I only want to provide my report users the ability to output to PDF. I tried setting toolbar=False and adding my own rendering hyperlink to PDF on my web page, but when I set toolbar to false I do not get a horizontal scrollbar for a wide report so I had to turn toolbar=true back on.
Is there a way to not provide any Export options except PDF in the standard Export drop-down?See previous post on this question:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/newsgroups/default.aspx?dg=microsoft.public.sqlserver.reportingsvcs&mid=adca0a75-0f75-48f1-bf52-ed68869ddfc2
--
Ravi Mumulla (Microsoft)
SQL Server Reporting Services
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"AdamB" <AdamB@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:61F4003D-5988-470A-9EA6-9DDA303DB67B@.microsoft.com...
> I only want to provide my report users the ability to output to PDF. I
tried setting toolbar=False and adding my own rendering hyperlink to PDF on
my web page, but when I set toolbar to false I do not get a horizontal
scrollbar for a wide report so I had to turn toolbar=true back on.
> Is there a way to not provide any Export options except PDF in the
standard Export drop-down?sql
Showing posts with label users. Show all posts
Showing posts with label users. Show all posts
Friday, March 30, 2012
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
remove columns created by replication process
One of our users tried to set replication solution in a sqlserver (the idea was given up).
SQL Server added in each table a column related to replication.
We want to remove theses columns and I used the following script :
select 'ALTER TABLE dbo.'+object_name(id)+' DROP CONSTRAINT '+object_name(constid)+' GO'
+'ALTER TABLE dbo.'+object_name(id)+' DROP COLUMN '+'msrepl_tran_version GO'
from sysconstraints where object_name(constid) like '%msrep%'
Question:
1. I want to know how to introduce a carraige return in order to have some thing like this :
...
ALTER TABLE dbo.T_CommandCopyFile
DROP CONSTRAINT DF__T_Command__msrep__44AB0736
GO
ALTER TABLE dbo.T_CommandCopyFile
DROP COLUMN msrepl_tran_version
...
2. Is there any other solution to do this more simply ?I'd use:DECLARE @.crlf CHAR(2)
SET @.crlf = Char(13) + Char(10)-PatP|||Could you give me more explanation (why : char(13)+char(10))
I tried only char(13) only and I noticed the result (space in the beginning of the line).|||You really want the history lesson?
Ok, back in the days of CP/M, there was hot debate as to what constituted a "line end". The Unix crew wanted Line Feed (0x0a). The OASIS crew wanted Carriage Return (0x0d). Nobody would budge.
Teletypes needed both, and CR took longer to execute than LF did, so it was always sent first. Since nobody could make a "command decision" Gary Kildall made the call that they'd use what the teletypes wanted, to make it easier to print files and vex both of the software camps!
MS-DOS basically picked up where CP/M left off, so it followed the same convention. Windoze is the GUI that was later bolted on to MS-DOS, so it used the same convention... You see where we are headed here, right?
Anywho, the short answer boils down to Transact SQL sees a "line end" as being a carriage return followed by a line feed, aka Char(13) + Char(10) to us hydro-carbon based types.
-PatP
SQL Server added in each table a column related to replication.
We want to remove theses columns and I used the following script :
select 'ALTER TABLE dbo.'+object_name(id)+' DROP CONSTRAINT '+object_name(constid)+' GO'
+'ALTER TABLE dbo.'+object_name(id)+' DROP COLUMN '+'msrepl_tran_version GO'
from sysconstraints where object_name(constid) like '%msrep%'
Question:
1. I want to know how to introduce a carraige return in order to have some thing like this :
...
ALTER TABLE dbo.T_CommandCopyFile
DROP CONSTRAINT DF__T_Command__msrep__44AB0736
GO
ALTER TABLE dbo.T_CommandCopyFile
DROP COLUMN msrepl_tran_version
...
2. Is there any other solution to do this more simply ?I'd use:DECLARE @.crlf CHAR(2)
SET @.crlf = Char(13) + Char(10)-PatP|||Could you give me more explanation (why : char(13)+char(10))
I tried only char(13) only and I noticed the result (space in the beginning of the line).|||You really want the history lesson?
Ok, back in the days of CP/M, there was hot debate as to what constituted a "line end". The Unix crew wanted Line Feed (0x0a). The OASIS crew wanted Carriage Return (0x0d). Nobody would budge.
