Regarding Full-Text search

Hello,
we have full-text search service running under local system account and we
removed Builtin/Administrators
from our logins and now our full-text catalogs are not getting populated and
now the only resolution i see is
adding NT Authority/System as a login and granting sysadmin privileges .are
there any pros and cons in doing this ..in terms of security..
Thanks In Advance!
No, basically the reason dba's remove the builtin\admin account is to ensure
that NT admin's are automatically system admins on the SQL Server box. NT
Authority/System merely gives the system account rights to SQL Server which
MSSearch requires to contact SQL Server and vice versa. With NT
Authority/System the NT admin's can no longer automatically administer your
SQL Server.
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"msqldba m via droptable.com" <forum@.droptable.com> wrote in message
news:5111AFEC65E20@.droptable.com...
> Hello,
> we have full-text search service running under local system account and we
> removed Builtin/Administrators
> from our logins and now our full-text catalogs are not getting populated
and
> now the only resolution i see is
> adding NT Authority/System as a login and granting sysadmin privileges
..are
> there any pros and cons in doing this ..in terms of security..
>
> Thanks In Advance!
|||Hilary,
So there are no problems in making NT Authority/System a sysadmin(SA) in sql
server
Thanks,
Hilary Cotter wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
>No, basically the reason dba's remove the builtin\admin account is to ensure
>that NT admin's are automatically system admins on the SQL Server box. NT
>Authority/System merely gives the system account rights to SQL Server which
>MSSearch requires to contact SQL Server and vice versa. With NT
>Authority/System the NT admin's can no longer automatically administer your
>SQL Server.
>[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
Message posted via droptable.com
http://www.droptable.com/Uwe/Forums...earch/200507/1
|||msqldba,
No there is no problem in making NT Authority/System login have sysadmin
privileges, in fact it is required if you have removed the
BUILTIN\Administrators login as the external MSSearch services needs
sysadmin privileges to access SQL Server. Note, this is by design. You can
implement this via the following T-SQL code:
exec sp_grantlogin N'NT Authority\System'
exec sp_defaultdb N'NT Authority\System', N'master'
exec sp_defaultlanguage N'NT Authority\System','us_english'
exec sp_addsrvrolemember N'NT Authority\System', sysadmin
Additionally, see KB article Q263712 "INF: How To Prevent Windows NT
Administrators From Administering a Clustered SQL Server" at
http://support.microsoft.com/default...;EN-US;q263712 as this KB
article recommends: "If a full-text search will be used on the cluster, you
must add the [NT Authority\System] account to the server's "sysadmin"
group."
Regards,
John
SQL Full Text Search Blog
http://spaces.msn.com/members/jtkane/
"msqldba m via droptable.com" <forum@.droptable.com> wrote in message
news:5116CE83ADBA0@.droptable.com...
> Hilary,
> So there are no problems in making NT Authority/System a sysadmin(SA) in
sql[vbcol=seagreen]
> server
> Thanks,
>
> Hilary Cotter wrote:
ensure[vbcol=seagreen]
which[vbcol=seagreen]
your
>
> --
> Message posted via droptable.com
> http://www.droptable.com/Uwe/Forums...earch/200507/1

referencing system/CLR assemblies in SQLCLR

Throughout the course of this book and even before it I have come across conflicting information regarding how SQLCLR attempts to resolve system/CLR assembly references. For example, prior to my latest read thourgh April BOL 2005, I thought SQLCLR attempted to resolve these references implicity for you via the local machine's GAC. Yet here is what I found while trying to help another person in this forum yesterday in BOL...

Assembly Validation

SQL Server performs checks on the assembly binaries uploaded by the CREATE ASSEMBLY statement to guarantee the following:

The assembly binary is well formed with valid metadata and code segments, and the code segments have valid Microsoft Intermediate language (MSIL) instructions.

The set of system assemblies it references is one of the following supported assemblies in SQL Server: Microsoft.Visualbasic.dll, Mscorlib.dll, System.Data.dll, System.dll, System.Xml.dll, Microsoft.Visualc.dll, Custommarshallers.dll, System.Security.dll, System.Web.Services.dll, and System.Data.SqlXml.dll. Other system assemblies can be referenced, but they must be explicitly registered in the database.

