Flood of SQL services

Hi,

I've just setup SQL Express 2005 SP2 on my fresh SBS 2003 R2 system. I never had anything to do with and have no idea about SQL, the only reason for updating from MSDE was the annoying and ugly event id 1000 relating to sharepoint services in my application log. There seems to be no working solution for that yet.

The point after upgrading to 2005 SP2 now is, that there is a total of seven services related to SQL running on my machine. They are named

MSSQL$SBSMONITORING

MSSQL$SHAREPOINT

SQL Server (SQLEXPRESS)

SQL Server VSS Writer

SQL Server-Browser

SQLAgent$SBSMONITORING

SQLAgent$Sharepoint

Especially the duplicate services regarding SBS-Monitoring and Sharepoint Services are eye-catchers to me. I thought updating to Express 2005 would trail existing databases - or at least asks you whether to do. And in control panel / software there are still two entries relating to MSDE as well.

Is that all alright? Could an SQL-MVP like me, who has no idea about SQL and hates software cadavers on his system, remove "old" MSDE without crashing the whole system?

Thanks in advance for a hint.

Regards,

Tim

By the way: at least after first reboot of the server there is everything "blue" in application log! :-))

hi,

you have to "uncheck" the "hide advanced configuration options" in the wizard as, by default, the setup package installs a named instance named "SQLExpress" as you can see from you "situation" as well..

if you uncheck that option, you can then specify the instance name and, in your case, you will select the already installed instance.. this will upgrade that instance to SQLExpress edition and not install a new one.. so, in the "Instance name" installation step, press the "Installed instances" button and all local installed instance will be listed... select the MSDE instance you like to upgrade and proceed..

in your scenario, you can eventually maintain the .\SQLExpress installed named instance and just uninstall the MSDE instance..

regards

Flood of SQL services

Hi,
I've just setup SQL Express 2005 SP2 on my fresh SBS 2003 R2 system. I never
had anything to do with and have no idea about SQL, the only reason for
updating from MSDE was the annoying and ugly event id 1000 relating to
sharepoint services in my application log. There seems to be no working
solution for that yet.
The point after upgrading to 2005 SP2 now is, that there is a total of seven
services related to SQL running on my machine. They are named
MSSQL$SBSMONITORING
MSSQL$SHAREPOINT
SQL Server (SQLEXPRESS)
SQL Server VSS Writer
SQL Server-Browser
SQLAgent$SBSMONITORING
SQLAgent$Sharepoint
Especially the duplicate services regarding SBS-Monitoring and Sharepoint
Services are eye-catchers to me. I thought updating to Express 2005 would
trail existing databases - or at least asks you whether to do. And in control
panel / software there are still two entries relating to MSDE as well.
Is that all alright? Could an SQL-MVP like me, who has no idea about SQL and
hates software cadavers on his system, remove "old" MSDE without crashing the
whole system?
Thanks in advance for a hint.
Regards,
Tim
By the way: at least after first reboot of the server there is everything
"blue" in application log! :-))
SQL Agent is essentially a part of SQL Server. It manages scheduled jobs,
alerts, etc. It cannot be removed from the corresponding SQL Server
instance. According to what I see, you have essentially 3 instances of SQL
Server running on your machine, one of which is SQL Express.
BTW, when did you become an MVP? I don't see you listed.
Tom
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
..
"Tim Meltzer" <TimMeltzer@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C2C0D24F-1B83-43D3-B3FA-95C951907BAC@.microsoft.com...
Hi,
I've just setup SQL Express 2005 SP2 on my fresh SBS 2003 R2 system. I never
had anything to do with and have no idea about SQL, the only reason for
updating from MSDE was the annoying and ugly event id 1000 relating to
sharepoint services in my application log. There seems to be no working
solution for that yet.
The point after upgrading to 2005 SP2 now is, that there is a total of seven
services related to SQL running on my machine. They are named
MSSQL$SBSMONITORING
MSSQL$SHAREPOINT
SQL Server (SQLEXPRESS)
SQL Server VSS Writer
SQL Server-Browser
SQLAgent$SBSMONITORING
SQLAgent$Sharepoint
Especially the duplicate services regarding SBS-Monitoring and Sharepoint
Services are eye-catchers to me. I thought updating to Express 2005 would
trail existing databases - or at least asks you whether to do. And in
control
panel / software there are still two entries relating to MSDE as well.
Is that all alright? Could an SQL-MVP like me, who has no idea about SQL and
hates software cadavers on his system, remove "old" MSDE without crashing
the
whole system?
Thanks in advance for a hint.
Regards,
Tim
By the way: at least after first reboot of the server there is everything
"blue" in application log! :-))
sql