Teletypes needed both, and CR took longer to execute than LF did, so it was always sent first. Since nobody could make a "command decision" Gary Kildall made the call that they'd use what the teletypes wanted, to make it easier to print files and vex both of the software camps!
MS-DOS basically picked up where CP/M left off, so it followed the same convention. Windoze is the GUI that was later bolted on to MS-DOS, so it used the same convention... You see where we are headed here, right?
Anywho, the short answer boils down to Transact SQL sees a "line end" as being a carriage return followed by a line feed, aka Char(13) + Char(10) to us hydro-carbon based types.
-PatP
Monday, March 26, 2012
Remove all permission restrictions
I have a site where my client attempted to change a lot of
authenticated users and I helped (aided and abetted?) him by scripting
over the previouls permissions. We are having a lot of problems now and
want to get back to a completely public editable and open database
before replanning roles and users and restricting rights.
To further complicate the issue, this database is a publisher and
although we have generated a snapshot, we haven't deployed it until
this is fixed - we don't want two sites where users can't see or edit
the data!
I would like to know the simplest way to make the database owned by
dbo, strip all non system users and roles, and to be able to make NT
Authority/Authenticated Users members of the dbowner role.
Thanks
Steve SoltSteve
> I would like to know the simplest way to make the database owned by
> dbo, strip all non system users and roles, and to be able to make NT
> Authority/Authenticated Users members of the dbowner role.
>
Take a look at sp_changedbowner system stored procedure
<s.solt@.czwgarchitects.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1160671910.190428.264470@.h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>I have a site where my client attempted to change a lot of
> authenticated users and I helped (aided and abetted?) him by scripting
> over the previouls permissions. We are having a lot of problems now and
> want to get back to a completely public editable and open database
> before replanning roles and users and restricting rights.
> To further complicate the issue, this database is a publisher and
> although we have generated a snapshot, we haven't deployed it until
> this is fixed - we don't want two sites where users can't see or edit
> the data!
> I would like to know the simplest way to make the database owned by
> dbo, strip all non system users and roles, and to be able to make NT
> Authority/Authenticated Users members of the dbowner role.
> Thanks
> Steve Solt
>
authenticated users and I helped (aided and abetted?) him by scripting
over the previouls permissions. We are having a lot of problems now and
want to get back to a completely public editable and open database
before replanning roles and users and restricting rights.
To further complicate the issue, this database is a publisher and
although we have generated a snapshot, we haven't deployed it until
this is fixed - we don't want two sites where users can't see or edit
the data!
I would like to know the simplest way to make the database owned by
dbo, strip all non system users and roles, and to be able to make NT
Authority/Authenticated Users members of the dbowner role.
Thanks
Steve SoltSteve
> I would like to know the simplest way to make the database owned by
> dbo, strip all non system users and roles, and to be able to make NT
> Authority/Authenticated Users members of the dbowner role.
>
Take a look at sp_changedbowner system stored procedure
<s.solt@.czwgarchitects.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1160671910.190428.264470@.h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>I have a site where my client attempted to change a lot of
> authenticated users and I helped (aided and abetted?) him by scripting
> over the previouls permissions. We are having a lot of problems now and
> want to get back to a completely public editable and open database
> before replanning roles and users and restricting rights.
> To further complicate the issue, this database is a publisher and
> although we have generated a snapshot, we haven't deployed it until
> this is fixed - we don't want two sites where users can't see or edit
> the data!
> I would like to know the simplest way to make the database owned by
> dbo, strip all non system users and roles, and to be able to make NT
> Authority/Authenticated Users members of the dbowner role.
> Thanks
> Steve Solt
>
remove 10 000 records limit
Hi,
Our users that connect to a MSSQL db via MS-Access cannot access more than
10 000 records. In other words, all the records that have been inserted afte
r
the 10 000th record cannot be access nor from the table, nor from a query.
Is there any way to overcome the problem?
ThanksHere's a not so awesome way:
Create all your tables without data. When they need data you create a
connection in code and snapshot the data out of SQL into your Access
tables.
Frankly, that just sux. I've not heard of a 10,000 record limit in Access.
Can you point me to an MSDN are similar article that talks about this. I
would be interested in looking into this a little more.
