Can someone explain setting up instances in virtual SQL Servers? I know that you can have multiple virtual SQL Servers on a cluster, but does each default instance, or is it one default instance on the cluster no matter how many virtual servers you have?
Thank you.
On a cluster you get one default instance and 15 named instances OR 16 named
instances. Of course you don't have to create all the instances, these are
just maximum numbers. The number of hosts in the cluster doesn't matter
towards the instance count.
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
www.sqlpass.org
"walkman" <walkman@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:232E50F3-15CA-40DA-9ABA-4026EA8400B6@.microsoft.com...
> Can someone explain setting up instances in virtual SQL Servers? I know
that you can have multiple virtual SQL Servers on a cluster, but does each
default instance, or is it one default instance on the cluster no matter how
many virtual servers you have?
> Thank you.
|||Thank you. I was confused in that I thought each virtual machine would have its own default instance.
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
> On a cluster you get one default instance and 15 named instances OR 16 named
> instances. Of course you don't have to create all the instances, these are
> just maximum numbers. The number of hosts in the cluster doesn't matter
> towards the instance count.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Senior Database Administrator
> Careerbuilder.com
> I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
> www.sqlpass.org
> "walkman" <walkman@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:232E50F3-15CA-40DA-9ABA-4026EA8400B6@.microsoft.com...
> that you can have multiple virtual SQL Servers on a cluster, but does each
> default instance, or is it one default instance on the cluster no matter how
> many virtual servers you have?
>
>
|||Each Virtual Server gets a single instance. It can be either a named
instance or a default instance, however only one such virtual server per
cluster can hold a default instance. This is because of how SQL stores the
binaries for each instance locally on each host node.
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
www.sqlpass.org
"walkman" <walkman@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1C60B13E-E2CC-4001-ABD5-55665EE35419@.microsoft.com...
> Thank you. I was confused in that I thought each virtual machine would
have its own default instance.[vbcol=seagreen]
> "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
named[vbcol=seagreen]
are[vbcol=seagreen]
know[vbcol=seagreen]
each[vbcol=seagreen]
how[vbcol=seagreen]
|||Don't feel bad. You are not alone. This is confusing at the beginning.
Here are some additional references that you may find useful:
================================================== ====
Microsoft Whitepaper - SQL Server 2000 Failover Clustering
http://www.microsoft.com/SQL/techinf...vercluster.asp
Microsoft SQL Server 2000 High Availability Series
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro...y/sqlhalp.mspx
Microsoft Webcasts
Introduction to Microsoft SQL Server 2000 Clustering
http://support.microsoft.com/default...lurb051001.asp
Microsoft SQL Server 2000 Virtual Server: Things You Should Know
http://support.microsoft.com/default...lurb032602.asp
Microsoft SQL Server 2000 Virtual Server Basic Setup, Maintenance, and Service Pack
http://support.microsoft.com/default...lurb061002.asp
Microsoft SQL Server 2000 Failover Clustering Disaster Recovery Procedures
http://support.microsoft.com/default...lurb101802.asp
Troubleshooting SQL 2000 Virtual Server and Service Pack Setups for Failover Clustering
http://support.microsoft.com/default...lurb020703.asp
Q243218 INF: Installation Order for SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=243218
Q260758 - INF: Frequently Asked Questions - SQL Server 2000 - Failover Clustering
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=260758
Best Regards,
Uttam Parui
Microsoft Corporation
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Are you secure? For information about the Strategic Technology Protection Program and to order your FREE Security Tool Kit, please visit http://www.microsoft.com/security.
Microsoft highly recommends that users with Internet access update their Microsoft software to better protect against viruses and security vulnerabilities. The easiest way to do this is to visit the following websites:
http://www.microsoft.com/protect
http://www.microsoft.com/security/guidance/default.mspx
Showing posts with label servers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label servers. Show all posts
Friday, March 30, 2012
Friday, March 23, 2012
Installing SQL Server on a Cluster
Hello All,
If SQL Server is installed on a cluster will it be able to utilize the CPU and memory of all of the servers that are part of the cluster. For example, currently we run SQL Server on one server and at certain peak time the server CPU is maxed out. Will a cluster environment allow SQL Server to utilize mutiple servers for processing eliminating this problem?
Thanks, Gary
sql
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Installing SQL Server 2005, then upgrading to Windows 2003 from 20
We have plans to upgrade all our current SQL Server 2000 SP4 servers to SQL
Server 2005. Most of those servers are running on Windows 2000 with plans
to also upgrade to Windows 2003. Are there any risks to upgrading the SQL
Server, then upgrading the OS to 2003 at a later time? Or is it recommended
to upgrade the OS, then SQL Server for better results? In other words,
should these upgrades be tied together or does really not make a difference?
