Connectivty problem from NON domain users

I have a problem esteblishing a connection to a SQL server with a SQL user,
while I am logged to the computer with a local computer.
Any domain account can has no problem.
What can ause this?
Thanks in advance,
Ido Friedman
What tool are you connecting from?
How are you trying to connect?
Do you know for sure that you are trying to connect via SQL Authentication?
Have you tried hitting the Data Sources (ODBC) applet within the Control
Panel and creating a test connection?
Keith Kratochvil
"Ido friedman" <Idofriedman@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:934F22F5-2624-49B2-AC35-1970C1AE876D@.microsoft.com...
>I have a problem esteblishing a connection to a SQL server with a SQL user,
> while I am logged to the computer with a local computer.
> Any domain account can has no problem.
> What can ause this?
> Thanks in advance,
> Ido Friedman
|||Do you have mixed mode authentication enabled?
To enable...
SQL 2005
In SQL Server Management Studio Object Explorer, right-click your server,
and then click Properties.
On the Security page, under Server authentication, select the new server
authentication mode, and then click OK.
In the SQL Server Management Studio dialog box, click OK, to acknowledge the
need to restart SQL Server.
SQL 2000
Expand a server group.
Right-click a server, and then click Properties.
Click the Security tab.
Under Authentication, click SQL Server and Windows.
Under Audit level, select the level at which user accesses to Microsoft SQL
ServerT are recorded in the SQL Server error log:
None causes no auditing to be performed.
Success causes only successful login attempts to be audited.
Failure causes only failed login attempts to be audited.
All causes successful and failed login attempts to be audited.
Hope that helps...
/*
Warren Brunk - MCITP - SQL 2005, MCDBA
www.techintsolutions.com
*/
"Ido friedman" <Idofriedman@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:934F22F5-2624-49B2-AC35-1970C1AE876D@.microsoft.com...
>I have a problem esteblishing a connection to a SQL server with a SQL user,
> while I am logged to the computer with a local computer.
> Any domain account can has no problem.
> What can ause this?
> Thanks in advance,
> Ido Friedman
|||Thanks for your reply,
I am using the following ASP page:
The page is running in IIS under the local user IUser_computername.
When I run the same code with a domain account it successeds.
Thanks in advance,
Ido Friedman
<%
Dim dataSource
On Error Resume Next
Set cnn = Server.CreateObject("ADODB.Connection")
cnn.open "PROVIDER=SQLOLEDB;DATA
SOURCE=servername";UID=user;PWD=user;DATABASE=nort hwind"
If err.number = 0 Then
Response.Write(cnn.State)
cnn.Close
Else
Response.Write( err.Description )
End If
Response.End
%>
"Warren Brunk" wrote:

> Do you have mixed mode authentication enabled?
> To enable...
> SQL 2005
> In SQL Server Management Studio Object Explorer, right-click your server,
> and then click Properties.
> On the Security page, under Server authentication, select the new server
> authentication mode, and then click OK.
> In the SQL Server Management Studio dialog box, click OK, to acknowledge the
> need to restart SQL Server.
>
> SQL 2000
> Expand a server group.
>
> Right-click a server, and then click Properties.
>
> Click the Security tab.
>
> Under Authentication, click SQL Server and Windows.
>
> Under Audit level, select the level at which user accesses to Microsoft? SQL
> ServerT are recorded in the SQL Server error log:
> None causes no auditing to be performed.
>
> Success causes only successful login attempts to be audited.
>
> Failure causes only failed login attempts to be audited.
>
> All causes successful and failed login attempts to be audited.
>
> Hope that helps...
>
> --
> /*
> Warren Brunk - MCITP - SQL 2005, MCDBA
> www.techintsolutions.com
> */
>
> "Ido friedman" <Idofriedman@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:934F22F5-2624-49B2-AC35-1970C1AE876D@.microsoft.com...
>
>

