Reg URL Report Access Path Format

I'm trying to render a report created using SSRS to open in a web browser in windows form.
This is the URL used:
"http://localhost/reportserver?/C:/Documents and Settings/xsbangalore/My Documents/Visual Studio 2005/Projects/prmRpt/prmRpt&rs:Command=Render&rs:Format=HTML4.0&rc:Parameters=false&StartDate='01/01/2005'&EndDate='01/01/2007'";

I'm not able to see the report.
Error: Unable to link to Web page

What is missing?

The URL must refer to a report that is in the Report Server catalog database. You cannot refer to documents on disc as reports. Upload the report to the Report Server and then use Report Manager or the reportserver url to browse to the report. From there you will see how a URL is constructed.

Example:

http://localhost/reportserver?/Report Project1/report1&rs:Command=Render&rs:Format=HTML4.0&rc:Parameters=false&StartDate='01/01/2005'&EndDate='01/01/2007'";

|||If I dont have a report server created, what's the alternative?

OR
How do I create a resport server instance?

reg linked server

We are using linked servers to access another server, we are using windows authentication. but when we use

EXEC master.dbo.sp_addlinkedserver @.server = 'SERVER', @.srvproduct=N'SQL Server'

EXEC master.dbo.sp_addlinkedsrvlogin @.rmtsrvname = 'SERVER', @.locallogin = NULL, @.useself = N'False', @.rmtuser = N'sa', @.rmtpassword = N'sa'

When we connect using a SQL login as specified in the above line we are able to connect to the linked server.

But when we want to connect using a Windows user it is connecting.(we want to connect using a specific windows user i.e only one windows user will be there in the server and we shall access the server using that windows user)

EXEC master.dbo.sp_addlinkedsrvlogin @.rmtsrvname = 'SERVER', @.locallogin = NULL, @.useself = N'False', @.rmtuser = N'Domain\userid', @.rmtpassword = 'password'

Is there any other way to connect to the linked serrver.. we dont want to use the SQL server login to connect to the linked server.. how to use windows authentication to connect to the linked server. Anyone have tried it out.. Thanks in advance

It should work try the following example...

EXEC sp_addlinkedserver @.server = 'SERVER', @.provider = 'SQLOLEDB.1', @.srvproduct = '', @.provstr = 'Privider=SQLOLEDB.1;Data Source=TargetServer;Initial Catalog=Database'

go

Exec sp_addlinkedsrvlogin @.rmtsrvname = 'SERVER', @.useself = true, @.locallogin = null, @.rmtuser = 'Domain\Userid', @.rmtpassword = 'Password'

go

Select * From OpenQuery(MyRemoteServer, 'Select * From Sysobjects')

--OR

Select * From MyRemoteServer.DatabaseName.dbo.Sysobjects

go

Exec sp_droplinkedsrvlogin 'SERVER', null

Exec sp_dropserver 'SERVER'

Refresh a windows form without closing it

Hi all

I have a couple of windows forms which share tables or parts of tables.

When I edit a tables data on one form (form2), where it ,s data is linked to another form ( form1), when I go back to form1 I find that the fields have not been updated until I close the form and reopen it.

Is there a way to refresh the field on form1 by using a button in the menu bar and what would the code behind look like. I use vb .

Thanks

Rob

You can create a button and then in the click event use:

me.refresh which will refresh the whole form, or you can do controlname.refresh which will refresh just the specific control.

|||

Hi

Thanks for your help so far. I have tried the "me. refresh ()" but nothing happens.

I have also added a few things ( as below) to the code to try and get my dataset to refresh , but still without succsess . Can you suggest any other code snippit which I can add to the me.refresh() which would refresh the data in the client dataset.

Private Sub ToolStripButton1_Click(ByVal sender As System.Object, ByVal e As System.EventArgs) Handles ToolStripButton1.Click

Me.Refresh = ProjectManagmentDataSet1.Client()

End Sub

Thanks

Rob

|||You need to re-fill the dataset. If you are using a table adapter, it would be like the following:

Code Snippet

Me.MyTableAdapter.Fill(Me.MyDataSet.MyTable)

If you look in the Form_Load event, this is usually where the code is located that will load your data. You can simply copy those steps into the ToolStipButton1_Click event. Once the dataset has been re-filled, use Me.Refresh() to refresh the form. If that doesn't make sense, could you post the code that you are using to load the data into your form?

|||

Thanks for your patience so far

Public Class Form2

Private Sub ClientBindingNavigatorSaveItem_Click(ByVal sender As System.Object, ByVal e As System.EventArgs) Handles ClientBindingNavigatorSaveItem.Click

Me.Validate()

Me.ClientBindingSource.EndEdit()

Me.ClientTableAdapter.Update(Me.ProjectManagmentDataSet1.Client)

Me.SHIPSBindingSource.EndEdit()

Me.SHIPSTableAdapter.Update(Me.ProjectManagmentDataSet1.SHIPS)

End Sub

Private Sub Form2_Load(ByVal sender As System.Object, ByVal e As System.EventArgs) Handles MyBase.Load

'TODO: This line of code loads data into the 'ProjectManagmentDataSet1.SHIPS' table. You can move, or remove it, as needed.

