Load balancing with Sql Server 2005 in Active/Active mode

This is in regards to the MS SQL

Server 2005 Cluster testing.

I have the set-up in

Active/Passive configuration.

We decided upon moving to the Active/Active

configuration, did some research on the internet for the additional features

which we get with this configuration and what could be the benefits of this over

the Active/Passive configuration. We have a query regarding the Active/Active

configuration. Please find below the details on the

same:

The Current Setup in Active/Passive

configuration has the following details:

1)

There are two nodes “node 1” and

“node 2” setup on Virtual Server 2005.

2)

A cluster has been set up using

“node 1” and “node 2”.

3)

A SQL server default instance is

installed on “node 1”. While SQL server 2005 was installed, it created a

resource SQL server IP.

To connect to this SQL server

instance, our application uses SQL server IP created in step 3. (Please note

that this is the only IP through which we are able to connect to SQL cluster).

The fail-over features are working fine in this configuration. If “node 1” goes

down then the SQL server instance runs in “node 2”. This is taken care of by

cluster and is transparent to our application.

However, there is no provision for

load balancing as only one node is active at a

time.

After some research, we came across

Active/Active configuration which is supposed to support load

balancing.

We understand that in this

configuration, Step 1and 2 are similar to the Active/Passive configuration. The

only difference is in step 3 where an instance of SQL server is installed on

each node, thus providing two active nodes at a time. The failover works just

like in Active/Passive configuration.

As per the above information, the

Active/Active configuration seems to be similar to two SQL server instances

running independently.There will be two seperate databases and on failure of one instance other instance wont be able to cater to the requests designed for first instance, Thus providing no extra benefits from

cluster.

We require the information on how to

take benefits of the load balancing features in this configuration.

SQL Server 2005 doesn't support load-balancing in the way that you are describing, the main problem being that only one instance of SQL Server can access a database's data and log files at a time.

Have a look at these links for more info as to how load balancing can be achieved:

http://searchsqlserver.techtarget.com/tip/1,289483,sid87_gci1127807,00.html

http://searchsqlserver.techtarget.com/tip/0,289483,sid87_gci1133488,00.html

Chris

|||As mentioned, MS SQL Server does not provide a way to do "active/active" cluster.

What you have installed would be a "high availablity" cluster, ie if one goes down, the other picks up.

If you need load balancing, you install 2 unique SQL installations and run "transactional replication" between them to make the databases the same. Then use a 3rd load balancing device to balance between them, problaby using "sticky sessions".

If you need both, high availabilty and load balancing, you install TWO 2 node clusters (4 servers + load balancing device) with transactional replication between cluster 1 and cluster 2.

I always recommend getting bigger/faster/better hardware and using 1 cluster of 2 servers.

Load balancing with SQl server 2005 cluster in active/active configuration

This is in regards to the MS SQL

Server 2005 Cluster testing.

I have the set-up in

Active/Passive configuration.

We decided upon moving to the Active/Active

configuration, did some research on the internet for the additional features

which we get with this configuration and what could be the benefits of this over

the Active/Passive configuration. We have a query regarding the Active/Active

configuration. Please find below the details on the

same:

The Current Setup in Active/Passive

configuration has the following details:

1)

There are two nodes “node 1” and

“node 2” setup on Virtual Server 2005.

2)

A cluster has been set up using

“node 1” and “node 2”.

3)

A SQL server default instance is

installed on “node 1”. While SQL server 2005 was installed, it created a

resource SQL server IP.

To connect to this SQL server

instance, our application uses SQL server IP created in step 3. (Please note

that this is the only IP through which we are able to connect to SQL cluster).

The fail-over features are working fine in this configuration. If “node 1” goes

down then the SQL server instance runs in “node 2”. This is taken care of by

cluster and is transparent to our application.

However, there is no provision for

load balancing as only one node is active at a

time.

After some research, we came across

Active/Active configuration which is supposed to support load

balancing.

We understand that in this

configuration, Step 1and 2 are similar to the Active/Passive configuration. The

only difference is in step 3 where an instance of SQL server is installed on

each node, thus providing two active nodes at a time. The failover works just

like in Active/Passive configuration.

As

per the above information, the Active/Active configuration seems to be

similar to two SQL server instances running independently.There will be

two seperate databases and on failure of one instance other instance

wont be able to cater to the requests designed for first instance, Thus

providing no extra benefits from cluster.

