Connectivity with a SQL instance.

Hi,
I installed on a failover cluster, one default virtual sql
server installation named SERVER1 and a other one
installation of virtual server with instance name called
server2\ufa.
When I try to connect true a firewall on SERVER1 with an
UDL file the connection is OK, but When I'm trying the
same test on SERVER2\ufa I've got this error :
[DBNETLIB][ConnectionOpen (Invalid Instance()).]
When I pinging SERVER1 it's OK, When I trying a telnet
command on IP adresse 1433 it's also OK
But on virtual SERVER2 the port 1433 is on the name
SERVER2 so when I try a command telnet SERVER2 1433 it's
OK but SERVER2\UFA is not recognize.
On the firewall the port 1433 is open for Both IP adresses
and we openned also the ports 139 and 445 for the Netbios.
( Name Pipes )
Someone can help me ?You probably need to open up port 1434 or better yet, open the Server
Network Utility on SERVER2 and set the port explicity to something other
than 1433 or 1434, then connect using the port number rather than the
instance name. This is well documented in Books on Line under firewalls.
"Pierre" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:bfde01c4086c$a9472a00$a501280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> I installed on a failover cluster, one default virtual sql
> server installation named SERVER1 and a other one
> installation of virtual server with instance name called
> server2\ufa.
> When I try to connect true a firewall on SERVER1 with an
> UDL file the connection is OK, but When I'm trying the
> same test on SERVER2\ufa I've got this error :
> [DBNETLIB][ConnectionOpen (Invalid Instance()).]
> When I pinging SERVER1 it's OK, When I trying a telnet
> command on IP adresse 1433 it's also OK
> But on virtual SERVER2 the port 1433 is on the name
> SERVER2 so when I try a command telnet SERVER2 1433 it's
> OK but SERVER2\UFA is not recognize.
> On the firewall the port 1433 is open for Both IP adresses
> and we openned also the ports 139 and 445 for the Netbios.
> ( Name Pipes )
> Someone can help me ?
>|||To be able to connect to a named instance, (both clustered and stand alone)
1) If the client has MDAC 2.5 or lower, then you have to specify the port
number when connecting and make sure this port is open at the firewall.
2)If the client has MDAC 2.6 or higher, then specify the port number when
connecting or make sure UDP port 1434 is open at the firewall (This is true
even if the named instance is listening on port 1433)
The following articles maybe helpful.
286303 INF: Behavior of SQL Server 2000 Network Library During Dynamic Port
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=286303
287932 INF: TCP Ports Needed for Communication to SQL Server Through a
Firewall
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=287932
286303 INF: Behavior of SQL Server 2000 Network Library During Dynamic Port
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=286303
265808 INF: How to Connect to an SQL Server 2000 Named Instance with the
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=265808
Thanks
Deepali
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights

Connectivity Issue with SQL Server 2005

Hi,
I have a SQL Server 2005 running on my machine with a named intance.
Recently I have got a DSL connection. After that the Microsoft SQL
Server Management Studio started giving connectivity issues.
Here I have copied the error Message. Could anybody help me out in
finding what is actually going wrong after getting a DSL Connection.
Thanks in Advance,
Suresh
TITLE: Connect to Server
--
Cannot connect to SURESH1023\SQLEXPRESS.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
A connection was successfully established with the server, but then an
error occurred during the login process. (provider: Named Pipes
Provider, error: 0 - The specified network name is no longer
available.) (Microsoft SQL Server, Error: 64)
For help, click:
http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink?Prod...64&LinkId=20476
BUTTONS:
OK
--"Gr8Ongole" <suresh.thotakura@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1165071352.266622.28580@.l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
> Hi,
> I have a SQL Server 2005 running on my machine with a named intance.
> Recently I have got a DSL connection. After that the Microsoft SQL
> Server Management Studio started giving connectivity issues.
> Here I have copied the error Message. Could anybody help me out in
> finding what is actually going wrong after getting a DSL Connection.
> Thanks in Advance,
> Suresh
> TITLE: Connect to Server
> --
> Cannot connect to SURESH1023\SQLEXPRESS.
> --
> ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
> A connection was successfully established with the server, but then an
> error occurred during the login process. (provider: Named Pipes
> Provider, error: 0 - The specified network name is no longer
> available.) (Microsoft SQL Server, Error: 64)
> For help, click:
> http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink?Prod...64&LinkId=20476
> --
> BUTTONS:
> OK
> --
>
Try forcing a TCP/IP connection by connecting to
tcp:SURESH1023\SQLEXPRESS
instead.
David

