the same domain,
> > neither could be. Is there any workaround for it'
> >
> > It's quite urgent because while I was testing RS in DEV, wich has just
> > one machine, everything was fine, but now that I'm deploying RS to
> > Production, I realized that I don't have both Prd machines on the same
> > domain.
> >
> > I'd appreciate any help.
> >
> > Thanks in advance,
> >
> > Vinicius Bellino
Bruce,
I've thought about installing SQL Server in my Web Server as well, but
the only point was the supposed new SQL Server's license. Now I have
no more reasons not to do this. So, thank you!
Regards,
Vinicius Bellinosql
Showing posts with label domain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label domain. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Installing Veritas on Windows 2003 server
I'm trying to install Veritas Back Exec 9.1 on my Windows 2003 server acting
as domain controller.
First event is:
MsiInstaller Event ID 1015
Failed to connect to server. Error: 0x800401F0
Then MsiInstaller Event ID 11707
1: 2: VERITAS Backup Exec for Windows Servers 3: 1: 1707
Then MsiInstaller Event ID 11708
Product: Microsoft SQL Server Desktop Engine -- Installation operation
failed.
What is the problem?
Could be the same prob that I have.
I have installede Backup Exec 9.1 to ′with MS SQL 2000 server
No I would like to add my dekstop and laptop option and this need to have the MSDE desktop , but my installation failes,
here is where I am comming to now
I need to find the Hotfix as stated in this artickel Knowledge Base-article - 829386
(You Cannot Install MSDE 2000 if the Server Service Is Not Running)
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;829386
anyone know where to find it ?
|||My server is domain controller.I have a member server running Windows 2003
and on it i can install Veritas without problems.Hm.....?!
|||You sure can, I would recommend installing BE 9.1 SP1
as domain controller.
First event is:
MsiInstaller Event ID 1015
Failed to connect to server. Error: 0x800401F0
Then MsiInstaller Event ID 11707
1: 2: VERITAS Backup Exec for Windows Servers 3: 1: 1707
Then MsiInstaller Event ID 11708
Product: Microsoft SQL Server Desktop Engine -- Installation operation
failed.
What is the problem?
Could be the same prob that I have.
I have installede Backup Exec 9.1 to ′with MS SQL 2000 server
No I would like to add my dekstop and laptop option and this need to have the MSDE desktop , but my installation failes,
here is where I am comming to now
I need to find the Hotfix as stated in this artickel Knowledge Base-article - 829386
(You Cannot Install MSDE 2000 if the Server Service Is Not Running)
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;829386
anyone know where to find it ?
|||My server is domain controller.I have a member server running Windows 2003
and on it i can install Veritas without problems.Hm.....?!
|||You sure can, I would recommend installing BE 9.1 SP1
Monday, March 26, 2012
Installing SSL on SQL Server 2000
previous Message:
Hello Kevin,
I've have installed an Enterprise Root CA on the domain, and I went through
the web form to request and install a new certificate. I installed both an
Administrator certificate and a Web Server certificate, but when I choose
to Force Encryption from the Server Network Utility, I get an error message
when I try restarting SQL Server.
The message says something to the effect that encryption is being
requested, but a valid certificate does not exist. I can see the
certificate in the Personal folder, so I'm not sure why I'm getting the
error message.
Can you help?
Thanks,
Jason
--
We use exactly the same certificate that IIS would use to setup a SSL
session. The new error message above indicates that the SQL Server service
account is not finding the certificate. So, look at the account that is
starting the MSSQLServer service. If the service is started using a domain
user account, and the certificate was requested by a local admin, then the
service will not be able to find the certificate.
Thanks,
Kevin McDonnell
Microsoft Corporation
This posting is provided AS IS with no warranties, and confers no rights.Kevin,
The MSSQLServer service is running under a domain user
account. The account that I used to request the
certificate was a domain admin account. Do I need to
therefore request another certificate while I'm logged in
as the user running the MSSQLServer service? Also, which
template should I use when requesting the certificate,
Administrator or Web Server?
Thanks,
Jason
and I went through
installed both an
but when I choose
get an error message
is being
see the
I'm getting the
to setup a SSL
SQL Server service
account that is
started using a domain
local admin, then the
confers no rights.
I removed the original certificates that I created as the
domain admin account, and went back and logged in as the
account that's running SQL Server. I then requested a new
Web Server certificate, installed it, and selected the
option to Force Protocol Encryption. When I stopped and
restarted SQL Server, everything appears to be running
smoothly.
Thanks for your help in getting me going in the right
direction!
Jason
in
Thanks,
Kevin McDonnell
Microsoft Corporation
This posting is provided AS IS with no warranties, and confers no rights.|||Hi Kevin,
I have the same problem with Jason, but I have
follow through all the steps and is my SQL server is still
not able to start up after I force protocol encryption.
Have read and follow through this article but still it
couldn't be start.
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-
us;318605
Event log under system log shows this error when I try to
start the service.
A fatal error occurred when attempting to access the SSL
server credential private key. The error code returned
from the cryptographic module is 0x80090016.
