I have been getting a weird SQL event message the applications event log. I
am running
sql 2000 sp 3a
windows 2003 standard server sp1
I removed the BUILTIN\ADMINISTRATORS account. Is there somthing I missed
when removing this account. I was told the NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM account can
lead to sql injection attacks. Some say just add the builtin administrators
account back but it goes against best practices and I would like to work
around it. iS this possible... Seems like I have been running into more
problems by removing this account. Any help is appreciated.
Sqllib error: OLEDB Error encountered calling IDBInitialize::Initialize. hr
= 0x80040e4d. SQLSTATE: 42000, Native Error: 18456
Error state: 1, Severity: 14
Source: Microsoft OLE DB Provider for SQL Server
Error message: Login failed for user 'NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM'.
0000: 2d 20 43 6f 64 65 3a 20 - Code:
0008: 53 51 4c 43 4f 4e 4e 43 SQLCONNC
0010: 30 30 30 30 30 34 39 31 00000491
0018: 2d 20 43 61 6c 6c 3a 20 - Call:
0020: 53 51 4c 43 4f 4e 4e 43 SQLCONNC
0028: 30 30 30 30 30 33 39 37 00000397
0030: 2d 20 50 49 44 3a 20 20 - PID:
0038: 30 30 30 30 32 38 38 30 00002880
0040: 2d 20 54 49 44 3a 20 20 - TID:
0048: 30 30 30 30 34 38 30 34 00004804
0050: 2d 20 43 4d 44 3a 20 20 - CMD:
0058: 43 3a 5c 57 49 4e 44 4f C:\WINDO
0060: 57 53 5c 53 79 73 74 65 WS\Syste
0068: 6d 33 32 5c 76 73 73 76 m32\vssv
0070: 63 2e 65 78 65 20 20 20 c.exe
0078: 2d 20 55 73 65 72 3a 20 - User:
0080: 4e 54 20 41 55 54 48 4f NT AUTHO
0088: 52 49 54 59 5c 53 59 53 RITY\SYS
0090: 54 45 4d 20 20 20 20 20 TEMvssvc.exe is the Volume Shadow Copy service I believe. I don't know why
it would be trying to connect to the SQL instance but I haven't really
played with it much so it may need to for some reason (it's a legit
Microsoft service). Anyway, it would appear it's running under the
local system account, which is fine, and if you want that functionality
to work you can just sp_grantlogin to 'NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM'. This is
different to granting all local admins (ie. 'BUILTIN\Administrators')
sysadmin privileges (which I wouldn't recommend), but some apps (mostly
services like Microsoft Search (full-text) on SQL 2000 boxes for
instance) need to talk to SQL Server and typically use the local system
account. I wouldn't see that as a big security hole.
SQL Injection has nothing to do with granting 'NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM' a
login to the SQL instance. If the SQL Server service is running under
an admin account (like the local system account for instance, which is
pretty common) then if an attacker exploits some weakness in a user
application (that doesn't validate the T-SQL code it's sending to the
SQL server) then they can use a SQL injection attack to take control of
the box (because SQL Server would do what they asked it to, within the
permissions granted to their SQL login, and that might mean some Windows
admin function, which the SQL instance could do if it was a local admin,
like local system).
SQL injection is a possible factor in poorly written applications that
use SQL Server on the back-end. It is not related to which logins can
connect to your SQL instance, but is more relevant to the account under
which your SQL instance runs on the OS (and which login to the SQL box
the poorly written SQL app uses - hopefully not a sysadmin login).
*mike hodgson*
http://sqlnerd.blogspot.com
JD wrote:
>I have been getting a weird SQL event message the applications event log. I
>am running
>sql 2000 sp 3a
>windows 2003 standard server sp1
>I removed the BUILTIN\ADMINISTRATORS account. Is there somthing I missed
>when removing this account. I was told the NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM account can
>lead to sql injection attacks. Some say just add the builtin administrators
>account back but it goes against best practices and I would like to work
>around it. iS this possible... Seems like I have been running into more
>problems by removing this account. Any help is appreciated.
>Sqllib error: OLEDB Error encountered calling IDBInitialize::Initialize. hr
>= 0x80040e4d. SQLSTATE: 42000, Native Error: 18456
>Error state: 1, Severity: 14
>Source: Microsoft OLE DB Provider for SQL Server
>Error message: Login failed for user 'NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM'.
>
>0000: 2d 20 43 6f 64 65 3a 20 - Code:
>0008: 53 51 4c 43 4f 4e 4e 43 SQLCONNC
>0010: 30 30 30 30 30 34 39 31 00000491
>0018: 2d 20 43 61 6c 6c 3a 20 - Call:
>0020: 53 51 4c 43 4f 4e 4e 43 SQLCONNC
>0028: 30 30 30 30 30 33 39 37 00000397
>0030: 2d 20 50 49 44 3a 20 20 - PID:
>0038: 30 30 30 30 32 38 38 30 00002880
>0040: 2d 20 54 49 44 3a 20 20 - TID:
>0048: 30 30 30 30 34 38 30 34 00004804
>0050: 2d 20 43 4d 44 3a 20 20 - CMD:
>0058: 43 3a 5c 57 49 4e 44 4f C:\WINDO
>0060: 57 53 5c 53 79 73 74 65 WS\Syste
>0068: 6d 33 32 5c 76 73 73 76 m32\vssv
>0070: 63 2e 65 78 65 20 20 20 c.exe
>0078: 2d 20 55 73 65 72 3a 20 - User:
>0080: 4e 54 20 41 55 54 48 4f NT AUTHO
>0088: 52 49 54 59 5c 53 59 53 RITY\SYS
>0090: 54 45 4d 20 20 20 20 20 TEM
>
>|||Thank you for your response. That did shed some light on the problem. Seems
like are backup admin selected to backup with veritas sql client and had it
misconfigured.
