Maintenance Jobs Failed

Hi
Recently I have moved sql 2005 from one box to another with bigger hdd space and more memory. Since then I am getting the attached error message when I Execute all the job.Hey Common Gurus Help Me out... since 24 hours no reply
Thanks|||Resolved the issue.. thanks...|||Can you please post your resolution?|||Follow the link, has complete solution...

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/903205sql

Maint plan: integerity check & backup

In the maintenance plans Integrity tab there is a check box for: "Preform
these tests before backing up the database, or transaction logs".
I want to be sure I understand this. If I check this box, does that mean an
integrity check (and potentially a repair) will run ANYTIME a database, OR
transaction log backup is run, as part of the backup procedure and that one
would not need to set a schedule for the integrity checks?
Given the posibility of the function locking the database (to do a repair),
I don't know if this is a good idea, or not.
JayKon wrote:
> In the maintenance plans Integrity tab there is a check box for: "Preform
> these tests before backing up the database, or transaction logs".
> I want to be sure I understand this. If I check this box, does that mean an
> integrity check (and potentially a repair) will run ANYTIME a database, OR
> transaction log backup is run, as part of the backup procedure and that one
> would not need to set a schedule for the integrity checks?
> Given the posibility of the function locking the database (to do a repair),
> I don't know if this is a good idea, or not.
Checking that box means that the maintenance plan will perform an
integrity check before running a backup. Running a backup manually,
from QA for instance, will NOT invoke an integrity check. I would
suggest NOT using this option.
Tracy McKibben
MCDBA
http://www.realsqlguy.com
|||What I thought, thanks guys.
"Hari Prasad" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Checking that option will verify the allocation and structural integrity of
> user and system tables, and indexes in the database.
> This will incur lots of resource usage and will lock resouces in SQL 2000.
> So I recommend you to schedule a DBCC CHECKDB during offpeak time.
> Thanks
> Hari
> "Tracy McKibben" wrote:

Maint plan: integerity check & backup

In the maintenance plans Integrity tab there is a check box for: "Preform
these tests before backing up the database, or transaction logs".
I want to be sure I understand this. If I check this box, does that mean an
integrity check (and potentially a repair) will run ANYTIME a database, OR
transaction log backup is run, as part of the backup procedure and that one
would not need to set a schedule for the integrity checks?
Given the posibility of the function locking the database (to do a repair),
I don't know if this is a good idea, or not.JayKon wrote:
> In the maintenance plans Integrity tab there is a check box for: "Preform
> these tests before backing up the database, or transaction logs".
> I want to be sure I understand this. If I check this box, does that mean a
n
> integrity check (and potentially a repair) will run ANYTIME a database, OR
> transaction log backup is run, as part of the backup procedure and that on
e
> would not need to set a schedule for the integrity checks?
> Given the posibility of the function locking the database (to do a repair)
,
> I don't know if this is a good idea, or not.
Checking that box means that the maintenance plan will perform an
integrity check before running a backup. Running a backup manually,
from QA for instance, will NOT invoke an integrity check. I would
suggest NOT using this option.
Tracy McKibben
MCDBA
http://www.realsqlguy.com|||Checking that option will verify the allocation and structural integrity of
user and system tables, and indexes in the database.
This will incur lots of resource usage and will lock resouces in SQL 2000.
So I recommend you to schedule a DBCC CHECKDB during offpeak time.
Thanks
Hari
"Tracy McKibben" wrote:

> JayKon wrote:
> Checking that box means that the maintenance plan will perform an
> integrity check before running a backup. Running a backup manually,
> from QA for instance, will NOT invoke an integrity check. I would
> suggest NOT using this option.
>
> --
> Tracy McKibben
> MCDBA
> http://www.realsqlguy.com
>|||What I thought, thanks guys.
"Hari Prasad" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Checking that option will verify the allocation and structural integrity o
f
> user and system tables, and indexes in the database.
> This will incur lots of resource usage and will lock resouces in SQL 2000.
> So I recommend you to schedule a DBCC CHECKDB during offpeak time.
> Thanks
> Hari
> "Tracy McKibben" wrote:
>

Mailing dba when Sql Server Agent Fails

Hello

I would like to have a script which mails the dba mail box when the sql server agent stops running. I am using the SMTP server for mailing.

I am using the query :
EXECUTE xp_servicecontrol 'QueryState', 'SQLSERVERAGENT'

to check the status.

