Adding a second processor

Hello,
We use a client/server application from our vendor running on SQL 2000,
which runs on a Windows 2003 Server in an ADS domain. The server is
currently only running a single Xeon processor and it has the capability for
having 2 processors. Our vendor claims that their application is not "coded
"
to run on a dual-processor machine (a bunch of bull?), but their application
only runs on the client end, not on the server.
The way I see it, it is Windows and SQL that have to be able to handle the
processor, which we all know they can certainly do. Does anyone think that
by adding a second processor, we would be doing any damage to our data and o
r
the application?
The application is Time Matters Enterprise 5.0 (sr2), by LexisNexis and it
is a case management system for a law firm. This is our mission-critical
application.
Thanks, JeffOutside of the fact that your vendor doesn't support it, I really see no
reason why you would want to limit yourself to just one processor. In most
cases, SQL Server would run faster with more CPU's. This is because your
workload is distributed across all of the CPU's. Thus, if you have 100
concurrent queries, 50 would run on one and 50 would run on the other -
ignoring parallelism. However, in most cases parallelism would improve an
individual query's performance, since both CPU's would be used to service
the query. In some cases, parallelism makes specific queries run slower,
but you can turn parallelism off on a per-query basis (or even at the server
level, if you prefer).
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
.
"Jeff" <Jeff@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:56410EBD-043F-4AC4-870B-652141840545@.microsoft.com...
Hello,
We use a client/server application from our vendor running on SQL 2000,
which runs on a Windows 2003 Server in an ADS domain. The server is
currently only running a single Xeon processor and it has the capability for
having 2 processors. Our vendor claims that their application is not
"coded"
to run on a dual-processor machine (a bunch of bull?), but their application
only runs on the client end, not on the server.
The way I see it, it is Windows and SQL that have to be able to handle the
processor, which we all know they can certainly do. Does anyone think that
by adding a second processor, we would be doing any damage to our data and
or
the application?
The application is Time Matters Enterprise 5.0 (sr2), by LexisNexis and it
is a case management system for a law firm. This is our mission-critical
application.
Thanks, Jeff|||I do realize the benefits of a second processor in SQL and that's just it, w
e
don't want to limit ourselves to a single processor. We purchased a new
server recently and only purchased one processor because of what our vendor
told us. It didn't make any sense to me then and it doesn't now. The mobo
on that server is setup for dual-processors. Since the application runs on
the client, I didn't understand why they would tell us that.
More importantly, we no longer have a service contract with that vendor so
they are not going to support us either way unless we get another contract.
My thought is that the worst that can happen is that we have to restore the
database off of a backup and pull the second processor out.
--
Thanks, Jeff
"Tom Moreau" wrote:

> Outside of the fact that your vendor doesn't support it, I really see no
> reason why you would want to limit yourself to just one processor. In mos
t
> cases, SQL Server would run faster with more CPU's. This is because your
> workload is distributed across all of the CPU's. Thus, if you have 100
> concurrent queries, 50 would run on one and 50 would run on the other -
> ignoring parallelism. However, in most cases parallelism would improve an
> individual query's performance, since both CPU's would be used to service
> the query. In some cases, parallelism makes specific queries run slower,
> but you can turn parallelism off on a per-query basis (or even at the serv
er
> level, if you prefer).
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> ..
> "Jeff" <Jeff@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:56410EBD-043F-4AC4-870B-652141840545@.microsoft.com...
> Hello,
> We use a client/server application from our vendor running on SQL 2000,
> which runs on a Windows 2003 Server in an ADS domain. The server is
> currently only running a single Xeon processor and it has the capability f
or
> having 2 processors. Our vendor claims that their application is not
> "coded"
> to run on a dual-processor machine (a bunch of bull?), but their applicati
on
> only runs on the client end, not on the server.
> The way I see it, it is Windows and SQL that have to be able to handle the
> processor, which we all know they can certainly do. Does anyone think tha
t
> by adding a second processor, we would be doing any damage to our data and
> or
> the application?
> The application is Time Matters Enterprise 5.0 (sr2), by LexisNexis and it
> is a case management system for a law firm. This is our mission-critical
> application.
> --
> Thanks, Jeff
>|||The only real issue I see is that of licensing. If you go with a per-CPU
license, you will have to spend some change to do the upgrade. Other than
that, you're fine.
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
"Jeff" <Jeff@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:7CA5419B-884D-4D51-8B1C-3DEE16B291F1@.microsoft.com...
I do realize the benefits of a second processor in SQL and that's just it,
we
don't want to limit ourselves to a single processor. We purchased a new
server recently and only purchased one processor because of what our vendor
told us. It didn't make any sense to me then and it doesn't now. The mobo
on that server is setup for dual-processors. Since the application runs on
the client, I didn't understand why they would tell us that.
More importantly, we no longer have a service contract with that vendor so
they are not going to support us either way unless we get another contract.
My thought is that the worst that can happen is that we have to restore the
database off of a backup and pull the second processor out.
--
Thanks, Jeff
"Tom Moreau" wrote:

> Outside of the fact that your vendor doesn't support it, I really see no
> reason why you would want to limit yourself to just one processor. In
> most
> cases, SQL Server would run faster with more CPU's. This is because your
> workload is distributed across all of the CPU's. Thus, if you have 100
> concurrent queries, 50 would run on one and 50 would run on the other -
> ignoring parallelism. However, in most cases parallelism would improve an
> individual query's performance, since both CPU's would be used to service
> the query. In some cases, parallelism makes specific queries run slower,
> but you can turn parallelism off on a per-query basis (or even at the
> server
> level, if you prefer).
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> ..
> "Jeff" <Jeff@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:56410EBD-043F-4AC4-870B-652141840545@.microsoft.com...
> Hello,
> We use a client/server application from our vendor running on SQL 2000,
> which runs on a Windows 2003 Server in an ADS domain. The server is
> currently only running a single Xeon processor and it has the capability
> for
> having 2 processors. Our vendor claims that their application is not
> "coded"
> to run on a dual-processor machine (a bunch of bull?), but their
> application
> only runs on the client end, not on the server.
> The way I see it, it is Windows and SQL that have to be able to handle the
> processor, which we all know they can certainly do. Does anyone think
> that
> by adding a second processor, we would be doing any damage to our data and
> or
> the application?
> The application is Time Matters Enterprise 5.0 (sr2), by LexisNexis and it
> is a case management system for a law firm. This is our mission-critical
> application.
> --
> Thanks, Jeff
>|||"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:uzy8rPbeGHA.5016@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> The only real issue I see is that of licensing. If you go with a per-CPU
> license, you will have to spend some change to do the upgrade. Other than
> that, you're fine.
I'll second this.
And second the opinion that the original vendor is full of it. :-)

> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> "Jeff" <Jeff@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:7CA5419B-884D-4D51-8B1C-3DEE16B291F1@.microsoft.com...
> I do realize the benefits of a second processor in SQL and that's just it,
> we
> don't want to limit ourselves to a single processor. We purchased a new
> server recently and only purchased one processor because of what our
vendor
> told us. It didn't make any sense to me then and it doesn't now. The
mobo
> on that server is setup for dual-processors. Since the application runs
on
> the client, I didn't understand why they would tell us that.
> More importantly, we no longer have a service contract with that vendor so
> they are not going to support us either way unless we get another
contract.
> My thought is that the worst that can happen is that we have to restore
the
> database off of a backup and pull the second processor out.
> --
> Thanks, Jeff
>
> "Tom Moreau" wrote:
>
your[vbcol=seagreen]
an[vbcol=seagreen]
service[vbcol=seagreen]
slower,[vbcol=seagreen]
the[vbcol=seagreen]
and[vbcol=seagreen]
it[vbcol=seagreen]
mission-critical[vbcol=seagreen]
>sql

Adding a second processor

Hello,
We use a client/server application from our vendor running on SQL 2000,
which runs on a Windows 2003 Server in an ADS domain. The server is
currently only running a single Xeon processor and it has the capability for
having 2 processors. Our vendor claims that their application is not "coded"
to run on a dual-processor machine (a bunch of bull?), but their application
only runs on the client end, not on the server.
The way I see it, it is Windows and SQL that have to be able to handle the
processor, which we all know they can certainly do. Does anyone think that
by adding a second processor, we would be doing any damage to our data and or
the application?
The application is Time Matters Enterprise 5.0 (sr2), by LexisNexis and it
is a case management system for a law firm. This is our mission-critical
application.
--
Thanks, JeffOutside of the fact that your vendor doesn't support it, I really see no
reason why you would want to limit yourself to just one processor. In most
cases, SQL Server would run faster with more CPU's. This is because your
workload is distributed across all of the CPU's. Thus, if you have 100
concurrent queries, 50 would run on one and 50 would run on the other -
ignoring parallelism. However, in most cases parallelism would improve an
individual query's performance, since both CPU's would be used to service
the query. In some cases, parallelism makes specific queries run slower,
but you can turn parallelism off on a per-query basis (or even at the server
level, if you prefer).
--
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
.
"Jeff" <Jeff@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:56410EBD-043F-4AC4-870B-652141840545@.microsoft.com...
Hello,
We use a client/server application from our vendor running on SQL 2000,
which runs on a Windows 2003 Server in an ADS domain. The server is
currently only running a single Xeon processor and it has the capability for
having 2 processors. Our vendor claims that their application is not
"coded"
to run on a dual-processor machine (a bunch of bull?), but their application
only runs on the client end, not on the server.
The way I see it, it is Windows and SQL that have to be able to handle the
processor, which we all know they can certainly do. Does anyone think that
by adding a second processor, we would be doing any damage to our data and
or
the application?
The application is Time Matters Enterprise 5.0 (sr2), by LexisNexis and it
is a case management system for a law firm. This is our mission-critical
application.
--
Thanks, Jeff|||I do realize the benefits of a second processor in SQL and that's just it, we
don't want to limit ourselves to a single processor. We purchased a new
server recently and only purchased one processor because of what our vendor
told us. It didn't make any sense to me then and it doesn't now. The mobo
on that server is setup for dual-processors. Since the application runs on
the client, I didn't understand why they would tell us that.
More importantly, we no longer have a service contract with that vendor so
they are not going to support us either way unless we get another contract.
My thought is that the worst that can happen is that we have to restore the
database off of a backup and pull the second processor out.
--
Thanks, Jeff
"Tom Moreau" wrote:
> Outside of the fact that your vendor doesn't support it, I really see no
> reason why you would want to limit yourself to just one processor. In most
> cases, SQL Server would run faster with more CPU's. This is because your
> workload is distributed across all of the CPU's. Thus, if you have 100
> concurrent queries, 50 would run on one and 50 would run on the other -
> ignoring parallelism. However, in most cases parallelism would improve an
> individual query's performance, since both CPU's would be used to service
> the query. In some cases, parallelism makes specific queries run slower,
> but you can turn parallelism off on a per-query basis (or even at the server
> level, if you prefer).
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> ..
> "Jeff" <Jeff@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:56410EBD-043F-4AC4-870B-652141840545@.microsoft.com...
> Hello,
> We use a client/server application from our vendor running on SQL 2000,
> which runs on a Windows 2003 Server in an ADS domain. The server is
> currently only running a single Xeon processor and it has the capability for
> having 2 processors. Our vendor claims that their application is not
> "coded"
> to run on a dual-processor machine (a bunch of bull?), but their application
> only runs on the client end, not on the server.
> The way I see it, it is Windows and SQL that have to be able to handle the
> processor, which we all know they can certainly do. Does anyone think that
> by adding a second processor, we would be doing any damage to our data and
> or
> the application?
> The application is Time Matters Enterprise 5.0 (sr2), by LexisNexis and it
> is a case management system for a law firm. This is our mission-critical
> application.
> --
> Thanks, Jeff
>|||The only real issue I see is that of licensing. If you go with a per-CPU
license, you will have to spend some change to do the upgrade. Other than
that, you're fine.
--
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
"Jeff" <Jeff@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:7CA5419B-884D-4D51-8B1C-3DEE16B291F1@.microsoft.com...
I do realize the benefits of a second processor in SQL and that's just it,
we
don't want to limit ourselves to a single processor. We purchased a new
server recently and only purchased one processor because of what our vendor
told us. It didn't make any sense to me then and it doesn't now. The mobo
on that server is setup for dual-processors. Since the application runs on
the client, I didn't understand why they would tell us that.
More importantly, we no longer have a service contract with that vendor so
they are not going to support us either way unless we get another contract.
My thought is that the worst that can happen is that we have to restore the
database off of a backup and pull the second processor out.
--
Thanks, Jeff
"Tom Moreau" wrote:
> Outside of the fact that your vendor doesn't support it, I really see no
> reason why you would want to limit yourself to just one processor. In
> most
> cases, SQL Server would run faster with more CPU's. This is because your
> workload is distributed across all of the CPU's. Thus, if you have 100
> concurrent queries, 50 would run on one and 50 would run on the other -
> ignoring parallelism. However, in most cases parallelism would improve an
> individual query's performance, since both CPU's would be used to service
> the query. In some cases, parallelism makes specific queries run slower,
> but you can turn parallelism off on a per-query basis (or even at the
> server
> level, if you prefer).
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> ..
> "Jeff" <Jeff@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:56410EBD-043F-4AC4-870B-652141840545@.microsoft.com...
> Hello,
> We use a client/server application from our vendor running on SQL 2000,
> which runs on a Windows 2003 Server in an ADS domain. The server is
> currently only running a single Xeon processor and it has the capability
> for
> having 2 processors. Our vendor claims that their application is not
> "coded"
> to run on a dual-processor machine (a bunch of bull?), but their
> application
> only runs on the client end, not on the server.
> The way I see it, it is Windows and SQL that have to be able to handle the
> processor, which we all know they can certainly do. Does anyone think
> that
> by adding a second processor, we would be doing any damage to our data and
> or
> the application?
> The application is Time Matters Enterprise 5.0 (sr2), by LexisNexis and it
> is a case management system for a law firm. This is our mission-critical
> application.
> --
> Thanks, Jeff
>|||"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:uzy8rPbeGHA.5016@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> The only real issue I see is that of licensing. If you go with a per-CPU
> license, you will have to spend some change to do the upgrade. Other than
> that, you're fine.
I'll second this.
And second the opinion that the original vendor is full of it. :-)
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> "Jeff" <Jeff@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:7CA5419B-884D-4D51-8B1C-3DEE16B291F1@.microsoft.com...
> I do realize the benefits of a second processor in SQL and that's just it,
> we
> don't want to limit ourselves to a single processor. We purchased a new
> server recently and only purchased one processor because of what our
vendor
> told us. It didn't make any sense to me then and it doesn't now. The
mobo
> on that server is setup for dual-processors. Since the application runs
on
> the client, I didn't understand why they would tell us that.
> More importantly, we no longer have a service contract with that vendor so
> they are not going to support us either way unless we get another
contract.
> My thought is that the worst that can happen is that we have to restore
the
> database off of a backup and pull the second processor out.
> --
> Thanks, Jeff
>
> "Tom Moreau" wrote:
> > Outside of the fact that your vendor doesn't support it, I really see no
> > reason why you would want to limit yourself to just one processor. In
> > most
> > cases, SQL Server would run faster with more CPU's. This is because
your
> > workload is distributed across all of the CPU's. Thus, if you have 100
> > concurrent queries, 50 would run on one and 50 would run on the other -
> > ignoring parallelism. However, in most cases parallelism would improve
an
> > individual query's performance, since both CPU's would be used to
service
> > the query. In some cases, parallelism makes specific queries run
slower,
> > but you can turn parallelism off on a per-query basis (or even at the
> > server
> > level, if you prefer).
> >
> > --
> > Tom
> >
> > ----
> > Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> > SQL Server MVP
> > Toronto, ON Canada
> > ..
> > "Jeff" <Jeff@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:56410EBD-043F-4AC4-870B-652141840545@.microsoft.com...
> > Hello,
> >
> > We use a client/server application from our vendor running on SQL 2000,
> > which runs on a Windows 2003 Server in an ADS domain. The server is
> > currently only running a single Xeon processor and it has the capability
> > for
> > having 2 processors. Our vendor claims that their application is not
> > "coded"
> > to run on a dual-processor machine (a bunch of bull?), but their
> > application
> > only runs on the client end, not on the server.
> >
> > The way I see it, it is Windows and SQL that have to be able to handle
the
> > processor, which we all know they can certainly do. Does anyone think
> > that
> > by adding a second processor, we would be doing any damage to our data
and
> > or
> > the application?
> >
> > The application is Time Matters Enterprise 5.0 (sr2), by LexisNexis and
it
> > is a case management system for a law firm. This is our
mission-critical
> > application.
> >
> > --
> > Thanks, Jeff
> >
> >
>

