Hello,
I'm using Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition which has multiple instances
of SQL Server 2005 standard edition. Am running a few tests that require the
switching on/off of the physical & logical disk counters.
Diskperf on Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition does not allow me to do this.
Either both (Logical & Physical) are enabled or both are disabled.
How can I turn them on/off individually?
Cheers!
Sqlcatz
The implementation of this changed on Windows 2003. Both
logical and physical are automatically enabled "on demand"
under Win 2003.
-Sue
On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 03:51:02 -0700, SQLCatz
<SQLCatz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>Hello,
>I'm using Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition which has multiple instances
>of SQL Server 2005 standard edition. Am running a few tests that require the
>switching on/off of the physical & logical disk counters.
>Diskperf on Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition does not allow me to do this.
>Either both (Logical & Physical) are enabled or both are disabled.
>How can I turn them on/off individually?
>Cheers!
>Sqlcatz
|||Hello Sue,
Thank you for the reply.
Yes. They are automatically enabled - I came across that from an article.
But I'm not able to find anything that will allow me to disable them
(individually).
I'm executing certain tests for an application one of which requires that
these counters be disabled.
Is there any specific reason for Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition to
prevent the enabling/disabling of these counters? Can you point me to some
literature regarding this. I can accept the fact that this kind of behaviour
is not allowed - but need to know why - so that I provide a technical/logical
reason.
Cheers!
sqlcatz
|||The are enabled when an application calls them - it's
automatic and built into the OS.
Previously, there were problems when you would have a
production performance issue and needed to monitor disks. If
the performance counters weren't enabled, you had to run
diskperf and reboot - not good for a production server.
You can run diskperf /help from the command line and read
the comments. That's one area of "documentation" on it - for
whatever that's worth. But the output is along the lines of:
NOTE: Disk performance counters are permanently enabled on
systems beyond Windows 2000.
-Sue
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 22:13:01 -0700, SQLCatz
<SQLCatz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>Hello Sue,
>Thank you for the reply.
>Yes. They are automatically enabled - I came across that from an article.
>But I'm not able to find anything that will allow me to disable them
>(individually).
>I'm executing certain tests for an application one of which requires that
>these counters be disabled.
>Is there any specific reason for Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition to
>prevent the enabling/disabling of these counters? Can you point me to some
>literature regarding this. I can accept the fact that this kind of behaviour
>is not allowed - but need to know why - so that I provide a technical/logical
>reason.
>Cheers!
>sqlcatz
|||Thank you Sue!
sqlcatz
2012年3月29日星期四
Diskperf on Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition.
Hello,
I'm using Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition which has multiple instances
of SQL Server 2005 standard edition. Am running a few tests that require the
switching on/off of the physical & logical disk counters.
Diskperf on Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition does not allow me to do thi
s.
Either both (Logical & Physical) are enabled or both are disabled.
How can I turn them on/off individually?
Cheers!
SqlcatzThe implementation of this changed on Windows 2003. Both
logical and physical are automatically enabled "on demand"
under Win 2003.
-Sue
On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 03:51:02 -0700, SQLCatz
<SQLCatz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>Hello,
>I'm using Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition which has multiple instances
>of SQL Server 2005 standard edition. Am running a few tests that require th
e
>switching on/off of the physical & logical disk counters.
>Diskperf on Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition does not allow me to do th
is.
>Either both (Logical & Physical) are enabled or both are disabled.
>How can I turn them on/off individually?
>Cheers!
>Sqlcatz|||Hello Sue,
Thank you for the reply.
Yes. They are automatically enabled - I came across that from an article.
But I'm not able to find anything that will allow me to disable them
(individually).
I'm executing certain tests for an application one of which requires that
these counters be disabled.
Is there any specific reason for Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition to
prevent the enabling/disabling of these counters? Can you point me to some
literature regarding this. I can accept the fact that this kind of behaviour
is not allowed - but need to know why - so that I provide a technical/logica
l
reason.
Cheers!
sqlcatz|||The are enabled when an application calls them - it's
automatic and built into the OS.
Previously, there were problems when you would have a
production performance issue and needed to monitor disks. If
the performance counters weren't enabled, you had to run
diskperf and reboot - not good for a production server.
You can run diskperf /help from the command line and read
the comments. That's one area of "documentation" on it - for
whatever that's worth. But the output is along the lines of:
NOTE: Disk performance counters are permanently enabled on
systems beyond Windows 2000.
-Sue
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 22:13:01 -0700, SQLCatz
<SQLCatz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>Hello Sue,
>Thank you for the reply.
>Yes. They are automatically enabled - I came across that from an article.
>But I'm not able to find anything that will allow me to disable them
>(individually).
>I'm executing certain tests for an application one of which requires that
>these counters be disabled.
>Is there any specific reason for Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition to
>prevent the enabling/disabling of these counters? Can you point me to some
>literature regarding this. I can accept the fact that this kind of behaviou
r
>is not allowed - but need to know why - so that I provide a technical/logic
al
>reason.
>Cheers!
>sqlcatz|||Thank you Sue!
sqlcatz
I'm using Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition which has multiple instances
of SQL Server 2005 standard edition. Am running a few tests that require the
switching on/off of the physical & logical disk counters.
Diskperf on Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition does not allow me to do thi
s.
Either both (Logical & Physical) are enabled or both are disabled.
How can I turn them on/off individually?
Cheers!
SqlcatzThe implementation of this changed on Windows 2003. Both
logical and physical are automatically enabled "on demand"
under Win 2003.
-Sue
On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 03:51:02 -0700, SQLCatz
<SQLCatz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>Hello,
>I'm using Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition which has multiple instances
>of SQL Server 2005 standard edition. Am running a few tests that require th
e
>switching on/off of the physical & logical disk counters.
>Diskperf on Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition does not allow me to do th
is.
>Either both (Logical & Physical) are enabled or both are disabled.
>How can I turn them on/off individually?
>Cheers!
>Sqlcatz|||Hello Sue,
Thank you for the reply.
Yes. They are automatically enabled - I came across that from an article.
But I'm not able to find anything that will allow me to disable them
(individually).
I'm executing certain tests for an application one of which requires that
these counters be disabled.
Is there any specific reason for Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition to
prevent the enabling/disabling of these counters? Can you point me to some
literature regarding this. I can accept the fact that this kind of behaviour
is not allowed - but need to know why - so that I provide a technical/logica
l
reason.
Cheers!
sqlcatz|||The are enabled when an application calls them - it's
automatic and built into the OS.
Previously, there were problems when you would have a
production performance issue and needed to monitor disks. If
the performance counters weren't enabled, you had to run
diskperf and reboot - not good for a production server.
You can run diskperf /help from the command line and read
the comments. That's one area of "documentation" on it - for
whatever that's worth. But the output is along the lines of:
NOTE: Disk performance counters are permanently enabled on
systems beyond Windows 2000.
-Sue
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 22:13:01 -0700, SQLCatz
<SQLCatz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>Hello Sue,
>Thank you for the reply.
>Yes. They are automatically enabled - I came across that from an article.
>But I'm not able to find anything that will allow me to disable them
>(individually).
>I'm executing certain tests for an application one of which requires that
>these counters be disabled.
>Is there any specific reason for Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition to
>prevent the enabling/disabling of these counters? Can you point me to some
>literature regarding this. I can accept the fact that this kind of behaviou
r
>is not allowed - but need to know why - so that I provide a technical/logic
al
>reason.
>Cheers!
