Hello,
I am trying to set up multiadministration server, since my company has 2
central cluster servers, with SQL Server 2000 SP3a, and 80 local sql server
2000 SP3a.
I have recently upgraded a central to SP3, and did the same for a local sql
server. Both are in the same domain, started by an special administrator
account for SQL Server services (both SQL Server service and SQL Agent).
I'm thus using Windows authentification. I tried to set up both server for
multiadministration, using SQL queries :
==> EXEC xp_sqlagent_msx_account N'SET', N'', N'', N''
to run multiadministration server under SQL agent account, and then
==>
EXEC sp_grantlogin 'MyDomain\MyUser'
USE msdb
EXEC sp_adduser 'MyDomain\MyUser', MyDomain\MyUser', 'TargetServersRole'
on each server, both central and target (local).
Then I try to set up multiadministration using EM, but the 'Specify MSX
Account' step fails, saying the account I'm using is not a valid MSX Account.
I can't find any more help on forums and BOL.
Your help will be much appreciated...This message was posted a few weeks
ago, but no answer on the SQL server tools forum. Thanks a lot for your help.
Xavier MarcatelCheck the section on "Multi-Server Administration" at this link:
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/columnists/bkelley/sp3coresecurity.asp
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
"PetitGosaimass" <PetitGosaimass@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:63E1D6DA-68CB-4EAA-88FC-4462FBF9C5F4@.microsoft.com...
> Hello,
> I am trying to set up multiadministration server, since my company has 2
> central cluster servers, with SQL Server 2000 SP3a, and 80 local sql
> server
> 2000 SP3a.
> I have recently upgraded a central to SP3, and did the same for a local
> sql
> server. Both are in the same domain, started by an special administrator
> account for SQL Server services (both SQL Server service and SQL Agent).
> I'm thus using Windows authentification. I tried to set up both server for
> multiadministration, using SQL queries :
> ==> EXEC xp_sqlagent_msx_account N'SET', N'', N'', N''
> to run multiadministration server under SQL agent account, and then
> ==>
> EXEC sp_grantlogin 'MyDomain\MyUser'
> USE msdb
> EXEC sp_adduser 'MyDomain\MyUser', MyDomain\MyUser', 'TargetServersRole'
> on each server, both central and target (local).
> Then I try to set up multiadministration using EM, but the 'Specify MSX
> Account' step fails, saying the account I'm using is not a valid MSX
> Account.
> I can't find any more help on forums and BOL.
> Your help will be much appreciated...This message was posted a few weeks
> ago, but no answer on the SQL server tools forum. Thanks a lot for your
> help.
> Xavier Marcatel
>
Showing posts with label servers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label servers. Show all posts
Monday, March 26, 2012
MultiServer SQL 2000 SP3 Administration
Hello,
I am trying to set up multiadministration server, since my company has 2
central cluster servers, with SQL Server 2000 SP3a, and 80 local sql server
2000 SP3a.
I have recently upgraded a central to SP3, and did the same for a local sql
server. Both are in the same domain, started by an special administrator
account for SQL Server services (both SQL Server service and SQL Agent).
I'm thus using Windows authentification. I tried to set up both server for
multiadministration, using SQL queries :
==> EXEC xp_sqlagent_msx_account N'SET', N'', N'', N''
to run multiadministration server under SQL agent account, and then
==>
EXEC sp_grantlogin 'MyDomain\MyUser'
USE msdb
EXEC sp_adduser 'MyDomain\MyUser', MyDomain\MyUser', 'TargetServersRole'
on each server, both central and target (local).
Then I try to set up multiadministration using EM, but the 'Specify MSX
Account' step fails, saying the account I'm using is not a valid MSX Account
.
I can't find any more help on forums and BOL.
Your help will be much appreciated...This message was posted a few weeks
ago, but no answer on the SQL server tools forum. Thanks a lot for your help
.
Xavier MarcatelCheck the section on "Multi-Server Administration" at this link:
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/col...oresecurity.asp
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
"PetitGosaimass" <PetitGosaimass@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:63E1D6DA-68CB-4EAA-88FC-4462FBF9C5F4@.microsoft.com...
> Hello,
> I am trying to set up multiadministration server, since my company has 2
> central cluster servers, with SQL Server 2000 SP3a, and 80 local sql
> server
> 2000 SP3a.
> I have recently upgraded a central to SP3, and did the same for a local
> sql
> server. Both are in the same domain, started by an special administrator
> account for SQL Server services (both SQL Server service and SQL Agent).
> I'm thus using Windows authentification. I tried to set up both server for
> multiadministration, using SQL queries :
> ==> EXEC xp_sqlagent_msx_account N'SET', N'', N'', N''
> to run multiadministration server under SQL agent account, and then
> ==>
> EXEC sp_grantlogin 'MyDomain\MyUser'
> USE msdb
> EXEC sp_adduser 'MyDomain\MyUser', MyDomain\MyUser', 'TargetServersRole'
> on each server, both central and target (local).
> Then I try to set up multiadministration using EM, but the 'Specify MSX
> Account' step fails, saying the account I'm using is not a valid MSX
> Account.
> I can't find any more help on forums and BOL.
> Your help will be much appreciated...This message was posted a few weeks
> ago, but no answer on the SQL server tools forum. Thanks a lot for your
> help.
> Xavier Marcatel
>
I am trying to set up multiadministration server, since my company has 2
central cluster servers, with SQL Server 2000 SP3a, and 80 local sql server
2000 SP3a.
I have recently upgraded a central to SP3, and did the same for a local sql
server. Both are in the same domain, started by an special administrator
account for SQL Server services (both SQL Server service and SQL Agent).
I'm thus using Windows authentification. I tried to set up both server for
multiadministration, using SQL queries :
==> EXEC xp_sqlagent_msx_account N'SET', N'', N'', N''
to run multiadministration server under SQL agent account, and then
==>
EXEC sp_grantlogin 'MyDomain\MyUser'
USE msdb
EXEC sp_adduser 'MyDomain\MyUser', MyDomain\MyUser', 'TargetServersRole'
on each server, both central and target (local).
Then I try to set up multiadministration using EM, but the 'Specify MSX
Account' step fails, saying the account I'm using is not a valid MSX Account
.
I can't find any more help on forums and BOL.
Your help will be much appreciated...This message was posted a few weeks
ago, but no answer on the SQL server tools forum. Thanks a lot for your help
.
Xavier MarcatelCheck the section on "Multi-Server Administration" at this link:
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/col...oresecurity.asp
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
"PetitGosaimass" <PetitGosaimass@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:63E1D6DA-68CB-4EAA-88FC-4462FBF9C5F4@.microsoft.com...
> Hello,
> I am trying to set up multiadministration server, since my company has 2
> central cluster servers, with SQL Server 2000 SP3a, and 80 local sql
> server
> 2000 SP3a.
> I have recently upgraded a central to SP3, and did the same for a local
> sql
> server. Both are in the same domain, started by an special administrator
> account for SQL Server services (both SQL Server service and SQL Agent).
> I'm thus using Windows authentification. I tried to set up both server for
> multiadministration, using SQL queries :
> ==> EXEC xp_sqlagent_msx_account N'SET', N'', N'', N''
> to run multiadministration server under SQL agent account, and then
> ==>
> EXEC sp_grantlogin 'MyDomain\MyUser'
> USE msdb
> EXEC sp_adduser 'MyDomain\MyUser', MyDomain\MyUser', 'TargetServersRole'
> on each server, both central and target (local).
> Then I try to set up multiadministration using EM, but the 'Specify MSX
> Account' step fails, saying the account I'm using is not a valid MSX
> Account.
> I can't find any more help on forums and BOL.
> Your help will be much appreciated...This message was posted a few weeks
> ago, but no answer on the SQL server tools forum. Thanks a lot for your
> help.
> Xavier Marcatel
>
Multiserver Administration
I want to set up Multiserver Administration.
The problem I encounter is a firewall between the master server and some
target servers.
What ports need to be set open to make this possible ?Hi Ren
The problem I encounter is a firewall between the master server and some
target servers.
What ports need to be set open to make this possible ?Hi Ren
See http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...kb;en-us;287932
John
"Ren Dohmen" <reply@.newsgroup.please> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.10.28.12.41.47.521258@.newsgroup.plea se...