Me.SHIPSTableAdapter.Fill(Me.ProjectManagmentDataSet1.SHIPS)

'TODO: This line of code loads data into the 'ProjectManagmentDataSet1.Client' table. You can move, or remove it, as needed.

Me.ClientTableAdapter.Fill(Me.ProjectManagmentDataSet1.Client)

End Sub

Private Sub Button1_Click(ByVal sender As System.Object, ByVal e As System.EventArgs) Handles Button1.Click

Client.Show()

End Sub

Private Sub Button2_Click(ByVal sender As System.Object, ByVal e As System.EventArgs) Handles Button2.Click

Form1.Show()

End Sub

Private Sub ToolStripButton1_Click(ByVal sender As System.Object, ByVal e As System.EventArgs) Handles ToolStripButton1.Click

Me.Refresh()

End Sub

End Class

|||

Can you show me the code for Form1 as well? I think that is where we need to do the updating. If I understand your question correctly, you edit in Form2 and need it to update into Form1 without having to close and re-open Form1.

One other item that is not really a huge thing but you may want to change the ClientBindingNavigatorSaveItem_Click to the following:

Private Sub ClientBindingNavigatorSaveItem_Click(ByVal sender As System.Object, ByVal e As System.EventArgs) Handles ClientBindingNavigatorSaveItem.Click

Try

Me.Validate()

Me.ClientBindingSource.EndEdit()

Me.ClientTableAdapter.Update(Me.ProjectManagmentDataSet1.Client)

Me.SHIPSBindingSource.EndEdit()

Me.SHIPSTableAdapter.Update(Me.ProjectManagmentDataSet1.SHIPS)

Catch ex as Exception

MsgBox("Update Failed: " & ex.ToString)

End Try

End Sub

This will pop up a message box with an explanation as to why the database was not able to be updated if there is a problem updating the data.

|||

This is as far as I have gotten. I edit in form1and hope to refresh form2 without closing and reopening.

I have no problem with updating the data , just the long rout around of closing and reopening forms.

Regards

Rob

|||

OK, the code in form2 should be like the following:

Code Snippet

Public Class Form2

Private Sub Form2_Load(ByVal sender As System.Object, ByVal e As System.EventArgs) Handles MyBase.Load

Call loadData()

End Sub

Private Sub Button1_Click(ByVal sender As System.Object, ByVal e As System.EventArgs) Handles Button1.Click

Client.Show()

End Sub

Private Sub Button2_Click(ByVal sender As System.Object, ByVal e As System.EventArgs) Handles Button2.Click

Form1.Show()

End Sub

Private Sub ToolStripButton1_Click(ByVal sender As System.Object, ByVal e As System.EventArgs) Handles ToolStripButton1.Click

Call loadData()

Me.Refresh()

End Sub

Private Sub loadData()

Me.SHIPSTableAdapter.Fill(Me.ProjectManagmentDataSet1.SHIPS)

Me.ClientTableAdapter.Fill(Me.ProjectManagmentDataSet1.Client)

End Sub

End Class

You shouldn't need the "save" part of the code in form2, just in form1. All you need to do is to fill the adapters again and then refresh the form.

|||Thanks ,all sorted out.

Refresh a table

Can i referesh a open table?

The scenario is that i have two windows open... one is the table and the other is the query that modifies the same table. I was wondering if there is a way to refresh the table so that after i modify the table i don't have to close it and reopen it to verify the changes.

cheers

In open table, you can refresh by clicking on the "Execute" button, the red exclamation point.

Peter

sql

Reference not found using SQL Compact Edition

I'm currently programming a small application for Windows Mobile 5.0 and .NET Compact Frameword 2.0 including SQL Server Compact Edition.

The following code unfortunately does not for compiling.

