Cluster SQL 7.0 in W2KAdv environment

Hi!
This is the scenario:
* Windows 2000 Advanced Server clustered with 2 nodes
After the installation of SQLServer in the first node, does not appear
the 'SQL Server Failover Cluster' or 'Failover Cluster Wizard' in the
program files menu, and the option 'MSDTC Administrative Control' is
in the menu but the file 'dac.exe' isn't installed.
I don't know which is the problem, because the MSDTC resource in the
cluster is on-line and managed by the firt node, after execute the
command comclust. I see the articles in Microsoft KB (290624, 243204,
), but I don't found a solutions. There are a special SQL 7.0 version
for clustering
Thanks!!
Are you sure you installed the Enterprise Edition?
Look at the SQL Server errorlog and verify that you installed the
Enterprise Edition. BAsed on what you are saying about the Failover Wizard
not being there I am thinking that you did not.
Rand
This posting is provided "as is" with no warranties and confers no rights.
|||I fix this problem by installing the Enterprise Edition (really stupid
), and now the Failover Wizard it's ok, but the 'MSDTC
Administrative Console' still not work. I don't know the reason why
don't install dac.exe. I'll try to install mdac2.8
Thanks for your post.
Regards,
Ren
rboyd@.onlinemicrosoft.com (Rand Boyd [MSFT]) wrote in message news:<CxzmcDlJEHA.4016@.cpmsftngxa10.phx.gbl>...
> Are you sure you installed the Enterprise Edition?
> Look at the SQL Server errorlog and verify that you installed the
> Enterprise Edition. BAsed on what you are saying about the Failover Wizard
> not being there I am thinking that you did not.
> Rand
> This posting is provided "as is" with no warranties and confers no rights.

Cluster Set up Question

Hello,
We are implementing clustering (Active/Passive) in our Production environment.
So we will have two windows server 2003 for SQL SERVER. (ProdDbServer1 and
ProdDbServer2)
I will install SQL Server on both the machine and i will create my database
(FinDB)
on both the machine's SQL SERVER with all the tables,store procs, functions
etc.
So lets say if my Active Server is in action and accepting all the OLTP
transaction
and for some reason if it goes fail...How can passive server can take over,
how
passive server can be at the same point of the fail of active server ?
Bacically how both the Database will be in sink with each other ?
Pls help me
A cluster consists of two machines and a storage system that is physically
connected to both systems. The Cluster software arbitrates ownership of the
disk resource so that only one server can access it at a time. The cluster
software also monitor the sql instance on the active host node for failure.
If the first node fails, ownership of the SQL instance and the corresponding
disk resource is transferred to the other node. From the outside, it looks
like the SQL Server stopped and restarted.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"mvp" <mvp@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3F5342B1-3AB6-4CD7-B763-33587B1BED0E@.microsoft.com...
> Hello,
> We are implementing clustering (Active/Passive) in our Production
> environment.
> So we will have two windows server 2003 for SQL SERVER. (ProdDbServer1 and
> ProdDbServer2)
> I will install SQL Server on both the machine and i will create my
> database
> (FinDB)
> on both the machine's SQL SERVER with all the tables,store procs,
> functions
> etc.
> So lets say if my Active Server is in action and accepting all the OLTP
> transaction
> and for some reason if it goes fail...How can passive server can take
> over,
> how
> passive server can be at the same point of the fail of active server ?
> Bacically how both the Database will be in sink with each other ?
> Pls help me
|||Thanks Geoff.
So From your reply, I understand that i will have to install SQL SERVER 2000
on both the windows 2003 server.
I have following questions.
1) After installing SQL SERVER on both the windows m/c, When i create
database on both the machine, Would i have to mentioned same Data files and
Transaction Log Path ( Because we will have storage will be in SAN), when i
create DB ?
2) For example if i create one table in the FinDB of on ServerA and then if
i go to FinDB of ServerB, I will see that table there too, if i will have
Datafiles and Transaction Log Path are same for both the servers ?
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:

> A cluster consists of two machines and a storage system that is physically
> connected to both systems. The Cluster software arbitrates ownership of the
> disk resource so that only one server can access it at a time. The cluster
> software also monitor the sql instance on the active host node for failure.
> If the first node fails, ownership of the SQL instance and the corresponding
> disk resource is transferred to the other node. From the outside, it looks
> like the SQL Server stopped and restarted.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>
> "mvp" <mvp@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:3F5342B1-3AB6-4CD7-B763-33587B1BED0E@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||Thanks Geoff.
So From your reply, I understand that i will have to install SQL SERVER 2000
on both the windows 2003 server.
I have following questions.
1) After installing SQL SERVER on both the windows m/c, When i create
database on both the machine, Would i have to mentioned same Data files and
Transaction Log Path ( Because we will have storage will be in SAN), when i
create DB ?
2) For example if i create one table in the FinDB of on ServerA and then if
i go to FinDB of ServerB, I will see that table there too, if i will have
Datafiles and Transaction Log Path are same for both the servers ?
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:

> A cluster consists of two machines and a storage system that is physically
> connected to both systems. The Cluster software arbitrates ownership of the
> disk resource so that only one server can access it at a time. The cluster
> software also monitor the sql instance on the active host node for failure.
> If the first node fails, ownership of the SQL instance and the corresponding
> disk resource is transferred to the other node. From the outside, it looks
> like the SQL Server stopped and restarted.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>
> "mvp" <mvp@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:3F5342B1-3AB6-4CD7-B763-33587B1BED0E@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||Does anyone want to rethink their perspective on why active/active and
active/passive should be used as terminology?
"mvp" <mvp@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3F5342B1-3AB6-4CD7-B763-33587B1BED0E@.microsoft.com...
> Hello,
> We are implementing clustering (Active/Passive) in our Production
> environment.
> So we will have two windows server 2003 for SQL SERVER. (ProdDbServer1 and
> ProdDbServer2)
> I will install SQL Server on both the machine and i will create my
> database
> (FinDB)
> on both the machine's SQL SERVER with all the tables,store procs,
> functions
> etc.
> So lets say if my Active Server is in action and accepting all the OLTP
> transaction
> and for some reason if it goes fail...How can passive server can take
> over,
> how
> passive server can be at the same point of the fail of active server ?
> Bacically how both the Database will be in sink with each other ?
> Pls help me
|||If you install SQL Server twice, you will have 2 physically separate
instances of SQL Server running within a single cluster. If you then create
your database in each of these instances, you will have 2 physically
separate copies of the database. In order to synchronize data between the
two databases, you would have to implement replication, log shipping, or
database mirroring (2005 only). If one of the servers failed, you would
have to change your application connections to point at the other SQL Server
instance.
"mvp" <mvp@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3F5342B1-3AB6-4CD7-B763-33587B1BED0E@.microsoft.com...
> Hello,
> We are implementing clustering (Active/Passive) in our Production
> environment.
> So we will have two windows server 2003 for SQL SERVER. (ProdDbServer1 and
> ProdDbServer2)
> I will install SQL Server on both the machine and i will create my
> database
> (FinDB)
> on both the machine's SQL SERVER with all the tables,store procs,
> functions
> etc.
> So lets say if my Active Server is in action and accepting all the OLTP
> transaction
> and for some reason if it goes fail...How can passive server can take
> over,
> how
> passive server can be at the same point of the fail of active server ?
> Bacically how both the Database will be in sink with each other ?
> Pls help me
|||No. You create the cluster. You then install a single copy of SQL Server
into the cluster. You then create your database inside that instance. You
do not install SQL Server directly to a machine. It is installed to the
cluster.
"mvp" <mvp@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:95A55E02-1BCB-47E1-9458-E01080486B3D@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Thanks Geoff.
> So From your reply, I understand that i will have to install SQL SERVER
> 2000
> on both the windows 2003 server.
> I have following questions.
> 1) After installing SQL SERVER on both the windows m/c, When i create
> database on both the machine, Would i have to mentioned same Data files
> and
> Transaction Log Path ( Because we will have storage will be in SAN), when
> i
> create DB ?
> 2) For example if i create one table in the FinDB of on ServerA and then
> if
> i go to FinDB of ServerB, I will see that table there too, if i will have
> Datafiles and Transaction Log Path are same for both the servers ?
> "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
|||The SQL Installer is cluster-aware. That is, it handles all the details of
cluster-wide installation. It creates the virtual server and installs the
local binaries on all nodes. It also groups all the cluster resources and
sets the dependencies correctly. Once SQL is running and you are connected,
there is almost no difference in SQL operations between clustered and
non-clustered SQL Servers. You end up connecting to a virtual SQL Server
instance that looks identical regardless of which node is actually hosting
it at the moment.
Here is an excellent overview of SQL failover clustering that you may find
helpful:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro.../failclus.mspx
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"mvp" <mvp@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:95A55E02-1BCB-47E1-9458-E01080486B3D@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Thanks Geoff.
> So From your reply, I understand that i will have to install SQL SERVER
> 2000
> on both the windows 2003 server.
> I have following questions.
> 1) After installing SQL SERVER on both the windows m/c, When i create
> database on both the machine, Would i have to mentioned same Data files
> and
> Transaction Log Path ( Because we will have storage will be in SAN), when
> i
> create DB ?
> 2) For example if i create one table in the FinDB of on ServerA and then
> if
> i go to FinDB of ServerB, I will see that table there too, if i will have
> Datafiles and Transaction Log Path are same for both the servers ?
> "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
|||Thanks for the reply.
No i do not want two sql server instance in single cluster, I just want one
instance in my cluster. so what should i do, install SQL SERVER 2000 Software
and create my database in just one machine (ProdSqlServerA)?
If i do like this and if i go to another sever (ProdSqlServerB), would i see
SQL SERVER and my created Db on that maching too ?
"Z" wrote:

> If you install SQL Server twice, you will have 2 physically separate
> instances of SQL Server running within a single cluster. If you then create
> your database in each of these instances, you will have 2 physically
> separate copies of the database. In order to synchronize data between the
> two databases, you would have to implement replication, log shipping, or
> database mirroring (2005 only). If one of the servers failed, you would
> have to change your application connections to point at the other SQL Server
> instance.
>
> "mvp" <mvp@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:3F5342B1-3AB6-4CD7-B763-33587B1BED0E@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||No thanks! I don't want Mike and Geoff mad at me anymore on this subject.
Cheers,
Rod
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering Website
http://msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
http://www.clusterhelp.com - Cluster Training
"Z" <z@.z.com> wrote in message
news:%23MIgYMvFGHA.984@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Does anyone want to rethink their perspective on why active/active and
> active/passive should be used as terminology?
>
> "mvp" <mvp@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:3F5342B1-3AB6-4CD7-B763-33587B1BED0E@.microsoft.com...
>
sqlsql

Cluster failing connections with SSL error message

We recently migrated our production environment from a win2k3/SQL 2000 EE cluster to a new 64 bit win2k3/ SQL 2005 SP1 Cluster.

Cluster works fine for a while (3-6 hours), then our logins start failing. We recieve the following error in the event log:

"The server was unable to load the SSL provider library needed to log in; the connection has been closed. SSL is used to encrypt either the login sequence or all communications, depending on how the administrator has configured the server. See Books Online for information on this error message"

The only way to resume connectivity is to offline and online the sql service in the cluster.

The only reference to this error that I can find has something to do with a hotfix that might be available?

It's sad to say but we are experiencing the same issue.
Only we get this after a good 30 minutes...

Someone from Microsoft Spain is flying over here.

Very painful

|||

In working with microsoft PSS, we found the issue to be a permissions issue of all things.

Our service account did not have rights to lock pages in memory on either machines in the cluster. (even though is a domain administrator).

Once we gave it this right and restarted the SQL Server object in the cluster we have not had a similar failure since.

|||

This was unfortunately enabled already so it did not cause the problem here :-(

|||Hi Wesley,

Any joy with this? I'm currently going throught the same thing, and also have locked pages enabled for my SQL service account. I'm currently going through MS Support, but seem to be going around the houses :o(

Thanks

Stu|||Any luck, we have a similar problem.
We noticed that memory usage grows slowly beyond physical memory (32G) then connection failiurs start and server becomes inoperable.
Workaround solution is to reduce max mem in the server, down to 18G from (25).
This causes the server and OS to release memory. After the system stabilized we increased the maxmem in the server back to its original settng. Lock pages in memory is set.

Hope this helps.

This is a workaround, so we don't have to bounce the server, we are still looking for the cause.
esk.

Setup:2 node Cluster 4*dual 64bit AMD, 32Gb, SQL 2005 Enterprise SP0.|||

Hi,

Apparently we have hit a bug where the usercache size becomes too large and for every execution of a statement SQL Server has to check this store.
This store is not cleaned and keep growing too the point where lookups become blocked with spinlocks. If you want I can give you the commands to check this.

This will be fixed in SP2 because of the major impact a fix would have. The workaround is adding the users to the sysadmin group or clearing the cache manually with DBCC FREESYSTEMCACHE.

HTH

Kind regards,
Wesley

|||Thanks for the replies !

Wes, if you could give the command to check the spinlocks that would be great.

many thanks

Stu|||

Stu,

It's actually the query for checking the cache size.

SELECT * FROM sys.dm_os_memory_clerks
WHERE type = 'USERSTORE_TOKENPERM'
We have seen problems as of 150MB in our environment but this probably all depends on the load and types of queries. Add up the single pages and multipages to determine the size.

HTH
Wesley

|||Thanks Wesley!

After much investigation it turned out the problem was the iLO Management Channel Interface Driver (Cpqcidrv.sys) from Hewlett-Packard. Apparently this

is known to cause this issue on x64 editions of SQL Server 2005. The driver

causes the SQL Server 2005 64-bit working set to be trimmed!


We do not use ILO on our HP Servers, so I disable it in device manager, and so far so good (fingers crossed)!!!

Thanks

Stu|||

Great news!

There seems to be a hotfix for Windows 2003 concerning working set trims too.
Apparently working sets get trimmed when you use Terminal Services on the server... so beware ;-)

|||

If possible could you share the hotfix number? Thanks in advance,

Drew

|||

Hey Wesley. Can you please elaborate more on this 'working sets get trimmed' and beware. and the hotfix available? Thank you very much. I've had problems with this also.

|||

I am also have a problem with this issue. I am going to try disabling the ILO. The terminal service hotfix seems to be this one:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/905865/en-us

sqlsql

Cluster failing connections with SSL error message

We recently migrated our production environment from a win2k3/SQL 2000 EE cluster to a new 64 bit win2k3/ SQL 2005 SP1 Cluster.