I use the below for mailing :

EXEC master.dbo.xp_smtp_sendmail

@.FROM = N'testsql2000@.is.depaul.edu',

@.TO = N'dvaddi@.depaul.edu',

@.server = N'smtp.depaul.edu',

@.subject = N'Status of sqlserver!',

@.type = N'text/html',

@.message = @.message

How do I change it or write a script get a mail when the sql server agent is not running.

Thanks

You would need a script which checks the Agent, becasue there is no shutdown procedure which can be executed if the service becomes unavailable. The Script could either be executed from another Agent or from any scheduled component like AT / Winat of Windows.

HTH, Jens Suessmeyer.

http://www.sqlserver2005.de
|||

I know that , if there are 2 servers first server can monitor the 2nd server agent and vice-versa.

But I am not sure how to work on it or what script to run.

So it would be of great help if anyone can let me know.

Thanks

Mailing dba when Sql Server Agent Fails

Hello

I would like to have a script which mails the dba mail box when the sql server agent stops running. I am using the SMTP server for mailing.

I am using the query :
EXECUTE xp_servicecontrol 'QueryState', 'SQLSERVERAGENT'

to check the status.

I use the below for mailing :

EXEC master.dbo.xp_smtp_sendmail

@.FROM = N'testsql2000@.is.depaul.edu',

@.TO = N'dvaddi@.depaul.edu',

@.server = N'smtp.depaul.edu',

@.subject = N'Status of sqlserver!',

@.type = N'text/html',

@.message = @.message

How do I change it or write a script get a mail when the sql server agent is not running.

Thanks

You would need a script which checks the Agent, becasue there is no shutdown procedure which can be executed if the service becomes unavailable. The Script could either be executed from another Agent or from any scheduled component like AT / Winat of Windows.

HTH, Jens Suessmeyer.

http://www.sqlserver2005.de|||

I know that , if there are 2 servers first server can monitor the 2nd server agent and vice-versa.

But I am not sure how to work on it or what script to run.

So it would be of great help if anyone can let me know.

Thanks

Mailing DBA when sql server Agent Fails

Hello

I would like to know a script which mails the DBA mail box when the sql server agent fails ( I am working on sql server 2000) using SMTP. I have got SMTP server configured for all my other job failure notifications.

Please let me know any scripts that can be run on the command prompt or any ideas of how I can do it.



ThanksWhen the Agent service fails, or just when a job fails?|||When the Agent Service Fails.

Thanks|||Since the agent executes the scripts, how do you expect it to execute a script to notify you that it is no longer executing scripts?

Two alternatives:
1) Set up an agent on another server to check the functioning of the first one.
2) Set a script to run when the service is restarted (note that this will NOT notify if the server crashes and does not automatically restart).|||I use a configurable WMI script to check the status of selected services on selected servers. I check for any that are set to auto start and are not in a running state (or status, can't remember which).

Function CheckServices ( sComputer, sFQDN )

Dim oConnMail
Dim oCommMail

Dim oWMIService
Dim oItems
Dim oItem

Dim sDisplayName
Dim sSubject
Dim sMessage

Set oWMIService = GetObject("winmgmts:{impersonationLevel=impersonate,(Security )}!\\" & sFQDN & "\root\cimv2")
Set oItems = oWMIService.ExecQuery("SELECT * FROM Win32_Service",,48)

' Define objects for mail message
Set oConnMail = CreateObject("ADODB.Connection")
Set oCommMail = CreateObject("ADODB.Command")

' Open connection to mail database
oConnMail.ConnectionString = Replace(sConnectionString, sDatabase, "master")
oConnMail.Open

' Open connection to catalog database
oConn.ConnectionString = sConnectionString
oConn.Open

If Err.number = 0 Then
For Each oItem in oItems
If IsNull(oItem.DisplayName) Then
sDisplayName = oItem.Name
Else
sDisplayName = oItem.DisplayName
End If