I haven't tried this sequence, but here is what I have learned fro upgrades
in the past. I prefer to upgrade in release sequence. Therefore, upgrade
to Windows 2003 then upgrade SQL 2000 to SQL 2005. Personally, I don't like
upgrading in place. I try to rebuild servers from scratch when I get a
chance. I use home-grown log shipping scripts to handle the cutover and can
generally keep the downtime to just a few minutes. Of course, this requires
a bit of spare hardware and some decent prep time but I really like having a
clean build. You also have the existing server as a fail-back for however
long you choose.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"SandiDBA" <SandiDBA@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D594190B-9FA1-4E80-BE41-E7C1680768F2@.microsoft.com...
> We have plans to upgrade all our current SQL Server 2000 SP4 servers to
> SQL
> Server 2005. Most of those servers are running on Windows 2000 with
> plans
> to also upgrade to Windows 2003. Are there any risks to upgrading the
> SQL
> Server, then upgrading the OS to 2003 at a later time? Or is it
> recommended
> to upgrade the OS, then SQL Server for better results? In other words,
> should these upgrades be tied together or does really not make a
> difference?
|||Hi
I would concur with Geoff, as Windows 2003 is an environmental change is
should have less impact and less likely to require any application changes
(although configuration changes may be necessary!) and therefore I would do
it first. An upgrade to SQL 2005 is more likely to require code changes and
so require more time for preparation and testing.
John
"SandiDBA" <SandiDBA@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D594190B-9FA1-4E80-BE41-E7C1680768F2@.microsoft.com...
> We have plans to upgrade all our current SQL Server 2000 SP4 servers to
> SQL
> Server 2005. Most of those servers are running on Windows 2000 with
> plans
> to also upgrade to Windows 2003. Are there any risks to upgrading the
> SQL
> Server, then upgrading the OS to 2003 at a later time? Or is it
> recommended
> to upgrade the OS, then SQL Server for better results? In other words,
> should these upgrades be tied together or does really not make a
> difference?
Server 2005. Most of those servers are running on Windows 2000 with plans
to also upgrade to Windows 2003. Are there any risks to upgrading the SQL
Server, then upgrading the OS to 2003 at a later time? Or is it recommended
to upgrade the OS, then SQL Server for better results? In other words,
should these upgrades be tied together or does really not make a difference?
I haven't tried this sequence, but here is what I have learned fro upgrades
in the past. I prefer to upgrade in release sequence. Therefore, upgrade
to Windows 2003 then upgrade SQL 2000 to SQL 2005. Personally, I don't like
upgrading in place. I try to rebuild servers from scratch when I get a
chance. I use home-grown log shipping scripts to handle the cutover and can
generally keep the downtime to just a few minutes. Of course, this requires
a bit of spare hardware and some decent prep time but I really like having a
clean build. You also have the existing server as a fail-back for however
long you choose.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"SandiDBA" <SandiDBA@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D594190B-9FA1-4E80-BE41-E7C1680768F2@.microsoft.com...
> We have plans to upgrade all our current SQL Server 2000 SP4 servers to
> SQL
> Server 2005. Most of those servers are running on Windows 2000 with
> plans
> to also upgrade to Windows 2003. Are there any risks to upgrading the
> SQL
> Server, then upgrading the OS to 2003 at a later time? Or is it
> recommended
> to upgrade the OS, then SQL Server for better results? In other words,
> should these upgrades be tied together or does really not make a
> difference?
|||Hi
I would concur with Geoff, as Windows 2003 is an environmental change is
should have less impact and less likely to require any application changes
(although configuration changes may be necessary!) and therefore I would do
it first. An upgrade to SQL 2005 is more likely to require code changes and
so require more time for preparation and testing.
John
"SandiDBA" <SandiDBA@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D594190B-9FA1-4E80-BE41-E7C1680768F2@.microsoft.com...
> We have plans to upgrade all our current SQL Server 2000 SP4 servers to
> SQL
> Server 2005. Most of those servers are running on Windows 2000 with
> plans
> to also upgrade to Windows 2003. Are there any risks to upgrading the
> SQL
> Server, then upgrading the OS to 2003 at a later time? Or is it
> recommended
> to upgrade the OS, then SQL Server for better results? In other words,
> should these upgrades be tied together or does really not make a
> difference?
Installing SQL Server 2005, then upgrading to Windows 2003 from 20
We have plans to upgrade all our current SQL Server 2000 SP4 servers to SQL
Server 2005. Most of those servers are running on Windows 2000 with plans
to also upgrade to Windows 2003. Are there any risks to upgrading the SQL
Server, then upgrading the OS to 2003 at a later time? Or is it recommended
to upgrade the OS, then SQL Server for better results? In other words,
should these upgrades be tied together or does really not make a difference?I haven't tried this sequence, but here is what I have learned fro upgrades
in the past. I prefer to upgrade in release sequence. Therefore, upgrade
to Windows 2003 then upgrade SQL 2000 to SQL 2005. Personally, I don't like
upgrading in place. I try to rebuild servers from scratch when I get a
chance. I use home-grown log shipping scripts to handle the cutover and can
generally keep the downtime to just a few minutes. Of course, this requires
a bit of spare hardware and some decent prep time but I really like having a
clean build. You also have the existing server as a fail-back for however
long you choose.