connectivity issues after SP2

Recently I upgraded a prod db server and since then users are experiencing
connectivity issues. The application errors out with :
Description [DBNETLIB] [ConnectionWrite (send()).] General network error.
Check your network documentation.
They try to ingore the error and sometimes work but not always.
No changes on the application side. The server is 64b Windows Server 2003 EE
with SQL 2005 EE 64b. installed. I upgraded both windows and sql to their SP2
..
I do have a test env. and there everithing went smoothly and no problems
have been reported.
No errors in the logs (both windows and sql server). A warning that network
card driver is outdated (Broadcom 1G). No network issues
The server is usually heavy loaded 8-5 and these issues start early
afternoon and once started happening they dont go away until users are done
for the day.
I am afraid of db corruption and all I can think about is to roll off the
service packs (both windows and sql)
Please help
Ellie
Can you show us connection string?
"Ellie" <Ellie@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6C9C0F3B-C118-4B71-9F40-119D874EE783@.microsoft.com...
> Recently I upgraded a prod db server and since then users are experiencing
> connectivity issues. The application errors out with :
> Description [DBNETLIB] [ConnectionWrite (send()).] General network error.
> Check your network documentation.
> They try to ingore the error and sometimes work but not always.
> No changes on the application side. The server is 64b Windows Server 2003
> EE
> with SQL 2005 EE 64b. installed. I upgraded both windows and sql to their
> SP2
> .
> I do have a test env. and there everithing went smoothly and no problems
> have been reported.
> No errors in the logs (both windows and sql server). A warning that
> network
> card driver is outdated (Broadcom 1G). No network issues
> The server is usually heavy loaded 8-5 and these issues start early
> afternoon and once started happening they dont go away until users are
> done
> for the day.
> I am afraid of db corruption and all I can think about is to roll off the
> service packs (both windows and sql)
> Please help
|||> I am afraid of db corruption
No, I doubt it. You would be seeing different symptoms than connectivity
issues.
Have you considered paying attention to the network card driver issue? And
are you sure this isn't a network issue that happens to have started at or
around the same time you installed the service packs? Maybe there is some
process that is now running in the early afternoon that is hogging bandwidth
and making the network unreliable?

connectivity issues after SP2

Recently I upgraded a prod db server and since then users are experiencing
connectivity issues. The application errors out with :
Description [DBNETLIB] [ConnectionWrite (send()).] General network error.
Check your network documentation.
They try to ingore the error and sometimes work but not always.
No changes on the application side. The server is 64b Windows Server 2003 EE
with SQL 2005 EE 64b. installed. I upgraded both windows and sql to their SP2
.
I do have a test env. and there everithing went smoothly and no problems
have been reported.
No errors in the logs (both windows and sql server). A warning that network
card driver is outdated (Broadcom 1G). No network issues
The server is usually heavy loaded 8-5 and these issues start early
afternoon and once started happening they dont go away until users are done
for the day.
I am afraid of db corruption and all I can think about is to roll off the
service packs (both windows and sql)
Please helpEllie
Can you show us connection string?
"Ellie" <Ellie@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6C9C0F3B-C118-4B71-9F40-119D874EE783@.microsoft.com...
> Recently I upgraded a prod db server and since then users are experiencing
> connectivity issues. The application errors out with :
> Description [DBNETLIB] [ConnectionWrite (send()).] General network error.
> Check your network documentation.
> They try to ingore the error and sometimes work but not always.
> No changes on the application side. The server is 64b Windows Server 2003
> EE
> with SQL 2005 EE 64b. installed. I upgraded both windows and sql to their
> SP2
> .
> I do have a test env. and there everithing went smoothly and no problems
> have been reported.
> No errors in the logs (both windows and sql server). A warning that
> network
> card driver is outdated (Broadcom 1G). No network issues
> The server is usually heavy loaded 8-5 and these issues start early
> afternoon and once started happening they dont go away until users are
> done
> for the day.
> I am afraid of db corruption and all I can think about is to roll off the
> service packs (both windows and sql)
> Please help|||> I am afraid of db corruption
No, I doubt it. You would be seeing different symptoms than connectivity
issues.
Have you considered paying attention to the network card driver issue? And
are you sure this isn't a network issue that happens to have started at or
around the same time you installed the service packs? Maybe there is some
process that is now running in the early afternoon that is hogging bandwidth
and making the network unreliable?