>I want to set up Multiserver Administration.
> The problem I encounter is a firewall between the master server and some
> target servers.
> What ports need to be set open to make this possible ?
Multiserver administratie on SQL2005
Hello,
does anyone has managed to get MultiServer jobs working on SQL2005.
I have installed 3 fresh win2003 servers with SP1. One is a DC, DHCP
server and DNS server. The two others are SQL2005, using the same
service account that has full administrative rights. I log on also as
administrator when I try to make one of the SQL2005 the master server.
During enlisting of the target server on the master server I get the
error that the target server could not logon on the master server
(altough its service account has full admin rights on the master server)
Any suggestions
Thanks a lot in advance
Marc MertensMarc
Do you mean to run a job on the source server that does the work on the
destination? Linked servers?
"Marc Mertens" <mertens.techdata@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:upCqi06ZGHA.4580@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> does anyone has managed to get MultiServer jobs working on SQL2005. I
> have installed 3 fresh win2003 servers with SP1. One is a DC, DHCP server
> and DNS server. The two others are SQL2005, using the same service account
> that has full administrative rights. I log on also as administrator when I
> try to make one of the SQL2005 the master server. During enlisting of the
> target server on the master server I get the error that the target server
> could not logon on the master server (altough its service account has full
> admin rights on the master server)
> Any suggestions
> Thanks a lot in advance
> Marc Mertens|||No, MultiServer administration means that you create a multserver job on
a master server that is downloaded on target servers and executed there.
You enable multiserver administration by right clicking on the SQL
Server agent and choosing the correct menu entry in All Tasks. This is a
feature already available on a SQL2000 (where it worked without a
problem), but it does not seems to work anymore in SQL2005 (at least I
can not get it working).
Marc
Uri Dimant wrote:
> Marc
> Do you mean to run a job on the source server that does the work on the
> destination? Linked servers?
>
> "Marc Mertens" <mertens.techdata@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:upCqi06ZGHA.4580@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>
does anyone has managed to get MultiServer jobs working on SQL2005.
I have installed 3 fresh win2003 servers with SP1. One is a DC, DHCP
server and DNS server. The two others are SQL2005, using the same
service account that has full administrative rights. I log on also as
administrator when I try to make one of the SQL2005 the master server.
During enlisting of the target server on the master server I get the
error that the target server could not logon on the master server
(altough its service account has full admin rights on the master server)
Any suggestions
Thanks a lot in advance
Marc MertensMarc
Do you mean to run a job on the source server that does the work on the
destination? Linked servers?
"Marc Mertens" <mertens.techdata@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:upCqi06ZGHA.4580@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> does anyone has managed to get MultiServer jobs working on SQL2005. I
> have installed 3 fresh win2003 servers with SP1. One is a DC, DHCP server
> and DNS server. The two others are SQL2005, using the same service account
> that has full administrative rights. I log on also as administrator when I
> try to make one of the SQL2005 the master server. During enlisting of the
> target server on the master server I get the error that the target server
> could not logon on the master server (altough its service account has full
> admin rights on the master server)
> Any suggestions
> Thanks a lot in advance
> Marc Mertens|||No, MultiServer administration means that you create a multserver job on
a master server that is downloaded on target servers and executed there.
You enable multiserver administration by right clicking on the SQL
Server agent and choosing the correct menu entry in All Tasks. This is a
feature already available on a SQL2000 (where it worked without a
problem), but it does not seems to work anymore in SQL2005 (at least I
can not get it working).
Marc
Uri Dimant wrote:
> Marc
> Do you mean to run a job on the source server that does the work on the
> destination? Linked servers?
>
> "Marc Mertens" <mertens.techdata@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:upCqi06ZGHA.4580@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>
Multiserver administratie on SQL2005
Hello,
does anyone has managed to get MultiServer jobs working on SQL2005.
I have installed 3 fresh win2003 servers with SP1. One is a DC, DHCP
server and DNS server. The two others are SQL2005, using the same
service account that has full administrative rights. I log on also as
administrator when I try to make one of the SQL2005 the master server.
During enlisting of the target server on the master server I get the
error that the target server could not logon on the master server
(altough its service account has full admin rights on the master server)
Any suggestions
Thanks a lot in advance
Marc MertensMarc
Do you mean to run a job on the source server that does the work on the
destination? Linked servers?
"Marc Mertens" <mertens.techdata@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:upCqi06ZGHA.4580@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> does anyone has managed to get MultiServer jobs working on SQL2005. I
> have installed 3 fresh win2003 servers with SP1. One is a DC, DHCP server
> and DNS server. The two others are SQL2005, using the same service account
> that has full administrative rights. I log on also as administrator when I
> try to make one of the SQL2005 the master server. During enlisting of the
> target server on the master server I get the error that the target server
> could not logon on the master server (altough its service account has full
> admin rights on the master server)
> Any suggestions
> Thanks a lot in advance
> Marc Mertens|||No, MultiServer administration means that you create a multserver job on
a master server that is downloaded on target servers and executed there.
You enable multiserver administration by right clicking on the SQL
Server agent and choosing the correct menu entry in All Tasks. This is a
feature already available on a SQL2000 (where it worked without a
problem), but it does not seems to work anymore in SQL2005 (at least I
can not get it working).
Marc
Uri Dimant wrote:
> Marc
> Do you mean to run a job on the source server that does the work on the
> destination? Linked servers?
>
> "Marc Mertens" <mertens.techdata@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:upCqi06ZGHA.4580@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> Hello,
>> does anyone has managed to get MultiServer jobs working on SQL2005. I
>> have installed 3 fresh win2003 servers with SP1. One is a DC, DHCP server
>> and DNS server. The two others are SQL2005, using the same service account
>> that has full administrative rights. I log on also as administrator when I
>> try to make one of the SQL2005 the master server. During enlisting of the
>> target server on the master server I get the error that the target server
>> could not logon on the master server (altough its service account has full
>> admin rights on the master server)
>> Any suggestions
>> Thanks a lot in advance
>> Marc Mertens
>
does anyone has managed to get MultiServer jobs working on SQL2005.
I have installed 3 fresh win2003 servers with SP1. One is a DC, DHCP
server and DNS server. The two others are SQL2005, using the same
service account that has full administrative rights. I log on also as
administrator when I try to make one of the SQL2005 the master server.
During enlisting of the target server on the master server I get the
error that the target server could not logon on the master server
(altough its service account has full admin rights on the master server)
Any suggestions
Thanks a lot in advance
Marc MertensMarc
Do you mean to run a job on the source server that does the work on the
destination? Linked servers?
"Marc Mertens" <mertens.techdata@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:upCqi06ZGHA.4580@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> does anyone has managed to get MultiServer jobs working on SQL2005. I
> have installed 3 fresh win2003 servers with SP1. One is a DC, DHCP server
> and DNS server. The two others are SQL2005, using the same service account
> that has full administrative rights. I log on also as administrator when I
> try to make one of the SQL2005 the master server. During enlisting of the
> target server on the master server I get the error that the target server
> could not logon on the master server (altough its service account has full
> admin rights on the master server)
> Any suggestions
> Thanks a lot in advance
> Marc Mertens|||No, MultiServer administration means that you create a multserver job on
a master server that is downloaded on target servers and executed there.
You enable multiserver administration by right clicking on the SQL
Server agent and choosing the correct menu entry in All Tasks. This is a
feature already available on a SQL2000 (where it worked without a
problem), but it does not seems to work anymore in SQL2005 (at least I
can not get it working).
Marc
Uri Dimant wrote:
> Marc
> Do you mean to run a job on the source server that does the work on the
> destination? Linked servers?
>
> "Marc Mertens" <mertens.techdata@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:upCqi06ZGHA.4580@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> Hello,
>> does anyone has managed to get MultiServer jobs working on SQL2005. I
>> have installed 3 fresh win2003 servers with SP1. One is a DC, DHCP server
>> and DNS server. The two others are SQL2005, using the same service account
>> that has full administrative rights. I log on also as administrator when I
>> try to make one of the SQL2005 the master server. During enlisting of the
>> target server on the master server I get the error that the target server
>> could not logon on the master server (altough its service account has full
>> admin rights on the master server)
>> Any suggestions
>> Thanks a lot in advance
>> Marc Mertens
>
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
multiple sql servers?