--
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"SandiDBA" <SandiDBA@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D594190B-9FA1-4E80-BE41-E7C1680768F2@.microsoft.com...
> We have plans to upgrade all our current SQL Server 2000 SP4 servers to
> SQL
> Server 2005. Most of those servers are running on Windows 2000 with
> plans
> to also upgrade to Windows 2003. Are there any risks to upgrading the
> SQL
> Server, then upgrading the OS to 2003 at a later time? Or is it
> recommended
> to upgrade the OS, then SQL Server for better results? In other words,
> should these upgrades be tied together or does really not make a
> difference?|||Hi
I would concur with Geoff, as Windows 2003 is an environmental change is
should have less impact and less likely to require any application changes
(although configuration changes may be necessary!) and therefore I would do
it first. An upgrade to SQL 2005 is more likely to require code changes and
so require more time for preparation and testing.
John
"SandiDBA" <SandiDBA@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D594190B-9FA1-4E80-BE41-E7C1680768F2@.microsoft.com...
> We have plans to upgrade all our current SQL Server 2000 SP4 servers to
> SQL
> Server 2005. Most of those servers are running on Windows 2000 with
> plans
> to also upgrade to Windows 2003. Are there any risks to upgrading the
> SQL
> Server, then upgrading the OS to 2003 at a later time? Or is it
> recommended
> to upgrade the OS, then SQL Server for better results? In other words,
> should these upgrades be tied together or does really not make a
> difference?|||We are looking at the extact ame scenerio. When you say you don't like
upgrading in place, do you mean Windows OS , SQL Server or both ? We agree
that a server rebuild it cleaner but we have never done a SQL server upgrade.
I am wondering if that is true for SQL server as well e.e Is a side-by-side
migration cleaner than an in-place upgrade ?
--
Thanks,
Flora
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
> I haven't tried this sequence, but here is what I have learned fro upgrades
> in the past. I prefer to upgrade in release sequence. Therefore, upgrade
> to Windows 2003 then upgrade SQL 2000 to SQL 2005. Personally, I don't like
> upgrading in place. I try to rebuild servers from scratch when I get a
> chance. I use home-grown log shipping scripts to handle the cutover and can
> generally keep the downtime to just a few minutes. Of course, this requires
> a bit of spare hardware and some decent prep time but I really like having a
> clean build. You also have the existing server as a fail-back for however
> long you choose.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>
> "SandiDBA" <SandiDBA@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:D594190B-9FA1-4E80-BE41-E7C1680768F2@.microsoft.com...
> > We have plans to upgrade all our current SQL Server 2000 SP4 servers to
> > SQL
> > Server 2005. Most of those servers are running on Windows 2000 with
> > plans
> > to also upgrade to Windows 2003. Are there any risks to upgrading the
> > SQL
> > Server, then upgrading the OS to 2003 at a later time? Or is it
> > recommended
> > to upgrade the OS, then SQL Server for better results? In other words,
> > should these upgrades be tied together or does really not make a
> > difference?
>
>
Server 2005. Most of those servers are running on Windows 2000 with plans
to also upgrade to Windows 2003. Are there any risks to upgrading the SQL
Server, then upgrading the OS to 2003 at a later time? Or is it recommended
to upgrade the OS, then SQL Server for better results? In other words,
should these upgrades be tied together or does really not make a difference?I haven't tried this sequence, but here is what I have learned fro upgrades
in the past. I prefer to upgrade in release sequence. Therefore, upgrade
to Windows 2003 then upgrade SQL 2000 to SQL 2005. Personally, I don't like
upgrading in place. I try to rebuild servers from scratch when I get a
chance. I use home-grown log shipping scripts to handle the cutover and can
generally keep the downtime to just a few minutes. Of course, this requires
a bit of spare hardware and some decent prep time but I really like having a
clean build. You also have the existing server as a fail-back for however
long you choose.
--
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"SandiDBA" <SandiDBA@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D594190B-9FA1-4E80-BE41-E7C1680768F2@.microsoft.com...
> We have plans to upgrade all our current SQL Server 2000 SP4 servers to
> SQL
> Server 2005. Most of those servers are running on Windows 2000 with
> plans
> to also upgrade to Windows 2003. Are there any risks to upgrading the
> SQL
> Server, then upgrading the OS to 2003 at a later time? Or is it
> recommended
> to upgrade the OS, then SQL Server for better results? In other words,
> should these upgrades be tied together or does really not make a
> difference?|||Hi
I would concur with Geoff, as Windows 2003 is an environmental change is
should have less impact and less likely to require any application changes
(although configuration changes may be necessary!) and therefore I would do
it first. An upgrade to SQL 2005 is more likely to require code changes and
so require more time for preparation and testing.