JD
"Mike Hodgson" <e1minst3r@.gmail.com> wrote in message news:%23Vlz6S0OGHA.183
2@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
vssvc.exe is the Volume Shadow Copy service I believe. I don't know why it
would be trying to connect to the SQL instance but I haven't really played w
ith it much so it may need to for some reason (it's a legit Microsoft servic
e). Anyway, it would appear it's running under the local system account, wh
ich is fine, and if you want that functionality to work you can just sp_gran
tlogin to 'NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM'. This is different to granting all local ad
mins (ie. 'BUILTIN\Administrators') sysadmin privileges (which I wouldn't re
commend), but some apps (mostly services like Microsoft Search (full-text) o
n SQL 2000 boxes for instance) need to talk to SQL Server and typically use
the local system account. I wouldn't see that as a big security hole.
SQL Injection has nothing to do with granting 'NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM' a login
to the SQL instance. If the SQL Server service is running under an admin ac
count (like the local system account for instance, which is pretty common) t
hen if an attacker exploits some weakness in a user application (that doesn'
t validate the T-SQL code it's sending to the SQL server) then they can use
a SQL injection attack to take control of the box (because SQL Server would
do what they asked it to, within the permissions granted to their SQL login,
and that might mean some Windows admin function, which the SQL instance cou
ld do if it was a local admin, like local system).
SQL injection is a possible factor in poorly written applications that use S
QL Server on the back-end. It is not related to which logins can connect to
your SQL instance, but is more relevant to the account under which your SQL
instance runs on the OS (and which login to the SQL box the poorly written
SQL app uses - hopefully not a sysadmin login).
mike hodgson
http://sqlnerd.blogspot.com
JD wrote:
I have been getting a weird SQL event message the applications event log. I
am running
sql 2000 sp 3a
windows 2003 standard server sp1
I removed the BUILTIN\ADMINISTRATORS account. Is there somthing I missed
when removing this account. I was told the NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM account can
lead to sql injection attacks. Some say just add the builtin administrators
account back but it goes against best practices and I would like to work
around it. iS this possible... Seems like I have been running into more
problems by removing this account. Any help is appreciated.
Sqllib error: OLEDB Error encountered calling IDBInitialize::Initialize. hr
= 0x80040e4d. SQLSTATE: 42000, Native Error: 18456
Error state: 1, Severity: 14
Source: Microsoft OLE DB Provider for SQL Server
Error message: Login failed for user 'NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM'.
0000: 2d 20 43 6f 64 65 3a 20 - Code:
0008: 53 51 4c 43 4f 4e 4e 43 SQLCONNC
0010: 30 30 30 30 30 34 39 31 00000491
0018: 2d 20 43 61 6c 6c 3a 20 - Call:
0020: 53 51 4c 43 4f 4e 4e 43 SQLCONNC
0028: 30 30 30 30 30 33 39 37 00000397
0030: 2d 20 50 49 44 3a 20 20 - PID:
0038: 30 30 30 30 32 38 38 30 00002880
0040: 2d 20 54 49 44 3a 20 20 - TID:
0048: 30 30 30 30 34 38 30 34 00004804
0050: 2d 20 43 4d 44 3a 20 20 - CMD:
0058: 43 3a 5c 57 49 4e 44 4f C:\WINDO
0060: 57 53 5c 53 79 73 74 65 WS\Syste
0068: 6d 33 32 5c 76 73 73 76 m32\vssv
0070: 63 2e 65 78 65 20 20 20 c.exe
0078: 2d 20 55 73 65 72 3a 20 - User:
0080: 4e 54 20 41 55 54 48 4f NT AUTHO
0088: 52 49 54 59 5c 53 59 53 RITY\SYS
0090: 54 45 4d 20 20 20 20 20 TEM
Showing posts with label applications. Show all posts
Showing posts with label applications. Show all posts
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Building New SQL Server
Hello all,
I am hoping some can spend a minute to educate me a little here.
We are looking at building a SQL server for our Network applications. This
would be WSUS, our inventorying solution, our helpdesk software and a number
of other network based support applications(used only by the IT department).
Is there any problem with running a number of application specific databses
on a SQL server if those apps really arent overally intensive? I dont think
there is, but I may be wrong.
Also, what about running a few app based databases on a SQL server that is
running an ERP solution?
On top of that what about hosting an ERP solution for about maybe 50-60 full
time users on a SQL server that is already running another databse for an
HR/Payroll based application that is used by maybe five peole? If the server
is spec'ed appropriately?
We are faced with the dilemma of implementing a new SQL server for an HR
app, this server would not be pushed at all, infact it would probably idle
98% of the time even with these users on and working. Im a trying to
determine whether or not it would be feasible to run some other applications
on the same SQL server without effecting performance or the existing database
environment and actually utilise the hardware.
I have little knowledge of SQL aside from installing it and setting up
databases, users and permissions.
Thanks
Hi
What you are wanting to do is certainly possible, hopefully you are not
going to need multiple instances, although you would need to consider the
security implications of using a single instance.
You would have to monitor usage to make sure nothing is doing anything to
stress the server to the detriment of the other applications, you may want to
look at what MOM could offer your to do this. You may want to consider
MSDE/SQL Express for the smaller applications if you have alternate servers
or only need local databases.