We are having some slow connections to our sql server. The server is located
at Site A, everyone at Site A can connect to the server through the LAN
quickly, just the way things should be. People at Site B, however, connect
to the SQL Server at Site A over a WAN; this causes the connection to be
slow. We were wondering if it is possible to install a second SQL Server at
Site B that will replicate with the server at Site A maybe once every night.
This way people at Site B could connect to a server that is on their LAN.
Hi,
Before doing that could you people verify with your network folks about the
network speed. It can be because of the slow network and can be solved.
Once you find that network can not be made fast, then probably you could
plan to setup a new database at Site B.
After that use some scripting mechanism / DTS / Logshipping to sync the
database with Site A.
Thanks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
"Benjamin" <Benjamin@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:717DC17B-C748-4718-AC0F-7420F280DDEE@.microsoft.com...
> We are having some slow connections to our sql server. The server is
> located
> at Site A, everyone at Site A can connect to the server through the LAN
> quickly, just the way things should be. People at Site B, however,
> connect
> to the SQL Server at Site A over a WAN; this causes the connection to be
> slow. We were wondering if it is possible to install a second SQL Server
> at
> Site B that will replicate with the server at Site A maybe once every
> night.
> This way people at Site B could connect to a server that is on their LAN.
at Site A, everyone at Site A can connect to the server through the LAN
quickly, just the way things should be. People at Site B, however, connect
to the SQL Server at Site A over a WAN; this causes the connection to be
slow. We were wondering if it is possible to install a second SQL Server at
Site B that will replicate with the server at Site A maybe once every night.
This way people at Site B could connect to a server that is on their LAN.
Hi,
Before doing that could you people verify with your network folks about the
network speed. It can be because of the slow network and can be solved.
Once you find that network can not be made fast, then probably you could
plan to setup a new database at Site B.
After that use some scripting mechanism / DTS / Logshipping to sync the
database with Site A.
Thanks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
"Benjamin" <Benjamin@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:717DC17B-C748-4718-AC0F-7420F280DDEE@.microsoft.com...
> We are having some slow connections to our sql server. The server is
> located
> at Site A, everyone at Site A can connect to the server through the LAN
> quickly, just the way things should be. People at Site B, however,
> connect
> to the SQL Server at Site A over a WAN; this causes the connection to be
> slow. We were wondering if it is possible to install a second SQL Server
> at
> Site B that will replicate with the server at Site A maybe once every
> night.
> This way people at Site B could connect to a server that is on their LAN.
multiple sql servers?
We are having some slow connections to our sql server. The server is locate
d
at Site A, everyone at Site A can connect to the server through the LAN
quickly, just the way things should be. People at Site B, however, connect
to the SQL Server at Site A over a WAN; this causes the connection to be
slow. We were wondering if it is possible to install a second SQL Server at
Site B that will replicate with the server at Site A maybe once every night.
This way people at Site B could connect to a server that is on their LAN.Hi,
Before doing that could you people verify with your network folks about the
network speed. It can be because of the slow network and can be solved.
Once you find that network can not be made fast, then probably you could
plan to setup a new database at Site B.
After that use some scripting mechanism / DTS / Logshipping to sync the
database with Site A.
Thanks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
"Benjamin" <Benjamin@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:717DC17B-C748-4718-AC0F-7420F280DDEE@.microsoft.com...
> We are having some slow connections to our sql server. The server is
> located
> at Site A, everyone at Site A can connect to the server through the LAN
> quickly, just the way things should be. People at Site B, however,
> connect
> to the SQL Server at Site A over a WAN; this causes the connection to be
> slow. We were wondering if it is possible to install a second SQL Server
> at
> Site B that will replicate with the server at Site A maybe once every
> night.
> This way people at Site B could connect to a server that is on their LAN.
d
at Site A, everyone at Site A can connect to the server through the LAN
quickly, just the way things should be. People at Site B, however, connect
to the SQL Server at Site A over a WAN; this causes the connection to be
slow. We were wondering if it is possible to install a second SQL Server at
Site B that will replicate with the server at Site A maybe once every night.
This way people at Site B could connect to a server that is on their LAN.Hi,
Before doing that could you people verify with your network folks about the
network speed. It can be because of the slow network and can be solved.
Once you find that network can not be made fast, then probably you could
plan to setup a new database at Site B.
After that use some scripting mechanism / DTS / Logshipping to sync the
database with Site A.
Thanks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
"Benjamin" <Benjamin@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:717DC17B-C748-4718-AC0F-7420F280DDEE@.microsoft.com...
> We are having some slow connections to our sql server. The server is
> located
> at Site A, everyone at Site A can connect to the server through the LAN
> quickly, just the way things should be. People at Site B, however,
> connect
> to the SQL Server at Site A over a WAN; this causes the connection to be
> slow. We were wondering if it is possible to install a second SQL Server
> at
> Site B that will replicate with the server at Site A maybe once every
> night.
> This way people at Site B could connect to a server that is on their LAN.
Multiple SQL servers sharing Common Disk
Is it possible to have 2 SQL 2000 (STD) servers access a common RAID
disk containing the database and work concurrently?
No.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
news:434E6529.9DBA7366@.hillhouse.ca...
> Is it possible to have 2 SQL 2000 (STD) servers access a common RAID
> disk containing the database and work concurrently?
>
>
|||As I suspected - I guess that SQL clustering is the way to go or wait
until SQL 2005 for mirroring
Steve
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> No.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> "Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
> news:434E6529.9DBA7366@.hillhouse.ca...
|||Clustering is a high availability solution, not a scale-up solution.
Mirroring allows read-only access to the target database.
SQL does not scale out, it scales up.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
news:434E696D.2F79952A@.hillhouse.ca...
> As I suspected - I guess that SQL clustering is the way to go or wait
> until SQL 2005 for mirroring
> Steve
> "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
>
|||What I need is a fail-over solution whereby if a sql server has a hardware
failure, another server can continue in its place.
Steve
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Clustering is a high availability solution, not a scale-up solution.
> Mirroring allows read-only access to the target database.
> SQL does not scale out, it scales up.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> "Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
> news:434E696D.2F79952A@.hillhouse.ca...
|||You are looking for failover clustering. You use a highly-redundant disk
array such as a SAN, two or more host computers, and Windows and SQL
Software to build a failover cluster. The systems are physically
interconnected at all times, but the cluster software arbitrates ownership
so only one host computer owns a SQL server instance, and its associated
resources) at any one time.
Here is a good overview on SQL failover clustering
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro.../failclus.mspx
Here is a good resource on SQL Server High Availability solutions:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro...y/sqlhalp.mspx
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
news:434F9806.D4DC58BD@.hillhouse.ca...
> What I need is a fail-over solution whereby if a sql server has a hardware
> failure, another server can continue in its place.
> Steve
> "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
>
disk containing the database and work concurrently?
No.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
news:434E6529.9DBA7366@.hillhouse.ca...
> Is it possible to have 2 SQL 2000 (STD) servers access a common RAID
> disk containing the database and work concurrently?
>
>
|||As I suspected - I guess that SQL clustering is the way to go or wait
until SQL 2005 for mirroring
Steve
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> No.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> "Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
> news:434E6529.9DBA7366@.hillhouse.ca...
|||Clustering is a high availability solution, not a scale-up solution.
Mirroring allows read-only access to the target database.
SQL does not scale out, it scales up.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
news:434E696D.2F79952A@.hillhouse.ca...
> As I suspected - I guess that SQL clustering is the way to go or wait
> until SQL 2005 for mirroring
> Steve
> "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
>
|||What I need is a fail-over solution whereby if a sql server has a hardware
failure, another server can continue in its place.
Steve
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Clustering is a high availability solution, not a scale-up solution.
> Mirroring allows read-only access to the target database.
> SQL does not scale out, it scales up.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> "Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
> news:434E696D.2F79952A@.hillhouse.ca...
|||You are looking for failover clustering. You use a highly-redundant disk
array such as a SAN, two or more host computers, and Windows and SQL
Software to build a failover cluster. The systems are physically
interconnected at all times, but the cluster software arbitrates ownership
so only one host computer owns a SQL server instance, and its associated
resources) at any one time.
