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
> >
> >
>

add sql logins from multiple domains

Hi, SQL gurus.
How is it possible to add to sql logins users from more that just one
domain? For example I have my pc connected to domain
department0.mydomain.net. Our worldwide company has another few departments
like department1.mydomain.net and department2.mydomain.net. How can I put
some guy from department2.mydomain.net to my sql server attached to
department0.mydomain.net domain? And is it the same if my machine will be
attached to mydomain.net? I know that it is more about windows
administration, then just about MS SQL Server, but I hope you will point me
to the right way.
PS: We're using Active Directory.
PPS: If you need more details, I'm ready to explain whatever you want.
--
---
There are only 10 types of people in this world: those who understand binary
and those who don't.If the domain in which your SQL Server exists and the other domains are
'trusted', then you could simply add those other domain's logins using
sp_grantlogin.
You could also create a windows group into which you add all the logins you
wanted, and grant access to this windows group.
--
HTH,
Vyas, MVP (SQL Server)
http://vyaskn.tripod.com/
What hardware is your SQL Server running on?
http://vyaskn.tripod.com/poll.htm
"German" <german.koninin@.crm-worldwideDOTnet> wrote in message
news:eGYi2lIaDHA.2464@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
Hi, SQL gurus.
How is it possible to add to sql logins users from more that just one
domain? For example I have my pc connected to domain
department0.mydomain.net. Our worldwide company has another few departments
like department1.mydomain.net and department2.mydomain.net. How can I put
some guy from department2.mydomain.net to my sql server attached to
department0.mydomain.net domain? And is it the same if my machine will be
attached to mydomain.net? I know that it is more about windows
administration, then just about MS SQL Server, but I hope you will point me
to the right way.
PS: We're using Active Directory.
PPS: If you need more details, I'm ready to explain whatever you want.
--
---
There are only 10 types of people in this world: those who understand binary
and those who don't.

Add member failed for DatabaseRole 'db_datareader'

I tried to give myself datareader and datawriter for my domain login and got this error below. I'm logged into the server with my domain account which has admin rights.

TITLE: Microsoft SQL Server Management Studio

Add member failed for DatabaseRole 'db_datareader'. (Microsoft.SqlServer.Smo)

For help, click: http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink?ProdName=Microsoft+SQL+Server&ProdVer=9.00.1399.00&EvtSrc=Microsoft.SqlServer.Management.Smo.ExceptionTemplates.FailedOperationExceptionText&EvtID=Add+member+DatabaseRole&LinkId=20476

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

An exception occurred while executing a Transact-SQL statement or batch. (Microsoft.SqlServer.ConnectionInfo)

Cannot use the special principal 'dbo'. (Microsoft SQL Server, Error: 15405)

For help, click: http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink?ProdName=Microsoft+SQL+Server&ProdVer=09.00.1399&EvtSrc=MSSQLServer&EvtID=15405&LinkId=20476

BUTTONS:

OK

Because you are conected as a sysadmin, you are also the dbo of the database. You cannot add dbo as a member of any fixed role. dbo already has the permissions of db_datareader and db_datawriter.

Thanks
Laurentiu

|||Thanks!

Add domain user?