John
"a_user" wrote:
> Hello all,
> I am hoping some can spend a minute to educate me a little here.
> We are looking at building a SQL server for our Network applications. This
> would be WSUS, our inventorying solution, our helpdesk software and a number
> of other network based support applications(used only by the IT department).
> Is there any problem with running a number of application specific databses
> on a SQL server if those apps really arent overally intensive? I dont think
> there is, but I may be wrong.
> Also, what about running a few app based databases on a SQL server that is
> running an ERP solution?
> On top of that what about hosting an ERP solution for about maybe 50-60 full
> time users on a SQL server that is already running another databse for an
> HR/Payroll based application that is used by maybe five peole? If the server
> is spec'ed appropriately?
> We are faced with the dilemma of implementing a new SQL server for an HR
> app, this server would not be pushed at all, infact it would probably idle
> 98% of the time even with these users on and working. Im a trying to
> determine whether or not it would be feasible to run some other applications
> on the same SQL server without effecting performance or the existing database
> environment and actually utilise the hardware.
> I have little knowledge of SQL aside from installing it and setting up
> databases, users and permissions.
> Thanks
|||Hi John,
Thanks for the info. Using MSDE or localized single instance database
engines is what I am trying to get away from. Currently we have five
different applications all using msde as a local database engine, I would
rather have every application use a different database but on a SQL server.
It allows us to offload this processing from the services servers,
centralizes our databases, eases in recovery or restoration and especially if
scaling out to a larger box or more distributed boxes in the future as we add
servers.
I guess from a performance standpoint there is not much else to do aside
from monitoring the impact of additional databases on the server I just
wanted to ensure that databases for totally different applications could
reside on the same SQL server with impacting each other.
"John Bell" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi
> What you are wanting to do is certainly possible, hopefully you are not
> going to need multiple instances, although you would need to consider the
> security implications of using a single instance.
> You would have to monitor usage to make sure nothing is doing anything to
> stress the server to the detriment of the other applications, you may want to
> look at what MOM could offer your to do this. You may want to consider
> MSDE/SQL Express for the smaller applications if you have alternate servers
> or only need local databases.
>
> John
> "a_user" wrote:
I am hoping some can spend a minute to educate me a little here.
We are looking at building a SQL server for our Network applications. This
would be WSUS, our inventorying solution, our helpdesk software and a number
of other network based support applications(used only by the IT department).
Is there any problem with running a number of application specific databses
on a SQL server if those apps really arent overally intensive? I dont think
there is, but I may be wrong.
Also, what about running a few app based databases on a SQL server that is
running an ERP solution?
On top of that what about hosting an ERP solution for about maybe 50-60 full
time users on a SQL server that is already running another databse for an
HR/Payroll based application that is used by maybe five peole? If the server
is spec'ed appropriately?
We are faced with the dilemma of implementing a new SQL server for an HR
app, this server would not be pushed at all, infact it would probably idle
98% of the time even with these users on and working. Im a trying to
determine whether or not it would be feasible to run some other applications
on the same SQL server without effecting performance or the existing database
environment and actually utilise the hardware.
I have little knowledge of SQL aside from installing it and setting up
databases, users and permissions.
Thanks
Hi
What you are wanting to do is certainly possible, hopefully you are not
going to need multiple instances, although you would need to consider the
security implications of using a single instance.
You would have to monitor usage to make sure nothing is doing anything to
stress the server to the detriment of the other applications, you may want to
look at what MOM could offer your to do this. You may want to consider
MSDE/SQL Express for the smaller applications if you have alternate servers
or only need local databases.
John
"a_user" wrote:
> Hello all,
> I am hoping some can spend a minute to educate me a little here.
> We are looking at building a SQL server for our Network applications. This
> would be WSUS, our inventorying solution, our helpdesk software and a number
> of other network based support applications(used only by the IT department).
> Is there any problem with running a number of application specific databses
> on a SQL server if those apps really arent overally intensive? I dont think
> there is, but I may be wrong.
> Also, what about running a few app based databases on a SQL server that is
> running an ERP solution?
> On top of that what about hosting an ERP solution for about maybe 50-60 full
> time users on a SQL server that is already running another databse for an
> HR/Payroll based application that is used by maybe five peole? If the server
> is spec'ed appropriately?
> We are faced with the dilemma of implementing a new SQL server for an HR
> app, this server would not be pushed at all, infact it would probably idle
> 98% of the time even with these users on and working. Im a trying to
> determine whether or not it would be feasible to run some other applications
> on the same SQL server without effecting performance or the existing database
> environment and actually utilise the hardware.
> I have little knowledge of SQL aside from installing it and setting up
> databases, users and permissions.
> Thanks
|||Hi John,
Thanks for the info. Using MSDE or localized single instance database
engines is what I am trying to get away from. Currently we have five
different applications all using msde as a local database engine, I would
rather have every application use a different database but on a SQL server.
It allows us to offload this processing from the services servers,
centralizes our databases, eases in recovery or restoration and especially if
scaling out to a larger box or more distributed boxes in the future as we add
servers.
I guess from a performance standpoint there is not much else to do aside
from monitoring the impact of additional databases on the server I just
wanted to ensure that databases for totally different applications could
reside on the same SQL server with impacting each other.
"John Bell" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi
> What you are wanting to do is certainly possible, hopefully you are not
> going to need multiple instances, although you would need to consider the
> security implications of using a single instance.
> You would have to monitor usage to make sure nothing is doing anything to
> stress the server to the detriment of the other applications, you may want to
> look at what MOM could offer your to do this. You may want to consider
> MSDE/SQL Express for the smaller applications if you have alternate servers
> or only need local databases.
