Relationships problem in Sql Server 2000

I am using Enterprise Manager for Sql Server 2000. In designing a foreign key relationship for a table, let's call it table A, I have more then one column acting as a foreign key for the same primary column in another table, let's call it table B. While I can specify for one of those foreign key columns in table A, which has the same column in another table as its primary key, to Cascade Deletes and Updates, successfully, when I try to also specify Cascade Delete and Updates for a second of my foreign key columns, which has the same column in another table as its primary key, I get an error saying that the second relationship with the Cascade "may cause cycles or multiple cascade paths."
I do not understand why this should be happening. If the Cascade is allowed for one of my columns, why does allowing it for more than one of my columns which point to the same primary key column cause this problem. Or is this just a bug in Sql Server 2000 which has been fixed in later releases of the product.No, it's not a bug, it's by design. If you want to create more than one cascade relationship between two tables, then there is only a way is to specify only first relationship as cascade and maintain other(s) via trigger(s).|||I do not understand the reasoning behind this design. I do not see how it matters if deleting a row in one table causes more than one row in another table to be deleted because of more than one cascade relationship between tables. Also the same situation for updated cascades should work properly also if there is more than one relationship between two tables. I can understand if the relationship goes both ways it could cause a recurring cycle, but if the relationship just goes one way it never can cause cascading problems AFAICS.

reindexing slow after installing SQL 2K SP4?