> Our users that connect to a MSSQL db via MS-Access cannot access more than
> 10 000 records. In other words, all the records that have been inserted
> after the 10 000th record cannot be access nor from the table, nor from a
> query.|||We have users using linked tables in Access to connect to SQL Server and
there is no such limit.
Ben Nevarez
"DexterV" <DexterV@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:CA155716-7F98-4D64-9318-EF816ADA42BB@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> Our users that connect to a MSSQL db via MS-Access cannot access more than
> 10 000 records. In other words, all the records that have been inserted
> after
> the 10 000th record cannot be access nor from the table, nor from a query.
> Is there any way to overcome the problem?
> Thanks|||Dexter,
This is an option in the ms-access settings, probably to avoid long lists
being sent accross the network,
to augment the limit: I'll try to guide you (my ms-access version is in dutc
h)
go to the ms-access menu tools / options, the option dialog box opens.
There is a tab called edit/find and in there is there is text box with the
limit number like 10000
Hope this helps
--
Jan D''Hondt
<Toto, I''ve got a feeling we''re not in Kansas anymore.>
SQL database and .NET solutions
"DexterV" wrote:
> Hi,
> Our users that connect to a MSSQL db via MS-Access cannot access more than
> 10 000 records. In other words, all the records that have been inserted af
ter
> the 10 000th record cannot be access nor from the table, nor from a query.
> Is there any way to overcome the problem?
> Thanks|||Thanks Jan,
Actually, I found the max. record limit parameter on the advanced tab.
I should have explored Ms-access options first.
"Jan D''Hondt" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Dexter,
> This is an option in the ms-access settings, probably to avoid long lists
> being sent accross the network,
> to augment the limit: I'll try to guide you (my ms-access version is in du
tch)
> go to the ms-access menu tools / options, the option dialog box opens.
> There is a tab called edit/find and in there is there is text box with the
> limit number like 10000
> Hope this helps
> --
> Jan D''Hondt
> <Toto, I''ve got a feeling we''re not in Kansas anymore.>
> SQL database and .NET solutions
>
> "DexterV" wrote:
>
Our users that connect to a MSSQL db via MS-Access cannot access more than
10 000 records. In other words, all the records that have been inserted afte
r
the 10 000th record cannot be access nor from the table, nor from a query.
Is there any way to overcome the problem?
ThanksHere's a not so awesome way:
Create all your tables without data. When they need data you create a
connection in code and snapshot the data out of SQL into your Access
tables.
Frankly, that just sux. I've not heard of a 10,000 record limit in Access.
Can you point me to an MSDN are similar article that talks about this. I
would be interested in looking into this a little more.
> Our users that connect to a MSSQL db via MS-Access cannot access more than
> 10 000 records. In other words, all the records that have been inserted
> after the 10 000th record cannot be access nor from the table, nor from a
> query.|||We have users using linked tables in Access to connect to SQL Server and
there is no such limit.
Ben Nevarez
"DexterV" <DexterV@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:CA155716-7F98-4D64-9318-EF816ADA42BB@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> Our users that connect to a MSSQL db via MS-Access cannot access more than
> 10 000 records. In other words, all the records that have been inserted
> after
> the 10 000th record cannot be access nor from the table, nor from a query.
> Is there any way to overcome the problem?
> Thanks|||Dexter,
This is an option in the ms-access settings, probably to avoid long lists
being sent accross the network,
to augment the limit: I'll try to guide you (my ms-access version is in dutc
h)
go to the ms-access menu tools / options, the option dialog box opens.
There is a tab called edit/find and in there is there is text box with the
limit number like 10000
Hope this helps
--
Jan D''Hondt
<Toto, I''ve got a feeling we''re not in Kansas anymore.>
SQL database and .NET solutions
"DexterV" wrote:
> Hi,
> Our users that connect to a MSSQL db via MS-Access cannot access more than
> 10 000 records. In other words, all the records that have been inserted af
ter
> the 10 000th record cannot be access nor from the table, nor from a query.
> Is there any way to overcome the problem?
> Thanks|||Thanks Jan,
Actually, I found the max. record limit parameter on the advanced tab.
I should have explored Ms-access options first.
