Friday, March 30, 2012

Protect DataBAse which is distributed on many SQL Servers

Hi,
I need to protect SQL Server 2000 database which I will distrubute to many
of my customers on their own SQL Servers. Unfortunately I still can't find a
way to solve this issue. Would you please help me with this?
Many thanks in advance!
Best regards,
Mariyan GotsevProtect in what way? What is it exactly you wish to prevent?
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Mariyan" <mgms@.dir.bg> wrote in message
news:OblbpQPxDHA.2340@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
quote:

>
> --
> Hi,
> I need to protect SQL Server 2000 database which I will distrubute to many
> of my customers on their own SQL Servers. Unfortunately I still can't find

a
quote:

> way to solve this issue. Would you please help me with this?
> Many thanks in advance!
> Best regards,
> Mariyan Gotsev
>
>
|||If you want to protect sql code of your procedures, triggers and views you
can use SQL Shield. http://www.activecrypt.com/sqlshield_howto.html|||Hi,
I have an application true which I want database to be available only. I
need to prevent every one of my customers from any access to the data in
the database, as there I put important customer information and customer
related restrictions - do the customer have rights to use some application
modules or not like example. What I need is very similar to MS Access
database password. You just can't open the database on every one machine if
you have not the database password. But for SQL Server this simple
protection seems to be much more difficult to implement. Please help me.
Many thanks!
Best regards,
Mariyan Gotsev
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnoooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:%2344QlrRxDHA.4060@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
quote:

> Protect in what way? What is it exactly you wish to prevent?
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "Mariyan" <mgms@.dir.bg> wrote in message
> news:OblbpQPxDHA.2340@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
many[QUOTE]
find[QUOTE]
> a
>
|||Hi,
I have an application true which I want database to be available only. I
need to prevent every one of my customers from any access to the data in
the database, as there I put important customer information and customer
related restrictions - do the customer have rights to use some application
modules or not like example. What I need is very similar to MS Access
database password. You just can't open the database on every one machine if
you have not the database password. But for SQL Server this simple
protection seems to be much more difficult to implement. Please help me.
Many thanks!
Best regards,
Mariyan Gotsev
"Andrey Kubyshev" <email.ANTISPAM@.vtc.ru> wrote in message
news:brrq4s$ep3$02$1@.news.t-online.com...
quote:

> If you want to protect sql code of your procedures, triggers and views you
> can use SQL Shield. http://www.activecrypt.com/sqlshield_howto.html
>
|||To gain access to the database, you need a login defined with access
granted to a particular database. This is similar to Accessing
a secured Access database. Local machine admins by default have sysadmin
permission. You can change this:
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techin...ration/May3.asp
If you're distributing your application with MSDE, you can disable all
network protocols during the install.
This means that only a locally logged on user can access the database.
See: DISABLENETWORKPROTOCOLS
810826 INF: New Switches in MSDE Service Pack 3 Setup
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=810826
You may want to consider using Application Roles to control security to the
database.
See: Establishing Application Security and Application Roles in SQL Books
Online.
In addition you should read this technet article before deploying your
application.
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/tr...chnet/prodtechn
ol/sql/maintain/security/sp3sec/SP3SEC03.ASP
Some addtional checklists :
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d...-us/dnnetsec/ht
ml/CL_SecDBSe.asp
Thanks,
Kevin McDonnell
Microsoft Corporation
This posting is provided AS IS with no warranties, and confers no rights.

Protect Data and Schema SQL SERVER 2005 EXPRESS

We have a commercial VB.NET winforms client/server application that utilizes SQL Server 2005 express edition. The schema and data that the application utilizes is proprietary and could be very damaging if it got into a competitors hands.

Is there any way to protect the data and schema of a sql server 2005 express edition database?

Will this functionality ever be added?

Thanks

As long as youhand over the database to someone, he will have full control over the database, attaching it to its own server and reading the schema from the database. What you can do is to encrypt data as well as stored procedures with certificates. But the schema won′t be hideable as the database will be given to the other party.

HTH, Jens Suessmeyer.