I'm using SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition (Clustered). After upgrading from SP3
to SP4, my re-indexing job takes 3-4 times longer than before. The amount
of data is about the same. Nothing else within SQL has changed. I am
running SQL on the other node, but the hardware is identical and I checked
the boot.ini (for enabling AWE) file and it's the same on boh boxes also.
Has anyone experienced this after installing Service Pack 4?There is an issue with AWE in SP4 - it stops using it. Get the post-SP4 hot
fix:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899761
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
.
"Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:OYQCGUbqGHA.928@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
I'm using SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition (Clustered). After upgrading from SP3
to SP4, my re-indexing job takes 3-4 times longer than before. The amount
of data is about the same. Nothing else within SQL has changed. I am
running SQL on the other node, but the hardware is identical and I checked
the boot.ini (for enabling AWE) file and it's the same on boh boxes also.
Has anyone experienced this after installing Service Pack 4?|||Thanks. I actually forgot to mention that I did install the Post SP 4
Hotfix rollup. My SQL Version is at 8.00.2187.
However, I did check Perfmon and SQL is using up more than 50% of the
physical memory, which I think, according to the article, means that it is
running normally.
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:ux$ot8bqGHA.4032@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> There is an issue with AWE in SP4 - it stops using it. Get the post-SP4
> hot
> fix:
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899761
>
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> .
> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:OYQCGUbqGHA.928@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> I'm using SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition (Clustered). After upgrading from
> SP3
> to SP4, my re-indexing job takes 3-4 times longer than before. The amount
> of data is about the same. Nothing else within SQL has changed. I am
> running SQL on the other node, but the hardware is identical and I checked
> the boot.ini (for enabling AWE) file and it's the same on boh boxes also.
> Has anyone experienced this after installing Service Pack 4?
>|||That's odd. How much RAM do you have on each node and let us know whether
the /3GB switch is/isn't used.
--
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
.
"Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:OZ4SudcqGHA.2256@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
Thanks. I actually forgot to mention that I did install the Post SP 4
Hotfix rollup. My SQL Version is at 8.00.2187.
However, I did check Perfmon and SQL is using up more than 50% of the
physical memory, which I think, according to the article, means that it is
running normally.
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:ux$ot8bqGHA.4032@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> There is an issue with AWE in SP4 - it stops using it. Get the post-SP4
> hot
> fix:
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899761
>
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> .
> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:OYQCGUbqGHA.928@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> I'm using SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition (Clustered). After upgrading from
> SP3
> to SP4, my re-indexing job takes 3-4 times longer than before. The amount
> of data is about the same. Nothing else within SQL has changed. I am
> running SQL on the other node, but the hardware is identical and I checked
> the boot.ini (for enabling AWE) file and it's the same on boh boxes also.
> Has anyone experienced this after installing Service Pack 4?
>|||Thanks,
There's 8 GB of RAM on each node. The 3/GB switch is not used and this was
actually PER Microsoft.
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:euOlQmcqGHA.4992@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> That's odd. How much RAM do you have on each node and let us know whether
> the /3GB switch is/isn't used.
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> .
> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:OZ4SudcqGHA.2256@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Thanks. I actually forgot to mention that I did install the Post SP 4
> Hotfix rollup. My SQL Version is at 8.00.2187.
> However, I did check Perfmon and SQL is using up more than 50% of the
> physical memory, which I think, according to the article, means that it is
> running normally.
>
> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
> news:ux$ot8bqGHA.4032@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> There is an issue with AWE in SP4 - it stops using it. Get the post-SP4
>> hot
>> fix:
>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899761
>>
>> --
>> Tom
>> ----
>> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
>> SQL Server MVP
>> Toronto, ON Canada
>> .
>> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:OYQCGUbqGHA.928@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> I'm using SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition (Clustered). After upgrading from
>> SP3
>> to SP4, my re-indexing job takes 3-4 times longer than before. The
>> amount
>> of data is about the same. Nothing else within SQL has changed. I am
>> running SQL on the other node, but the hardware is identical and I
>> checked
>> the boot.ini (for enabling AWE) file and it's the same on boh boxes
>> also.
>> Has anyone experienced this after installing Service Pack 4?
>>
>|||Just wanted to sure. What's odd is that it appears to run differently on
each node. Also, of the 8 GB, how much did you tell it to use for SQL
Server? Could you give us the sp_configure output for max server memory and
AWE?
Are there other processes running on one node and not the other?
--
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
.
"Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:%23$5lw3oqGHA.2108@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
Thanks,
There's 8 GB of RAM on each node. The 3/GB switch is not used and this was
actually PER Microsoft.
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:euOlQmcqGHA.4992@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> That's odd. How much RAM do you have on each node and let us know whether
> the /3GB switch is/isn't used.
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> .
> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:OZ4SudcqGHA.2256@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Thanks. I actually forgot to mention that I did install the Post SP 4
> Hotfix rollup. My SQL Version is at 8.00.2187.
> However, I did check Perfmon and SQL is using up more than 50% of the
> physical memory, which I think, according to the article, means that it is
> running normally.
>
> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
> news:ux$ot8bqGHA.4032@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> There is an issue with AWE in SP4 - it stops using it. Get the post-SP4
>> hot
>> fix:
>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899761
>>
>> --
>> Tom
>> ----
>> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
>> SQL Server MVP
>> Toronto, ON Canada
>> .
>> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:OYQCGUbqGHA.928@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> I'm using SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition (Clustered). After upgrading from
>> SP3
>> to SP4, my re-indexing job takes 3-4 times longer than before. The
>> amount
>> of data is about the same. Nothing else within SQL has changed. I am
>> running SQL on the other node, but the hardware is identical and I
>> checked
>> the boot.ini (for enabling AWE) file and it's the same on boh boxes
>> also.
>> Has anyone experienced this after installing Service Pack 4?
>>
>|||Thanks so much for your help Tom.
There are no processes running on one node that's not running on the other.
SQL Server is configured to use 6 GB - again, this was suggested by
microsoft when we were troubleshooting another problem several months back.
Here's the sp_configure output
max server memory (MB) 4 2147483647 6008
6008
awe enabled 0 1 1 1
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:%23Jp05DpqGHA.4032@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Just wanted to sure. What's odd is that it appears to run differently on
> each node. Also, of the 8 GB, how much did you tell it to use for SQL
> Server? Could you give us the sp_configure output for max server memory
> and
> AWE?
> Are there other processes running on one node and not the other?
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> .
> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:%23$5lw3oqGHA.2108@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Thanks,
> There's 8 GB of RAM on each node. The 3/GB switch is not used and this
> was
> actually PER Microsoft.
>
> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
> news:euOlQmcqGHA.4992@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> That's odd. How much RAM do you have on each node and let us know
>> whether
>> the /3GB switch is/isn't used.
>> --
>> Tom
>> ----
>> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
>> SQL Server MVP
>> Toronto, ON Canada
>> .
>> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:OZ4SudcqGHA.2256@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> Thanks. I actually forgot to mention that I did install the Post SP 4
>> Hotfix rollup. My SQL Version is at 8.00.2187.
>> However, I did check Perfmon and SQL is using up more than 50% of the
>> physical memory, which I think, according to the article, means that it
>> is
>> running normally.
>>
>> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
>> news:ux$ot8bqGHA.4032@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> There is an issue with AWE in SP4 - it stops using it. Get the post-SP4
>> hot
>> fix:
>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899761
>>
>> --
>> Tom
>> ----
>> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
>> SQL Server MVP
>> Toronto, ON Canada
>> .
>> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:OYQCGUbqGHA.928@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> I'm using SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition (Clustered). After upgrading from
>> SP3
>> to SP4, my re-indexing job takes 3-4 times longer than before. The
>> amount
>> of data is about the same. Nothing else within SQL has changed. I am
>> running SQL on the other node, but the hardware is identical and I
>> checked
>> the boot.ini (for enabling AWE) file and it's the same on boh boxes
>> also.
>> Has anyone experienced this after installing Service Pack 4?
>>
>>
>|||If I were to increase the Max Memory, would I need to restart SQL service
for it to take effect?
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:%23Jp05DpqGHA.4032@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Just wanted to sure. What's odd is that it appears to run differently on
> each node. Also, of the 8 GB, how much did you tell it to use for SQL
> Server? Could you give us the sp_configure output for max server memory
> and
> AWE?
> Are there other processes running on one node and not the other?
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> .
> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:%23$5lw3oqGHA.2108@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Thanks,
> There's 8 GB of RAM on each node. The 3/GB switch is not used and this
> was
> actually PER Microsoft.
>
> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
> news:euOlQmcqGHA.4992@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> That's odd. How much RAM do you have on each node and let us know
>> whether
>> the /3GB switch is/isn't used.
>> --
>> Tom
>> ----
>> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
>> SQL Server MVP
>> Toronto, ON Canada
>> .
>> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:OZ4SudcqGHA.2256@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> Thanks. I actually forgot to mention that I did install the Post SP 4
>> Hotfix rollup. My SQL Version is at 8.00.2187.
>> However, I did check Perfmon and SQL is using up more than 50% of the
>> physical memory, which I think, according to the article, means that it
>> is
>> running normally.
>>
>> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
>> news:ux$ot8bqGHA.4032@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> There is an issue with AWE in SP4 - it stops using it. Get the post-SP4
>> hot
>> fix:
>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899761
>>
>> --
>> Tom
>> ----
>> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
>> SQL Server MVP
>> Toronto, ON Canada
>> .
>> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:OYQCGUbqGHA.928@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> I'm using SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition (Clustered). After upgrading from
>> SP3
>> to SP4, my re-indexing job takes 3-4 times longer than before. The
>> amount
>> of data is about the same. Nothing else within SQL has changed. I am
>> running SQL on the other node, but the hardware is identical and I
>> checked
>> the boot.ini (for enabling AWE) file and it's the same on boh boxes
>> also.
>> Has anyone experienced this after installing Service Pack 4?
>>
>>
>|||I just ran a perfmon and measured SQLServer:Memory Manager - Target Server
Memory and Total Server Memory. It's at a steady 5 GB. My Max memory is
set to 6 GB. Is this normal?
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:%23Jp05DpqGHA.4032@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Just wanted to sure. What's odd is that it appears to run differently on
> each node. Also, of the 8 GB, how much did you tell it to use for SQL
> Server? Could you give us the sp_configure output for max server memory
> and
> AWE?
> Are there other processes running on one node and not the other?
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> .
> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:%23$5lw3oqGHA.2108@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Thanks,
> There's 8 GB of RAM on each node. The 3/GB switch is not used and this
> was
> actually PER Microsoft.
>
> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
> news:euOlQmcqGHA.4992@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> That's odd. How much RAM do you have on each node and let us know
>> whether
>> the /3GB switch is/isn't used.
>> --
>> Tom
>> ----
>> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
>> SQL Server MVP
>> Toronto, ON Canada
>> .
>> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:OZ4SudcqGHA.2256@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> Thanks. I actually forgot to mention that I did install the Post SP 4
>> Hotfix rollup. My SQL Version is at 8.00.2187.
>> However, I did check Perfmon and SQL is using up more than 50% of the
>> physical memory, which I think, according to the article, means that it
>> is
>> running normally.
>>
>> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
>> news:ux$ot8bqGHA.4032@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> There is an issue with AWE in SP4 - it stops using it. Get the post-SP4
>> hot
>> fix:
>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899761
>>
>> --
>> Tom
>> ----
>> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
>> SQL Server MVP
>> Toronto, ON Canada
>> .
>> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:OYQCGUbqGHA.928@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> I'm using SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition (Clustered). After upgrading from
>> SP3
>> to SP4, my re-indexing job takes 3-4 times longer than before. The
>> amount
>> of data is about the same. Nothing else within SQL has changed. I am
>> running SQL on the other node, but the hardware is identical and I
>> checked
>> the boot.ini (for enabling AWE) file and it's the same on boh boxes
>> also.
>> Has anyone experienced this after installing Service Pack 4?
>>
>>
>|||6GB = 6,144MB, so you're just a little short of using the 6GB. Leaving the
remaining 2GB to the OS is plenty.
--
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
.
"Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:OxSToz2qGHA.3564@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
Thanks so much for your help Tom.
There are no processes running on one node that's not running on the other.
SQL Server is configured to use 6 GB - again, this was suggested by
microsoft when we were troubleshooting another problem several months back.
Here's the sp_configure output
max server memory (MB) 4 2147483647 6008
6008
awe enabled 0 1 1 1
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:%23Jp05DpqGHA.4032@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Just wanted to sure. What's odd is that it appears to run differently on
> each node. Also, of the 8 GB, how much did you tell it to use for SQL
> Server? Could you give us the sp_configure output for max server memory
> and
> AWE?
> Are there other processes running on one node and not the other?
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> .
> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:%23$5lw3oqGHA.2108@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Thanks,
> There's 8 GB of RAM on each node. The 3/GB switch is not used and this
> was
> actually PER Microsoft.
>
> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
> news:euOlQmcqGHA.4992@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> That's odd. How much RAM do you have on each node and let us know
>> whether
>> the /3GB switch is/isn't used.
>> --
>> Tom
>> ----
>> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
>> SQL Server MVP
>> Toronto, ON Canada
>> .
>> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:OZ4SudcqGHA.2256@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> Thanks. I actually forgot to mention that I did install the Post SP 4
>> Hotfix rollup. My SQL Version is at 8.00.2187.
>> However, I did check Perfmon and SQL is using up more than 50% of the
>> physical memory, which I think, according to the article, means that it
>> is
>> running normally.
>>
>> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
>> news:ux$ot8bqGHA.4032@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> There is an issue with AWE in SP4 - it stops using it. Get the post-SP4
>> hot
>> fix:
>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899761
>>
>> --
>> Tom
>> ----
>> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
>> SQL Server MVP
>> Toronto, ON Canada
>> .
>> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:OYQCGUbqGHA.928@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> I'm using SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition (Clustered). After upgrading from
>> SP3
>> to SP4, my re-indexing job takes 3-4 times longer than before. The
>> amount
>> of data is about the same. Nothing else within SQL has changed. I am
>> running SQL on the other node, but the hardware is identical and I
>> checked
>> the boot.ini (for enabling AWE) file and it's the same on boh boxes
>> also.
>> Has anyone experienced this after installing Service Pack 4?
>>
>>
>|||If you were using AWE, yes.
--
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
.
"Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:enizG02qGHA.2180@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
If I were to increase the Max Memory, would I need to restart SQL service
for it to take effect?
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:%23Jp05DpqGHA.4032@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Just wanted to sure. What's odd is that it appears to run differently on
> each node. Also, of the 8 GB, how much did you tell it to use for SQL
> Server? Could you give us the sp_configure output for max server memory
> and
> AWE?
> Are there other processes running on one node and not the other?
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> .
> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:%23$5lw3oqGHA.2108@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Thanks,
> There's 8 GB of RAM on each node. The 3/GB switch is not used and this
> was
> actually PER Microsoft.
>
> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
> news:euOlQmcqGHA.4992@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> That's odd. How much RAM do you have on each node and let us know
>> whether
>> the /3GB switch is/isn't used.
>> --
>> Tom
>> ----
>> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
>> SQL Server MVP
>> Toronto, ON Canada
>> .
>> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:OZ4SudcqGHA.2256@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> Thanks. I actually forgot to mention that I did install the Post SP 4
>> Hotfix rollup. My SQL Version is at 8.00.2187.
>> However, I did check Perfmon and SQL is using up more than 50% of the
>> physical memory, which I think, according to the article, means that it
>> is
>> running normally.
>>
>> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
>> news:ux$ot8bqGHA.4032@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> There is an issue with AWE in SP4 - it stops using it. Get the post-SP4
>> hot
>> fix:
>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899761
>>
>> --
>> Tom
>> ----
>> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
>> SQL Server MVP
>> Toronto, ON Canada
>> .
>> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:OYQCGUbqGHA.928@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> I'm using SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition (Clustered). After upgrading from
>> SP3
>> to SP4, my re-indexing job takes 3-4 times longer than before. The
>> amount
>> of data is about the same. Nothing else within SQL has changed. I am
>> running SQL on the other node, but the hardware is identical and I
>> checked
>> the boot.ini (for enabling AWE) file and it's the same on boh boxes
>> also.
>> Has anyone experienced this after installing Service Pack 4?
>>
>>
>|||Your max server memory should be at 6 GB = 6,144 MB. Not sure why it's
below that. The only other thing I can think of is that you may have a
Windows hotfix that was applied to one box and not the other.
--
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
.
"Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ea$m452qGHA.4864@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
I just ran a perfmon and measured SQLServer:Memory Manager - Target Server
Memory and Total Server Memory. It's at a steady 5 GB. My Max memory is
set to 6 GB. Is this normal?
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:%23Jp05DpqGHA.4032@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Just wanted to sure. What's odd is that it appears to run differently on
> each node. Also, of the 8 GB, how much did you tell it to use for SQL
> Server? Could you give us the sp_configure output for max server memory
> and
> AWE?
> Are there other processes running on one node and not the other?
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> .
> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:%23$5lw3oqGHA.2108@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Thanks,
> There's 8 GB of RAM on each node. The 3/GB switch is not used and this
> was
> actually PER Microsoft.
>
> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
> news:euOlQmcqGHA.4992@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> That's odd. How much RAM do you have on each node and let us know
>> whether
>> the /3GB switch is/isn't used.
>> --
>> Tom
>> ----
>> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
>> SQL Server MVP
>> Toronto, ON Canada
>> .
>> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:OZ4SudcqGHA.2256@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> Thanks. I actually forgot to mention that I did install the Post SP 4
>> Hotfix rollup. My SQL Version is at 8.00.2187.
>> However, I did check Perfmon and SQL is using up more than 50% of the
>> physical memory, which I think, according to the article, means that it
>> is
>> running normally.
>>
>> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
>> news:ux$ot8bqGHA.4032@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> There is an issue with AWE in SP4 - it stops using it. Get the post-SP4
>> hot
>> fix:
>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899761
>>
>> --
>> Tom
>> ----
>> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
>> SQL Server MVP
>> Toronto, ON Canada
>> .
>> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:OYQCGUbqGHA.928@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> I'm using SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition (Clustered). After upgrading from
>> SP3
>> to SP4, my re-indexing job takes 3-4 times longer than before. The
>> amount
>> of data is about the same. Nothing else within SQL has changed. I am
>> running SQL on the other node, but the hardware is identical and I
>> checked
>> the boot.ini (for enabling AWE) file and it's the same on boh boxes
>> also.
>> Has anyone experienced this after installing Service Pack 4?
>>
>>
>

reindexing slow after installing SQL 2K SP4?

I'm using SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition (Clustered). After upgrading from SP3
to SP4, my re-indexing job takes 3-4 times longer than before. The amount
of data is about the same. Nothing else within SQL has changed. I am
running SQL on the other node, but the hardware is identical and I checked
the boot.ini (for enabling AWE) file and it's the same on boh boxes also.
Has anyone experienced this after installing Service Pack 4?There is an issue with AWE in SP4 - it stops using it. Get the post-SP4 hot
fix:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899761
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
.
"Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:OYQCGUbqGHA.928@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
I'm using SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition (Clustered). After upgrading from SP3
to SP4, my re-indexing job takes 3-4 times longer than before. The amount
of data is about the same. Nothing else within SQL has changed. I am
running SQL on the other node, but the hardware is identical and I checked
the boot.ini (for enabling AWE) file and it's the same on boh boxes also.
Has anyone experienced this after installing Service Pack 4?|||Thanks. I actually forgot to mention that I did install the Post SP 4
Hotfix rollup. My SQL Version is at 8.00.2187.
However, I did check Perfmon and SQL is using up more than 50% of the
physical memory, which I think, according to the article, means that it is
running normally.
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:ux$ot8bqGHA.4032@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> There is an issue with AWE in SP4 - it stops using it. Get the post-SP4
> hot
> fix:
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899761
>
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> .
> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:OYQCGUbqGHA.928@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> I'm using SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition (Clustered). After upgrading from
> SP3
> to SP4, my re-indexing job takes 3-4 times longer than before. The amount
> of data is about the same. Nothing else within SQL has changed. I am
> running SQL on the other node, but the hardware is identical and I checked
> the boot.ini (for enabling AWE) file and it's the same on boh boxes also.
> Has anyone experienced this after installing Service Pack 4?
>|||That's odd. How much RAM do you have on each node and let us know whether
the /3GB switch is/isn't used.
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
.
"Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:OZ4SudcqGHA.2256@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
Thanks. I actually forgot to mention that I did install the Post SP 4
Hotfix rollup. My SQL Version is at 8.00.2187.
However, I did check Perfmon and SQL is using up more than 50% of the
physical memory, which I think, according to the article, means that it is
running normally.
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:ux$ot8bqGHA.4032@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> There is an issue with AWE in SP4 - it stops using it. Get the post-SP4
> hot
> fix:
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899761
>
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> .
> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:OYQCGUbqGHA.928@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> I'm using SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition (Clustered). After upgrading from
> SP3
> to SP4, my re-indexing job takes 3-4 times longer than before. The amount
> of data is about the same. Nothing else within SQL has changed. I am
> running SQL on the other node, but the hardware is identical and I checked
> the boot.ini (for enabling AWE) file and it's the same on boh boxes also.
> Has anyone experienced this after installing Service Pack 4?
>|||Thanks,
There's 8 GB of RAM on each node. The 3/GB switch is not used and this was
actually PER Microsoft.
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:euOlQmcqGHA.4992@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> That's odd. How much RAM do you have on each node and let us know whether
> the /3GB switch is/isn't used.
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> .
> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:OZ4SudcqGHA.2256@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Thanks. I actually forgot to mention that I did install the Post SP 4
> Hotfix rollup. My SQL Version is at 8.00.2187.
> However, I did check Perfmon and SQL is using up more than 50% of the
> physical memory, which I think, according to the article, means that it is
> running normally.
>
> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
> news:ux$ot8bqGHA.4032@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>|||Just wanted to sure. What's odd is that it appears to run differently on
each node. Also, of the 8 GB, how much did you tell it to use for SQL
Server? Could you give us the sp_configure output for max server memory and
AWE?
Are there other processes running on one node and not the other?
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
.
"Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:%23$5lw3oqGHA.2108@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
Thanks,
There's 8 GB of RAM on each node. The 3/GB switch is not used and this was
actually PER Microsoft.
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:euOlQmcqGHA.4992@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> That's odd. How much RAM do you have on each node and let us know whether
> the /3GB switch is/isn't used.
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> .
> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:OZ4SudcqGHA.2256@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Thanks. I actually forgot to mention that I did install the Post SP 4
> Hotfix rollup. My SQL Version is at 8.00.2187.
> However, I did check Perfmon and SQL is using up more than 50% of the
> physical memory, which I think, according to the article, means that it is
> running normally.
>
> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
> news:ux$ot8bqGHA.4032@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>|||Thanks so much for your help Tom.
There are no processes running on one node that's not running on the other.
SQL Server is configured to use 6 GB - again, this was suggested by
microsoft when we were troubleshooting another problem several months back.
Here's the sp_configure output
max server memory (MB) 4 2147483647 6008
6008
awe enabled 0 1 1 1
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:%23Jp05DpqGHA.4032@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Just wanted to sure. What's odd is that it appears to run differently on
> each node. Also, of the 8 GB, how much did you tell it to use for SQL
> Server? Could you give us the sp_configure output for max server memory
> and
> AWE?
> Are there other processes running on one node and not the other?
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> .
> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:%23$5lw3oqGHA.2108@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Thanks,
> There's 8 GB of RAM on each node. The 3/GB switch is not used and this
> was
> actually PER Microsoft.
>
> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
> news:euOlQmcqGHA.4992@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>|||If I were to increase the Max Memory, would I need to restart SQL service
for it to take effect?
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:%23Jp05DpqGHA.4032@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Just wanted to sure. What's odd is that it appears to run differently on
> each node. Also, of the 8 GB, how much did you tell it to use for SQL
> Server? Could you give us the sp_configure output for max server memory
> and
> AWE?
> Are there other processes running on one node and not the other?
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> .
> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:%23$5lw3oqGHA.2108@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Thanks,
> There's 8 GB of RAM on each node. The 3/GB switch is not used and this
> was
> actually PER Microsoft.
>
> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
> news:euOlQmcqGHA.4992@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>|||I just ran a perfmon and measured SQLServer:Memory Manager - Target Server
Memory and Total Server Memory. It's at a steady 5 GB. My Max memory is
set to 6 GB. Is this normal?
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:%23Jp05DpqGHA.4032@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Just wanted to sure. What's odd is that it appears to run differently on
> each node. Also, of the 8 GB, how much did you tell it to use for SQL
> Server? Could you give us the sp_configure output for max server memory
> and
> AWE?
> Are there other processes running on one node and not the other?
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> .
> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:%23$5lw3oqGHA.2108@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Thanks,
> There's 8 GB of RAM on each node. The 3/GB switch is not used and this
> was
> actually PER Microsoft.
>
> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
> news:euOlQmcqGHA.4992@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>|||6GB = 6,144MB, so you're just a little short of using the 6GB. Leaving the
remaining 2GB to the OS is plenty.
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
.
"Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:OxSToz2qGHA.3564@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
Thanks so much for your help Tom.
There are no processes running on one node that's not running on the other.
SQL Server is configured to use 6 GB - again, this was suggested by
microsoft when we were troubleshooting another problem several months back.
Here's the sp_configure output
max server memory (MB) 4 2147483647 6008
6008
awe enabled 0 1 1 1
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:%23Jp05DpqGHA.4032@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Just wanted to sure. What's odd is that it appears to run differently on
> each node. Also, of the 8 GB, how much did you tell it to use for SQL
> Server? Could you give us the sp_configure output for max server memory
> and
> AWE?
> Are there other processes running on one node and not the other?
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> .
> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:%23$5lw3oqGHA.2108@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Thanks,
> There's 8 GB of RAM on each node. The 3/GB switch is not used and this
> was
> actually PER Microsoft.
>
> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
> news:euOlQmcqGHA.4992@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>

Registration of SQL Servers missing in Enterprise manager

Hi All,
Recently a strange behaviour was seen with Enterprise manager. When we
change the Windows login password all the registrations of SQL Servers are
missing from SQL Server Enterprise Manager. Did anyone faced this situatio
n
before? Its really painful to register 20 servers each time when login
password is changed. Some of the registered servers are windows
authentication and rest of them are SQL Server authentication.
Thanks a lot in advance!
Vinod MeesalaHi,
Never aware of this issues. What is the SQL Server service pack you are usin
g?
If you are using old service packs, install SP4 for SQL 2000 (if you are
using SQL Server 2000) and see if you still have issues.
Thanks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
"VM" wrote:

> Hi All,
> Recently a strange behaviour was seen with Enterprise manager. When we
> change the Windows login password all the registrations of SQL Servers are
> missing from SQL Server Enterprise Manager. Did anyone faced this situat
ion
> before? Its really painful to register 20 servers each time when login
> password is changed. Some of the registered servers are windows
> authentication and rest of them are SQL Server authentication.
> Thanks a lot in advance!
> Vinod Meesala|||Sounds like this may be the issue you are running into:
FIX: Registered remote servers disappear from SQL Enterprise
Manager in Windows XP when user password is changed
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=323280
-Sue
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 13:39:02 -0700, VM
<VM@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>Hi All,
>Recently a strange behaviour was seen with Enterprise manager. When we
>change the Windows login password all the registrations of SQL Servers are
>missing from SQL Server Enterprise Manager. Did anyone faced this situati
on
>before? Its really painful to register 20 servers each time when login
>password is changed. Some of the registered servers are windows
>authentication and rest of them are SQL Server authentication.
>Thanks a lot in advance!
>Vinod Meesala|||Sue,
Thats an awsome piece of information. I wasn't aware of this.
Thanks
Hari
"Sue Hoegemeier" <Sue_H@.nomail.please> wrote in message
news:04s9e214f3pk9386bmg12lq7jq8q4kbqhj@.
4ax.com...
> Sounds like this may be the issue you are running into:
> FIX: Registered remote servers disappear from SQL Enterprise
> Manager in Windows XP when user password is changed
> http://support.microsoft.com/?id=323280
> -Sue
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 13:39:02 -0700, VM
> <VM@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>|||Hey Hari,
People haven't hit the issue for quite awhile so you
probably just forgot it by now. I think it was two or three
years ago when people posted hitting the issue. I guess I'm
just wasting limited brain space with old info - your brain
is just more current than mine : )
-Sue
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 19:00:43 -0500, "Hari Prasad"
<hari_prasad_k@.hotmail.com> wrote:

>Sue,
>Thats an awsome piece of information. I wasn't aware of this.
>Thanks
>Hari
>"Sue Hoegemeier" <Sue_H@.nomail.please> wrote in message
> news:04s9e214f3pk9386bmg12lq7jq8q4kbqhj@.
4ax.com...
>|||Excellent Finding!! Thanks much Sue! I will try this Fix.
Vinod Meesala
"Sue Hoegemeier" wrote:

> Sounds like this may be the issue you are running into:
> FIX: Registered remote servers disappear from SQL Enterprise
> Manager in Windows XP when user password is changed
> http://support.microsoft.com/?id=323280
> -Sue
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 13:39:02 -0700, VM
> <VM@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>

Registration of SQL Servers missing in Enterprise manager

Hi All,
Recently a strange behaviour was seen with Enterprise manager. When we
change the Windows login password all the registrations of SQL Servers are
missing from SQL Server Enterprise Manager. Did anyone faced this situation
before? Its really painful to register 20 servers each time when login
password is changed. Some of the registered servers are windows
authentication and rest of them are SQL Server authentication.
Thanks a lot in advance!
Vinod MeesalaHi,
Never aware of this issues. What is the SQL Server service pack you are using?
If you are using old service packs, install SP4 for SQL 2000 (if you are
using SQL Server 2000) and see if you still have issues.
Thanks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
"VM" wrote:
> Hi All,
> Recently a strange behaviour was seen with Enterprise manager. When we
> change the Windows login password all the registrations of SQL Servers are
> missing from SQL Server Enterprise Manager. Did anyone faced this situation
> before? Its really painful to register 20 servers each time when login
> password is changed. Some of the registered servers are windows
> authentication and rest of them are SQL Server authentication.
> Thanks a lot in advance!
> Vinod Meesala|||Sounds like this may be the issue you are running into:
FIX: Registered remote servers disappear from SQL Enterprise
Manager in Windows XP when user password is changed
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=323280
-Sue
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 13:39:02 -0700, VM
<VM@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>Hi All,
>Recently a strange behaviour was seen with Enterprise manager. When we
>change the Windows login password all the registrations of SQL Servers are
>missing from SQL Server Enterprise Manager. Did anyone faced this situation
>before? Its really painful to register 20 servers each time when login
>password is changed. Some of the registered servers are windows
>authentication and rest of them are SQL Server authentication.
>Thanks a lot in advance!
>Vinod Meesala|||Sue,
Thats an awsome piece of information. I wasn't aware of this.
Thanks
Hari
"Sue Hoegemeier" <Sue_H@.nomail.please> wrote in message
news:04s9e214f3pk9386bmg12lq7jq8q4kbqhj@.4ax.com...
> Sounds like this may be the issue you are running into:
> FIX: Registered remote servers disappear from SQL Enterprise
> Manager in Windows XP when user password is changed
> http://support.microsoft.com/?id=323280
> -Sue
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 13:39:02 -0700, VM
> <VM@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>>Hi All,
>>Recently a strange behaviour was seen with Enterprise manager. When we
>>change the Windows login password all the registrations of SQL Servers are
>>missing from SQL Server Enterprise Manager. Did anyone faced this
>>situation
>>before? Its really painful to register 20 servers each time when login
>>password is changed. Some of the registered servers are windows
>>authentication and rest of them are SQL Server authentication.
>>Thanks a lot in advance!
>>Vinod Meesala
>|||Hey Hari,
People haven't hit the issue for quite awhile so you
probably just forgot it by now. I think it was two or three
years ago when people posted hitting the issue. I guess I'm
just wasting limited brain space with old info - your brain
is just more current than mine : )
-Sue
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 19:00:43 -0500, "Hari Prasad"
<hari_prasad_k@.hotmail.com> wrote:
>Sue,
>Thats an awsome piece of information. I wasn't aware of this.
>Thanks
>Hari
>"Sue Hoegemeier" <Sue_H@.nomail.please> wrote in message
>news:04s9e214f3pk9386bmg12lq7jq8q4kbqhj@.4ax.com...
>> Sounds like this may be the issue you are running into:
>> FIX: Registered remote servers disappear from SQL Enterprise
>> Manager in Windows XP when user password is changed
>> http://support.microsoft.com/?id=323280
>> -Sue
>> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 13:39:02 -0700, VM
>> <VM@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>>Hi All,
>>Recently a strange behaviour was seen with Enterprise manager. When we
>>change the Windows login password all the registrations of SQL Servers are
>>missing from SQL Server Enterprise Manager. Did anyone faced this
>>situation
>>before? Its really painful to register 20 servers each time when login
>>password is changed. Some of the registered servers are windows
>>authentication and rest of them are SQL Server authentication.
>>Thanks a lot in advance!
>>Vinod Meesala
>|||Excellent Finding!! Thanks much Sue! I will try this Fix.
Vinod Meesala
"Sue Hoegemeier" wrote:
> Sounds like this may be the issue you are running into:
> FIX: Registered remote servers disappear from SQL Enterprise
> Manager in Windows XP when user password is changed
> http://support.microsoft.com/?id=323280
> -Sue
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 13:39:02 -0700, VM
> <VM@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
> >Hi All,
> >
> >Recently a strange behaviour was seen with Enterprise manager. When we
> >change the Windows login password all the registrations of SQL Servers are
> >missing from SQL Server Enterprise Manager. Did anyone faced this situation
> >before? Its really painful to register 20 servers each time when login
> >password is changed. Some of the registered servers are windows
> >authentication and rest of them are SQL Server authentication.
> >
> >Thanks a lot in advance!
> >
> >Vinod Meesala
>

Registration from Enterprise Manager

Here is my problem:
I have a sqlserver SQLA which I have registered in EM with a sqlserver
authentication with a uid and password and that connection works fine. The
problem is that when I look at the security log of SQLA, i see continuous
failure audits but with a uid that I am logging in to my local machine with.
My question is that when I am choosing to use sqlserver authentication and
not windows authentication to connect to SQLA, how come it is in turn still
sending windows authentication requests at the same time.
Few thing that have led me to this is:
1.When I delete the sqlserver registration from EM, those failure audits
stop, so that nakes me sure that these are coming from EM only.
2. When I map a drive to SQLA with windows credentials, these failure audits
stop, which indicates that it is succeeding in windows authentication ,
thats why the audits stop.
Please let me know your thoughts?
What you are seeing is probably related to the polling that Enterprise
Manager does - it polls the SQL and related services on the servers
that you have registered. You can turn this off in Enterprise Manager
by going up to the menu to Tools and selecting Options. On the general
tab, you can remove the check for Server State Polling.
-Sue
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 15:44:06 GMT, "Renu Doda" <r_doda@.hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Here is my problem:
>I have a sqlserver SQLA which I have registered in EM with a sqlserver
>authentication with a uid and password and that connection works fine. The
>problem is that when I look at the security log of SQLA, i see continuous
>failure audits but with a uid that I am logging in to my local machine with.
>My question is that when I am choosing to use sqlserver authentication and
>not windows authentication to connect to SQLA, how come it is in turn still
>sending windows authentication requests at the same time.
>Few thing that have led me to this is:
>1.When I delete the sqlserver registration from EM, those failure audits
>stop, so that nakes me sure that these are coming from EM only.
>2. When I map a drive to SQLA with windows credentials, these failure audits
>stop, which indicates that it is succeeding in windows authentication ,
>thats why the audits stop.
>Please let me know your thoughts?
>

Registration failure in Enterprise Manager

I am in Enterprise Manager on ComputerA, logged in as user xyz. I am
attempting to add a new SQL Server registration for the SQL Server on
ComputerB, using SQL Server authentication based on SQL Server login abc. Th
e
registration fails, stating that the SQL Server does not exist or access is
denied. The Security Event Log on ComputerB indicates a login failure to the
account xyz, which does not exist on ComputerB. Why is the registration
attempt trying to log into a non-existent Windows account when I have
requested SQL Server authentication? TIA...Sounds like it could be that it's trying to connect using
named pipes. Check the order of the protocols using the
client network utility and try setting TCP/IP as the first
protocol if it already isn't the first one listed.
Or use the client network utility and create a TCP/IP alias
to ComputerB on ComputerA
-Sue
On Tue, 5 Jul 2005 12:19:05 -0700, "Steve B."
<SteveB@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>I am in Enterprise Manager on ComputerA, logged in as user xyz. I am
>attempting to add a new SQL Server registration for the SQL Server on
>ComputerB, using SQL Server authentication based on SQL Server login abc. T
he
>registration fails, stating that the SQL Server does not exist or access is
>denied. The Security Event Log on ComputerB indicates a login failure to th
e
>account xyz, which does not exist on ComputerB. Why is the registration
>attempt trying to log into a non-existent Windows account when I have
>requested SQL Server authentication? TIA...|||Thanks for your reply. Per your suggestion, I changed the order of the
protocols listed in the Client Network Utility, and I had already tried
creating the TCP/IP alias for ComputerB, but I tried it again. All to no
avail... :-(
"Sue Hoegemeier" wrote:

> Sounds like it could be that it's trying to connect using
> named pipes. Check the order of the protocols using the
> client network utility and try setting TCP/IP as the first
> protocol if it already isn't the first one listed.
> Or use the client network utility and create a TCP/IP alias
> to ComputerB on ComputerA
> -Sue
> On Tue, 5 Jul 2005 12:19:05 -0700, "Steve B."
> <SteveB@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>|||I thought I'd close this loop, in case others might benefit. The problem was
resolved by creating synchronized accounts on ComputerA and ComputerB.
ComputerB is a W2K3 system, and it appears that account synchronization is
required on W2K3 even when you're using SQL Server authentication. So I
wonder why you'd ever bother with SQL Server authentication on W2K3?
"Steve B." wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Thanks for your reply. Per your suggestion, I changed the order of the
> protocols listed in the Client Network Utility, and I had already tried
> creating the TCP/IP alias for ComputerB, but I tried it again. All to no
> avail... :-(
> "Sue Hoegemeier" wrote:
>|||It's not a requirement. Synching the accounts and passwords
is in non-domain settings sometimes but it's to allow
Windows authentication. If you are specifying SQL
authentication and Windows is used instead then you have
something else that's a problem. You may want to check what
protocol you are actually connecting with - the net library
is listed in sysprocesses. You may also want to run
component check to verify your MDAC installation. You can
download it from:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/data/mdac...ds/default.aspx
-Sue
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 08:44:05 -0700, "Steve B."
<SteveB@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>I thought I'd close this loop, in case others might benefit. The problem wa
s
>resolved by creating synchronized accounts on ComputerA and ComputerB.
>ComputerB is a W2K3 system, and it appears that account synchronization is
>required on W2K3 even when you're using SQL Server authentication. So I
>wonder why you'd ever bother with SQL Server authentication on W2K3?
>"Steve B." wrote:
>

Registration access denied

Am I able to register SQL2005 server in Enterprise Manager of SQL2000, or SQL2000 server in SQL Server Management Studio?

You can use enterprise manager from sql 2005 to administer both sql 2000 and sql 2005 databases.

I doubt that the enterprise manager from sql 2000 would work with a sql 2005 database.

|||How should I use enterprise manager in SQL2005?|||

Its Management Studio.

From Management Studio, you can connect to both sql 2000 and sql 2005 databases.

http://www.aspfaq.com/sql2005/show.asp?id=3

|||this SQL Express, is there any stest I can use for SQL 2000?|||

Hi

Below is from previous link:

As for connecting to Express from application code, this should not be any different from connecting to a named instance of SQL Server 2000. Your connection string should look like this, assuming local machine and an instance name of SQLEXPRESS (you might need a different instance name, and you may have to use a machine name, rather than "." (which means local)).

Registration access denied

Am I able to register SQL2005 server in Enterprise Manager of SQL2000, or SQL2000 server in SQL Server Management Studio?

you can't use it even if it registers.

here's a story:

i have bothe Enterprise manager and management studio on the same box

what ever i register on the management studio gets registered to EM.

but the problem is i cant open version 9 Db on EM even it i see it on the list of server

registering sql server problem

Trying to register a sql server in enterprise manager and
the server is on another domain which is trusted. The
server doesn't show up in the 'available servers' list
but I can register with ip address but *not* if I use
Client Network utility with exactly the correct netbios
name. Any ideas? Thanks.If the server isn't appearing in the list of available servers, chances are
that you need to add the IP address and server name to your hosts file. In
Win2k, the hosts file is located in c:\winnt\system32\driver\etc.
Open the hosts file in notepad, go to the end of the file, enter the IP
address, tab once and add the server name as follows:
xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx <tab> servername
John
"Dave Wilce" wrote:
> Trying to register a sql server in enterprise manager and
> the server is on another domain which is trusted. The
> server doesn't show up in the 'available servers' list
> but I can register with ip address but *not* if I use
> Client Network utility with exactly the correct netbios
> name. Any ideas? Thanks.
>|||We have tried 3 things :-
Using the Client Network utility does make the server
show up in the list but it will not register.
Using IP address it will allow registration but we hit
problems later (and we think it's because we use IP
address rather than NETBios name.
Using host file doesn't help...|||"Dave Wilce" wrote:
> We have tried 3 things :-
> Using the Client Network utility does make the server
> show up in the list but it will not register.
> Using IP address it will allow registration but we hit
> problems later (and we think it's because we use IP
> address rather than NETBios name.
> Using host file doesn't help...
Thinking out loud here...
Are you going through a firewall? Are you using the default port in the
Client Network utility (1433), and is the firewall open to that port? Can
you ping the other server using the server name? Can you have the your
network people make sure the server is listed in their DNS database correctly?
John

registering sql server problem

Trying to register a sql server in enterprise manager and
the server is on another domain which is trusted. The
server doesn't show up in the 'available servers' list
but I can register with ip address but *not* if I use
Client Network utility with exactly the correct netbios
name. Any ideas? Thanks.
If the server isn't appearing in the list of available servers, chances are
that you need to add the IP address and server name to your hosts file. In
Win2k, the hosts file is located in c:\winnt\system32\driver\etc.
Open the hosts file in notepad, go to the end of the file, enter the IP
address, tab once and add the server name as follows:
xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx <tab> servername
John
"Dave Wilce" wrote:

> Trying to register a sql server in enterprise manager and
> the server is on another domain which is trusted. The
> server doesn't show up in the 'available servers' list
> but I can register with ip address but *not* if I use
> Client Network utility with exactly the correct netbios
> name. Any ideas? Thanks.
>
|||We have tried 3 things :-
Using the Client Network utility does make the server
show up in the list but it will not register.
Using IP address it will allow registration but we hit
problems later (and we think it's because we use IP
address rather than NETBios name.
Using host file doesn't help...
|||"Dave Wilce" wrote:

> We have tried 3 things :-
> Using the Client Network utility does make the server
> show up in the list but it will not register.
> Using IP address it will allow registration but we hit
> problems later (and we think it's because we use IP
> address rather than NETBios name.
> Using host file doesn't help...
Thinking out loud here...
Are you going through a firewall? Are you using the default port in the
Client Network utility (1433), and is the firewall open to that port? Can
you ping the other server using the server name? Can you have the your
network people make sure the server is listed in their DNS database correctly?
John

registering sql server problem

Trying to register a sql server in enterprise manager and
the server is on another domain which is trusted. The
server doesn't show up in the 'available servers' list
but I can register with ip address but *not* if I use
Client Network utility with exactly the correct netbios
name. Any ideas? Thanks.If the server isn't appearing in the list of available servers, chances are
that you need to add the IP address and server name to your hosts file. In
Win2k, the hosts file is located in c:\winnt\system32\driver\etc.
Open the hosts file in notepad, go to the end of the file, enter the IP
address, tab once and add the server name as follows:
xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx <tab> servername
John
"Dave Wilce" wrote:

> Trying to register a sql server in enterprise manager and
> the server is on another domain which is trusted. The
> server doesn't show up in the 'available servers' list
> but I can register with ip address but *not* if I use
> Client Network utility with exactly the correct netbios
> name. Any ideas? Thanks.
>|||We have tried 3 things :-
Using the Client Network utility does make the server
show up in the list but it will not register.
Using IP address it will allow registration but we hit
problems later (and we think it's because we use IP
address rather than NETBios name.
Using host file doesn't help...|||"Dave Wilce" wrote:

> We have tried 3 things :-
> Using the Client Network utility does make the server
> show up in the list but it will not register.
> Using IP address it will allow registration but we hit
> problems later (and we think it's because we use IP
> address rather than NETBios name.
> Using host file doesn't help...
Thinking out loud here...
Are you going through a firewall? Are you using the default port in the
Client Network utility (1433), and is the firewall open to that port? Can
you ping the other server using the server name? Can you have the your
network people make sure the server is listed in their DNS database correctl
y?
John

Registering SQL Server in Enterprise Manager

I have a couple of users that have been using the SQL Server 2000 Enterprise
Manager. They had our production server (as well as a test server)
registered on their machines as valid servers. Yesterday these users started
experiencing a problem with accessing the production server via Enterprise
Manager. When they tried to access the server they would receive the message
"Cannot open user default database. Login Failed". Each of these users is in
an AD group (defined as a user in SQL Server) that has access to our
production database. I verified the access of the group and everything looks
fine. The default database exists and the group is defined as a user. None
of these users are owners of objects in their default database.
The only way I have found to fix this was to go through security on our
production server and add their actual network user name. The whole reason I
have the group set up is so I don't have to add users individually. I also
verified the setup of our test server. This also uses a group instead of
individual network sign ons. They aren't having any problems accessing the
test server from Enterprise Manager.
How do I fix this so I don't have to have individual network sign ons?
Thanks for any help.
Nancy
That sounds pretty strange. Did you try deleting the group's login in SQL
and re-creating it?
-Argenis
"Nancy Kafer" <nkafer@.homesteaderslife.com> wrote in message
news:ONbr4QOIFHA.3628@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> I have a couple of users that have been using the SQL Server 2000
Enterprise
> Manager. They had our production server (as well as a test server)
> registered on their machines as valid servers. Yesterday these users
started
> experiencing a problem with accessing the production server via Enterprise
> Manager. When they tried to access the server they would receive the
message
> "Cannot open user default database. Login Failed". Each of these users is
in
> an AD group (defined as a user in SQL Server) that has access to our
> production database. I verified the access of the group and everything
looks
> fine. The default database exists and the group is defined as a user. None
> of these users are owners of objects in their default database.
> The only way I have found to fix this was to go through security on our
> production server and add their actual network user name. The whole reason
I
> have the group set up is so I don't have to add users individually. I also
> verified the setup of our test server. This also uses a group instead of
> individual network sign ons. They aren't having any problems accessing the
> test server from Enterprise Manager.
> How do I fix this so I don't have to have individual network sign ons?
> Thanks for any help.
> Nancy
>
|||I thought about doing that but I hadn't yet because I didn't want to have to
recreate the security for the tables in the database. One thing I did do
though was added a new AD group with these users and then added that to the
SQL Server security. This still didn't fix the problem. I'm thinking the
only way to fix it may be to try deleting the original AD group from SQL
Server and then re-adding it.
Thanks.
Nancy
"Argenis Fernandez" <argenis@.spam.sucks.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ewrCUZQIFHA.1396@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> That sounds pretty strange. Did you try deleting the group's login in SQL
> and re-creating it?
> -Argenis
> "Nancy Kafer" <nkafer@.homesteaderslife.com> wrote in message
> news:ONbr4QOIFHA.3628@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Enterprise
> started
Enterprise[vbcol=seagreen]
> message
is[vbcol=seagreen]
> in
> looks
None[vbcol=seagreen]
reason[vbcol=seagreen]
> I
also[vbcol=seagreen]
the
>

Registering SQL Server in Enterprise Manager

I have a couple of users that have been using the SQL Server 2000 Enterprise
Manager. They had our production server (as well as a test server)
registered on their machines as valid servers. Yesterday these users started
experiencing a problem with accessing the production server via Enterprise
Manager. When they tried to access the server they would receive the message
"Cannot open user default database. Login Failed". Each of these users is in
an AD group (defined as a user in SQL Server) that has access to our
production database. I verified the access of the group and everything looks
fine. The default database exists and the group is defined as a user. None
of these users are owners of objects in their default database.
The only way I have found to fix this was to go through security on our
production server and add their actual network user name. The whole reason I
have the group set up is so I don't have to add users individually. I also
verified the setup of our test server. This also uses a group instead of
individual network sign ons. They aren't having any problems accessing the
test server from Enterprise Manager.
How do I fix this so I don't have to have individual network sign ons?
Thanks for any help.
NancyThat sounds pretty strange. Did you try deleting the group's login in SQL
and re-creating it?
-Argenis
"Nancy Kafer" <nkafer@.homesteaderslife.com> wrote in message
news:ONbr4QOIFHA.3628@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> I have a couple of users that have been using the SQL Server 2000
Enterprise
> Manager. They had our production server (as well as a test server)
> registered on their machines as valid servers. Yesterday these users
started
> experiencing a problem with accessing the production server via Enterprise
> Manager. When they tried to access the server they would receive the
message
> "Cannot open user default database. Login Failed". Each of these users is
in
> an AD group (defined as a user in SQL Server) that has access to our
> production database. I verified the access of the group and everything
looks
> fine. The default database exists and the group is defined as a user. None
> of these users are owners of objects in their default database.
> The only way I have found to fix this was to go through security on our
> production server and add their actual network user name. The whole reason
I
> have the group set up is so I don't have to add users individually. I also
> verified the setup of our test server. This also uses a group instead of
> individual network sign ons. They aren't having any problems accessing the
> test server from Enterprise Manager.
> How do I fix this so I don't have to have individual network sign ons?
> Thanks for any help.
> Nancy
>|||I thought about doing that but I hadn't yet because I didn't want to have to
recreate the security for the tables in the database. One thing I did do
though was added a new AD group with these users and then added that to the
SQL Server security. This still didn't fix the problem. I'm thinking the
only way to fix it may be to try deleting the original AD group from SQL
Server and then re-adding it.
Thanks.
Nancy
"Argenis Fernandez" <argenis@.spam.sucks.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ewrCUZQIFHA.1396@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> That sounds pretty strange. Did you try deleting the group's login in SQL
> and re-creating it?
> -Argenis
> "Nancy Kafer" <nkafer@.homesteaderslife.com> wrote in message
> news:ONbr4QOIFHA.3628@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Enterprise
> started
Enterprise[vbcol=seagreen]
> message
is[vbcol=seagreen]
> in
> looks
None[vbcol=seagreen]
reason[vbcol=seagreen]
> I
also[vbcol=seagreen]
the[vbcol=seagreen]
>

Registering SQL Server in Enterprise Manager

I have followed all sugestions for this problem to no avail. I have 2 w2000 boxes connected via local network. Both are running instances of MSSQL8. From Box 2 I can register the MSSQL7 version on box1 and from box1 I can register the MSSQL7 version on box2. However I cannot register the MSSQL8 instancance either way. I can see the instance but get the message
"Specified SQL Server not found ConnectionOpen(Connect())
I have tried registering with the ip address but same problem
I have tried aliases.
In Client Network Utility and Server Network Utility I have both Named pipes(\\.\pipe\sql\query) and tcp/ip (port 1433)
on both machines
Any ideas ??
Regards ClemAre both boxes running both SQL2000 and SQL7? If so, and they are both listening on 1433, then only SQL7 will be accessible since it is not aware of multiple instancing in SQL2000. You may wish to have SQL2k listen on a different port.|||Thanks loach, sounds a likley fix. Excuse my ignorance but what port number can I use? Are port numbers listed somewhere?
Thanks for you time,
Regards Clem|||You can use any port number that is not already in use. It's typically a good idea to use port numbers over 10000 since they are rarely reserved. You can change the port number by starting up the server network utility (in the SQL Server program group), selecting the TCP/IP netowrk library and clicking on properties. To determine which ports are in use on the server, drop to a command prompt and run 'netstat -a'

You must then configure any client that accesses the server to also use that port using either the Client Network Utility or the ODBC connection properties.|||OK did that. Sql log now shows listening on [ip adds]:10000 but still same problem. tried connecting with ip adds but no go and also now on box1 I can't access the local mssql8 (7 is still ok) so i changed back to port 1433. (Is it using this port because it is not 'local'?)
At this stage I think I give up... I have been looking at this problem for about 3 months... so I guess i dont need the 7 databases any more. Any ideas how to remove the original 7 instance?
I am thinking a clean install might be the go?
Regards Clem|||Mmmmmmm clean install *drool* that's definately the way I would go,.. atleast you know where you stand then.|||try using port 1434.

try changing it in MS SQL2k on both machines (both changed at the same time)

is there any form of firewall on the individual computers, or between them? if so, make sure it isn't blocking port 1434 (or whatever port your using)

Try turning off mssql 7.

I don't know the details, but mssql is a registered system process, it integrates to an extent (i believe) with the OS.

Is it possible to successfully run multiple versions on MS SQL server on 1 machine? perhaps it isn't and that is why only ms sql 7 works correctly?

Using ports:

Yes, you can use any port, not in use. If you select a port that is in use, you should find out on the next boot. (something will probably crash, or stop working properly)

Hope this helps,|||Hi Ashleigh,
Yes it is possible to run both instances of mssql on the one server, it is the connecting to the mssql8 version on another machine that is the problem. When doing the connection the target server is even visible as a valid server...
Connecting to mssql7 on either machine is OK and of course both versions are OK if accessed on the local machine.
I believe this problem has been compounded by microsofts slammer virus fixes...

