I must have inadvertently "touched" something in my configuration, but I
don't know what, or how to fix it. Here's what's happening:
1) Running Windows XP Professional, ISS, SQL Server 2000, Reporting Services
2000 SP2. All are installed on my laptop and have been running normally for
over a year.
2) I am logged in to my machine as Administrator.
3) When I try to open Report Manager via http://localhost/Reports, I get the
prompt
"Enter username and password for "" at http://localhost".
I enter "Administrator", then the password as usual.
4) Normally, Report Manager then opens up. However, now, I can't get past
this dialog! It immediately gives me the same prompts again, and again, and
again...
5) I have tried every user and password on this machine. I have reset the
Admin password and tried again. I have rebooted many times.
6) The IIS Security settings are the same everywhere: Integrated Windows
Authentication, NO anonymous access. This is set:
* At the Web Sites level
* At the Default Web Site level
* At the Reports virtual directory
* At the ReportServer virtual directory
===================
Hope you can help! I am completely locked out. (How can IIS not allow THE
ADMINISTRATOR access?)
Thanks,
C17Problem solved -- it's something to do with the HTTP Keep-Alive property.
In IIS, if you go to the Default Web Site, and un-check the "HTTP
Keep-Alive" property, you will experience the bizarre problem of being
locked out of your own machine, even as Administrator.
If you check the property, all is well.
--C17
Showing posts with label machine. Show all posts
Showing posts with label machine. Show all posts
Friday, March 30, 2012
Monday, March 26, 2012
Lock Problem and application is slowed down
Dear Memebers,
This question is difficult to answer because of lack of hard information,
and I'm afraid that I will have to ask for clarification.
>
This question is difficult to answer because of lack of hard information,
and I'm afraid that I will have to ask for clarification.
>
So there is a stored procedure running. Do I understand that there are
multiple instances of the procedure running? What processes are blocked?
Other processes that are running the same stored procedure? Which operations
are blocked?
>
Which version of SQL Server do you have?
>
In general terms, the way to address blocking issues to investigate if
there are any indexes missing. The longer time a query takes to run,
the bigger the risk for blocking. Of course, you also need to know
what is blocked and where in the procedure blocking occurs. I have a
stored procedure that can assist with that, check out
http://www.sommarskog.se/sqlutil/aba_lockinfo.html.
>
>
--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se
>
Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...oads/books.mspx
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodin...ions/books.mspx|||laststubborn (arafatsalih@.gmail.com) writes:
I'm afraid that I don't have much to add than teh suggestion to use
aba_lockinfo to get an overview of who is locking whom, and from this
try to understand why.
I have a critical problem. I have an application is running on 64 bit
machine. It used to be running on 32 bit machine. That application is
using a Stored Procedure that uses SELECT, INSERT, UPDATE statements.
Whenever this applicataion is being run all the processes are locked
and INSERTING operation becomes cumbersome. We tested again on 32 bit
machine however it happened again. So what might be the problem? Can
somebody help me ? Application creates a lot of processes in a minute
Should SQL Server be caple of recieving these fast inserting processes?
As a DB Admin what should I do to find out whether this problem is
coming from SQL Server or not?
If you respond me ASAP I really appreciate it
Regards
LSlaststubborn (arafatsalih@.gmail.com) writes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
I have a critical problem. I have an application is running on 64 bit
machine. It used to be running on 32 bit machine. That application is
using a Stored Procedure that uses SELECT, INSERT, UPDATE statements.
Whenever this applicataion is being run all the processes are locked
and INSERTING operation becomes cumbersome. We tested again on 32 bit
machine however it happened again. So what might be the problem? Can
somebody help me ? Application creates a lot of processes in a minute
Should SQL Server be caple of recieving these fast inserting processes?
As a DB Admin what should I do to find out whether this problem is
coming from SQL Server or not?
This question is difficult to answer because of lack of hard information,
and I'm afraid that I will have to ask for clarification.
So there is a stored procedure running. Do I understand that there are
multiple instances of the procedure running? What processes are blocked?
Other processes that are running the same stored procedure? Which operations
are blocked?
Which version of SQL Server do you have?
In general terms, the way to address blocking issues to investigate if
there are any indexes missing. The longer time a query takes to run,
the bigger the risk for blocking. Of course, you also need to know
what is blocked and where in the procedure blocking occurs. I have a
stored procedure that can assist with that, check out
http://www.sommarskog.se/sqlutil/aba_lockinfo.html.
--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se
Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...oads/books.mspx
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodin...ions/books.mspx|||Hi Erland ,
Sorry for the late respond. Eventhough we solved the problem and the
problem was coming from the application, I would like to know my
necessary steps to take the action on SQL Server along with your
suggestions.
Here are the answers of your questions:
-Yes the same SP was kept locing the Database
-The other processes are not the same we have other SELECt or UPDATE or
INSERT processes on our Database
-Our database is MS SQL 20000
Thanks
LS
Erland Sommarskog wrote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
laststubborn (arafatsalih@.gmail.com) writes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
I have a critical problem. I have an application is running on 64 bit
machine. It used to be running on 32 bit machine. That application is
using a Stored Procedure that uses SELECT, INSERT, UPDATE statements.
Whenever this applicataion is being run all the processes are locked
and INSERTING operation becomes cumbersome. We tested again on 32 bit
machine however it happened again. So what might be the problem? Can
somebody help me ? Application creates a lot of processes in a minute
Should SQL Server be caple of recieving these fast inserting processes?
As a DB Admin what should I do to find out whether this problem is
coming from SQL Server or not?
>
This question is difficult to answer because of lack of hard information,
and I'm afraid that I will have to ask for clarification.
>
So there is a stored procedure running. Do I understand that there are
multiple instances of the procedure running? What processes are blocked?
Other processes that are running the same stored procedure? Which operations
are blocked?
>
Which version of SQL Server do you have?
>
In general terms, the way to address blocking issues to investigate if
there are any indexes missing. The longer time a query takes to run,
the bigger the risk for blocking. Of course, you also need to know
what is blocked and where in the procedure blocking occurs. I have a
stored procedure that can assist with that, check out
http://www.sommarskog.se/sqlutil/aba_lockinfo.html.
>
>
--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se
>
Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...oads/books.mspx
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodin...ions/books.mspx|||laststubborn (arafatsalih@.gmail.com) writes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sorry for the late respond. Eventhough we solved the problem and the
problem was coming from the application, I would like to know my
necessary steps to take the action on SQL Server along with your
suggestions.
>
Here are the answers of your questions:
-Yes the same SP was kept locing the Database
-The other processes are not the same we have other SELECt or UPDATE or
INSERT processes on our Database
-Our database is MS SQL 20000
I'm afraid that I don't have much to add than teh suggestion to use
aba_lockinfo to get an overview of who is locking whom, and from this
try to understand why.
One situation that I should have mentioned is that if your application
has set up a command timeout (which is 30 seconds by default in many
APIs) and cancels the batch after this time, the application should
always submit a
IF @.@.trancount 0 ROLLBACK TRANSACTION
since a timeout expired does not rollback any transactions, and not rolling
back in this situations can lead to locks piling up.
--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se
Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...oads/books.mspx
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodin...ions/books.mspxsql
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Location of transaction log on another machine
Hi,
We have SQL server 2000 enterprise edition installed on a machine with
only one hard drive. On this server we have a small but critical
database. I have noticed that the person who created this database
placed the location of the transaction log on the same machine as the
data file.
Can I move the transaction log to another machine on the network that
doesn't have SQL server installed? Will there be a performance hit if
SQL Server has to write to this log over the network? If so will it be
major?
I know ideally we should be using a RAID setup of some sort, but for
finacial and political reasons this is not an option.