We require the information on how to

take benefits of the load balancing features in this configuration.

Hi geetu...

MSCS (Microsoft Cluster Services) is not a load-balancing product, it is simply a high-availability solution, period...load balancing does not come in to play at all with clustering a Sql database...the term Active/Active seems to imply that this would be the case, which is why we typically try to refer to them as Multi-instance clusters now instead of the Active/Active label. Active/Active in the MSCS world basically means that you have 2 independent Sql Server instances running on 2 cluster nodes - these instances are independent of each other in all respects, obviously unless you link them in some manner with custom business logic, replication, etc. Think of them for all intents and purposes as 2 seperate instances running on seperate servers at all times (as that's what they really are)...the only difference being that in case of a physical node failure (or service failure on a node), the instance will be moved to and hosted on a second physical server.

I'd be curious to know what research you came across that implied load-balancing as a feature with MSCS so we can try and get it corrected, or possibly clarify what position the author was taking.

To support load-balancing, or scaling out in a Sql Server environment you have a couple of different options, depending on your edition, environment, version of Sql, etc. Take a look at the following articles for a start:

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa479364.aspx

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/scddrtng.mspx

HTH

|||

Hi Geetu,

Basically, Active/Active Cluster is two Active/Passive Clusters.

As mentioned by Chad, they are completely independent of each other.

HTH

Jag

|||

I hope you got more information from Chad's reply here and as suggested you might need another solution, cluster will not provide the load balancing.

These 2 links shoudl give you information in this regard:

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2000/deploy/hasog04.mspx

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/community/chats/trans/sql/sql0513.mspx

http://www.sql-server-performance.com/dk_massive_scalability.asp

|||

It's pretty clear what geetu is trying to get at. Here is your answer geetu:

1. Instead of having the 2nd node idle until something happens to node1, you can split the databases between the 2 nodes.

2. While this is not the definition of classic Load Balancing, it does help balance the load between the two nodes while they are both up.

We have several customers who are configured like this and it works well.

The downside? The “size” of each of the 2 servers in terms of CPU, memory etc must be enough to handle all the databases that are normally served from the 2 nodes in case one node fails.

While this is the same requirement in the active/passive configuration, there is a danger that over time you will keeps adding load to both nodes independently and at time of failure, the failover node will die as well because of a sudden overwhelming load.

Sometimes when smarty MSFT employees respond, they should be more respectful to the person who is posting a question, instead of being arrogant.

sql

Load balancing with SQl server 2005 cluster in active/active configuration

This is in regards to the MS SQL Server 2005 Cluster testing.

I have the set-up in Active/Passive configuration.

We decided upon moving to the Active/Active configuration, did some research on the internet for the additional features which we get with this configuration and what could be the benefits of this over the Active/Passive configuration. We have a query regarding the Active/Active configuration. Please find below the details on the same:

The Current Setup in Active/Passive configuration has the following details:

1) There are two nodes “node 1” and “node 2” setup on Virtual Server 2005.

2) A cluster has been set up using “node 1” and “node 2”.

3) A SQL server default instance is installed on “node 1”. While SQL server 2005 was installed, it created a resource SQL server IP.

To connect to this SQL server instance, our application uses SQL server IP created in step 3. (Please note that this is the only IP through which we are able to connect to SQL cluster). The fail-over features are working fine in this configuration. If “node 1” goes down then the SQL server instance runs in “node 2”. This is taken care of by cluster and is transparent to our application.

However, there is no provision for load balancing as only one node is active at a time.

After some research, we came across Active/Active configuration which is supposed to support load balancing.

We understand that in this configuration, Step 1and 2 are similar to the Active/Passive configuration. The only difference is in step 3 where an instance of SQL server is installed on each node, thus providing two active nodes at a time. The failover works just like in Active/Passive configuration.

As per the above information, the Active/Active configuration seems to be similar to two SQL server instances running independently.There will be two seperate databases and on failure of one instance other instance wont be able to cater to the requests designed for first instance, Thus providing no extra benefits from cluster.

We require the information on how to take benefits of the load balancing features in this configuration.

Hi geetu...