Registering SQL Server in Enterprise Manager

I have a couple of users that have been using the SQL Server 2000 Enterprise
Manager. They had our production server (as well as a test server)
registered on their machines as valid servers. Yesterday these users started
experiencing a problem with accessing the production server via Enterprise
Manager. When they tried to access the server they would receive the message
"Cannot open user default database. Login Failed". Each of these users is in
an AD group (defined as a user in SQL Server) that has access to our
production database. I verified the access of the group and everything looks
fine. The default database exists and the group is defined as a user. None
of these users are owners of objects in their default database.
The only way I have found to fix this was to go through security on our
production server and add their actual network user name. The whole reason I
have the group set up is so I don't have to add users individually. I also
verified the setup of our test server. This also uses a group instead of
individual network sign ons. They aren't having any problems accessing the
test server from Enterprise Manager.
How do I fix this so I don't have to have individual network sign ons?
Thanks for any help.
NancyThat sounds pretty strange. Did you try deleting the group's login in SQL
and re-creating it?
-Argenis
"Nancy Kafer" <nkafer@.homesteaderslife.com> wrote in message
news:ONbr4QOIFHA.3628@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> I have a couple of users that have been using the SQL Server 2000
Enterprise
> Manager. They had our production server (as well as a test server)
> registered on their machines as valid servers. Yesterday these users
started
> experiencing a problem with accessing the production server via Enterprise
> Manager. When they tried to access the server they would receive the
message
> "Cannot open user default database. Login Failed". Each of these users is
in
> an AD group (defined as a user in SQL Server) that has access to our
> production database. I verified the access of the group and everything
looks
> fine. The default database exists and the group is defined as a user. None
> of these users are owners of objects in their default database.
> The only way I have found to fix this was to go through security on our
> production server and add their actual network user name. The whole reason
I
> have the group set up is so I don't have to add users individually. I also
> verified the setup of our test server. This also uses a group instead of
> individual network sign ons. They aren't having any problems accessing the
> test server from Enterprise Manager.
> How do I fix this so I don't have to have individual network sign ons?
> Thanks for any help.
> Nancy
>|||I thought about doing that but I hadn't yet because I didn't want to have to
recreate the security for the tables in the database. One thing I did do
though was added a new AD group with these users and then added that to the
SQL Server security. This still didn't fix the problem. I'm thinking the
only way to fix it may be to try deleting the original AD group from SQL
Server and then re-adding it.
Thanks.
Nancy
"Argenis Fernandez" <argenis@.spam.sucks.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ewrCUZQIFHA.1396@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> That sounds pretty strange. Did you try deleting the group's login in SQL
> and re-creating it?
> -Argenis
> "Nancy Kafer" <nkafer@.homesteaderslife.com> wrote in message
> news:ONbr4QOIFHA.3628@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> > I have a couple of users that have been using the SQL Server 2000
> Enterprise
> > Manager. They had our production server (as well as a test server)
> > registered on their machines as valid servers. Yesterday these users
> started
> > experiencing a problem with accessing the production server via
Enterprise
> > Manager. When they tried to access the server they would receive the
> message
> > "Cannot open user default database. Login Failed". Each of these users
is
> in
> > an AD group (defined as a user in SQL Server) that has access to our
> > production database. I verified the access of the group and everything
> looks
> > fine. The default database exists and the group is defined as a user.
None
> > of these users are owners of objects in their default database.
> >
> > The only way I have found to fix this was to go through security on our
> > production server and add their actual network user name. The whole
reason
> I
> > have the group set up is so I don't have to add users individually. I
also
> > verified the setup of our test server. This also uses a group instead of
> > individual network sign ons. They aren't having any problems accessing
the
> > test server from Enterprise Manager.
> >
> > How do I fix this so I don't have to have individual network sign ons?
> >
> > Thanks for any help.
> >
> > Nancy
> >
> >
>

Registering servers in Enterprise Manager.

Is there any way I can reload the list of servers I
registered through Enterprise Manager, so that I don't
have to register them manually. I have approx. 80 servers
registered with Enterprise manager on my old workstation
and now I want them on my new workstation.
Or to put this question otherway: where does enterprise
manager store the information of servers registered with
it?
Any suggestions welcome. Thanks. -- Adi ..you can use
sp_addlinkedserver (parms)
in the query analyzer
"Adi" <adibazz_nospam@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6caf01c35867$6610d200$a001280a@.phx.gbl...
> Is there any way I can reload the list of servers I
> registered through Enterprise Manager, so that I don't
> have to register them manually. I have approx. 80 servers
> registered with Enterprise manager on my old workstation
> and now I want them on my new workstation.
> Or to put this question otherway: where does enterprise
> manager store the information of servers registered with
> it?
> Any suggestions welcome. Thanks. -- Adi ..|||What do you use to manage these 80 servers please. I will
like to know.
Thanks,
Aboki.
>--Original Message--
>Is there any way I can reload the list of servers I
>registered through Enterprise Manager, so that I don't
>have to register them manually. I have approx. 80 servers
>registered with Enterprise manager on my old workstation
>and now I want them on my new workstation.
>Or to put this question otherway: where does enterprise
>manager store the information of servers registered with
>it?
>Any suggestions welcome. Thanks. -- Adi ..
>.
>|||Thanks for your reply but I am talking here for
registering the server (and that through Enterprise
Manager). -- Adi ..
>--Original Message--
>you can use
>sp_addlinkedserver (parms)
>in the query analyzer
>"Adi" <adibazz_nospam@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:6caf01c35867$6610d200$a001280a@.phx.gbl...
>> Is there any way I can reload the list of servers I
>> registered through Enterprise Manager, so that I don't
>> have to register them manually. I have approx. 80
servers
>> registered with Enterprise manager on my old workstation
>> and now I want them on my new workstation.
>> Or to put this question otherway: where does enterprise
>> manager store the information of servers registered with
>> it?
>> Any suggestions welcome. Thanks. -- Adi ..
>
>.
>|||if you want do batch mode then instead of using the enterprise manager you
use the query analyzer and use the Sp.
if you use the enterprise you need to do manually, one at a time.
"Adi." <adibazz_nospam@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:01d701c3586f$8b7e9a10$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
> Thanks for your reply but I am talking here for
> registering the server (and that through Enterprise
> Manager). -- Adi ..
> >--Original Message--
> >you can use
> >sp_addlinkedserver (parms)
> >
> >in the query analyzer
> >
> >"Adi" <adibazz_nospam@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:6caf01c35867$6610d200$a001280a@.phx.gbl...
> >> Is there any way I can reload the list of servers I
> >> registered through Enterprise Manager, so that I don't
> >> have to register them manually. I have approx. 80
> servers
> >> registered with Enterprise manager on my old workstation
> >> and now I want them on my new workstation.
> >>
> >> Or to put this question otherway: where does enterprise
> >> manager store the information of servers registered with
> >> it?
> >>
> >> Any suggestions welcome. Thanks. -- Adi ..
> >
> >
> >.
> >

Registering Servers

In Enterprise Manager 2000 I was able to register multiple servers and next
time I opened it those servers would automatically connect. With SQL Server
Management Studio 2005 I can register multiple servers, but next time I open
it only the last one I had connected shows. Is there a way to maintain
multiple connections?
Hi Gary
I believe the object browser will show the server that you have logged into,
you will need to log into the other servers to get them in object explorer.
You want to raise this as an request at
http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/produc...k/default.aspx
John
"Gary L" wrote:

> In Enterprise Manager 2000 I was able to register multiple servers and next
> time I opened it those servers would automatically connect. With SQL Server
> Management Studio 2005 I can register multiple servers, but next time I open
> it only the last one I had connected shows. Is there a way to maintain
> multiple connections?

Registering Servers

In Enterprise Manager 2000 I was able to register multiple servers and next
time I opened it those servers would automatically connect. With SQL Server
Management Studio 2005 I can register multiple servers, but next time I open
it only the last one I had connected shows. Is there a way to maintain
multiple connections?Hi Gary
I believe the object browser will show the server that you have logged into,
you will need to log into the other servers to get them in object explorer.
You want to raise this as an request at
http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/produ...ck/default.aspx
John
"Gary L" wrote:

> In Enterprise Manager 2000 I was able to register multiple servers and nex
t
> time I opened it those servers would automatically connect. With SQL Serv
er
> Management Studio 2005 I can register multiple servers, but next time I op
en
> it only the last one I had connected shows. Is there a way to maintain
> multiple connections?

Registering Servers

In Enterprise Manager 2000 I was able to register multiple servers and next
time I opened it those servers would automatically connect. With SQL Server
Management Studio 2005 I can register multiple servers, but next time I open
it only the last one I had connected shows. Is there a way to maintain
multiple connections?Hi Gary
I believe the object browser will show the server that you have logged into,
you will need to log into the other servers to get them in object explorer.
You want to raise this as an request at
http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/productfeedback/default.aspx
John
"Gary L" wrote:
> In Enterprise Manager 2000 I was able to register multiple servers and next
> time I opened it those servers would automatically connect. With SQL Server
> Management Studio 2005 I can register multiple servers, but next time I open
> it only the last one I had connected shows. Is there a way to maintain
> multiple connections?