High Availibility SQL 2000

Hi
We are setting up a soloution with 2 sql 2000 servers as a manuel
failover soloution.
My question is: What is best, to use transactional replication or log
shipping?
My old book about sql2000 says only logshipping for this situation but
i cant't figure out why not to use replication.
And please, I'ts not my desission to use this layout I only follow
orders so its not possible to use SQL clustering or SQL2005 for
example.
Best Regards Henrik Alstersj=F6Replication copies data elements, not the entire database. Foreign keys,
stored procedures, unique constraints, and user-defined functions are not
transferred in replication.
--
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
<alstersjo@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1183648932.226829.223710@.m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Hi
We are setting up a soloution with 2 sql 2000 servers as a manuel
failover soloution.
My question is: What is best, to use transactional replication or log
shipping?
My old book about sql2000 says only logshipping for this situation but
i cant't figure out why not to use replication.
And please, I'ts not my desission to use this layout I only follow
orders so its not possible to use SQL clustering or SQL2005 for
example.
Best Regards Henrik Alstersjö|||On Jul 5, 11:46 am, "Geoff N. Hiten" <SQLCrafts...@.gmail.com> wrote:
> Replication copies data elements, not the entire database. Foreign keys,
> stored procedures, unique constraints, and user-defined functions are not
> transferred in replication.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> <alster...@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1183648932.226829.223710@.m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> Hi
> We are setting up a soloution with 2 sql 2000 servers as a manuel
> failover soloution.
> My question is: What is best, to use transactional replication or log
> shipping?
> My old book about sql2000 says only logshipping for this situation but
> i cant't figure out why not to use replication.
> And please, I'ts not my desission to use this layout I only follow
> orders so its not possible to use SQL clustering or SQL2005 for
> example.
> Best Regards Henrik Alstersj=F6
Just eo ensure I'm on the right page, when you state that you are
utilizing a manual failover, does that mean you will not be utilizing
Microsoft Clustering Services (MSCS)? Using this would take care of
any necessity for log shipping or replication and you could simply
utilize an active/passive configuration.
Otherwise, if you aren't utilizing this, what would the damage be of
simply backing up your database and when a manual failover is
necessary, simply restore the backup to your secondary server? Of
course, this may be a bit time consuming, however, with your current
situation, it doesn't sound like high availability is a top priority
and the time to restore your database should be fairly quick.
Aaron|||On 5 Juli, 22:06, acorcoran <acorco...@.gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 5, 11:46 am, "Geoff N. Hiten" <SQLCrafts...@.gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > Replication copies data elements, not the entire database. Foreign key=s,
> > stored procedures, unique constraints, and user-defined functions are n=ot
> > transferred in replication.
> > --
> > Geoff N. Hiten
> > Senior Database Administrator
> > Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> > <alster...@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:1183648932.226829.223710@.m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> > Hi
> > We are setting up a soloutionwith 2 sql 2000servers as a manuel
> > failover soloution.
> > My question is: What is best, to use transactional replication or log
> > shipping?
> > My old book about sql2000 says only logshipping for this situation but
> > i cant't figure out why not to use replication.
> > And please, I'ts not my desission to use this layout I only follow
> > orders so its not possible to use SQL clustering or SQL2005 for
> > example.
> > Best Regards Henrik Alstersj=F6
> Just eo ensure I'm on the right page, when you state that you are
> utilizing a manual failover, does that mean you will not be utilizing
> Microsoft Clustering Services (MSCS)? Using this would take care of
> any necessity for log shipping or replication and you could simply
> utilize an active/passive configuration.
> Otherwise, if you aren't utilizing this, what would the damage be of
> simply backing up your database and when a manual failover is
> necessary, simply restore the backup to your secondary server? Of
> course, this may be a bit time consuming, however, with your current
> situation, it doesn't sound like high availability is a top priority
> and the time to restore your database should be fairly quick.
> Aaron- D=F6lj citerad text -
> - Visa citerad text -
Hi
Thanks for your input, both of you.
The reason that we don't want to use backup restore functionality is
that the failovertime is not needed to bee quick but the data must be
up to date to the crash. So if we have a sevear servercrash we cant
get so fresh data from the sql server.
Regards Henrik

High Availibility SQL 2000

Hi
We are setting up a soloution with 2 sql 2000 servers as a manuel
failover soloution.
My question is: What is best, to use transactional replication or log
shipping?
My old book about sql2000 says only logshipping for this situation but
i cant't figure out why not to use replication.
And please, I'ts not my desission to use this layout I only follow
orders so its not possible to use SQL clustering or SQL2005 for
example.
Best Regards Henrik Alstersj=F6Replication copies data elements, not the entire database. Foreign keys,
stored procedures, unique constraints, and user-defined functions are not
transferred in replication.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
<alstersjo@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1183648932.226829.223710@.m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Hi
We are setting up a soloution with 2 sql 2000 servers as a manuel
failover soloution.
My question is: What is best, to use transactional replication or log
shipping?
My old book about sql2000 says only logshipping for this situation but
i cant't figure out why not to use replication.
And please, I'ts not my desission to use this layout I only follow
orders so its not possible to use SQL clustering or SQL2005 for
example.
Best Regards Henrik Alstersj|||On Jul 5, 11:46 am, "Geoff N. Hiten" <SQLCrafts...@.gmail.com> wrote:
> Replication copies data elements, not the entire database. Foreign keys,
> stored procedures, unique constraints, and user-defined functions are not
> transferred in replication.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> <alster...@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1183648932.226829.223710@.m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> Hi
> We are setting up a soloution with 2 sql 2000 servers as a manuel
> failover soloution.
> My question is: What is best, to use transactional replication or log
> shipping?
> My old book about sql2000 says only logshipping for this situation but
> i cant't figure out why not to use replication.
> And please, I'ts not my desission to use this layout I only follow
> orders so its not possible to use SQL clustering or SQL2005 for
> example.
> Best Regards Henrik Alstersj=F6
Just eo ensure I'm on the right page, when you state that you are
utilizing a manual failover, does that mean you will not be utilizing
Microsoft Clustering Services (MSCS)? Using this would take care of
any necessity for log shipping or replication and you could simply
utilize an active/passive configuration.
Otherwise, if you aren't utilizing this, what would the damage be of
simply backing up your database and when a manual failover is
necessary, simply restore the backup to your secondary server? Of
course, this may be a bit time consuming, however, with your current
situation, it doesn't sound like high availability is a top priority
and the time to restore your database should be fairly quick.
Aaron|||On 5 Juli, 22:06, acorcoran <acorco...@.gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 5, 11:46 am, "Geoff N. Hiten" <SQLCrafts...@.gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
s,[vbcol=seagreen]
ot[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>
>
>
> Just eo ensure I'm on the right page, when you state that you are
> utilizing a manual failover, does that mean you will not be utilizing
> Microsoft Clustering Services (MSCS)? Using this would take care of
> any necessity for log shipping or replication and you could simply
> utilize an active/passive configuration.
> Otherwise, if you aren't utilizing this, what would the damage be of
> simply backing up your database and when a manual failover is
> necessary, simply restore the backup to your secondary server? Of
> course, this may be a bit time consuming, however, with your current
> situation, it doesn't sound like high availability is a top priority
> and the time to restore your database should be fairly quick.
> Aaron- D=F6lj citerad text -
> - Visa citerad text -
Hi
Thanks for your input, both of you.
The reason that we don't want to use backup restore functionality is
that the failovertime is not needed to bee quick but the data must be
up to date to the crash. So if we have a sevear servercrash we cant
get so fresh data from the sql server.
Regards Henrik

High Availibility SQL 2000

Hi
We are setting up a soloution with 2 sql 2000 servers as a manuel
failover soloution.
My question is: What is best, to use transactional replication or log
shipping?
My old book about sql2000 says only logshipping for this situation but
i cant't figure out why not to use replication.
And please, I'ts not my desission to use this layout I only follow
orders so its not possible to use SQL clustering or SQL2005 for
example.
Best Regards Henrik Alstersj
Replication copies data elements, not the entire database. Foreign keys,
stored procedures, unique constraints, and user-defined functions are not
transferred in replication.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
<alstersjo@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1183648932.226829.223710@.m36g2000hse.googlegr oups.com...
Hi
We are setting up a soloution with 2 sql 2000 servers as a manuel
failover soloution.
My question is: What is best, to use transactional replication or log
shipping?
My old book about sql2000 says only logshipping for this situation but
i cant't figure out why not to use replication.
And please, I'ts not my desission to use this layout I only follow
orders so its not possible to use SQL clustering or SQL2005 for
example.
Best Regards Henrik Alstersj
|||On Jul 5, 11:46 am, "Geoff N. Hiten" <SQLCrafts...@.gmail.com> wrote:
> Replication copies data elements, not the entire database. Foreign keys,
> stored procedures, unique constraints, and user-defined functions are not
> transferred in replication.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> <alster...@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1183648932.226829.223710@.m36g2000hse.googlegr oups.com...
> Hi
> We are setting up a soloution with 2 sql 2000 servers as a manuel
> failover soloution.
> My question is: What is best, to use transactional replication or log
> shipping?
> My old book about sql2000 says only logshipping for this situation but
> i cant't figure out why not to use replication.
> And please, I'ts not my desission to use this layout I only follow
> orders so its not possible to use SQL clustering or SQL2005 for
> example.
> Best Regards Henrik Alstersj
Just eo ensure I'm on the right page, when you state that you are
utilizing a manual failover, does that mean you will not be utilizing
Microsoft Clustering Services (MSCS)? Using this would take care of
any necessity for log shipping or replication and you could simply
utilize an active/passive configuration.
Otherwise, if you aren't utilizing this, what would the damage be of
simply backing up your database and when a manual failover is
necessary, simply restore the backup to your secondary server? Of
course, this may be a bit time consuming, however, with your current
situation, it doesn't sound like high availability is a top priority
and the time to restore your database should be fairly quick.
Aaron
|||On 5 Juli, 22:06, acorcoran <acorco...@.gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 5, 11:46 am, "Geoff N. Hiten" <SQLCrafts...@.gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Just eo ensure I'm on the right page, when you state that you are
> utilizing a manual failover, does that mean you will not be utilizing
> Microsoft Clustering Services (MSCS)? Using this would take care of
> any necessity for log shipping or replication and you could simply
> utilize an active/passive configuration.
> Otherwise, if you aren't utilizing this, what would the damage be of
> simply backing up your database and when a manual failover is
> necessary, simply restore the backup to your secondary server? Of
> course, this may be a bit time consuming, however, with your current
> situation, it doesn't sound like high availability is a top priority
> and the time to restore your database should be fairly quick.
> Aaron- Dlj citerad text -
> - Visa citerad text -
Hi
Thanks for your input, both of you.
The reason that we don't want to use backup restore functionality is
that the failovertime is not needed to bee quick but the data must be
up to date to the crash. So if we have a sevear servercrash we cant
get so fresh data from the sql server.
Regards Henrik

Hiding Reports in Sharepoint Integration Mode

I'm setting the Hidden property to True and then creating the report using the CreateReport method from the ReportingService2006 class. When I check the reportserver database Hidden is set to true. But when I call the GetProperties method it shows Hidden as being false. And in the document library the reports are visable.

I tried calling the SetProperties method after I created the report but it still didn't work.

Here's how I create the report.

Dim props(0) As ReportServer.Property

Dim SetProp As New ReportServer.Property

SetProp.Name = "Hidden"

SetProp.Value = "True"

props(0) = SetProp

rs.CreateReport(Path.GetFileName(fileName), Folder, True, bytes, props, warnings)

Any idea?

Thanks,

-Somsong

The Hidden property isn't respected by SharePoint document libraries. We would have had to make code changes in SharePoint itself in order to get document libraries to respect RS's Hidden property, and we didn't pursue that.|||

So we would have to set up a default view and set a filter on it so that certain items can be hidden right? I can create a column in the document library and call it hidden, if the value in here is 'Yes' I could hide it. Do you know if I can set this value when I use the CreateReport method from the Reporting Services 2006 Web Service by passing in properties? I'm guessing this won't work cause those properties are probably just for the Report Server Database. I would probably have to use the Sharepoint Object Model to edit that column value right?

Thanks,

-Somsong

Hiding Parameters

I want to hide 2 of the 5 parameters in my report. I figured out how to do
this by clearing out the Prompt in the Report Parameters and by setting my
default value. When I view my report via Report Manager, the parameters are
hiden like expected. When I try to override the parameter at run time with a
different value (via passing the value in the query string when using URL
access), then I get the error: "parameter is read-only and can not be
modified".
What do I need to do to fix my error?Hi dilworth,
Welcome to use MSDN Managed Newsgroup Support.
This is a by design issue in Reporting Services 2000. In Reporting Services
2005, you can Hide a Parameter in the Report Parameters Dialogbox.
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.