Mirrored db - Witness server multiple networks

All,
I've just completed setting up a mirrored db with 2 servers that reside on
different networks. All the appropriate routes are added and the boxes see
each other fine both at the OS level and the SQL server level. My witness
server is a machine with 2 nics, each can talk to each network and it sees
both sql servers just fine. IP Forwarding is enabled. I've succesfully
configured the Primary to use the witness server and it sees it fine. However
the Mirror server is constantly reporting that the witness server is
disconnected. I can connect through management studio and every other just
fine. Anything I need due to the fact that the primary and the mirror are on
different networks when it comes to the witness box? Any suggestions
appreciated. There are no firewalls in play.
Thanks.
Hi
I am not sure why you have not configured these on their own subnet? I would
contact PSS to see if this is possible.
John
"sqlboy2000" wrote:

> All,
> I've just completed setting up a mirrored db with 2 servers that reside on
> different networks. All the appropriate routes are added and the boxes see
> each other fine both at the OS level and the SQL server level. My witness
> server is a machine with 2 nics, each can talk to each network and it sees
> both sql servers just fine. IP Forwarding is enabled. I've succesfully
> configured the Primary to use the witness server and it sees it fine. However
> the Mirror server is constantly reporting that the witness server is
> disconnected. I can connect through management studio and every other just
> fine. Anything I need due to the fact that the primary and the mirror are on
> different networks when it comes to the witness box? Any suggestions
> appreciated. There are no firewalls in play.
> Thanks.
|||You won't be able to use Windows authentication across networks - you will
need to use certificates.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Use of included script samples are subject to the terms specified at
http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm
"sqlboy2000" <sqlboy2000@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6605AA68-D48F-4827-A583-1302CBEB55C5@.microsoft.com...
> All,
> I've just completed setting up a mirrored db with 2 servers that reside on
> different networks. All the appropriate routes are added and the boxes see
> each other fine both at the OS level and the SQL server level. My witness
> server is a machine with 2 nics, each can talk to each network and it sees
> both sql servers just fine. IP Forwarding is enabled. I've succesfully
> configured the Primary to use the witness server and it sees it fine.
> However
> the Mirror server is constantly reporting that the witness server is
> disconnected. I can connect through management studio and every other just
> fine. Anything I need due to the fact that the primary and the mirror are
> on
> different networks when it comes to the witness box? Any suggestions
> appreciated. There are no firewalls in play.
> Thanks.
|||By "different networks" I meant different subnets.
"Roger Wolter[MSFT]" wrote:

> You won't be able to use Windows authentication across networks - you will
> need to use certificates.
> --
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
> Use of included script samples are subject to the terms specified at
> http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm
> "sqlboy2000" <sqlboy2000@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:6605AA68-D48F-4827-A583-1302CBEB55C5@.microsoft.com...
>
>

Mirrored db - Witness server multiple networks

All,
I've just completed setting up a mirrored db with 2 servers that reside on
different networks. All the appropriate routes are added and the boxes see
each other fine both at the OS level and the SQL server level. My witness
server is a machine with 2 nics, each can talk to each network and it sees
both sql servers just fine. IP Forwarding is enabled. I've succesfully
configured the Primary to use the witness server and it sees it fine. However
the Mirror server is constantly reporting that the witness server is
disconnected. I can connect through management studio and every other just
fine. Anything I need due to the fact that the primary and the mirror are on
different networks when it comes to the witness box? Any suggestions
appreciated. There are no firewalls in play.
Thanks.Hi
I am not sure why you have not configured these on their own subnet? I would
contact PSS to see if this is possible.
John
"sqlboy2000" wrote:
> All,
> I've just completed setting up a mirrored db with 2 servers that reside on
> different networks. All the appropriate routes are added and the boxes see
> each other fine both at the OS level and the SQL server level. My witness
> server is a machine with 2 nics, each can talk to each network and it sees
> both sql servers just fine. IP Forwarding is enabled. I've succesfully
> configured the Primary to use the witness server and it sees it fine. However
> the Mirror server is constantly reporting that the witness server is
> disconnected. I can connect through management studio and every other just
> fine. Anything I need due to the fact that the primary and the mirror are on
> different networks when it comes to the witness box? Any suggestions
> appreciated. There are no firewalls in play.
> Thanks.|||You won't be able to use Windows authentication across networks - you will
need to use certificates.
--
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Use of included script samples are subject to the terms specified at
http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm
"sqlboy2000" <sqlboy2000@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6605AA68-D48F-4827-A583-1302CBEB55C5@.microsoft.com...
> All,
> I've just completed setting up a mirrored db with 2 servers that reside on
> different networks. All the appropriate routes are added and the boxes see
> each other fine both at the OS level and the SQL server level. My witness
> server is a machine with 2 nics, each can talk to each network and it sees
> both sql servers just fine. IP Forwarding is enabled. I've succesfully
> configured the Primary to use the witness server and it sees it fine.
> However
> the Mirror server is constantly reporting that the witness server is
> disconnected. I can connect through management studio and every other just
> fine. Anything I need due to the fact that the primary and the mirror are
> on
> different networks when it comes to the witness box? Any suggestions
> appreciated. There are no firewalls in play.
> Thanks.

