AUTO DROP OF SUBSCRIPTION

Hi,
I have merge replicated, remote server & local server.
The database has only one table. It was working fine.
More than 15 days, it was isolated without any transaction.
After some days (around 15 days) I found that the subscription is dropped.
What is the reason for this?
Is there any way to avoid this?
Thanks,
Soura.
Soura,
the Expired Subscription Cleanup agent has deleted the subscription.
Disabling this agent won't help, because you need to forcably prevent the
subscription from expiring. If it is transactional, make sure that the
subscription expiration period is sufficiently long eg 3 weeks, and history
retention period also the same length of time. If it was transactional, the
same would apply to the transaction retention period.
Rgds,
Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com
(recommended sql server 2000 replication book:
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)
|||I was under the impression that transactional replication needs to be
re-established after 72 hours and that this is the limit as it can not be
changed past this value. Are you primarily discussing the removal of the
subscription or the expiration of the subscription ?
It has been a long held understanding with the DBA's at my organisation that
72 Hours was the maximum time before expiration of a subscription to
transactional replication required a rebuild of the subscritpion .
"Paul Ibison" wrote:

> Soura,
> the Expired Subscription Cleanup agent has deleted the subscription.
> Disabling this agent won't help, because you need to forcably prevent the
> subscription from expiring. If it is transactional, make sure that the
> subscription expiration period is sufficiently long eg 3 weeks, and history
> retention period also the same length of time. If it was transactional, the
> same would apply to the transaction retention period.
> Rgds,
> Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com
> (recommended sql server 2000 replication book:
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)
>
>
|||Perhaps the quantity of information in your company makes this a practivcal
limit for the size of the distribution database, but there is no such
hardcoded limit in SQL Server - it is entirely configurable.
Rgds,
Paul Ibison

Authentication Problem x64

Win 2003 Server x64, .Net 2.0 x64 Reporting Services 2005. RS Database is a remote SQL 2005 on the same Domain in the same room. I can only get the report manager to authenticate local users; it will not authenticate Domain users.If I set up a local user and add a New Role Assignment all works OK.I have no problem adding a Domain user to a New Role Assignment, it allows this, but it will not authenticate the user.Adding the Domain user to the Windows Administrators group also has no effect.

Am I missing something simple?

I doubt this has anything to do with the x64-ness of your HW.

When you say "it will not authenticate the user", what exactly do you mean?

|||

If I try to log on to http://mymachine/reports with a local user it will let me on.If I try to log on as a Domain user, it keeps bringing up the logon screen. (Windows Authentication)Both users are set up in a role in RS.

|||It sounds to me like IIS is not recognizing the user. Does that user have permissions on the machine aside from being in the RS role?|||If you are asking about the Domain users, NO. I am expecting it to work like Share Point, where you add the Domain user in the site and give it permissions on the site. Am I assuming wrong?|||

Can you check the IIS logs on the machine for when the domain user tries to connect?

SRS doesn't grant the user any permissions on the box, so if the user did not have a valid account on the machine before, he still won't be able to have access to SRS because IIS will fail the request before it even gets to SRS.

|||

John,

I see the Get entry in the IIS log, no other entries. I see a success audit entry in the Security Log for that user.

If I log on with the the local user, I see the POST entries etc in the IIS log.

Do I need to set up the domain user to have some local rights?

|||I finally wipped the machine clean and started again. Now RS will authenticate a domain user fine.

Authentication

I have 2 instance on SQL Server, One remote the other local. Both authenticate via window NT.
How can I change one or both?
To connect to a application do I setup a usergroup? Grranted this is still in the testing stages.How can I change one or both?

Huh? (Was not a long enough message...)

If they want to parse something, they should parse the questions...|||1. How can I change one or both for authenicating throw SQL Server & Windows. From the application standpoint eash database within the instance could have restricted access.

2. Most user will only have access to the data via there particular application that interfaces with the dataBASE. Would you say this would fall under the category of Usergroup Brett. Where your buddy, who always has great instinct and insigght.|||I'm sorry...

Are you saying 1 Application is connecting to multiple databases?|||No, application Users should have access through authentication of Windows NT. If it's a outside user(offsite) and I want to make fo-sure he is allowed to have access. How would that be done.|||Are you planning to change server authentication mode from Windows Only to Mixed through FE code?|||Yes, that sound like what I'm looking for. What is FE Mode?|||FE Mode? It's front-end code ;)


Authentication mode is not a dynamic property. And I don't think that "messing" with server security is a proper role for an application. Any thoughts?|||The connection string you use will determine how you authenticate to the SQL Server. If you specify a User ID and a Password, then you will be authenticated based on the SQL Login. If you supply Integrated Security=SSPI, then you get windows authentication. Windows authentication is preferred, in case you try to put both in.

From this, you could try to modify the connection logic of the application to chose a connection string on startup. Or are the people in fixed locations just on different sides of the firewall?|||Mixed authentication. Different sides of the firewall using VMware product as the base repository. It come down to setting up the agent on the user site with the proper setting. After all they dont have access through EM, Just there application.

Thanks|||It's in the profile Check out the attachments

Auhtentification problem with Remote Data Access

Hello

I try to make a pull operation from an SQL SERVER 2005 database to a SQL Mobile 2005. I set Integrated authentification on IIS and SQL SEvrer authentification in the database. It passes the IIS authentification, but not the sql Server one. In addition, I tried to connect directlly to the sql with the same connection string anf it works.

Can you help me with this? Do i have to extra configure that dll(the agent) in the virtual directory, or sometihng llike that?

This is my code:

// Connection String to the SQL Server

//

string rdaOleDbConnectString = "Data Source=Sql07;Initial Catalog=AdventureWorks; " +

"User Id=sa;Password = sql250";

SqlConnection conn = new SqlConnection(rdaOleDbConnectString);

conn.Open();

// Initialize RDA Object

//

SqlCeRemoteDataAccess rda = null;

try

{

// Try the Pull Operation

//

rda = new SqlCeRemoteDataAccess(

"http://192.168.0.79/SqlMobileReplication/sqlcesa30.dll",

"assolutions\\dan.popescu",

"password",

"Data Source=\\my documents\\Baza.sdf");

rda.Pull("Employees", "SELECT * FROM DimEmployee", rdaOleDbConnectString,

RdaTrackOption.TrackingOnWithIndexes, "ErrorTable");

// or, try one of these overloads:

//

// rda.Pull("Employees", "SELECT * FROM DimEmployee", rdaOleDbConnectString,

// RdaTrackOption.TrackingOnWithIndexes);

//

// rda.Pull("Employees", "SELECT * FROM DimEmployee", rdaOleDbConnectString);

}

catch (Exception ex)

{

// Handle errors here

//

}

finally

{

// Dispose of the RDA object

//

rda.Dispose();

}

You can see that I have tried the connection first, and it really works. Isn't it the same thing it's doing at replication?

What is the error you are getting?
Also are you sure that the server has the table DimEmployee in the database?

Auhtentification problem with Remote Data Access

Hello

I try to make a pull operation from an SQL SERVER 2005 database to a SQL Mobile 2005. I set Integrated authentification on IIS and SQL SEvrer authentification in the database. It passes the IIS authentification, but not the sql Server one. In addition, I tried to connect directlly to the sql with the same connection string anf it works.

Can you help me with this? Do i have to extra configure that dll(the agent) in the virtual directory, or sometihng llike that?

This is my code:

// Connection String to the SQL Server

//

string rdaOleDbConnectString = "Data Source=Sql07;Initial Catalog=AdventureWorks; " +

"User Id=sa;Password = sql250";

SqlConnection conn = new SqlConnection(rdaOleDbConnectString);

conn.Open();

// Initialize RDA Object

//

SqlCeRemoteDataAccess rda = null;

try

{

// Try the Pull Operation

//

rda = new SqlCeRemoteDataAccess(

"http://192.168.0.79/SqlMobileReplication/sqlcesa30.dll",

"assolutions\\dan.popescu",

"password",

"Data Source=\\my documents\\Baza.sdf");

rda.Pull("Employees", "SELECT * FROM DimEmployee", rdaOleDbConnectString,

RdaTrackOption.TrackingOnWithIndexes, "ErrorTable");

// or, try one of these overloads:

//

// rda.Pull("Employees", "SELECT * FROM DimEmployee", rdaOleDbConnectString,

// RdaTrackOption.TrackingOnWithIndexes);

//

// rda.Pull("Employees", "SELECT * FROM DimEmployee", rdaOleDbConnectString);

}

catch (Exception ex)

{

// Handle errors here

//

}

finally

{

// Dispose of the RDA object

//

rda.Dispose();

}

You can see that I have tried the connection first, and it really works. Isn't it the same thing it's doing at replication?

What is the error you are getting?
Also are you sure that the server has the table DimEmployee in the database?

Attatching ASPNETDB to remote server

Hi there ;

I uploaded my app to host but crashed during membership activities, and i figured out it's cause of ASPNETDB.mdf that is not accessible in remote server, & it's driving me crazy.

As a solution i wanted to know :

is it possible to attatch my db in App_Data to remote server and make use of it just like before?

Please take it into concideration that i've already tried 'aspnet_regsql.exe' and the server gives me error:40 (only local access allowed ).

thanks in advance

No, for the AttacheDBFilename property, currently remote server, HTTP, and UNC path names are not supported. In other words the attached database file must be on the local disk of the SQL machine.|||

thanks lori ,

but i didn't say that i'm goin to set a http or sth alike as db File name . my problem is that my host company doesn't allow remote connections so that i can't use aspnet_regsql.exe .so i just wanted to know that if i send ASPNETDB.mdf to remote server (not necessarily to App_Date folder ) and ask admins to attach it in there, does it work just like the aspnet_regsql.exe ?so that i can then change my connectionstring to the one that my host offers after attaching.

thanks for any help

|||Sorry for misunderstanding Yes, aspnet_sql has nothing to do with database connection for your website, we use aspnet_regsql.exe to create database objects in specified database which can be used for membership. So just make sure connection can be made to the remote SQL Server.|||

So i'll do it .

really thanks for the help

|||

i did that, one final job is to set LocalSqlServer to the new one in the remote server, to do so, follow steps:

ControlPanel > Administrative Tools > Internet Information Services > here choose your website's virtual directory that is somewhere under "Default Web Site"

then right click and choose Properties, on the rightmost tab named "ASP.NET" click the button named "Edit Configuration..." .

on the window that will open, you see the "LocalSqlServer" under "Connection string manager", and it's value is set to the ASPNETDB.mdf that is in the App_Data directory, click on it & edit it to point to the one that is on the remote server .

Generally for those, who aren't allowed to access the db remotely, the best job, i think, is to generate a copy of "ASPNETDB.mdf" locally (In case there is someone else that has taken the name ASPNETDB, change its name) & send it to your remote server and ask them to attach it, then, with the connection string they offer you can have sth like "ASPNETDB.mdf" working remotely.

Thanks lori for the help

Attach remote DB file

Hi,
is there a way to attach a DB's file locate on a remote path ?
why SQL Server allows attach only from local drives ?
Thanks
Adriano
Adry
There is a TRACE ( don't remember a number) which allows you to create a
database to be stored on remote machine
But it is strongly not recommended , I hope you know why.
Copy the file to the local disk an attach them
"Adry" <adry@.ij_nospam.it> wrote in message
news:%23Q01VRFOGHA.3924@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> is there a way to attach a DB's file locate on a remote path ?
> why SQL Server allows attach only from local drives ?
>
> Thanks
> Adriano
>
|||Hi,
what do you mean by "there is a TRACE" ? what is "a TRACE" ?
Please, can you explain me better ?
Thanks
Adriano
"Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:uW22DhFOGHA.3264@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Adry
> There is a TRACE ( don't remember a number) which allows you to create a
> database to be stored on remote machine
> But it is strongly not recommended , I hope you know why.
> Copy the file to the local disk an attach them
>
>
>
> "Adry" <adry@.ij_nospam.it> wrote in message
> news:%23Q01VRFOGHA.3924@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>
|||Sorry
By default, you cannot create a database file on a mapped or UNC network
location under SQL Server 2000. You can get around this by turning on trace
flag 1807
DBCC TRACEON (1807)
I dont think it is documented as well as supported but I know for sure it is
not recommended
"Adry" <adry@.ij_nospam.it> wrote in message
news:eYQsayFOGHA.3732@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> what do you mean by "there is a TRACE" ? what is "a TRACE" ?
> Please, can you explain me better ?
> Thanks
> Adriano
> "Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:uW22DhFOGHA.3264@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>
|||Adry wrote:
> Hi,
> what do you mean by "there is a TRACE" ? what is "a TRACE" ?
> Please, can you explain me better ?
> Thanks
> Adriano
> "Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:uW22DhFOGHA.3264@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>
As Uri already pointed out, it's not recommended/supported to have a
database file on a remote location. If you still decide to do it, you
should be aware of the consequences in terms of performance and
database integrity.
You can read more about it here -
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;304261
Regards
Steen
|||Adry wrote:
> why SQL Server allows attach only from local drives ?
>
Because a database located across a network will suffer poor
performance and poor resilience/availability. For that reason,
attaching on a remote drive isn't supported.
Why would you want to attach a database on a remote drive?
David Portas, SQL Server MVP
Whenever possible please post enough code to reproduce your problem.
Including CREATE TABLE and INSERT statements usually helps.
State what version of SQL Server you are using and specify the content
of any error messages.
SQL Server Books Online:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/library/ms130214(en-US,SQL.90).aspx

Attach remote DB file

Hi,
is there a way to attach a DB's file locate on a remote path ?
why SQL Server allows attach only from local drives ?
Thanks
AdrianoAdry
There is a TRACE ( don't remember a number) which allows you to create a
database to be stored on remote machine
But it is strongly not recommended , I hope you know why.
Copy the file to the local disk an attach them
"Adry" <adry@.ij_nospam.it> wrote in message
news:%23Q01VRFOGHA.3924@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> is there a way to attach a DB's file locate on a remote path ?
> why SQL Server allows attach only from local drives ?
>
> Thanks
> Adriano
>|||Hi,
what do you mean by "there is a TRACE" ? what is "a TRACE" ?
Please, can you explain me better ?
Thanks
Adriano
"Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:uW22DhFOGHA.3264@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Adry
> There is a TRACE ( don't remember a number) which allows you to create a
> database to be stored on remote machine
> But it is strongly not recommended , I hope you know why.
> Copy the file to the local disk an attach them
>
>
>
> "Adry" <adry@.ij_nospam.it> wrote in message
> news:%23Q01VRFOGHA.3924@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>|||Sorry
By default, you cannot create a database file on a mapped or UNC network
location under SQL Server 2000. You can get around this by turning on trace
flag 1807
DBCC TRACEON (1807)
I dont think it is documented as well as supported but I know for sure it is
not recommended
"Adry" <adry@.ij_nospam.it> wrote in message
news:eYQsayFOGHA.3732@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> what do you mean by "there is a TRACE" ? what is "a TRACE" ?
> Please, can you explain me better ?
> Thanks
> Adriano
> "Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:uW22DhFOGHA.3264@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>|||Adry wrote:
> Hi,
> what do you mean by "there is a TRACE" ? what is "a TRACE" ?
> Please, can you explain me better ?
> Thanks
> Adriano
> "Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:uW22DhFOGHA.3264@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>
As Uri already pointed out, it's not recommended/supported to have a
database file on a remote location. If you still decide to do it, you
should be aware of the consequences in terms of performance and
database integrity.
You can read more about it here -
http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...kb;en-us;304261
Regards
Steen|||Adry wrote:
> why SQL Server allows attach only from local drives ?
>
Because a database located across a network will suffer poor
performance and poor resilience/availability. For that reason,
attaching on a remote drive isn't supported.
Why would you want to attach a database on a remote drive?
David Portas, SQL Server MVP
Whenever possible please post enough code to reproduce your problem.
Including CREATE TABLE and INSERT statements usually helps.
State what version of SQL Server you are using and specify the content
of any error messages.
SQL Server Books Online:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/library/ms130214(en-US,SQL.90).aspx
--

Attach remote DB file

Hi,
is there a way to attach a DB's file locate on a remote path ?
why SQL Server allows attach only from local drives ?
Thanks
AdrianoAdry
There is a TRACE ( don't remember a number) which allows you to create a
database to be stored on remote machine
But it is strongly not recommended , I hope you know why.
Copy the file to the local disk an attach them
"Adry" <adry@.ij_nospam.it> wrote in message
news:%23Q01VRFOGHA.3924@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> is there a way to attach a DB's file locate on a remote path ?
> why SQL Server allows attach only from local drives ?
>
> Thanks
> Adriano
>|||Hi,
what do you mean by "there is a TRACE" ? what is "a TRACE" ?
Please, can you explain me better ?
Thanks
Adriano
"Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:uW22DhFOGHA.3264@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Adry
> There is a TRACE ( don't remember a number) which allows you to create a
> database to be stored on remote machine
> But it is strongly not recommended , I hope you know why.
> Copy the file to the local disk an attach them
>
>
>
> "Adry" <adry@.ij_nospam.it> wrote in message
> news:%23Q01VRFOGHA.3924@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> Hi,
>> is there a way to attach a DB's file locate on a remote path ?
>> why SQL Server allows attach only from local drives ?
>>
>> Thanks
>> Adriano
>>
>|||Sorry
By default, you cannot create a database file on a mapped or UNC network
location under SQL Server 2000. You can get around this by turning on trace
flag 1807
DBCC TRACEON (1807)
I dont think it is documented as well as supported but I know for sure it is
not recommended
"Adry" <adry@.ij_nospam.it> wrote in message
news:eYQsayFOGHA.3732@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> what do you mean by "there is a TRACE" ? what is "a TRACE" ?
> Please, can you explain me better ?
> Thanks
> Adriano
> "Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:uW22DhFOGHA.3264@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>> Adry
>> There is a TRACE ( don't remember a number) which allows you to create a
>> database to be stored on remote machine
>> But it is strongly not recommended , I hope you know why.
>> Copy the file to the local disk an attach them
>>
>>
>>
>> "Adry" <adry@.ij_nospam.it> wrote in message
>> news:%23Q01VRFOGHA.3924@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> Hi,
>> is there a way to attach a DB's file locate on a remote path ?
>> why SQL Server allows attach only from local drives ?
>>
>> Thanks
>> Adriano
>>
>>
>|||Adry wrote:
> Hi,
> what do you mean by "there is a TRACE" ? what is "a TRACE" ?
> Please, can you explain me better ?
> Thanks
> Adriano
> "Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:uW22DhFOGHA.3264@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>> Adry
>> There is a TRACE ( don't remember a number) which allows you to create a
>> database to be stored on remote machine
>> But it is strongly not recommended , I hope you know why.
>> Copy the file to the local disk an attach them
>>
>>
>>
>> "Adry" <adry@.ij_nospam.it> wrote in message
>> news:%23Q01VRFOGHA.3924@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> Hi,
>> is there a way to attach a DB's file locate on a remote path ?
>> why SQL Server allows attach only from local drives ?
>>
>> Thanks
>> Adriano
>>
>
As Uri already pointed out, it's not recommended/supported to have a
database file on a remote location. If you still decide to do it, you
should be aware of the consequences in terms of performance and
database integrity.
You can read more about it here -
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;304261
Regards
Steen|||Adry wrote:
> why SQL Server allows attach only from local drives ?
>
Because a database located across a network will suffer poor
performance and poor resilience/availability. For that reason,
attaching on a remote drive isn't supported.
Why would you want to attach a database on a remote drive?
--
David Portas, SQL Server MVP
Whenever possible please post enough code to reproduce your problem.
Including CREATE TABLE and INSERT statements usually helps.
State what version of SQL Server you are using and specify the content
of any error messages.
SQL Server Books Online:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/library/ms130214(en-US,SQL.90).aspx
--