John
"SandiDBA" <SandiDBA@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D594190B-9FA1-4E80-BE41-E7C1680768F2@.microsoft.com...
> We have plans to upgrade all our current SQL Server 2000 SP4 servers to
> SQL
> Server 2005. Most of those servers are running on Windows 2000 with
> plans
> to also upgrade to Windows 2003. Are there any risks to upgrading the
> SQL
> Server, then upgrading the OS to 2003 at a later time? Or is it
> recommended
> to upgrade the OS, then SQL Server for better results? In other words,
> should these upgrades be tied together or does really not make a
> difference?|||We are looking at the extact ame scenerio. When you say you don't like
upgrading in place, do you mean Windows OS , SQL Server or both ? We agree
that a server rebuild it cleaner but we have never done a SQL server upgrade.
I am wondering if that is true for SQL server as well e.e Is a side-by-side
migration cleaner than an in-place upgrade ?
--
Thanks,
Flora
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
> I haven't tried this sequence, but here is what I have learned fro upgrades
> in the past. I prefer to upgrade in release sequence. Therefore, upgrade
> to Windows 2003 then upgrade SQL 2000 to SQL 2005. Personally, I don't like
> upgrading in place. I try to rebuild servers from scratch when I get a
> chance. I use home-grown log shipping scripts to handle the cutover and can
> generally keep the downtime to just a few minutes. Of course, this requires
> a bit of spare hardware and some decent prep time but I really like having a
> clean build. You also have the existing server as a fail-back for however
> long you choose.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>
> "SandiDBA" <SandiDBA@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:D594190B-9FA1-4E80-BE41-E7C1680768F2@.microsoft.com...
> > We have plans to upgrade all our current SQL Server 2000 SP4 servers to
> > SQL
> > Server 2005. Most of those servers are running on Windows 2000 with
> > plans
> > to also upgrade to Windows 2003. Are there any risks to upgrading the
> > SQL
> > Server, then upgrading the OS to 2003 at a later time? Or is it
> > recommended
> > to upgrade the OS, then SQL Server for better results? In other words,
> > should these upgrades be tied together or does really not make a
> > difference?
>
>
Installing SQL Server 2005, then upgrading to Windows 2003 from 20
We have plans to upgrade all our current SQL Server 2000 SP4 servers to SQL
Server 2005. Most of those servers are running on Windows 2000 with plan
s
to also upgrade to Windows 2003. Are there any risks to upgrading the SQ
L
Server, then upgrading the OS to 2003 at a later time? Or is it recommende
d
to upgrade the OS, then SQL Server for better results? In other words,
should these upgrades be tied together or does really not make a difference?I haven't tried this sequence, but here is what I have learned fro upgrades
in the past. I prefer to upgrade in release sequence. Therefore, upgrade
to Windows 2003 then upgrade SQL 2000 to SQL 2005. Personally, I don't like
upgrading in place. I try to rebuild servers from scratch when I get a
chance. I use home-grown log shipping scripts to handle the cutover and can
generally keep the downtime to just a few minutes. Of course, this requires
a bit of spare hardware and some decent prep time but I really like having a
clean build. You also have the existing server as a fail-back for however
long you choose.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"SandiDBA" <SandiDBA@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D594190B-9FA1-4E80-BE41-E7C1680768F2@.microsoft.com...
> We have plans to upgrade all our current SQL Server 2000 SP4 servers to
> SQL
> Server 2005. Most of those servers are running on Windows 2000 with
> plans
> to also upgrade to Windows 2003. Are there any risks to upgrading the
> SQL
> Server, then upgrading the OS to 2003 at a later time? Or is it
> recommended
> to upgrade the OS, then SQL Server for better results? In other words,
> should these upgrades be tied together or does really not make a
> difference?|||Hi
I would concur with Geoff, as Windows 2003 is an environmental change is
should have less impact and less likely to require any application changes
(although configuration changes may be necessary!) and therefore I would do
it first. An upgrade to SQL 2005 is more likely to require code changes and
so require more time for preparation and testing.
John
"SandiDBA" <SandiDBA@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D594190B-9FA1-4E80-BE41-E7C1680768F2@.microsoft.com...
> We have plans to upgrade all our current SQL Server 2000 SP4 servers to
> SQL
> Server 2005. Most of those servers are running on Windows 2000 with
> plans
> to also upgrade to Windows 2003. Are there any risks to upgrading the
> SQL
> Server, then upgrading the OS to 2003 at a later time? Or is it
> recommended
> to upgrade the OS, then SQL Server for better results? In other words,
> should these upgrades be tied together or does really not make a
> difference?