>
> John
> "a_user" wrote:
Building New SQL Server
Hello all,
I am hoping some can spend a minute to educate me a little here.
We are looking at building a SQL server for our Network applications. This
would be WSUS, our inventorying solution, our helpdesk software and a number
of other network based support applications(used only by the IT department).
Is there any problem with running a number of application specific databses
on a SQL server if those apps really arent overally intensive? I dont think
there is, but I may be wrong.
Also, what about running a few app based databases on a SQL server that is
running an ERP solution?
On top of that what about hosting an ERP solution for about maybe 50-60 full
time users on a SQL server that is already running another databse for an
HR/Payroll based application that is used by maybe five peole? If the server
is spec'ed appropriately?
We are faced with the dilemma of implementing a new SQL server for an HR
app, this server would not be pushed at all, infact it would probably idle
98% of the time even with these users on and working. Im a trying to
determine whether or not it would be feasible to run some other applications
on the same SQL server without effecting performance or the existing databas
e
environment and actually utilise the hardware.
I have little knowledge of SQL aside from installing it and setting up
databases, users and permissions.
ThanksHi
What you are wanting to do is certainly possible, hopefully you are not
going to need multiple instances, although you would need to consider the
security implications of using a single instance.
You would have to monitor usage to make sure nothing is doing anything to
stress the server to the detriment of the other applications, you may want t
o
look at what MOM could offer your to do this. You may want to consider
MSDE/SQL Express for the smaller applications if you have alternate servers
or only need local databases.
John
"a_user" wrote:
> Hello all,
> I am hoping some can spend a minute to educate me a little here.
> We are looking at building a SQL server for our Network applications. This
> would be WSUS, our inventorying solution, our helpdesk software and a numb
er
> of other network based support applications(used only by the IT department
).
> Is there any problem with running a number of application specific databse
s
> on a SQL server if those apps really arent overally intensive? I dont thin
k
> there is, but I may be wrong.
> Also, what about running a few app based databases on a SQL server that is
> running an ERP solution?
> On top of that what about hosting an ERP solution for about maybe 50-60 fu
ll
> time users on a SQL server that is already running another databse for an
> HR/Payroll based application that is used by maybe five peole? If the serv
er
> is spec'ed appropriately?
> We are faced with the dilemma of implementing a new SQL server for an HR
> app, this server would not be pushed at all, infact it would probably idle
> 98% of the time even with these users on and working. Im a trying to
> determine whether or not it would be feasible to run some other applicatio
ns
> on the same SQL server without effecting performance or the existing datab
ase
> environment and actually utilise the hardware.
> I have little knowledge of SQL aside from installing it and setting up
> databases, users and permissions.
> Thanks|||Hi John,
Thanks for the info. Using MSDE or localized single instance database
engines is what I am trying to get away from. Currently we have five
different applications all using msde as a local database engine, I would
rather have every application use a different database but on a SQL server.
It allows us to offload this processing from the services servers,
centralizes our databases, eases in recovery or restoration and especially i
f
scaling out to a larger box or more distributed boxes in the future as we ad
d
servers.
I guess from a performance standpoint there is not much else to do aside
from monitoring the impact of additional databases on the server I just
wanted to ensure that databases for totally different applications could
reside on the same SQL server with impacting each other.
"John Bell" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi
> What you are wanting to do is certainly possible, hopefully you are not
> going to need multiple instances, although you would need to consider the
> security implications of using a single instance.
> You would have to monitor usage to make sure nothing is doing anything to
> stress the server to the detriment of the other applications, you may want
to
> look at what MOM could offer your to do this. You may want to consider
> MSDE/SQL Express for the smaller applications if you have alternate server
s
> or only need local databases.
>
> John
> "a_user" wrote:
>|||Hi
If you migrate the databases in a phased manner then you can monitor what
impact each one takes when they are moved. This will give you some indicatio
n
of how things are going, and if necessary if/when you may need to stop!
John
"a_user" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi John,
> Thanks for the info. Using MSDE or localized single instance database
> engines is what I am trying to get away from. Currently we have five
> different applications all using msde as a local database engine, I would
> rather have every application use a different database but on a SQL server
.
> It allows us to offload this processing from the services servers,
> centralizes our databases, eases in recovery or restoration and especially
if
> scaling out to a larger box or more distributed boxes in the future as we
add
> servers.
> I guess from a performance standpoint there is not much else to do aside
> from monitoring the impact of additional databases on the server I just
> wanted to ensure that databases for totally different applications could
> reside on the same SQL server with impacting each other.
> "John Bell" wrote:
>
I am hoping some can spend a minute to educate me a little here.
We are looking at building a SQL server for our Network applications. This
would be WSUS, our inventorying solution, our helpdesk software and a number
of other network based support applications(used only by the IT department).
Is there any problem with running a number of application specific databses
on a SQL server if those apps really arent overally intensive? I dont think
there is, but I may be wrong.
Also, what about running a few app based databases on a SQL server that is
running an ERP solution?
On top of that what about hosting an ERP solution for about maybe 50-60 full
time users on a SQL server that is already running another databse for an
HR/Payroll based application that is used by maybe five peole? If the server
is spec'ed appropriately?
We are faced with the dilemma of implementing a new SQL server for an HR
app, this server would not be pushed at all, infact it would probably idle
98% of the time even with these users on and working. Im a trying to
determine whether or not it would be feasible to run some other applications
on the same SQL server without effecting performance or the existing databas
e
environment and actually utilise the hardware.
I have little knowledge of SQL aside from installing it and setting up
databases, users and permissions.