Here is a good overview on SQL failover clustering
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro.../failclus.mspx
Here is a good resource on SQL Server High Availability solutions:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro...y/sqlhalp.mspx
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
news:434F9806.D4DC58BD@.hillhouse.ca...
> What I need is a fail-over solution whereby if a sql server has a hardware
> failure, another server can continue in its place.
> Steve
> "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
>
Multiple SQL servers sharing Common Disk
Is it possible to have 2 SQL 2000 (STD) servers access a common RAID
disk containing the database and work concurrently?No.
--
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
news:434E6529.9DBA7366@.hillhouse.ca...
> Is it possible to have 2 SQL 2000 (STD) servers access a common RAID
> disk containing the database and work concurrently?
>
>|||As I suspected - I guess that SQL clustering is the way to go or wait
until SQL 2005 for mirroring
Steve
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
> No.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> "Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
> news:434E6529.9DBA7366@.hillhouse.ca...
> > Is it possible to have 2 SQL 2000 (STD) servers access a common RAID
> > disk containing the database and work concurrently?
> >
> >
> >|||Clustering is a high availability solution, not a scale-up solution.
Mirroring allows read-only access to the target database.
SQL does not scale out, it scales up.
--
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
news:434E696D.2F79952A@.hillhouse.ca...
> As I suspected - I guess that SQL clustering is the way to go or wait
> until SQL 2005 for mirroring
> Steve
> "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
>> No.
>> --
>> Geoff N. Hiten
>> Senior Database Administrator
>> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>> "Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
>> news:434E6529.9DBA7366@.hillhouse.ca...
>> > Is it possible to have 2 SQL 2000 (STD) servers access a common RAID
>> > disk containing the database and work concurrently?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>|||What I need is a fail-over solution whereby if a sql server has a hardware
failure, another server can continue in its place.
Steve
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
> Clustering is a high availability solution, not a scale-up solution.
> Mirroring allows read-only access to the target database.
> SQL does not scale out, it scales up.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> "Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
> news:434E696D.2F79952A@.hillhouse.ca...
> > As I suspected - I guess that SQL clustering is the way to go or wait
> > until SQL 2005 for mirroring
> >
> > Steve
> >
> > "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
> >
> >> No.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Geoff N. Hiten
> >> Senior Database Administrator
> >> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> >> "Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
> >> news:434E6529.9DBA7366@.hillhouse.ca...
> >> > Is it possible to have 2 SQL 2000 (STD) servers access a common RAID
> >> > disk containing the database and work concurrently?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >|||You are looking for failover clustering. You use a highly-redundant disk
array such as a SAN, two or more host computers, and Windows and SQL
Software to build a failover cluster. The systems are physically
interconnected at all times, but the cluster software arbitrates ownership
so only one host computer owns a SQL server instance, and its associated
resources) at any one time.
Here is a good overview on SQL failover clustering
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2000/maintain/failclus.mspx
Here is a good resource on SQL Server High Availability solutions:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2000/deploy/sqlhalp.mspx
--
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
news:434F9806.D4DC58BD@.hillhouse.ca...
> What I need is a fail-over solution whereby if a sql server has a hardware
> failure, another server can continue in its place.
> Steve
> "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
>> Clustering is a high availability solution, not a scale-up solution.
>> Mirroring allows read-only access to the target database.
>> SQL does not scale out, it scales up.
>> --
>> Geoff N. Hiten
>> Senior Database Administrator
>> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>> "Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
>> news:434E696D.2F79952A@.hillhouse.ca...
>> > As I suspected - I guess that SQL clustering is the way to go or wait
>> > until SQL 2005 for mirroring
>> >
>> > Steve
>> >
>> > "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
>> >
>> >> No.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Geoff N. Hiten
>> >> Senior Database Administrator
>> >> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>> >> "Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
>> >> news:434E6529.9DBA7366@.hillhouse.ca...
>> >> > Is it possible to have 2 SQL 2000 (STD) servers access a common RAID
>> >> > disk containing the database and work concurrently?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >
>
disk containing the database and work concurrently?No.
--
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
news:434E6529.9DBA7366@.hillhouse.ca...
> Is it possible to have 2 SQL 2000 (STD) servers access a common RAID
> disk containing the database and work concurrently?
>
>|||As I suspected - I guess that SQL clustering is the way to go or wait
until SQL 2005 for mirroring
Steve
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
> No.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> "Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
> news:434E6529.9DBA7366@.hillhouse.ca...
> > Is it possible to have 2 SQL 2000 (STD) servers access a common RAID
> > disk containing the database and work concurrently?
> >
> >
> >|||Clustering is a high availability solution, not a scale-up solution.
Mirroring allows read-only access to the target database.
SQL does not scale out, it scales up.
--
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
news:434E696D.2F79952A@.hillhouse.ca...
> As I suspected - I guess that SQL clustering is the way to go or wait
> until SQL 2005 for mirroring
> Steve
> "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
>> No.
>> --
>> Geoff N. Hiten
>> Senior Database Administrator
>> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>> "Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
>> news:434E6529.9DBA7366@.hillhouse.ca...
>> > Is it possible to have 2 SQL 2000 (STD) servers access a common RAID
>> > disk containing the database and work concurrently?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>|||What I need is a fail-over solution whereby if a sql server has a hardware
failure, another server can continue in its place.
Steve
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
> Clustering is a high availability solution, not a scale-up solution.
> Mirroring allows read-only access to the target database.
> SQL does not scale out, it scales up.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> "Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
> news:434E696D.2F79952A@.hillhouse.ca...
> > As I suspected - I guess that SQL clustering is the way to go or wait
> > until SQL 2005 for mirroring
> >
> > Steve
> >
> > "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
> >
> >> No.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Geoff N. Hiten
> >> Senior Database Administrator
> >> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> >> "Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
> >> news:434E6529.9DBA7366@.hillhouse.ca...
> >> > Is it possible to have 2 SQL 2000 (STD) servers access a common RAID
> >> > disk containing the database and work concurrently?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >|||You are looking for failover clustering. You use a highly-redundant disk
array such as a SAN, two or more host computers, and Windows and SQL
Software to build a failover cluster. The systems are physically
interconnected at all times, but the cluster software arbitrates ownership
so only one host computer owns a SQL server instance, and its associated
resources) at any one time.
Here is a good overview on SQL failover clustering
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2000/maintain/failclus.mspx
Here is a good resource on SQL Server High Availability solutions:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2000/deploy/sqlhalp.mspx
--
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
news:434F9806.D4DC58BD@.hillhouse.ca...
> What I need is a fail-over solution whereby if a sql server has a hardware
> failure, another server can continue in its place.
> Steve
> "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
>> Clustering is a high availability solution, not a scale-up solution.
>> Mirroring allows read-only access to the target database.
>> SQL does not scale out, it scales up.
>> --
>> Geoff N. Hiten
>> Senior Database Administrator
>> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>> "Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
>> news:434E696D.2F79952A@.hillhouse.ca...
>> > As I suspected - I guess that SQL clustering is the way to go or wait
>> > until SQL 2005 for mirroring
>> >
>> > Steve
>> >
>> > "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
>> >
>> >> No.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Geoff N. Hiten
>> >> Senior Database Administrator
>> >> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>> >> "Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
>> >> news:434E6529.9DBA7366@.hillhouse.ca...
>> >> > Is it possible to have 2 SQL 2000 (STD) servers access a common RAID
>> >> > disk containing the database and work concurrently?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >
>
Multiple SQL servers sharing Common Disk
Is it possible to have 2 SQL 2000 (STD) servers access a common RAID
disk containing the database and work concurrently?No.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
news:434E6529.9DBA7366@.hillhouse.ca...
> Is it possible to have 2 SQL 2000 (STD) servers access a common RAID
> disk containing the database and work concurrently?
>
>|||As I suspected - I guess that SQL clustering is the way to go or wait
until SQL 2005 for mirroring
Steve
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> No.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> "Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
> news:434E6529.9DBA7366@.hillhouse.ca...|||Clustering is a high availability solution, not a scale-up solution.
Mirroring allows read-only access to the target database.
SQL does not scale out, it scales up.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
news:434E696D.2F79952A@.hillhouse.ca...
> As I suspected - I guess that SQL clustering is the way to go or wait
> until SQL 2005 for mirroring
> Steve
> "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
>
>|||What I need is a fail-over solution whereby if a sql server has a hardware
failure, another server can continue in its place.
