Adds the group to the database But Security EM

I am trying to add domain group with sql server security privileges to a SQL
Server database.
I view the database with SQL Server Enterprise Manager in the database and
users
and notice that domain group is add (sp_addgroup) but this not applied to
the SQL Server security domain group.
Not using the SQL Server Enterprise Manager. How do get the domain group
with
privileges applied to both places (database user , security).> I view the database with SQL Server Enterprise Manager in the database and
> users
> and notice that domain group is add (sp_addgroup) but this not applied to
> the SQL Server security domain group.
sp_addgroup adds a new database role. It is not used to grant an existing
Windows group database access. Also, sp_addgroup is provided only for
backwards compatibility. Use sp_addrole instead.

> Not using the SQL Server Enterprise Manager. How do get the domain group
> with
> privileges applied to both places (database user , security).
From Query Analyzer:
USE MyDatabase
--grant group permissions to connect to SQL Server
EXEC sp_grantlogin 'MyDomain\MyGroup'
--grant group permissions to use this database
EXEC sp_grantdbaccess 'MyDomain\MyGroup'
To setup object security, you can either grant permissions directly to the
Windows account or grant permissions to a SQL Server role and control
security via role membership
--grant object permissions directly
GRANT SELECT ON MyTable TO [MyDomain\MyGroup]
--grant object permissions to role
GRANT SELECT ON MyTable TO [MyDatabaseRole]
--add group to role
EXEC sp_addrolemember 'MyDatabaseRole', 'MyDomain\MyGroup'
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Joe K." <Joe K.@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:229E0AAA-AEED-400D-B082-3425919A0F85@.microsoft.com...
>I am trying to add domain group with sql server security privileges to a
>SQL
> Server database.
> I view the database with SQL Server Enterprise Manager in the database and
> users
> and notice that domain group is add (sp_addgroup) but this not applied to
> the SQL Server security domain group.
> Not using the SQL Server Enterprise Manager. How do get the domain group
> with
> privileges applied to both places (database user , security).
>
>

addling linked server

Hi ,
how do i actually created a linked server in Enterprise
Manager ?
go to the Linked Server , do i choose impersonation ,
no security context or the remote user
usin impersonation means the other server needs to set
up as allowing impersonation
using the remote user means i'll need to create a login
over at the other side ?
have tried but still cannot connect
i have used the Query Analyzer though it like this
sp_addlinkedserver 'dbABC' and it says added
when i run query analyzer to get records using
dbABC.server123.dbo.xxx it says "General network
error ..."
appreciate any advise
thks & rdgsHate to say this, but..
You need to do some more reading on Linked Servers.
There are a lot of little items that need to be checked when you create a
linked server.
The server name, provider name (MSDAORA for example), the data source,
provider string.. catalog)
The second step in the process is to determine your security settings.. Use
sp_addlinkedsrvlgoin.
Once you gotten through the readings on those and linking server in general,
you should have a lot better idea of how it is done.
HTH
Rick Sawtell
MCT, MCSD, MCDBA
"maxzsim" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:05f501c4917d$3a0c4a40$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hi ,
> how do i actually created a linked server in Enterprise
> Manager ?
>
> go to the Linked Server , do i choose impersonation ,
> no security context or the remote user
> usin impersonation means the other server needs to set
> up as allowing impersonation
> using the remote user means i'll need to create a login
> over at the other side ?
> have tried but still cannot connect
>
> i have used the Query Analyzer though it like this
> sp_addlinkedserver 'dbABC' and it says added
> when i run query analyzer to get records using
> dbABC.server123.dbo.xxx it says "General network
> error ..."
> appreciate any advise
> thks & rdgs|||What is the target for the linked server? Is it SQL Server? Depending on
what security context you need to have the queries run on your linked
server target, you can select 1 of the 4 options on the security tab. Click
the Help button (in SQL Enterprise Manager -> Configure Linked Server's
Security tab) to see what each of these options means.
The easiest 1 of the 4 options you can use is the last one "Be made using
this security context". This option requires you to setup a login on the
linked server target and provide the login name and password in the linked
server configuration dialog in Enterprise Manager. (Keep in mind that if
you're using SQL Server as the targer for your linked server, choosing this
option will mean that you have to configure your target SQL Server to be
configured for SQL and Windows Authentication).
Refer to the following topic for additional information :
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/adminsql/ad
_1_server_24tv.asp
Thank you for using Microsoft newsgroups.
Sincerely
Pankaj Agarwal
Microsoft Corporation
This posting is provided AS IS with no warranties, and confers no rights.