Hi,
By default, when add a domain user in the Domain Controller, is it this new
user can access the sql data?
public role only? Thanks...By default, a new AD user will have no access to a specific SQL Server
unless they are added to a windows group that has access to SQL Server or
their domain account is explicitly added as a login.
HTH
Jasper Smith (SQL Server MVP)
I support PASS - the definitive, global
community for SQL Server professionals -
http://www.sqlpass.org
"js" <js@.someone@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uB%23HnU3MEHA.3712@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> By default, when add a domain user in the Domain Controller, is it this
new
> user can access the sql data?
> public role only? Thanks...
>|||Thanks Jasper.
Another question about this one: if a particular role of which the user is a
member has been denied a specific object permission (such as SELECT), the
user is unable to exercise that permission. The most restrictive permission
(DENY) takes precedence.
What will happen in this case: MYDN\Test is belonging to local administrator
group and System Admin Server Role. And I set "db_denydatawriter" to this
user in Northwind database. Can this user exec the "Updte ." statement in
Northwind's table?
Please advice...
"Jasper Smith" <jasper_smith9@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OSzDVD5MEHA.2592@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> By default, a new AD user will have no access to a specific SQL Server
> unless they are added to a windows group that has access to SQL Server or
> their domain account is explicitly added as a login.
> --
> HTH
> Jasper Smith (SQL Server MVP)
> I support PASS - the definitive, global
> community for SQL Server professionals -
> http://www.sqlpass.org
>
> "js" <js@.someone@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:uB%23HnU3MEHA.3712@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> new
>|||SA will overrule. The user will be SA.
Jeff Duncan
MCDBA, MCSE+I
"js" <js@.someone@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:edWLIh5MEHA.1644@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Thanks Jasper.
> Another question about this one: if a particular role of which the user is
> a
> member has been denied a specific object permission (such as SELECT), the
> user is unable to exercise that permission. The most restrictive
> permission
> (DENY) takes precedence.
> What will happen in this case: MYDN\Test is belonging to local
> administrator
> group and System Admin Server Role. And I set "db_denydatawriter" to this
> user in Northwind database. Can this user exec the "Updte ." statement in
> Northwind's table?
>
> Please advice...
>
> "Jasper Smith" <jasper_smith9@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:OSzDVD5MEHA.2592@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>|||Thanks Jeff.
How to assign denywrite to MYDN\Test have without by removing it from local
administrator?
If I take out the db_owner from BUILTIN\Administrators will cause any
problem'
"Jeff Duncan" <jduncan@.gtefcu.org> wrote in message
news:eq5wXr5MEHA.3208@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> SA will overrule. The user will be SA.
> --
> Jeff Duncan
> MCDBA, MCSE+I
> "js" <js@.someone@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:edWLIh5MEHA.1644@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
is[vbcol=seagreen]
the[vbcol=seagreen]
this[vbcol=seagreen]
in[vbcol=seagreen]
or[vbcol=seagreen]
>|||Go through it first with a fine tooth comb. Make sure the ID that is
running SQL has access by itself and not in a group. Make sure that the
proper Local Admins have direct access accounts and then remove it. Make
yourself a standard login first just for safe keeping if you are in mixed
mode. You should be fine.
Jeff Duncan
MCDBA, MCSE+I
"js" <js@.someone@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:O86FNw5MEHA.3472@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Thanks Jeff.
> How to assign denywrite to MYDN\Test have without by removing it from
> local
> administrator?
> If I take out the db_owner from BUILTIN\Administrators will cause any
> problem'
>
>
> "Jeff Duncan" <jduncan@.gtefcu.org> wrote in message
> news:eq5wXr5MEHA.3208@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> is
> the
> this
> in
> or
>

add domain login from management studio

We have a SQL Server 2005 SP2 server that also functions as a
secondary domain controller in active directory. Everything works
extremely well except for 1 bug that was found today. Currently
windows authentication is the only method. When creating a new sql
login either physically at the server or through a remote desktop
connection the user is found in the domain and works just fine.
However when trying to do the same process using management studio
from a desktop connecting to the sql instance as soon as you try to
find the user in the domain you get this error: "The program cannot
open the required dialog box because it cannot determine whether the
computer name "COMPNAME" is joined to a domain."
I have sysadmin privileges on the sql server and if I use my login
name on the server physically I am able to create logins.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
MattI've previously posted a bug to connect.microsoft.com about this. Please go
there
(https://connect.microsoft.com/SQLSe...=126
183) and let them know of your problem.
--
Denny
MCSA (2003) / MCDBA (SQL 2000)
MCTS (SQL 2005 / Microsoft Windows SharePoint Services 3.0: Configuration /
Microsoft Office SharePoint Server 2007: Configuration)
MCITP (dbadmin, dbdev)
"Matt Ziegler" wrote:

> We have a SQL Server 2005 SP2 server that also functions as a
> secondary domain controller in active directory. Everything works
> extremely well except for 1 bug that was found today. Currently
> windows authentication is the only method. When creating a new sql
> login either physically at the server or through a remote desktop
> connection the user is found in the domain and works just fine.
> However when trying to do the same process using management studio
> from a desktop connecting to the sql instance as soon as you try to
> find the user in the domain you get this error: "The program cannot
> open the required dialog box because it cannot determine whether the
> computer name "COMPNAME" is joined to a domain."
> I have sysadmin privileges on the sql server and if I use my login
> name on the server physically I am able to create logins.
> Any help would be greatly appreciated.
> Thanks
> Matt
>|||The problem that you are having is that when the SQL GUI opens the dialog to
select a user, it defaults to the local machine. Because the machine is
running as a domain controller it has no local accounts, and no local accoun
t
database.
Please go to connect.microsoft.com
(https://connect.microsoft.com/SQLSe...=126
183) and post additional information reguarding the issue.
--
Denny
MCSA (2003) / MCDBA (SQL 2000)
MCTS (SQL 2005 / Microsoft Windows SharePoint Services 3.0: Configuration /
Microsoft Office SharePoint Server 2007: Configuration)
MCITP (dbadmin, dbdev)
"Matt Ziegler" wrote:

> We have a SQL Server 2005 SP2 server that also functions as a
> secondary domain controller in active directory. Everything works
> extremely well except for 1 bug that was found today. Currently
> windows authentication is the only method. When creating a new sql
> login either physically at the server or through a remote desktop
> connection the user is found in the domain and works just fine.
> However when trying to do the same process using management studio
> from a desktop connecting to the sql instance as soon as you try to
> find the user in the domain you get this error: "The program cannot
> open the required dialog box because it cannot determine whether the
> computer name "COMPNAME" is joined to a domain."
> I have sysadmin privileges on the sql server and if I use my login
> name on the server physically I am able to create logins.
> Any help would be greatly appreciated.
> Thanks
> Matt
>

AD password & SQL database syncronisation

Hi Fred
"Fred" wrote:

> Hi, my company currently runs a native domain, and within the domain, a
> corporate SQL database.
> At the moment i need to add new users to the AD infrastructure, and then to
> the SQL database.
> is there anyway i can link the SQL table containing u/names & passwords to
> AD, so i do not need to keep updating both?
> TIA
>
You would be better adding the users to a AD group and then giving that
group access to SQL Server, then all the admin of adding users is done in the
AD.
John
Fred wrote:
> Many thanks for the reply,
> i may have not myself clear, but the users credentials are currently
> stored within the SQL database and also obviously in AD.
> I'm looking to get AD to populate whats in the SQL database automaticaly.
>
Hi Fred,
I think you need to read up on Security in SQL Server. In SQL Server you
can use Windows authentication and/or SQL Server authentication.
SQL Server authentication means that the loginname/userid (and password)
ONLY exists in SQL server and has nothing to do with your AD.
Windows authentication means that you give an Active Directoy userid
access to you SQL server databases. This can be done either via group
memberships as suggested by John or you can give single users various
rights in SQL Server. If you give access based on AD groups, you can
don't have to go to the SQL server to assign rights, but you can do it
directly from the AD gui. This will of course require that you can
define some general rights for a group of users.
Regards
Steen Schlüter Persson
Database Administrator / System Administrator
|||Hi
"Fred" wrote:

> Many thanks for the reply,
> i may have not myself clear, but the users credentials are currently stored
> within the SQL database and also obviously in AD.
> I'm looking to get AD to populate whats in the SQL database automaticaly.
>
As Steen points out this should not be necessary for logins, but if a list
is needed for some other reason you can query AD through an ADSI linked
server see
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa772170.aspx
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa746379.aspx
or through a scripting such as http://support.microsoft.com/kb/319716
John

AD password & SQL database syncronisation

Hi, my company currently runs a native domain, and within the domain, a
corporate SQL database.
At the moment i need to add new users to the AD infrastructure, and then to
the SQL database.
is there anyway i can link the SQL table containing u/names & passwords to
AD, so i do not need to keep updating both?
TIAHi Fred
"Fred" wrote:

> Hi, my company currently runs a native domain, and within the domain, a
> corporate SQL database.
> At the moment i need to add new users to the AD infrastructure, and then t
o
> the SQL database.
> is there anyway i can link the SQL table containing u/names & passwords to
> AD, so i do not need to keep updating both?
> TIA
>
You would be better adding the users to a AD group and then giving that
group access to SQL Server, then all the admin of adding users is done in th
e
AD.
John|||Many thanks for the reply,
i may have not myself clear, but the users credentials are currently stored
within the SQL database and also obviously in AD.
I'm looking to get AD to populate whats in the SQL database automaticaly.
"John Bell" <jbellnewsposts@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:056B6E3C-3AF7-46E3-9BD5-4E0B2318EC7A@.microsoft.com...
> Hi Fred
> "Fred" wrote:
>
> You would be better adding the users to a AD group and then giving that
> group access to SQL Server, then all the admin of adding users is done in
> the
> AD.
> John|||Fred wrote:
> Many thanks for the reply,
> i may have not myself clear, but the users credentials are currently
> stored within the SQL database and also obviously in AD.
> I'm looking to get AD to populate whats in the SQL database automaticaly.
>
Hi Fred,
I think you need to read up on Security in SQL Server. In SQL Server you
can use Windows authentication and/or SQL Server authentication.
SQL Server authentication means that the loginname/userid (and password)
ONLY exists in SQL server and has nothing to do with your AD.
Windows authentication means that you give an Active Directoy userid
access to you SQL server databases. This can be done either via group
memberships as suggested by John or you can give single users various
rights in SQL Server. If you give access based on AD groups, you can
don't have to go to the SQL server to assign rights, but you can do it
directly from the AD gui. This will of course require that you can
define some general rights for a group of users.
Regards
Steen Schlüter Persson
Database Administrator / System Administrator|||Hi
"Fred" wrote:

> Many thanks for the reply,
> i may have not myself clear, but the users credentials are currently stor
ed
> within the SQL database and also obviously in AD.
> I'm looking to get AD to populate whats in the SQL database automaticaly.
>
As Steen points out this should not be necessary for logins, but if a list
is needed for some other reason you can query AD through an ADSI linked
server see
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa772170.aspx
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa746379.aspx
or through a scripting such as http://support.microsoft.com/kb/319716
John|||Many thanks for your input guys,
i'll start reading up on this through your links etc.
Cheers
"John Bell" <jbellnewsposts@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:29C53C3C-41EF-4C6C-A9F8-F4783BE4E9F1@.microsoft.com...
> Hi
> "Fred" wrote:
>
> As Steen points out this should not be necessary for logins, but if a list
> is needed for some other reason you can query AD through an ADSI linked
> server see
> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa772170.aspx
> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa746379.aspx
> or through a scripting such as http://support.microsoft.com/kb/319716
> John

