Showing posts with label idea. Show all posts
Showing posts with label idea. Show all posts

Monday, March 19, 2012

Collapsing/Expanding Group Data in Table and Matrix Data Regions

Hi,

Is it possible to create Expand/Collapse functionality for the grouped data in Table and Matrix data regions? Essentially, the idea is for the user to be able to see the group/subgroup data if she wishes to by clicking on (+/-) symbols, as is usually the case in Tree View style data grid control in web apps. Any ideas how to accomplish the same in reporting services?

Thanks.

Never mind... I found it in the Tutorials How-To topics under grouping data regions section.

Friday, February 24, 2012

Clusters idea. Guidance Please.

i have been tasked to add fault tolerance to a SQL 2000 server we have that
holds the databases for a Sharepoint Server.
I am not going to get the funds to make it a SQL Cluster, and SQL 2005 is
just not going to be used ever, so that new funky disk mirroring is out.
The good news is that this Sharepoint site is almost entirely static. I am
the only person who publishes content, so the databases do not have many
changes. System performance is not an issue.
Don't ask why I am using Sharepoint like this; I inherited this beast. But i
will say that because of the massive amount of custom programming done, you
would never know you are looking at a sharepoint portal.
So here is my thought:
I have two different NIC teams in these servers.
Set up replication between two sql servers and then join them in an NLB
(Network Load Balancing) Cluster.
Am I missing something? Will this work?Aside from the fact that replication in SQL 2000 does not include DDL
statements or stored procedures or views or a lot of other things, you have
a good idea. Seriously, fault tolerance is a very good idea. Fault
tolerance on zero budget is willful stupidity on the part of management. I
suggest researching all recovery scenarios, starting with backup-restore,
moving up to log shipping, then failover clustering. Show the pros and
cons, focusing on potential data loss and estimated recovery times. Include
realistic cost estimates for each option. You can even include Database
Mirroring as an option but with SQL 2005 as a pre-requisite. Also, examine
third-party options that do something akin to DB mirroring at the file
level. Some actually work, but make them demonstrate it befoer plunking
down your money.
Your job is not to make up something for nothing, it is to present realistic
options to the business decision makers and to implement their choices. If
they choose not to listen and to demand the impossible, then it is time to
find a job where failure isn't mandatory.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Manny Borges" <MannyBorges@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9FEEB93C-D3EB-4790-9379-6BD24531C0F1@.microsoft.com...
>i have been tasked to add fault tolerance to a SQL 2000 server we have that
> holds the databases for a Sharepoint Server.
> I am not going to get the funds to make it a SQL Cluster, and SQL 2005 is
> just not going to be used ever, so that new funky disk mirroring is out.
> The good news is that this Sharepoint site is almost entirely static. I am
> the only person who publishes content, so the databases do not have many
> changes. System performance is not an issue.
> Don't ask why I am using Sharepoint like this; I inherited this beast. But
> i
> will say that because of the massive amount of custom programming done,
> you
> would never know you are looking at a sharepoint portal.
> So here is my thought:
> I have two different NIC teams in these servers.
> Set up replication between two sql servers and then join them in an NLB
> (Network Load Balancing) Cluster.
>
> Am I missing something? Will this work?

Clusters idea. Guidance Please.

i have been tasked to add fault tolerance to a SQL 2000 server we have that
holds the databases for a Sharepoint Server.
I am not going to get the funds to make it a SQL Cluster, and SQL 2005 is
just not going to be used ever, so that new funky disk mirroring is out.
The good news is that this Sharepoint site is almost entirely static. I am
the only person who publishes content, so the databases do not have many
changes. System performance is not an issue.
Don't ask why I am using Sharepoint like this; I inherited this beast. But i
will say that because of the massive amount of custom programming done, you
would never know you are looking at a sharepoint portal.
So here is my thought:
I have two different NIC teams in these servers.
Set up replication between two sql servers and then join them in an NLB
(Network Load Balancing) Cluster.
Am I missing something? Will this work?Aside from the fact that replication in SQL 2000 does not include DDL
statements or stored procedures or views or a lot of other things, you have
a good idea. Seriously, fault tolerance is a very good idea. Fault
tolerance on zero budget is willful stupidity on the part of management. I
suggest researching all recovery scenarios, starting with backup-restore,
moving up to log shipping, then failover clustering. Show the pros and
cons, focusing on potential data loss and estimated recovery times. Include
realistic cost estimates for each option. You can even include Database
Mirroring as an option but with SQL 2005 as a pre-requisite. Also, examine
third-party options that do something akin to DB mirroring at the file
level. Some actually work, but make them demonstrate it befoer plunking
down your money.
Your job is not to make up something for nothing, it is to present realistic
options to the business decision makers and to implement their choices. If
they choose not to listen and to demand the impossible, then it is time to
find a job where failure isn't mandatory.
--
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Manny Borges" <MannyBorges@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9FEEB93C-D3EB-4790-9379-6BD24531C0F1@.microsoft.com...
>i have been tasked to add fault tolerance to a SQL 2000 server we have that
> holds the databases for a Sharepoint Server.
> I am not going to get the funds to make it a SQL Cluster, and SQL 2005 is
> just not going to be used ever, so that new funky disk mirroring is out.
> The good news is that this Sharepoint site is almost entirely static. I am
> the only person who publishes content, so the databases do not have many
> changes. System performance is not an issue.
> Don't ask why I am using Sharepoint like this; I inherited this beast. But
> i
> will say that because of the massive amount of custom programming done,
> you
> would never know you are looking at a sharepoint portal.
> So here is my thought:
> I have two different NIC teams in these servers.
> Set up replication between two sql servers and then join them in an NLB
> (Network Load Balancing) Cluster.
>
> Am I missing something? Will this work?

