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 Cluster Installation Failed

Hi All,
I am trying to install active/active two nodes cluster (Windows Server
2003/SQL Server 2000 â' sp3). I had successfully install the first instance.
But the name instance failed. â'Error: The cluster resource failed to come
online.â'
Also, I did not see any option to choose log file location (only able to
choose data file location). Would you please give me some hints?
For the first instance, I named the first virtual server as SQLVR1 and the
first instance as default.
For the second virtual server, do I have to name it as SQLVR1\xxxxxx? Can I
give the virtual server and the name instance same name or they have to be
different?
Thanks,
AlimI didn't think SQL Server's clustering was Active/Active capable - only
Active/Passive.
--
TheSQLGuru
President
Indicium Resources, Inc.
"alim" <alim@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8C2E1F14-C448-497B-AFB2-E26F2B57BD29@.microsoft.com...
> Hi All,
> I am trying to install active/active two nodes cluster (Windows Server
> 2003/SQL Server 2000 - sp3). I had successfully install the first
> instance.
> But the name instance failed. "Error: The cluster resource failed to come
> online."
> Also, I did not see any option to choose log file location (only able to
> choose data file location). Would you please give me some hints?
> For the first instance, I named the first virtual server as SQLVR1 and the
> first instance as default.
> For the second virtual server, do I have to name it as SQLVR1\xxxxxx? Can
> I
> give the virtual server and the name instance same name or they have to be
> different?
> Thanks,
> Alim
>|||First, use the term "multi-instance" instead of "Active/Active". It is much
less confusing to everyone.
The Application Event log should tell you you why the cluster resource did
not come on line. My guess is this is the problem:
Installation of a named instance of SQL Server 2000 virtual server on a
Windows Server 2003-based cluster fails
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/815431/en-us
You can change the log file location after the system is up and running.
You can only specify one file location during the install.
And yes, the virtual server name and the SQL instance name must be the same.
I usually use only named instances on a cluster to keep from having to
explain why the names look different.
--
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"alim" <alim@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8C2E1F14-C448-497B-AFB2-E26F2B57BD29@.microsoft.com...
> Hi All,
> I am trying to install active/active two nodes cluster (Windows Server
> 2003/SQL Server 2000 â' sp3). I had successfully install the first
> instance.
> But the name instance failed. â'Error: The cluster resource failed to come
> online.â'
> Also, I did not see any option to choose log file location (only able to
> choose data file location). Would you please give me some hints?
> For the first instance, I named the first virtual server as SQLVR1 and the
> first instance as default.
> For the second virtual server, do I have to name it as SQLVR1\xxxxxx? Can
> I
> give the virtual server and the name instance same name or they have to be
> different?
> Thanks,
> Alim
>|||> And yes, the virtual server name and the SQL instance name must be the same.
Hmmm... They can be the same or different. We typically just name the
instances SQL1, SQL2, etc. so that we can easily tell/communicate which
instance it is.
Linchi
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
> First, use the term "multi-instance" instead of "Active/Active". It is much
> less confusing to everyone.
> The Application Event log should tell you you why the cluster resource did
> not come on line. My guess is this is the problem:
> Installation of a named instance of SQL Server 2000 virtual server on a
> Windows Server 2003-based cluster fails
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/815431/en-us
> You can change the log file location after the system is up and running.
> You can only specify one file location during the install.
> And yes, the virtual server name and the SQL instance name must be the same.
> I usually use only named instances on a cluster to keep from having to
> explain why the names look different.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>
>
> "alim" <alim@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:8C2E1F14-C448-497B-AFB2-E26F2B57BD29@.microsoft.com...
> > Hi All,
> > I am trying to install active/active two nodes cluster (Windows Server
> > 2003/SQL Server 2000 â' sp3). I had successfully install the first
> > instance.
> > But the name instance failed. â'Error: The cluster resource failed to come
> > online.â'
> > Also, I did not see any option to choose log file location (only able to
> > choose data file location). Would you please give me some hints?
> > For the first instance, I named the first virtual server as SQLVR1 and the
> > first instance as default.
> > For the second virtual server, do I have to name it as SQLVR1\xxxxxx? Can
> > I
> > give the virtual server and the name instance same name or they have to be
> > different?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Alim
> >
>|||Thanks all for the comments. I think I will go with active/passive
configuration which is much easier.
Thanks!
"Linchi Shea" wrote:
> > And yes, the virtual server name and the SQL instance name must be the same.
> Hmmm... They can be the same or different. We typically just name the
> instances SQL1, SQL2, etc. so that we can easily tell/communicate which
> instance it is.
> Linchi
> "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
> > First, use the term "multi-instance" instead of "Active/Active". It is much
> > less confusing to everyone.
> >
> > The Application Event log should tell you you why the cluster resource did
> > not come on line. My guess is this is the problem:
> >
> > Installation of a named instance of SQL Server 2000 virtual server on a
> > Windows Server 2003-based cluster fails
> > http://support.microsoft.com/kb/815431/en-us
> >
> > You can change the log file location after the system is up and running.
> > You can only specify one file location during the install.
> >
> > And yes, the virtual server name and the SQL instance name must be the same.
> > I usually use only named instances on a cluster to keep from having to
> > explain why the names look different.
> >
> > --
> > Geoff N. Hiten
> > Senior Database Administrator
> > Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "alim" <alim@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:8C2E1F14-C448-497B-AFB2-E26F2B57BD29@.microsoft.com...
> > > Hi All,
> > > I am trying to install active/active two nodes cluster (Windows Server
> > > 2003/SQL Server 2000 â' sp3). I had successfully install the first
> > > instance.
> > > But the name instance failed. â'Error: The cluster resource failed to come
> > > online.â'
> > > Also, I did not see any option to choose log file location (only able to
> > > choose data file location). Would you please give me some hints?
> > > For the first instance, I named the first virtual server as SQLVR1 and the
> > > first instance as default.
> > > For the second virtual server, do I have to name it as SQLVR1\xxxxxx? Can
> > > I
> > > give the virtual server and the name instance same name or they have to be
> > > different?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Alim
> > >
> >
> >