http://www.sqlserver2005.desql

Protect and invirible Database from each other

Hi,
I'm using Windows 2000 Server + SQL Server 2000 + updated SP
This server is our Web Hosting services and we have many database in SQL Ser
ver.
Each databases are belonged to each customer domains in this Server.
All customers work with SQL Server by using SQL Enterprise Manage to connect
to the Server via TCP/IP.
My problem is that, after customers connect to the SQL Server, they can see
every Databases' name and table name although I'd set the right of each cust
omer to be able to see only their own database.
I'd ask many SQL Experts but they said that if I used SQL Enterprise manager
to remote connect to the SQL Server, this senario could not be protected an
d let me ask Microsoft.
Using SQL Enterprise Manager is the easiest way for my customer to manage th
eir database, so if I let them use the SQL command line to connect to the SQ
L Server, no customers will use my service.
Please help.
Regards,
NeungThere is no way currently to stop them from seeing the other databases. But
unless you give them specific permissions they can not access or view the
data in them.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Neung" <Neung@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:F5F3F38C-8F8B-499F-8C9C-7BE19D350C9A@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I'm using Windows 2000 Server + SQL Server 2000 + updated SP
> This server is our Web Hosting services and we have many database in SQL
Server.
> Each databases are belonged to each customer domains in this Server.
> All customers work with SQL Server by using SQL Enterprise Manage to
connect to the Server via TCP/IP.
> My problem is that, after customers connect to the SQL Server, they can
see every Databases' name and table name although I'd set the right of each
customer to be able to see only their own database.
> I'd ask many SQL Experts but they said that if I used SQL Enterprise
manager to remote connect to the SQL Server, this senario could not be
protected and let me ask Microsoft.
> Using SQL Enterprise Manager is the easiest way for my customer to manage
their database, so if I let them use the SQL command line to connect to the
SQL Server, no customers will use my service.
> Please help.
> Regards,
> Neung|||Thanks and hope it will be solved in the next version.
Regards,
Neung
"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:

> There is no way currently to stop them from seeing the other databases. B
ut
> unless you give them specific permissions they can not access or view the
> data in them.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "Neung" <Neung@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:F5F3F38C-8F8B-499F-8C9C-7BE19D350C9A@.microsoft.com...
> Server.
> connect to the Server via TCP/IP.
> see every Databases' name and table name although I'd set the right of eac
h
> customer to be able to see only their own database.
> manager to remote connect to the SQL Server, this senario could not be
> protected and let me ask Microsoft.
> their database, so if I let them use the SQL command line to connect to th
e
> SQL Server, no customers will use my service.
>
>|||Yes, SQL 2005 has a lot of improvements in this area.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Neung" <Neung@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:032A5CFE-D0D9-4727-8032-707D90436D80@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Thanks and hope it will be solved in the next version.
> Regards,
> Neung
>
> "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
>
But[vbcol=seagreen]
the[vbcol=seagreen]
SQL[vbcol=seagreen]
can[vbcol=seagreen]
each[vbcol=seagreen]
manage[vbcol=seagreen]
the[vbcol=seagreen]|||> My problem is that, after customers connect to the SQL Server, they can
see every Databases' name and table name although I'd set the right of each
customer to be able to see only their own database.
Although database names are visible, I would not expect users to be able to
see other database contents unless they have explicitly been granted access
or the 'guest' user is enabled in the other databases.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Neung" <Neung@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:F5F3F38C-8F8B-499F-8C9C-7BE19D350C9A@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I'm using Windows 2000 Server + SQL Server 2000 + updated SP
> This server is our Web Hosting services and we have many database in SQL
Server.
> Each databases are belonged to each customer domains in this Server.
> All customers work with SQL Server by using SQL Enterprise Manage to
connect to the Server via TCP/IP.
> My problem is that, after customers connect to the SQL Server, they can
see every Databases' name and table name although I'd set the right of each
customer to be able to see only their own database.
> I'd ask many SQL Experts but they said that if I used SQL Enterprise
manager to remote connect to the SQL Server, this senario could not be
protected and let me ask Microsoft.
> Using SQL Enterprise Manager is the easiest way for my customer to manage
their database, so if I let them use the SQL command line to connect to the
SQL Server, no customers will use my service.
> Please help.
> Regards,
> Neung

Protect .rdl-files from being extracted from the Report Server

Hello,
is there any way to protect our .rdl-files on a Report Server of a customer
to be extracted from the Report Server by one of our customer's
administrators? Our customers should not be able to modify or develop further
the reports developed by us.
Kind regards,
RalphNot that I am aware of. You can use roles to limit users from doing this but
an admin on the box is an admin of RS automatically and can do anything.
Bruce Loehle-Conger
MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
"wbiRalph" <wbiRalph@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:48506776-7600-47F6-97A6-9391131E14E7@.microsoft.com...
> Hello,
> is there any way to protect our .rdl-files on a Report Server of a
> customer
> to be extracted from the Report Server by one of our customer's
> administrators? Our customers should not be able to modify or develop
> further
> the reports developed by us.
> Kind regards,
> Ralph
>

ProSQL

Hi all,
Dose anyone know where i can get quick infor about ProSQL.. The database
we're using uses ProSQL...
Thanks All
Message posted via http://www.droptable.com
Hi,
This group is specically meant for Microsoft SQL Server. Take a look into
dbmonster groups...
http://www.droptable.com/Uwe/ForumList.aspx
Thanks
Hari
"Naba via droptable.com" <u23570@.uwe> wrote in message
news:6a3ba2198df34@.uwe...
> Hi all,
> Dose anyone know where i can get quick infor about ProSQL.. The database
> we're using uses ProSQL...
> Thanks All
> --
> Message posted via http://www.droptable.com
>
|||Thanks Hari will do...
Hari Prasad wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
>Hi,
>This group is specically meant for Microsoft SQL Server. Take a look into
>dbmonster groups...
>http://www.droptable.com/Uwe/ForumList.aspx
>Thanks
>Hari
Message posted via http://www.droptable.com