ThanksHi
What you are wanting to do is certainly possible, hopefully you are not
going to need multiple instances, although you would need to consider the
security implications of using a single instance.
You would have to monitor usage to make sure nothing is doing anything to
stress the server to the detriment of the other applications, you may want t
o
look at what MOM could offer your to do this. You may want to consider
MSDE/SQL Express for the smaller applications if you have alternate servers
or only need local databases.
John
"a_user" wrote:
> Hello all,
> I am hoping some can spend a minute to educate me a little here.
> We are looking at building a SQL server for our Network applications. This
> would be WSUS, our inventorying solution, our helpdesk software and a numb
er
> of other network based support applications(used only by the IT department
).
> Is there any problem with running a number of application specific databse
s
> on a SQL server if those apps really arent overally intensive? I dont thin
k
> there is, but I may be wrong.
> Also, what about running a few app based databases on a SQL server that is
> running an ERP solution?
> On top of that what about hosting an ERP solution for about maybe 50-60 fu
ll
> time users on a SQL server that is already running another databse for an
> HR/Payroll based application that is used by maybe five peole? If the serv
er
> is spec'ed appropriately?
> We are faced with the dilemma of implementing a new SQL server for an HR
> app, this server would not be pushed at all, infact it would probably idle
> 98% of the time even with these users on and working. Im a trying to
> determine whether or not it would be feasible to run some other applicatio
ns
> on the same SQL server without effecting performance or the existing datab
ase
> environment and actually utilise the hardware.
> I have little knowledge of SQL aside from installing it and setting up
> databases, users and permissions.
> Thanks|||Hi John,
Thanks for the info. Using MSDE or localized single instance database
engines is what I am trying to get away from. Currently we have five
different applications all using msde as a local database engine, I would
rather have every application use a different database but on a SQL server.
It allows us to offload this processing from the services servers,
centralizes our databases, eases in recovery or restoration and especially i
f
scaling out to a larger box or more distributed boxes in the future as we ad
d
servers.
I guess from a performance standpoint there is not much else to do aside
from monitoring the impact of additional databases on the server I just
wanted to ensure that databases for totally different applications could
reside on the same SQL server with impacting each other.
"John Bell" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi
> What you are wanting to do is certainly possible, hopefully you are not
> going to need multiple instances, although you would need to consider the
> security implications of using a single instance.
> You would have to monitor usage to make sure nothing is doing anything to
> stress the server to the detriment of the other applications, you may want
to
> look at what MOM could offer your to do this. You may want to consider
> MSDE/SQL Express for the smaller applications if you have alternate server
s
> or only need local databases.
>
> John
> "a_user" wrote:
>|||Hi
If you migrate the databases in a phased manner then you can monitor what
impact each one takes when they are moved. This will give you some indicatio
n
of how things are going, and if necessary if/when you may need to stop!
John
"a_user" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi John,
> Thanks for the info. Using MSDE or localized single instance database
> engines is what I am trying to get away from. Currently we have five
> different applications all using msde as a local database engine, I would
> rather have every application use a different database but on a SQL server
.
> It allows us to offload this processing from the services servers,
> centralizes our databases, eases in recovery or restoration and especially
if
> scaling out to a larger box or more distributed boxes in the future as we
add
> servers.
> I guess from a performance standpoint there is not much else to do aside
> from monitoring the impact of additional databases on the server I just
> wanted to ensure that databases for totally different applications could
> reside on the same SQL server with impacting each other.
> "John Bell" wrote:
>
Building New SQL Server
Hello all,
I am hoping some can spend a minute to educate me a little here.
We are looking at building a SQL server for our Network applications. This
would be WSUS, our inventorying solution, our helpdesk software and a number
of other network based support applications(used only by the IT department).
Is there any problem with running a number of application specific databses
on a SQL server if those apps really arent overally intensive? I dont think
there is, but I may be wrong.
Also, what about running a few app based databases on a SQL server that is
running an ERP solution?
On top of that what about hosting an ERP solution for about maybe 50-60 full
time users on a SQL server that is already running another databse for an
HR/Payroll based application that is used by maybe five peole? If the server
is spec'ed appropriately?
We are faced with the dilemma of implementing a new SQL server for an HR
app, this server would not be pushed at all, infact it would probably idle
98% of the time even with these users on and working. Im a trying to
determine whether or not it would be feasible to run some other applications
on the same SQL server without effecting performance or the existing database
environment and actually utilise the hardware.
I have little knowledge of SQL aside from installing it and setting up
databases, users and permissions.
ThanksHi
What you are wanting to do is certainly possible, hopefully you are not
going to need multiple instances, although you would need to consider the
security implications of using a single instance.
You would have to monitor usage to make sure nothing is doing anything to
stress the server to the detriment of the other applications, you may want to
look at what MOM could offer your to do this. You may want to consider
MSDE/SQL Express for the smaller applications if you have alternate servers
or only need local databases.
John
"a_user" wrote:
> Hello all,
> I am hoping some can spend a minute to educate me a little here.
> We are looking at building a SQL server for our Network applications. This
> would be WSUS, our inventorying solution, our helpdesk software and a number
> of other network based support applications(used only by the IT department).
> Is there any problem with running a number of application specific databses
> on a SQL server if those apps really arent overally intensive? I dont think
> there is, but I may be wrong.
> Also, what about running a few app based databases on a SQL server that is
> running an ERP solution?
> On top of that what about hosting an ERP solution for about maybe 50-60 full
> time users on a SQL server that is already running another databse for an
> HR/Payroll based application that is used by maybe five peole? If the server
> is spec'ed appropriately?