Active/Active Cluster Installation Failed

Hi All,
I am trying to install active/active two nodes cluster (Windows Server
2003/SQL Server 2000 – sp3). I had successfully install the first instance.
But the name instance failed. “Error: The cluster resource failed to come
online.”
Also, I did not see any option to choose log file location (only able to
choose data file location). Would you please give me some hints?
For the first instance, I named the first virtual server as SQLVR1 and the
first instance as default.
For the second virtual server, do I have to name it as SQLVR1\xxxxxx? Can I
give the virtual server and the name instance same name or they have to be
different?
Thanks,
Alim
I didn't think SQL Server's clustering was Active/Active capable - only
Active/Passive.
TheSQLGuru
President
Indicium Resources, Inc.
"alim" <alim@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8C2E1F14-C448-497B-AFB2-E26F2B57BD29@.microsoft.com...
> Hi All,
> I am trying to install active/active two nodes cluster (Windows Server
> 2003/SQL Server 2000 - sp3). I had successfully install the first
> instance.
> But the name instance failed. "Error: The cluster resource failed to come
> online."
> Also, I did not see any option to choose log file location (only able to
> choose data file location). Would you please give me some hints?
> For the first instance, I named the first virtual server as SQLVR1 and the
> first instance as default.
> For the second virtual server, do I have to name it as SQLVR1\xxxxxx? Can
> I
> give the virtual server and the name instance same name or they have to be
> different?
> Thanks,
> Alim
>
|||First, use the term "multi-instance" instead of "Active/Active". It is much
less confusing to everyone.
The Application Event log should tell you you why the cluster resource did
not come on line. My guess is this is the problem:
Installation of a named instance of SQL Server 2000 virtual server on a
Windows Server 2003-based cluster fails
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/815431/en-us
You can change the log file location after the system is up and running.
You can only specify one file location during the install.
And yes, the virtual server name and the SQL instance name must be the same.
I usually use only named instances on a cluster to keep from having to
explain why the names look different.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"alim" <alim@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8C2E1F14-C448-497B-AFB2-E26F2B57BD29@.microsoft.com...
> Hi All,
> I am trying to install active/active two nodes cluster (Windows Server
> 2003/SQL Server 2000 – sp3). I had successfully install the first
> instance.
> But the name instance failed. “Error: The cluster resource failed to come
> online.”
> Also, I did not see any option to choose log file location (only able to
> choose data file location). Would you please give me some hints?
> For the first instance, I named the first virtual server as SQLVR1 and the
> first instance as default.
> For the second virtual server, do I have to name it as SQLVR1\xxxxxx? Can
> I
> give the virtual server and the name instance same name or they have to be
> different?
> Thanks,
> Alim
>
|||> And yes, the virtual server name and the SQL instance name must be the same.
Hmmm... They can be the same or different. We typically just name the
instances SQL1, SQL2, etc. so that we can easily tell/communicate which
instance it is.
Linchi
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:

> First, use the term "multi-instance" instead of "Active/Active". It is much
> less confusing to everyone.
> The Application Event log should tell you you why the cluster resource did
> not come on line. My guess is this is the problem:
> Installation of a named instance of SQL Server 2000 virtual server on a
> Windows Server 2003-based cluster fails
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/815431/en-us
> You can change the log file location after the system is up and running.
> You can only specify one file location during the install.
> And yes, the virtual server name and the SQL instance name must be the same.
> I usually use only named instances on a cluster to keep from having to
> explain why the names look different.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>
>
> "alim" <alim@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:8C2E1F14-C448-497B-AFB2-E26F2B57BD29@.microsoft.com...
>
|||Thanks all for the comments. I think I will go with active/passive
configuration which is much easier.
Thanks!
"Linchi Shea" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hmmm... They can be the same or different. We typically just name the
> instances SQL1, SQL2, etc. so that we can easily tell/communicate which
> instance it is.
> Linchi
> "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:

Active/Active Cluster Installation Failed

Hi All,
I am trying to install active/active two nodes cluster (Windows Server
2003/SQL Server 2000 – sp3). I had successfully install the first instanc
e.
But the name instance failed. “Error: The cluster resource failed to come
online.”
Also, I did not see any option to choose log file location (only able to
choose data file location). Would you please give me some hints?
For the first instance, I named the first virtual server as SQLVR1 and the
first instance as default.
For the second virtual server, do I have to name it as SQLVR1\xxxxxx? Can I
give the virtual server and the name instance same name or they have to be
different?
Thanks,
AlimI didn't think SQL Server's clustering was Active/Active capable - only
Active/Passive.
TheSQLGuru
President
Indicium Resources, Inc.
"alim" <alim@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8C2E1F14-C448-497B-AFB2-E26F2B57BD29@.microsoft.com...
> Hi All,
> I am trying to install active/active two nodes cluster (Windows Server
> 2003/SQL Server 2000 - sp3). I had successfully install the first
> instance.
> But the name instance failed. "Error: The cluster resource failed to come
> online."
> Also, I did not see any option to choose log file location (only able to
> choose data file location). Would you please give me some hints?
> For the first instance, I named the first virtual server as SQLVR1 and the
> first instance as default.
> For the second virtual server, do I have to name it as SQLVR1\xxxxxx? Can
> I
> give the virtual server and the name instance same name or they have to be
> different?
> Thanks,
> Alim
>|||First, use the term "multi-instance" instead of "Active/Active". It is much
less confusing to everyone.
The Application Event log should tell you you why the cluster resource did
not come on line. My guess is this is the problem:
Installation of a named instance of SQL Server 2000 virtual server on a
Windows Server 2003-based cluster fails
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/815431/en-us
You can change the log file location after the system is up and running.
You can only specify one file location during the install.
And yes, the virtual server name and the SQL instance name must be the same.
I usually use only named instances on a cluster to keep from having to
explain why the names look different.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"alim" <alim@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8C2E1F14-C448-497B-AFB2-E26F2B57BD29@.microsoft.com...
> Hi All,
> I am trying to install active/active two nodes cluster (Windows Server
> 2003/SQL Server 2000 – sp3). I had successfully install the first
> instance.
> But the name instance failed. “Error: The cluster resource failed to co
me
> online.”
> Also, I did not see any option to choose log file location (only able to
> choose data file location). Would you please give me some hints?
> For the first instance, I named the first virtual server as SQLVR1 and the
> first instance as default.
> For the second virtual server, do I have to name it as SQLVR1\xxxxxx? Can
> I
> give the virtual server and the name instance same name or they have to be
> different?
> Thanks,
> Alim
>|||> And yes, the virtual server name and the SQL instance name must be the sam
e.
Hmmm... They can be the same or different. We typically just name the
instances SQL1, SQL2, etc. so that we can easily tell/communicate which
instance it is.
Linchi
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:

> First, use the term "multi-instance" instead of "Active/Active". It is mu
ch
> less confusing to everyone.
> The Application Event log should tell you you why the cluster resource did
> not come on line. My guess is this is the problem:
> Installation of a named instance of SQL Server 2000 virtual server on a
> Windows Server 2003-based cluster fails
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/815431/en-us
> You can change the log file location after the system is up and running.
> You can only specify one file location during the install.
> And yes, the virtual server name and the SQL instance name must be the sam
e.
> I usually use only named instances on a cluster to keep from having to
> explain why the names look different.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>
>
> "alim" <alim@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:8C2E1F14-C448-497B-AFB2-E26F2B57BD29@.microsoft.com...
>|||Thanks all for the comments. I think I will go with active/passive
configuration which is much easier.
Thanks!
"Linchi Shea" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hmmm... They can be the same or different. We typically just name the
> instances SQL1, SQL2, etc. so that we can easily tell/communicate which
> instance it is.
> Linchi
> "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
>sql

Active Directory logins can't run schedule jobs successfully

Hi.
I have users who were recently migrated to Active
directory and ever since they haven't been able to submit
scheduled jobs successfully.
Here's the error message:
The job failed. Unable to determine if the owner (Active
Direcory group\login) of job "job name" has server access
(reason: Could not obtain information about Windows NT
group/user 'Active Direcory group\login'. [SQLSTATE 42000]
(Error 8198)).
I already added the new active directory groups to SQL
Server. I also tried giving these groups full access to
the db server and also tried to run the SQL Server Agent
service using a login in the active directory but they
still get the same error message.
A couple of workarounds here
PRB: 8198 Error Message Returned from Job Owned by Windows NT Authenticated
User
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;241643
Also I seem to recall a fix but couldn't find it straight away, I'll have
another look
HTH
Jasper Smith (SQL Server MVP)
I support PASS - the definitive, global
community for SQL Server professionals -
http://www.sqlpass.org
"J Garcia" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:109001c43756$0c396660$3a01280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hi.
> I have users who were recently migrated to Active
> directory and ever since they haven't been able to submit
> scheduled jobs successfully.
> Here's the error message:
> The job failed. Unable to determine if the owner (Active
> Direcory group\login) of job "job name" has server access
> (reason: Could not obtain information about Windows NT
> group/user 'Active Direcory group\login'. [SQLSTATE 42000]
> (Error 8198)).
> I already added the new active directory groups to SQL
> Server. I also tried giving these groups full access to
> the db server and also tried to run the SQL Server Agent
> service using a login in the active directory but they
> still get the same error message.
>
|||Have a look at the results of the link below, in there is a fix but I'm not
sure its relavent exactly to this issue plus it would appear to be older
than SP3a so assuming you have applied that, it may not be relavent. There
is a good article on troubleshooting the error though
http://tinyurl.com/256p7
HTH
Jasper Smith (SQL Server MVP)
I support PASS - the definitive, global
community for SQL Server professionals -
http://www.sqlpass.org
"Jasper Smith" <jasper_smith9@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23RNV0R6NEHA.2480@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> A couple of workarounds here
> PRB: 8198 Error Message Returned from Job Owned by Windows NT
Authenticated
> User
> http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;241643
> Also I seem to recall a fix but couldn't find it straight away, I'll have
> another look
> --
> HTH
> Jasper Smith (SQL Server MVP)
> I support PASS - the definitive, global
> community for SQL Server professionals -
> http://www.sqlpass.org
>
> "J Garcia" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:109001c43756$0c396660$3a01280a@.phx.gbl...
>
|||Thanks Jasper.
I did read those articles.
Our issues w/ the 2 workarounds:
Application users submit those SQL Agent jobs thru the
application. They'd rather not use a single sql
authenticated login since they will lose their audit
trail. Plus our std authentiaction process is to use
windows security.
Our OS guys are not willing to add 'Everyone' to the Pre-
Windows 2000 Compatible Access Group due to security risks.
They did add the users' groups in the active directory but
that didn't resolve the problem.
I will add that I removed builtin\administrators from SQL
Server and am using the 'sa' account for the SQL Server
Agent connection configuration.