Connectivity Issue with SQL Server 2005

Hi,
I have a SQL Server 2005 running on my machine with a named intance.
Recently I have got a DSL connection. After that the Microsoft SQL
Server Management Studio started giving connectivity issues.
Here I have copied the error Message. Could anybody help me out in
finding what is actually going wrong after getting a DSL Connection.
Thanks in Advance,
Suresh
TITLE: Connect to Server
Cannot connect to SURESH1023\SQLEXPRESS.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
A connection was successfully established with the server, but then an
error occurred during the login process. (provider: Named Pipes
Provider, error: 0 - The specified network name is no longer
available.) (Microsoft SQL Server, Error: 64)
For help, click:
[url]http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink?ProdName=Microsoft+SQL+Server&EvtSrc=MSSQLS erver&EvtID=64&LinkId=20476[/url]
BUTTONS:
OK
"Gr8Ongole" <suresh.thotakura@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1165071352.266622.28580@.l12g2000cwl.googlegro ups.com...
> Hi,
> I have a SQL Server 2005 running on my machine with a named intance.
> Recently I have got a DSL connection. After that the Microsoft SQL
> Server Management Studio started giving connectivity issues.
> Here I have copied the error Message. Could anybody help me out in
> finding what is actually going wrong after getting a DSL Connection.
> Thanks in Advance,
> Suresh
> TITLE: Connect to Server
> --
> Cannot connect to SURESH1023\SQLEXPRESS.
> --
> ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
> A connection was successfully established with the server, but then an
> error occurred during the login process. (provider: Named Pipes
> Provider, error: 0 - The specified network name is no longer
> available.) (Microsoft SQL Server, Error: 64)
> For help, click:
> [url]http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink?ProdName=Microsoft+SQL+Server&EvtSrc=MSSQLS erver&EvtID=64&LinkId=20476[/url]
> --
> BUTTONS:
> OK
> --
>
Try forcing a TCP/IP connection by connecting to
tcp:SURESH1023\SQLEXPRESS
instead.
David

Connectivity Issue between XP, SQL Server 2000 & SPSS

Hi,
I am trying to build an application with Windows XP, SPSS & SQL
Server 2000. I am using SQL Server built in stored procedure 'xp_cmdshell'
with sa login to run batch file which starts SPSS. However 'xp_cmdshell'
keeps on running & nothing happens.
I tried the same thing on Windows 2003 server. It ran after I installed
..Net frame work 2.0 I did the same thing on Windows XP but it doesn't help.
I wonder what I have to do make it run on XP
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Regards
IT Dev.
Hi
"IT Developer" wrote:

> Hi,
> I am trying to build an application with Windows XP, SPSS & SQL
> Server 2000. I am using SQL Server built in stored procedure 'xp_cmdshell'
> with sa login to run batch file which starts SPSS. However 'xp_cmdshell'
> keeps on running & nothing happens.
> I tried the same thing on Windows 2003 server. It ran after I installed
> .Net frame work 2.0 I did the same thing on Windows XP but it doesn't help.
> I wonder what I have to do make it run on XP
> Any help would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Regards
>
> IT Dev.
>
I am not familiar with SPSS, but if you are trying to start a windows
application that requres user input from xp_cmdshell then you should try a
different method. I assume SPSS is on the SQL Server itself?
John

Connectivity issue - SQLServer not listening on port 1433/ms-sql-s

Hi. I'm a SQL Server novice, so apologies if any of this sounds simple.

I am running Windows XP SP2, and have just installed SQLServer 2000. I
need another application to connect to SQLServer, and am specifying it
to do so via localhost:1433, but keep getting an error whenever I try
doing so saying it cannot connect to the database. A colleague of mine
has the exact same set up on his machine, and he can connect to SQL
Server fine. Running 'netstat -a' at the command line on his machine
reveals that the system is listening to port 1433/ms-sql-s. Running
netstat on my machine shows that the system is not listening to
1433/ms-sql-ms. I have checked in Network Config in SQLServer
Enterprise Manager, and TCP/IP is set to be using 1433.