Steve
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Clustering is a high availability solution, not a scale-up solution.
> Mirroring allows read-only access to the target database.
> SQL does not scale out, it scales up.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> "Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
> news:434E696D.2F79952A@.hillhouse.ca...|||You are looking for failover clustering. You use a highly-redundant disk
array such as a SAN, two or more host computers, and Windows and SQL
Software to build a failover cluster. The systems are physically
interconnected at all times, but the cluster software arbitrates ownership
so only one host computer owns a SQL server instance, and its associated
resources) at any one time.
Here is a good overview on SQL failover clustering
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...n/failclus.mspx
Here is a good resource on SQL Server High Availability solutions:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...oy/sqlhalp.mspx
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
news:434F9806.D4DC58BD@.hillhouse.ca...
> What I need is a fail-over solution whereby if a sql server has a hardware
> failure, another server can continue in its place.
> Steve
> "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
>
>
disk containing the database and work concurrently?No.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
news:434E6529.9DBA7366@.hillhouse.ca...
> Is it possible to have 2 SQL 2000 (STD) servers access a common RAID
> disk containing the database and work concurrently?
>
>|||As I suspected - I guess that SQL clustering is the way to go or wait
until SQL 2005 for mirroring
Steve
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> No.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> "Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
> news:434E6529.9DBA7366@.hillhouse.ca...|||Clustering is a high availability solution, not a scale-up solution.
Mirroring allows read-only access to the target database.
SQL does not scale out, it scales up.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
news:434E696D.2F79952A@.hillhouse.ca...
> As I suspected - I guess that SQL clustering is the way to go or wait
> until SQL 2005 for mirroring
> Steve
> "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
>
>|||What I need is a fail-over solution whereby if a sql server has a hardware
failure, another server can continue in its place.
Steve
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Clustering is a high availability solution, not a scale-up solution.
> Mirroring allows read-only access to the target database.
> SQL does not scale out, it scales up.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> "Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
> news:434E696D.2F79952A@.hillhouse.ca...|||You are looking for failover clustering. You use a highly-redundant disk
array such as a SAN, two or more host computers, and Windows and SQL
Software to build a failover cluster. The systems are physically
interconnected at all times, but the cluster software arbitrates ownership
so only one host computer owns a SQL server instance, and its associated
resources) at any one time.
Here is a good overview on SQL failover clustering
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...n/failclus.mspx
Here is a good resource on SQL Server High Availability solutions:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...oy/sqlhalp.mspx
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
news:434F9806.D4DC58BD@.hillhouse.ca...
> What I need is a fail-over solution whereby if a sql server has a hardware
> failure, another server can continue in its place.
> Steve
> "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
>
>
multiple SQL Servers on one server
I need to have a second instance of SQL Server 2000 put on a server and I'm
wondering if there is anything I need to do to the existing instance of SQL
Server so it will work fine with the second installation? Thanks.You may want to limit the amount of memory used by the first instance. =
Other than that, nothing really comes to mind.
--=20
Keith
"tanner" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message =
news:1A132C7D-538F-4566-A0AE-22541E919802@.microsoft.com...
> I need to have a second instance of SQL Server 2000 put on a server =
and I'm wondering if there is anything I need to do to the existing =
instance of SQL Server so it will work fine with the second =
installation? Thanks.|||have you thought through the question of whether a new instance is needed,
or can you simply get by with additional db's. You may very well need a new
instance, but... I've seen a number of customers use new instances in cases
when multiple db's on the same server might have been well suited.
If you have security or mgmt reasons for splitting the instances then of
course it's probably a good idea...
Brian Moran
Principal Mentor
Solid Quality Learning
SQL Server MVP
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com
"tanner" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1A132C7D-538F-4566-A0AE-22541E919802@.microsoft.com...
> I need to have a second instance of SQL Server 2000 put on a server and
I'm wondering if there is anything I need to do to the existing instance of
SQL Server so it will work fine with the second installation? Thanks.
wondering if there is anything I need to do to the existing instance of SQL
Server so it will work fine with the second installation? Thanks.You may want to limit the amount of memory used by the first instance. =
Other than that, nothing really comes to mind.
--=20
Keith
"tanner" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message =
news:1A132C7D-538F-4566-A0AE-22541E919802@.microsoft.com...
> I need to have a second instance of SQL Server 2000 put on a server =
and I'm wondering if there is anything I need to do to the existing =
instance of SQL Server so it will work fine with the second =
installation? Thanks.|||have you thought through the question of whether a new instance is needed,
or can you simply get by with additional db's. You may very well need a new
instance, but... I've seen a number of customers use new instances in cases
when multiple db's on the same server might have been well suited.
If you have security or mgmt reasons for splitting the instances then of
course it's probably a good idea...
Brian Moran
Principal Mentor
Solid Quality Learning
SQL Server MVP
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com
"tanner" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1A132C7D-538F-4566-A0AE-22541E919802@.microsoft.com...
> I need to have a second instance of SQL Server 2000 put on a server and
I'm wondering if there is anything I need to do to the existing instance of
SQL Server so it will work fine with the second installation? Thanks.
Multiple SQL servers
Is there a way to have sql on 2 servers and have the info on server A get
copied to server B automatically say once a day?
also I would like to have the website automatically connect to server B if
it finds a problem with server A.
CheersKris,
Yes to both.You need to do a research on the below topics:
#1.Replication
#2.Failover Clustering
Dinesh
SQL Server MVP
--
--
SQL Server FAQ at
http://www.tkdinesh.com
"Kris" <kris@.NOSPAMplanetsilicon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c8e4pd$a78$1@.sparta.btinternet.com...
> Is there a way to have sql on 2 servers and have the info on server A get
> copied to server B automatically say once a day?
> also I would like to have the website automatically connect to server B if
> it finds a problem with server A.
> Cheers
>|||I would look into replication and failover clustering.
----
----
--
Need SQL Server Examples check out my website at
http://www.geocities.com/sqlserverexamples
"Kris" <kris@.NOSPAMplanetsilicon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c8e4pd$a78$1@.sparta.btinternet.com...
> Is there a way to have sql on 2 servers and have the info on server A get
> copied to server B automatically say once a day?
> also I would like to have the website automatically connect to server B if
> it finds a problem with server A.
> Cheers
>|||> Is there a way to have sql on 2 servers and have the info on server A get
> copied to server B automatically say once a day?
To add to the other responses, you can use log shipping or simple
backup/restore to copy a database between servers.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Kris" <kris@.NOSPAMplanetsilicon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c8e4pd$a78$1@.sparta.btinternet.com...
> Is there a way to have sql on 2 servers and have the info on server A get
> copied to server B automatically say once a day?
> also I would like to have the website automatically connect to server B if
> it finds a problem with server A.
> Cheers
>
copied to server B automatically say once a day?
also I would like to have the website automatically connect to server B if
it finds a problem with server A.
CheersKris,
Yes to both.You need to do a research on the below topics:
#1.Replication
#2.Failover Clustering
Dinesh
SQL Server MVP
--
--
SQL Server FAQ at
http://www.tkdinesh.com
"Kris" <kris@.NOSPAMplanetsilicon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c8e4pd$a78$1@.sparta.btinternet.com...
> Is there a way to have sql on 2 servers and have the info on server A get
> copied to server B automatically say once a day?
> also I would like to have the website automatically connect to server B if
> it finds a problem with server A.
> Cheers
>|||I would look into replication and failover clustering.
----
----
--
Need SQL Server Examples check out my website at
http://www.geocities.com/sqlserverexamples
"Kris" <kris@.NOSPAMplanetsilicon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c8e4pd$a78$1@.sparta.btinternet.com...
> Is there a way to have sql on 2 servers and have the info on server A get
> copied to server B automatically say once a day?
> also I would like to have the website automatically connect to server B if
> it finds a problem with server A.
> Cheers
>|||> Is there a way to have sql on 2 servers and have the info on server A get
> copied to server B automatically say once a day?
To add to the other responses, you can use log shipping or simple
backup/restore to copy a database between servers.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Kris" <kris@.NOSPAMplanetsilicon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c8e4pd$a78$1@.sparta.btinternet.com...
> Is there a way to have sql on 2 servers and have the info on server A get
> copied to server B automatically say once a day?