Cluster works fine for a while (3-6 hours), then our logins start failing. We recieve the following error in the event log:

"The server was unable to load the SSL provider library needed to log in; the connection has been closed. SSL is used to encrypt either the login sequence or all communications, depending on how the administrator has configured the server. See Books Online for information on this error message"

The only way to resume connectivity is to offline and online the sql service in the cluster.

The only reference to this error that I can find has something to do with a hotfix that might be available?

It's sad to say but we are experiencing the same issue.
Only we get this after a good 30 minutes...

Someone from Microsoft Spain is flying over here.

Very painful

|||

In working with microsoft PSS, we found the issue to be a permissions issue of all things.

Our service account did not have rights to lock pages in memory on either machines in the cluster. (even though is a domain administrator).

Once we gave it this right and restarted the SQL Server object in the cluster we have not had a similar failure since.

|||

This was unfortunately enabled already so it did not cause the problem here :-(

|||Hi Wesley,

Any joy with this? I'm currently going throught the same thing, and also have locked pages enabled for my SQL service account. I'm currently going through MS Support, but seem to be going around the houses :o(

Thanks

Stu|||Any luck, we have a similar problem.
We noticed that memory usage grows slowly beyond physical memory (32G) then connection failiurs start and server becomes inoperable.
Workaround solution is to reduce max mem in the server, down to 18G from (25).
This causes the server and OS to release memory. After the system stabilized we increased the maxmem in the server back to its original settng. Lock pages in memory is set.

Hope this helps.

This is a workaround, so we don't have to bounce the server, we are still looking for the cause.
esk.

Setup:2 node Cluster 4*dual 64bit AMD, 32Gb, SQL 2005 Enterprise SP0.|||

Hi,

Apparently we have hit a bug where the usercache size becomes too large and for every execution of a statement SQL Server has to check this store.
This store is not cleaned and keep growing too the point where lookups become blocked with spinlocks. If you want I can give you the commands to check this.

This will be fixed in SP2 because of the major impact a fix would have. The workaround is adding the users to the sysadmin group or clearing the cache manually with DBCC FREESYSTEMCACHE.

HTH

Kind regards,
Wesley

|||Thanks for the replies !

Wes, if you could give the command to check the spinlocks that would be great.

many thanks

Stu|||

Stu,

It's actually the query for checking the cache size.

SELECT * FROM sys.dm_os_memory_clerks
WHERE type = 'USERSTORE_TOKENPERM'
We have seen problems as of 150MB in our environment but this probably all depends on the load and types of queries. Add up the single pages and multipages to determine the size.

HTH
Wesley

|||Thanks Wesley!

After much investigation it turned out the problem was the iLO Management Channel Interface Driver (Cpqcidrv.sys) from Hewlett-Packard. Apparently this

is known to cause this issue on x64 editions of SQL Server 2005. The driver

causes the SQL Server 2005 64-bit working set to be trimmed!


We do not use ILO on our HP Servers, so I disable it in device manager, and so far so good (fingers crossed)!!!

Thanks

Stu|||

Great news!

There seems to be a hotfix for Windows 2003 concerning working set trims too.
Apparently working sets get trimmed when you use Terminal Services on the server... so beware ;-)

|||

If possible could you share the hotfix number? Thanks in advance,

Drew

|||

Hey Wesley. Can you please elaborate more on this 'working sets get trimmed' and beware. and the hotfix available? Thank you very much. I've had problems with this also.

|||

I am also have a problem with this issue. I am going to try disabling the ILO. The terminal service hotfix seems to be this one:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/905865/en-us

Cluster failing connections with SSL error message

We recently migrated our production environment from a win2k3/SQL 2000 EE cluster to a new 64 bit win2k3/ SQL 2005 SP1 Cluster.

Cluster works fine for a while (3-6 hours), then our logins start failing. We recieve the following error in the event log:

"The server was unable to load the SSL provider library needed to log in; the connection has been closed. SSL is used to encrypt either the login sequence or all communications, depending on how the administrator has configured the server. See Books Online for information on this error message"

The only way to resume connectivity is to offline and online the sql service in the cluster.

The only reference to this error that I can find has something to do with a hotfix that might be available?

It's sad to say but we are experiencing the same issue.
Only we get this after a good 30 minutes...

Someone from Microsoft Spain is flying over here.

Very painful

|||

In working with microsoft PSS, we found the issue to be a permissions issue of all things.

Our service account did not have rights to lock pages in memory on either machines in the cluster. (even though is a domain administrator).