To confirm this, my application can connect over the network to my
colleague's SQL Server. but he cannot connect over the network to mine.

So I'm pretty sure the issue is related to this 1433/ms-sql-s problem.
Does anyone know how to resolve this? Many thanks.I just installed SQL Server Service Pack 3, and the problem is now
resolved. Perhaps it was related to the Slammer worm.

Connectivity in between SQL Server and DB2

I would like to know whether a connection can established in between SQL
Server and DB2. If yes how?Hi!!
This may help you(Pls note that I have not tested this)
http://groups.google.com/group/micr...b72d654e19e7a51
and
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q222937/
--
Thanks,
Umesh
"VBB" wrote:

> I would like to know whether a connection can established in between SQL
> Server and DB2. If yes how?
>

connectivity error while registering a new group

While registering sqlserver group I am getting the following
error message
"You must upgrade your SQL Enterprise Manager and SQL DMO (SQL-OLE) to SQL server (SQL DMO) to connect to server."
Can any one please guide me how to overcome this proble.
thanx regardsLook at Knowledge Base Article:

HOW TO: Administer Different Versions of SQL Server by Using SQL Server Enterprise Manager (http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=http://support.microsoft.com:80/support/kb/articles/Q225/5/45.asp&NoWebContent=1)sqlsql

Connectivity between vb 6.0 and Sql server 2000 (data base is in Server)

Hai all
I am sudhir
I am facing problem to establish connection between vb 6.0 and ms sql
server 2000, ie data base is in Server. I want to make conneciton
between them.
please help me.
Advance thank you alll
' Basic ADO
Dim strConnectionString as String
Dim myConn as ADODB.Connection
Dim myRS as ADODB.Recordset
' This uses the SA username, but you can create / use another
strConnectionString = "Provider=SQLOLEDB.1;Password=MySAPassword;Dat a
Source=MyServerName;User ID=SA;Initial Catalog=MyDBName;"
Set myConn = New ADODB.Connection
myConn.Open strConnectionString
set myRS = myConn.Execute "SELECT MyCol From MyTable"
If not myRS.EOF then
myRS.MoveFirst
While Not myRS.EOF
' Read stuff out of the recordset
Msgbox mrRS!MyCol
mrRS.MoveNext
Wend
End If
Jamie Clancy
Ulysses Systems, London
"sudhir9992003@.gmail.com" wrote:

> Hai all
> I am sudhir
> I am facing problem to establish connection between vb 6.0 and ms sql
> server 2000, ie data base is in Server. I want to make conneciton
> between them.
> please help me.
> Advance thank you alll
>

connections from app

Hi All,
I need a help from experts. We have an vb.net app using sqlserver.
I review the app and I saw a function declaring a connection, open, execute
sp and close. This app runs once a day for couple of minutes.
Now I suggest that this app should have one defined connection and in the
program we can open and close de connection many times. But the developer
keep saying that it doesn't matter.
My question is how is the best way to handle connections inside of an app in
a way to use better the resource of sqlserver server?
I hope this is enough description for you.
Tks in advance.
JohnnyBest practice is to open a connection as late as possible before you use it,
and close it as early as possible after you have finished with it.
This does not mean the you need to destroy and re-create the objects used to
access the DB or that you should close the connection between each operation
in a serial chain of database commands, just dont leave a connection open if
your application is idle.
Mr Tea
"JFB" <help@.jfb.com> wrote in message
news:%234dogSmLFHA.700@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Hi All,
> I need a help from experts. We have an vb.net app using sqlserver.
> I review the app and I saw a function declaring a connection, open,
> execute
> sp and close. This app runs once a day for couple of minutes.
> Now I suggest that this app should have one defined connection and in the
> program we can open and close de connection many times. But the developer
> keep saying that it doesn't matter.
> My question is how is the best way to handle connections inside of an app
> in
> a way to use better the resource of sqlserver server?
> I hope this is enough description for you.
> Tks in advance.
> Johnny
>

Connections

I've got a third party download app that creates ten connections to Sql
Server 2000 per user! We've got an average of 40 users/day and so we have
around 400 connections floating around all day just for this one small app!
We asked the vendor and all they will say is "it's working as designed".
So here are my questions:
1. Is there ANY reason on planet earth, performance or otherwise, that
someone would require ten connections?!?
2. How can I get it across that this is unacceptable? How can I calculate
how many connections Sql Server can handle? Are there any rules of thumb
that I can use for leverage?
Thx.
CLM wrote:
> I've got a third party download app that creates ten connections to
> Sql Server 2000 per user! We've got an average of 40 users/day and
> so we have around 400 connections floating around all day just for
> this one small app! We asked the vendor and all they will say is
> "it's working as designed".
> So here are my questions:
> 1. Is there ANY reason on planet earth, performance or otherwise,
> that someone would require ten connections?!?
Possibly, but not likely.