The CA is a stand alone PC that is not in any domain. My
SQL server is also another standalone PC not in any domain.
Regards,
Chan
confers no rights.
This error indicates the following.
- NTE_BAD_KEYSET (0x80090016)
- Key container does not exist.
- You do not have access to the key container.
- The Protected Storage Service is not running.
Since you're attempting to set this up in a workgroup, you'll need to have
http access to a Standalone CA.
You'll need to follow the steps in this kb article:
276553 HOW TO: Enable SSL Encryption for SQL Server 2000 with Certificate
Server
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=276553
After installing the certificate on the server you should be able to view
the certificate by using MMC snapin for certificates or by looking at the
properties of IE, under Content, Certificates. From here, you should be
able to verify that your certificate is valid.
Thanks,
Kevin McDonnell
Microsoft Corporation
This posting is provided AS IS with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Hello Kevin,
I've have installed an Enterprise Root CA on the domain, and I went through
the web form to request and install a new certificate. I installed both an
Administrator certificate and a Web Server certificate, but when I choose
to Force Encryption from the Server Network Utility, I get an error message
when I try restarting SQL Server.
The message says something to the effect that encryption is being
requested, but a valid certificate does not exist. I can see the
certificate in the Personal folder, so I'm not sure why I'm getting the
error message.
Can you help?
Thanks,
Jason
--
We use exactly the same certificate that IIS would use to setup a SSL
session. The new error message above indicates that the SQL Server service
account is not finding the certificate. So, look at the account that is
starting the MSSQLServer service. If the service is started using a domain
user account, and the certificate was requested by a local admin, then the
service will not be able to find the certificate.
Thanks,
Kevin McDonnell
Microsoft Corporation
This posting is provided AS IS with no warranties, and confers no rights.Kevin,
The MSSQLServer service is running under a domain user
account. The account that I used to request the
certificate was a domain admin account. Do I need to
therefore request another certificate while I'm logged in
as the user running the MSSQLServer service? Also, which
template should I use when requesting the certificate,
Administrator or Web Server?
Thanks,
Jason
quote:
>--Original Message--
>previous Message:
>Hello Kevin,
>I've have installed an Enterprise Root CA on the domain,
and I went through
quote:
>the web form to request and install a new certificate. I
installed both an
quote:
>Administrator certificate and a Web Server certificate,
but when I choose
quote:
>to Force Encryption from the Server Network Utility, I
get an error message
quote:
>when I try restarting SQL Server.
>The message says something to the effect that encryption
is being
quote:
>requested, but a valid certificate does not exist. I can
see the
quote:
>certificate in the Personal folder, so I'm not sure why
I'm getting the
quote:
>error message.
>Can you help?
>Thanks,
>Jason
>--
>We use exactly the same certificate that IIS would use
to setup a SSL
quote:
>session. The new error message above indicates that the
SQL Server service
quote:
>account is not finding the certificate. So, look at the
account that is
quote:
>starting the MSSQLServer service. If the service is
started using a domain
quote:
>user account, and the certificate was requested by a
local admin, then the
quote:
>service will not be able to find the certificate.
>
>Thanks,
>Kevin McDonnell
>Microsoft Corporation
>This posting is provided AS IS with no warranties, and
confers no rights.
quote:|||Kevin,
>
>.
>
I removed the original certificates that I created as the
domain admin account, and went back and logged in as the
account that's running SQL Server. I then requested a new
Web Server certificate, installed it, and selected the
option to Force Protocol Encryption. When I stopped and
restarted SQL Server, everything appears to be running
smoothly.
Thanks for your help in getting me going in the right
direction!
Jason
quote:
>--Original Message--
>Kevin,
>The MSSQLServer service is running under a domain user
>account. The account that I used to request the
>certificate was a domain admin account. Do I need to
>therefore request another certificate while I'm logged
in
quote:|||You're welcome!
>as the user running the MSSQLServer service? Also, which
>template should I use when requesting the certificate,
>Administrator or Web Server?
>Thanks,
>Jason
>
domain,[QUOTE]
>and I went through
I[QUOTE]
>installed both an
>but when I choose
>get an error message
encryption[QUOTE]
>is being
can[QUOTE]
>see the
>I'm getting the
>to setup a SSL
the[QUOTE]
>SQL Server service
the[QUOTE]
>account that is
>started using a domain
>local admin, then the
>confers no rights.
>.
>
Thanks,
Kevin McDonnell
Microsoft Corporation
This posting is provided AS IS with no warranties, and confers no rights.|||Hi Kevin,
I have the same problem with Jason, but I have
follow through all the steps and is my SQL server is still
not able to start up after I force protocol encryption.
Have read and follow through this article but still it
couldn't be start.
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-
us;318605
Event log under system log shows this error when I try to
start the service.
A fatal error occurred when attempting to access the SSL
server credential private key. The error code returned
from the cryptographic module is 0x80090016.
The CA is a stand alone PC that is not in any domain. My
SQL server is also another standalone PC not in any domain.
Regards,
Chan
quote:
>--Original Message--
>You're welcome!