adding second node to sql cluster

I created a one node Cluster in Windows 2003 enterprise server. I then loaded
a SQL 2000 Vitrual server. I now need to add a second node. The cluster sees
the new node. However when I attempt to load the SLQ executables on the
second node the only option I have once I choose the virtual server is to
upgrade the existing installation. That does not install the executable on
the second node. What am I doing wrong. Thanks in advance.
you must choose upgrade the existing installation on virual server and add
second node for existing virtual sql server
Aleksandar Grbic
MCDBA, Senior Database Administrator
"Joe McHae" wrote:

> I created a one node Cluster in Windows 2003 enterprise server. I then loaded
> a SQL 2000 Vitrual server. I now need to add a second node. The cluster sees
> the new node. However when I attempt to load the SLQ executables on the
> second node the only option I have once I choose the virtual server is to
> upgrade the existing installation. That does not install the executable on
> the second node. What am I doing wrong. Thanks in advance.
|||I did choose upgrade. I did not see an option to add a second node for the
existing sql server. The second server is in the cluster.
"Aleksandar Grbic" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> you must choose upgrade the existing installation on virual server and add
> second node for existing virtual sql server
> --
> Aleksandar Grbic
> MCDBA, Senior Database Administrator
>
> "Joe McHae" wrote:
|||In the setup routine, there will be an Advanced option. After selecting,
there will be a Maintain and Existing Installation option.
This will take you down an installation path were you can add new cluster
member nodes as a potential SQL Server failover partner.
In the maintenance section of the SQL Server 2000 failover clustering
document is an Add/Remove Cluster Nodes sub-section.
Adding or Removing a Cluster Node from the Virtual Server Definition
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2000/maintain/failclus.mspx#EPUAG
Best of luck.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas

"Joe McHae" <JoeMcHae@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:332E6DA7-9F20-455C-97BE-ABD7BE8EFAE8@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> I did choose upgrade. I did not see an option to add a second node for the
> existing sql server. The second server is in the cluster.
> "Aleksandar Grbic" wrote:
add[vbcol=seagreen]
loaded[vbcol=seagreen]
cluster sees[vbcol=seagreen]
the[vbcol=seagreen]
to[vbcol=seagreen]
executable on[vbcol=seagreen]
|||Anthony;
thanks, the problem I wa having was the executables for SQL were not loading
on the second node. I followed your link then removed the node and added it
again. for some reasons the executables are there. I guess that is why they
call it magic.
Joe
"Anthony Thomas" wrote:

> In the setup routine, there will be an Advanced option. After selecting,
> there will be a Maintain and Existing Installation option.
> This will take you down an installation path were you can add new cluster
> member nodes as a potential SQL Server failover partner.
> In the maintenance section of the SQL Server 2000 failover clustering
> document is an Add/Remove Cluster Nodes sub-section.
> Adding or Removing a Cluster Node from the Virtual Server Definition
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2000/maintain/failclus.mspx#EPUAG
> Best of luck.
> Sincerely,
>
> Anthony Thomas
>
> --
> "Joe McHae" <JoeMcHae@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:332E6DA7-9F20-455C-97BE-ABD7BE8EFAE8@.microsoft.com...
> add
> loaded
> cluster sees
> the
> to
> executable on
>
>

Adding new lines into results in the

I used to be able to enter new lines into the result pane cell for text
(and varchar) data in Enterprise Manager, but now that I am using SQL
2005 Management Studio, this feature is gone.

Is there any way to do this?

Also, copying to/from excel chops off part of the text in a cell and is
very infuriating.

Any help would be appreciated.

Dan(monkeyboydan@.gmail.com) writes:
> I used to be able to enter new lines into the result pane cell for text
> (and varchar) data in Enterprise Manager, but now that I am using SQL
> 2005 Management Studio, this feature is gone.
> Is there any way to do this?
> Also, copying to/from excel chops off part of the text in a cell and is
> very infuriating.

Time to learn to write INSERT and UPDATE statements, I see!

There are plenty of differences between the tools in SQL 2000 and SQL 2005.
Keep in mind that Open table is intended to be a fairly simple tool to
view and edit data. For more heavy-duty stuff, you would use an application.