' This part of the routine verifies that
' services that are set to Auto start are still running;
' if not running, then an alert is e-mailed
If oItem.StartMode = "Auto" and oItem.State <> "Running" Then

oCommMail.CommandText = "spSendMail"
oCommMail.CommandType = 4
oCommMail.ActiveConnection = oConnMail

sSubject = "Service " & oItem.Name & " stopped running on " & oItem.SystemName
sMessage = "Service " & sDisplayName & " stopped running on " & oItem.SystemName & VbCrLf & _
"Service Specific Exit Code: " & oItem.ServiceSpecificExitCode & vbCrLf & _
"Exit Code: " & oItem.ExitCode & vbCrLf & _
"Status: " & oItem.Status & vbCrLf & _
"State: " & oItem.State
' sMessage = "Test"
oCommMail.Parameters.Refresh
oCommMail.Parameters("@.Subject") = sSubject
oCommMail.Parameters("@.Message") = sMessage
oCommMail.Parameters("@.Recipient") = sRecipient

oCommMail.Execute

End If
Next

' Close mail database objects
Set oCommMail = Nothing
oConnMail.Close
Set oConnMail = Nothing
Else
Call AddLogEntry(sFQDN, "Error", "ServicesCheck", Err.number & " - " & Err.Source & " - " & Err.Description)
Err.Clear
End If

oConn.Close

End Function|||Hello

Thanks for your script.

How do I go on to execute the script. And do I need to download any WMI .

Thanks|||Hello

Thanks for your script.

How do I go on to execute the script. And do I need to download any WMI .

Thanks

I have a management server which is a dumping ground for a lot of different monitoring tools (some COTS, some custom). This script is scheduled from this server using Windows Scheduled Tasks. I pass in selected parameters to the script from the command line.

WMI is native to Windows 2000/Server 2003; you shouldn't need to load anything special there. You may need to adjust your permissions on the target server to be able to read from the WMI repository (I think you need to be at least a Power User, but I could be wrong.

Note that the script provided is a function. It would run inside of a main script that would:

1. Pull in a list of servers to poll
2. Pull in any system parameters (such as the e-mail address(es) you want the alert to go to
3. Call the function (passing in the name of the computer)

Regards,

hmscott

Mail Profile disabled in SQL Server Agent Properties

It's a Windows 2000 Server box with SQL 2000 on it. MSSQLSERVER &
SQLSERVERAGENT services are logged in as valid domain user. I set up a
mail profile for that user, and can send email via Outlook 2003.
However, when I go to the SQL Agent Properties in Enterprise Manager,
Mail Profile is disabled.

I've restarted the services & even tried rebooting the server. This
works on my other servers, but they're Windows 2003. Not sure if
that's the problem though.

Anybody have any clues?<brianhensley@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1114783987.666029.195920@.z14g2000cwz.googlegr oups.com...
> It's a Windows 2000 Server box with SQL 2000 on it. MSSQLSERVER &
> SQLSERVERAGENT services are logged in as valid domain user. I set up a
> mail profile for that user, and can send email via Outlook 2003.
> However, when I go to the SQL Agent Properties in Enterprise Manager,
> Mail Profile is disabled.
> I've restarted the services & even tried rebooting the server. This
> works on my other servers, but they're Windows 2003. Not sure if
> that's the problem though.
> Anybody have any clues?

See Q10 and Q19 (and also the article mentioned in the Summary section):

http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...kb;en-us;315886

Simon

Mail notifications for scheduled jobs

I have a sql server 2000 sp3a box with 4 named instances.

I have read all of the articles and I cannot get the 'send mail' stuff working.

I have a mailbox associated with the Domanin account that starts the sql server and sql server agent services. I installed Outlook and created a mail profile for this account. I bounced the SQL server agent on one of the Instances but when I go into the properties for the Agent, on the General Tab, the option to choose a mail profile is GREYED out. I tried 'xp_startmail' and I get this error: xp_startmail: failed with mail error 0x80040111

can anyone help???Are you logging on to the server as the account SQL runs under? You will need to be logged onto to the server with the service account in order to set the mail properties in the agent|||are you sure you have covered all of the basics. does the sql and sql agent services run under a network account that maps to the exchange account you are attempting to use?

have you attempted to use the outlook client installed on the db server.|||You've got about 9 months until maintstream support for SQL 2000 ends. Upgrade to SQL 2005 and use the Database Mail feature (a lightweight SMTP client, instead of the clunky MAPI compliant interface).

In case that is not an option, here are some MS KB articles on SQL 2000 and setting up mail profiles.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/315886

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/281293

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/263556/EN-US/

Some CRITICAL things to remember:

1. Outlook is single-threaded; if it pops an error message at the console, it can and will lock up SQL's job system.

2. SQL Mail and SQL Agent mail do not have to use the same profile. However, you must set up each profile separately (ie, to use alerts you must set up SQL Agent Mail, to use xp_sendmail you must set up SQL Mail). The two features are set up in different places (SQL Agent mail is set up by right-clicking on SQL Agent and selecting properties; SQL Mail is set up under support services).