Once we gave it this right and restarted the SQL Server object in the cluster we have not had a similar failure since.

|||

This was unfortunately enabled already so it did not cause the problem here :-(

|||Hi Wesley,

Any joy with this? I'm currently going throught the same thing, and also have locked pages enabled for my SQL service account. I'm currently going through MS Support, but seem to be going around the houses :o(

Thanks

Stu|||Any luck, we have a similar problem.
We noticed that memory usage grows slowly beyond physical memory (32G) then connection failiurs start and server becomes inoperable.
Workaround solution is to reduce max mem in the server, down to 18G from (25).
This causes the server and OS to release memory. After the system stabilized we increased the maxmem in the server back to its original settng. Lock pages in memory is set.

Hope this helps.

This is a workaround, so we don't have to bounce the server, we are still looking for the cause.
esk.

Setup:2 node Cluster 4*dual 64bit AMD, 32Gb, SQL 2005 Enterprise SP0.|||

Hi,

Apparently we have hit a bug where the usercache size becomes too large and for every execution of a statement SQL Server has to check this store.
This store is not cleaned and keep growing too the point where lookups become blocked with spinlocks. If you want I can give you the commands to check this.

This will be fixed in SP2 because of the major impact a fix would have. The workaround is adding the users to the sysadmin group or clearing the cache manually with DBCC FREESYSTEMCACHE.

HTH

Kind regards,
Wesley

|||Thanks for the replies !

Wes, if you could give the command to check the spinlocks that would be great.

many thanks

Stu|||

Stu,

It's actually the query for checking the cache size.

SELECT * FROM sys.dm_os_memory_clerks
WHERE type = 'USERSTORE_TOKENPERM'
We have seen problems as of 150MB in our environment but this probably all depends on the load and types of queries. Add up the single pages and multipages to determine the size.

HTH
Wesley

|||Thanks Wesley!

After much investigation it turned out the problem was the iLO Management Channel Interface Driver (Cpqcidrv.sys) from Hewlett-Packard. Apparently this

is known to cause this issue on x64 editions of SQL Server 2005. The driver

causes the SQL Server 2005 64-bit working set to be trimmed!


We do not use ILO on our HP Servers, so I disable it in device manager, and so far so good (fingers crossed)!!!

Thanks

Stu|||

Great news!

There seems to be a hotfix for Windows 2003 concerning working set trims too.
Apparently working sets get trimmed when you use Terminal Services on the server... so beware ;-)

|||

If possible could you share the hotfix number? Thanks in advance,

Drew

|||

Hey Wesley. Can you please elaborate more on this 'working sets get trimmed' and beware. and the hotfix available? Thank you very much. I've had problems with this also.

|||

I am also have a problem with this issue. I am going to try disabling the ILO. The terminal service hotfix seems to be this one:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/905865/en-us

Cluster failing connections with SSL error message

We recently migrated our production environment from a win2k3/SQL 2000 EE cluster to a new 64 bit win2k3/ SQL 2005 SP1 Cluster.

Cluster works fine for a while (3-6 hours), then our logins start failing. We recieve the following error in the event log:

"The server was unable to load the SSL provider library needed to log in; the connection has been closed. SSL is used to encrypt either the login sequence or all communications, depending on how the administrator has configured the server. See Books Online for information on this error message"

The only way to resume connectivity is to offline and online the sql service in the cluster.

The only reference to this error that I can find has something to do with a hotfix that might be available?

It's sad to say but we are experiencing the same issue.
Only we get this after a good 30 minutes...

Someone from Microsoft Spain is flying over here.

Very painful

|||

In working with microsoft PSS, we found the issue to be a permissions issue of all things.

Our service account did not have rights to lock pages in memory on either machines in the cluster. (even though is a domain administrator).

Once we gave it this right and restarted the SQL Server object in the cluster we have not had a similar failure since.

|||

This was unfortunately enabled already so it did not cause the problem here :-(

|||Hi Wesley,

Any joy with this? I'm currently going throught the same thing, and also have locked pages enabled for my SQL service account. I'm currently going through MS Support, but seem to be going around the houses :o(

Thanks

Stu|||Any luck, we have a similar problem.
We noticed that memory usage grows slowly beyond physical memory (32G) then connection failiurs start and server becomes inoperable.
Workaround solution is to reduce max mem in the server, down to 18G from (25).
This causes the server and OS to release memory. After the system stabilized we increased the maxmem in the server back to its original settng. Lock pages in memory is set.

Hope this helps.

This is a workaround, so we don't have to bounce the server, we are still looking for the cause.
esk.

Setup:2 node Cluster 4*dual 64bit AMD, 32Gb, SQL 2005 Enterprise SP0.|||

Hi,

Apparently we have hit a bug where the usercache size becomes too large and for every execution of a statement SQL Server has to check this store.
This store is not cleaned and keep growing too the point where lookups become blocked with spinlocks. If you want I can give you the commands to check this.

This will be fixed in SP2 because of the major impact a fix would have. The workaround is adding the users to the sysadmin group or clearing the cache manually with DBCC FREESYSTEMCACHE.

