|
Hi,
Few additional questions:
- Where do you see the Express Edition text? If it's the tools, they may still be Express versions
- What does the errorlog say? In the beginning you have the version info from the dbms itself, is it also Express?
mika
|
|
|
|
|
Is it simply the name of the instance?
|
|
|
|
|
It's possible your upgrade just installed the standard version alongside the express, with its own named instance. That's what the R2 Express edition did to my machine. Using the management tools, look for another instance on the host. If you find another, export the databases from the express version, then import them to the new one.
Will Rogers never met me.
|
|
|
|
|
1. MS-sql 2008 Server(windows2008, firewall off)
2. Windows7 64bit(ms-sql2008)
3. Windows xp 32bit
My Windows version is windows7 64bit.
I can connect other ms-sql server which windows2003.
But i can't connect ms-sql server which windows 2008.
But other pc(windows xp) can connect ms-sql server which windows2008, 2003.
So, I turn off firewall off windows 2008 server.
But still now, i can't connect.
Ping from my computer to windows 2008 is good.
Also I can connect 80 port(but can't 1433 port.)
How can i solve this problem?
hi
My english is a little.
anyway, nice to meet you~~
and give me your advice anytime~
|
|
|
|
|
can you connect with the sql sever client tools i.e. sql server management studio? if not what error message does it give?
As barmey as a sack of badgers
Dude, if I knew what I was doing in life, I'd be rich, retired, dating a supermodel and laughing at the rest of you from the sidelines.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Windows 2008 server has ms-sql 2008.
And my pc has windows7.
I run cmd and input
"telnet 192.111.111.11 1433"
my pc can't connect But other pc(windows xp) can connect.
How can i connect?
hi
My english is a little.
anyway, nice to meet you~~
and give me your advice anytime~
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
Why would you connect to SQL Server using telnet? Although you could make the connection, SQL Server is dropping you off immediately when something is sent.
If you're trying to resolve connectivity issues, try using telnet against the telnet server port (typically 23) or simply ping to check that you can find the server.
|
|
|
|
|
To test server, i Input telnet command.
Database server ip is 198.1.1.123(example).
Other two pc(windows xp) can connect database server, but only my pc can't connect by using telnet.
hi
My english is a little.
anyway, nice to meet you~~
and give me your advice anytime~
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, so it's a connectivity issue. Try disabling the firewall in Windows 7. Also check that you are not blocked by any other firewalls, routers etc. You could also try pinging the server to see if it acts differently.
|
|
|
|
|
Could be caused by the firewall of Windows 7 - turn it completely off and try again. If it works, try to adjust your firewall such that it is still active but still allows the connection to SQL server.
There could be other issues like domain membership, group policies etc.
By the way, when trying telnet on my Win7 computer, I get a "command not found" message...
|
|
|
|
|
Bernhard Hiller wrote: By the way, when trying telnet on my Win7 computer, I get a
"command not found" message...
You need to turn it on.
Go to controlpanel, programs and features, turn windows features on or off.
|
|
|
|
|
I setup the my WCF service on server machine. The server OS is win 2008 with SQL 2008 express.
I trying to access to my SQL file ( mdf file ) to read data using LINQ to SQL. I see that the DataContext is OK - but when i try to get information that in one of the table i get an exception
"Failed to generate a user instance of SQL Server due to failure in retrieving the user's local application data path. Please make sure the user has a local user profile on the computer. The connection will be closed."
I dont know what i need to define or change in the IIS 7.5 that im using in the server side.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyone has managed to use the latest System.Data.SQLite?
The original site http://sqlite.phxsoftware.com/[^]
now redirects to a new site.
The trouble is that the new site is very austere, it describes itself as Fossil, sadly this is a well chosen name.
There is no setup file to download like before, only source.
Building is more complicated that it looks and the documentation is at best hard to follow.
I am starting to wonder now whether it is a good think or not that the project went open source.
Puzzled.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indeed, this is probably a transition issue.
In the meantime it is frustrating for users that can't, don't have the time or simply don't know how to compile C++.
I was sort of hoping by posting here to find someone that had done it already.
I thought the other site was complete other implementation.
You're right I could go for it, the risk in all of this would be to go for a project that won't be maintained in the future.
Do you think this project is better?
|
|
|
|
|
I'm sorry to say but I haven't used SQLite for ages so my current knowledge is mainly out-of-date. But I guess that if you design the db interface well, changing the library afterwards won't be so big issue. Most likely this means that you would create different kind of wrappers for db operations, such as a common method for executing a command or querying the db etc. This way you won't have so many places to change if the library is changed.
|
|
|
|
|
I have had to give up on the broken official version and I have my own version here:
https://github.com/PaulS/SQLiteDotNetProvider
It has most of the code changes from the official version, but will still build. (There are almost no changes.) Their version has missing files, and won't build an install. It's really about the same as 1.0.66, but compiles with sqlite 3.7.5.
When the official version is working again I would probably go with that.
|
|
|
|
|
Hey friends,
I have serveral usergroups in AD and I want each group to have read / write acces to one or more databases in SQL Server. I know how to set the privileges so that each database is accessable by the correct usergroup and not for all other groups, but I don't know how to set permissions required to query SQL Server which databases are accessable for the user currently logged on.
I'm using integrated security.
Anyone?
|
|
|
|
|
Eduard Keilholz wrote: I'm using integrated security.
IMHO that is where you are going wrong. AD is both too much and too little to meet application security.
We maintain our own user authorisation, especially as we have a 2 day turn around on AD changes. How do you test each group functionality, use different logins for each group 
Users are authenticated via AD and then are given a profile that includes a list of apps they have access to and the functionality they have within the app.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
when connected to SQL Server, executing sp_helpdb[^] without any parameters lists all the databases available to the login.
Best regards,
mika
|
|
|
|
|
|
IMHO they are aimed at 2 different markets, SQL Server works best with smaller environments (non enterprise) while Orable is excellent for truly meaty data with dedicated DBA and hardware support infrastructure.
I am a huge proponent of SQL Server b/c I work mostly with departmental data and limited support infrastructure. Orable requires a LOT more infrastructure support than SQL Server. I know of no small scale developers/departments that use Orable by choice.
As for security, both have more security than I currently need so the finer points at the extreme are moot.
Orable is by far the quickest and out performs SQL Server, this anecdotal as I am currently using both with the same data in both systems.
As with most MS stuff the UI for SQL SErver is dramatically better than Orable - you really need to go to 3rd party tools (TOAD) for Orable and TOAD is a very complex beastie.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
I'll second what Mycroft said. And I'll add that the operating system and other infrastructure contributes to security. I've only used Oracle on OpenVMS systems with no Internet connectivity -- you can't get much more secure than that.
On the other hand, Oracle tends to be much more expensive than SQL Server, and Sql Server has a lot of nifty features.
Basically, pick either one, not any of the others. And certainly not Cache .
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