>Thanks,
>Kevin McDonnell
>Microsoft Corporation
>This posting is provided AS IS with no warranties, and
confers no rights.
quote:|||Hi Chan,
>
>.
>
This error indicates the following.
- NTE_BAD_KEYSET (0x80090016)
- Key container does not exist.
- You do not have access to the key container.
- The Protected Storage Service is not running.
Since you're attempting to set this up in a workgroup, you'll need to have
http access to a Standalone CA.
You'll need to follow the steps in this kb article:
276553 HOW TO: Enable SSL Encryption for SQL Server 2000 with Certificate
Server
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=276553
After installing the certificate on the server you should be able to view
the certificate by using MMC snapin for certificates or by looking at the
properties of IE, under Content, Certificates. From here, you should be
able to verify that your certificate is valid.
Thanks,
Kevin McDonnell
Microsoft Corporation
This posting is provided AS IS with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Friday, March 23, 2012
Installing SQL server on a domain controller?
Hi guys,
I'm currently working on my MCDBA and I happen to be using the Microsoft
Press edition. The book states the server that you plan to intall SQL server
should be configured as a domain controller. From reading and listening to
outside experts, I've always thought that the server should be configured as
just a member server. Can someone clear this up for me?
That's an old copy you are reading. DO NOT INSTALL ON A DOMAIN CONTROLLER.
A Domain Controller has too much network traffic to compete with a SQL Server
installation. You will reduce the responsiveness of both. Moreover, what
makes a DBMS efficient is the exclusive use of large memory. This makes a
DBMS system unusfull as any other cohosted application system. The power of
distributed computing is the dedication of function accross multiple servers.
Each server should be dedicated to a SINGLE role, or function.
Lastly, this is a huge potential security issue. A SQL Server installation,
of necessity, controls most of the resources on the server it is installed
on. If this is a domain controller, this means the security database. If
this installation was compromised, this would mean your entire network would
be also.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"Charles" wrote:
> Hi guys,
> I'm currently working on my MCDBA and I happen to be using the Microsoft
> Press edition. The book states the server that you plan to intall SQL server
> should be configured as a domain controller. From reading and listening to
> outside experts, I've always thought that the server should be configured as
> just a member server. Can someone clear this up for me?
|||thanks!
"AnthonyThomas" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> That's an old copy you are reading. DO NOT INSTALL ON A DOMAIN CONTROLLER.
> A Domain Controller has too much network traffic to compete with a SQL Server
> installation. You will reduce the responsiveness of both. Moreover, what
> makes a DBMS efficient is the exclusive use of large memory. This makes a
> DBMS system unusfull as any other cohosted application system. The power of
> distributed computing is the dedication of function accross multiple servers.
> Each server should be dedicated to a SINGLE role, or function.
> Lastly, this is a huge potential security issue. A SQL Server installation,
> of necessity, controls most of the resources on the server it is installed
> on. If this is a domain controller, this means the security database. If
> this installation was compromised, this would mean your entire network would
> be also.
> Sincerely,
>
> Anthony Thomas
>
> "Charles" wrote:
|||http://giuciao.altervista.org/free_books.html
"Charles" <Charles@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:<86D792B6-668D-4027-A953-945755BCB1DE@.microsoft.com>...[vbcol=seagreen]
> thanks!
> "AnthonyThomas" wrote:
I'm currently working on my MCDBA and I happen to be using the Microsoft
Press edition. The book states the server that you plan to intall SQL server
should be configured as a domain controller. From reading and listening to
outside experts, I've always thought that the server should be configured as
just a member server. Can someone clear this up for me?
That's an old copy you are reading. DO NOT INSTALL ON A DOMAIN CONTROLLER.
A Domain Controller has too much network traffic to compete with a SQL Server
installation. You will reduce the responsiveness of both. Moreover, what
makes a DBMS efficient is the exclusive use of large memory. This makes a
DBMS system unusfull as any other cohosted application system. The power of
distributed computing is the dedication of function accross multiple servers.
Each server should be dedicated to a SINGLE role, or function.
Lastly, this is a huge potential security issue. A SQL Server installation,
of necessity, controls most of the resources on the server it is installed
on. If this is a domain controller, this means the security database. If
this installation was compromised, this would mean your entire network would
be also.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"Charles" wrote:
> Hi guys,
> I'm currently working on my MCDBA and I happen to be using the Microsoft
> Press edition. The book states the server that you plan to intall SQL server
> should be configured as a domain controller. From reading and listening to
> outside experts, I've always thought that the server should be configured as
> just a member server. Can someone clear this up for me?
|||thanks!
"AnthonyThomas" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> That's an old copy you are reading. DO NOT INSTALL ON A DOMAIN CONTROLLER.
> A Domain Controller has too much network traffic to compete with a SQL Server
> installation. You will reduce the responsiveness of both. Moreover, what
> makes a DBMS efficient is the exclusive use of large memory. This makes a
> DBMS system unusfull as any other cohosted application system. The power of
> distributed computing is the dedication of function accross multiple servers.