HTH

Kind regards,
Wesley

|||Thanks for the replies !

Wes, if you could give the command to check the spinlocks that would be great.

many thanks

Stu|||

Stu,

It's actually the query for checking the cache size.

SELECT * FROM sys.dm_os_memory_clerks
WHERE type = 'USERSTORE_TOKENPERM'
We have seen problems as of 150MB in our environment but this probably all depends on the load and types of queries. Add up the single pages and multipages to determine the size.

HTH
Wesley

|||Thanks Wesley!

After much investigation it turned out the problem was the iLO Management Channel Interface Driver (Cpqcidrv.sys) from Hewlett-Packard. Apparently this

is known to cause this issue on x64 editions of SQL Server 2005. The driver

causes the SQL Server 2005 64-bit working set to be trimmed!


We do not use ILO on our HP Servers, so I disable it in device manager, and so far so good (fingers crossed)!!!

Thanks

Stu|||

Great news!

There seems to be a hotfix for Windows 2003 concerning working set trims too.
Apparently working sets get trimmed when you use Terminal Services on the server... so beware ;-)

|||

If possible could you share the hotfix number? Thanks in advance,

Drew

|||

Hey Wesley. Can you please elaborate more on this 'working sets get trimmed' and beware. and the hotfix available? Thank you very much. I've had problems with this also.

|||

I am also have a problem with this issue. I am going to try disabling the ILO. The terminal service hotfix seems to be this one:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/905865/en-us

Cluster Environment SQL Server setup and configure

What is the best way to setup and configure a clusterd
environment of SQL Server in terms of RAID, data file
location, log file location, backup etc. I guess in
separate drives for data and logfile.Great question. The bad answer is always "it depends."
You must be doing something like a SAN or DAS right? In very general terms,
split the data, logs, and temp db all out on different raid configs, i.e.,
LUNs. I like RAID 1+0 (or said RAID 10) because of the speed and high
tolerance of multiple disk failures at once, not to mention when you need
more disk space, adding new spindles is easy. If performance is more
important than money, then spread out over as many spindles as feasable.
You achieve more I/Os this way. This means, go for more disks of lower size
than few disks of higher size.
I believe on the SQL disk there is a VB6 application called database hammer
which you can use to test your config.
hth, Eric
"Aboki" <waco361@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0afe01c36b38$2ab80730$a001280a@.phx.gbl...
> What is the best way to setup and configure a clusterd
> environment of SQL Server in terms of RAID, data file
> location, log file location, backup etc. I guess in
> separate drives for data and logfile.sqlsql

Cluster and User Defined Functions

Has anyone had difficulty with UDF's in a clustered environment? We have
some DTS code that references a user defined function. When we run the DTS
package on non-clustered servers, the DTS package executes in several
minutes. However, when we run the same code against the database in a
clustered environment, the package never finishes. Watching the proc
monitor shows fairly decent server activity, but just never returns.
Anyone?
Thanks
Rob Heyman
I'm not sure what the UDF could be doing that will only cause problems in a
cluster so maybe that is not the real issue. Have you tried tracing the
execution of the package under Profiler to see where the package execution
gets "stuck"? You should also check for blocking when the package is
running. Please see the following article for more info:
271509 INF: How to Monitor SQL Server 2000 Blocking
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=271509
Regards,
Farooq Mahmud [MS SQL Support]
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Are you secure? For information about the Strategic Technology Protection
Program and to order your FREE Security Tool Kit, please visit
http://www.microsoft.com/security.

Cluster Addresses

Hi,
I am a newbie to Clustering so please bear with me.
We have a db environment set up with Win 2003 and SQL 2000 connecting to a
single disk array.
The question I have is, what is the difference between the Cluster IP
Address and the SQL IP address.
What I really want to know is what is the purpose for the two different
addresses?
Thanks for any help.
JD
When you create a cluster, you start working with Virtual Servers. The
cluster itself becomes a Virtual server, as does each SQL instance you
install. Each virtual server consists of a minimum of a physical disk
resource, an IP address, and a network name. Of course, each virtual server
has other resources to make it actually do something useful. So, the
Cluster IP address is used to connect to Cluster control resources and the
SQL IP address is used to connect to SQL service resources. These addresses
are in addition to the IP addresses of the host nodes.
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
www.sqlpass.org
"jimmy" <jimmy@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:DC5A7EF8-C516-411B-823D-BA36A6E24A85@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I am a newbie to Clustering so please bear with me.
> We have a db environment set up with Win 2003 and SQL 2000 connecting to a
> single disk array.
> The question I have is, what is the difference between the Cluster IP
> Address and the SQL IP address.
> What I really want to know is what is the purpose for the two different
> addresses?
> Thanks for any help.
> JD
|||Hi Geoff,
Thanks for the explanation. We have a single application that points at the
database, so should we use the SQL IP Address to point the application at the
db server?
So from your explanaition if a file share was one of the Cluster resources
and you wanted to acces it. This is when you would use the Cluster address
to access the file share. Like so:
\\ClusterIP\FileShare
Thanks Again
JD
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:

> When you create a cluster, you start working with Virtual Servers. The
> cluster itself becomes a Virtual server, as does each SQL instance you
> install. Each virtual server consists of a minimum of a physical disk
> resource, an IP address, and a network name. Of course, each virtual server
> has other resources to make it actually do something useful. So, the
> Cluster IP address is used to connect to Cluster control resources and the
> SQL IP address is used to connect to SQL service resources. These addresses
> are in addition to the IP addresses of the host nodes.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Senior Database Administrator
> Careerbuilder.com
> I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
> www.sqlpass.org
> "jimmy" <jimmy@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:DC5A7EF8-C516-411B-823D-BA36A6E24A85@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||Yes, you use the SQL vurtial server IP address as the connection target.
Personally, I prefer to use the network name. That way, I can play with
Aliases and DNS records during disasters.
You shouldn't use the cluster resource group and quorum disk for anything
extra. You should create another virtual server and add the file service to
that resource group. \\FileShareVirtualServerName\ShareName
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
www.sqlpass.org
"jimmy" <jimmy@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:641B055A-4878-4E12-AE77-DE4BFDEF3718@.microsoft.com...
> Hi Geoff,
> Thanks for the explanation. We have a single application that points at
the
> database, so should we use the SQL IP Address to point the application at
the
> db server?
> So from your explanaition if a file share was one of the Cluster resources
> and you wanted to acces it. This is when you would use the Cluster
address[vbcol=seagreen]
> to access the file share. Like so:
> \\ClusterIP\FileShare
> Thanks Again
> JD
> "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
server[vbcol=seagreen]
the[vbcol=seagreen]
addresses[vbcol=seagreen]
to a[vbcol=seagreen]
different[vbcol=seagreen]
|||Hi Geoff,
Thats great.
Thanks
Jamie.
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:

> Yes, you use the SQL vurtial server IP address as the connection target.
> Personally, I prefer to use the network name. That way, I can play with
> Aliases and DNS records during disasters.
> You shouldn't use the cluster resource group and quorum disk for anything
> extra. You should create another virtual server and add the file service to
> that resource group. \\FileShareVirtualServerName\ShareName
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Senior Database Administrator
> Careerbuilder.com
> I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
> www.sqlpass.org
> "jimmy" <jimmy@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:641B055A-4878-4E12-AE77-DE4BFDEF3718@.microsoft.com...
> the
> the
> address
> server
> the
> addresses
> to a
> different
>
>
|||So...
Are there any restrictions on the Cluster IP and SQL IP?
If I have an internal and external NIC, should one go on each? Can they have neighboring IPs?
The reason I ask is that I set up a new cluster with the Cluster IP on the external NIC and the SQL IP on the internal NIC. At this point everything worked fine. However the requirements changed and I changed the SQL IP from the internal NIC to the external one - with an IP contigious to the Cluster IP. Ever since, I can not get my application to connect over TCP. Sometimes the sql services will not come online either until I change the IPs back to the original settings.
I have changed the IPs both in Cluster Admin and using the SQL installer as indicated in this KB article: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/244980.
Any thoughts?

CLR Option :: DBA Standpoint

What can be the implications of enabling CLR option; especially in a shared hosting environment? What are security considerations? And what should a database administrator be aware of?

Pointers to relevant information will be highly appreciated.

Check out the following webcast, it has great pointers, FYI, and additional articles:

http://msevents.microsoft.com/CUI/WebCastEventDetails.aspx?EventID=1032271687&EventCategory=3&culture=en-US&CountryCode=US

