3G ram for SQL server: user

Showing posts with label user. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

A Different Login failed for user sa problem

Hello,

I know there are already topics on the "Login failed for user 'sa'. Reason: Not associated with a trusted SQL Server connection" problem but I think this one might be different.

I am working with 2 servers, both running Windows Server 2003 with 1 running SQL Server 2000 and the other acting as a Web Server, and a PC running Windows XP Pro as a development machine - all of which are on the same domain.

I am developing a couple of ASP.NET web applications, and this is where the problem occurs. If I try to connect to the SQL database with the web application running on the development PC I get the "Login failed for user 'sa'. Reason: Not associated with a trusted SQL Server connection" error message.

This is where it gets interesting. If I take a copy of the code that is running on the development PC and run it on the Web Server, it is able to connect to the SQL database without any problems.

The Authentication mode is set to SQL Server and Windows. I have tried several different things with our Techs and we get the same problem.

Any ideas or suggestions would be greatly appreciated as we are totally stumped.

Thanks,
AlHowdy

Never, ever, ever, ever has NT authentication on SQL been bullet proof...then mix that with multiple versions of VB & SQL & W2K & W2K3 and....aw man...game over.....

Worth trying using plain SQL authentication ( if thats acceptible in your environment ) and see how that goes - at least it will get your app working initially. Then work on the NT authentication bit.

You may wind up having to wait for the next SP for everything if its a bug.

Cheers,

SG.|||All I am using at the moment is SQL authentication and I have absolutely no interest in using NT or Windows Authentication.

Thanks anyway,
Al|||Howdy,

Sounds like connection thinks it is using a trusted connection...can you force it to be sure its using straight SQL authentication? I have seen similar errors with sql configured apps trying to use ODBC connections configured fro NT authentication.

HTH

Cheers,

SG|||Go to the enterprise manager, right click on the server, in the properties, select security tab and select the first option(SQL Server and Windows NT) in the Authentication.

Now try connecting from your application.

Thursday, March 22, 2012

A connection could not be established...Cannot open user default database...

Hello,
I'm running SQL7 on a Win2K server. I was in the midst of
restoring a database when I lost connectivity to the
network and the job failed.
Now if I try to view the database within Enterprise
Manager, I get the following error:
---
A connection could not be established to <servername>.
Cannot open user default database '<ID>. Using master
database instead. Please varify SQL Server is running and
check your SQL Server registration properties (by right-
clicking on the <servername> node) and try again.
---
I checked and SQL is running and the registration
properties are correct.
Any help would be appreciated.Seems like the database is "lost", as you terminated the restore, and the
logins that your EM registration login is using has that database as the
default database. I suggest you login using ISQL.EXE and change default
database using sp_defaultdb.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
Archive at:
http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&as_ugroup=microsoft.public.sqlserver
"Jimbo" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0c6201c3df7b$ee9a7fe0$a101280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> I'm running SQL7 on a Win2K server. I was in the midst of
> restoring a database when I lost connectivity to the
> network and the job failed.
> Now if I try to view the database within Enterprise
> Manager, I get the following error:
> ---
> A connection could not be established to <servername>.
> Cannot open user default database '<ID>. Using master
> database instead. Please varify SQL Server is running and
> check your SQL Server registration properties (by right-
> clicking on the <servername> node) and try again.
> ---
> I checked and SQL is running and the registration
> properties are correct.
> Any help would be appreciated.
>|||Thanks Tibor - I tried that as outlined in MS KB 196076,
but I still get a the same error.(?)
>--Original Message--
>Seems like the database is "lost", as you terminated the
restore, and the
>logins that your EM registration login is using has that
database as the
>default database. I suggest you login using ISQL.EXE and
change default
>database using sp_defaultdb.
>--
>Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
>Archive at:
>http://groups.google.com/groups?
oi=djq&as_ugroup=microsoft.public.sqlserver
>
>"Jimbo" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message
>news:0c6201c3df7b$ee9a7fe0$a101280a@.phx.gbl...
>> Hello,
>> I'm running SQL7 on a Win2K server. I was in the midst
of
>> restoring a database when I lost connectivity to the
>> network and the job failed.
>> Now if I try to view the database within Enterprise
>> Manager, I get the following error:
>> ---
>> A connection could not be established to <servername>.
>> Cannot open user default database '<ID>. Using master
>> database instead. Please varify SQL Server is running
and
>> check your SQL Server registration properties (by right-
>> clicking on the <servername> node) and try again.
>> ---
>> I checked and SQL is running and the registration
>> properties are correct.
>> Any help would be appreciated.
>>
>
>.
>|||Tibor Karaszi wrote:
> Seems like the database is "lost", as you terminated the restore, and the
> logins that your EM registration login is using has that database as the
> default database. I suggest you login using ISQL.EXE and change default
> database using sp_defaultdb.
>
Thanks for the information. That seems to have fixed the lost db server
issue in the drop down. Still can't get the damn app server to
connect to the db server though. Will keep searching.|||> Thanks for the information. That seems to have fixed the lost db server
> issue in the drop down. Still can't get the damn app server to connect
> to the db server though. Will keep searching.
Everyone may ignore my last post.