ProSQL

Hi all,
Dose anyone know where i can get quick infor about ProSQL.. The database
we're using uses ProSQL...
Thanks All
Message posted via http://www.droptable.comHi,
This group is specically meant for Microsoft SQL Server. Take a look into
dbmonster groups...
http://www.droptable.com/Uwe/ForumList.aspx
Thanks
Hari
"Naba via droptable.com" <u23570@.uwe> wrote in message
news:6a3ba2198df34@.uwe...
> Hi all,
> Dose anyone know where i can get quick infor about ProSQL.. The database
> we're using uses ProSQL...
> Thanks All
> --
> Message posted via http://www.droptable.com
>|||Thanks Hari will do...
Hari Prasad wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
>Hi,
>This group is specically meant for Microsoft SQL Server. Take a look into
>dbmonster groups...
>http://www.droptable.com/Uwe/ForumList.aspx
>Thanks
>Hari
>
Message posted via http://www.droptable.com

ProSQL

Hi all,
Dose anyone know where i can get quick infor about ProSQL.. The database
we're using uses ProSQL...
Thanks All
--
Message posted via http://www.sqlmonster.comHi,
This group is specically meant for Microsoft SQL Server. Take a look into
dbmonster groups...
http://www.dbmonster.com/Uwe/ForumList.aspx
Thanks
Hari
"Naba via SQLMonster.com" <u23570@.uwe> wrote in message
news:6a3ba2198df34@.uwe...
> Hi all,
> Dose anyone know where i can get quick infor about ProSQL.. The database
> we're using uses ProSQL...
> Thanks All
> --
> Message posted via http://www.sqlmonster.com
>|||Thanks Hari will do...
Hari Prasad wrote:
>Hi,
>This group is specically meant for Microsoft SQL Server. Take a look into
>dbmonster groups...
>http://www.dbmonster.com/Uwe/ForumList.aspx
>Thanks
>Hari
>> Hi all,
>> Dose anyone know where i can get quick infor about ProSQL.. The database
>> we're using uses ProSQL...
>> Thanks All
--
Message posted via http://www.sqlmonster.comsql

Pros/Cons of using Win 2003 over Win 2000 for SQL Server Enterprise ?

We've recently got a new Server in.
The server has 16Gb of RAM, 8 cpus etc
We now have a choice of sticking with Windows 2000 Advanced Server or
going with Windows 2003 Enterprise edition.
Besides being able to use more RAM and having to use Service pack 3a
in Win 2003
Any pros/cons of both ?
Any recommendations ?
We use Full text, replication, analysis services etc
What issues / Enhancements has MS introduced for sp3A ?
I know that once Service pack 3A is installed all full text indexes
are automatically rebuilt..
In a replication scenario Is it necessary or just a recommendation
that all participants in the replication scenario are using the same
service pack ?
Anything else to look out for ?Win2003 has several enhancements that canmake it very worth while. The cpu
scheduling and parallism is improved along with many improvements in the
file and I/O areas. Win2003 is just a better choice overall for an
enterprise server in my opinion.
--
Andrew J. Kelly
SQL Server MVP
"Steve" <stevekeilygroups@.yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:70809952.0311191644.338d1eb3@.posting.google.com...
> We've recently got a new Server in.
> The server has 16Gb of RAM, 8 cpus etc
> We now have a choice of sticking with Windows 2000 Advanced Server or
> going with Windows 2003 Enterprise edition.
> Besides being able to use more RAM and having to use Service pack 3a
> in Win 2003
> Any pros/cons of both ?
> Any recommendations ?
> We use Full text, replication, analysis services etc
> What issues / Enhancements has MS introduced for sp3A ?
> I know that once Service pack 3A is installed all full text indexes
> are automatically rebuilt..
> In a replication scenario Is it necessary or just a recommendation
> that all participants in the replication scenario are using the same
> service pack ?
>
> Anything else to look out for ?

pros/cons of using Default instance and Named instance for Prod Se

Hi,
What is the pros and cons of using Default instance and Named instance for
Production Server?
I have been working with Default and I had no need for named instances.
We have a physical/vm servers for all environments.
Production always have a physical server.
So I have not needed a named instance.
What do you recommend to use in Production?
Thanks in advance.SQLapprentice wrote:
> Hi,
> What is the pros and cons of using Default instance and Named
> instance for Production Server?
> I have been working with Default and I had no need for named
> instances. We have a physical/vm servers for all environments.
> Production always have a physical server.
> So I have not needed a named instance.
> What do you recommend to use in Production?
> Thanks in advance.
I don't believe it makes any difference. You can install named instances on
the same server without additional licensing concerns (there is a limit I
believe of 8). However, you cannot use a SQL Server on a VM without a valid
license.
David Gugick
Quest Software|||I vote for a named instance. The advantage of names instances is that
they isolate the physical from the logical. Failing to do that has
caused me countless problems over the years, so I never pass up a
chance to avoid repeating that mistake.
The payback comes with configurations you knew for certain would never
change, change anyway. Example: There are problems with your
production server and have to bring up your production database on a
different box. With names instances the name can move from one box to
the other. With default, you either have to change all the apps that
point to the server, or rename the server (and then name it back when
you shift back to the original server.)
Roy
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 10:41:06 -0800, you wrote:

>Hi,
>What is the pros and cons of using Default instance and Named instance for
>Production Server?
>I have been working with Default and I had no need for named instances.
>We have a physical/vm servers for all environments.
>Production always have a physical server.
>So I have not needed a named instance.
>What do you recommend to use in Production?
>Thanks in advance.

pros/cons of using Access 2003 as a front-end for SQL 2005

Hi,

I'm creating a SQL 2005 database for a small company. I'm leaning towards using Access 2003 as a front-end for them, since it has a decent report writer and the adp projects seem to preserve SQL's schema relationships.

But I've read some posts where Microsoft is frowning on adp projects. It would cost this company more money in the short-term, but am I better off building a custom .net winforms application instead and avoid Access 2003?

I've done a lot of asp.net coding, but not too much Access or WinForms...so I have a slight learning curve either way.

I've looked at some RAD Tools like Iron Speed Designer, but I'm not sure they'll spend the $$ on that and it seemed complicated to customize the generated code.

thanks,
Bruce
I would recommend to ask this question on access forum instead.

Pros/Cons of Multivalue Database Columns

I'm just wondering what any pros and cons of using multivalue columns in a database are.

I'm designing a database which will have a column for FABRIC_TYPES_AVAILABLE for a certain FURNITURE_ITEM. Each FURNITURE_ITEM can have multiple FABRIC_TYPES_AVAILABLE of course. So I was just going to store a 2 or 3 digit number of the FABRIC_TYPES_AVAILABLE in that row. So I would have something like...34,24,453,32,23,45,67,65,43,21,21,45.

Anyway...thanks in advance for any information. Links I could read would be great too...b/c I did do a bit of searching, but didnt find much.::I'm just wondering what any pros and cons of using multivalue columns in a database are.

I suggest you read a book about database design. This is pretty well explained in about every into chapter about noirmalization that I have ever seen so far.

Look for (at amazon or in your local Bookstore):

"SQL for Dummies".|||do a look up table. they're faster to query than text based columns|||thona thx.

but i do know its not good for normalization; dont exactly have time to go read a book. hehe.

anyway...im going to go head and go for it, or i will use a lookup table.

thx fellaz|||http://www.sqlservercentral.com/columnists/dsumlin/lookupstrategy_printversion.asp

thats about the best info i could find about lookup tables. could you tell me a little bit more about them?

are they basically, just another table, with ID and Value columns for a certain datatype?

If thats true, i understand that...but then in the table where the values from the lookup table go...do you still store your ID as 23,32,43,54,3,25? I mean...if not...how else would a person know what rows to get from the reference table?

this is the way i was originally doing it; so im assuming there is a different/more correct way to do it, which i'm asking you about.|||you will normalize the database now, or you will normalize it in the future. If you don't exactly have the time to read a book, and you don't know how to normalize a database, I question your strength as a developer. I read constantly, and I always make room to read about something. Even if it's in the restroom. (yeah, I got tech mags in there. :))|||You will have three tables:
1. Furniture_Item
Furniture_ItemID
Furnite_Item (description, etc)
Blah blah (but no fabric type info on this table)

Your lookup table:
2.Fabric_Type
Fabric_TypeID
Fabric_Type (the description)

A link table because you have a many to many relationship between your Furniture_Items and Fabric_Type.
3.Item_FabricType
Item_FabricTypeID
Furniture_ItemID
Fabric_TypeID

The third table contains all the FabricTypes per Item,: so you have no FabricTypes on your Furniture_Item table.

I also suggest you do a bit of reading about database design; it's for your own good. :)

HTH

pros/cons keeping master as default db

Is there any concern in leaving master as a user's default database or
should it be changed to another db?
Thanks
BrianOne downside changing it is that most tools doesn't allow you to login if yo
u remove your default
database.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
"Brian D" <bdaltilio@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1179339438.486854.196200@.q23g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> Is there any concern in leaving master as a user's default database or
> should it be changed to another db?
> Thanks
> Brian
>|||Brian,
My take is that master is a safe default for everybody who does not have
rights to modify master. For those of us who _can_ modify master, please be
careful.
RLF
"Brian D" <bdaltilio@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1179339438.486854.196200@.q23g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> Is there any concern in leaving master as a user's default database or
> should it be changed to another db?
> Thanks
> Brian
>sql