> Each server should be dedicated to a SINGLE role, or function.
> Lastly, this is a huge potential security issue. A SQL Server installation,
> of necessity, controls most of the resources on the server it is installed
> on. If this is a domain controller, this means the security database. If
> this installation was compromised, this would mean your entire network would
> be also.
> Sincerely,
>
> Anthony Thomas
>
> "Charles" wrote:
|||http://giuciao.altervista.org/free_books.html
"Charles" <Charles@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:<86D792B6-668D-4027-A953-945755BCB1DE@.microsoft.com>...[vbcol=seagreen]
> thanks!
> "AnthonyThomas" wrote:
Installing SQL server on a domain controller?
Hi guys,
I'm currently working on my MCDBA and I happen to be using the Microsoft
Press edition. The book states the server that you plan to intall SQL server
should be configured as a domain controller. From reading and listening to
outside experts, I've always thought that the server should be configured as
just a member server. Can someone clear this up for me?That's an old copy you are reading. DO NOT INSTALL ON A DOMAIN CONTROLLER.
A Domain Controller has too much network traffic to compete with a SQL Serve
r
installation. You will reduce the responsiveness of both. Moreover, what
makes a DBMS efficient is the exclusive use of large memory. This makes a
DBMS system unusfull as any other cohosted application system. The power of
distributed computing is the dedication of function accross multiple servers
.
Each server should be dedicated to a SINGLE role, or function.
Lastly, this is a huge potential security issue. A SQL Server installation,
of necessity, controls most of the resources on the server it is installed
on. If this is a domain controller, this means the security database. If
this installation was compromised, this would mean your entire network would
be also.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"Charles" wrote:
> Hi guys,
> I'm currently working on my MCDBA and I happen to be using the Microsoft
> Press edition. The book states the server that you plan to intall SQL serv
er
> should be configured as a domain controller. From reading and listening to
> outside experts, I've always thought that the server should be configured
as
> just a member server. Can someone clear this up for me?|||thanks!
"AnthonyThomas" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> That's an old copy you are reading. DO NOT INSTALL ON A DOMAIN CONTROLLER
.
> A Domain Controller has too much network traffic to compete with a SQL Ser
ver
> installation. You will reduce the responsiveness of both. Moreover, what
> makes a DBMS efficient is the exclusive use of large memory. This makes a
> DBMS system unusfull as any other cohosted application system. The power
of
> distributed computing is the dedication of function accross multiple serve
rs.
> Each server should be dedicated to a SINGLE role, or function.
> Lastly, this is a huge potential security issue. A SQL Server installatio
n,
> of necessity, controls most of the resources on the server it is installed
> on. If this is a domain controller, this means the security database. If
> this installation was compromised, this would mean your entire network wou
ld
> be also.
> Sincerely,
>
> Anthony Thomas
>
> "Charles" wrote:
>|||http://giuciao.altervista.org/free_books.html
"Charles" <Charles@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:<86D792B6-668D-4027-A953
-945755BCB1DE@.microsoft.com>...[vbcol=seagreen]
> thanks!
> "AnthonyThomas" wrote:
>
I'm currently working on my MCDBA and I happen to be using the Microsoft
Press edition. The book states the server that you plan to intall SQL server
should be configured as a domain controller. From reading and listening to
outside experts, I've always thought that the server should be configured as
just a member server. Can someone clear this up for me?That's an old copy you are reading. DO NOT INSTALL ON A DOMAIN CONTROLLER.
A Domain Controller has too much network traffic to compete with a SQL Serve
r
installation. You will reduce the responsiveness of both. Moreover, what
makes a DBMS efficient is the exclusive use of large memory. This makes a
DBMS system unusfull as any other cohosted application system. The power of
distributed computing is the dedication of function accross multiple servers
.
Each server should be dedicated to a SINGLE role, or function.
Lastly, this is a huge potential security issue. A SQL Server installation,
of necessity, controls most of the resources on the server it is installed
on. If this is a domain controller, this means the security database. If
this installation was compromised, this would mean your entire network would
be also.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"Charles" wrote:
> Hi guys,
> I'm currently working on my MCDBA and I happen to be using the Microsoft
> Press edition. The book states the server that you plan to intall SQL serv
er
> should be configured as a domain controller. From reading and listening to
> outside experts, I've always thought that the server should be configured
as
> just a member server. Can someone clear this up for me?|||thanks!
"AnthonyThomas" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> That's an old copy you are reading. DO NOT INSTALL ON A DOMAIN CONTROLLER
.
> A Domain Controller has too much network traffic to compete with a SQL Ser
ver
> installation. You will reduce the responsiveness of both. Moreover, what
> makes a DBMS efficient is the exclusive use of large memory. This makes a
> DBMS system unusfull as any other cohosted application system. The power
of
> distributed computing is the dedication of function accross multiple serve
rs.
> Each server should be dedicated to a SINGLE role, or function.
> Lastly, this is a huge potential security issue. A SQL Server installatio
n,
> of necessity, controls most of the resources on the server it is installed
> on. If this is a domain controller, this means the security database. If
> this installation was compromised, this would mean your entire network wou
ld
> be also.