C#-Code:

38 SqlCeEngine engine = new SqlCeEngine("Data Source = 'test.sdf'");
39 engine.CreateDatabase();
40
41 System.Data.SqlServerCe.SqlCeConnection ssceconn = new SqlCeConnection("Data Source = 'test.sdf'");
42 ssceconn.Open();

There's no more code inside the project except the standard code für a blank Form. I'm getting the following error when i try to compile:

Zeile 41: Der Typ System.Data.Common.DbConnection ist in einer Assembly, auf die nicht verwiesen wird, definiert. Fügen Sie einen Verweis zur Assembly System.Data, Version=2.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=b77a5c561934e089 hinzu. (CS0012)

For all those who don't understand german: The Type System.Data.Common.DBConnection is in an assembly for which there isn't a reference defined. Please add a reference for System.Data, Version 2.0.0.0, Culture=....

I already have a reference on System.Data inside my project, and the version, culture and the publickeytoken are the same as required by the compiler... I'm getting really hopeless, does anybody have an idea? Thanks a lot in advance!!

By the way: My system: .NET Framework 1.1, 2.0 and 3.0 as well as .NET Compact Framework 2.0 and .NET Framework SDK v2.0. Also there is MS SQL Server Compact Edition 3.1 and SQL Server CE 3.1 SDK installed (all in german). My OS is Windows XP SP2, all updates are done and I'm using SharpDevelop 2.1.0.

You need to add a reference to the SQLCe engine (system.data.SqlServerCe) in your project. If you create a new Data Connection in the Server Explorer in Visual Studio, and use it to build a Data Source, the path of the needed DLL will be added to your project. On my system it's located at C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio 8\SmartDevices\SDK\SQL Server\Mobile\v3.0\System.Data.SqlServerCe.dll.

I discuss the details of this in my EBook.

hth

|||

Thanks a lot for your answer!

I found the "error" myself, or at least a solution for this problem. It was not because of the missing reference to the system.data.SqlServerCe, because I already added this reference before and compiling didn't work. I just removed all the references from my project and added them manually, referencing not the files in the GAC but selecting them from the .net framework sdk-folder/compact framework (As I can rememember it is something like: C:\Programme\Microsoft .NET\.Net Framework SDK\Compact Framework\....). Don't ask me why it works this way, but i'm able to compile now and everything works fine. Is it possible that the versions of the referenced assemblies in the GAC are not for the compact framework?

Reference Linked Server From Linked Server

Hello all, hoping someone can help.
usual info: windows 2003,sql server 2005 32bit and 64bit
ServerA has a linked server defined that points to ServerB.
ServerC has a linked server defined that points to ServerA.
Is it possible to have a query execute on ServerC that will reference
ServerB through the linked ServerA?
example:
execute on ServerC: Select * from ServerA.ServerB.database.dbo.table
Note:
I understand that I can use openquery:
Select * from openquery(ServerA,'Select * from
ServerB.database.dbo.table')
But because I need to use openquery in the query executed on ServerB
it will get ugly.
Example:
Select * from openquery(ServerA,'Select * From openquery(ServerB,
''Select * from database.dbo.table''')
You may be wondering why I don't just create linked server on ServerC
that references ServerB directly. Let me explain:
ServerC is 64bit SQL Server2005
ServerA is 32bit SQL Server2005
ServerB is 32bit Intersytems Cache Database (ODBC Driver ONLY!)
ServerA uses the oledb provider for ODBC datasources to connect to
ServerB. Intersystems does not have an oledb driver. And Microsoft
does not support the oledb provider for odbc datasourceS on 64 bit sql
server.
Any and all ideas are welcome!
Jay
I don't believe this is possible using T-SQL without OPENQUERY or similar.
Would creating views on ServerA that refer to ServerB help? I can't say I
particularly like this approach, but it may be an option.
Stored procedures would be a more fitting approach to take if your querying
is not ad-hoc.
"Jay" <JasonPirtle@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8325615c-a36b-4722-9974-a9b58d4756c6@.i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> Hello all, hoping someone can help.
> usual info: windows 2003,sql server 2005 32bit and 64bit
> ServerA has a linked server defined that points to ServerB.
> ServerC has a linked server defined that points to ServerA.
> Is it possible to have a query execute on ServerC that will reference
> ServerB through the linked ServerA?
> example:
> execute on ServerC: Select * from ServerA.ServerB.database.dbo.table
> Note:
> I understand that I can use openquery:
> Select * from openquery(ServerA,'Select * from
> ServerB.database.dbo.table')
> But because I need to use openquery in the query executed on ServerB
> it will get ugly.
> Example:
> Select * from openquery(ServerA,'Select * From openquery(ServerB,
> ''Select * from database.dbo.table''')
> You may be wondering why I don't just create linked server on ServerC
> that references ServerB directly. Let me explain:
> ServerC is 64bit SQL Server2005
> ServerA is 32bit SQL Server2005
> ServerB is 32bit Intersytems Cache Database (ODBC Driver ONLY!)
> ServerA uses the oledb provider for ODBC datasources to connect to
> ServerB. Intersystems does not have an oledb driver. And Microsoft
> does not support the oledb provider for odbc datasourceS on 64 bit sql
> server.
> Any and all ideas are welcome!
> Jay
>