"Jan D''Hondt" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Dexter,
> This is an option in the ms-access settings, probably to avoid long lists
> being sent accross the network,
> to augment the limit: I'll try to guide you (my ms-access version is in du
tch)
> go to the ms-access menu tools / options, the option dialog box opens.
> There is a tab called edit/find and in there is there is text box with the
> limit number like 10000
> Hope this helps
> --
> Jan D''Hondt
> <Toto, I''ve got a feeling we''re not in Kansas anymore.>
> SQL database and .NET solutions
>
> "DexterV" wrote:
>
remove 10 000 records limit
Hi,
Our users that connect to a MSSQL db via MS-Access cannot access more than
10 000 records. In other words, all the records that have been inserted after
the 10 000th record cannot be access nor from the table, nor from a query.
Is there any way to overcome the problem?
ThanksHere's a not so awesome way:
Create all your tables without data. When they need data you create a
connection in code and snapshot the data out of SQL into your Access
tables.
Frankly, that just sux. I've not heard of a 10,000 record limit in Access.
Can you point me to an MSDN are similar article that talks about this. I
would be interested in looking into this a little more.
> Our users that connect to a MSSQL db via MS-Access cannot access more than
> 10 000 records. In other words, all the records that have been inserted
> after the 10 000th record cannot be access nor from the table, nor from a
> query.|||We have users using linked tables in Access to connect to SQL Server and
there is no such limit.
Ben Nevarez
"DexterV" <DexterV@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:CA155716-7F98-4D64-9318-EF816ADA42BB@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> Our users that connect to a MSSQL db via MS-Access cannot access more than
> 10 000 records. In other words, all the records that have been inserted
> after
> the 10 000th record cannot be access nor from the table, nor from a query.
> Is there any way to overcome the problem?
> Thanks|||Dexter,
This is an option in the ms-access settings, probably to avoid long lists
being sent accross the network,
to augment the limit: I'll try to guide you (my ms-access version is in dutch)
go to the ms-access menu tools / options, the option dialog box opens.
There is a tab called edit/find and in there is there is text box with the
limit number like 10000
Hope this helps
--
Jan D''Hondt
<Toto, I''ve got a feeling we''re not in Kansas anymore.>
SQL database and .NET solutions
"DexterV" wrote:
> Hi,
> Our users that connect to a MSSQL db via MS-Access cannot access more than
> 10 000 records. In other words, all the records that have been inserted after
> the 10 000th record cannot be access nor from the table, nor from a query.
> Is there any way to overcome the problem?
> Thanks|||Thanks Jan,
Actually, I found the max. record limit parameter on the advanced tab.
I should have explored Ms-access options first.
"Jan D''Hondt" wrote:
> Dexter,
> This is an option in the ms-access settings, probably to avoid long lists
> being sent accross the network,
> to augment the limit: I'll try to guide you (my ms-access version is in dutch)
> go to the ms-access menu tools / options, the option dialog box opens.
> There is a tab called edit/find and in there is there is text box with the
> limit number like 10000
> Hope this helps
> --
> Jan D''Hondt
> <Toto, I''ve got a feeling we''re not in Kansas anymore.>
> SQL database and .NET solutions
>
> "DexterV" wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Our users that connect to a MSSQL db via MS-Access cannot access more than
> > 10 000 records. In other words, all the records that have been inserted after
> > the 10 000th record cannot be access nor from the table, nor from a query.
> >
> > Is there any way to overcome the problem?
> >
> > Thanks
Our users that connect to a MSSQL db via MS-Access cannot access more than
10 000 records. In other words, all the records that have been inserted after
the 10 000th record cannot be access nor from the table, nor from a query.
Is there any way to overcome the problem?
ThanksHere's a not so awesome way:
Create all your tables without data. When they need data you create a
connection in code and snapshot the data out of SQL into your Access
tables.
Frankly, that just sux. I've not heard of a 10,000 record limit in Access.
Can you point me to an MSDN are similar article that talks about this. I
would be interested in looking into this a little more.
> Our users that connect to a MSSQL db via MS-Access cannot access more than
> 10 000 records. In other words, all the records that have been inserted
> after the 10 000th record cannot be access nor from the table, nor from a
> query.|||We have users using linked tables in Access to connect to SQL Server and
there is no such limit.