Adding a new column is DBNULL

Hello,

VS 2005

I am developing the database application. This is a live database and is being used by the customer. I am to release a new version and I had to add new columns to fit the requirements DateStarted (DateTime), and TotalHours(Int) into a database table.There are already over a 1000 rows in this table.

When the customer wants to look at a record in this table and insert the value into the text boxes (Front-end), when it gets to the DateStarted or TotalHours it comes up with a error message:"

The value for column 'DateStarted' in table 'IncidentTask' is DBNull."The method for inserting is:

Code Snippet

Me.dtDateStarted.Value = Me.DsIncidentsControl.IncidentTask(0).DateStarted

What are the possible solutions to this problem? Would it mean checking for a DBNULL before displaying in the textboxes? Or updating the new column rows with an date:

Code Snippet

UPDATE IncidentTask SET DateStarted = '1/1/2005' WHERE (DateStarted IS NULL)

Many thanks for any suggestions,

Steve

You can either have the application check for null values and display an empty string when dbnull,

OR,

UPDATE the table and put a 'dummy' date in all null rows.

Adding a Firewall Appliance - Does it give me security?

I'm have an existing server (2003 Standard) hosting several sites, with all
the bells and whistles. I have a new application I want to add which
requires the addition of a firewall appliance ( I'm looking at cisco 506 but
that shouldn't matter) I need this both for the VPN Tunnels & for security
issues.
I have approx 24 IPs running on this machine, with about 20 of them used for
different sites. I don't think I can assign this many IPs to a DMZ ( Can
I?). So, I'm trying to come up with some other solution.
What I'm thinking of doing is just adding a new ethernet connection (
actually just using the spare I have ) connected to the firewall, giving the
firewall one of the un-used IP address. Thus, I will have two subnets, my
existing IP allotment ( minus the 1 ), and the 192.168.xxx.xxx that I get
from the Firewall. I plan to have SQL Server 2005 instances running on the
IP addresses in the 192.168.xxx.xxx block.
I know this way is essentially stupid, but my client won't spring for a new
server, so I'm trying to make something work. This will give me my VPN
tunnels, so that is half the problem. My question is, does this provide me
any additional security at all? Is there any way to have the server
partitioned so that some of it is highly secure while some of it remains
essentially a DMZ?The real question would be why would installing a new application require a
chang in the LAN Topology involving a firewall device? That make no
sense,...Applications are supposed to be ablivous to the underlying
Topology.
Yes, introducing a firewall changes the LAN Topology unless it is replacing
an already existing device.
Phillip Windell [MCP, MVP, CCNA]
www.wandtv.com
"Phil" <prounds@.cassandragroup.com> wrote in message
news:u%23aLPichGHA.4388@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> I'm have an existing server (2003 Standard) hosting several sites, with
all
> the bells and whistles. I have a new application I want to add which
> requires the addition of a firewall appliance ( I'm looking at cisco 506
but
> that shouldn't matter) I need this both for the VPN Tunnels & for
security
> issues.
> I have approx 24 IPs running on this machine, with about 20 of them used
for
> different sites. I don't think I can assign this many IPs to a DMZ ( Can
> I?). So, I'm trying to come up with some other solution.
> What I'm thinking of doing is just adding a new ethernet connection (
> actually just using the spare I have ) connected to the firewall, giving
the
> firewall one of the un-used IP address. Thus, I will have two subnets,
my
> existing IP allotment ( minus the 1 ), and the 192.168.xxx.xxx that I get
> from the Firewall. I plan to have SQL Server 2005 instances running on
the
> IP addresses in the 192.168.xxx.xxx block.
> I know this way is essentially stupid, but my client won't spring for a
new
> server, so I'm trying to make something work. This will give me my VPN
> tunnels, so that is half the problem. My question is, does this provide
me
> any additional security at all? Is there any way to have the server
> partitioned so that some of it is highly secure while some of it remains
> essentially a DMZ?
>
>|||The real question would be why would installing a new application require a
chang in the LAN Topology involving a firewall device? That make no
sense,...Applications are supposed to be ablivous to the underlying
Topology.
Yes, introducing a firewall changes the LAN Topology unless it is replacing
an already existing device.
Phillip Windell [MCP, MVP, CCNA]
www.wandtv.com
"Phil" <prounds@.cassandragroup.com> wrote in message
news:u%23aLPichGHA.4388@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> I'm have an existing server (2003 Standard) hosting several sites, with
all
> the bells and whistles. I have a new application I want to add which
> requires the addition of a firewall appliance ( I'm looking at cisco 506
but
> that shouldn't matter) I need this both for the VPN Tunnels & for
security
> issues.
> I have approx 24 IPs running on this machine, with about 20 of them used
for
> different sites. I don't think I can assign this many IPs to a DMZ ( Can
> I?). So, I'm trying to come up with some other solution.
> What I'm thinking of doing is just adding a new ethernet connection (
> actually just using the spare I have ) connected to the firewall, giving
the
> firewall one of the un-used IP address. Thus, I will have two subnets,
my
> existing IP allotment ( minus the 1 ), and the 192.168.xxx.xxx that I get
> from the Firewall. I plan to have SQL Server 2005 instances running on
the
> IP addresses in the 192.168.xxx.xxx block.
> I know this way is essentially stupid, but my client won't spring for a
new
> server, so I'm trying to make something work. This will give me my VPN
> tunnels, so that is half the problem. My question is, does this provide
me
> any additional security at all? Is there any way to have the server
> partitioned so that some of it is highly secure while some of it remains
> essentially a DMZ?
>
>sql

