DHCP vs. Static

My SQL*Server 7 server was working fine this morning... All of a sudden
anyone that is set up using DHCP to get IP Settings can't connect to any
databases... If I change them to a static IP Address it works fine...
Can't remember the exact message but it was something along the lines of
"SQL Server not found or access denied".....
I can get the full message if required...
Sounds like the DHCP server is dispensing the wrong information, possibly
about the DNS server. The error is usually a name resoultion problem, i.e.
the client cannot resolve the server name to its network address.
After a client acquires it ip address via DHCP, run ipconfig /all form a
command prompt and compare the values with a client that has a static ip
address.
Rand
This posting is provided "as is" with no warranties and confers no rights.
|||> Sounds like the DHCP server is dispensing the wrong information, possibly
> about the DNS server. The error is usually a name resoultion problem, i.e.
> the client cannot resolve the server name to its network address.
It is dispensing the right information. I am thinking that the corporate
weenies changed
something somewhere and it is causing us problems...
Funny thing is, machines that have a static ip address and the same DNS
Servers entered manually
work just fine.
What I did for now was remove the DNS Servers from the DHCP settings and am
doing a
ipconfig /release
ipconfig /renew
after this is done and the DNS servers aren't set on the DHCP enabled
machines, everything works fine...
Of course any internet stuff is broken....
What could change to cause a situation like that?

> After a client acquires it ip address via DHCP, run ipconfig /all form a
> command prompt and compare the values with a client that has a static ip
> address.

DHCP vs. Static

My SQL*Server 7 server was working fine this morning... All of a sudden
anyone that is set up using DHCP to get IP Settings can't connect to any
databases... If I change them to a static IP Address it works fine...
Can't remember the exact message but it was something along the lines of
"SQL Server not found or access denied".....
I can get the full message if required...Sounds like the DHCP server is dispensing the wrong information, possibly
about the DNS server. The error is usually a name resoultion problem, i.e.
the client cannot resolve the server name to its network address.
After a client acquires it ip address via DHCP, run ipconfig /all form a
command prompt and compare the values with a client that has a static ip
address.
Rand
This posting is provided "as is" with no warranties and confers no rights.|||> Sounds like the DHCP server is dispensing the wrong information, possibly
> about the DNS server. The error is usually a name resoultion problem, i.e.
> the client cannot resolve the server name to its network address.
It is dispensing the right information. I am thinking that the corporate
weenies changed
something somewhere and it is causing us problems...
Funny thing is, machines that have a static ip address and the same DNS
Servers entered manually
work just fine.
What I did for now was remove the DNS Servers from the DHCP settings and am
doing a
ipconfig /release
ipconfig /renew
after this is done and the DNS servers aren't set on the DHCP enabled
machines, everything works fine...
Of course any internet stuff is broken....
What could change to cause a situation like that?

> After a client acquires it ip address via DHCP, run ipconfig /all form a
> command prompt and compare the values with a client that has a static ip
> address.

Device Information Settings for HTMLOWC

I posted this question a few days ago and never got a response. Does anyone
know the answer to this?
I see all the device information settings for all the other output formats.
Is there a way to pass device information to the pivot tables? If not, is
this planned for future releases?
I have 5 other posts related to matrix's and pivot tables that never got a
response for one reason or another. They were all posted on 8/11 and 8/12.To my knowledge there are not any device information settings specific to
pivot tables. I am not aware of any future plans to support that.
--
Bryan Keller
Developer Documentation
SQL Server Reporting Services
A friendly reminder that this posting is provided "AS IS" with no
warranties, and confers no rights.
"clortex" <clortex@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A96DFECB-CC15-43EA-A181-291E0707317A@.microsoft.com...
> I posted this question a few days ago and never got a response. Does
anyone
> know the answer to this?
> I see all the device information settings for all the other output
formats.
> Is there a way to pass device information to the pivot tables? If not, is
> this planned for future releases?
> I have 5 other posts related to matrix's and pivot tables that never got a
> response for one reason or another. They were all posted on 8/11 and 8/12.

Device Information Settings - SimplePageHeader

I am trying to use the new SimplePageHeader device information setting
which was introduced in RS SP1 for Excel exporting but have not seen
any impact when using the setting. Following is an example of how I
am using the setting in an URL:
...ReportName&rs:Command=Render&rs:Format=EXCEL&rc:SimplePageHeader=True
My motivation for using this setting was an attempt to stop the export
from merging several of the columns in the report since this results
in the error "This operation requires the merged cells to be
identically sized" when trying to sort on various columns within
Excel. My thought was that by moving the header out of the actual
worksheet (which is my understanding from the documentation of what
the setting is supposed to do), the rendered report may not need to
merge cells to get the output formatted properly. Any suggestions
would be appreciated.I think the device info is SimplePageHeaders.
--
Nico Cristache [MSFT]
Microsoft SQL Server Reporting Services
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"f_mumble" <fred_mumble@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5e9391dd.0406281737.724e4c66@.posting.google.com...
> I am trying to use the new SimplePageHeader device information setting
> which was introduced in RS SP1 for Excel exporting but have not seen
> any impact when using the setting. Following is an example of how I
> am using the setting in an URL:
> ...ReportName&rs:Command=Render&rs:Format=EXCEL&rc:SimplePageHeader=True
> My motivation for using this setting was an attempt to stop the export
> from merging several of the columns in the report since this results
> in the error "This operation requires the merged cells to be
> identically sized" when trying to sort on various columns within
> Excel. My thought was that by moving the header out of the actual
> worksheet (which is my understanding from the documentation of what
> the setting is supposed to do), the rendered report may not need to
> merge cells to get the output formatted properly. Any suggestions
> would be appreciated.|||Thanks for the follow-up, but adding the 's' didn't make a difference.
Are my expectations of what this device info setting supposed to
accomplish accurate?
As a test I completely removed the header from the report, and as I
suspected the columns are no longer merged in Excel. As a result,
Excel is able to sort any of the columns with no problems.
Unfortunately, having no header on the report is not an option, so any
other suggestions are welcome.
"Nico Cristache [MSFT]" <nipirvan@.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:<uFBPjyXXEHA.796@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>...
> I think the device info is SimplePageHeaders.
> --
> Nico Cristache [MSFT]
> Microsoft SQL Server Reporting Services
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
>
> "f_mumble" <fred_mumble@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:5e9391dd.0406281737.724e4c66@.posting.google.com...
> > I am trying to use the new SimplePageHeader device information setting
> > which was introduced in RS SP1 for Excel exporting but have not seen
> > any impact when using the setting. Following is an example of how I
> > am using the setting in an URL:
> >
> > ...ReportName&rs:Command=Render&rs:Format=EXCEL&rc:SimplePageHeader=True
> >
> > My motivation for using this setting was an attempt to stop the export
> > from merging several of the columns in the report since this results
> > in the error "This operation requires the merged cells to be
> > identically sized" when trying to sort on various columns within
> > Excel. My thought was that by moving the header out of the actual
> > worksheet (which is my understanding from the documentation of what
> > the setting is supposed to do), the rendered report may not need to
> > merge cells to get the output formatted properly. Any suggestions
> > would be appreciated.|||I eventually found out how to use the device info. Here are my findings:
It IS SimplePageHeaders - with an 's', plural
I used it as part of the URL when rendering directly to Excel. (I couldn't
find any way of settign this device information at design time?) The URL was
of this form
http://myserver/ReportServer?%2fTDSI%2fAssetsSummary&FxRate=1.2&rs:Command=Render&rs:Format=EXCEL&rc:SimplePageHeaders=True
This outputted my report into Excel but I think SimplePageHeaders means no
header. My original report had images and text boxes in the header (which
were admittedly causing the cell merges) but following the above the
spreadsheet does not show any of these. Is this the best I can get?
"f_mumble" wrote:
> Thanks for the follow-up, but adding the 's' didn't make a difference.
> Are my expectations of what this device info setting supposed to
> accomplish accurate?
> As a test I completely removed the header from the report, and as I
> suspected the columns are no longer merged in Excel. As a result,
> Excel is able to sort any of the columns with no problems.
> Unfortunately, having no header on the report is not an option, so any
> other suggestions are welcome.
>
> "Nico Cristache [MSFT]" <nipirvan@.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:<uFBPjyXXEHA.796@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>...
> > I think the device info is SimplePageHeaders.
> >
> > --
> > Nico Cristache [MSFT]
> > Microsoft SQL Server Reporting Services
> >
> > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
> >
> >
> > "f_mumble" <fred_mumble@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:5e9391dd.0406281737.724e4c66@.posting.google.com...
> > > I am trying to use the new SimplePageHeader device information setting
> > > which was introduced in RS SP1 for Excel exporting but have not seen
> > > any impact when using the setting. Following is an example of how I
> > > am using the setting in an URL:
> > >
> > > ...ReportName&rs:Command=Render&rs:Format=EXCEL&rc:SimplePageHeader=True
> > >
> > > My motivation for using this setting was an attempt to stop the export
> > > from merging several of the columns in the report since this results
> > > in the error "This operation requires the merged cells to be
> > > identically sized" when trying to sort on various columns within
> > > Excel. My thought was that by moving the header out of the actual
> > > worksheet (which is my understanding from the documentation of what
> > > the setting is supposed to do), the rendered report may not need to
> > > merge cells to get the output formatted properly. Any suggestions
> > > would be appreciated.
>

Developer edition installation error on XP Professional

When trying to specify the Service settings Domain User account during SQL
Server 2000 developer edition installation on an XP Pro (SP2) machine I get
the following error message: "The logon account cannot be validated for the
SQL Server service. Verify that the username and password entered are
correct. The logon attempt failed." I have tried a variety of accounts
(including administrator) and always get the same error message. The "Local
System account" option seems to proceed without error, but that doesn't meet
my application requirements.
Any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks.
- Daniel
Hi
XP needs to verify the account credentials with domain controller that thje
XP machine is in. It can't contact the DC, so it passes the error to SQL
Server installation.
Check your connectivity to your DC's.
Regards
Mike
"Daniel Scheidt" wrote:

> When trying to specify the Service settings Domain User account during SQL
> Server 2000 developer edition installation on an XP Pro (SP2) machine I get
> the following error message: "The logon account cannot be validated for the
> SQL Server service. Verify that the username and password entered are
> correct. The logon attempt failed." I have tried a variety of accounts
> (including administrator) and always get the same error message. The "Local
> System account" option seems to proceed without error, but that doesn't meet
> my application requirements.
> Any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks.
> - Daniel
|||Thanks Mike, my machine is a stand-alone box not connected to any DC. I'm
using the machine name in the "Domain:" field. This approach has worked fine
for me on Windows 2003 Server boxes, but I'm stuck on this XP install
- Daniel
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi
> XP needs to verify the account credentials with domain controller that thje
> XP machine is in. It can't contact the DC, so it passes the error to SQL
> Server installation.
> Check your connectivity to your DC's.
> Regards
> Mike
> "Daniel Scheidt" wrote:

Developer edition installation error on XP Professional

When trying to specify the Service settings Domain User account during SQL
Server 2000 developer edition installation on an XP Pro (SP2) machine I get
the following error message: "The logon account cannot be validated for the
SQL Server service. Verify that the username and password entered are
correct. The logon attempt failed." I have tried a variety of accounts
(including administrator) and always get the same error message. The "Local
System account" option seems to proceed without error, but that doesn't meet
my application requirements.
Any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks.
- DanielHi
XP needs to verify the account credentials with domain controller that thje
XP machine is in. It can't contact the DC, so it passes the error to SQL
Server installation.
Check your connectivity to your DC's.
Regards
Mike
"Daniel Scheidt" wrote:
> When trying to specify the Service settings Domain User account during SQL
> Server 2000 developer edition installation on an XP Pro (SP2) machine I get
> the following error message: "The logon account cannot be validated for the
> SQL Server service. Verify that the username and password entered are
> correct. The logon attempt failed." I have tried a variety of accounts
> (including administrator) and always get the same error message. The "Local
> System account" option seems to proceed without error, but that doesn't meet
> my application requirements.
> Any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks.
> - Daniel|||Thanks Mike, my machine is a stand-alone box not connected to any DC. I'm
using the machine name in the "Domain:" field. This approach has worked fine
for me on Windows 2003 Server boxes, but I'm stuck on this XP install
- Daniel
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
> Hi
> XP needs to verify the account credentials with domain controller that thje
> XP machine is in. It can't contact the DC, so it passes the error to SQL
> Server installation.
> Check your connectivity to your DC's.
> Regards
> Mike
> "Daniel Scheidt" wrote:
> > When trying to specify the Service settings Domain User account during SQL
> > Server 2000 developer edition installation on an XP Pro (SP2) machine I get
> > the following error message: "The logon account cannot be validated for the
> > SQL Server service. Verify that the username and password entered are
> > correct. The logon attempt failed." I have tried a variety of accounts
> > (including administrator) and always get the same error message. The "Local
> > System account" option seems to proceed without error, but that doesn't meet
> > my application requirements.
> >
> > Any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks.
> >
> > - Daniel

Developer edition installation error on XP Professional

When trying to specify the Service settings Domain User account during SQL
Server 2000 developer edition installation on an XP Pro (SP2) machine I get
the following error message: "The logon account cannot be validated for the
SQL Server service. Verify that the username and password entered are
correct. The logon attempt failed." I have tried a variety of accounts
(including administrator) and always get the same error message. The "Local
System account" option seems to proceed without error, but that doesn't meet
my application requirements.
Any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks.
- DanielHi
XP needs to verify the account credentials with domain controller that thje
XP machine is in. It can't contact the DC, so it passes the error to SQL
Server installation.
Check your connectivity to your DC's.
Regards
Mike
"Daniel Scheidt" wrote:

> When trying to specify the Service settings Domain User account during SQL
> Server 2000 developer edition installation on an XP Pro (SP2) machine I ge
t
> the following error message: "The logon account cannot be validated for th
e
> SQL Server service. Verify that the username and password entered are
> correct. The logon attempt failed." I have tried a variety of accounts
> (including administrator) and always get the same error message. The "Loca
l
> System account" option seems to proceed without error, but that doesn't me
et
> my application requirements.
> Any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks.
> - Daniel|||Thanks Mike, my machine is a stand-alone box not connected to any DC. I'm
using the machine name in the "Domain:" field. This approach has worked fine
for me on Windows 2003 Server boxes, but I'm stuck on this XP install
- Daniel
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi
> XP needs to verify the account credentials with domain controller that th
je
> XP machine is in. It can't contact the DC, so it passes the error to SQL
> Server installation.
> Check your connectivity to your DC's.
> Regards
> Mike
> "Daniel Scheidt" wrote:
>

dev to UAT to Live using linked server catalog to default the database

Hi all,

Im trying to have one set of TSQL code that uses global settings in 'linked servers' so code can migrated from development, to test to UAT and finally to live without change. e.g.

select *
from [oursystem].ourDB.dbo.table
join [linked_server_othersystem]..dbo.tablename ...

By using no database name (and expecting the catalog set at the linked server to be used) the same code is equivilent to:

select *
from [oursystem].ourDB.dbo.tablefrom [oursystem].ourDB.dbo.table
join [linked_server_othersystem].developmentDB.dbo.tablename

select *
from [oursystem].ourDB.dbo.table
join [linked_server_othersystem].testDB.dbo.tablename ...

select *
from [oursystem].ourDB.dbo.table
join [linked_server_othersystem].UATDB.dbo.tablename ...

select *
from [oursystem].ourDB.dbo.table
join [linked_server_othersystem].LiveDB.dbo.tablename ...

Nice. One code set over multiple environments thereby preserving numerous audit and 'best practices' guidlines for source control. (And stopping our live system from accidentially linking to a UAT or test 'othersystem' database. )

Problem is, try as I might, the catalog seems to be REQUIRED when the provider is SQLNCLI. I.e. it must be specified in the TSQL code. Thus any attempt to use a default catalog (database) fails with the following error:

Msg 7313, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
An invalid schema or catalog was specified for the provider "SQLNCLI" for linked server "test".

Linked server set up as follows:

EXEC master.dbo.sp_addlinkedserver @.server = N'LINKED_SERVER_OTHERSYSTEM', @.srvproduct=N'SQLNCLI', @.provider=N'SQLNCLI', @.datasrc=N'servername', @.catalog=N'testdatabase'

Is this bahaviour 'by design'?

Is there a workaround? (e.g. another provider to SQL Server 2005 that respects the catalog value)

Hotfix?

Any help - from someone who has actually done this (or not) much appreciated. And yes, I've read the doco and it suggests it should work and does not suggest it will not work.

Cheers,
Belgarion

Were you able to solve this problem? I have a similiar case with the same results.

Thanks,

Chris

|||

Hi Chris,

Alas no. I've concluded it's 'by design', and I might add, poorly documented as there appears to be nothing in the documentation that says this won't work.

Anybody tried this and suceeded? A chocolate fish awaits ...

Cheers,
Belgarion.