@!#$%^&*( SSL/TLS

OK, I have a fresh installation. I installed SSL prior to SQL Server 2005 and let the installer create the default configuration. SSL is working, cert auth is in place. Started up Report Manager and it is working. Tried out Report Builder and it is working just fine. I go to run some reports, I get the parameters (some are dynamic) working fine. When I go to render the report I get the almighty dreaded

The underlying connection was closed: Could not establish trust relationship for the SSL/TLS secure channel. The remote certificate is invalid according to the validation procedure.

Anyone have any ideas what is going on?

Report Server Virtual directory is set to 3 - All Soap APIs.

Just to recap, Report Manager, OK. Report Builder, OK, Params OK, Report Data, NOT OK.

R

Just found out, it isn't asking for credentials. Looks like it is trying to use ASPNET. Now I am lost.

Hi Ron. I'm having the exact same issue as you, and I'm also completely lost. I even can see the reports from ReportServer (https://myserver:mysslport/ReportServer), but not from Report Manager. Have you find any clue on this?

Thanks,

Julio

@!#$%^&*( SSL/TLS

OK, I have a fresh installation. I installed SSL prior to SQL Server 2005 and let the installer create the default configuration. SSL is working, cert auth is in place. Started up Report Manager and it is working. Tried out Report Builder and it is working just fine. I go to run some reports, I get the parameters (some are dynamic) working fine. When I go to render the report I get the almighty dreaded

The underlying connection was closed: Could not establish trust relationship for the SSL/TLS secure channel. The remote certificate is invalid according to the validation procedure.

Anyone have any ideas what is going on?

Report Server Virtual directory is set to 3 - All Soap APIs.

Just to recap, Report Manager, OK. Report Builder, OK, Params OK, Report Data, NOT OK.

R

Just found out, it isn't asking for credentials. Looks like it is trying to use ASPNET. Now I am lost.

Hi Ron. I'm having the exact same issue as you, and I'm also completely lost. I even can see the reports from ReportServer (https://myserver:mysslport/ReportServer), but not from Report Manager. Have you find any clue on this?

Thanks,

Julio

|||I was also having this problem and found a solution here:
http://ezra.auerbach.co.il/?postid=7

You need to add the root certifacate of the one being used by the sharepoint and reporting services IIS sites to the computer's Trusted Root Authorities.sql

Turning Off TCP/IP Client Has No Effect ?

Hi Everyone,
I was doing some testing with client configuration and I'm seeing
something I don't understand. Let me explain the setup.
My setup involves a single machine running "SQL Server Express 2005".
As you probably know, SSE includes the "SQL Server Native Client". I
run the "SQL Server Configuration Manager" and under the "SQL Native
Client Configuration" | "Client Protocols" node, I disable TCP/IP. My
understanding is that this should prevent clients on this machine from
using TCP/IP to connect to any SQL Server instance. Does this sound
right so far?
Well, when I run SQLCMD (specifying "tcp:" as the protocol) I am still
able to connect to the instance on the local machine.
In other words, I have TCP/IP disabled as a client protocol, yet I am
still able to successfully connect to an instance using SQLCMD with a
command line like this:
SQLCMD -S tcp:.\TEST_01 -d AdventureWorks
Now, it's my understanding that SQLCMD relies upon the "SQL Server
Native Client". And since I've (supposedly) configured the "SQL Server
Native Client" *NOT* to allow TCP/IP connections, the above SQLCMD
connection should not work, yet it does.
What am I missing here?
AlanDid you stop and restart the service after disabling TCP/IP
protocol? The settings won't take effect until after you
restart the service.
-Sue
On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 01:38:29 -0500, "Alan Foxmore"
<AFoxmore@.yahoo.com> wrote:

>Hi Everyone,
>I was doing some testing with client configuration and I'm seeing
>something I don't understand. Let me explain the setup.
>My setup involves a single machine running "SQL Server Express 2005".
>As you probably know, SSE includes the "SQL Server Native Client". I
>run the "SQL Server Configuration Manager" and under the "SQL Native
>Client Configuration" | "Client Protocols" node, I disable TCP/IP. My
>understanding is that this should prevent clients on this machine from
>using TCP/IP to connect to any SQL Server instance. Does this sound
>right so far?
>Well, when I run SQLCMD (specifying "tcp:" as the protocol) I am still
>able to connect to the instance on the local machine.
>In other words, I have TCP/IP disabled as a client protocol, yet I am
>still able to successfully connect to an instance using SQLCMD with a
>command line like this:
>SQLCMD -S tcp:.\TEST_01 -d AdventureWorks
>Now, it's my understanding that SQLCMD relies upon the "SQL Server
>Native Client". And since I've (supposedly) configured the "SQL Server
>Native Client" *NOT* to allow TCP/IP connections, the above SQLCMD
>connection should not work, yet it does.
>What am I missing here?