Cheers,
Steve
Basically, SQL Server doesn't support this. Doing it would be a big performance hit for
modifications. For the full story, check out
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;304261
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Steve" <steve.hager@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d5c55fd1.0412012214.76710133@.posting.google.c om...
> Hi,
> We have SQL server 2000 enterprise edition installed on a machine with
> only one hard drive. On this server we have a small but critical
> database. I have noticed that the person who created this database
> placed the location of the transaction log on the same machine as the
> data file.
> Can I move the transaction log to another machine on the network that
> doesn't have SQL server installed? Will there be a performance hit if
> SQL Server has to write to this log over the network? If so will it be
> major?
> I know ideally we should be using a RAID setup of some sort, but for
> finacial and political reasons this is not an option.
> Cheers,
>
> Steve
|||Steve wrote:
> Hi,
> We have SQL server 2000 enterprise edition installed on a machine with
> only one hard drive. On this server we have a small but critical
> database. I have noticed that the person who created this database
> placed the location of the transaction log on the same machine as the
> data file.
> Can I move the transaction log to another machine on the network that
> doesn't have SQL server installed? Will there be a performance hit if
> SQL Server has to write to this log over the network? If so will it be
> major?
> I know ideally we should be using a RAID setup of some sort, but for
> finacial and political reasons this is not an option.
> Cheers,
>
> Steve
How about another hard drive. That's no too much money...
If it's a small database, it'll probably be fine.
David Gugick
Imceda Software
www.imceda.com
We have SQL server 2000 enterprise edition installed on a machine with
only one hard drive. On this server we have a small but critical
database. I have noticed that the person who created this database
placed the location of the transaction log on the same machine as the
data file.
Can I move the transaction log to another machine on the network that
doesn't have SQL server installed? Will there be a performance hit if
SQL Server has to write to this log over the network? If so will it be
major?
I know ideally we should be using a RAID setup of some sort, but for
finacial and political reasons this is not an option.
Cheers,
Steve
Basically, SQL Server doesn't support this. Doing it would be a big performance hit for
modifications. For the full story, check out
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;304261
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Steve" <steve.hager@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d5c55fd1.0412012214.76710133@.posting.google.c om...
> Hi,
> We have SQL server 2000 enterprise edition installed on a machine with
> only one hard drive. On this server we have a small but critical
> database. I have noticed that the person who created this database
> placed the location of the transaction log on the same machine as the
> data file.
> Can I move the transaction log to another machine on the network that
> doesn't have SQL server installed? Will there be a performance hit if
> SQL Server has to write to this log over the network? If so will it be
> major?
> I know ideally we should be using a RAID setup of some sort, but for
> finacial and political reasons this is not an option.
> Cheers,
>
> Steve
|||Steve wrote:
> Hi,
> We have SQL server 2000 enterprise edition installed on a machine with
> only one hard drive. On this server we have a small but critical
> database. I have noticed that the person who created this database
> placed the location of the transaction log on the same machine as the
> data file.
> Can I move the transaction log to another machine on the network that
> doesn't have SQL server installed? Will there be a performance hit if
> SQL Server has to write to this log over the network? If so will it be
> major?
> I know ideally we should be using a RAID setup of some sort, but for
> finacial and political reasons this is not an option.
> Cheers,
>
> Steve
How about another hard drive. That's no too much money...
If it's a small database, it'll probably be fine.
David Gugick
Imceda Software
www.imceda.com
Location of transaction log on another machine
Hi,
We have SQL server 2000 enterprise edition installed on a machine with
only one hard drive. On this server we have a small but critical
database. I have noticed that the person who created this database
placed the location of the transaction log on the same machine as the
data file.
Can I move the transaction log to another machine on the network that
doesn't have SQL server installed? Will there be a performance hit if
SQL Server has to write to this log over the network? If so will it be
major?
I know ideally we should be using a RAID setup of some sort, but for
finacial and political reasons this is not an option.
Cheers,
SteveBasically, SQL Server doesn't support this. Doing it would be a big performa
nce hit for
modifications. For the full story, check out
http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...kb;en-us;304261
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Steve" <steve.hager@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d5c55fd1.0412012214.76710133@.posting.google.com...
> Hi,
> We have SQL server 2000 enterprise edition installed on a machine with
> only one hard drive. On this server we have a small but critical
> database. I have noticed that the person who created this database
> placed the location of the transaction log on the same machine as the
> data file.
> Can I move the transaction log to another machine on the network that
> doesn't have SQL server installed? Will there be a performance hit if
> SQL Server has to write to this log over the network? If so will it be
> major?
> I know ideally we should be using a RAID setup of some sort, but for
> finacial and political reasons this is not an option.
> Cheers,
>
> Steve|||Steve wrote:
> Hi,
> We have SQL server 2000 enterprise edition installed on a machine with
> only one hard drive. On this server we have a small but critical
> database. I have noticed that the person who created this database
> placed the location of the transaction log on the same machine as the
> data file.
> Can I move the transaction log to another machine on the network that
> doesn't have SQL server installed? Will there be a performance hit if
> SQL Server has to write to this log over the network? If so will it be
> major?
> I know ideally we should be using a RAID setup of some sort, but for
> finacial and political reasons this is not an option.
> Cheers,
>
> Steve
How about another hard drive. That's no too much money...
If it's a small database, it'll probably be fine.
David Gugick
Imceda Software
www.imceda.com
We have SQL server 2000 enterprise edition installed on a machine with
only one hard drive. On this server we have a small but critical
database. I have noticed that the person who created this database
placed the location of the transaction log on the same machine as the
data file.
Can I move the transaction log to another machine on the network that
doesn't have SQL server installed? Will there be a performance hit if
SQL Server has to write to this log over the network? If so will it be
major?
I know ideally we should be using a RAID setup of some sort, but for
finacial and political reasons this is not an option.
Cheers,
SteveBasically, SQL Server doesn't support this. Doing it would be a big performa
nce hit for
modifications. For the full story, check out
http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...kb;en-us;304261
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Steve" <steve.hager@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d5c55fd1.0412012214.76710133@.posting.google.com...
> Hi,
> We have SQL server 2000 enterprise edition installed on a machine with
> only one hard drive. On this server we have a small but critical
> database. I have noticed that the person who created this database
> placed the location of the transaction log on the same machine as the
> data file.
> Can I move the transaction log to another machine on the network that
> doesn't have SQL server installed? Will there be a performance hit if
> SQL Server has to write to this log over the network? If so will it be
> major?
> I know ideally we should be using a RAID setup of some sort, but for
> finacial and political reasons this is not an option.
> Cheers,
>
> Steve|||Steve wrote:
> Hi,
> We have SQL server 2000 enterprise edition installed on a machine with
> only one hard drive. On this server we have a small but critical
> database. I have noticed that the person who created this database
> placed the location of the transaction log on the same machine as the
> data file.
> Can I move the transaction log to another machine on the network that
> doesn't have SQL server installed? Will there be a performance hit if
> SQL Server has to write to this log over the network? If so will it be
> major?
> I know ideally we should be using a RAID setup of some sort, but for
> finacial and political reasons this is not an option.
> Cheers,
>
> Steve
How about another hard drive. That's no too much money...
If it's a small database, it'll probably be fine.
David Gugick
Imceda Software
www.imceda.com
Location of transaction log on another machine
Hi,
We have SQL server 2000 enterprise edition installed on a machine with
only one hard drive. On this server we have a small but critical
database. I have noticed that the person who created this database
placed the location of the transaction log on the same machine as the
data file.
Can I move the transaction log to another machine on the network that
doesn't have SQL server installed? Will there be a performance hit if
SQL Server has to write to this log over the network? If so will it be
major?