>--Original Message--
>Have a look at the results of the link below, in there is
a fix but I'm not
>sure its relavent exactly to this issue plus it would
appear to be older
>than SP3a so assuming you have applied that, it may not
be relavent. There
>is a good article on troubleshooting the error though
>http://tinyurl.com/256p7
>--
>HTH
>Jasper Smith (SQL Server MVP)
>I support PASS - the definitive, global
>community for SQL Server professionals -
>http://www.sqlpass.org
>
>"Jasper Smith" <jasper_smith9@.hotmail.com> wrote in
message[vbcol=seagreen]
>news:%23RNV0R6NEHA.2480@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
Windows NT[vbcol=seagreen]
>Authenticated
us;241643[vbcol=seagreen]
straight away, I'll have[vbcol=seagreen]
in message[vbcol=seagreen]
submit[vbcol=seagreen]
(Active[vbcol=seagreen]
access[vbcol=seagreen]
42000][vbcol=seagreen]
to[vbcol=seagreen]
Agent
>
>.
>

Active Directory logins can't run schedule jobs successfully

Hi.
I have users who were recently migrated to Active
directory and ever since they haven't been able to submit
scheduled jobs successfully.
Here's the error message:
The job failed. Unable to determine if the owner (Active
Direcory group\login) of job "job name" has server access
(reason: Could not obtain information about Windows NT
group/user 'Active Direcory group\login'. [SQLSTATE 42000]
(Error 8198)).
I already added the new active directory groups to SQL
Server. I also tried giving these groups full access to
the db server and also tried to run the SQL Server Agent
service using a login in the active directory but they
still get the same error message.A couple of workarounds here
PRB: 8198 Error Message Returned from Job Owned by Windows NT Authenticated
User
http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...kb;en-us;241643
Also I seem to recall a fix but couldn't find it straight away, I'll have
another look
HTH
Jasper Smith (SQL Server MVP)
I support PASS - the definitive, global
community for SQL Server professionals -
http://www.sqlpass.org
"J Garcia" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:109001c43756$0c396660$3a01280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hi.
> I have users who were recently migrated to Active
> directory and ever since they haven't been able to submit
> scheduled jobs successfully.
> Here's the error message:
> The job failed. Unable to determine if the owner (Active
> Direcory group\login) of job "job name" has server access
> (reason: Could not obtain information about Windows NT
> group/user 'Active Direcory group\login'. [SQLSTATE 42000]
> (Error 8198)).
> I already added the new active directory groups to SQL
> Server. I also tried giving these groups full access to
> the db server and also tried to run the SQL Server Agent
> service using a login in the active directory but they
> still get the same error message.
>|||Have a look at the results of the link below, in there is a fix but I'm not
sure its relavent exactly to this issue plus it would appear to be older
than SP3a so assuming you have applied that, it may not be relavent. There
is a good article on troubleshooting the error though
http://tinyurl.com/256p7
HTH
Jasper Smith (SQL Server MVP)
I support PASS - the definitive, global
community for SQL Server professionals -
http://www.sqlpass.org
"Jasper Smith" <jasper_smith9@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23RNV0R6NEHA.2480@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> A couple of workarounds here
> PRB: 8198 Error Message Returned from Job Owned by Windows NT
Authenticated
> User
> http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...kb;en-us;241643
> Also I seem to recall a fix but couldn't find it straight away, I'll have
> another look
> --
> HTH
> Jasper Smith (SQL Server MVP)
> I support PASS - the definitive, global
> community for SQL Server professionals -
> http://www.sqlpass.org
>
> "J Garcia" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:109001c43756$0c396660$3a01280a@.phx.gbl...
>|||Thanks Jasper.
I did read those articles.
Our issues w/ the 2 workarounds:
Application users submit those SQL Agent jobs thru the
application. They'd rather not use a single sql
authenticated login since they will lose their audit
trail. Plus our std authentiaction process is to use
windows security.
Our OS guys are not willing to add 'Everyone' to the Pre-
Windows 2000 Compatible Access Group due to security risks.
They did add the users' groups in the active directory but
that didn't resolve the problem.
I will add that I removed builtin\administrators from SQL
Server and am using the 'sa' account for the SQL Server
Agent connection configuration.