Clusters idea. Guidance Please.

i have been tasked to add fault tolerance to a SQL 2000 server we have that
holds the databases for a Sharepoint Server.
I am not going to get the funds to make it a SQL Cluster, and SQL 2005 is
just not going to be used ever, so that new funky disk mirroring is out.
The good news is that this Sharepoint site is almost entirely static. I am
the only person who publishes content, so the databases do not have many
changes. System performance is not an issue.
Don't ask why I am using Sharepoint like this; I inherited this beast. But i
will say that because of the massive amount of custom programming done, you
would never know you are looking at a sharepoint portal.
So here is my thought:
I have two different NIC teams in these servers.
Set up replication between two sql servers and then join them in an NLB
(Network Load Balancing) Cluster.
Am I missing something? Will this work?
Aside from the fact that replication in SQL 2000 does not include DDL
statements or stored procedures or views or a lot of other things, you have
a good idea. Seriously, fault tolerance is a very good idea. Fault
tolerance on zero budget is willful stupidity on the part of management. I
suggest researching all recovery scenarios, starting with backup-restore,
moving up to log shipping, then failover clustering. Show the pros and
cons, focusing on potential data loss and estimated recovery times. Include
realistic cost estimates for each option. You can even include Database
Mirroring as an option but with SQL 2005 as a pre-requisite. Also, examine
third-party options that do something akin to DB mirroring at the file
level. Some actually work, but make them demonstrate it befoer plunking
down your money.
Your job is not to make up something for nothing, it is to present realistic
options to the business decision makers and to implement their choices. If
they choose not to listen and to demand the impossible, then it is time to
find a job where failure isn't mandatory.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Manny Borges" <MannyBorges@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9FEEB93C-D3EB-4790-9379-6BD24531C0F1@.microsoft.com...
>i have been tasked to add fault tolerance to a SQL 2000 server we have that
> holds the databases for a Sharepoint Server.
> I am not going to get the funds to make it a SQL Cluster, and SQL 2005 is
> just not going to be used ever, so that new funky disk mirroring is out.
> The good news is that this Sharepoint site is almost entirely static. I am
> the only person who publishes content, so the databases do not have many
> changes. System performance is not an issue.
> Don't ask why I am using Sharepoint like this; I inherited this beast. But
> i
> will say that because of the massive amount of custom programming done,
> you
> would never know you are looking at a sharepoint portal.
> So here is my thought:
> I have two different NIC teams in these servers.
> Set up replication between two sql servers and then join them in an NLB
> (Network Load Balancing) Cluster.
>
> Am I missing something? Will this work?

Thursday, February 16, 2012

Clustering

Can any one give me some idea regarding the major difference between working
in Clustering environment and Non Clustering environment with respect of SQL
SERVER.
Thanks
Joh hi,
The major difference is that you are able to run SQL in the second node,
even if the first had an enormous hardware error.
You can read in BOL the topic "Creating a Failover Cluster" as well as the
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;260758 article
HTH
Andreas
"Joh" wrote:

> Can any one give me some idea regarding the major difference between working
> in Clustering environment and Non Clustering environment with respect of SQL
> SERVER.
> Thanks
>
>
|||Thanks Andreas,
one more question I have a two systems and I want to implement the
clustering so can you guide me like step by step installation as well as
which software I have to used for ... I am totally new in clustering.
Thanks
"Andreas Mavrogenis" <AndreasMavrogenis@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:12145165-29BC-4C66-A138-46E8598A72C4@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Joh hi,
> The major difference is that you are able to run SQL in the second node,
> even if the first had an enormous hardware error.
> You can read in BOL the topic "Creating a Failover Cluster" as well as the
> http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;260758 article
> HTH
> Andreas
> "Joh" wrote:
working[vbcol=seagreen]
SQL[vbcol=seagreen]
|||Hi, Joh
You will have lots of hours reading! Also there are specific training
courses for that reason.
http://www.microsoft.com/learning/training/default.asp
White Paper: Windows Server 2003 Server Cluster Architecture
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserv...ercluster.mspx
Microsoft Cluster Service Installation Resources
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;259267
Installation order for SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition on Microsoft
Cluster Server
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;243218
HTH
Andreas
"Joh" wrote:

> Thanks Andreas,
> one more question I have a two systems and I want to implement the
> clustering so can you guide me like step by step installation as well as
> which software I have to used for ... I am totally new in clustering.
> Thanks
> "Andreas Mavrogenis" <AndreasMavrogenis@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
> message news:12145165-29BC-4C66-A138-46E8598A72C4@.microsoft.com...
> working
> SQL
>
>
|||Thanks Andreas
"Andreas Mavrogenis" <AndreasMavrogenis@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:54E16DAB-F178-4195-BC09-73757E224BB9@.microsoft.com...
> Hi, Joh
> You will have lots of hours reading! Also there are specific training
> courses for that reason.
> http://www.microsoft.com/learning/training/default.asp
> White Paper: Windows Server 2003 Server Cluster Architecture
>
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserv...ervercluster.m
spx[vbcol=seagreen]
> Microsoft Cluster Service Installation Resources
> http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;259267
> Installation order for SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition on Microsoft
> Cluster Server
> http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;243218
> HTH
> Andreas
>
> "Joh" wrote:
in[vbcol=seagreen]
node,[vbcol=seagreen]
the[vbcol=seagreen]
respect of[vbcol=seagreen]