Hi
I am looking into finding a cheap solution for a .Net/sql server web
app that gives high availability and hardware redundancy.
Given that performance isn't a great issue, I was wondering if the
following would work:
Two servers running Windows 2003 Standard and clustered using Network
Load Balancing (NLB). Each server running SQL 2005 Standard and
configured so that one server mirrors the other.
Would this configuration mean if either server failed the application
would keep working on the remaining server without any intervention? If
not what other options do I have? Having one active server with another
as a backup would also be fine but I assume this would require some
maintenance to switch the servers over when a failure occurs.
In terms of the actual servers I was looking at the Dell PowerEdge 860
Quad Core Intel Xeon X3210 2.13GHz as these would only need one sql
server licence per server. Storage using RAID 1 for more redundancy and
a UPS for short power outages. I know I could get cheaper servers but
the largest cost would be SQL server 2005 (approx 4100) so getting a
2 server solution would be Ideal.
Any more suggestions on setup or hardware would be appreciated.
Thanks
Henry
If you're using SQL Server 2005, why not investigate Failover Clustering or
Database Mirroring? Both are available on the standard edition (with
limitations compared to enterprise ed).
In what you described below, you have 2 physically independent databases
running (NLB doesn't mean anything to SQL Server). How would you keep them
both in sync? You mentioned configured so that they mirror each other, did
you mean using DB Mirroring or something else? This is not a trivial issue.
With homegrown solution you need to ensure you don't get into situations
where data is out of sync but your application/users are not aware of it.
HP has some nifty cluster-in-a-box solutions with the DL38x and DL58x
(beefier) platforms. They're relatively inexpensive. Haven't worked with
Dell hardware in some time but they probably have similar offerings also.
If you don't want to deal with Failover Clustering, you can get just the 2
servers and implement DB Mirroring.
In your case, I'd recommend DB Mirroring.
joe.
"Henry" <henry.nelson@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1169572502.397351.275050@.m58g2000cwm.googlegr oups.com...
Hi
I am looking into finding a cheap solution for a .Net/sql server web
app that gives high availability and hardware redundancy.
Given that performance isn't a great issue, I was wondering if the
following would work:
Two servers running Windows 2003 Standard and clustered using Network
Load Balancing (NLB). Each server running SQL 2005 Standard and
configured so that one server mirrors the other.
Would this configuration mean if either server failed the application
would keep working on the remaining server without any intervention? If
not what other options do I have? Having one active server with another
as a backup would also be fine but I assume this would require some
maintenance to switch the servers over when a failure occurs.
In terms of the actual servers I was looking at the Dell PowerEdge 860
Quad Core Intel Xeon X3210 2.13GHz as these would only need one sql
server licence per server. Storage using RAID 1 for more redundancy and
a UPS for short power outages. I know I could get cheaper servers but
the largest cost would be SQL server 2005 (approx 4100) so getting a
2 server solution would be Ideal.
Any more suggestions on setup or hardware would be appreciated.
Thanks
Henry
Showing posts with label cheap. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cheap. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Cheap mans clustering
Hi all,
This question could be posted in several different groups, but this is the
chosen one.
We plan to do High Availability in the coming financial year and have
budgetary constraints.
If I can detail the setup.
The SQL will have transactional replication, snapshot replication, and
merge replication! I cannot for the life of me see how replication can be
viable (or compatible) in a failover or clustering scenario. We will not
have a SAN (too expensive). We will have a NAS, but my understanding is
that will ask for trouble. I thought that for this to work, the databases
would have to be on a SAN.
Furthermore we will not have the budget for a proper SQL clustering
solution, so thrirdparty is likely. XOSoft seems to be the primary
candidate.
Comments are welcome, personally I don't like the sound of it. I would
however appreciate knowig how SQL replication still works on the
cluster/failover scenarios.
Many thx
Paul
Running SQL Server on NAS is no way to achieve high availability! In
most cases NAS isn't even supported and is definitely not recommended,
except maybe for a non-critical, low throughput database. The following
article gives MS's official line on this, my own advice is: don't go
there.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/304261
Replication is commonly used as a low-budget alternative to clustering,
however you may also want to take a look at Database Mirroring in SQL
Server 2005. Unlike clustering, mirroring doesn't require any special
hardware.
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
|||Oooohhh. Don't do NAS with SQL.
Your are looking for inexpensive? I assume the cost of SQL Clustering or
log shipping is in the SQL Enterprise license and you are going with
Standard. However, You can write your own version of Log shipping using
SQL standard. It's really just coping over the Tlogs to another server and
restoring. Have a DNS entry that abstracts the SQL Server name and failover
can be performed quickly. There's a little more to it if you want logins
and such but it's not that bad.
Danny
"Paul Buxton" <paul@.nospamspireite.ndo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1vebb4usw7c62.14jpupfkmyvi6.dlg@.40tude.net...
> Hi all,
> This question could be posted in several different groups, but this is the
> chosen one.
> We plan to do High Availability in the coming financial year and have
> budgetary constraints.
> If I can detail the setup.
>
> The SQL will have transactional replication, snapshot replication, and
> merge replication! I cannot for the life of me see how replication can be
> viable (or compatible) in a failover or clustering scenario. We will not
> have a SAN (too expensive). We will have a NAS, but my understanding is
> that will ask for trouble. I thought that for this to work, the databases
> would have to be on a SAN.
> Furthermore we will not have the budget for a proper SQL clustering
> solution, so thrirdparty is likely. XOSoft seems to be the primary
> candidate.
> Comments are welcome, personally I don't like the sound of it. I would
> however appreciate knowig how SQL replication still works on the
> cluster/failover scenarios.
> Many thx
> Paul
|||Lemme guess, your management is the type to buy the dummy security cameras
and signs and think that it is "just like the real thing" but lots cheaper?
What you have outlined is not a highly available design. It is a
low-availability system pretending to be a high-availability plan. SQL on
NAS does give you two nifty features for one low price; low performance AND
low-availability.
You might look at Peer-to-Peer replication using SQL 2005 as an availability
option. There is a risk of some small data loss during a failure event,
but no more than with XOSoft. Database mirroring has several options
depending on hw much data loss is tolerable and how automatic you want the
failover. Of course, the tighter the constraints, the higher the
performance impact.
The short version is that High Availability isn't cheap no matter how it is
implemented. It takes a combination of people, process, and technology to
achieve a true HA system. If your employers want to skimp on one part, I
suspect they will not invest in the other two elements either.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Paul Buxton" <paul@.nospamspireite.ndo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1vebb4usw7c62.14jpupfkmyvi6.dlg@.40tude.net...
> Hi all,
> This question could be posted in several different groups, but this is the
> chosen one.
> We plan to do High Availability in the coming financial year and have
> budgetary constraints.
> If I can detail the setup.
>
> The SQL will have transactional replication, snapshot replication, and
> merge replication! I cannot for the life of me see how replication can be
> viable (or compatible) in a failover or clustering scenario. We will not
> have a SAN (too expensive). We will have a NAS, but my understanding is
> that will ask for trouble. I thought that for this to work, the databases
> would have to be on a SAN.