Flood of SQL services

Hi,
I've just setup SQL Express 2005 SP2 on my fresh SBS 2003 R2 system. I never
had anything to do with and have no idea about SQL, the only reason for
updating from MSDE was the annoying and ugly event id 1000 relating to
sharepoint services in my application log. There seems to be no working
solution for that yet.
The point after upgrading to 2005 SP2 now is, that there is a total of seven
services related to SQL running on my machine. They are named
MSSQL$SBSMONITORING
MSSQL$SHAREPOINT
SQL Server (SQLEXPRESS)
SQL Server VSS Writer
SQL Server-Browser
SQLAgent$SBSMONITORING
SQLAgent$Sharepoint
Especially the duplicate services regarding SBS-Monitoring and Sharepoint
Services are eye-catchers to me. I thought updating to Express 2005 would
trail existing databases - or at least asks you whether to do. And in contro
l
panel / software there are still two entries relating to MSDE as well.
Is that all alright? Could an SQL-MVP like me, who has no idea about SQL and
hates software cadavers on his system, remove "old" MSDE without crashing th
e
whole system?
Thanks in advance for a hint.
Regards,
Tim
By the way: at least after first reboot of the server there is everything
"blue" in application log! :-))SQL Agent is essentially a part of SQL Server. It manages scheduled jobs,
alerts, etc. It cannot be removed from the corresponding SQL Server
instance. According to what I see, you have essentially 3 instances of SQL
Server running on your machine, one of which is SQL Express.
BTW, when did you become an MVP? I don't see you listed.
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
.
"Tim Meltzer" <TimMeltzer@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C2C0D24F-1B83-43D3-B3FA-95C951907BAC@.microsoft.com...
Hi,
I've just setup SQL Express 2005 SP2 on my fresh SBS 2003 R2 system. I never
had anything to do with and have no idea about SQL, the only reason for
updating from MSDE was the annoying and ugly event id 1000 relating to
sharepoint services in my application log. There seems to be no working
solution for that yet.
The point after upgrading to 2005 SP2 now is, that there is a total of seven
services related to SQL running on my machine. They are named
MSSQL$SBSMONITORING
MSSQL$SHAREPOINT
SQL Server (SQLEXPRESS)
SQL Server VSS Writer
SQL Server-Browser
SQLAgent$SBSMONITORING
SQLAgent$Sharepoint
Especially the duplicate services regarding SBS-Monitoring and Sharepoint
Services are eye-catchers to me. I thought updating to Express 2005 would
trail existing databases - or at least asks you whether to do. And in
control
panel / software there are still two entries relating to MSDE as well.
Is that all alright? Could an SQL-MVP like me, who has no idea about SQL and
hates software cadavers on his system, remove "old" MSDE without crashing
the
whole system?
Thanks in advance for a hint.
Regards,
Tim
By the way: at least after first reboot of the server there is everything
"blue" in application log! :-))