>sqlcatz|||Thank you Sue!
sqlcatz
Diskperf on Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition.
Hello,
I'm using Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition which has multiple instances
of SQL Server 2005 standard edition. Am running a few tests that require the
switching on/off of the physical & logical disk counters.
Diskperf on Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition does not allow me to do this.
Either both (Logical & Physical) are enabled or both are disabled.
How can I turn them on/off individually?
Cheers!
SqlcatzThe implementation of this changed on Windows 2003. Both
logical and physical are automatically enabled "on demand"
under Win 2003.
-Sue
On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 03:51:02 -0700, SQLCatz
<SQLCatz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>Hello,
>I'm using Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition which has multiple instances
>of SQL Server 2005 standard edition. Am running a few tests that require the
>switching on/off of the physical & logical disk counters.
>Diskperf on Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition does not allow me to do this.
>Either both (Logical & Physical) are enabled or both are disabled.
>How can I turn them on/off individually?
>Cheers!
>Sqlcatz|||Hello Sue,
Thank you for the reply.
Yes. They are automatically enabled - I came across that from an article.
But I'm not able to find anything that will allow me to disable them
(individually).
I'm executing certain tests for an application one of which requires that
these counters be disabled.
Is there any specific reason for Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition to
prevent the enabling/disabling of these counters? Can you point me to some
literature regarding this. I can accept the fact that this kind of behaviour
is not allowed - but need to know why - so that I provide a technical/logical
reason.
Cheers!
sqlcatz|||The are enabled when an application calls them - it's
automatic and built into the OS.
Previously, there were problems when you would have a
production performance issue and needed to monitor disks. If
the performance counters weren't enabled, you had to run
diskperf and reboot - not good for a production server.
You can run diskperf /help from the command line and read
the comments. That's one area of "documentation" on it - for
whatever that's worth. But the output is along the lines of:
NOTE: Disk performance counters are permanently enabled on
systems beyond Windows 2000.
-Sue
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 22:13:01 -0700, SQLCatz
<SQLCatz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>Hello Sue,
>Thank you for the reply.
>Yes. They are automatically enabled - I came across that from an article.
>But I'm not able to find anything that will allow me to disable them
>(individually).
>I'm executing certain tests for an application one of which requires that
>these counters be disabled.
>Is there any specific reason for Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition to
>prevent the enabling/disabling of these counters? Can you point me to some
>literature regarding this. I can accept the fact that this kind of behaviour
>is not allowed - but need to know why - so that I provide a technical/logical
>reason.
>Cheers!
>sqlcatz|||Thank you Sue!
sqlcatz
I'm using Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition which has multiple instances
of SQL Server 2005 standard edition. Am running a few tests that require the
switching on/off of the physical & logical disk counters.
Diskperf on Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition does not allow me to do this.
Either both (Logical & Physical) are enabled or both are disabled.
How can I turn them on/off individually?
Cheers!
SqlcatzThe implementation of this changed on Windows 2003. Both
logical and physical are automatically enabled "on demand"
under Win 2003.
-Sue
On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 03:51:02 -0700, SQLCatz
<SQLCatz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>Hello,
>I'm using Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition which has multiple instances
>of SQL Server 2005 standard edition. Am running a few tests that require the
>switching on/off of the physical & logical disk counters.
>Diskperf on Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition does not allow me to do this.
>Either both (Logical & Physical) are enabled or both are disabled.
>How can I turn them on/off individually?
>Cheers!
>Sqlcatz|||Hello Sue,
Thank you for the reply.
Yes. They are automatically enabled - I came across that from an article.
But I'm not able to find anything that will allow me to disable them
(individually).
I'm executing certain tests for an application one of which requires that
these counters be disabled.
Is there any specific reason for Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition to
prevent the enabling/disabling of these counters? Can you point me to some
literature regarding this. I can accept the fact that this kind of behaviour
is not allowed - but need to know why - so that I provide a technical/logical
reason.
Cheers!
sqlcatz|||The are enabled when an application calls them - it's
automatic and built into the OS.
Previously, there were problems when you would have a
production performance issue and needed to monitor disks. If
the performance counters weren't enabled, you had to run
diskperf and reboot - not good for a production server.
You can run diskperf /help from the command line and read
the comments. That's one area of "documentation" on it - for
whatever that's worth. But the output is along the lines of:
NOTE: Disk performance counters are permanently enabled on
systems beyond Windows 2000.
-Sue
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 22:13:01 -0700, SQLCatz
<SQLCatz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>Hello Sue,
>Thank you for the reply.
>Yes. They are automatically enabled - I came across that from an article.
>But I'm not able to find anything that will allow me to disable them
>(individually).
>I'm executing certain tests for an application one of which requires that
>these counters be disabled.
>Is there any specific reason for Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition to
>prevent the enabling/disabling of these counters? Can you point me to some
>literature regarding this. I can accept the fact that this kind of behaviour
>is not allowed - but need to know why - so that I provide a technical/logical
>reason.
>Cheers!
>sqlcatz|||Thank you Sue!
sqlcatz
2012年3月27日星期二
Disk Partition Size
Can you please tell me what the largest disk partition size is for a clustered SQL Server 2005 installation (64 bit edition)? I have been told it is 2 Terabytes - can anyone confirm this?
Many thanks
Shirley
If you're asking about logical partitioning, this might help:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnsql90/html/sql2k5partition.asp
But if you're asking about physical partitions on the hard drive, then Books Online states it's 16 terabytes. Paste this in the "URL" bar of BOL to check out the table of specifications:
ms-help://MS.SQLCC.v9/MS.SQLSVR.v9.en/instsql9/html/13e95046-0e76-4604-b561-d1a74dd824d7.htm
Buck Woody
2012年3月25日星期日
Disk Partition Size
Can you please tell me what the largest disk partition size is for a clustered SQL Server 2005 installation (64 bit edition)? I have been told it is 2 Terabytes - can anyone confirm this?
Many thanks
Shirley
If you're asking about logical partitioning, this might help:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnsql90/html/sql2k5partition.asp
But if you're asking about physical partitions on the hard drive, then Books Online states it's 16 terabytes. Paste this in the "URL" bar of BOL to check out the table of specifications:
ms-help://MS.SQLCC.v9/MS.SQLSVR.v9.en/instsql9/html/13e95046-0e76-4604-b561-d1a74dd824d7.htm
Buck Woody
2012年3月22日星期四
Disester Recovery
Hi,
I'm using SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition and now I want to create a
Disester Recovery Site. Can I do that using that SQL Server 2000 Standard
edition? For info, I'm running a Financial Software, which means data
transection rate is very high. Another thing is that, for my remote users
what would be the minimum bandwidth required to connect to SQL Server as well
as DR Site?
Please let me know..
regards,
Mahmud
Hi,
You can wither use
1. Logshipping
2. TRansactional Replication
But all depends up on the network speed between your location to DR site. If
you have a dedicated network connectivity
then you can setup a Transactional replication.
Regarding the bandwidth -- Depends up on the transacgtion and amount of
users connecting to your system. I recommend that you should
have identical network band width for both production and DR site
Thanks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
"Mahmud" <Mahmud@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B6058E06-B1F7-45B7-A8E2-1ED6D83B6022@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I'm using SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition and now I want to create a
> Disester Recovery Site. Can I do that using that SQL Server 2000 Standard
> edition? For info, I'm running a Financial Software, which means data
> transection rate is very high. Another thing is that, for my remote users
> what would be the minimum bandwidth required to connect to SQL Server as
> well
> as DR Site?
