Adding Users to MSDE

I am having a authentication problem.. users log into my website... I authenticate them against Active Directory.. and then I try to query a MSDE database... my connection string is as follows:

 Dim connectionString As String = "server='srv_sql'; user id='sa'; password='MyPassword'; Database='MyDB'"
 Dim dbConnection As System.Data.SqlClient.SqlConnection = New System.Data.SqlClient.SqlConnection(connectionString)

However since I have

<identity impersonate=true>

in my web.config file... it tries to login to the MSDE database as the user.. not as the user SA.

I cannot change the web.config file, since I need that for the active directory authentication to work...

in SQL Server you can add users to a database through the enterprise manager.. how can I do a similar thing using MSDE ?

Is it even possible? or do I have to upgrade to a full SQL instance?

any help would be appreciatedTo answer your question, use the osql command line utility. See this KB article for more info:HOW TO: Manage the SQL Server Desktop Engine (MSDE 2000) by Using the Osql Utility.

what you need to do is use the sp_grantlogin system sp to add the login:

EXEC sp_grantlogin 'Corporate\Test'

Then give it access like this:

EXEC sp_grantdbaccess 'Corporate\BobJ', 'Bob'

You'll also need to give it permissions.

That said, there may need to be adjustments for use with Active Directory.

BUT, you should never, ever, NEVER use the sa login for database access. Not for any app and certainly not for an ASP.NET app. You're opening yourself up to a whole lot of hurt doing it this way. Instead, create a login that has only the specific permissions needed to run the app. No more.

It's more work, but you'll have made the app far more secure.

Don|||...for sure don't use SA on the page itself. What about permissioning the database with Windows authenticated logins since you are using AD...if you haven't already. If you do then you can set windows authentication via Internet Services Manager on the directory hosting the page (be sure to get rid of anonymous users)

Adding Processors

Hi,
Hope that someone can help me on this.
If I have a 2 nodes clustered SQL Server 2000 (active/passive) and each
server has 2 processors during the installation of SQL Server 2000. Now I
wanted to add 2 more processors onto each server to increase performance.
Will SQL Server 2000 automatically pickup the 2 new processors?
Thanks in advance,
Alex
"Alex" <Yukon@.nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:euNxLVMcEHA.1144@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> If I have a 2 nodes clustered SQL Server 2000 (active/passive) and each
> server has 2 processors during the installation of SQL Server 2000. Now I
> wanted to add 2 more processors onto each server to increase performance.
> Will SQL Server 2000 automatically pickup the 2 new processors?
>
Assuming you are running on Windows 2000 or better? The answer is yes it
will, you could verify that by checking the sql server properties. Processor
tab.
Steve
|||Alex,
Sure, why not? Unless you have set the affinity mask to manage how many
processors SQL Server can use. (In general, don't set the affinity mask.)
Russell Fields
"Alex" <Yukon@.nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:euNxLVMcEHA.1144@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> Hope that someone can help me on this.
> If I have a 2 nodes clustered SQL Server 2000 (active/passive) and each
> server has 2 processors during the installation of SQL Server 2000. Now I
> wanted to add 2 more processors onto each server to increase performance.
> Will SQL Server 2000 automatically pickup the 2 new processors?
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Alex
>
|||Russell and Steve,
Thanks for the information.
Alex
"Russell Fields" <RussellFields@.NoMailPlease.Com> wrote in message
news:OBqaovNcEHA.2520@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Alex,
> Sure, why not? Unless you have set the affinity mask to manage how many
> processors SQL Server can use. (In general, don't set the affinity mask.)
> Russell Fields
> "Alex" <Yukon@.nospam.nospam> wrote in message
> news:euNxLVMcEHA.1144@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
I[vbcol=seagreen]
performance.
>