Reference Linked Server From Linked Server

Hello all, hoping someone can help.
usual info: windows 2003,sql server 2005 32bit and 64bit
ServerA has a linked server defined that points to ServerB.
ServerC has a linked server defined that points to ServerA.
Is it possible to have a query execute on ServerC that will reference
ServerB through the linked ServerA?
example:
execute on ServerC: Select * from ServerA.ServerB.database.dbo.table
Note:
I understand that I can use openquery:
Select * from openquery(ServerA,'Select * from
ServerB.database.dbo.table')
But because I need to use openquery in the query executed on ServerB
it will get ugly.
Example:
Select * from openquery(ServerA,'Select * From openquery(ServerB,
''Select * from database.dbo.table''')
You may be wondering why I don't just create linked server on ServerC
that references ServerB directly. Let me explain:
ServerC is 64bit SQL Server2005
ServerA is 32bit SQL Server2005
ServerB is 32bit Intersytems Cache Database (ODBC Driver ONLY!)
ServerA uses the oledb provider for ODBC datasources to connect to
ServerB. Intersystems does not have an oledb driver. And Microsoft
does not support the oledb provider for odbc datasourceS on 64 bit sql
server.
Any and all ideas are welcome!
JayI don't believe this is possible using T-SQL without OPENQUERY or similar.
Would creating views on ServerA that refer to ServerB help? I can't say I
particularly like this approach, but it may be an option.
Stored procedures would be a more fitting approach to take if your querying
is not ad-hoc.
"Jay" <JasonPirtle@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8325615c-a36b-4722-9974-a9b58d4756c6@.i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> Hello all, hoping someone can help.
> usual info: windows 2003,sql server 2005 32bit and 64bit
> ServerA has a linked server defined that points to ServerB.
> ServerC has a linked server defined that points to ServerA.
> Is it possible to have a query execute on ServerC that will reference
> ServerB through the linked ServerA?
> example:
> execute on ServerC: Select * from ServerA.ServerB.database.dbo.table
> Note:
> I understand that I can use openquery:
> Select * from openquery(ServerA,'Select * from
> ServerB.database.dbo.table')
> But because I need to use openquery in the query executed on ServerB
> it will get ugly.
> Example:
> Select * from openquery(ServerA,'Select * From openquery(ServerB,
> ''Select * from database.dbo.table''')
> You may be wondering why I don't just create linked server on ServerC
> that references ServerB directly. Let me explain:
> ServerC is 64bit SQL Server2005
> ServerA is 32bit SQL Server2005
> ServerB is 32bit Intersytems Cache Database (ODBC Driver ONLY!)
> ServerA uses the oledb provider for ODBC datasources to connect to
> ServerB. Intersystems does not have an oledb driver. And Microsoft
> does not support the oledb provider for odbc datasourceS on 64 bit sql
> server.
> Any and all ideas are welcome!
> Jay
>

Reference Child Objects in a Report based on...Objects.

Hello,

I have an object that I consume for a Windows Forms Report in VS 2005. The Report displays all of the elements on the top level of the Object (FirstName, LastName, Phone, etc...) but when I attempt to pull items from one of the child objects, such as SkillName, VS.Net throws an error stating that:

Error 1 The Value expression for the textbox ‘SkillName’ refers to the field ‘SkillName’. Report item expressions can only refer to fields within the current data set scope or, if inside an aggregate, the specified data set scope.

The structure of my object is as follows:

Person
|_ FirstName
|_ LastName
- PersonSkill
|_ SkillName

I want to show all of the Skills that a Person has under each person displayed in the report. Nothing that I have tried seems to work. Does anyone have any suggestions?

When I step through the code, on one particular query 65 Persons are returned with their child objects. I was hoping that I could just see the child objects without going through hoops...

I have struck similar issues as well. What I had to do was construct a dataset that contained all of the information I required. For you this will probably mean doing an outer join on the skills to get the entire list of skills for a particular person.