> also I would like to have the website automatically connect to server B if
> it finds a problem with server A.
> Cheers
>
Multiple SQL servers
Is there a way to have sql on 2 servers and have the info on server A get
copied to server B automatically say once a day?
also I would like to have the website automatically connect to server B if
it finds a problem with server A.
CheersKris,
Yes to both.You need to do a research on the below topics:
#1.Replication
#2.Failover Clustering
--
Dinesh
SQL Server MVP
--
--
SQL Server FAQ at
http://www.tkdinesh.com
"Kris" <kris@.NOSPAMplanetsilicon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c8e4pd$a78$1@.sparta.btinternet.com...
> Is there a way to have sql on 2 servers and have the info on server A get
> copied to server B automatically say once a day?
> also I would like to have the website automatically connect to server B if
> it finds a problem with server A.
> Cheers
>|||I would look into replication and failover clustering.
--
----
----
--
Need SQL Server Examples check out my website at
http://www.geocities.com/sqlserverexamples
"Kris" <kris@.NOSPAMplanetsilicon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c8e4pd$a78$1@.sparta.btinternet.com...
> Is there a way to have sql on 2 servers and have the info on server A get
> copied to server B automatically say once a day?
> also I would like to have the website automatically connect to server B if
> it finds a problem with server A.
> Cheers
>|||> Is there a way to have sql on 2 servers and have the info on server A get
> copied to server B automatically say once a day?
To add to the other responses, you can use log shipping or simple
backup/restore to copy a database between servers.
--
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Kris" <kris@.NOSPAMplanetsilicon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c8e4pd$a78$1@.sparta.btinternet.com...
> Is there a way to have sql on 2 servers and have the info on server A get
> copied to server B automatically say once a day?
> also I would like to have the website automatically connect to server B if
> it finds a problem with server A.
> Cheers
>
copied to server B automatically say once a day?
also I would like to have the website automatically connect to server B if
it finds a problem with server A.
CheersKris,
Yes to both.You need to do a research on the below topics:
#1.Replication
#2.Failover Clustering
--
Dinesh
SQL Server MVP
--
--
SQL Server FAQ at
http://www.tkdinesh.com
"Kris" <kris@.NOSPAMplanetsilicon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c8e4pd$a78$1@.sparta.btinternet.com...
> Is there a way to have sql on 2 servers and have the info on server A get
> copied to server B automatically say once a day?
> also I would like to have the website automatically connect to server B if
> it finds a problem with server A.
> Cheers
>|||I would look into replication and failover clustering.
--
----
----
--
Need SQL Server Examples check out my website at
http://www.geocities.com/sqlserverexamples
"Kris" <kris@.NOSPAMplanetsilicon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c8e4pd$a78$1@.sparta.btinternet.com...
> Is there a way to have sql on 2 servers and have the info on server A get
> copied to server B automatically say once a day?
> also I would like to have the website automatically connect to server B if
> it finds a problem with server A.
> Cheers
>|||> Is there a way to have sql on 2 servers and have the info on server A get
> copied to server B automatically say once a day?
To add to the other responses, you can use log shipping or simple
backup/restore to copy a database between servers.
--
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Kris" <kris@.NOSPAMplanetsilicon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c8e4pd$a78$1@.sparta.btinternet.com...
> Is there a way to have sql on 2 servers and have the info on server A get
> copied to server B automatically say once a day?
> also I would like to have the website automatically connect to server B if
> it finds a problem with server A.
> Cheers
>
Multiple SQL servers
Is there a way to have sql on 2 servers and have the info on server A get
copied to server B automatically say once a day?
also I would like to have the website automatically connect to server B if
it finds a problem with server A.
Cheers
Kris,
Yes to both.You need to do a research on the below topics:
#1.Replication
#2.Failover Clustering
Dinesh
SQL Server MVP
--
SQL Server FAQ at
http://www.tkdinesh.com
"Kris" <kris@.NOSPAMplanetsilicon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c8e4pd$a78$1@.sparta.btinternet.com...
> Is there a way to have sql on 2 servers and have the info on server A get
> copied to server B automatically say once a day?
> also I would like to have the website automatically connect to server B if
> it finds a problem with server A.
> Cheers
>
|||I would look into replication and failover clustering.
----
Need SQL Server Examples check out my website at
http://www.geocities.com/sqlserverexamples
"Kris" <kris@.NOSPAMplanetsilicon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c8e4pd$a78$1@.sparta.btinternet.com...
> Is there a way to have sql on 2 servers and have the info on server A get
> copied to server B automatically say once a day?
> also I would like to have the website automatically connect to server B if
> it finds a problem with server A.
> Cheers
>
|||> Is there a way to have sql on 2 servers and have the info on server A get
> copied to server B automatically say once a day?
To add to the other responses, you can use log shipping or simple
backup/restore to copy a database between servers.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Kris" <kris@.NOSPAMplanetsilicon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c8e4pd$a78$1@.sparta.btinternet.com...
> Is there a way to have sql on 2 servers and have the info on server A get
> copied to server B automatically say once a day?
> also I would like to have the website automatically connect to server B if
> it finds a problem with server A.
> Cheers
>
copied to server B automatically say once a day?
also I would like to have the website automatically connect to server B if
it finds a problem with server A.
Cheers
Kris,
Yes to both.You need to do a research on the below topics:
#1.Replication
#2.Failover Clustering
Dinesh
SQL Server MVP
--
SQL Server FAQ at
http://www.tkdinesh.com
"Kris" <kris@.NOSPAMplanetsilicon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c8e4pd$a78$1@.sparta.btinternet.com...
> Is there a way to have sql on 2 servers and have the info on server A get
> copied to server B automatically say once a day?
> also I would like to have the website automatically connect to server B if
> it finds a problem with server A.
> Cheers
>
|||I would look into replication and failover clustering.
----
Need SQL Server Examples check out my website at
http://www.geocities.com/sqlserverexamples
"Kris" <kris@.NOSPAMplanetsilicon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c8e4pd$a78$1@.sparta.btinternet.com...
> Is there a way to have sql on 2 servers and have the info on server A get
> copied to server B automatically say once a day?
> also I would like to have the website automatically connect to server B if
> it finds a problem with server A.
> Cheers
>
|||> Is there a way to have sql on 2 servers and have the info on server A get
> copied to server B automatically say once a day?
To add to the other responses, you can use log shipping or simple
backup/restore to copy a database between servers.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Kris" <kris@.NOSPAMplanetsilicon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c8e4pd$a78$1@.sparta.btinternet.com...
> Is there a way to have sql on 2 servers and have the info on server A get
> copied to server B automatically say once a day?
> also I would like to have the website automatically connect to server B if
> it finds a problem with server A.
> Cheers
>
Multiple sources and one target
I'm thinking aboug using Service Broker to aggregate transactions from 12 remote SQL Servers to a central SQL Server. Service Broker is new to me, so I don't know what the proper setup would be.
We have five different kinds of transactions that can be sent from any of the remote servers. These remote servers truly are remote, connecting to the central server over a WAN. We don't want problems with one server to interfere with any other server. We also don't want problems with one kind of transaction to interfere with the processing of any other kind of transaction.
If were only talking about one remote server, I'm guessing I'd want to create 5 different services - one for each kind of transaction. Does that mean I'd also need to create 5 different routes on both the remote server and the central server?
And how would I scale this out to a dozen remote servers? Can I stick with 5 services on the central server, or would I need to define 5 different services for each remote server, so 60 total? And would that be 60 different routes defined on the central server? Based on my limited knowledge of routes and how they're tied to services, I think that would mean 60 routes, but maybe I'm missing something.
Please let me know. Thanks.
Service Broker seems like an excellent choice for the scenario that you have described. It provides isolation mechansims to ensure that two unrelated business transactions can run concurrently.
The primitive for communication in Service Broker is a conversation, which is a reliable, durable session for exchange of messages. Two-party conversations are known as dialogs and they contain two endpoints -- an initiator and a target. Services are nothing but logical entities that can initiate or be the target for a conversation. They are addressable (via routes) and securable (via certificates). But one service can have multiple conversation endpoints to deal with concurrent conversations.