pros/cons keeping master as default db

Is there any concern in leaving master as a user's default database or
should it be changed to another db?
Thanks
BrianOne downside changing it is that most tools doesn't allow you to login if you remove your default
database.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
"Brian D" <bdaltilio@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1179339438.486854.196200@.q23g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> Is there any concern in leaving master as a user's default database or
> should it be changed to another db?
> Thanks
> Brian
>|||Brian,
My take is that master is a safe default for everybody who does not have
rights to modify master. For those of us who _can_ modify master, please be
careful.
RLF
"Brian D" <bdaltilio@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1179339438.486854.196200@.q23g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> Is there any concern in leaving master as a user's default database or
> should it be changed to another db?
> Thanks
> Brian
>

pros/cons keeping master as default db

Is there any concern in leaving master as a user's default database or
should it be changed to another db?
Thanks
Brian
One downside changing it is that most tools doesn't allow you to login if you remove your default
database.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
"Brian D" <bdaltilio@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1179339438.486854.196200@.q23g2000hsg.googlegr oups.com...
> Is there any concern in leaving master as a user's default database or
> should it be changed to another db?
> Thanks
> Brian
>
|||Brian,
My take is that master is a safe default for everybody who does not have
rights to modify master. For those of us who _can_ modify master, please be
careful.
RLF
"Brian D" <bdaltilio@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1179339438.486854.196200@.q23g2000hsg.googlegr oups.com...
> Is there any concern in leaving master as a user's default database or
> should it be changed to another db?
> Thanks
> Brian
>

Pros vs Cons of installing MSDE on Win98 SE

Hi All,
Since I have not been able to get MSDE to work under Win2000 Pro while
logged in as a 'Power User' I have to come up with an alternative. I
have searched the MS knowledge base and posted a couple of questions
here but no one has been able to help me with this problem. I notice
that some other people have the same problem and they too were not able
to fix it.
So, my idea is to install MSDE on a Win98 SE computer. Anyone know if
this is a good/bad idea?
Thanks for any help,
Charles
"Charles E Finkenbiner" <CharlesEF_@._MailandNews.Com> wrote in message
news:eEzPbQ0EFHA.2824@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Hi All,
> Since I have not been able to get MSDE to work under Win2000 Pro while
> logged in as a 'Power User' I have to come up with an alternative. I have
> searched the MS knowledge base and posted a couple of questions here but
> no one has been able to help me with this problem. I notice that some
> other people have the same problem and they too were not able to fix it.
> So, my idea is to install MSDE on a Win98 SE computer. Anyone know if
> this is a good/bad idea?
MSDE on Win98SE works fine. With the notable exception of it not
automatically starting the services. Strangely this does not seem to happen
on all 98 installations. There is a workaround for (google that one).

>
> Thanks for any help,
> Charles
|||Plus, in our experience, it's much slower and way less reliable on FAT32
than on NTFS. FAT32 is great for sequential access, not good for random (as
in most databases). NTFS is a journalled filesystem. Words like
"cross-linked clusters" etc. are not words you want associated with your
database. If you are going to use it on Win98, I'd suggest leaving AutoClose
database option on for safety.
HTH,
Greg Low [MVP]
MSDE Manager SQL Tools
www.whitebearconsulting.com
"Tim Bird" <tim.bird@.nospamprettypleasehebron.co.uk> wrote in message
news:%23KgOn40EFHA.2700@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> "Charles E Finkenbiner" <CharlesEF_@._MailandNews.Com> wrote in message
> news:eEzPbQ0EFHA.2824@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> MSDE on Win98SE works fine. With the notable exception of it not
> automatically starting the services. Strangely this does not seem to
> happen on all 98 installations. There is a workaround for (google that
> one).
>
>
|||Power User is not enough to install applications under. Get used to it as W2K
onwards, you have to live with it. Security. Security.Security.
Win 98 Or 98SE is no longer fully supported:
http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifewin
Regards
Mike
"Greg Low [MVP]" wrote:

> Plus, in our experience, it's much slower and way less reliable on FAT32
> than on NTFS. FAT32 is great for sequential access, not good for random (as
> in most databases). NTFS is a journalled filesystem. Words like
> "cross-linked clusters" etc. are not words you want associated with your
> database. If you are going to use it on Win98, I'd suggest leaving AutoClose
> database option on for safety.
> HTH,
> --
> Greg Low [MVP]
> MSDE Manager SQL Tools
> www.whitebearconsulting.com
> "Tim Bird" <tim.bird@.nospamprettypleasehebron.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:%23KgOn40EFHA.2700@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>
>
|||"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message
news:64304A06-E8CD-4CEF-9BAA-93D53520CDB6@.microsoft.com...
> Power User is not enough to install applications under. Get used to it as
> W2K
> onwards, you have to live with it. Security. Security.Security.
> Win 98 Or 98SE is no longer fully supported:
> http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifewin
I have to agree with both of you. MSDE will run on Win98 - but not as well.
Even though the sooner the message gets through to users about 98SE the
better, in the "real" world us developers still have to support Win98 and
sometimes even Win95 (Though thankfully not very often)!!!. And we still
occasionally get sales enquiries for Win3.11 installations!!!!!
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Regards
> Mike
> "Greg Low [MVP]" wrote:
|||Hi Mike,
I install MSDE while logged in as 'Administrator' and it installs fine.
It works fine as long as the person logged in has Administrator
rights. The problem is that I do not want to allow anyone to have
Administrator rights. Even I do not use a login with Administrator
rights. I, like all my users, only have 'Power User' rights and that's
the way I want to keep it.
When a 'Power User' logs in the service does not appear to start. The
SQL icon in the taskbar is blank (white circle). When I open it up
there is no computer name or services shown in the drop down lists. If
I type in the computer name and hit the 'Refresh' button then MSDE
starts to run but when I load a certain program (my ISP dialer software)
the MSI installer kicks in. Sometimes it appears to be installing but
then it rolls back and the little icon in the taskbar is gone. Other
times it just sits there and does nothing. Whatever happens the MSI
installer kicks in every time I load my ISP dialer software.
So, I install MSDE while logged in as 'Administrator' but I want MSDE to
run while anyone is logged in as a 'Power User' (without the MSI
installer kicking in every single time).
Thanks for any help,
Charles
On 2/15/2005 5:29 AM, Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP) wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> Power User is not enough to install applications under. Get used to it as W2K
> onwards, you have to live with it. Security. Security.Security.
> Win 98 Or 98SE is no longer fully supported:
> http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifewin
> Regards
> Mike
> "Greg Low [MVP]" wrote:
>
|||I believe MSDE is still running on your system when logged in as a Power
User. The issue is that you do not have permissions to enumerate the names
of services. If you bring up Task Manager do you see sqlservr.exe running?
If you do then MSDE is up and ready for connections.
Jim
"Charles E Finkenbiner" <CharlesEF_@._MailandNews.Com> wrote in message
news:uKM%23xO2EFHA.2176@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi Mike,
> I install MSDE while logged in as 'Administrator' and it installs fine. It
> works fine as long as the person logged in has Administrator rights. The
> problem is that I do not want to allow anyone to have Administrator
> rights. Even I do not use a login with Administrator rights. I, like all
> my users, only have 'Power User' rights and that's the way I want to keep
> it.
> When a 'Power User' logs in the service does not appear to start. The SQL
> icon in the taskbar is blank (white circle). When I open it up there is
> no computer name or services shown in the drop down lists. If I type in
> the computer name and hit the 'Refresh' button then MSDE starts to run but
> when I load a certain program (my ISP dialer software) the MSI installer
> kicks in. Sometimes it appears to be installing but then it rolls back
> and the little icon in the taskbar is gone. Other times it just sits
> there and does nothing. Whatever happens the MSI installer kicks in every
> time I load my ISP dialer software.
> So, I install MSDE while logged in as 'Administrator' but I want MSDE to
> run while anyone is logged in as a 'Power User' (without the MSI installer
> kicking in every single time).
>
> Thanks for any help,
> Charles
> On 2/15/2005 5:29 AM, Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP) wrote:
|||Hi,
At the moment I have MSDE un-installed. I will re-install it later
today and report back.
Let's assume that what you say is true then my next questions are:
1. Why does the SQL icon even load up in the first place? If a 'Power
User' does not have the correct rights then the icon is useless.
2. Why does the MSDE installer kick in every single time my ISP dialer
is loaded? Any ideas on how to stop this?
Thanks for any help,
Charles
On 2/15/2005 9:50 AM, Jim Young wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> I believe MSDE is still running on your system when logged in as a Power
> User. The issue is that you do not have permissions to enumerate the names
> of services. If you bring up Task Manager do you see sqlservr.exe running?
> If you do then MSDE is up and ready for connections.
> Jim
> "Charles E Finkenbiner" <CharlesEF_@._MailandNews.Com> wrote in message
> news:uKM%23xO2EFHA.2176@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
|||1.SQL Service Manager is placed in the Startup folder for All Users, so it
will run no matter who logs in. If you want you can remove it after MSDE is
installed.
2. Haven't a clue.
Jim
"Charles E Finkenbiner" <CharlesEF_@._MailandNews.Com> wrote in message
news:%23whnwW4EFHA.2608@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi,
> At the moment I have MSDE un-installed. I will re-install it later today
> and report back.
> Let's assume that what you say is true then my next questions are:
> 1. Why does the SQL icon even load up in the first place? If a 'Power
> User' does not have the correct rights then the icon is useless.
> 2. Why does the MSDE installer kick in every single time my ISP dialer is
> loaded? Any ideas on how to stop this?
>
> Thanks for any help,
> Charles
> On 2/15/2005 9:50 AM, Jim Young wrote:
|||Hi,
Ok, I have re-installed MSDE SP3 on my Win2000 Pro computer, then I
applied the KB815495 patch (this is the same process I have done
before). This time the SQL icon does work when logged in as a 'Power
User' but only until I load my ISP dialer software, then MSI installer
kicks in and fails, then the SQL icon disappears from the taskbar.
This time I checked the task manager and I did see 'sqlservr.exe'
process. I 'assume' this means that the SQL server is running. I did
not have time to actually test but will try in a couple of days.
The only problem that remains is the MSDE installer that kicks in every
time the ISP dialer software is loaded. This happens to all 'Power
Users' not just me. If I change the users group from 'Power User' to
'Administrators' then the problem disappears. But, I do not want to do
this. When I change the users group back to 'Power Users' the problem
appears again.
Now, if I can figure out why this happens, so I can stop it, I will be a
happy camper.
Thanks for your help,
Charles
On 2/15/2005 1:10 PM, Jim Young wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> 1.SQL Service Manager is placed in the Startup folder for All Users, so it
> will run no matter who logs in. If you want you can remove it after MSDE is
> installed.
> 2. Haven't a clue.
> Jim
> "Charles E Finkenbiner" <CharlesEF_@._MailandNews.Com> wrote in message
> news:%23whnwW4EFHA.2608@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...