Adding Processors

Hi,
Hope that someone can help me on this.
If I have a 2 nodes clustered SQL Server 2000 (active/passive) and each
server has 2 processors during the installation of SQL Server 2000. Now I
wanted to add 2 more processors onto each server to increase performance.
Will SQL Server 2000 automatically pickup the 2 new processors?
Thanks in advance,
Alex"Alex" <Yukon@.nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:euNxLVMcEHA.1144@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> If I have a 2 nodes clustered SQL Server 2000 (active/passive) and each
> server has 2 processors during the installation of SQL Server 2000. Now I
> wanted to add 2 more processors onto each server to increase performance.
> Will SQL Server 2000 automatically pickup the 2 new processors?
>
Assuming you are running on Windows 2000 or better? The answer is yes it
will, you could verify that by checking the sql server properties. Processor
tab.
Steve|||Alex,
Sure, why not? Unless you have set the affinity mask to manage how many
processors SQL Server can use. (In general, don't set the affinity mask.)
Russell Fields
"Alex" <Yukon@.nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:euNxLVMcEHA.1144@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> Hope that someone can help me on this.
> If I have a 2 nodes clustered SQL Server 2000 (active/passive) and each
> server has 2 processors during the installation of SQL Server 2000. Now I
> wanted to add 2 more processors onto each server to increase performance.
> Will SQL Server 2000 automatically pickup the 2 new processors?
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Alex
>|||Russell and Steve,
Thanks for the information.
Alex
"Russell Fields" <RussellFields@.NoMailPlease.Com> wrote in message
news:OBqaovNcEHA.2520@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Alex,
> Sure, why not? Unless you have set the affinity mask to manage how many
> processors SQL Server can use. (In general, don't set the affinity mask.)
> Russell Fields
> "Alex" <Yukon@.nospam.nospam> wrote in message
> news:euNxLVMcEHA.1144@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
I[vbcol=seagreen]
performance.[vbcol=seagreen]
>

Adding Processors

Hi,
Hope that someone can help me on this.
If I have a 2 nodes clustered SQL Server 2000 (active/passive) and each
server has 2 processors during the installation of SQL Server 2000. Now I
wanted to add 2 more processors onto each server to increase performance.
Will SQL Server 2000 automatically pickup the 2 new processors?
Thanks in advance,
Alex"Alex" <Yukon@.nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:euNxLVMcEHA.1144@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> If I have a 2 nodes clustered SQL Server 2000 (active/passive) and each
> server has 2 processors during the installation of SQL Server 2000. Now I
> wanted to add 2 more processors onto each server to increase performance.
> Will SQL Server 2000 automatically pickup the 2 new processors?
>
Assuming you are running on Windows 2000 or better? The answer is yes it
will, you could verify that by checking the sql server properties. Processor
tab.
Steve|||Alex,
Sure, why not? Unless you have set the affinity mask to manage how many
processors SQL Server can use. (In general, don't set the affinity mask.)
Russell Fields
"Alex" <Yukon@.nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:euNxLVMcEHA.1144@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> Hope that someone can help me on this.
> If I have a 2 nodes clustered SQL Server 2000 (active/passive) and each
> server has 2 processors during the installation of SQL Server 2000. Now I
> wanted to add 2 more processors onto each server to increase performance.
> Will SQL Server 2000 automatically pickup the 2 new processors?
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Alex
>|||Russell and Steve,
Thanks for the information.
Alex
"Russell Fields" <RussellFields@.NoMailPlease.Com> wrote in message
news:OBqaovNcEHA.2520@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Alex,
> Sure, why not? Unless you have set the affinity mask to manage how many
> processors SQL Server can use. (In general, don't set the affinity mask.)
> Russell Fields
> "Alex" <Yukon@.nospam.nospam> wrote in message
> news:euNxLVMcEHA.1144@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > Hi,
> >
> > Hope that someone can help me on this.
> >
> > If I have a 2 nodes clustered SQL Server 2000 (active/passive) and each
> > server has 2 processors during the installation of SQL Server 2000. Now
I
> > wanted to add 2 more processors onto each server to increase
performance.
> > Will SQL Server 2000 automatically pickup the 2 new processors?
> >
> >
> > Thanks in advance,
> > Alex
> >
> >
>

