Question regarding "New Role Assignment"

Hi All,
I have share point server and report server on two different machines but in
the same domain. Our application categorizes users ,from Active Directory, in
Sharepoint sitegroups. For eg Marketing , Finance , Manager are sitegroups in
our application.
Is it possible to add these sitegroups in "New Role Assignment" for a given
report so that each member of the sitegroup can now access to the given
report?
Thanks in advance for any assistance provided.
KunjalTry using domain\Marketing
"Kunjal" wrote:
> Hi All,
> I have share point server and report server on two different machines but in
> the same domain. Our application categorizes users ,from Active Directory, in
> Sharepoint sitegroups. For eg Marketing , Finance , Manager are sitegroups in
> our application.
> Is it possible to add these sitegroups in "New Role Assignment" for a given
> report so that each member of the sitegroup can now access to the given
> report?
> Thanks in advance for any assistance provided.
> Kunjal
>|||I'm not sure if you can use SharePoint Sitegroups in New Role Assignment, as
they are probably SharePoint-only.
But you can use AD groups in Reporting Services, like Dillig says. If you
base both SharePoint Sitegroups and your Reporting Services Roles on the
same AD groups, you should be fine. Add <domainname>\<groupname> to the
roles you need to add them to.
Kaisa M. Lindahl
"Kunjal" <Kunjal@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:45CF5AC6-8DCA-4283-B0C5-1A136A77D12E@.microsoft.com...
> Hi All,
> I have share point server and report server on two different machines but
> in
> the same domain. Our application categorizes users ,from Active Directory,
> in
> Sharepoint sitegroups. For eg Marketing , Finance , Manager are sitegroups
> in
> our application.
> Is it possible to add these sitegroups in "New Role Assignment" for a
> given
> report so that each member of the sitegroup can now access to the given
> report?
> Thanks in advance for any assistance provided.
> Kunjal
>

Question on SSIS and .NET 1.1

We are migrating our databases from SQL Server 2000 on Win2k to SQL Server 2005 on Win 2k3 machines. Our applications useDTS packages , like creating dynamically in the (application) front end dynamically and sometimes just passing global parameters.

Now with SQL Server 2005 , we have decided to move to SSIS, as SQL Server 2005 has limited support for DTS. Now we were using a com+ assembly from microsoft for using these DTS packages from the front-end(Application). Can we accomplish the same with SSIS using applications developed in .Net Framework 1.1? Are there any work arounds? If not how can we accomplish this in 1.1 framework. Does SSIS expose any API that can be leveraged using .NET 1.1?

Did anyone face any other problems apart from these trying to make 1.1 apps talk to SQL 2005?

I guess this is more of a question to Microsoft experts, or programmers who already had similar experience already migrating to 2005.

It is hard to find information online on this subject. If anyone has valuable information regarding this, please reply with links..

Thanks in advance,

S

My understanding is that a .NET 1.1 application cannot interoperate directly with .NET 2.0 libraries such as the SSIS API. A web service should fit the bill nicely, though as far as just executing packages and passing in variables. If you're actually generating packages, that logic would probably need to be moved completely into the service which would also help insulate your application against future SSIS API changes. Your .NET 1.1 app could talk to the .NET 2.0 service, which could in turn automate the SSIS APIs.

In general, a .NET 1.1 application should not have much trouble making the switch from SQL Server 2000 to 2005, especially if you're using managed providers and calling stored procedures. If the app is calling the database with direct SQL queries, then you may have some minor syntax issues. If you're using procedures the Upgrade Advisor should be able to notify you of any problems, otherwise you'll have to test thoroughly.|||

In addition to nice Jay's wrap up, some mode ideas:

http://blogs.msdn.com/michen/archive/2007/03/22/running-ssis-package-programmatically.aspx

|||Thanks for all the replies..

Question on Hardware failover of the MS SQL Server 2000 DB

Hi
We are planning to purchase powervault 220 S which provides us a clustering
mode.
We can see the hard drives from both the machines hooked up to the powervault.
I want to achieve machine level failovermachine hooked to the powervault
when the first machine goes down. Since both the machines can see the hard
drives lets say machine A ( primary goes down) I want machine B(failover ) to
start using the hard drives. The sql server installation on Machine B is
passive and is configured with the same drive names as Primary so there.
I am not worried about the IP's as we can change that in application but if
someone knows of similar command like IFCONFIG on unix to create virtual IP's
let me know.
Let me know if anyone has tried this. I had this solution with Oracle in
production and had worked but I am not sure what could be different in SQL
server on Sun Solaris.
Tks
Mangesh
This is pretty much the essence of failover clustering in SQL 2000. Two
machines with connectivity to a single data store but only one machine (host
node) actually controlling the data at a time. The cluster service handles
the monitoring and failover. IP addresses and network names are virtualized
so they follow the data and application during a failover.
Now for the bad news, SCSI clusters are not nearly as reliable as Fibre
Channel connected clusters. They also perform much slower than
non-clustered SCSI SQL servers due to the requirement to disable controller
write cache. Finally, clusters must be certified by the vendor, not just
cobbled together from semi-random parts if you want to get any kind of
support. Dell does sell certified cluster solutions.
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Mangesh Deshpande" <MangeshDeshpande@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:4100F001-4922-4E05-A1A2-A45EE11F5045@.microsoft.com...
> Hi
> We are planning to purchase powervault 220 S which provides us a
> clustering
> mode.
> We can see the hard drives from both the machines hooked up to the
> powervault.
> I want to achieve machine level failovermachine hooked to the powervault
> when the first machine goes down. Since both the machines can see the
> hard
> drives lets say machine A ( primary goes down) I want machine B(failover )
> to
> start using the hard drives. The sql server installation on Machine B is
> passive and is configured with the same drive names as Primary so there.
> I am not worried about the IP's as we can change that in application but
> if
> someone knows of similar command like IFCONFIG on unix to create virtual
> IP's
> let me know.
> Let me know if anyone has tried this. I had this solution with Oracle in
> production and had worked but I am not sure what could be different in SQL
> server on Sun Solaris.
> Tks
> Mangesh