Ben Nevarez
"DexterV" <DexterV@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:CA155716-7F98-4D64-9318-EF816ADA42BB@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> Our users that connect to a MSSQL db via MS-Access cannot access more than
> 10 000 records. In other words, all the records that have been inserted
> after
> the 10 000th record cannot be access nor from the table, nor from a query.
> Is there any way to overcome the problem?
> Thanks|||Dexter,
This is an option in the ms-access settings, probably to avoid long lists
being sent accross the network,
to augment the limit: I'll try to guide you (my ms-access version is in dutch)
go to the ms-access menu tools / options, the option dialog box opens.
There is a tab called edit/find and in there is there is text box with the
limit number like 10000
Hope this helps
--
Jan D''Hondt
<Toto, I''ve got a feeling we''re not in Kansas anymore.>
SQL database and .NET solutions
"DexterV" wrote:
> Hi,
> Our users that connect to a MSSQL db via MS-Access cannot access more than
> 10 000 records. In other words, all the records that have been inserted after
> the 10 000th record cannot be access nor from the table, nor from a query.
> Is there any way to overcome the problem?
> Thanks|||Thanks Jan,
Actually, I found the max. record limit parameter on the advanced tab.
I should have explored Ms-access options first.
"Jan D''Hondt" wrote:
> Dexter,
> This is an option in the ms-access settings, probably to avoid long lists
> being sent accross the network,
> to augment the limit: I'll try to guide you (my ms-access version is in dutch)
> go to the ms-access menu tools / options, the option dialog box opens.
> There is a tab called edit/find and in there is there is text box with the
> limit number like 10000
> Hope this helps
> --
> Jan D''Hondt
> <Toto, I''ve got a feeling we''re not in Kansas anymore.>
> SQL database and .NET solutions
>
> "DexterV" wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Our users that connect to a MSSQL db via MS-Access cannot access more than
> > 10 000 records. In other words, all the records that have been inserted after
> > the 10 000th record cannot be access nor from the table, nor from a query.
> >
> > Is there any way to overcome the problem?
> >
> > Thanks
remove 10 000 records limit
Hi,
Our users that connect to a MSSQL db via MS-Access cannot access more than
10 000 records. In other words, all the records that have been inserted after
the 10 000th record cannot be access nor from the table, nor from a query.
Is there any way to overcome the problem?
Thanks
Here's a not so awesome way:
Create all your tables without data. When they need data you create a
connection in code and snapshot the data out of SQL into your Access
tables.
Frankly, that just sux. I've not heard of a 10,000 record limit in Access.
Can you point me to an MSDN are similar article that talks about this. I
would be interested in looking into this a little more.
> Our users that connect to a MSSQL db via MS-Access cannot access more than
> 10 000 records. In other words, all the records that have been inserted
> after the 10 000th record cannot be access nor from the table, nor from a
> query.
|||We have users using linked tables in Access to connect to SQL Server and
there is no such limit.
Ben Nevarez
"DexterV" <DexterV@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:CA155716-7F98-4D64-9318-EF816ADA42BB@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> Our users that connect to a MSSQL db via MS-Access cannot access more than
> 10 000 records. In other words, all the records that have been inserted
> after
> the 10 000th record cannot be access nor from the table, nor from a query.
> Is there any way to overcome the problem?
> Thanks
|||Dexter,
This is an option in the ms-access settings, probably to avoid long lists
being sent accross the network,
to augment the limit: I'll try to guide you (my ms-access version is in dutch)
go to the ms-access menu tools / options, the option dialog box opens.
There is a tab called edit/find and in there is there is text box with the
limit number like 10000
Hope this helps
Jan D''Hondt
<Toto, I''ve got a feeling we''re not in Kansas anymore.>
SQL database and .NET solutions
"DexterV" wrote:
> Hi,
> Our users that connect to a MSSQL db via MS-Access cannot access more than
> 10 000 records. In other words, all the records that have been inserted after
> the 10 000th record cannot be access nor from the table, nor from a query.
> Is there any way to overcome the problem?
> Thanks
|||Thanks Jan,
Actually, I found the max. record limit parameter on the advanced tab.
I should have explored Ms-access options first.
"Jan D''Hondt" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Dexter,
> This is an option in the ms-access settings, probably to avoid long lists
> being sent accross the network,
> to augment the limit: I'll try to guide you (my ms-access version is in dutch)
> go to the ms-access menu tools / options, the option dialog box opens.