> 2. How can I get it across that this is unacceptable? How can I
> calculate how many connections Sql Server can handle? Are there any
> rules of thumb that I can use for leverage?
>
Maybe you can turn on connection pooling in control panel if the app is
using ODBC connections to SQL Server. However, you may need to enable
connection pooling in the application using SQLSetEnvAttr and you
probably can't do this. ADO.Net provides connection pooling
automatically.
Maybe you can find out from the vendor if they support connection
pooling. Then send or email someone high up at the company (like the
CTO) your concerns about the product and the way it uses connections
very liberally.
Each connection consumes 12 KB + (3 * Network Packet Size). So, even
with 400 connections using a 4K packet size, you're only consuming about
10MB of memory.
David Gugick
Quest Software
www.imceda.com
www.quest.com
|||Yes, but I've been reading that if Sql Server goes over 255 threads, Sql
Server will start to go over 2 connections per thread and resources will get
shared.
Plus, in addition to what you wrote, isn't Sql Server using some cpu
resources to manage these 400 inactive connections?
"David Gugick" wrote:

> CLM wrote:
> Possibly, but not likely.
>
> Maybe you can turn on connection pooling in control panel if the app is
> using ODBC connections to SQL Server. However, you may need to enable
> connection pooling in the application using SQLSetEnvAttr and you
> probably can't do this. ADO.Net provides connection pooling
> automatically.
> Maybe you can find out from the vendor if they support connection
> pooling. Then send or email someone high up at the company (like the
> CTO) your concerns about the product and the way it uses connections
> very liberally.
> Each connection consumes 12 KB + (3 * Network Packet Size). So, even
> with 400 connections using a 4K packet size, you're only consuming about
> 10MB of memory.
>
> --
> David Gugick
> Quest Software
> www.imceda.com
> www.quest.com
>
|||CLM wrote:
> Yes, but I've been reading that if Sql Server goes over 255 threads,
> Sql Server will start to go over 2 connections per thread and
> resources will get shared.
If they're mostly idle, then you probably won't reach the default of 255
worker threads. Even if you do (it would require about 6+ active batches
run on each of your 40 clients), SQL Server will temporarily have
batches wait until a worker thread is available for use. From BOL:
"Having all worker threads allocated does not mean that the performance
of SQL Server will degrade. Typically, a new batch has only a short wait
for a free thread. Allocating more threads may degrade performance
because of the increased work required to coordinate resources among the
threads. Many SQL Server systems running in production reach this state
and run with very high performance levels."

> Plus, in addition to what you wrote, isn't Sql Server using some cpu
> resources to manage these 400 inactive connections?
Not much if they are inactive.
David Gugick
Quest Software
www.imceda.com
www.quest.com
|||"CLM" <CLM@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:7A9AD5AD-E23C-469F-B8C6-0124D2D2788C@.microsoft.com...
> Yes, but I've been reading that if Sql Server goes over 255 threads, Sql
> Server will start to go over 2 connections per thread and resources will
> get
> shared.
That's not true. Or rather, it's not relavent. A connection is assigned
not to a thread, but to a scheduler. Each scheduler has a pool of workers
(threads) to carry out work. So there is not a 1-1 relationship between the
number of connections and the number of threads on the server.

> Plus, in addition to what you wrote, isn't Sql Server using some cpu
> resources to manage these 400 inactive connections?
No.
David

Connections

I've got a third party download app that creates ten connections to Sql
Server 2000 per user! We've got an average of 40 users/day and so we have
around 400 connections floating around all day just for this one small app!
We asked the vendor and all they will say is "it's working as designed".
So here are my questions:
1. Is there ANY reason on planet earth, performance or otherwise, that
someone would require ten connections?!?
2. How can I get it across that this is unacceptable? How can I calculate
how many connections Sql Server can handle? Are there any rules of thumb
that I can use for leverage?
Thx.CLM wrote:
> I've got a third party download app that creates ten connections to
> Sql Server 2000 per user! We've got an average of 40 users/day and
> so we have around 400 connections floating around all day just for
> this one small app! We asked the vendor and all they will say is
> "it's working as designed".
> So here are my questions:
> 1. Is there ANY reason on planet earth, performance or otherwise,
> that someone would require ten connections?!?
Possibly, but not likely.