> Please let me know..
> regards,
> Mahmud
|||Hi
Thanks for the info. Can you please provide me some technical doc links, so
that I can get a better idea & can able to create/manage DR site.
Thanks once again.
"Hari Prasad" wrote:
> Hi,
> You can wither use
> 1. Logshipping
> 2. TRansactional Replication
> But all depends up on the network speed between your location to DR site. If
> you have a dedicated network connectivity
> then you can setup a Transactional replication.
> Regarding the bandwidth -- Depends up on the transacgtion and amount of
> users connecting to your system. I recommend that you should
> have identical network band width for both production and DR site
> Thanks
> Hari
> SQL Server MVP
> "Mahmud" <Mahmud@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:B6058E06-B1F7-45B7-A8E2-1ED6D83B6022@.microsoft.com...
>
>
I'm using SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition and now I want to create a
Disester Recovery Site. Can I do that using that SQL Server 2000 Standard
edition? For info, I'm running a Financial Software, which means data
transection rate is very high. Another thing is that, for my remote users
what would be the minimum bandwidth required to connect to SQL Server as well
as DR Site?
Please let me know..
regards,
Mahmud
Hi,
You can wither use
1. Logshipping
2. TRansactional Replication
But all depends up on the network speed between your location to DR site. If
you have a dedicated network connectivity
then you can setup a Transactional replication.
Regarding the bandwidth -- Depends up on the transacgtion and amount of
users connecting to your system. I recommend that you should
have identical network band width for both production and DR site
Thanks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
"Mahmud" <Mahmud@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B6058E06-B1F7-45B7-A8E2-1ED6D83B6022@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I'm using SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition and now I want to create a
> Disester Recovery Site. Can I do that using that SQL Server 2000 Standard
> edition? For info, I'm running a Financial Software, which means data
> transection rate is very high. Another thing is that, for my remote users
> what would be the minimum bandwidth required to connect to SQL Server as
> well
> as DR Site?
> Please let me know..
> regards,
> Mahmud
|||Hi
Thanks for the info. Can you please provide me some technical doc links, so
that I can get a better idea & can able to create/manage DR site.
Thanks once again.
"Hari Prasad" wrote:
> Hi,
> You can wither use
> 1. Logshipping
> 2. TRansactional Replication
> But all depends up on the network speed between your location to DR site. If
> you have a dedicated network connectivity
> then you can setup a Transactional replication.
> Regarding the bandwidth -- Depends up on the transacgtion and amount of
> users connecting to your system. I recommend that you should
> have identical network band width for both production and DR site
> Thanks
> Hari
> SQL Server MVP
> "Mahmud" <Mahmud@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:B6058E06-B1F7-45B7-A8E2-1ED6D83B6022@.microsoft.com...
>
>
Disester Recovery
Hi,
I'm using SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition and now I want to create a
Disester Recovery Site. Can I do that using that SQL Server 2000 Standard
edition? For info, I'm running a Financial Software, which means data
transection rate is very high. Another thing is that, for my remote users
what would be the minimum bandwidth required to connect to SQL Server as well
as DR Site?
Please let me know..
regards,
MahmudHi,
You can wither use
1. Logshipping
2. TRansactional Replication
But all depends up on the network speed between your location to DR site. If
you have a dedicated network connectivity
then you can setup a Transactional replication.
Regarding the bandwidth -- Depends up on the transacgtion and amount of
users connecting to your system. I recommend that you should
have identical network band width for both production and DR site
Thanks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
"Mahmud" <Mahmud@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B6058E06-B1F7-45B7-A8E2-1ED6D83B6022@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I'm using SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition and now I want to create a
> Disester Recovery Site. Can I do that using that SQL Server 2000 Standard
> edition? For info, I'm running a Financial Software, which means data
> transection rate is very high. Another thing is that, for my remote users
> what would be the minimum bandwidth required to connect to SQL Server as
> well
> as DR Site?
> Please let me know..
> regards,
> Mahmud|||Hi
Thanks for the info. Can you please provide me some technical doc links, so
that I can get a better idea & can able to create/manage DR site.
Thanks once again.
"Hari Prasad" wrote:
> Hi,
> You can wither use
> 1. Logshipping
> 2. TRansactional Replication
> But all depends up on the network speed between your location to DR site. If
> you have a dedicated network connectivity
> then you can setup a Transactional replication.
> Regarding the bandwidth -- Depends up on the transacgtion and amount of
> users connecting to your system. I recommend that you should
> have identical network band width for both production and DR site
> Thanks
> Hari
> SQL Server MVP
> "Mahmud" <Mahmud@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:B6058E06-B1F7-45B7-A8E2-1ED6D83B6022@.microsoft.com...
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm using SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition and now I want to create a
> > Disester Recovery Site. Can I do that using that SQL Server 2000 Standard
> > edition? For info, I'm running a Financial Software, which means data
> > transection rate is very high. Another thing is that, for my remote users
> > what would be the minimum bandwidth required to connect to SQL Server as
> > well
> > as DR Site?
> >
> > Please let me know..
> >
> > regards,
> >
> > Mahmud
>
>
I'm using SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition and now I want to create a
Disester Recovery Site. Can I do that using that SQL Server 2000 Standard
edition? For info, I'm running a Financial Software, which means data
transection rate is very high. Another thing is that, for my remote users
what would be the minimum bandwidth required to connect to SQL Server as well
as DR Site?
Please let me know..
regards,
MahmudHi,
You can wither use
1. Logshipping
2. TRansactional Replication
But all depends up on the network speed between your location to DR site. If
you have a dedicated network connectivity
then you can setup a Transactional replication.
Regarding the bandwidth -- Depends up on the transacgtion and amount of
users connecting to your system. I recommend that you should
have identical network band width for both production and DR site
Thanks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
"Mahmud" <Mahmud@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B6058E06-B1F7-45B7-A8E2-1ED6D83B6022@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I'm using SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition and now I want to create a
> Disester Recovery Site. Can I do that using that SQL Server 2000 Standard
> edition? For info, I'm running a Financial Software, which means data
> transection rate is very high. Another thing is that, for my remote users
> what would be the minimum bandwidth required to connect to SQL Server as
> well
> as DR Site?
> Please let me know..
> regards,
> Mahmud|||Hi
Thanks for the info. Can you please provide me some technical doc links, so
that I can get a better idea & can able to create/manage DR site.
Thanks once again.
"Hari Prasad" wrote:
> Hi,
> You can wither use
> 1. Logshipping
> 2. TRansactional Replication
> But all depends up on the network speed between your location to DR site. If
> you have a dedicated network connectivity
> then you can setup a Transactional replication.
> Regarding the bandwidth -- Depends up on the transacgtion and amount of
> users connecting to your system. I recommend that you should
> have identical network band width for both production and DR site
> Thanks
> Hari
> SQL Server MVP
> "Mahmud" <Mahmud@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:B6058E06-B1F7-45B7-A8E2-1ED6D83B6022@.microsoft.com...
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm using SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition and now I want to create a
> > Disester Recovery Site. Can I do that using that SQL Server 2000 Standard
> > edition? For info, I'm running a Financial Software, which means data
> > transection rate is very high. Another thing is that, for my remote users
> > what would be the minimum bandwidth required to connect to SQL Server as
> > well
> > as DR Site?
> >
> > Please let me know..