Add SQL Compact to CE 6.0

I'm trying to add an SQL Compact Edition database to my application running on a CE 6.0 platform that I am also developing. Unlike PB 5.0, I don't see sql CE listed as an option in the catalog and when I try to run my application I get a pInvoke sqlceme30.dll error. I have found a number of references to this same issue elsewhere but no real good solutions. Most seem to point to the cab files not being deployed. I am thinking that I should have the necessary support files deployed in the CE image and I have downloaded and installed every sql CE version/update that I can find but none of them seem to add support to PB 6.0.

I am trying to add the cab files manually but I would appreciate any suggestions if there is a better solution............ Thanks
OK, I got it working with SQL CE 3.5 by manually adding the cabs to the PB catalog........... now I need to figure out how to installe the cabs automatically.

Add sdf file to my project when my sources are on remote server

I have an application that runs on a PDA and manage a database (.sdf) file I use C# with visual studio 5.0.

What I want to do is to add the database file (.sdf) to my project files and open a connection to it.

The problem is that all my source file are stored on remote machine and not locally on my machine and the .sdf file is also stored with the project source files.

When I try to add the file to the project I get the following error fro the data source configuration wizard :

"An error occured while retrieving the information from the database"

DRIVE_REMOTE

Parameter Name : N:\

I get the same error also when I try to open a new connection to the file from the server explorer. When i copy the file to drive "C" I can open a connection to it with no errors.

---

Software engineer

Hello,

Remotely opening an sdf file (SSC database) is not supported. From desktop to device (DB on a device) access is possible, but, I don't think the other way is.

Thanks

Udaya.

add reference reporting service to asp.net application

Hi friends,
I am developing the program reporting services using asp.net.
And I just need to add the reference of reporting services for .net,
so how can i do this?
Have you installed the client tools on your dev box? Also, I normally point to the report on the RS server. Also, in sharepoint there are some webparts that will display your reports on a sharepoint site. Let us know which method you prefer, and we can explain better.|||

Hello Kishor_kurapati,

Go to the Project menu -> Add Web Reference.

In the URL box, navigate to the WSDL location on the report server, typicallyhttp://servername/reportserver/reportservice.asmx

This will give you the reporting service proxy class that you can make calls against.

I have some screenshotshere.

Add Hindi Language Data In Sql Server

I want to store data in hindi language. I have taken nvarchar as datatype for this column. When i store data from a client application running on browser ascii value for corresponding data is stored in the database. I want hindi font should be displayed when i view the database in enterprise manager not like this ???Might be a silly question, but this held me up for a couple of days:

Have you installed the correct fonts/character sets on your client?|||Also, is the client booting with the Locale and Regional settings that support this character set?

Add events as one batch

Hi,

Can I add collection of events to notification services from my .NET application?

Current implementation in my code:

Code Snippet

// create a new event and event collector

Event myEvent = new Event(application, eventClassName);

EventCollector eventCollector = new EventCollector(application, EVENT_CREATOR);

// Set field values of the event.

.

.

.

// add the event

eventCollector.Write(myEvent);

// commit the 1-event batch

eventCollector.Commit();

Let me know how can I commit collection of events at once rather than one by one.

Please give me your suggestions on this whether this can not be achieved or NOT.

Thanks in advance

Yogendran

Ah... Guys do you know where I can get the answer for this question?

Please help me.

Do you think this cann't be done?

Regards

Yogendran

add event to application log

How do I add events to be recorded in the application log? I have a process
that is not completing 100% of the time, but I am not getting any events
recorded in the application log. The severity must be < 20. I realize that
opeing this up to all events will cause a lot of activity, but I need to fin
d
out why this process does not complete every time it is run.
Thanks in advance.Doug,
Check out:
sp_addmessage
RAISERROR ... WITH LOG
xp_logevent
The choice will depend on your approach.
HTH
Jerry
"doug" <doug@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:310BB4E6-F9B4-4907-948A-7715B3289C04@.microsoft.com...
> How do I add events to be recorded in the application log? I have a
> process
> that is not completing 100% of the time, but I am not getting any events
> recorded in the application log. The severity must be < 20. I realize
> that
> opeing this up to all events will cause a lot of activity, but I need to
> find
> out why this process does not complete every time it is run.
> Thanks in advance.

add event to application log

How do I add events to be recorded in the application log? I have a process
that is not completing 100% of the time, but I am not getting any events
recorded in the application log. The severity must be < 20. I realize that
opeing this up to all events will cause a lot of activity, but I need to find
out why this process does not complete every time it is run.
Thanks in advance.Doug,
Check out:
sp_addmessage
RAISERROR ... WITH LOG
xp_logevent
The choice will depend on your approach.
HTH
Jerry
"doug" <doug@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:310BB4E6-F9B4-4907-948A-7715B3289C04@.microsoft.com...
> How do I add events to be recorded in the application log? I have a
> process
> that is not completing 100% of the time, but I am not getting any events
> recorded in the application log. The severity must be < 20. I realize
> that
> opeing this up to all events will cause a lot of activity, but I need to
> find
> out why this process does not complete every time it is run.
> Thanks in advance.

Add article to Merge Repl. Publication

I am running merge replication (SQL 2000 with SP2) with an anonymous pull subscription. The application vendor has come out with update that requires adding a table to a database. The vendor has created scripts that will add the table, as well as some stored procedures. If I apply the scripts to both servers and add the table as a new article to the publication, am I going to have to apply a snapshot of the entire database (which is very large)?

Your help is greatly appreciated.

GaryHi, don't add the table to both sides. Just add the table at the publisher and include it in the publication using the ARTICLES tab of Replication-Properties in EM. Start the Snapshot-Agent. The merge agent would apply only the new table to the subscriber. It's for the subscribers running SQL2000.|||Thanks for the prompt reply. The scripts will also modify some stored procedures - is that handled by the snapshot, or are the changes just replicated?|||Hi, the merge-agent applies the new tables to the subscriber.
About stored-procedures i am not sure, can u modify the stored-procedure if it's being published? Published tables can't be modified unless we use sp_repladdcolumn/sp_repldropcolumn to add or drop columns within the published tables. See if u can modify a published stored procedure at the publisher.

Howdy!

Add a second databse - benefits?

Hi, there is an existing application running on a SQL Server database.