Adding Full-Text Search Indexing to a Cluster

Ihave an Active/Passive Cluster. Can someone point me to a Technet
article or provide the steps for adding Full-text indexing?
I can't seem to find one!
Thank you.
Jay
SQL FTS has to be installed from the start on a cluster. The SQL Server 2000
High availablilty book is pretty good for installing a cluster.
<jay.griffin@.burke.com> wrote in message
news:1107212619.013634.8160@.c13g2000cwb.googlegrou ps.com...
> Ihave an Active/Passive Cluster. Can someone point me to a Technet
> article or provide the steps for adding Full-text indexing?
> I can't seem to find one!
> Thank you.
> Jay
>
|||Jay,
Could you post the full output of -- SELECT @.@.version -- as this is helpful
in understanding your current clustered environment.
For the time being, I'm going to assume that you have a clustered SQL Server
2000 A/P environment. Correct? If so, then you should be using SQL Server
2000 Enterprise Edition and Full-text Indexing (and Full-text Search, often
referred to as SQL FTS) is installed by default.
You can use the SQL Enterprise Manager and select Server and database, you
want to FT-enable and click on Tools -> Full-text Indexing to launch the FT
Indexing Wizard. This wizard (SQLFTWiz.exe) will walk you though all the
necessary steps for adding Full-text Indexing to a selected table. Note, the
table, must have a single column, non-nullable, unique index to qualify for
a table to be FT Indexed. Also, the only restriction for FTI in a clustered
environment, is that the FT Catalog, must be created on the shared disk
drive in your clustered environment.
You may also want to do this via pure T-SQL code, and if so, checkout "Full
Text Indexing using T-SQL from a Profiler Trace" at
http://spaces.msn.com/members/jtkane/Blog/cns!1pWDBCiDX1uvH5ATJmNCVLPQ!304.entry
and this blog entry will walk you though all the necessary T-SQL code.
Hope that helps!
John
SQL Full Text Search Blog
http://spaces.msn.com/members/jtkane/
<jay.griffin@.burke.com> wrote in message
news:1107212619.013634.8160@.c13g2000cwb.googlegrou ps.com...
> Ihave an Active/Passive Cluster. Can someone point me to a Technet
> article or provide the steps for adding Full-text indexing?
> I can't seem to find one!
> Thank you.
> Jay
>
|||Thanks for your help. It is SQL 2000 Enterprise (A/P) on Windows 2000
Adv Server. Sorry to omit that important information.
Here is my problem -- Full Text indexing is not installed. When I try
to do what you indicated, Full Text Indexing is grayed out.
I was installing some other software which was going to create a
database. It gave the a warning that Full text indexing was not
installed and the software would not function properly.
If I go into the SQL Setup, I can't add/remove components. The only
option I have is to Uninstall. I am wondering how I can add full-text
indexing.
Thanks for your help,
Jay
John Kane wrote:
> Jay,
> Could you post the full output of -- SELECT @.@.version -- as this is
helpful
> in understanding your current clustered environment.
> For the time being, I'm going to assume that you have a clustered SQL
Server
> 2000 A/P environment. Correct? If so, then you should be using SQL
Server
> 2000 Enterprise Edition and Full-text Indexing (and Full-text Search,
often
> referred to as SQL FTS) is installed by default.
> You can use the SQL Enterprise Manager and select Server and
database, you
> want to FT-enable and click on Tools -> Full-text Indexing to launch
the FT
> Indexing Wizard. This wizard (SQLFTWiz.exe) will walk you though all
the
> necessary steps for adding Full-text Indexing to a selected table.
Note, the
> table, must have a single column, non-nullable, unique index to
qualify for
> a table to be FT Indexed. Also, the only restriction for FTI in a
clustered
> environment, is that the FT Catalog, must be created on the shared
disk
> drive in your clustered environment.
> You may also want to do this via pure T-SQL code, and if so, checkout
"Full
> Text Indexing using T-SQL from a Profiler Trace" at
>
http://spaces.msn.com/members/jtkane/Blog/cns!1pWDBCiDX1uvH5ATJmNCVLPQ!304.entry
> and this blog entry will walk you though all the necessary T-SQL
code.[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hope that helps!
> John
> --
> SQL Full Text Search Blog
> http://spaces.msn.com/members/jtkane/
>
> <jay.griffin@.burke.com> wrote in message