A connection could not be established...Cannot open user default database...

quote:

> Hello,
> I'm running SQL7 on a Win2K server. I was in the midst of
> restoring a database when I lost connectivity to the
> network and the job failed.
> Now if I try to view the database within Enterprise
> Manager, I get the following error:
> ---
> A connection could not be established to <servername>.
> Cannot open user default database '<ID>. Using master
> database instead. Please varify SQL Server is running and
> check your SQL Server registration properties (by right-
> clicking on the <servername> node) and try again.
> ---
> I checked and SQL is running and the registration
> properties are correct.
> Any help would be appreciated.
>

|||Thanks Tibor - I tried that as outlined in MS KB 196076,
but I still get a the same error.(?)

quote:

>--Original Message--
>Seems like the database is "lost", as you terminated the

restore, and the

quote:

>logins that your EM registration login is using has that

database as the

quote:

>default database. I suggest you login using ISQL.EXE and

change default

quote:

>database using sp_defaultdb.
>--
>Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
>Archive at:
>http://groups.google.com/groups?

oi=djq&as_ugroup=microsoft.public.sqlserver

quote:

>
>"Jimbo" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in

message

quote:

>news:0c6201c3df7b$ee9a7fe0$a101280a@.phx.gbl...
of[QUOTE]
and[QUOTE]
>
>.
>

A connection could not be established...Cannot open user default

Tibor Karaszi wrote:

quote:

> Seems like the database is "lost", as you terminated the restore, and the
> logins that your EM registration login is using has that database as the
> default database. I suggest you login using ISQL.EXE and change default
> database using sp_defaultdb.
>

Thanks for the information. That seems to have fixed the lost db server
issue in the drop down. Still can't get the damn app server to
connect to the db server though. Will keep searching.

quote:

> Thanks for the information. That seems to have fixed the lost db server
> issue in the drop down. Still can't get the damn app server to connect
> to the db server though. Will keep searching.

Everyone may ignore my last post.

Tuesday, March 6, 2012

64bit or 32bit?

I want to get SQL Server 2005 for a clinic with 25 user but I am not sure if I should go for the 32bit or 64bit.. what's your recommendation? and why?

You are going to need to provide much more information than that before the question can be answered. However in general if your app is CPU or IO bound moving to 64 bit will not help, if it is memory bound it likely will(but not for sure).|||Clinic with 25 users data can be handled on a 32bit edition without any issues, as recenlty I have had setup of SQL 2005 32 bit on Win2k3 server with 8gb ram etc. without any issues. As referred if the application you are using has any specific requirement for 64 bit then you can consider in this case, it will be better if you are able to explain such requirements.|||

If you are getting new hardware, then I recommend getting 64 bit hardware and 64 bit SQL Server. There will be a longer 'service life' with 64 bit, and you don't know now how your needs will change over the lifecycle.