Craig

Redundant SQL servers - Environment

Here is what we are trying to accomplish, and please let me know if we are
going down the right path.
We have 2 Windows 2000 Servers running SQL 2000 for a website. The SQL
database is on one of the two servers and we want to create a redundant
environment so when one of the SQL servers fails, the other will take over,
or continue to provide the functions for the website.
We are thinking of putting the SQL database on a NAS device and then point
each server to it and if one goes down the other can perform the operations
as needed.
Can this be done by clustering the two SQL servers and then pointing them to
the SQL database on the NAS device?
Do you know of any other way to create a redundant SQL environment?
Hopefully I've provided you with enough information, if not please let me
know if you need more details.
Thanks,
CC
SQL Server does not support NAS. If you can use a SAN, then you have two
choices. First, you can go with log shipping. Second, you can go with a
cluster solution, as long as the hardware is supported for clustering.
However, you can't just cluster an existing single-server instance. What
you could do is cluster the server that is not being used right now, migrate
the old instance to it and then remove the old instance. At this point, you
have a single-node cluster. Take the old server and add it to the cluster
and you're there.
For a bit more on clustering, check out:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/technetmag/issues/2007/03/SQLClusters/default.aspx
Tom
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Tom.Moreau
"VIT" <VIT@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D7E35BA4-EDE6-4CEB-B474-652CBD9DD64F@.microsoft.com...
Here is what we are trying to accomplish, and please let me know if we are
going down the right path.
We have 2 Windows 2000 Servers running SQL 2000 for a website. The SQL
database is on one of the two servers and we want to create a redundant
environment so when one of the SQL servers fails, the other will take over,
or continue to provide the functions for the website.
We are thinking of putting the SQL database on a NAS device and then point
each server to it and if one goes down the other can perform the operations
as needed.
Can this be done by clustering the two SQL servers and then pointing them to
the SQL database on the NAS device?
Do you know of any other way to create a redundant SQL environment?
Hopefully I've provided you with enough information, if not please let me
know if you need more details.
Thanks,
CC
|||There are several techniques for creating a redundnt SQL environment.
Clustering using a NAS box is not one of them. Clustering using a supported
storage unit is one possible technique. Only a very few NAS systems are
supported for SQL and none are supported for clustering.
Another possibility is database mirroring. This technique does not require
a shared storage system, but is more resource intensive and has some other
unique requirements.
Here is the Microsoft SQL 2005 High Availability home page:
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/technologies/highavailability/default.mspx
It contains links to FAQs, white papers, etc. on SQL High Availability.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"VIT" <VIT@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D7E35BA4-EDE6-4CEB-B474-652CBD9DD64F@.microsoft.com...
> Here is what we are trying to accomplish, and please let me know if we are
> going down the right path.
> We have 2 Windows 2000 Servers running SQL 2000 for a website. The SQL
> database is on one of the two servers and we want to create a redundant
> environment so when one of the SQL servers fails, the other will take
> over,
> or continue to provide the functions for the website.
> We are thinking of putting the SQL database on a NAS device and then point
> each server to it and if one goes down the other can perform the
> operations
> as needed.
> Can this be done by clustering the two SQL servers and then pointing them
> to
> the SQL database on the NAS device?
> Do you know of any other way to create a redundant SQL environment?
> Hopefully I've provided you with enough information, if not please let me
> know if you need more details.
> Thanks,
> CC
|||In addition to what the others have said, I just want to add that NAS is
built on top of CIFS, and CIFS is a horrible protocol for block I/Os. You'd
be better with considering iSCSI.
Linchi
"VIT" wrote:

> Here is what we are trying to accomplish, and please let me know if we are
> going down the right path.
> We have 2 Windows 2000 Servers running SQL 2000 for a website. The SQL
> database is on one of the two servers and we want to create a redundant
> environment so when one of the SQL servers fails, the other will take over,
> or continue to provide the functions for the website.
> We are thinking of putting the SQL database on a NAS device and then point
> each server to it and if one goes down the other can perform the operations
> as needed.
> Can this be done by clustering the two SQL servers and then pointing them to
> the SQL database on the NAS device?
> Do you know of any other way to create a redundant SQL environment?
> Hopefully I've provided you with enough information, if not please let me
> know if you need more details.
> Thanks,
> CC
|||So based on what we have what is the best, most cost effective way to achieve
a redundant SQL environment?
Thanks,
CC
"Linchi Shea" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> In addition to what the others have said, I just want to add that NAS is
> built on top of CIFS, and CIFS is a horrible protocol for block I/Os. You'd
> be better with considering iSCSI.
> Linchi
> "VIT" wrote:
|||What are the requirements of the applications?
Log Shipping is cost-effective, but in the event of an outage, manual
intervention would be required to reconfigure the applications to point to
the failsafe server.
SQL Server 2005 Database Mirroring is also cost-effective but will require
some beefier hardware, an upgraded network to reduce latency, an upgrade to
SQL Server 2005, and a reconfiguration of the applications to the later MDAC
or SQL Native Client protocol. Failover would be automatic.
Finally, Failover Clustering would provide better availability and
automation and is supported under both SQL Server 2000 and 2005; however,
this is not as cost-effective and requires a shared storage array
environment. SQL Server 2005, however, has introduced support for failover
clusters on the Standard Edition, which helps reduce the expense some.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas

"VIT" <VIT@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:353890CD-84AA-4E3B-A6FB-8A6580611216@.microsoft.com...
> So based on what we have what is the best, most cost effective way to
achieve[vbcol=seagreen]
> a redundant SQL environment?
> Thanks,
> CC
> "Linchi Shea" wrote:
You'd[vbcol=seagreen]
are[vbcol=seagreen]
SQL[vbcol=seagreen]
redundant[vbcol=seagreen]
over,[vbcol=seagreen]
point[vbcol=seagreen]
operations[vbcol=seagreen]
them to[vbcol=seagreen]
me[vbcol=seagreen]

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!!!
> >>
> >>.
> >>
> >>.
> >>
> >.
> >

Redundancy Question

Dear All
We have a server running Windows 2000 Server with SQL 2000. This is our web
server, and what I would like to do is implement some form of redundancy
server within this environment. Ideally, what I would like to achieve is a
scenario where is if there is a failure on one of the servers another one
would start up ad take on the exact same role with the exact same access and
sql database and applications.
Does anyone have any idea how this would be achieved, and point in the right
direction.
Thanks
Neil
Hi,
You can go for below options:-
1. Transactional Replication
2. Logshipping every 5 minutes.
In the above cases you have to change your IP Address of new server with old
server when there is a requirement
Thanks
Hari
MCDBA
"Neil Shirley" <neils@.nospam.complete-it.co.uk> wrote in message
news:epDILRYPEHA.1612@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Dear All
> We have a server running Windows 2000 Server with SQL 2000. This is our
web
> server, and what I would like to do is implement some form of redundancy
> server within this environment. Ideally, what I would like to achieve is
a
> scenario where is if there is a failure on one of the servers another one
> would start up ad take on the exact same role with the exact same access
and
> sql database and applications.
> Does anyone have any idea how this would be achieved, and point in the
right
> direction.
> Thanks
> Neil
>
|||Have a look at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techinf...ailability.asp
HTH
Jasper Smith (SQL Server MVP)
I support PASS - the definitive, global
community for SQL Server professionals -
http://www.sqlpass.org
"Neil Shirley" <neils@.nospam.complete-it.co.uk> wrote in message
news:epDILRYPEHA.1612@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Dear All
> We have a server running Windows 2000 Server with SQL 2000. This is our
web
> server, and what I would like to do is implement some form of redundancy
> server within this environment. Ideally, what I would like to achieve is
a
> scenario where is if there is a failure on one of the servers another one
> would start up ad take on the exact same role with the exact same access
and
> sql database and applications.
> Does anyone have any idea how this would be achieved, and point in the
right
> direction.
> Thanks
> Neil
>

Redundancy Question

Dear All
We have a server running Windows 2000 Server with SQL 2000. This is our web
server, and what I would like to do is implement some form of redundancy
server within this environment. Ideally, what I would like to achieve is a
scenario where is if there is a failure on one of the servers another one
would start up ad take on the exact same role with the exact same access and
sql database and applications.
Does anyone have any idea how this would be achieved, and point in the right
direction.
Thanks
NeilHi,
You can go for below options:-
1. Transactional Replication
2. Logshipping every 5 minutes.
In the above cases you have to change your IP Address of new server with old
server when there is a requirement
Thanks
Hari
MCDBA
"Neil Shirley" <neils@.nospam.complete-it.co.uk> wrote in message
news:epDILRYPEHA.1612@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Dear All
> We have a server running Windows 2000 Server with SQL 2000. This is our
web
> server, and what I would like to do is implement some form of redundancy
> server within this environment. Ideally, what I would like to achieve is
a
> scenario where is if there is a failure on one of the servers another one
> would start up ad take on the exact same role with the exact same access
and
> sql database and applications.
> Does anyone have any idea how this would be achieved, and point in the
right
> direction.
> Thanks
> Neil
>|||Have a look at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techin...vailability.asp
HTH
Jasper Smith (SQL Server MVP)
I support PASS - the definitive, global
community for SQL Server professionals -
http://www.sqlpass.org
"Neil Shirley" <neils@.nospam.complete-it.co.uk> wrote in message
news:epDILRYPEHA.1612@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Dear All
> We have a server running Windows 2000 Server with SQL 2000. This is our
web
> server, and what I would like to do is implement some form of redundancy
> server within this environment. Ideally, what I would like to achieve is
a
> scenario where is if there is a failure on one of the servers another one
> would start up ad take on the exact same role with the exact same access
and
> sql database and applications.
> Does anyone have any idea how this would be achieved, and point in the
right
> direction.
> Thanks
> Neil
>