> >
> > regards,
> >
> > Mahmud
>
>
Disester Recovery
Hi,
I'm using SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition and now I want to create a
Disester Recovery Site. Can I do that using that SQL Server 2000 Standard
edition? For info, I'm running a Financial Software, which means data
transection rate is very high. Another thing is that, for my remote users
what would be the minimum bandwidth required to connect to SQL Server as wel
l
as DR Site?
Please let me know..
regards,
MahmudHi,
You can wither use
1. Logshipping
2. TRansactional Replication
But all depends up on the network speed between your location to DR site. If
you have a dedicated network connectivity
then you can setup a Transactional replication.
Regarding the bandwidth -- Depends up on the transacgtion and amount of
users connecting to your system. I recommend that you should
have identical network band width for both production and DR site
Thanks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
"Mahmud" <Mahmud@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B6058E06-B1F7-45B7-A8E2-1ED6D83B6022@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I'm using SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition and now I want to create a
> Disester Recovery Site. Can I do that using that SQL Server 2000 Standard
> edition? For info, I'm running a Financial Software, which means data
> transection rate is very high. Another thing is that, for my remote users
> what would be the minimum bandwidth required to connect to SQL Server as
> well
> as DR Site?
> Please let me know..
> regards,
> Mahmud|||Hi
Thanks for the info. Can you please provide me some technical doc links, so
that I can get a better idea & can able to create/manage DR site.
Thanks once again.
"Hari Prasad" wrote:
> Hi,
> You can wither use
> 1. Logshipping
> 2. TRansactional Replication
> But all depends up on the network speed between your location to DR site.
If
> you have a dedicated network connectivity
> then you can setup a Transactional replication.
> Regarding the bandwidth -- Depends up on the transacgtion and amount of
> users connecting to your system. I recommend that you should
> have identical network band width for both production and DR site
> Thanks
> Hari
> SQL Server MVP
> "Mahmud" <Mahmud@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:B6058E06-B1F7-45B7-A8E2-1ED6D83B6022@.microsoft.com...
>
>
I'm using SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition and now I want to create a
Disester Recovery Site. Can I do that using that SQL Server 2000 Standard
edition? For info, I'm running a Financial Software, which means data
transection rate is very high. Another thing is that, for my remote users
what would be the minimum bandwidth required to connect to SQL Server as wel
l
as DR Site?
Please let me know..
regards,
MahmudHi,
You can wither use
1. Logshipping
2. TRansactional Replication
But all depends up on the network speed between your location to DR site. If
you have a dedicated network connectivity
then you can setup a Transactional replication.
Regarding the bandwidth -- Depends up on the transacgtion and amount of
users connecting to your system. I recommend that you should
have identical network band width for both production and DR site
Thanks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
"Mahmud" <Mahmud@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B6058E06-B1F7-45B7-A8E2-1ED6D83B6022@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I'm using SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition and now I want to create a
> Disester Recovery Site. Can I do that using that SQL Server 2000 Standard
> edition? For info, I'm running a Financial Software, which means data
> transection rate is very high. Another thing is that, for my remote users
> what would be the minimum bandwidth required to connect to SQL Server as
> well
> as DR Site?
> Please let me know..
> regards,
> Mahmud|||Hi
Thanks for the info. Can you please provide me some technical doc links, so
that I can get a better idea & can able to create/manage DR site.
Thanks once again.
"Hari Prasad" wrote:
> Hi,
> You can wither use
> 1. Logshipping
> 2. TRansactional Replication
> But all depends up on the network speed between your location to DR site.
If
> you have a dedicated network connectivity
> then you can setup a Transactional replication.
> Regarding the bandwidth -- Depends up on the transacgtion and amount of
> users connecting to your system. I recommend that you should
> have identical network band width for both production and DR site
> Thanks
> Hari
> SQL Server MVP
> "Mahmud" <Mahmud@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:B6058E06-B1F7-45B7-A8E2-1ED6D83B6022@.microsoft.com...
>
>
2012年3月20日星期二
disconnection of web pages from SQL Server
We have SQL 2000 SP4 (Standard Edition) on Windows 2000 SP4. We have a cold
fusion application that is running against this database. We have 5 front end
(cold fusion) servers load balanced. We have a monitoring service that pings
our web application main pages (we have 2 main pages) and reports the
downtime. Once in a while the alert site reports that the site is down (tries
thru all the 5 cold fusion servers). On the DB side, I do not see any
messages for that time frame SQL server logs and or error logs. I was looking
at the stats... CPU usuage is around 55%, 8 minutes before the problem
oocured. It gradually went up and reached 65% 3 minutes before. Came
gradually came down to 25% at 1 minute after the problem. 1.6 GB memory was
available through out and number of cpu processes were constant at 45.
Are there any other ways to find out what happened (if any thing was really
wrong with SQL server) ?
Are there any other logs I could check (of course it is after the effect now)
Do you have scheduled virus scans that might be running at this time?
"RK73" wrote:
> We have SQL 2000 SP4 (Standard Edition) on Windows 2000 SP4. We have a cold
> fusion application that is running against this database. We have 5 front end
> (cold fusion) servers load balanced. We have a monitoring service that pings
> our web application main pages (we have 2 main pages) and reports the
> downtime. Once in a while the alert site reports that the site is down (tries
> thru all the 5 cold fusion servers). On the DB side, I do not see any
> messages for that time frame SQL server logs and or error logs. I was looking
> at the stats... CPU usuage is around 55%, 8 minutes before the problem
> oocured. It gradually went up and reached 65% 3 minutes before. Came
> gradually came down to 25% at 1 minute after the problem. 1.6 GB memory was
> available through out and number of cpu processes were constant at 45.
> Are there any other ways to find out what happened (if any thing was really
> wrong with SQL server) ?
> Are there any other logs I could check (of course it is after the effect now)
sql
fusion application that is running against this database. We have 5 front end
(cold fusion) servers load balanced. We have a monitoring service that pings
our web application main pages (we have 2 main pages) and reports the
downtime. Once in a while the alert site reports that the site is down (tries
thru all the 5 cold fusion servers). On the DB side, I do not see any
messages for that time frame SQL server logs and or error logs. I was looking
at the stats... CPU usuage is around 55%, 8 minutes before the problem
oocured. It gradually went up and reached 65% 3 minutes before. Came
gradually came down to 25% at 1 minute after the problem. 1.6 GB memory was
available through out and number of cpu processes were constant at 45.
Are there any other ways to find out what happened (if any thing was really
wrong with SQL server) ?
Are there any other logs I could check (of course it is after the effect now)
Do you have scheduled virus scans that might be running at this time?
"RK73" wrote:
> We have SQL 2000 SP4 (Standard Edition) on Windows 2000 SP4. We have a cold
> fusion application that is running against this database. We have 5 front end
> (cold fusion) servers load balanced. We have a monitoring service that pings
> our web application main pages (we have 2 main pages) and reports the
> downtime. Once in a while the alert site reports that the site is down (tries
> thru all the 5 cold fusion servers). On the DB side, I do not see any
> messages for that time frame SQL server logs and or error logs. I was looking
> at the stats... CPU usuage is around 55%, 8 minutes before the problem
> oocured. It gradually went up and reached 65% 3 minutes before. Came
> gradually came down to 25% at 1 minute after the problem. 1.6 GB memory was
> available through out and number of cpu processes were constant at 45.
> Are there any other ways to find out what happened (if any thing was really
> wrong with SQL server) ?