For assemblies created by using SAFE or EXTERNAL ACCESS permission sets:

The assembly code should be type-safe. Type safety is established by running the common language runtime verifier against the assembly.

The assembly should not contain any static data members in its classes unless they are marked as read-only.

The classes in the assembly cannot contain finalizer methods.

The classes or methods of the assembly should be annotated only with allowed code attributes. For more information, see Custom Attributes for CLR Routines.

Besides the previous checks that are performed when CREATE ASSEMBLY executes, there are additional checks that are performed at execution time of the code in the assembly:

Calling certain Microsoft .NET Framework APIs that require a specific Code Access Permission may fail if the permission set of the assembly does not include that permission.

For SAFE and EXTERNAL_ACCESS assemblies, any attempt to call .NET Framework APIs that are annotated with certain HostProtectionAttributes will fail.

COULD SOMEONE PLEASE GIVE ME THE DEFENITE ANSWER ON HOW THIS WORKS!

And as a side note even if there is nothing more "to it" then these few lines in the CREATE ASSEMBLY topic in BOL, I think both this forum and the others prove that more information needs to be in BOL regarding this topic. How it relates to the subset of the .Net framework we have access to, HPAs, and CAS permissions.|||

Hi Derek,

Where have you found conflicting statements on the SQL CLR assembly loading process? If it's in BOL or in another MS reference, let me know or file a bug on connect.microsoft.com so it can be corrected.

The passage from BOL above is accurate: only the system assemblies on the "Supported .NET Framework Libraries" list can be implicitly referenced from the GAC; all others must be created explicitly through CREATE ASSEMBLY.

I think that CAS and HPA are also covered pretty thoroughly in BOL. "CLR Integration Code Access Security" describes all the permissions available under each permission set and you can use a tool such as PermView to see which ones are requested by your code. "Host Protection Attributes and CLR Integration Programming" provides the same treatment for HPAs, along with listing every class or method in the supported system assemblies that can't be used in SAFE or EXTERNAL_ACCESS.

Actually, I just noticed that "CLR Integration Programming Model Restrictions" does contain an error: the custom attributes it lists are not explicitly disallowed in the UNSAFE permission set (although they are still not recommended and may not work as expected). I'll file a bug to get this fixed.

Steven

Referencing system message types

I need to handle system messages being put on my queue.

I have 2 ways of doing this, by message_type_id or by name.

As BOL only mentions names of message types I assume the only gauranteed method is the "by name" option. or can I guarantee the values of message_type_ids, the reason I thought the latter was possible was that Remus included ids in his recent performance blog post.

Thanks

The safest way is to look up the id by name at the procedure start and then use the id. The system message type ids are the same on all deployed SQL 2005 SKUs/versions, but we cannot guarantee this for future versions.

HTH,
~ Remus

Reference to Data.System.SqlServerCe in VS2005 does not install CE 2.0 to Emulator/PDA

We have a Compact Framework 1.1 application that uses Sql Server CE 2.0. In VS2003, a reference to System.Data.SqlServerCe causes the Sql Server CE dlls and Query Analyzer to install to the Emulator or PDA.

I am currently converting the application to Compact Framework 2.0, but we are not upgrading to Sql Server Mobile (yet). However, the reference to System.Data.SqlServerCe, in VS 2005, no longer causes Sql Server CE to install to the PDA/Emulator.

There is a difference in the build outputs between VS2003 & VS2005. In 2003, System_SR_enu.cab, sqlce.wce4.x86.cab & sqlce.dev.wce4.x86.cab are copied & lanuched. In 2005, only System_SR_enu.cab is copied... no launch.

Any ideas? Reinstall VS2005?

Reinstalling VS2005 resolved this issue.|||

Glad that things are working from your end. Thanks for using SQL Mobile.

Thanks,

Laxmi Narsimha Rao ORUGANTI, MSFT, SQL Mobile, Microsoft Corporation

Redundant Servers?