> We are faced with the dilemma of implementing a new SQL server for an HR
> app, this server would not be pushed at all, infact it would probably idle
> 98% of the time even with these users on and working. Im a trying to
> determine whether or not it would be feasible to run some other applications
> on the same SQL server without effecting performance or the existing database
> environment and actually utilise the hardware.
> I have little knowledge of SQL aside from installing it and setting up
> databases, users and permissions.
> Thanks|||Hi John,
Thanks for the info. Using MSDE or localized single instance database
engines is what I am trying to get away from. Currently we have five
different applications all using msde as a local database engine, I would
rather have every application use a different database but on a SQL server.
It allows us to offload this processing from the services servers,
centralizes our databases, eases in recovery or restoration and especially if
scaling out to a larger box or more distributed boxes in the future as we add
servers.
I guess from a performance standpoint there is not much else to do aside
from monitoring the impact of additional databases on the server I just
wanted to ensure that databases for totally different applications could
reside on the same SQL server with impacting each other.
"John Bell" wrote:
> Hi
> What you are wanting to do is certainly possible, hopefully you are not
> going to need multiple instances, although you would need to consider the
> security implications of using a single instance.
> You would have to monitor usage to make sure nothing is doing anything to
> stress the server to the detriment of the other applications, you may want to
> look at what MOM could offer your to do this. You may want to consider
> MSDE/SQL Express for the smaller applications if you have alternate servers
> or only need local databases.
>
> John
> "a_user" wrote:
> > Hello all,
> >
> > I am hoping some can spend a minute to educate me a little here.
> >
> > We are looking at building a SQL server for our Network applications. This
> > would be WSUS, our inventorying solution, our helpdesk software and a number
> > of other network based support applications(used only by the IT department).
> > Is there any problem with running a number of application specific databses
> > on a SQL server if those apps really arent overally intensive? I dont think
> > there is, but I may be wrong.
> >
> > Also, what about running a few app based databases on a SQL server that is
> > running an ERP solution?
> >
> > On top of that what about hosting an ERP solution for about maybe 50-60 full
> > time users on a SQL server that is already running another databse for an
> > HR/Payroll based application that is used by maybe five peole? If the server
> > is spec'ed appropriately?
> >
> > We are faced with the dilemma of implementing a new SQL server for an HR
> > app, this server would not be pushed at all, infact it would probably idle
> > 98% of the time even with these users on and working. Im a trying to
> > determine whether or not it would be feasible to run some other applications
> > on the same SQL server without effecting performance or the existing database
> > environment and actually utilise the hardware.
> >
> > I have little knowledge of SQL aside from installing it and setting up
> > databases, users and permissions.
> >
> > Thanks|||Hi
If you migrate the databases in a phased manner then you can monitor what
impact each one takes when they are moved. This will give you some indication
of how things are going, and if necessary if/when you may need to stop!
John
"a_user" wrote:
> Hi John,
> Thanks for the info. Using MSDE or localized single instance database
> engines is what I am trying to get away from. Currently we have five
> different applications all using msde as a local database engine, I would
> rather have every application use a different database but on a SQL server.
> It allows us to offload this processing from the services servers,
> centralizes our databases, eases in recovery or restoration and especially if
> scaling out to a larger box or more distributed boxes in the future as we add
> servers.
> I guess from a performance standpoint there is not much else to do aside
> from monitoring the impact of additional databases on the server I just
> wanted to ensure that databases for totally different applications could
> reside on the same SQL server with impacting each other.
> "John Bell" wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > What you are wanting to do is certainly possible, hopefully you are not
> > going to need multiple instances, although you would need to consider the
> > security implications of using a single instance.
> >
> > You would have to monitor usage to make sure nothing is doing anything to
> > stress the server to the detriment of the other applications, you may want to
> > look at what MOM could offer your to do this. You may want to consider
> > MSDE/SQL Express for the smaller applications if you have alternate servers
> > or only need local databases.
> >
> >
> > John
> >
> > "a_user" wrote:
> >
> > > Hello all,
> > >
> > > I am hoping some can spend a minute to educate me a little here.
> > >
> > > We are looking at building a SQL server for our Network applications. This
> > > would be WSUS, our inventorying solution, our helpdesk software and a number
> > > of other network based support applications(used only by the IT department).
> > > Is there any problem with running a number of application specific databses
> > > on a SQL server if those apps really arent overally intensive? I dont think
> > > there is, but I may be wrong.
> > >
> > > Also, what about running a few app based databases on a SQL server that is
> > > running an ERP solution?
> > >
> > > On top of that what about hosting an ERP solution for about maybe 50-60 full
> > > time users on a SQL server that is already running another databse for an
> > > HR/Payroll based application that is used by maybe five peole? If the server
> > > is spec'ed appropriately?
> > >
> > > We are faced with the dilemma of implementing a new SQL server for an HR
> > > app, this server would not be pushed at all, infact it would probably idle
> > > 98% of the time even with these users on and working. Im a trying to
> > > determine whether or not it would be feasible to run some other applications
> > > on the same SQL server without effecting performance or the existing database
> > > environment and actually utilise the hardware.
> > >
> > > I have little knowledge of SQL aside from installing it and setting up
> > > databases, users and permissions.
> > >
> > > Thanks
I am hoping some can spend a minute to educate me a little here.
We are looking at building a SQL server for our Network applications. This
would be WSUS, our inventorying solution, our helpdesk software and a number
of other network based support applications(used only by the IT department).