> Furthermore we will not have the budget for a proper SQL clustering
> solution, so thrirdparty is likely. XOSoft seems to be the primary
> candidate.
> Comments are welcome, personally I don't like the sound of it. I would
> however appreciate knowig how SQL replication still works on the
> cluster/failover scenarios.
> Many thx
> Paul
|||In addition to the other posts, below gives a good comparison of pros and cons between the three
available technologies for SQL Server 2000:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro...y/sqlhalp.mspx
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Paul Buxton" <paul@.nospamspireite.ndo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1vebb4usw7c62.14jpupfkmyvi6.dlg@.40tude.net...
> Hi all,
> This question could be posted in several different groups, but this is the
> chosen one.
> We plan to do High Availability in the coming financial year and have
> budgetary constraints.
> If I can detail the setup.
>
> The SQL will have transactional replication, snapshot replication, and
> merge replication! I cannot for the life of me see how replication can be
> viable (or compatible) in a failover or clustering scenario. We will not
> have a SAN (too expensive). We will have a NAS, but my understanding is
> that will ask for trouble. I thought that for this to work, the databases
> would have to be on a SAN.
> Furthermore we will not have the budget for a proper SQL clustering
> solution, so thrirdparty is likely. XOSoft seems to be the primary
> candidate.
> Comments are welcome, personally I don't like the sound of it. I would
> however appreciate knowig how SQL replication still works on the
> cluster/failover scenarios.
> Many thx
> Paul
This question could be posted in several different groups, but this is the
chosen one.
We plan to do High Availability in the coming financial year and have
budgetary constraints.
If I can detail the setup.
The SQL will have transactional replication, snapshot replication, and
merge replication! I cannot for the life of me see how replication can be
viable (or compatible) in a failover or clustering scenario. We will not
have a SAN (too expensive). We will have a NAS, but my understanding is
that will ask for trouble. I thought that for this to work, the databases
would have to be on a SAN.
Furthermore we will not have the budget for a proper SQL clustering
solution, so thrirdparty is likely. XOSoft seems to be the primary
candidate.
Comments are welcome, personally I don't like the sound of it. I would
however appreciate knowig how SQL replication still works on the
cluster/failover scenarios.
Many thx
Paul
Running SQL Server on NAS is no way to achieve high availability! In
most cases NAS isn't even supported and is definitely not recommended,
except maybe for a non-critical, low throughput database. The following
article gives MS's official line on this, my own advice is: don't go
there.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/304261
Replication is commonly used as a low-budget alternative to clustering,
however you may also want to take a look at Database Mirroring in SQL
Server 2005. Unlike clustering, mirroring doesn't require any special
hardware.
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
|||Oooohhh. Don't do NAS with SQL.
Your are looking for inexpensive? I assume the cost of SQL Clustering or
log shipping is in the SQL Enterprise license and you are going with
Standard. However, You can write your own version of Log shipping using
SQL standard. It's really just coping over the Tlogs to another server and
restoring. Have a DNS entry that abstracts the SQL Server name and failover
can be performed quickly. There's a little more to it if you want logins
and such but it's not that bad.
Danny
"Paul Buxton" <paul@.nospamspireite.ndo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1vebb4usw7c62.14jpupfkmyvi6.dlg@.40tude.net...
> Hi all,
> This question could be posted in several different groups, but this is the
> chosen one.
> We plan to do High Availability in the coming financial year and have
> budgetary constraints.
> If I can detail the setup.
>
> The SQL will have transactional replication, snapshot replication, and
> merge replication! I cannot for the life of me see how replication can be
> viable (or compatible) in a failover or clustering scenario. We will not
> have a SAN (too expensive). We will have a NAS, but my understanding is
> that will ask for trouble. I thought that for this to work, the databases
> would have to be on a SAN.
> Furthermore we will not have the budget for a proper SQL clustering
> solution, so thrirdparty is likely. XOSoft seems to be the primary
> candidate.
> Comments are welcome, personally I don't like the sound of it. I would
> however appreciate knowig how SQL replication still works on the
> cluster/failover scenarios.
> Many thx
> Paul
|||Lemme guess, your management is the type to buy the dummy security cameras
and signs and think that it is "just like the real thing" but lots cheaper?
What you have outlined is not a highly available design. It is a
low-availability system pretending to be a high-availability plan. SQL on
NAS does give you two nifty features for one low price; low performance AND
low-availability.
You might look at Peer-to-Peer replication using SQL 2005 as an availability
option. There is a risk of some small data loss during a failure event,
but no more than with XOSoft. Database mirroring has several options
depending on hw much data loss is tolerable and how automatic you want the
failover. Of course, the tighter the constraints, the higher the
performance impact.
The short version is that High Availability isn't cheap no matter how it is
implemented. It takes a combination of people, process, and technology to
achieve a true HA system. If your employers want to skimp on one part, I
suspect they will not invest in the other two elements either.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Paul Buxton" <paul@.nospamspireite.ndo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1vebb4usw7c62.14jpupfkmyvi6.dlg@.40tude.net...
> Hi all,
> This question could be posted in several different groups, but this is the
> chosen one.
> We plan to do High Availability in the coming financial year and have
> budgetary constraints.
> If I can detail the setup.
>
> The SQL will have transactional replication, snapshot replication, and
> merge replication! I cannot for the life of me see how replication can be
> viable (or compatible) in a failover or clustering scenario. We will not
> have a SAN (too expensive). We will have a NAS, but my understanding is
> that will ask for trouble. I thought that for this to work, the databases
> would have to be on a SAN.
> Furthermore we will not have the budget for a proper SQL clustering
> solution, so thrirdparty is likely. XOSoft seems to be the primary
> candidate.
> Comments are welcome, personally I don't like the sound of it. I would
> however appreciate knowig how SQL replication still works on the
> cluster/failover scenarios.
> Many thx
> Paul
|||In addition to the other posts, below gives a good comparison of pros and cons between the three
available technologies for SQL Server 2000:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro...y/sqlhalp.mspx
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Paul Buxton" <paul@.nospamspireite.ndo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1vebb4usw7c62.14jpupfkmyvi6.dlg@.40tude.net...
> Hi all,
> This question could be posted in several different groups, but this is the
> chosen one.
> We plan to do High Availability in the coming financial year and have
> budgetary constraints.
> If I can detail the setup.
>
> The SQL will have transactional replication, snapshot replication, and
> merge replication! I cannot for the life of me see how replication can be
> viable (or compatible) in a failover or clustering scenario. We will not
> have a SAN (too expensive). We will have a NAS, but my understanding is
> that will ask for trouble. I thought that for this to work, the databases
> would have to be on a SAN.
> Furthermore we will not have the budget for a proper SQL clustering
> solution, so thrirdparty is likely. XOSoft seems to be the primary
> candidate.
> Comments are welcome, personally I don't like the sound of it. I would
> however appreciate knowig how SQL replication still works on the
> cluster/failover scenarios.
> Many thx
> Paul
Cheap mans clustering
Hi all,
This question could be posted in several different groups, but this is the
chosen one.
We plan to do High Availability in the coming financial year and have
budgetary constraints.
If I can detail the setup.
The SQL will have transactional replication, snapshot replication, and
merge replication! I cannot for the life of me see how replication can be
viable (or compatible) in a failover or clustering scenario. We will not
have a SAN (too expensive). We will have a NAS, but my understanding is
that will ask for trouble. I thought that for this to work, the databases
would have to be on a SAN.
Furthermore we will not have the budget for a proper SQL clustering
solution, so thrirdparty is likely. XOSoft seems to be the primary
candidate.
Comments are welcome, personally I don't like the sound of it. I would
however appreciate knowig how SQL replication still works on the
cluster/failover scenarios.
Many thx
PaulRunning SQL Server on NAS is no way to achieve high availability! In
most cases NAS isn't even supported and is definitely not recommended,
except maybe for a non-critical, low throughput database. The following
article gives MS's official line on this, my own advice is: don't go
there.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/304261
Replication is commonly used as a low-budget alternative to clustering,
however you may also want to take a look at Database Mirroring in SQL
Server 2005. Unlike clustering, mirroring doesn't require any special
hardware.
--
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
--|||Oooohhh. Don't do NAS with SQL.
Your are looking for inexpensive? I assume the cost of SQL Clustering or
log shipping is in the SQL Enterprise license and you are going with
Standard. However, You can write your own version of Log shipping using
SQL standard. It's really just coping over the Tlogs to another server and
restoring. Have a DNS entry that abstracts the SQL Server name and failover
can be performed quickly. There's a little more to it if you want logins
and such but it's not that bad.
Danny
"Paul Buxton" <paul@.nospamspireite.ndo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1vebb4usw7c62.14jpupfkmyvi6.dlg@.40tude.net...
> Hi all,
> This question could be posted in several different groups, but this is the
> chosen one.
> We plan to do High Availability in the coming financial year and have
> budgetary constraints.
> If I can detail the setup.
>
> The SQL will have transactional replication, snapshot replication, and
> merge replication! I cannot for the life of me see how replication can be
> viable (or compatible) in a failover or clustering scenario. We will not
> have a SAN (too expensive). We will have a NAS, but my understanding is
> that will ask for trouble. I thought that for this to work, the databases
> would have to be on a SAN.
> Furthermore we will not have the budget for a proper SQL clustering
> solution, so thrirdparty is likely. XOSoft seems to be the primary
> candidate.
> Comments are welcome, personally I don't like the sound of it. I would
> however appreciate knowig how SQL replication still works on the
> cluster/failover scenarios.
> Many thx
> Paul|||Lemme guess, your management is the type to buy the dummy security cameras
and signs and think that it is "just like the real thing" but lots cheaper?
What you have outlined is not a highly available design. It is a
low-availability system pretending to be a high-availability plan. SQL on
NAS does give you two nifty features for one low price; low performance AND
low-availability.
You might look at Peer-to-Peer replication using SQL 2005 as an availability
option. There is a risk of some small data loss during a failure event,
but no more than with XOSoft. Database mirroring has several options
depending on hw much data loss is tolerable and how automatic you want the
failover. Of course, the tighter the constraints, the higher the
performance impact.
The short version is that High Availability isn't cheap no matter how it is
implemented. It takes a combination of people, process, and technology to
achieve a true HA system. If your employers want to skimp on one part, I
suspect they will not invest in the other two elements either.
--
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Paul Buxton" <paul@.nospamspireite.ndo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1vebb4usw7c62.14jpupfkmyvi6.dlg@.40tude.net...
> Hi all,
> This question could be posted in several different groups, but this is the
> chosen one.
> We plan to do High Availability in the coming financial year and have
> budgetary constraints.
> If I can detail the setup.
>
> The SQL will have transactional replication, snapshot replication, and
> merge replication! I cannot for the life of me see how replication can be
> viable (or compatible) in a failover or clustering scenario. We will not
> have a SAN (too expensive). We will have a NAS, but my understanding is
> that will ask for trouble. I thought that for this to work, the databases
> would have to be on a SAN.
> Furthermore we will not have the budget for a proper SQL clustering
> solution, so thrirdparty is likely. XOSoft seems to be the primary
> candidate.
> Comments are welcome, personally I don't like the sound of it. I would
> however appreciate knowig how SQL replication still works on the
> cluster/failover scenarios.
> Many thx
> Paul|||In addition to the other posts, below gives a good comparison of pros and cons between the three
available technologies for SQL Server 2000:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2000/deploy/sqlhalp.mspx
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Paul Buxton" <paul@.nospamspireite.ndo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1vebb4usw7c62.14jpupfkmyvi6.dlg@.40tude.net...
> Hi all,
> This question could be posted in several different groups, but this is the
> chosen one.
> We plan to do High Availability in the coming financial year and have
> budgetary constraints.
> If I can detail the setup.
>
> The SQL will have transactional replication, snapshot replication, and
> merge replication! I cannot for the life of me see how replication can be
> viable (or compatible) in a failover or clustering scenario. We will not
> have a SAN (too expensive). We will have a NAS, but my understanding is
> that will ask for trouble. I thought that for this to work, the databases
> would have to be on a SAN.
> Furthermore we will not have the budget for a proper SQL clustering
> solution, so thrirdparty is likely. XOSoft seems to be the primary
> candidate.
> Comments are welcome, personally I don't like the sound of it. I would
> however appreciate knowig how SQL replication still works on the
> cluster/failover scenarios.
> Many thx
> Paul
This question could be posted in several different groups, but this is the
chosen one.
We plan to do High Availability in the coming financial year and have
budgetary constraints.
If I can detail the setup.
The SQL will have transactional replication, snapshot replication, and
merge replication! I cannot for the life of me see how replication can be
viable (or compatible) in a failover or clustering scenario. We will not
have a SAN (too expensive). We will have a NAS, but my understanding is
that will ask for trouble. I thought that for this to work, the databases
would have to be on a SAN.
Furthermore we will not have the budget for a proper SQL clustering
solution, so thrirdparty is likely. XOSoft seems to be the primary
candidate.
Comments are welcome, personally I don't like the sound of it. I would
however appreciate knowig how SQL replication still works on the
cluster/failover scenarios.
Many thx
PaulRunning SQL Server on NAS is no way to achieve high availability! In
most cases NAS isn't even supported and is definitely not recommended,
except maybe for a non-critical, low throughput database. The following
article gives MS's official line on this, my own advice is: don't go
there.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/304261
Replication is commonly used as a low-budget alternative to clustering,
however you may also want to take a look at Database Mirroring in SQL
Server 2005. Unlike clustering, mirroring doesn't require any special
hardware.
--
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
--|||Oooohhh. Don't do NAS with SQL.
Your are looking for inexpensive? I assume the cost of SQL Clustering or
log shipping is in the SQL Enterprise license and you are going with
Standard. However, You can write your own version of Log shipping using
SQL standard. It's really just coping over the Tlogs to another server and
restoring. Have a DNS entry that abstracts the SQL Server name and failover
can be performed quickly. There's a little more to it if you want logins
and such but it's not that bad.
Danny
"Paul Buxton" <paul@.nospamspireite.ndo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1vebb4usw7c62.14jpupfkmyvi6.dlg@.40tude.net...
> Hi all,
> This question could be posted in several different groups, but this is the
> chosen one.
> We plan to do High Availability in the coming financial year and have
> budgetary constraints.
> If I can detail the setup.
>
> The SQL will have transactional replication, snapshot replication, and
> merge replication! I cannot for the life of me see how replication can be
> viable (or compatible) in a failover or clustering scenario. We will not
> have a SAN (too expensive). We will have a NAS, but my understanding is
> that will ask for trouble. I thought that for this to work, the databases
> would have to be on a SAN.
> Furthermore we will not have the budget for a proper SQL clustering
> solution, so thrirdparty is likely. XOSoft seems to be the primary
> candidate.
> Comments are welcome, personally I don't like the sound of it. I would
> however appreciate knowig how SQL replication still works on the
> cluster/failover scenarios.
> Many thx
> Paul|||Lemme guess, your management is the type to buy the dummy security cameras
and signs and think that it is "just like the real thing" but lots cheaper?
What you have outlined is not a highly available design. It is a
low-availability system pretending to be a high-availability plan. SQL on
NAS does give you two nifty features for one low price; low performance AND
low-availability.
You might look at Peer-to-Peer replication using SQL 2005 as an availability
option. There is a risk of some small data loss during a failure event,
but no more than with XOSoft. Database mirroring has several options
depending on hw much data loss is tolerable and how automatic you want the
failover. Of course, the tighter the constraints, the higher the
performance impact.
The short version is that High Availability isn't cheap no matter how it is
implemented. It takes a combination of people, process, and technology to
achieve a true HA system. If your employers want to skimp on one part, I
suspect they will not invest in the other two elements either.
--
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Paul Buxton" <paul@.nospamspireite.ndo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1vebb4usw7c62.14jpupfkmyvi6.dlg@.40tude.net...
> Hi all,
> This question could be posted in several different groups, but this is the
> chosen one.
> We plan to do High Availability in the coming financial year and have
> budgetary constraints.
> If I can detail the setup.
>
> The SQL will have transactional replication, snapshot replication, and
> merge replication! I cannot for the life of me see how replication can be
> viable (or compatible) in a failover or clustering scenario. We will not
> have a SAN (too expensive). We will have a NAS, but my understanding is
> that will ask for trouble. I thought that for this to work, the databases
> would have to be on a SAN.
> Furthermore we will not have the budget for a proper SQL clustering
> solution, so thrirdparty is likely. XOSoft seems to be the primary
> candidate.
> Comments are welcome, personally I don't like the sound of it. I would
> however appreciate knowig how SQL replication still works on the
> cluster/failover scenarios.
> Many thx
> Paul|||In addition to the other posts, below gives a good comparison of pros and cons between the three
available technologies for SQL Server 2000:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2000/deploy/sqlhalp.mspx
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Paul Buxton" <paul@.nospamspireite.ndo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1vebb4usw7c62.14jpupfkmyvi6.dlg@.40tude.net...
> Hi all,
> This question could be posted in several different groups, but this is the
> chosen one.
> We plan to do High Availability in the coming financial year and have
> budgetary constraints.
> If I can detail the setup.
>
> The SQL will have transactional replication, snapshot replication, and
> merge replication! I cannot for the life of me see how replication can be
> viable (or compatible) in a failover or clustering scenario. We will not
> have a SAN (too expensive). We will have a NAS, but my understanding is
> that will ask for trouble. I thought that for this to work, the databases
> would have to be on a SAN.
> Furthermore we will not have the budget for a proper SQL clustering
> solution, so thrirdparty is likely. XOSoft seems to be the primary
> candidate.
> Comments are welcome, personally I don't like the sound of it. I would
> however appreciate knowig how SQL replication still works on the
> cluster/failover scenarios.
> Many thx
> Paul
Cheap mans clustering
Hi all,
This question could be posted in several different groups, but this is the
chosen one.
We plan to do High Availability in the coming financial year and have
budgetary constraints.
If I can detail the setup.
The SQL will have transactional replication, snapshot replication, and
merge replication! I cannot for the life of me see how replication can be
viable (or compatible) in a failover or clustering scenario. We will not
have a SAN (too expensive). We will have a NAS, but my understanding is
that will ask for trouble. I thought that for this to work, the databases
would have to be on a SAN.
Furthermore we will not have the budget for a proper SQL clustering
solution, so thrirdparty is likely. XOSoft seems to be the primary
candidate.
Comments are welcome, personally I don't like the sound of it. I would
however appreciate knowig how SQL replication still works on the
cluster/failover scenarios.
Many thx
PaulRunning SQL Server on NAS is no way to achieve high availability! In
most cases NAS isn't even supported and is definitely not recommended,
except maybe for a non-critical, low throughput database. The following
article gives MS's official line on this, my own advice is: don't go
there.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/304261
Replication is commonly used as a low-budget alternative to clustering,
however you may also want to take a look at Database Mirroring in SQL
Server 2005. Unlike clustering, mirroring doesn't require any special
hardware.
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
--|||Oooohhh. Don't do NAS with SQL.
Your are looking for inexpensive? I assume the cost of SQL Clustering or
log shipping is in the SQL Enterprise license and you are going with
Standard. However, You can write your own version of Log shipping using
SQL standard. It's really just coping over the Tlogs to another server and
restoring. Have a DNS entry that abstracts the SQL Server name and failover
can be performed quickly. There's a little more to it if you want logins
and such but it's not that bad.
Danny
"Paul Buxton" <paul@.nospamspireite.ndo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1vebb4usw7c62.14jpupfkmyvi6.dlg@.40tude.net...
> Hi all,
> This question could be posted in several different groups, but this is the
> chosen one.
> We plan to do High Availability in the coming financial year and have
> budgetary constraints.
> If I can detail the setup.
>
> The SQL will have transactional replication, snapshot replication, and
> merge replication! I cannot for the life of me see how replication can be
> viable (or compatible) in a failover or clustering scenario. We will not
> have a SAN (too expensive). We will have a NAS, but my understanding is
> that will ask for trouble. I thought that for this to work, the databases
> would have to be on a SAN.
> Furthermore we will not have the budget for a proper SQL clustering
> solution, so thrirdparty is likely. XOSoft seems to be the primary
> candidate.
> Comments are welcome, personally I don't like the sound of it. I would
> however appreciate knowig how SQL replication still works on the
> cluster/failover scenarios.
> Many thx
> Paul|||Lemme guess, your management is the type to buy the dummy security cameras
and signs and think that it is "just like the real thing" but lots cheaper?
What you have outlined is not a highly available design. It is a
low-availability system pretending to be a high-availability plan. SQL on
NAS does give you two nifty features for one low price; low performance AND
low-availability.
You might look at Peer-to-Peer replication using SQL 2005 as an availability
option. There is a risk of some small data loss during a failure event,
but no more than with XOSoft. Database mirroring has several options
depending on hw much data loss is tolerable and how automatic you want the
failover. Of course, the tighter the constraints, the higher the
performance impact.
The short version is that High Availability isn't cheap no matter how it is
implemented. It takes a combination of people, process, and technology to
achieve a true HA system. If your employers want to skimp on one part, I
suspect they will not invest in the other two elements either.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Paul Buxton" <paul@.nospamspireite.ndo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1vebb4usw7c62.14jpupfkmyvi6.dlg@.40tude.net...
> Hi all,
> This question could be posted in several different groups, but this is the
> chosen one.
> We plan to do High Availability in the coming financial year and have
> budgetary constraints.
> If I can detail the setup.
>
> The SQL will have transactional replication, snapshot replication, and
> merge replication! I cannot for the life of me see how replication can be
> viable (or compatible) in a failover or clustering scenario. We will not
> have a SAN (too expensive). We will have a NAS, but my understanding is
> that will ask for trouble. I thought that for this to work, the databases
> would have to be on a SAN.
> Furthermore we will not have the budget for a proper SQL clustering
> solution, so thrirdparty is likely. XOSoft seems to be the primary
> candidate.
> Comments are welcome, personally I don't like the sound of it. I would
> however appreciate knowig how SQL replication still works on the
> cluster/failover scenarios.
> Many thx
> Paul|||In addition to the other posts, below gives a good comparison of pros and co
ns between the three
available technologies for SQL Server 2000:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...oy/sqlhalp.mspx
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Paul Buxton" <paul@.nospamspireite.ndo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1vebb4usw7c62.14jpupfkmyvi6.dlg@.40tude.net...
> Hi all,
> This question could be posted in several different groups, but this is the
> chosen one.
> We plan to do High Availability in the coming financial year and have
> budgetary constraints.
> If I can detail the setup.
>
> The SQL will have transactional replication, snapshot replication, and
> merge replication! I cannot for the life of me see how replication can be
> viable (or compatible) in a failover or clustering scenario. We will not
> have a SAN (too expensive). We will have a NAS, but my understanding is
> that will ask for trouble. I thought that for this to work, the databases
> would have to be on a SAN.
> Furthermore we will not have the budget for a proper SQL clustering
> solution, so thrirdparty is likely. XOSoft seems to be the primary
> candidate.
> Comments are welcome, personally I don't like the sound of it. I would
> however appreciate knowig how SQL replication still works on the
> cluster/failover scenarios.
> Many thx
> Paul
This question could be posted in several different groups, but this is the
chosen one.
We plan to do High Availability in the coming financial year and have
budgetary constraints.
If I can detail the setup.
The SQL will have transactional replication, snapshot replication, and
merge replication! I cannot for the life of me see how replication can be
viable (or compatible) in a failover or clustering scenario. We will not
have a SAN (too expensive). We will have a NAS, but my understanding is
that will ask for trouble. I thought that for this to work, the databases
would have to be on a SAN.
Furthermore we will not have the budget for a proper SQL clustering
solution, so thrirdparty is likely. XOSoft seems to be the primary
candidate.
Comments are welcome, personally I don't like the sound of it. I would
however appreciate knowig how SQL replication still works on the
cluster/failover scenarios.
Many thx
PaulRunning SQL Server on NAS is no way to achieve high availability! In
most cases NAS isn't even supported and is definitely not recommended,
except maybe for a non-critical, low throughput database. The following
article gives MS's official line on this, my own advice is: don't go
there.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/304261
Replication is commonly used as a low-budget alternative to clustering,
however you may also want to take a look at Database Mirroring in SQL
Server 2005. Unlike clustering, mirroring doesn't require any special
hardware.
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
--|||Oooohhh. Don't do NAS with SQL.
Your are looking for inexpensive? I assume the cost of SQL Clustering or
log shipping is in the SQL Enterprise license and you are going with
Standard. However, You can write your own version of Log shipping using
SQL standard. It's really just coping over the Tlogs to another server and
restoring. Have a DNS entry that abstracts the SQL Server name and failover
can be performed quickly. There's a little more to it if you want logins
and such but it's not that bad.
Danny
"Paul Buxton" <paul@.nospamspireite.ndo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1vebb4usw7c62.14jpupfkmyvi6.dlg@.40tude.net...
> Hi all,
> This question could be posted in several different groups, but this is the
> chosen one.
> We plan to do High Availability in the coming financial year and have
> budgetary constraints.
> If I can detail the setup.
>
> The SQL will have transactional replication, snapshot replication, and
> merge replication! I cannot for the life of me see how replication can be
> viable (or compatible) in a failover or clustering scenario. We will not
> have a SAN (too expensive). We will have a NAS, but my understanding is
> that will ask for trouble. I thought that for this to work, the databases
> would have to be on a SAN.
> Furthermore we will not have the budget for a proper SQL clustering
> solution, so thrirdparty is likely. XOSoft seems to be the primary
> candidate.
> Comments are welcome, personally I don't like the sound of it. I would
> however appreciate knowig how SQL replication still works on the
> cluster/failover scenarios.
> Many thx
> Paul|||Lemme guess, your management is the type to buy the dummy security cameras
and signs and think that it is "just like the real thing" but lots cheaper?
What you have outlined is not a highly available design. It is a
low-availability system pretending to be a high-availability plan. SQL on
NAS does give you two nifty features for one low price; low performance AND
low-availability.
You might look at Peer-to-Peer replication using SQL 2005 as an availability
option. There is a risk of some small data loss during a failure event,
but no more than with XOSoft. Database mirroring has several options
depending on hw much data loss is tolerable and how automatic you want the
failover. Of course, the tighter the constraints, the higher the
performance impact.
The short version is that High Availability isn't cheap no matter how it is
implemented. It takes a combination of people, process, and technology to
achieve a true HA system. If your employers want to skimp on one part, I
suspect they will not invest in the other two elements either.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Paul Buxton" <paul@.nospamspireite.ndo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1vebb4usw7c62.14jpupfkmyvi6.dlg@.40tude.net...
> Hi all,
> This question could be posted in several different groups, but this is the
> chosen one.
> We plan to do High Availability in the coming financial year and have
> budgetary constraints.
> If I can detail the setup.
>
> The SQL will have transactional replication, snapshot replication, and
> merge replication! I cannot for the life of me see how replication can be
> viable (or compatible) in a failover or clustering scenario. We will not
> have a SAN (too expensive). We will have a NAS, but my understanding is
> that will ask for trouble. I thought that for this to work, the databases
> would have to be on a SAN.
> Furthermore we will not have the budget for a proper SQL clustering
> solution, so thrirdparty is likely. XOSoft seems to be the primary
> candidate.
> Comments are welcome, personally I don't like the sound of it. I would
> however appreciate knowig how SQL replication still works on the
> cluster/failover scenarios.
> Many thx
> Paul|||In addition to the other posts, below gives a good comparison of pros and co
ns between the three
available technologies for SQL Server 2000:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...oy/sqlhalp.mspx
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Paul Buxton" <paul@.nospamspireite.ndo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1vebb4usw7c62.14jpupfkmyvi6.dlg@.40tude.net...
> Hi all,
> This question could be posted in several different groups, but this is the
> chosen one.
> We plan to do High Availability in the coming financial year and have
> budgetary constraints.
> If I can detail the setup.
>
> The SQL will have transactional replication, snapshot replication, and
> merge replication! I cannot for the life of me see how replication can be
> viable (or compatible) in a failover or clustering scenario. We will not
> have a SAN (too expensive). We will have a NAS, but my understanding is
> that will ask for trouble. I thought that for this to work, the databases
> would have to be on a SAN.
> Furthermore we will not have the budget for a proper SQL clustering
> solution, so thrirdparty is likely. XOSoft seems to be the primary
> candidate.
> Comments are welcome, personally I don't like the sound of it. I would
> however appreciate knowig how SQL replication still works on the
> cluster/failover scenarios.
> Many thx
> Paul
Cheap Export to Word
I was wondering how everyone (if anyone) is exporting reports to Word? Does
anyone know of an open source attempt at this or even one that is only a few
hundred bucks?
Thanks
ScottHello Scott,
The Reporting Services does not support the Word Extension. You need to
develop the custom extension.
I would like to provide an article which used for Reporting Services 2005
and Office 2007. In this article, the author create a component which makes
you could export the report to a word document.
Designing and Delivering Rich Office Reports with SQL Server Reporting
Services 2005 and SoftArtisans OfficeWriter
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa964136.aspx
Hope this will be some help for you.
Sincerely,
Wei Lu
Microsoft Online Community Support
==================================================
Get notification to my posts through email? Please refer to
http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/managednewsgroups/default.aspx#notif
ications.
Note: The MSDN Managed Newsgroup support offering is for non-urgent issues
where an initial response from the community or a Microsoft Support
Engineer within 1 business day is acceptable. Please note that each follow
up response may take approximately 2 business days as the support
professional working with you may need further investigation to reach the
most efficient resolution. The offering is not appropriate for situations
that require urgent, real-time or phone-based interactions or complex
project analysis and dump analysis issues. Issues of this nature are best
handled working with a dedicated Microsoft Support Engineer by contacting
Microsoft Customer Support Services (CSS) at
http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/support/default.aspx.
==================================================(This posting is provided "AS IS", with no warranties, and confers no
rights.)|||Hi ,
How is everything going? Please feel free to let me know if you need any
assistance.
Sincerely,
Wei Lu
Microsoft Online Community Support
==================================================
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
==================================================This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.|||That's the component that I was looking at, but it's VERY expensive!
"Wei Lu [MSFT]" <weilu@.online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:HE%23aMMDGHHA.2304@.TK2MSFTNGHUB02.phx.gbl...
> Hello Scott,
> The Reporting Services does not support the Word Extension. You need to
> develop the custom extension.
> I would like to provide an article which used for Reporting Services 2005
> and Office 2007. In this article, the author create a component which
> makes
> you could export the report to a word document.
> Designing and Delivering Rich Office Reports with SQL Server Reporting
> Services 2005 and SoftArtisans OfficeWriter
> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa964136.aspx
> Hope this will be some help for you.
> Sincerely,
> Wei Lu
> Microsoft Online Community Support
> ==================================================> Get notification to my posts through email? Please refer to
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/managednewsgroups/default.aspx#notif
> ications.
> Note: The MSDN Managed Newsgroup support offering is for non-urgent issues
> where an initial response from the community or a Microsoft Support
> Engineer within 1 business day is acceptable. Please note that each follow
> up response may take approximately 2 business days as the support
> professional working with you may need further investigation to reach the
> most efficient resolution. The offering is not appropriate for situations
> that require urgent, real-time or phone-based interactions or complex
> project analysis and dump analysis issues. Issues of this nature are best
> handled working with a dedicated Microsoft Support Engineer by contacting
> Microsoft Customer Support Services (CSS) at
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/support/default.aspx.
> ==================================================> (This posting is provided "AS IS", with no warranties, and confers no
> rights.)
>|||Wow - $1500 for a component to export into word (ultimately anyway).
Why did MS never implement it? I mean, with SP2 just released for all SQL
2005 products, it would have been the perfect opportunity.
"Scott M" <scott_M@.nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:uzVlWyEVHHA.4832@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> That's the component that I was looking at, but it's VERY expensive!
> "Wei Lu [MSFT]" <weilu@.online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:HE%23aMMDGHHA.2304@.TK2MSFTNGHUB02.phx.gbl...
>> Hello Scott,
>> The Reporting Services does not support the Word Extension. You need to
>> develop the custom extension.
>> I would like to provide an article which used for Reporting Services 2005
>> and Office 2007. In this article, the author create a component which
>> makes
>> you could export the report to a word document.
>> Designing and Delivering Rich Office Reports with SQL Server Reporting
>> Services 2005 and SoftArtisans OfficeWriter
>> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa964136.aspx
>> Hope this will be some help for you.
>> Sincerely,
>> Wei Lu
>> Microsoft Online Community Support
>> ==================================================>> Get notification to my posts through email? Please refer to
>> http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/managednewsgroups/default.aspx#notif
>> ications.
>> Note: The MSDN Managed Newsgroup support offering is for non-urgent
>> issues
>> where an initial response from the community or a Microsoft Support
>> Engineer within 1 business day is acceptable. Please note that each
>> follow
>> up response may take approximately 2 business days as the support
>> professional working with you may need further investigation to reach the
>> most efficient resolution. The offering is not appropriate for situations
>> that require urgent, real-time or phone-based interactions or complex
>> project analysis and dump analysis issues. Issues of this nature are best
>> handled working with a dedicated Microsoft Support Engineer by contacting
>> Microsoft Customer Support Services (CSS) at
>> http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/support/default.aspx.
>> ==================================================>> (This posting is provided "AS IS", with no warranties, and confers no
>> rights.)
>|||On Feb 19, 10:25 pm, "Immy" <therealasianb...@.hotmail.com> wrote:
> Wow - $1500 for a component to export intoword(ultimately anyway).
> Why did MS never implement it? I mean, with SP2 just released for all SQL
> 2005 products, it would have been the perfect opportunity.
> "Scott M" <scot...@.nospam.nospam> wrote in message
> news:uzVlWyEVHHA.4832@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
> > That's the component that I was looking at, but it's VERY expensive!
> > "Wei Lu [MSFT]" <w...@.online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >news:HE%23aMMDGHHA.2304@.TK2MSFTNGHUB02.phx.gbl...
> >> Hello Scott,
> >> TheReportingServicesdoes not support theWordExtension. You need to
> >> develop the custom extension.
> >> I would like to provide an article which used forReportingServices2005
> >> and Office 2007. In this article, the author create a component which
> >> makes
> >> you could export the report to aworddocument.
> >> Designing and Delivering Rich Office Reports with SQL ServerReporting
> >>Services2005 and SoftArtisans OfficeWriter
> >>http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa964136.aspx
> >> Hope this will be some help for you.
> >> Sincerely,
> >> Wei Lu
> >> Microsoft Online Community Support
> >> ==================================================> >> Get notification to my posts through email? Please refer to
> >>http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/managednewsgroups/default.asp...
> >> ications.
> >> Note: The MSDN Managed Newsgroup support offering is for non-urgent
> >> issues
> >> where an initial response from the community or a Microsoft Support
> >> Engineer within 1 business day is acceptable. Please note that each
> >> follow
> >> up response may take approximately 2 business days as the support
> >> professional working with you may need further investigation to reach the
> >> most efficient resolution. The offering is not appropriate for situations
> >> that require urgent, real-time or phone-based interactions or complex
> >> project analysis and dump analysis issues. Issues of this nature are best
> >> handled working with a dedicated Microsoft Support Engineer by contacting
> >> Microsoft Customer SupportServices(CSS) at
> >>http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/support/default.aspx.
> >> ==================================================> >> (This posting is provided "AS IS", with no warranties, and confers no
> >> rights.)- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
Check out Aspose.Words for Reporting Services that we have just
released:
http://www.aspose.com/Products/Aspose.WordsRS/
It is a true rendering extension for Microsoft SQL Server 2005
Reporting Services that adds export to DOC, RTF and WordprocessingML.|||Why is "export to Word" not built into report services?
anyone know of an open source attempt at this or even one that is only a few
hundred bucks?
Thanks
ScottHello Scott,
The Reporting Services does not support the Word Extension. You need to
develop the custom extension.
I would like to provide an article which used for Reporting Services 2005
and Office 2007. In this article, the author create a component which makes
you could export the report to a word document.
Designing and Delivering Rich Office Reports with SQL Server Reporting
Services 2005 and SoftArtisans OfficeWriter
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa964136.aspx
Hope this will be some help for you.
Sincerely,
Wei Lu
Microsoft Online Community Support
==================================================
Get notification to my posts through email? Please refer to
http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/managednewsgroups/default.aspx#notif
ications.
Note: The MSDN Managed Newsgroup support offering is for non-urgent issues
where an initial response from the community or a Microsoft Support
Engineer within 1 business day is acceptable. Please note that each follow
up response may take approximately 2 business days as the support
professional working with you may need further investigation to reach the
most efficient resolution. The offering is not appropriate for situations
that require urgent, real-time or phone-based interactions or complex
project analysis and dump analysis issues. Issues of this nature are best
handled working with a dedicated Microsoft Support Engineer by contacting
Microsoft Customer Support Services (CSS) at
http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/support/default.aspx.
==================================================(This posting is provided "AS IS", with no warranties, and confers no
rights.)|||Hi ,
How is everything going? Please feel free to let me know if you need any
assistance.
Sincerely,
Wei Lu
Microsoft Online Community Support
==================================================
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
==================================================This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.|||That's the component that I was looking at, but it's VERY expensive!
"Wei Lu [MSFT]" <weilu@.online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:HE%23aMMDGHHA.2304@.TK2MSFTNGHUB02.phx.gbl...
> Hello Scott,
> The Reporting Services does not support the Word Extension. You need to
> develop the custom extension.
> I would like to provide an article which used for Reporting Services 2005
> and Office 2007. In this article, the author create a component which
> makes
> you could export the report to a word document.
> Designing and Delivering Rich Office Reports with SQL Server Reporting
> Services 2005 and SoftArtisans OfficeWriter
> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa964136.aspx
> Hope this will be some help for you.
> Sincerely,
> Wei Lu
> Microsoft Online Community Support
> ==================================================> Get notification to my posts through email? Please refer to
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/managednewsgroups/default.aspx#notif
> ications.
> Note: The MSDN Managed Newsgroup support offering is for non-urgent issues
> where an initial response from the community or a Microsoft Support
> Engineer within 1 business day is acceptable. Please note that each follow
> up response may take approximately 2 business days as the support
> professional working with you may need further investigation to reach the
> most efficient resolution. The offering is not appropriate for situations
> that require urgent, real-time or phone-based interactions or complex
> project analysis and dump analysis issues. Issues of this nature are best
> handled working with a dedicated Microsoft Support Engineer by contacting
> Microsoft Customer Support Services (CSS) at
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/support/default.aspx.
> ==================================================> (This posting is provided "AS IS", with no warranties, and confers no
> rights.)
>|||Wow - $1500 for a component to export into word (ultimately anyway).
Why did MS never implement it? I mean, with SP2 just released for all SQL
2005 products, it would have been the perfect opportunity.
"Scott M" <scott_M@.nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:uzVlWyEVHHA.4832@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> That's the component that I was looking at, but it's VERY expensive!
> "Wei Lu [MSFT]" <weilu@.online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:HE%23aMMDGHHA.2304@.TK2MSFTNGHUB02.phx.gbl...
>> Hello Scott,
>> The Reporting Services does not support the Word Extension. You need to
>> develop the custom extension.
>> I would like to provide an article which used for Reporting Services 2005
>> and Office 2007. In this article, the author create a component which
>> makes
>> you could export the report to a word document.
>> Designing and Delivering Rich Office Reports with SQL Server Reporting
>> Services 2005 and SoftArtisans OfficeWriter
>> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa964136.aspx
>> Hope this will be some help for you.
>> Sincerely,
>> Wei Lu
>> Microsoft Online Community Support
>> ==================================================>> Get notification to my posts through email? Please refer to
>> http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/managednewsgroups/default.aspx#notif
>> ications.
>> Note: The MSDN Managed Newsgroup support offering is for non-urgent
>> issues
>> where an initial response from the community or a Microsoft Support
>> Engineer within 1 business day is acceptable. Please note that each
>> follow
>> up response may take approximately 2 business days as the support
>> professional working with you may need further investigation to reach the
>> most efficient resolution. The offering is not appropriate for situations
>> that require urgent, real-time or phone-based interactions or complex
>> project analysis and dump analysis issues. Issues of this nature are best
>> handled working with a dedicated Microsoft Support Engineer by contacting
>> Microsoft Customer Support Services (CSS) at
>> http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/support/default.aspx.
>> ==================================================>> (This posting is provided "AS IS", with no warranties, and confers no
>> rights.)
>|||On Feb 19, 10:25 pm, "Immy" <therealasianb...@.hotmail.com> wrote:
> Wow - $1500 for a component to export intoword(ultimately anyway).
> Why did MS never implement it? I mean, with SP2 just released for all SQL
> 2005 products, it would have been the perfect opportunity.
> "Scott M" <scot...@.nospam.nospam> wrote in message
> news:uzVlWyEVHHA.4832@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
> > That's the component that I was looking at, but it's VERY expensive!
> > "Wei Lu [MSFT]" <w...@.online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >news:HE%23aMMDGHHA.2304@.TK2MSFTNGHUB02.phx.gbl...
> >> Hello Scott,
> >> TheReportingServicesdoes not support theWordExtension. You need to
> >> develop the custom extension.
> >> I would like to provide an article which used forReportingServices2005
> >> and Office 2007. In this article, the author create a component which
> >> makes
> >> you could export the report to aworddocument.
> >> Designing and Delivering Rich Office Reports with SQL ServerReporting
> >>Services2005 and SoftArtisans OfficeWriter
> >>http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa964136.aspx
> >> Hope this will be some help for you.
> >> Sincerely,
> >> Wei Lu
> >> Microsoft Online Community Support
> >> ==================================================> >> Get notification to my posts through email? Please refer to
> >>http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/managednewsgroups/default.asp...
> >> ications.
> >> Note: The MSDN Managed Newsgroup support offering is for non-urgent
> >> issues
> >> where an initial response from the community or a Microsoft Support
> >> Engineer within 1 business day is acceptable. Please note that each
> >> follow
> >> up response may take approximately 2 business days as the support
> >> professional working with you may need further investigation to reach the
> >> most efficient resolution. The offering is not appropriate for situations
> >> that require urgent, real-time or phone-based interactions or complex
> >> project analysis and dump analysis issues. Issues of this nature are best
> >> handled working with a dedicated Microsoft Support Engineer by contacting
> >> Microsoft Customer SupportServices(CSS) at
> >>http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/support/default.aspx.
> >> ==================================================> >> (This posting is provided "AS IS", with no warranties, and confers no
> >> rights.)- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
Check out Aspose.Words for Reporting Services that we have just
released:
http://www.aspose.com/Products/Aspose.WordsRS/
It is a true rendering extension for Microsoft SQL Server 2005
Reporting Services that adds export to DOC, RTF and WordprocessingML.|||Why is "export to Word" not built into report services?
Cheap Enterprize Manger and Query Analyzer
Can anyone tell me a cheap way to get this software, (Enterprize Manger and Query Analyzer). I am tyring to upsize to SQL Server with my Webhost and they are not very helpful in how to best do this.
So I am guessing I need these to connect to my new SQL Database. I know Microsoft has a trial version but isn't there a development version that I can run on my local XP and or 2000 machine and hook up to my webhost SQL server?
Any help would be moslty appreciated!
Thanks,There are free managers and querie analysiers here:
http://www.webattack.com/freeware/webpublish/fwdbquery.html
Also take a look at this amazing control:
http://www.geocities.com/scirocco_ha/DataControl.htm
Originally posted by JimWa
Can anyone tell me a cheap way to get this software, (Enterprize Manger and Query Analyzer). I am tyring to upsize to SQL Server with my Webhost and they are not very helpful in how to best do this.
So I am guessing I need these to connect to my new SQL Database. I know Microsoft has a trial version but isn't there a development version that I can run on my local XP and or 2000 machine and hook up to my webhost SQL server?
Any help would be moslty appreciated!
Thanks,|||See this thread for my opinion of a free manager:
http://81.130.213.94/myforum/forum_posts.asp?TID=84&PN=1
For query plans you'll need this one but it needs documenting:
http://81.130.213.94/myforum/forum_posts.asp?TID=78&PN=1
I've listed some more managers on this thread but you'll need to register for the forum to enter it:
http://81.130.213.94/myforum/forum_topics.asp?FID=25&PN=1
And of course you can use AdoAnywhere www.adoanywhere.com for sql even if you don't need its ADO gui features.
You can connect to my test servers - see details in forum.
Mike|||My Webhost is specific as to what to use:
Enterprisie Manger
Query Analyzer
MS Access 2002/XP
And the upsizing wizard in Access is giving me issues. It goes through the entire process and at the end says,
"The upsizing Wizard only works with Microsoft SQL Server (Versions 6.50 SP5 or higher) Please log into a SQL Server Data source."
And this is my webhosts response.
"We are running Microsoft SQL Server 2000. That is 2 generations newer than SQL Server 6.5. You might search Google or the Microsoft website to find out why Access is giving you that error. "
There support team is so helpful aren't they..|||You might have to get the trial version of SQL server since it comes with the tools you need. I think it runs for 12 weeks.
Can't say why Access is giving you the error , I don't use it, and no - your ISP help desk doesn't sound helpful...
Mike.|||Thanks Mike...
So I am guessing I need these to connect to my new SQL Database. I know Microsoft has a trial version but isn't there a development version that I can run on my local XP and or 2000 machine and hook up to my webhost SQL server?
Any help would be moslty appreciated!
Thanks,There are free managers and querie analysiers here:
http://www.webattack.com/freeware/webpublish/fwdbquery.html
Also take a look at this amazing control:
http://www.geocities.com/scirocco_ha/DataControl.htm
Originally posted by JimWa
Can anyone tell me a cheap way to get this software, (Enterprize Manger and Query Analyzer). I am tyring to upsize to SQL Server with my Webhost and they are not very helpful in how to best do this.
So I am guessing I need these to connect to my new SQL Database. I know Microsoft has a trial version but isn't there a development version that I can run on my local XP and or 2000 machine and hook up to my webhost SQL server?
Any help would be moslty appreciated!
Thanks,|||See this thread for my opinion of a free manager:
http://81.130.213.94/myforum/forum_posts.asp?TID=84&PN=1
For query plans you'll need this one but it needs documenting:
http://81.130.213.94/myforum/forum_posts.asp?TID=78&PN=1
I've listed some more managers on this thread but you'll need to register for the forum to enter it:
http://81.130.213.94/myforum/forum_topics.asp?FID=25&PN=1
And of course you can use AdoAnywhere www.adoanywhere.com for sql even if you don't need its ADO gui features.
You can connect to my test servers - see details in forum.
Mike|||My Webhost is specific as to what to use:
Enterprisie Manger
Query Analyzer
MS Access 2002/XP
And the upsizing wizard in Access is giving me issues. It goes through the entire process and at the end says,
"The upsizing Wizard only works with Microsoft SQL Server (Versions 6.50 SP5 or higher) Please log into a SQL Server Data source."
And this is my webhosts response.
"We are running Microsoft SQL Server 2000. That is 2 generations newer than SQL Server 6.5. You might search Google or the Microsoft website to find out why Access is giving you that error. "
There support team is so helpful aren't they..|||You might have to get the trial version of SQL server since it comes with the tools you need. I think it runs for 12 weeks.
Can't say why Access is giving you the error , I don't use it, and no - your ISP help desk doesn't sound helpful...
Mike.|||Thanks Mike...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)