Now I have to built a different app, which will have two common tables
with the existing database (Customers, sales)

Is there any benefit (performance mainly) creating the tables for the
new app in a new database? (On the same machine and the same instance)

*** Sent via Devdex http://www.devdex.com ***
Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!chora (choracy@.hotmail.com) writes:
> Hi, there is an existing application running on a SQL Server database.
> Now I have to built a different app, which will have two common tables
> with the existing database (Customers, sales)
> Is there any benefit (performance mainly) creating the tables for the
> new app in a new database? (On the same machine and the same instance)

There is too little information to say anything with certainty. If the
two apps not only share the table definitions, but also the data in
the table, putting everything in the same database.

As long as the applications are access their individual tables, there
is not much interferance between them. All I can think is that autogrow
caused by one app will affect the userss of the other app two, but
autogrows should not occur frequently.

Of course, in the common tables there may be blocking issues with
improper application design.

--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se

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

thanks for the reply.

The databases will share the data of the two tables. The new database
will have 'read only' access to these tables.

*** Sent via Devdex http://www.devdex.com ***
Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!|||Hi

If these tables are large, then you may want to make them federated and
create a partitioned view for them. This may give you a performance
improvement e.g http://vyaskn.tripod.com/federated.htm

There may also be other reasons to use a separate database such as ownership
(e.g if a third party package it may invalidate the waranty to stick extra
tables in there), security and maintainance.

John

"chora" <choracy@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:40d5962f$0$16472$c397aba@.news.newsgroups.ws.. .
>
> Hi, there is an existing application running on a SQL Server database.
> Now I have to built a different app, which will have two common tables
> with the existing database (Customers, sales)
> Is there any benefit (performance mainly) creating the tables for the
> new app in a new database? (On the same machine and the same instance)
>
>
> *** Sent via Devdex http://www.devdex.com ***
> Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!

Adam - FYI

I clicked your link in your signature and got this
Using Maxthon Browser
.Text - Application Error!
Details
ArgumentException
The SqlParameter with ParameterName '@.ItemCount' is already contained by
another SqlParameterCollection.
Return to site
Simon Worth
"Adam Machanic" <amachanic@.hotmail._removetoemail_.com> wrote in message
news:eaAJLU$IFHA.3336@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> This is the first I've ever heard of that SQL-NS... Strange, because MS
> documentation on Notification Services uses SQL-NS as well -- you'd think
> they would have used a different acronym they hadn't already used!
> Anyway, maybe the .clients or .tools groups can offer more help... I have
> never seen mention of this technology in this group in the last year and a
> half that I've been paying close attention.
>
> --
> Adam Machanic
> SQL Server MVP
> http://www.sqljunkies.com/weblog/amachanic
> --
>
> <Eric> wrote in message news:Oyk1kH$IFHA.1248@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> SQL-NS
news:%23sKzqR5IFHA.3568@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
to
Naturally,
SQL-DMO
>Yeah, that's the site -- hit refresh a couple of times and it goes away.
Been happening for months, unfortunately. The admin claims it
will -finally- be fixed within the next two days when he upgrades to a more
recent version of the blog software...
Adam Machanic
SQL Server MVP
http://www.sqljunkies.com/weblog/amachanic
--
"Simon Worth" <REMOVEFIRST_simon.worth@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:%235HhxW$IFHA.2744@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> I clicked your link in your signature and got this
> Using Maxthon Browser
> .Text - Application Error!
> Details
> ArgumentException
> The SqlParameter with ParameterName '@.ItemCount' is already contained by
> another SqlParameterCollection.
>
> Return to site
>
> --
> Simon Worth
>
> "Adam Machanic" <amachanic@.hotmail._removetoemail_.com> wrote in message
> news:eaAJLU$IFHA.3336@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
think
have
a
automate
message
> news:%23sKzqR5IFHA.3568@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
easy
> to
> Naturally,
publication-subscription
when
> SQL-DMO
>|||Cool, just wanted you to know in case the error was new.
It's all good.
Simon Worth
"Adam Machanic" <amachanic@.hotmail._removetoemail_.com> wrote in message
news:uAyK5b$IFHA.3928@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Yeah, that's the site -- hit refresh a couple of times and it goes away.
> Been happening for months, unfortunately. The admin claims it
> will -finally- be fixed within the next two days when he upgrades to a
more
> recent version of the blog software...
>
> --
> Adam Machanic
> SQL Server MVP
> http://www.sqljunkies.com/weblog/amachanic
> --
>
> "Simon Worth" <REMOVEFIRST_simon.worth@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%235HhxW$IFHA.2744@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
MS
> think
> have
and
> a
I'm
> automate
but
> message
> easy
(Notification
> publication-subscription
> when
>

AD/ SQL Server 2000/ Trusted Connection in .Net

Hi,
I have a Windows Application, a Novell Network and a SQL Server 2000 on an
Active Directory controlled server. My AD account has access to teh database.
I want to login to the database using an Active Directory account, trusted
security...but I can't.
Sequence of Events:
1. Login to Network using Novell account.
2. Start Application and it displays login screen.
3. Enter AD account details and press OK
4. This verifies against Active Directory Account using the following code:
visual basic
code:---- Public Function Login() As String
' now create the directory entry to establish connection
Dim deDirEntry As New DirectoryEntry(Me.strDomain, Me.strUser,
Me.strPass, Me.atAuthentType)
Try
' if user is verified then it will welcome then
Try
Return deDirEntry.Username
Catch exp As Exception
Return ""
End Try
Finally
'deDirEntry.Dispose()
End Try
End Function 'Login
This all works fine and returns the username if the credentials match
5. Make database connection string (sUserName is the AD username):
visual basic
code:----Dim
sConnstring As String = "User ID=" & sUserName & ";Initial
Catalog=VendorSample;Data
Source=MyServer...;Timeout=20;Trusted_Connection=T rue"----
6. I get the following error:
Login failed for user '(null)'. Reason: Not associated witha trusted SQl
Server connection.
I'm not well up on how AD works etc. but does anybody have any idea how to
get past this? I presume the problem is that it is not recognising the
username passed as the account I want to use.
There are two ways to logging into SQL Server: WIndows Security
(Trusted_Connection) or SQL Server Security. In either case, your "Login"
function is useless.
In your connectionString, you have "Trusted_Connection=True", that implies
the SQL Server uses Windows security, meaning, you do not need pass
username/password pair in ConnectionString (even there is user/password,
they are ignored). That means SQL Server accept the current windows/AD user
account credential, and then does the authorization based on this
credential. As long as the the windows/AD user account (which is running
your app) is given adequate permission to what he needs, the app should run
fine.
If you use SQL Server security (it must be enabled), you must have
user/password pair in the ConnectionString, and SQL Server authenticates it,
regardless whether you have done it in your own "Login" function or not. SO,
your "Login" function does nothing usefull here.
"Dec" <Dec@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E608FA02-488A-4E9A-BC5B-9AF816F28F87@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I have a Windows Application, a Novell Network and a SQL Server 2000 on an
> Active Directory controlled server. My AD account has access to teh
> database.
> I want to login to the database using an Active Directory account, trusted
> security...but I can't.
> Sequence of Events:
> 1. Login to Network using Novell account.
> 2. Start Application and it displays login screen.
> 3. Enter AD account details and press OK
> 4. This verifies against Active Directory Account using the following
> code:
>
> visual basic
> code:----
> Public Function Login() As String
> ' now create the directory entry to establish connection
> Dim deDirEntry As New DirectoryEntry(Me.strDomain, Me.strUser,
> Me.strPass, Me.atAuthentType)
> Try
> ' if user is verified then it will welcome then
> Try
> Return deDirEntry.Username
> Catch exp As Exception
> Return ""
> End Try
> Finally
> 'deDirEntry.Dispose()
> End Try
> End Function 'Login
> ----
> This all works fine and returns the username if the credentials match
> 5. Make database connection string (sUserName is the AD username):
> visual basic
> code:----Dim
> sConnstring As String = "User ID=" & sUserName & ";Initial
> Catalog=VendorSample;Data
> Source=MyServer...;Timeout=20;Trusted_Connection=T rue"----
> 6. I get the following error:
> Login failed for user '(null)'. Reason: Not associated witha trusted SQl
> Server connection.
> I'm not well up on how AD works etc. but does anybody have any idea how to
> get past this? I presume the problem is that it is not recognising the
> username passed as the account I want to use.
|||Hi,
If I have logged onto pc/ network using a windows account, will the app
always run using this account? If so, is there any way to change this so that
the app run using an AD account instead? As you've probably guesed, I'm not
well up on Windows/ AD accounts etc. so please explain in very simple terms!!
Thanks.
"Norman Yuan" wrote:

> There are two ways to logging into SQL Server: WIndows Security
> (Trusted_Connection) or SQL Server Security. In either case, your "Login"
> function is useless.
> In your connectionString, you have "Trusted_Connection=True", that implies
> the SQL Server uses Windows security, meaning, you do not need pass
> username/password pair in ConnectionString (even there is user/password,
> they are ignored). That means SQL Server accept the current windows/AD user
> account credential, and then does the authorization based on this
> credential. As long as the the windows/AD user account (which is running
> your app) is given adequate permission to what he needs, the app should run
> fine.
> If you use SQL Server security (it must be enabled), you must have
> user/password pair in the ConnectionString, and SQL Server authenticates it,
> regardless whether you have done it in your own "Login" function or not. SO,
> your "Login" function does nothing usefull here.
>
> "Dec" <Dec@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:E608FA02-488A-4E9A-BC5B-9AF816F28F87@.microsoft.com...
>
>

AD/ SQL Server 2000/ Trusted Connection in .Net

Hi,
I have a Windows Application, a Novell Network and a SQL Server 2000 on an
Active Directory controlled server. My AD account has access to teh database.
I want to login to the database using an Active Directory account, trusted
security...but I can't.
Sequence of Events:
1. Login to Network using Novell account.
2. Start Application and it displays login screen.
3. Enter AD account details and press OK
4. This verifies against Active Directory Account using the following code:
visual basic
code:---- Public Function Login() As String
' now create the directory entry to establish connection
Dim deDirEntry As New DirectoryEntry(Me.strDomain, Me.strUser,
Me.strPass, Me.atAuthentType)
Try
' if user is verified then it will welcome then
Try
Return deDirEntry.Username
Catch exp As Exception
Return ""
End Try
Finally
'deDirEntry.Dispose()
End Try
End Function 'Login
----
This all works fine and returns the username if the credentials match
5. Make database connection string (sUserName is the AD username):
visual basic
code:----Dim
sConnstring As String = "User ID=" & sUserName & ";Initial
Catalog=VendorSample;Data
Source=MyServer...;Timeout=20;Trusted_Connection=True"----
6. I get the following error:
Login failed for user '(null)'. Reason: Not associated witha trusted SQl
Server connection.
I'm not well up on how AD works etc. but does anybody have any idea how to
get past this? I presume the problem is that it is not recognising the
username passed as the account I want to use.There are two ways to logging into SQL Server: WIndows Security
(Trusted_Connection) or SQL Server Security. In either case, your "Login"
function is useless.
In your connectionString, you have "Trusted_Connection=True", that implies
the SQL Server uses Windows security, meaning, you do not need pass
username/password pair in ConnectionString (even there is user/password,
they are ignored). That means SQL Server accept the current windows/AD user
account credential, and then does the authorization based on this
credential. As long as the the windows/AD user account (which is running
your app) is given adequate permission to what he needs, the app should run
fine.
If you use SQL Server security (it must be enabled), you must have
user/password pair in the ConnectionString, and SQL Server authenticates it,
regardless whether you have done it in your own "Login" function or not. SO,
your "Login" function does nothing usefull here.
"Dec" <Dec@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E608FA02-488A-4E9A-BC5B-9AF816F28F87@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I have a Windows Application, a Novell Network and a SQL Server 2000 on an
> Active Directory controlled server. My AD account has access to teh
> database.
> I want to login to the database using an Active Directory account, trusted
> security...but I can't.
> Sequence of Events:
> 1. Login to Network using Novell account.
> 2. Start Application and it displays login screen.
> 3. Enter AD account details and press OK
> 4. This verifies against Active Directory Account using the following
> code:
>
> visual basic
> code:----
> Public Function Login() As String
> ' now create the directory entry to establish connection
> Dim deDirEntry As New DirectoryEntry(Me.strDomain, Me.strUser,
> Me.strPass, Me.atAuthentType)
> Try
> ' if user is verified then it will welcome then
> Try
> Return deDirEntry.Username
> Catch exp As Exception
> Return ""
> End Try
> Finally
> 'deDirEntry.Dispose()
> End Try
> End Function 'Login
> ----
> This all works fine and returns the username if the credentials match
> 5. Make database connection string (sUserName is the AD username):
> visual basic
> code:----Dim
> sConnstring As String = "User ID=" & sUserName & ";Initial
> Catalog=VendorSample;Data
> Source=MyServer...;Timeout=20;Trusted_Connection=True"----
> 6. I get the following error:
> Login failed for user '(null)'. Reason: Not associated witha trusted SQl
> Server connection.
> I'm not well up on how AD works etc. but does anybody have any idea how to
> get past this? I presume the problem is that it is not recognising the
> username passed as the account I want to use.|||Hi,
If I have logged onto pc/ network using a windows account, will the app
always run using this account? If so, is there any way to change this so that
the app run using an AD account instead? As you've probably guesed, I'm not
well up on Windows/ AD accounts etc. so please explain in very simple terms!!
Thanks.
"Norman Yuan" wrote:
> There are two ways to logging into SQL Server: WIndows Security
> (Trusted_Connection) or SQL Server Security. In either case, your "Login"
> function is useless.
> In your connectionString, you have "Trusted_Connection=True", that implies
> the SQL Server uses Windows security, meaning, you do not need pass
> username/password pair in ConnectionString (even there is user/password,
> they are ignored). That means SQL Server accept the current windows/AD user
> account credential, and then does the authorization based on this
> credential. As long as the the windows/AD user account (which is running
> your app) is given adequate permission to what he needs, the app should run
> fine.
> If you use SQL Server security (it must be enabled), you must have
> user/password pair in the ConnectionString, and SQL Server authenticates it,
> regardless whether you have done it in your own "Login" function or not. SO,
> your "Login" function does nothing usefull here.
>
> "Dec" <Dec@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:E608FA02-488A-4E9A-BC5B-9AF816F28F87@.microsoft.com...
> > Hi,
> > I have a Windows Application, a Novell Network and a SQL Server 2000 on an
> > Active Directory controlled server. My AD account has access to teh
> > database.
> > I want to login to the database using an Active Directory account, trusted
> > security...but I can't.
> > Sequence of Events:
> > 1. Login to Network using Novell account.
> > 2. Start Application and it displays login screen.
> > 3. Enter AD account details and press OK
> > 4. This verifies against Active Directory Account using the following
> > code:
> >
> >
> > visual basic
> > code:----
> > Public Function Login() As String
> > ' now create the directory entry to establish connection
> > Dim deDirEntry As New DirectoryEntry(Me.strDomain, Me.strUser,
> > Me.strPass, Me.atAuthentType)
> > Try
> >
> > ' if user is verified then it will welcome then
> > Try
> > Return deDirEntry.Username
> > Catch exp As Exception
> > Return ""
> > End Try
> > Finally
> > 'deDirEntry.Dispose()
> > End Try
> > End Function 'Login
> > ----
> >
> > This all works fine and returns the username if the credentials match
> > 5. Make database connection string (sUserName is the AD username):
> >
> > visual basic
> > code:----Dim
> > sConnstring As String = "User ID=" & sUserName & ";Initial
> > Catalog=VendorSample;Data
> > Source=MyServer...;Timeout=20;Trusted_Connection=True"----
> > 6. I get the following error:
> > Login failed for user '(null)'. Reason: Not associated witha trusted SQl
> > Server connection.
> >
> > I'm not well up on how AD works etc. but does anybody have any idea how to
> > get past this? I presume the problem is that it is not recognising the
> > username passed as the account I want to use.
>
>