: Preferred disk raid config when using SQL Server 2005

Hello all,
If you are planning on installing SQL Server 2005 on a WIndows 2003 SP1
server, is there a "preferred" disk configuration that gives redundancy
and fast performance? I was going to go hardware raid 5, but I fear
slow performance under heavy load. Any suggestions or ideas? Is there
a SQL Server best practice for this?
Thank you in advance for your help, ideas, and/or suggestions!
- Mike
Listoff wrote:
> Hello all,
> If you are planning on installing SQL Server 2005 on a WIndows 2003 SP1
> server, is there a "preferred" disk configuration that gives redundancy
> and fast performance? I was going to go hardware raid 5, but I fear
> slow performance under heavy load. Any suggestions or ideas? Is there
> a SQL Server best practice for this?
> Thank you in advance for your help, ideas, and/or suggestions!
> - Mike
>
Mike,
There are a lot of different opinions on this subject, but generally
it's best practice to seperate database files, logfiles and OS
files/tempdb on different disk arrays.
Depending on your load and application, it can be worth putting tempdb
on it's own array as well, but I'd say that in many cases it will be ok
to have tempdb together with the OS. Furthermore you could also consider
putting your swap file somewhere different from the OS drive, but in
most cases I don't think it will be worth the effort.
When it comes to RAID, there're also many different opinions, but again
I think that most people will agree that an ok setup will be to put you
OS on RAID 1, Databasefiles on RAID 5 and logfiles on RAID 1 (or 1+0).
This will be a decent setup in most cases. If you have enough
disks/money, you could put you databasefiles on a RAID 10 which in some
situations will perform better than RAID 5.
Bottomline is that you gain the most by ensuring that you split OS,
database file and logfile on physical different units (disks) and then
avoiding RAID 5 for your logfiles. What ever you do after that in terms
of RAID configuration, arrays on different controllers etc. will give
you "slightly" better performance, but might be to little to be noticed
by your users.
Last, but not least, you should also consider where you put you backup
files. Best of all you put them on their own array - both from a
performance and safety point of view. IF you only plan to do backup once
a day or so, it might not matter much in terms of performance, but if
you do logfile backup every 15 minutes on a heavy loaded server, it
might make a difference.
HTH
Regards
Steen
|||Wow! That makes a lot of sense and helps out a lot! Thank you guys
for your help! -Mike

: Preferred disk raid config when using SQL Server 2005

Hello all,
If you are planning on installing SQL Server 2005 on a WIndows 2003 SP1
server, is there a "preferred" disk configuration that gives redundancy
and fast performance? I was going to go hardware raid 5, but I fear
slow performance under heavy load. Any suggestions or ideas? Is there
a SQL Server best practice for this?
Thank you in advance for your help, ideas, and/or suggestions!
- MikeListoff wrote:
> Hello all,
> If you are planning on installing SQL Server 2005 on a WIndows 2003 SP1
> server, is there a "preferred" disk configuration that gives redundancy
> and fast performance? I was going to go hardware raid 5, but I fear
> slow performance under heavy load. Any suggestions or ideas? Is there
> a SQL Server best practice for this?
> Thank you in advance for your help, ideas, and/or suggestions!
> - Mike
>
Mike,
There are a lot of different opinions on this subject, but generally
it's best practice to seperate database files, logfiles and OS
files/tempdb on different disk arrays.
Depending on your load and application, it can be worth putting tempdb
on it's own array as well, but I'd say that in many cases it will be ok
to have tempdb together with the OS. Furthermore you could also consider
putting your swap file somewhere different from the OS drive, but in
most cases I don't think it will be worth the effort.
When it comes to RAID, there're also many different opinions, but again
I think that most people will agree that an ok setup will be to put you
OS on RAID 1, Databasefiles on RAID 5 and logfiles on RAID 1 (or 1+0).
This will be a decent setup in most cases. If you have enough
disks/money, you could put you databasefiles on a RAID 10 which in some
situations will perform better than RAID 5.
Bottomline is that you gain the most by ensuring that you split OS,
database file and logfile on physical different units (disks) and then
avoiding RAID 5 for your logfiles. What ever you do after that in terms
of RAID configuration, arrays on different controllers etc. will give
you "slightly" better performance, but might be to little to be noticed
by your users.
Last, but not least, you should also consider where you put you backup
files. Best of all you put them on their own array - both from a
performance and safety point of view. IF you only plan to do backup once
a day or so, it might not matter much in terms of performance, but if
you do logfile backup every 15 minutes on a heavy loaded server, it
might make a difference.
HTH
Regards
Steen|||Wow! That makes a lot of sense and helps out a lot! Thank you guys
for your help! -Mike