Client license question

Hi all,
This is a question related to licensing...
Environment :
Server 1 - Windows 2000/2003 with SQL Server 2000
Server 2 - webserver (IIS/Apache/etc)
Server 2 is connecting to the SQL Server database (Server
1) using SQL Server authentication (i.e.
SQLServerAccount/Password)
There are multiple users connecting to the webserver
using anonymous authentication to pull out some data from
the SQL Server.
There is going to be only one user connected to the SQL
Server (which is 'SQLServerAccount') ... and is going to
have several instances for each user...
Basically the external users will not have access to the
SQL Server database ... without using the webbased front-
end application...
How many licenses (SQL Server) do I need for the
server/clients?
Best regards,
Alin V.
As I posted within .server:
Is the web server only serving up pages (and data) to a distinct, known set
of individuals (such as employees or partners that have access to the web
site)? If so, it is my understanding that you can probably go the user CAL
route.
Otherwise you will have to go the PER PROCESSOR route
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/default.asp
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobu...rlicensing.asp
Keith
"Alin" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2575401c4606b$b6f56840$a501280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hi all,
> This is a question related to licensing...
> Environment :
> Server 1 - Windows 2000/2003 with SQL Server 2000
> Server 2 - webserver (IIS/Apache/etc)
> Server 2 is connecting to the SQL Server database (Server
> 1) using SQL Server authentication (i.e.
> SQLServerAccount/Password)
> There are multiple users connecting to the webserver
> using anonymous authentication to pull out some data from
> the SQL Server.
> There is going to be only one user connected to the SQL
> Server (which is 'SQLServerAccount') ... and is going to
> have several instances for each user...
> Basically the external users will not have access to the
> SQL Server database ... without using the webbased front-
> end application...
> How many licenses (SQL Server) do I need for the
> server/clients?
> Best regards,
> Alin V.
>
|||Alin,
I think that anyone interacting with the database from a client
computer, whether that interaction passes through an intermediary such
as a web server or not, is considered a client. If your anonymous user
requests are handled through transactions specifically for them against
the database, they need to be covered by either individual client
licenses or by a processor license on the web server. You should
probably contact Microsoft for an official answer, but I think the only
possible situation in which you can consider the web server to be the
sole client would be if the web server's interactions with the database
were independent of the anonymous users' interactions with the
webserver. This might be the case if the web server only served up a
collection of canned reports off the data. The SQL Server could supply
the information for these reports, but the users would only be able to
select which report they wanted to see, or request a report with some
sort of customization that could be handled by the web server alone. As
soon as the database is asked specific questions on behalf of someone,
that someone has become a client.
When it's released, SQL Server 2005 Express Edition may be a zero-cost
solution as a back-end database for many kinds of Web applications.
See http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/express/sql/default.aspx.
Steve Kass
Drew University
Alin wrote:

>Hi all,
> This is a question related to licensing...
> Environment :
> Server 1 - Windows 2000/2003 with SQL Server 2000
> Server 2 - webserver (IIS/Apache/etc)
> Server 2 is connecting to the SQL Server database (Server
>1) using SQL Server authentication (i.e.
>SQLServerAccount/Password)
> There are multiple users connecting to the webserver
>using anonymous authentication to pull out some data from
>the SQL Server.
> There is going to be only one user connected to the SQL
>Server (which is 'SQLServerAccount') ... and is going to
>have several instances for each user...
> Basically the external users will not have access to the
>SQL Server database ... without using the webbased front-
>end application...
> How many licenses (SQL Server) do I need for the
>server/clients?
>Best regards,
> Alin V.
>
>
|||A small correction - I should have said "processor license on Server 1,"
not "processor license on the web server
SK
Steve Kass wrote:

> Alin,
> I think that anyone interacting with the database from a client
> computer, whether that interaction passes through an intermediary such
> as a web server or not, is considered a client. If your anonymous
> user requests are handled through transactions specifically for them
> against the database, they need to be covered by either individual
> client licenses or by a processor license on the web server. You
> should probably contact Microsoft for an official answer, but I think
> the only possible situation in which you can consider the web server
> to be the sole client would be if the web server's interactions with
> the database were independent of the anonymous users' interactions
> with the webserver. This might be the case if the web server only
> served up a collection of canned reports off the data. The SQL Server
> could supply the information for these reports, but the users would
> only be able to select which report they wanted to see, or request a
> report with some sort of customization that could be handled by the
> web server alone. As soon as the database is asked specific questions
> on behalf of someone, that someone has become a client.
> When it's released, SQL Server 2005 Express Edition may be a
> zero-cost solution as a back-end database for many kinds of Web
> applications. See
> http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/express/sql/default.aspx.
> Steve Kass
> Drew University
> Alin wrote:
>
|||Thanks guys for your quick responses... from the License
Agreement I got the same feeling...
Best regards,
Alin V.

>--Original Message--
>Alin,
> I think that anyone interacting with the database from
a client
>computer, whether that interaction passes through an
intermediary such
>as a web server or not, is considered a client. If your
anonymous user
>requests are handled through transactions specifically
for them against
>the database, they need to be covered by either
individual client
>licenses or by a processor license on the web server.
You should
>probably contact Microsoft for an official answer, but I
think the only
>possible situation in which you can consider the web
server to be the
>sole client would be if the web server's interactions
with the database
>were independent of the anonymous users' interactions
with the
>webserver. This might be the case if the web server only
served up a
>collection of canned reports off the data. The SQL
Server could supply
>the information for these reports, but the users would
only be able to
>select which report they wanted to see, or request a
report with some
>sort of customization that could be handled by the web
server alone. As
>soon as the database is asked specific questions on
behalf of someone,
>that someone has become a client.
> When it's released, SQL Server 2005 Express Edition may
be a zero-cost
>solution as a back-end database for many kinds of Web
applications.
>See
http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/express/sql/default.aspx.[vbcol=seagreen]
>Steve Kass
>Drew University
>Alin wrote:
(Server[vbcol=seagreen]
from[vbcol=seagreen]
the
>.
>