SQL,access denied: configuration

Showing posts with label configuration. Show all posts

Thursday, March 22, 2012

ACTIVE\ACTIVE Cluster Configuration, Urgent

Hey. I've 2 nodes in this active\active cluster. Both of them have 20gb memory. Right now, both are configured to use 12gb each. Is that the right way to configure it? I was thinking we'll have IO issues if we ever failed over to a server. I've to migrate to SQL 2005 and needed some help regarding using accounts.

Should I use the same account for the cluster service and the SQL Server/Agent service? If not what are the permissions I've to give to the cluster service account in SQL? I've a cluster with 2 nodes. What permissions should the SQL account be given on the box? Should it be a local admin or when installing, I give it the account and let SQL worry about giving permissions to the box?

Thank you.

The SQL Server service accounts should be different than your cluster administrator account. The cluster administrator account must be a member of the local administrator group on each node.

The service accounts for the SQL Server services should be regular user accounts on the machine. The setup process will assign permissions to the appropriate registry keys and directories. You will have to create groups in the domain in order to finish installing the clustered instance. The link below provides the details for this as well as covering a large number of other upgrade issues.

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=3d5e96d9-0074-46c4-bd4f-c3eb2abf4b66&DisplayLang=en

|||

And how should the cluster Admin account be configured in SQL? What are the right it should be given if I plan to not have Builtin admins any rights in SQL. Is it a good idea to remove Builtin Admins from SQL? Thank you very much

Tej

sql

Active/Active Vs. Active/Passive

Hi,
I am getting confused as to which cluster configuration is better? Active/
Active or Active/Passive.
Thanks in advance
Manu
It depends on your needs.
Active \ Active means, there are more than one running SQL Server server in
the Cluster.
You could use this to divide your SQL Server's load. This is not a real load
balancing however you could use your first node for OLTP purposes and use
the second active node as your report server for example...
If you have only two nodes in your cluster and one is passive then it means
you'll not be able to take advantage of your passive node unless your first
node breaks down. Your passive node is used only in emergency in
Active\Passive SQL Server Failover Cluster.
Managers usually want to take advantage of the second node too because as
you know server hardwares are not cheap stuff so they think it's a waste of
money to leave the second node in a standby position.
Ekrem ?nsoy
"manu" <manu@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:83FA7240-F0A6-4050-9406-665E6586072A@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I am getting confused as to which cluster configuration is better? Active/
> Active or Active/Passive.
> Thanks in advance
> Manu
|||On 30 Nov, 08:37, Ekrem nsoy <ek...@.btegitim.com> wrote:
> It depends on your needs.
> Active \ Active means, there are more than one running SQL Server server in
> the Cluster.
> You could use this to divide your SQL Server's load. This is not a real load
> balancing however you could use your first node for OLTP purposes and use
> the second active node as your report server for example...
> If you have only two nodes in your cluster and one is passive then it means
> you'll not be able to take advantage of your passive node unless your first
> node breaks down. Your passive node is used only in emergency in
> Active\Passive SQL Server Failover Cluster.
> Managers usually want to take advantage of the second node too because as
> you know server hardwares are not cheap stuff so they think it's a waste of
> money to leave the second node in a standby position.
> --
> Ekrem nsoy
> "manu" <m...@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:83FA7240-F0A6-4050-9406-665E6586072A@.microsoft.com...
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ekrem's right. However I hear that MS are moving towards discouraging
Active/Active (Excahnge already only runs Active/Passive?). You may
need to look at an Active/Active/Passive 3 machine setup. Having said
that, I'm running 64bit 2005 Active/Active precisely to maximise a
return on my hardware investment. Seems to work!
|||Thanks for your reply, so that means its the cost factor that plays an
important role here.
I thought Active/Passive is more stable than Active/Active configuration in
terms of binaries and registry information.
Thanks
Manu
"Ekrem ?nsoy" wrote:

> It depends on your needs.
> Active \ Active means, there are more than one running SQL Server server in
> the Cluster.
> You could use this to divide your SQL Server's load. This is not a real load
> balancing however you could use your first node for OLTP purposes and use
> the second active node as your report server for example...
> If you have only two nodes in your cluster and one is passive then it means
> you'll not be able to take advantage of your passive node unless your first
> node breaks down. Your passive node is used only in emergency in
> Active\Passive SQL Server Failover Cluster.
> Managers usually want to take advantage of the second node too because as
> you know server hardwares are not cheap stuff so they think it's a waste of
> money to leave the second node in a standby position.
> --
> Ekrem ?nsoy
>
> "manu" <manu@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:83FA7240-F0A6-4050-9406-665E6586072A@.microsoft.com...
>
|||I don't know why you do think so, however when you want to set up more than
one active nodes in a Cluster you'll need seperate licences for each active
SQL Server nodes.
When you use Active\Passive, you'll just need one license for the active
node.
So, it'll be more expensive to use more than one active SQL Server node in
your Cluster however you'd take advantage of your second node. It would not
be sleeping smurf all the time.
Ekrem ?nsoy
"manu" <manu@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:24342CE1-5962-4699-B8F1-F0CA55B47773@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Thanks for your reply, so that means its the cost factor that plays an
> important role here.
> I thought Active/Passive is more stable than Active/Active configuration
> in
> terms of binaries and registry information.
> Thanks
> Manu
> "Ekrem ?nsoy" wrote:
|||> I thought Active/Passive is more stable than Active/Active configuration
> in
> terms of binaries and registry information.
You need to get past the terminology and focus on the functionality. These
two are totally different configurations. First off as someone eluded to
Active -whatever is no longer considered the proper terminology when
referencing clusters. It is Single Instance cluster or Multi-instance
cluster which is still confusing to a degree. But the bottom line is that a
cluster is for hardware fail over purposes only. If you only have 1 instance
of SQL Server in a cluster env it is a single instance cluster. If you have
more than 1 instance of SQL Server you can choose to place both instances on
1 node and none on the other which is equivalent to the old Active - Passive
just with 2 SQL Instance. If you chose to put 1 SQL instance on each node of
the cluster this would be equivalent to the old Active - Active. There are
no rules that state you must do one over the other. There are always trade
offs with any technology and you need to decide what is best for your
business to meet your needs. One is just as stable as the other since the
registry is always populated on both nodes regardless of the configuration,
otherwise it would not be a cluster. I highly suggest you read all you can
on clusters with SQL Server (google will find tons of info) before you go
any further.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors
"manu" <manu@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:24342CE1-5962-4699-B8F1-F0CA55B47773@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Thanks for your reply, so that means its the cost factor that plays an
> important role here.
> I thought Active/Passive is more stable than Active/Active configuration
> in
> terms of binaries and registry information.
> Thanks
> Manu
> "Ekrem ?nsoy" wrote:

Active/Active Vs. Active/Passive

Hi,
I am getting confused as to which cluster configuration is better? Active/
Active or Active/Passive.
Thanks in advance
ManuIt depends on your needs.
Active \ Active means, there are more than one running SQL Server server in
the Cluster.
You could use this to divide your SQL Server's load. This is not a real load
balancing however you could use your first node for OLTP purposes and use
the second active node as your report server for example...
If you have only two nodes in your cluster and one is passive then it means
you'll not be able to take advantage of your passive node unless your first
node breaks down. Your passive node is used only in emergency in
Active\Passive SQL Server Failover Cluster.
Managers usually want to take advantage of the second node too because as
you know server hardwares are not cheap stuff so they think it's a waste of
money to leave the second node in a standby position.
Ekrem ?nsoy
"manu" <manu@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:83FA7240-F0A6-4050-9406-665E6586072A@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I am getting confused as to which cluster configuration is better? Active/
> Active or Active/Passive.
> Thanks in advance
> Manu|||On 30 Nov, 08:37, Ekrem =D6nsoy <ek...@.btegitim.com> wrote:
> It depends on your needs.
> Active \ Active means, there are more than one running SQL Server server i=[/vbcol
]
n[vbcol=seagreen]
> the Cluster.
> You could use this to divide your SQL Server's load. This is not a real lo=[/vbcol
]
ad[vbcol=seagreen]
> balancing however you could use your first node for OLTP purposes and use
> the second active node as your report server for example...
> If you have only two nodes in your cluster and one is passive then it mean=[/vbcol
]
s[vbcol=seagreen]
> you'll not be able to take advantage of your passive node unless your firs=[/vbcol
]
t[vbcol=seagreen]
> node breaks down. Your passive node is used only in emergency in
> Active\Passive SQL Server Failover Cluster.
> Managers usually want to take advantage of the second node too because as
> you know server hardwares are not cheap stuff so they think it's a waste o=[/vbcol
]
f[vbcol=seagreen]
> money to leave the second node in a standby position.
> --
> Ekrem =D6nsoy
> "manu" <m...@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:83FA7240-F0A6-4050-9406-665E6586072A@.microsoft.com...
>
>
>
e/[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ekrem's right. However I hear that MS are moving towards discouraging
Active/Active (Excahnge already only runs Active/Passive?). You may
need to look at an Active/Active/Passive 3 machine setup. Having said
that, I'm running 64bit 2005 Active/Active precisely to maximise a
return on my hardware investment. Seems to work!|||Thanks for your reply, so that means its the cost factor that plays an
important role here.
I thought Active/Passive is more stable than Active/Active configuration in
terms of binaries and registry information.
Thanks
Manu
"Ekrem ?nsoy" wrote:

> It depends on your needs.
> Active \ Active means, there are more than one running SQL Server server i
n
> the Cluster.
> You could use this to divide your SQL Server's load. This is not a real lo
ad
> balancing however you could use your first node for OLTP purposes and use
> the second active node as your report server for example...
> If you have only two nodes in your cluster and one is passive then it mean
s
> you'll not be able to take advantage of your passive node unless your firs
t
> node breaks down. Your passive node is used only in emergency in
> Active\Passive SQL Server Failover Cluster.
> Managers usually want to take advantage of the second node too because as
> you know server hardwares are not cheap stuff so they think it's a waste o
f
> money to leave the second node in a standby position.
> --
> Ekrem ?nsoy
>
> "manu" <manu@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:83FA7240-F0A6-4050-9406-665E6586072A@.microsoft.com...
>|||I don't know why you do think so, however when you want to set up more than
one active nodes in a Cluster you'll need seperate licences for each active
SQL Server nodes.
When you use Active\Passive, you'll just need one license for the active
node.
So, it'll be more expensive to use more than one active SQL Server node in
your Cluster however you'd take advantage of your second node. It would not
be sleeping smurf all the time.
Ekrem ?nsoy
"manu" <manu@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:24342CE1-5962-4699-B8F1-F0CA55B47773@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Thanks for your reply, so that means its the cost factor that plays an
> important role here.
> I thought Active/Passive is more stable than Active/Active configuration
> in
> terms of binaries and registry information.
> Thanks
> Manu
> "Ekrem ?nsoy" wrote:
>|||> I thought Active/Passive is more stable than Active/Active configuration
> in
> terms of binaries and registry information.
You need to get past the terminology and focus on the functionality. These
two are totally different configurations. First off as someone eluded to
Active -whatever is no longer considered the proper terminology when
referencing clusters. It is Single Instance cluster or Multi-instance
cluster which is still confusing to a degree. But the bottom line is that a
cluster is for hardware fail over purposes only. If you only have 1 instance
of SQL Server in a cluster env it is a single instance cluster. If you have
more than 1 instance of SQL Server you can choose to place both instances on
1 node and none on the other which is equivalent to the old Active - Passive
just with 2 SQL Instance. If you chose to put 1 SQL instance on each node of
the cluster this would be equivalent to the old Active - Active. There are
no rules that state you must do one over the other. There are always trade
offs with any technology and you need to decide what is best for your
business to meet your needs. One is just as stable as the other since the
registry is always populated on both nodes regardless of the configuration,
otherwise it would not be a cluster. I highly suggest you read all you can
on clusters with SQL Server (google will find tons of info) before you go
any further.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors
"manu" <manu@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:24342CE1-5962-4699-B8F1-F0CA55B47773@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Thanks for your reply, so that means its the cost factor that plays an
> important role here.
> I thought Active/Passive is more stable than Active/Active configuration
> in
> terms of binaries and registry information.
> Thanks
> Manu
> "Ekrem ?nsoy" wrote:
>