: Preferred disk raid config when using SQL Server 2005

Hello all,
If you are planning on installing SQL Server 2005 on a WIndows 2003 SP1
server, is there a "preferred" disk configuration that gives redundancy
and fast performance? I was going to go hardware raid 5, but I fear
slow performance under heavy load. Any suggestions or ideas? Is there
a SQL Server best practice for this?
Thank you in advance for your help, ideas, and/or suggestions!
- MikeRAID 0+1
"Listoff" <fastxlr8r@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131642400.414148.236860@.g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Hello all,
> If you are planning on installing SQL Server 2005 on a WIndows 2003 SP1
> server, is there a "preferred" disk configuration that gives redundancy
> and fast performance? I was going to go hardware raid 5, but I fear
> slow performance under heavy load. Any suggestions or ideas? Is there
> a SQL Server best practice for this?|||Listoff wrote:
> Hello all,
> If you are planning on installing SQL Server 2005 on a WIndows 2003 SP1
> server, is there a "preferred" disk configuration that gives redundancy
> and fast performance? I was going to go hardware raid 5, but I fear
> slow performance under heavy load. Any suggestions or ideas? Is there
> a SQL Server best practice for this?
> Thank you in advance for your help, ideas, and/or suggestions!
> - Mike
>
Mike,
There are a lot of different opinions on this subject, but generally
it's best practice to seperate database files, logfiles and OS
files/tempdb on different disk arrays.
Depending on your load and application, it can be worth putting tempdb
on it's own array as well, but I'd say that in many cases it will be ok
to have tempdb together with the OS. Furthermore you could also consider
putting your swap file somewhere different from the OS drive, but in
most cases I don't think it will be worth the effort.
When it comes to RAID, there're also many different opinions, but again
I think that most people will agree that an ok setup will be to put you
OS on RAID 1, Databasefiles on RAID 5 and logfiles on RAID 1 (or 1+0).
This will be a decent setup in most cases. If you have enough
disks/money, you could put you databasefiles on a RAID 10 which in some
situations will perform better than RAID 5.
Bottomline is that you gain the most by ensuring that you split OS,
database file and logfile on physical different units (disks) and then
avoiding RAID 5 for your logfiles. What ever you do after that in terms
of RAID configuration, arrays on different controllers etc. will give
you "slightly" better performance, but might be to little to be noticed
by your users.
Last, but not least, you should also consider where you put you backup
files. Best of all you put them on their own array - both from a
performance and safety point of view. IF you only plan to do backup once
a day or so, it might not matter much in terms of performance, but if
you do logfile backup every 15 minutes on a heavy loaded server, it
might make a difference.
HTH
Regards
Steen|||Wow! That makes a lot of sense and helps out a lot! Thank you guys
for your help! -Mike

/Reports and /ReportServer errors

I get the following messages in both the /Reports and /ReportServer
applications.
Server Error in '/Reports' Application
----
Configuration Error
Description: An error occurred during the processing of a configuration file
required to service this request. Please review the specific error details
below and modify your configuration file appropriately.
Parser Error Message: The XML file
c:\winnt\microsoft.net\framework\v1.1.4322\Config\machine.config could not be
loaded. Attempted to access an unloaded AppDomain.
Source Error:
[No relevant source lines]
Source File:
c:\winnt\microsoft.net\framework\v1.1.4322\Config\machine.config Line: 0
----
Version Information: Microsoft .NET Framework Version:1.1.4322.573; ASP.NET
Version:1.1.4322.573
And then:
Server Error in '/ReportServer' Application
----
Configuration Error
Description: An error occurred during the processing of a configuration file
required to service this request. Please review the specific error details
below and modify your configuration file appropriately.
Parser Error Message: The XML file
c:\winnt\microsoft.net\framework\v1.1.4322\Config\machine.config could not be
loaded. The process cannot access the file
"c:\winnt\microsoft.net\framework\v1.1.4322\Config\machine.config" because it
is being used by another process.
Source Error:
[No relevant source lines]
Source File:
c:\winnt\microsoft.net\framework\v1.1.4322\Config\machine.config Line: 0
----
Version Information: Microsoft .NET Framework Version:1.1.4322.573; ASP.NET
Version:1.1.4322.573
Any clues?I had this problem and found the solution in an earlier post: "Re: Report
Manager Config Error 8/31/2004 2:50 PM PST".
Turn off your anti-virus software and if that fixes the problem then exclude
the reporting services folder and sub-folders from scanning.
Personally I disable the virus scanning when I'm working with ASP.NET
applications as I noticed it affects performance generally.
Grahame
"Dan Fell" wrote:
> I get the following messages in both the /Reports and /ReportServer
> applications.
> Server Error in '/Reports' Application.
> ----
> Configuration Error
> Description: An error occurred during the processing of a configuration file
> required to service this request. Please review the specific error details
> below and modify your configuration file appropriately.
> Parser Error Message: The XML file
> c:\winnt\microsoft.net\framework\v1.1.4322\Config\machine.config could not be
> loaded. Attempted to access an unloaded AppDomain.
> Source Error:
> [No relevant source lines]
> Source File:
> c:\winnt\microsoft.net\framework\v1.1.4322\Config\machine.config Line: 0
> ----
> Version Information: Microsoft .NET Framework Version:1.1.4322.573; ASP.NET
> Version:1.1.4322.573
> And then:
> Server Error in '/ReportServer' Application.
> ----
> Configuration Error
> Description: An error occurred during the processing of a configuration file
> required to service this request. Please review the specific error details
> below and modify your configuration file appropriately.
> Parser Error Message: The XML file
> c:\winnt\microsoft.net\framework\v1.1.4322\Config\machine.config could not be
> loaded. The process cannot access the file
> "c:\winnt\microsoft.net\framework\v1.1.4322\Config\machine.config" because it
> is being used by another process.
> Source Error:
> [No relevant source lines]
> Source File:
> c:\winnt\microsoft.net\framework\v1.1.4322\Config\machine.config Line: 0
> ----
> Version Information: Microsoft .NET Framework Version:1.1.4322.573; ASP.NET
> Version:1.1.4322.573
> Any clues?

