Difference between Enterprise and Developer Editons

Hi All,
What is the difference between the Enterprise and Developer Editions of SQL
server? I am not a developer but some of the developers in our organization
have asked me to determine the difference. We are an MSDN subscriber and we
are currently using the Developer Edition.
Thanks for the help,
JohnEnterprise and Developer are functionally equivalent. The difference is that
Developer is licensed only for development and testing use, not for
production.
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
--|||Hi,
See the below link:-
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techin...ing/ChoosEd.doc
Thanks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
"Cobra967" <Cobra967@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:AAAEA29E-7986-442D-B9FA-D6D887E25C21@.microsoft.com...
> Hi All,
> What is the difference between the Enterprise and Developer Editions of
> SQL
> server? I am not a developer but some of the developers in our
> organization
> have asked me to determine the difference. We are an MSDN subscriber and
> we
> are currently using the Developer Edition.
> Thanks for the help,
> John

Difference between Enterprise and Developer Editons

Hi All,
What is the difference between the Enterprise and Developer Editions of SQL
server? I am not a developer but some of the developers in our organization
have asked me to determine the difference. We are an MSDN subscriber and we
are currently using the Developer Edition.
Thanks for the help,
JohnEnterprise and Developer are functionally equivalent. The difference is that
Developer is licensed only for development and testing use, not for
production.
--
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
--|||Hi,
See the below link:-
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techinfo/planning/ChoosEd.doc
Thanks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
"Cobra967" <Cobra967@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:AAAEA29E-7986-442D-B9FA-D6D887E25C21@.microsoft.com...
> Hi All,
> What is the difference between the Enterprise and Developer Editions of
> SQL
> server? I am not a developer but some of the developers in our
> organization
> have asked me to determine the difference. We are an MSDN subscriber and
> we
> are currently using the Developer Edition.
> Thanks for the help,
> John

Difference between Enterprise and Developer Editons

Hi All,
What is the difference between the Enterprise and Developer Editions of SQL
server? I am not a developer but some of the developers in our organization
have asked me to determine the difference. We are an MSDN subscriber and we
are currently using the Developer Edition.
Thanks for the help,
John
Enterprise and Developer are functionally equivalent. The difference is that
Developer is licensed only for development and testing use, not for
production.
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
|||Hi,
See the below link:-
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techinf...ng/ChoosEd.doc
Thanks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
"Cobra967" <Cobra967@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:AAAEA29E-7986-442D-B9FA-D6D887E25C21@.microsoft.com...
> Hi All,
> What is the difference between the Enterprise and Developer Editions of
> SQL
> server? I am not a developer but some of the developers in our
> organization
> have asked me to determine the difference. We are an MSDN subscriber and
> we
> are currently using the Developer Edition.
> Thanks for the help,
> John

Diagram Editor in SQL Server Management Studio

Hi,

I was playing with the diagram editor and I was wondering if that was a component available for other developers to use. We're using a similar control for our product, but that control is pretty slow and a little dumb, it displays overlapped tables and doesn't have the "arrange tables" feature that I really like in the Sql Server Management Studio.

So my question is, how could we get this control, is it available for purchase? Any suggestions to similar available controls? Basically, we need a diagram editor in which the objects and the relations are selectable.

Any help would be highly appreciated.

Thanks, Florin

That is a part of client tools to be installed and cannot be seperated as a component.