ConnectionString without Password

Hello!

I am working at a ASP.NET Project with has a sign-in area. All users (the aspnet_Membership and so on) are on an external SQL Server stored.

The ConnectionString in the web.config looks like this:

<add name="hspWerbung" connectionString="Persist Security Info=False;User ID=XXXXX;Password=XXXXX;Initial Catalog=HSPWERBUNG01;Data Source=SERVER_SQL_02\STOCKHOLM"
providerName="System.Data.SqlClient" /
Is there any way to create a ConnectionString without the User ID and without the password?

When i want to reach my site on the web (not with http://localhost/...) , i can't do it with "Integrated Security=True", because there will be no user, or?

hi, some where we have to store the user name and pwd. the alternative apoach is to encript them and store in the xml file using hash algorthim. when ever you are trying to connect to the DB get the string and decript it and store in the cache or session.

sqlsql

Connections Limit?

Hi,

I have an application with a DAL that has an interface with SQL Server.
The application has 400 users that open the web forms.
My question is:
Is there a limit of the parallel connections that can be opened? Or the IIS is managing all the access to the DB? Should I worry about the performance Or it's normal behaviour for ASP.NET applications?

Thanks::The application has 400 users that open the web forms.

No, it does not. It has 25 users concurrently per processor, maximum. Unless you play around with the settings, this is the number of workther threads ASP.NET utilizes.

::Or the IIS is managing all the access to the DB?

It is, but you musth avea programming error, because the number should never go higher than 25 per processor.

You are not, by chance, not closing the connections?sqlsql

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.It is most probably not required. Typically it is efficient to make and break connections as required from the client side code. The driver/provider maintains a pool of connections anyway which will help in reuse of connections. This also means that you manage resources more efficiently on the client side. It is possible to leak connection resources if used incorrectly from client side and this may require frequent restarts of the application or bad performance over time. Some connections could also be orphaned both on client/server depending on the complexity of the application. So it is generally not a good idea to keep too many open connections from an application to SQL Server. And lastly, connections to take some resources on the server (see books online capacity specifications topic).

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:
> > 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
>|||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

Connection to the SSAS Cubes

I have some users connecting to the cubes using excel, is there any way i can track which users aere connected to the cubes without using the Profiler/running a trace.

You can do an XMLA discover command to discover the current sessions/connections

<Discover xmlns="urnchemas-microsoft-com:xml-analysis">

<RequestType>DISCOVER_SESSIONS</RequestType>

<Restrictions>

<RestrictionList />

</Restrictions>

<Properties>

<PropertyList />

</Properties>

</Discover>

<Discover xmlns="urnchemas-microsoft-com:xml-analysis">

<RequestType>DISCOVER_CONNECTIONS</RequestType>

<Restrictions>

<RestrictionList />

</Restrictions>

<Properties>

<PropertyList />

</Properties>

</Discover>

But I think that the easiest way to run these commands is to use the Analysis Services Stored Procedure Project www.codeplex.com/asstoredprocedures where you can do the equivalent and get the results in an easy to read table form by doing

CALL ASSP.DiscoverSessions();

or

CALL ASSP.DiscoverConnections();

There was also an AMO Activity sample (or something like that) in the Analysis Services product samples that could show this sort of information.