3. You will have to configure SQL Mail/SQL Agent Mail separately for each instance. You might want to consider a separate profile for each. Be careful of the overhead associated with running four MAPI client instances (plus for SQL instances) on the same server.

Having said all that, I don't really recommed using SQL Agent Mail or SQL mail on a production server. Like I said, upgrade to SQL 2005.

Regards,

hmscott

Machine to run SQL 2000

Our current SQL server box is a Dell PowerEdge 4400 with one PIII Xeon
800Mhz CPU and 768MB RAM. Some of the tables we have are quite large (~50
million rows) and as of late we have noticed a degradation in performance.
As we will be needing a new server to host our new website, we have decided
to relegate the 4400 to web hosting and buy a new SQL server box. I know
there is time to be spent running profiler / perfmon etc to track down the
source of the performance problems, but we WILL be needing a new box first,
then I can start to diagnose the perf. issues.
What I would like to know is what factors are MOST important when
considering a machine to run SQL server i.e. CPU Mhz, Dual/Quad processor,
RAM, On-chip cache etc. I know the best advise is usually "get the best
machine you can afford" but when weighing up the options there are some
things that have to be decided on an either/or basis i.e. a one-CPU machine
with 1MB cache, or a dual-CPU machine with 512KB cache.
Many thanks for any input,
dfAll of this is my experience and personal opinion. YMMV.
I prefer more CPUs to bigger CPU cache.
More memory is preferable to faster CPUs, within reason. Unless you are
running Enterprise Edition, anything over 4GB in the box is wasted so plan
accordingly. If you are using Enterprise edition, put as much memory as you
can afford in the box.
RAID-10 is three to five times faster than RAID-5. Lots of drive spindles
is a cheap way to boost performance.
Definitely use Windows Server 2003 as the OS.
Since you are a Dell shop, you might want to check out the CX-200
entry-level SAN. It is a bit more than a SCSI Powervault, but not
prohibitively so. I would seriously look into the best PowerEdge 6650 I
could afford with a CX-200 back-end. If not, maybe a 6600 with 12 internal
SCSI drives. Obviously , we all have budget constraints but definitely
squeeze every bit you can for this.
--
Geoff N. Hiten
SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
"digitalfish" <digital.fish@.ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:gxyeb.2143976$Bf5.300990@.news.easynews.com...
> Our current SQL server box is a Dell PowerEdge 4400 with one PIII Xeon
> 800Mhz CPU and 768MB RAM. Some of the tables we have are quite large (~50
> million rows) and as of late we have noticed a degradation in performance.
> As we will be needing a new server to host our new website, we have
decided
> to relegate the 4400 to web hosting and buy a new SQL server box. I know
> there is time to be spent running profiler / perfmon etc to track down the
> source of the performance problems, but we WILL be needing a new box
first,
> then I can start to diagnose the perf. issues.
> What I would like to know is what factors are MOST important when
> considering a machine to run SQL server i.e. CPU Mhz, Dual/Quad processor,
> RAM, On-chip cache etc. I know the best advise is usually "get the best
> machine you can afford" but when weighing up the options there are some
> things that have to be decided on an either/or basis i.e. a one-CPU
machine
> with 1MB cache, or a dual-CPU machine with 512KB cache.
> Many thanks for any input,
> df
>|||On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 11:04:44 GMT, "digitalfish"
<digital.fish@.ntlworld.com> wrote:
>Many thanks for any input,
Preference to the dual cpu -- the benefits outweigh the problems.
Lots o' RAM.
RAID disk. Used to be a big deal to mirror the log and stripe the
main store, I don't quite know now what's optimal. IMO, big RAM makes
a lot of that less important. Depends how big the database is and the
kind of traffic you do on it, of course.
J.|||Geoff;
I agree with you on the general choice between more CPUs and bigger CPU
cache, and between more memory and faster CPUs.
What would be your choice between faster CPUs and more CPU cache? In total
abstract and in general, my perference has been more CPU cache. Obviously,
I'm not talking about going from 400MHz to 2.6GHz.
--
Linchi Shea
linchi_shea@.NOSPAMml.com
"Geoff N. Hiten" <SRDBA@.Careerbuilder.com> wrote in message
news:uioFyHCiDHA.4024@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> All of this is my experience and personal opinion. YMMV.
> I prefer more CPUs to bigger CPU cache.
> More memory is preferable to faster CPUs, within reason. Unless you are
> running Enterprise Edition, anything over 4GB in the box is wasted so plan
> accordingly. If you are using Enterprise edition, put as much memory as
you
> can afford in the box.
> RAID-10 is three to five times faster than RAID-5. Lots of drive spindles
> is a cheap way to boost performance.
> Definitely use Windows Server 2003 as the OS.
> Since you are a Dell shop, you might want to check out the CX-200
> entry-level SAN. It is a bit more than a SCSI Powervault, but not
> prohibitively so. I would seriously look into the best PowerEdge 6650 I
> could afford with a CX-200 back-end. If not, maybe a 6600 with 12
internal
> SCSI drives. Obviously , we all have budget constraints but definitely
> squeeze every bit you can for this.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> SQL Server MVP
> Senior Database Administrator
> Careerbuilder.com
>
>
> "digitalfish" <digital.fish@.ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:gxyeb.2143976$Bf5.300990@.news.easynews.com...
> > Our current SQL server box is a Dell PowerEdge 4400 with one PIII Xeon
> > 800Mhz CPU and 768MB RAM. Some of the tables we have are quite large
(~50
> > million rows) and as of late we have noticed a degradation in
performance.