Server 2005. Most of those servers are running on Windows 2000 with plan
s
to also upgrade to Windows 2003. Are there any risks to upgrading the SQ
L
Server, then upgrading the OS to 2003 at a later time? Or is it recommende
d
to upgrade the OS, then SQL Server for better results? In other words,
should these upgrades be tied together or does really not make a difference?I haven't tried this sequence, but here is what I have learned fro upgrades
in the past. I prefer to upgrade in release sequence. Therefore, upgrade
to Windows 2003 then upgrade SQL 2000 to SQL 2005. Personally, I don't like
upgrading in place. I try to rebuild servers from scratch when I get a
chance. I use home-grown log shipping scripts to handle the cutover and can
generally keep the downtime to just a few minutes. Of course, this requires
a bit of spare hardware and some decent prep time but I really like having a
clean build. You also have the existing server as a fail-back for however
long you choose.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"SandiDBA" <SandiDBA@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D594190B-9FA1-4E80-BE41-E7C1680768F2@.microsoft.com...
> We have plans to upgrade all our current SQL Server 2000 SP4 servers to
> SQL
> Server 2005. Most of those servers are running on Windows 2000 with
> plans
> to also upgrade to Windows 2003. Are there any risks to upgrading the
> SQL
> Server, then upgrading the OS to 2003 at a later time? Or is it
> recommended
> to upgrade the OS, then SQL Server for better results? In other words,
> should these upgrades be tied together or does really not make a
> difference?|||Hi
I would concur with Geoff, as Windows 2003 is an environmental change is
should have less impact and less likely to require any application changes
(although configuration changes may be necessary!) and therefore I would do
it first. An upgrade to SQL 2005 is more likely to require code changes and
so require more time for preparation and testing.
John
"SandiDBA" <SandiDBA@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D594190B-9FA1-4E80-BE41-E7C1680768F2@.microsoft.com...
> We have plans to upgrade all our current SQL Server 2000 SP4 servers to
> SQL
> Server 2005. Most of those servers are running on Windows 2000 with
> plans
> to also upgrade to Windows 2003. Are there any risks to upgrading the
> SQL
> Server, then upgrading the OS to 2003 at a later time? Or is it
> recommended
> to upgrade the OS, then SQL Server for better results? In other words,
> should these upgrades be tied together or does really not make a
> difference?
Installing SQL Server 2005 on Windows XP Pro x64
On MSDN, I have downloaded "SQL Server 2005 CTP - September 2005 - Enterprise Edition - 64-bit Extended - Servers (English)" that I am trying to install on WinXP Pro x64 (EMT64 machine).
Unfortunately, I am not able to install SQLSRV2005, indeed during the setup the option such as "SQL Server Database Services" are grayed (i.e. not clickable, idem for Analysis Services). The only thing that I can select is "Workstation components".
Is it possible to use SQL Server 2005 on a WinXP x64 OS ?
Thanks in advance,
Joannes
Enterprise Edition isn't supported on WinXP. Please see the following link for system requirements:
Unfortunately, I am not able to install SQLSRV2005, indeed during the setup the option such as "SQL Server Database Services" are grayed (i.e. not clickable, idem for Analysis Services). The only thing that I can select is "Workstation components".
Is it possible to use SQL Server 2005 on a WinXP x64 OS ?
Thanks in advance,
Joannes
Enterprise Edition isn't supported on WinXP. Please see the following link for system requirements:
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/evaluation/sysreqs/2005/default.mspx
Monday, March 19, 2012
Integrated Security problem
I've been going nuts over this issue:
I have three servers (THUNDERBOLT which is the SQL Server, TOMCAT which is
the IIS server and PANTHER which is a terminal server) with SQLXML 3.0
installed on TOMCAT. I have setup a virtual template directory and can
execute a template query from IE on TOMCAT with SQL XML configured to use
integrated security. However, when I use the same URL from PANTHER, I get
'The page cannot be found'. However, if I configure SQL XML to use sa
instead of integrated security then the template query works from either
machine ok. My question is why can't I use integrated security for SQL XML
and connect from a non-local machine? (I'm using the same domain login in
both cases and the user is a domain admin) Another possible factor in this
is the fact that I'm also using a host-header with the web, but I don't
think that should matter-right?
Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
When you say Integrated security, do you mean that you're trying to use the
caller's credentials (i.e. impersonation/delegation) or are you using the
same Windows account for all callers (i.e. a trusted service account)? If
the former, you're hitting problems because delegation (i.e. impersonation
across 2 physical machines) is not permitted by default - you'd need to
configure the computer and users to be trusted for delegation in A.D (search
for "delegation" in TechNet for details - it's not for the faint hearted
though!). You'll also lose out an performance gains from connection pooling.
All in all, in most cases you're better using a single Windows account for
all callers.
Hope that helps!