I know ideally we should be using a RAID setup of some sort, but for
finacial and political reasons this is not an option.
Cheers,
SteveBasically, SQL Server doesn't support this. Doing it would be a big performance hit for
modifications. For the full story, check out
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;304261
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Steve" <steve.hager@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d5c55fd1.0412012214.76710133@.posting.google.com...
> Hi,
> We have SQL server 2000 enterprise edition installed on a machine with
> only one hard drive. On this server we have a small but critical
> database. I have noticed that the person who created this database
> placed the location of the transaction log on the same machine as the
> data file.
> Can I move the transaction log to another machine on the network that
> doesn't have SQL server installed? Will there be a performance hit if
> SQL Server has to write to this log over the network? If so will it be
> major?
> I know ideally we should be using a RAID setup of some sort, but for
> finacial and political reasons this is not an option.
> Cheers,
>
> Steve|||Steve wrote:
> Hi,
> We have SQL server 2000 enterprise edition installed on a machine with
> only one hard drive. On this server we have a small but critical
> database. I have noticed that the person who created this database
> placed the location of the transaction log on the same machine as the
> data file.
> Can I move the transaction log to another machine on the network that
> doesn't have SQL server installed? Will there be a performance hit if
> SQL Server has to write to this log over the network? If so will it be
> major?
> I know ideally we should be using a RAID setup of some sort, but for
> finacial and political reasons this is not an option.
> Cheers,
>
> Steve
How about another hard drive. That's no too much money...
If it's a small database, it'll probably be fine.
David Gugick
Imceda Software
www.imceda.com
We have SQL server 2000 enterprise edition installed on a machine with
only one hard drive. On this server we have a small but critical
database. I have noticed that the person who created this database
placed the location of the transaction log on the same machine as the
data file.
Can I move the transaction log to another machine on the network that
doesn't have SQL server installed? Will there be a performance hit if
SQL Server has to write to this log over the network? If so will it be
major?
I know ideally we should be using a RAID setup of some sort, but for
finacial and political reasons this is not an option.
Cheers,
SteveBasically, SQL Server doesn't support this. Doing it would be a big performance hit for
modifications. For the full story, check out
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;304261
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Steve" <steve.hager@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d5c55fd1.0412012214.76710133@.posting.google.com...
> Hi,
> We have SQL server 2000 enterprise edition installed on a machine with
> only one hard drive. On this server we have a small but critical
> database. I have noticed that the person who created this database
> placed the location of the transaction log on the same machine as the
> data file.
> Can I move the transaction log to another machine on the network that
> doesn't have SQL server installed? Will there be a performance hit if
> SQL Server has to write to this log over the network? If so will it be
> major?
> I know ideally we should be using a RAID setup of some sort, but for
> finacial and political reasons this is not an option.
> Cheers,
>
> Steve|||Steve wrote:
> Hi,
> We have SQL server 2000 enterprise edition installed on a machine with
> only one hard drive. On this server we have a small but critical
> database. I have noticed that the person who created this database
> placed the location of the transaction log on the same machine as the
> data file.
> Can I move the transaction log to another machine on the network that
> doesn't have SQL server installed? Will there be a performance hit if
> SQL Server has to write to this log over the network? If so will it be
> major?
> I know ideally we should be using a RAID setup of some sort, but for
> finacial and political reasons this is not an option.
> Cheers,
>
> Steve
How about another hard drive. That's no too much money...
If it's a small database, it'll probably be fine.
David Gugick
Imceda Software
www.imceda.com
Location of deployed rdl file on the ReportingServer
Hi all,
I have a reporting server on which My rdl files are deployed from my
development machine.
Can any one tell me where is the physical location of those rdl files on
the reporting server where the files get deployed.
I did a search for rdl files on the Reportingserver but I could not found any.
Also is it possible to add a .rdl file from the ReportServer machine to my
VS.NET project IDE on a remote development machine
Any suggestions will be highly appreciated.
Thanks in advance,
siajThe RDL files are stored in the report server database. They are not stored
on disk.
-Lukasz
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"siaj" <siaj@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:DABA9613-D421-4F10-AE66-5BB0D46BFBCD@.microsoft.com...
> Hi all,
> I have a reporting server on which My rdl files are deployed from my
> development machine.
> Can any one tell me where is the physical location of those rdl files on
> the reporting server where the files get deployed.
> I did a search for rdl files on the Reportingserver but I could not found
> any.
> Also is it possible to add a .rdl file from the ReportServer machine to my
> VS.NET project IDE on a remote development machine
> Any suggestions will be highly appreciated.
> Thanks in advance,
> siaj|||On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 15:13:02 -0800, "siaj"
<siaj@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>Hi all,
>I have a reporting server on which My rdl files are deployed from my
>development machine.
>Can any one tell me where is the physical location of those rdl files on
>the reporting server where the files get deployed.
>I did a search for rdl files on the Reportingserver but I could not found any.
>Also is it possible to add a .rdl file from the ReportServer machine to my
>VS.NET project IDE on a remote development machine
>Any suggestions will be highly appreciated.
>Thanks in advance,
>siaj
The deployed reports are stored in the RS database (default name -
ReportServer), not in physical files. The table name is "Catalog".
If you need to change a deployed report, you can download it from the
Report Server web page and use it in your VS project. Open the list of
reports (http://<servername>/Reports/Pages/Folder.aspx), click "Show
Details" on the toolbar. Now click the Edit icon preceeding the report
you need, this will open the properties page for the report. There are
2 links under "Report Definition": Edit and Update. "Edit" downloads
the RDL file for you, and "Update" allows you to upload the file back.|||Thanks Lukasz/Usenet
siaj
"Usenet User" wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 15:13:02 -0800, "siaj"
> <siaj@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
> >Hi all,
> >I have a reporting server on which My rdl files are deployed from my
> >development machine.
> >Can any one tell me where is the physical location of those rdl files on
> >the reporting server where the files get deployed.
> >I did a search for rdl files on the Reportingserver but I could not found any.
> >
> >Also is it possible to add a .rdl file from the ReportServer machine to my
> >VS.NET project IDE on a remote development machine
> >
> >Any suggestions will be highly appreciated.
> >
> >Thanks in advance,
> >siaj
>
> The deployed reports are stored in the RS database (default name -
> ReportServer), not in physical files. The table name is "Catalog".
> If you need to change a deployed report, you can download it from the
> Report Server web page and use it in your VS project. Open the list of
> reports (http://<servername>/Reports/Pages/Folder.aspx), click "Show
> Details" on the toolbar. Now click the Edit icon preceeding the report
> you need, this will open the properties page for the report. There are
> 2 links under "Report Definition": Edit and Update. "Edit" downloads
> the RDL file for you, and "Update" allows you to upload the file back.
>
I have a reporting server on which My rdl files are deployed from my
development machine.
Can any one tell me where is the physical location of those rdl files on
the reporting server where the files get deployed.
I did a search for rdl files on the Reportingserver but I could not found any.
Also is it possible to add a .rdl file from the ReportServer machine to my
VS.NET project IDE on a remote development machine
Any suggestions will be highly appreciated.
Thanks in advance,
siajThe RDL files are stored in the report server database. They are not stored
on disk.
-Lukasz
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"siaj" <siaj@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:DABA9613-D421-4F10-AE66-5BB0D46BFBCD@.microsoft.com...
> Hi all,
> I have a reporting server on which My rdl files are deployed from my
> development machine.
> Can any one tell me where is the physical location of those rdl files on
> the reporting server where the files get deployed.
> I did a search for rdl files on the Reportingserver but I could not found
> any.