AD/ SQL Server 2000/ Trusted Connection in .Net

Hi,
I have a Windows Application, a Novell Network and a SQL Server 2000 on an
Active Directory controlled server. My AD account has access to teh database
.
I want to login to the database using an Active Directory account, trusted
security...but I can't.
Sequence of Events:
1. Login to Network using Novell account.
2. Start Application and it displays login screen.
3. Enter AD account details and press OK
4. This verifies against Active Directory Account using the following code:
visual basic
code:----
-- Public Function Login() As String
' now create the directory entry to establish connection
Dim deDirEntry As New DirectoryEntry(Me.strDomain, Me.strUser,
Me.strPass, Me.atAuthentType)
Try
' if user is verified then it will welcome then
Try
Return deDirEntry.Username
Catch exp As Exception
Return ""
End Try
Finally
'deDirEntry.Dispose()
End Try
End Function 'Login
----
--
This all works fine and returns the username if the credentials match
5. Make database connection string (sUserName is the AD username):
visual basic
code:----
--Dim
sConnstring As String = "User ID=" & sUserName & ";Initial
Catalog=VendorSample;Data
Source=MyServer...;Timeout=20;Trusted_Connection=True"--
----
6. I get the following error:
Login failed for user '(null)'. Reason: Not associated witha trusted SQl
Server connection.
I'm not well up on how AD works etc. but does anybody have any idea how to
get past this? I presume the problem is that it is not recognising the
username passed as the account I want to use.There are two ways to logging into SQL Server: WIndows Security
(Trusted_Connection) or SQL Server Security. In either case, your "Login"
function is useless.
In your connectionString, you have "Trusted_Connection=True", that implies
the SQL Server uses Windows security, meaning, you do not need pass
username/password pair in ConnectionString (even there is user/password,
they are ignored). That means SQL Server accept the current windows/AD user
account credential, and then does the authorization based on this
credential. As long as the the windows/AD user account (which is running
your app) is given adequate permission to what he needs, the app should run
fine.
If you use SQL Server security (it must be enabled), you must have
user/password pair in the ConnectionString, and SQL Server authenticates it,
regardless whether you have done it in your own "Login" function or not. SO,
your "Login" function does nothing usefull here.
"Dec" <Dec@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E608FA02-488A-4E9A-BC5B-9AF816F28F87@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I have a Windows Application, a Novell Network and a SQL Server 2000 on an
> Active Directory controlled server. My AD account has access to teh
> database.
> I want to login to the database using an Active Directory account, trusted
> security...but I can't.
> Sequence of Events:
> 1. Login to Network using Novell account.
> 2. Start Application and it displays login screen.
> 3. Enter AD account details and press OK
> 4. This verifies against Active Directory Account using the following
> code:
>
> visual basic
> code:---
--
> Public Function Login() As String
> ' now create the directory entry to establish connection
> Dim deDirEntry As New DirectoryEntry(Me.strDomain, Me.strUser,
> Me.strPass, Me.atAuthentType)
> Try
> ' if user is verified then it will welcome then
> Try
> Return deDirEntry.Username
> Catch exp As Exception
> Return ""
> End Try
> Finally
> 'deDirEntry.Dispose()
> End Try
> End Function 'Login
> ----
--
> This all works fine and returns the username if the credentials match
> 5. Make database connection string (sUserName is the AD username):
> visual basic
> code:---
--Dim
> sConnstring As String = "User ID=" & sUserName & ";Initial
> Catalog=VendorSample;Data
> Source=MyServer...;Timeout=20;Trusted_Connection=True"--
----
> 6. I get the following error:
> Login failed for user '(null)'. Reason: Not associated witha trusted SQl
> Server connection.
> I'm not well up on how AD works etc. but does anybody have any idea how to
> get past this? I presume the problem is that it is not recognising the
> username passed as the account I want to use.|||Hi,
If I have logged onto pc/ network using a windows account, will the app
always run using this account? If so, is there any way to change this so tha
t
the app run using an AD account instead? As you've probably guesed, I'm not
well up on Windows/ AD accounts etc. so please explain in very simple terms!
!
Thanks.
"Norman Yuan" wrote:

> There are two ways to logging into SQL Server: WIndows Security
> (Trusted_Connection) or SQL Server Security. In either case, your "Login"
> function is useless.
> In your connectionString, you have "Trusted_Connection=True", that implies
> the SQL Server uses Windows security, meaning, you do not need pass
> username/password pair in ConnectionString (even there is user/password,
> they are ignored). That means SQL Server accept the current windows/AD use
r
> account credential, and then does the authorization based on this
> credential. As long as the the windows/AD user account (which is running
> your app) is given adequate permission to what he needs, the app should ru
n
> fine.
> If you use SQL Server security (it must be enabled), you must have
> user/password pair in the ConnectionString, and SQL Server authenticates i
t,
> regardless whether you have done it in your own "Login" function or not. S
O,
> your "Login" function does nothing usefull here.
>
> "Dec" <Dec@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:E608FA02-488A-4E9A-BC5B-9AF816F28F87@.microsoft.com...
>
>