Given that, in general you would create a 'Service' to handle all conversations for some business function which needs to have a distinct identity and location. If you decide to move the service to another server or issue a new certificate, you will affect all conversations targetting or initiating from that service. So if you feel that the 5 business transactions are all distinct and may in the future be performed at different locations, you are better off with 5 services. If that seems impossible or highly unlikely, stick with a single service.
Conversations can be strongly typed by defining formal contracts that specify what type of messages may be sent by each endpoint. Since a service can expose multiple contracts, it can accept conversations belonging to different contracts. In your scenario, you might have different contracts for each of the 5 different business transaction types.
A database can certainly support more than just 60 routes, so don't feel that the number of routes is going to be a performance bottleneck. If you think it might be a managability nightmare, you could consider investing into something we call "Broker Configuration Notification". If you enable this in your database and a new conversation cannot find a route, Service Broker will send a special "Missing Route" message to a service of your choice. You could then implement this "route resolution" service to lookup the route from a directory and create the route in your local database and Service Broker will automatically try to deliver the message of former conversation.
One thing to be aware of in a WAN environment is that Service Broker requires both instances of SQL Server to be able to connect to each other over TCP/IP. That means that if either party is behind a firewall/NAT, the appropriate ports need to be opened for two-way communication.
Hope that helps,
Rushi
Thanks for the information!
David
Multiple servers running
We have our main core processing running Oracle but uses sqlpipe to reach the
data center. We are now installing new software that uses sql as it's
database server. The problem I have is each instance looks for the same
servername. can you add multiple servernames with the sql.ini file or how
would you go about this?
--
Scott"Spenbank" <Spenbank@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D05AE45F-EBE7-43BA-96A3-EBEBCF73AC43@.microsoft.com...
> We have our main core processing running Oracle but uses sqlpipe to reach
the
> data center. We are now installing new software that uses sql as it's
> database server. The problem I have is each instance looks for the same
> servername. can you add multiple servernames with the sql.ini file or how
> would you go about this?
Look up INSTANCES in books online.
So you'd have something like:
SERVER\Instance1
SERVER\Instance2
etc.
Generally at least in non cluster situations I find having separate
instances not a big help for SQL Server.
> --
> Scott|||"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" <mooregr_deleteth1s@.greenms.com> wrote in message
news:qnFtd.39078$1u.35551@.twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> "Spenbank" <Spenbank@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:D05AE45F-EBE7-43BA-96A3-EBEBCF73AC43@.microsoft.com...
>> We have our main core processing running Oracle but uses sqlpipe to reach
> the
>> data center. We are now installing new software that uses sql as it's
>> database server. The problem I have is each instance looks for the same
>> servername. can you add multiple servernames with the sql.ini file or how
>> would you go about this?
> Look up INSTANCES in books online.
> So you'd have something like:
> SERVER\Instance1
> SERVER\Instance2
> etc.
> Generally at least in non cluster situations I find having separate
> instances not a big help for SQL Server.
>
>> --
>> Scott
>
Ahh, but in our hosted environment, each company can have it's own
"instance" and have their own set of security credentials that give them
access to their instance, but no one elses. =)
Rick Sawtell
MCT, MCSD, MCDBA|||"Rick Sawtell" <quickening@.msn.com> wrote in message
news:OA4qrOU3EHA.4072@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> "Greg D. Moore (Strider)" <mooregr_deleteth1s@.greenms.com> wrote in
message
> news:qnFtd.39078$1u.35551@.twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> >
> > Generally at least in non cluster situations I find having separate
> > instances not a big help for SQL Server.
> >
> >
> >> --
> >> Scott
> >
> >
> Ahh, but in our hosted environment, each company can have it's own
> "instance" and have their own set of security credentials that give them
> access to their instance, but no one elses. =)
Hence my qualification. :-)
> Rick Sawtell
> MCT, MCSD, MCDBA
>
>
data center. We are now installing new software that uses sql as it's
database server. The problem I have is each instance looks for the same
servername. can you add multiple servernames with the sql.ini file or how
would you go about this?
--
Scott"Spenbank" <Spenbank@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D05AE45F-EBE7-43BA-96A3-EBEBCF73AC43@.microsoft.com...
> We have our main core processing running Oracle but uses sqlpipe to reach
the
> data center. We are now installing new software that uses sql as it's
> database server. The problem I have is each instance looks for the same
> servername. can you add multiple servernames with the sql.ini file or how
> would you go about this?
Look up INSTANCES in books online.
So you'd have something like:
SERVER\Instance1
SERVER\Instance2
etc.
Generally at least in non cluster situations I find having separate
instances not a big help for SQL Server.
> --
> Scott|||"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" <mooregr_deleteth1s@.greenms.com> wrote in message
news:qnFtd.39078$1u.35551@.twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> "Spenbank" <Spenbank@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:D05AE45F-EBE7-43BA-96A3-EBEBCF73AC43@.microsoft.com...
>> We have our main core processing running Oracle but uses sqlpipe to reach
> the
>> data center. We are now installing new software that uses sql as it's
>> database server. The problem I have is each instance looks for the same
>> servername. can you add multiple servernames with the sql.ini file or how
>> would you go about this?
> Look up INSTANCES in books online.
> So you'd have something like:
> SERVER\Instance1
> SERVER\Instance2
> etc.
> Generally at least in non cluster situations I find having separate
> instances not a big help for SQL Server.
>
>> --
>> Scott
>
Ahh, but in our hosted environment, each company can have it's own
"instance" and have their own set of security credentials that give them
access to their instance, but no one elses. =)
Rick Sawtell
MCT, MCSD, MCDBA|||"Rick Sawtell" <quickening@.msn.com> wrote in message
news:OA4qrOU3EHA.4072@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> "Greg D. Moore (Strider)" <mooregr_deleteth1s@.greenms.com> wrote in
message
> news:qnFtd.39078$1u.35551@.twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> >
> > Generally at least in non cluster situations I find having separate
> > instances not a big help for SQL Server.
> >
> >
> >> --
> >> Scott
> >
> >
> Ahh, but in our hosted environment, each company can have it's own
> "instance" and have their own set of security credentials that give them
> access to their instance, but no one elses. =)
Hence my qualification. :-)
> Rick Sawtell
> MCT, MCSD, MCDBA
>
>
Multiple servers running
We have our main core processing running Oracle but uses sqlpipe to reach the
data center. We are now installing new software that uses sql as it's
database server. The problem I have is each instance looks for the same
servername. can you add multiple servernames with the sql.ini file or how
would you go about this?
Scott
"Spenbank" <Spenbank@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D05AE45F-EBE7-43BA-96A3-EBEBCF73AC43@.microsoft.com...
> We have our main core processing running Oracle but uses sqlpipe to reach
the
> data center. We are now installing new software that uses sql as it's
> database server. The problem I have is each instance looks for the same
> servername. can you add multiple servernames with the sql.ini file or how
> would you go about this?
Look up INSTANCES in books online.
So you'd have something like:
SERVER\Instance1
SERVER\Instance2
etc.
Generally at least in non cluster situations I find having separate
instances not a big help for SQL Server.
> --
> Scott
|||"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" <mooregr_deleteth1s@.greenms.com> wrote in message
news:qnFtd.39078$1u.35551@.twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> "Spenbank" <Spenbank@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:D05AE45F-EBE7-43BA-96A3-EBEBCF73AC43@.microsoft.com...
> the
> Look up INSTANCES in books online.
> So you'd have something like:
> SERVER\Instance1
> SERVER\Instance2
> etc.
> Generally at least in non cluster situations I find having separate
> instances not a big help for SQL Server.
>
>
Ahh, but in our hosted environment, each company can have it's own
"instance" and have their own set of security credentials that give them
access to their instance, but no one elses. =)
Rick Sawtell
MCT, MCSD, MCDBA
|||"Rick Sawtell" <quickening@.msn.com> wrote in message
news:OA4qrOU3EHA.4072@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> "Greg D. Moore (Strider)" <mooregr_deleteth1s@.greenms.com> wrote in
message[vbcol=seagreen]
> news:qnFtd.39078$1u.35551@.twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> Ahh, but in our hosted environment, each company can have it's own
> "instance" and have their own set of security credentials that give them
> access to their instance, but no one elses. =)
Hence my qualification. :-)
> Rick Sawtell
> MCT, MCSD, MCDBA
>
>
data center. We are now installing new software that uses sql as it's
database server. The problem I have is each instance looks for the same
servername. can you add multiple servernames with the sql.ini file or how
would you go about this?