MSCS (Microsoft Cluster Services) is not a load-balancing product, it is simply a high-availability solution, period...load balancing does not come in to play at all with clustering a Sql database...the term Active/Active seems to imply that this would be the case, which is why we typically try to refer to them as Multi-instance clusters now instead of the Active/Active label. Active/Active in the MSCS world basically means that you have 2 independent Sql Server instances running on 2 cluster nodes - these instances are independent of each other in all respects, obviously unless you link them in some manner with custom business logic, replication, etc. Think of them for all intents and purposes as 2 seperate instances running on seperate servers at all times (as that's what they really are)...the only difference being that in case of a physical node failure (or service failure on a node), the instance will be moved to and hosted on a second physical server.

I'd be curious to know what research you came across that implied load-balancing as a feature with MSCS so we can try and get it corrected, or possibly clarify what position the author was taking.

To support load-balancing, or scaling out in a Sql Server environment you have a couple of different options, depending on your edition, environment, version of Sql, etc. Take a look at the following articles for a start:

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa479364.aspx

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/scddrtng.mspx

HTH

|||

Hi Geetu,

Basically, Active/Active Cluster is two Active/Passive Clusters.

As mentioned by Chad, they are completely independent of each other.

HTH

Jag

|||

I hope you got more information from Chad's reply here and as suggested you might need another solution, cluster will not provide the load balancing.

These 2 links shoudl give you information in this regard:

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2000/deploy/hasog04.mspx

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/community/chats/trans/sql/sql0513.mspx

http://www.sql-server-performance.com/dk_massive_scalability.asp

|||

It's pretty clear what geetu is trying to get at. Here is your answer geetu:

1. Instead of having the 2nd node idle until something happens to node1, you can split the databases between the 2 nodes.

2. While this is not the definition of classic Load Balancing, it does help balance the load between the two nodes while they are both up.

We have several customers who are configured like this and it works well.

The downside? The “size” of each of the 2 servers in terms of CPU, memory etc must be enough to handle all the databases that are normally served from the 2 nodes in case one node fails.

While this is the same requirement in the active/passive configuration, there is a danger that over time you will keeps adding load to both nodes independently and at time of failure, the failover node will die as well because of a sudden overwhelming load.

Sometimes when smarty MSFT employees respond, they should be more respectful to the person who is posting a question, instead of being arrogant.

Load Balancing

need advice for below scenario

currently am having a active / passive cluster sql 2000 server, due to the amount of transactions am moving to new high end servers with sql 2005 cluster.

incase the new cluster also doesnt stands the load what approach i should use similar to load balancing.

with regards

alby peter

The same options are available that would be available for a non-clustered system. Perhaps you can split your data into two separate sets on two separate instances and use distributed partitioned views (DPVs) or perhaps Peer-to-peer transactional replication to work with the data on each instance. Perhaps data dependent routing (DDR) can be used to have your client connect to the instance that likely has the data you want, and linked servers and DPVs can be used to access data that's on the other instance (or split across the two instances).

Don

|||

Dear Don,

thanks for the response.

i read about the above solutions is this type of real time replication in practice for real time servers. in peer to peer transactional replication how many servers could be idle for the best result.

thanks in advance

alby

|||

Replication does have some amount of latency, and though it might only be sub-second, you do need to evaluate your real-time requirements. DPVs access the actual data in its original location so there's no latency there.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'how many servers should be idle' .. I'd think you'd distribute the data across as many instances as are appropriate to meet your retrieval requirements for the given hardware. If your idle servers are 'passive nodes' within a failover cluster, then that depends on the reliability of your hardware and how crippled you'd be if two (or more) of your instances had to run on the same node.

Don

Load Balancing

need advice for below scenario

currently am having a active / passive cluster sql 2000 server, due to the amount of transactions am moving to new high end servers with sql 2005 cluster.

incase the new cluster also doesnt stands the load what approach i should use similar to load balancing.

with regards

alby peter

The same options are available that would be available for a non-clustered system. Perhaps you can split your data into two separate sets on two separate instances and use distributed partitioned views (DPVs) or perhaps Peer-to-peer transactional replication to work with the data on each instance. Perhaps data dependent routing (DDR) can be used to have your client connect to the instance that likely has the data you want, and linked servers and DPVs can be used to access data that's on the other instance (or split across the two instances).