> Are there any other logs I could check (of course it is after the effect now)
sql
disconnection of web pages from SQL Server
We have SQL 2000 SP4 (Standard Edition) on Windows 2000 SP4. We have a cold
fusion application that is running against this database. We have 5 front end
(cold fusion) servers load balanced. We have a monitoring service that pings
our web application main pages (we have 2 main pages) and reports the
downtime. Once in a while the alert site reports that the site is down (tries
thru all the 5 cold fusion servers). On the DB side, I do not see any
messages for that time frame SQL server logs and or error logs. I was looking
at the stats... CPU usuage is around 55%, 8 minutes before the problem
oocured. It gradually went up and reached 65% 3 minutes before. Came
gradually came down to 25% at 1 minute after the problem. 1.6 GB memory was
available through out and number of cpu processes were constant at 45.
Are there any other ways to find out what happened (if any thing was really
wrong with SQL server) ?
Are there any other logs I could check (of course it is after the effect now)Do you have scheduled virus scans that might be running at this time?
"RK73" wrote:
> We have SQL 2000 SP4 (Standard Edition) on Windows 2000 SP4. We have a cold
> fusion application that is running against this database. We have 5 front end
> (cold fusion) servers load balanced. We have a monitoring service that pings
> our web application main pages (we have 2 main pages) and reports the
> downtime. Once in a while the alert site reports that the site is down (tries
> thru all the 5 cold fusion servers). On the DB side, I do not see any
> messages for that time frame SQL server logs and or error logs. I was looking
> at the stats... CPU usuage is around 55%, 8 minutes before the problem
> oocured. It gradually went up and reached 65% 3 minutes before. Came
> gradually came down to 25% at 1 minute after the problem. 1.6 GB memory was
> available through out and number of cpu processes were constant at 45.
> Are there any other ways to find out what happened (if any thing was really
> wrong with SQL server) ?
> Are there any other logs I could check (of course it is after the effect now)
fusion application that is running against this database. We have 5 front end
(cold fusion) servers load balanced. We have a monitoring service that pings
our web application main pages (we have 2 main pages) and reports the
downtime. Once in a while the alert site reports that the site is down (tries
thru all the 5 cold fusion servers). On the DB side, I do not see any
messages for that time frame SQL server logs and or error logs. I was looking
at the stats... CPU usuage is around 55%, 8 minutes before the problem
oocured. It gradually went up and reached 65% 3 minutes before. Came
gradually came down to 25% at 1 minute after the problem. 1.6 GB memory was
available through out and number of cpu processes were constant at 45.
Are there any other ways to find out what happened (if any thing was really
wrong with SQL server) ?
Are there any other logs I could check (of course it is after the effect now)Do you have scheduled virus scans that might be running at this time?
"RK73" wrote:
> We have SQL 2000 SP4 (Standard Edition) on Windows 2000 SP4. We have a cold
> fusion application that is running against this database. We have 5 front end
> (cold fusion) servers load balanced. We have a monitoring service that pings
> our web application main pages (we have 2 main pages) and reports the
> downtime. Once in a while the alert site reports that the site is down (tries
> thru all the 5 cold fusion servers). On the DB side, I do not see any
> messages for that time frame SQL server logs and or error logs. I was looking
> at the stats... CPU usuage is around 55%, 8 minutes before the problem
> oocured. It gradually went up and reached 65% 3 minutes before. Came
> gradually came down to 25% at 1 minute after the problem. 1.6 GB memory was
> available through out and number of cpu processes were constant at 45.
> Are there any other ways to find out what happened (if any thing was really
> wrong with SQL server) ?
> Are there any other logs I could check (of course it is after the effect now)
disconnection of web pages from SQL Server
We have SQL 2000 SP4 (Standard Edition) on Windows 2000 SP4. We have a cold
fusion application that is running against this database. We have 5 front en
d
(cold fusion) servers load balanced. We have a monitoring service that pings
our web application main pages (we have 2 main pages) and reports the
downtime. Once in a while the alert site reports that the site is down (trie
s
thru all the 5 cold fusion servers). On the DB side, I do not see any
messages for that time frame SQL server logs and or error logs. I was lookin
g
at the stats... CPU usuage is around 55%, 8 minutes before the problem
oocured. It gradually went up and reached 65% 3 minutes before. Came
gradually came down to 25% at 1 minute after the problem. 1.6 GB memory was
available through out and number of cpu processes were constant at 45.
Are there any other ways to find out what happened (if any thing was really
wrong with SQL server) ?
Are there any other logs I could check (of course it is after the effect now
)Do you have scheduled virus scans that might be running at this time?
"RK73" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> We have SQL 2000 SP4 (Standard Edition) on Windows 2000 SP4. We have a col
d
> fusion application that is running against this database. We have 5 front
end
> (cold fusion) servers load balanced. We have a monitoring service that pin
gs
> our web application main pages (we have 2 main pages) and reports the
> downtime. Once in a while the alert site reports that the site is down (tr
ies
> thru all the 5 cold fusion servers). On the DB side, I do not see any
> messages for that time frame SQL server logs and or error logs. I was look
ing
> at the stats... CPU usuage is around 55%, 8 minutes before the problem
> oocured. It gradually went up and reached 65% 3 minutes before. Came
> gradually came down to 25% at 1 minute after the problem. 1.6 GB memory w
as
> available through out and number of cpu processes were constant at 45.
> Are there any other ways to find out what happened (if any thing was reall
y
> wrong with SQL server) ?
> Are there any other logs I could check (of course it is after the effect now)[/vbc
ol]
fusion application that is running against this database. We have 5 front en
d
(cold fusion) servers load balanced. We have a monitoring service that pings
our web application main pages (we have 2 main pages) and reports the
downtime. Once in a while the alert site reports that the site is down (trie
s
thru all the 5 cold fusion servers). On the DB side, I do not see any
messages for that time frame SQL server logs and or error logs. I was lookin
g
at the stats... CPU usuage is around 55%, 8 minutes before the problem
oocured. It gradually went up and reached 65% 3 minutes before. Came
gradually came down to 25% at 1 minute after the problem. 1.6 GB memory was
available through out and number of cpu processes were constant at 45.
Are there any other ways to find out what happened (if any thing was really
wrong with SQL server) ?
Are there any other logs I could check (of course it is after the effect now
)Do you have scheduled virus scans that might be running at this time?
"RK73" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> We have SQL 2000 SP4 (Standard Edition) on Windows 2000 SP4. We have a col
d
> fusion application that is running against this database. We have 5 front
end
> (cold fusion) servers load balanced. We have a monitoring service that pin
gs
> our web application main pages (we have 2 main pages) and reports the
> downtime. Once in a while the alert site reports that the site is down (tr
ies
> thru all the 5 cold fusion servers). On the DB side, I do not see any
> messages for that time frame SQL server logs and or error logs. I was look
ing
> at the stats... CPU usuage is around 55%, 8 minutes before the problem
> oocured. It gradually went up and reached 65% 3 minutes before. Came
> gradually came down to 25% at 1 minute after the problem. 1.6 GB memory w
as
> available through out and number of cpu processes were constant at 45.
> Are there any other ways to find out what happened (if any thing was reall
y
> wrong with SQL server) ?
> Are there any other logs I could check (of course it is after the effect now)[/vbc
ol]
2012年3月11日星期日
Disaster Recovery: SQL Server 2000 on Win 2000 Server.
This past Monday, our Raid 5 array failed on our SQL 2000 server (standard edition). Long story short, we were able to get the data back, mostly. In SQL server Ent. Mgr., I had to restore 4 databases that were 'Suspect' and "greyed out". No problems there... I was able to restore them.