Saturday, February 25, 2012

64 Bit SQL server

Is it ok to run 32-bit sql server on 64-bit windows 2003 os? Is there
performance improvement , same or decerase?
Can I attach 64bit sql 2000 user database to 32bit sql 2000?
Thanks for your help in advance."MPatel" <MPatel@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:BB62673E-3CFC-4772-BACA-3672106AF567@.microsoft.com...
> Is it ok to run 32-bit sql server on 64-bit windows 2003 os?
32-bit SQL Server 2000 SP 4 is supported on WOW (Windows on Windows64),
which is 32-bit runtime for 64-bit Windows (x64). x64, not Itanium.
>Is there performance improvement , same or decerase?
The x64 chips have hardware support for this, so it's pretty efficient.
Switching back and forth from 64-bit to 32-bit is just another CPU mode
switch, like the transition from user-mode to kernel-mode which happens on
32-bit Windows whenever you access OS resources.
So performance should be about the same. SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition
will be able to use 4GB of ram without the /3GB switch or AWE enabled. This
is because on 64-bit Windows all kernel-mode code must run in 64-bit mode.
A side-effect of this is that a WOW process gets the whole 4GB of 32-bit
addressable space to use for programs.
> Can I attach 64bit sql 2000 user database to 32bit sql 2000?
This isn't 64bit SQL Server, it's 32bit SQL Server running on 64-bit
Windows. But to answer your question, the data file formats are the same
regardless of the CPU architecture.
David|||"David Browne" wrote:
> "MPatel" <MPatel@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:BB62673E-3CFC-4772-BACA-3672106AF567@.microsoft.com...
> > Is it ok to run 32-bit sql server on 64-bit windows 2003 os?
> 32-bit SQL Server 2000 SP 4 is supported on WOW (Windows on Windows64),
> which is 32-bit runtime for 64-bit Windows (x64). x64, not Itanium.
> >Is there performance improvement , same or decerase?
> The x64 chips have hardware support for this, so it's pretty efficient.
> Switching back and forth from 64-bit to 32-bit is just another CPU mode
> switch, like the transition from user-mode to kernel-mode which happens on
> 32-bit Windows whenever you access OS resources.
> So performance should be about the same. SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition
> will be able to use 4GB of ram without the /3GB switch or AWE enabled. This
> is because on 64-bit Windows all kernel-mode code must run in 64-bit mode.
> A side-effect of this is that a WOW process gets the whole 4GB of 32-bit
> addressable space to use for programs.
> >
> > Can I attach 64bit sql 2000 user database to 32bit sql 2000?
> This isn't 64bit SQL Server, it's 32bit SQL Server running on 64-bit
> Windows. But to answer your question, the data file formats are the same
> regardless of the CPU architecture.
> David
>
>
So does that make the info presented in this link incorrect now?
http://searchsqlserver.techtarget.com/tip/0,289483,sid87_gci1241693,00.html

64 Bit SQL server

Sunday, February 19, 2012

601 - Could not continue scan with NOLOCK due to data movement.