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

Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...oads/books.mspx
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodin...ions/books.mspx|||Thanks for the reply.

Your point is noted and I am quite happy to do insert and update
statements but there are occasions where a little ad-hoc editing and
copying and pasting is useful and this isn't possible any more and it
seems a bit silly 'cause it makes the 'open table' functionality
vritually pointless is a lot of occasions.

Adding ndf files

Hi I have prod DB about 16GB and only single file we plan to move to enterprise artitecture and will be more used in future so planning to add more data files for parallelism and better performance. My idead is to have additional 20GB ndf files but ho wdo i configure the existing datafile and addiotnal ndf files

Do i restore the DB with a single file and add other files but how do I make sure that the data is spreading across evenly. Can i limit the original file to 20GB and add the other files as 20GB

PLS can anyone give me som ehelp

AdminAnup

restore the database and make sure it's working correctly. Then use 'alter database' statement to add the ndf file to a different filegroup. Then you can re/create a clustered index with drop_existing to move the table(s) to the new datafile.

Take a look at 'alter database' and 'create index' in book online for additional details.

|||yes I understand that part my question was more on the autogrow properties and how data is spread across. All these are in single filegroup

say restoring the DB there is one file 16GB then what are the options for this I mean do I limit it to be 20GB

then I add 2 more ndf files each with 20GB what are the options like do I set autogrowth by 1GB or 10%

I am not sure how data is written in each of these and for each the settings of autogrowth to make sure I have a cnsistent 20GB 3 files

Adding More processors not helping improve performances

Hi
I had Enterprise SQL Server installed on my server with 4 processors. Its was great performances in the beginning. Later we got more processes to run.
So, I upgrade hardware to 8 Processors, but surprisingly no improvement in processing time wise. My processes is taking same time as they used to take when I have 4 processors.
E.g. Job-1 was taking 2:15 minutes with 4 processors, it is still taking same time with 8 processors.
Is there anything I am missing while upgrading to processors? I have windows Advanced Server 2000.
appreciate your help.
Thankx
JP
Processor power is only one possible constraint on your system. It is probably that memory, disk, network or design is your current contraint. I would recommend monitoring your database to determine what resource the SQL Server is waiting for.
|||SQL really prefers for each processor to work on a different connection,
instead of having multiple processors work on a single piece of work... You
might check in SQL Enterprise Manager,Right click your
server->Properties->Processors and make sure Use all processors is selected
and Max processors per query is whatever you wish...
However you are likely to get better throughput ( not faster for a single
query tho) by setting max processors per query to 2 or 1. ...
Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Mariner, Charlotte, NC
www.mariner-usa.com
(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
community of SQL Server professionals.
www.sqlpass.org
"JP" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:7DBC43F5-09E2-4B37-A91F-BDADC78EBCF9@.microsoft.com...
> Hi
> I had Enterprise SQL Server installed on my server with 4 processors. Its
was great performances in the beginning. Later we got more processes to run.
> So, I upgrade hardware to 8 Processors, but surprisingly no improvement in
processing time wise. My processes is taking same time as they used to take
when I have 4 processors.
> E.g. Job-1 was taking 2:15 minutes with 4 processors, it is still taking
same time with 8 processors.
> Is there anything I am missing while upgrading to processors? I have
windows Advanced Server 2000.
> appreciate your help.
> Thankx
> JP
>
|||I already have Use all processors checked out.. There is no issues of performance.
Just wondering, how come it is taking same time as 4 processors while I have 8 processors.
Or I believe, 4 processors of 2 GHz is maxed out and when I add another 4 processors it is doing better load sharing instead of gaining timewise performances.
-- Wayne Snyder wrote: --
SQL really prefers for each processor to work on a different connection,
instead of having multiple processors work on a single piece of work... You
might check in SQL Enterprise Manager,Right click your
server->Properties->Processors and make sure Use all processors is selected
and Max processors per query is whatever you wish...
However you are likely to get better throughput ( not faster for a single
query tho) by setting max processors per query to 2 or 1. ...
Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Mariner, Charlotte, NC
www.mariner-usa.com
(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
community of SQL Server professionals.
www.sqlpass.org
"JP" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:7DBC43F5-09E2-4B37-A91F-BDADC78EBCF9@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi
was great performances in the beginning. Later we got more processes to run.[vbcol=seagreen]
processing time wise. My processes is taking same time as they used to take
when I have 4 processors.[vbcol=seagreen]
same time with 8 processors.[vbcol=seagreen]
windows Advanced Server 2000.
> Thankx
> JP
>