Mirrored db - Witness server multiple networks

All,
I've just completed setting up a mirrored db with 2 servers that reside on
different networks. All the appropriate routes are added and the boxes see
each other fine both at the OS level and the SQL server level. My witness
server is a machine with 2 nics, each can talk to each network and it sees
both sql servers just fine. IP Forwarding is enabled. I've succesfully
configured the Primary to use the witness server and it sees it fine. Howeve
r
the Mirror server is constantly reporting that the witness server is
disconnected. I can connect through management studio and every other just
fine. Anything I need due to the fact that the primary and the mirror are on
different networks when it comes to the witness box? Any suggestions
appreciated. There are no firewalls in play.
Thanks.Hi
I am not sure why you have not configured these on their own subnet? I would
contact PSS to see if this is possible.
John
"sqlboy2000" wrote:

> All,
> I've just completed setting up a mirrored db with 2 servers that reside on
> different networks. All the appropriate routes are added and the boxes see
> each other fine both at the OS level and the SQL server level. My witness
> server is a machine with 2 nics, each can talk to each network and it sees
> both sql servers just fine. IP Forwarding is enabled. I've succesfully
> configured the Primary to use the witness server and it sees it fine. Howe
ver
> the Mirror server is constantly reporting that the witness server is
> disconnected. I can connect through management studio and every other just
> fine. Anything I need due to the fact that the primary and the mirror are
on
> different networks when it comes to the witness box? Any suggestions
> appreciated. There are no firewalls in play.
> Thanks.|||You won't be able to use Windows authentication across networks - you will
need to use certificates.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Use of included script samples are subject to the terms specified at
http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm
"sqlboy2000" <sqlboy2000@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6605AA68-D48F-4827-A583-1302CBEB55C5@.microsoft.com...
> All,
> I've just completed setting up a mirrored db with 2 servers that reside on
> different networks. All the appropriate routes are added and the boxes see
> each other fine both at the OS level and the SQL server level. My witness
> server is a machine with 2 nics, each can talk to each network and it sees
> both sql servers just fine. IP Forwarding is enabled. I've succesfully
> configured the Primary to use the witness server and it sees it fine.
> However
> the Mirror server is constantly reporting that the witness server is
> disconnected. I can connect through management studio and every other just
> fine. Anything I need due to the fact that the primary and the mirror are
> on
> different networks when it comes to the witness box? Any suggestions
> appreciated. There are no firewalls in play.
> Thanks.|||By "different networks" I meant different subnets.
"Roger Wolter[MSFT]" wrote:

> You won't be able to use Windows authentication across networks - you will
> need to use certificates.
> --
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights
.
> Use of included script samples are subject to the terms specified at
> http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm
> "sqlboy2000" <sqlboy2000@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:6605AA68-D48F-4827-A583-1302CBEB55C5@.microsoft.com...
>
>sql

Minimise toolbar on report load

Hi,
I am using the URL format to render a report.
I would like the toolbar to be shown and have it minimised on report load. I have tried setting Toolbar=false but this removes it from the report. I want the toolbar but I want it minimised on when a report is rendered.
ThanksNo, this is not possible. In SP1, you can collapse the parameters area.
--
Brian Welcker
Group Program Manager
SQL Server Reporting Services
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"MikeMcD" <MikeMcD@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:756E8829-D810-4B76-AE5A-14A2B547DC58@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I am using the URL format to render a report.
> I would like the toolbar to be shown and have it minimised on report load.
I have tried setting Toolbar=false but this removes it from the report. I
want the toolbar but I want it minimised on when a report is rendered.
> Thankssql

Min & Max Memory in 2005

Is there a best practice for setting the Minimum and Maximum Memory settings
in SQL Server 2005 on a dedicated SQL Server machine. With SQL Server 2000
we set the minimum and maximum memory to be the same value on our large
clustered SQL Server machines. This seemed to work very well. Is the same
true for 2005?
My experience so far has been you should at least set the max server
memory if you are beyond 2GB range, regardless of x86 or x64.
Note...if you are running x64 and have more than once instance, you
will also should to set it for ALL instances if you have more than one
on the box (or cluster in an active/active situation)...otherwise, the
most greedy instance wins out, creating memory pressure on the OS as
well...or so it goes from my experience. SQL will give up memory when
it recieves the out memory messages from the OS, but in the few times
I tested it during our initial deployment, the memory starvation of
one instance created massive slow downs in performance.
On Jun 15, 9:44 am, "Cgal" <cgalle...@.newsgroups.nospam> wrote:
> Is there a best practice for setting the Minimum and Maximum Memory settings
> in SQL Server 2005 on a dedicated SQL Server machine. With SQL Server 2000
> we set the minimum and maximum memory to be the same value on our large
> clustered SQL Server machines. This seemed to work very well. Is the same
> true for 2005?
|||Setting the min and max to the same basically fixes your memory at that
point and doesn't leave room for the OS to share if needed. In general leave
the min at 0 (default) and set the MAX to a value to always leave some for
the OS. Most systems will work fine with MAX at the default if you are not
using AWE but there may be times when you simply want to leave x amount of
memory for the OS and any other apps running on the server. If you are using
AWE and 32 bit you must set it to some value less than MAX because it is not
dynamic and will starve the OS.How much you leave depends on how much you
have and what you are doing.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Cgal" <cgallelli@.newsgroups.nospam> wrote in message
news:%23AqYlN1rHHA.4768@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Is there a best practice for setting the Minimum and Maximum Memory
> settings in SQL Server 2005 on a dedicated SQL Server machine. With SQL
> Server 2000 we set the minimum and maximum memory to be the same value on
> our large clustered SQL Server machines. This seemed to work very well.
> Is the same true for 2005?
>