I have to setup a redundant server system. I want to
preferably use Windows Server 2003 Standard but I can use
Windows Server 2000 as well. The system will be running
SQL Server 2000. I am writing some custom software to
run on the system and will be storing data to the SQL
database. If the primary server fails then the secondary
server will start handling the functions of the primary
server. What is the best way to accomplish this? I need
the data in each SQL database to be identical, is there a
way to sync this data? I have thought about using Legato
Co-Standby Server AAdvanced, is this a good product?
WIll it do what I need? Any ideas are greatly
appreciated. I am a software engineer not a sys admin so
this is kinda new to me. Thanks!!!Look into Microsoft Cluster Services and Microsoft SQL Clustering.
--
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
"Kris" <grindaz@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:022f01c34181$83b10930$a101280a@.phx.gbl...
> I have to setup a redundant server system. I want to
> preferably use Windows Server 2003 Standard but I can use
> Windows Server 2000 as well. The system will be running
> SQL Server 2000. I am writing some custom software to
> run on the system and will be storing data to the SQL
> database. If the primary server fails then the secondary
> server will start handling the functions of the primary
> server. What is the best way to accomplish this? I need
> the data in each SQL database to be identical, is there a
> way to sync this data? I have thought about using Legato
> Co-Standby Server AAdvanced, is this a good product?
> WIll it do what I need? Any ideas are greatly
> appreciated. I am a software engineer not a sys admin so
> this is kinda new to me. Thanks!!!
>|||Kris, the answer depends on what you need exactly. When
you ask for the "best way" to approach, it also depends on
how much $$$ you'd like to spend, and how much down time
your users could deal with in the event of a system
crash. Yes, clustering is a nice option, but it's more
complex until you've done it a while, and you need shared
disk storage between the nodes, Advanced Server and
Enterprise Ed of SQL Server...
Then you could also look at something like shipping your
transaction logs over to the offline server, and if a
crash happens, maybe get that last LOG over, then changing
server names and bringing that server online...
It all depends on the budget and the length of down time
that's bearable... Bruce
>--Original Message--
>I have to setup a redundant server system. I want to
>preferably use Windows Server 2003 Standard but I can use
>Windows Server 2000 as well. The system will be running
>SQL Server 2000. I am writing some custom software to
>run on the system and will be storing data to the SQL
>database. If the primary server fails then the secondary
>server will start handling the functions of the primary
>server. What is the best way to accomplish this? I need
>the data in each SQL database to be identical, is there a
>way to sync this data? I have thought about using Legato
>Co-Standby Server AAdvanced, is this a good product?
>WIll it do what I need? Any ideas are greatly
>appreciated. I am a software engineer not a sys admin so
>this is kinda new to me. Thanks!!!
>.
>|||Thanks for the reply Bruce. I cannot spend lots of money
on this like $11,000 for SQL Ent. ED. But I will be
using Windows Server 20003 Enterprise. I have been
reading about clustering and it sounds like the way to go
except for as you metion the shared storage. How exactly
do you do this? What type of hardware? Also, will
clustering keep data in the SQL database on each machine
synced together or do you have to keep the DB on the
shared storage? I look forward to your comments and
thanks again.
Kris
>--Original Message--
>Kris, the answer depends on what you need exactly. When
>you ask for the "best way" to approach, it also depends
on
>how much $$$ you'd like to spend, and how much down time
>your users could deal with in the event of a system
>crash. Yes, clustering is a nice option, but it's more
>complex until you've done it a while, and you need
shared
>disk storage between the nodes, Advanced Server and
>Enterprise Ed of SQL Server...
>Then you could also look at something like shipping your
>transaction logs over to the offline server, and if a
>crash happens, maybe get that last LOG over, then
changing
>server names and bringing that server online...
>It all depends on the budget and the length of down time
>that's bearable... Bruce
>>--Original Message--
>>I have to setup a redundant server system. I want to
>>preferably use Windows Server 2003 Standard but I can
use
>>Windows Server 2000 as well. The system will be
running
>>SQL Server 2000. I am writing some custom software to
>>run on the system and will be storing data to the SQL
>>database. If the primary server fails then the
secondary
>>server will start handling the functions of the primary
>>server. What is the best way to accomplish this? I
need
>>the data in each SQL database to be identical, is there
a
>>way to sync this data? I have thought about using
Legato
>>Co-Standby Server AAdvanced, is this a good product?
>>WIll it do what I need? Any ideas are greatly
>>appreciated. I am a software engineer not a sys admin
so
>>this is kinda new to me. Thanks!!!
>>.
>.
>|||In your situation, you have two servers (nodes), and also
a shared disk array, a separate unit, sitting between and
cbaled to each node. Yes, the database files sit on the
shared drives, there's only one copy of them (well, not
counting whatever you do for disaster planning!)... After
teh 2 node cluster is built, then you install SQL Server
and it's "cluster-aware", so you should generally only
have to install it once, and it actually installs SQL
Server software on BOTH nodes C: drives, but anything