Active/Active Vs. Active/Passive

Hi,
I am getting confused as to which cluster configuration is better? Active/
Active or Active/Passive.
Thanks in advance
ManuIt depends on your needs.
Active \ Active means, there are more than one running SQL Server server in
the Cluster.
You could use this to divide your SQL Server's load. This is not a real load
balancing however you could use your first node for OLTP purposes and use
the second active node as your report server for example...
If you have only two nodes in your cluster and one is passive then it means
you'll not be able to take advantage of your passive node unless your first
node breaks down. Your passive node is used only in emergency in
Active\Passive SQL Server Failover Cluster.
Managers usually want to take advantage of the second node too because as
you know server hardwares are not cheap stuff so they think it's a waste of
money to leave the second node in a standby position.
--
Ekrem Ã?nsoy
"manu" <manu@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:83FA7240-F0A6-4050-9406-665E6586072A@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I am getting confused as to which cluster configuration is better? Active/
> Active or Active/Passive.
> Thanks in advance
> Manu|||On 30 Nov, 08:37, Ekrem =D6nsoy <ek...@.btegitim.com> wrote:
> It depends on your needs.
> Active \ Active means, there are more than one running SQL Server server i=n
> the Cluster.
> You could use this to divide your SQL Server's load. This is not a real lo=ad
> balancing however you could use your first node for OLTP purposes and use
> the second active node as your report server for example...
> If you have only two nodes in your cluster and one is passive then it mean=s
> you'll not be able to take advantage of your passive node unless your firs=t
> node breaks down. Your passive node is used only in emergency in
> Active\Passive SQL Server Failover Cluster.
> Managers usually want to take advantage of the second node too because as
> you know server hardwares are not cheap stuff so they think it's a waste o=f
> money to leave the second node in a standby position.
> --
> Ekrem =D6nsoy
> "manu" <m...@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:83FA7240-F0A6-4050-9406-665E6586072A@.microsoft.com...
>
> > Hi,
> > I am getting confused as to which cluster configuration is better? Activ=e/
> > Active or Active/Passive.
> > Thanks in advance
> > Manu- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
Ekrem's right. However I hear that MS are moving towards discouraging
Active/Active (Excahnge already only runs Active/Passive?). You may
need to look at an Active/Active/Passive 3 machine setup. Having said
that, I'm running 64bit 2005 Active/Active precisely to maximise a
return on my hardware investment. Seems to work!|||Thanks for your reply, so that means its the cost factor that plays an
important role here.
I thought Active/Passive is more stable than Active/Active configuration in
terms of binaries and registry information.
Thanks
Manu
"Ekrem Ã?nsoy" wrote:
> It depends on your needs.
> Active \ Active means, there are more than one running SQL Server server in
> the Cluster.
> You could use this to divide your SQL Server's load. This is not a real load
> balancing however you could use your first node for OLTP purposes and use
> the second active node as your report server for example...
> If you have only two nodes in your cluster and one is passive then it means
> you'll not be able to take advantage of your passive node unless your first
> node breaks down. Your passive node is used only in emergency in
> Active\Passive SQL Server Failover Cluster.
> Managers usually want to take advantage of the second node too because as
> you know server hardwares are not cheap stuff so they think it's a waste of
> money to leave the second node in a standby position.
> --
> Ekrem Ã?nsoy
>
> "manu" <manu@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:83FA7240-F0A6-4050-9406-665E6586072A@.microsoft.com...
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am getting confused as to which cluster configuration is better? Active/
> > Active or Active/Passive.
> >
> > Thanks in advance
> > Manu
>|||I don't know why you do think so, however when you want to set up more than
one active nodes in a Cluster you'll need seperate licences for each active
SQL Server nodes.
When you use Active\Passive, you'll just need one license for the active
node.
So, it'll be more expensive to use more than one active SQL Server node in
your Cluster however you'd take advantage of your second node. It would not
be sleeping smurf all the time.
--
Ekrem Ã?nsoy
"manu" <manu@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:24342CE1-5962-4699-B8F1-F0CA55B47773@.microsoft.com...
> Thanks for your reply, so that means its the cost factor that plays an
> important role here.
> I thought Active/Passive is more stable than Active/Active configuration
> in
> terms of binaries and registry information.
> Thanks
> Manu
> "Ekrem Ã?nsoy" wrote:
>> It depends on your needs.
>> Active \ Active means, there are more than one running SQL Server server
>> in
>> the Cluster.
>> You could use this to divide your SQL Server's load. This is not a real
>> load
>> balancing however you could use your first node for OLTP purposes and use
>> the second active node as your report server for example...
>> If you have only two nodes in your cluster and one is passive then it
>> means
>> you'll not be able to take advantage of your passive node unless your
>> first
>> node breaks down. Your passive node is used only in emergency in
>> Active\Passive SQL Server Failover Cluster.
>> Managers usually want to take advantage of the second node too because as
>> you know server hardwares are not cheap stuff so they think it's a waste
>> of
>> money to leave the second node in a standby position.
>> --
>> Ekrem Ã?nsoy
>>
>> "manu" <manu@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:83FA7240-F0A6-4050-9406-665E6586072A@.microsoft.com...
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > I am getting confused as to which cluster configuration is better?
>> > Active/
>> > Active or Active/Passive.
>> >
>> > Thanks in advance
>> > Manu|||> I thought Active/Passive is more stable than Active/Active configuration
> in
> terms of binaries and registry information.
You need to get past the terminology and focus on the functionality. These
two are totally different configurations. First off as someone eluded to
Active -whatever is no longer considered the proper terminology when
referencing clusters. It is Single Instance cluster or Multi-instance
cluster which is still confusing to a degree. But the bottom line is that a
cluster is for hardware fail over purposes only. If you only have 1 instance
of SQL Server in a cluster env it is a single instance cluster. If you have
more than 1 instance of SQL Server you can choose to place both instances on
1 node and none on the other which is equivalent to the old Active - Passive
just with 2 SQL Instance. If you chose to put 1 SQL instance on each node of
the cluster this would be equivalent to the old Active - Active. There are
no rules that state you must do one over the other. There are always trade
offs with any technology and you need to decide what is best for your
business to meet your needs. One is just as stable as the other since the
registry is always populated on both nodes regardless of the configuration,
otherwise it would not be a cluster. I highly suggest you read all you can
on clusters with SQL Server (google will find tons of info) before you go
any further.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors
"manu" <manu@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:24342CE1-5962-4699-B8F1-F0CA55B47773@.microsoft.com...
> Thanks for your reply, so that means its the cost factor that plays an
> important role here.
> I thought Active/Passive is more stable than Active/Active configuration
> in
> terms of binaries and registry information.
> Thanks
> Manu
> "Ekrem Ã?nsoy" wrote:
>> It depends on your needs.
>> Active \ Active means, there are more than one running SQL Server server
>> in
>> the Cluster.
>> You could use this to divide your SQL Server's load. This is not a real
>> load
>> balancing however you could use your first node for OLTP purposes and use
>> the second active node as your report server for example...
>> If you have only two nodes in your cluster and one is passive then it
>> means
>> you'll not be able to take advantage of your passive node unless your
>> first
>> node breaks down. Your passive node is used only in emergency in
>> Active\Passive SQL Server Failover Cluster.
>> Managers usually want to take advantage of the second node too because as
>> you know server hardwares are not cheap stuff so they think it's a waste
>> of
>> money to leave the second node in a standby position.
>> --
>> Ekrem Ã?nsoy
>>
>> "manu" <manu@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:83FA7240-F0A6-4050-9406-665E6586072A@.microsoft.com...
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > I am getting confused as to which cluster configuration is better?
>> > Active/
>> > Active or Active/Passive.
>> >
>> > Thanks in advance
>> > Manu