What was interesting was that the SQL Server Agent would not start. As it turned out, a few files were either corrupt or missing after we got the machine back up. We had to restore a few files from tape backup and now the SQL Server Agent starts... but now I have a new problem.
For some reason, my default SQL Server Agent "Job" that is scheduled to run once per day fails. It appears that all of the databases get backed up, but for some reason, the msdbdata.mdf database is NOT being backed up.
I have a few questions. Could my msdbdata.mdf be corrupt? I have a successful backup of the msdbdata.mdf table from 9/10/2007. Can I just restore from that? Will there be any repercussions to any of the other database tables if I do?
Furthermore, should I just restore the msdbdata.mdf, master.mdf and the model.mdf? I really have no idea what these tables do and the repercussions of modifying them. I am not a DBA (obviously) and I just don't want to make an mistakes.
Thanks, CFDev.
Can you pls provide the details of the job history if any ? I guess you mean to say that msdb database backup fails if i interpret it correctly 
and Yes you can go ahead and restore the msdb.bak dated 9/10/2007 and check........the only issue is that all the jobs,dts packages created since 9/10 will not be available if you restore it.........I don't think its needed its enough if you restore msdb no need to restore master or model dbs..........
|||The "Job" is part of the databases default "maintenance plan". It consists of four parts:
1. DB backup
2. Integrity checks
3. Optimizations
4. Transaction Log Backup
This should be familiar to you, no? Anyway, would be okay to restore the msdb database then? How about the model and master databases? No tables, stored procedures, dts packages or anything has been changed. I just want peace of mind that if I were to restore any of these database tables, it would not effect any of my website's database tables. Make sense?
|||
Yes i am familiar with it if you feel there is no change done in msdb after 9/10 you can go ahead and restore msdb. Master stores all the login information and model acts as
template for other dbs so just restore msdb as it contains all the jobs and dts packages....I dont think restoring msdb would affect your db tables.......
It would also be a good idea to run checkdb on all databases to make sure that they're clean.
You haven't made changes since 9/10, but you'd really rather not trip across hidden problems later.
Disaster Recovery: SQL Server 2000 on Win 2000 Server.
This past Monday, our Raid 5 array failed on our SQL 2000 server (standard edition). Long story short, we were able to get the data back, mostly. In SQL server Ent. Mgr., I had to restore 4 databases that were 'Suspect' and "greyed out". No problems there... I was able to restore them.
What was interesting was that the SQL Server Agent would not start. As it turned out, a few files were either corrupt or missing after we got the machine back up. We had to restore a few files from tape backup and now the SQL Server Agent starts... but now I have a new problem.
For some reason, my default SQL Server Agent "Job" that is scheduled to run once per day fails. It appears that all of the databases get backed up, but for some reason, the msdbdata.mdf database is NOT being backed up.
I have a few questions. Could my msdbdata.mdf be corrupt? I have a successful backup of the msdbdata.mdf table from 9/10/2007. Can I just restore from that? Will there be any repercussions to any of the other database tables if I do?
Furthermore, should I just restore the msdbdata.mdf, master.mdf and the model.mdf? I really have no idea what these tables do and the repercussions of modifying them. I am not a DBA (obviously) and I just don't want to make an mistakes.
Thanks, CFDev.
Can you pls provide the details of the job history if any ? I guess you mean to say that msdb database backup fails if i interpret it correctly and Yes you can go ahead and restore the msdb.bak dated 9/10/2007 and check........the only issue is that all the jobs,dts packages created since 9/10 will not be available if you restore it.........I don't think its needed its enough if you restore msdb no need to restore master or model dbs..........
|||The "Job" is part of the databases default "maintenance plan". It consists of four parts:
1. DB backup
2. Integrity checks
3. Optimizations
4. Transaction Log Backup
This should be familiar to you, no? Anyway, would be okay to restore the msdb database then? How about the model and master databases? No tables, stored procedures, dts packages or anything has been changed. I just want peace of mind that if I were to restore any of these database tables, it would not effect any of my website's database tables. Make sense?
|||
Yes i am familiar with it if you feel there is no change done in msdb after 9/10 you can go ahead and restore msdb. Master stores all the login information and model acts as
template for other dbs so just restore msdb as it contains all the jobs and dts packages....I dont think restoring msdb would affect your db tables.......
It would also be a good idea to run checkdb on all databases to make sure that they're clean.
You haven't made changes since 9/10, but you'd really rather not trip across hidden problems later.
2012年2月24日星期五
Disable Windows Authentication mode in WDA
Hi,
I have installed MS SQL Server 2005 Express Edition, and SQL Web Data
Administrator on my Windows 2003 webserver with IIS 6.0
Everything works fine but I want to deny the users to log on WDA using
Windows Integrated authentication.
At the moment when i open http://ipaddress/webadmin in IE, I get
following textboxes:
Username: SERVERNAME\Administrator (disabled / greyed out)
Password: <blank> (disabled / greyed out)
Server: (local)
and following Radio Buttons:
Authentication Method: Windows Integrated (selected by default)
SQL Login
If I change he Server textbox value from (local) to server\instancename
and click login, it logs me in straight away where I can perform any
admin functions
I dont want any user to log on using windows integrated authentication.
Is there any way around this problem? I dont want my system to get
hacked either, so cant just change default.aspx file and then allow
hackers still to point to my server with some default variable values
and get access
Thanks in advance.
Regards
You cannot disable Windows Authentication mode (:. If you allow the user
logon to the compuer, where SQL Server runs, as administrator, that user can
do anything the SQL Server. Period. So, simply guard that computer's
administrator account as tight as you can. If the you logon the any other
account to the computer, as long as you did not give access to SQL Server to
those user accounts, the SQL Server will be fine. So, you see, if you
developed some solution that uses SQL Server/Express and you delevered it to
your clients. As long as your clients have full right on their computers
(administrator), they can get into the SQL Server/Express you delevered.
<gogaz@.rediffmail.com> wrote in message
news:1161030857.258517.78090@.i42g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
> Hi,
> I have installed MS SQL Server 2005 Express Edition, and SQL Web Data
> Administrator on my Windows 2003 webserver with IIS 6.0
> Everything works fine but I want to deny the users to log on WDA using
> Windows Integrated authentication.
> At the moment when i open http://ipaddress/webadmin in IE, I get
> following textboxes:
> Username: SERVERNAME\Administrator (disabled / greyed out)
> Password: <blank> (disabled / greyed out)
> Server: (local)
> and following Radio Buttons:
> Authentication Method: Windows Integrated (selected by default)
> SQL Login
> If I change he Server textbox value from (local) to server\instancename
> and click login, it logs me in straight away where I can perform any
> admin functions
> I dont want any user to log on using windows integrated authentication.
> Is there any way around this problem? I dont want my system to get
> hacked either, so cant just change default.aspx file and then allow
> hackers still to point to my server with some default variable values
> and get access
> Thanks in advance.
> Regards
>
|||Thanks for the reply. I have sorted out the problem now. Actually when
I downloaded WDA from
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...displaylang=en
and installed it on server, it created a folder Samples under
C:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server Tools\Microsoft SQL Web Data
Administrator
In that folder I found source code application for WDA. So I opened it
in VS2003 and updated it as per my requirement. Wicked application this
is!!