Hi,
Lately, I have been getting this problem with a client. The query returns
around 6 thousand records, there is one user only and it's a select statemen
t
with a temporary table in the join.
The server has a sp4 installed. It's a 2003 server.
CREATE TABLE #Temp (Temp_Id INT,
Temp_Id_Count INT NULL,
Temp_Id_Dt DATETIME NULL)
INSERT INTO #Temp (Temp_Id, Temp_Id_Count, Temp_Id_Dt)
SELECT T.Temp_Id, COUNT(TR.Temp_Id_Count), MAX(TR.Temp_Id_Dt)
FROM Test T WITH (NOLOCK)
LEFT JOIN Test_History TR WITH (NOLOCK) ON TR.Temp_Id = T.Temp_Id
WHERE T.Status_Cd = 1234
GROUP BY T.Temp_Id
SELECT DISTINCT T.Temp_Id, S.Client_Id, S.Subject_Id,
FROM SavedData S WITH (NOLOCK)
JOIN #Temp T ON T.Temp_Id = S.Temp_Id
The error after a few seconds is 601 - Could not continue scan with NOLOCK
due to data movement.
Any ideas?
Thanks in advanceWonder wrote:
> Hi,
> Lately, I have been getting this problem with a client. The query returns
> around 6 thousand records, there is one user only and it's a select statem
ent
> with a temporary table in the join.
> The server has a sp4 installed. It's a 2003 server.
>
> CREATE TABLE #Temp (Temp_Id INT,
> Temp_Id_Count INT NULL,
> Temp_Id_Dt DATETIME NULL)
> INSERT INTO #Temp (Temp_Id, Temp_Id_Count, Temp_Id_Dt)
> SELECT T.Temp_Id, COUNT(TR.Temp_Id_Count), MAX(TR.Temp_Id_Dt)
> FROM Test T WITH (NOLOCK)
> LEFT JOIN Test_History TR WITH (NOLOCK) ON TR.Temp_Id = T.Temp_Id
> WHERE T.Status_Cd = 1234
> GROUP BY T.Temp_Id
> SELECT DISTINCT T.Temp_Id, S.Client_Id, S.Subject_Id,
> FROM SavedData S WITH (NOLOCK)
> JOIN #Temp T ON T.Temp_Id = S.Temp_Id
> The error after a few seconds is 601 - Could not continue scan with NOLOCK
> due to data movement.
> Any ideas?
> Thanks in advance
That means data that your query is using has changed while your query
was running. That's one risk of using NOLOCK, you run the risk of
reading data that is in the process of being modified.
Tracy McKibben
MCDBA
http://www.realsqlguy.com

601 - Could not continue scan with NOLOCK due to data movement.

Hi,
Lately, I have been getting this problem with a client. The query returns
around 6 thousand records, there is one user only and it's a select statement
with a temporary table in the join.
The server has a sp4 installed. It's a 2003 server.
CREATE TABLE #Temp (Temp_Id INT,
Temp_Id_Count INT NULL,
Temp_Id_Dt DATETIME NULL)
INSERT INTO #Temp (Temp_Id, Temp_Id_Count, Temp_Id_Dt)
SELECT T.Temp_Id, COUNT(TR.Temp_Id_Count), MAX(TR.Temp_Id_Dt)
FROM Test T WITH (NOLOCK)
LEFT JOIN Test_History TR WITH (NOLOCK) ON TR.Temp_Id = T.Temp_Id
WHERE T.Status_Cd = 1234
GROUP BY T.Temp_Id
SELECT DISTINCT T.Temp_Id, S.Client_Id, S.Subject_Id,
FROM SavedData S WITH (NOLOCK)
JOIN #Temp T ON T.Temp_Id = S.Temp_Id
The error after a few seconds is 601 - Could not continue scan with NOLOCK
due to data movement.
Any ideas?
Thanks in advanceWonder wrote:
> Hi,
> Lately, I have been getting this problem with a client. The query returns
> around 6 thousand records, there is one user only and it's a select statement
> with a temporary table in the join.
> The server has a sp4 installed. It's a 2003 server.
>
> CREATE TABLE #Temp (Temp_Id INT,
> Temp_Id_Count INT NULL,
> Temp_Id_Dt DATETIME NULL)
> INSERT INTO #Temp (Temp_Id, Temp_Id_Count, Temp_Id_Dt)
> SELECT T.Temp_Id, COUNT(TR.Temp_Id_Count), MAX(TR.Temp_Id_Dt)
> FROM Test T WITH (NOLOCK)
> LEFT JOIN Test_History TR WITH (NOLOCK) ON TR.Temp_Id = T.Temp_Id
> WHERE T.Status_Cd = 1234
> GROUP BY T.Temp_Id
> SELECT DISTINCT T.Temp_Id, S.Client_Id, S.Subject_Id,
> FROM SavedData S WITH (NOLOCK)
> JOIN #Temp T ON T.Temp_Id = S.Temp_Id
> The error after a few seconds is 601 - Could not continue scan with NOLOCK
> due to data movement.
> Any ideas?
> Thanks in advance
That means data that your query is using has changed while your query
was running. That's one risk of using NOLOCK, you run the risk of
reading data that is in the process of being modified.
Tracy McKibben
MCDBA
http://www.realsqlguy.com