> news:1107212619.013634.8160@.c13g2000cwb.googlegrou ps.com...
|||You're welcome, Jay,
Despite what you see as "Full Text Indexing is grayed out", it is most
likely that Full Text Search (FTS) is installed because of what you see when
you attempt to add the "Full-Text Search" components via SQL Setup and
"custom installation" where the "Full-Text Search" component option is
already checkmarked. Correct?
If the above is not correct, you may have the MSSQLServer service running
under a local machine account, if so, then checkout KB article Q270671
(Q270671) "PRB: Full Text Search Menus Are Not Enabled for Local Windows NT
Accounts" at:
http://support.microsoft.com/default...;en-us;q270671
If the above is correct, then you can force the removal of the checkmark via
the removal or renaming of the following tracking registry key and the
following procedure to Re-install" the "Full-text Search" components via
deleting (or renaming) the below "tracking key" and re-install (If you're
not using a named instance, remove "<Instance_Name>\".)
NOTE: be sure to be logged on to the server as either Administrator or as a
member of the server's Admin Group!
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Microsoft SQL
Server\<Instance_Name>\Tracking\
{E07FDDA7-5A21-11d2-9DAD-00C04F79D434}
Once you're done removed (renamed) the above tracking key, then delete the
MSSearch directory from either:
drive_letter:\Program Files\Common Files\Microsoft Shared\
or
drive_letter::\Program Files\Common Files\System\
Then using your SQL Server 2000 installation CD re-install via "Custom
Installation" the Full-Text Search component (it should be un-checked). When
this completes find and save these files: SearchSetup.log (usually under
\windows or \winnt folders) and sqlsp.log. If any problems, please post
these files.
Re-install the service pack that you may have applied to SQL Server 2000, so
that the newly re-installed MSSearch components are upgraded to SP3a levels
and then re-boot &/or restart the MSSearch and MSSQLServer services.
You may also want to consult or perform the procedures document in the
following Kb article: 827449 "How to manually reinstall the Microsoft Search
service for an instance of SQL 2000" at:
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;EN-US;827449
Finally, and considering that this is a clustered environment, you may also
want to review the following KB articles:
812666 "How to recover a failed full-text search resource on a clustered
instance of SQL Server 2000" at:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?kbid=812666
"The full-text search results that are returned in a clustered SQL Server
2000 environment may be different when the active node changes" at:
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;889708
Hope that helps!
John
SQL Full Text Search Blog
http://spaces.msn.com/members/jtkane/
<jay.griffin@.burke.com> wrote in message
news:1107270434.064396.309410@.c13g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
> Thanks for your help. It is SQL 2000 Enterprise (A/P) on Windows 2000
> Adv Server. Sorry to omit that important information.
> Here is my problem -- Full Text indexing is not installed. When I try
> to do what you indicated, Full Text Indexing is grayed out.
> I was installing some other software which was going to create a
> database. It gave the a warning that Full text indexing was not
> installed and the software would not function properly.
> If I go into the SQL Setup, I can't add/remove components. The only
> option I have is to Uninstall. I am wondering how I can add full-text
> indexing.
> Thanks for your help,
> Jay
>
> John Kane wrote:
> helpful
> Server
> Server
> often
> database, you
> the FT
> the
> Note, the
> qualify for
> clustered
> disk
> "Full
>
http://spaces.msn.com/members/jtkane/Blog/cns!1pWDBCiDX1uvH5ATJmNCVLPQ!304.entry
> code.
>
|||Thanks John.
Clarification from my previous post: "If I go into the SQL Setup, I
can't add/remove components. =ADThe only option I have is to Uninstall.
" -- ALL other options are grayed out. It is not a matter of them
already being checked. I have no option to check them. It isn't
installed and it won't let me add it.
I am assuming because this is a cluster, components have to be added
differently. Because I have no option to add/remove components under
the custom install. My only option is to Uninstall. (yes - I am