shared goes on the disk array. I'm not a hardware guy, to
talk about disk array brands exactly, and which is
better... But in a cluster you need some type of shared
disk between the nodes. Also, since you're dealing with 2
machines, keep in mind that you have TWO registries, so
anything not cluster-aware, needs to MAYBE be done on each
box... Bruce
>--Original Message--
>Thanks for the reply Bruce. I cannot spend lots of money
>on this like $11,000 for SQL Ent. ED. But I will be
>using Windows Server 20003 Enterprise. I have been
>reading about clustering and it sounds like the way to go
>except for as you metion the shared storage. How exactly
>do you do this? What type of hardware? Also, will
>clustering keep data in the SQL database on each machine
>synced together or do you have to keep the DB on the
>shared storage? I look forward to your comments and
>thanks again.
>Kris
>>--Original Message--
>>Kris, the answer depends on what you need exactly. When
>>you ask for the "best way" to approach, it also depends
>on
>>how much $$$ you'd like to spend, and how much down time
>>your users could deal with in the event of a system
>>crash. Yes, clustering is a nice option, but it's more
>>complex until you've done it a while, and you need
>shared
>>disk storage between the nodes, Advanced Server and
>>Enterprise Ed of SQL Server...
>>Then you could also look at something like shipping your
>>transaction logs over to the offline server, and if a
>>crash happens, maybe get that last LOG over, then
>changing
>>server names and bringing that server online...
>>It all depends on the budget and the length of down time
>>that's bearable... Bruce
>>--Original Message--
>>I have to setup a redundant server system. I want to
>>preferably use Windows Server 2003 Standard but I can
>use
>>Windows Server 2000 as well. The system will be
>running
>>SQL Server 2000. I am writing some custom software to
>>run on the system and will be storing data to the SQL
>>database. If the primary server fails then the
>secondary
>>server will start handling the functions of the primary
>>server. What is the best way to accomplish this? I
>need
>>the data in each SQL database to be identical, is there
>a
>>way to sync this data? I have thought about using
>Legato
>>Co-Standby Server AAdvanced, is this a good product?
>>WIll it do what I need? Any ideas are greatly
>>appreciated. I am a software engineer not a sys admin
>so
>>this is kinda new to me. Thanks!!!
>>.
>>.
>.
>|||probably the cheapest solution is log shipping, which can be home grown or
purchased (enterprise edition). Failover is manual, then.
"Bruce de Freitas" <bruce@.defreitas.com> wrote in message
news:08f801c34193$8b57c950$a001280a@.phx.gbl...
> In your situation, you have two servers (nodes), and also
> a shared disk array, a separate unit, sitting between and
> cbaled to each node. Yes, the database files sit on the
> shared drives, there's only one copy of them (well, not
> counting whatever you do for disaster planning!)... After
> teh 2 node cluster is built, then you install SQL Server
> and it's "cluster-aware", so you should generally only
> have to install it once, and it actually installs SQL
> Server software on BOTH nodes C: drives, but anything
> shared goes on the disk array. I'm not a hardware guy, to
> talk about disk array brands exactly, and which is
> better... But in a cluster you need some type of shared
> disk between the nodes. Also, since you're dealing with 2
> machines, keep in mind that you have TWO registries, so
> anything not cluster-aware, needs to MAYBE be done on each
> box... Bruce
>
> >--Original Message--
> >Thanks for the reply Bruce. I cannot spend lots of money
> >on this like $11,000 for SQL Ent. ED. But I will be
> >using Windows Server 20003 Enterprise. I have been
> >reading about clustering and it sounds like the way to go
> >except for as you metion the shared storage. How exactly
> >do you do this? What type of hardware? Also, will
> >clustering keep data in the SQL database on each machine
> >synced together or do you have to keep the DB on the
> >shared storage? I look forward to your comments and
> >thanks again.
> >
> >Kris
> >
> >>--Original Message--
> >>Kris, the answer depends on what you need exactly. When
> >>you ask for the "best way" to approach, it also depends
> >on
> >>how much $$$ you'd like to spend, and how much down time
> >>your users could deal with in the event of a system
> >>crash. Yes, clustering is a nice option, but it's more
> >>complex until you've done it a while, and you need
> >shared
> >>disk storage between the nodes, Advanced Server and
> >>Enterprise Ed of SQL Server...
> >>
> >>Then you could also look at something like shipping your
> >>transaction logs over to the offline server, and if a
> >>crash happens, maybe get that last LOG over, then
> >changing
> >>server names and bringing that server online...
> >>
> >>It all depends on the budget and the length of down time
> >>that's bearable... Bruce
> >>
> >>--Original Message--
> >>I have to setup a redundant server system. I want to
> >>preferably use Windows Server 2003 Standard but I can
> >use
> >>Windows Server 2000 as well. The system will be
> >running
> >>SQL Server 2000. I am writing some custom software to
> >>run on the system and will be storing data to the SQL
> >>database. If the primary server fails then the
> >secondary
> >>server will start handling the functions of the primary
> >>server. What is the best way to accomplish this? I
> >need
> >>the data in each SQL database to be identical, is there
> >a
> >>way to sync this data? I have thought about using
> >Legato
> >>Co-Standby Server AAdvanced, is this a good product?
> >>WIll it do what I need? Any ideas are greatly
> >>appreciated. I am a software engineer not a sys admin
> >so
> >>this is kinda new to me. Thanks!!!
> >>
> >>.
> >>
> >>.
> >>
> >.
> >