Active/Active in MS Virtual Server 2005

Did anyone implement Active/Active cluster configuration in MS
Virtual Server 2005 env? I successfully completed it for
Active/Passive configuration.
Posted using the http://www.dbforumz.com interface, at author's request
Articles individually checked for conformance to usenet standards
Topic URL: http://www.dbforumz.com/Clustering-A...ict255024.html
Visit Topic URL to contact author (reg. req'd). Report abuse: http://www.dbforumz.com/eform.php?p=880389
I have only tried a single instance, but I don't see why I couldn't. What
issues are you having?
Cheers,
Rod
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering Website
http://www.msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
http://www.clusterhelp.com - Cluster Training
"giora" <UseLinkToEmail@.dbForumz.com> wrote in message
news:4_880389_2e113e64de181962885b463a2452ae5f@.dbf orumz.com...
> Did anyone implement Active/Active cluster configuration in MS
> Virtual Server 2005 env? I successfully completed it for
> Active/Passive configuration.
> --
> Posted using the http://www.dbforumz.com interface, at author's request
> Articles individually checked for conformance to usenet standards
> Topic URL:
> http://www.dbforumz.com/Clustering-A...ict255024.html
> Visit Topic URL to contact author (reg. req'd). Report abuse:
> http://www.dbforumz.com/eform.php?p=880389
|||I am building one with SQL 2000 as one instance and SQL 2005 as another
instance. I will let you know how it works out.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"giora" <UseLinkToEmail@.dbForumz.com> wrote in message
news:4_880389_2e113e64de181962885b463a2452ae5f@.dbf orumz.com...
> Did anyone implement Active/Active cluster configuration in MS
> Virtual Server 2005 env? I successfully completed it for
> Active/Passive configuration.
> --
> Posted using the http://www.dbforumz.com interface, at author's request
> Articles individually checked for conformance to usenet standards
> Topic URL:
> http://www.dbforumz.com/Clustering-A...ict255024.html
> Visit Topic URL to contact author (reg. req'd). Report abuse:
> http://www.dbforumz.com/eform.php?p=880389
sql

Active/Active configuration queries

Hi,
I completely understand that SQL-Clustering is failover technology and not a
load
balancing technology.
1. What I'm wondering is when you go for Active/Active mode, then whether
both the nodes communicates with the single instance of shared device or only
1 node
communicates with it?
2. If only 1 node communicates then what is the advantage of Active/Active
configuration over Active/Passive configuration?
3. Also I guess Active/Active configuration requires 2 licenses of SQL-2000.
Is that
true?
4. I know that we can run 16 instances of SQL-2000 on a cluster. Now, I
understand that - logically, each instance data would be different than other
thats why it is a seperate instance. So how does the client application knows
which instance data to use? How does the application takes care of providing
latest data always?
Thanks in advance
Pankaj A. Chitriv
Answers inline
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
www.sqlpass.org
"Pankaj" <pankajchitriv@.rediffmail.com(donotspam)> wrote in message
news:D7F79263-D4D3-4C74-9CBF-E88D95C3E7C7@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I completely understand that SQL-Clustering is failover technology and not
a
> load
> balancing technology.
> 1. What I'm wondering is when you go for Active/Active mode, then whether
> both the nodes communicates with the single instance of shared device or
only
> 1 node
> communicates with it?
The cluster service arbitrates ownership. All host nodes are pysically
connected to the shared storage system, but only one node actually owns and
modifies the on-disk information
> 2. If only 1 node communicates then what is the advantage of Active/Active
> configuration over Active/Passive configuration?
>
Active-Active is really multi-instance. You load a second sql server
instance with a different set of physical shared disks.

> 3. Also I guess Active/Active configuration requires 2 licenses of
SQL-2000.
> Is that
> true?
Depends on your licensing model. Read the licensing page to be sure.
> 4. I know that we can run 16 instances of SQL-2000 on a cluster. Now, I
> understand that - logically, each instance data would be different than
other
> thats why it is a seperate instance. So how does the client application
knows
> which instance data to use? How does the application takes care of
providing
> latest data always?
Each instance has its own Network name and IP address. To the client, they
all look like different SQL servers.

> Thanks in advance
> Pankaj A. Chitriv
>
|||Thanks Geoff again (I remember you)
1. What I understand by "multi-instance" is the different Alias created
using the "Client Network Utility". Is that true? or Instance means- I'll
have to install SQL server and give different service name during
installation?
2. Although each instance has its own Network name and IP address, all of
them points to the same sql database on the shared device. Correct?
Regards,
Pankaj
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:

> Answers inline
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Senior Database Administrator
> Careerbuilder.com
> I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
> www.sqlpass.org
> "Pankaj" <pankajchitriv@.rediffmail.com(donotspam)> wrote in message
> news:D7F79263-D4D3-4C74-9CBF-E88D95C3E7C7@.microsoft.com...
> a
> only
> The cluster service arbitrates ownership. All host nodes are pysically
> connected to the shared storage system, but only one node actually owns and
> modifies the on-disk information
> Active-Active is really multi-instance. You load a second sql server
> instance with a different set of physical shared disks.
> SQL-2000.
> Depends on your licensing model. Read the licensing page to be sure.
> other
> knows
> providing
> Each instance has its own Network name and IP address. To the client, they
> all look like different SQL servers.
>
>
>
|||More Comments Inline.
BTW, this is my last answer for about a week. Vacation time.
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
www.sqlpass.org
"Pankaj" <pankajchitriv@.rediffmail.com(donotspam)> wrote in message
news:E0413295-17C7-4A39-A656-753AB9612811@.microsoft.com...
> Thanks Geoff again (I remember you)
> 1. What I understand by "multi-instance" is the different Alias created
> using the "Client Network Utility". Is that true? or Instance means- I'll
> have to install SQL server and give different service name during
> installation?
>
You must supply a unique Network name and IP address for each instance. You
can use the Server Network Utility to assign non-standard port addresses if
you wish.

> 2. Although each instance has its own Network name and IP address, all of
> them points to the same sql database on the shared device. Correct?
>
Wrong. No. Not that. Nada. Nope.
The physical device is "shared" in that it is physically accessable from all
host nodes. It is "shared nothing" in that only a single host actually
controls each LUN at any time. SAN storage devices present logical slices
of their storage systems (LUNS) to their connected hosts. The cluster
service arbitrates ownership so a host owns the storage resources associated
with a specific instance currently running on that host. There is NO
sharing of data storage between instances.
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Regards,
> Pankaj
>
> "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
not[vbcol=seagreen]
whether[vbcol=seagreen]
or[vbcol=seagreen]
and[vbcol=seagreen]
Active/Active[vbcol=seagreen]
I[vbcol=seagreen]
than[vbcol=seagreen]
application[vbcol=seagreen]
they[vbcol=seagreen]