Redundancy Question

Dear All
We have a server running Windows 2000 Server with SQL 2000. This is our web
server, and what I would like to do is implement some form of redundancy
server within this environment. Ideally, what I would like to achieve is a
scenario where is if there is a failure on one of the servers another one
would start up ad take on the exact same role with the exact same access and
sql database and applications.
Does anyone have any idea how this would be achieved, and point in the right
direction.
Thanks
NeilHave you looked at Replication yet ?
With this you can automatically copy information for one
database to another automatically.
Look up Snapshot and Transactional Replication.
J
>--Original Message--
>Dear All
>We have a server running Windows 2000 Server with SQL
2000. This is our web
>server, and what I would like to do is implement some
form of redundancy
>server within this environment. Ideally, what I would
like to achieve is a
>scenario where is if there is a failure on one of the
servers another one
>would start up ad take on the exact same role with the
exact same access and
>sql database and applications.
>Does anyone have any idea how this would be achieved, and
point in the right
>direction.
>Thanks
>Neil
>
>.
>|||Hi,
You can go for below options:-
1. Transactional Replication
2. Logshipping every 5 minutes.
In the above cases you have to change your IP Address of new server with old
server when there is a requirement
Thanks
Hari
MCDBA
"Neil Shirley" <neils@.nospam.complete-it.co.uk> wrote in message
news:epDILRYPEHA.1612@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Dear All
> We have a server running Windows 2000 Server with SQL 2000. This is our
web
> server, and what I would like to do is implement some form of redundancy
> server within this environment. Ideally, what I would like to achieve is
a
> scenario where is if there is a failure on one of the servers another one
> would start up ad take on the exact same role with the exact same access
and
> sql database and applications.
> Does anyone have any idea how this would be achieved, and point in the
right
> direction.
> Thanks
> Neil
>|||Have a look at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techinfo/administration/2000/availability.asp
--
HTH
Jasper Smith (SQL Server MVP)
I support PASS - the definitive, global
community for SQL Server professionals -
http://www.sqlpass.org
"Neil Shirley" <neils@.nospam.complete-it.co.uk> wrote in message
news:epDILRYPEHA.1612@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Dear All
> We have a server running Windows 2000 Server with SQL 2000. This is our
web
> server, and what I would like to do is implement some form of redundancy
> server within this environment. Ideally, what I would like to achieve is
a
> scenario where is if there is a failure on one of the servers another one
> would start up ad take on the exact same role with the exact same access
and
> sql database and applications.
> Does anyone have any idea how this would be achieved, and point in the
right
> direction.
> Thanks
> Neil
>

Reduce the Size of SQL Log File

We have MS SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition, running on Windows 2000 Server. Is
it a good idea to reduce the size of the SQL Log File? If it is, do I need
to make sure no one is using the database while I am reducing the size of
the log file? Is it possible to setup these commands in a batch file
instead of running them under Query Analyzer? Thanks.
BACKUP LOG Smart_DATA WITH TRUNCATE_ONLY
GO
DBCC SHRINKDATABASE (Smart_DATA, TRUNCATEONLY)
What recovery model is the database in? Also see
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/
"Diane Walker" <ett9300@.yahoo.com> wrote in message news:u90cVi%23vFHA.1256@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> We have MS SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition, running on Windows 2000 Server. Is it a good idea to
> reduce the size of the SQL Log File? If it is, do I need to make sure no one is using the
> database while I am reducing the size of the log file? Is it possible to setup these commands in
> a batch file instead of running them under Query Analyzer? Thanks.
> BACKUP LOG Smart_DATA WITH TRUNCATE_ONLY
> GO
> DBCC SHRINKDATABASE (Smart_DATA, TRUNCATEONLY)
>
>
>
|||"while I am reducing the size of the log file?"
-No you neednt, even that would speed up the task. if you have any
maintainance window, do it within this.
"Is it possible to setup these commands in a batch file instead of
running them under Query Analyzer ?"
-Yes of course, put the statements in a job (step) and execute it here.
HTH, Jens Suessmeyer.
|||Thank you very much.
"Jens" <Jens@.sqlserver2005.de> wrote in message
news:1127458411.014481.253870@.g49g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> "while I am reducing the size of the log file?"
> -No you neednt, even that would speed up the task. if you have any
> maintainance window, do it within this.
> "Is it possible to setup these commands in a batch file instead of
> running them under Query Analyzer ?"
> -Yes of course, put the statements in a job (step) and execute it here.
> HTH, Jens Suessmeyer.
>