Min & Max Memory in 2005

Is there a best practice for setting the Minimum and Maximum Memory settings
in SQL Server 2005 on a dedicated SQL Server machine. With SQL Server 2000
we set the minimum and maximum memory to be the same value on our large
clustered SQL Server machines. This seemed to work very well. Is the same
true for 2005?My experience so far has been you should at least set the max server
memory if you are beyond 2GB range, regardless of x86 or x64.
Note...if you are running x64 and have more than once instance, you
will also should to set it for ALL instances if you have more than one
on the box (or cluster in an active/active situation)...otherwise, the
most greedy instance wins out, creating memory pressure on the OS as
well...or so it goes from my experience. SQL will give up memory when
it recieves the out memory messages from the OS, but in the few times
I tested it during our initial deployment, the memory starvation of
one instance created massive slow downs in performance.
On Jun 15, 9:44 am, "Cgal" <cgalle...@.newsgroups.nospam> wrote:
> Is there a best practice for setting the Minimum and Maximum Memory settings
> in SQL Server 2005 on a dedicated SQL Server machine. With SQL Server 2000
> we set the minimum and maximum memory to be the same value on our large
> clustered SQL Server machines. This seemed to work very well. Is the same
> true for 2005?|||Setting the min and max to the same basically fixes your memory at that
point and doesn't leave room for the OS to share if needed. In general leave
the min at 0 (default) and set the MAX to a value to always leave some for
the OS. Most systems will work fine with MAX at the default if you are not
using AWE but there may be times when you simply want to leave x amount of
memory for the OS and any other apps running on the server. If you are using
AWE and 32 bit you must set it to some value less than MAX because it is not
dynamic and will starve the OS.How much you leave depends on how much you
have and what you are doing.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Cgal" <cgallelli@.newsgroups.nospam> wrote in message
news:%23AqYlN1rHHA.4768@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Is there a best practice for setting the Minimum and Maximum Memory
> settings in SQL Server 2005 on a dedicated SQL Server machine. With SQL
> Server 2000 we set the minimum and maximum memory to be the same value on
> our large clustered SQL Server machines. This seemed to work very well.
> Is the same true for 2005?
>

Min & Max Memory in 2005

Is there a best practice for setting the Minimum and Maximum Memory settings
in SQL Server 2005 on a dedicated SQL Server machine. With SQL Server 2000
we set the minimum and maximum memory to be the same value on our large
clustered SQL Server machines. This seemed to work very well. Is the same
true for 2005?My experience so far has been you should at least set the max server
memory if you are beyond 2GB range, regardless of x86 or x64.
Note...if you are running x64 and have more than once instance, you
will also should to set it for ALL instances if you have more than one
on the box (or cluster in an active/active situation)...otherwise, the
most greedy instance wins out, creating memory pressure on the OS as
well...or so it goes from my experience. SQL will give up memory when
it recieves the out memory messages from the OS, but in the few times
I tested it during our initial deployment, the memory starvation of
one instance created massive slow downs in performance.
On Jun 15, 9:44 am, "Cgal" <cgalle...@.newsgroups.nospam> wrote:
> Is there a best practice for setting the Minimum and Maximum Memory settin
gs
> in SQL Server 2005 on a dedicated SQL Server machine. With SQL Server 200
0
> we set the minimum and maximum memory to be the same value on our large
> clustered SQL Server machines. This seemed to work very well. Is the sam
e
> true for 2005?|||Setting the min and max to the same basically fixes your memory at that
point and doesn't leave room for the OS to share if needed. In general leave
the min at 0 (default) and set the MAX to a value to always leave some for
the OS. Most systems will work fine with MAX at the default if you are not
using AWE but there may be times when you simply want to leave x amount of
memory for the OS and any other apps running on the server. If you are using
AWE and 32 bit you must set it to some value less than MAX because it is not
dynamic and will starve the OS.How much you leave depends on how much you
have and what you are doing.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Cgal" <cgallelli@.newsgroups.nospam> wrote in message
news:%23AqYlN1rHHA.4768@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Is there a best practice for setting the Minimum and Maximum Memory
> settings in SQL Server 2005 on a dedicated SQL Server machine. With SQL
> Server 2000 we set the minimum and maximum memory to be the same value on
> our large clustered SQL Server machines. This seemed to work very well.
> Is the same true for 2005?
>