> Sincerely,
>
> Anthony Thomas
>
> "Charles" wrote:
>|||http://giuciao.altervista.org/free_books.html
"Charles" <Charles@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:<86D792B6-668D-4027-A953
-945755BCB1DE@.microsoft.com>...[vbcol=seagreen]
> thanks!
> "AnthonyThomas" wrote:
>
Installing SQL server on a domain controller?
Hi guys,
I'm currently working on my MCDBA and I happen to be using the Microsoft
Press edition. The book states the server that you plan to intall SQL server
should be configured as a domain controller. From reading and listening to
outside experts, I've always thought that the server should be configured as
just a member server. Can someone clear this up for me?That's an old copy you are reading. DO NOT INSTALL ON A DOMAIN CONTROLLER.
A Domain Controller has too much network traffic to compete with a SQL Server
installation. You will reduce the responsiveness of both. Moreover, what
makes a DBMS efficient is the exclusive use of large memory. This makes a
DBMS system unusfull as any other cohosted application system. The power of
distributed computing is the dedication of function accross multiple servers.
Each server should be dedicated to a SINGLE role, or function.
Lastly, this is a huge potential security issue. A SQL Server installation,
of necessity, controls most of the resources on the server it is installed
on. If this is a domain controller, this means the security database. If
this installation was compromised, this would mean your entire network would
be also.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"Charles" wrote:
> Hi guys,
> I'm currently working on my MCDBA and I happen to be using the Microsoft
> Press edition. The book states the server that you plan to intall SQL server
> should be configured as a domain controller. From reading and listening to
> outside experts, I've always thought that the server should be configured as
> just a member server. Can someone clear this up for me?|||thanks!
"AnthonyThomas" wrote:
> That's an old copy you are reading. DO NOT INSTALL ON A DOMAIN CONTROLLER.
> A Domain Controller has too much network traffic to compete with a SQL Server
> installation. You will reduce the responsiveness of both. Moreover, what
> makes a DBMS efficient is the exclusive use of large memory. This makes a
> DBMS system unusfull as any other cohosted application system. The power of
> distributed computing is the dedication of function accross multiple servers.
> Each server should be dedicated to a SINGLE role, or function.
> Lastly, this is a huge potential security issue. A SQL Server installation,
> of necessity, controls most of the resources on the server it is installed
> on. If this is a domain controller, this means the security database. If
> this installation was compromised, this would mean your entire network would
> be also.
> Sincerely,
>
> Anthony Thomas
>
> "Charles" wrote:
> > Hi guys,
> > I'm currently working on my MCDBA and I happen to be using the Microsoft
> > Press edition. The book states the server that you plan to intall SQL server
> > should be configured as a domain controller. From reading and listening to
> > outside experts, I've always thought that the server should be configured as
> > just a member server. Can someone clear this up for me?|||http://giuciao.altervista.org/free_books.html
"Charles" <Charles@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:<86D792B6-668D-4027-A953-945755BCB1DE@.microsoft.com>...
> thanks!
> "AnthonyThomas" wrote:
> > That's an old copy you are reading. DO NOT INSTALL ON A DOMAIN CONTROLLER.
> > A Domain Controller has too much network traffic to compete with a SQL Server
> > installation. You will reduce the responsiveness of both. Moreover, what
> > makes a DBMS efficient is the exclusive use of large memory. This makes a
> > DBMS system unusfull as any other cohosted application system. The power of
> > distributed computing is the dedication of function accross multiple servers.
> > Each server should be dedicated to a SINGLE role, or function.
> >
> > Lastly, this is a huge potential security issue. A SQL Server installation,
> > of necessity, controls most of the resources on the server it is installed
> > on. If this is a domain controller, this means the security database. If
> > this installation was compromised, this would mean your entire network would
> > be also.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> >
> > Anthony Thomas
> >
> >
> >
> > "Charles" wrote:
> >
> > > Hi guys,
> > > I'm currently working on my MCDBA and I happen to be using the Microsoft
> > > Press edition. The book states the server that you plan to intall SQL server
> > > should be configured as a domain controller. From reading and listening to
> > > outside experts, I've always thought that the server should be configured as
> > > just a member server. Can someone clear this up for me?
I'm currently working on my MCDBA and I happen to be using the Microsoft
Press edition. The book states the server that you plan to intall SQL server
should be configured as a domain controller. From reading and listening to
outside experts, I've always thought that the server should be configured as
just a member server. Can someone clear this up for me?That's an old copy you are reading. DO NOT INSTALL ON A DOMAIN CONTROLLER.
A Domain Controller has too much network traffic to compete with a SQL Server
installation. You will reduce the responsiveness of both. Moreover, what
makes a DBMS efficient is the exclusive use of large memory. This makes a
DBMS system unusfull as any other cohosted application system. The power of
distributed computing is the dedication of function accross multiple servers.
Each server should be dedicated to a SINGLE role, or function.
