Wednesday, March 7, 2012

Local or global variable in an interaction session of the SQL analyzer

Hi,

I am new to SQL. Please bear with me and allow me to ask a dumb
question.

I am debugging a stored procedure (written in Trans-SQL), and I found
that the SQL analyzer that I use doesn't have a debugger. All I can
do it is execute a block of code and see what is going on in an
interaction seesion of the SQL analyzer. I would need to declare some
variable to hold values of the previous query in the interactive
session.

I understand that this can be easily done in a stored procedure via
the Declare command (e.g., Delcare @.order_no int). Is similar
functionality exists in an interaction session of the SQL analyzer?
If so, what is the command. Please advise.

Thank you very much for the help.

AlexAlex Cicco (lluum@.yahoo.com) writes:
> I am debugging a stored procedure (written in Trans-SQL), and I found
> that the SQL analyzer that I use doesn't have a debugger. All I can
> do it is execute a block of code and see what is going on in an
> interaction seesion of the SQL analyzer. I would need to declare some
> variable to hold values of the previous query in the interactive
> session.

I suppose that with SQL Analyzer you refer to Query Analyzer. If you are
using QA, you do indeed have an access to a debugger. Press F8 to get an
Object Browser Window, and then find the procedure. Right-click and at
the bottom of the context menu, voil!

> I understand that this can be easily done in a stored procedure via
> the Declare command (e.g., Delcare @.order_no int). Is similar
> functionality exists in an interaction session of the SQL analyzer?
> If so, what is the command. Please advise.

The same. For instance:

DECLARE @.x datetime
SET @.x = getdate()
SELECT @.x

--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, sommar@.algonet.se

Books Online for SQL Server SP3 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techin.../2000/books.asp

Local named pipes better than TCP/IP?

Is it generally true that local named pipes are better than TCP/IP? Are there
any drawbacks?
Regards, Per.
"PerFry" <PerFry@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:57138C0A-544C-435E-81A5-B2F7455C608B@.microsoft.com...
> Is it generally true that local named pipes are better than TCP/IP?
Not true.

> Are there any drawbacks?
Named pipes have been around for a long, long time. Therefore on a LAN,
named pipes may give slightly better performance. However, TCP/IP is far
more tolerant and resiliant with both LAN and WAN applications.
Occaisionally, you'll find applications (mostly legacy) that will require
named pipes. A good way to handle that configure the server side network
library utility to first use TCP/IP, then named pipes (in that order).
Steve
|||With SQL Server 2000 the default for local connections (connections made on
the server itself) is shared memory. Steve is correct that named pipes is
for the most part a legacy connection method. I would just use the default
of shared memory for local connections and TCP/IP for remote connections.
Rand
This posting is provided "as is" with no warranties and confers no rights.
|||I'd like to stress that we're having the client and server on the same
machine, so I'm referring to _local_ named pipes. Books Online states that
"Local named pipes runs in kernel mode and is extremely fast" (
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...dbc_g_5l9r.asp ).
"Rand Boyd [MSFT]" wrote:

> With SQL Server 2000 the default for local connections (connections made on
> the server itself) is shared memory. Steve is correct that named pipes is
> for the most part a legacy connection method. I would just use the default
> of shared memory for local connections and TCP/IP for remote connections.
> Rand
> This posting is provided "as is" with no warranties and confers no rights.
>
|||IMO -> In general you are not going to see huge differences in performance
using the different network library options such as named pipes, shared
memory or tcp-ip sockets.
The reason for this is the overhead network library performance is usually
insignificant compared to perf of the client application and SQL query
performance.
So you are better off spending time optimizing your SQL queries and your
client code.
Matt
"PerFry" <PerFry@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:161A939F-0102-46C2-80EB-6CC0B55DAD2F@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> I'd like to stress that we're having the client and server on the same
> machine, so I'm referring to _local_ named pipes. Books Online states that
> "Local named pipes runs in kernel mode and is extremely fast" (
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...dbc_g_5l9r.asp )
> .
>
> "Rand Boyd [MSFT]" wrote:
|||It's about what I shall recommend all our customers. I want to recommend them
the best configuration options when they choose to install our application
server and SQL Server on the same machine. So when I have to recommend
something, would it be shared memory?
/Per
"Matt Neerincx [MS]" wrote:

> IMO -> In general you are not going to see huge differences in performance
> using the different network library options such as named pipes, shared
> memory or tcp-ip sockets.
> The reason for this is the overhead network library performance is usually
> insignificant compared to perf of the client application and SQL query
> performance.
> So you are better off spending time optimizing your SQL queries and your
> client code.
> Matt
>
> "PerFry" <PerFry@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:161A939F-0102-46C2-80EB-6CC0B55DAD2F@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||Yes in this case then shared memory for local connections and TCP-IP for
remote is a good recommendation. By default the driver will automatically
pick these methods, i.e. if the driver connects to local SQL it will use
shared memory and if the driver connects to remote SQL it will use TCP-IP.
One thing you can do as well is if you want local ONLY connections in this
case (for example to avoid remote users from trying to connect to the SQL
Server) then you could disable tcp-ip protocol for SQL and only use shared
memory. For example, to follow the standard security procedure of "reducing
the attack surface" to SQL you would do this.
Matt
"PerFry" <PerFry@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A0F3FEED-C578-4558-A8C0-7FF0F7A4636E@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> It's about what I shall recommend all our customers. I want to recommend
> them
> the best configuration options when they choose to install our application
> server and SQL Server on the same machine. So when I have to recommend
> something, would it be shared memory?
> /Per
> "Matt Neerincx [MS]" wrote:

Local named pipes better than TCP/IP?

Is it generally true that local named pipes are better than TCP/IP? Are ther
e
any drawbacks?
Regards, Per."PerFry" <PerFry@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:57138C0A-544C-435E-81A5-B2F7455C608B@.microsoft.com...
> Is it generally true that local named pipes are better than TCP/IP?
Not true.

> Are there any drawbacks?
Named pipes have been around for a long, long time. Therefore on a LAN,
named pipes may give slightly better performance. However, TCP/IP is far
more tolerant and resiliant with both LAN and WAN applications.
Occaisionally, you'll find applications (mostly legacy) that will require
named pipes. A good way to handle that configure the server side network
library utility to first use TCP/IP, then named pipes (in that order).
Steve|||With SQL Server 2000 the default for local connections (connections made on
the server itself) is shared memory. Steve is correct that named pipes is
for the most part a legacy connection method. I would just use the default
of shared memory for local connections and TCP/IP for remote connections.
Rand
This posting is provided "as is" with no warranties and confers no rights.|||I'd like to stress that we're having the client and server on the same
machine, so I'm referring to _local_ named pipes. Books Online states that
"Local named pipes runs in kernel mode and is extremely fast" (
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d...r />
_5l9r.asp ).
"Rand Boyd [MSFT]" wrote:

> With SQL Server 2000 the default for local connections (connections made o
n
> the server itself) is shared memory. Steve is correct that named pipes is
> for the most part a legacy connection method. I would just use the default
> of shared memory for local connections and TCP/IP for remote connections.
> Rand
> This posting is provided "as is" with no warranties and confers no rights.
>|||IMO -> In general you are not going to see huge differences in performance
using the different network library options such as named pipes, shared
memory or tcp-ip sockets.
The reason for this is the overhead network library performance is usually
insignificant compared to perf of the client application and SQL query
performance.
So you are better off spending time optimizing your SQL queries and your
client code.
Matt
"PerFry" <PerFry@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:161A939F-0102-46C2-80EB-6CC0B55DAD2F@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> I'd like to stress that we're having the client and server on the same
> machine, so I'm referring to _local_ named pipes. Books Online states that
> "Local named pipes runs in kernel mode and is extremely fast" (
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d.../>
_g_5l9r.asp )
> .
>
> "Rand Boyd [MSFT]" wrote:
>|||It's about what I shall recommend all our customers. I want to recommend the
m
the best configuration options when they choose to install our application
server and SQL Server on the same machine. So when I have to recommend
something, would it be shared memory?
/Per
"Matt Neerincx [MS]" wrote:

> IMO -> In general you are not going to see huge differences in performance
> using the different network library options such as named pipes, shared
> memory or tcp-ip sockets.
> The reason for this is the overhead network library performance is usually
> insignificant compared to perf of the client application and SQL query
> performance.
> So you are better off spending time optimizing your SQL queries and your
> client code.
> Matt
>
> "PerFry" <PerFry@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:161A939F-0102-46C2-80EB-6CC0B55DAD2F@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||Yes in this case then shared memory for local connections and TCP-IP for
remote is a good recommendation. By default the driver will automatically
pick these methods, i.e. if the driver connects to local SQL it will use
shared memory and if the driver connects to remote SQL it will use TCP-IP.
One thing you can do as well is if you want local ONLY connections in this
case (for example to avoid remote users from trying to connect to the SQL
Server) then you could disable tcp-ip protocol for SQL and only use shared
memory. For example, to follow the standard security procedure of "reducing
the attack surface" to SQL you would do this.
Matt
"PerFry" <PerFry@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A0F3FEED-C578-4558-A8C0-7FF0F7A4636E@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> It's about what I shall recommend all our customers. I want to recommend
> them
> the best configuration options when they choose to install our application
> server and SQL Server on the same machine. So when I have to recommend
> something, would it be shared memory?
> /Per
> "Matt Neerincx [MS]" wrote:
>

Local mode in asp.net web app

Dear all,
Can i use local mode of reporting service in asp.net web application?yes, if you use VS2005 you can create and use RDLC reports based on your own
datasets.
no server required.
abd there is a webcontrol in the toolbox to render the report
"Joe" <Joe@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2EBBBA15-EC80-417E-9755-071685810970@.microsoft.com...
> Dear all,
> Can i use local mode of reporting service in asp.net web application?

Local MDF Files--can I make this work?

Ok, so I'm upgrading a single user vb 6-Access app to a multi-user VS2005-Sq
l
Server app. The client would like to move to SQL Server yet we are not read
y
to do so yet. The problem is that I can not install anything (sql Server or
Sql Express) on these servers for now. Later on we will be able to. For no
w
I must use a local database. I do have access to use a file share.
We do have a copy of SQL Server 2005 to work with it just isn't on the
server. I have created a project and upgraded the database to Sql Server.
I'm wondering is there a way to use a disconnected mdf and access it on the
fileshare? Can I just place the .mdf file on a shared drive and create a
connection to that mdf? Or can it be done some other way?
The reason I am pushing towards this is I want to develop using the
System.data.sqlserver objects instead of the system.data.oledb object now so
I don't need to upgrade the code in the future? I am going to give it a try
but I would love some advise on this topic.
Thanks,Greg,
If you're asking whether you can move the Database then yes. You could
create the Database on your local machine. Then when SQL is installed
on your Server you could detach the DB, move the mdf & ldf files to the
Server and then attach them to the new SQL Installation on the Server.
You would just have to point to the new locations for the mdf & ldf
files.
Was that the question or have I missed the point completely? :-)
Barry|||Barry,
Unforutuanltly that wasn't the question. I do not have SQL Server intalled
on the Server. I want to create the database and just move the .mdf file to
the file share and access it with out having sql server insalled. I'm
guessing I can't do this and I must use an .mdb but I'm hoping...
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms233817.aspx
"Barry" wrote:

> Greg,
> If you're asking whether you can move the Database then yes. You could
> create the Database on your local machine. Then when SQL is installed
> on your Server you could detach the DB, move the mdf & ldf files to the
> Server and then attach them to the new SQL Installation on the Server.
> You would just have to point to the new locations for the mdf & ldf
> files.
> Was that the question or have I missed the point completely? :-)
> Barry
>|||What about installing SQL Express wiht my program and having it attach the
data base? Could I have multiple instances of SQL express attached to one
.mdf file (i'm looking at about 10 users)?
"Greg P" wrote:
> Barry,
> Unforutuanltly that wasn't the question. I do not have SQL Server intalle
d
> on the Server. I want to create the database and just move the .mdf file
to
> the file share and access it with out having sql server insalled. I'm
> guessing I can't do this and I must use an .mdb but I'm hoping...
> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms233817.aspx
>
> "Barry" wrote:
>|||I would not use fileshares for db access - it is not recommended. You can,
however, install sql express on local pc. That will attach to DB and other
clients can network into the instance. With local DB mode, a sql express
instance is created dynamically and locks the db file, so only that instance
can "use" the db.
William Stacey [MVP]
"Greg P" <gsp@.newsgroups.nospam> wrote in message
news:6734747C-FCA3-484E-B4A0-105BC2774272@.microsoft.com...
| What about installing SQL Express wiht my program and having it attach the
| data base? Could I have multiple instances of SQL express attached to one
| .mdf file (i'm looking at about 10 users)?
|
|
|
| "Greg P" wrote:
|
| > Barry,
| >
| > Unforutuanltly that wasn't the question. I do not have SQL Server
intalled
| > on the Server. I want to create the database and just move the .mdf
file to
| > the file share and access it with out having sql server insalled. I'm
| > guessing I can't do this and I must use an .mdb but I'm hoping...
| >
| > http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms233817.aspx
| >
| >
| > "Barry" wrote:
| >
| > > Greg,
| > >
| > > If you're asking whether you can move the Database then yes. You
could
| > > create the Database on your local machine. Then when SQL is installed
| > > on your Server you could detach the DB, move the mdf & ldf files to
the
| > > Server and then attach them to the new SQL Installation on the Server.
| > > You would just have to point to the new locations for the mdf & ldf
| > > files.
| > >
| > > Was that the question or have I missed the point completely? :-)
| > >
| > > Barry
| > >
| > >|||you don't need multiple instance. 10 users can access the same database mdf
file on one instance of SQL Exp.
and if each user needs his own version, then
let them copy the mdf file to their machine, install their own sql express
and attach the db.
-Omnibuzz
--
Please post ddls and sample data for your queries and close the thread if
you got the answer for your question.
"Greg P" wrote:
> What about installing SQL Express wiht my program and having it attach the
> data base? Could I have multiple instances of SQL express attached to one
> .mdf file (i'm looking at about 10 users)?
>
> "Greg P" wrote:
>|||I think this answers my question, but I want to repeat what I'm understandin
g
to make sure, there are 3 points below.
1) If I were to install sql express on every client machine and attach the
database after install only one user could be attached to the database at on
e
time.
2) The only way to have multiple people use the program would be to copy the
database to the local computer, which would mean that updates would have to
be handled and the program wouldn't be real time. There would need to be a
good amount of code added that would be useless once SQL Server is up and
running.
3) I can have an access database that can be on the network and have
multiple users. This will lock certain tables but not the whole instance.
I think thats it. I need to develop using the system.data.oledb for now and
later on I can upgrade the code to the sql server objects if there a demand
for the better objects. The only thing I could throw into this scenario to
make it more complicated was I thought maybe I could create a XML object fro
m
the database and use that as my datasource? I still wouldn't be using the
sql server objects though I thought it was an intersting idea.
Let me know if this all seems right to yall.
Thanks again,
"William Stacey [MVP]" wrote:

> I would not use fileshares for db access - it is not recommended. You can
,
> however, install sql express on local pc. That will attach to DB and othe
r
> clients can network into the instance. With local DB mode, a sql express
> instance is created dynamically and locks the db file, so only that instan
ce
> can "use" the db.
> --
> William Stacey [MVP]
> "Greg P" <gsp@.newsgroups.nospam> wrote in message
> news:6734747C-FCA3-484E-B4A0-105BC2774272@.microsoft.com...
> | What about installing SQL Express wiht my program and having it attach t
he
> | data base? Could I have multiple instances of SQL express attached to o
ne
> | .mdf file (i'm looking at about 10 users)?
> |
> |
> |
> | "Greg P" wrote:
> |
> | > Barry,
> | >
> | > Unforutuanltly that wasn't the question. I do not have SQL Server
> intalled
> | > on the Server. I want to create the database and just move the .mdf
> file to
> | > the file share and access it with out having sql server insalled. I'm
> | > guessing I can't do this and I must use an .mdb but I'm hoping...
> | >
> | > http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms233817.aspx
> | >
> | >
> | > "Barry" wrote:
> | >
> | > > Greg,
> | > >
> | > > If you're asking whether you can move the Database then yes. You
> could
> | > > create the Database on your local machine. Then when SQL is installe
d
> | > > on your Server you could detach the DB, move the mdf & ldf files to
> the
> | > > Server and then attach them to the new SQL Installation on the Serve
r.
> | > > You would just have to point to the new locations for the mdf & ldf
> | > > files.
> | > >
> | > > Was that the question or have I missed the point completely? :-)
> | > >
> | > > Barry
> | > >
> | > >
>
>|||You can have multiple users on SQL Express, all on the same database. If I
understand correctly you are limited to 10 users.
If you install SQL Server (or SQL Express) on one machine on the network
(server or PC) and have all users access the database on that machine, then
they will all be using the same data at the same time. I think this is what
you want?
If you install a database on every PC and have users access it locally, then
they will each have their own database and will not affect each other. I
don't think this is what you are looking for.
"Greg P" <gsp@.newsgroups.nospam> wrote in message
news:29BA7A55-C4B5-4DEF-B75E-84681E5028F7@.microsoft.com...
> I think this answers my question, but I want to repeat what I'm
understanding
> to make sure, there are 3 points below.
> 1) If I were to install sql express on every client machine and attach the
> database after install only one user could be attached to the database at
one
> time.
> 2) The only way to have multiple people use the program would be to copy
the
> database to the local computer, which would mean that updates would have
to
> be handled and the program wouldn't be real time. There would need to be
a
> good amount of code added that would be useless once SQL Server is up and
> running.
> 3) I can have an access database that can be on the network and have
> multiple users. This will lock certain tables but not the whole instance.
> I think thats it. I need to develop using the system.data.oledb for now
and
> later on I can upgrade the code to the sql server objects if there a
demand
> for the better objects. The only thing I could throw into this scenario
to
> make it more complicated was I thought maybe I could create a XML object
from
> the database and use that as my datasource? I still wouldn't be using the
> sql server objects though I thought it was an intersting idea.
> Let me know if this all seems right to yall.
> Thanks again,
> "William Stacey [MVP]" wrote:
>
can,
other
express
instance
the
one
I'm
installed
to
Server.
ldf|||I can't install sql server or sql express on the computer that has the file
share on it. I do not have permisions now. I will in the future, but I am
developing now. All i have to work with is a file share.
I can use access by placing it on the file share and have multiple users
access it as long as they have the access runtime on their computer, is ther
e
anyway to use sql express to do this same sort of configuration? Or is ther
e
another configuration using an mdf with outh having the software installed
that can support multiple users?
From what I understand the answer is no... but I thought it was a good
question to confirm on.
Thanx,
"Omnibuzz" wrote:
> you don't need multiple instance. 10 users can access the same database md
f
> file on one instance of SQL Exp.
> and if each user needs his own version, then
> let them copy the mdf file to their machine, install their own sql express
> and attach the db.
>
> -Omnibuzz
> --
> Please post ddls and sample data for your queries and close the thread if
> you got the answer for your question.
>
> "Greg P" wrote:
>|||In short no. You can't use the SQL data files directly as you are
trying to do.

Local Management Studio cannot connect to Remote IS

I am not able to connect my local SQL Server Management Studio to a remote server hosting our Integration Services. I get the infamous "Access Denied". I have walked through Kirk Haselden's howto at:

http://www.sqljunkies.com/WebLog/knight_reign/archive/2006/01/05/17769.aspx

but the problem persists.

Thanks for any help.

Keehan

Well, with the help of MS support this has been figured out. The above web link is very nearly complete. The only part that I was missing that was crucial was to go to Component Services on the local machine, right click on My Computer and go to the Default Properties tab. Make sure that "Enable Distributed COM on this computer" is checked. Once I did this I was able to connect right away. So, the moral of the story, check your local DCOM settings as well as those on the server.

Now, one thing to remember, you can connect using Management Studio, but if you try to execute packages they will fail. To run packages you need to also install SSIS from say the Developers Edition on your local machine. Once these 2 things were fixed, I can connect with Management Studio and execute packages via Management Studio.

With both of these changes I am also able now to kickoff jobs via the local dtexec commandline tool.

Cheers,

Keehan

|||

I have the same problem. And, I reviewed/setting based on those documents. I still got the "Access Denied".

However, if the local user have local admin on remote SSIS server, then user will be able connect to the server.

Any input will be helpful.

James Cheng

|||

I overcome this problem by adding local user to "Distributed DCOM Users' group on SSIS server.

Thanks.

|||

Keehan,

As suggested, I have added myself and others in my group to the Distributed COM group on our web server. I still get the error below. The link below appears bad.I am trying to connect using Windows Authentication, as is is the only method available in the Connect dialog. For the Engine, either Windows or SQL Server Authentication works just fine.


TITLE: Connect to Server

Cannot connect to ded1368dter.maximumasp.com.


ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

Failed to retrieve data for this request. (Microsoft.SqlServer.SmoEnum)

For help, click: http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink?ProdName=Microsoft+SQL+Server&LinkId=20476

Connect to SSIS Service on machine "ded1368dter.maximumasp.com" failed:
The RPC server is unavailable.
.

Connect to SSIS Service on machine "ded1368dter.maximumasp.com" failed:
The RPC server is unavailable.
.


BUTTONS:

OK


|||

I have the same problem. What's different about our setups that we have to jump through all these hoops ? Did everyone else in the world know to add themselves to the DCOM group ? (which didn't seem to help me anyway). What account do people use on the server for the SQL services ? LocalSystem, or a special windows account ?

When I go into Surface Area Configuration, I notice that "Database Engine" and "Analysis Services" have a sub-tab for "Service" and "Remote Connections". However, "Integration Services" only has a sub-tab for Service, not Remote Connections. Is that OK ?

|||FYI Same problems... tried all the setups including manually adding the group... still "access denied" except for people that are admin on the server.|||I believe that the problem was caused by a bad file of some sort on the CD. We were using the MSDN license CDs and everything else seemed to work. Another guy in the dept had his own MSDN CD he got at a trade show, and his worked fine. When his was installed on the other developers machines, they worked fine as well ........ So maybe others have similar bad CDs ?

Friday, February 24, 2012

Local Management Studio cannot connect to Remote IS

I am not able to connect my local SQL Server Management Studio to a remote server hosting our Integration Services. I get the infamous "Access Denied". I have walked through Kirk Haselden's howto at:

http://www.sqljunkies.com/WebLog/knight_reign/archive/2006/01/05/17769.aspx

but the problem persists.

Thanks for any help.

Keehan

Well, with the help of MS support this has been figured out. The above web link is very nearly complete. The only part that I was missing that was crucial was to go to Component Services on the local machine, right click on My Computer and go to the Default Properties tab. Make sure that "Enable Distributed COM on this computer" is checked. Once I did this I was able to connect right away. So, the moral of the story, check your local DCOM settings as well as those on the server.

Now, one thing to remember, you can connect using Management Studio, but if you try to execute packages they will fail. To run packages you need to also install SSIS from say the Developers Edition on your local machine. Once these 2 things were fixed, I can connect with Management Studio and execute packages via Management Studio.

With both of these changes I am also able now to kickoff jobs via the local dtexec commandline tool.

Cheers,

Keehan

|||

I have the same problem. And, I reviewed/setting based on those documents. I still got the "Access Denied".

However, if the local user have local admin on remote SSIS server, then user will be able connect to the server.

Any input will be helpful.

James Cheng

|||

I overcome this problem by adding local user to "Distributed DCOM Users' group on SSIS server.

Thanks.

|||

Keehan,

As suggested, I have added myself and others in my group to the Distributed COM group on our web server. I still get the error below. The link below appears bad.I am trying to connect using Windows Authentication, as is is the only method available in the Connect dialog. For the Engine, either Windows or SQL Server Authentication works just fine.


TITLE: Connect to Server

Cannot connect to ded1368dter.maximumasp.com.


ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

Failed to retrieve data for this request. (Microsoft.SqlServer.SmoEnum)

For help, click: http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink?ProdName=Microsoft+SQL+Server&LinkId=20476

Connect to SSIS Service on machine "ded1368dter.maximumasp.com" failed:
The RPC server is unavailable.
.

Connect to SSIS Service on machine "ded1368dter.maximumasp.com" failed:
The RPC server is unavailable.
.


BUTTONS:

OK


|||

I have the same problem. What's different about our setups that we have to jump through all these hoops ? Did everyone else in the world know to add themselves to the DCOM group ? (which didn't seem to help me anyway). What account do people use on the server for the SQL services ? LocalSystem, or a special windows account ?

When I go into Surface Area Configuration, I notice that "Database Engine" and "Analysis Services" have a sub-tab for "Service" and "Remote Connections". However, "Integration Services" only has a sub-tab for Service, not Remote Connections. Is that OK ?

|||FYI Same problems... tried all the setups including manually adding the group... still "access denied" except for people that are admin on the server.|||I believe that the problem was caused by a bad file of some sort on the CD. We were using the MSDN license CDs and everything else seemed to work. Another guy in the dept had his own MSDN CD he got at a trade show, and his worked fine. When his was installed on the other developers machines, they worked fine as well ........ So maybe others have similar bad CDs ?