> Also is it possible to add a .rdl file from the ReportServer machine to my
> VS.NET project IDE on a remote development machine
> Any suggestions will be highly appreciated.
> Thanks in advance,
> siaj|||On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 15:13:02 -0800, "siaj"
<siaj@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>Hi all,
>I have a reporting server on which My rdl files are deployed from my
>development machine.
>Can any one tell me where is the physical location of those rdl files on
>the reporting server where the files get deployed.
>I did a search for rdl files on the Reportingserver but I could not found any.
>Also is it possible to add a .rdl file from the ReportServer machine to my
>VS.NET project IDE on a remote development machine
>Any suggestions will be highly appreciated.
>Thanks in advance,
>siaj
The deployed reports are stored in the RS database (default name -
ReportServer), not in physical files. The table name is "Catalog".
If you need to change a deployed report, you can download it from the
Report Server web page and use it in your VS project. Open the list of
reports (http://<servername>/Reports/Pages/Folder.aspx), click "Show
Details" on the toolbar. Now click the Edit icon preceeding the report
you need, this will open the properties page for the report. There are
2 links under "Report Definition": Edit and Update. "Edit" downloads
the RDL file for you, and "Update" allows you to upload the file back.|||Thanks Lukasz/Usenet
siaj
"Usenet User" wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 15:13:02 -0800, "siaj"
> <siaj@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
> >Hi all,
> >I have a reporting server on which My rdl files are deployed from my
> >development machine.
> >Can any one tell me where is the physical location of those rdl files on
> >the reporting server where the files get deployed.
> >I did a search for rdl files on the Reportingserver but I could not found any.
> >
> >Also is it possible to add a .rdl file from the ReportServer machine to my
> >VS.NET project IDE on a remote development machine
> >
> >Any suggestions will be highly appreciated.
> >
> >Thanks in advance,
> >siaj
>
> The deployed reports are stored in the RS database (default name -
> ReportServer), not in physical files. The table name is "Catalog".
> If you need to change a deployed report, you can download it from the
> Report Server web page and use it in your VS project. Open the list of
> reports (http://<servername>/Reports/Pages/Folder.aspx), click "Show
> Details" on the toolbar. Now click the Edit icon preceeding the report
> you need, this will open the properties page for the report. There are
> 2 links under "Report Definition": Edit and Update. "Edit" downloads
> the RDL file for you, and "Update" allows you to upload the file back.
>
Monday, March 19, 2012
LocalSystem (i.e. machine account) authenticating to a SQL server as anonymous
Hi All,
We have a customer who is using our application and is expiriencing a
behavior we haven't seen in the field yet. Our application is a WMI Event
Provider (so it is part of the WMI service which is running as the
LocalSystem account) running on a Windows 2003 Server (Standard Edition)
that needs to open an ODBC connection (using NT Authentication, NOT SQL
authentication) to a SQL Server running on a different Server (non-domain
controller, W2K Standard Edition SP4, SQL2000 Standard edition). In this
setup, we have customers add the machine account as an SQL user and then
within the specific database, have them give the machine account select,
update and delete authority on the specific table we need access to and
everything works great. Trouble at this particular customer is that on the
SQL server, we see an anonymous user login instead of the machine account
login (that we normally see). Does anyone have any theories as to why this
is happening? Thank you very much for your valuable time.Anthony LaMark
www.eXcSoftware.comIf there is an anonymous login in SQL Server, it is because someone added
it. It would not get there automatically. It is possible that the customer
was getting connection errors similar to the following:
Login failed for user NT Authority\Anonymous'. Not associated with a
trusted connection.
so they added the NT Authority\Anonymous login.
If this is the case they may be running into a kerberos authentication
problem.
If this is the case then the SQL Server may not have a valid Service
Principal name asscociated with it. You can use the setspn utility to
create one. The following article describes how to use the setspn utility:
HOW TO: Troubleshoot Kerberos-Related Issues in IIS
http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...kb;en-us;326985
I realize that you may not be having IIS problems but the steps would be
the same to resolve any kerberos problem.
Rand
This posting is provided "as is" with no warranties and confers no rights.
We have a customer who is using our application and is expiriencing a
behavior we haven't seen in the field yet. Our application is a WMI Event
Provider (so it is part of the WMI service which is running as the
LocalSystem account) running on a Windows 2003 Server (Standard Edition)
that needs to open an ODBC connection (using NT Authentication, NOT SQL
authentication) to a SQL Server running on a different Server (non-domain
controller, W2K Standard Edition SP4, SQL2000 Standard edition). In this
setup, we have customers add the machine account as an SQL user and then
within the specific database, have them give the machine account select,
update and delete authority on the specific table we need access to and
everything works great. Trouble at this particular customer is that on the
SQL server, we see an anonymous user login instead of the machine account
login (that we normally see). Does anyone have any theories as to why this
is happening? Thank you very much for your valuable time.Anthony LaMark
www.eXcSoftware.comIf there is an anonymous login in SQL Server, it is because someone added
it. It would not get there automatically. It is possible that the customer
was getting connection errors similar to the following:
Login failed for user NT Authority\Anonymous'. Not associated with a
trusted connection.
so they added the NT Authority\Anonymous login.
If this is the case they may be running into a kerberos authentication
problem.
If this is the case then the SQL Server may not have a valid Service
Principal name asscociated with it. You can use the setspn utility to
create one. The following article describes how to use the setspn utility:
HOW TO: Troubleshoot Kerberos-Related Issues in IIS
http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...kb;en-us;326985
I realize that you may not be having IIS problems but the steps would be
the same to resolve any kerberos problem.
Rand
This posting is provided "as is" with no warranties and confers no rights.
LocalSqlServer
I finally got my website to run on the local machine. I thought it was going to run on the server but I just get my login. After I enter my info and click "login" I get the following error. Do I need to enable the SQL Server Browser service?
Server Error in '/' Application.
Configuration Error
Description:An error occurred during the processing of a configuration file required to service this request. Please review the specific error details below and modify your configuration file appropriately.
Parser Error Message:The connection name 'LocalSqlServer' was not found in the applications configuration or the connection string is empty.
Source Error:
Line 138: <providers>Line 139: <add name="AspNetSqlMembershipProvider"Line 140: type="System.Web.Security.SqlMembershipProvider, System.Web, Version=2.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=b03f5f7f11d50a3a"Line 141: connectionStringName="LocalSqlServer"Line 142: enablePasswordRetrieval="false"
Source File:C:\WINNT\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v2.0.50727\Config\machine.config Line:140
Version Information: Microsoft .NET Framework Version:2.0.50727.42; ASP.NET Version:2.0.50727.210
Perhaps, but that isn't what is causing the error. You haven't configured a connection string with the name "LocalSqLServer".
|||Do I do this in the solutions web config file?
|||Yes
|||Here is my web.config so far. I've tried putting the add tag and assigning LocalSqlServer to the default provider but I can't get anything to work. So what exactly do I need to do and where?
Thanks,
Nick
<?xmlversion="1.0"?>
<configurationxmlns="http://schemas.microsoft.com/.NetConfiguration/v2.0">
<connectionStrings><addname="ConnectionString"connectionString="Provider=Microsoft.Jet.OLEDB.4.0;Data Source=|DataDirectory|\OpenAssess.mdb;Persist Security Info=True"providerName="System.Data.OleDb"/>
</connectionStrings><system.web>
<traceenabled="true"requestLimit="15" /><authenticationmode="Forms"/>
<roleManagerenabled="true"/><compilationdebug="true"/>
</system.web></configuration>
|||Can I make this connectin straight to Access with out using sql at all? Our host server doesn't support SQL Server.
Thanks,
Nick
|||Looks like you are using the built-in Login controls. they use SQL Server 2005 Express by default, not access.