Flood of SQL services

Hi,
I've just setup SQL Express 2005 SP2 on my fresh SBS 2003 R2 system. I never
had anything to do with and have no idea about SQL, the only reason for
updating from MSDE was the annoying and ugly event id 1000 relating to
sharepoint services in my application log. There seems to be no working
solution for that yet.
The point after upgrading to 2005 SP2 now is, that there is a total of seven
services related to SQL running on my machine. They are named
MSSQL$SBSMONITORING
MSSQL$SHAREPOINT
SQL Server (SQLEXPRESS)
SQL Server VSS Writer
SQL Server-Browser
SQLAgent$SBSMONITORING
SQLAgent$Sharepoint
Especially the duplicate services regarding SBS-Monitoring and Sharepoint
Services are eye-catchers to me. I thought updating to Express 2005 would
trail existing databases - or at least asks you whether to do. And in control
panel / software there are still two entries relating to MSDE as well.
Is that all alright? Could an SQL-MVP like me, who has no idea about SQL and
hates software cadavers on his system, remove "old" MSDE without crashing the
whole system?
Thanks in advance for a hint.
Regards,
Tim
By the way: at least after first reboot of the server there is everything
"blue" in application log! :-))SQL Agent is essentially a part of SQL Server. It manages scheduled jobs,
alerts, etc. It cannot be removed from the corresponding SQL Server
instance. According to what I see, you have essentially 3 instances of SQL
Server running on your machine, one of which is SQL Express.
BTW, when did you become an MVP? I don't see you listed.
--
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
.
"Tim Meltzer" <TimMeltzer@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C2C0D24F-1B83-43D3-B3FA-95C951907BAC@.microsoft.com...
Hi,
I've just setup SQL Express 2005 SP2 on my fresh SBS 2003 R2 system. I never
had anything to do with and have no idea about SQL, the only reason for
updating from MSDE was the annoying and ugly event id 1000 relating to
sharepoint services in my application log. There seems to be no working
solution for that yet.
The point after upgrading to 2005 SP2 now is, that there is a total of seven
services related to SQL running on my machine. They are named
MSSQL$SBSMONITORING
MSSQL$SHAREPOINT
SQL Server (SQLEXPRESS)
SQL Server VSS Writer
SQL Server-Browser
SQLAgent$SBSMONITORING
SQLAgent$Sharepoint
Especially the duplicate services regarding SBS-Monitoring and Sharepoint
Services are eye-catchers to me. I thought updating to Express 2005 would
trail existing databases - or at least asks you whether to do. And in
control
panel / software there are still two entries relating to MSDE as well.
Is that all alright? Could an SQL-MVP like me, who has no idea about SQL and
hates software cadavers on his system, remove "old" MSDE without crashing
the
whole system?
Thanks in advance for a hint.
Regards,
Tim
By the way: at least after first reboot of the server there is everything
"blue" in application log! :-))

Float data types not replicating correctly

We have a sql 2000 to sql 2000 transactional replication setup and we have
been getting sporadic issues with float data types not replicating correctly.
I understand that float data types are imprecise but this is causing issues
at the target site.
I have attempted to modify the target table and change the data type to
decimal but when we reinitialize the distribution fails with "String data,
right truncation" errors. Is there a way I can change the target data type to
decimal or force the data to replicate correctly without modifying the source
table as that is not an option.
Any other option to resolve this issue will be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Bill Stevenson, MCDBA, MCSE
SQL Server DBA
PeopleSoft Enterprise System Administrator
PeopleSoft Enterprise One CNC
IBM Certified Specialist - DB2 V7.1 User
ACS – Application Management Services
You would need a custom schema script to do this.
RelevantNoise.com - dedicated to mining blogs for business intelligence.
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"bstevenson" <bstevenson@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:02D80808-DE43-4A2A-8092-143EAC8D70FC@.microsoft.com...
> We have a sql 2000 to sql 2000 transactional replication setup and we have
> been getting sporadic issues with float data types not replicating
> correctly.
> I understand that float data types are imprecise but this is causing
> issues
> at the target site.
> I have attempted to modify the target table and change the data type to
> decimal but when we reinitialize the distribution fails with "String data,
> right truncation" errors. Is there a way I can change the target data type
> to
> decimal or force the data to replicate correctly without modifying the
> source
> table as that is not an option.
> Any other option to resolve this issue will be greatly appreciated.
> Thanks,
> --
> Bill Stevenson, MCDBA, MCSE
> SQL Server DBA
> PeopleSoft Enterprise System Administrator
> PeopleSoft Enterprise One CNC
> IBM Certified Specialist - DB2 V7.1 User
> ACS - Application Management Services
|||Consider using cast or convert fn's in sp_MSins & sp_MSupd on subscriber -
or use DTS to transform data before delivery...
Best option is to change data type at publisher - however if this is your
PeopleSoft system - it may take an act of congress to convice engineers of
poor datatype choice...
best of luck
ChrisB MCDBA
MSSQLConsulting.com
"bstevenson" wrote:

> We have a sql 2000 to sql 2000 transactional replication setup and we have
> been getting sporadic issues with float data types not replicating correctly.
> I understand that float data types are imprecise but this is causing issues
> at the target site.
> I have attempted to modify the target table and change the data type to
> decimal but when we reinitialize the distribution fails with "String data,
> right truncation" errors. Is there a way I can change the target data type to
> decimal or force the data to replicate correctly without modifying the source
> table as that is not an option.
> Any other option to resolve this issue will be greatly appreciated.
> Thanks,
> --
> Bill Stevenson, MCDBA, MCSE
> SQL Server DBA
> PeopleSoft Enterprise System Administrator
> PeopleSoft Enterprise One CNC
> IBM Certified Specialist - DB2 V7.1 User
> ACS – Application Management Services

fix merge replication?

I had merge replication setup between 2 servers. I then stopped and
removed replication, made some system changes, then setup replication
again.
But, it turns out all of the data from the publisher hadn't made it to
the subscriber before I removed replication.
Is there a command I can use on the publisher that tells it to look at
all tables and make sure the data between the two machines is
correct/identical. I know I can do a sp_mergedummyupdate, but that
requires I look at all tables and issue the command for each row in
question. I want the system to do it so it can get everything. I don't
want to do the reinitialize because that would take quite a while (the
data is about 1 gig over the internet transfer would be a day or so).
Any other suggestions?
TIA
Darin
*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.codecomments.com ***
Darin,
you could drop the subscription, use redgate's datacompare to synchronize
the data then add the subscriber as a nosync one.
Alternatively you could try sp_addtabletocontents.
Cheers,
Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com
(recommended sql server 2000 replication book:
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)
|||I don't know if I did this correctly. I have a table on the distributor
that has 99000 records, on the subscriber there are only 98000. I did:
exec sp_addtabletocontents 'GLDistribution'
It sat for a while and then said it was successfull. But, the Enterprise
manager still says there is no data to merge, and the subscriber still
only has 98000 records.
Darin
*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.codecomments.com ***
|||Darin,
I'd use a linked server to join the 2 tables based on guid. Make it a Left
Outer Join so you can find the publisher records not on the subscriber. As
there are only 1000 of these, you could then do a dummy update on each one
(use a cursor, or have query analyser create 1000 proc calls and run the
resulting script).
This still leaves the worrying issue of how the records got there in the
first place without firing the merge triggers. Check for bulk inserts or fast
loads in DTS which are the normal culprits.
Cheers,
Paul Ibison, SQL Server MVP
"Darin" wrote:

> I don't know if I did this correctly. I have a table on the distributor
> that has 99000 records, on the subscriber there are only 98000. I did:
> exec sp_addtabletocontents 'GLDistribution'
> It sat for a while and then said it was successfull. But, the Enterprise
> manager still says there is no data to merge, and the subscriber still
> only has 98000 records.
> Darin
> *** Sent via Developersdex http://www.codecomments.com ***
>

First Steps: Installing SQL Server?

Hello,

Thanks for reviewing my question. I am trying to install SQL Server 2005 but I keep running into the same error:

SQL Server Setup failed to obtain system account information for the ASPNET account. To proceed, reinstall the .NET Framework, and then run SQL Server Setup again.

The only documentation I find on this is configuring the issolation mode in IIS 6.0.

Any help on is will be appreciated.

Peter

PNKonstant wrote:

The only documentation I find on this is configuring the issolation mode in IIS 6.0.

Are you running IIS 6.0? If so, did you check to make sure it's not running the WWW service in IIS 5.0 isolation mode?

Otherwise, are you sure the .NET Framework 2.0 is installed on the machine?

Are you installing the release version of SQL Server 2005? Had there been a beta on the machine previously?|||

Hey Terri,

Thanks for reply. It's a Windows XP machine. The machine has VS 2005 installed on it. I think the version is 5.1. .NET Frameworks 2.0 is also installed on the PC. I noticed that there is no ASPNET user account.

Thanks for the help!