I will upload it on my server and will post the link here soon I have
updated it further and tested it myself
Regards
Norman Yuan wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> You cannot disable Windows Authentication mode (:. If you allow the user
> logon to the compuer, where SQL Server runs, as administrator, that user can
> do anything the SQL Server. Period. So, simply guard that computer's
> administrator account as tight as you can. If the you logon the any other
> account to the computer, as long as you did not give access to SQL Server to
> those user accounts, the SQL Server will be fine. So, you see, if you
> developed some solution that uses SQL Server/Express and you delevered it to
> your clients. As long as your clients have full right on their computers
> (administrator), they can get into the SQL Server/Express you delevered.
> <gogaz@.rediffmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1161030857.258517.78090@.i42g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
I have installed MS SQL Server 2005 Express Edition, and SQL Web Data
Administrator on my Windows 2003 webserver with IIS 6.0
Everything works fine but I want to deny the users to log on WDA using
Windows Integrated authentication.
At the moment when i open http://ipaddress/webadmin in IE, I get
following textboxes:
Username: SERVERNAME\Administrator (disabled / greyed out)
Password: <blank> (disabled / greyed out)
Server: (local)
and following Radio Buttons:
Authentication Method: Windows Integrated (selected by default)
SQL Login
If I change he Server textbox value from (local) to server\instancename
and click login, it logs me in straight away where I can perform any
admin functions
I dont want any user to log on using windows integrated authentication.
Is there any way around this problem? I dont want my system to get
hacked either, so cant just change default.aspx file and then allow
hackers still to point to my server with some default variable values
and get access
Thanks in advance.
Regards
You cannot disable Windows Authentication mode (:. If you allow the user
logon to the compuer, where SQL Server runs, as administrator, that user can
do anything the SQL Server. Period. So, simply guard that computer's
administrator account as tight as you can. If the you logon the any other
account to the computer, as long as you did not give access to SQL Server to
those user accounts, the SQL Server will be fine. So, you see, if you
developed some solution that uses SQL Server/Express and you delevered it to
your clients. As long as your clients have full right on their computers
(administrator), they can get into the SQL Server/Express you delevered.
<gogaz@.rediffmail.com> wrote in message
news:1161030857.258517.78090@.i42g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
> Hi,
> I have installed MS SQL Server 2005 Express Edition, and SQL Web Data
> Administrator on my Windows 2003 webserver with IIS 6.0
> Everything works fine but I want to deny the users to log on WDA using
> Windows Integrated authentication.
> At the moment when i open http://ipaddress/webadmin in IE, I get
> following textboxes:
> Username: SERVERNAME\Administrator (disabled / greyed out)
> Password: <blank> (disabled / greyed out)
> Server: (local)
> and following Radio Buttons:
> Authentication Method: Windows Integrated (selected by default)
> SQL Login
> If I change he Server textbox value from (local) to server\instancename
> and click login, it logs me in straight away where I can perform any
> admin functions
> I dont want any user to log on using windows integrated authentication.
> Is there any way around this problem? I dont want my system to get
> hacked either, so cant just change default.aspx file and then allow
> hackers still to point to my server with some default variable values
> and get access
> Thanks in advance.
> Regards
>
|||Thanks for the reply. I have sorted out the problem now. Actually when
I downloaded WDA from
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...displaylang=en
and installed it on server, it created a folder Samples under
C:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server Tools\Microsoft SQL Web Data
Administrator
In that folder I found source code application for WDA. So I opened it
in VS2003 and updated it as per my requirement. Wicked application this
is!!
I will upload it on my server and will post the link here soon I have
updated it further and tested it myself
Regards
Norman Yuan wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> You cannot disable Windows Authentication mode (:. If you allow the user
> logon to the compuer, where SQL Server runs, as administrator, that user can
> do anything the SQL Server. Period. So, simply guard that computer's
> administrator account as tight as you can. If the you logon the any other
> account to the computer, as long as you did not give access to SQL Server to
> those user accounts, the SQL Server will be fine. So, you see, if you
> developed some solution that uses SQL Server/Express and you delevered it to
> your clients. As long as your clients have full right on their computers
> (administrator), they can get into the SQL Server/Express you delevered.
> <gogaz@.rediffmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1161030857.258517.78090@.i42g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
2012年2月14日星期二
disable all SA accounts remotly - access only for low user ?
Hi,
I need to access my web based SQL 2005 express edition database on 1433
using a user with minimal privileges that can only run a stored procedure. I
do this by connecting to IP / port.
Is there anyway I can disable SA using this same method but still allow SA
when I remote desktop to the machine and connect using Management Studio
Express.
I.e if I disable the account the SA account or other admin accounts I cant
login when I RDP into the machine.
The minimal privileges user can simply run a single stored procedure but
must do using 1433.
I just need to disable 1433 access for all other accounts and cant figure
out how to (I guess Management Studio Express connects using 1433 anyway so
im stuck).
If this is the case I guess I need to use SQLXML.
Thanks for any help
Scott
I'm not sure, but you could try playing with something like:
DENY CONNECT ON ENDPOINT::TCP TO "sa"
(Check BOL for exact syntax)
I'm not sure whether such permissions are actually checked for sysadmins (let us know after your
test), and of course, you'd have to make sure some other netlib is used when inside the private
network (like Shared Memory, which only work locally).
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Scott" <www.sage-eshop.com> wrote in message news:O$T7b0J3GHA.4764@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> I need to access my web based SQL 2005 express edition database on 1433 using a user with minimal
> privileges that can only run a stored procedure. I do this by connecting to IP / port.
> Is there anyway I can disable SA using this same method but still allow SA when I remote desktop
> to the machine and connect using Management Studio Express.
> I.e if I disable the account the SA account or other admin accounts I cant login when I RDP into
> the machine.
> The minimal privileges user can simply run a single stored procedure but must do using 1433.
> I just need to disable 1433 access for all other accounts and cant figure out how to (I guess
> Management Studio Express connects using 1433 anyway so im stuck).
> If this is the case I guess I need to use SQLXML.
> Thanks for any help
> Scott
>
I need to access my web based SQL 2005 express edition database on 1433
using a user with minimal privileges that can only run a stored procedure. I
do this by connecting to IP / port.
Is there anyway I can disable SA using this same method but still allow SA
when I remote desktop to the machine and connect using Management Studio
Express.
I.e if I disable the account the SA account or other admin accounts I cant
login when I RDP into the machine.
The minimal privileges user can simply run a single stored procedure but
must do using 1433.
I just need to disable 1433 access for all other accounts and cant figure
out how to (I guess Management Studio Express connects using 1433 anyway so
im stuck).
If this is the case I guess I need to use SQLXML.
Thanks for any help
Scott
I'm not sure, but you could try playing with something like:
DENY CONNECT ON ENDPOINT::TCP TO "sa"
(Check BOL for exact syntax)
I'm not sure whether such permissions are actually checked for sysadmins (let us know after your
test), and of course, you'd have to make sure some other netlib is used when inside the private
network (like Shared Memory, which only work locally).
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Scott" <www.sage-eshop.com> wrote in message news:O$T7b0J3GHA.4764@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> I need to access my web based SQL 2005 express edition database on 1433 using a user with minimal
> privileges that can only run a stored procedure. I do this by connecting to IP / port.
> Is there anyway I can disable SA using this same method but still allow SA when I remote desktop
> to the machine and connect using Management Studio Express.
> I.e if I disable the account the SA account or other admin accounts I cant login when I RDP into
> the machine.
> The minimal privileges user can simply run a single stored procedure but must do using 1433.