> 2. How can I get it across that this is unacceptable? How can I
> calculate how many connections Sql Server can handle? Are there any
> rules of thumb that I can use for leverage?
>
Maybe you can turn on connection pooling in control panel if the app is
using ODBC connections to SQL Server. However, you may need to enable
connection pooling in the application using SQLSetEnvAttr and you
probably can't do this. ADO.Net provides connection pooling
automatically.
Maybe you can find out from the vendor if they support connection
pooling. Then send or email someone high up at the company (like the
CTO) your concerns about the product and the way it uses connections
very liberally.
Each connection consumes 12 KB + (3 * Network Packet Size). So, even
with 400 connections using a 4K packet size, you're only consuming about
10MB of memory.
David Gugick
Quest Software
www.imceda.com
www.quest.com|||Yes, but I've been reading that if Sql Server goes over 255 threads, Sql
Server will start to go over 2 connections per thread and resources will get
shared.
Plus, in addition to what you wrote, isn't Sql Server using some cpu
resources to manage these 400 inactive connections'
"David Gugick" wrote:

> CLM wrote:
> Possibly, but not likely.
>
> Maybe you can turn on connection pooling in control panel if the app is
> using ODBC connections to SQL Server. However, you may need to enable
> connection pooling in the application using SQLSetEnvAttr and you
> probably can't do this. ADO.Net provides connection pooling
> automatically.
> Maybe you can find out from the vendor if they support connection
> pooling. Then send or email someone high up at the company (like the
> CTO) your concerns about the product and the way it uses connections
> very liberally.
> Each connection consumes 12 KB + (3 * Network Packet Size). So, even
> with 400 connections using a 4K packet size, you're only consuming about
> 10MB of memory.
>
> --
> David Gugick
> Quest Software
> www.imceda.com
> www.quest.com
>|||CLM wrote:
> Yes, but I've been reading that if Sql Server goes over 255 threads,
> Sql Server will start to go over 2 connections per thread and
> resources will get shared.
If they're mostly idle, then you probably won't reach the default of 255
worker threads. Even if you do (it would require about 6+ active batches
run on each of your 40 clients), SQL Server will temporarily have
batches wait until a worker thread is available for use. From BOL:
"Having all worker threads allocated does not mean that the performance
of SQL Server will degrade. Typically, a new batch has only a short wait
for a free thread. Allocating more threads may degrade performance
because of the increased work required to coordinate resources among the
threads. Many SQL Server systems running in production reach this state
and run with very high performance levels."

> Plus, in addition to what you wrote, isn't Sql Server using some cpu
> resources to manage these 400 inactive connections'
Not much if they are inactive.
David Gugick
Quest Software
www.imceda.com
www.quest.com|||"CLM" <CLM@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:7A9AD5AD-E23C-469F-B8C6-0124D2D2788C@.microsoft.com...
> Yes, but I've been reading that if Sql Server goes over 255 threads, Sql
> Server will start to go over 2 connections per thread and resources will
> get
> shared.
That's not true. Or rather, it's not relavent. A connection is assigned
not to a thread, but to a scheduler. Each scheduler has a pool of workers
(threads) to carry out work. So there is not a 1-1 relationship between the
number of connections and the number of threads on the server.

> Plus, in addition to what you wrote, isn't Sql Server using some cpu
> resources to manage these 400 inactive connections'
No.
David

Connectiong problem Sqlserver 2005 Express

I'm working with an Sqlserver 2005 Express database on my local machine, and using vs.net 2005.I need to enable the sqlserver cache by the way:

aspnet_regsql -E -d Northwind -ed

I encountered the remote connection problem(error:40).The northwind database was restored to the sqlserver 2005 express by the db file downloaded,and I added the ASPNET user.I also enabled the TCP/IP by using SQL Server Configuration Manager.