Adding More processors not helping improve performances

Hi
I had Enterprise SQL Server installed on my server with 4 processors. Its wa
s great performances in the beginning. Later we got more processes to run.
So, I upgrade hardware to 8 Processors, but surprisingly no improvement in p
rocessing time wise. My processes is taking same time as they used to take w
hen I have 4 processors.
E.g. Job-1 was taking 2:15 minutes with 4 processors, it is still taking sam
e time with 8 processors.
Is there anything I am missing while upgrading to processors? I have windows
Advanced Server 2000.
appreciate your help.
Thankx
JPProcessor power is only one possible constraint on your system. It is proba
bly that memory, disk, network or design is your current contraint. I would
recommend monitoring your database to determine what resource the SQL Serve
r is waiting for.|||SQL really prefers for each processor to work on a different connection,
instead of having multiple processors work on a single piece of work... You
might check in SQL Enterprise Manager,Right click your
server->Properties->Processors and make sure Use all processors is selected
and Max processors per query is whatever you wish...
However you are likely to get better throughput ( not faster for a single
query tho) by setting max processors per query to 2 or 1. ...
Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Mariner, Charlotte, NC
www.mariner-usa.com
(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
community of SQL Server professionals.
www.sqlpass.org
"JP" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:7DBC43F5-09E2-4B37-A91F-BDADC78EBCF9@.microsoft.com...
> Hi
> I had Enterprise SQL Server installed on my server with 4 processors. Its
was great performances in the beginning. Later we got more processes to run.
> So, I upgrade hardware to 8 Processors, but surprisingly no improvement in
processing time wise. My processes is taking same time as they used to take
when I have 4 processors.
> E.g. Job-1 was taking 2:15 minutes with 4 processors, it is still taking
same time with 8 processors.
> Is there anything I am missing while upgrading to processors? I have
windows Advanced Server 2000.
> appreciate your help.
> Thankx
> JP
>|||I already have Use all processors checked out.. There is no issues of perfor
mance.
Just wondering, how come it is taking same time as 4 processors while I have
8 processors.
Or I believe, 4 processors of 2 GHz is maxed out and when I add another 4 pr
ocessors it is doing better load sharing instead of gaining timewise perform
ances.
-- Wayne Snyder wrote: --
SQL really prefers for each processor to work on a different connection,
instead of having multiple processors work on a single piece of work... You
might check in SQL Enterprise Manager,Right click your
server->Properties->Processors and make sure Use all processors is selected
and Max processors per query is whatever you wish...
However you are likely to get better throughput ( not faster for a single
query tho) by setting max processors per query to 2 or 1. ...
Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Mariner, Charlotte, NC
www.mariner-usa.com
(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
community of SQL Server professionals.
www.sqlpass.org
"JP" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:7DBC43F5-09E2-4B37-A91F-BDADC78EBCF9@.microsoft.com...
> Hi
was great performances in the beginning. Later we got more processes to run.[vbcol=seagreen]
processing time wise. My processes is taking same time as they used to take
when I have 4 processors.[vbcol=seagreen]
same time with 8 processors.[vbcol=seagreen]
windows Advanced Server 2000.[vbcol=seagreen]
> Thankx
> JP
>

Adding Group to MSSQL

As I understand it, a system group should show up in enterprise manager. But
when I create a new group in computer manager, the group doesn't show in up
in mssql. Am I doing this wrong?Got it,
Exec sp_grantlogin 'computername\groupname'
Thanks

Adding Group to MSSQL

As I understand it, a system group should show up in enterprise manager. But when I create a new group in computer manager, the group doesn't show in up in mssql. Am I doing this wrong?Got it,
Exec sp_grantlogin 'computername\groupname
Thanks