> There is a tab called edit/find and in there is there is text box with the
> limit number like 10000
> Hope this helps
> --
> Jan D''Hondt
> <Toto, I''ve got a feeling we''re not in Kansas anymore.>
> SQL database and .NET solutions
>
> "DexterV" wrote:
Our users that connect to a MSSQL db via MS-Access cannot access more than
10 000 records. In other words, all the records that have been inserted after
the 10 000th record cannot be access nor from the table, nor from a query.
Is there any way to overcome the problem?
Thanks
Here's a not so awesome way:
Create all your tables without data. When they need data you create a
connection in code and snapshot the data out of SQL into your Access
tables.
Frankly, that just sux. I've not heard of a 10,000 record limit in Access.
Can you point me to an MSDN are similar article that talks about this. I
would be interested in looking into this a little more.
> Our users that connect to a MSSQL db via MS-Access cannot access more than
> 10 000 records. In other words, all the records that have been inserted
> after the 10 000th record cannot be access nor from the table, nor from a
> query.
|||We have users using linked tables in Access to connect to SQL Server and
there is no such limit.
Ben Nevarez
"DexterV" <DexterV@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:CA155716-7F98-4D64-9318-EF816ADA42BB@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> Our users that connect to a MSSQL db via MS-Access cannot access more than
> 10 000 records. In other words, all the records that have been inserted
> after
> the 10 000th record cannot be access nor from the table, nor from a query.
> Is there any way to overcome the problem?
> Thanks
|||Dexter,
This is an option in the ms-access settings, probably to avoid long lists
being sent accross the network,
to augment the limit: I'll try to guide you (my ms-access version is in dutch)
go to the ms-access menu tools / options, the option dialog box opens.
There is a tab called edit/find and in there is there is text box with the
limit number like 10000
Hope this helps
Jan D''Hondt
<Toto, I''ve got a feeling we''re not in Kansas anymore.>
SQL database and .NET solutions
"DexterV" wrote:
> Hi,
> Our users that connect to a MSSQL db via MS-Access cannot access more than
> 10 000 records. In other words, all the records that have been inserted after
> the 10 000th record cannot be access nor from the table, nor from a query.
> Is there any way to overcome the problem?
> Thanks
|||Thanks Jan,
Actually, I found the max. record limit parameter on the advanced tab.
I should have explored Ms-access options first.
"Jan D''Hondt" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Dexter,
> This is an option in the ms-access settings, probably to avoid long lists
> being sent accross the network,
> to augment the limit: I'll try to guide you (my ms-access version is in dutch)
> go to the ms-access menu tools / options, the option dialog box opens.
> There is a tab called edit/find and in there is there is text box with the
> limit number like 10000
> Hope this helps
> --
> Jan D''Hondt
> <Toto, I''ve got a feeling we''re not in Kansas anymore.>
> SQL database and .NET solutions
>
> "DexterV" wrote:
Monday, March 12, 2012
Remote Production Database Issue
Hello Everyone,
Can someone please give me some ideas on how I can maintain a database on a
development environment with data that was entered by users from a remote
production site.
I have no direct access and can not remote connect to the remote production
server. The only connection I have is a read only Linked Server Connection
over a VPN. The database is about 4 Gigs in size.
Does anyone here have any suggestions on the best approarch to recreating
the production database at our development site on a nightly basis under my
current limitations?
Thanks
Scott
Hi Scott
You may want to check for any data protection issues before you try anything.
Have you tried connecting directly to the instance using the credentials for
the linked server? If you aren't wanting to do a full backup/restore you may
want to set up replication or log shipping to a separate databases and then
transfer the data from that to the other system.
John
"Scott Yu" wrote:
> Hello Everyone,
> Can someone please give me some ideas on how I can maintain a database on a
> development environment with data that was entered by users from a remote
> production site.
> I have no direct access and can not remote connect to the remote production
> server. The only connection I have is a read only Linked Server Connection
> over a VPN. The database is about 4 Gigs in size.
> Does anyone here have any suggestions on the best approarch to recreating
> the production database at our development site on a nightly basis under my
> current limitations?
> Thanks
> Scott
Can someone please give me some ideas on how I can maintain a database on a
development environment with data that was entered by users from a remote
production site.