logged in as administrator).
MSSQLServer is running as a domain account and that account is in the
domain admins group.
|||You're welcome, Jay,
Ok, so we take 10 yards and punt (to use a football analogy)... Before I ask
you to un-cluster your servers and re-install SQL Server (a big effort, I
know), I want you to confirm something for me.
Is this SQL Server installed on a Domain Controller or a backup DC? As I've
seen problems with FTS working correctly when installed on a DC or BDC and
with MSSQLServer service startup account being the Domain Administrators
account. If it's not on a DC or BDC, but you are using an account that is a
member of the DOMAIN Administrator group, could you create a separate
DOMAIN\Account and add that account to the local server's Administrators
Group and then using the SQL Enterprise Manager's server property security
tab, change the MSSQLServer service startup account to the newly created
DOMAIN\Account. This change should prompt you to stop & re-start SQL Server
and click yes to this prompt. Then close and re-launch the Enterprise
Manager and see if the Full Text Indexing is still grayed out. If it is not
grayed out, then failover to your Passive node and do the same thing there.
As I've said I've seen this before in non-clustered environments where SQL
Server 2000 was installed on a DC or BDC and the MSSQLServer service
startup account being the Domain Administrators account. The solution in
this case was as I described above or resetting the MSSQLServer service
startup account use LocalSystem or as a last resort move the SQL Server off
the DC or BDC.
Let me know if this successful for you, otherwise, the fallback solution is
to un-cluster your servers and re-install SQL Server :-(
Thanks,
John
SQL Full Text Search Blog
http://spaces.msn.com/members/jtkane/
<jay.griffin@.burke.com> wrote in message
news:1107277007.739900.246620@.z14g2000cwz.googlegr oups.com...
Thanks John.
Clarification from my previous post: "If I go into the SQL Setup, I
can't add/remove components. XThe only option I have is to Uninstall.
" -- ALL other options are grayed out. It is not a matter of them
already being checked. I have no option to check them. It isn't
installed and it won't let me add it.
I am assuming because this is a cluster, components have to be added
differently. Because I have no option to add/remove components under
the custom install. My only option is to Uninstall. (yes - I am
logged in as administrator).
MSSQLServer is running as a domain account and that account is in the
domain admins group.
|||Based on what you are telling me -- I am going to have to uncluster and
re-install. The servers are not a DC. The special user I setup for
the SQL servers is in the local admins group already.
Do you know of any KB articles that would walk me through this without
losing any information?
|||Jay,
Yep, 10 yards & punt... Re-installing a Clustered SQL server is never easy,
but these references may help:
a.. SQL Server 2000 Clustering Whitepaper,
http://www.microsoft.com/SQL/techinf...vercluster.asp
a.. 815431 PRB: Installation of a Named Instance of SQL Server 2000 Virtual
Server http://support.microsoft.com/?id=815431
a.. 325485 WebCast: Microsoft SQL Server 2000 Virtual Server Basic Setup
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=325485
a.. 274446 INF: Upgrade to SQL Server 2000 Failover Solution Recommended for
All... http://support.microsoft.com/?id=274446
a.. 254321 INF: Clustered SQL Server Do's, Don'ts, and Basic Warnings
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=254321
a.. 243218 INF: Installation Order for SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=243218
a.. 260758 INF: Frequently Asked Questions - SQL Server 2000 - Failover
Clustering http://support.microsoft.com/?id=260758
Hope this helps!
John
SQL Full Text Search Blog
http://spaces.msn.com/members/jtkane/
<jay.griffin@.burke.com> wrote in message
news:1107354007.277719.324960@.g14g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> Based on what you are telling me -- I am going to have to uncluster and
> re-install. The servers are not a DC. The special user I setup for
> the SQL servers is in the local admins group already.
> Do you know of any KB articles that would walk me through this without
> losing any information?
>
|||John,
Thank you for all your help on this issue.
Jay