SQL Server 2005 Express is a free download from the same place as VWD EXpress, why not just use it?
|||Where is your aspnetdb going to be?
|||ASPNETDB.MDF is in my App_Data folder. I was trying to avoid SQL Server because the server we are on does not support it and I am trying to input data from the website to a database. Do you recommend we buy a package that supports it? I have SQL Server Management Studio Express on my local machine.
Thanks,
Nick
|||These are things wrong so far:
Your web.config file does not turn membership on.
Your web.config file does not have a membership provider defined (Which is fine if you want to use the default one).
You do not have a connection string that the default membership provider is configured to use (LocalSqlServer) defined in the connection strings section.
Apparently your host doesn't support Sql Server, yet you are trying to use a .MDB file (That's a Sql Server file). Perhaps you meant that your host only supports Sql Server Express (BTW, that's backwards from most hosting services -- Most support Sql Server but not Sql Server Express).
Friday, March 9, 2012
Local user XP -> remote XP
HI Guys,
Got the following scenario:
Client machine: Windows XP Pro (SP2), logged in as local user
Server machine: Windows XP Pro (SP2), running SQL Server 2000
both machines in same Domain.
I am attempting to connect from the client to the server using SQL
Server authentication, which is definitely enabled as an option on the
remote machine. SQL Client Network lists TCP/IP and Named Pipes
enabled, with TCP/IP highest. Neither connecting through TCP/IP nor
name pipes (using isql) succeeds, and I get a generic "SQL Server does
not exist" type message through query analyzer.
This started with a problem running an ASP.NET website against a remote
database, but I've verified I can 1) Connect to the server using
Windows Authentication, when I'm logged in as a domain user, 2) Connect
using the SQL Server credentials, when I'm logged in as a domain user.
I wouldn't be surprised for NP to fail when I'm a local user, but
TCP/IP shouldn't be affected by who's logged in, should it?
Okay, normal bits now of "this used to work, and I'm sure I haven't
changed anything". Only thing I have done recently was install the
latest MS updates as delivered through Automatic Updates. I'm not sure
if anything has changed on the server, since it's another devs
development machine, but I wouldn't expect him to have been "playing"
in this area.
I was initially unconcerned by this problem, since our live webserver
talks directly to a local instance of SQL, so all should be well. Until
I remembered that as part of the next rollout, we plan to move the
databases onto a separate box. So I'd like to understand this problem
in the development area in case it happens on live as well.
Sorry for rambling on. And I've probably forgotten something important
too. Thanks in advance for any help.
DamienHi,
I guess secuzrity is blocking your request on the other machine. YOu
have to open the ports of SQL Server on the hosting machine that the
client can connect to an instance. The default port of SQL Server is
1433, but that can be different on your machine if you changed another
one on installation time. For more information about Windows XP SP2 and
SQL Server read the following article.
http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...kb;en-us;841249
HTH, Jens Suessmeyer.
http://www.sqlserver2005.de
--|||Jens wrote:
> Hi,
> I guess secuzrity is blocking your request on the other machine. YOu
> have to open the ports of SQL Server on the hosting machine that the
> client can connect to an instance. The default port of SQL Server is
> 1433, but that can be different on your machine if you changed another
> one on installation time. For more information about Windows XP SP2 and
> SQL Server read the following article.
> http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...kb;en-us;841249
> HTH, Jens Suessmeyer.
> --
> http://www.sqlserver2005.de
> --
Doh! The thing I forgot to do was... Check that TCP connections worked
directly. Turned out that all my previous succesful connections were NP
connections. So I'll be looking at the firewall then...
Cheers,
Damien
Got the following scenario:
Client machine: Windows XP Pro (SP2), logged in as local user
Server machine: Windows XP Pro (SP2), running SQL Server 2000
both machines in same Domain.
I am attempting to connect from the client to the server using SQL
Server authentication, which is definitely enabled as an option on the
remote machine. SQL Client Network lists TCP/IP and Named Pipes
enabled, with TCP/IP highest. Neither connecting through TCP/IP nor
name pipes (using isql) succeeds, and I get a generic "SQL Server does
not exist" type message through query analyzer.
This started with a problem running an ASP.NET website against a remote
database, but I've verified I can 1) Connect to the server using
Windows Authentication, when I'm logged in as a domain user, 2) Connect
using the SQL Server credentials, when I'm logged in as a domain user.
I wouldn't be surprised for NP to fail when I'm a local user, but
TCP/IP shouldn't be affected by who's logged in, should it?
Okay, normal bits now of "this used to work, and I'm sure I haven't
changed anything". Only thing I have done recently was install the
latest MS updates as delivered through Automatic Updates. I'm not sure
if anything has changed on the server, since it's another devs
development machine, but I wouldn't expect him to have been "playing"
in this area.
I was initially unconcerned by this problem, since our live webserver
talks directly to a local instance of SQL, so all should be well. Until
I remembered that as part of the next rollout, we plan to move the
databases onto a separate box. So I'd like to understand this problem
in the development area in case it happens on live as well.
Sorry for rambling on. And I've probably forgotten something important
too. Thanks in advance for any help.
DamienHi,
I guess secuzrity is blocking your request on the other machine. YOu
have to open the ports of SQL Server on the hosting machine that the
client can connect to an instance. The default port of SQL Server is
1433, but that can be different on your machine if you changed another
one on installation time. For more information about Windows XP SP2 and
SQL Server read the following article.
http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...kb;en-us;841249
HTH, Jens Suessmeyer.
http://www.sqlserver2005.de
--|||Jens wrote:
> Hi,
> I guess secuzrity is blocking your request on the other machine. YOu
> have to open the ports of SQL Server on the hosting machine that the
> client can connect to an instance. The default port of SQL Server is
> 1433, but that can be different on your machine if you changed another
> one on installation time. For more information about Windows XP SP2 and
> SQL Server read the following article.
> http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...kb;en-us;841249
> HTH, Jens Suessmeyer.
> --
> http://www.sqlserver2005.de
> --
Doh! The thing I forgot to do was... Check that TCP connections worked
directly. Turned out that all my previous succesful connections were NP
connections. So I'll be looking at the firewall then...
Cheers,
Damien
local system privildges
I am trying to upgrade the SQL Server 6.5 on one server to SQL
Server2000 on the other machine.
Server2000 on the other machine.
At that time, i am getting the following error:
"The local SQL Server is running under localsystem priviledges,
preventing the upgrade wizard to connect to the export server."
I am logged on thru the administrator on both the machines.
Pls tell how to to eradicate this error, so that my upgrade is
successful.
Thanks in advance.thakwani@.rediffmail.com (Prashant Thakwani) wrote in message news:<bf0d42bf.0404252301.780bce11@.posting.google.com>...
> I am trying to upgrade the SQL Server 6.5 on one server to SQL
> Server2000 on the other machine.
> At that time, i am getting the following error:
> "The local SQL Server is running under localsystem priviledges,
> preventing the upgrade wizard to connect to the export server."
> I am logged on thru the administrator on both the machines.
>
> Pls tell how to to eradicate this error, so that my upgrade is
> successful.
>
> Thanks in advance.
During the upgrade, the SQL2000 server needs to connect to the
filesystem on the SQL6.5 server. This is not possible if the MSSQL
service is running as LocalSystem, because LocalSystem has no network
access. You should consider changing your SQL2000 installation to run
using a domain account, instead of LocalSystem - this is recommended
anyway, as some functionality requires a domain account, and it's also
possible to limit the permissions of the service account, which is
better for security.
See "Setting up Windows Services Accounts" and "Changing Passwords and
User Accounts" in Books Online.