.NET FW SDK QuickStart SQL-Express Error: Msg 102 ... Incorrect syntax.

Hi,

I have followed the steps from the .NET FW SDK QuickStart Configuration (C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio 8\SDK\v2.0\Samples\Setup\html\ConfigDetails.htm), and have got an error message trying to grant the ASP.NET User account access to the databases by the command sqlcmd -E -S (local)\SQLExpress -Q "sp_grantlogin LEONEW\ASPNET" where LEONEW is my local machine name, and the ASPNET account exists in the Users group.

I am getting the error message: Msg 102, Level 15, State 1, Server LEONEW\SQLEXPRESS, Line 1
Incorrect syntax near '\'.

Please help if you know how to resolve this. Thanks in advance.

Alex.

Did you try putting apostrophes around the login name:

'LEONEW\ASPNET'

|||I have tried with no success sqlcmd -E -S (local)\SQLExpress -Q "sp_grantlogin N' LEONEW\ASPNET'".|||

Do you get the same error?

What about

sqlcmd -E -S (local)\SQLExpress -Q "sp_grantlogin 'LEONEW\ASPNET'"

If I use it without the apostrophes I get the same error as you:

Msg 102, Level 15, State 1, Server <...>, Line 1
Incorrect syntax near '\'.

If I add the apostrophes the command succeeds.

|||You are absolutely right. Thanks.

.NET config file for Custom event Provider?

Hello all,

I'm creating a custom event provider for SSNS 2005 using .NET. My custom provider needs to get configuration info from a file (e.g. app.config).

Is there any (acceptable?) way of making my config file data available to my provider if I'd like my provider to be hosted by SSNS? Perhaps I could hack it by making or adding to an app.config for some part of SSNS (the instance service executable perhaps?) but that doesn't sound appetizing.

The only thing I can think of is to force my event provider to run as a standalone EXE (which means a standard app.config should work).

Help?

OK, I found that it is quite simple to use a specific config file for my DLL (especially using EntLib).

However, issues with codebases and so forth for dependent assemblies has turned me to switch. I'm now using a standalone event provider because it avoids all these issues around config files, dependencies, and so forth (everyhing is simply in one standard bin folder).

.NET config file for Custom event Provider?

Hello all,

I'm creating a custom event provider for SSNS 2005 using .NET. My custom provider needs to get configuration info from a file (e.g. app.config).

Is there any (acceptable?) way of making my config file data available to my provider if I'd like my provider to be hosted by SSNS? Perhaps I could hack it by making or adding to an app.config for some part of SSNS (the instance service executable perhaps?) but that doesn't sound appetizing.

The only thing I can think of is to force my event provider to run as a standalone EXE (which means a standard app.config should work).

Help?

OK, I found that it is quite simple to use a specific config file for my DLL (especially using EntLib).

However, issues with codebases and so forth for dependent assemblies has turned me to switch. I'm now using a standalone event provider because it avoids all these issues around config files, dependencies, and so forth (everyhing is simply in one standard bin folder).