G
--
Graeme Malcolm
Principal Technologist
Content Master Ltd.
www.contentmaster.com
"Elmer Miller" <millere@.empireco.nospam> wrote in message
news:eCeGXS7sEHA.2688@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
I've been going nuts over this issue:
I have three servers (THUNDERBOLT which is the SQL Server, TOMCAT which is
the IIS server and PANTHER which is a terminal server) with SQLXML 3.0
installed on TOMCAT. I have setup a virtual template directory and can
execute a template query from IE on TOMCAT with SQL XML configured to use
integrated security. However, when I use the same URL from PANTHER, I get
'The page cannot be found'. However, if I configure SQL XML to use sa
instead of integrated security then the template query works from either
machine ok. My question is why can't I use integrated security for SQL XML
and connect from a non-local machine? (I'm using the same domain login in
both cases and the user is a domain admin) Another possible factor in this
is the fact that I'm also using a host-header with the web, but I don't
think that should matter-right?
Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
|||OK, since I am faint-hearted, I gave up on trying to use the callers
credentials and went with a single SQL account. I found that this works well
enough for my purposes. Thanks.
"Graeme Malcolm" <graemem_cm@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uHtW8kGtEHA.2596@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> When you say Integrated security, do you mean that you're trying to use
> the
> caller's credentials (i.e. impersonation/delegation) or are you using the
> same Windows account for all callers (i.e. a trusted service account)? If
> the former, you're hitting problems because delegation (i.e. impersonation
> across 2 physical machines) is not permitted by default - you'd need to
> configure the computer and users to be trusted for delegation in A.D
> (search
> for "delegation" in TechNet for details - it's not for the faint hearted
> though!). You'll also lose out an performance gains from connection
> pooling.
> All in all, in most cases you're better using a single Windows account for
> all callers.
> Hope that helps!
> G
> --
> --
> Graeme Malcolm
> Principal Technologist
> Content Master Ltd.
> www.contentmaster.com
>
> "Elmer Miller" <millere@.empireco.nospam> wrote in message
> news:eCeGXS7sEHA.2688@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> I've been going nuts over this issue:
> I have three servers (THUNDERBOLT which is the SQL Server, TOMCAT which is
> the IIS server and PANTHER which is a terminal server) with SQLXML 3.0
> installed on TOMCAT. I have setup a virtual template directory and can
> execute a template query from IE on TOMCAT with SQL XML configured to use
> integrated security. However, when I use the same URL from PANTHER, I get
> 'The page cannot be found'. However, if I configure SQL XML to use sa
> instead of integrated security then the template query works from either
> machine ok. My question is why can't I use integrated security for SQL XML
> and connect from a non-local machine? (I'm using the same domain login in
> both cases and the user is a domain admin) Another possible factor in this
> is the fact that I'm also using a host-header with the web, but I don't
> think that should matter-right?
> Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
>
>
I have three servers (THUNDERBOLT which is the SQL Server, TOMCAT which is
the IIS server and PANTHER which is a terminal server) with SQLXML 3.0
installed on TOMCAT. I have setup a virtual template directory and can
execute a template query from IE on TOMCAT with SQL XML configured to use
integrated security. However, when I use the same URL from PANTHER, I get
'The page cannot be found'. However, if I configure SQL XML to use sa
instead of integrated security then the template query works from either
machine ok. My question is why can't I use integrated security for SQL XML
and connect from a non-local machine? (I'm using the same domain login in
both cases and the user is a domain admin) Another possible factor in this
is the fact that I'm also using a host-header with the web, but I don't
think that should matter-right?
Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
When you say Integrated security, do you mean that you're trying to use the
caller's credentials (i.e. impersonation/delegation) or are you using the
same Windows account for all callers (i.e. a trusted service account)? If
the former, you're hitting problems because delegation (i.e. impersonation
across 2 physical machines) is not permitted by default - you'd need to
configure the computer and users to be trusted for delegation in A.D (search
for "delegation" in TechNet for details - it's not for the faint hearted
though!). You'll also lose out an performance gains from connection pooling.
All in all, in most cases you're better using a single Windows account for
all callers.
Hope that helps!
G
--
Graeme Malcolm
Principal Technologist
Content Master Ltd.
www.contentmaster.com
"Elmer Miller" <millere@.empireco.nospam> wrote in message
news:eCeGXS7sEHA.2688@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
I've been going nuts over this issue:
I have three servers (THUNDERBOLT which is the SQL Server, TOMCAT which is
the IIS server and PANTHER which is a terminal server) with SQLXML 3.0
installed on TOMCAT. I have setup a virtual template directory and can
execute a template query from IE on TOMCAT with SQL XML configured to use
integrated security. However, when I use the same URL from PANTHER, I get
'The page cannot be found'. However, if I configure SQL XML to use sa
instead of integrated security then the template query works from either
machine ok. My question is why can't I use integrated security for SQL XML
and connect from a non-local machine? (I'm using the same domain login in
both cases and the user is a domain admin) Another possible factor in this
is the fact that I'm also using a host-header with the web, but I don't
think that should matter-right?
Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
|||OK, since I am faint-hearted, I gave up on trying to use the callers
credentials and went with a single SQL account. I found that this works well
enough for my purposes. Thanks.
"Graeme Malcolm" <graemem_cm@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uHtW8kGtEHA.2596@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> When you say Integrated security, do you mean that you're trying to use
> the
> caller's credentials (i.e. impersonation/delegation) or are you using the
> same Windows account for all callers (i.e. a trusted service account)? If
> the former, you're hitting problems because delegation (i.e. impersonation
> across 2 physical machines) is not permitted by default - you'd need to
> configure the computer and users to be trusted for delegation in A.D
> (search
> for "delegation" in TechNet for details - it's not for the faint hearted
> though!). You'll also lose out an performance gains from connection
> pooling.
> All in all, in most cases you're better using a single Windows account for
> all callers.
> Hope that helps!
> G
> --
> --
> Graeme Malcolm
> Principal Technologist
> Content Master Ltd.
> www.contentmaster.com
>
> "Elmer Miller" <millere@.empireco.nospam> wrote in message
> news:eCeGXS7sEHA.2688@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> I've been going nuts over this issue:
> I have three servers (THUNDERBOLT which is the SQL Server, TOMCAT which is
> the IIS server and PANTHER which is a terminal server) with SQLXML 3.0
> installed on TOMCAT. I have setup a virtual template directory and can
> execute a template query from IE on TOMCAT with SQL XML configured to use
> integrated security. However, when I use the same URL from PANTHER, I get
> 'The page cannot be found'. However, if I configure SQL XML to use sa
> instead of integrated security then the template query works from either
> machine ok. My question is why can't I use integrated security for SQL XML
> and connect from a non-local machine? (I'm using the same domain login in
> both cases and the user is a domain admin) Another possible factor in this
> is the fact that I'm also using a host-header with the web, but I don't
> think that should matter-right?
> Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
>
>
Monday, March 12, 2012
Integrated Auth and SQL servers
I'm building a reporting server that will grab data off of a an old HP3000, all of that is being done in a background task (non asp.net) and uploaded to an sql server.
I'm using a web interface to allow people within the company to view the data. This will be in a single domain, behind a firewall, and will not be accessable from outside of the company.
In IIS, I have anonymous login unchecked and only Integrated Windows Auth checked. The pertinate parts of my web.config look like this:
<authenticationmode="Windows"/>
<identityimpersonate="true"/>
<authorization>
<allowusers="*"/>
<denyusers="?"/>
</authorization>
My connection string looks like this:
publicstaticstring SqlServerConnect = "Integrated Security=SSPI;Initial Catalog=[name of database];Data Source=[sqlserver IP]";
The website (for now) is on my local development computer. When I run the program everything works fine, when I attempt to view the web page on another computer, I get the following error
Server Error in '/reports' Application.
Login failed for user 'NT AUTHORITY\ANONYMOUS LOGON'.
I'm at a loss as to how to fix this. I dont really want each user to have to enter any log in information, frankly, the permissions dont even matter in this case. My main problem is with the sql connection and trying to get adequate permissions to run queries.
Any help would be apprieciated
<deny users="?" /> denyANONYMOUS user. Ifthe permissions dont even matter and you dont really want each user to have to enter any log in information, then you can remove this <deny users="?" /> in web.config <authorization> section.
Xiaohong wrote:
<deny users="?" /> denyANONYMOUS user. Ifthe permissions dont even matter and you dont really want each user to have to enter any log in information, then you can remove this <deny users="?" /> in web.config <authorization> section.
This all gets back to the security problem with the sql connection. It generates error messages when it gets to the sqlCommand.Fill(dataset) part. If I dont do some kind of authentication, the sqlconnect returns an error message. I just need enough permissions to connect to the sql server
Friday, March 9, 2012
Installing SQL Server 2000 SP3a
I got this message from
Backup Exec for Windows Servers Environment Check 1.0 for SBS1
QUOTE
An instance of Microsoft SQL 2000 was found that is not updated to Service Pack 3a.
An instance of Microsoft SQL Server was found that is not updated to the correct service pack. Using this SQL Server instance with Backup Exec may cause errors. To install Backup Exec successfully, upgrade this SQL Server to Service Pack 3a, or select another instance.
Instance: SBSMONITORING, Version: 2000 SP 3a
Instance: SHAREPOINT, Version: 2000 SP 3a
Instance: BKUPEXEC, Version: 2000 SP 3a
Instance: PADMINISTRATOR, Version: 2000 SP 3a
Instance: MICROSOFT##SSEE, Version: 2000
UNQUOTE
My Question is how to upgrade the instance : "MICROSOFT##SSEE, Version: 2000" to SP 3a?