>--Original Message--
>Have a look at the results of the link below, in there is
a fix but I'm not
>sure its relavent exactly to this issue plus it would
appear to be older
>than SP3a so assuming you have applied that, it may not
be relavent. There
>is a good article on troubleshooting the error though
>http://tinyurl.com/256p7
>--
>HTH
>Jasper Smith (SQL Server MVP)
>I support PASS - the definitive, global
>community for SQL Server professionals -
>http://www.sqlpass.org
>
>"Jasper Smith" <jasper_smith9@.hotmail.com> wrote in
message
>news:%23RNV0R6NEHA.2480@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
Windows NT[vbcol=seagreen]
>Authenticated
us;241643[vbcol=seagreen]
straight away, I'll have[vbcol=seagreen]
in message[vbcol=seagreen]
submit[vbcol=seagreen]
(Active[vbcol=seagreen]
access[vbcol=seagreen]
42000][vbcol=seagreen]
to[vbcol=seagreen]
Agent[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>.
>

Acessing SQL Server over the web with shared IP

I am new to setting up SQL Server and would greatly appreciate if
someone can help me out with this issue:

I have successfully set up SQL Server but want to be able for clients
of mine to be able to connect to it via the web through enterprise
manager. I have tried everything I could think of to get it to work. I
made sure the correct ports where open in the firewall (1433,1434).
Everytime I try to connecting using the IP of the box that the SQL
Server resides I get SQL Server does not exist or access denied. I
verified that the login credentials being used for the database I am
trying to correct to are correct. Still the same error message.

How I would like to set it up would be to create a subdomain on the
box and point it to SQL Server so that is what would be entered when
registering the group in enterprise manager.

I am currently running all my sites through vhost on a single IP using
IIS 2003. SQL Server is installed on the box where all of the sites
are being served up.

Is it impossible to set-up SQL Server to allow connections over the
web when using a Shared IP?

I have been researching this for over a week now and hope someone out
there can help me.

Thanks in advance!!Chris (melovepoi@.yahoo.com) writes:
> I am new to setting up SQL Server and would greatly appreciate if
> someone can help me out with this issue:
> I have successfully set up SQL Server but want to be able for clients
> of mine to be able to connect to it via the web through enterprise
> manager. I have tried everything I could think of to get it to work. I
> made sure the correct ports where open in the firewall (1433,1434).
> Everytime I try to connecting using the IP of the box that the SQL
> Server resides I get SQL Server does not exist or access denied. I
> verified that the login credentials being used for the database I am
> trying to correct to are correct. Still the same error message.
> How I would like to set it up would be to create a subdomain on the
> box and point it to SQL Server so that is what would be entered when
> registering the group in enterprise manager.
> I am currently running all my sites through vhost on a single IP using
> IIS 2003. SQL Server is installed on the box where all of the sites
> are being served up.
> Is it impossible to set-up SQL Server to allow connections over the
> web when using a Shared IP?