But all the web application connected to the Northwind database is working through the connection string:

"Data Source=WKS-DEV-04\SQLEXPRESS;Initial Catalog=Northwind;Integrated Security=True"

Any help will be much appreciated, thank you very much for reading my post

Can you telnet to the remote SQL Express service from the client? Using such command from commandline:

telnet xxx.xx.xx.xxx yyyy

Where Xs stand for ip address of the remote server, and Ys stand for TCP port of the service. You can check the TCP port of the SQL service in 'SQL Server Configuration Manager'->SQL Server 2005 Network Configuration

|||Thank you for your reply very much.I have got it done.

Connection to SQLserver

We have a server running SQL2000 which I am trying to get access to via the
internet. I have used the port forwarding setup on our router/firewall to
transfer all traffic on port 1433 to the server 192.168.0.99. I cannot get a
connection as it states the server was not found or it was denied access.
I have a similar method of access to a couple of Personal Addition setups
off site and I can get a connection.
What is slightly unusual is that I have two connections to the internet one
leased line where I can't get access to the firewall and a broadband where I
do. Both are running NAT. Is this an area to check
Thanks for a pointers you can give me
Ian
"Ian Rudge" <Ian.Rudge@.shaw.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Opx2sOvmEHA.556@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> We have a server running SQL2000 which I am trying to get access to via
the
> internet. I have used the port forwarding setup on our router/firewall to
> transfer all traffic on port 1433 to the server 192.168.0.99. I cannot get
a
> connection as it states the server was not found or it was denied access.
> I have a similar method of access to a couple of Personal Addition setups
> off site and I can get a connection.
> What is slightly unusual is that I have two connections to the internet
one
> leased line where I can't get access to the firewall and a broadband where
I
> do. Both are running NAT. Is this an area to check
Maybe. There are a lot of variables in getting this to work properly. Check
this article along with links for troubleshooting this setup
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;287932
BTW, I hope that was only a fictitious external IP address for your
server...
Steve
|||Thank you for pointers and I will start my search from that.
The IP address is fictional but as it is internal in the 192.168... range I
thought you couldn't get to it or should I panic?
Thx
Ian
"Steve Thompson" <stevethompson@.nomail.please> wrote in message
news:OGpa1X0mEHA.3876@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> "Ian Rudge" <Ian.Rudge@.shaw.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:Opx2sOvmEHA.556@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> the
> a
> one
> I
> Maybe. There are a lot of variables in getting this to work properly.
> Check
> this article along with links for troubleshooting this setup
> http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;287932
> BTW, I hope that was only a fictitious external IP address for your
> server...
> Steve
>
|||You're right, I should have recognized that range ;) No need to panic, it
goes without saying that you need a good firewall and isolation from the
"outside".
Steve
"Ian Rudge" <Ian.Rudge@.shaw.co.uk> wrote in message
news:%23rcxs97mEHA.3628@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Thank you for pointers and I will start my search from that.
> The IP address is fictional but as it is internal in the 192.168... range
I[vbcol=seagreen]
> thought you couldn't get to it or should I panic?
> Thx
> Ian
> "Steve Thompson" <stevethompson@.nomail.please> wrote in message
> news:OGpa1X0mEHA.3876@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
to[vbcol=seagreen]
access.[vbcol=seagreen]
setups
>
|||I think I have found my answer. If I want to connect from outside, the
gateway for the SQLServer machine must point to the Broadband router not the
leased line one
Thx
for the help
"Steve Thompson" <stevethompson@.nomail.please> wrote in message
news:OEGQIECnEHA.1236@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> You're right, I should have recognized that range ;) No need to panic, it
> goes without saying that you need a good firewall and isolation from the
> "outside".
> Steve
> "Ian Rudge" <Ian.Rudge@.shaw.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:%23rcxs97mEHA.3628@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> I
> to
> access.
> setups
>

Connection to remote sql server db

Hi,
I'm new to SQL and would like to connect to a remote sql server where a
website is hosted and do some updates.
I have a local sqlserver setup here, could you pl guide me
some doc or urls.
I have to backup the db frm the remote sqlserver, my host company told me to
use dts to carry out the back from their server.
Pleaase advice how can I do this
Many Thanks
Shan"shan" <shan@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:670104E2-8986-432A-946C-C2C41931673A@.microsoft.com...
> I'm new to SQL and would like to connect to a remote sql server where a
> website is hosted and do some updates.
> I have a local sqlserver setup here, could you pl guide me
> some doc or urls.
> I have to backup the db frm the remote sqlserver, my host company told me
to
> use dts to carry out the back from their server.
> Pleaase advice how can I do this
The host company could allow a VPN tunnel to the remote server and/or open
the proper firewall ports to/from your computer. You could then use DTS, or
TSQL to issue a BACKUP... or synchronize the updates from your computer to
the hosted version.
Steve