Simon
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Local Server not start
I changed my local server from
(local) to Machine Name and every thing seemed work fine
after restart Windows 2000 today the local SQL Server not
start.
Then I use . (period) to register again
But I got:
A connection could not be established to ...
Reason: SQL Server does not exist or access denied.
ConnectionOpen(Coonect())..
I used to connect the connection with Use Window
authentication.
and also can connect the connection with use SQLServer
authentication
for sa and a password
but right now both of them fail to logon.
Is re-setup SQL server is the only way to make it work?
ThanksMake sure the sql server service is running. Go to the services applet in
administrative tools and look for mssqlserver.
Carlos E. Rojas
SQL Server MVP
Co-Author SQL Server 2000 programming by Example
<anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8f7401c3e9ee$83cbddd0$a501280a@.phx.gbl...
I change
Log on as to
Local System account
and the Local SQL Server start
(local) to Machine Name and every thing seemed work fine
after restart Windows 2000 today the local SQL Server not
start.
Then I use . (period) to register again
But I got:
A connection could not be established to ...
Reason: SQL Server does not exist or access denied.
ConnectionOpen(Coonect())..
I used to connect the connection with Use Window
authentication.
and also can connect the connection with use SQLServer
authentication
for sa and a password
but right now both of them fail to logon.
Is re-setup SQL server is the only way to make it work?
ThanksMake sure the sql server service is running. Go to the services applet in
administrative tools and look for mssqlserver.
Carlos E. Rojas
SQL Server MVP
Co-Author SQL Server 2000 programming by Example
<anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8f7401c3e9ee$83cbddd0$a501280a@.phx.gbl...
quote:|||Thanks.
> I changed my local server from
> (local) to Machine Name and every thing seemed work fine
> after restart Windows 2000 today the local SQL Server not
> start.
> Then I use . (period) to register again
> But I got:
> A connection could not be established to ...
> Reason: SQL Server does not exist or access denied.
> ConnectionOpen(Coonect())..
>
> I used to connect the connection with Use Window
> authentication.
> and also can connect the connection with use SQLServer
> authentication
> for sa and a password
> but right now both of them fail to logon.
> Is re-setup SQL server is the only way to make it work?
> Thanks
>
>
I change
Log on as to
Local System account
and the Local SQL Server start
local server not start
I changed my local server from
(local) to Machine Name and every thing seemed work fine
after restart windows 2000 today the local not start
I find 3 lines in errorlog
2004-01-30 08:00:44.61 spid55 Error: 15457, Severity:
0, State: 1
2004-01-30 08:00:44.61 spid55 Configuration
option 'show advanced options' changed from 1 to 1. Run
the RECONFIGURE statement to install..
2004-01-30 08:00:44.79 spid55 Using 'xplog70.dll'
version '2000.80.760' to execute extended stored
procedure 'xp_msver'.
any help wellcomeThese are not error messages in real sense, or linked with your problem.
Where did you set the (local) to machine name? Try connect to sql server by
using (local) or "." or machine name then execute
Select SERVERPROPERTY('ServerName')
The result is the name sql server's default instance is listening.
ashish
"Michael" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:860501c3e9d0$10d8d120$a101280a@.phx.gbl...
> I changed my local server from
> (local) to Machine Name and every thing seemed work fine
> after restart windows 2000 today the local not start
> I find 3 lines in errorlog
> 2004-01-30 08:00:44.61 spid55 Error: 15457, Severity:
> 0, State: 1
> 2004-01-30 08:00:44.61 spid55 Configuration
> option 'show advanced options' changed from 1 to 1. Run
> the RECONFIGURE statement to install..
> 2004-01-30 08:00:44.79 spid55 Using 'xplog70.dll'
> version '2000.80.760' to execute extended stored
> procedure 'xp_msver'.
>
> any help wellcome
>|||I use . (period) to register
But I got
A connection could not be established to ...
Reason: SQL Server does not exist or access denied.
ConnectionOpen(Coonect())..
I used to connect the connection with Use Window authentication.
and also can connect the connection with use SQLServer authentication
for sa and a password
but right now both of them fail to logon.
Is re-setup SQL server is the only way to make it work?
Thanks
(local) to Machine Name and every thing seemed work fine
after restart windows 2000 today the local not start
I find 3 lines in errorlog
2004-01-30 08:00:44.61 spid55 Error: 15457, Severity:
0, State: 1
2004-01-30 08:00:44.61 spid55 Configuration
option 'show advanced options' changed from 1 to 1. Run
the RECONFIGURE statement to install..
2004-01-30 08:00:44.79 spid55 Using 'xplog70.dll'
version '2000.80.760' to execute extended stored
procedure 'xp_msver'.
any help wellcomeThese are not error messages in real sense, or linked with your problem.
Where did you set the (local) to machine name? Try connect to sql server by
using (local) or "." or machine name then execute
Select SERVERPROPERTY('ServerName')
The result is the name sql server's default instance is listening.
ashish
"Michael" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:860501c3e9d0$10d8d120$a101280a@.phx.gbl...
> I changed my local server from
> (local) to Machine Name and every thing seemed work fine
> after restart windows 2000 today the local not start
> I find 3 lines in errorlog
> 2004-01-30 08:00:44.61 spid55 Error: 15457, Severity:
> 0, State: 1
> 2004-01-30 08:00:44.61 spid55 Configuration
> option 'show advanced options' changed from 1 to 1. Run
> the RECONFIGURE statement to install..
> 2004-01-30 08:00:44.79 spid55 Using 'xplog70.dll'
> version '2000.80.760' to execute extended stored
> procedure 'xp_msver'.
>
> any help wellcome
>|||I use . (period) to register
But I got
A connection could not be established to ...
Reason: SQL Server does not exist or access denied.
ConnectionOpen(Coonect())..
I used to connect the connection with Use Window authentication.
and also can connect the connection with use SQLServer authentication
for sa and a password
but right now both of them fail to logon.
Is re-setup SQL server is the only way to make it work?
Thanks
local server not start
I changed my local server from
(local) to Machine Name and every thing seemed work fine
after restart Windows 2000 today the local not start
I find 3 lines in errorlog
2004-01-30 08:00:44.61 spid55 Error: 15457, Severity:
0, State: 1
2004-01-30 08:00:44.61 spid55 Configuration
option 'show advanced options' changed from 1 to 1. Run
the RECONFIGURE statement to install..
2004-01-30 08:00:44.79 spid55 Using 'xplog70.dll'
version '2000.80.760' to execute extended stored
procedure 'xp_msver'.
any help wellcomeThese are not error messages in real sense, or linked with your problem.
Where did you set the (local) to machine name? Try connect to sql server by
using (local) or "." or machine name then execute
Select SERVERPROPERTY('ServerName')
The result is the name sql server's default instance is listening.
ashish
"Michael" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:860501c3e9d0$10d8d120$a101280a@.phx.gbl...
But I got
A connection could not be established to ...
Reason: SQL Server does not exist or access denied.
ConnectionOpen(Coonect())..
I used to connect the connection with Use Window authentication.
and also can connect the connection with use SQLServer authentication
for sa and a password
but right now both of them fail to logon.
Is re-setup SQL server is the only way to make it work?
Thanks
(local) to Machine Name and every thing seemed work fine
after restart Windows 2000 today the local not start
I find 3 lines in errorlog
2004-01-30 08:00:44.61 spid55 Error: 15457, Severity:
0, State: 1
2004-01-30 08:00:44.61 spid55 Configuration
option 'show advanced options' changed from 1 to 1. Run
the RECONFIGURE statement to install..
2004-01-30 08:00:44.79 spid55 Using 'xplog70.dll'
version '2000.80.760' to execute extended stored
procedure 'xp_msver'.
any help wellcomeThese are not error messages in real sense, or linked with your problem.