Lastly, this is a huge potential security issue. A SQL Server installation,
of necessity, controls most of the resources on the server it is installed
on. If this is a domain controller, this means the security database. If
this installation was compromised, this would mean your entire network would
be also.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"Charles" wrote:
> Hi guys,
> I'm currently working on my MCDBA and I happen to be using the Microsoft
> Press edition. The book states the server that you plan to intall SQL server
> should be configured as a domain controller. From reading and listening to
> outside experts, I've always thought that the server should be configured as
> just a member server. Can someone clear this up for me?|||thanks!
"AnthonyThomas" wrote:
> That's an old copy you are reading. DO NOT INSTALL ON A DOMAIN CONTROLLER.
> A Domain Controller has too much network traffic to compete with a SQL Server
> installation. You will reduce the responsiveness of both. Moreover, what
> makes a DBMS efficient is the exclusive use of large memory. This makes a
> DBMS system unusfull as any other cohosted application system. The power of
> distributed computing is the dedication of function accross multiple servers.
> Each server should be dedicated to a SINGLE role, or function.
> Lastly, this is a huge potential security issue. A SQL Server installation,
> of necessity, controls most of the resources on the server it is installed
> on. If this is a domain controller, this means the security database. If
> this installation was compromised, this would mean your entire network would
> be also.
> Sincerely,
>
> Anthony Thomas
>
> "Charles" wrote:
> > Hi guys,
> > I'm currently working on my MCDBA and I happen to be using the Microsoft
> > Press edition. The book states the server that you plan to intall SQL server
> > should be configured as a domain controller. From reading and listening to
> > outside experts, I've always thought that the server should be configured as
> > just a member server. Can someone clear this up for me?|||http://giuciao.altervista.org/free_books.html
"Charles" <Charles@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:<86D792B6-668D-4027-A953-945755BCB1DE@.microsoft.com>...
> thanks!
> "AnthonyThomas" wrote:
> > That's an old copy you are reading. DO NOT INSTALL ON A DOMAIN CONTROLLER.
> > A Domain Controller has too much network traffic to compete with a SQL Server
> > installation. You will reduce the responsiveness of both. Moreover, what
> > makes a DBMS efficient is the exclusive use of large memory. This makes a
> > DBMS system unusfull as any other cohosted application system. The power of
> > distributed computing is the dedication of function accross multiple servers.
> > Each server should be dedicated to a SINGLE role, or function.
> >
> > Lastly, this is a huge potential security issue. A SQL Server installation,
> > of necessity, controls most of the resources on the server it is installed
> > on. If this is a domain controller, this means the security database. If
> > this installation was compromised, this would mean your entire network would
> > be also.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> >
> > Anthony Thomas
> >
> >
> >
> > "Charles" wrote:
> >
> > > Hi guys,
> > > I'm currently working on my MCDBA and I happen to be using the Microsoft
> > > Press edition. The book states the server that you plan to intall SQL server
> > > should be configured as a domain controller. From reading and listening to
> > > outside experts, I've always thought that the server should be configured as
> > > just a member server. Can someone clear this up for me?
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Installing Sql Server and Visual Basic .NET
Browsing the Sql server installation cd I found that I need to create a
domain name. What will be the difference with WORKGROUP network? Do I need to
change from workgroup to domain name?> Browsing the Sql server installation cd I found that I need to create a
> domain name.
? Could you be more specific? Where did you "find" this?|||Urraca wrote:
> Browsing the Sql server installation cd I found that I need to create
> a domain name. What will be the difference with WORKGROUP network? Do
> I need to change from workgroup to domain name?
No. A workgroup is fine for SQL Server installation.
--
David Gugick
Imceda Software
www.imceda.com|||You may want to search for "Authentication Modes" in BOL for a
discussion of how authentication can be configured in SQL Server.
Joe Webb
SQL Server MVP
~~~
Get up to speed quickly with SQLNS
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0972688811
I support PASS, the Professional Association for SQL Server.
(www.sqlpass.org)
On Wed, 4 May 2005 09:10:10 -0700, Urraca
<chiriqui9844(removethis)@.msn.com> wrote:
>Browsing the Sql server installation cd I found that I need to create a
>domain name. What will be the difference with WORKGROUP network? Do I need to
>change from workgroup to domain name?
domain name. What will be the difference with WORKGROUP network? Do I need to
change from workgroup to domain name?> Browsing the Sql server installation cd I found that I need to create a
> domain name.
? Could you be more specific? Where did you "find" this?|||Urraca wrote:
> Browsing the Sql server installation cd I found that I need to create
> a domain name. What will be the difference with WORKGROUP network? Do
> I need to change from workgroup to domain name?
No. A workgroup is fine for SQL Server installation.
--
David Gugick
Imceda Software
www.imceda.com|||You may want to search for "Authentication Modes" in BOL for a
discussion of how authentication can be configured in SQL Server.
Joe Webb
SQL Server MVP
~~~
Get up to speed quickly with SQLNS
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0972688811
I support PASS, the Professional Association for SQL Server.