> > As we will be needing a new server to host our new website, we have
> decided
> > to relegate the 4400 to web hosting and buy a new SQL server box. I know
> > there is time to be spent running profiler / perfmon etc to track down
the
> > source of the performance problems, but we WILL be needing a new box
> first,
> > then I can start to diagnose the perf. issues.
> >
> > What I would like to know is what factors are MOST important when
> > considering a machine to run SQL server i.e. CPU Mhz, Dual/Quad
processor,
> > RAM, On-chip cache etc. I know the best advise is usually "get the best
> > machine you can afford" but when weighing up the options there are some
> > things that have to be decided on an either/or basis i.e. a one-CPU
> machine
> > with 1MB cache, or a dual-CPU machine with 512KB cache.
> >
> > Many thanks for any input,
> > df
> >
> >
>|||Tough call. Most 4+ way systems now have 1MB cache except on the very
fastest processors which have 2MB cache, so you really don't get a tradeoff
there. It is either faster AND more cache or not. As an example, a Dell
PowerEdge 6600/6650 can currently have either 2.5GHz processors with 1MB
cache or 2.8GHz processors with 2MB cache. If you have to compromise, back
off the processor speed/cache slightly and get more RAM and a better disk
subsystem.
--
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
"Linchi Shea" <linchi_shea@.NOSPAMml.com> wrote in message
news:%23wDjVyJiDHA.2120@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Geoff;
> I agree with you on the general choice between more CPUs and bigger CPU
> cache, and between more memory and faster CPUs.
> What would be your choice between faster CPUs and more CPU cache? In total
> abstract and in general, my perference has been more CPU cache. Obviously,
> I'm not talking about going from 400MHz to 2.6GHz.
> --
> Linchi Shea
> linchi_shea@.NOSPAMml.com
>
> "Geoff N. Hiten" <SRDBA@.Careerbuilder.com> wrote in message
> news:uioFyHCiDHA.4024@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > All of this is my experience and personal opinion. YMMV.
> >
> > I prefer more CPUs to bigger CPU cache.
> > More memory is preferable to faster CPUs, within reason. Unless you are
> > running Enterprise Edition, anything over 4GB in the box is wasted so
plan
> > accordingly. If you are using Enterprise edition, put as much memory as
> you
> > can afford in the box.
> > RAID-10 is three to five times faster than RAID-5. Lots of drive
spindles
> > is a cheap way to boost performance.
> > Definitely use Windows Server 2003 as the OS.
> >
> > Since you are a Dell shop, you might want to check out the CX-200
> > entry-level SAN. It is a bit more than a SCSI Powervault, but not
> > prohibitively so. I would seriously look into the best PowerEdge 6650 I
> > could afford with a CX-200 back-end. If not, maybe a 6600 with 12
> internal
> > SCSI drives. Obviously , we all have budget constraints but definitely
> > squeeze every bit you can for this.
> >
> > --
> > Geoff N. Hiten
> > SQL Server MVP
> > Senior Database Administrator
> > Careerbuilder.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "digitalfish" <digital.fish@.ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> > news:gxyeb.2143976$Bf5.300990@.news.easynews.com...
> > > Our current SQL server box is a Dell PowerEdge 4400 with one PIII Xeon
> > > 800Mhz CPU and 768MB RAM. Some of the tables we have are quite large
> (~50
> > > million rows) and as of late we have noticed a degradation in
> performance.
> > > As we will be needing a new server to host our new website, we have
> > decided
> > > to relegate the 4400 to web hosting and buy a new SQL server box. I
know
> > > there is time to be spent running profiler / perfmon etc to track down
> the
> > > source of the performance problems, but we WILL be needing a new box
> > first,
> > > then I can start to diagnose the perf. issues.
> > >
> > > What I would like to know is what factors are MOST important when
> > > considering a machine to run SQL server i.e. CPU Mhz, Dual/Quad
> processor,
> > > RAM, On-chip cache etc. I know the best advise is usually "get the
best
> > > machine you can afford" but when weighing up the options there are
some
> > > things that have to be decided on an either/or basis i.e. a one-CPU
> > machine
> > > with 1MB cache, or a dual-CPU machine with 512KB cache.
> > >
> > > Many thanks for any input,
> > > df
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>|||Minimum 2 CPU's, 2 GB RAM.
Preferred:
4 CPU's, 4-8 GB RAM. RAID array.
CPU speed or cache does not matter nearly as much at having 2 or more and
having lots of RAM, and a RAID array. RAID 5 or 10.
In order of preference - price vs performance
2 CPU
2 GB RAM
RAID 5
4 GB RAM
4 CPU's
RAID 10
J
www.urbanvoyeur.com
"digitalfish" <digital.fish@.ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:gxyeb.2143976$Bf5.300990@.news.easynews.com...
> Our current SQL server box is a Dell PowerEdge 4400 with one PIII Xeon
> 800Mhz CPU and 768MB RAM. Some of the tables we have are quite large (~50
> million rows) and as of late we have noticed a degradation in performance.
> As we will be needing a new server to host our new website, we have
decided
> to relegate the 4400 to web hosting and buy a new SQL server box. I know
> there is time to be spent running profiler / perfmon etc to track down the
> source of the performance problems, but we WILL be needing a new box
first,
> then I can start to diagnose the perf. issues.
> What I would like to know is what factors are MOST important when
> considering a machine to run SQL server i.e. CPU Mhz, Dual/Quad processor,
> RAM, On-chip cache etc. I know the best advise is usually "get the best
> machine you can afford" but when weighing up the options there are some
> things that have to be decided on an either/or basis i.e. a one-CPU
machine
> with 1MB cache, or a dual-CPU machine with 512KB cache.
> Many thanks for any input,
> df
>