Where did you set the (local) to machine name? Try connect to sql server by
using (local) or "." or machine name then execute
Select SERVERPROPERTY('ServerName')
The result is the name sql server's default instance is listening.
ashish
"Michael" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:860501c3e9d0$10d8d120$a101280a@.phx.gbl...
quote:|||I use . (period) to register
> I changed my local server from
> (local) to Machine Name and every thing seemed work fine
> after restart Windows 2000 today the local not start
> I find 3 lines in errorlog
> 2004-01-30 08:00:44.61 spid55 Error: 15457, Severity:
> 0, State: 1
> 2004-01-30 08:00:44.61 spid55 Configuration
> option 'show advanced options' changed from 1 to 1. Run
> the RECONFIGURE statement to install..
> 2004-01-30 08:00:44.79 spid55 Using 'xplog70.dll'
> version '2000.80.760' to execute extended stored
> procedure 'xp_msver'.
>
> any help wellcome
>
But I got
A connection could not be established to ...
Reason: SQL Server does not exist or access denied.
ConnectionOpen(Coonect())..
I used to connect the connection with Use Window authentication.
and also can connect the connection with use SQLServer authentication
for sa and a password
but right now both of them fail to logon.
Is re-setup SQL server is the only way to make it work?
Thanks
Local Server Connection
Hi
I am trying connect to a database in SQL EXPRESS 2005 that is located in the same machine that is running (Windows XP Pro) IIS using classic asp code, but i cannot seem to connect to the database. Please anybody help.
Here is the code below.
ConnectionString = "Provider = SQLNCLI;" & _
"Data Source = UNIDWEB\SQLEXPRESS;" & _
"Initial Catalog = <dbname>;" & _
"Integrated Security=SSPI;"
objCmd.open ConnectionStringHi,
make sure that you enabled remote connections for the instance. The walkthrough how to do that can be found on my site int he screencast section. If that did not help you, do not hesitate to come back :-)
HTH, Jens Suessmeyer.
http://www.sqlserver2005.de
Friday, February 24, 2012
local ip address
i've got a ms access mdb connected to a sql server on the internet.
whats the quickest way to get the ipaddress on the client machine from
the client machine? since there is a existing connection, shudn't there
be a simple method call that returns the ipaddress on the connection or
something?
the solutions i've seen r very ugly :(
riyazYou can get the MAC address of the client by doing this...
select net_address from master..sysprocesses where spid = @.@.spid
You then need to do processing outside of SQL Server in order to relate the
net_address to an IP address.
Tony.
Tony Rogerson
SQL Server MVP
http://sqlserverfaq.com - free video tutorials
<rmanchu@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1137653314.617807.262180@.g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> i've got a ms access mdb connected to a sql server on the internet.
> whats the quickest way to get the ipaddress on the client machine from
> the client machine? since there is a existing connection, shudn't there
> be a simple method call that returns the ipaddress on the connection or
> something?
> the solutions i've seen r very ugly :(
> riyaz
>|||yup i'm already getting the mac address like that. but i can't find any
clean function that relates the mac to the ipaddr. the code on the
mvp.org site returns a collection which i don't think can be related to
the mac
how can this be done?
? possible bug?
!!! i noticed the following when using access2003 over the internet to
sqlserver2000 !!!
when using my laptop with wifi, the net_address returned by
sysprocesses is INCORRECT. it returns my LAN mac_address when it shud
return my wifi mac_address since i'm connected the internet thru wifi.
can anybody duplicate this?
riyaz|||>> yup i'm already getting the mac address like that. but i can't find any
All you have to do is to use the address resolution protocol mapping. On
your command prompt, simply type in ARP -a. It should give you a table of
mapping between all MAC & IP addresses.
It is not that hard to get this information from t-SQL ( script or within a
procedure )using master..xp_cmdshell & get the IP address.
Anith|||hi.
> You can get the MAC address of the client by doing this...
> select net_address from master..sysprocesses where spid = @.@.spid
am already doing this
> You then need to do processing outside of SQL Server in order to relate th
e
> net_address to an IP address.
am working in access2003. could u give me an idea as to how i might go
about doing this?
i have 2 ip-addresses both dynamically allocated. i wud prefer a
general solution
riyaz|||I wrote this here just for you:
CREATE PROCEDURE usp_getboundAddresses
AS
BEGIN
SET NOCOUNT ON
IF OBJECT_ID('tempdb..#SomeTable') IS NULL
CREATE TABLE #SomeTable
(
ShellOutput VARCHAR(500)
)
INSERT INTO #SomeTable
EXEC xp_cmdshell 'nbtstat -a .'
SELECT
SUBSTRING( ShellOutput,
CHARINDEX('[',ShellOutput)+1,
LEN(ShellOutput) - CHARINDEX(']',ShellOutput) -2
) AS BoundAddress
from #SomeTable
WHERE ShellOutput LIKE '%Node IpAddress%' --the important lines
AND ShellOutput NOT LIKE '%0.0.0.0%' --Unassigned addresses
DROP TABLE #SomeTable
END
Returning the network adresses of the server.
HTH, Jens Suessmeyer.
whats the quickest way to get the ipaddress on the client machine from
the client machine? since there is a existing connection, shudn't there
be a simple method call that returns the ipaddress on the connection or
something?
the solutions i've seen r very ugly :(
riyazYou can get the MAC address of the client by doing this...
select net_address from master..sysprocesses where spid = @.@.spid
You then need to do processing outside of SQL Server in order to relate the
net_address to an IP address.
Tony.
Tony Rogerson
SQL Server MVP
http://sqlserverfaq.com - free video tutorials
<rmanchu@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1137653314.617807.262180@.g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> i've got a ms access mdb connected to a sql server on the internet.
> whats the quickest way to get the ipaddress on the client machine from
> the client machine? since there is a existing connection, shudn't there
> be a simple method call that returns the ipaddress on the connection or
> something?
> the solutions i've seen r very ugly :(
> riyaz
>|||yup i'm already getting the mac address like that. but i can't find any
clean function that relates the mac to the ipaddr. the code on the
mvp.org site returns a collection which i don't think can be related to
the mac
how can this be done?
? possible bug?
!!! i noticed the following when using access2003 over the internet to
sqlserver2000 !!!
when using my laptop with wifi, the net_address returned by
sysprocesses is INCORRECT. it returns my LAN mac_address when it shud
return my wifi mac_address since i'm connected the internet thru wifi.
can anybody duplicate this?
riyaz|||>> yup i'm already getting the mac address like that. but i can't find any
All you have to do is to use the address resolution protocol mapping. On
your command prompt, simply type in ARP -a. It should give you a table of
mapping between all MAC & IP addresses.
It is not that hard to get this information from t-SQL ( script or within a
procedure )using master..xp_cmdshell & get the IP address.
Anith|||hi.
> You can get the MAC address of the client by doing this...
> select net_address from master..sysprocesses where spid = @.@.spid
am already doing this
> You then need to do processing outside of SQL Server in order to relate th
e
> net_address to an IP address.
am working in access2003. could u give me an idea as to how i might go
about doing this?
i have 2 ip-addresses both dynamically allocated. i wud prefer a
general solution
riyaz|||I wrote this here just for you:
CREATE PROCEDURE usp_getboundAddresses
AS
BEGIN
SET NOCOUNT ON
IF OBJECT_ID('tempdb..#SomeTable') IS NULL
CREATE TABLE #SomeTable
(
ShellOutput VARCHAR(500)
)
INSERT INTO #SomeTable
EXEC xp_cmdshell 'nbtstat -a .'