Connection to SQL Server 2000 From an ASP Page

Dear All,
I'm really confusing while reading the connections Issue in the support
knowledge.
Our Company website guest users can register themselves in my website. The
data goes to the SQL Server database 2000 which also used by internal users
of my company as Inhouse Database. So I want to restrict the Website Guest
users. Whats the safest way to connect to?.
Actually MY IIS SQL Server running on different machine(as stated in
support base)
1. I have created windows user a/c (say WEBUSER) on both machines with the
same password.
2. I have created a login a/c SQL Server for WEBUSER too.
But unfortunately I am getting "Internal Server Error" - Page Can not be
Displayed.
My connection String is as follows:
dc0.Open "Provider=sqloledb;" & _
"Network Library=DBNETLIB;" & _
"Integrated Security=SSPI." & _
"Data Source=ServerName;" & _
"Initial Catalog=DatabaseName;" & _
"User ID=UserName;" & _
"Password=password"
Please advice me is this safe?. Why I'm getting the error?
Thanks
Kavi
As a first step, try the following:
Log onto SQL Query Analyser and log on with the DataSource/username/password
that is used withing your connection string.
If this is OK , simulate a SQL statement that is similar that will run by a
web user.
At this point, you'll know that the account is OK.
can you connect , for example, via telnet to the sql server?
Are other pages running on the web server.
Also, see if you can trap the error and print it on the page.
Jack Vamvas
___________________________________
Receive free SQL tips - www.ciquery.com/sqlserver.htm
"Kavi" <Kavi@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:FA375A40-B27B-44DE-9584-7CC8B781AFE1@.microsoft.com...
> Dear All,
> I'm really confusing while reading the connections Issue in the support
> knowledge.
> Our Company website guest users can register themselves in my website. The
> data goes to the SQL Server database 2000 which also used by internal
users
> of my company as Inhouse Database. So I want to restrict the Website Guest
> users. Whats the safest way to connect to?.
> Actually MY IIS SQL Server running on different machine(as stated in
> support base)
> 1. I have created windows user a/c (say WEBUSER) on both machines with
the
> same password.
> 2. I have created a login a/c SQL Server for WEBUSER too.
> But unfortunately I am getting "Internal Server Error" - Page Can not be
> Displayed.
> My connection String is as follows:
> dc0.Open "Provider=sqloledb;" & _
> "Network Library=DBNETLIB;" & _
> "Integrated Security=SSPI." & _
> "Data Source=ServerName;" & _
> "Initial Catalog=DatabaseName;" & _
> "User ID=UserName;" & _
> "Password=password"
> Please advice me is this safe?. Why I'm getting the error?
> Thanks
> Kavi
>
|||Thanks Jack. I'll try.
"Jack Vamvas" wrote:

> As a first step, try the following:
> Log onto SQL Query Analyser and log on with the DataSource/username/password
> that is used withing your connection string.
> If this is OK , simulate a SQL statement that is similar that will run by a
> web user.
> At this point, you'll know that the account is OK.
> can you connect , for example, via telnet to the sql server?
> Are other pages running on the web server.
> Also, see if you can trap the error and print it on the page.
>
> --
> Jack Vamvas
> ___________________________________
> Receive free SQL tips - www.ciquery.com/sqlserver.htm
>
> "Kavi" <Kavi@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:FA375A40-B27B-44DE-9584-7CC8B781AFE1@.microsoft.com...
> users
> the
>
>
|||In the Advanced tab of Internet Options of IE, uncheck "Show friendly
HTTP error messages". Then you usually can see the whole error
message.
Shane