Connection to remote sql server db

Hi,
I'm new to SQL and would like to connect to a remote sql server where a
website is hosted and do some updates.
I have a local sqlserver setup here, could you pl guide me
some doc or urls.
I have to backup the db frm the remote sqlserver, my host company told me to
use dts to carry out the back from their server.
Pleaase advice how can I do this
Many Thanks
Shan
"shan" <shan@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:670104E2-8986-432A-946C-C2C41931673A@.microsoft.com...
> I'm new to SQL and would like to connect to a remote sql server where a
> website is hosted and do some updates.
> I have a local sqlserver setup here, could you pl guide me
> some doc or urls.
> I have to backup the db frm the remote sqlserver, my host company told me
to
> use dts to carry out the back from their server.
> Pleaase advice how can I do this
The host company could allow a VPN tunnel to the remote server and/or open
the proper firewall ports to/from your computer. You could then use DTS, or
TSQL to issue a BACKUP... or synchronize the updates from your computer to
the hosted version.
Steve

Connection to oracle / sqlserver / db2 databases

Hi All,

Is there a way in SSIS to change the database connection to sqlserver or oracle or db2 without choosing the connection manager in the source.

For e.g. I ran a package which is reading data from sqlserver and later i want to connect to oracle to read the data but without changing the connection manager in the source.

Basically, i want to find out from you gurus is about a way to switch between databases without changing the connection managers. OR the only way is to make different sets of packages for oracle / db2 and sqlserver sources ?

Thanks,

Vipul

Vipul123 wrote:

Hi All,

Is there a way in SSIS to change the database connection to sqlserver or oracle or db2 without choosing the connection manager in the source.

For e.g. I ran a package which is reading data from sqlserver and later i want to connect to oracle to read the data but without changing the connection manager in the source.

Basically, i want to find out from you gurus is about a way to switch between databases without changing the connection managers. OR the only way is to make different sets of packages for oracle / db2 and sqlserver sources ?

Thanks,

Vipul

You could use a configuration and change it in there. Judging by another post of yours you have already done this hence, could you lock this thread? If you don't have permission to lock the thread, let me know. I will be able to do it.

-Jamie

|||

Jamie,

Please lock the thread as i dont have the permisssion to do it.

Thanks,

Vipul

Connection String to connect to SQLServer Express?

Hi

I've been trying to get DotNetNuke to connect to a SQLServer Express database but no luck. I've had no luck with info from their forums...

The connection string I'm supposed to use is:

<add
name="SiteSqlServer"
connectionString="Data Source=.\SQLExpress;Integrated Security=True;User Instance=True;AttachDBFilename=|DataDirectory|Database.mdf;"
providerName="System.Data.SqlClient" />

I just can't get it to connect to the database. Says something that remote connections are not allowed. I've done the Area thing and allowed all connection including remote connections.

Can't we use the standard string like:

<add
name="SiteSqlServer"
connectionString="Server=(local);Database=DotNetNuke;uid=;pwd=;"
providerName="System.Data.SqlClient" />

...to connect? I'd like to setup a user and give the username and password in the connection string - real easy and non-complicated...

Any ideas or help?

Andre

Please try "...provider = SQLNCLI; Integrated Security = SSPI.." or "...provider = SQLOLEDB; Integrated Security = SSPI.."

Hope, it helps.

|||Make sure via Surface Area Configuration Tool (under Database Engine) you permit Remote Connections -> Local and remote connections -> TCP/IP and named pipes, if your security situation permits.

Connection string OLEDB - SqlServer

I need to conect my software from a remote client to a server, my
standard connection:

Provider=SQLOLEDB.1;Persist Security Info=False;User
ID=sa;Password=;Initial Catalog=MyDb;Data
Source=192.168.0.100;Network=DBMSSOCN;

and

Provider=SQLOLEDB.1;Persist Security Info=False;User
ID=sa;Password=;Initial Catalog=MyDb;Data
Source=192.168.0.100;Network=DBNMPNTW;

make a error connection,
i have tryed with ODBC connection and its OK only in Named Piped.