Pros of having SQL server added to AD

What are the pros of having SQL Server instance added to Active Directory ?
I was looking at the server properties and saw the Active Directory tab and
had an option to add it.
What may be the cons ? Right now none of our SQL Servers are added. Do most
of you add the server to AD ? What am I missing by not doing so ? Thanks
Well, are you using AD for anything now? If not, it is unlikely that the
mere adding of SQL Server to AD will produce any tangible benefits.
What you get by adding SQL Server to AD are things like Service Publication,
which is just a fancy form of an alias or DNS, IMHO. For example, if SQL
Server is on myServer01, it can be published through AD, then you can move
the server and clients do not need to know that the server has moved...
Since, instead of using a hard-coded IP address or server name, you are
going through AD, and it is redirecting you based solely on the name of the
database you want to connect to. This means you will have to change your
applications (and expect to need this flexibility) before you will see this
benefit.
A few of the problems I see with the above approach:
(a) obviously with AD there are more security considerations, so it won't be
like SQL Server authentication anymore. Apps have to be rewritten and
protecting the directory might take a significant amount of work.
(b) in our environment we have several locations with the same database -
e.g. Dev, QA, Production. If I want to connect to the Sales database, I now
have to think about this differently. Instead of "just connect to the Sales
database on the QA server," I now have to give each one a distinct
publication name, such as QA-SalesDB. This isn't a difficult change, and in
fact in some lights it is better, but it is a change, and we know how some
people are resistant to even the smallest delta in mindset or approach.
(c) using SQL through ADSI versus directly through the OLEDB provider can
cause some problems with existing code (and habits that will lend to
continuing to write code this way). There is no longer the ability to use
SELECT * ... You must name your columns.
As in a previous thread, I strongly suggest you spend some time reading on
the subject. You'll be much better informed to make a decision than just
listening to opinions (which are not based at all on anything specific in
YOUR environment).
ADSI and using SQL Server through AD are documented in MSDN Online, as well
as several 3rd party web sites.
On 3/20/05 2:51 PM, in article #NqyHZYLFHA.732@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl,
"Hassan" <fatima_ja@.hotmail.com> wrote:

> What are the pros of having SQL Server instance added to Active Directory ?
> I was looking at the server properties and saw the Active Directory tab and
> had an option to add it.
> What may be the cons ? Right now none of our SQL Servers are added. Do most
> of you add the server to AD ? What am I missing by not doing so ? Thanks
>