development with several developers

Using SS2000 SP4. I'm wondering how companies with several developers (from 2
to 200) set up development environments. We have a new project manager who
wants to set up 6 different databases (one for each developer) and 6
different web environments for the developers. We're a small company and the
most developers we've ever had working on a project at the same time is 2.
We're hiring outside contractors for a special project.
With 6 different development databases and 6 different web environments, it
would seem that it would be harder to keep all of the databases and web apps
in sync. Everything is supposed to funnel into a single development database
and web app. Then we'll have testing server and staging server before going
to production.
I'm suggesting one development database and web app that the developers can
have control of but when everything moves to testing, they can only access
the database through the app and any changes to the app or database have to
be made in development.
Can someone who has more experience with larger staffs give me some feedback
on how they handle development?
Thanks,
--
Dan D.What we are doing here is -
* We have 3 set of environments (DEV -> TEST -> LIVE).
* Each environment is made up of two physical servers (IIS and MSSQL
DS).
* Developers have full control of the DEV environment (local admin)
* TEST is a copy of LIVE (or mimic the LIVE)
* System Administrators control and maintain the TEST and LIVE
environment. During the TEST, system administrators start involved in
the project with developers. Any system change requests need to go
through by the system administrators.
Hope this helps.
Mel|||Do you have several developers working on the same project? Do the developers
work on the dev database directly or work on their own copies of the database
and then update dev periodically?
One of the things that concerns me about developers having full control over
even a dev database is not knowing what they're doing. We normally have
backend reporting processes and data ETL processes that are separate from an
app and if we don't know what the app is doing it could affect the backend
processes and vice versa. For instance, we had a developer put a trigger on a
table once that no one else knew about. When someone in the database
department inserted new rows in
the table with the trigger it updated a column that it shouldn't have. No
one discovered the problem for weeks and now trying to get the data back
corrected could take weeks.
Thanks,
--
Dan D.
"MSLam" wrote:
> What we are doing here is -
> * We have 3 set of environments (DEV -> TEST -> LIVE).
> * Each environment is made up of two physical servers (IIS and MSSQL
> DS).
> * Developers have full control of the DEV environment (local admin)
> * TEST is a copy of LIVE (or mimic the LIVE)
> * System Administrators control and maintain the TEST and LIVE
> environment. During the TEST, system administrators start involved in
> the project with developers. Any system change requests need to go
> through by the system administrators.
> Hope this helps.
> Mel
>|||Yes, we do (2 to 3 developers working on the same project), we use
SourceSafe for versioning tracking. They were told not to develop on
their own PC but on the Dev environment. However you probabily can
guess this may not happen as a strict enforcement not yet in place.
Taking full control away from the developers still a struggle here, as
the developers used to be 'master of everthing' - install, deploy,
support and troubleshoot. However as the department starts growing we
start define the job in more details and have more expertises for the
tasks (labour division).
Just like normal users, it is difficult to take permission away after
they have tasted the power! That why it is important to get the things
correct in the 1st place, otherwise it will become a 'historical
burden' later on, which I am in now.
Mel|||That's the problem here. We didn't have a dba for a long time. Now we're
trying to clean up the databases and set up and enforce new procedures but
it's a struggle.
Thanks for the feedback Mel.
--
Dan D.
"MSLam" wrote:
> Yes, we do (2 to 3 developers working on the same project), we use
> SourceSafe for versioning tracking. They were told not to develop on
> their own PC but on the Dev environment. However you probabily can
> guess this may not happen as a strict enforcement not yet in place.
> Taking full control away from the developers still a struggle here, as
> the developers used to be 'master of everthing' - install, deploy,
> support and troubleshoot. However as the department starts growing we
> start define the job in more details and have more expertises for the
> tasks (labour division).
> Just like normal users, it is difficult to take permission away after
> they have tasted the power! That why it is important to get the things
> correct in the 1st place, otherwise it will become a 'historical
> burden' later on, which I am in now.
> Mel
>|||You basically have to balance complexity with isolation. Generally,
developers are going to be working on mutually exclusive application code.
That also generally translates to mutually exclusive database code.
Everyone has to hit the same tables.
I've never seen a shop setup a separate environment for each developer. The
reason being is plain and simple cost. That's not just licensing, but also
the time and effort to administer it. You have 6 developers right now.
What happens when you have 12 developers? What happens if you have 50
developers? How many people are going to wind up spending 100% of their
time just maintaining something like this.
Managing this is all about process and not installing separated
environments. You still have 1 application that has to be built coherently
and deployed. It's been a long time since I've been anywhere that
developers weren't using some kind of version control system to manage their
application. However, I've almost never seen anyone do this with a
database. Your database is code, just like everything else. All of that
stuff should also be in your version control system and bound by the same
rules you have for checking out and checking in your application code. You
have someone who has the final say on what goes into your application and
what doesn't. You also need someone to have the final say on what goes into
the database and what doesn't.
You application gets built out of your version control system and deployed.
Your database changes also need to be built from version control and
deployed as well.
So, the short answer is, I haven't been in a shop (2 developers all the way
up to well over 1000 developers) that has done what your project manager is
proposing. Anyone working on a particular application works against the
same source code tree and into the same database. The application is then
built from source code control. Any database changes are applied via a
script to make the modifications and since that is code, has to go through
all of the same approval processes as the app code.
--
Mike
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com
Disclaimer: This communication is an original work and represents my sole
views on the subject. It does not represent the views of any other person
or entity either by inference or direct reference.
"Dan D." <DanD@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:AE2111B3-3EA9-47AA-9A3C-750A1157504A@.microsoft.com...
> Using SS2000 SP4. I'm wondering how companies with several developers
> (from 2
> to 200) set up development environments. We have a new project manager who
> wants to set up 6 different databases (one for each developer) and 6
> different web environments for the developers. We're a small company and
> the
> most developers we've ever had working on a project at the same time is 2.
> We're hiring outside contractors for a special project.
> With 6 different development databases and 6 different web environments,
> it
> would seem that it would be harder to keep all of the databases and web
> apps
> in sync. Everything is supposed to funnel into a single development
> database
> and web app. Then we'll have testing server and staging server before
> going
> to production.
> I'm suggesting one development database and web app that the developers
> can
> have control of but when everything moves to testing, they can only access
> the database through the app and any changes to the app or database have
> to
> be made in development.
> Can someone who has more experience with larger staffs give me some
> feedback
> on how they handle development?
> Thanks,
> --
> Dan D.|||Well he finally thought better of it and changed his mind. We'll now use one
development database for everyone.
The scenario you outline is what I've always read about and basically done
with 2 developers.
Thanks for your feedback Mike.
--
Dan D.
"Michael Hotek" wrote:
> You basically have to balance complexity with isolation. Generally,
> developers are going to be working on mutually exclusive application code.
> That also generally translates to mutually exclusive database code.
> Everyone has to hit the same tables.
> I've never seen a shop setup a separate environment for each developer. The
> reason being is plain and simple cost. That's not just licensing, but also
> the time and effort to administer it. You have 6 developers right now.
> What happens when you have 12 developers? What happens if you have 50
> developers? How many people are going to wind up spending 100% of their
> time just maintaining something like this.
> Managing this is all about process and not installing separated
> environments. You still have 1 application that has to be built coherently
> and deployed. It's been a long time since I've been anywhere that
> developers weren't using some kind of version control system to manage their
> application. However, I've almost never seen anyone do this with a
> database. Your database is code, just like everything else. All of that
> stuff should also be in your version control system and bound by the same
> rules you have for checking out and checking in your application code. You
> have someone who has the final say on what goes into your application and
> what doesn't. You also need someone to have the final say on what goes into
> the database and what doesn't.
> You application gets built out of your version control system and deployed.
> Your database changes also need to be built from version control and
> deployed as well.
> So, the short answer is, I haven't been in a shop (2 developers all the way
> up to well over 1000 developers) that has done what your project manager is
> proposing. Anyone working on a particular application works against the
> same source code tree and into the same database. The application is then
> built from source code control. Any database changes are applied via a
> script to make the modifications and since that is code, has to go through
> all of the same approval processes as the app code.
> --
> Mike
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com
> Disclaimer: This communication is an original work and represents my sole
> views on the subject. It does not represent the views of any other person
> or entity either by inference or direct reference.
>
> "Dan D." <DanD@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:AE2111B3-3EA9-47AA-9A3C-750A1157504A@.microsoft.com...
> > Using SS2000 SP4. I'm wondering how companies with several developers
> > (from 2
> > to 200) set up development environments. We have a new project manager who
> > wants to set up 6 different databases (one for each developer) and 6
> > different web environments for the developers. We're a small company and
> > the
> > most developers we've ever had working on a project at the same time is 2.
> > We're hiring outside contractors for a special project.
> >
> > With 6 different development databases and 6 different web environments,
> > it
> > would seem that it would be harder to keep all of the databases and web
> > apps
> > in sync. Everything is supposed to funnel into a single development
> > database
> > and web app. Then we'll have testing server and staging server before
> > going
> > to production.
> >
> > I'm suggesting one development database and web app that the developers
> > can
> > have control of but when everything moves to testing, they can only access
> > the database through the app and any changes to the app or database have
> > to
> > be made in development.
> >
> > Can someone who has more experience with larger staffs give me some
> > feedback
> > on how they handle development?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > --
> > Dan D.
>
>

development with several developers

Using SS2000 SP4. I'm wondering how companies with several developers (from
2
to 200) set up development environments. We have a new project manager who
wants to set up 6 different databases (one for each developer) and 6
different web environments for the developers. We're a small company and the
most developers we've ever had working on a project at the same time is 2.
We're hiring outside contractors for a special project.
With 6 different development databases and 6 different web environments, it
would seem that it would be harder to keep all of the databases and web apps
in sync. Everything is supposed to funnel into a single development database
and web app. Then we'll have testing server and staging server before going
to production.
I'm suggesting one development database and web app that the developers can
have control of but when everything moves to testing, they can only access
the database through the app and any changes to the app or database have to
be made in development.
Can someone who has more experience with larger staffs give me some feedback
on how they handle development?
Thanks,
--
Dan D.What we are doing here is -
* We have 3 set of environments (DEV -> TEST -> LIVE).
* Each environment is made up of two physical servers (IIS and MSSQL
DS).
* Developers have full control of the DEV environment (local admin)
* TEST is a copy of LIVE (or mimic the LIVE)
* System Administrators control and maintain the TEST and LIVE
environment. During the TEST, system administrators start involved in
the project with developers. Any system change requests need to go
through by the system administrators.
Hope this helps.
Mel|||Do you have several developers working on the same project? Do the developer
s
work on the dev database directly or work on their own copies of the databas
e
and then update dev periodically?
One of the things that concerns me about developers having full control over
even a dev database is not knowing what they're doing. We normally have
backend reporting processes and data ETL processes that are separate from an
app and if we don't know what the app is doing it could affect the backend
processes and vice versa. For instance, we had a developer put a trigger on
a
table once that no one else knew about. When someone in the database
department inserted new rows in
the table with the trigger it updated a column that it shouldn't have. No
one discovered the problem for weeks and now trying to get the data back
corrected could take weeks.
Thanks,
--
Dan D.
"MSLam" wrote:

> What we are doing here is -
> * We have 3 set of environments (DEV -> TEST -> LIVE).
> * Each environment is made up of two physical servers (IIS and MSSQL
> DS).
> * Developers have full control of the DEV environment (local admin)
> * TEST is a copy of LIVE (or mimic the LIVE)
> * System Administrators control and maintain the TEST and LIVE
> environment. During the TEST, system administrators start involved in
> the project with developers. Any system change requests need to go
> through by the system administrators.
> Hope this helps.
> Mel
>|||Yes, we do (2 to 3 developers working on the same project), we use
SourceSafe for versioning tracking. They were told not to develop on
their own PC but on the Dev environment. However you probabily can
guess this may not happen as a strict enforcement not yet in place.
Taking full control away from the developers still a struggle here, as
the developers used to be 'master of everthing' - install, deploy,
support and troubleshoot. However as the department starts growing we
start define the job in more details and have more expertises for the
tasks (labour division).
Just like normal users, it is difficult to take permission away after
they have tasted the power! That why it is important to get the things
correct in the 1st place, otherwise it will become a 'historical
burden' later on, which I am in now.
Mel|||That's the problem here. We didn't have a dba for a long time. Now we're
trying to clean up the databases and set up and enforce new procedures but
it's a struggle.
Thanks for the feedback Mel.
--
Dan D.
"MSLam" wrote:

> Yes, we do (2 to 3 developers working on the same project), we use
> SourceSafe for versioning tracking. They were told not to develop on
> their own PC but on the Dev environment. However you probabily can
> guess this may not happen as a strict enforcement not yet in place.
> Taking full control away from the developers still a struggle here, as
> the developers used to be 'master of everthing' - install, deploy,
> support and troubleshoot. However as the department starts growing we
> start define the job in more details and have more expertises for the
> tasks (labour division).
> Just like normal users, it is difficult to take permission away after
> they have tasted the power! That why it is important to get the things
> correct in the 1st place, otherwise it will become a 'historical
> burden' later on, which I am in now.
> Mel
>|||You basically have to balance complexity with isolation. Generally,
developers are going to be working on mutually exclusive application code.
That also generally translates to mutually exclusive database code.
Everyone has to hit the same tables.
I've never seen a shop setup a separate environment for each developer. The
reason being is plain and simple cost. That's not just licensing, but also
the time and effort to administer it. You have 6 developers right now.
What happens when you have 12 developers? What happens if you have 50
developers? How many people are going to wind up spending 100% of their
time just maintaining something like this.
Managing this is all about process and not installing separated
environments. You still have 1 application that has to be built coherently
and deployed. It's been a long time since I've been anywhere that
developers weren't using some kind of version control system to manage their
application. However, I've almost never seen anyone do this with a
database. Your database is code, just like everything else. All of that
stuff should also be in your version control system and bound by the same
rules you have for checking out and checking in your application code. You
have someone who has the final say on what goes into your application and
what doesn't. You also need someone to have the final say on what goes into
the database and what doesn't.
You application gets built out of your version control system and deployed.
Your database changes also need to be built from version control and
deployed as well.
So, the short answer is, I haven't been in a shop (2 developers all the way
up to well over 1000 developers) that has done what your project manager is
proposing. Anyone working on a particular application works against the
same source code tree and into the same database. The application is then
built from source code control. Any database changes are applied via a
script to make the modifications and since that is code, has to go through
all of the same approval processes as the app code.
Mike
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com
Disclaimer: This communication is an original work and represents my sole
views on the subject. It does not represent the views of any other person
or entity either by inference or direct reference.
"Dan D." <DanD@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:AE2111B3-3EA9-47AA-9A3C-750A1157504A@.microsoft.com...
> Using SS2000 SP4. I'm wondering how companies with several developers
> (from 2
> to 200) set up development environments. We have a new project manager who
> wants to set up 6 different databases (one for each developer) and 6
> different web environments for the developers. We're a small company and
> the
> most developers we've ever had working on a project at the same time is 2.
> We're hiring outside contractors for a special project.
> With 6 different development databases and 6 different web environments,
> it
> would seem that it would be harder to keep all of the databases and web
> apps
> in sync. Everything is supposed to funnel into a single development
> database
> and web app. Then we'll have testing server and staging server before
> going
> to production.
> I'm suggesting one development database and web app that the developers
> can
> have control of but when everything moves to testing, they can only access
> the database through the app and any changes to the app or database have
> to
> be made in development.
> Can someone who has more experience with larger staffs give me some
> feedback
> on how they handle development?
> Thanks,
> --
> Dan D.|||Well he finally thought better of it and changed his mind. We'll now use one
development database for everyone.
The scenario you outline is what I've always read about and basically done
with 2 developers.
Thanks for your feedback Mike.
--
Dan D.
"Michael Hotek" wrote:

> You basically have to balance complexity with isolation. Generally,
> developers are going to be working on mutually exclusive application code.
> That also generally translates to mutually exclusive database code.
> Everyone has to hit the same tables.
> I've never seen a shop setup a separate environment for each developer. T
he
> reason being is plain and simple cost. That's not just licensing, but als
o
> the time and effort to administer it. You have 6 developers right now.
> What happens when you have 12 developers? What happens if you have 50
> developers? How many people are going to wind up spending 100% of their
> time just maintaining something like this.
> Managing this is all about process and not installing separated
> environments. You still have 1 application that has to be built coherentl
y
> and deployed. It's been a long time since I've been anywhere that
> developers weren't using some kind of version control system to manage the
ir
> application. However, I've almost never seen anyone do this with a
> database. Your database is code, just like everything else. All of that
> stuff should also be in your version control system and bound by the same
> rules you have for checking out and checking in your application code. Yo
u
> have someone who has the final say on what goes into your application and
> what doesn't. You also need someone to have the final say on what goes in
to
> the database and what doesn't.
> You application gets built out of your version control system and deployed
.
> Your database changes also need to be built from version control and
> deployed as well.
> So, the short answer is, I haven't been in a shop (2 developers all the wa
y
> up to well over 1000 developers) that has done what your project manager i
s
> proposing. Anyone working on a particular application works against the
> same source code tree and into the same database. The application is then
> built from source code control. Any database changes are applied via a
> script to make the modifications and since that is code, has to go through
> all of the same approval processes as the app code.
> --
> Mike
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com
> Disclaimer: This communication is an original work and represents my sole
> views on the subject. It does not represent the views of any other person
> or entity either by inference or direct reference.
>
> "Dan D." <DanD@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:AE2111B3-3EA9-47AA-9A3C-750A1157504A@.microsoft.com...
>
>

Development - Production Data Access

Hello All,
I have been searching for a published document for Best Practices
concerning access levels based on roles. Should developers have more
than (if at all) select level access to production data? If I
understand (from multiple postings) that it is best to have:
1. Development (developers have extensive access levels)
2. Test (developers have restriced access levels)
and
3. Production (developers have none or select level access)
Our environment and budget only allows for items 1 and 3.
If any body could point me to a document from a 'reputable' source, I
would greatly appreciate it.

TIA
BillI don't have a reputable source for you, only some more opinions.

Practices obviously vary from place to place and will depend partly on
the size and complexity of your dev operation, your toolset, and on how
much support your developers need to do. If your developers have to
support systems in production then they may need some extra level of
access to the production environment.

One thing I would not want to compromise on: do not test only in a dev
environment. That's because it's important to have a separate a
deployment process for testing that mirrors the way you will deploy
changes to production. In my opinion that's the best way to ensure that
you only release to production exactly what is tested. That doesn't
necessarily mean you need physically separate servers - whether that's
necessary depends on what components are under test. In the case of SQL
Server it does mean you ought to at least have separate instances for
development and testing.

--
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
--|||Bill Willyerd (bwillyerd@.dshs.wa.gov) writes:
> I have been searching for a published document for Best Practices
> concerning access levels based on roles. Should developers have more
> than (if at all) select level access to production data? If I
> understand (from multiple postings) that it is best to have:
> 1. Development (developers have extensive access levels)
> 2. Test (developers have restriced access levels)
> and
> 3. Production (developers have none or select level access)
> Our environment and budget only allows for items 1 and 3.
> If any body could point me to a document from a 'reputable' source, I
> would greatly appreciate it.

I think it's difficult to come with a best practice here, because it
is likely to business-dependent.

If developers have full access to the production database, this means
that they address critical issues directly, and don't have to spend
half a day to get some sort of access.

On the the other hand, this also means that developers are able to
all sorts of silly stuff in production, and also get access to data
that is sensitive.

So here is obviously a trade-off. The more availability you need, the
more in security you need to sacrifice - or invest in procedures so
that when a developer needs to debug in production, he can get access
easily by some sort of approval procedure.

I fully agree with David's view that you need a test environment
separate from development. I'll chime in here and add that the
process of transferring code from different environments should
be performed through version control, and the source-countrol system
is the master for all code to test and production environments. (As
well as to development environment to some extent as well.)

--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se

Books Online for SQL Server SP3 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techin.../2000/books.asp|||"Bill Willyerd" <bwillyerd@.dshs.wa.gov> wrote in message
news:1123690516.767246.211860@.o13g2000cwo.googlegr oups.com...
> Hello All,
> I have been searching for a published document for Best Practices
> concerning access levels based on roles. Should developers have more
> than (if at all) select level access to production data? If I
> understand (from multiple postings) that it is best to have:
> 1. Development (developers have extensive access levels)
> 2. Test (developers have restriced access levels)
> and
> 3. Production (developers have none or select level access)
> Our environment and budget only allows for items 1 and 3.
> If any body could point me to a document from a 'reputable' source, I
> would greatly appreciate it.
> TIA
> Bill

In addition to David and Erlands' comments, you might want to consider
Sarbanes-Oxley compliance. As a general comment, SOX compliance requires a
separation of duties (and therefore permissions) between development and
production. As a result, it's often not even an option to allow to
developers change access in the production environment.

But as I understand it, what you have to do to comply with SOX is negotiated
with your external auditors, and it depends heavily on your internal
environment. So you may want to investigate what (if any) legal obligations
you have to consider, and what the precise implementation details are for
your situation. For what it's worth, in my environment developers have no
change access to UAT or production (db_datareader only), so all code and
scripts are deployed via an Operations team - this is great for SOX
purposes, but obviously it adds both cost and time.

Simon

Developers on Other Machines (formerly: Problem installing SQL Server Reporting Services )

Bruce:
Sorry for the misposting.
I don't understand what you mean by "you haven't setup your roles for
the developers on other machines." Once a user role (developer or
otherwise) is set up on the server, shouldn't it be in effect no
matter where a user logs in from?
Jody
"Bruce Loehle-Conger (bruce_lcNOSPAM@.hotmail.com)" wrote:
> Your problem seems different. He was having a problem installing. Your
> problem seems to be accessing it. It looks to me like you haven't setup your
> roles for the developers on other machines.
Bruce L-C
>"JodyT" <datagal@.msn.com> wrote in message
>news:f9d864c3.0408111251.61c4d16f@.posting.google.com...
>> I'm having a similar problem...
>>
>> Enterprise and Developer set up on one server machine, Developer on
2
>> other desktops. If you access Report Manager from the Server
machine,
>> everything looks fine. But Report Manager accessed from the
>> non-server machines shows the top banner only... No tabs, no
folders,
>> nothing below the line, so a developer can't upload without
switching
>> over to the server, and even then there are often errors.
>>
>> Is there some configuration subtlety we missed?
>>
>> Otherwise this thing is giving me problems with OutOfMemory errors
on
>> local debugs that I know aren't too big.
>>
>> Ideas?
>> Jody
>>I suspect one of two things are happening. You have anonymous access on
which ends up treating everyone as the same regardless of how they are
logged in and they end up not having the permissions you wish them to have.
Or, the developers are either not assigned to a role, or are assigned to a
role that does not have the correct rights, or are assigned to a role with
the correct rights but that role has not been applied to the appropriate
part of the website. Unless you override it, any folder/report inherits the
role assignments from further up the tree. So if you assign the role from
above
My guess is when they are on the server they are not logged in as themselves
but are logged in as the admin for the local machine.
If they log into the server as themselves and the website does not look the
same as when they try to access it from their computers then my reasoning
falls apart.
So, check the the following.
1. Do you have anonymous access turned on?
2. What happens if you log into the server as one of the developers that are
having difficulties.
Bruce L-C
"JodyT" <datagal@.msn.com> wrote in message
news:f9d864c3.0408120929.8a3b6d7@.posting.google.com...
> Bruce:
> Sorry for the misposting.
> I don't understand what you mean by "you haven't setup your roles for
> the developers on other machines." Once a user role (developer or
> otherwise) is set up on the server, shouldn't it be in effect no
> matter where a user logs in from?
> Jody
> "Bruce Loehle-Conger (bruce_lcNOSPAM@.hotmail.com)" wrote:
> > Your problem seems different. He was having a problem installing. Your
> > problem seems to be accessing it. It looks to me like you haven't setup
your
> > roles for the developers on other machines.
> Bruce L-C
> >"JodyT" <datagal@.msn.com> wrote in message
> >news:f9d864c3.0408111251.61c4d16f@.posting.google.com...
> >> I'm having a similar problem...
> >>
> >> Enterprise and Developer set up on one server machine, Developer on
> 2
> >> other desktops. If you access Report Manager from the Server
> machine,
> >> everything looks fine. But Report Manager accessed from the
> >> non-server machines shows the top banner only... No tabs, no
> folders,
> >> nothing below the line, so a developer can't upload without
> switching
> >> over to the server, and even then there are often errors.
> >>
> >> Is there some configuration subtlety we missed?
> >>
> >> Otherwise this thing is giving me problems with OutOfMemory errors
> on
> >> local debugs that I know aren't too big.
> >>
> >> Ideas?
> >> Jody
> >>|||Actually I am the developer, with very minimal network learnin'. I
finally got the guy who installed to look at the research I've been
doing and he ended up reinstalling "paying closer attention to the
configuration options". He did have to do some monkeying around with
the anonymous thing, but he seems to have it working now. We'll see
how it goes if we ever put some actual users on it.
Thanks all for the input. It was a big help.
Jody
"Bruce Loehle-Conger" <bruce_lcNOSPAM@.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<ur$lBPJgEHA.556@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>...
> I suspect one of two things are happening. You have anonymous access on
> which ends up treating everyone as the same regardless of how they are
> logged in and they end up not having the permissions you wish them to have.
> Or, the developers are either not assigned to a role, or are assigned to a
> role that does not have the correct rights, or are assigned to a role with
> the correct rights but that role has not been applied to the appropriate
> part of the website. Unless you override it, any folder/report inherits the
> role assignments from further up the tree. So if you assign the role from
> above
> My guess is when they are on the server they are not logged in as themselves
> but are logged in as the admin for the local machine.
> If they log into the server as themselves and the website does not look the
> same as when they try to access it from their computers then my reasoning
> falls apart.
> So, check the the following.
> 1. Do you have anonymous access turned on?
> 2. What happens if you log into the server as one of the developers that are
> having difficulties.
> Bruce L-C
> "JodyT" <datagal@.msn.com> wrote in message
> news:f9d864c3.0408120929.8a3b6d7@.posting.google.com...
> > Bruce:
> >
> > Sorry for the misposting.
> >
> > I don't understand what you mean by "you haven't setup your roles for
> > the developers on other machines." Once a user role (developer or
> > otherwise) is set up on the server, shouldn't it be in effect no
> > matter where a user logs in from?
> >
> > Jody
> >
> > "Bruce Loehle-Conger (bruce_lcNOSPAM@.hotmail.com)" wrote:
> > > Your problem seems different. He was having a problem installing. Your
> > > problem seems to be accessing it. It looks to me like you haven't setup
> your
> > > roles for the developers on other machines.
> >
> > Bruce L-C
> >
> > >"JodyT" <datagal@.msn.com> wrote in message
> > >news:f9d864c3.0408111251.61c4d16f@.posting.google.com...
> > >> I'm having a similar problem...
> > >>
> > >> Enterprise and Developer set up on one server machine, Developer on
> 2
> > >> other desktops. If you access Report Manager from the Server
> machine,
> > >> everything looks fine. But Report Manager accessed from the
> > >> non-server machines shows the top banner only... No tabs, no
> folders,
> > >> nothing below the line, so a developer can't upload without
> switching
> > >> over to the server, and even then there are often errors.
> > >>
> > >> Is there some configuration subtlety we missed?
> > >>
> > >> Otherwise this thing is giving me problems with OutOfMemory errors
> on
> > >> local debugs that I know aren't too big.
> > >>
> > >> Ideas?
> > >> Jody
> > >>

Developers edition

Have developers edition of SQL Server - is there anywhere I can download
developers edition of reporting services ?Hi
Not downloadable unless you are a MSDN subscriber.
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/report...buy/default.asp
For media to be shipped to you:
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/report...fulfillment.asp
Regards
Mike
"Michael Vardinghus" wrote:

> Have developers edition of SQL Server - is there anywhere I can download
> developers edition of reporting services ?
>
>

Developers edition

Have developers edition of SQL Server - is there anywhere I can download
developers edition of reporting services ?
Hi
Not downloadable unless you are a MSDN subscriber.
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/reporti...uy/default.asp
For media to be shipped to you:
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/reporti...ulfillment.asp
Regards
Mike
"Michael Vardinghus" wrote:

> Have developers edition of SQL Server - is there anywhere I can download
> developers edition of reporting services ?
>
>

Developers edition

Have developers edition of SQL Server - is there anywhere I can download
developers edition of reporting services ?Hi
Not downloadable unless you are a MSDN subscriber.
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/reporting/howtobuy/default.asp
For media to be shipped to you:
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/reporting/howtobuy/retailfulfillment.asp
Regards
Mike
"Michael Vardinghus" wrote:
> Have developers edition of SQL Server - is there anywhere I can download
> developers edition of reporting services ?
>
>

developers cannot make databases

I need help with a permissions problem. I had my network admin create a AD
group with all my developers in it. I then went to the Enterprise Manager,
then to the Login screen and put that AD group into the the SQL Server. Nex
t, I gave that group the Se
rver Role of "Database Creators". There are no databases in the server othe
r than the standard Master, Model, MSDB and Tempdb. Non of these databases
are checked for access.
My developers are connecting to the SQL Server with the Server Explorer in .
NET2003 but cannot make any databases. We are using Windows Only security o
n the database server. The error message says SQLState 42000 and Error 4064
, Cannot open user default
database login failed.
There is no default database because they have not made one yet.Use Enterprise Manager to determine what the default database is for the
developers group. I'd set it to tempdb, to which everyone automatically has
access.
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
.
"rich" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A500F9D8-44C7-4488-A61E-96CFE5647932@.microsoft.com...
I need help with a permissions problem. I had my network admin create a AD
group with all my developers in it. I then went to the Enterprise Manager,
then to the Login screen and put that AD group into the the SQL Server.
Next, I gave that group the Server Role of "Database Creators". There are
no databases in the server other than the standard Master, Model, MSDB and
Tempdb. Non of these databases are checked for access.
My developers are connecting to the SQL Server with the Server Explorer in
.NET2003 but cannot make any databases. We are using Windows Only security
on the database server. The error message says SQLState 42000 and Error
4064, Cannot open user default database login failed.
There is no default database because they have not made one yet.

Developer terminates MSSQLSERVER service

Hi.
One of the developers tried to compile a stored procedure
against the master database by mistake. The result was
that the .
In the event log the following entry appears:
The system has called a custom component and that
component has failed and generated an exception.
This indicates a problem with the custom component.
Notify the developer of this component that a failure has
occurred and provide them with the information below.
Component Prog ID: SC. Pool 61 1
Method Name: IDispenseDriver::CreateResource
Process Name: sqlserver.exe
The serious nature of this error has caused the process
to terminate.
Exception: C0000005
Address: 0x17CEA9E1
Call Stack: 0x17CEA9E2
The MSSQLSERVER service terminated unexpectedly.
Just prior to that an entry appears with the developers
user id:
Error: 0, Severity:19 State:0
SqlDumpExceptionHandler: Process 167 generated fatal
exception = C0000005
EXCEPTION_ACCESS_VIOLATION SQL Server is terminating this
process.
How can I prevent this from ever happening again?
How can I lock down my server properly enough to prevent
this from ever happening again?
Thanks,
MTAV's are generally bugs in SQL Server, and you cannot make sure that SQL Server is bug free. When
you hit an AV, search KB, make sure the db is OK (CHECKDB) and if needed open a case with MS.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
Archive at: http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&as_ugroup=microsoft.public.sqlserver
"MT" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:068d01c39eb8$9e372110$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hi.
> One of the developers tried to compile a stored procedure
> against the master database by mistake. The result was
> that the .
> In the event log the following entry appears:
> The system has called a custom component and that
> component has failed and generated an exception.
> This indicates a problem with the custom component.
> Notify the developer of this component that a failure has
> occurred and provide them with the information below.
> Component Prog ID: SC. Pool 61 1
> Method Name: IDispenseDriver::CreateResource
> Process Name: sqlserver.exe
> The serious nature of this error has caused the process
> to terminate.
> Exception: C0000005
> Address: 0x17CEA9E1
> Call Stack: 0x17CEA9E2
> The MSSQLSERVER service terminated unexpectedly.
> Just prior to that an entry appears with the developers
> user id:
> Error: 0, Severity:19 State:0
> SqlDumpExceptionHandler: Process 167 generated fatal
> exception = C0000005
> EXCEPTION_ACCESS_VIOLATION SQL Server is terminating this
> process.
> How can I prevent this from ever happening again?
> How can I lock down my server properly enough to prevent
> this from ever happening again?
> Thanks,
> MT
>|||Thanks Tibor,
Good news, I ran the CHECKDB and found 0 allocation
errors and 0 consistency errors in database 'master'.
What does AV stand for? Under what criteria would I
search the KB to determine how to prevent this situation
from happening again
Thanks,
MT
>--Original Message--
>AV's are generally bugs in SQL Server, and you cannot
make sure that SQL Server is bug free. When
>you hit an AV, search KB, make sure the db is OK
(CHECKDB) and if needed open a case with MS.
>--
>Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
>Archive at: http://groups.google.com/groups?
oi=djq&as_ugroup=microsoft.public.sqlserver
>
>"MT" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message
>news:068d01c39eb8$9e372110$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
>> Hi.
>> One of the developers tried to compile a stored
procedure
>> against the master database by mistake. The result was
>> that the .
>> In the event log the following entry appears:
>> The system has called a custom component and that
>> component has failed and generated an exception.
>> This indicates a problem with the custom component.
>> Notify the developer of this component that a failure
has
>> occurred and provide them with the information below.
>> Component Prog ID: SC. Pool 61 1
>> Method Name: IDispenseDriver::CreateResource
>> Process Name: sqlserver.exe
>> The serious nature of this error has caused the process
>> to terminate.
>> Exception: C0000005
>> Address: 0x17CEA9E1
>> Call Stack: 0x17CEA9E2
>> The MSSQLSERVER service terminated unexpectedly.
>> Just prior to that an entry appears with the developers
>> user id:
>> Error: 0, Severity:19 State:0
>> SqlDumpExceptionHandler: Process 167 generated fatal
>> exception = C0000005
>> EXCEPTION_ACCESS_VIOLATION SQL Server is terminating
this
>> process.
>> How can I prevent this from ever happening again?
>> How can I lock down my server properly enough to
prevent
>> this from ever happening again?
>> Thanks,
>> MT
>>
>
>.
>|||AV is short for Access Violation (see the error messages that SQL Server returned). You would have
to try to find a relevant KB article by going in a good search string, error number etc. However,
there might not be a KB article for your problem (the bug in SQL Server might not be knows, yet),
hence the need to possibly open a case with MS support. If you find a KB article, it hopefully has
some workaround, point to some service pack that fixes this or possibly a hotfix that fixes this.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
Archive at: http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&as_ugroup=microsoft.public.sqlserver
"MT" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:06b301c39ebc$a80b02c0$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
> Thanks Tibor,
> Good news, I ran the CHECKDB and found 0 allocation
> errors and 0 consistency errors in database 'master'.
> What does AV stand for? Under what criteria would I
> search the KB to determine how to prevent this situation
> from happening again
> Thanks,
> MT
> >--Original Message--
> >AV's are generally bugs in SQL Server, and you cannot
> make sure that SQL Server is bug free. When
> >you hit an AV, search KB, make sure the db is OK
> (CHECKDB) and if needed open a case with MS.
> >
> >--
> >Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> >Archive at: http://groups.google.com/groups?
> oi=djq&as_ugroup=microsoft.public.sqlserver
> >
> >
> >"MT" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
> message
> >news:068d01c39eb8$9e372110$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
> >> Hi.
> >>
> >> One of the developers tried to compile a stored
> procedure
> >> against the master database by mistake. The result was
> >> that the .
> >>
> >> In the event log the following entry appears:
> >>
> >> The system has called a custom component and that
> >> component has failed and generated an exception.
> >> This indicates a problem with the custom component.
> >> Notify the developer of this component that a failure
> has
> >> occurred and provide them with the information below.
> >>
> >> Component Prog ID: SC. Pool 61 1
> >> Method Name: IDispenseDriver::CreateResource
> >> Process Name: sqlserver.exe
> >>
> >> The serious nature of this error has caused the process
> >> to terminate.
> >>
> >> Exception: C0000005
> >> Address: 0x17CEA9E1
> >> Call Stack: 0x17CEA9E2
> >>
> >> The MSSQLSERVER service terminated unexpectedly.
> >>
> >> Just prior to that an entry appears with the developers
> >> user id:
> >>
> >> Error: 0, Severity:19 State:0
> >> SqlDumpExceptionHandler: Process 167 generated fatal
> >> exception = C0000005
> >>
> >> EXCEPTION_ACCESS_VIOLATION SQL Server is terminating
> this
> >> process.
> >>
> >> How can I prevent this from ever happening again?
> >> How can I lock down my server properly enough to
> prevent
> >> this from ever happening again?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> MT
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >.
> >

Developer licensing

Ok, simple question:

We have 10 developers. All 10 use ONE server to do development work (design, coding, testing ONLY!). We have a Developer Edition licence for EACH developer. Is this OK? We have 10GB plus in test data and do not want to replicate that to each desktop.

According to the Developer Edition EULA, I would say NO. It looks like you can only have one developer (and a few testers, I forget the number) per server. It says NOTHING about having more than one developer access the same server under this license. The Developer Edition EULA appears to be designed around installing a database on a desktop just for that developer, not installing a central database that all developers use.AFAIK thats fine.

You would only need to switch from the Dev licence once your apps are in an actual production environment ie making someone very rich. In which case you would need the appropriate server licence, cal's, vs's and so forth.

It is a very difficult field to understand, however Microsoft are getting ever better at making things clear and easy to understand; this site should make it even easier for you to answer questions; http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/default.mspx

Developer Edition Installation - Named Instance can't be opened

I am trying to install the Developer's Edition of SQL SERVER and I would like to create a named instance.
The installation appears to work OK but I can't register the NAMED instance in Enterprise Manager. The LOCAL instance is working OK and is registered in Enterprise Manager.
Each time I try to register the NAMED instance I get the error SQL SERVER does not exist or access denied. ConnectionOpen(Connect()).
I see the instance existing in my SQL SERVER installation directory.
I am installing this in Windows XP
Any help is appreciated.
jim
This may be basic but are you trying to register it using the following
name:
<machinename\instancename>.
If you are and it is still failing. Look at the SQL Server errorlog form
that instance and verify that it is listening on shared memory, TCP/IP and
named pipes. If you are trying to register it on the server itself shared
memory is used by default. Trying regiistering it uisng the IP address and
port number that SQL Server is listening on.
Rand
This posting is provided "as is" with no warranties and confers no rights.
|||I corrected the problem. I needed to clear my registry entries for a prior installation of INSTANCE.
thanks for your help

Developer Database Snapshots

I'm developing tool for developers to create snapshots (i.e. backups) from
different states of SQL Server databases. Later when required for unit and/or
stress testing or code profiling developer could quickly restore database
snapshots.
This tool is to be very simple and at first only to support SQL Server 2005
and later to older versions. Also propably first version would be rather
limited (as my time) including only one database and hopefully later
expanding to support more databases and more fine-tuning of backup/restore
options - since there are some. Also the snapshot tool would work easy "oops"
-tool if user's routine accidentally deletes all rows in a database it could
be easily backed up before catastrophy happens.
I'm thinking of doing this as a Visual Studio.NET 2005 Add-In but including
external API for unit testers and others to easily connect to this tool from
external programs.
Tell me what do you think - is this kind of tool worth doing ?
"Tommi" <Tommi@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2ECEE6F8-AD03-4245-A0A5-E35F425E6810@.microsoft.com...
> I'm developing tool for developers to create snapshots (i.e. backups) from
> different states of SQL Server databases. Later when required for unit
> and/or
> stress testing or code profiling developer could quickly restore database
> snapshots.
> Tell me what do you think - is this kind of tool worth doing ?
Not if you use the word "snapshot". There are already at least three
things in SQL Server 2005 that use that name: Database snapshots (i.e. not
backups, but snapshots -- very different), snapshot isolation level, and
snapshot replication.
Plus, there are other types of snapshots available, such as SAN
snapshots. Adding yet another snapshot to an already overused pool is going
to be extremely confusing for your potential users.
Adam Machanic
Pro SQL Server 2005, available now
http://www.apress.com/book/bookDisplay.html?bID=457
|||You are right - actually the work I'm using is DevShot, which refers to kind
of developer snapshot as a backup which contains the database state at
certain point of time. I already created a prebeta of the software in
CodeProject (http://www.codeproject.com/useritems/DevShot.asp). Check it out.
This would be probably easier to achieve if normal SQL Server 2005 would
contain the database snapshots that they employ only in enterprise versions,
but even normal fullbackup to a file does the trick quite nicely.
"Adam Machanic" wrote:

> "Tommi" <Tommi@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:2ECEE6F8-AD03-4245-A0A5-E35F425E6810@.microsoft.com...
> Not if you use the word "snapshot". There are already at least three
> things in SQL Server 2005 that use that name: Database snapshots (i.e. not
> backups, but snapshots -- very different), snapshot isolation level, and
> snapshot replication.
> Plus, there are other types of snapshots available, such as SAN
> snapshots. Adding yet another snapshot to an already overused pool is going
> to be extremely confusing for your potential users.
>
> --
> Adam Machanic
> Pro SQL Server 2005, available now
> http://www.apress.com/book/bookDisplay.html?bID=457
> --
>
>

Developer and DTS rights

To adhere to corporate security policies we have removed the guest
account from msdb. This has resulted in developers not having the
ability to view any dts packages on the server. We have multiple
development groups and a large amount of databases on the server.
Does anyone have a solution to this situation that we could use?
Thanks in advance, Markassign a security group a login to the sql server,
grant dbaccess to the msdb database for that user.
Regards,
Dandy Weyn
MCSE, MCSA, MCDBA, MCT
www.dandyman.net
"Mark Anderson" <magnm01@.wellsfargo.com> wrote in message
news:ac3d559a.0401141350.68879fa9@.posting.google.com...
> To adhere to corporate security policies we have removed the guest
> account from msdb. This has resulted in developers not having the
> ability to view any dts packages on the server. We have multiple
> development groups and a large amount of databases on the server.
> Does anyone have a solution to this situation that we could use?
> Thanks in advance, Mark

Developer and DTS rights

To adhere to corporate security policies we have removed the guest
account from msdb. This has resulted in developers not having the
ability to view any dts packages on the server. We have multiple
development groups and a large amount of databases on the server.
Does anyone have a solution to this situation that we could use?
Thanks in advance, Markassign a security group a login to the sql server,
grant dbaccess to the msdb database for that user.
Regards,
Dandy Weyn
MCSE, MCSA, MCDBA, MCT
www.dandyman.net
"Mark Anderson" <magnm01@.wellsfargo.com> wrote in message
news:ac3d559a.0401141350.68879fa9@.posting.google.com...

quote:

---

> To adhere to corporate security policies we have removed the guest
> account from msdb. This has resulted in developers not having the
> ability to view any dts packages on the server. We have multiple
> development groups and a large amount of databases on the server.
> Does anyone have a solution to this situation that we could use?
> Thanks in advance, Mark

---

Developer Access

Can someone advise potential security concerns in giving VIEW SERVER STATE
access to developers on production server?guest5.
VIEW SERVER STATE exposes information about the server and its current
state. (As you might guess by the name.) This allows you to see all
processes that are running in 'sp_who' and, in general, makes the statistics
in the dynamic management views visible. It also allows a user to use DBCC
INPUTBUFFER
In the Books Online if you search for "VIEW SERVER STATE" you will get about
110 things reported there, if you want to review the details.
The question is: Who needs this level of information? I think it is
reasonable for those who actively support the databases and server to have
this access, but I would not make it generally available.
RLF
"guest5" <guest5@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:20CC60D6-8D82-4CBB-B6C8-9D2466B27624@.microsoft.com...
> Can someone advise potential security concerns in giving VIEW SERVER STATE
> access to developers on production server?