Redundant Databases

I am trying to architect a system that will will have one or more machines
clustered together. The machines must share a common site database between
them. I assume that one machine at any one time should manage the site
database. If the machine that manages the site database fails, then another
system online, it doesn't matter which, should take over the site manager's
duties. It is acceptable if the first machine online would assume the site
manager's duties initally. The machines are essentually peer to peer, but
someone must manage the common database. Is SQL Server Replication the best
way to do this? Is there other, simpler or better ways to do this?
Database Mirroring or clustering are ideal for this. If you have an
intelligent client which will do automatic failover to the active node Log
Shipping or Clustering will also work.
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"dbaechtel" <dbaechtel@.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:F754791D-082E-49C9-A8F6-7A205E9B4083@.microsoft.com...
>I am trying to architect a system that will will have one or more machines
> clustered together. The machines must share a common site database between
> them. I assume that one machine at any one time should manage the site
> database. If the machine that manages the site database fails, then
> another
> system online, it doesn't matter which, should take over the site
> manager's
> duties. It is acceptable if the first machine online would assume the site
> manager's duties initally. The machines are essentually peer to peer, but
> someone must manage the common database. Is SQL Server Replication the
> best
> way to do this? Is there other, simpler or better ways to do this?
|||If you are looking for pure hardware redundancy, clustering is a better
choice. If you want to make the data redundant as well, then you need to go
with an additional technology. In SQL Server 2000 you could use either log
shipping or replication. In SQL Server 2005, you can add database mirroring
to that list.
"dbaechtel" <dbaechtel@.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:F754791D-082E-49C9-A8F6-7A205E9B4083@.microsoft.com...
>I am trying to architect a system that will will have one or more machines
> clustered together. The machines must share a common site database between
> them. I assume that one machine at any one time should manage the site
> database. If the machine that manages the site database fails, then
> another
> system online, it doesn't matter which, should take over the site
> manager's
> duties. It is acceptable if the first machine online would assume the site
> manager's duties initally. The machines are essentually peer to peer, but
> someone must manage the common database. Is SQL Server Replication the
> best
> way to do this? Is there other, simpler or better ways to do this?