Can any one help me write the right connection string?

thanks
rmrmartin (rmartin@.freemail.it) writes:
> I need to conect my software from a remote client to a server, my
> standard connection:
> Provider=SQLOLEDB.1;Persist Security Info=False;User
> ID=sa;Password=;Initial Catalog=MyDb;Data
> Source=192.168.0.100;Network=DBMSSOCN;
> and
> Provider=SQLOLEDB.1;Persist Security Info=False;User
> ID=sa;Password=;Initial Catalog=MyDb;Data
> Source=192.168.0.100;Network=DBNMPNTW;
> make a error connection,
> i have tryed with ODBC connection and its OK only in Named Piped.
> Can any one help me write the right connection string?

Maybe. If you help us to help you. If you get any error message, please
post it. It would also help if you shared information about your network.

You talk about named pipes, but in the connection string you have an
IP address. I'm not good a networking, but it does not sound like a
good thing to me. In any case, I believe it is better to not specify
the network library at all, but control that from the Client Network
Utility.

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

Books Online for SQL Server SP3 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techin.../2000/books.asp|||"rmartin" <rmartin@.freemail.it> wrote in message
news:d7999283.0501261007.201e7769@.posting.google.c om...
>I need to conect my software from a remote client to a server, my
> standard connection:
> Provider=SQLOLEDB.1;Persist Security Info=False;User
> ID=sa;Password=;Initial Catalog=MyDb;Data
> Source=192.168.0.100;Network=DBMSSOCN;
> and
> Provider=SQLOLEDB.1;Persist Security Info=False;User
> ID=sa;Password=;Initial Catalog=MyDb;Data
> Source=192.168.0.100;Network=DBNMPNTW;
> make a error connection,
> i have tryed with ODBC connection and its OK only in Named Piped.
> Can any one help me write the right connection string?
> thanks
> rm

In addition to Erland's comments, you might find the sample connection
strings here useful:

http://www.able-consulting.com/ADO_Conn.htm

Simon

Connection String in ASP.NEt

Hi

I'm using VB.NET in ASP.NET .

Windows 2000

Visual Studio 2005

and SQLServer 2005.

I'm new to VS 2005

I'm using the following code for connection

<

addkey="dsnstring"value="persist Security info=False; User ID=; password=;Initial Catalog=TransMate1; Data Source=Localhost trusted_connection=yes" />

it is giving the error as 'Cann't do the connection since user id cann't be null

It is not exact words of the error message.

following code is working fine with the SQL Server 2003 but not with SQL Server 2005.

<add key="dsnstring" value="persist Security info=False; User ID=sa; password=dreams;Initial Catalog=TransMate; Data Source=Localhost" />

Kindly help me

Thanks in advance

Regards.

If you use Trusted_Connection=yes that is, Windows Authentication, do not have userid or password in the connection string since they are dealed by the Windows authentication. You don't provide them in that case.

<add key="dsnstring" value="Initial Catalog=TransMate1; Data Source=Localhost;trusted_connection=yes" />

Connection String for remote Sql server

Hi,

I trying to connect to the sql server in the network. The sqlserver is in the machine called "pinnacle". I am Using the following connection string to connect and i am getting the error "Sql server does not exist or Access denied"

Public databaseConnectionStringSQLAsString = "Data Source=(pinnacle);Initial Catalog=cms;Trusted_connection=True;User Id=dbuser;Password=password"

Any help will be appriciated.

Reagrds,

Thiyasoft

Try to change Trusted_connection to false and you don't need the parentheses around the server name..|||I tried , still i got the same error.|||

If you are trying to connect to a remote sql server 2005 then you may have to set up the server to allow remote connections.

http://www.datamasker.com/SSE2005_NetworkCfg.htm

|||

First make sure your connection string is correct. You can checkwww.connectionstrings.com. Use correct value for Data Source property. SQL Server Instance name is the machine name if it is a default instance, and in case of named instance the SQL instance name should be machinename/SQLInstancename (e.g. myserver/SQLEXPRESS).

And you also need to check remote connections on the remote SQL instance, please check this KB.

If connect via the SQL instance name still fails with error "SQL Server does not exist...", you can try to force the connection using TCP/IP network library as mentioned inthis post.