ACTIVE/ACTIVE configuration

We are looking at installing a 2 Node ACTIVE/ACTIVE SQL
Server configuration utilizing two DELL PE6600 servers,
both connected via FIBRE to a DELL CX200(CLARION). The
OS will be clustered in a ACTIVE/ACTIVE configuration as
well.
The main purpose for attempting this is more for
spreading processing across systems more than for
failover capabilities.
I have a few questions, the first would be has anyone
accomplished this? Secondly, in a SQL server
ACTIVE/ACTIVE configuration, can both instances utilize
one shared disk configuration, so that database merging
does not need to happen?
Any help/advice would be greatly appreciated as i'm
drawing up a plan.
Failover clustering is designed for high availability. Failover clustering
is NOT a scale-out technology. There are some scenarios where data
partitioning and merge replication can be used in conjunction with
multi-instance clustering to achieve scale-out, but they require intensive
design and management. You are probably better off buying a bigger box for
your server than trying to scale out.
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
www.sqlpass.org
"Jeff" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:81e201c431f4$708e9430$a501280a@.phx.gbl...
> We are looking at installing a 2 Node ACTIVE/ACTIVE SQL
> Server configuration utilizing two DELL PE6600 servers,
> both connected via FIBRE to a DELL CX200(CLARION). The
> OS will be clustered in a ACTIVE/ACTIVE configuration as
> well.
> The main purpose for attempting this is more for
> spreading processing across systems more than for
> failover capabilities.
>

> I have a few questions, the first would be has anyone
> accomplished this? Secondly, in a SQL server
> ACTIVE/ACTIVE configuration, can both instances utilize
> one shared disk configuration, so that database merging
> does not need to happen?
>
No.

> Any help/advice would be greatly appreciated as i'm
> drawing up a plan.
|||I guess with that being said, would you have any ideas in
regards to distributed processing.
High availiability is what i'm looking for, just in an
active/active configuration. Can I not have a sql server
running on two different systems and look at the same
logical data source via SAN solution?

>--Original Message--
>Failover clustering is designed for high availability.
Failover clustering
>is NOT a scale-out technology. There are some scenarios
where data
>partitioning and merge replication can be used in
conjunction with
>multi-instance clustering to achieve scale-out, but they
require intensive
>design and management. You are probably better off
buying a bigger box for
>your server than trying to scale out.
>--
>Geoff N. Hiten
>Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>Senior Database Administrator
>Careerbuilder.com
>I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
>www.sqlpass.org
>"Jeff" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message[vbcol=seagreen]
>news:81e201c431f4$708e9430$a501280a@.phx.gbl...
as
>No.
>
>.
>
|||SQL Failover clustering works on a shared-nothing setup. Each instance has
exclusive control over the underlying resources, including its portion of
the shared storage system. The cluster service arbitrates ownership of the
underlying resources so that only one host node at a time controls each
resource.
Distributed database computing is not quite what is advertised. The TPC-C
benchmark is particularly well suited to a distributed model (coincidence
maybe?), but not all applications work as well. Buying a larger box is
probably where you want to go if you need more processing power.
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
www.sqlpass.org
"Jeff" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:830d01c43207$a14ec370$a601280a@.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> I guess with that being said, would you have any ideas in
> regards to distributed processing.
> High availiability is what i'm looking for, just in an
> active/active configuration. Can I not have a sql server
> running on two different systems and look at the same
> logical data source via SAN solution?
>
> Failover clustering
> where data
> conjunction with
> require intensive
> buying a bigger box for
> message
> as
|||That makes since. I have been doing some reading on
active/active cluster configurations. Just want to
understand that in that configuration each instance
serves it's own needs until the time that one fails and
then the other instance picks up the additional workload
of the failed instance. Is that correct?

>--Original Message--
>SQL Failover clustering works on a shared-nothing
setup. Each instance has
>exclusive control over the underlying resources,
including its portion of
>the shared storage system. The cluster service
arbitrates ownership of the
>underlying resources so that only one host node at a
time controls each
>resource.
>Distributed database computing is not quite what is
advertised. The TPC-C
>benchmark is particularly well suited to a distributed
model (coincidence
>maybe?), but not all applications work as well. Buying
a larger box is
>probably where you want to go if you need more
processing power.
>--
>Geoff N. Hiten
>Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>Senior Database Administrator
>Careerbuilder.com
>I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
>www.sqlpass.org
>"Jeff" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message[vbcol=seagreen]
>news:830d01c43207$a14ec370$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
in[vbcol=seagreen]
server[vbcol=seagreen]
scenarios[vbcol=seagreen]
they[vbcol=seagreen]
SQL[vbcol=seagreen]
servers,[vbcol=seagreen]
The[vbcol=seagreen]
configuration[vbcol=seagreen]
anyone[vbcol=seagreen]
utilize[vbcol=seagreen]
merging
>
>.
>
|||Nope. You are confusing instances and hosts. Not surprising since
active-active is a holdover from the SQL 7.0 days and is misleading for SQL
2000.
Lets start with a single-instance cluster. Two nodes (host computers), one
SQL instance. The instance runs on one host at a time. The cluster
services on all nodes monitor the running instance and if it fails a series
of tests (looks-alive and is-alive) the instance is deemed failed and is
restarted. The restart may be on the original node or on the other node.
You can add a second, independant instance that normally runs on the second
node but can run on either node. The two instances have nothing in common
except the set of host nodes that they can run on. There are some extra
concerns when using multiple instances on a cluster to make sure they can
'stack' on a single host node if necessary, but otherwise they do not
interact in any way. People incorrectly refer to this as 'Active-Active',
meaning both nodes have active instances. However, under SQL 2000 you can
have up to 16 instances on a cluster, so the naming quickly can get out of
hand.
Under SQL 7.0 the nodes were not completely interchangable so the
active-passive and active-active names were important. Each node owned a
single instance and the other node could run it but not make certain changes
to the setup. Now, single-instance and multiple-instance naming is more
meaningful since the nodes are truly interchangable. This is especially
true now that Windows 2003 allows 8 node clusters using Enterprise Edition.
(Active-Active-Passive-Passive-Active.. Blah, Blah, Blah).
Sounds like you need a single-instance installation running on fairly beefy
hardware. FYI, the CX-200 has been replaced with the CX-300. If you go
with a system larger than a 6600/6650 I would strongly look at the CX-500 or
CX-700 for the performance benefits.
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
www.sqlpass.org
"Jeff" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:837001c43213$70e59cc0$a501280a@.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> That makes since. I have been doing some reading on
> active/active cluster configurations. Just want to
> understand that in that configuration each instance
> serves it's own needs until the time that one fails and
> then the other instance picks up the additional workload
> of the failed instance. Is that correct?
> setup. Each instance has
> including its portion of
> arbitrates ownership of the
> time controls each
> advertised. The TPC-C
> model (coincidence
> a larger box is
> processing power.
> message
> in
> server
> scenarios
> they
> SQL
> servers,
> The
> configuration
> anyone
> utilize
> merging
|||No. SQL Server does not allow shared access to a database. A single SQL
Server can open the database files and access them and that prevents
anything else for getting at the data. This is a data protection mechanism
and exists to prevent possible corruption of the data when two independent
resources attempt to write the same data.
Mike
Principal Mentor
Solid Quality Learning
"More than just Training"
SQL Server MVP
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com
http://www.mssqlserver.com
|||You may deploy it on SAN
|||I was going to have my two nodes on a SAN solution. Is
there differences from what the other gentleman was
stating in regards to having a SAN solution?