> I just need to disable 1433 access for all other accounts and cant figure out how to (I guess
> Management Studio Express connects using 1433 anyway so im stuck).
> If this is the case I guess I need to use SQLXML.
> Thanks for any help
> Scott
>
disable all SA accounts remotly - access only for low user ?
Hi,
I need to access my web based SQL 2005 express edition database on 1433
using a user with minimal privileges that can only run a stored procedure. I
do this by connecting to IP / port.
Is there anyway I can disable SA using this same method but still allow SA
when I remote desktop to the machine and connect using Management Studio
Express.
I.e if I disable the account the SA account or other admin accounts I cant
login when I RDP into the machine.
The minimal privileges user can simply run a single stored procedure but
must do using 1433.
I just need to disable 1433 access for all other accounts and cant figure
out how to (I guess Management Studio Express connects using 1433 anyway so
im stuck).
If this is the case I guess I need to use SQLXML.
Thanks for any help
ScottI'm not sure, but you could try playing with something like:
DENY CONNECT ON ENDPOINT::TCP TO "sa"
(Check BOL for exact syntax)
I'm not sure whether such permissions are actually checked for sysadmins (le
t us know after your
test), and of course, you'd have to make sure some other netlib is used when
inside the private
network (like Shared Memory, which only work locally).
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Scott" <www.sage-eshop.com> wrote in message news:O$T7b0J3GHA.4764@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...[
vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi,
> I need to access my web based SQL 2005 express edition database on 1433 us
ing a user with minimal
> privileges that can only run a stored procedure. I do this by connecting t
o IP / port.
> Is there anyway I can disable SA using this same method but still allow SA
when I remote desktop
> to the machine and connect using Management Studio Express.
> I.e if I disable the account the SA account or other admin accounts I cant
login when I RDP into
> the machine.
> The minimal privileges user can simply run a single stored procedure but m
ust do using 1433.
> I just need to disable 1433 access for all other accounts and cant figure
out how to (I guess
> Management Studio Express connects using 1433 anyway so im stuck).
> If this is the case I guess I need to use SQLXML.
> Thanks for any help
> Scott
>[/vbcol]
I need to access my web based SQL 2005 express edition database on 1433
using a user with minimal privileges that can only run a stored procedure. I
do this by connecting to IP / port.
Is there anyway I can disable SA using this same method but still allow SA
when I remote desktop to the machine and connect using Management Studio
Express.
I.e if I disable the account the SA account or other admin accounts I cant
login when I RDP into the machine.
The minimal privileges user can simply run a single stored procedure but
must do using 1433.
I just need to disable 1433 access for all other accounts and cant figure
out how to (I guess Management Studio Express connects using 1433 anyway so
im stuck).
If this is the case I guess I need to use SQLXML.
Thanks for any help
ScottI'm not sure, but you could try playing with something like:
DENY CONNECT ON ENDPOINT::TCP TO "sa"
(Check BOL for exact syntax)
I'm not sure whether such permissions are actually checked for sysadmins (le
t us know after your
test), and of course, you'd have to make sure some other netlib is used when
inside the private
network (like Shared Memory, which only work locally).
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Scott" <www.sage-eshop.com> wrote in message news:O$T7b0J3GHA.4764@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...[
vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi,
> I need to access my web based SQL 2005 express edition database on 1433 us
ing a user with minimal
> privileges that can only run a stored procedure. I do this by connecting t
o IP / port.
> Is there anyway I can disable SA using this same method but still allow SA
when I remote desktop
> to the machine and connect using Management Studio Express.
> I.e if I disable the account the SA account or other admin accounts I cant
login when I RDP into
> the machine.
> The minimal privileges user can simply run a single stored procedure but m
ust do using 1433.
> I just need to disable 1433 access for all other accounts and cant figure
out how to (I guess
> Management Studio Express connects using 1433 anyway so im stuck).
> If this is the case I guess I need to use SQLXML.
> Thanks for any help
> Scott
>[/vbcol]
disable all SA accounts remotly - access only for low user ?
Hi,
I need to access my web based SQL 2005 express edition database on 1433
using a user with minimal privileges that can only run a stored procedure. I
do this by connecting to IP / port.
Is there anyway I can disable SA using this same method but still allow SA
when I remote desktop to the machine and connect using Management Studio
Express.
I.e if I disable the account the SA account or other admin accounts I cant
login when I RDP into the machine.
The minimal privileges user can simply run a single stored procedure but
must do using 1433.
I just need to disable 1433 access for all other accounts and cant figure
out how to (I guess Management Studio Express connects using 1433 anyway so
im stuck).
If this is the case I guess I need to use SQLXML.
Thanks for any help
ScottI'm not sure, but you could try playing with something like:
DENY CONNECT ON ENDPOINT::TCP TO "sa"
(Check BOL for exact syntax)
I'm not sure whether such permissions are actually checked for sysadmins (let us know after your
test), and of course, you'd have to make sure some other netlib is used when inside the private
network (like Shared Memory, which only work locally).
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Scott" <www.sage-eshop.com> wrote in message news:O$T7b0J3GHA.4764@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> I need to access my web based SQL 2005 express edition database on 1433 using a user with minimal
> privileges that can only run a stored procedure. I do this by connecting to IP / port.
> Is there anyway I can disable SA using this same method but still allow SA when I remote desktop
> to the machine and connect using Management Studio Express.
> I.e if I disable the account the SA account or other admin accounts I cant login when I RDP into
> the machine.
> The minimal privileges user can simply run a single stored procedure but must do using 1433.
> I just need to disable 1433 access for all other accounts and cant figure out how to (I guess
> Management Studio Express connects using 1433 anyway so im stuck).
> If this is the case I guess I need to use SQLXML.
> Thanks for any help
> Scott
>
I need to access my web based SQL 2005 express edition database on 1433
using a user with minimal privileges that can only run a stored procedure. I
do this by connecting to IP / port.
Is there anyway I can disable SA using this same method but still allow SA
when I remote desktop to the machine and connect using Management Studio
Express.
I.e if I disable the account the SA account or other admin accounts I cant
login when I RDP into the machine.
The minimal privileges user can simply run a single stored procedure but
must do using 1433.
I just need to disable 1433 access for all other accounts and cant figure
out how to (I guess Management Studio Express connects using 1433 anyway so
im stuck).
If this is the case I guess I need to use SQLXML.
Thanks for any help
ScottI'm not sure, but you could try playing with something like:
DENY CONNECT ON ENDPOINT::TCP TO "sa"
(Check BOL for exact syntax)
I'm not sure whether such permissions are actually checked for sysadmins (let us know after your
test), and of course, you'd have to make sure some other netlib is used when inside the private
network (like Shared Memory, which only work locally).
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Scott" <www.sage-eshop.com> wrote in message news:O$T7b0J3GHA.4764@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> I need to access my web based SQL 2005 express edition database on 1433 using a user with minimal
> privileges that can only run a stored procedure. I do this by connecting to IP / port.
> Is there anyway I can disable SA using this same method but still allow SA when I remote desktop
> to the machine and connect using Management Studio Express.
> I.e if I disable the account the SA account or other admin accounts I cant login when I RDP into
> the machine.
> The minimal privileges user can simply run a single stored procedure but must do using 1433.
> I just need to disable 1433 access for all other accounts and cant figure out how to (I guess
> Management Studio Express connects using 1433 anyway so im stuck).
> If this is the case I guess I need to use SQLXML.
> Thanks for any help
> Scott
>
订阅：
博文 (Atom)