Adding and additional drive

On a database server, I have mapped a new drive letter to
a SAN so that I can backup my database. When I go into
Enterprise Manager, I can see the drive, but when I try to
create a new backup device, it gives me an error stating
that 'the directory in whch you want to create this file
does not exist'.
If I try to create a new data or log file for a database
on that server, I do not see the drive.
Should I just reboot the server or is it something else?SQL Server will probably not see mapped drives... it is running under a
different account than what you used when you mapped the drive.
The BEST way to do this is to make sure that the account SQL Server is
running under has rights to the remote share.
Simply issue a backup using the UNC
BACKUP DATABASE master TO DISK = '\\RemoteServer\SomeShare\master.bak' WITH
INIT
--
Keith
"canaries" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:225801c49a93$8ec19da0$a501280a@.phx.gbl...
> On a database server, I have mapped a new drive letter to
> a SAN so that I can backup my database. When I go into
> Enterprise Manager, I can see the drive, but when I try to
> create a new backup device, it gives me an error stating
> that 'the directory in whch you want to create this file
> does not exist'.
> If I try to create a new data or log file for a database
> on that server, I do not see the drive.
> Should I just reboot the server or is it something else?
>|||http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;555128
Everything you ever wanted to know about backing up to remote shares.
--
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
www.sqlpass.org
"canaries" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:225801c49a93$8ec19da0$a501280a@.phx.gbl...
> On a database server, I have mapped a new drive letter to
> a SAN so that I can backup my database. When I go into
> Enterprise Manager, I can see the drive, but when I try to
> create a new backup device, it gives me an error stating
> that 'the directory in whch you want to create this file
> does not exist'.
> If I try to create a new data or log file for a database
> on that server, I do not see the drive.
> Should I just reboot the server or is it something else?
>

Adding an additional CPU SQL 2005 Enterprise

Hi,
I have 2 SQL 2005 Enterprise servers currently running one a single CPU
license. I have now purchased an additional enterprise CPU license and would
like to `activate` an additional CPU.
How would I do this?
Many thanks
RichardIf you had more than 1 processor on the machine you were violating the
license agreement to begin with. If you have 2 then you need two licenses
regardless of how many you intended to use. The license does not prohibit or
enable the use of the processors.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors
"Richard Thompson" <sbc@.thompson.co.za> wrote in message
news:8378184B-64EB-473B-81AE-DD54AE2A6CAF@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I have 2 SQL 2005 Enterprise servers currently running one a single CPU
> license. I have now purchased an additional enterprise CPU license and
> would like to `activate` an additional CPU.
> How would I do this?
> Many thanks
> Richard|||Ok, thanks for that. So I now have a 2 CPU license I can just add the second
CPU and it will be fine no need to worry about changing settings in SQL at
all.
Thanks a lot,
Richard
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:O9Ipsq3$HHA.5652@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> If you had more than 1 processor on the machine you were violating the
> license agreement to begin with. If you have 2 then you need two licenses
> regardless of how many you intended to use. The license does not prohibit
> or enable the use of the processors.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> Solid Quality Mentors
>
> "Richard Thompson" <sbc@.thompson.co.za> wrote in message
> news:8378184B-64EB-473B-81AE-DD54AE2A6CAF@.microsoft.com...
>> Hi,
>> I have 2 SQL 2005 Enterprise servers currently running one a single CPU
>> license. I have now purchased an additional enterprise CPU license and
>> would like to `activate` an additional CPU.
>> How would I do this?
>> Many thanks
>> Richard
>|||By adding the 2nd CPU do you mean physically installing one? If so then
yes, the OS & SQL Server should detect the 2nd CPU and it will know what to
do without changing any settings unless you already changed some from the
defaults.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors
"Richard Thompson" <sbc@.thompson.co.za> wrote in message
news:31A8B061-7F53-4EB2-AA6A-F96AB2103149@.microsoft.com...
> Ok, thanks for that. So I now have a 2 CPU license I can just add the
> second CPU and it will be fine no need to worry about changing settings in
> SQL at all.
> Thanks a lot,
> Richard
>
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:O9Ipsq3$HHA.5652@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> If you had more than 1 processor on the machine you were violating the
>> license agreement to begin with. If you have 2 then you need two licenses
>> regardless of how many you intended to use. The license does not prohibit
>> or enable the use of the processors.
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>> Solid Quality Mentors
>>
>> "Richard Thompson" <sbc@.thompson.co.za> wrote in message
>> news:8378184B-64EB-473B-81AE-DD54AE2A6CAF@.microsoft.com...
>> Hi,
>> I have 2 SQL 2005 Enterprise servers currently running one a single CPU
>> license. I have now purchased an additional enterprise CPU license and
>> would like to `activate` an additional CPU.
>> How would I do this?
>> Many thanks
>> Richard
>