>--Original Message--
>You may deploy it on SAN
>.
>
|||You can store SQL data on a SAN. It is generally the best way to build a
cluster.
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
www.sqlpass.org
"Jeff" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:acbc01c4369c$fd6a3290$a601280a@.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> I was going to have my two nodes on a SAN solution. Is
> there differences from what the other gentleman was
> stating in regards to having a SAN solution?

Active/Active configuration

Few questions on Active/Active configuration (SQL 2000):
-Any articles on setting up a two node Active/Active configuration (ideally
step by step)? Almost everything out there is on Active/Passive.
-Since there are at minimum 2 instances running at the same time on a two
node active/active configuration, is there still 1 virtual IP address? If so,
how does sql server knows which instance an application/user is refering to?
-On an active/passive configuation, microsoft recommends two networks
(public/private) but it can be done with only 1 (not recommended but
possible). Does this also apply on an Active/Active configurtion? We are
using blade servers and only 1 network can be configured so I want to make
sure that Active/Active can work with only 1 network.
-We have 2 main databases and we are planning to have one database on each
node. Would'nt this have a better performance instead of having both database
on one server (active/passive). I am aware that clustering is for
availability only but it seems like we could get a better performance in
active/active. Is this a valid assumption?
Thank you all
--
System Eng.
MSc in CS, MCSE4, IBM Certified MQ 5.3 Administrator
"I saw it work in a cartoon once so I am pretty sure I can do it."
> -Any articles on setting up a two node Active/Active configuration (ideally
> step by step)? Almost everything out there is on Active/Passive.
Setting up another instance in a cluster is no different than setting up the
first instance. Books Online has detailed steps.

> -Since there are at minimum 2 instances running at the same time on a two
> node active/active configuration, is there still 1 virtual IP address? If so,
> how does sql server knows which instance an application/user is refering to?
You need a separate IP addresse for each clustered instance.

> -On an active/passive configuation, microsoft recommends two networks
> (public/private) but it can be done with only 1 (not recommended but
> possible). Does this also apply on an Active/Active configurtion? We are
> using blade servers and only 1 network can be configured so I want to make
> sure that Active/Active can work with only 1 network.
Still applies. But since the purpose of a failover cluster is to provide
high availability, you really shouldn't share a single network. That kind of
defeats the HA purpose.

> -We have 2 main databases and we are planning to have one database on each
> node. Would'nt this have a better performance instead of having both database
> on one server (active/passive). I am aware that clustering is for
> availability only but it seems like we could get a better performance in
> active/active. Is this a valid assumption?
You may get better performance by virute of running each database on its own
host, thus using separate processors, memory, network cards, HBA's, etc. That
is, if your database can take advantage of these separate hardware
components. So, if one of your databases is cpu bound, for instance, having
it on its own server would certainly help.
Linchi
"Sas" wrote:

> Few questions on Active/Active configuration (SQL 2000):
> -Any articles on setting up a two node Active/Active configuration (ideally
> step by step)? Almost everything out there is on Active/Passive.
> -Since there are at minimum 2 instances running at the same time on a two
> node active/active configuration, is there still 1 virtual IP address? If so,
> how does sql server knows which instance an application/user is refering to?
> -On an active/passive configuation, microsoft recommends two networks
> (public/private) but it can be done with only 1 (not recommended but
> possible). Does this also apply on an Active/Active configurtion? We are
> using blade servers and only 1 network can be configured so I want to make
> sure that Active/Active can work with only 1 network.
> -We have 2 main databases and we are planning to have one database on each
> node. Would'nt this have a better performance instead of having both database
> on one server (active/passive). I am aware that clustering is for
> availability only but it seems like we could get a better performance in
> active/active. Is this a valid assumption?
> Thank you all
> --
> --
> System Eng.
> MSc in CS, MCSE4, IBM Certified MQ 5.3 Administrator
> "I saw it work in a cartoon once so I am pretty sure I can do it."
|||Linchi, just make sure your application is active/active ready. Will
both nodes assign duplicate IDs such as customer or order numbers? Is
common application state stored in shared memory? Will a response get
returned to a wrong node?...and so on. www.availabilitydigest.com
On Jan 19, 3:38 pm, Linchi Shea <LinchiS...@.discussions.microsoft.com>
wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> first instance. Books Online has detailed steps.
>
> high availability, you really shouldn't share a single network. That kind of
> defeats the HA purpose.
> host, thus using separate processors, memory, network cards, HBA's, etc. That
> is, if your database can take advantage of these separate hardware
> components. So, if one of your databases is cpu bound, for instance, having
> it on its own server would certainly help.
> Linchi
>
> "Sas" wrote:
>
|||> Linchi, just make sure your application is active/active ready.
I don't know what you meant by 'active/active ready'. There is nothing you
need to ready your application for.

> Will both nodes assign duplicate IDs such as customer or order numbers?
The SQL instance is running on one node at a time. At no time, it would run
on both nodes, and no database can be accessed by more than one node at a
time.

> Is common application state stored in shared memory?
There is no shared memory.

> Will a response get returned to a wrong node?...and so on.
It doesn't matter what node is running the SQL instance. The instance is
accessed via a virtual IP address that is not the same as the node IP address.
Linchi
"jreederhi@.nac.net" wrote:

> Linchi, just make sure your application is active/active ready. Will
> both nodes assign duplicate IDs such as customer or order numbers? Is
> common application state stored in shared memory? Will a response get
> returned to a wrong node?...and so on. www.availabilitydigest.com
> On Jan 19, 3:38 pm, Linchi Shea <LinchiS...@.discussions.microsoft.com>
> wrote:
>
|||Linchi. It looks as if we are using different definitions of active/
active. To me, an active/active configuration is one in which two or
more nodes are executing the same application using synchronized
database copies. If one node goes down, its users can be switched to
a surviving node in seconds, thus virtually eliminating downtime due
to node failures. If you are using a single common database, there
should be no application issues. www.availabilitydigest.com
On Jan 27, 11:58 pm, Linchi Shea
<LinchiS...@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> need to ready your application for.
> on both nodes, and no database can be accessed by more than one node at a
> time.
>
> accessed via a virtual IP address that is not the same as the node IP address.
> Linchi
>
> "jreede...@.nac.net" wrote:
>
>
>
>
|||That type of clustering is not supported by SQL Server 2005. Each instance
of SQL can run on a single node at a time. Other than a read-only shared
database model for reporting, there is no provision in SQL Server for
multiple SQL instances runing on different nodes to access the same data
store.
This is the major reason I dislike the Active/Passive and Active/Active
nomenclature. It is a holdover from SQL 7.0 clustering and does not
accurately reflect the capabilities of the current product. And 7.0 didn't
do this either, it just had a functional distinction between the primary
node and its failover partner that led to this unfortunate choice of names.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
<jreederhi@.nac.net> wrote in message
news:1170095155.783463.3200@.h3g2000cwc.googlegroup s.com...
> Linchi. It looks as if we are using different definitions of active/
> active. To me, an active/active configuration is one in which two or
> more nodes are executing the same application using synchronized
> database copies. If one node goes down, its users can be switched to
> a surviving node in seconds, thus virtually eliminating downtime due
> to node failures. If you are using a single common database, there
> should be no application issues. www.availabilitydigest.com
> On Jan 27, 11:58 pm, Linchi Shea
> <LinchiS...@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
|||<jreederhi@.nac.net> wrote in message
news:1170095155.783463.3200@.h3g2000cwc.googlegroup s.com...
> Linchi. It looks as if we are using different definitions of active/
> active. To me, an active/active configuration is one in which two or
> more nodes are executing the same application using synchronized
> database copies.
Your definition is wrong. High Availability clustering is not about
horizontal scaling.

> If one node goes down, its users can be switched to
> a surviving node in seconds, thus virtually eliminating downtime due
> to node failures.
This is what Server Clustering, or MSCS, is - it is a high availability
platform that helps reduce downtime. It does not provide horizontal scaling.
Russ Kaufmann
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
ClusterHelp.com, a Microsoft Certified Gold Partner
Web http://www.clusterhelp.com
Blog http://msmvps.com/clusterhelp
The next ClusterHelp classes are:
Denver starting Feb 12th
NYC starting Feb 19th
London starting March 6th
|||Geoff: I suspect that the inability for two instances of a database
manager to access the same physical database is common. When we speak
of active/active, we mean that two nodes, each with its own database,
are cooperating in the same application. The two database copies are
kept in synchronism by some means, typically data replication. By
keeping replication latency small (hundreds of milliseconds with
today's products), the problem of data loss following a node failure
or of data collisions is minimized. Furthermore, the two nodes can be
geographically separated for disaster tolerance. (See http://
availabilitydigest.com/public_articles/what_is_active-active.pdf).
There are several products that support SQL Server that can provide
this capability. www.availabilitydigest.com
On Jan 29, 1:33 pm, "Geoff N. Hiten" <SQLCrafts...@.gmail.com> wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> That type of clustering is not supported by SQL Server 2005. Each instance
> of SQL can run on a single node at a time. Other than a read-only shared
> database model for reporting, there is no provision in SQL Server for
> multiple SQL instances runing on different nodes to access the same data
> store.
> This is the major reason I dislike the Active/Passive and Active/Active
> nomenclature. It is a holdover from SQL 7.0 clustering and does not
> accurately reflect the capabilities of the current product. And 7.0 didn't
> do this either, it just had a functional distinction between the primary
> node and its failover partner that led to this unfortunate choice of names.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> <jreede...@.nac.net> wrote in messagenews:1170095155.783463.3200@.h3g2000cwc.goog legroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
|||<jreederhi@.nac.net> wrote in message
news:1170181441.248151.311950@.j27g2000cwj.googlegr oups.com...
> Geoff: I suspect that the inability for two instances of a database
> manager to access the same physical database is common.
It is part of the shared nothing model for MSCS.

> When we speak
> of active/active, we mean that two nodes, each with its own database,
> are cooperating in the same application.
No, when you speak of active/active, you mean two nodes, each with its own
separate database in its own virtual server. Two instances of SQL, one on
each node.

> The two database copies are
> kept in synchronism by some means, typically data replication.
You are not talking about Microsoft clustering here.
Russ Kaufmann
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
ClusterHelp.com, a Microsoft Certified Gold Partner
Web http://www.clusterhelp.com
Blog http://msmvps.com/clusterhelp
The next ClusterHelp classes are:
Denver starting Feb 12th
NYC starting Feb 19th
London starting March 6th
|||<jreederhi@.nac.net> wrote in message
news:1170181441.248151.311950@.j27g2000cwj.googlegr oups.com...
> Geoff: I suspect that the inability for two instances of a database
> manager to access the same physical database is common. When we speak
> of active/active, we mean that two nodes, each with its own database,
> are cooperating in the same application. The two database copies are
> kept in synchronism by some means, typically data replication. By
> keeping replication latency small (hundreds of milliseconds with
> today's products), the problem of data loss following a node failure
> or of data collisions is minimized. Furthermore, the two nodes can be
> geographically separated for disaster tolerance. (See http://
> availabilitydigest.com/public_articles/what_is_active-active.pdf).
> There are several products that support SQL Server that can provide
> this capability. www.availabilitydigest.com
>
I disagree with this, in relation to Microsoft Cluster Service.
The PDF file referenced here is NOT describing Active/Active for Microsoft
Clustering
Please do NOT refer to this PDF in relation to MSCS
The technologies represented on your website, are not in relation to
Microsoft, and terminology you use is conflicting with standard terminology
within the Microsoft scope. I understand that you have some patented
technology to sell. Please do not use newsgroups to advertise, as this is
considered spam.
Please see Microsofts own definition on Active/Active :
http://technet2.microsoft.com/WindowsServer/en/library/8846a72b-0882-4a24-8eee-a768e52925281033.mspx?mfr=true
(scroll down to the "Q. What is active/active verses active/passive?")
Rgds,
Edwin.

Thursday, February 16, 2012

Accessing SQL Server Accross Domain

I have a concept for an application that I would like to
market, and have a question concerning configuration. My
user interface is built in ADO.Net and VB7, and this is
the part I would like to sell. The end user would use
this UI to access a SQL Server database that I would have
at my location, on my own domain. Is this concept
feasible? Is it possible to grant access on SQL Server to
users from different domains? I am using Windows
Integrated Authentication on my server, and have to as it
is being used with BizTalk Server. Thanks.
JTHi JT,
Thank you for using MSDN Newsgroup! It's my pleasure to assist you with
your issue.
As my understanding of your question, you want to know if you client
application in their domain could access the SQL Server in another domain,
right. If I misunderstood, please feel free to let me know.
To access the SQL Server across domain is possible.
At first, make sure the connection between this two computers is OK.
Please refer to this article:
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=238949
You can test the application environment by the following steps to test
the connectivity:
To test general connectivity:
PING < SQL_Server ip>
To test we can connect to default SQL Server port 1433:
TELNET < SQL_Server ip> 1433
If we can connect, the screen will go blank. The server is awaiting more
commands. Hit any key to return.
If we CANNOT connect, you will get an error:
"Connecting To < ip > ..Could not open connection to the host, on port 1433
No connection could be made because the target machine actively refused
it."
NOTE:
Port 1433 is the default port number for SQL Server. You can check the
actual port number by Server Network Utility. You can get the actual port
number in use by check the properties of TCP/IP (which should be in the
"Enabled Protocols").
Then, use your Query Analyzer to check if it can access the database from
one domain to another.
For information you could refer to or ADO.NET programming, you can refer
to the following materials or ask questions in related newsgroup:
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=216415
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d...-us/dnauth/html
/dnauth_security.asp
http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...microsoft.com:
80/support/kb/articles/Q193/1/35.ASP&NoWebContent=1
http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...b;en-us;q176379
Hope this answered your questions. If you still have questions, please feel
free to post new message here and I am ready to help.
Best regards
Baisong Wei
Microsoft Online Support
----
Get Secure! - www.microsoft.com/security
This posting is provided "as is" with no warranties and confers no rights.
Please reply to newsgroups only. Thanks.|||Thanks Baisong,
What type of Authentication does the distant user need to
use? Is it possible for them to use Windows Auth, or do
the need to use SQL Server Auth? Thanks.
JT