Scott
"Spenbank" <Spenbank@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D05AE45F-EBE7-43BA-96A3-EBEBCF73AC43@.microsoft.com...
> We have our main core processing running Oracle but uses sqlpipe to reach
the
> data center. We are now installing new software that uses sql as it's
> database server. The problem I have is each instance looks for the same
> servername. can you add multiple servernames with the sql.ini file or how
> would you go about this?
Look up INSTANCES in books online.
So you'd have something like:
SERVER\Instance1
SERVER\Instance2
etc.
Generally at least in non cluster situations I find having separate
instances not a big help for SQL Server.
> --
> Scott
|||"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" <mooregr_deleteth1s@.greenms.com> wrote in message
news:qnFtd.39078$1u.35551@.twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> "Spenbank" <Spenbank@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:D05AE45F-EBE7-43BA-96A3-EBEBCF73AC43@.microsoft.com...
> the
> Look up INSTANCES in books online.
> So you'd have something like:
> SERVER\Instance1
> SERVER\Instance2
> etc.
> Generally at least in non cluster situations I find having separate
> instances not a big help for SQL Server.
>
>
Ahh, but in our hosted environment, each company can have it's own
"instance" and have their own set of security credentials that give them
access to their instance, but no one elses. =)
Rick Sawtell
MCT, MCSD, MCDBA
|||"Rick Sawtell" <quickening@.msn.com> wrote in message
news:OA4qrOU3EHA.4072@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> "Greg D. Moore (Strider)" <mooregr_deleteth1s@.greenms.com> wrote in
message[vbcol=seagreen]
> news:qnFtd.39078$1u.35551@.twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> Ahh, but in our hosted environment, each company can have it's own
> "instance" and have their own set of security credentials that give them
> access to their instance, but no one elses. =)
Hence my qualification. :-)
> Rick Sawtell
> MCT, MCSD, MCDBA
>
>
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Multiple Servers in ODBC Client Setup
OK, something weird is happening.
I have a standard Windows XP client and I am trying to set up a simple ODBC
entry. So I go to Control Panel/Administrative Tools/ODBC/System Tab. From
there I create a new ODBC entry connecting to a SQL Server. I enter in the
name of my ODBC and a descripton. When I hit the drop-down button to select
a server I see my 2 SQL Server machines (local machine also named "Jim" and
sbserver) but they are listed twice or even 3 times (see below) and the local
machine has even more entries. What gives and how do I clean this up? Both
seem to work when I "test" at the last step but I have a local application
using this ODBC and it is failing to run so I think it is having "issues"
with these multiple entries.
Thanks!
-Richard
e.g.
(local)
(local)
Jim
Jim
jim
sbserver
sbserver
Make sure your MDAC installation isn't flaky - you can use
component checker to verity the MDAC version and
installation. You can download the tool from:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/data/aa937730.aspx
How many instances do you have on each of those servers?
Do you get the same list if you execute the following from
the command prompt:
osql -L
-Sue
On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 04:47:05 -0700, Richard K
<RichardK@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>OK, something weird is happening.
>I have a standard Windows XP client and I am trying to set up a simple ODBC
>entry. So I go to Control Panel/Administrative Tools/ODBC/System Tab. From
>there I create a new ODBC entry connecting to a SQL Server. I enter in the
>name of my ODBC and a descripton. When I hit the drop-down button to select
>a server I see my 2 SQL Server machines (local machine also named "Jim" and
>sbserver) but they are listed twice or even 3 times (see below) and the local
>machine has even more entries. What gives and how do I clean this up? Both
>seem to work when I "test" at the last step but I have a local application
>using this ODBC and it is failing to run so I think it is having "issues"
>with these multiple entries.
>Thanks!
>-Richard
>e.g.
>(local)
>(local)
>Jim
>Jim
>jim
>sbserver
>sbserver
I have a standard Windows XP client and I am trying to set up a simple ODBC
entry. So I go to Control Panel/Administrative Tools/ODBC/System Tab. From
there I create a new ODBC entry connecting to a SQL Server. I enter in the
name of my ODBC and a descripton. When I hit the drop-down button to select
a server I see my 2 SQL Server machines (local machine also named "Jim" and
sbserver) but they are listed twice or even 3 times (see below) and the local
machine has even more entries. What gives and how do I clean this up? Both
seem to work when I "test" at the last step but I have a local application
using this ODBC and it is failing to run so I think it is having "issues"
with these multiple entries.
Thanks!
-Richard
e.g.
(local)
(local)
Jim
Jim
jim
sbserver
sbserver
Make sure your MDAC installation isn't flaky - you can use
component checker to verity the MDAC version and
installation. You can download the tool from:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/data/aa937730.aspx
How many instances do you have on each of those servers?
Do you get the same list if you execute the following from
the command prompt:
osql -L
-Sue
On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 04:47:05 -0700, Richard K
<RichardK@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>OK, something weird is happening.
>I have a standard Windows XP client and I am trying to set up a simple ODBC
>entry. So I go to Control Panel/Administrative Tools/ODBC/System Tab. From
>there I create a new ODBC entry connecting to a SQL Server. I enter in the
>name of my ODBC and a descripton. When I hit the drop-down button to select
>a server I see my 2 SQL Server machines (local machine also named "Jim" and
>sbserver) but they are listed twice or even 3 times (see below) and the local
>machine has even more entries. What gives and how do I clean this up? Both
>seem to work when I "test" at the last step but I have a local application
>using this ODBC and it is failing to run so I think it is having "issues"
>with these multiple entries.
>Thanks!
>-Richard
>e.g.
>(local)
>(local)
>Jim
>Jim
>jim
>sbserver
>sbserver
Multiple servers
Hi All,
I have recently published a website to our webserver and i get a sql error. We have a webserver that does not have sqlserver on it and and our database server which does. i have used the configuration utility to to setup my users and roles which created the ASPNETDB in my local App_Data folder. Is there a way to copy this database to our database server and change the references so the site refers to the new instance on the database server as apposed to the local instance when a user logs in?
Thanks
Bryan
Are you storing the database connection information in the web application's web.config file? Or did you hard-code it into each sql command?
|||all my other connections are stored in the webconfig. But as for the ASPNETDB.mdf connection string i have no idea where it is stored by default. Does it matter if there is no sql server on the pc that the site resides on. To my knowledge it does, so i need to find away to have the database on the database server and the site on our webserver. I dont know if i am making myself clear... if you create a simple site with a login.aspx with a login control and a default.aspx with a simple "HELLO" on it and choose ASP.net configuration web utility and setup some users and roles, it created a folder called App_Data where the ASPNETDB database is stored.
Now if this project was a piece of electornic equipment seperated into distinct pieces, i would like to remove the database piece from where it is in my application and physically move it to another geographical place namelly my other server (database server), but if i remove it totally, clip all the wires and remove it then my equipment (website) does not work correctly. So what i want to do is to extend the cables so that they are able to reach the other server (databse server) so my equipment (website) still works fine, just with the extended cable ( some sort of connection string stored somewhere! ) :-) kind of a dumb ass analogy, but im sure you get what I mean now.
I dont know if i am missing something or the only person that has done something like this but all i do is create a simple website, which works fine on my pc, and deploy it and the login doesnt work...
ANY suggestions will be greatly appreciated, ive been pulling my hair out for almost 2 days now trying to figure this out.
thanks for all the help
Bryan
|||
Hello,
The solution was: mounted the default sql serverdatabase (ASPNETDB) on our database server and added a connectionstring in the webconfig to point to it. what i had to do was remove theconnection string and then recreate it as follows
<remove name="LocalSqlServer"/>
<add name="LocalSqlServer" connectionString="DataSource=CORE;Initial Catalog=ASPNETDB;Persist Security Info=True;UserID=user;Password=password" providerName="System.Data.SqlClient"/>
this sorted out all my issues.
Thanks
BryanMultiple server deployment
I have a multiple report server deployment, and we removed one of the servers from the farm, however the name still appears in the list on the initialize screen in report server configurator.
We removed reporting services from this box, but the name still appears in the list.
Where is this server name being stored?
Thanks!!
BobP
Just for posterity... It is being stored in the Keys table in the ReportServer database.
BobP
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)