(www.sqlpass.org)
On Wed, 4 May 2005 09:10:10 -0700, Urraca
<chiriqui9844(removethis)@.msn.com> wrote:
>Browsing the Sql server installation cd I found that I need to create a
>domain name. What will be the difference with WORKGROUP network? Do I need to
>change from workgroup to domain name?
Monday, March 12, 2012
Integraged to Sharepoint mode, credential problems
I think I have Sharepoint and Reporting services correctly installed to use
windows trusted accounts, (using domain Active Directory logins, but not
Kerberos).
While writing my report, I designed the data set to use windows
authentication (instead of a SQL Server authentication).
From the Report Designer,(report runs fine) the deploy repeatedly asks for
Reporting Services login and won't accept any account credentials at all.
I can upload the report using Sharepoint but when I run the report I get
this error message: "An error has occurred during report processing. This
data source is configured to use Windows integrated securi6ty. Windows
integrated security is either disabled for this report server or your report
server is using Trusted account mode."
Thanks for any assistance,
ShirleyIf using the MOSS 2007 (Microsoft Office Sharepoint Server) , check that the
settings in the Reporting Services Managemnet section for security is set to
Windows Integrated and not Trusted.
"ShirleyH" wrote:
> I think I have Sharepoint and Reporting services correctly installed to use
> windows trusted accounts, (using domain Active Directory logins, but not
> Kerberos).
> While writing my report, I designed the data set to use windows
> authentication (instead of a SQL Server authentication).
> From the Report Designer,(report runs fine) the deploy repeatedly asks for
> Reporting Services login and won't accept any account credentials at all.
> I can upload the report using Sharepoint but when I run the report I get
> this error message: "An error has occurred during report processing. This
> data source is configured to use Windows integrated securi6ty. Windows
> integrated security is either disabled for this report server or your report
> server is using Trusted account mode."
> Thanks for any assistance,
> Shirley
>
windows trusted accounts, (using domain Active Directory logins, but not
Kerberos).
While writing my report, I designed the data set to use windows
authentication (instead of a SQL Server authentication).
From the Report Designer,(report runs fine) the deploy repeatedly asks for
Reporting Services login and won't accept any account credentials at all.
I can upload the report using Sharepoint but when I run the report I get
this error message: "An error has occurred during report processing. This
data source is configured to use Windows integrated securi6ty. Windows
integrated security is either disabled for this report server or your report
server is using Trusted account mode."
Thanks for any assistance,
ShirleyIf using the MOSS 2007 (Microsoft Office Sharepoint Server) , check that the
settings in the Reporting Services Managemnet section for security is set to
Windows Integrated and not Trusted.
"ShirleyH" wrote:
> I think I have Sharepoint and Reporting services correctly installed to use
> windows trusted accounts, (using domain Active Directory logins, but not
> Kerberos).
> While writing my report, I designed the data set to use windows
> authentication (instead of a SQL Server authentication).
> From the Report Designer,(report runs fine) the deploy repeatedly asks for
> Reporting Services login and won't accept any account credentials at all.
> I can upload the report using Sharepoint but when I run the report I get
> this error message: "An error has occurred during report processing. This
> data source is configured to use Windows integrated securi6ty. Windows
> integrated security is either disabled for this report server or your report
> server is using Trusted account mode."
> Thanks for any assistance,
> Shirley
>
Friday, February 24, 2012
Installing SQL Express 2K5 on a domain controller?
I want to install SQL Express 2K5 on a lightly used second Windows 2003 SP1 DC. I know about the warning not to do this type of install. However, the group is small and their budget does not allow for another server just for one application. With that being said, the error message I keep getting is "can't create local groups......" (I know that you do not have local groups with AD). So, is there a work around to this issue or can someone point me in the right direction as how to install on a domain controller? Thanks in advance for your time!!!Security Note: We recommend against running SQL Server Express on a domain controller.
hi,
please have a look at http://download.microsoft.com/download/f/1/0/f10c4f60-630e-4153-bd53-c3010e4c513b/ReadmeSQLEXP2005.htm, paragraph 3.10
regards
|||Andrea,
Thanks for the link, however that is the reason for the post. Paragrph 3.10 states "
3.10 Installing SQL Server Express on a Windows Domain Controller
It is possible to install SQL Server Express on a Windows domain controller; however, it cannot run on a Windows Server 2003 domain controller as Local Service or Network Service. SQL Server service accounts should run as Windows domain user accounts. It is also possible to install SQL Server service accounts to run as Local System, but this option is not recommended."
I just need to know how to get SQLExpress to install without trying to create local accounts and use a specific network user account. Again thanks for your time and effort.
|||You will have to create specific domain accounts for the SQL Server Services -BEFORE you attempt to install. Here are some articles with information about what accounts are needed and why.