MAC address

Hi,
I have a win 2000 adv + sql 2000 box. I would like to know if it is
possible to not allow access to the server using some machines MAC address o
r
Name. I know we can do a lot by using logins and other ways, but in my case
I
have no other choice except either MAC or machine name.
Thanks for your help.
SalamHi
Do this at network router level as it is really efficient down there and the
right place to do it.
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"SalamElias" <eliassal@.online.nospam> wrote in message
news:FE1C4C5A-84A2-4E21-8669-4EDC5B25FCA9@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I have a win 2000 adv + sql 2000 box. I would like to know if it is
> possible to not allow access to the server using some machines MAC address
> or
> Name. I know we can do a lot by using logins and other ways, but in my
> case I
> have no other choice except either MAC or machine name.
> Thanks for your help.
> Salam|||This is my problem, I have no control on the router.
So as I said I have no other choice rather thatn machine name or mac adresse
Thanks
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:

> Hi
> Do this at network router level as it is really efficient down there and t
he
> right place to do it.
> Regards
> --
> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Zurich, Switzerland
> IM: mike@.epprecht.net
> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
> "SalamElias" <eliassal@.online.nospam> wrote in message
> news:FE1C4C5A-84A2-4E21-8669-4EDC5B25FCA9@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||Hi
If you have Windows 2003 (preferably with SP1), you can use IPSec at OS
level to filter the traffic. Look up IPSec on technet for more information.
No an elegant solution, but it is the only thing that you could do.
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"SalamElias" <eliassal@.online.nospam> wrote in message
news:E2528C86-EFEF-43E4-A998-EDC6F6153136@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> This is my problem, I have no control on the router.
> So as I said I have no other choice rather thatn machine name or mac
> adresse
> Thanks
> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
>