AD password & SQL database syncronisation

Hi, my company currently runs a native domain, and within the domain, a
corporate SQL database.
At the moment i need to add new users to the AD infrastructure, and then to
the SQL database.
is there anyway i can link the SQL table containing u/names & passwords to
AD, so i do not need to keep updating both?
TIAHi Fred
"Fred" wrote:
> Hi, my company currently runs a native domain, and within the domain, a
> corporate SQL database.
> At the moment i need to add new users to the AD infrastructure, and then to
> the SQL database.
> is there anyway i can link the SQL table containing u/names & passwords to
> AD, so i do not need to keep updating both?
> TIA
>
You would be better adding the users to a AD group and then giving that
group access to SQL Server, then all the admin of adding users is done in the
AD.
John|||Many thanks for the reply,
i may have not myself clear, but the users credentials are currently stored
within the SQL database and also obviously in AD.
I'm looking to get AD to populate whats in the SQL database automaticaly.
"John Bell" <jbellnewsposts@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:056B6E3C-3AF7-46E3-9BD5-4E0B2318EC7A@.microsoft.com...
> Hi Fred
> "Fred" wrote:
>> Hi, my company currently runs a native domain, and within the domain, a
>> corporate SQL database.
>> At the moment i need to add new users to the AD infrastructure, and then
>> to
>> the SQL database.
>> is there anyway i can link the SQL table containing u/names & passwords
>> to
>> AD, so i do not need to keep updating both?
>> TIA
> You would be better adding the users to a AD group and then giving that
> group access to SQL Server, then all the admin of adding users is done in
> the
> AD.
> John|||Fred wrote:
> Many thanks for the reply,
> i may have not myself clear, but the users credentials are currently
> stored within the SQL database and also obviously in AD.
> I'm looking to get AD to populate whats in the SQL database automaticaly.
>
Hi Fred,
I think you need to read up on Security in SQL Server. In SQL Server you
can use Windows authentication and/or SQL Server authentication.
SQL Server authentication means that the loginname/userid (and password)
ONLY exists in SQL server and has nothing to do with your AD.
Windows authentication means that you give an Active Directoy userid
access to you SQL server databases. This can be done either via group
memberships as suggested by John or you can give single users various
rights in SQL Server. If you give access based on AD groups, you can
don't have to go to the SQL server to assign rights, but you can do it
directly from the AD gui. This will of course require that you can
define some general rights for a group of users.
--
Regards
Steen Schlüter Persson
Database Administrator / System Administrator|||Hi
"Fred" wrote:
> Many thanks for the reply,
> i may have not myself clear, but the users credentials are currently stored
> within the SQL database and also obviously in AD.
> I'm looking to get AD to populate whats in the SQL database automaticaly.
>
As Steen points out this should not be necessary for logins, but if a list
is needed for some other reason you can query AD through an ADSI linked
server see
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa772170.aspx
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa746379.aspx
or through a scripting such as http://support.microsoft.com/kb/319716
John|||Many thanks for your input guys,
i'll start reading up on this through your links etc.
Cheers
"John Bell" <jbellnewsposts@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:29C53C3C-41EF-4C6C-A9F8-F4783BE4E9F1@.microsoft.com...
> Hi
> "Fred" wrote:
>> Many thanks for the reply,
>> i may have not myself clear, but the users credentials are currently
>> stored
>> within the SQL database and also obviously in AD.
>> I'm looking to get AD to populate whats in the SQL database automaticaly.
> As Steen points out this should not be necessary for logins, but if a list
> is needed for some other reason you can query AD through an ADSI linked
> server see
> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa772170.aspx
> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa746379.aspx
> or through a scripting such as http://support.microsoft.com/kb/319716
> John

AD Domain Local Groups bug in RS ?

Hi,
I'm posting this problem for the third time. Still no answer from the MS
Team. I've found other users on the web having the same issue.
I have the following problem with AD an RS: when creating a group of users
as a "domain local group" in AD, i'm able to give a specific item-level role
in RS to members of this group. But it looks like rights are not effective
for those users. For example if the group is defined as "reader" on a folder,
group members can't see it in RS!
Everything works fine when the created group is a "global group" in AD.
Best Regards.
Greg.Hi all,
Is it a known bug ?
Thanx.
Greg.
"Greg - NEOS" wrote:
> Hi,
> I'm posting this problem for the third time. Still no answer from the MS
> Team. I've found other users on the web having the same issue.
> I have the following problem with AD an RS: when creating a group of users
> as a "domain local group" in AD, i'm able to give a specific item-level role
> in RS to members of this group. But it looks like rights are not effective
> for those users. For example if the group is defined as "reader" on a folder,
> group members can't see it in RS!
> Everything works fine when the created group is a "global group" in AD.
> Best Regards.
> Greg.
>|||Has someone already tested AD local groups in RS ?
Greg.
"Greg - NEOS" wrote:
> Hi all,
> Is it a known bug ?
> Thanx.
> Greg.
> "Greg - NEOS" wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm posting this problem for the third time. Still no answer from the MS
> > Team. I've found other users on the web having the same issue.
> >
> > I have the following problem with AD an RS: when creating a group of users
> > as a "domain local group" in AD, i'm able to give a specific item-level role
> > in RS to members of this group. But it looks like rights are not effective
> > for those users. For example if the group is defined as "reader" on a folder,
> > group members can't see it in RS!
> >
> > Everything works fine when the created group is a "global group" in AD.
> >
> > Best Regards.
> > Greg.
> >