quote:

>--Original Message--
>Hi JT,
>Thank you for using MSDN Newsgroup! It's my pleasure to

assist you with

quote:

>your issue.
>As my understanding of your question, you want to know if

you client

quote:

>application in their domain could access the SQL Server

in another domain,

quote:

>right. If I misunderstood, please feel free to let me

know.

quote:

>To access the SQL Server across domain is possible.
>At first, make sure the connection between this two

computers is OK.

quote:

>Please refer to this article:
>http://support.microsoft.com/?id=238949
>You can test the application environment by the

following steps to test

quote:

>the connectivity:
>To test general connectivity:
> PING < SQL_Server ip>
>To test we can connect to default SQL Server port 1433:
> TELNET < SQL_Server ip> 1433
>If we can connect, the screen will go blank. The server

is awaiting more

quote:

>commands. Hit any key to return.
>If we CANNOT connect, you will get an error:
>"Connecting To < ip > ..Could not open connection to the

host, on port 1433

quote:

> No connection could be made because the target machine

actively refused

quote:

>it."
>NOTE:
>Port 1433 is the default port number for SQL Server. You

can check the

quote:

>actual port number by Server Network Utility. You can get

the actual port

quote:

>number in use by check the properties of TCP/IP (which

should be in the

quote:

>"Enabled Protocols").
>Then, use your Query Analyzer to check if it can access

the database from

quote:

>one domain to another.
>For information you could refer to or ADO.NET

programming, you can refer

quote:

>to the following materials or ask questions in related

newsgroup:

quote:

>http://support.microsoft.com/?id=216415
>http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?

url=/library/en-us/dnauth/html

quote:

>/dnauth_security.asp
>http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?

scid=http://support.microsoft.com:

quote:

>80/support/kb/articles/Q193/1/35.ASP&NoWebContent=1
>http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-

us;q176379

quote:

>Hope this answered your questions. If you still have

questions, please feel

quote:

>free to post new message here and I am ready to help.
>
>Best regards
>Baisong Wei
>Microsoft Online Support
>----
>Get Secure! - www.microsoft.com/security
>This posting is provided "as is" with no warranties and

confers no rights.

quote:

>Please reply to newsgroups only. Thanks.
>
>
>.
>

|||Hi JT,
Thank you for using MSDN Newsgroup! It's my pleasure to assist you with
your issue.
Both Windows authentication and SQL Server authentication could be used
when your application access the SQL Server across domains. For Windows
Authentication Mode, when the domain that the SQL Server runs in trust the
domain of the application, it can access the SQL Server. For SQL
Authentication Mode, no relation with domain conception, you could add the
SQL Server account and your application could access the SQL Server through
IP.
Please refer to this article, which provide you detailed information of
programming:
HOW TO: Set Up SQL Server with Proxy Server
http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...kb;EN-US;216415
INF: TCP Ports Needed for Communication to SQL Server Through a Firewall
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=287932
HOWTO: Use ADO to Connect to a SQL Server That Is Behind a Firewall
http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...kb;EN-US;269882
Connecting to a SQL Server Data Source
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d...-us/adosql/adop
rg01_0ahx.asp
INF: Authentication Methods for Connections to SQL Server in Active Server
Pages
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=247931
Hope this information will be useful to your concern. If you still have
question, please feel free to post new message here and I am ready to help!
Best regards
Baisong Wei
Microsoft Online Support
----
Get Secure! - www.microsoft.com/security
This posting is provided "as is" with no warranties and confers no rights.
Please reply to newsgroups only. Thanks.|||Thank you very much.
JT

quote:

>--Original Message--
>Hi JT,
>Thank you for using MSDN Newsgroup! It's my pleasure to

assist you with

quote:

>your issue.
>Both Windows authentication and SQL Server

authentication could be used

quote:

>when your application access the SQL Server across

domains. For Windows

quote:

>Authentication Mode, when the domain that the SQL Server

runs in trust the

quote:

>domain of the application, it can access the SQL Server.

For SQL

quote:

>Authentication Mode, no relation with domain conception,

you could add the

quote:

>SQL Server account and your application could access the

SQL Server through

quote:

>IP.
>Please refer to this article, which provide you detailed

information of

quote:

>programming:
>HOW TO: Set Up SQL Server with Proxy Server
>http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-

US;216415

quote:

>INF: TCP Ports Needed for Communication to SQL Server

Through a Firewall

quote:

>http://support.microsoft.com/?id=287932
>HOWTO: Use ADO to Connect to a SQL Server That Is Behind

a Firewall

quote:

>http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-

US;269882

quote:

>Connecting to a SQL Server Data Source
>http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?

url=/library/en-us/adosql/adop

quote:

>rg01_0ahx.asp
>INF: Authentication Methods for Connections to SQL

Server in Active Server

quote:

>Pages
>http://support.microsoft.com/?id=247931
>Hope this information will be useful to your concern. If

you still have

quote:

>question, please feel free to post new message here and

I am ready to help!

quote:

>Best regards
>Baisong Wei
>Microsoft Online Support
>----
>Get Secure! - www.microsoft.com/security
>This posting is provided "as is" with no warranties and

confers no rights.

quote:

>Please reply to newsgroups only. Thanks.
>.
>

Thursday, March 22, 2012

ACTIVE\ACTIVE Cluster Configuration, Urgent

Active/Active Vs. Active/Passive

Active/Active Vs. Active/Passive

Active/Active Vs. Active/Passive

Active/Active in MS Virtual Server 2005

Active/Active configuration queries

Active/Active configuration queries

ACTIVE/ACTIVE configuration

Active/Active configuration

Thursday, February 16, 2012

Accessing SQL Server Accross Domain

SQL,access denied

Blog Archive

About Me