Don

|||

Dear Don,

thanks for the response.

i read about the above solutions is this type of real time replication in practice for real time servers. in peer to peer transactional replication how many servers could be idle for the best result.

thanks in advance

alby

|||

Replication does have some amount of latency, and though it might only be sub-second, you do need to evaluate your real-time requirements. DPVs access the actual data in its original location so there's no latency there.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'how many servers should be idle' .. I'd think you'd distribute the data across as many instances as are appropriate to meet your retrieval requirements for the given hardware. If your idle servers are 'passive nodes' within a failover cluster, then that depends on the reliability of your hardware and how crippled you'd be if two (or more) of your instances had to run on the same node.

Don

sql

Load balancing

IS any way i can unable load balancing, Like i have two server poining to one
database on SAN and share the CPU and memory .
Is active /Active clustering give these feature
How can be active/active clustering differnet from active/passive clusering
There's no transparent load balancing for SQL Server. for more manual approaches, look into things
like "distributed partitioned view", replication, and of course manually splitting the data into two
databases one on each server. Clustering is for fail over, not load balancing.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"sunil" <sunil@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:223B5636-6457-4A31-988E-7A1D32870624@.microsoft.com...
> IS any way i can unable load balancing, Like i have two server poining to one
> database on SAN and share the CPU and memory .
> Is active /Active clustering give these feature
> How can be active/active clustering differnet from active/passive clusering
>
|||> Is active /Active clustering give these feature
SQL Server clustering is built on the shared-nothing model, meaning that no
resource is shared between the nodes of the cluster at the same time. You
may hear peopel talking about a shared disk in a cluster. The term 'shared'
in that context just means that the cluster nodes can take turn
accessing/using the disk.

> How can be active/active clustering differnet from active/passive
> clusering
Fundamentally, there is no difference between active/active and
active/passive. Loosely, people use ther term 'active/active' to mean that
both nodes (assuming a two-node cluster) are running SQL Server instances.
But these are different instances, thus managing different databases. And
the term 'active/passive' generally means that one node is not being used at
any given time, and is kept as a standby. In case the SQL instance(s)
running on the other node (i.e. the active node) runs into any problem, the
cluster service will start the SQL instance on this node, taking over the
rsources and making it active and the other passive (if it's available at
all). But there is absolutely no difference in terms of how the clutser
service decides to fail over a resource--including the SQL resoruces.
Some people prefer to use terms like single instance and multiple instances
instead of active/passive and active/active. But the latter seem to be more
intuitive to a lot of people.
Linchi
"sunil" <sunil@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:223B5636-6457-4A31-988E-7A1D32870624@.microsoft.com...
> IS any way i can unable load balancing, Like i have two server poining to
> one
> database on SAN and share the CPU and memory .
> Is active /Active clustering give these feature
> How can be active/active clustering differnet from active/passive
> clusering
>

Load balancing

IS any way i can unable load balancing, Like i have two server poining to one
database on SAN and share the CPU and memory .
Is active /Active clustering give these feature
How can be active/active clustering differnet from active/passive cluseringThere's no transparent load balancing for SQL Server. for more manual approaches, look into things
like "distributed partitioned view", replication, and of course manually splitting the data into two
databases one on each server. Clustering is for fail over, not load balancing.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"sunil" <sunil@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:223B5636-6457-4A31-988E-7A1D32870624@.microsoft.com...
> IS any way i can unable load balancing, Like i have two server poining to one
> database on SAN and share the CPU and memory .
> Is active /Active clustering give these feature
> How can be active/active clustering differnet from active/passive clusering
>|||> Is active /Active clustering give these feature
SQL Server clustering is built on the shared-nothing model, meaning that no
resource is shared between the nodes of the cluster at the same time. You
may hear peopel talking about a shared disk in a cluster. The term 'shared'
in that context just means that the cluster nodes can take turn
accessing/using the disk.
> How can be active/active clustering differnet from active/passive
> clusering
Fundamentally, there is no difference between active/active and
active/passive. Loosely, people use ther term 'active/active' to mean that
both nodes (assuming a two-node cluster) are running SQL Server instances.
But these are different instances, thus managing different databases. And
the term 'active/passive' generally means that one node is not being used at
any given time, and is kept as a standby. In case the SQL instance(s)
running on the other node (i.e. the active node) runs into any problem, the
cluster service will start the SQL instance on this node, taking over the
rsources and making it active and the other passive (if it's available at
all). But there is absolutely no difference in terms of how the clutser
service decides to fail over a resource--including the SQL resoruces.
Some people prefer to use terms like single instance and multiple instances
instead of active/passive and active/active. But the latter seem to be more
intuitive to a lot of people.
Linchi
"sunil" <sunil@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:223B5636-6457-4A31-988E-7A1D32870624@.microsoft.com...
> IS any way i can unable load balancing, Like i have two server poining to
> one
> database on SAN and share the CPU and memory .
> Is active /Active clustering give these feature
> How can be active/active clustering differnet from active/passive
> clusering
>