Is there any problem with running a number of application specific databses
on a SQL server if those apps really arent overally intensive? I dont think
there is, but I may be wrong.
Also, what about running a few app based databases on a SQL server that is
running an ERP solution?
On top of that what about hosting an ERP solution for about maybe 50-60 full
time users on a SQL server that is already running another databse for an
HR/Payroll based application that is used by maybe five peole? If the server
is spec'ed appropriately?
We are faced with the dilemma of implementing a new SQL server for an HR
app, this server would not be pushed at all, infact it would probably idle
98% of the time even with these users on and working. Im a trying to
determine whether or not it would be feasible to run some other applications
on the same SQL server without effecting performance or the existing database
environment and actually utilise the hardware.
I have little knowledge of SQL aside from installing it and setting up
databases, users and permissions.
ThanksHi
What you are wanting to do is certainly possible, hopefully you are not
going to need multiple instances, although you would need to consider the
security implications of using a single instance.
You would have to monitor usage to make sure nothing is doing anything to
stress the server to the detriment of the other applications, you may want to
look at what MOM could offer your to do this. You may want to consider
MSDE/SQL Express for the smaller applications if you have alternate servers
or only need local databases.
John
"a_user" wrote:
> Hello all,
> I am hoping some can spend a minute to educate me a little here.
> We are looking at building a SQL server for our Network applications. This
> would be WSUS, our inventorying solution, our helpdesk software and a number
> of other network based support applications(used only by the IT department).
> Is there any problem with running a number of application specific databses
> on a SQL server if those apps really arent overally intensive? I dont think
> there is, but I may be wrong.
> Also, what about running a few app based databases on a SQL server that is
> running an ERP solution?
> On top of that what about hosting an ERP solution for about maybe 50-60 full
> time users on a SQL server that is already running another databse for an
> HR/Payroll based application that is used by maybe five peole? If the server
> is spec'ed appropriately?
> We are faced with the dilemma of implementing a new SQL server for an HR
> app, this server would not be pushed at all, infact it would probably idle
> 98% of the time even with these users on and working. Im a trying to
> determine whether or not it would be feasible to run some other applications
> on the same SQL server without effecting performance or the existing database
> environment and actually utilise the hardware.
> I have little knowledge of SQL aside from installing it and setting up
> databases, users and permissions.
> Thanks|||Hi John,
Thanks for the info. Using MSDE or localized single instance database
engines is what I am trying to get away from. Currently we have five
different applications all using msde as a local database engine, I would
rather have every application use a different database but on a SQL server.
It allows us to offload this processing from the services servers,
centralizes our databases, eases in recovery or restoration and especially if
scaling out to a larger box or more distributed boxes in the future as we add
servers.
I guess from a performance standpoint there is not much else to do aside
from monitoring the impact of additional databases on the server I just
wanted to ensure that databases for totally different applications could
reside on the same SQL server with impacting each other.
"John Bell" wrote:
> Hi
> What you are wanting to do is certainly possible, hopefully you are not
> going to need multiple instances, although you would need to consider the
> security implications of using a single instance.
> You would have to monitor usage to make sure nothing is doing anything to
> stress the server to the detriment of the other applications, you may want to
> look at what MOM could offer your to do this. You may want to consider
> MSDE/SQL Express for the smaller applications if you have alternate servers
> or only need local databases.
>
> John
> "a_user" wrote:
> > Hello all,
> >
> > I am hoping some can spend a minute to educate me a little here.
> >
> > We are looking at building a SQL server for our Network applications. This
> > would be WSUS, our inventorying solution, our helpdesk software and a number
> > of other network based support applications(used only by the IT department).
> > Is there any problem with running a number of application specific databses
> > on a SQL server if those apps really arent overally intensive? I dont think
> > there is, but I may be wrong.
> >
> > Also, what about running a few app based databases on a SQL server that is
> > running an ERP solution?
> >
> > On top of that what about hosting an ERP solution for about maybe 50-60 full
> > time users on a SQL server that is already running another databse for an
> > HR/Payroll based application that is used by maybe five peole? If the server
> > is spec'ed appropriately?
> >
> > We are faced with the dilemma of implementing a new SQL server for an HR
> > app, this server would not be pushed at all, infact it would probably idle
> > 98% of the time even with these users on and working. Im a trying to
> > determine whether or not it would be feasible to run some other applications
> > on the same SQL server without effecting performance or the existing database
> > environment and actually utilise the hardware.
> >
> > I have little knowledge of SQL aside from installing it and setting up
> > databases, users and permissions.
> >
> > Thanks|||Hi
If you migrate the databases in a phased manner then you can monitor what
impact each one takes when they are moved. This will give you some indication
of how things are going, and if necessary if/when you may need to stop!
John
"a_user" wrote:
> Hi John,
> Thanks for the info. Using MSDE or localized single instance database
> engines is what I am trying to get away from. Currently we have five
> different applications all using msde as a local database engine, I would
> rather have every application use a different database but on a SQL server.
> It allows us to offload this processing from the services servers,
> centralizes our databases, eases in recovery or restoration and especially if
> scaling out to a larger box or more distributed boxes in the future as we add
> servers.
> I guess from a performance standpoint there is not much else to do aside
> from monitoring the impact of additional databases on the server I just
> wanted to ensure that databases for totally different applications could
> reside on the same SQL server with impacting each other.
> "John Bell" wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > What you are wanting to do is certainly possible, hopefully you are not
> > going to need multiple instances, although you would need to consider the
> > security implications of using a single instance.