Its better to apply sp4 to the server, since Mainstream Support for sql 2000 is going retire at 4/8/2008.Kindly specify your OS with service pack installed to analyze further|||
You can download SQL 2000 SP4 from here:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=8e2dfc8d-c20e-4446-99a9-b7f0213f8bc5&displaylang=en
Thanks,Sam Lester (MSFT)|||
Thank you Vidhya. I apply Sp4
regards Theo
|||Sam thank you. I already downloaded the files.
Regards Theo
|||Hi, I wonder if anyone can help me.
I have the same issue. When attempting to install SP4 using the command:
setup /upgradesp sqlrun INSTANCENAME=MICROSOFT##SSEE /L*v d:\msdelog.log
I get the error:
"The product is not installed. Check it a appropriate instance of MSDE is installed."
Can anyone shed any light on this?
Thanks
Installing SQL Server 2000 SP3a
I got this message from
Backup Exec for Windows Servers Environment Check 1.0 for SBS1
QUOTE
An instance of Microsoft SQL 2000 was found that is not updated to Service Pack 3a.
An instance of Microsoft SQL Server was found that is not updated to the correct service pack. Using this SQL Server instance with Backup Exec may cause errors. To install Backup Exec successfully, upgrade this SQL Server to Service Pack 3a, or select another instance.
Instance: SBSMONITORING, Version: 2000 SP 3a
Instance: SHAREPOINT, Version: 2000 SP 3a
Instance: BKUPEXEC, Version: 2000 SP 3a
Instance: PADMINISTRATOR, Version: 2000 SP 3a
Instance: MICROSOFT##SSEE, Version: 2000
UNQUOTE
My Question is how to upgrade the instance : "MICROSOFT##SSEE, Version: 2000" to SP 3a?
Its better to apply sp4 to the server, since Mainstream Support for sql 2000 is going retire at 4/8/2008.Kindly specify your OS with service pack installed to analyze further|||
You can download SQL 2000 SP4 from here:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=8e2dfc8d-c20e-4446-99a9-b7f0213f8bc5&displaylang=en
Thanks,Sam Lester (MSFT)|||
Thank you Vidhya. I apply Sp4
regards Theo
|||Sam thank you. I already downloaded the files.
Regards Theo
|||Hi, I wonder if anyone can help me.
I have the same issue. When attempting to install SP4 using the command:
setup /upgradesp sqlrun INSTANCENAME=MICROSOFT##SSEE /L*v d:\msdelog.log
I get the error:
"The product is not installed. Check it a appropriate instance of MSDE is installed."
Can anyone shed any light on this?
Thanks
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Installing SQL Server 2000
Hi
I am trying to find out best practices for SQL Server 2000 installs
for corporate servers. We currently have someone doing it 'in their
spare time!' (I kid you not). When installing SQL server 2000 out of
the box on a freshly formatted machine, I would like to get some
feedback on the following:
1) I believe the 'sa' account should be removed at earliest
opportunity, after install.
2) Should there be any processes running under the 'sa' account is the
machine was correctly configured to use a domain account principle? I
was under the impression that this was not the case?
Any links to information on best practices would be appreciated.
Regards,
MitchHi
See inline:
"Mitch W" <mwheat@.hatch.com.au> wrote in message
news:b0f6e915.0406231817.1b6918b4@.posting.google.c om...
> Hi
> I am trying to find out best practices for SQL Server 2000 installs
> for corporate servers. We currently have someone doing it 'in their
> spare time!' (I kid you not). When installing SQL server 2000 out of
> the box on a freshly formatted machine, I would like to get some
> feedback on the following:
> 1) I believe the 'sa' account should be removed at earliest
> opportunity, after install.
This can not be removed! You can assign a strong password and use window
authentication rather than mixed mode.
> 2) Should there be any processes running under the 'sa' account is the
> machine was correctly configured to use a domain account principle? I
> was under the impression that this was not the case?
If using only windows authentication then you can not log in as sa.
> Any links to information on best practices would be appreciated.
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/spotlight/security.asp
http://www.sqlsecurity.com/DesktopD...index=0&tabid=1
> Regards,
> Mitch
John
Friday, February 24, 2012
Installing SQL 2005 on servers with DNS
I've looked into installing the SQL 2005 Enterprise beta in my organization to look at it's features and capabilities. We use SQL 2000 today.
My setups weren't successful, and the reason (I think) is that the server I was installing these on is running DNS, because it's a Global Catalog server.
My question is whether this will be an issue going forward in future releases. For example, how would you support SQL 2005 in Small Business Server?
We currently have three servers: one is a global catalog and another is a backup for redundancy reasons. The other server does not run DNS or AD, but it does run Exchange, and we'd prefer not to install SQL on that box. We had installed SQL 2000 previously on either of the AD boxes, and it worked fine, since our query levels are minimal.
Thanks.There is a known issue installing SQL Server 2005 on a domain controller, including Small Business Server. We're currently working on a fix and expect at release to support installation on DCs and SBS. Right now there is no known work around.
Dan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)