Reduce the Size of SQL Log File

We have MS SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition, running on Windows 2000 Server. Is
it a good idea to reduce the size of the SQL Log File? If it is, do I need
to make sure no one is using the database while I am reducing the size of
the log file? Is it possible to setup these commands in a batch file
instead of running them under Query Analyzer? Thanks.
BACKUP LOG Smart_DATA WITH TRUNCATE_ONLY
GO
DBCC SHRINKDATABASE (Smart_DATA, TRUNCATEONLY)What recovery model is the database in? Also see
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/
"Diane Walker" <ett9300@.yahoo.com> wrote in message news:u90cVi%23vFHA.1256@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> We have MS SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition, running on Windows 2000 Server. Is it a good idea to
> reduce the size of the SQL Log File? If it is, do I need to make sure no one is using the
> database while I am reducing the size of the log file? Is it possible to setup these commands in
> a batch file instead of running them under Query Analyzer? Thanks.
> BACKUP LOG Smart_DATA WITH TRUNCATE_ONLY
> GO
> DBCC SHRINKDATABASE (Smart_DATA, TRUNCATEONLY)
>
>
>|||"while I am reducing the size of the log file?"
-No you neednt, even that would speed up the task. if you have any
maintainance window, do it within this.
"Is it possible to setup these commands in a batch file instead of
running them under Query Analyzer ?"
-Yes of course, put the statements in a job (step) and execute it here.
HTH, Jens Suessmeyer.|||Thank you very much.
"Jens" <Jens@.sqlserver2005.de> wrote in message
news:1127458411.014481.253870@.g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> "while I am reducing the size of the log file?"
> -No you neednt, even that would speed up the task. if you have any
> maintainance window, do it within this.
> "Is it possible to setup these commands in a batch file instead of
> running them under Query Analyzer ?"
> -Yes of course, put the statements in a job (step) and execute it here.
> HTH, Jens Suessmeyer.
>

Reduce the Size of SQL Log File

We have MS SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition, running on Windows 2000 Server. Is
it a good idea to reduce the size of the SQL Log File? If it is, do I need
to make sure no one is using the database while I am reducing the size of
the log file? Is it possible to setup these commands in a batch file
instead of running them under Query Analyzer? Thanks.
BACKUP LOG Smart_DATA WITH TRUNCATE_ONLY
GO
DBCC SHRINKDATABASE (Smart_DATA, TRUNCATEONLY)What recovery model is the database in? Also see
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/
"Diane Walker" <ett9300@.yahoo.com> wrote in message news:u90cVi%23vFHA.1256@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx
.gbl...
> We have MS SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition, running on Windows 2000 Server. I
s it a good idea to
> reduce the size of the SQL Log File? If it is, do I need to make sure no
one is using the
> database while I am reducing the size of the log file? Is it possible to
setup these commands in
> a batch file instead of running them under Query Analyzer? Thanks.
> BACKUP LOG Smart_DATA WITH TRUNCATE_ONLY
> GO
> DBCC SHRINKDATABASE (Smart_DATA, TRUNCATEONLY)
>
>
>|||"while I am reducing the size of the log file?"
-No you neednt, even that would speed up the task. if you have any
maintainance window, do it within this.
"Is it possible to setup these commands in a batch file instead of
running them under Query Analyzer ?"
-Yes of course, put the statements in a job (step) and execute it here.
HTH, Jens Suessmeyer.|||Thank you very much.
"Jens" <Jens@.sqlserver2005.de> wrote in message
news:1127458411.014481.253870@.g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> "while I am reducing the size of the log file?"
> -No you neednt, even that would speed up the task. if you have any
> maintainance window, do it within this.
> "Is it possible to setup these commands in a batch file instead of
> running them under Query Analyzer ?"
> -Yes of course, put the statements in a job (step) and execute it here.
> HTH, Jens Suessmeyer.
>

Reduce size of Reporting Services report within Sharepoint web part

I have a Reporting Services report available in a Windows Sharepoint Services webpart. The report is too large to display in the webpart window requiring the user to use the scroll bars. Is there any way to reduce the size of the report so that fits completely within the webpart without using scroll bars?

Thank you.

David

Sorry, there is no way to currently do this. You would need to redesign the report to make sure that it fits.