Configuration -Service Accounts, SQL Server 2005 - Setting Up Windows Service Accounts
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143691.aspx
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143504.aspx
Configuration -Service Accounts, SQL Server or SQL Server Agent service account
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/283811/en-us
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143691.aspx
Configuration -Service Accounts,Selecting an Account for the SQL Server Agent Service
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms191543.aspx
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/907557
Installing SQL 7 SP4 is a Domain are domain accounts required
When installing SQL 7 (non clustered) on a server is it neccessary to use
domain accounts.
e.g. We have a web server that is part of the workgroup "workgroup" this web
server is to access via the application on it the SQL database that resides
on a separate server (also in "workgroup") is it neccessary to create a
domain and have both these servers as members?
Thank youThere is no domain account for a workgroup topology. You will want to use
sql login for your authentication.
-oj
http://www.rac4sql.net
"Bruce Gilbert" <bruce.gilbert@.cgi.com> wrote in message
news:%23GsIqzCDEHA.2424@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> When installing SQL 7 (non clustered) on a server is it neccessary to use
> domain accounts.
> e.g. We have a web server that is part of the workgroup "workgroup" this
web
> server is to access via the application on it the SQL database that
resides
> on a separate server (also in "workgroup") is it neccessary to create a
> domain and have both these servers as members?
> Thank you
>|||To answer you question specifically. You do not need a domain. However, all
connectivity to the SQL Server machine will either have to be done with SQL
authentication or passthrough authentication (the same NT user and password
on both the client and SQL Server machine)
Rand
This posting is provided "as is" with no warranties and confers no rights.
domain accounts.
e.g. We have a web server that is part of the workgroup "workgroup" this web
server is to access via the application on it the SQL database that resides
on a separate server (also in "workgroup") is it neccessary to create a
domain and have both these servers as members?
Thank youThere is no domain account for a workgroup topology. You will want to use
sql login for your authentication.
-oj
http://www.rac4sql.net
"Bruce Gilbert" <bruce.gilbert@.cgi.com> wrote in message
news:%23GsIqzCDEHA.2424@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> When installing SQL 7 (non clustered) on a server is it neccessary to use
> domain accounts.
> e.g. We have a web server that is part of the workgroup "workgroup" this
web
> server is to access via the application on it the SQL database that
resides
> on a separate server (also in "workgroup") is it neccessary to create a
> domain and have both these servers as members?
> Thank you
>|||To answer you question specifically. You do not need a domain. However, all
connectivity to the SQL Server machine will either have to be done with SQL
authentication or passthrough authentication (the same NT user and password
on both the client and SQL Server machine)
Rand
This posting is provided "as is" with no warranties and confers no rights.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Installing SQL 2000 On active/active cluster
I am trying to install SQL 2000 Ent on a Win2k3 cluster.
I have check both local and domain privlages and they are good.
I have performed MS work around so SQL sp2 and below can be installed on win2k3.
And I keep getting the following error during install...
An error occurred while creating virtual server resources for
clustering.Cluster specific registry entries couldn't be written.
Does anybody have any ideas?Check the privilages for the service account and the Account in which you logged in for Installation has folloing privilages .
Part of Local Admin
In Local Policy
1. Act as part of operating system
2. Log on as service
Make sure in the services :Remote registry service is up|||Privlages are good and remote registry service is running !|||Did you manage to resolve this issue? Did you get any USEFULL help from Microsoft support? Please post a few words of wisdom if so.
We have exactly the same problem and I've been struggling with it for a few weeks. Any help/advice is welcome.
I use SQL 2000 EE SP3 install (i.e with SP3 already included in installation) and still get the same error: "cluster-specific registry could not be written". All the simptoms are the same. I can install single-node virtual server, but if I try to install on both-nodes I've got mentioned message. The same happens if I try add second node to successfully installed single-node virtual server.|||My issue ended up being security on the cluster was to tight.
Once I loosened my security policies it started working fine.
Specifically the registry was being locked down by a Windows 2000 DC which does'nt have all the proper setting that Windows 2003 has.
I eventually upgraded the DC to 2003 to help with this matter.
I have check both local and domain privlages and they are good.
I have performed MS work around so SQL sp2 and below can be installed on win2k3.
And I keep getting the following error during install...
An error occurred while creating virtual server resources for
clustering.Cluster specific registry entries couldn't be written.
Does anybody have any ideas?Check the privilages for the service account and the Account in which you logged in for Installation has folloing privilages .
Part of Local Admin
In Local Policy
1. Act as part of operating system
2. Log on as service
Make sure in the services :Remote registry service is up|||Privlages are good and remote registry service is running !|||Did you manage to resolve this issue? Did you get any USEFULL help from Microsoft support? Please post a few words of wisdom if so.
We have exactly the same problem and I've been struggling with it for a few weeks. Any help/advice is welcome.
I use SQL 2000 EE SP3 install (i.e with SP3 already included in installation) and still get the same error: "cluster-specific registry could not be written". All the simptoms are the same. I can install single-node virtual server, but if I try to install on both-nodes I've got mentioned message. The same happens if I try add second node to successfully installed single-node virtual server.|||My issue ended up being security on the cluster was to tight.
Once I loosened my security policies it started working fine.
Specifically the registry was being locked down by a Windows 2000 DC which does'nt have all the proper setting that Windows 2003 has.
I eventually upgraded the DC to 2003 to help with this matter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)