Actual risk of opening port 1433

Greetings.
I have written a nice little application suite used by 8 or so workstations,
some of which are connected through a VPN. The IT people claim that port
1433 is blocked by default by Nortel's Conntivity VPN, and they will not
make an attempt to change it for fear it will muck up the works elsewhere.
As the SQL server (actually, an instance of MSDE) lives on a dedicated
little WinXP Pro box which does nothing else, I recommended they open port
1433 on their router and point it to that box, allowing the offsites to
circumvent the VPN altogether. The IT director looked at me point blank and
stated that would mean anyone could come in and "hack" both their Win2k
Server, and their IBM Midrange running OS/400.
My question - while I understand the director's concern is completely
irrational... what ACTUAL issues can opening port 1433 to an isolated box
really raise? Even assuming that the intruder coud bypass the credentials (I
am using SQL Authentication, gods help me), what could they possibly do to
anything other than that one MSDE instance?
Many thanks in advance.
Hal Meyer, Proprietor
the patchwerks
(423) 462-2606
http://www.thepatchwerks.com1. SQL Authentication is very insecure.
2. The 'box' is not isolated. It is connected to the network inside the
firewall.
3. Every hacker in the world knows that port 1433 is a standard SQL port and
therefore a target.
4. MSDE runs with LocalSystem permissions. That may provide a platform to
hack the inside servers.
5. Any hacker worth his/her 'salt' will know every weakness of MSDE -and
there a quite a few.
6. The IT people are right!
7. The IT director was very kind in his response to you.
So, suck it up and move on. There is unlikely to be any legitimate business
case for such a 'foolhardy' move.
Your outside users access the internal network using a secure VPN. That
'should' provide them access to the MSDE instance while connected through
the VPN. I would check with the VPN vendor about any problems accessing SQL
Server (MSDE) through the VPN 'tunnel'.
In the rare circumstances where there is a business case to open firewall
port 1433, it usually mandates Rules restricting external IP addresses, more
advanced security (SSL, etc.), as well as constant vigilence and traffic
logging - as well as a rigorous process to attempt to gain approval.
Think about leaving the door key to your home under the 'Welcome' mat. Would
that be a wise action? Wouldn't most potential thieves look under the mat as
their first effort to gain entry.
Arnie Rowland
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
"Hal Meyer" <hmeyer@.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:OK%23WxcvqGHA.1796@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Greetings.
> I have written a nice little application suite used by 8 or so
> workstations, some of which are connected through a VPN. The IT people
> claim that port 1433 is blocked by default by Nortel's Conntivity VPN, and
> they will not make an attempt to change it for fear it will muck up the
> works elsewhere. As the SQL server (actually, an instance of MSDE) lives
> on a dedicated little WinXP Pro box which does nothing else, I recommended
> they open port 1433 on their router and point it to that box, allowing the
> offsites to circumvent the VPN altogether. The IT director looked at me
> point blank and stated that would mean anyone could come in and "hack"
> both their Win2k Server, and their IBM Midrange running OS/400.
> My question - while I understand the director's concern is completely
> irrational... what ACTUAL issues can opening port 1433 to an isolated box
> really raise? Even assuming that the intruder coud bypass the credentials
> (I am using SQL Authentication, gods help me), what could they possibly do
> to anything other than that one MSDE instance?
> Many thanks in advance.
> --
> Hal Meyer, Proprietor
> the patchwerks
> (423) 462-2606
> http://www.thepatchwerks.com
>

Actual frequency / count of a word

This is a strange request that has been submitted as "critical" feature of
an application, and I am not sure of how to approach the problem. The
application has a simple, perfectly good Full Text Search capability (it is
searching on "resumes" and "letters". Now we have been asked to allow the
user to specify the minimum number of "hits" for a particular search
criteria...
For example:
CREATE TABLE [dbo].[EmployeeResume]
(
[EmployeeId] [int] NOT NULL,
EmployeeId [text] COLLATE SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS NULL,
CONSTRAINT [PK_EmployeeResume] PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED
(
[EmployeeId] ASC
)WITH (PAD_INDEX = OFF, IGNORE_DUP_KEY = OFF) ON [PRIMARY]
) ON [PRIMARY] TEXTIMAGE_ON [PRIMARY]
go
INSERT INTO EmployeeResume
VALUES(100, 'Resume containing words such as POWERPOINT')
INSERT INTO EmployeeResume
VALUES(200, 'Resume containing words such as POWERPOINT EXCEL ACCESS')
INSERT INTO EmployeeResume
VALUES(300, 'Resume containing words such as POWERPOINT EXCEL EXCEL ACCESS')
For sake of simplicity I omit all the code related to the creation of Full
Text catalog on the table and column "Resume"...
Now, the statement...
SELECT EmployeeId FROM EmployeeResume WHERE CONTAINS (Resume, 'EXCEL')
would return 2 rows (EmployeeID 200, 300)
Now we want to allow the user to specify that the query should return only
rows where the word "EXCEL" appears a minimum of 2 times -- in other words,
the query above should only return EmployeeId 300 because the "count" of the
word "EXCEL" is >= 2.
Strange, I know. Anyone has a suggestion?
Thank you so much in advance.
Giorgio
The feature you are looking for is called the hit count and ships with most
of Microsoft's search products but not SQL FTS. What you need to do is to
run a query on your results set that does something like this (untested).
SELECT EmployeeId,
hitcount=(len(resume)-len(replace(Resume,'Excel','')) )/len('excel')FROM
EmployeeResume WHERE CONTAINS (Resume, 'EXCEL')
and (len(resume)-len(replace(Resume,'Excel',''))/len('excel')
Hilary Cotter
Director of Text Mining and Database Strategy
RelevantNOISE.Com - Dedicated to mining blogs for business intelligence.
This posting is my own and doesn't necessarily represent RelevantNoise's
positions, strategies or opinions.
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"Giorgio Vidali" <gvidali@.earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:%23aHTotT$GHA.396@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> This is a strange request that has been submitted as "critical" feature of
> an application, and I am not sure of how to approach the problem. The
> application has a simple, perfectly good Full Text Search capability (it
> is searching on "resumes" and "letters". Now we have been asked to allow
> the user to specify the minimum number of "hits" for a particular search
> criteria...
>
> For example:
>
> CREATE TABLE [dbo].[EmployeeResume]
> (
> [EmployeeId] [int] NOT NULL,
> EmployeeId [text] COLLATE SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS NULL,
> CONSTRAINT [PK_EmployeeResume] PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED
> (
> [EmployeeId] ASC
> )WITH (PAD_INDEX = OFF, IGNORE_DUP_KEY = OFF) ON [PRIMARY]
> ) ON [PRIMARY] TEXTIMAGE_ON [PRIMARY]
> go
>
> INSERT INTO EmployeeResume
> VALUES(100, 'Resume containing words such as POWERPOINT')
>
> INSERT INTO EmployeeResume
> VALUES(200, 'Resume containing words such as POWERPOINT EXCEL ACCESS')
>
> INSERT INTO EmployeeResume
> VALUES(300, 'Resume containing words such as POWERPOINT EXCEL EXCEL
> ACCESS')
>
> For sake of simplicity I omit all the code related to the creation of Full
> Text catalog on the table and column "Resume"...
>
> Now, the statement...
>
> SELECT EmployeeId FROM EmployeeResume WHERE CONTAINS (Resume, 'EXCEL')
>
> would return 2 rows (EmployeeID 200, 300)
>
> Now we want to allow the user to specify that the query should return only
> rows where the word "EXCEL" appears a minimum of 2 times -- in other
> words, the query above should only return EmployeeId 300 because the
> "count" of the word "EXCEL" is >= 2.
>
> Strange, I know. Anyone has a suggestion?
>
> Thank you so much in advance.
>
> Giorgio
>
>