Connection to SQL Server 2000 From an ASP Page

Dear All,
I'm really confusing while reading the connections Issue in the support
knowledge.
Our Company website guest users can register themselves in my website. The
data goes to the SQL Server database 2000 which also used by internal users
of my company as Inhouse Database. So I want to restrict the Website Guest
users. Whats the safest way to connect to?.
Actually MY IIS SQL Server running on different machine(as stated in
support base)
1. I have created windows user a/c (say WEBUSER) on both machines with the
same password.
2. I have created a login a/c SQL Server for WEBUSER too.
But unfortunately I am getting "Internal Server Error" - Page Can not be
Displayed.
My connection String is as follows:
dc0.Open "Provider=sqloledb;" & _
"Network Library=DBNETLIB;" & _
"Integrated Security=SSPI." & _
"Data Source=ServerName;" & _
"Initial Catalog=DatabaseName;" & _
"User ID=UserName;" & _
"Password=password"
Please advice me is this safe?. Why I'm getting the error?
Thanks
KaviAs a first step, try the following:
Log onto SQL Query Analyser and log on with the DataSource/username/password
that is used withing your connection string.
If this is OK , simulate a SQL statement that is similar that will run by a
web user.
At this point, you'll know that the account is OK.
can you connect , for example, via telnet to the sql server?
Are other pages running on the web server.
Also, see if you can trap the error and print it on the page.
Jack Vamvas
___________________________________
Receive free SQL tips - www.ciquery.com/sqlserver.htm
"Kavi" <Kavi@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:FA375A40-B27B-44DE-9584-7CC8B781AFE1@.microsoft.com...
> Dear All,
> I'm really confusing while reading the connections Issue in the support
> knowledge.
> Our Company website guest users can register themselves in my website. The
> data goes to the SQL Server database 2000 which also used by internal
users
> of my company as Inhouse Database. So I want to restrict the Website Guest
> users. Whats the safest way to connect to?.
> Actually MY IIS SQL Server running on different machine(as stated in
> support base)
> 1. I have created windows user a/c (say WEBUSER) on both machines with
the
> same password.
> 2. I have created a login a/c SQL Server for WEBUSER too.
> But unfortunately I am getting "Internal Server Error" - Page Can not be
> Displayed.
> My connection String is as follows:
> dc0.Open "Provider=sqloledb;" & _
> "Network Library=DBNETLIB;" & _
> "Integrated Security=SSPI." & _
> "Data Source=ServerName;" & _
> "Initial Catalog=DatabaseName;" & _
> "User ID=UserName;" & _
> "Password=password"
> Please advice me is this safe?. Why I'm getting the error?
> Thanks
> Kavi
>|||Thanks Jack. I'll try.
"Jack Vamvas" wrote:

> As a first step, try the following:
> Log onto SQL Query Analyser and log on with the DataSource/username/passwo
rd
> that is used withing your connection string.
> If this is OK , simulate a SQL statement that is similar that will run by
a
> web user.
> At this point, you'll know that the account is OK.
> can you connect , for example, via telnet to the sql server?
> Are other pages running on the web server.
> Also, see if you can trap the error and print it on the page.
>
> --
> Jack Vamvas
> ___________________________________
> Receive free SQL tips - www.ciquery.com/sqlserver.htm
>
> "Kavi" <Kavi@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:FA375A40-B27B-44DE-9584-7CC8B781AFE1@.microsoft.com...
> users
> the
>
>|||In the Advanced tab of Internet Options of IE, uncheck "Show friendly
HTTP error messages". Then you usually can see the whole error
message.
Shane

connection string with authenticated user info

Hi. New to ASP.NET and first time posting.

My web app connects to a SQL database - SQL authentication.

Users login to the web app through the login server control. Once authenticated, it is my understanding that the user name and password are stored on the client as a cookie.

How do you programmatically get this user info and use it for the userid and password parameters of the connection string?

Is there a better way to use the authenticated user info to access a SQL database?

Thanks

Once authenticated (using asp.net login control), you can get the user info programmatically using:

Page

.User.Identity ( for example,Page.User.Identity.Name returns the username )|||

Thanks for the info.

I did some reading on Page.User.Identity, but don't understand how to get the password used for login. I need both the username and password to authenticate in SQL server.

Connection String Options ...Urgent .. plz reply

Hi

In my project , we are using Dsn and DSN less connection, for certain functionality

we are providing users to select tables and views .

we don't want that all system tables and views are listed for selecting , how can we achieve this functionality?

Is there any options in the connection string for restricting system tables and views?

Any help is much appriciated

Thanks

Saurabh

Book mark the following site;

http://www.connectionstrings.com/