Pros of having SQL server added to AD

What are the pros of having SQL Server instance added to Active Directory ?
I was looking at the server properties and saw the Active Directory tab and
had an option to add it.
What may be the cons ? Right now none of our SQL Servers are added. Do most
of you add the server to AD ? What am I missing by not doing so ? ThanksWell, are you using AD for anything now? If not, it is unlikely that the
mere adding of SQL Server to AD will produce any tangible benefits.
What you get by adding SQL Server to AD are things like Service Publication,
which is just a fancy form of an alias or DNS, IMHO. For example, if SQL
Server is on myServer01, it can be published through AD, then you can move
the server and clients do not need to know that the server has moved...
Since, instead of using a hard-coded IP address or server name, you are
going through AD, and it is redirecting you based solely on the name of the
database you want to connect to. This means you will have to change your
applications (and expect to need this flexibility) before you will see this
benefit.
A few of the problems I see with the above approach:
(a) obviously with AD there are more security considerations, so it won't be
like SQL Server authentication anymore. Apps have to be rewritten and
protecting the directory might take a significant amount of work.
(b) in our environment we have several locations with the same database -
e.g. Dev, QA, Production. If I want to connect to the Sales database, I now
have to think about this differently. Instead of "just connect to the Sales
database on the QA server," I now have to give each one a distinct
publication name, such as QA-SalesDB. This isn't a difficult change, and in
fact in some lights it is better, but it is a change, and we know how some
people are resistant to even the smallest delta in mindset or approach.
(c) using SQL through ADSI versus directly through the OLEDB provider can
cause some problems with existing code (and habits that will lend to
continuing to write code this way). There is no longer the ability to use
SELECT * ... You must name your columns.
As in a previous thread, I strongly suggest you spend some time reading on
the subject. You'll be much better informed to make a decision than just
listening to opinions (which are not based at all on anything specific in
YOUR environment).
ADSI and using SQL Server through AD are documented in MSDN Online, as well
as several 3rd party web sites.
On 3/20/05 2:51 PM, in article #NqyHZYLFHA.732@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl,
"Hassan" <fatima_ja@.hotmail.com> wrote:
> What are the pros of having SQL Server instance added to Active Directory ?
> I was looking at the server properties and saw the Active Directory tab and
> had an option to add it.
> What may be the cons ? Right now none of our SQL Servers are added. Do most
> of you add the server to AD ? What am I missing by not doing so ? Thanks
>sql

Pros of having SQL server added to AD

What are the pros of having SQL Server instance added to Active Directory ?
I was looking at the server properties and saw the Active Directory tab and
had an option to add it.
What may be the cons ? Right now none of our SQL Servers are added. Do most
of you add the server to AD ? What am I missing by not doing so ? ThanksWell, are you using AD for anything now? If not, it is unlikely that the
mere adding of SQL Server to AD will produce any tangible benefits.
What you get by adding SQL Server to AD are things like Service Publication,
which is just a fancy form of an alias or DNS, IMHO. For example, if SQL
Server is on myServer01, it can be published through AD, then you can move
the server and clients do not need to know that the server has moved...
Since, instead of using a hard-coded IP address or server name, you are
going through AD, and it is redirecting you based solely on the name of the
database you want to connect to. This means you will have to change your
applications (and expect to need this flexibility) before you will see this
benefit.
A few of the problems I see with the above approach:
(a) obviously with AD there are more security considerations, so it won't be
like SQL Server authentication anymore. Apps have to be rewritten and
protecting the directory might take a significant amount of work.
(b) in our environment we have several locations with the same database -
e.g. Dev, QA, Production. If I want to connect to the Sales database, I now
have to think about this differently. Instead of "just connect to the Sales
database on the QA server," I now have to give each one a distinct
publication name, such as QA-SalesDB. This isn't a difficult change, and in
fact in some lights it is better, but it is a change, and we know how some
people are resistant to even the smallest delta in mindset or approach.
(c) using SQL through ADSI versus directly through the OLEDB provider can
cause some problems with existing code (and habits that will lend to
continuing to write code this way). There is no longer the ability to use
SELECT * ... You must name your columns.
As in a previous thread, I strongly suggest you spend some time reading on
the subject. You'll be much better informed to make a decision than just
listening to opinions (which are not based at all on anything specific in
YOUR environment).
ADSI and using SQL Server through AD are documented in MSDN Online, as well
as several 3rd party web sites.
On 3/20/05 2:51 PM, in article #NqyHZYLFHA.732@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl,
"Hassan" <fatima_ja@.hotmail.com> wrote:

> What are the pros of having SQL Server instance added to Active Directory
?
> I was looking at the server properties and saw the Active Directory tab an
d
> had an option to add it.
> What may be the cons ? Right now none of our SQL Servers are added. Do mos
t
> of you add the server to AD ? What am I missing by not doing so ? Thanks
>

Pros and cons with table lock

I use an ole db destination which I simply use to insert data into database.
If it's configured to use Fast Load as access mode, then it is possible to switch on/off the Lock table property, which is set to true as default.

Are there any drawbacks with switching off the Lock table property? What do I gain when using it?

Thanks for your help!

Its a performance issue. Having a table lock means that the load process doesn't have to worry about lower level locks, and so the load should be quicker.
But it does mean no one else can use that table

pros and cons of using transaction replication doing initialization from database backups

I am using transaction replication between a transaction and reporting database server. When I use a snapshot to initialize my subscribers, I currently get a lot of deadlocks during the snapshot creation. I am considering using a database backup instead. Can anyone tells me how to reduce the table locks that I am getting during snapshot creation or advice on using database backups?

Hi,

Transactional replication provides several different sync method to help alleviate locking issue on publication DB. You can take a look at @.sync_method in sp_addpublication (http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms188738.aspx).

You can try with concurrent/concurrent_c. And if you are using SQL 2005 SP2 and you are using enterprise edition, you can also use "database snapshot/database snapshot character". Snapshot agent creates a DB snapshot on the publication DB and then generates replication snapshot based on the DB snapshot. So it significantly reduces the possiblities of deadlocking on the publication DB.

Peng