I have no direct access and can not remote connect to the remote production
server. The only connection I have is a read only Linked Server Connection
over a VPN. The database is about 4 Gigs in size.
Does anyone here have any suggestions on the best approarch to recreating
the production database at our development site on a nightly basis under my
current limitations?
Thanks
Scott
Hi Scott
You may want to check for any data protection issues before you try anything.
Have you tried connecting directly to the instance using the credentials for
the linked server? If you aren't wanting to do a full backup/restore you may
want to set up replication or log shipping to a separate databases and then
transfer the data from that to the other system.
John
"Scott Yu" wrote:
> Hello Everyone,
> Can someone please give me some ideas on how I can maintain a database on a
> development environment with data that was entered by users from a remote
> production site.
> I have no direct access and can not remote connect to the remote production
> server. The only connection I have is a read only Linked Server Connection
> over a VPN. The database is about 4 Gigs in size.
> Does anyone here have any suggestions on the best approarch to recreating
> the production database at our development site on a nightly basis under my
> current limitations?
> Thanks
> Scott
Remote Production Database Issue
Hello Everyone,
Can someone please give me some ideas on how I can maintain a database on a
development environment with data that was entered by users from a remote
production site.
I have no direct access and can not remote connect to the remote production
server. The only connection I have is a read only Linked Server Connection
over a VPN. The database is about 4 Gigs in size.
Does anyone here have any suggestions on the best approarch to recreating
the production database at our development site on a nightly basis under my
current limitations?
Thanks
ScottHi Scott
You may want to check for any data protection issues before you try anything
.
Have you tried connecting directly to the instance using the credentials for
the linked server? If you aren't wanting to do a full backup/restore you may
want to set up replication or log shipping to a separate databases and then
transfer the data from that to the other system.
John
"Scott Yu" wrote:
> Hello Everyone,
> Can someone please give me some ideas on how I can maintain a database on
a
> development environment with data that was entered by users from a remote
> production site.
> I have no direct access and can not remote connect to the remote productio
n
> server. The only connection I have is a read only Linked Server Connectio
n
> over a VPN. The database is about 4 Gigs in size.
> Does anyone here have any suggestions on the best approarch to recreating
> the production database at our development site on a nightly basis under m
y
> current limitations?
> Thanks
> Scott
Can someone please give me some ideas on how I can maintain a database on a
development environment with data that was entered by users from a remote
production site.
I have no direct access and can not remote connect to the remote production
server. The only connection I have is a read only Linked Server Connection
over a VPN. The database is about 4 Gigs in size.
Does anyone here have any suggestions on the best approarch to recreating
the production database at our development site on a nightly basis under my
current limitations?
Thanks
ScottHi Scott
You may want to check for any data protection issues before you try anything
.
Have you tried connecting directly to the instance using the credentials for
the linked server? If you aren't wanting to do a full backup/restore you may
want to set up replication or log shipping to a separate databases and then
transfer the data from that to the other system.
John
"Scott Yu" wrote:
> Hello Everyone,
> Can someone please give me some ideas on how I can maintain a database on
a
> development environment with data that was entered by users from a remote
> production site.
> I have no direct access and can not remote connect to the remote productio
n
> server. The only connection I have is a read only Linked Server Connectio
n
> over a VPN. The database is about 4 Gigs in size.
> Does anyone here have any suggestions on the best approarch to recreating
> the production database at our development site on a nightly basis under m
y
> current limitations?
> Thanks
> Scott
remote permissions
Hi,
I have a few users (user1, user2...) I want give user1 remote acces
possibility , and deny remote access users: user2 & su. May I also give
acces ony one ip - How may I do it?
I have a few users (user1, user2...) I want give user1 remote acces
possibility , and deny remote access users: user2 & su. May I also give
acces ony one ip - How may I do it?
GreetingsHi
I am not sure that this is possible, you may restrict connections through a
firewall but there is an absolute way of guaranteeing that the IP or MAC
address is authentic.
John
"Adamo" <_NO_SPAM_dodi100@.wp.pl> wrote in message
news:dqq7fv$8lo$1@.domitilla.aioe.org...
> Hi,
> I have a few users (user1, user2...) I want give user1 remote acces
> possibility , and deny remote access users: user2 & su. May I also give
> acces ony one ip - How may I do it?