Peter

|||I think you should try to re-register ASP.NET on your machine (this shouldn't hurt anything). Run this command from c:\Windows\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v2.0.50727\, which will recreate the ASPNET account (and will also set up the script mapping in IIS):

aspnet_regiis.exe -i

This is the documentation for that executable:ASP.NET IIS Registration Tool|||

Hey Terri,

Thanks for the help. I figured out that the PC was missing the ASPNET user account. I turned off my virus protection (McAfee) and repaired my .Net Framework 2.0 and wa la the user account was created - SQL server installed correctly. I spent half a day trying to figure out what was wrong but ends well.

Thanks again for the help!

Peter

|||Are you saying that McAfee was preventing the creation of the ASPNET user account?

first setup

I setup yesterday sql server 2008 on VPC for studio Orcas. Everything was smooth, however when I finished setup I did not see familiar enterprise management studio which allows to manage database files. what I can do?

Did you install management studio? During install there's a question about components you wish to install, you have to mark "Workstation components, Books Online and development tools". If you click the "Advanced" button you'll see that Management Studio is located in Client Components -> Management Tools branch.

Actually, I had a similar problem. After full install (including workstation components) Management Studio wasn't in my program list, no idea why. I started the setup program again, chose to install workstation components again and now it works perfectly.

|||i did exactly as you wrote. I nade setup twice. And third time it did not allow me to pass by because everything is installed. However the only thing that I have installed is configuration tools.|||

I'm running into a similar problem. I had SQL Server 2005 w/ SQL Server Manager loaded on XP SP2. I uninstalled SQL Server 2005, and loaded SQL Server 2008. However the SQL Server Mgr application didn't load. I attempted to reinstall SQL Server 2008, but it says they're no components that have changed...which indicates that the SQL Server 2008 Manager must be loaded already (but I don't see it)?

first setup

I setup yesterday sql server 2008 on VPC for studio Orcas. Everything was smooth, however when I finished setup I did not see familiar enterprise management studio which allows to manage database files. what I can do?

Did you install management studio? During install there's a question about components you wish to install, you have to mark "Workstation components, Books Online and development tools". If you click the "Advanced" button you'll see that Management Studio is located in Client Components -> Management Tools branch.

Actually, I had a similar problem. After full install (including workstation components) Management Studio wasn't in my program list, no idea why. I started the setup program again, chose to install workstation components again and now it works perfectly.

|||i did exactly as you wrote. I nade setup twice. And third time it did not allow me to pass by because everything is installed. However the only thing that I have installed is configuration tools.|||

I'm running into a similar problem. I had SQL Server 2005 w/ SQL Server Manager loaded on XP SP2. I uninstalled SQL Server 2005, and loaded SQL Server 2008. However the SQL Server Mgr application didn't load. I attempted to reinstall SQL Server 2008, but it says they're no components that have changed...which indicates that the SQL Server 2008 Manager must be loaded already (but I don't see it)?

Firewall in Replication

Hi,
We are using SQL Server 2000. We need to setup merge replication between
server A & B using TCP/IP.
These servers are behind a firewall. The connection
between these servers can be done only using IP (class C)
How to configure this.
rgds,
Soura
Basically with SQL 2000 you need to allow inbound connections on port 1433
and 21 from the device doing the pull. Download the snapshot using ftp. If
this is not possible upgrade to SQL 2005 and do web synchronizations.
Hilary Cotter
Director of Text Mining and Database Strategy
RelevantNOISE.Com - Dedicated to mining blogs for business intelligence.
This posting is my own and doesn't necessarily represent RelevantNoise's
positions, strategies or opinions.
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"SouRa" <SouRa@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:134C38E0-CAAF-44C6-AD2B-1D525DB5BB0D@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> We are using SQL Server 2000. We need to setup merge replication between
> server A & B using TCP/IP.
> These servers are behind a firewall. The connection
> between these servers can be done only using IP (class C)
> How to configure this.
> rgds,
> Soura
>
>