Reducing physical transaction log file size.

I need some help to reduce the physical file size of a database transaction
log. I ran the shrink database option under the System Manager and was able
to shring the logical size of the log file, however, I would also like to
reduce the physical size of the file to free up disk space. I have tried to
run the DBCC Shrinkfile and DBCC shrinkdatabase commands but that does not
appear to be successfull. Can anybody help? I am running SQL 2000. Thanks
.http://www.karaszi.com/SQLServer/info_dont_shrink.asp
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Elbryyan" <Elbryyan@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:67FAF140-014E-4CB2-800E-740AF1B69212@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
>I need some help to reduce the physical file size of a database transaction
> log. I ran the shrink database option under the System Manager and was ab
le
> to shring the logical size of the log file, however, I would also like to
> reduce the physical size of the file to free up disk space. I have tried
to
> run the DBCC Shrinkfile and DBCC shrinkdatabase commands but that does not
> appear to be successfull. Can anybody help? I am running SQL 2000. Thanks.[/vbc
ol]

reduce rendering time in RS2005

We have a reporting system where the default rendering format is HTML.
HOwever, in some cases user may export the data into Excel aftergenerating
the report in HTML. Howveer, this export is taking too much time. eg 5500
row report in HTML takes around 8 minutes to export into excel. Is there a
workaround for this? Please note that default rendering has to be in HTML
only.
Also another feature noticed is that in RS 2005, the report server execution
log seems to be logging seperate entries for export feature as well. This
was not happening in RS2000. Is this a new feature in RS2005 or is the
underlying SP for the new report being called again when the export to excel
happens?
Any help would be appreciatedOn Feb 19, 11:32 pm, SK <S...@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
> We have a reporting system where the default rendering format is HTML.
> HOwever, in some cases user may export the data into Excel aftergenerating
> the report in HTML. Howveer, this export is taking too much time. eg 5500
> row report in HTML takes around 8 minutes to export into excel. Is there a
> workaround for this? Please note that default rendering has to be in HTML
> only.
> Also another feature noticed is that in RS 2005, the report server execution
> log seems to be logging seperate entries for export feature as well. This
> was not happening in RS2000. Is this a new feature in RS2005 or is the
> underlying SP for the new report being called again when the export to excel
> happens?
> Any help would be appreciated
Have you tried exporting to a CSV file?|||This seems excessive amount of time for 5500 rows. I do much more than that
all the time. Of course, complexity matters. Also, any images in the report?
As suggested see how long it takes to export CSV. CSV takes the same amount
of time as HTML.
Also, if you do this you will want to change the CSV to use ASCII instead of
unicode. Excel puts unicode into a single column. To have RS export CSV in
ASCII format you have to make a change to a config file.
You only need to change in one place, rsreportserver.config. Reboot after
the change. The below shows commenting out the existing entry and putting in
the needed change to have CSV export as ASCII
<!--
<Extension Name="CSV"
Type="Microsoft.ReportingServices.Rendering.CsvRenderer.CsvReport,Microsoft.ReportingServices.CsvRendering"/>
-->
<Extension Name="CSV"
Type="Microsoft.ReportingServices.Rendering.CsvRenderer.CsvReport,Microsoft.ReportingServices.CsvRendering">
<Configuration>
<DeviceInfo>
<Encoding>ASCII</Encoding>
</DeviceInfo>
</Configuration>
</Extension>
Bruce Loehle-Conger
MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
"SK" <SK@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D94C7011-C90D-46F7-AA75-E33CC8BEFF1A@.microsoft.com...
> We have a reporting system where the default rendering format is HTML.
> HOwever, in some cases user may export the data into Excel aftergenerating
> the report in HTML. Howveer, this export is taking too much time. eg
> 5500
> row report in HTML takes around 8 minutes to export into excel. Is there
> a
> workaround for this? Please note that default rendering has to be in HTML
> only.
> Also another feature noticed is that in RS 2005, the report server
> execution
> log seems to be logging seperate entries for export feature as well. This
> was not happening in RS2000. Is this a new feature in RS2005 or is the
> underlying SP for the new report being called again when the export to
> excel
> happens?
> Any help would be appreciated