6.5 Group/User Permissions

Is there a way to easily disable Group/User access to a database without
having to either reset the permissions for the User and/or Group or drop the
User/Group.
In effect I want to selectively stop groups of users accessing a database
temporarily without the need to do major surgery on the object/user
permissions. Just switch them off for a short time, so to speak, and then
switch them back on again.
Please reply to newsgroup or DBA.SDC@.DIAL.PIPEX.COM
PLEASE do not crosspost to so many different sections. One, or at most two,
is enough.
Kalen Delaney
MCSE, SQL Server MCT, MVP
ukndf wrote in message <73bvgs$4k5$1@.plug.news.pipex.net>...
>Is there a way to easily disable Group/User access to a database without
>having to either reset the permissions for the User and/or Group or drop
the
>User/Group.
>In effect I want to selectively stop groups of users accessing a database
>temporarily without the need to do major surgery on the object/user
>permissions. Just switch them off for a short time, so to speak, and then
>switch them back on again.
>Please reply to newsgroup or DBA.SDC@.DIAL.PIPEX.COM
>
|||If you need to run SQL Server alone you can always start it with the single
user switch (check the docs)
If you are looking to disable users and all your security is handled via
groups you could write a short proc to move them to a group with no rights
and once you finished what you wanted to do, move them back in their groups.
Doing this would no require setting all the rights on the objects.

6.5 Group/User Permissions

Thursday, February 16, 2012

5 User License

Hi,
What exactly does the 5 user(s) license of MSDE means?
"sa" is a user and i can have only 4 more users, does that means total 5
users license?
Or its the number of users connected to MSDE at any given point of time?
Reetesh.
hi Reetesh,
"Reetesh B. Chhatpar" <reetesh@.widesystems.com> ha scritto nel
messaggio news:OZsTAvI1EHA.1408@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl
> Hi,
> What exactly does the 5 user(s) license of MSDE means?
> "sa" is a user and i can have only 4 more users, does that means
> total 5 users license?
> Or its the number of users connected to MSDE at any given point of
> time?
> Reetesh.
MSDE does not have a "5 users license" limitation... MSDE includes a
Governor Workloads that kicks in when 8 of more concurrent workloads
activities (batches that include the operations as described in
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/?u...asp?frame=true)
are executed and slows all of them down, but more workloads are supported
and only slowed down...
AFAIK, no such a limitation exists, nor technical or legal..
Andrea Montanari (Microsoft MVP - SQL Server)
http://www.asql.biz/DbaMgr.shtmhttp://italy.mvps.org
DbaMgr2k ver 0.9.1 - DbaMgr ver 0.55.1
(my vb6+sql-dmo little try to provide MS MSDE 1.0 and MSDE 2000 a visual
interface)
-- remove DMO to reply
|||Hi Andrea,
The article was really worth reading. Thanks for clearing up my doubt for
MSDE. Could you also please share with me the licensing logic for SQL
Server. How do i cut-cost my product installation when I choose backend as
SQL?
Reetesh B. Chhatpar
ShawMan Software Enterprises
www.shawmansoftware.com
Diamond is just another piece of coal that did well under pressure.
"Andrea Montanari" <andrea.sqlDMO@.virgilio.it> wrote in message
news:30rjstF346j3iU1@.uni-berlin.de...
> hi Reetesh,
> "Reetesh B. Chhatpar" <reetesh@.widesystems.com> ha scritto nel
> messaggio news:OZsTAvI1EHA.1408@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl
> MSDE does not have a "5 users license" limitation... MSDE includes a
> Governor Workloads that kicks in when 8 of more concurrent workloads
> activities (batches that include the operations as described in
>
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/?u...asp?frame=true)
> are executed and slows all of them down, but more workloads are supported
> and only slowed down...
> AFAIK, no such a limitation exists, nor technical or legal..
> --
> Andrea Montanari (Microsoft MVP - SQL Server)
> http://www.asql.biz/DbaMgr.shtmhttp://italy.mvps.org
> DbaMgr2k ver 0.9.1 - DbaMgr ver 0.55.1
> (my vb6+sql-dmo little try to provide MS MSDE 1.0 and MSDE 2000 a visual
> interface)
> -- remove DMO to reply
>
|||hi Reetesh,
"Reetesh B. Chhatpar" <reetesh@.widesystems.com> ha scritto nel
messaggio news:%230kNRzQ1EHA.2540@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl
> Hi Andrea,
> The article was really worth reading. Thanks for clearing up my doubt
> for MSDE. Could you also please share with me the licensing logic for
> SQL Server. How do i cut-cost my product installation when I choose
> backend as SQL?
in order to optimze your license fees, perhaps you've better have a call
with a Microsoft representative, as this really is a big deal and i'm not a
lawyer :D
if you choose MSDE (as per MSDE Release A package), your only need is to
register for distribution
(http://www.microsoft.com/sql/msde/ho...stregister.asp) , no other
requirement is necessary, for you nor for your customers... theoretical max
number of simultaneos connections stays at 32767 but, at 8 concurrent
workloads the Governor will kick in...
Andrea Montanari (Microsoft MVP - SQL Server)
http://www.asql.biz/DbaMgr.shtmhttp://italy.mvps.org
DbaMgr2k ver 0.9.1 - DbaMgr ver 0.55.1
(my vb6+sql-dmo little try to provide MS MSDE 1.0 and MSDE 2000 a visual
interface)
-- remove DMO to reply