Firewall between Web Server and SQL Server

Hello everyone,
I've setup a web server in the DMZ and it interacts with a SQL server on the
inside of the firewall.
The problem is when I want to apply access control lists to the firewall,
the web server can't communicate with the SQL server for some reason.
I've enabled ports 1433, 135, 139... and when I apply the rule, and type the
website in the browser, I get a message that says SQL server not found...
etc...
Does anyone have any experience in this kind of situation?
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
AliAli (amiralisetoudeh@.hotmail.com) writes:
> I've setup a web server in the DMZ and it interacts with a SQL server on
> the inside of the firewall.
> The problem is when I want to apply access control lists to the firewall,
> the web server can't communicate with the SQL server for some reason.
> I've enabled ports 1433, 135, 139... and when I apply the rule, and type
> the website in the browser, I get a message that says SQL server not
> found... etc...
> Does anyone have any experience in this kind of situation?
Ports 135 and 139? Do you really need them? Those are ports I would keep
closed in a firewall.
As for SQL Server not being found, the obvious things to check are:
o Is SQL Server listening on port 1433? (If it's a named instance,
typically it does not.)
o Is the server name resolvable? Would it work if you use the IP address?
o What does the connection string in the application look like?
o Try connecting from SQLCMD or OSQL on the web server, to see if that
works.
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se
Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...oads/books.mspx
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodin...ions/books.mspx|||Again, thanks for the reply Erland.
I guess 135 and 139 aren't needed as I removed them from the firewall rules.
The problem in a more detailed explanation was:
I enabled a firewall rule to have the web server, which is in the DMZ, talk
with the SQL server, which is inside. I enabled only SQL services to pass
through. And this configuration was working fine.
Over the weekend they called me saying the website was down and they had to
allow all traffic in the firewall rule. They explained for some reason ODBC
logging got enabled in IIS and couldn't communicate with the SQL server over
the port it communicates...
I'm still trying to monitor the network and see if it'll happen again...
hopefully not.
Ali
"Erland Sommarskog" <esquel@.sommarskog.se> wrote in message
news:Xns9905DF2A140C6Yazorman@.127.0.0.1...
> Ali (amiralisetoudeh@.hotmail.com) writes:
> Ports 135 and 139? Do you really need them? Those are ports I would keep
> closed in a firewall.
> As for SQL Server not being found, the obvious things to check are:
> o Is SQL Server listening on port 1433? (If it's a named instance,
> typically it does not.)
> o Is the server name resolvable? Would it work if you use the IP address?
> o What does the connection string in the application look like?
> o Try connecting from SQLCMD or OSQL on the web server, to see if that
> works.
>
> --
> Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se
> Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...oads/books.mspx
> Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodin...ions/books.mspx|||Ali (amiralisetoudeh@.hotmail.com) writes:
> Over the weekend they called me saying the website was down and they had
> to allow all traffic in the firewall rule. They explained for some
> reason ODBC logging got enabled in IIS and couldn't communicate with the
> SQL server over the port it communicates...
ODBC logging generates a lot of output and takes lots of resources. Not
that I see how it could affect the firewall, but maybe it was the general
load that caused problems together with the firewall.
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se
Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...oads/books.mspx
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodin...ions/books.mspx

Firewall between IIS and SQL Server

Hi:
(Sorry for double post, I already post it in sqlserver.setup group but
i did't get any reply.)
I plan to deploying an ASP.Net web app into the following scenario:
Internet --> Firewall1 --> WebServer (IIS+SQL Server 2000) -->
firewall2 --> SQL Server 2000
The WebServer and the SQL Server behind the firewall2 is sit on
different LAN (different sub net),
and a two way replication will be create to sync these two SQL server
through firewall2.
Is it possible ? Is the firewall2 redundant ?
Separate the Web server and SQL server to different sub net and add
firewall2 between Web Server and SQL Server, does this configuration
provide better security to secure the data use by the LAN user ?
Thanks
JCVoon
having your servers behind the firewall does provide greater security.
however, you might want to read up on configuration to ensure connectivity
between hubs.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/287932
-oj
"jcvoon" <jcvoon@.maximas.com.my> wrote in message
news:1143602187.916531.187150@.i39g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> Hi:
> (Sorry for double post, I already post it in sqlserver.setup group but
> i did't get any reply.)
> I plan to deploying an ASP.Net web app into the following scenario:
>
> Internet --> Firewall1 --> WebServer (IIS+SQL Server 2000) -->
> firewall2 --> SQL Server 2000
>
> The WebServer and the SQL Server behind the firewall2 is sit on
> different LAN (different sub net),
> and a two way replication will be create to sync these two SQL server
> through firewall2.
>
> Is it possible ? Is the firewall2 redundant ?
> Separate the Web server and SQL server to different sub net and add
> firewall2 between Web Server and SQL Server, does this configuration
> provide better security to secure the data use by the LAN user ?
>
> Thanks
> JCVoon
>
|||oj:
Thanks for the info.
Regards
JCVoon

