Active\Active Shared Database.

Thanks shea. The shared disk will not be accessed by more than one node. Each node will have its own shared bay and database. But the data will be federated\partitioned across the databases on both instances horizontally. Using DP Views the application ac
cess the data required. This is my thought and not sure whether practically possible or not. This way we can use the resources of both the nodes (scale out). When a failover happens, a single node will share the load which is obvious in case of Oracle's R
eal Application Cluster also.
Marx.
You can create 2 SQL Instances. Each partitioned table will reside in a database in each SQL Instance. The distributed view will read/write data to the correct SQL Instance. If SQLInstance1 is on Node1 and SQLInstance2 is on Node2 you will achieve a de
gree of load balancing via the distributed views. However, if Node1 fails SQLInstance1 will failover to Node2 and you will now have degraded performance. If you wish to maintain this high availability AND high performance scenario then you need 2 x 2-no
de clusters. Then if any node fails in either cluster you will maintain the same level of performance even though you now have a reduced level of redundancy. Of course this solution costs a whole lot more...
When ever you design a clustered solution you need to ask your clients if they are prepared to take a reduced level of service (in this case performance) when you loose some of your redundancy (due to a hardware or software failure).
|||That will work. Managing the DPV is challenging to say the least, but it is
possible.
Mike
Principal Mentor
Solid Quality Learning
"More than just Training"
SQL Server MVP
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com
http://www.mssqlserver.com

active/active clustering

how does an active/active cluster work with sql server? What about both servers trying to write to the same database files? Each has their own locks. How does active/active work with such constraints?also can you scale out with active/active via database filegroups?|||There is no such thing as an active/active SQL Server cluster. You can install multiple instances or just a single instance in a cluster. Each instance runs on one and only one node at any given time and is inaccessible through any other node. So, it is not possible to use clustering for load balancing, scaling out, or anything other than as a hardware protection mechanism only.|||

thank you for the confirmation of trying to scale via active/active.

|||

There is some sort of "load balancing" possible. It is not real load balancing as you would like it to be, but a very usefull option in my opinion.

Install a cluster with 2 instances and mirror the database from the first instance to the second instance. (it does not have to be a cluster, but it can be usefull for up-times)

The database on the second instance can not be accessed now, but you can make a snapshot of that database and use the snapshot for querying.

The snapshot will not be available for updates, but in some cases you can use the snapshot for query users. That way you keep the query users from your live database, so performance of the live database will not be affected by them and the query users do have reasonable up to date data at their fingertips.

|||

If you were going to do that, there really wouldn't be any point in configuring clustering at all. You would simply drop in Database Mirroring with a Database Snapshot created against the mirror database. Actually gives better fault tolerance than clustering, because you have two copies of the data and it gives better availability, because mirroring reacts more quickly than clustering does. And, you wind up in exactly the same state as if you clustered with 2 instances and then built mirroring, because a cluster failover would trigger a mirror failover and your applications would still need to connect to the mirror which most likely will require manual intervention since it will be a while until all applications are using the new connection libraries with the redirect code in it.

I don't like clustering combined with Database Mirroring for one very specific reason. Every cluster failover casues a cascading failover of Database Mirroring. So, instead of having just a single failover event, you have two each time.

A scenario like this would be served much more stably by using either replication or log shipping instead of Database Mirroring, because you won't get a cascading failover in the event the primary node in the cluster fails and once the instance is brought back online, processing resumes on exactly the same instances as before.

Active Directory authorization in RS Standard Edition

It is possible ?
Users connect to database with report data using own Active Directory
domain credentials (not ASPNET account) and users not must write login
and password (login credentials must be send automatic by IE)Bartosz Gorzynski <bartosz.gorzynski@.zapolex.pl> wrote in message news:<#T2XaQU0EHA.3808@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>...
> It is possible ?
> Users connect to database with report data using own Active Directory
> domain credentials (not ASPNET account) and users not must write login
> and password (login credentials must be send automatic by IE)
By changing your securty within ASP.NET to Windows, rather than forms
and then invoking impersonation you should be able to accomplish this.
Samples for this are available at gotdotnet.
Good luck
Cos

Accessing only one database on the SQL server

I have outsider-developer who is using her own laptop (not part of domain) t
o work on a project, I need to get her an access to our SQL database so she
can develop an application she is working on. I created new db, then new sql
user, she had SQL tools on
her laptop so then I registered server for here using this user I just creat
ed, then I gave access to this new created db… my question is what is the
minimun requirments (right/priviladges) so she can work with this new db but
prevent her with accessin
g other databases on the same server… other words I’m looking for scena
rio where she has full control over her db and no control over rest of the d
bs on the same serverPlace her in the dbo role for that database only and she should not have
rights to any other unless you give them to her.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"TOM P." <TOMP@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:F7748074-FA4B-4C87-851A-82E5E2D5A4E6@.microsoft.com...
> I have outsider-developer who is using her own laptop (not part of domain)
to work on a project, I need to get her an access to our SQL database so she
can develop an application she is working on. I created new db, then new sql
user, she had SQL tools on her laptop so then I registered server for here
using this user I just created, then I gave access to this new created db.
my question is what is the minimun requirments (right/priviladges) so she
can work with this new db but prevent her with accessing other databases on
the same server. other words I'm looking for scenario where she has full
control over her db and no control over rest of the dbs on the same server|||Thanks, so this user should have only access to this particular DB, public a
nd db_owner roles no server role whatsoever... right?
"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:

> Place her in the dbo role for that database only and she should not have
> rights to any other unless you give them to her.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "TOM P." <TOMP@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:F7748074-FA4B-4C87-851A-82E5E2D5A4E6@.microsoft.com...
> to work on a project, I need to get her an access to our SQL database so s
he
> can develop an application she is working on. I created new db, then new s
ql
> user, she had SQL tools on her laptop so then I registered server for here
> using this user I just created, then I gave access to this new created db.
> my question is what is the minimun requirments (right/priviladges) so she
> can work with this new db but prevent her with accessing other databases o
n
> the same server. other words I'm looking for scenario where she has full
> control over her db and no control over rest of the dbs on the same server
>
>|||Yes that is correct. If they only belong to a database role they will not
have permissions outside that database.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"TOM P." <TOMP@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:AB24E7E1-4095-450B-8A87-97A4C7CD02DD@.microsoft.com...
> Thanks, so this user should have only access to this particular DB, public
and db_owner roles no server role whatsoever... right?[vbcol=seagreen]
> "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
>
domain)[vbcol=seagreen]
she[vbcol=seagreen]
sql[vbcol=seagreen]
here[vbcol=seagreen]
db.[vbcol=seagreen]
she[vbcol=seagreen]
on[vbcol=seagreen]
full[vbcol=seagreen]
server[vbcol=seagreen]

Accessing MS SQL DB on own server?

Hi

If my site is hosted with an external company web host can I use ASP.NET pages to connect to a MS SQL DB that is on my company's internal server if I had MS SQL installed on it?

My company's server is always on and always connected to the internet.

I have access to my company's server if I need to set anything up on it for this to happen.

There will not be any kind of overload as the site is not accessed constantly.

Also, would this cause any kind of security leak? If so how would I go about plugging this hole?

Our server does have confidential info on it.

Cheers

kefi2927Since you haven't received a reply I'll post my thoughts. As someone who knows little about networking and security I personally would not do this, although it would be possible. Exposing a server to the internet is not something to be taken lightly, and will require diligence in keeping up with patches and security issues.

My 2 cents,
Terri