> Greetings
Friday, March 9, 2012
Remote Laptop SA Password
Hi All,
We have remote users using sql server 7 on laptops. They use a vb app and replicate with the main server.
I have just discovered they have weak passwords on their sa account.
Others are suggesting that the laptops do not need strong passwords for their sa account as they are only subscribers . Are they talking rubbish?
Thanks,
JJCYou may want to give a look at the article in BOL about xp_cmdshell. Basically, if a dba (or many programmers for that matter) can get your sa password, that dba/programmer can own your laptop. There was a virus that searched the internet for SQL Servers that had no sa password, and it was shockingly effective.
If the laptops are only subscribers, and you do not allow anonymous pull subscriptions, you should be ok at the central server, but those laptops really should have their security beefed up.|||END USERS SHOULD NOT BE USING SA ACCOUNTS!
Even DBAs shouldn't be using the SA account!
Even System Administrators should not use the SA account! They should set up an account that grants themselves only the permissions necessary to do their day-to-day tasks, and only log in as SA when absolutely necessary. Otherwise, sooner or later you WILL do something you wish that you hadn't. Don't think of user accounts as restricitions. Think of them as safeguards!
Give all your users SQL logins or NT logins, and then change your sa password.
blindman|||If possible, set your users' laptops to Windows Authentication only. This way you'll come out clean without having to remember each laptop's SA password, or having to create a user on each laptop.
We have remote users using sql server 7 on laptops. They use a vb app and replicate with the main server.
I have just discovered they have weak passwords on their sa account.
Others are suggesting that the laptops do not need strong passwords for their sa account as they are only subscribers . Are they talking rubbish?
Thanks,
JJCYou may want to give a look at the article in BOL about xp_cmdshell. Basically, if a dba (or many programmers for that matter) can get your sa password, that dba/programmer can own your laptop. There was a virus that searched the internet for SQL Servers that had no sa password, and it was shockingly effective.
If the laptops are only subscribers, and you do not allow anonymous pull subscriptions, you should be ok at the central server, but those laptops really should have their security beefed up.|||END USERS SHOULD NOT BE USING SA ACCOUNTS!
Even DBAs shouldn't be using the SA account!
Even System Administrators should not use the SA account! They should set up an account that grants themselves only the permissions necessary to do their day-to-day tasks, and only log in as SA when absolutely necessary. Otherwise, sooner or later you WILL do something you wish that you hadn't. Don't think of user accounts as restricitions. Think of them as safeguards!
Give all your users SQL logins or NT logins, and then change your sa password.
blindman|||If possible, set your users' laptops to Windows Authentication only. This way you'll come out clean without having to remember each laptop's SA password, or having to create a user on each laptop.
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Remote Desktop: Losing credentials ...
Hi,
I've experienced a problem (bug?) when deploying reports to the report server. My users kept complaining about losing authentication to reports when I deploy a new report. I found the problem but don't understand why this is happening. My collegue developped the earliest reports and loggs in with a different user on Remote Desktop to develop the reports. When the report is deployed, the datasources are deployed also.
Now when I log in on Remote Desktop with another user then my collegue and open the same report project, and check out the datasources, the credentials are gone ... ?!? So when I deploy a report the datasource with the empty credentials are deployed too, wich causes all the authentication problems.
My Question: How comes I can't see the user credentials my collegue filled in? When I open the report project the credentials are gone. I log out, my collegue loggs in, and the credentials are back
I suppose this has something to do with Remote Desktop and the users connecting to it?
Thanks in advance!
Nobody?|||I believe Visual Studio stores the data source credentials in a user specific data file (<projectname>.rptproj.user). This is by design, so that one developer cannot "borrow" another developer's credentials. However, if you are using shared data sources, there is a simple workaround. Make sure that the OverwriteDataSources property in the Project Properties is set to FALSE. This way, shared data sources are only deployed if they don't already exist. On the first deployment, you may have the update the data source on the server, but subsequent report deployments will not overwrite it.|||Hi jwelch,
Thanks for the explanation. Your solution will probably prevent anything like this happening ever again.
Respect! ;-)
|||Can you mark the response as an answer? It helps others who encounter the same problems find solutions more easily.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)