> >
> > You would have to monitor usage to make sure nothing is doing anything to
> > stress the server to the detriment of the other applications, you may want to
> > look at what MOM could offer your to do this. You may want to consider
> > MSDE/SQL Express for the smaller applications if you have alternate servers
> > or only need local databases.
> >
> >
> > John
> >
> > "a_user" wrote:
> >
> > > Hello all,
> > >
> > > I am hoping some can spend a minute to educate me a little here.
> > >
> > > We are looking at building a SQL server for our Network applications. This
> > > would be WSUS, our inventorying solution, our helpdesk software and a number
> > > of other network based support applications(used only by the IT department).
> > > Is there any problem with running a number of application specific databses
> > > on a SQL server if those apps really arent overally intensive? I dont think
> > > there is, but I may be wrong.
> > >
> > > Also, what about running a few app based databases on a SQL server that is
> > > running an ERP solution?
> > >
> > > On top of that what about hosting an ERP solution for about maybe 50-60 full
> > > time users on a SQL server that is already running another databse for an
> > > HR/Payroll based application that is used by maybe five peole? If the server
> > > is spec'ed appropriately?
> > >
> > > We are faced with the dilemma of implementing a new SQL server for an HR
> > > app, this server would not be pushed at all, infact it would probably idle
> > > 98% of the time even with these users on and working. Im a trying to
> > > determine whether or not it would be feasible to run some other applications
> > > on the same SQL server without effecting performance or the existing database
> > > environment and actually utilise the hardware.
> > >
> > > I have little knowledge of SQL aside from installing it and setting up
> > > databases, users and permissions.
> > >
> > > Thanks
Monday, February 13, 2012
Building Intelligent applications using SQL Server 2005 Data Mining
Hello,
Are there any samples on Building Intelligent applications using SQL Server 2005 Data Mining uisng Visual Basic.NET, including step-by-step guides? Most of them are in C#. Besides, the June 2005 CTP does not have tutorials on the said topic.
Thanks.We don't have sample code specifically in VB.NET but the object models are exactly the same in all .NET languages so the code should be readily portable. If you encounter any specific issues moving the sample code to VB.NET, we will be happy to help.
In case you missed the sample code (C#) from the recent programmability webcast, it can be found here: http://www.sqlserverdatamining.com/DMCommunity/TipsNTricks/1313.aspx
Raman Iyer
SQL Server Data Mining|||Thanks for this as I already have seen this. I sure hope I can work on this but I don't have the sample database named DataValidationModels. Can you post the database as well?
Thanks a lot|||You can download the DataValidation.zip files from SQLServerDataMining.com which contains instructions on how to create the model.|||I want to write DMX queries on the AdventureWorks database specified in the data mining tutorial(from June 2005 CTP) using ADOMD.NET. What are the available mining models in the sample database and do you have sample queries?
Thanks.|||The tutorial can be used to build mining models based on the AdventureWorks database for targeted mailing (using the decision trees, clustering & naive-bayes algorithms), forecasting using time series, market basket analysis (using association rules) and sequence clustering.
For DM programmability using ADOMD.NET (as well as other programming models), please see this article: http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnsql90/html/sqldmprgrm.asp. It includes sample code and queries.|||I want to use AMO in my application. One documentation specifically mentions to add a reference to the Microsoft.AnalysisServices assembly in the .NET framework 2.0 but this does not appear in the References list in VS.NET 2005. I am using VS.NET 2005 Beta 2 with .NET Framework version 2.0.50215 with June CTP of SQL Server 2005. What could I use instead?|||
If it doen't show up in the list, you can browse to this location and add Microsoft.AnalysisServices.DLL manually (go to the Browse tab in the Add Reference dialog:
\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\90\SDK\Assemblies\
I have a question on connection string in ADOMD.NET when using the AdomdConnection object. Can you use other authentication methods other that Windows to connect to Analysis Services and access the mining models?
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Building a Recovery/Test SQL Server
We have a production SQL 2000 Server and we want to build
an offline-recovery server where we can install
applications, restore databases, and test client
connectivity. I would build this server exactly like our
production server, restore the msdb, model databases,
etc. Would I be better off having this server on a test
lan seperate from my production server, or can I have
both these servers(different names and IPs or course)on
the same network. What would be a better way of
introducing this recovery server, and is this even
possible?
Thanks,
AlexHi Alex,
You can have Two separate SQL Servers on the network.
If you are using SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition, then you can use the
Log Shipping Feature of the SQL Server to create a Warm Backup. This backup
Server can be used for reports. The users would have read only access to
the Warm Standby Server.
Please refer to the following white paper that has steps to setup Log
Shipping and steps to convert a standby server to a production server, in
case the Production server crashes.
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=%2fsupport%2fsql%2fcontent%2f
2000papers%2fLogShippingFinal.asp
HTH
Ashish
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
an offline-recovery server where we can install
applications, restore databases, and test client
connectivity. I would build this server exactly like our
production server, restore the msdb, model databases,
etc. Would I be better off having this server on a test
lan seperate from my production server, or can I have
both these servers(different names and IPs or course)on
the same network. What would be a better way of
introducing this recovery server, and is this even
possible?
Thanks,
AlexHi Alex,
You can have Two separate SQL Servers on the network.
If you are using SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition, then you can use the
Log Shipping Feature of the SQL Server to create a Warm Backup. This backup
Server can be used for reports. The users would have read only access to
the Warm Standby Server.
Please refer to the following white paper that has steps to setup Log
Shipping and steps to convert a standby server to a production server, in
case the Production server crashes.
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=%2fsupport%2fsql%2fcontent%2f
2000papers%2fLogShippingFinal.asp
HTH
Ashish
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)