Adding FoxPro to SQL Cluster?

Hi all,
I am the SQL DBA for an organization. We have an active/passive 2-node SQL 2000 cluster running on Windows 2003 Server. So far, it has been very stable (knock wood).
Somebody here wants to add FoxPro as a clustered application onto our (failover) clustered database server. My gut tells me no, partially because I'm not sure if you can cluster FoxPro, and what the implications of running a FoxPro cluster are. Also, I
have not been able to find any information on the Web about implementing, administrating or coding for a FoxPro cluster, while the same information on SQL Server clustering is abundent.
My questions are:
1. Has anyone out there implemented a clustered FoxPro server?
2. If so, have you implemented this on the same cluster as your production SQL Server cluster?
3. Does anyone have any recommendations for or against this type of setup?
4. Can anyone point me in the direction of information that would make the case one way or the other about this proposed implementation?
Thanks in advance!
Cheers,
-m
My first question would be:
Why do they want to do this?
Why would they want to use a FoxPro application in an environment that is
designed for high availablitly?
Theoritically any application can be clustered but logically it does not
make sense to cluster an application that by design is a desktop
application. It seems to be a waste of resources.
Rand
This posting is provided "as is" with no warranties and confers no rights.
|||Someone within your organisation seems to be getting confused between server products and desktop products. Foxpro is a desktop product. Another way of looking at it is by replacing the word "FoxPro" with "Access", "Word", "Excel" etc and ask yourself t
he same questions again. Desktop applications are not cluster-aware. Some server products are. eg SQL Server 2000, Exchange 2000/2003. Attempting to make a desktop application cluster-aware seems to be a major step in the wrong direction. Your initia
l instincts were correct. Now you just need to point out the differences between cluster-aware applications and non-cluster-aware applications to your management.
If management want high availability with their database platform switch from FoxPro to SQL Server 2000 EE (on a MCS cluster). There is no such thing as a cheap highly available solution in the database space (well I've not seen one yet).

adding disk to existing clustered sql 2000 instance

hi guys
i had 2 sql instances in win2003. I uninstalled one instance. How do i add
the disks to the existing/active instance?
TIAHi
Move the disks to the SQL Server group you want to add them to. Take the
group offline, create a dependency for SQL Server on the new disks and bring
the group online again.
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"rupart" wrote:

> hi guys
> i had 2 sql instances in win2003. I uninstalled one instance. How do i add
> the disks to the existing/active instance?
> TIA|||hi Mike,
i tried to create the resource(physical disk) but couldnt see the disks
under the list...
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi
> Move the disks to the SQL Server group you want to add them to. Take the
> group offline, create a dependency for SQL Server on the new disks and bri
ng
> the group online again.
> Regards
> --
> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Zurich, Switzerland
> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
>
> "rupart" wrote:
>

adding disk to existing clustered sql 2000 instance

hi guys
i had 2 sql instances in win2003. I uninstalled one instance. How do i add
the disks to the existing/active instance?
TIA
Hi
Move the disks to the SQL Server group you want to add them to. Take the
group offline, create a dependency for SQL Server on the new disks and bring
the group online again.
Regards
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"rupart" wrote:

> hi guys
> i had 2 sql instances in win2003. I uninstalled one instance. How do i add
> the disks to the existing/active instance?
> TIA
|||hi Mike,
i tried to create the resource(physical disk) but couldnt see the disks
under the list...
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi
> Move the disks to the SQL Server group you want to add them to. Take the
> group offline, create a dependency for SQL Server on the new disks and bring
> the group online again.
> Regards
> --
> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Zurich, Switzerland
> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
>
> "rupart" wrote:

adding disk to existing clustered sql 2000 instance

hi guys
i had 2 sql instances in win2003. I uninstalled one instance. How do i add
the disks to the existing/active instance?
TIAHi
Move the disks to the SQL Server group you want to add them to. Take the
group offline, create a dependency for SQL Server on the new disks and bring
the group online again.
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"rupart" wrote:
> hi guys
> i had 2 sql instances in win2003. I uninstalled one instance. How do i add
> the disks to the existing/active instance?
> TIA|||hi Mike,
i tried to create the resource(physical disk) but couldnt see the disks
under the list...
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
> Hi
> Move the disks to the SQL Server group you want to add them to. Take the
> group offline, create a dependency for SQL Server on the new disks and bring
> the group online again.
> Regards
> --
> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Zurich, Switzerland
> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
>
> "rupart" wrote:
> > hi guys
> > i had 2 sql instances in win2003. I uninstalled one instance. How do i add
> > the disks to the existing/active instance?
> >
> > TIA

Adding Active Directory login (ca vs. samaccount)

I am having some issues adding user logins to SQL Server. When I
search for users in Active Directory from Security->Logins->New Login,
I can search for and add users using the short name (samaccount, ex
domain\abcde). However, when I search for users using their CA name
(ex. domanin\firstname.lastname), the user is not found.

Is there some setting that needs to be activated in SQL Server to see
the CA name as well as the samaccount name, or is this an issue that
must be resolved on the domain controller.

I would appreciate any insight.

Thanks,

MattHi

SQL Server 2000 only understands "domain\abcde" and not abcde@.domain or CA
names.