5 hard drives

On a server with 5 hard drives, I presume a 2-drive raid-1 and a 3-drive
raid-5 (each 146gb) would be the appropriate config.
The user databases only take up 10-20GB.
This is for a very busy web site, so maintasks are reading and fulltext
search.
What would you recommend locating on the raid-1 as well as the OS?
Thanks SOC.If it's really a busy system, then you should seperate the TLog and Data
files of the database. You should locate the TLog on a RAID1 and locate the
data files on a RAD10 if possible, if not then RAID5.
Locate your OS and SQL Server binaries on a RAID1 so in this case, you'll
need 2 more disks :)
--
Ekrem Önsoy
"SOC" <zxc1@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uXNvyrADIHA.972@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> On a server with 5 hard drives, I presume a 2-drive raid-1 and a 3-drive
> raid-5 (each 146gb) would be the appropriate config.
> The user databases only take up 10-20GB.
> This is for a very busy web site, so maintasks are reading and fulltext
> search.
> What would you recommend locating on the raid-1 as well as the OS?
> Thanks SOC.
>
>|||Consider placing the transaction logs and tempdb there. HEAVY writes, which
suffer on RAID5. Your mostly-read application 'should' be ok on the RAID5.
--
Kevin G. Boles
TheSQLGuru
Indicium Resources, Inc.
"SOC" <zxc1@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uXNvyrADIHA.972@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> On a server with 5 hard drives, I presume a 2-drive raid-1 and a 3-drive
> raid-5 (each 146gb) would be the appropriate config.
> The user databases only take up 10-20GB.
> This is for a very busy web site, so maintasks are reading and fulltext
> search.
> What would you recommend locating on the raid-1 as well as the OS?
> Thanks SOC.
>
>

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

A Different Login failed for user sa problem

Thursday, March 22, 2012

A connection could not be established...Cannot open user default database...

A connection could not be established...Cannot open user default database...

A connection could not be established...Cannot open user default

Tuesday, March 6, 2012

64bit or 32bit?

Saturday, February 25, 2012

64 Bit SQL server

64 Bit SQL server

64 Bit SQL server

Sunday, February 19, 2012

601 - Could not continue scan with NOLOCK due to data movement.

601 - Could not continue scan with NOLOCK due to data movement.

6.5 Group/User Permissions

6.5 Group/User Permissions

6.5 Group/User Permissions

Thursday, February 16, 2012

5 User License

5 hard drives

3G ram for SQL server

Blog Archive

About Me