I'm not really sure what you mean with "connect to it via the web through
enterprise manager". Do you mean that they will connect over the Internet?
If they were to go from EM through a web site to SQL Server sounds a
little funny to me.

As for why things are not working, I don't really have much advice, but
I take the occassion to respond, because you may not want to do that
after all.

Exposing SQL Server directly on the Internet is something you should
avoid. And if you do it - make sure that you have SQL Server authentication
turned off. There is no protection in SQL Server against brute-force
attacks, other than logging, so no matter how strong password you have
for "sa", it is likely to be cracked sooner or later if someone is dead
set on doing it. I don't know if you are able to authenticate your clients
through Windows authentication. If you are, you might be safe. But it
might be a better option to offer them a VPN connection from which they
can access SQL Server that way.

What I can add about the error message "SQL Server does not exist or
access denied" is that playing with login credentials on SQL Server
is of no use. The error means that you never find the server, so it
is not able to authenticate you anyway.

This KB article discusses this message more in detail:
http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...B;EN-US;q328306.

--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se

Books Online for SQL Server SP3 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techin.../2000/books.asp|||In article <1f86f93.0408201949.5a756cf3@.posting.google.com>,
melovepoi@.yahoo.com says...
> I am new to setting up SQL Server and would greatly appreciate if
> someone can help me out with this issue:
> I have successfully set up SQL Server but want to be able for clients
> of mine to be able to connect to it via the web through enterprise
> manager. I have tried everything I could think of to get it to work. I
> made sure the correct ports where open in the firewall (1433,1434).
> Everytime I try to connecting using the IP of the box that the SQL
> Server resides I get SQL Server does not exist or access denied. I
> verified that the login credentials being used for the database I am
> trying to correct to are correct. Still the same error message.

First, let me say one important thing - exposing your SQL server
directly to the internet is always a BAD IDEA. There is no reason to
expose it directly to the internet. You should have the users VPN into
your server and access the SQL Server through the VPN.

It was servers like yours that let slammer spread around the world in
record time.

> How I would like to set it up would be to create a subdomain on the
> box and point it to SQL Server so that is what would be entered when
> registering the group in enterprise manager.
> I am currently running all my sites through vhost on a single IP using
> IIS 2003. SQL Server is installed on the box where all of the sites
> are being served up.
> Is it impossible to set-up SQL Server to allow connections over the
> web when using a Shared IP?

Since you have a router with port-forwarding (or a firewall with port
forwarding) you need to tell people to use your PUBLIC ip address when
they are outside of your network - external people access the SQL Server
using the Public IP that you forwarded to the internal IP.

One other thing - don't give users access to the SA account and don't
give them access to any other database (just their own). We did some
work for a company that let users access the DB over the net, the
company had created super user accounts for people to manage their
database remotely - as it turns out, the accounts had access to every
database in their system - some 30 databases on the server. It was
interesting to run an audit, find personal financial info on the other
databases, and then contact the ISP and the Owners of the databases to
let them know that anyone with access to any database could see all of
them as SA. The entire thing was taken off-line for a week while they
figured out how to manage it (should have taken about an hour).

I strongly suggest, even BEG, that you have users VPN into the
network/server and then gain access to the SQL server - do not expose it
directly to the internet.

--
--
spamfree999@.rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)|||Hi Chris

It is possible to allow access via the web. You need to use Enterprise
Manager from 2000 upwards and to check that TCP/IP is the connection
protocol. I would suggest not using the standard port but moving it
much higher up the range to a more 'random' port (purely to reduce
risk of hacking).

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by creating a sub-domain on the
box. My interpretation is that you want to create something like
subdomain.mydomain.com and use that to connect to the database. This
you can do, but not on the box. You will need to talk to your ISP and
get them to create the subdomain and point it to the IP address of
your server. Then I think you will be able to register the server by
entering subdomain.mydomain.com in EM.

Hope this helps

Sam