Question on Hardware failover of the MS SQL Server 2000 DB

Hi
We are planning to purchase powervault 220 S which provides us a clustering
mode.
We can see the hard drives from both the machines hooked up to the powervaul
t.
I want to achieve machine level failovermachine hooked to the powervault
when the first machine goes down. Since both the machines can see the hard
drives lets say machine A ( primary goes down) I want machine B(failover ) t
o
start using the hard drives. The sql server installation on Machine B is
passive and is configured with the same drive names as Primary so there.
I am not worried about the IP's as we can change that in application but if
someone knows of similar command like IFCONFIG on unix to create virtual IP'
s
let me know.
Let me know if anyone has tried this. I had this solution with Oracle in
production and had worked but I am not sure what could be different in SQL
server on Sun Solaris.
Tks
MangeshThis is pretty much the essence of failover clustering in SQL 2000. Two
machines with connectivity to a single data store but only one machine (host
node) actually controlling the data at a time. The cluster service handles
the monitoring and failover. IP addresses and network names are virtualized
so they follow the data and application during a failover.
Now for the bad news, SCSI clusters are not nearly as reliable as Fibre
Channel connected clusters. They also perform much slower than
non-clustered SCSI SQL servers due to the requirement to disable controller
write cache. Finally, clusters must be certified by the vendor, not just
cobbled together from semi-random parts if you want to get any kind of
support. Dell does sell certified cluster solutions.
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Mangesh Deshpande" <MangeshDeshpande@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:4100F001-4922-4E05-A1A2-A45EE11F5045@.microsoft.com...
> Hi
> We are planning to purchase powervault 220 S which provides us a
> clustering
> mode.
> We can see the hard drives from both the machines hooked up to the
> powervault.
> I want to achieve machine level failovermachine hooked to the powervault
> when the first machine goes down. Since both the machines can see the
> hard
> drives lets say machine A ( primary goes down) I want machine B(failover )
> to
> start using the hard drives. The sql server installation on Machine B is
> passive and is configured with the same drive names as Primary so there.
> I am not worried about the IP's as we can change that in application but
> if
> someone knows of similar command like IFCONFIG on unix to create virtual
> IP's
> let me know.
> Let me know if anyone has tried this. I had this solution with Oracle in
> production and had worked but I am not sure what could be different in SQL
> server on Sun Solaris.
> Tks
> Mangesh

Question on Hardware failover of the MS SQL Server 2000 DB

Hi
We are planning to purchase powervault 220 S which provides us a clustering
mode.
We can see the hard drives from both the machines hooked up to the powervault.
I want to achieve machine level failovermachine hooked to the powervault
when the first machine goes down. Since both the machines can see the hard
drives lets say machine A ( primary goes down) I want machine B(failover ) to
start using the hard drives. The sql server installation on Machine B is
passive and is configured with the same drive names as Primary so there.
I am not worried about the IP's as we can change that in application but if
someone knows of similar command like IFCONFIG on unix to create virtual IP's
let me know.
Let me know if anyone has tried this. I had this solution with Oracle in
production and had worked but I am not sure what could be different in SQL
server on Sun Solaris.
Tks
MangeshThis is pretty much the essence of failover clustering in SQL 2000. Two
machines with connectivity to a single data store but only one machine (host
node) actually controlling the data at a time. The cluster service handles
the monitoring and failover. IP addresses and network names are virtualized
so they follow the data and application during a failover.
Now for the bad news, SCSI clusters are not nearly as reliable as Fibre
Channel connected clusters. They also perform much slower than
non-clustered SCSI SQL servers due to the requirement to disable controller
write cache. Finally, clusters must be certified by the vendor, not just
cobbled together from semi-random parts if you want to get any kind of
support. Dell does sell certified cluster solutions.
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Mangesh Deshpande" <MangeshDeshpande@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:4100F001-4922-4E05-A1A2-A45EE11F5045@.microsoft.com...
> Hi
> We are planning to purchase powervault 220 S which provides us a
> clustering
> mode.
> We can see the hard drives from both the machines hooked up to the
> powervault.
> I want to achieve machine level failovermachine hooked to the powervault
> when the first machine goes down. Since both the machines can see the
> hard
> drives lets say machine A ( primary goes down) I want machine B(failover )
> to
> start using the hard drives. The sql server installation on Machine B is
> passive and is configured with the same drive names as Primary so there.
> I am not worried about the IP's as we can change that in application but
> if
> someone knows of similar command like IFCONFIG on unix to create virtual
> IP's
> let me know.
> Let me know if anyone has tried this. I had this solution with Oracle in
> production and had worked but I am not sure what could be different in SQL
> server on Sun Solaris.
> Tks
> Mangesh