SELECT
SUBSTRING( ShellOutput,
CHARINDEX('[',ShellOutput)+1,
LEN(ShellOutput) - CHARINDEX(']',ShellOutput) -2
) AS BoundAddress
from #SomeTable
WHERE ShellOutput LIKE '%Node IpAddress%' --the important lines
AND ShellOutput NOT LIKE '%0.0.0.0%' --Unassigned addresses
DROP TABLE #SomeTable
END
Returning the network adresses of the server.
HTH, Jens Suessmeyer.
Local copy of Remote Database?
Is there are direct and simply way to backup a database hosted on a
remote machine to my local workstation without involving sharing out
the hardware(eg: A:\ or some folder in local hdd) or even creating new
accounts which has the admin rights?If you are taking a backup, the backup path is always related to the
server, so you either can backup on a local drive OR backup the data on
a network share (UNC) where both machines have access to. Another copy
of a local database can be done using the DTS wizrad and copying all
objects and data via SQL Server objects copy.
HTH, Jens Suessmeyer.
http://www.sqlserver2005.de
--|||You can use net use to map a drive and use it for backup.
Regards
Amish Shah
remote machine to my local workstation without involving sharing out
the hardware(eg: A:\ or some folder in local hdd) or even creating new
accounts which has the admin rights?If you are taking a backup, the backup path is always related to the
server, so you either can backup on a local drive OR backup the data on
a network share (UNC) where both machines have access to. Another copy
of a local database can be done using the DTS wizrad and copying all
objects and data via SQL Server objects copy.
HTH, Jens Suessmeyer.
http://www.sqlserver2005.de
--|||You can use net use to map a drive and use it for backup.
Regards
Amish Shah
Local copy of Remote Database?
Is there are direct and simply way to backup a database hosted on a
remote machine to my local workstation without involving sharing out
the hardware(eg: A:\ or some folder in local hdd) or even creating new
accounts which has the admin rights?If you are taking a backup, the backup path is always related to the
server, so you either can backup on a local drive OR backup the data on
a network share (UNC) where both machines have access to. Another copy
of a local database can be done using the DTS wizrad and copying all
objects and data via SQL Server objects copy.
HTH, Jens Suessmeyer.
--
http://www.sqlserver2005.de
--|||You can use net use to map a drive and use it for backup.
Regards
Amish Shah
remote machine to my local workstation without involving sharing out
the hardware(eg: A:\ or some folder in local hdd) or even creating new
accounts which has the admin rights?If you are taking a backup, the backup path is always related to the
server, so you either can backup on a local drive OR backup the data on
a network share (UNC) where both machines have access to. Another copy
of a local database can be done using the DTS wizrad and copying all
objects and data via SQL Server objects copy.
HTH, Jens Suessmeyer.
--
http://www.sqlserver2005.de
--|||You can use net use to map a drive and use it for backup.
Regards
Amish Shah
Local connection failure: please help
I Have SQL Server 2000 local installed on a Windows XP SP2 machine,
Dutch version.
SQL Server first connected fine via the default settings 'Use Windows
Authentication'. I use it to test VB.Net practices, which went fine
for a while. I am busy preparing for the 70-310 exam.
Then I had problems with a VB.Net (a webservice) application
connecting to SQL server local. Via a newsgroup someone advised me to
change the login to 'Use SQL Server Authentication'. I used the
default password 'sa' and no password. I couldn't get any connection.
I tried with 'Administrator', but no connection.
When I tried to set it back to 'Use Windows Authentication' I get the
message Connection Failed, check SQL Server registration properties.
When I tried to open the properties of the local SQL Server (LOCAL)
(Windows NT) via the Enterprise Manager I get error 1069. I tried
several usernames, nothing helps. I didn't change the default, so it
should be 'sa' without a password?
Please help, I am stuck for days now.
RoyWell, the only solution was to re-install SQL Server and restore the
databases...
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 14:16:09 +0200, RC <roycoumans@.hotmail.com> wrote:
>I Have SQL Server 2000 local installed on a Windows XP SP2 machine,
>Dutch version.
>SQL Server first connected fine via the default settings 'Use Windows
>Authentication'. I use it to test VB.Net practices, which went fine
>for a while. I am busy preparing for the 70-310 exam.
>Then I had problems with a VB.Net (a webservice) application
>connecting to SQL server local. Via a newsgroup someone advised me to
>change the login to 'Use SQL Server Authentication'. I used the
>default password 'sa' and no password. I couldn't get any connection.
>I tried with 'Administrator', but no connection.
>When I tried to set it back to 'Use Windows Authentication' I get the
>message Connection Failed, check SQL Server registration properties.
>When I tried to open the properties of the local SQL Server (LOCAL)
>(Windows NT) via the Enterprise Manager I get error 1069. I tried
>several usernames, nothing helps. I didn't change the default, so it
>should be 'sa' without a password?
>Please help, I am stuck for days now.
>Roy
Dutch version.
SQL Server first connected fine via the default settings 'Use Windows
Authentication'. I use it to test VB.Net practices, which went fine
for a while. I am busy preparing for the 70-310 exam.
Then I had problems with a VB.Net (a webservice) application
connecting to SQL server local. Via a newsgroup someone advised me to
change the login to 'Use SQL Server Authentication'. I used the
default password 'sa' and no password. I couldn't get any connection.
I tried with 'Administrator', but no connection.
When I tried to set it back to 'Use Windows Authentication' I get the
message Connection Failed, check SQL Server registration properties.
When I tried to open the properties of the local SQL Server (LOCAL)
(Windows NT) via the Enterprise Manager I get error 1069. I tried
several usernames, nothing helps. I didn't change the default, so it
should be 'sa' without a password?
Please help, I am stuck for days now.
RoyWell, the only solution was to re-install SQL Server and restore the
databases...
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 14:16:09 +0200, RC <roycoumans@.hotmail.com> wrote:
>I Have SQL Server 2000 local installed on a Windows XP SP2 machine,
>Dutch version.
>SQL Server first connected fine via the default settings 'Use Windows
>Authentication'. I use it to test VB.Net practices, which went fine
>for a while. I am busy preparing for the 70-310 exam.
>Then I had problems with a VB.Net (a webservice) application
>connecting to SQL server local. Via a newsgroup someone advised me to
>change the login to 'Use SQL Server Authentication'. I used the
>default password 'sa' and no password. I couldn't get any connection.
>I tried with 'Administrator', but no connection.
>When I tried to set it back to 'Use Windows Authentication' I get the
>message Connection Failed, check SQL Server registration properties.
>When I tried to open the properties of the local SQL Server (LOCAL)
>(Windows NT) via the Enterprise Manager I get error 1069. I tried
>several usernames, nothing helps. I didn't change the default, so it
>should be 'sa' without a password?
>Please help, I am stuck for days now.
>Roy
Local Application Launch
Hi,
Does anyone know if there is a way to launch a local application on a users machine from a report?
We have a bespoke thick client system running which accepts a command line execution i.e. c:\program\programx.exe ref=xyz. I would like to lauch this from a report if possible passing in the ref - has anyone done anything like this before as I presume we may need to add code to do this.
We could use client side script and wshost however IE doesnt like this unless its a trusted site so dont want to go down this route if possible although this may be the answer.
Thanks in advance for your help
Dan.
ok i've found a solution :-
As this is a local intranet scenario I have full access to the clients hence the registry. To make this work I can add the following to the registry on each pc :-
Add to a new key to HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT called 'myprog'
Add an empty string to this key called 'URL Protocol'
Add the sub-keys: \shell\open\command
Set the value of the default string inside the command key to: " c:\my prog\prog.exe %1"
on your report set your link to be
="myprog:" & Fields!fieldvalue
Thanks
Dan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)