Firewall between IIS and SQL Server

Hi:
(Sorry for double post, I already post it in sqlserver.setup group but
i did't get any reply.)
I plan to deploying an ASP.Net web app into the following scenario:
Internet --> Firewall1 --> WebServer (IIS+SQL Server 2000) -->
firewall2 --> SQL Server 2000
The WebServer and the SQL Server behind the firewall2 is sit on
different LAN (different sub net),
and a two way replication will be create to sync these two SQL server
through firewall2.
Is it possible ? Is the firewall2 redundant ?
Separate the Web server and SQL server to different sub net and add
firewall2 between Web Server and SQL Server, does this configuration
provide better security to secure the data use by the LAN user ?
Thanks
JCVoonhaving your servers behind the firewall does provide greater security.
however, you might want to read up on configuration to ensure connectivity
between hubs.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/287932
-oj
"jcvoon" <jcvoon@.maximas.com.my> wrote in message
news:1143602187.916531.187150@.i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Hi:
> (Sorry for double post, I already post it in sqlserver.setup group but
> i did't get any reply.)
> I plan to deploying an ASP.Net web app into the following scenario:
>
> Internet --> Firewall1 --> WebServer (IIS+SQL Server 2000) -->
> firewall2 --> SQL Server 2000
>
> The WebServer and the SQL Server behind the firewall2 is sit on
> different LAN (different sub net),
> and a two way replication will be create to sync these two SQL server
> through firewall2.
>
> Is it possible ? Is the firewall2 redundant ?
> Separate the Web server and SQL server to different sub net and add
> firewall2 between Web Server and SQL Server, does this configuration
> provide better security to secure the data use by the LAN user ?
>
> Thanks
> JCVoon
>|||oj:
Thanks for the info.
Regards
JCVoon

Firewall between IIS and SQL Server

Hi:
(Sorry for double post, I already post it in sqlserver.setup group but
i did't get any reply.)
I plan to deploying an ASP.Net web app into the following scenario:
Internet --> Firewall1 --> WebServer (IIS+SQL Server 2000) -->
firewall2 --> SQL Server 2000
The WebServer and the SQL Server behind the firewall2 is sit on
different LAN (different sub net),
and a two way replication will be create to sync these two SQL server
through firewall2.
Is it possible ? Is the firewall2 redundant ?
Separate the Web server and SQL server to different sub net and add
firewall2 between Web Server and SQL Server, does this configuration
provide better security to secure the data use by the LAN user ?
Thanks
JCVoonhaving your servers behind the firewall does provide greater security.
however, you might want to read up on configuration to ensure connectivity
between hubs.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/287932
-oj
"jcvoon" <jcvoon@.maximas.com.my> wrote in message
news:1143602187.916531.187150@.i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Hi:
> (Sorry for double post, I already post it in sqlserver.setup group but
> i did't get any reply.)
> I plan to deploying an ASP.Net web app into the following scenario:
>
> Internet --> Firewall1 --> WebServer (IIS+SQL Server 2000) -->
> firewall2 --> SQL Server 2000
>
> The WebServer and the SQL Server behind the firewall2 is sit on
> different LAN (different sub net),
> and a two way replication will be create to sync these two SQL server
> through firewall2.
>
> Is it possible ? Is the firewall2 redundant ?
> Separate the Web server and SQL server to different sub net and add
> firewall2 between Web Server and SQL Server, does this configuration
> provide better security to secure the data use by the LAN user ?
>
> Thanks
> JCVoon
>|||oj:
Thanks for the info.
Regards
JCVoon