Sorry, but can't do much about it.

----------
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland

IM: mike@.epprecht.net

MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp

Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/

"mattsh" <matt_sh2001@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1116503684.651798.63340@.g43g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
>I am having some issues adding user logins to SQL Server. When I
> search for users in Active Directory from Security->Logins->New Login,
> I can search for and add users using the short name (samaccount, ex
> domain\abcde). However, when I search for users using their CA name
> (ex. domanin\firstname.lastname), the user is not found.
> Is there some setting that needs to be activated in SQL Server to see
> the CA name as well as the samaccount name, or is this an issue that
> must be resolved on the domain controller.
> I would appreciate any insight.
> Thanks,
> Matt|||OK, but for some people (like myself) my "long name", say
domain\firstname.lastname (what I believe is our CA name) shows up. My
short name domain\ablastname (what I believe is the samaccount name)
can also be chosen as a login. But for other people, the only thing
that I can access is the domain\cdlastname user name. The
domain\firstname.lastname does not show up when I do a search from SQL
Server.

If it works for me, I figure it should work for others. I just can't
figure out what I need to do so I can add others "long name" (CA).

Thanks again,

Matt

Adding a third NODE to an existing SQl server 2000 CLUSTER

Currently we have an ACTIVE/ACTIVE SQL Server 2000 cluster in our production
environment. The current configuration is such that each node has a dedicated
server hardware. Lets call one of the ACTIVE nodes as NODE1 and the other
ACTIVE node as NODE2. We are in the planning stages of a SQL Server 2005,
side by side upgrade. Also we are planning to introduce a new server hardware
into the equation to help the upgrade process so that the performance is not
affected. The way we want to use the new SQl server hardware is to have both
a SQl Server 2000 instance and a SQl Server 2005 instance in this new
hardware, lets call this NODE3. The databases for all the SQl servers will be
presented via a SAN.
(1)NODE2 will have another instance of SQl 2005 installed into it.
(2)The SQL 2005 instance of the NODE2 needs to be clustered with the SQL
2005 instance in the NODE3 as an ACTIVE-ACTIVE cluster.
(3)The SQL 2000 instance of the NODE2 then needs to be clustered with the
SQL 2000 instance in the NODE 1.
If the above was technically possible then the SQl 2005 databases will be
load balanced between NODE2 and NODE3 and the SQL 2000 databases will be load
balanced between NODE 1 and NODE 2. Eventually when we move all of the SQl
2000 databases to SQl 2005 then the SQl 2000 Server instances will be
upgraded to SQl 2005 as well.
So eventually we would end up with 2 ACTIVE/ACTIVE cluster of SQl 2005
Servers in 3 dedicated server hardware.
Am I dreaming here ? Or is this technically feasible. Any thoughts are
welcome. Any other alternatives are also welcome.
Many Thanks in advance.
RK
Active/Active does not share data across nodes. Technically, Active/Active
does not exist. The term described a unique configuration that existed for
SQL 7.0 when nodes were not equal peers in cluster. There is no load
balancing or shared databases across nodes in MSCS clustering.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"RK" <RK@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C6A544B9-0573-4CE4-829F-D42727C52134@.microsoft.com...
> Currently we have an ACTIVE/ACTIVE SQL Server 2000 cluster in our
> production
> environment. The current configuration is such that each node has a
> dedicated
> server hardware. Lets call one of the ACTIVE nodes as NODE1 and the other
> ACTIVE node as NODE2. We are in the planning stages of a SQL Server 2005,
> side by side upgrade. Also we are planning to introduce a new server
> hardware
> into the equation to help the upgrade process so that the performance is
> not
> affected. The way we want to use the new SQl server hardware is to have
> both
> a SQl Server 2000 instance and a SQl Server 2005 instance in this new
> hardware, lets call this NODE3. The databases for all the SQl servers will
> be
> presented via a SAN.
> (1)NODE2 will have another instance of SQl 2005 installed into it.
> (2)The SQL 2005 instance of the NODE2 needs to be clustered with the SQL
> 2005 instance in the NODE3 as an ACTIVE-ACTIVE cluster.
> (3)The SQL 2000 instance of the NODE2 then needs to be clustered with the
> SQL 2000 instance in the NODE 1.
> If the above was technically possible then the SQl 2005 databases will be
> load balanced between NODE2 and NODE3 and the SQL 2000 databases will be
> load
> balanced between NODE 1 and NODE 2. Eventually when we move all of the SQl
> 2000 databases to SQl 2005 then the SQl 2000 Server instances will be
> upgraded to SQl 2005 as well.
> So eventually we would end up with 2 ACTIVE/ACTIVE cluster of SQl 2005
> Servers in 3 dedicated server hardware.
> Am I dreaming here ? Or is this technically feasible. Any thoughts are
> welcome. Any other alternatives are also welcome.
> Many Thanks in advance.
> RK
>
>
|||Hi,
Thanks for that. When I said shared SAN I didnt mean shared databases
between the cluster nodes. Again when I said load balancing what I intended
there was rather than have an Active/passive configuration and have all
databases managed by one instance of SQl Server 2000, in Active/Active it
will be managed by 2 SQL servers. But still you havent answered my main
question whether the new configuration as mentioned below is possible
technically ?
Many thanks in advance.
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:

> Active/Active does not share data across nodes. Technically, Active/Active
> does not exist. The term described a unique configuration that existed for
> SQL 7.0 when nodes were not equal peers in cluster. There is no load
> balancing or shared databases across nodes in MSCS clustering.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>
>
> "RK" <RK@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:C6A544B9-0573-4CE4-829F-D42727C52134@.microsoft.com...
>
|||You can have a three node cluster with multiple SQL instances of differing
versions. You can also set preferred node order for each instance
independently. Finally, you can set each instance to run on only a subset
of the nodes, but I would recommend allowing all instances on all nodes,
just to cover secondary failure possibilities.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"RK" <RK@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C2CBECB3-A855-48E9-AAF2-FF2700DFEAD1@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi,
> Thanks for that. When I said shared SAN I didnt mean shared databases
> between the cluster nodes. Again when I said load balancing what I
> intended
> there was rather than have an Active/passive configuration and have all
> databases managed by one instance of SQl Server 2000, in Active/Active it
> will be managed by 2 SQL servers. But still you havent answered my main
> question whether the new configuration as mentioned below is possible
> technically ?
> Many thanks in advance.
>
> "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
|||You can have a three node cluster with multiple SQL instances of differing
versions. You can also set preferred node order for each instance
independently. Finally, you can set each instance to run on only a subset
of the nodes, but I would recommend allowing all instances on all nodes,
just to cover secondary failure possibilities.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"RK" <RK@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C2CBECB3-A855-48E9-AAF2-FF2700DFEAD1@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi,
> Thanks for that. When I said shared SAN I didnt mean shared databases
> between the cluster nodes. Again when I said load balancing what I
> intended
> there was rather than have an Active/passive configuration and have all
> databases managed by one instance of SQl Server 2000, in Active/Active it
> will be managed by 2 SQL servers. But still you havent answered my main
> question whether the new configuration as mentioned below is possible
> technically ?
> Many thanks in advance.
>
> "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
|||Hi Geoff,
What I intended to acheive with this was TWO 2 node clusters from the 4 SQl
server instances spread around 3 servers. One cluster being a SQL 2000 based
and the other one based on SQL 2005. Possible still ?
Cheers
Rajeev
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:

> You can have a three node cluster with multiple SQL instances of differing
> versions. You can also set preferred node order for each instance
> independently. Finally, you can set each instance to run on only a subset
> of the nodes, but I would recommend allowing all instances on all nodes,
> just to cover secondary failure possibilities.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>
>
> "RK" <RK@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:C2CBECB3-A855-48E9-AAF2-FF2700DFEAD1@.microsoft.com...
>
|||No. Each machine can participate in one and only one cluster. You can have
a single cluster with two SQL instances and three host nodes.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"RK" <RK@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C91E92BB-0C97-44CE-AC35-D426D9C92F5F@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi Geoff,
> What I intended to acheive with this was TWO 2 node clusters from the 4
> SQl
> server instances spread around 3 servers. One cluster being a SQL 2000
> based
> and the other one based on SQL 2005. Possible still ?
> Cheers
> Rajeev
> "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote: