DNS on Windows 2000 Server & Windows 2003 Server

We are having numerous issues with disconnects after upgrading our PDC to a
Windows 2003 environment. We have several Windows 2000 Servers running SQL
Databases that users connect to. The issue as described in my post found
under client connections is that the network connection is good but we are
getting RPC errors & "The object invoked disconnected message". Our Windows
2003 Server is running DNS. It was suggested by a developer to install the
DNS windows components found under networking on all other servers.
Will this work? Or will we cause DNS issues as a result of it?Hi
Installing DNS on every server will not solve your problem.
DNS Service in Windows 2003 is reliable so there is not need to setup many
of them.
What the the exact error number and error messages you are getting? Are any
errors logged in the SQL Event Log?
Regards
Mike
"Cstewart" wrote:

> We are having numerous issues with disconnects after upgrading our PDC to
a
> Windows 2003 environment. We have several Windows 2000 Servers running SQ
L
> Databases that users connect to. The issue as described in my post found
> under client connections is that the network connection is good but we are
> getting RPC errors & "The object invoked disconnected message". Our Windo
ws
> 2003 Server is running DNS. It was suggested by a developer to install th
e
> DNS windows components found under networking on all other servers.
> Will this work? Or will we cause DNS issues as a result of it?
>|||The errors that are appearing on the client side are as follows:
"The object invoked has disconnected from its clients" and/or "RPC server
unavailable"
Here is more information that I posted previously:
We have recently upgraded our main server from NT4 to Active Directory
(Windows 2003 Server). Our SQL Database is 2000 and is running on a Windows
2000 Server Box. We use com+ components to connect to our database. Since
the change on our PDC to 2003 Server AD, we have had several errors such as
"The object invoked has disconnected from its clients" as well as RPC Server
Unavailable. This occurs even when the user is consistently active. We hav
e
applied latest Windows Service Pack to clients xp sp2 and to the windows 200
0
server box. If you reboot the server and or/stop services (Com+ and Dcom) o
n
the client end, they can get back in. You can browse to the machine no
problem through exporer - right to the database. Issue is only in SQL 2000.
Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Note: I have also checked
using netstat -a to see if all ports were being used and that is not the
case. This is happening on more than one users connection and I am certain
it is not network based - ping 100%, can browse, two locations within
building etc.
Note: Problems occur regardless if client is at Service Pack 2 or 1.
I have checked the event log on the server and nothing reported. I have
checked the error logs in the SQL directory of Logs and nothing reported.
Any suggestion as to what other logs (if any) to look at?
Thank you for your assistance.
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi
> Installing DNS on every server will not solve your problem.
> DNS Service in Windows 2003 is reliable so there is not need to setup many
> of them.
> What the the exact error number and error messages you are getting? Are an
y
> errors logged in the SQL Event Log?
> Regards
> Mike
> "Cstewart" wrote:
>

DNS on Windows 2000 Server & Windows 2003 Server

We are having numerous issues with disconnects after upgrading our PDC to a
Windows 2003 environment. We have several Windows 2000 Servers running SQL
Databases that users connect to. The issue as described in my post found
under client connections is that the network connection is good but we are
getting RPC errors & "The object invoked disconnected message". Our Windows
2003 Server is running DNS. It was suggested by a developer to install the
DNS windows components found under networking on all other servers.
Will this work? Or will we cause DNS issues as a result of it?Hi
Installing DNS on every server will not solve your problem.
DNS Service in Windows 2003 is reliable so there is not need to setup many
of them.
What the the exact error number and error messages you are getting? Are any
errors logged in the SQL Event Log?
Regards
Mike
"Cstewart" wrote:
> We are having numerous issues with disconnects after upgrading our PDC to a
> Windows 2003 environment. We have several Windows 2000 Servers running SQL
> Databases that users connect to. The issue as described in my post found
> under client connections is that the network connection is good but we are
> getting RPC errors & "The object invoked disconnected message". Our Windows
> 2003 Server is running DNS. It was suggested by a developer to install the
> DNS windows components found under networking on all other servers.
> Will this work? Or will we cause DNS issues as a result of it?
>|||The errors that are appearing on the client side are as follows:
"The object invoked has disconnected from its clients" and/or "RPC server
unavailable"
Here is more information that I posted previously:
We have recently upgraded our main server from NT4 to Active Directory
(Windows 2003 Server). Our SQL Database is 2000 and is running on a Windows
2000 Server Box. We use com+ components to connect to our database. Since
the change on our PDC to 2003 Server AD, we have had several errors such as
"The object invoked has disconnected from its clients" as well as RPC Server
Unavailable. This occurs even when the user is consistently active. We have
applied latest Windows Service Pack to clients xp sp2 and to the windows 2000
server box. If you reboot the server and or/stop services (Com+ and Dcom) on
the client end, they can get back in. You can browse to the machine no
problem through exporer - right to the database. Issue is only in SQL 2000.
Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Note: I have also checked
using netstat -a to see if all ports were being used and that is not the
case. This is happening on more than one users connection and I am certain
it is not network based - ping 100%, can browse, two locations within
building etc.
Note: Problems occur regardless if client is at Service Pack 2 or 1.
I have checked the event log on the server and nothing reported. I have
checked the error logs in the SQL directory of Logs and nothing reported.
Any suggestion as to what other logs (if any) to look at?
Thank you for your assistance.
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
> Hi
> Installing DNS on every server will not solve your problem.
> DNS Service in Windows 2003 is reliable so there is not need to setup many
> of them.
> What the the exact error number and error messages you are getting? Are any
> errors logged in the SQL Event Log?
> Regards
> Mike
> "Cstewart" wrote:
> > We are having numerous issues with disconnects after upgrading our PDC to a
> > Windows 2003 environment. We have several Windows 2000 Servers running SQL
> > Databases that users connect to. The issue as described in my post found
> > under client connections is that the network connection is good but we are
> > getting RPC errors & "The object invoked disconnected message". Our Windows
> > 2003 Server is running DNS. It was suggested by a developer to install the
> > DNS windows components found under networking on all other servers.
> >
> > Will this work? Or will we cause DNS issues as a result of it?
> >
> >

DNS on Windows 2000 Server & Windows 2003 Server

We are having numerous issues with disconnects after upgrading our PDC to a
Windows 2003 environment. We have several Windows 2000 Servers running SQL
Databases that users connect to. The issue as described in my post found
under client connections is that the network connection is good but we are
getting RPC errors & "The object invoked disconnected message". Our Windows
2003 Server is running DNS. It was suggested by a developer to install the
DNS windows components found under networking on all other servers.
Will this work? Or will we cause DNS issues as a result of it?
Hi
Installing DNS on every server will not solve your problem.
DNS Service in Windows 2003 is reliable so there is not need to setup many
of them.
What the the exact error number and error messages you are getting? Are any
errors logged in the SQL Event Log?
Regards
Mike
"Cstewart" wrote:

> We are having numerous issues with disconnects after upgrading our PDC to a
> Windows 2003 environment. We have several Windows 2000 Servers running SQL
> Databases that users connect to. The issue as described in my post found
> under client connections is that the network connection is good but we are
> getting RPC errors & "The object invoked disconnected message". Our Windows
> 2003 Server is running DNS. It was suggested by a developer to install the
> DNS windows components found under networking on all other servers.
> Will this work? Or will we cause DNS issues as a result of it?
>
|||The errors that are appearing on the client side are as follows:
"The object invoked has disconnected from its clients" and/or "RPC server
unavailable"
Here is more information that I posted previously:
We have recently upgraded our main server from NT4 to Active Directory
(Windows 2003 Server). Our SQL Database is 2000 and is running on a Windows
2000 Server Box. We use com+ components to connect to our database. Since
the change on our PDC to 2003 Server AD, we have had several errors such as
"The object invoked has disconnected from its clients" as well as RPC Server
Unavailable. This occurs even when the user is consistently active. We have
applied latest Windows Service Pack to clients xp sp2 and to the windows 2000
server box. If you reboot the server and or/stop services (Com+ and Dcom) on
the client end, they can get back in. You can browse to the machine no
problem through exporer - right to the database. Issue is only in SQL 2000.
Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Note: I have also checked
using netstat -a to see if all ports were being used and that is not the
case. This is happening on more than one users connection and I am certain
it is not network based - ping 100%, can browse, two locations within
building etc.
Note: Problems occur regardless if client is at Service Pack 2 or 1.
I have checked the event log on the server and nothing reported. I have
checked the error logs in the SQL directory of Logs and nothing reported.
Any suggestion as to what other logs (if any) to look at?
Thank you for your assistance.
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi
> Installing DNS on every server will not solve your problem.
> DNS Service in Windows 2003 is reliable so there is not need to setup many
> of them.
> What the the exact error number and error messages you are getting? Are any
> errors logged in the SQL Event Log?
> Regards
> Mike
> "Cstewart" wrote:

Distributor server

I have a merge replication environment with 1 publisher/distributor in the
same machine and 3 subscribers with a lot of data to merge. The link between
them is slow.
I'm with performance problems with my applications I think that job
replications could be punish this performance.
Setup another machine to be a Distributor Server is a good idea ?
thank you for assistance.
Tony
Absolutely not. The location of the distribution server has little impact
with merge replication.
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
"toryi" <toryi@.ig.com.br> wrote in message
news:%23oqjrx6AFHA.3504@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> I have a merge replication environment with 1 publisher/distributor in the
> same machine and 3 subscribers with a lot of data to merge. The link
between
> them is slow.
> I'm with performance problems with my applications I think that job
> replications could be punish this performance.
> Setup another machine to be a Distributor Server is a good idea ?
> thank you for assistance.
> Tony
>
|||What advantage I'll have in setup another machine to be a Distributor server
?
"Hilary Cotter" <hilary.cotter@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23iuKZW7AFHA.3016@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Absolutely not. The location of the distribution server has little impact
> with merge replication.
> --
> Hilary Cotter
> Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
> "toryi" <toryi@.ig.com.br> wrote in message
> news:%23oqjrx6AFHA.3504@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
the
> between
>

Distributed Transactions Co-ordinator

We are running MS SQL Server 2000, on Windows 2003, and the environment is
locked down to the nth degree.
We are running Distributed Transactions and Java, and are experiencing
problems. We are being told that the reason is because we have COM+
disabled. And that we are likely to experience many other inexplainable
problems if we don't enable it.
The build we have is a standard build, and we have other SQL Server
implementations running with no issue.
Is COM+ required to run SQL Server, Distributed Transactions or allow
connectivitiy in to the database through JAVA?
Thanks
BevNot COM+, you just need MSDTC a very small piece; so you do need to have:
1) The MSDTC service running (NET START MSDTC)
2) The MSDTC service enable for network transactions, which by default on
Windows Server 2003 is turned off, see
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;817064 "How to
enable network DTC access in Windows Server 2003", you can set this with
MMC, start mmc %windir%\system32\com\comexp.msc
GertD@.SQLDev.Net
Please reply only to the newsgroups.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
You assume all risk for your use.
Copyright © SQLDev.Net 1991-2004 All rights reserved.
"Beverley" <Beverley@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0D039C49-8F62-44D4-A62B-4EE31BE43862@.microsoft.com...
> We are running MS SQL Server 2000, on Windows 2003, and the environment is
> locked down to the nth degree.
> We are running Distributed Transactions and Java, and are experiencing
> problems. We are being told that the reason is because we have COM+
> disabled. And that we are likely to experience many other inexplainable
> problems if we don't enable it.
> The build we have is a standard build, and we have other SQL Server
> implementations running with no issue.
> Is COM+ required to run SQL Server, Distributed Transactions or allow
> connectivitiy in to the database through JAVA?
> Thanks
> Bev

Distributed Transactions Co-ordinator

We are running MS SQL Server 2000, on Windows 2003, and the environment is
locked down to the nth degree.
We are running Distributed Transactions and Java, and are experiencing
problems. We are being told that the reason is because we have COM+
disabled. And that we are likely to experience many other inexplainable
problems if we don't enable it.
The build we have is a standard build, and we have other SQL Server
implementations running with no issue.
Is COM+ required to run SQL Server, Distributed Transactions or allow
connectivitiy in to the database through JAVA?
Thanks
Bev
Not COM+, you just need MSDTC a very small piece; so you do need to have:
1) The MSDTC service running (NET START MSDTC)
2) The MSDTC service enable for network transactions, which by default on
Windows Server 2003 is turned off, see
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;817064 "How to
enable network DTC access in Windows Server 2003", you can set this with
MMC, start mmc %windir%\system32\com\comexp.msc
GertD@.SQLDev.Net
Please reply only to the newsgroups.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
You assume all risk for your use.
Copyright SQLDev.Net 1991-2004 All rights reserved.
"Beverley" <Beverley@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0D039C49-8F62-44D4-A62B-4EE31BE43862@.microsoft.com...
> We are running MS SQL Server 2000, on Windows 2003, and the environment is
> locked down to the nth degree.
> We are running Distributed Transactions and Java, and are experiencing
> problems. We are being told that the reason is because we have COM+
> disabled. And that we are likely to experience many other inexplainable
> problems if we don't enable it.
> The build we have is a standard build, and we have other SQL Server
> implementations running with no issue.
> Is COM+ required to run SQL Server, Distributed Transactions or allow
> connectivitiy in to the database through JAVA?
> Thanks
> Bev

Distributed Transactions Co-ordinator

We are running MS SQL Server 2000, on Windows 2003, and the environment is
locked down to the nth degree.
We are running Distributed Transactions and Java, and are experiencing
problems. We are being told that the reason is because we have COM+
disabled. And that we are likely to experience many other inexplainable
problems if we don't enable it.
The build we have is a standard build, and we have other SQL Server
implementations running with no issue.
Is COM+ required to run SQL Server, Distributed Transactions or allow
connectivitiy in to the database through JAVA?
Thanks
BevNot COM+, you just need MSDTC a very small piece; so you do need to have:
1) The MSDTC service running (NET START MSDTC)
2) The MSDTC service enable for network transactions, which by default on
Windows Server 2003 is turned off, see
http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...kb;en-us;817064 "How to
enable network DTC access in Windows Server 2003", you can set this with
MMC, start mmc %windir%\system32\com\comexp.msc
GertD@.SQLDev.Net
Please reply only to the newsgroups.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
You assume all risk for your use.
Copyright SQLDev.Net 1991-2004 All rights reserved.
"Beverley" <Beverley@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0D039C49-8F62-44D4-A62B-4EE31BE43862@.microsoft.com...
> We are running MS SQL Server 2000, on Windows 2003, and the environment is
> locked down to the nth degree.
> We are running Distributed Transactions and Java, and are experiencing
> problems. We are being told that the reason is because we have COM+
> disabled. And that we are likely to experience many other inexplainable
> problems if we don't enable it.
> The build we have is a standard build, and we have other SQL Server
> implementations running with no issue.
> Is COM+ required to run SQL Server, Distributed Transactions or allow
> connectivitiy in to the database through JAVA?
> Thanks
> Bev

Distributed system patterns - SQL Server deployment

DEV ENVIRONMENT: .NET and some COM
DATABASE: SQL Server 2000
CLIENT OS: Win2K, WinXP
SERVER OS: Win2K3
Greetings,
I have a client who insists on having their customers in separate SQL
databases for an online component. I instinctively feel that a consolidated
database for all clients is the "natural" way to implement. Here's the
system setup:
1) Several hundred clients have an n-tier client/server system at THEIR site
(A). They use this system to run their business and serve THEIR customers
(B)
2) We host and operate an online system (C) for these several hundred
clients
that provides an online presence that THEIR customers (B) can use ...
therefore a database now exists at site (A) and at the web site online (C).
These databases get synchronized. Both databases serve the client base (B).
In conclusion, some technical arguments for the one consolidated database at
site (C) are:
i.) Less server resources in terms of database connection pools since these
are usually connect string dependent
ii) Easier reporting (across clients)
iii) Scaling past several hundred clients seems scary (i.e. 1000, 2000, 3000
SQL databases ?)
Proponents for a multiple database scenario have these arguments
i.) Separate SQL Server files (MDB) limit risk of data corruption to 1
client at a time
ii.) Easier to partition if clients ever decided to HOST their own online
presence.
iii) Increased security (perceived or real)
Please provide any feedback or arguments for either side.
Thanks in advance.
Bert Nieves
Software Consultant
bert89@.yahoo.comBert Nieves (bert89@.yahoo.com) writes:
> I have a client who insists on having their customers in separate SQL
> databases for an online component. I instinctively feel that a
> consolidated database for all clients is the "natural" way to implement.
> ...
> In conclusion, some technical arguments for the one consolidated
> database at site (C) are:
> i.) Less server resources in terms of database connection pools since
> these are usually connect string dependent
> ii) Easier reporting (across clients)
> iii) Scaling past several hundred clients seems scary (i.e. 1000, 2000,
> 3000 SQL databases ?)
> Proponents for a multiple database scenario have these arguments
> i.) Separate SQL Server files (MDB) limit risk of data corruption to 1
> client at a time
> ii.) Easier to partition if clients ever decided to HOST their own online
> presence.
> iii) Increased security (perceived or real)
Of these I would consider point ii) of the pro arguments and iii) of the
contra arguments to be the most important.
If you need to do reporting for one client over all their customers, then
one database per customer is not going to be fun. But you could have jobs
which extracts data from the smaller databases into a big reporting
database.
On the other hand, if your client's customers will have access to the
databases themselves, and it is instrumental that these customer cannot
see the slightest of some other customer's data, this a very strong
argument for separate databases. Yes, you can solve this with views,
stored procedures etc, but it takes just one bug to ruin the users'
confidence in the system.
As for scaling, you probably scale better with more databases, because
you can then easily distribute the databases on several boxes.
One thing you don't mention, is that many databases will require more
effort into setting up backup routines etc.
In the end, this is a trade-off between business requirements and cost
of ownership. One big database is probably cheaper - unless the business
requiresments for separating customers from each other is very high.
--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, sommar@.algonet.se
Books Online for SQL Server SP3 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techinfo/productdoc/2000/books.asp

distributed query runs indefinitely

Matt,
I never tire of queries I'm just very pressed for time
at the moment as we're in the middle of moving our
servers to a hosted environment and I'm managing the
database side of things. If possible, I'll take a look
late this afternoon (UK time) if nobody else has replied.
Rgds,
Paul Ibison (SQL Server MVP)
Paul,
Thanx, I greatly appreciate any time you can set aside whenever it is
Hope your transition goes smoothly,
Matt
|||Matt,
please try this type of approach:
CREATE TRIGGER ti_tst ON [dbo].[tst]
FOR INSERT
AS
set xact_abort on
insert into [dhsrvskh504\stst].dba_admin.dbo.tst (name)
select name from inserted
This works fine for me - hopefully for you as well.
Rgds,
Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com
(recommended sql server 2000 replication book:
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)
|||Matt,
if you still have problems, please look at these
troubleshooting guides:
http://www.kbalertz.com/Feedback.aspx?kbNumber=250367
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/306212
Rgds,
Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com
(recommended sql server 2000 replication book:
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)
|||Paul,
I greatly appreciate all help that you have provided. It appears that what
you have telling me the whole time was correct. After much looking,
searching, and cussing I found that it was a problem with windows 2003 and
the way it handles RPC requests. For any other here is a link to article to
work around.
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=555017
Once again thank you for all your help through this.
Matt