Load balancing

IS any way i can unable load balancing, Like i have two server poining to on
e
database on SAN and share the CPU and memory .
Is active /Active clustering give these feature
How can be active/active clustering differnet from active/passive cluseringThere's no transparent load balancing for SQL Server. for more manual approa
ches, look into things
like "distributed partitioned view", replication, and of course manually spl
itting the data into two
databases one on each server. Clustering is for fail over, not load balancin
g.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"sunil" <sunil@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:223B5636-6457-4A31-988E-7A1D32870624@.microsoft.com...
> IS any way i can unable load balancing, Like i have two server poining to
one
> database on SAN and share the CPU and memory .
> Is active /Active clustering give these feature
> How can be active/active clustering differnet from active/passive cluserin
g
>|||> Is active /Active clustering give these feature
SQL Server clustering is built on the shared-nothing model, meaning that no
resource is shared between the nodes of the cluster at the same time. You
may hear peopel talking about a shared disk in a cluster. The term 'shared'
in that context just means that the cluster nodes can take turn
accessing/using the disk.

> How can be active/active clustering differnet from active/passive
> clusering
Fundamentally, there is no difference between active/active and
active/passive. Loosely, people use ther term 'active/active' to mean that
both nodes (assuming a two-node cluster) are running SQL Server instances.
But these are different instances, thus managing different databases. And
the term 'active/passive' generally means that one node is not being used at
any given time, and is kept as a standby. In case the SQL instance(s)
running on the other node (i.e. the active node) runs into any problem, the
cluster service will start the SQL instance on this node, taking over the
rsources and making it active and the other passive (if it's available at
all). But there is absolutely no difference in terms of how the clutser
service decides to fail over a resource--including the SQL resoruces.
Some people prefer to use terms like single instance and multiple instances
instead of active/passive and active/active. But the latter seem to be more
intuitive to a lot of people.
Linchi
"sunil" <sunil@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:223B5636-6457-4A31-988E-7A1D32870624@.microsoft.com...
> IS any way i can unable load balancing, Like i have two server poining to
> one
> database on SAN and share the CPU and memory .
> Is active /Active clustering give these feature
> How can be active/active clustering differnet from active/passive
> clusering
>

listingreports that user has access

How can I get the list of reports that a user has only view reports access ?
the user is in windows server 2003 active directory.
reporting services 2000 is being used.
within the intranet there is a portal.
in the portal I want to list the available reports to the user
that he can access. I do not want to display all the reports to him and let
him choose. I want him to be able to see only the reports he is allowed to
see?
how can I do this using asp.net 1.1
thanx
rifatis it possible or not?
can someone answer please ?
thanx
rifatsql

Listing AD group members

Hello,
I'd like to create a report in Reporting Services 2000 listing the
members of a given Active Directory group.
I found on the internet a vbs-script to retrieve the information
needed:
Set objGroup = GetObject("LDAP://CN=MyGroup,OU=MyOU,DC=MyDC")
For Each objUser in objGroup.Members
Wscript.Echo "Name: " & objUser.DisplayName
Next
This script works fine.
However, I'm not very familiar with VBS-programming (and not with
custom code in Reporting Services either...)
How do I create a report that presents the result from the query?
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
WillyI've been working on a solution, but I'm stuck
In the Report Properties window on the Code tab I've entered the
following code:
Shared Function GetMembersByGroupSQL As String
Dim objGroup As Object
Dim objUser As Object
Dim strQuery As String
objGroup = GetObject("LDAP://CN=MyGroup,OU=MyOU,DC=MyDC")
For Each objUser In objGroup.Members
strQuery = "SELECT Naam = '" & objUser.DisplayName & "'"
Next
Return strQuery
End Function
(I realize I have to alter the For Each construction, in the end I
need strQuery to be something like
SELECT Naam='John' UNION SELECT Naam='Mary' UNION...
For now, only the last row will be returned.)
I've created a new dataset with command type set to 'Text' and entered
the following
= Code.GetMembersByGroupSQL
I've also added a field called 'Naam'.
When I run a report based on this dataset displaying name I get the
following error:
An error has occurred during report processing. (rsProcessingAborted)
Get Online Help
Cannot set the command text for data set 'dsGebruikersPerGroep'.
(rsErrorSettingCommandText) Get Online Help
Error during processing of the CommandText expression of dataset
'dsGebruikersPerGroep'. (rsQueryCommandTextProcessingError) Get Online
Help
There's something wrong with my VB code, because when I replace the
existing code with the following, all works fine:
Shared Function GetMembersByGroupSQL As String
Dim strQuery As String
strQuery = "SELECT Naam = 'John'"
Return strQuery
End Function
It seems like the following line of code is the problem: objGroup =GetObject("LDAP://CN=MyGroup,OU=MyOU,DC=MyDC")
I've tested the code in a vbs-script and it worked fine. Do I need to
add references to assembly's and/or classes to make it work?
Kind regards, Willy

List of Databases

I am writing an Active Server Page application that will get all of the
databases that a user can access. Is there a way I can do this with Active
Server Pages? I also will provide the users with the option to change
records, table structure, etc with this application.
I will also be developing an asp.net (C#) project that will do the same
thing.
If anyone can provide code snippets or anything that would be great.
Thanks,
Rick Langschultz
Web Developer/IT Manager
Rick Langschultz wrote:
> I am writing an Active Server Page application that will get all of
> the databases that a user can access. Is there a way I can do this
> with Active Server Pages? I also will provide the users with the
> option to change records, table structure, etc with this application.
> I will also be developing an asp.net (C#) project that will do the
> same thing.
> If anyone can provide code snippets or anything that would be great.
> Thanks,
> Rick Langschultz
> Web Developer/IT Manager
What database? Should we assume that it's SQL Server given the inclusion of
the sqlserver groups in your crosspost?
Please don't make us guess. We need to know the type and version of rdbms
you are using.
You left out the dotnet groups that could have helped you with the .Net
code you need (I'm responding from the .asp group which is for classic ASP
questions)
For starters, do a search at www.aspfaq.com. Here's one of the articles you
will find:
http://www.aspfaq.com/show.asp?id=2456
HTH,
Bob Barrows
Microsoft MVP - ASP/ASP.NET
Please reply to the newsgroup. This email account is my spam trap so I
don't check it very often. If you must reply off-line, then remove the
"NO SPAM"
|||the easiest way is:
select name from master.dbo.sysdatabases
Leo
"Rick Langschultz" wrote:

> I am writing an Active Server Page application that will get all of the
> databases that a user can access. Is there a way I can do this with Active
> Server Pages? I also will provide the users with the option to change
> records, table structure, etc with this application.
> I will also be developing an asp.net (C#) project that will do the same
> thing.
> If anyone can provide code snippets or anything that would be great.
> Thanks,
> Rick Langschultz
> Web Developer/IT Manager
>
>

List of Databases

I am writing an Active Server Page application that will get all of the
databases that a user can access. Is there a way I can do this with Active
Server Pages? I also will provide the users with the option to change
records, table structure, etc with this application.
I will also be developing an asp.net (C#) project that will do the same
thing.
If anyone can provide code snippets or anything that would be great.
Thanks,
Rick Langschultz
Web Developer/IT Manager
Rick Langschultz wrote:
> I am writing an Active Server Page application that will get all of
> the databases that a user can access. Is there a way I can do this
> with Active Server Pages? I also will provide the users with the
> option to change records, table structure, etc with this application.
> I will also be developing an asp.net (C#) project that will do the
> same thing.
> If anyone can provide code snippets or anything that would be great.
> Thanks,
> Rick Langschultz
> Web Developer/IT Manager
What database? Should we assume that it's SQL Server given the inclusion of
the sqlserver groups in your crosspost?
Please don't make us guess. We need to know the type and version of rdbms
you are using.
You left out the dotnet groups that could have helped you with the .Net
code you need (I'm responding from the .asp group which is for classic ASP
questions)
For starters, do a search at www.aspfaq.com. Here's one of the articles you
will find:
http://www.aspfaq.com/show.asp?id=2456
HTH,
Bob Barrows
Microsoft MVP - ASP/ASP.NET
Please reply to the newsgroup. This email account is my spam trap so I
don't check it very often. If you must reply off-line, then remove the
"NO SPAM"
|||the easiest way is:
select name from master.dbo.sysdatabases
Leo
"Rick Langschultz" wrote:

> I am writing an Active Server Page application that will get all of the
> databases that a user can access. Is there a way I can do this with Active
> Server Pages? I also will provide the users with the option to change
> records, table structure, etc with this application.
> I will also be developing an asp.net (C#) project that will do the same
> thing.
> If anyone can provide code snippets or anything that would be great.
> Thanks,
> Rick Langschultz
> Web Developer/IT Manager
>
>

List of Databases

I am writing an Active Server Page application that will get all of the
databases that a user can access. Is there a way I can do this with Active
Server Pages? I also will provide the users with the option to change
records, table structure, etc with this application.
I will also be developing an asp.net (C#) project that will do the same
thing.
If anyone can provide code snippets or anything that would be great.
Thanks,
Rick Langschultz
Web Developer/IT ManagerRick Langschultz wrote:
> I am writing an Active Server Page application that will get all of
> the databases that a user can access. Is there a way I can do this
> with Active Server Pages? I also will provide the users with the
> option to change records, table structure, etc with this application.
> I will also be developing an asp.net (C#) project that will do the
> same thing.
> If anyone can provide code snippets or anything that would be great.
> Thanks,
> Rick Langschultz
> Web Developer/IT Manager
What database? Should we assume that it's SQL Server given the inclusion of
the sqlserver groups in your crosspost?
Please don't make us guess. We need to know the type and version of rdbms
you are using.
You left out the dotnet groups that could have helped you with the .Net
code you need (I'm responding from the .asp group which is for classic ASP
questions)
For starters, do a search at www.aspfaq.com. Here's one of the articles you
will find:
http://www.aspfaq.com/show.asp?id=2456
HTH,
Bob Barrows
--
Microsoft MVP - ASP/ASP.NET
Please reply to the newsgroup. This email account is my spam trap so I
don't check it very often. If you must reply off-line, then remove the
"NO SPAM"|||the easiest way is:
select name from master.dbo.sysdatabases
Leo
"Rick Langschultz" wrote:

> I am writing an Active Server Page application that will get all of the
> databases that a user can access. Is there a way I can do this with Active
> Server Pages? I also will provide the users with the option to change
> records, table structure, etc with this application.
> I will also be developing an asp.net (C#) project that will do the same
> thing.
> If anyone can provide code snippets or anything that would be great.
> Thanks,
> Rick Langschultz
> Web Developer/IT Manager
>
>

List NT-User-Names in Active Directory (for SQL-Logins creation)

Hi there
I got - maybe a simple problem. A customer runs Active Directory Structure,
I've to implement a Application internal Security. That for, I have to list
all NT-Accounts of the Domain for the Adminstrator to select as a SQL Login.
In the SQL-Enterprise Mana
ger, if you add a new Login a dialog box appears, in which you can choose th
e Domain and the listed -NT-User (Group or User). Exactly this Dialog box I'
ve to rebuilt in the App. To find the Domain wasn't any problem, but to list
all Users and Groups, I do
n't figured out yet. Does anybody know how-to? Or is there a SP or FN wich I
didn't know ?
Many thanks for your helpSetup a linked server and use openquery, see if this link helps -
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d...r />
_94fn.asp
HTH
Ray Higdon MCSE, MCDBA, CCNA
--
"Bruno" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:77CAFCCF-5A89-4757-8310-2A004C58D60A@.microsoft.com...
> Hi there
> I got - maybe a simple problem. A customer runs Active Directory
Structure, I've to implement a Application internal Security. That for, I
have to list all NT-Accounts of the Domain for the Adminstrator to select as
a SQL Login. In the SQL-Enterprise Manager, if you add a new Login a dialog
box appears, in which you can choose the Domain and the listed -NT-User
(Group or User). Exactly this Dialog box I've to rebuilt in the App. To find
the Domain wasn't any problem, but to list all Users and Groups, I don't
figured out yet. Does anybody know how-to? Or is there a SP or FN wich I
didn't know ?
> Many thanks for your help|||Dear Ray
Many thanks for your hint. It was not exactly what I searched for (cause OU'
s are here very dynamic, and I've to have all Users) but it gives the necess
ary hint to succeeed in my investigations.
Best Regards,
Bruno